French Open Day 15: Can Handy Andy Make a Joke out of the Djoker?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/schedule/

Andy Murray vs Novak Djokovic - both for first French Open win

sirfredperry wrote:there will now be speculation as to just how many Slams Novak can get. Anyone prepared to say 18?

I'd still say Federer is out of reach on 17. Five more slams is easy to say but it's a big ask for a player who has just turned 29.

Catching Pete and Rafa on 14 now looks plausibly achievable though.

Looks like Rafa just heard the news

https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13342952_1139837402704074_4562409423034139_n.jpg?oh=1c4f82e4d6e7176459ef37b1b013a493&oe=580C5928

HM Murdock wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:there will now be speculation as to just how many Slams Novak can get. Anyone prepared to say 18?

I'd still say Federer is out of reach on 17. Five more slams is easy to say but it's a big ask for a player who has just turned 29.

Catching Pete and Rafa on 14 now looks plausibly achievable though.

17 is plausible I think. He basically needs to win 50% of slams until the end of 2018 - by which time he will only be 31. If he can stay fit, it's hard to see who is going to stop him doing that. 14 is looking a near certainty.

A lot though will depend on what happens this year. The first possibility is that he does the CYGS (higher than 50% prospects now in my view). If so, it's possible he may then lose some focus. That's the holy grail in tennis and getting himself up again for next year will be tough. Alternatively, he may be disappointed if he doesn't do the CYGS and struggle to motivate himself as a result. Either way, it seems to me that the critical point in whether he can chase down Fed may be how he starts next year.

Born Slippy wrote:17 is plausible I think. He basically needs to win 50% of slams until the end of 2018 - by which time he will only be 31.

Winning 50% of slams at age 30 and 31 is, I believe, unprecedented.

The lack of younger rivals perhaps makes the historical comparison less apt and he may well win more slams in his 30s than is historically normal.

I think the point that is getting overlooked is that just a small drop in form can cause a big drop in results.

Just a small drop in his level would see him not escape Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon, not get away with making 100 unforced errors against Gilles Simon, not save 19/23 BPs against Federer etc.

Although his results are ridiculously dominant, plenty of the individual matches are not.

First things first - what a stunning achievement by Djoko.  Achieving the Career slam at the same time as holding all four at once is extraordinary.  I am also pleased for him that the fact that he's a decent intelligent guy is being more widely recognised.

Looking ahead, I still think that he'll probably fall just short of #17.  It's interesting to compare his career trajectories vs. Nadal and Federer - to see where Djoko is at a comparable age.  

Against Nadal, he will almost certainly be ahead or v. close on every single major criterion (Slam match wins, Masters 100 titles, total titles, total match wins, weeks at #1).  He'll be level on the slam win criterion only if he gets Wimbledon and USO this year.  Against Federer the picture is similar, save that whatever he does he'll be behind on weeks at #1 and on slam win pace the best he can do would be #14 to Fed's age-comparable #16.

As HB has said, if Djoko is going to overhaul the #17 he is going to need to achieve more at an older age and with a comparable mileage of matches under his belt than anyone before him.  It seems possible when one survey's the landscape now and looks at his dominance and physical and mental strength, but things can change v. quickly in a sport where the margins between victory and defeat are made to look deceptively large by the fact that it's gladiatorial nature means that the 'better' player has a direct hand in how well the 'lesser' player does on the day.

Hard to say where he ends up - could be anywhere from 15-19. The better way of looking at it is WHO is going to stop him?

Murray? Don't think he'll beat Novak in a slam again...yesterday left mental damage IMO and Novak still had gears in reserve
Nadal? Don't think so...only on clay but his career is surely a ? now
Federer? No...in serious decline now...maybe Wimb if it was quick/damp...but unlikely
Nishikori? Maybe but only once Novak declines seriously in 2-3 years. However, I think Nish will decline also...
Dimitrov? Busted flush...
Kyrgios? Maybe but I'm not sure he has the durability across 7 matches and a slam calendar...mentally wanders...but might win 1-2 slams in future
Thiem? Not anywhere off clay...and even on clay he's 1-dimensional.
Goffin? Has the talent but chokes on the big occasion it seems.
Zverev? 6'6 guys dont tend to win slams, never mind in abundance.
Fritz? not a great mover on slower surfaces...and FH is an issue

In addition, players are lasting longer than before, Novak continues to improve his game, and he's hungry to chase the records - which he can see now.

So for the next say 12 slams (that takes us to RG'19 when Novak would be 32) I can only see him being stopped, even assuming a bit of decline, 20-40% of the time collectively for whatever reason. In other words, I see no reason why he cant win 60%+ of the next 12 slams...thats up to 7 slams. Hence I think he could finish on up to 19.

I think Murray can still beat Djokovic at least 1 in 3 or 4 times.

Federer in another Wimbledon or US final, I think can win 1 in 3. However, we have to question mark whether he is even going to make SF or F from now on. It wouldn't surprise me is he wins 1 more slam, but neither would it surprise me if he has an injury influenced further declines and never even reaches another F.

I think you are being unfair on Thiem. He will soon transfer that form to hard court, he looks like a good player full stop to me. Grass, maybe not this year but you maybe in a year or two.

The rest I can agree with but 19 does look on the high side but we'll see.

This fascination for "how many will he get" and GOAThood status rather detracts attention away from the here & now and the complexities of the sport, its history and development and converts things into simple bickering & future fantasising so typical of the dream like minds of the playground rapscallions, while the teachers recuperate in the common room, with their tea cups brimming with vodka, as they gird their loins for the next lesson.

Yes but speculation is what makes the world go round...just ask the financial markets - which filters down to our everyday living too. If we focus purely on the here and now then we might as well turn the forum into a match-commentary and rear-view mirror site

Also, here's a question:

Murray is now 2/10 for slam finals won (16%) - thats not great at all.

Is there any other multislammer (2+ slams) with a poorer slam final record?

Room for all sorts of different topics on here, especially if they are argued intelligently and respectfully.
Sport is endlessly fascinating in this respect. It can mean everything to some people, yet can be viewed as a mere past-time and of little consequence. For the future, there's always the next tournament, the next year, the next great player.
For the past there is always the great historical achievements and how the players of today measure up to the giants of yesteryear.
There is also the unpredictability of the whole thing. For years we've all argued as to which of Fed or Rafa was going to be the GOAT. Then along comes Djoko who might just take that title. Some might say he's reached GOAT status already.

@lydian - on the face of it it's difficult to come up with concrete reasons to disagree with your analysis, but you are talking about the next 3 years, which is a hell of a long time in the life of a 29-yr-old tennis player.  Just take Djoko's own career - he was always the next best after Fedal, but if you had fast-forwarded from 2009 or 2010 how likely did a period of dominance such as 2011-2 look?  Djoko himself points to the step-change following his greater understanding of glutein-intolerance.

I accept that nobody looks particularly likely to beat him now (although I think Murray is a tougher prospect on faster courts), but Djoko needs to continue running to stand still in terms of keeping the edge over his opponents who will be looking for their own step-change.  The immediate effect of winning RG may be to relax him and improve his chances, but staying ahead of the rest probably will not be made easier by the fact that the goals for him to achieve are diminishing compared to achievements already banked.  He is likely to be the firm favourite for the next 5-6 slams, but I think the risk of someone coming out of the pack and playing on fire to beat him on a couple of occasions is higher than you do.  After that, in 18 months time he'll be >30 and still asking his mind and body to cash even bigger cheques, but will have achieved almost everything it's possible to achieve -  I don't think it's safe to draw conclusions from comparisons with the pack on the basis of the current situation.

That 2 out of 10 statistic of Murray is just that a statistic.  In reality there is context: he is very good over 100 million pounds good but not that good - not 500 million pounds good.  One can break down Murray into pre-Lendl, Lendl, post-Lendl for a further refinement of context.  Djokovic is very good and currently dominant, but he wasn't dominant when Federer and Nadal were dominant - again context.  Nadal mastered Federer then his body broke down. Context.  Djokovic changed to a gluten free diet and we had Djokovic Mk II.  Will the current status quo be disturbed in the near future: there is no clear sign it will be.  There is still Murray waiting in the wings with the feeling that the characteristic way his technique or mentality or whatever breaks down under pressure might possibly be overcome.   Djokovic may breakdown physically.  There is no-one on the horizon in the next generation that one can point to and say yes this is the successor to the current & past champs.  Hard courts and true grit levels.  Clay.  Grass and slippery surface all in the mixer.  Blend, add alcohol, cherries and one of those umbrellas.  Cheers.

lydian wrote:Also, here's a question:

Murray is now 2/10 for slam finals won (16%) - thats not great at all.

Is there any other multislammer (2+ slams) with a poorer slam final record?

No other player who has made 10 slam finals has won less than 6. Of course, no other player who has made 10 slam finals has had opponents with an average ranking of around 1.5!

lydian wrote:The better way of looking at it is WHO is going to stop him?

It will be players on a given day.

In the same way that Federer began to concede occasional defeats to the likes of Tsonga, Soderling and Berdych, Djokovic will, on a given day, begin to lose to top ten players. We've already seen examples - Stan beat him at RG15, Nishikori beat him at USO14.

There will also be days where he doesn't escape the likes of Kevin Anderson or Gilles Simon in the 5th set.

lydian wrote:Also, here's a question:

Murray is now 2/10 for slam finals won (16%) - thats not great at all.

Is there any other multislammer (2+ slams) with a poorer slam final record?

It's poor in a statistical sense but every one of those finals was against a higher ranked player.

I think Novak's run of 1/6 in slam finals (RG12 to RG14) was a much worse statistic.

You have got to be in the finals to lose them. So even making 10 is no mean feat.

Calder106 wrote:You have got to be in the finals to lose them. So even making 10 is no mean feat.

Quite, I'd say that Murray is racking up stats that show his career is by a distance the best of the group of 2-slammers in the Open Era even if he retired tomorrow, and despite the fact that he has not made #1 like others. It's also notable that he's made the final at every slam, putting him in select company indeed.

lydian wrote: ... The better way of looking at it is WHO is going to stop him?  ...

Bert Entwistle will stop him.  A great prospect.  He has been a professional for 15 years.  He drives the Number 493 Bus from St George's, London to Richmond.   He passes outside the Wimbledon tennis courts around 9.30 am just in time for Djokovic early sessions on the practice courts.

lol NS

Yes Murray has faced Novak in 7 finals and Roger in the other 3. Its been tough...but then its maybe been tough for others too.

I always struggle to wonder if its a weak or strong era if its the same guy(s) getting to the final...can be argued both ways of course.

My own feeling is that Murray just isn't good enough but is enjoying runs to finals in the post-prime shadow of Federer and Nadal and no-one else stepping up. So its basically Djokovic vs Murray now and that's usually a 1-way street.

Djokovic has an excellent opportunity to break all records now...the field underneath isn't particularly strong...although yes players will beat him here and there but not easy over 5 sets...so I can see him winning at least 4 from the next 12. That's 16...and (bad) luck either way will see it 14-19. But who knows...injury...motivation...the 850 rule...etc etc...

I believe with Andy it's all about approach. He has a poor record against Novak and Roger in slams, we all know that. The exception was under Lendl, which is the only time in his career he has beaten both in slams.

This is because of a number of improvements made, that essentially all sat under one main headline, captured beautifully in a Lendl quote about Murray grand slam defeats: "stop losing with your backside against the back fence!"

Andy has moved away from this now, as the forehand velocity stats show:

Pre Lendl - 119
Lendl - 127
Post Lendl - 121kph

If he returns to the Lendl consistent aggression, he can win more slams. If he doesn't, he's going to struggle. He took a step backwards from set 2 onwards on Sunday, back to default mode of the safety setting.

If he doesn't change this back to the strategy that won him the major silverware, then the results won't change. They might not change anyway, but one things for sure... They won't unless he changes back to consistent aggression.

Some people say that Djokovic has improved since 2012/2013 when Murray beat him twice in grand slam finals.  Has Djokovic really improved - I thought Djokovic's best was in 2011.  He had a dip afterwards but I don't think Djokovic today is as good as Djokovic of 2011 when he outgruelled Nadal (except on the clay of course).

Djokovic was excellent in 2011. Think most people were surprised by how much improvement so showed in the early moths of the year. Was well ahead of everyone. Don't think Nadal beat him on clay that year . Federer was the first to beat him that year in the FO semi. Dropped away a bit at the end of the year and seemed to struggle to get his dominance back over 2012/2013. Then he brought Becker in. Not sure how much Boris does but the results since then have been pretty impressive. So he obviously added something. He comes to the net more now than he did in 2011 so not sure if he is playing better or worse. However he is so consistent that his level rarely drops and if so it is usually for no more than a set.

Calder106 wrote:Djokovic was excellent in 2011. Don't think Nadal beat him on clay that year . Federer was the first to beat him that year in the FO semi. Dropped away a bit at the end of the year and seemed to struggle to get his dominance back over 2012/2013. Then he brought Becker in. Not sure how much Boris does but the results since then have been pretty impressive. So he obviously added something. He comes to the net more now than he did in 2011 so not sure if he is playing better or worse. However he is so consistent that his level rarely drops and if so it is usually for no more than a set.

Thanks. So maybe Djokovic doesn't have the same physical endurance and strength as the 23/24 year old he was in 2011 but maybe he has supplemented his tools and techniques post Becker. My view is that Djokovic was at his physical peak in 2011 and is now on that downward trend. My view is that Nadal in 2011 was as good as Nadal of 2010 but Djokovic had transitioned into Djokovic MkII (gluten free Djokovic presumably).

Thanks for the reminder that it was Federer that stopped a rampant Djokovic. I think Federer's post peak performances demonstrate just how incredible peak Federer was - despite claims of weak eras.

Novak's improved himself substantially even since 2011. His forehand, serve, net game and ability to deal with slice have all substantially improved. I don't know if he could still do the SF/F in Oz12 back to back but, frankly, he is so much better now that he wouldn't need to.

TBH, I do think Rafa at 2010 was not as great as himself from clay 2008 to Miami 2009 (minus the injury at end of 2008. During that stretch, he had won 3 slams, 4 Masters and an Olympics gold. Too bad, he got injured during 2009 again; I would guess his 2009 should be his best year if not for his injury, even better than his 2010, imo.

I do think Djoko was more impressive in 2011 than in 2015/2016 even though skills wise he's better now. His opposition back during 2011 was much tougher than it is now.

Djoko's 43-match run in 2011 when he was part of a younger, fully-fit big four, was incredible.
  There are no asterix * put down against winners in sport and Djoko's achievements this last week and over the last few months are phenomenal. But he has faced nothing like the weight of opposition lately that he had to contend with five years ago.
  You have to feel for Murray. He must have reckoned that if he stuck around long enough Fed would go away and Rafa would run out of steam. So what happens ? A guy who's just a week younger than him completely takes over!

I'd say that Djoko's level of competition in 2011 was *probably* the overall toughest of the last 15 years or so.

Federer, Nadal and Murray were not individually at career best levels but they were all at a very good level.

Every subsequent year has seen one or more of them struggling with injury and form.

I still think present day Djoko is a better player than his 2011 incarnation though.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:TBH, I do think Rafa at 2010 was not as great as himself from clay 2008 to Miami 2009 (minus the injury at end of 2008. During that stretch, he had won 3 slams, 4 Masters and an Olympics gold.  Too bad, he got injured during 2009 again; I would guess his 2009 should be his best year if not for his injury, even better than his 2010, imo.

I do think Djoko was more impressive in 2011 than in 2015/2016 even though skills wise he's better now.  His opposition back during 2011 was much tougher than it is now.

"His opposition back during 2011 was much tougher than it is now"

Can you please tell us who they were!?

sirfredperry wrote:Djoko's 43-match run in 2011 when he was part of a younger, fully-fit big four, was incredible.
  There are no asterix * put down against winners in sport and Djoko's achievements this last week and over the last few months are phenomenal. But he has faced nothing like the weight of opposition lately that he had to contend with five years ago.
  You have to feel for Murray. He must have reckoned that if he stuck around long enough Fed would go way and Rafa would run out of steam. So what happens ? A guy who's just a week younger than him completely takes over!

As far as calling them the top three/four there is now only a Top one followed by probably Andy, Rafa? and Roger??, then Stan and whoever next???

Roger Federer was playing at a very high level in 2011.
Here are his head to head records against the players he lost against
Tsonga 6-2 (unfortunately Tsonga got him at Wimbledon)
Gasquet 2-1
Berdych 1-1
Nadal 1-3
Djokovic 1-4
Melzer 0-1
Every other match he won.
Yes, Melzer and Gasquet losses (in clay masters) not ideal, but similar losses occurred in every year of his career except 2005 and 2006.
Ended the year winning Basle, Paris and the World Tour finals - getting critical points that would ultimately be key to getting back to number 1 in mid 2012.
I saw him play live in 2011 several times and it was pretty cool to watch. He looked as good as ever.
His French Open was his best performance ever.

