The '850' rule

Ok guys...something for you to mull over.
I wanted to analyse where the red line starts that defines when the greats hardly win any more slams...i.e. when does decline start so that they won 0 or 1 more slam?
I figured looking at numbers of matches played on ATP tour is a good indicator of mileage, and where decline may start.

So, I've taken a look at multislam guys who played ~800 or more ATP matches, and at least played into the 90s...ie. modern players.
That captures nearly all the Open Era greats we know anyway.
Take a look at the numbers below and I'll conclude with Nadal, Murray and Djokovic (Murray isn't really a multislammer as such but have thrown him in anyway).

McEnroe = 1073 total games
Hit 658 in winning US Open 1984…won no more slams

Mats Wilander = 793 total games
Hit 569 in winning US Open 1988…no more slams

Lendl = 1310 total games
Hit 867 in winning Australian Open 1989…won 1 more slam

Edberg = 1076 total games
Hit 751 in winning US Open 1992…won no more slams

Becker = 927 total games
Hit 809 in winning Australian Open 1996…won no more slams

Sampras = 984 total games
Hit 851 in winning Wimbledon 2000…won 1 more slam

Agassi = 1144 total games
Hit 847 in winning Australian Open…won 1 more slam

Federer = 1312 total games
Hit 850 in winning Australian Open 2010…won 1 more slam

Nadal = 962 total games
Hit 834 in winning French 2014…no more slams

Djokovic = 867 total games
Hit 839 in winning Australian 2016…# slams in future?

Murray = 744 total games
Hits 750 matches going into summer 2016... # slams in future?
Looks like he still has time on his side until end of 2017 season to hit the 850 mark and more slams, after 2017 seems smaller chances of winning a slam.


Summary
So 850 games played (hence the thread title) in recent times seems to be a cut-off point where guys either win either 0 or 1 more slam.
In other words, 850 games in recent times played seems to be watermark of decline setting in.
Djokovic has arrived at that number

Indeed with Djokovic being at 867, he's already ahead of the 850 rule and at the same place Lendl was after winning AO89.
So that tends to mean 1 more slam at most if the numbers are a predictor.
Therefore, his final #GS tally could be 11-12.

Either way, Federer's 17 GS seems very safe...and possibly Nadal's #14 too.
Or Djokovic is going to have to do something no other great above has done...that's win multiple slams well into the high 800s and 900s.

What do you make of this?
The next 4 slams (RG/Wimb/USO/AO17) could be won in a relatively small time frame of 7-8 months.
It would take him to ~70 matches more on the ATP calendar which would push him to ~940 which is where Federer was around AO2011...Fed won Wimb2012...
So is up to 15+ GS feasible...or does recent history say that simply can't happen?

Interesting take on it. Still, with Novak where he is now vs. the rest of the field it's still smart money to see him win about 2/4/5/6 slams at least in the next 1/2/3/4 years.

Agree that's what it feels like should happen but if it does happen - and it hasnt before - then why would that be?
Paucity of talent coming through vs. what every other guy above faced?
Would that mean we're headed into a weak era if the guys before couldn't achieve 2+ slams after 850 matches?
Or has something else changed in the game...?

Very good.  The flexibility in taking the count at the 0 to 1 last slam measure was inspired.  One could analyse how the spread in the slams are distributed.  

Federer won at least a slam a year up til 2010 and then there was a 2.5 year gap (2012).  There was a two year gap for appearing in another final (2014), but then he appeared in two finals in (2015).  In 2016 he has just pulled out of the French Open due to injury.

Sampras: He won at least one slam a year from 1993 to 2000 then there was a 2.25 year gap to his next slam win and then he retired.

Lendl's distribution was different he won at least one slam a year from 1984 to 1990 except for the year 1988, but he did reach a final in 1988.

Just looked at Andre Agassi's distribution of slams --> that's just a bit weird.

I think there is more than one factor in it - and this extra factor may help Djokovic "break the mould" - but you are predicting a near term collapse in Djokovic at least in relation to the other players.  You are also implying that Djokovic might be hiding a few physical issues.  It certainly a warning to Djokovic to scale back his schedule.  He does seem to be hitting some sort of difficulty if we judge his recent clay court performance --> he is about two notches down from invincibility.

I would guess number of matches played versus age is correlated to a reasonable degree.  Hence comparisons with slams won after reaching age of 29, after reaching an age of 30, after reaching an age of 31.

You mentioned elsewhere that Agassi had one third of the total of wins post turning the age of 29 - and this may be explained it seems in terms of having numerous time outs.  PS I suppose those matches of Agassi only relate to ATP matches --> I seem to recall he spent at least 6 months or so on the ITF circuit mid career to help him regain form.

... thinking about it an additional factor will be sets played.  In the past non-Slam tournaments included some best of five matches.  I suppose the intensity of the tournament is also a factor - the intensity seems to be greater now than in the past - although this seems to be matched by improved professionalism and fitness.

I have just thought of something else that might help Djokovic: a rising tide effect.  His major challengers already have a high number of matches behind them (Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Federer).  So there is also a "differences in mileage" between the multi-slammer and the "realistic challengers" to consider.  It seems nowadays the youngsters need more mileage in the tank to gain the experience to learn how to challenge the multi-slammers over a tournament scenario. This is the rising tide effect.

One does feel that post-Djokovic there is going to be a period of "chaos" with many different players winning slams.  Murray may gain himself a few slams if he can outlast Djokovic - which he might be able to do given he is "about 1.5 years younger" than Djokovic in terms of "professional tennis mileage"

Great well thought out response NS...some interesting posits back.
For sure Andre's career was up and down, the mid career slump definitely helped his longevity but his pattern, like Sampras and Federer was the same...at 850 games he won 1 more slam as they did. Its kind of weird how the numbers are very similar.

Yes numbers of sets and length of matches could be key also...Djokovic must have spent more time on court than Sampras or Agassi relatively did given surface slowing and racquet tech which keeps the ball in play longer. However, there is a theory that faster court play is actually more damaging on the body due to the dynamic stress being higher...not sure I fully agree with that but it may explain (partly) why todays guys aren't burnt out by 29/30 considering the length of matches these days. Good point on Masters and WTF events that used to be 5 sets also...but then ranking was based on best of 14 not 18 events as it is now, and Masters 1000 (or Super9 back then) were not as mandatory to be entered. Think they had to enter 6, now its 8. So, give and take in many directions...

