Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

by hawkeye Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

Djokovic has made no secret of the fact that the trophy he desires above all others is la Coupe des Mousquetaires. Winning the Australian Open didn't distract him from the task and he used his post final interviews to tell everyone of his desire to win the FO. Maybe at that time the task looked a little easier as the "owner" of the French Open trophy was injured and there was speculation that he would not be able to defend his title.

When Nadal returned the task must have looked a bit more tricky again but that didn't stop Djokovic from dreaming. In fact he used every opportunity to explain how he was working towards this goal. It convinced many that it was his destiny. Beating Nadal in Monte Carlo made Djokovic's wishes sound all the more convincing. Despite Nadal winning the following two Masters titles in Rome and Madrid and Djokovic going out early speculation was that Djokovic's losses could be tactical. He didn't want or need Rome or Madrid only the French would do.

No wonder Djokovic wanted that trophy so badly. With it he would complete a career slam, gain the 2nd leg of a grand slam and if he could beat Nadal in the process make a huge, huge statement about his ability... and also deliver a body blow to his main rival.

But we all know what happened... Credit to Djokovic for re-grouping and doing much better than I expected at Wimbledon. But I can't help thinking working so hard and so single mindedly towards a goal and then failing must be damaging. If only for the short term.

I also wonder was he wise to make his desire public considering the difficulty of the task. Did this work against him? Was it an attempt to play mind games with Nadal? Did it?

by HM Murdock Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:55 pm

It is a puzzler.

We know from Rafa, Novak, Andy and JMDP that as recently as 2008/9, 20 year old players could break through and win big events.

Has the game or sports science changed so drastically in those 4 years or so that the next generation can't break through? I wouldn't say so.

I'm almost certain that if you could transport the 20 year old versions of Rafa, Andy, Novak and JMDP to today, they would still be top ten players.

That's why I always come back to the younger guys just not being as good. The natural order has been disrupted by a weaker generation!

by CaledonianCraig Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:59 pm

This has been discussed on other threads though. I said that the youngsters of today need talent but they also need physicality. Some youngsters have the talent but lack the physicality to go head-to-head with the top players of today and so they'll never crack it until they improve their physical conditioning - at least that is my opinion.

by HM Murdock Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:09 am

Here's a theory on the younger players.

Before 08, winning a 250 event earned the same number of points as a slam QF (250pts) and more than a SF in a Masters level event (225).

Nowadays a slam QF and a Masters semi earns 360 points.

The ranking points have skewed toward the bigger events which favours the established players. It must be harder to rise up the rankings now.

I doubt that's the whole explanation but maybe a factor?

by CaledonianCraig Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:19 am

No I don't think that is the reason. I mean Raonic and Nishikori have climbed into a position just outside the top ten since this change. Their failure to break through is purely at not having the all-round game to win their way through to business ends of slams on any consistent basis. They physically are not in a position to take out a number of established players who have put in the hard hours in the gym and that compliments their talent - again this is in my opinion.

by socal1976 Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:51 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Homogenized, what are you talking about all this talk about players who can't win slams later in their careers or play their best tennis later in their careers. Agassi was a baseliner and reached number 1 at age 33, his style of play is very similar to Djokovic in how early he takes the ball, how he returns, and how both players change direction on the ball. David Ferrer plays a more grinding game than Djokovic and Murray and has had his best years in the late 20s and early 30s. If Ferrer can reach a career high #3 at 31 I wouldn't bet against massively superior talents like Djoko or Murray being in contention 2-3 years down the line or more.

You keep ignoring what has been an obvious trend of players taking longer to develop but staying around and winning till a later age. This is something we have seen in recent years across the board, why would murray and djokovic the cream of the tour buck the trend? I mean are we to believe that Ferrer, the ultimate grinder can play at 31 at his best level and Djokovic and Murray will be out of slam contention in 2 years because of their style of play as you contend.

This is not the 80s were a teenager would rise to the top and be burned out by 25 and it has not been that way really for about a decade or more. So all this talk about murray and Djokovic being old for tennis is rather laughable when players are having their best seasons in the late 20s and early 30s, in fact both Murray and djokovic are still in their primes and barring injury and burnout I have no doubt will be in contention for a few more years.

Sorry it sounds to me like you want to ignore recent history of the tour and wish these two would go away in a year or two because you don't like their style of play.

