Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

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?

JHM, I agree that at the end of the day, it is the admins'/moderators' decision how they run their forum so I will try not to get into a very long discussion on this topic.  Nevertheless, I want to make a couple of comments in response to your response:

JuliusHMarx wrote:SB, you say they are "often they are extreme caricatures of reality", but HE says they are "genuine opinions". There seems to be a conflict of views there.

But surely that should not be a problem.  I would almost say that conflicts of views are the raison d'etre of a forum.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If wumming doesn't upset people then fine. If wumming upsets people, then the wummer gets a warning, with instructions not to keep wumming. If the wummer keeps wumming, and that wumming  keeps upsetting people, the wummer gets a temp ban.

I would much prefer a different approach.  Set an objective guideline as to what is ok and what is not, and then follow that.  If a poster crosses the line, take action even if nobody complains.  However, if they do not cross the line, then allow them to stay regardless of what others may say.  Your approach is pretty much an invitation to complain.  Also, some posters are just more likely to complain than others, and your approach will effectively give those posters a disproportionate say in how the forum is run.

summerblues wrote:Set an objective guideline as to what is ok and what is not, and then follow that.  If a poster crosses the line, take action even if nobody complains.  However, if they do not cross the line, then allow them to stay regardless of what others may say

But that's what already happens. You seem to be arguing for freedom of speech, regardless of the impact on others then next minute agree that the impact on others should be taken into account

I guess you think HE's treatment is harsh. I don't it's been long overdue. We can't have people on an intelligent forum who's agenda is only to have constant digs at one player. It's not as though HE isn't capable of better - she's written lots of good articles

In this thread I posted a series of facts and ask her to answer - she didn't simply because it torpedoed her arguments against Murray. So she posts an article and doesn't bother answering questions put to her. Where's the sense in that??

banbrotam. I was banned for writing this article. How can I answer your questions about it? My views are not acceptable here so if I answer your question I will risk getting banned again. This is great news for you as your views will remain unchallenged.

It's clear to me this forum suffers with the main problem with most online.  It's a clique. I am speaking purely as someone who only just joined up.  You've got around 4 or 5 core members who are buddy buddy with the moderators.  The moderators are too involved to be impartial, and are often basing decisions on if they like the post/poster, and not what is being said.  I have been abused numerous times here and no action taken (except once where I pm'd a mod).  On the other hand, I have already been banned 3 times, once for the entire duration of Wimbledon (or on this forum, Wumbledon).  The bans were completely disproportionate, and one of your mods indeed admitted that.  He was very proud that he had the power to mod as he pleased.  

This forum is never going to be half as successful as it should be until you clear out the current stock of mods and get someone in who will just judge from afar, and not be party to the problem. I don't see that ever happening, so good luck.   As you have all no doubt realised, I am unconcerned with whether I am banned permanently or not.  Within the first few days I realised this wasn't going to be the forum for me.  Negative opinions and those that contravene the clique here are seen as something to be stamped out.

It's just very crap really.  I don't know why Hawkeye gets so much stick.  I haven't been here long enough to know the person, but the ones who are going all gung ho seem to the same people who tried to wreck my other thread and are more than likely pressing report button every 2 minutes on posts they don't agree with, like children.

Hmmmm.........I have not reported a single person in all the time I have been on here.

You are the one who is flinging personal insults around. You put forward a weak argument in a combative manner then basically complained when people challenged it.

The mods are fair. They are not Murray fans and, if you bothered to read the forum properly, you would see all the debates we have re various players. There are many players I am not fond of but I don't feel the need to whine about it.

banbrotam wrote:You seem to be arguing for freedom of speech, regardless of the impact on others then next minute agree that the impact on others should be taken into account

I do not understand.  Where do you see me arguing about "regardless of the impact" or "impact should be taken into account"?  To be honest, I think I said neither.

Yes, I broadly prefer what you term "free speech" to the lack thereof.  Of course, it does not mean that posters can write absolutely anything.  Certainly, posts abusing other posters - for example - will hopefully not be allowed.  On the other hand, I certainly do not think that posters should be banned because their posts are wrong or repetitive or because someone is offended by them.

If its not the forum for you, why not depart?

I personally have not reported anyone since I've been on here. But we all know the difference between someone writing articles or posts to deliberately annoy people and those that are just stating their own views.

Whether people think it's right or wrong, the people who run and moderate this site want to attract new people to the forum and deliberately annoying or aggressive articles do little to help them achieve that.

In recent days people have created articles not to discuss but to agitate, and I for one can fully understand why the mods take exception to them. Those articles don't bother me, I find them amusing at times... But I totally understand the view the mods take.

It's their forum at the end of the day.

legendkillarV2 wrote:If its not the forum for you, why not depart?

I am not sure if this was meant as a question for me:

There are certain things I like about this forum, and there are others I like less.  I am not saying that on balance the latter category outweighs the former to the point where I would not enjoy myself here, I am just commenting on one facet of this forum where I would prefer a different approach - recognizing that at the end of the day the owners run the forum as they see fit.

_homogenised_ wrote:It's clear to me this forum suffers with the main problem with most online.  It's a clique. I am speaking purely as someone who only just joined up.  You've got around 4 or 5 core members who are buddy buddy with the moderators.  The moderators are too involved to be impartial, and are often basing decisions on if they like the post/poster, and not what is being said.  I have been abused numerous times here and no action taken (except once where I pm'd a mod).  On the other hand, I have already been banned 3 times, once for the entire duration of Wimbledon (or on this forum, Wumbledon).  The bans were completely disproportionate, and one of your mods indeed admitted that.  He was very proud that he had the power to mod as he pleased.  

This forum is never going to be half as successful as it should be until you clear out the current stock of mods and get someone in who will just judge from afar, and not be party to the problem. I don't see that ever happening, so good luck.   As you have all no doubt realised, I am unconcerned with whether I am banned permanently or not.  Within the first few days I realised this wasn't going to be the forum for me.  Negative opinions and those that contravene the clique here are seen as something to be stamped out.

It's just very crap really.  I don't know why Hawkeye gets so much stick.  I haven't been here long enough to know the person, but the ones who are going all gung ho seem to the same people who tried to wreck my other thread and are more than likely pressing report button every 2 minutes on posts they don't agree with, like children.

I'm not buddy buddy with anyone - I don't PM anyone for friendly chat or have strong favourites among the current players - my favourites have long since retired. I admit I prefer posters who are friendly and respectful to other posters, and who don't write wum articles and who are prepared to enter into sensible and civilized discussions. If that makes partial against those who can't do that, then that is what it is I guess.
In your case your bans have been for specific infringements of the rules (the first one was not even on the tennis forum). After that, as is the policy of the site, each succeeding ban is longer than the previous one.
I may be more lenient with long term posters who have contributed positively e.g. I have tolerated hawkeye's anti-Murray WUM crusade for a long time, yet HE continues with it despite previous warnings not to.
I'm not sure who the mod was who admitted you previous ban was disproportionate. I get no kicks out of being a mod, it's a lot of hassle and in the past when we asked a few people to help out, so that I could not have to do it so much, they were unable to assist.
If successful means twice as many posters but with people ranting at each other, insulting each other, winding each other up and being intolerant of each other's views (pretty much like the News section until it got shut down), then I guess we are unsuccessful.

Danny_1982 wrote:I personally have not reported anyone since I've been on here. But we all know the difference between someone writing articles or posts to deliberately annoy people and those that are just stating their own views.

Whether people think it's right or wrong, the people who run and moderate this site want to attract new people to the forum and deliberately annoying or aggressive articles do little to help them achieve that.

In recent days people have created articles not to discuss but to agitate, and I for one can fully understand why the mods take exception to them. Those articles don't bother me, I find them amusing at times... But I totally understand the view the mods take.

It's their forum at the end of the day.

It's not my forum, of course, by any means, but yes, I know for a fact that deliberately annoying or aggressive articles prevent new members from joining and drive existing ones away. That's my main objection to them.

summerblues wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If its not the forum for you, why not depart?

I am not sure if this was meant as a question for me:

There are certain things I like about this forum, and there are others I like less.  I am not saying that on balance the latter category outweighs the former to the point where I would not enjoy myself here, I am just commenting on one facet of this forum where I would prefer a different approach - recognizing that at the end of the day the owners run the forum as they see fit.

It was for homo

hawkeye wrote:banbrotam. I was banned for writing this article. How can I answer your questions about it? My views are not acceptable here so if I answer your question I will risk getting banned again. This is great news for you as your views will remain unchallenged.

HE, I would have thought its even better news for you. As they are pretty irrefutable and you can hide behind this 'risk' of a further ban even though I suspect the ban was not for rational coherent debate. Now you can just ignore all the logic that often torpedoes most of your anti-Murray articles. Which you pretty much do anyway. So this strengthens your position still further.

I don't come on here as much as i'd like but the mods only seem to appear when absolutely necessary. Which is how it should be. Quite simply, someone has to police an internet site. If people don't want to do it themselves, don't criticise those that do. Imagine what it would be like without them. It would be a million times worse.

There are many excellent posters on here. Keep up the good work.

Johnyjeep wrote:

hawkeye wrote:banbrotam. I was banned for writing this article. How can I answer your questions about it? My views are not acceptable here so if I answer your question I will risk getting banned again. This is great news for you as your views will remain unchallenged.

HE, I would have thought its even better news for you. As they are pretty irrefutable and you can hide behind this 'risk' of a further ban even though I suspect the ban was not for rational coherent debate. Now you can just ignore all the logic that often torpedoes most of your anti-Murray articles. Which you pretty much do anyway. So this strengthens your position still further.

I don't come on here as much as i'd like but the mods only seem to appear when absolutely necessary. Which is how it should be. Quite simply, someone has to police an internet site. If people don't want to do it themselves, don't criticise those that do. Imagine what it would be like without them. It would be a million times worse.

There are many excellent posters on here. Keep up the good work.  

Great post.

hawkeye wrote:banbrotam. I was banned for writing this article. How can I answer your questions about it? My views are not acceptable here so if I answer your question I will risk getting banned again. This is great news for you as your views will remain unchallenged.

More political bunkum!! You're back on and have written many views since your ban - so could easily answer my post without risking a ban.

I've yet to find a single person banned on this forum for answering a counter argument in a fair minded constructive manner

First and foremost, people should not write articles unless they have something genuine to say that has not been discussed in other threads, because that would be spamming ones opinion.

Whats the point of dredging up old threads with nothing new to add to the debate.

Forums are for discussion, not for blatant arguing, or arguing for the sake of it. Giving one's opinion is good, even arguing that opinion is fine, but the term arguing has to be defined, its not rowing or quibbling over extremes and its certainly not quarrelling.

Those are all facets of being purposefully contentious and antagonistic. This will only breed contempt amongst posters and leads to insults and petty squabbling.

There is only one remedy, that of being responsible for what you write and behaving in a sociable manner. That requires thinking about what you are contributing to a forum. Subject matter should be provocative in an interesting way, inviting comment.

I feel articles should not be a vehicle to express your opinion all the time, but to bring refreshing posts and intrigue to the place. Its not a chat room, the old 606 had a 3 min rule to stop all that and it worked, but was frustrating as hell.

You should feel lucky V2 doesn't have that rule and so really, we should all try to play by the forum rules and try to get on as best we can. There is a distinct polarization of player support on the forums, so in the interests of the future of the tennis section, we have to accept that other players and their supporters deserve respect and courtesy towards them and try to make the site an exciting place for prospective members to come and join in the conversation.

Thanks Danny  

Johnyjeep wrote:Thanks Danny  

 

Back to the OP, Djokovic seems to view RG as Federer did RG from 2004-2008. Recall what he said...

Clay is not my problem, Rafa is.

Djokovic is in the same boat, despite passage of a few years. Nadal is unwilling to abdicate on the biggest Clay prize there is. He considers it his personal domain.

Like Federer, he could beat Nadal on clay, but not just at RG.

Age (and Nadal's knees) and patience might be a virtue that would help Djokovic.

Murray is not a threat on Clay, and unless Lendl conjures the parting of the Red Sea (aka RG terra-battue), it will be Nadal with a big Mallorca Bull's eye on his back, perhaps till Nadal retires.

Well you win ti as much as Rafa you raise the stakes every year, he is eventually going to be caught up. Djokos the likeliest candidate.
To be honest apart from Rafa who could stop Djoko on clay? I agree that Murrays not really a force on the dirt... delpo maybe?

falzy21 wrote:To be honest apart from Rafa who could stop Djoko on clay? I agree that Murrays not really a force on the dirt... delpo maybe?

I actually think the best chance lies with a big hitter who plays well and doesn't blink when they get near the finish line. In other words, another Soderling performance! I think it is within JMDP to do this.

Novak has the game to beat Rafa but he's lost the mental battle at RG on the last two occasions. He was awful in 2012 and, although a bit better in 2013, he still wobbled on some big points. I don't really know how he can turn this round. His best chance is perhaps if he gets a few victories over Rafa in other events and hope that some of Rafa's old demons re-awaken.

I'd be more optimistic Murdoch. I believe, and I really mean this, that if you put he two of them on full form together at RG, Nadal only wins if its at its hottest, driest state. Anything normal or cooler and Djokovic wins.

He should have won this year, only a freakish incident stopped him.

If a player keeps having matches that he should win and doesn't win them it stops becoming freakish. I'm going to put a small bet on Rafa never again relinquishing his RG title before he retires

And does full form mean the Rafa we saw this year at RG on full form or 2008/10 Rafa on clay?

bogbrush wrote:I'd be more optimistic Murdoch. I believe, and I really mean this, that if you put he two of them on full form together at RG, Nadal only wins if its at its hottest, driest state. Anything normal or cooler and Djokovic wins.

He should have won this year, only a freakish incident stopped him.

I tend to agree but it seems that the "on full form" is a tricky condition to meet!

I think Rafa has been vulnerable on clay for the last 3 seasons. Novak has got 3 wins in that period but there have been as many, if not more, bad performances.

Monte Carlo 12 and RG 12 were very poor. Rome 12 wasn't great. And the exciting conclusion of RG13 has glossed over the fact that Novak was pretty poor for much of that game too.

Some of this, of course, is that Rafa on clay makes it hard for people to play well. But I also think Novak has struggled mentally in some of these games. Rafa has too, for that matter, but he's proved more resilient at getting the job done.

That's why I think someone like Del Potro, who's good enough to blast anyone off court but doesn't have the pressure of being a title-favourite, may be the type of player to pull off the upset.

ChequeredJersey wrote:And does full form mean the Rafa we saw this year at RG on full form or 2008/10 Rafa on clay?

I meant full form now. I believe he was significantly better back then and that he has a lower maximum now.

ChequeredJersey wrote:If a player keeps having matches that he should win and doesn't win them it stops becoming freakish. I'm going to put a small bet on Rafa never again relinquishing his RG title before he retires

That's a very silly bet since this year he was close to going out in R1. Next year he will be beaten.

Close to going out in round 1 --> won it beating the World number 1 in the process. If he is still fit enough to continue playing, writing off Rafa at RG would be a tad foolish

Djokovic will get Nadal at RG, wait and see it will happen. He should of done it each of the last two years but he hit that mental and belief hurdle against Nadal and Nadal is damn good on the surface. People seem to put too much stock in the failed attempts against Nadal on clay and don't seem to see how much closer the rivalry is on clay post 2011 than before. For the first time Nadal actually has someone who can beat him when he is healthy and in form on the clay, that has never been the case before. In short, just like Djokovic worked tirelessly to get to #1 and break up the fedal duopoly I am sure one day he will get his RG title whether he has to go through Nadal or not. The man is the greatest clay courter of all time so the bar is high, but Djokovic matches up well against him and is a monster in his own right. And judging by how Djokovic has attained pretty much every other goal in his life with a combination of talent and single minded focus and discipline then I think this goal is more likely to fall to the serb's siege tactics than to hold out.

socal1976 wrote:Djokovic will get Nadal at RG, wait and see it will happen.
.....
I think this goal is more likely to fall to the serb's siege tactics than to hold out.

I tend to agree, but I would nevertheless point out that Nole is also starting to get older now.  I expect he is reaching the age where he will start sliding down - perhaps very slowly at first, and with no apparent young pursuers, it may not initially show in the rankings very much, but I think from now on, it will be more about keeping the level close to where it is now rather than about getting any better.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Djokovic will get Nadal at RG, wait and see it will happen.
.....
I think this goal is more likely to fall to the serb's siege tactics than to hold out.

I tend to agree, but I would nevertheless point out that Nole is also starting to get older now.  I expect he is reaching the age where he will start sliding down - perhaps very slowly at first, and with no apparent young pursuers, it may not initially show in the rankings very much, but I think from now on, it will be more about keeping the level close to where it is now rather than about getting any better.

Sure SB, I mean it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion but if I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Novak. As for his level dropping I actually thinking Novak is still improving, he is not having the results of 2011 because progress can come in fits and starts it is not always a straight line procession. He has had to adjust to being the hunted and the added pressures of #1 and it is not always an easy transition. Overrall, I think he will maintain this level and actually play a bit better than 2012 and 2013 in the future.