And yet the numbers still seem to correlate...1 slam max. past 850 matches. So is it mental mileage that counts the most?
I'm not sure any diet or fitness regime can alleviate mental miles on the clock and I wonder when that will kick in for Djokovic as it seems to have done for Nadal in 2015 (note Nadal has played 100 more matches...which is well over a season's worth).

Yes I feel Djokovic may be at the cross-roads...how much longer can he sustain the intensity vs. the guys below him? Goffin, mentioned on the other thread is a late bloomer and "only" played 200 matches by 25.5 yo...he has plenty of miles on the clock and hunger with it. Kyrgios and the others have played far less...all hungry in the chase.

If you look at the current top guys, they have played the following total of matches:

Federer - 1312
Ferrer - 976 (lasting well...but no threat to slams)
Nadal - 962
Djokovic - 867
Robredo - 866
Berdych - 834 (entering the decline zone for any kind of slam threat...)
Lopez - 769 (doing ok for nr. 35 yo)
Murray - 744
Verdasco - 743
Simon - 733
Gasquet - 670...
Stan - 638 (still miles on the slam clock?)
Monfils - 574...
Tsonga - 535 (! not that many played...lots of injury)
Nishikori - 402 (lots of miles left...)
Raonic - 340 (loads left...)

If you look at those who retired in last 10-15 years...
Goran - 932 (won Wimb at 876)
Kafelnikov - 915
Muster - 900
Moya - 889
Haas - 887
Hewitt - 878
Roddick - 835
Davydenko - 811
Henman - 770
Courier - 743
Rusedski - 723
Corretja - 719
Bruguera - 718
Safin - 689
Costa - 655
Rios - 583
Nalby - 580
Rafter - 550
Coria - 322 (!)

So, it seems not many players tend to go much above 850-900 period, never mind be a slam threat.

I am glad that your research proved another point that everyone argued with me on, when I stated that the prime and slam winning windows of tennis players were increasing due to the nature of the tour. Interestingly in the 80s players stopped winning slams around the 600 win mark and we have seen a steady increase in that number. Now guys are winning slams close to the 800 win mark.

By the way why did you not include Fed's last slam in the analysis and only included that he won quote:"won 1 slam afterwards" well doesn't that skew your analysis when for everyone else you use their last slam as the yardstick and for Fed you use his second to last slam as the yardstick to make your point?

In fact, I think Djokovic will more closely mirror Fed who won a slam much later than any of these other guys and Agassi. Agassi won 3 slams after 30, I think Novak has a very good chance at that record. No coincidence that the number from the 90s has consistently been moving up and later in their career, showing that players can play at slam winning level for a longer period of time. This is another benefit of the slow conditions that frequently gets ignored.

So basically you come up with the 850 rule but Federer has already broken the 850 rule by a country mile and therefore I am kind of left scratching my head as to whether there even is an 850 rule. Does anyone know how many match wins Fed had at Wimby 2012 his last slam it has to be way more than 850?

Thanks socal, I don't think it does skew the analysis because we see Agassi, Sampras and Federer all around 850 matches where they only had 1 more slam left in them. To look beyond shows no correlation and we're trying to find when correlations come together. The 850 rule stands because there is a good correlation showing when you get to that level you don't win more than 1 more slam! Not 2-3-4-5...just 1.

Yes, players in the 80s/90s tended to win last slams (or 1st slams in many cases) around 600 mark.
But when you look at longevity of matches, not slams won, it does seem similarish to now. But then quite a few guys played 800 and 900+ matches. There aren't many playing now who are above 800 tbh.

Yes clearly Fed is an anomaly but then Agassi lasted a long time...as did Lendl. Even Mac and Edberg got above 1000 matches. So I don't see why todays guys as a whole are any longer lasting - the stats don't really prove that. However, the time to last slam appears to be creeping up indicating they play at a higher level for longer, then perhaps fall off a cliff.

But I don't really buy the Djoko/Fed analogy. We haven't seen Djokovic's longevity yet...he's 100s away matches away from Fed, and Fed won Wimb12 at 1039 matches...I just don't see Djokovic being able to do that due to his game style which has been more bruising. Time will tell. Agassi might have been over 30 but he lad less miles/matches on the clock relative to others.

What is remarkable though...as a fan...is Nadal is up at 962 and will break 1000 matches...not many will have been higher by the time he finishes.
Not bad for a "grinder"!

Ok so the 850 rule to be clear is that they win only one more or no more slams? Thanks for the clarification but I do think it skews it when you include some guys who never won another slam and then categorize players who did go on to win slams in the same manner that would be one critique.

Its not whether you believe me or not that the prime is moving backwards. I have been saying this for years and we have seen across the board and even when you look at the slam winners. The objective facts, many of them that you have done the favor of researching yourself proves this. It is clear even from your numbers that slam winning prime is moving back in time and correlates pretty clearly to the emphasis of power baseline tennis over S and V.

Furthermore, in regards to Djokovic of course he has shown longevity and durability. How many years is it now that he has averaged like high 70s or low 80s in number of matches now? The main advantage he has had over Nadal and Murray is in durability and consistency across this whole lengthy period.

Yes he's shown longevity...860 matches is a lot for sure. But then most of the multislammers have longer careers than the others...probably because they are driven to succeed that bit more and that lends itself to being able to apply themselves for longer too. It may also be that more success is less mentally taxing than more defeat over the course of a career.

I have said before that the S&V style is more demanding...Edberg, Becker, et al, won their slams at lower match counts.
But the #match totals across players from 90s vs 00s vs 10s doesn't particularly seem much different...we cant just look at Federer and draw general conclusions. He's an anomaly...as was Lendl...as was Connors from the 70s.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 100 matches with Djokovic...and how the correlation fits or not. I still think mental mileage will start to add up because he's had a lot of bruising encounters with Nadal, Murray and Fed.

Fascinating stuff - if you are right the next few slams will be shared by Murray/Wawrinka/A. N. Other - but I'm not so sure about that.

Djoko's own career has an interesting pattern - after his amazing year of 2011 when one thought he'd win everything for a while, he could only manage 1 slam a year for the next 3 years, so it's not unheard of from him to switch from multi-slam dominance to something less.

Connors played into the 1990's (sort of...) and finished on 1536 matches, and if my rough calculations are right, he won his last slam, the US Open 1983 in his 1066th match, and his penultimate and pre-penultimate slams in his 1006th and 990th matches.

However, his career trajectory was odd. Having not won a slam since 1978, he had a last hurrah, and arguably benefited from a combination of NS's rising tide effect and Borg's abrupt retirement in 1981, since he beat McEnroe at Wimbledon 1982, but otherwise he beat a pretty young Lendl in USO 1982 & 1983 - at a time when Lendl, like Murray, was adept at making slam finals but could not convert.

Great post barry, absolutely Connors also smashes the 850 rule as well. Of course Novak could fall off but if anything his trajectory for the last 18 months is going the other way in terms of his grip getting firmer and his game and level of dominance increasing. Now of course at some point that trend will reverse. But I actually think he has a more efficient playing style than most people give Novak credit for and his body and the way he trains has proved that he can better than almost anyone else cope with the long grind of the tour.

lydian wrote:Yes he's shown longevity...860 matches is a lot for sure. But then most of the multislammers have longer careers than the others...probably because they are driven to succeed that bit more and that lends itself to being able to apply themselves for longer too. It may also be that more success is less mentally taxing than more defeat over the course of a career.

I have said before that the S&V style is more demanding...Edberg, Becker, et al, won their slams at lower match counts.
But the #match totals across players from 90s vs 00s vs 10s doesn't particularly seem much different...we cant just look at Federer and draw general conclusions. He's an anomaly...as was Lendl...as was Connors from the 70s.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 100 matches with Djokovic...and how the correlation fits or not. I still think mental mileage will start to add up because he's had a lot of bruising encounters with Nadal, Murray and Fed.

That is the problem I have with your analysis. All these guys are multislam champs are generally all anomalies in some way or the other. Furthermore you throw out Fed, Connors, and Lendl and say they are anomalies well you don't have that luxury with such a small sample size that already involves a small number of very rare players. I mean if Fed, Connors, and Lendl are anomalies for winning slams later, and then Agassi is an anomaly because he won 3 slams after 30, then who among your greater sample of what 15-20 players isn't an anomaly? I agree with many of the general points your making, but I don't think it is nearly as hard and fast as you are making it. Also it is hard to predict in the future using your assumptions because it is clear that trendline is changing and moving upwards, so we don't know how high it will go or when the trend will reverse.

Plus you call all these guys anomalies and don't think they should be considered but you got a real small sample already and your are throwing out a large number of anomalies for such a sample.

Yes barry, Connors is a complete anomaly...and he stopping playing after 1989 for a year then played another 80 matches over the next 6 seasons, very limited, so I didn't list him as a 90s player. He also started his career when the tour was very different, he played countless tournaments around the US...8/16/32 man draws...which racked up the match count on a basis the players simply cannot do today. This is another reason not to look before the more modern players like McEnroe and Lendl came on board.

I'm not saying all the future slams will be won by Murray et al, just that if they going to be won by Djokovic then this is a very strong break from the past correlations and so something would be fundamentally different about the tour.

Firstly, I don't throw out those players socal...they're all included except Connors who for reasons listed above I have excluded because he is obviously an anomaly given his match count is far above anyone else due to the extraordinary number of matches played in the 70s (>1000!). The other guys included are not anomalies, they are simply an elite group of multislammers, of which there is quite a number of them.

Secondly, we're looking at correlations of multislammers to determine when declines in this group of elite athletes tends to happen. There is no point doing the same level of slam analysis across the tour as a whole because most players never won a slam!

Thirdly, Agassi is not an anomaly when you look at his match count vs. players of his generation, his >30 age is not relevant when he had less matches on the clock due to periods away in the 90s.

Finally, we don't know IF the trendline is moving until Djokovic SHOWS it has moved. The trendline is so far showing that he is unlikely to win more than 1 more slam...yes his current form over the past 12 months tells us this seems unlikely but then we never know when the slam-cliff comes for any player. Federer had been winning slams every year until AO2010...then nothing until Wimb12 and nothing since. Drastic changes can happen. So we have to see if the 850 rule doesn't apply to Djokovic...I'm not saying it will happen but I am saying there is a correlation present in greats of the past.

Lydian let's make it the 850 "guideline"

To answer the question you asked way above, I'd say it's a mixture of weak young players, the game tending to older age (was it you who did some analysis a year or two ago that the average age in the top 100 was fully 2 years higher). However I think Djokovic will drop off, but for these reasons instead of around 850 it may be around 900-1100.

Age vs miles on the clock is an interesting question. It's notable that some players (Warwinka, Ferrer, Soderling, Haas and I think others in last 5 years but can't remember who) seemed to peak later in their career, being a better player at age 30 than they were at 26. But these have only been second tier players.

It's interesting that this does not happen with real legend and great players, very very few if any have really been a better player in their 30s vs the field than in their mid 20s.

I thought about this ages back and one reason I thought was that these players have under achieved a little in their mid 20s and because of this these zero slammers are fighting hard to prove something to themselves in a way that you don't when you have already won slams and the fight is more to keep the same intensity.

However players like Warwinka and Haas and Ferrer were probably only playing 40-50 match seasons whereas Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer have been playing 60-90 match seasons for a long time. In terms of miles on the clock Warwinka is probably about the same "age" as Djokovic. OK, just looking at your post as I write. Stan has about 250 less in fact.

So instead of a peak age (say 26) this peak number of miles on the clock could (perhaps) explain this phenomenon of people doing well in recent years after 30. 500-600 looks to be a good balance of experience and not yet battered body or waning mental intensity.

Lydian's assessment is supported by facts and it makes physiological sense.  I think matches played at elite level is probably the main factor - but there are other subsidiary factors to consider.  It's like a boxers career is limited by the number of tough fights he has - there is only so many tough fights a boxers head can take.  If Djokovic breaks the mould - he breaks the mould and then there will be something more to discuss.  There is something else though - and I'll post something on it later.

Ps Personally I thought Djokovic's ankles would give way a long time ago - I am surprised he is still able to do what he has been doing throughout his career - sliding on the hard courts on the edge of his trainers.  But that has to go at some stage (surely?).

I agree there HB...its not about age but matches on the clock by and large. Hence, Wawrinka is a "young" 31.

I reckon most "average" top pros are good for about 800-850 matches. But their peak days are probably up to around 600.

The truly top guys seems to be able to last longer...partly because they racked up more matches when younger...and their peak (winning 2-3 slams per year) seems to last to around 800-850.

After this the clock catches up and their rate of progress rapidly slows down. But this thread really shows that its very unlikely Djokovic can catch Fed's 17 GS. I also think he will rapidly decline given his game leans heavily on lightening quick movement, flexibility and mental toughness. More so than Fed who was much more aggressive, had a killer serve and could end points generally quicker.

He could win the next 4 slams of course because there is only 7-8 mths between them...whilst I doubt that's going to happen its without doubt that the generation coming behind is nowhere as strong than the young guys that followed (took over from) most of the multislammers in the past. This may well be the main reason IF Djokovic's slam count doesn't fall off a cliff.

Nore Staat wrote:Ps Personally I thought Djokovic's ankles would give way a long time ago - I am surprised he is still able to do what he has been doing throughout his career - sliding on the hard courts on the edge of his trainers.  But that has to go at some stage (surely?).

Indeed NS, but then guys like Djokovic are using methods of recovery that simply weren't used before, e.g. hypoxic tents.
I do agree that like a boxer he's had a lot of blows to the "head" over the past few years...at some point they will start to count...and maybe just maybe we started to see that at Rome.

I don't think hypoxic tents et cetera work well for cartilage, tendon, ligament injuries (connective tissue and joints).  Rafael Nadal would have been finished some time ago if it wasn't for the new technology of platelet rich plasma technology to heal overstretched knee tendons.

With Djokovic I would have expected problems with hyperextension stresses.

I can't find it, but I remember reading a Wilander quote in response to being asked how it was that Agassi was doing so well at a relatively old age - and Wilander's response was that Agassi had skipped a lot of hard work when he was younger.

I quite agree with Lydian that it's not the age that counts as much as the mental and physical mileage, especially the wear on those parts of the body which you can't build up as such, but can only minimise the wear to.

I'd also think that mileage at a younger age for this generation is worse for a number of reasons: (a) the body is less strong; (b) the player is less likely to take care to avoid damage; (c) sports and medical science has come on a lot in the last 10 years.

I am not sure where to post this comment but maybe this thread is the appropriate one.

The US Open 2014 seems to be a strange one indicating that the top four hegemony had been broken.  Rafael Nadal was absent due to injury.  Andy Murray was knocked out in the quarterfinals in four sets.  Stan Wawrinka was knocked out in the quarterfinals in five sets to Nishikori.

Then the strangest of things.  Cilic beats Federer in straight sets in the semi-finals.  Nishikori beats Djokovic in four sets in the other semi-final.

Then Cilic beats Nishikori in straight sets in the final.

It really looked like the top four were over.  

Cilic sustains a shoulder injury that knocked him back.  Nishikori is still challenging but the top four seem to be back on top when it comes to his challenge.  Nishikori hasn't made it beyond the quarterfinal stage since US Open 2014.  His post US Open 2014 slam results have been: QF, QF, 2R, 1R, QF.  Cilic has since reached a semifinal (US Open 2015).  His post US Open 2014 results have been: Absent, 4R, QF, SF, 3R.

Cilic is only 27 while Nishikori is only 26.  It seems to me that Nishikori will be the next new player to win a slam since he is still around and is becoming consistent.  Whereas there must be a good chance of Cilic getting back to top form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_US_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

Just shows NS...anything can happen in slams if one guy hits stellar form.

Yeah I said at the time Cilic was going to be a 1-slammer and correctly predicted him having a poor year the next year, he was a mid-level player that was able to hit top form at the right moment.

Nishikori has been more of a disappointment.

I don't think it looked like the top four were over, maybe Fed and Raf but not Murray and Djok.

Another thing we haven't considered here is that matches on the clock is not miles on the clock.

Federer sweats less in some of his 1-minute service games that Rafa and Novak do in one 30 shot rally.

Players like Sampras and Ivanisevic were resting more than they were playing during a match against each other.

It's not just the length of points. What about Agassi standing in the middle of the court dictating from corner to corner, was he running less? And Rafa certainly runs all over the place, at least early in his career.

Rafa, Murray and Novak are putting about 20% maybe more miles on the clock per match than Sampras or Federer.

Well it is interesting that everyone thinks that since Djokovic has played in so many matches that he will burn out somehow faster than lets say Murray. Well, mileage in terms of match play is not the only type of mileage out there. Murray and Nadal both have had way more injuries and serious injuries than Djokovic. There are two reasons that Djokovic has so many matches 1. He wins more and therefore advances deeper in tournaments 2. He has less injuries. The durability of Djokovic should be much more focused on than it is.

So I don't know if I buy that because Novak has managed to answer the bell and play more matches that he will burn out faster than Murray. Murray gets injured more and that also counts for a form of mileage that strikes against Murray. I mean Novak's form will drop off eventually but I don't think he has more mileage in comparison to Murray or Nadal or other contemporaries. There is a reason the guy plays so many matches, he doesn't get hurt as often as you would expect, if he did he wouldn't have this many matches.

Wrong perspective. (IMO).

This article is not an attack on Djokovic nor does it require Djokovic to be defended.  In fact named individuals are merely incidental to the nature of the article.  The article is an analysis of multi-slammers, and the evidence supports a "850 rule".  Only time will tell if Djokovic or anyone else breaks the "850 rule".  That's how the scientific approach works.  It attempts to rationalise / unify / explain the data in terms of rules (laws).  To explain the laws it comes up with theories.  The theory here is associated with basic physiology and how physiology changes with elite sporting activity and aging.  Since this is not exactly "science" it is fuzzy at the edges. But it helps to create a language and a dialogue that enables conversations to be had in regard to comparison of the present era with past eras and to make some loose predictions of the future.   It has nothing to do with "attacking" a player or defending a player.

Anyway that is how I perceive it.

Spot on Nore Staat.