As for Rafa, he started 2011 as the top dog going for the non-calendar year grand slam before an injury-affected defeat to David Ferrer. After that, look at Rafa's results. He wasn't losing to anyone but Novak and most others he was cruising past in easy straight sets. He was the same player as 2008 and 2010. He lost the IW, Miami, Madrid, Rome, and Wimbledon finals to Djokovic while winning Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and the French Open. In every big tournament he was either winning it, or losing to Djokovic. After his AO loss to Ferrer the next time he lost to someone that wasn't Djokovic was at Queens (and the next slam loss was Rosol at Wimbledon 2012). He did drop away at the end of the year, as he often does.

Murray was also doing a bit better in 2011, reaching semis at least at all 4 slams.

2011 and the first half of 2012 was the peak of the golden era.

^But for Djokovic, 2011 might otherwise have been Rafa's best ever year.

He could well have won 3 slams, the IW/MI double and swept the clay season.

This is partly why I think all this talk of Djoko reaching 17 slams is so premature. Rafa looked set to rule at the end of 2010 but, out of the blue, the tennis landscape changed.

On a related note, the Telegraph tennis podcast played an old interview with Federer from August 2010. The interviewer asked him if he would be satisfied with another three more slams over the next five years.

Federer said he wouldn't be satisfied with that because, having won multiple slams in a year so often, he felt that three more slams was very achievable.

As it turns out, he has only won one more slam.

And I don't think that was hubris from Federer. At that point he'd won 3 of the last 6 slams and had only just turned 29. Anyone would have been surprised to find out that his next slam was two years away.

Things can change very quickly.

HM Murdock wrote:
This is partly why I think all this talk of Djoko reaching 17 slams is so premature.

Things can change very quickly.

Hear, hear - and history to date suggests that the older the dominant #1 player, the greater the risk to him of things changing quickly. Djoko may be about to change all that, but I think that too many posters here and too many professional pundits underestimate that adding another 5 slams to his tally starting from now would be an even more other worldly achievement than what Djoko has done so far.

Just found one of my old 606 articles when I used to do prediction games. Done at the end of 2010, 24 people made predictions. Djokovic got 4% of the vote (1 vote) to be winner of the Australian Open and similar for other events.

In December 2010, I wrote an article on the old 606. I can't find it now but I saved a lot of the articles to my hard drive when 606 was announced to be closed.

I called it "Big 4 or Big 2"? I presented the stats below, noted that the gap from 4 to 5 was bigger than 2 to 3, and finished the article by asking "Have Murray and Djokovic, the youngest 2 of the 4, plateaud, or even peaked?" Most of the comments seemed to agree with me or say it was a good article. Here's one of the comments: "I think it's the big two and the rest. I don't think there was ever a big four." Another: "Murray and Djokovic have peaked thats true. "

2009 Top Five
1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 10,550
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,205
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 8,310
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 7,030
5 Del Potro, JM (ARG) 6,785

2010 Top Five
1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,450
2 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,145
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 6,240
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 5,760
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,580

2009 Combined
Nadal + Federer 19,755
Djokovic + Murray 15,340
Gap 4415
Fedal had 1.3 x more points than Djokurray

2010 Combined
Nadal + Federer 21,595 (+9%)
Djokovic + Murray 12,000 exactly (-22%)
Gap 9595 (has more than doubled)
Fedal had 1.8 x more points than Djokurray

Nore Staat wrote:Thanks for the reminder that it was Federer that stopped a rampant Djokovic.

Under your narrative it was Federer that stopped Djokovic.  However, that narrative omits the fact that Fognini had previously withdrawn from his QF, thus giving Djokovic a walkover.  Under the alternative narrative that delves into the implications of the walkover deeper, having been forced to forego the standard routine of having one-day rest between the matches, Djokovic was effectively deprived the opportunity of a fully fair match in the SF.  So while yes, he technically did lose to Federer, under this deeper looking narrative Federer plays a much smaller role in the proceedings and Fognini looms large.