Novak is 26, so I think he's got a good couple of years at least before his movement slows down at all. His movement as as good as ever. The rest of his game is in good shape too and he only ever loses to top, top players.

Lets remember that if Murray hadnt raised his game Novak would be the holder of 3 slams right now, so if there is any talk of Novak being off form or not the man he was we're talking fractions.

I think he will win the French either next year or the year after.

Tales of Novak's decline or that he won't get better are a ludricous as they were after last years US Open.

Apparently he had a big problem, was all at sea etc

As we clearly saw at the O2 and Aus Open  

Yes Danny, lets not forget how well Murray has played in the last 12 months putting up much more resistance than Novak received in 2011. It is an arms race between the two, I think both guys will get their big wins in against the other and be the dominant forces off of the clay. Now on clay in regards to the FO, Nadal was down in the 5th set and a bonehead play away from losing his grip on the FO. Djokovic in the last two years has beaten Nadal in Madrid, in rome, and at MC and we know that 5 sets is no barrier to Djokovic like it might be for other contenders to Nadal's crown.

I think Djokovic has to win it by 2015 or he'll miss out.

The good news for him is that I'm pretty sure he will.

Miss out to whom?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Miss out to whom?

A very good question, outside of Nadal and maybe Del Po on excellent form I don't see too many guys right now that can challenge Djokovic off of clay. Since 2011 he has very clearly been the second best clay courter in the world and by a pretty large margin.

Danny_1982 wrote:Novak is 26, so I think he's got a good couple of years at least before his movement slows down at all. His movement as as good as ever. The rest of his game is in good shape too and he only ever loses to top, top players.

Lets remember that if Murray hadnt raised his game Novak would be the holder of 3 slams right now, so if there is any talk of Novak being off form or not the man he was we're talking fractions.

I think he will win the French either next year or the year after.

he's got 2 years. He is now leaving his prime biological age, and the onset of reduced ability is a steep slope from here.  It doesn't happen slowly, and it gets worse.  By 30 he will not even be in contention for slams anymore.  Just watch.  All you need to do is look at players who have won a slam past age 27 to tell you this.  Also, just because there is no real opposition to him on clay now aside from Nadal does not mean there won't be in 2 years. You are going on as if Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are going to be at their best for another 5 years, and circumstances are going to remain largely unchanged. They're not.

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.

socal1976 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Miss out to whom?

A very good question, outside of Nadal and maybe Del Po on excellent form I don't see too many guys right now that can challenge Djokovic off of clay. Since 2011 he has very clearly been the second best clay courter in the world and by a pretty large margin.

Since I said he'll win it by 2015 but if he didn't he'd miss out, the concept that there's not too many guys right now doesn't really have any bearing on my post.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Miss out to whom?

Dunno, I just reckon the guy's got a window outside of which his decline will take it away from him.

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  

The history books are being re-written J_K, with the average age of the top 10, top 20, top 100 (can't remember which exactly, maybe all of them) increasing by about 3 years over the last decade or so.
It may be a bit early to tell if this is a long-term effect, but at the moment it seems more likely than not that Murray and Djokovic will be competing for slams for at least another 2 or 3 years, possibly more.

PS please refrain from derogatory personal statements in your posts.

Well, you say that. So far I can't see many 28 - 30 years old winning slams. There's one who won a couple of them, still performed much better few years ago...........

JK ......who do you see being slam winners/contenders in three to four years time. A serious question by the way.

Oh and do remember that Roger Federer himself realises players look after themselves much better now with a team of dietician's ensuring correct and healthiest of diets are adhered to, masseurs, trainers and fitness coaches. He stated that is why players now can compete into their 30's.

Remember that is not stamina or resilience that are more affected by decline. It's muscular explosiveness, flexibility, reaction times and focus that go first. All attributes that can be hardly trained. As for who will be winning slams, probably they will be shared more in the next few years.

And who do you think will be sharing them? If you don't mind me asking?

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.

Do that for the top 100 and see whether there is still very little difference. There are simply a huge amount of guys 30+ in the top 100 now.

It depends how you look at it though. Ferrer is 31 and going through a purple patch in his career and Haas (ranked just outside the top ten) is in his mid-30's and is also going through a rich vein of form. Definitely agree about the younger generation but perhaps Dimitrov and Janowicz are on the brink of stepping up?

It still begs the question of who will be slam contenders in three or four years time?