What are you talking about Socal! Homo is absolutely spot on, probably because he/she bothered to do what you possibly have never done in your life: reading the history books! Don't you realise that your argument is always revolving around the same old two guys; Agassi and Ferrer. What does it tell you if out of several hundreds players only two seem to be competitive and winning big events over 30, from a statistical pov? Probably nothing

Funny I have a history degree from UCLA and know more about history than you could possibly fathom with your limited ability to reason. How is this for a broad based fact? 25 percent of the top 100 is over 30, completely unheard of. So obviously this trend exists and I am not making anything up, I don't want to break up you and Homo love parade with actual facts and logic. So now tell me why you think Murray and Djokovic will buck the trend and be out of contention after 2 years for slams? Do you just reflexively take the opposite side of whatever I say?

by socal1976 Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:55 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:It is a puzzler.

We know from Rafa, Novak, Andy and JMDP that as recently as 2008/9, 20 year old players could break through and win big events.

Has the game or sports science changed so drastically in those 4 years or so that the next generation can't break through? I wouldn't say so.

I'm almost certain that if you could transport the 20 year old versions of Rafa, Andy, Novak and JMDP to today, they would still be top ten players.

That's why I always come back to the younger guys just not being as good. The natural order has been disrupted by a weaker generation!

Have to agree with you here Murdoch. It is clear that the next generation is a big drop off from the players that broke in to the tour in the middle 2000s, in that period we had a particularly strong crop of players and the strength was very broad based. A certain poster has been banging the drum about the quality of that particular crop of stars in relation to those that came immediately before and after them. I agree that there are 2 factors at play, the young players just aren't as good, and the prime for various reasons is also moving backwards. It is not all of one or nothing of the other.

by bogbrush Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:37 pm

I have a history degree from UCLA and know more about history than you (Jeremy) could possibly fathom

Did you specialise in the history of the ATP?

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:40 pm

socal1976 wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Homogenized, what are you talking about all this talk about players who can't win slams later in their careers or play their best tennis later in their careers. Agassi was a baseliner and reached number 1 at age 33, his style of play is very similar to Djokovic in how early he takes the ball, how he returns, and how both players change direction on the ball. David Ferrer plays a more grinding game than Djokovic and Murray and has had his best years in the late 20s and early 30s. If Ferrer can reach a career high #3 at 31 I wouldn't bet against massively superior talents like Djoko or Murray being in contention 2-3 years down the line or more.

You keep ignoring what has been an obvious trend of players taking longer to develop but staying around and winning till a later age. This is something we have seen in recent years across the board, why would murray and djokovic the cream of the tour buck the trend? I mean are we to believe that Ferrer, the ultimate grinder can play at 31 at his best level and Djokovic and Murray will be out of slam contention in 2 years because of their style of play as you contend.

This is not the 80s were a teenager would rise to the top and be burned out by 25 and it has not been that way really for about a decade or more. So all this talk about murray and Djokovic being old for tennis is rather laughable when players are having their best seasons in the late 20s and early 30s, in fact both Murray and djokovic are still in their primes and barring injury and burnout I have no doubt will be in contention for a few more years.

Sorry it sounds to me like you want to ignore recent history of the tour and wish these two would go away in a year or two because you don't like their style of play.

What are you talking about Socal! Homo is absolutely spot on, probably because he/she bothered to do what you possibly have never done in your life: reading the history books! Don't you realise that your argument is always revolving around the same old two guys; Agassi and Ferrer. What does it tell you if out of several hundreds players only two seem to be competitive and winning big events over 30, from a statistical pov? Probably nothing

Funny I have a history degree from UCLA and know more about history than you could possibly fathom with your limited ability to reason. How is this for a broad based fact? 25 percent of the top 100 is over 30, completely unheard of. So obviously this trend exists and I am not making anything up, I don't want to break up you and Homo love parade with actual facts and logic. So now tell me why you think Murray and Djokovic will buck the trend and be out of contention after 2 years for slams? Do you just reflexively take the opposite side of whatever I say?

Uhmm interesting jhm did't feel as compelled to intervene for this rather unkind remark from Socal. By the way you probably misunderstood a bit my comment, which was pointing at the history books more in the sense of historic records of games and matches data rather than broader history such as the World War II that I am sure your such a universally recognized expert at.

Just answer this simple question; how many slam have been won by 28 plus years old in this decade and how many were won in the past decade? I myself don't know the answer, but i'd be so glad if you, just for once, could do your homework.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:02 pm

I still haven't heard which players now aged under 25 Jeremy Kyle thinks will be winning or even challenging for slams in three or four years. The only stand out candidate is Juan Martin Del Potro and so apart from that is it safe to presume that Djokovic and Murray will still be contenders? Only youngsters on the horizon are Dimitrov and Janowicz in my opinion.

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:15 pm

It's difficult to say, it can be anyone of the youngsters in the top 50. My point is another: who would be able to beat Murray and Djokovic in the next few years in slams? Again, you wouldn't think Darcis could beat nadal or Stack could win Federer, but you know that it will happen more and more frequently as the time goes............

by bogbrush Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:16 pm

In 3/4 years a lot may happen.

Lets take 3 and a half years; January 2017. Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are soon to be 30. Rafa Nadal retired two years previously after another wasted year with knee problems. Roger Federer made it to Rio 2016 as he promised, but retired at the end of the season having made 2016 rather a year-long farewell tour.

Both Murray and Djokovic have had injury plagued seasons, Murray suffering increasingly from back issues and Djokovic being hampered for two seasons with shoulder problems.

Neither has won a Slam this year; their supporters look to their injury impairments as reason, though others look to the impact of divergent conditions for allowing some much younger players to challenge. Wimbledon was won by a 21 year old this year who nobody had even heard of in 2013!

---------------------------

Now I have no idea if this will be borne out, but it's a lot more likely than assuming nothing will change.

by Born Slippy Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:32 pm

A 21 year old in 2016 would be 18 now and would probably be top 50 or at least top 100 if they were going to win Wimbledon in 3 years. There are some good 18 year olds -Krygios beat Stepanek at the French - but there is no-one who looks likely to be top 10 in 2 years. The youngster to watch is Vesely who is a 20 year old giant who I can see making huge waves over the next 2 years. He seems happiest on clay though. Possibly there is a 15 year old out there who will rise like Nadal who is as yet unknown.

I guess your theory on what will happen to Murray and Djokovic will get tested out shortly as the likes of Berdych and Tsonga hit 29. If they start to fall then the theory will start to have validity. At the moment, given I can only think of Roddick and Davydenko who really fit that pattern in recent years, it just looks like wishful thinking.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:38 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Homogenized, what are you talking about all this talk about players who can't win slams later in their careers or play their best tennis later in their careers. Agassi was a baseliner and reached number 1 at age 33, his style of play is very similar to Djokovic in how early he takes the ball, how he returns, and how both players change direction on the ball. David Ferrer plays a more grinding game than Djokovic and Murray and has had his best years in the late 20s and early 30s. If Ferrer can reach a career high #3 at 31 I wouldn't bet against massively superior talents like Djoko or Murray being in contention 2-3 years down the line or more.

You keep ignoring what has been an obvious trend of players taking longer to develop but staying around and winning till a later age. This is something we have seen in recent years across the board, why would murray and djokovic the cream of the tour buck the trend? I mean are we to believe that Ferrer, the ultimate grinder can play at 31 at his best level and Djokovic and Murray will be out of slam contention in 2 years because of their style of play as you contend.

This is not the 80s were a teenager would rise to the top and be burned out by 25 and it has not been that way really for about a decade or more. So all this talk about murray and Djokovic being old for tennis is rather laughable when players are having their best seasons in the late 20s and early 30s, in fact both Murray and djokovic are still in their primes and barring injury and burnout I have no doubt will be in contention for a few more years.

Sorry it sounds to me like you want to ignore recent history of the tour and wish these two would go away in a year or two because you don't like their style of play.

What are you talking about Socal! Homo is absolutely spot on, probably because he/she bothered to do what you possibly have never done in your life: reading the history books! Don't you realise that your argument is always revolving around the same old two guys; Agassi and Ferrer. What does it tell you if out of several hundreds players only two seem to be competitive and winning big events over 30, from a statistical pov? Probably nothing

Funny I have a history degree from UCLA and know more about history than you could possibly fathom with your limited ability to reason. How is this for a broad based fact? 25 percent of the top 100 is over 30, completely unheard of. So obviously this trend exists and I am not making anything up, I don't want to break up you and Homo love parade with actual facts and logic. So now tell me why you think Murray and Djokovic will buck the trend and be out of contention after 2 years for slams? Do you just reflexively take the opposite side of whatever I say?

Uhmm interesting jhm did't feel as compelled to intervene for this rather unkind remark from Socal....

You're quite right J_K, but I simply hadn't read it yet. socal will, I hope, consider himself suitably reprimanded.
I trust everyone will now play nice from hereon in. It's the way of the future Smile

Anyway, I still think that Djoko and Murray will be at the business end of a number of slams until at least the end of 2015.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:39 pm

That theory of yours BB obviously cannot be ruled out. However, look at Haas. He has been more injury ravaged than any other player around and he is now as competitive as ever in his mid-30's. So we should just sit back and wait and see. It is just that you BB and others have laboured long and hard that youngsters aren't coming through so that being the case I take it you feel if Murray or Djokovic or even both stay fit they will still be chief contenders at slams in say three or four years time?

by Born Slippy Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:49 pm

Change that to 2017 and I would agree with you JHM. No way can I see either of them stopping being slam contenders at 28. Not least as the next level of players below them are all older or more injury prone than them!

by bogbrush Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:04 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:That theory of yours BB obviously cannot be ruled out. However, look at Haas. He has been more injury ravaged than any other player around and he is now as competitive as ever in his mid-30's. So we should just sit back and wait and see. It is just that you BB and others have laboured long and hard that youngsters aren't coming through so that being the case I take it you feel if Murray or Djokovic or even both stay fit they will still be chief contenders at slams in say three or four years time?

Haas is competitive because he's not played much, arguably.

My point is nobody can predict with any degree of confidence. Extrapolation of existing trends isn't usually a successful strategy.

by bogbrush Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:08 am

Born Slippy wrote:A 21 year old in 2016 would be 18 now and would probably be top 50 or at least top 100 if they were going to win Wimbledon in 3 years. There are some good 18 year olds -Krygios beat Stepanek at the French - but there is no-one who looks likely to be top 10 in 2 years. The youngster to watch is Vesely who is a 20 year old giant who I can see making huge waves over the next 2 years. He seems happiest on clay though. Possibly there is a 15 year old out there who will rise like Nadal who is as yet unknown.

I guess your theory on what will happen to Murray and Djokovic will get tested out shortly as the likes of Berdych and Tsonga hit 29. If they start to fall then the theory will start to have validity. At the moment, given I can only think of Roddick and Davydenko who really fit that pattern in recent years, it just looks like wishful thinking.

I'm really not the one wishing for anything, I think you have me confused with others,

As for improbable, well didn't Murray miss a Slam with a back problem about two months ago?

by Born Slippy Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:00 am

Sure players miss tournaments from time to time and its possible Murray's career could be curtailed by his back but I think you would get good odds from a bookie on neither of the current top 2 winning a slam after 2015. All anyone has said is that based on the current trend for players to play at or near their best in the 28-30 bracket and the lack of firebreathing youngsters lining up it seems more likely than not that Novak/Andy will still be challenging for slams when they are 29-30. If you look at the line up behind Federer when he was the same age then you could see where the challenge was likely to come from.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:30 am

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:That theory of yours BB obviously cannot be ruled out. However, look at Haas. He has been more injury ravaged than any other player around and he is now as competitive as ever in his mid-30's. So we should just sit back and wait and see. It is just that you BB and others have laboured long and hard that youngsters aren't coming through so that being the case I take it you feel if Murray or Djokovic or even both stay fit they will still be chief contenders at slams in say three or four years time?
Haas is competitive because he's not played much, arguably.

My point is nobody can predict with any degree of confidence. Extrapolation of existing trends isn't usually a successful strategy.

Yes that is true but at a stand point now - with all the facts before us then, without guesswork or dark thoughts of injuries to players, then Djokovic and Murray are by far the best-positioned players at the moment to be slam contenders in three years time. They are the top players at the moment (by some way going by recent slam evidence) and are the fittest players around by general consensus of opinion. The rest of the players all have doubts hanging over them such as can they up their level to slam winning degree, can they improve enough (the youngsters) both technically and physically and so there we have it.

by HM Murdock Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:04 am

Some warnings from the past.

January 2010. Roger Federer has just won his 16th slam. He now holds 3 slams and has made the final of the last 8. There is talk that winning 20 slams seems possible. What happens? Two and a half years pass before his next slam win.

