Novak's legacy ruined?

First topic message reminder :

It's a great achievement to have 6 slams and beating all his rivals when it mattered. We cannot ignore that he gifted 2 slams to the biggest finals choker of all time. I don't think Novak will comeback from this disappointment, he is 1 from 4 in USO finals losing to his main 2 rivals, his AO record is the only good thing he has now and once he loses there that he will hold none of the slams (he won't win USO with his mental woes). Murray did not have to be special to beat him yesterday, he returned well and made less unforced errors (which he usually does anyway) but Novak was not the champion we thought he was. His backhand which was the most consistent in the game is now not very good, like he wants to have everything on his forehand.

Djokovic was being hailed as the one to win from match points down and beat Nadal in many finals, now he will be known as the one to gift TWO slams to the biggest bottler in slam finals. He is becoming very easy to play against  

How do you go from challenging a specific surface assessment to needing to mount an impassioned defence of a player.

I'd have thought 5 sets to 0 suggests he's a better player on grass. The stuff about Nadal is about match up and timing.

I do think Novak is moving into a crucial phase in his career. He will need to re-establish himself as the man to beat. He has been that person from 2011 up until perhaps spring of this year when he has allowed worrying things to creep into his game. Defeats against players he was beating comfortably, losing matches from winning positions (V Nadal at the French Open) and losing tamely by his standards in a slam final. All worrying surely if you are a Novak fan. He needs to refind his mojo I feel.

banbrotam wrote:I'd be surprised if he either of them, especially Murray starts dipping before 2017.

I think that is way too optimistic (or pessimistic, as the case may be ).  But we will have to wait a while to see which one of us is correct.

In general, I am not all that convinced that the tour aging thing is here to stay.  I think some of the explanations about the game requiring longer for players to mature are just reverse engineered to fit the observation, rather than being fully justified.

It seems like over the years, whenever we see players getting younger in a given sport, I always get to hear how in the current age the physical demands are so high that 30+ years olds (or whatever the applicable age) can no longer compete.

If a sport, on the other hand, experiences period of aging, the arguments turn to explaining how the improved fitness regimens etc now make it possible for players to last longer.

Tennis has not changed all that much since the times Rafa, Nole and Andy burst on the scene to make it impossible for youngsters to do the same nowadays.  Just because none of them did, it does not mean we can expect players to last much longer than before.  2017 is a long time; the two boys may well be both physically and emotionally quite spent by then.

Anyway, let's revisit in four years.

Murray the better grass player but I think straight sets win in final was a bit misleading. Novak in half decent form should have won both 2nd and 3rd sets. Still don't know how he blew 4-1 and 4-2 leads!! Murray was the better player but match was closer than shoreline suggested.

Also Murray has huge advantage playing in front of a home crowd. Such a big advantage for any player

Fair enough slasher but just remember it wasn't Murray at his best either. Besides I have sat through Andy's poor displays in slam finals in the past where he has lost in straight sets and been left empty so this makes a nice change.

I hear ye CC, it was a tough loss. To be honest I reckon Novak will bounce back soon, Murray needs to ride the wave, has great momentum on his side now. If Novak were to win the US open, i think that might bring back the spark in his game. He just needs a big win again.

I suppose it is easy to forget he won Australian open this year, got to semis and nearly beat nadal at the French and got to final of Wimbledon, hardly a bad effort when you think about it. We are a demanding bunch on here !!

CaledonianCraig wrote: He needs to refind his mojo I feel.

He needs to get out of his own head.

I think the magic went once he became established at number 1 and it was all about setting this goal and that goal.

It's no surprise to me that his best performance of the year, Monte Carlo, came when there were absolutely no expectations because of his injury.

What happened last year when Roger got the number 1 spot back? Novak went on a tear through Asia and won WTF.

He's still an excellent player and a worthy number 1 but I think his mojo only really comes out when he's playing in the moment.

Yes HM I do feel his problems at the moment are all in his head. Mental lapses have been seen this year as has the self-belief which were his strengths in 2011/2012.

This is of course a very tongue-in-cheek article by Joey Mas, but I wonder how much of this negativity is brought on by the fact that we expect the big four to fight, to the death. Nadal was hopelessly outgunned against Djokovic in the 2011 US open, facing a straight sets defeat, and somehow scratched and clawed his way to the third set, before being spanked. Roland Garros 2012 had a similar feel, Djokovic being manhandled before getting hot in the fourth. I think these results have conditioned us to believe that if the Big Four are facing each other, no matter how bad the match-up, or the disparity of ability on surface, a second-wind is inevitable, mandatory, almost. Novak is a splendid player, but Murray is comfortably the better player on grass, and because of that I think if both players play at 75%-80% as was the case on Sunday, Murray wins in Straights.

This is not a knock on Nole, but he really isnt made for grass, and his successes are mainly due to how ridiculously good he is overall. No way is his legacy hurt by a straight sets defeat. It wasnt even a mauling, Murray just pipped him in three straight sets. Akin to a football team losing 1-0 & 1-0 in a Champions League tie.

kingraf wrote: It wasnt even a mauling, Murray just pipped him in three straight sets. Akin to a football team losing 1-0 & 1-0 in a Champions League tie.

More like losing 2-1, 2-1 and being 1-0 up at half time in both!

As Matthew Syed points out in today's Times, Novak's legacy as a true sportsman as well as great champion has been immeasurably enhanced by the gracious way in which he accepted his defeat on Sunday.
 
For example, he's 50 times the Tennis Champion than the disgusting Connors ever was - even if he has no slams left in him, which I very much doubt.

I have always felt Djokovic spoke well of his opponents in defeat whether it be first round or the final. He in a way reminds me of Jack Nicklaus, maybe not the same number of titles, but certainly could always accept defeat and praise his opponent graciously.

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote: It wasnt even a mauling, Murray just pipped him in three straight sets. Akin to a football team losing 1-0 & 1-0 in a Champions League tie.

More like losing 2-1, 2-1 and being 1-0 up at half time in both!

Didnt wanna rub in the missed chances for Nole fans  

Kingraf

Good post.

One interesting thing is that the narrative being given on the final is that Djokovic served poorly and Andy quite well - the stats don't really back that up. Both served 105 times, with Djokovic making 68 first serves to Andy's 67. Average first serve speed was 1mph different (Djokovic faster), and (unsurprisingly) Andy's fastest serve being about 5mph quicker. Yes, Andy served more aces and more unreturned serves, but that is at least in part due to his returning being sharper than Novak's on the day.

The big difference was winners and UEs - Andy made 36 and 21, while Djoko made 31 and 40.

As others have said, grass is probably Novak's least good surface, although his game is so solid all round that he still gets some excellent results on it, while it may be Andy's best surface. And even then it was a fairly tight match - certainly didn't have the feel of a routine straight sets (and no tie breaks) win.

It certainly wasn't a routine win for straight sets. True Djokovic wasn't at his best but neither was Murray. I think perhaps both players feed off each other so if one plays better the other has to raise their level and so we would have seen higher quality. If that makes any sense?

dummy_half wrote:Kingraf

Good post.

One interesting thing is that the narrative being given on the final is that Djokovic served poorly and Andy quite well - the stats don't really back that up. Both served 105 times, with Djokovic making 68 first serves to Andy's 67. Average first serve speed was 1mph different (Djokovic faster), and (unsurprisingly) Andy's fastest serve being about 5mph quicker. Yes, Andy served more aces and more unreturned serves, but that is at least in part due to his returning being sharper than Novak's on the day.

The big difference was winners and UEs - Andy made 36 and 21, while Djoko made 31 and 40.

As others have said, grass is probably Novak's least good surface, although his game is so solid all round that he still gets some excellent results on it, while it may be Andy's best surface. And even then it was a fairly tight match - certainly didn't have the feel of a routine straight sets (and no tie breaks) win.

Thanks  
Keeping your Winners unforced errors ratio down is incredibly vital with Nole I have noticed that his ratio is almost always in the negative in matches against the big four. It was in Australia, both last year and this year. It was also in the red in Roland Garros, as well. The key for him is he gets so many balls back, his opponents ratio also gets fuddled, and normally wins because of this. On grass its just that much more difficult to do that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It certainly wasn't a routine win for straight sets. True Djokovic wasn't at his best but neither was Murray. I think perhaps both players feed off each other so if one plays better the other has to raise their level and so we would have seen higher quality. If that makes any sense?

I'd like to highlight my prediction before the final

I kind of expect a match that feels close as you watch it but a final scoreline that looks like a relatively straight forward win for Andy.

If only I were a gambler!

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I'd be surprised if he either of them, especially Murray starts dipping before 2017.

I think that is way too optimistic (or pessimistic, as the case may be ).  But we will have to wait a while to see which one of us is correct.

In general, I am not all that convinced that the tour aging thing is here to stay.  I think some of the explanations about the game requiring longer for players to mature are just reverse engineered to fit the observation, rather than being fully justified.

It seems like over the years, whenever we see players getting younger in a given sport, I always get to hear how in the current age the physical demands are so high that 30+ years olds (or whatever the applicable age) can no longer compete.

If a sport, on the other hand, experiences period of aging, the arguments turn to explaining how the improved fitness regimens etc now make it possible for players to last longer.

Tennis has not changed all that much since the times Rafa, Nole and Andy burst on the scene to make it impossible for youngsters to do the same nowadays.  Just because none of them did, it does not mean we can expect players to last much longer than before.  2017 is a long time; the two boys may well be both physically and emotionally quite spent by then.

Anyway, let's revisit in four years.

Very much agree.

I see next to no chance that Murray & Djokovic will be atop the game by 2017. Stuff will happen, it always does.

In 2005-7 Federer won as he chose. Did anyone expect him to get GF? Or his back to hit him later in 2008?
In 2010 Nadal won three Slams. Did anyone think he'd be struggling to three RGs and nothing else, and missing whole swathes of the season, by mid 2013?

Of course stuff happens. We have just seen Murray with a back injury and Novak did have lesser concerns with an ankle injury. Injury worries will always be there for any player. All fans of their favourite players can do is keep their fingers crossed.

I think novak and andy have until 2016 very latest at the top.

The fortunes of Andy and Novak have less to do with themselves than with who may or may not emerge and step up in the next couple of years.

When Roger was 26/27, there was a clear group of three 20/21 years olds who were not only his closest rivals but were also quite clearly special talents in their own right.

This chasing pack simply doesn't exist for Andy, Novak and Rafa.

Everyone else in the top ten except JMDP is older than them.

The closest players of age 20-22 are Raonic (age 22, rank 15) and Janowicz (age 22, rank 17).

Between them they have no titles at 500, 1000 or GS level.

It's difficult see Andy or Novak being displaced in the near future.