This article is about finding the general point for the elite players where decline "may" start...and I posit that it's generally around the 850 match mark given no one in the modern game has won more than 1 slam after it. As you quite rightly say it's not an attack on Djokovic - although socal automatically assumes everything is an attack on Novak these days (paranoia!) - but given he's STILL playing and at a critical position in his career it makes for an interesting look forward when decline at the moment seems so far away - or rather, is it if the 850 "guideline" (thanks HB!) is to be believed?

Nore Staat wrote:Wrong perspective. (IMO).

This article is not an attack on Djokovic nor does it require Djokovic to be defended.  In fact named individuals are merely incidental to the nature of the article.  The article is an analysis of multi-slammers, and the evidence supports a "850 rule".  Only time will tell if Djokovic or anyone else breaks the "850 rule".  That's how the scientific approach works.  It attempts to rationalise / unify / explain the data in terms of rules (laws).  To explain the laws it comes up with theories.  The theory here is associated with basic physiology and how physiology changes with elite sporting activity and aging.  Since this is not exactly "science" it is fuzzy at the edges. But it helps to create a language and a dialogue that enables conversations to be had in regard to comparison of the present era with past eras and to make some loose predictions of the future.   It has nothing to do with "attacking" a player or defending a player.

Anyway that is how I perceive it.

Its just not very scientific what you deem scientific. It isn't a rule as people like Fed and Connors have blown buy it. I took issue with his methodology and not with his assertions and empirical evidence. For example, why include some people with zero as well as people who went on to win a slam, if it is a measure of slam winning prime. So the measurements aren't very scientific and I would posit the rule already has too many exceptions to a small sample size to be much of a rule.

Please don't lecture me on defending Djokovic against attacks. My issues aren't really even about Djokovic with the analysis. I just don't think it tells us much and attempts to impose a hard and fast rule that really isn't that hard and fast. I don't need to be lectured on what is proper analysis when I don't deem the analysis very proper or helpful at all. Secondly, I just feel as usual there isn't much logic in the logical analysis of some. . Defending him against what that he is getting older and is still by the far the best player?

You may like Lydian's analysis, I don't buy it as telling as he claims although it does provide more helpful research no rule can be extrapolated from it other than tennis players win more when they are young and in their primes than they do when they have played to 850 wins already. So if I don't buy you and Lydian's analysis I am just a fan boy defending Novak, well how condescending of you and how illogical.

What I find deficient in your and the rest of the Djokovic has mileage posters is that as usual the logic and evidence is lacking. The idea that Novak the most durable and consistent player on tour is just going to be more burned out as opposed to other players who suffer twice as many injuries, have never been able to match his match play schedule, or winning record; and these facts let you guys to believe that Novak will burn out soon and maybe this presents a chance for Murray or player X? If anything the facts you and others put out in regards to Djokovic's 10 year long record of unmatched consistency and durability cuts AGAINST YOUR OWN CONCLUSION. So if I inform you that your logic is actually 180 degrees wrong in my opinion don't take it as defense of Djokovic but what it is a critique of your positions and those that take this position. I am allowed to disagree with you and Lydian without being lectured on what is proper analysis and accused of taking my positions on this load of crap because I am defending Djokovic when I am not, just attacking faulty logic.



I don't like being lectured on what is proper analysis of tennis and accused of glorified fan boyism by you Nore, simply because I think this theory and the Djokovic soon to burn out theory to make way for Murray is stupid and not supported by the facts. Yeah, Novak will eventually, probably shortly get old

PS in conclusion do I have permission Nore to think your logic is wrong without be accused of fanboy defense of Djokovic? You may be wowed by Lydian's theory on this thread, I wasn't. And I certainly wasn't wowed at the theory that Novak's legendary fitness, flexibility, and unparralled match record of the last 10 years is a sure sign he is hitting the wall and opening up opportunities for Murray. Yes because this conclusion is so much more logical and less fan boy induced than my positions. Hilarious stuff.

lydian wrote:Spot on Nore Staat.

This article is about finding the general point for the elite players where decline "may" start...and I posit that it's generally around the 850 match mark given no one in the modern game has won more than 1 slam after it. As you quite rightly say it's not an attack on Djokovic - although socal automatically assumes everything is an attack on Novak these days (paranoia!) - but given he's STILL playing and at a critical position in his career it makes for an interesting look forward when decline at the moment seems so far away - or rather, is it if the 850 "guideline" (thanks HB!) is to be believed?

BS and you know it. Please see above. I am not defending Djokovic just don't buy your theory and I stated factual and empirical reasons I disagree. Maybe you would do better and be fairer if you addressed my actual criticisms or acknowledged that I have a rational basis that has really little or nothing to do with Djokovic. That is right you are just an unbiased, scientist and I am the rabid and paranoid fanboy, ok if that is what you guys want to run with on thread its fine.

Djokovic has mileage what about all his contemporaries who keep having surgeries and missing time on tour, does that count for mileage? Please tell us how chronic back patient Murray is going to overtake the fitter, lighter, more flexible, and more durable Djokovic because unless I agree with this rock solid logic I must be a paranoid fanboy right? Yeah, if I argue against this genius logic than the only conclusion is that I am a paranoid Djokovic fan boy not that this argument is laughably illogical.

Actually, its not BS and I did address your concerns....like Agassi being under-mileage for his age...like Connors playing most of his matches in the 70s when the tour was very different...like the basis of the methodology which looks at when greats won their last or next to last slam to spot correlate patterns of mileage vs decline.

So, yes mileage = ATP matches...a surrogate unit of "time on tour".
I never said Murray was going to overtake Djokovic...those are your words.
I'm saying that Djokovic has reached the "850" zone...a place from which no other modern great has won more than 1 slam.

Again, please tell me why this analysis is so wrong...its simply what the data shows!

Look at the data again
McEnroe hit 658 in winning USO84…then no more slams
Wilander hit 569 in winning USO88…then no more slams
Edberg hit 751 in winning USO92…then no more slams
Becker hit 809 in winning AO96…then no more slams
Nadal hit 834 in winning RG14…then no more slams
Lendl hit 867 in winning AO89…then 1 more slam
Sampras hit 851 in winning Wimb00…then 1 more slam
Agassi hit 847 in winning AO01…then 1 more slam
Federer hit 850 in winning AO10…then 1 more slam

So...
1. If we take the last 4 guys (Lendl/Sampras/Agassi/Federer) we see 850 matches is the point of wining their penultimate slam...i.e. they won just 1 more.
2. There is no point in looking at Nadal as such because he's still playing. Likewise we could say Djokovic too.
3. However, both Nadal and Djokovic are at approx. 840 matches at their last slam win...history says they'll win 0 or 1 more.
4. I see no trend (yet) of more recent players lasting particularly longer than those of the 80s/90s at slam winning level (Wilander and McEnroe retired early then tried to return with little success). The data clearly shows that Federer has been no different in slam winning decline than either Lendl 20 years earlier or Agassi 10 years earlier

I don't see how any of this warrants the type of reply you last gave.

Agree to disagree.  Even if Djokovic breaks the mould it is wrong to say Federer breaks the mould in terms of slams won.  Sure Federer would have broken the mould if it wasn't for Nadal and Djokovic but he hasn't.  My "Where Are The Clones" thread offers a get out clause for breaking the mould, if and when, Djokovic breaks it.  I await your own equivalent analysis of Jimmy Connors or maybe Donald Budge or await your equivalent analysis in reference to last slams won rather than 0 to 1 slam won.  I could go on and explain why final to penultimate slams won is relevant when it comes to totals for a multi-slammer but I won't.

Yes Nore, perhaps the only reason why Djokovic may break the mould is the paucity of multislam talent coming through.
We'll see...but socal the 850 guideline provides a powerful past guideline of slam decline - perhaps you can come up with an alternate approach?

Firstly, my critique of Novak burning out providing an opportunity to Murray who is the same age and more injury prone to over take Novak is directed more at Nore and a couple of other posters who made similar arguments. So I will clarify, you are correct you weren't the one making that characterization and my criticism wasn't aimed at you.

Nice post, Lydian; I still disagree and I would like for you to again use your 850 match win rule or guideline and use it against the careers of two players I use only FOR EXAMPLE purposes and see why your 850 rule is prone to too much vagary to be very predictive when comparing two multi-slam winners (with different career trajectories), Andy Murray and Novak:

AGAIN THIS IS JUST A TEST CASE TO SHOW YOU HOW YOUR GUIDELINE LACKS APPLICABILITY WHEN COMPARING GREATS OF SIMILAR AGE AND YEARS ON TOUR.

Murray:
724 career matches

Djokovic:

872 matches

Now under the 850 rule, looking at two multi-slam players picked at the same age one would conclude that Novak's window for slams is closed or closing, and that while Murray is far along he would have a window 3 years LONGER THAN DJOKOVIC if we apply Lydian's 850 rule. But does anyone on here even the most rabid Murray fan think that Murray has a 3 year longer window for slam victory than Djokovic?

In conclusion, I picked this case not TO BE A PARANOID FANBOY, I picked it to highlight how 850 guideline if applied to two players of the same age, both multislam actually leads one to predict the opposite of what reality and logic would entail.

So if you believe your 850 guideline or rule has an application beyond the obvious, yes obviously players who play that many matches are usually 90-95 percent done with their careers, then please explain this conundrum.

AGAIN PLEASE EVERYONE COOLY LOOK AT THE LOGIC, I AM NOT BEING A FANBOY AND THAT IS WHY I WOULD BE INSULTED BY ALLUSIONS TO PARANOIA. I have a real logical problem with your model when applied in the real world to analyze similarly situated greats.

lydian wrote:
4. I see no trend (yet) of more recent players lasting particularly longer than those of the 80s/90s at slam winning level (Wilander and McEnroe retired early then tried to return with little success). The data clearly shows that Federer has been no different in slam winning decline than either Lendl 20 years earlier or Agassi 10 years earlier

I don't see how any of this warrants the type of reply you last gave.

Ok to be fair, I have to give you credit; when one criticizes constructively one does have to highlight quality aspects of the research but again I have to hit you on the logical application of your knowledge. This point 4 that you are not convinced about "yet" is actually what I found most worthwhile about your thread. It shows clearly how the rise of power baseline tennis has correlated to the lengthening of careers when contrasted with previous eras. Clearly, the numbers of matches played before last slam has risen steadily from 90s till now and still looks to be going up. So the one point you aren't convinced of is actually a very great look at the correlation of the rise of Power Baseline vis a vis S and V and how that has increased the slam winning windows of players.

Nore Staat wrote:Agree to disagree.  Even if Djokovic breaks the mould it is wrong to say Federer breaks the mould in terms of slams won.  Sure Federer would have broken the mould if it wasn't for Nadal and Djokovic but he hasn't.  My "Where Are The Clones" thread offers a get out clause for breaking the mould, if and when, Djokovic breaks it.  I await your own equivalent analysis of Jimmy Connors or maybe Donald Budge or await your equivalent analysis in reference to last slams won rather than 0 to 1 slam won.  I could go on and explain why final to penultimate slams won is relevant when it comes to totals for a multi-slammer but I won't.

Again, you keep arguing with me like I have a big issue with defending Djokovic on this thread like some illogical fanboy. At least that is rightly or wrongly how your tone is coming off to me. Lets eliminate the name Djokovic and as I did above just call Murray and Novak Player X and Y and then apply the famous 850 rule/guideline and attempt to use it to predict their future slam windows? The reason I picked Novak to discuss alongside Murray is that you can see with two multislam winners of the same age how the 850 rule breaks down. Using the 850 rule one would assume that Murray should have the matchplay equivalent of 2 whole years longer a slam window that Novak; do you think Murray has a two year longer slam window, or do you think Player Y has a two year long window than Player X. Now if you understand the logical fallacy you and Lydian are making you will understand why the logic breaks down when looking at two slam champions of the same age.

Why it breaks down-
1. lack of looking at the actual CVs as determinitative not a shallow reading of match numbers
2. past injury history
3. current form
4. actual state of the game and the various positions of the two at this current juncture

Therefore, if you dismiss what I am saying as irrational defenses of my favorite player you can't actually look at what I am arguing. Lydian's facts are great but the logic breaks down in crucial situations that make the 850 model not predictive when comparing two similar situated greats, the only reason you would want such a guideline in the first place.

lydian wrote:Yes Nore, perhaps the only reason why Djokovic may break the mould is the paucity of multislam talent coming through.
We'll see...but socal the 850 guideline provides a powerful past guideline of slam decline - perhaps you can come up with an alternate approach?

Yes, I do have an alternative but it just isn't that catchy if you like I can layout it out for you?

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Agree to disagree.  Even if Djokovic breaks the mould it is wrong to say Federer breaks the mould in terms of slams won.  Sure Federer would have broken the mould if it wasn't for Nadal and Djokovic but he hasn't.  My "Where Are The Clones" thread offers a get out clause for breaking the mould, if and when, Djokovic breaks it.  I await your own equivalent analysis of Jimmy Connors or maybe Donald Budge or await your equivalent analysis in reference to last slams won rather than 0 to 1 slam won.  I could go on and explain why final to penultimate slams won is relevant when it comes to totals for a multi-slammer but I won't.

Again, you keep arguing with me like I have a big issue with defending Djokovic on this thread like some illogical fanboy. At least that is rightly or wrongly how your tone is coming off to me. Lets eliminate the name Djokovic and as I did above just call Murray and Novak Player X and Y and then apply the famous 850 rule/guideline and attempt to use it to predict their future slam windows? The reason I picked Novak to discuss alongside Murray is that you can see with two multislam winners of the same age how the 850 rule breaks down. Using the 850 rule one would assume that Murray should have the matchplay equivalent of 2 whole years longer a slam window that Novak; do you think Murray has a two year longer slam window, or do you think Player Y has a two year long window than Player X. Now if you understand the logical fallacy you and Lydian are making you will understand why the logic breaks down when looking at two slam champions of the same age.

Why it breaks down-
1. lack of looking at the actual CVs as determinitative not a shallow reading of match numbers
2. past injury history
3. current form
4. actual state of the game and the various positions of the two at this current juncture

Therefore, if you dismiss what I am saying as irrational defenses of my favorite player you can't actually look at what I am arguing. Lydian's facts are great but the logic breaks down in crucial situations that make the 850 model not predictive when comparing two similar situated greats, the only reason you would want such a guideline in the first place.

I am not sure what your argument is.  I think we sort of agree.  Let's clarify your position and my position.

a) Do you agree the 850 rule is well specified?  Yes or No.  [The fact you are arguing over it suggests you understand the rule - so that it is well specified.  It doesn't have to be right or wrong just well specified].
b) Do you agree that using the 850 rule one can make a prediction?  Yes or No.  [A prediction doesn't have to be right or wrong.  The rule just needs to be well specified so that you know how to use it to make a prediction].
c) Do you agree that in applying the 850 rule one may make a false prediction?  Yes or No.
d) If the prediction using the 850 rule is false - could this be due to factors not contained in the 850 rule?  Yes or No.

My answers are:
a) Yes.
b) Yes.
c) Yes.
d) Yes.

Do we have agreement?

I disagree with b, its just not very predictive if you look at my post and understand the fallacies involved you will see it is not a good predictive tool, I mean over the obvious that yes players who have played the requisite 10-15 years to accumulate those matches would even minus this theory be assumed to be pretty much done with winning slams. So b, I would answer no. It fails to predict anything when applied to the Murray v. Djoko test case. If it gives off weird non-factual results, (ie that Murray has two to three years more slam window than Djokovic, although reality doesn't lead to this conclusion) so therefore I don't find it to be a good analytical tool predicting the future landscape.

I agree with D, only that well of course if you take a simplistic rule thumb and apply it most likely it won't predict anything because its perspective is too narrow as I have already indicated. Match totals and mileage as some would call it of course tell you a lot, but they don't account for issues that I noted in my above post as factors that clearly can skew any prediction or forecast that are not covered by this rule or guideline.

socal1976 wrote:I disagree with b, its just not very predictive if you look at my post and understand the fallacies involved you will see it is not a good predictive tool, I mean over the obvious that yes players who have played the requisite 10-15 years to accumulate those matches would even minus this theory be assumed to be pretty much done with winning slams. So b, I would answer no. It fails to predict anything when applied to the Murray v. Djoko test case. If it gives off weird non-factual results, (ie that Murray has two to three years more slam window than Djokovic, although reality doesn't lead to this conclusion) so therefore I don't find it to be a good analytical tool predicting the future landscape.

I agree with D, only that well of course if you take a simplistic rule thumb and apply it most likely it won't predict anything because its perspective is too narrow as I have already indicated. Match totals and mileage as some would call it of course tell you a lot, but they don't account for issues that I noted in my above post as factors that clearly can skew any prediction or forecast that are not covered by this rule or guideline.

BIB: The future is not a result.  You have to wait for the future to collapse into the present on its way in becoming a record of the past before you can talk of results.

Now although you don't accept the 850 rule ... will you personally allow others to use the rule as a conversational piece to guide them in the predictions of the future?

Now for something you can do to guide others.  If not an 850 rule what would be a better rule?  Are you offering a 15 year rule?  Or a 8500 rule? Or  a nothing rule?  

Are you of the belief there is no limit to the number of elite level matches one can play and still remain good enough to win a slam or another slam?  

If one plays on average 85 ATP World Tour Matches per year and we go by your 15 year rule that would make a 1275 rule.  Or if we go by your 10 year rule that would make an 850 rule.

Please note if Djokovic goes on to create a 1000 rule, then those using the 850 rule will a) either shift the rule to a 1000 rule or b) they will add a subsidiary rule to the 850 rule that will allow it to be broke.

That is to say if Djokovic creates a 1000 rule then someone saying nah nah I told you the 850 rule was rubbish would be wrong in saying that as the rule hadn't been broken when the rule was devised - devised on the analysis of past results as detailed in the OP.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree with b, its just not very predictive if you look at my post and understand the fallacies involved you will see it is not a good predictive tool, I mean over the obvious that yes players who have played the requisite 10-15 years to accumulate those matches would even minus this theory be assumed to be pretty much done with winning slams. So b, I would answer no. It fails to predict anything when applied to the Murray v. Djoko test case. If it gives off weird non-factual results, (ie that Murray has two to three years more slam window than Djokovic, although reality doesn't lead to this conclusion) so therefore I don't find it to be a good analytical tool predicting the future landscape.

I agree with D, only that well of course if you take a simplistic rule thumb and apply it most likely it won't predict anything because its perspective is too narrow as I have already indicated. Match totals and mileage as some would call it of course tell you a lot, but they don't account for issues that I noted in my above post as factors that clearly can skew any prediction or forecast that are not covered by this rule or guideline.

BIB: The future is not a result.  You have to wait for the future to collapse into the present on its way in becoming a record of the past before you can talk of results.

Now although you don't accept the 850 rule ... will you personally allow others to use the rule as a conversational piece to guide them in the predictions of the future?

Now for something you can do to guide others.  If not an 850 rule what would be a better rule?  Are you offering a 15 year rule?  Or a 8500 rule? Or  a nothing rule?  

Are you of the belief there is no limit to the number of elite level matches one can play and still remain good enough to win a slam or another slam?  

.

I don't know you are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. So no 850 rule therefore I am required to come up with a 15 year rule, that I have never mentioned or some other silly rule of thumb that doesn't actually work. No I don't have any pithy, factual sounding things like the 850 match rule to offer you, are you still interested?

What I do have to offer is my own theory, which involves looking at the totality of circumstances and using my knowledge of the tour to make prognostications. Your silly 850 rule that isn't really a rule would leave you to believe that Murray has 2 to 3 years more of a slam window than Djokovic, well then it isn't much of a rule or guideline at all is it?


Do you believe that Murray has a 2-3 year window superior to Djokovic, is that what the real world tells you? If that is the case than by all means hug your little 850 rule all you all like if it keeps you warm at night, but I posit it isn't much of rule at least in terms of predicting anything. Yes when players play 15 years or so professionally it is safe to assume that most of their career is over, did you need this thread to conclude that?

So you are offering yourself up as the Guru of Tennis. Everyone has to go to you before they can comment on anything, because they are wrong on so many levels. It is not even my rule, but I am defending it because it is based on actual data, whereas all you are coming up with is your own wisdom on making pronouncements. Okay. I apologise. I will not utter another word on the subject.

No, you are just logically wrong. It has nothing to do with Tennis Guru. I may have more or less knowledge than you or anyone else on tennis, but I understand basic logical reasoning and silly fallacies and assumptions that arise in logic. Maybe that is my training taking over, so if someone tells me 1 plus 1 equals 4, I know its wrong because it doesn't make logical sense divorced from even a rudimentary idea about tennis. My problem with you and Lydian isn't your lack of tennis knowledge, hell I may know less about tennis than either of you, it is your complete disregard of logic and basic logic that somebody who picked up tennis last week could understand if they had any understanding of logical reasoning.

What I put forward is that you, me, Lydian, or the next guy as opposed to this rule look at the totality of circumstances and look at the tour and come up with their own ideas instead of looking at rules that don't actually describe reality beyond the obvious.

Answer me this question if you think this rule is valid why then do you not defend the proposition that Murray should have a 2-3 year slam window OVER and beyond that of Djokovic? That is the only common sense application of this beknighted rule to prognosticating between Murray and Djokovic. So do you believe based on this rule that Andy has 2-3 years more of a slam window simply because he has played less matches? If you do believe that this is true please explain, or at least put aside your outrage when you first accused me of illogical fanboy based defense when I was the only person pointing out the Emperor has no clothers.

Socal, Murray has played 123 matches less than Djokovic...that doesn't equate to 2-3 years longer on tour by any calculation when he's playing around 85-90 matches per years. And you say my logic is up the spout. In any case, it's not about length on tour as Federer has great longevity but no slams for almost 4 years. This is about predicting slam decline. So yes Murray having played fewer matches than Djokovic would normally point to an increased chance of >1 slam success as he has more peak mileage left in the tank.

However, I don't really class Murray as a true multi slamming great like the others analysed who are 6+ slammers. He'll have to prove he can be someone to include in the analysis before we take his slam record vs 850 rule seriously. Otherwise we could include Safin, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Courier, etc. This thread is about the 850 rule applying to the greats...the 6 plus guys who I posit seem to fall off a slam cliff after 850 matches.

The only 6+ slammers we have in active service are Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Fed and Nadal are well beyond 850 matches so I predict Fed won't win a slam and maybe Nadal will win up to one based on what history has shown. Djokovic with the 850 rule looks like he has another slam in him but hey, he may go on to win 3-4 more...but even if he does it needs to be in rapid succession in my book as not aware of guys winning multiple slams after 900 matches.

The only way this rule can be broken IMO is by Djokovic entering a weak era whereby there is no-one new who poses a threat as happened to ALL previous multislammers.

So what do you think Socal, if Djokovic wins more than 1 more slam and breaks the 850 rule is it because he'll be beneficiary of a weak era?

Pretty obviously there are a bunch of reasons why Novak might last longer than the old guys:

- Greater emphasis on records to chase down;
- Better longevity generally in tennis;
- No back/health issues.

Novak has currently won the last three slams. Of the players above who won a slam at or around 850 (Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Nadal and Federer) none of them had won the previous slam, let alone the previous three. Only Rafa could argue he remained number 1 at the time and his injury record obviously makes him a special case.

It's an interesting theory but I suspect it's a bit of a coincidence really. I don't really see number of matches (as opposed to age) being a guiding factor. As Socal has rightly identified, Novak's freakishly good injury record is evidence he will be able to play longer - not shorter.

For sure BS Djokovic has been remarkably injury free but then for all we know he sleeps in a portable oxygen tent every night (if the chamber use is anything to go by) which would markedly change his recovery and ability to repair. And he may well play for longer (like Federer who used an electromagnetic device for recovery for a long time) but this isn't about longevity per se...more slam winning longevity.

I think the biggest factor here is the lack of talent coming through between 2010 to relatively recently. That would also make the current guys look much better if no new Nadals or Djokovics around. Otherwise I suspect the 850 rule would continue to apply.

Doesn't Djokovic explain his transformation from MkI to MkII turbo charged version by means of a change to a gluten free diet and mama's special hot sauce?

Nore Staat wrote:Doesn't Djokovic explain his transformation from MkI to MkII turbo charged version by means of a change to a gluten free diet and mama's special hot sauce?

I wonder if she would let me have the recipe