December 2010. Rafael Nadal has won 3 slams in a year, including USO. He dominates the head to heads of his rivals. Aged just 24, the Rafael Nadal era is about to start. What happens? A younger rival who looked set to be a nearly man suddenly goes into orbit, beats him 7 times in a row and ascends to number 1.

January 2012. Novak Djokovic has won 4 out the last 5 slams. He has dominated his rivals for 13 months and has seemingly taken fitness to new levels. Aged 24, he seems to have a stranglehold on the big events. What happens? He loses the number 1 spot in 6 months (although he claims it back) and wins just one of the next six slams.

The lesson? Very often what is expected when a player has a period of excellent form is not what actually transpires.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:12 am

HM Murdoch wrote:Some warnings from the past.

January 2010. Roger Federer has just won his 16th slam. He now holds 3 slams and has made the final of the last 8. There is talk that winning 20 slams seems possible. What happens? Two and a half years pass before his next slam win.

December 2010. Rafael Nadal has won 3 slams in a year, including USO. He dominates the head to heads of his rivals. Aged just 24, the Rafael Nadal era is about to start. What happens? A younger rival who looked set to be a nearly man suddenly goes into orbit, beats him 7 times in a row and ascends to number 1.

January 2012. Novak Djokovic has won 4 out the last 5 slams. He has dominated his rivals for 13 months and has seemingly taken fitness to new levels. Aged 24, he seems to have a stranglehold on the big events. What happens? He loses the number 1 spot in 6 months (although he claims it back) and wins just one of the next six slams.

The lesson? Very often what is expected when a player has a period of excellent form is not what actually transpires.

Yes HM but look at who those players involved in this are - Nadal always spotted for immense talent, the Djokovic who was always destined to be big in the sport and even more so once he sorted out his fitness and now Murray (another one who was a regular slam contender with slam finals but he finally cracked it). So who are the Nadal, Djokovic and Murray's of today that are going to step up to the plate?

by HM Murdock Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:57 am

We don't need an equivalent of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray to emerge to stop the Nadal, Djokovic and Murray of today.

We just need the gap between the best and rest to narrow enough for players to beat them on occasion.

In other words, it doesn't matter if Andy or Novak are beaten by an emergent great, a solid top tenner or a lower ranked player playing out of skin. If they get beaten, they don't add the title to their CV.

And don't forget, the narrowing of this gap can be from the lower guys improving, the top guys dipping or a combination of both.

We are getting pretty close to this. Wawrinka took Novak to the brink on a court which Novak pretty much owns. Verdasco took 2 sets off Andy on grass. Nadal has two recent losses to journeymen.

In the last 4 slams, semi finalists and finalists have included Janowicz, Del Potro, Ferrer (x2), Tsonga, Berdych.

Compare that to 2011 when only Ferrer and Tsonga crashed the party.

I see it in this way:

Who should beat Andy, Novak and Rafa? Virtually nobody.

Who could beat Andy, Novak and Rafa? An increasing number of players.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:03 am

Yes that is a good point but we have seen even the GOAT being taken to five sets when in good form so it does not spell impending doom especially if they still win those five set matches.

The last four slams have opened the door up to others but that isn't down to Murray and Djokovic slipping but more because Nadal missed the US and Australian Open), Federer has suffered a dip in form/consistency and Murray missed the French Open. In 2011 the 'big four' were all consistent at the slams hence nobody else got a look in hardly.

by Jeremy_Kyle Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:42 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Homogenized, what are you talking about all this talk about players who can't win slams later in their careers or play their best tennis later in their careers. Agassi was a baseliner and reached number 1 at age 33, his style of play is very similar to Djokovic in how early he takes the ball, how he returns, and how both players change direction on the ball. David Ferrer plays a more grinding game than Djokovic and Murray and has had his best years in the late 20s and early 30s. If Ferrer can reach a career high #3 at 31 I wouldn't bet against massively superior talents like Djoko or Murray being in contention 2-3 years down the line or more.

You keep ignoring what has been an obvious trend of players taking longer to develop but staying around and winning till a later age. This is something we have seen in recent years across the board, why would murray and djokovic the cream of the tour buck the trend? I mean are we to believe that Ferrer, the ultimate grinder can play at 31 at his best level and Djokovic and Murray will be out of slam contention in 2 years because of their style of play as you contend.

