File this under the same heading as the old “tree falls in a forest” riddle: Is it possible for a player to have a great year that’s also a disappointing year? That’s a question Novak Djokovic may find himself pondering now and then, as this year in tennis winds down.
Djokovic, almost certainly a lame duck as the present ATP No. 1, may convince you that the possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive if you read between the lines in the comments he made after losing the U.S. Open final to Rafael Nadal a few weeks ago:
“Overall, it was again very successful Grand Slam year for me. That’s something that I always try to have in the back of my mind, you know, to set my own shape for the biggest ones, for major tournaments.”
But. . .
“I mean, I wish I won at least one title more, considering the fact I played two finals. All the matches I lost, even the French Open. I had that match. I lost it again in semis. . . I wish there was another title, but it is what it is.”
Indeed. Nadal’s resurgence, and particularly his performance from the end of Wimbledon through the U.S. Open, tends to obscure what yeoman work Djokovic did, playing in three of the four Grand Slam finals and one semifinal. This was the third consecutive year in which Djokovic reached three Grand Slam finals. His overall record in Grand Slam finals is 6-6, but “just” 2-6 if you take his four Australian Open titles out of the tally (by contrast, even if you remove the eight French Open titles from Nadal’s record, he’s still 5-5 in the remaining Grand Slam finals).
This raises an interesting question that’s become vital since Djokovic’s form has slipped from such dizzying heights in 2011, and at the 2012 Australian Open: Is it really such a good thing that Djokovic can so routinely salt away that first Grand Slam title of the year, ensuring himself that, whatever else happens, he can consider his year an unqualified success?
Every player would rather win than lose every time he steps on the court. But in this era, the definition of a successful year for most players has been “any year in which I win at least one major.” Nadal himself embraces that mentality. As he said after he won the title in New York:
“I played a very bad first week at Roland Garros, then second week I played at a very high level. So after winning Roland Garros everything was done for me, I felt my season is great, anything can happen the rest of the year.”
Granted, this was no ordinary year for Nadal, who was still wondering if he would ever be able to play at 100 percent again following his knee problems. It also may be that Nadal was simply the better player than Djokovic from mid-2013 on—regardless of anything else.
But it’s possible that after Melbourne, Djokovic feels something like Nadal does after he wins Roland Garros—but since the Aussie is the first major of the year, Nole's excellence becomes something of an enemy. Yet the question lingers: Why was Nadal able to muster his full fury even after proving himself at the French Open, while Djokovic was supporting cast in Andy Murray’s win at Wimbledon and seemingly unable to find the once familiar determination to stop Rafa in New York?
It isn’t as if there wasn’t a lot at stake for Djokovic, nor that Nadal is his bugaboo. And while players like to judge the success of their year by how they performed in the majors, all of them also target the year-end No. 1 ranking. As Nadal said at the end of the U.S. Open:
“At the end of the season is when the most important thing is to be number one. That’s something that can happen now. Today I can say it, I have a positive advantage, but it’s not done yet. We have to be humble yet. That, after everything, I swear that means a lot to me.”
So let’s take a quick look at how Djokovic squandered what had seemed like an insurmountable lead in the rankings race back in the spring: