Tennis Volume 8: Is a FedEx delivery coming?

[Free Northman Reborn]

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Novak is less than a year younger than Nadal and the latter had nine GS titles under his belt before Novak got his second. And Feds had 16. During that period Feds and Nadal were at their best and they dragged him with ease. Both guys began falling off in the 2010s and that plays a huge role in why that's when Novak began to break out. It was only after their best punches were largely gone. You'd have an argument if he was several years younger than Nadal, but that isn't the case. Joker simply could not hang with either guy when they were in their primes. 

Are you suggesting that everyone reaches their peak at the same age? Or that the younger you are when winning a slam the better you are? Guess Becker was better than Federer then, winning Wimbledon at age 17?

Djokovic didn’t peak at as young an age as Nadal or Federer did. Mentally he was not strong enough, until he took a huge step up around 2011, when he went into Terminator mode.  Nadal by contrast reached that level earlier in his career. Each player’s development cycle is unique.

Note that Djokovic didn’t just improve his record against Nadal and Federer from 2011 onwards. He improved against everyone. By contrast, Federer, and certainly Nadal, continued to dominate most everyone else, just not Djokovic from 2011.

In fact, they would have had 8 more Grand Slams between them if they had not lost to Djokovic in finals after 2010 - and that’s just finals. I haven’t even checked in how many Grand Slams they were defeated by Djokovic in semifinals.

Federer and Nadal didn’t suddenly both miraculously decline by some stroke of magic from 1 January 2011. Nope, instead, Djokovic stepped up to a whole new level, which they mostly could not match from there on out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Are you suggesting that everyone reaches their peak at the same age? Or that the younger you are when winning a slam the better you are? Guess Becker was better than Federer then, winning Wimbledon at age 17?

Djokovic didn’t peak at as young an age as Nadal or Federer did. Mentally he was not strong enough, until he took a huge step up around 2011, when he went into Terminator mode.  Nadal by contrast reached that level earlier in his career. Each player’s development cycle is unique.

Note that Djokovic didn’t just improve his record against Nadal and Federer from 2011 onwards. He improved against everyone. By contrast, Federer, and certainly Nadal, continued to dominate most everyone else, just not Djokovic from 2011.

In fact, they would have had 8 more Grand Slams between them if they had not lost to Djokovic in finals after 2010 - and that’s just finals. I haven’t even checked in how many Grand Slams they were defeated by Djokovic in semifinals.

Federer and Nadal didn’t suddenly both miraculously decline by some stroke of magic from 1 January 2011. Nope, instead, Djokovic stepped up to a whole new level, which they mostly could not match from there on out.

Sure, everyone peaks at different times and it’s fair to say Novak had a mental block that Nadal and Feds didn’t have to deal with. But it’s also worth noting that in the three years following 2011 Nadal won more Slams than Joker, and that by 2015 he and Feds were largely done. Joker has done most of his damage since then, so yes, he’s been running it up on the back end after they were both largely washed without having to deal with any serious younger challengers. Novak is the last great men’s player and he broke out a decade ago. That cannot be ignored. How many titles would either Feds or Nadal have if they never had to deal with the next great player?

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, everyone peaks at different times and it’s fair to say Novak had a mental block that Nadal and Feds didn’t have to deal with. But it’s also worth noting that in the three years following 2011 Nadal won more Slams than Joker, and that by 2015 he and Feds were largely done. Joker has done most of his damage since then, so yes, he’s been running it up on the back end after they were both largely washed without having to deal with any serious younger challengers. Novak is the last great men’s player and he broke out a decade ago. That cannot be ignored. How many titles would either Feds or Nadal have if they never had to deal with the next great player?

I note you carefully left out 2011, which Sampras called the greatest tennis season  by any player (Djokovich) that he had ever seen. As well as 2015, in which Novak did even better than his 2011 season. Allowing a narrow focus on 2012-14

Nadal is freely acknowledged as the greatest clay court player ever, so the French Open is a given for him in any normal year. So Rafa won 4 Slams from 2012-2014, to Novak’s 3, of which three of Nadal’s titles were the French Open, which is hardly surprising. 

Add 2011 and 2015 and the numbers change dramatically.

[Maithanet]

49 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Djoko also massively benefitted from Murray, who was emerging as his main rival, getting broken when he was coming into his peak. 

This, but even more so is the fact that the entire crop of players younger than Djokovic are so underwhelming.  Yes, Djoko (and to a lesser extent Fed/Nadal) have held back that younger generation, but that only goes so far.  Even in the height of the Big 3's dominance, there were still a few guys who broke through - Murray and Wawrinka three times each, Safin 2005, Del Potro 2009, Cilic 2014, and Theim 2020.  What do all those guys have in common?  They're all the essentially the same generation as the Big 3 (or all but Thiem at least).  Del Potro and Cilic  are two years younger than Djoko, and youngest is Thiem at 28. 

It's not that the current generation isn't as good as the Big 3, it's that none of them are even as good as Murray or Wawrinka!  That's really bad.

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This, but even more so is the fact that the entire crop of players younger than Djokovic are so underwhelming.  Yes, Djoko (and to a lesser extent Fed/Nadal) have held back that younger generation, but that only goes so far.  Even in the height of the Big 3's dominance, there were still a few guys who broke through - Murray and Wawrinka three times each, Safin 2005, Del Potro 2009, Cilic 2014, and Theim 2020.  What do all those guys have in common?  They're all the essentially the same generation as the Big 3 (or all but Thiem at least).  Del Potro and Cilic  are two years younger than Djoko, and youngest is Thiem at 28. 

It's not that the current generation isn't as good as the Big 3, it's that none of them are even as good as Murray or Wawrinka!  That's really bad.

How do you know that? For all we know Zverev or Medvedev would beat Wawrinka, Safin and Murray.

If not for Djokovic, they would have plenty of Grand Slams by now.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How do you know that? For all we know Zverev or Medvedev would beat Wawrinka, Safin and Murray.

If not for Djokovic, they would have plenty of Grand Slams by now.

Because Wawrinka and Murray both won 3 grands slams at a time when the Big 3 was at their strongest.  And yet all the tennis players under 31 in the entire world has won just one, and that's with Djoko being the only consistently healthy Big 3 member left.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Because Wawrinka and Murray both won 3 grands slams at a time when the Big 3 was at their strongest.  And yet all the tennis players under 31 in the entire world has won just one, and that's with Djoko being the only consistently healthy Big 3 member left.  

Nadal has locked out the French Open whenever he has played, except when Djokovic beat him twice, and one shock loss to Soderling in 2009. So it was Nadal locking everyone out there as he has for a generation.

Similarly, Djokovic has locked out the Australian Open. No change there.

And Wimbledon has been Federer and Djokovic’s playground, with Murray sneaking in a couple of times on his home ground. Again, no change there.

That leaves the US Open as the most contested of the Slams, and that remains so to this day.

I find it highly improbable that the chasing pack is uniformly weaker today than 10 years ago. If anything, they should be improving over time. Rather give credit to the likes of Rafa and Novak who have largely shut the challengers out over the last decade.

[Arakan]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Novak is less than a year younger than Nadal and the latter had nine GS titles under his belt before Novak got his second. And Feds had 16. During that period Feds and Nadal were at their best and they dragged him with ease. Both guys began falling off in the 2010s and that plays a huge role in why that's when Novak began to break out. It was only after their best punches were largely gone. You'd have an argument if he was several years younger than Nadal, but that isn't the case. Joker simply could not hang with either guy when they were in their primes. 

I disagree. Novak had his breakout year in 2007, aged 19/20, when he reached the SF of two slams (FO, W) and the final of the USO. He continued strong at the beginning of the next season, winning the AO 2008, age 20. His 2008 season was good but lacked consistency and he dropped in 2009/2010 due to various issues. But when he finally got his shit together in 2011, aged 23/24, he never looked back. Both Roger and Rafa were still in his prime years but Roger simply had the disadvantage of facing two ATGs at the same time who were significantly younger. 

But those things level out. Roger had his 2004-07 years where he didn’t face any serious competition (except baby Rafa on clay). And both Rafa and Roger profited from a burnt-out Novak after achieving the Nole Slam 2016 in Paris. Novak was basically MIA for one and a half years which allowed Roger and Rafa to collect easy Slams (Roger: AO 17, 18 W 18; Rafa without prime competitor at FO). Next Gen were still irrelevant babies back then (Tsitsi, Med, Zverev). 

One can easily make the case that Novak‘s path to greatness was the hardest because he had to overcome two ATGs and fight off greats like Stan or Murray. 

Anyway, all three are awesome and all three were lucky in so far as Gen Useless was, well, useless (only slam winner born in the 90s is Thiem so far). 

[Arakan]

On 9/7/2021 at 8:28 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. He's cleaning up against a depleted field. 

Tywin, my friend, come on…if Novak wins this years USO he presumably will have beaten 3(!) Top 10 players. Very hard road. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I note you carefully left out 2011, which Sampras called the greatest tennis season  by any player (Djokovich) that he had ever seen. As well as 2015, in which Novak did even better than his 2011 season. Allowing a narrow focus on 2012-14

Nadal is freely acknowledged as the greatest clay court player ever, so the French Open is a given for him in any normal year. So Rafa won 4 Slams from 2012-2014, to Novak’s 3, of which three of Nadal’s titles were the French Open, which is hardly surprising. 

Add 2011 and 2015 and the numbers change dramatically.

I didn’t leave 2011 out. You said that was the start of his prime and I pointed out he was not the most winningest player in the following three years. Between 2011 and 2014 Joker and Nadal are basically even, and again, Joker is the best hard court player and benefits from half of the slams being on that surface. If you flipped it to 50% clay then Nadal would have way more wins over that period of time. And from 2015 onwards Nadal is in step decline and Feds is pretty much done. If Novak wins the U.S. Open he’ll have 66% of his Slam wins in that period of time when he faced no strong opposition.  As BFC said pointed out, the best argument for Nadal is that he spent his entire prime fighting off the other two while both Feds and Joker enjoyed periods of little resistance.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Tywin, my friend, come on…if Novak wins this years USO he presumably will have beaten 3(!) Top 10 players. Very hard road. 

Yeah, that’s coming at a time when there’s a lot of good players, but not many great ones. As Maith pointed out today’s players are not as good as the ones that had to break through when the big three were all still on top of their games.

Look, it’s rather hard to ignore that most of Novak’s wins came after 2014 when the level of competition was far less than it had been in the previous years. That’s what undercuts the argument that he’s the clear cut best. The big three are the best three ever and each has a surface they dominated. It doesn’t have to be anything more than that and you can pick a favorite based on their style of play as each is rather different.

[Arakan]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, that’s coming at a time when there’s a lot of good players, but not many great ones. As Maith pointed out today’s players are not as good as the ones that had to break through when the big three were all still on top of their games.

Look, it’s rather hard to ignore that most of Novak’s wins came after 2014 when the level of competition was far less than it had been in the previous years. That’s what undercuts the argument that he’s the clear cut best. The big three are the best three ever and each has a surface they dominated. It doesn’t have to be anything more than that and you can pick a favorite based on their style of play as each is rather different.

I agree. There’s no clear cut best though I feel time won’t be too nice to Rafa‘s goat legacy. He simply lacks slam diversity and tournament diversity in general as well as weeks at No1. He will go down as the Clay Goat, not General Goat (Roger and Novak). 

But on the other side, it’s a big positive for Tennis that those discussions will continue for the next 20/30 years or longer  . And the annoying fanboyism will slowly but surely fade away anyway. 

[baxus]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This was true five years ago. Maybe even further back than that, 

Look, the thing that will always be held against Joker is that when Feds and Nadal were in their primes they kicked his ass. But Feds got old and Nadal broke down while Joker stayed relatively healthy and he benefited from not having any successors. And if I'm being cynical I could argue that if there were two clay court slams instead of hard court slams Nadal would be running away with this, likewise if there were two grass court slams for Feds. 

Well, if we're looking at it like that and agree with your point of Djokovic reaching his prime in 2011, then he kicked both Federer and Nadal's ass since then.

Also, if we're going to diminish Djokovic's success because "Federer got old" then why stop there? Why not diminish Federer's success before Nadal and Djokovic stepped up? I'll tell you why. Because that's stupid and we don't do that. I mean, are Roddick and Hewitt really better than Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev etc.?

Don't forget that Djokovic is the only one of the three who has won each GS at least twice. And, since he did win Wimbledon 5 times, I'm not sure Federer would really be "running away with this" either. Except if he had stocked up on those GS titles before Nadal and Djokovic came to the scene. Either way, there's no point in discussing this. Tournaments are what they are, surfaces are what they are, and everyone knows that and has to prepare for them to the best of their abilities.

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Even though Djoko is my least favourite I think his peak is possibly the highest. But I do think there is a clear argument that he won a lot when the others were in decline. Nadal in particular had to deal with the other 2 at their best.

Djoko also massively benefitted from Murray, who was emerging as his main rival, getting broken when he was coming into his peak. 

And why is it just a massive benefit for Djokovic and not the other two? Would they definitely have won their titles even with Murray at the top of his game around?

Nadal is a year older and Murray is a week older than Djokovic. Whose fault is it that they declined faster than Djokovic? Federer is 6-7 years older so it's normal his decline would come while others are still at the top, but look at his performance 6-7 years ago when he was as old as Djokovic is now and compare the two. A world of difference.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, everyone peaks at different times and it’s fair to say Novak had a mental block that Nadal and Feds didn’t have to deal with. But it’s also worth noting that in the three years following 2011 Nadal won more Slams than Joker, and that by 2015 he and Feds were largely done. Joker has done most of his damage since then, so yes, he’s been running it up on the back end after they were both largely washed without having to deal with any serious younger challengers. Novak is the last great men’s player and he broke out a decade ago. That cannot be ignored. How many titles would either Feds or Nadal have if they never had to deal with the next great player?

So, Nadal has been washed up at the age of 29? Maybe he should've adapted his training or diet or style of play to allow him more longevity? Also, he benefitted a lot from maturing early and playing world class tennis in his teens which probably couldn't have happened had he played a different style. A lot of people were predicting from the start that Nadal would have serious injuries later in his career and that's exactly what happened. He basically traded the end of his career for a flying start and that's it.

Djokovic had to deal with Nadal and Federer well in their prime for quite a bit of the last decade and he beat them repeatedly. If the two of them don't think they have what it takes to compete at the highest level, they should retire. If not, "they're on the decline" is no more a valid excuse than "but he wasn't in his prime" would be for Djokovic losing to them in the early years of his career.

[BigFatCoward]

Radancanu is going to make so much money in endorsements its not even funny. 

[Spockydog]

11 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Radancanu is going to make so much money in endorsements its not even funny. 

Deservedly so. Such an exciting young player. Can totally see her winning this thing. 

[Arakan]

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Deservedly so. Such an exciting young player. Can totally see her winning this thing. 

I think the poster meant it due to different reasons. 

[BigFatCoward]

4 minutes ago, Arakan said:

I think the poster meant it due to different reasons. 

A combination of being very good at tennis. Very attractive. Very personable. And English. 

[Arakan]

13 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

A combination of being very good at tennis. Very attractive. Very personable. And English. 

English? Born in Canada. Romanian father, Chinese mother. Residence London. 

[BigFatCoward]

9 minutes ago, Arakan said:

English? Born in Canada. Romanian father, Chinese mother. Residence London. 

Whatever, shes English until she fucks up, then she's Canadian, Romanian, Chinese, wherever.  

Joking aside, she's lived here since she was 2? She's English. 

 

[polishgenius]

16 minutes ago, Arakan said:

English? Born in Canada. Romanian father, Chinese mother. Residence London. 

 

Does she not get a say?