Indian Wells 2017

First topic message reminder :

Bottom Quarter

R3

Del Porto v Djokovic
Zverev v Kyrgios

R4

Del Porto/Djokovic v Zverev/Kyrgios
Federer v Nadal

QF

Djokovic v Nadal/Federer

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse for Djokovic, he loses to kyrgios again. Talk about embarrassing. Losing to federer or nadal in the quarters is understandable and given how low Djokovic has fallen wouldn't be surprising. To lose to that Aussie clown twice beggars belief. A year ago Djokovic would have sent this guy packing in under an hour.

I think this is the beginning of the end for Novak. His game has become a shambles.

Djokovic and Nadal, both look(ed) out of sorts losing to Kyrgios and Federer, respectively.

OK it's late in the UK but even so an entire Fedal encounter (admittedly a short one) and not a single comment on the forum for the whole match? Interesting to note. Things are pretty quiet here these days. Some of you weren't kidding around after the AO when you said you'd be back after the French.

80% BP conversion for Fed, dominated throughout, solid backhand. It's the story of the rivalry right there.

Hi Laverfan, someone's awake. Are you in the UK? Nice to see you.

More of the same today in that Federer's backhand was solid, and hot, and his returns good. Nadal didn't play as well as at the Australian Open however, a bit off sorts, didn't take the initiative.

Pretty impressive from Fed; I really like how his BH and returns look much more aggressive than in the past.

My (pipe) dream is that Fed will be playing youngsters for the big titles after Rafa, Nole and Andy ride into the sunset.  At least in this tournament I may be getting my wish.

Head to head stands at 23-13. 9-9 on hard courts. 8-4 on outdoor hard.

Federer finally getting some wins on outdoor hard against Rafa. Record was a bit lopsided in the past.

Rather anticlimactic match after the AO, rather low key, at least in tension today. But the quality was there from Roger.

Most rivalries between greats in the history of men's tennis with such an age gap of around 5 years have followed a pattern where the older player initially dominates the rivalry where he is at peak (e.g. 26 year old beating 21 year old) then it changes after a certain point and the younger player completely dominates, often winning almost all of the matches.

Federer-Nadal has never really followed this pattern.

Rafa was already up 6-1 in the head to head while still a teenager, with Federer now winning 3 matches in a row in his mid 30s.

Henman Bill wrote:Hi Laverfan, someone's awake. Are you in the UK? Nice to see you.

On the US East Coast.

Henman Bill wrote:Head to head stands at 23-13. 9-9 on hard courts. 8-4 on outdoor hard.

Even at this juncture, in their respective careers, a couple of Clay matches between the two would be good to see, irrespective of the winner.

summerblues wrote:My (pipe) dream is that Fed will be playing youngsters for the big titles after Rafa, Nole and Andy ride into the sunset.  At least in this tournament I may be getting my wish.

Nadal, I can understand, but Djokovic and Murray, current #1 and #2, should not be so inconsistent.

Djokovic should have won the second set TB, but seems to have given up after a double mini-break.

Henman Bill wrote:

....................................

More of the same today in that Federer's backhand was solid, and hot, and his returns good. Nadal didn't play as well as at the Australian Open however, a bit off sorts, didn't take the initiative.

From what I saw, Rafa wasn't actually allowed the chance to 'take the initiative', even had he wanted to.

He looked a bit shell-shocked by the end. Said afterwards that, whilst he came very close to taking the AO Final, here Roger just didn't offer him any way to get a grip on the match ....... adding that when he's in full flow, with this level of aggression + serving well, there's really not much you can do.

Kyrgios was too powerful for the still-troubled Djokovic. Novak confessed that he had big problems reading the serve  - which says quite something given his uber-special returning skills.

I think if Kyrgios can maintain this level he stands a very good chance of taking the title. Am inclined to place a little wager...... methinks 9/2 is quite generous.

laverfan wrote:

summerblues wrote:My (pipe) dream is that Fed will be playing youngsters for the big titles after Rafa, Nole and Andy ride into the sunset.  At least in this tournament I may be getting my wish.

Nadal, I can understand, but Djokovic and Murray, current #1 and #2, should not be so inconsistent.

Djokovic should have won the second set TB, but seems to have given up after a double mini-break.

It's happened in the past though. We've been spoilt since the Sampras days, with dominant No 1's (and 2's). If we spread Andy's results over the course of the year, it's impressive. The number of points he has is about the average for a No.1 and greater compared to some (difficult to go back to far, due to the points allocation been different)

laverfan wrote:

summerblues wrote:My (pipe) dream is that Fed will be playing youngsters for the big titles after Rafa, Nole and Andy ride into the sunset.  At least in this tournament I may be getting my wish.

Nadal, I can understand, but Djokovic and Murray, current #1 and #2, should not be so inconsistent.

Djokovic should have won the second set TB, but seems to have given up after a double mini-break.

A tad unfair, no a lot unfair on Murray. Up until Indian Wells I think Murray had reached 15 of the last 16 finals of the tournaments he had played in. Seems pretty damned consistent to me. In fact by far the most consistent male player in the world in that time.

lags72 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:

....................................

More of the same today in that Federer's backhand was solid, and hot, and his returns good. Nadal didn't play as well as at the Australian Open however, a bit off sorts, didn't take the initiative.

From what I saw, Rafa wasn't actually allowed the chance to 'take the initiative', even had he wanted to.

He looked a bit shell-shocked by the end. Said afterwards that, whilst he came very close to taking the AO Final, here Roger just didn't offer him any way to get a grip on the match ....... adding that when he's in full flow, with this level of aggression + serving well, there's really not much you can do.

Kyrgios was too powerful for the still-troubled Djokovic. Novak confessed that he had big problems reading the serve  - which says quite something given his uber-special returning skills.

I think if Kyrgios can maintain this level he stands a very good chance of taking the title. Am inclined to place a little wager...... methinks 9/2 is quite generous.

I mentioned before that I'm unconvinced with those who say Rafa is back to his best or even nearly best. Djoko now sounds like an awe struck fan, rather than the mental heavyweight he was merely 9 months ago. Mentally, they seem light years away from their best - which almost the equivalent of them playing with a permanent physical injury

To me it's clear that Roger is going to skip most of the clay season. You can see that in how relaxed and fresh of mind he is. The other three are fretting for different reasons - but I maintain that I expect Murray to have the best clay court season. Wimby could be interesting

As will Roger v Naughty Nick. Be interesting how Roger fairs against easily the best of the youngsters, when focussed

Good point banbrotam.

You really do have to go back a long way to find any flash-in-the-pan, or even remotely dubious, World Number Ones, in the men's game at least.

EDIT : apologies banbrotam .....I meant to link your own comment earlier about Sampras (+ beyond Sampras) when writing the above post. But trust you get my drift anyway......

Don't think Murray has any of the deeper issues afflicting Djokovic, and can see him back 'to normal' very soon. Just a blip that caused his early exit here, and it can happen to any Number One, even at their peak.

CC, Murray didn't make the finals at USO and AO, the two biggest events during that period, so it's 14/16; a bit disappointing that it's the HC slams that he did poorly.

Just seen some highlights from the Fed-Rafa clash. Fed looked very fast and ultra aggressive. A key stat was Rafa, as in the AO, getting a lot of first serves in but not winning many points when he did.
The same can be said of Djoko who seems to have lost the pop in his serve. Kyrgios, contrastingly, had excellent serve stats. Can the Aussie follow up with a win against Rog?
Of course, Murray has now moved even further away from Djoko at the top without lifting a racquet.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A tad unfair, no a lot unfair on Murray. Up until Indian Wells I think Murray had reached 15 of the last 16 finals of the tournaments he had played in. Seems pretty damned consistent to me. In fact by far the most consistent male player in the world in that time.

No need to defend Murray. My point was specific to IW, not the last 52-weeks (http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/andy-murray/mc10/player-activity?year=all&tournament=404). Post-AO inconsistencies seem to afflict Murray.

sirfredperry wrote:....................

........
  The same can be said of Djoko who seems to have lost the pop in his serve. Kyrgios, contrastingly, had excellent serve stats. Can the Aussie follow up with a win against Rog?
 

In a word : Yes.

Think this is his best-ever spell. Second successive win v Djoko, just after Acapulco.

I did not expect that Fedal result - it must be absolutely great being Federer now.  He's done the hard work, he's got nothing to prove, he's now out there for the shear heck of it and doing v. well to boot.

Fed v. Kyrgios - shades of Sampras v. Federer 2001.....?

Whilst we are on comparisons, the last #1 who was hugely consistent in the season, mopping up win after win but falling short (relatively) at the big ones was Murray's coach........

This from Fed - he would not have been so open about his game 8 years ago (and it's probably more than 8 years since he was at his peak ), he's really enjoying himself

I think all my coaches throughout my career have told me to go more for the backhand, but I used to shank more. So maybe deep down I didn't always believe that I had it in the most important moments. But I think that's changing little by little, which I'm very happy about.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:CC, Murray didn't make the finals at USO and AO, the two biggest events during that period, so it's 14/16; a bit disappointing that it's the HC slams that he did poorly.

Hmm 14 out of 16 finals is a consistency even Federer and Nadal in their pomp would be damned proud of.

CC, not saying it's bad, but when it mattered most, i.e. at the slams, he lost relatively early.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:CC,  not saying it's bad, but when it mattered most, i.e. at the slams, he lost relatively early.

Consistency is measured across the board and on that basis Murray has been the most consistent male player of the last nine months.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:CC, Murray didn't make the finals at USO and AO, the two biggest events during that period, so it's 14/16; a bit disappointing that it's the HC slams that he did poorly.

Hmm 14 out of 16 finals is a consistency even Federer and Nadal in their pomp would be damned proud of.

These things are relative - 14/16 finals is excellent for sure, but its a shame that the two he missed are the ones that count.  You have to acknowledge that.  You've also made exactly the wrong comparison with Federer at least, who made 23 slam SF's in a row, and in 19 slams between RG 2005 and Australian Open 2010 he missed the final once, Australia 2008 when he lost to Djoko in the SF. Fed also had extraordinarily consistent runs away from the slams too.  Like I said, Murray is an excellent player, and it is not necessary to compare him with two of the best players who have ever lived, but since that's where you want to go, my guess is at his peak Fed would have been distinctly dis-chuffed to have tumbled out of two HC slams one after the other without passing the QF, however well he did elsewhere.

barrystar wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:CC, Murray didn't make the finals at USO and AO, the two biggest events during that period, so it's 14/16; a bit disappointing that it's the HC slams that he did poorly.

Hmm 14 out of 16 finals is a consistency even Federer and Nadal in their pomp would be damned proud of.

These things are relative - 14/16 finals is excellent for sure, but its a shame that the two he missed are the ones that count.  You have to acknowledge that.  You've also made exactly the wrong comparison with Federer at least, who made 23 slam SF's in a row, and in 19 slams between RG 2005 and Australian Open 2010 he missed the final once, Australia 2008 when he lost to Djoko in the SF.  Fed also had extraordinarily consistent runs away from the slams too.  Like I said, Murray is an excellent player, and it is not necessary to compare him with two of the best players who have ever lived, but since that's where you want to go, my guess is at his peak Fed would have been distinctly dis-chuffed to have tumbled out of two HC slams one after the other without passing the QF, however well he did elsewhere.

More fool you if you presume that 14 finals out of 16 deems inconsistency. Sorry but it just examplifies the whole mentality of people. Murray makes 14 out of 16 finals and it is lumped in with the inconsistency of Djokovic - unbelievable. That is my gripe here. Sure it would have been fantastic for him to have won in Melbourne and gone on a run at Indian Wells but I'm not reaching for my razer because he didn't.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A tad unfair, no a lot unfair on Murray. Up until Indian Wells I think Murray had reached 15 of the last 16 finals of the tournaments he had played in. Seems pretty damned consistent to me. In fact by far the most consistent male player in the world in that time.

No need to defend Murray. My point was specific to IW, not the last 52-weeks (http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/andy-murray/mc10/player-activity?year=all&tournament=404). Post-AO inconsistencies seem to afflict Murray.

Indian Wells inconsistency for Murray - yes most definitely. Why that is is something of a mystery. It is like Stan's inconsistency at Wimbledon in many ways.

If that's your gripe, then take it up with those who make the point and try to address the different point that I am making.  I have pointedly indicated that I agree that Murray's recent record amounts to extremely impressive consistency - so I don't appreciate being called a fool by someone who prefers to knock down an Aunt Sally than to deal with what I am saying.

My point is this - he has been extremely consistent and is a quite excellent player, but (relatively speaking) not in the tournaments that count, the ones we will remember when looking back on this period in the way we look back at Sampras, McEnroe &c &c.  I compared him with Lendl, which is flattering enough; you chose to compare him with Federer and Nadal and I pointed out that even his recent run does not pass muster against the very high bar of Federer's career, which involved consistency at the Slams as well as away from the slams.  In 20 years' time the number we associate with Federer will be 19 (or possibly more), and we will know that his slam success was buttressed with huge success away from the slams but we won't remember how many other tournaments he won or which ones.  With Andy so far the number is 3, which we know is a relative under-performance because he has lost so many slam F's and done so well away from the Slams, but we won't remember in 20 years time that he won the Beijing Open 2016 and Dubai 2017 or whatever.

You have spent a lot of time dealing with Murray knockers, I am not one of those - please respect that, and also don't go too far the other way by making claims for him that are over-egged. Murray is knocking on the doors of being an all-time great.  I am not a critic of his, but if you want to start comparing his record to Fedal, whether for consistency or anything else you are onto a loser.

barrystar wrote:If that's your gripe, then take it up with those who make the point and try to address the different point that I am making.  I have pointedly indicated that I agree that Murray's recent record amounts to extremely impressive consistency - so I don't appreciate being called a fool by someone who prefers to knock down an Aunt Sally than to deal with what I am saying.

My point is this - he has been extremely consistent and is a quite excellent player, but (relatively speaking) not in the tournaments that count, the ones we will remember when looking back on this period in the way we look back at Sampras, McEnroe &c &c.  I compared him with Lendl, which is flattering enough; you chose to compare him with Federer and Nadal and I pointed out that even his recent run does not pass muster against the very high bar of Federer's career, which involved consistency at the Slams as well as away from the slams.  In 20 years' time the number we associate with Federer will be 19 (or possibly more), and we will know that his slam success was buttressed with huge success away from the slams but we won't remember how many other tournaments he won or which ones.  With Andy so far the number is 3, which we know is a relative under-performance because he has lost so many slam F's and done so well away from the Slams, but we won't remember in 20 years time that he won the Beijing Open 2016 and Dubai 2017 or whatever.

You have spent a lot of time dealing with Murray knockers, I am not one of those - please respect that, and also don't go too far the other way by making claims for him that are over-egged.  Murray is knocking on the doors of being an all-time great.  I am not a critic of his, but if you want to start comparing his record to Fedal, whether for consistency or anything else you are onto a loser.

I compared his run of consistency to runs that Federer or Nadal have had in their careers - fair enough I'd say as it has been a mighty fine run. If you equate that to me comparing them in careers then you have the wrong end of the stick. My comparing of their runs is because I cannot ever recall such runs of consistency being called inconsistent when they have had runs so why should inconsistency then be flung at Murray. If anything (since Federer and Nadal are seen as GOATs and Murray definitely is not) then surely it makes even less of a case for pinning this run down to inconsistency.

lags72 wrote:Don't think Murray has any of the deeper issues afflicting Djokovic, and can see him back 'to normal' very soon. Just a blip that caused his early exit here, and it can happen to any Number One, even at their peak.

If he can actually serve to even a Top 30 standard rather than a 1030 one , he'll be fine. Relies far too much on his return game, when sometimes it's simply not possible to break a serve

I see him as having an excellent clay court season. I said around the time of the Rome Masters win, that Andy's best surfaces are the slowest and the fastest (the latter assumes he realises that serve and volley is a legitimate weapon his opponent can use!!). When I say fast, I mean bounce off the court, i.e. lower bouncing fast courts

CaledonianCraig wrote:Indian Wells inconsistency for Murray - yes most definitely. Why that is is something of a mystery. It is like Stan's inconsistency at Wimbledon in many ways.

I fully understand it. IW is the odd-ball of the circuit. Fast flying through the air which then decelerates remarkably on impact. Not certain why Stan, who's best on slow surfaces with a high bounce - not doing well at a low bouncing fast event is surprising

Looking at the race points, neither Murray or Djokovic are anywhere near the top. Good chance of them both being outside the top 8 at the end of IW.

Federer is now favourite to win Indian Wells with the bookies, could the old man open up the year by winning the two biggest tournaments.

Murrays lead at the top is safe for a while and Djokovic isn't looking like a threat to it. This is shaping up to be a very unpredictable time at the top of the mens game. I wonder how the rankings will look at the end of the season.

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Indian Wells inconsistency for Murray - yes most definitely. Why that is is something of a mystery. It is like Stan's inconsistency at Wimbledon in many ways.

I fully understand it. IW is the odd-ball of the circuit. Fast flying through the air which then decelerates remarkably on impact. Not certain why Stan, who's best on slow surfaces with a high bounce - not doing well at a low bouncing fast event is surprising

Not sure I qite get this. Why would it be faster through the air than at other tournaments prior to the bounce - especially for a sea level  tournament which IW is. Only reason I can think of would be unusually still air, which is not a convincing reason. Or that the tournament uses faster balls?

Guest82 wrote:Looking at the race points, neither Murray or Djokovic are anywhere near the top.  Good chance of them both being outside the top 8 at the end of IW.

Federer is now favourite to win Indian Wells with the bookies, could the old man open up the year by winning the two biggest tournaments.  

Murrays lead at the top is safe for a while and Djokovic isn't looking like a threat to it.  This is shaping up to be a very unpredictable time at the top of the mens game. I wonder how the rankings will look at the end of the season.

The main courses are yet to come. History shows that the clay court Masters season / RG / Wimby / US Open have been a lock in for the Fab 5, since around 2008 - apart from the Cilic US14 victory.

In fact I expect to see the old Top 4 around US Open time

barrystar wrote:

I think all my coaches throughout my career have told me to go more for the backhand, but I used to shank more. So maybe deep down I didn't always believe that I had it in the most important moments. But I think that's changing little by little, which I'm very happy about.

I was watching him last night to try and see if the technique changed (taking the ball earlier?) but couldn't see much difference and I concluded that it was just higher confidence. If only he had had this backhand confidence on clay against Rafa in 2005-2007. Even Wimbledon 2008 he was slicing way more.

However, we've still yet to see whether that backhand really will continue to show this consistency throughout the season. He is hitting these flat shots very close to the net, with fine margins for error. Let's see how many more matches in a row he can play against a top rival and keep this up.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A tad unfair, no a lot unfair on Murray. Up until Indian Wells I think Murray had reached 15 of the last 16 finals of the tournaments he had played in. Seems pretty damned consistent to me. In fact by far the most consistent male player in the world in that time.

No need to defend Murray. My point was specific to IW, not the last 52-weeks (http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/andy-murray/mc10/player-activity?year=all&tournament=404). Post-AO inconsistencies seem to afflict Murray.

Indian Wells inconsistency for Murray - yes most definitely. Why that is is something of a mystery. It is like Stan's inconsistency at Wimbledon in many ways.

Barry and I are trying to say the same thing. Murray is a wonderful player, and statistical comparisons to FedAl cause some of the players to look ornery. It would be nice to have one IW crown in Murray's cap.