This is not the 80s were a teenager would rise to the top and be burned out by 25 and it has not been that way really for about a decade or more. So all this talk about murray and Djokovic being old for tennis is rather laughable when players are having their best seasons in the late 20s and early 30s, in fact both Murray and djokovic are still in their primes and barring injury and burnout I have no doubt will be in contention for a few more years.

Sorry it sounds to me like you want to ignore recent history of the tour and wish these two would go away in a year or two because you don't like their style of play.

What are you talking about Socal! Homo is absolutely spot on, probably because he/she bothered to do what you possibly have never done in your life: reading the history books! Don't you realise that your argument is always revolving around the same old two guys; Agassi and Ferrer. What does it tell you if out of several hundreds players only two seem to be competitive and winning big events over 30, from a statistical pov? Probably nothing

Funny I have a history degree from UCLA and know more about history than you could possibly fathom with your limited ability to reason. How is this for a broad based fact? 25 percent of the top 100 is over 30, completely unheard of. So obviously this trend exists and I am not making anything up, I don't want to break up you and Homo love parade with actual facts and logic. So now tell me why you think Murray and Djokovic will buck the trend and be out of contention after 2 years for slams? Do you just reflexively take the opposite side of whatever I say?

Uhmm interesting jhm did't feel as compelled to intervene for this rather unkind remark from Socal....

You're quite right J_K, but I simply hadn't read it yet. socal will, I hope, consider himself suitably reprimanded.
I trust everyone will now play nice from hereon in. It's the way of the future

Anyway, I still think that Djoko and Murray will be at the business end of a number of slams until at least the end of 2015.

Thanks. That said I am absolutely positive that Djoko could amass as much as 9 to 10 slams while Murray could well reach the 4-5 range, I just don't see them being still such a dominant force after say a couple more seasons.

by socal1976 Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:06 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Sure players miss tournaments from time to time and its possible Murray's career could be curtailed by his back but I think you would get good odds from a bookie on neither of the current top 2 winning a slam after 2015. All anyone has said is that based on the current trend for players to play at or near their best in the 28-30 bracket and the lack of firebreathing youngsters lining up it seems more likely than not that Novak/Andy will still be challenging for slams when they are 29-30. If you look at the line up behind Federer when he was the same age then you could see where the challenge was likely to come from.

Exactly, it is an analysis and prediction of the future and as such there is always an inherent risk especially when dealing with something as fickle as tennis. But the trendline and the past results are pointing strongly to both Murray and djokovic being in contention for some time. Many argue that their style of play is somehow going to grind them down but, pretty much most players play a baseline game with an emphasis on defense and fitness, these guys just do it better than the others. If you want to look at durability and consistency of the two players in question over their careers I think one would have to give pretty strong odds for someone to bet against these two winning a fair share of slams. And to come out and say that they will be out of contention in 2 years is fine and good, but there really is nothing to base this belief on. It is one possibility for the future but probably the most unlikely.

by Born Slippy Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:00 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:This thing about players getting older. Here's the 2001 YE Top Ten and their ages:

Hewitt 20
Kuerten 25
Agassi 31
Kafelnikov 27
Ferrero 21
Grosjean 23
Rafter 29
Haas 23
Henman 27
Sampras 30

Two players in their 30s. Average age 25.6.

The 2012 YE Top Ten:

Djokovic 25
Federer 31
Murray 25
Nadal 26
Ferrer 30
Berdych 27
Del Potro 24
Tsonga 27
Tipsarevic 28
Gasquet 26

Two players in their 30s. Average age 26.9.

Very little difference statistically. The only real difference is two very young guys in 2001, Hewitt and Ferrero.

We are not seeing players lasting longer. We are just seeing a young generation who are not good enough to step up.

Just did a little statistical work on this. I took rankings now and exactly 10 years ago and analysed the top 50. The average age of the top 50 in 2003 was 25.2 and the average age now is a fairly significantly increased 27.5.

In relation to the age breakdown, there were 12 players 22 or under in the top 50 in 2003 compared to 4 now. Similarly, there are 13 over 30 players now compared to 6 in 2003.

However, the age profiles of the mid range from 23-29 is interesting. In 2003 the balance was towards the younger end with 14 players aged between 23-25, 7 players actually aged 26 and 10 in the 26-29 range. Now, the balance is very top heavy. Only 9 players sit in the 23-25 range with 5 aged 26. A colossal 19 players are aged 27-29.

The conclusion I would draw from those stats is that it is more a steady increase in the age of a top pro, albeit that a dearth of top youngsters coming through is not helping the situation.

What that means by the way is that only 13 of the current top 50 are younger than Novak and Andy to any degree. This is the number of players by age from 20-35:

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
1. 0. 3. 1. 6. 2. 5. 7. 6. 6. 1. 7. 2. 1. 1. 1

by bogbrush Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:05 pm

The increase in ages still suggest to me that >29 isn't a great Slam winning period. They may be hanging around, but to win the big things looks as tough as ever once you're over the hill.

by lags72 Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:25 pm

Very true bb.

There was much talk recently of Haas being proof that great things can be achieved well beyond 30. Nobody can deny Tommy credit for clawing his way back to within a whisker of a top ten spot, but the fact remains that Slam titles - or even Masters - remain extreme rarities once your twenties have passed.

Only one player (Ashe) has won an open era Wimbledon when older than Fed was at the time of his 2012 victory. And with Fed now about to hit 32, the chances of him eclipsing his own achievement become even more remote : only three players aged >32 have won ANY Slam in the past 45 years.

So as bb says, there may well be a plethora of OAP's hanging around (with several continuing to perform very respectably) BUT winning the stuff that really counts is altogether a different matter......

by socal1976 Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:43 pm

Sampras, Agassi, and Federer are the last three multislam champions of note all won slams after the age of thirty. People are saying that Murray and Djokovic will not contend for slams after 28 I think are underselling these two hugely. And the trendline since two of these players retired has been for older players having more success. So players who have slams in them are winning them past thirty in this modern period. This is a big shift from the 80s and 90s where for the most part it was unheard of for even a great player in their 30s to win slams. Connors for all his longevity won his last slam at 28 I believe. Mac and Borg where much younger than that when they won their last slam. That simply is not the nature of the tour and has not been for quite a few years.

by lags72 Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:00 pm

socal, I don't really see much evidence of the trend you suggest for older players having Slam success. Indeed, if anything it might even be going the other way.

Here are the number of Slam titles taken by players aged 30+ over recent decades:

70's - 6
80's - 2 (both by Connors)
90's - 2
00's - 3

and since 2010 - 1

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:15 pm

Thanks Lags, for providing an answer to a question I also had previously wondered about. According to this piece of evidence it doesn't look there's the clear trend that some seem so keen to identify.

by Danny_1982 Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:25 pm

Interesting discussion this.

I have a simple question, if in 3 years or so Murray and Djokovic are not winning slams.... Who do people think will be?

That's not a loaded question. 3 years is not far away, and being as there are no teenagers in the top 100 I'm wondering who people think will be in the next generation of slam winners.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:44 pm

Murray and Djoko are both 26. At Wimby 2016 they will have just turned 29. Seems reasonable to say they have a very good chance over the next 2 years, and good chance for another year after that (say, til the end of USO 2016, age 29 and 4 months).
That's 13 more slams - quite possible for Murray to get another couple, Djoko another 3.
The other main contender would be Delpo, if he can remain fit for a long enough period of time.
Maybe Nishikori, Janowicz....Granollers Smile

by HM Murdock Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:30 am

Injury permitting, I find it very easy to imagine Del Potro getting a couple more slams before he's done.

Janowicz, even without a good return game, made the SF of Wimbledon, albeit with a draw that fell particularly nicely for him. If he can improve his return game, he could well be a serious contender.

Nishikori strikes me as a future top tenner but I doubt he has the weapons to win slams. Plus, at 23, he needs to improve pretty soon or he'll probably miss his chance. To put him in context, he's the age Djokovic was as 2011 began!

Dimitrov - nice game but, let's be honest, he is way short of where he needs to be. His best performance at a slam is 3rd round and he's only managed that once. Time is still on his side (he's 22) but he needs to step up soon.

Raonic - strikes me as the hype about the serve distracts from a rather average game. He's approaching 23 and his best slam effort is 4th round at Wimbledon last year.

If we are looking for the next regular slam winner, I suspect they will probably be in two generations time i.e. born about 1995. They'll be 22 when Andy, Novak and Rafa are 30.

by Sponsored content

Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Re: Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires