Tennis Volume 8: Is a FedEx delivery coming?

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you made me pick between a). 22 b). 25 or c). 28, I'd take 25. I see no reason to expect him to lose the USO, and if he's healthy the next two-three seasons he should win multiple titles. Rafa at FO 2022 may be an issue, but he should be the favorite most other times. There's just not anyone under him to challenge him consistently, and that's why in part myself and others have argued that he's benefited from that in the total title count. That's not to take anything away from him, but if you took either Nadal or Feds and made them the youngest and healthiest of the Big Three they'd be favored to win most tournaments over the next few years as well.

Had another look at the Djokovic-Nadal head to head stats, give their similar ages.

It is a tale of different development phases. As youngsters, Nadal was better. Up to 2010 (when Nadal turned 24 and Novak 23), Nadal dominated their head to heads 16-7.

Then for the next 5 years up to 2015 (arguably in an athlete’s prime years up to when Nadal turned 29 and Novak 28), Novak dominated 15-7.

But Novak managed this with a playing style that didn’t reduce his longevity. Allowing him to continue winning beyond that point, after Nadal started breaking down physically.

In the end I would say Djokovic was the better hard court and grass court player, while Nadal was the better clay court player.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

Maybe it’s my own age speaking (turned 40 this year) but regeneration gets harder and harder with each passing year and you lose strength and endurance no matter how much you push it (even compared to 5 years ago). And of course one nasty injury sets you back two or even three times longer than in my peak (25-30). So in other words I emphasize with the old guys . @Tywin et al.

Don't make the mistake of thinking these guys' bodies are similar to yours (or mine, turned 38 this year). It is true that they've put their bodies through hell of professional sport for a decade or two, but they have had best coaches and physios in the world, they've kept a close eye on their diet etc. It's a whole different ball game. Plus, Nadal and Djokovic are 5 and 6 years younger than you (3 and 4 than me) which makes a lot of difference.

Sure, Nadal is injured often and it does limit his performance at top level, but I'm quite sure he'd still be able to do the workouts I'm doing without any problems whatsoever.

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

One of the main reasons I think Rafa has a good argument for being the best of the bunch is that he never got a prolonged period where he wasn't dealing with another all-time great, let alone two as the heart of his prime is when Feds was still in his and when Joker had clearly ascended. But again, this is all nitpicking between what are clearly the three best men's players ever, and it may be a very long time until we see anyone who can rival their greatness.

To me, Nadal is clearly the least likely to be considered GOAT, mainly because 2/3 of his GS wins came in a single tournament. Sure, he's best ever on clay, and he's more likely to maintain that title for longer than Djokovic or Federer (more likely Djokovic) would maintain their GOAT status. Still, I think that to be considered the best ever you need a bit more versatility.

Here's a tweet from a Serbian tennis reporter that also shows one of the arguments for why Nadal is behind the other two.

 

[Arakan]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Don't make the mistake of thinking these guys' bodies are similar to yours (or mine, turned 38 this year). It is true that they've put their bodies through hell of professional sport for a decade or two, but they have had best coaches and physios in the world, they've kept a close eye on their diet etc. It's a whole different ball game. Plus, Nadal and Djokovic are 5 and 6 years younger than you (3 and 4 than me) which makes a lot of difference.

Sure, Nadal is injured often and it does limit his performance at top level, but I'm quite sure he'd still be able to do the workouts I'm doing without any problems whatsoever.

I don’t compare my fitness levels with those guys (not even in my dreams) and I am aware that they have the best of everything be it coaches, nutritionists or doctors. But still a relative physical decline is unavoidable. A 34 year old Djokovic needs more regeneration time than a 29 year old. Same goes for injuries. Where a 29 year old Djokovic might have needed one month rest, a 34 year old might need 6-8 weeks. I am aware that modern sport sciences and medicine have pushed the competitive age of professional athletes further, extending their prime / near-prime or top-level years (compared to 20 years ago I would say by 2-3 years)

But it’s all relative, one injury and Novak might lose that tiny little bit to be competitive against the Top-10. Still enough against all the others but not enough to win slams anymore. 

Then there is the dedication part. Novak lives for his sport, the same way Cristiano Ronaldo (36) or Robert Lewandowski (33) live for theirs, thus all 3 are in excellent shape. Though Novak had motivational slumps before, he himself admitted to basically being burnt out after the FO 2016. 

I take nothing for granted. 

[baxus]

I must admit that I don't really see this decline from Djokovic. He gives off the impression of doing just enough to win (except in the Olympics ). If he doesn't have to play at the same level he needed to reach to beat Federer or Nadal then why exhaust himself? It seems to me like another part of conserving his energy to allow easier/quicker recovery, not like him not being able to play at that level.

[Arakan]

Yeah what happened at the Olympics I still don’t understand. Anyway I expect a thriller match between Novak and Zverev. My prediction: Novak in 5. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In the end I would say Djokovic was the better hard court and grass court player, while Nadal was the better clay court player.

That's fair. I think Joker all-time is the best hard court player, second best on grass and third best on clay. There's no shame in that. 

5 hours ago, baxus said:

To me, Nadal is clearly the least likely to be considered GOAT, mainly because 2/3 of his GS wins came in a single tournament. Sure, he's best ever on clay, and he's more likely to maintain that title for longer than Djokovic or Federer (more likely Djokovic) would maintain their GOAT status. Still, I think that to be considered the best ever you need a bit more versatility.