IMHO, Federer can get past Kyrgios, due to his variety, and ability to absorb power. I expect quite a bit of slicing/s&v from Federer.

banbrotam wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Looking at the race points, neither Murray or Djokovic are anywhere near the top.  Good chance of them both being outside the top 8 at the end of IW.

Federer is now favourite to win Indian Wells with the bookies, could the old man open up the year by winning the two biggest tournaments.  

Murrays lead at the top is safe for a while and Djokovic isn't looking like a threat to it.  This is shaping up to be a very unpredictable time at the top of the mens game. I wonder how the rankings will look at the end of the season.

The main courses are yet to come. History shows that the clay court Masters season / RG / Wimby / US Open have been a lock in for the Fab 5, since around 2008 - apart from the Cilic US14 victory.

In fact I expect to see the old Top 4 around US Open time

History also shows that Djokovic wins the AO and IW....

Last autumn Murray reckoned it would be around now - IW and Miami - where the points swing would give him the best chance of reaching number one. It was his staggering run at the end of last season that meant he actually got to numero uno earlier.
How much better all round it was that he reached the top in the way that he did rather than achieving it, rather desultorily, through Djoko's failings at the AO/IW.

Guest82 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Looking at the race points, neither Murray or Djokovic are anywhere near the top.  Good chance of them both being outside the top 8 at the end of IW.

Federer is now favourite to win Indian Wells with the bookies, could the old man open up the year by winning the two biggest tournaments.  

Murrays lead at the top is safe for a while and Djokovic isn't looking like a threat to it.  This is shaping up to be a very unpredictable time at the top of the mens game. I wonder how the rankings will look at the end of the season.

The main courses are yet to come. History shows that the clay court Masters season / RG / Wimby / US Open have been a lock in for the Fab 5, since around 2008 - apart from the Cilic US14 victory.

In fact I expect to see the old Top 4 around US Open time

History also shows that Djokovic wins the AO and IW....

Their clay and Wimby stranglehold is pretty impressive though. The dirt in particular nowadays always seems to have a prerequisite of five years experience as a minimum to get anywhere near. As ever Wimbledon requires a special technique, which arguably only Dimi has outside the usual suspects - I'm not even certain that Kyrgios even likes the grass

I just think the season tends to actually start with the clay as opposed to now, when top players often keep their powder dry for that brutal May to September spell of three slams and three different surfaces

Rafa has actually set the bar high for himself for the upcoming Miami.

From his post-IW presser (in which reference was made to the fact that he has now lost his last three matches played v Fed) :

“I started the season great, playing great tennis, winning a lot of matches. Today I didn't play my best, but I am really confident I’m going to play well in Miami [next] week.”

If the youngsters really do start to make waves - and it's a very big IF, I know - just how much elite level tennis does Rafa have left in him .........?

still trying to get my head around Djokovic, cannot get over just how low he has dropped. Losing to Kyrgios twice is unforgivable. Yeah he has a good serve but that is Novak's return is his bread and butter. I guarantee a year ago Novak would have had Kyrgios off the court in less than an hour.

The drop in Djokovic's game is alarming. As a big fan over the years I really am starting to wonder if his last slam win will be that French open last year. It is a shame to see it but as I have said before, he has exceeded all expectations up until this point.

Had he lost to an inspired Federer, it would have been easy to take and expected given the form Federer is in but losing to Kyrgios is just a joke

Slasher: "Had he (Djoko) lost to an inspired Federer, it would have been easy to take and expected given the form Federer is in but losing to Kyrgios is just a joke."

Kyrgios has beaten Djoko twice, as well as Rafa and Rog once. IMHO he's a big talent and the only reason he's not higher in the rankings is his poor attitude. He's got a big serve and has all the shots as well as excellent court craft.

slashermcguirk wrote:still trying to get my head around Djokovic, cannot get over just how low he has dropped. Losing to Kyrgios twice is unforgivable. Yeah he has a good serve but that is Novak's return is his bread and butter. I guarantee a year ago Novak would have had Kyrgios off the court in less than an hour.

..............................................................

Maybe so.

But some recognition also please for the fact that whilst Djokovic's standard has been dropping significantly, Kyrgios appears (although for just how long remains to be seen ......!) to have got his act very much together since his self-inflicted chaos of last year, and resultant ban etc etc.

Reports from those who have been watching him closely at IW say he looks very, very good right now.

Lags72, he served great no doubt about that. However most of the points were coming from Djokovic basic errors. How many times on 2nd serve did novak just bat the ball a mile over the baseline, it was just crazy bad stuff.

The fact of the matter is Kyrgios is never at the business end of slams and if he was that brilliant he would be. I know he is young but the top guys were already reaching slam quarters, semis and finals at that age.

I think Kyrgios has potential but I certainly don't see greatness ahead. He is also a complete tool

slashermcguirk wrote:still trying to get my head around Djokovic, cannot get over just how low he has dropped. Losing to Kyrgios twice is unforgivable. Yeah he has a good serve but that is Novak's return is his bread and butter. I guarantee a year ago Novak would have had Kyrgios off the court in less than an hour.

The drop in Djokovic's game is alarming. As a big fan over the years I really am starting to wonder if his last slam win will be that French open last year. It is a shame to see it but as I have said before, he has exceeded all expectations up until this point.

Had he  lost to an inspired Federer, it would have been easy to take and expected given the form Federer is in but losing to Kyrgios is just a joke

Winning is a habit that Novak has fallen out of in the last few months. Once that happens the problems become two fold as in personal confidence is knocked which affects players at key times and often means they play the bigger points in matches less well. Also it fills the opponent with more confidence as the aura of invincibility has gone (for now). He has to re-find that winning habit but to do that will take hard graft, belief, desire and dedication - something that Novak admits he lost to a degree post-French Open next year.

I find Kyrgios entertaining to watch. He has a swagger and arrogance on court which I quite like. Also some unpredictable moments.

He plays the big points very well too. If you put that together with his serve then when a match comes down to a few points he has a chance of winning it.

He'll probably blow Federer off court next and then lose 1 & 1 to Sock in the semi final. I think he struggles with motivation playing the lesser players.

No doubt if he gets his head together then he will win slams.

slashermcguirk wrote:Lags72, he served great no doubt about that. However most of the points were coming from Djokovic basic errors. How many times on 2nd serve did novak just bat the ball a mile over the baseline, it was just crazy bad stuff.

The fact of the matter is Kyrgios is never at the business end of slams and if he was that brilliant he would be. I know he is young but the top guys were already reaching slam quarters, semis and finals at that age.

I think Kyrgios has potential but I certainly don't see greatness ahead. He is also a complete tool

I think your last sentence is allowing you to have clouded judgement about Kyrgios

Great players and been "a complete tool" are not actually mutually incompatible!!. We've just been spoilt by the impeccable behaviour of all the greats of the last 30 years

slashermcguirk : I'd say it's FAR too soon to write off Kyrgios, even though he has messed up so often & so badly in these early years. Years when he should of course be focussing on the key essentials required to construct a lengthy pro career at the highest level.

I honestly don't know whether or not there is any "greatness" ahead - but nor would I say he is "a complete tool" either. Definitely not. You don't get to play any sport that well if you lack intelligence. As for his failure to make the business end of Slams ...... well .... he's still just 21. And, IIRC, even his Majesty, Federer, was around 22 when he won his very first.

Re Djokovic : the main factor here is surely all about confidence, as CC has mentioned. In their pomp, all the greats through the years ...whether Borg, Sampras, Fed et al .....have played almost without thinking, and they were good enough to get through even the biggest tests without ever questioning themselves, their strategy or tactics. It all came naturally. Not so with Djokovic, clearly, in recent months.

slashermcguirk wrote:still trying to get my head around Djokovic, cannot get over just how low he has dropped.

IMHO, the separation from Becker, in hindsight, may be regrettable. Murray/Lendl breakup also brought chaos to Murray.