I'd like to just point out that if you're going to argue Nadal did too much of his damage on clay, look at the combined records on the hard courts for both Feds and Joker. Both won more than half their GS titles on hard courts, and yet they've achieved less in two tournaments than Nadal did in one. If clay courts made up 50% of the Slams instead of hard courts there wouldn't even be a debate here as Nadal would probably have 10 more titles than both of them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, baxus said:

I must admit that I don't really see this decline from Djokovic. He gives off the impression of doing just enough to win (except in the Olympics ). If he doesn't have to play at the same level he needed to reach to beat Federer or Nadal then why exhaust himself? It seems to me like another part of conserving his energy to allow easier/quicker recovery, not like him not being able to play at that level.

He doesn't serve as hard and he doesn't move as crisply as he used to. But it doesn't matter. At 90% he's still better than the field, and his style of play should hold up. He makes his opponents pay for their mistakes while making very few of his own.

[BigFatCoward]

I must admit he doesn't appear to be getting significantly worse. But neither did Serena until she pretty much lost it overnight.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Fernandez has now taken out three of the top five players in the world and also beat a former number one on her way to the Finals. Talk about a way to introduce yourself to the world. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Must admit best out of three matches just don’t do it for me. Does anyone know the reason the women don’t play best out of five?

I mean, it’s not like women’s soccer games are shorter, or women’s athletics does 90m instead of 100m sprints, for example. Why this discrepancy in tennis?

[Which Tyler]

Brilliant women's final in the offing.

Tywin mentions Fernandez above. Whilst Raducanu takes out the Olympic champion, and reaches the final as a challenger, without dropping a single set.

 

One of these two will face a reality check tomorrow, but either way, both have already made history.

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Brilliant women's final in the offing.

Tywin mentions Fernandez above. Whilst Radacanu takes out the Olympic champion, and reaches the final as a challenger, without dropping a single set.

 

One of these two will face a reality check tomorrow, but either way, both have already made history.

Yeah. She seems very smart and composed. Makes it all the sweeter that she is rubbing Piers Morgans face in the shit at the same time. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm unfamiliar with Radacanu's background, but Fernandez's sounds like a real rags to riches story. Regardless of who wins Saturday, these two young ladies are about to get paid.

[Arakan]

21 on Sunday for Djoker. If Zverev couldn’t beat him, I see no chance for Medvedev. Djokovic is not a wolf, he is a python, slowly squeezing the life out of you. And whenever you think, maybe just maybe I can get out of this, he finishes you. 

If I were Medvedev, I wouldn’t wanna win that cursed first set…

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Zverev isn't going to be able to sleep tonight. He should have won that in four sets, but he kept making mistakes when he had several breakpoint opportunities. And then Joker just whipped his ass in the fifth. 

ETA: They just flashed a graphic of players W-L records vs. Joker since 2017. Was kinda shocked to see Nadal has a winning record, even if it's just 5-4.

[Arakan]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Zverev isn't going to be able to sleep tonight. He should have won that in four sets, but he kept making mistakes when he had several breakpoint opportunities. And then Joker just whipped his ass in the fifth. 

Zverev is mentally too volatile, and it showed again today. When the pressure is low or medium he plays like a born Champion, otherwise…Just look at the first set,  masterclass serve, almost perfection, he gave Novak basically no chance to properly return. But well that’s only the first set…

And Zverev might be the worst out of the bunch but in the end they are all the same, NextGen. They are all chokers and mentally weak in Bo5…

Maybe I am a bit too harsh but I cannot shake that impression. They have the game for Masters but not for slams. O boy…I expect chokefest after chokefest when the Big3 are history.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Zverev is mentally too volatile, and it showed again today. When the pressure is low or medium he plays like a born Champion, otherwise…Just look at the first set,  masterclass serve, almost perfection, he gave Novak basically no chance to properly return. But well that’s only the first set…

And Zverev might be the worst out of the bunch but in the end they are all the same, NextGen. They are all chokers and mentally weak in Bo5…

Maybe I am a bit too harsh but I cannot shake that impression. They have the game for Masters but not for slams. O boy…I expect chokefest after chokefest when the Big3 are history.

I think that's a bit harsh. The younger crop just haven't shown that they have anyone who is the next superstar. It feels like it's been over 5 years now where you hear about this next great potential star in their early 20s and then nothing materializes. Eventually one or more has to breakthrough. 

The women's side, OTOH, seems like it has a bright future. Tomorrow should be a lot of fun. I can't believe those two young women strike the ball so hard given they both look rather petite. 

[Arakan]

18 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm unfamiliar with Radacanu's background, but Fernandez's sounds like a real rags to riches story. Regardless of who wins Saturday, these two young ladies are about to get paid.

Possibly. Though when it comes to WTA I would be careful with the hype. The women’s game is very volatile. Since the 90s hey days only Serena Williams was a consistent winner (I exclude Sharapova due ti doping). Furthermore, both players are basically teenagers, too much hyping up (and it already happens) can have very negative effects. Didn‘t we learn nothing from Naomi Osaka? Same old same old. Only 2 years ago she was destined to be THE face of global women‘s tennis, the heiress to Serena…

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/11/emma-raducanu-us-open-final-leylah-fernandez-on-free-to-air-tv-on-channel-4

 

Emma Raducanu’s US Open final to be shown free-to-air in UK on Channel 4

[Proudfeet]

4 hours ago, Arakan said:

Possibly. Though when it comes to WTA I would be careful with the hype. The women’s game is very volatile. Since the 90s hey days only Serena Williams was a consistent winner (I exclude Sharapova due ti doping). 

I'd say that its the big three who are the exception. Even taking them out of consideration, the other challengers like Wawrinka, Nishikori, Safin, Del Potro are all prone to upset losses to lower seeds. Maybe Murray was more consistent in not having upset losses and also challenging the big three, but it was also only for a relatively brief period.

Also, I don't think Sharapova was all that successful outside of getting a couple of grand slams at a young age, doping or not.