Year-by-year comparison of the Big 3’s level in their 30s at each slam

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

mike danny said:
I mean, obviously it takes hindsight to assess the end of one's prime. Who saw Federer lose in back to back slam QFs to Soderling and Berdych in early 2010?

It probably wasn't obvious even then. I think it can become obvious only some time afterwards when the loss of form turns out to be long term. I do think that some feared for Federer in the spring and summer of 2010, but by contrast I think that Djokovic's performance at US Open 2016 didn't seem that bad (obviously Wimbledon was a bad loss). The most obvious characteristic at the time was his luckiness in getting so many withdrawals. Also, Nadal actually seemed to be playing relatively well in the first week of Wimbledon 2014, and to be honest even in the defeat against Kyrgios - who hadn't been worked out yet and so looked very dangerous.

There can probably be a grey time in which a player might seem to have begun a permanent decline but might also just be a little off-form.

mike danny · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
It probably wasn't obvious even then. I think it can become obvious only some time afterwards when the loss of form turns out to be long term. I do think that some feared for Federer in the spring and summer of 2010, but by contrast I think that Djokovic's performance at US Open 2016 didn't seem that bad (obviously Wimbledon was a bad loss). The most obvious characteristic at the time was his luckiness in getting so many withdrawals. Also, Nadal actually seemed to be playing relatively well in the first week of Wimbledon 2014, and to be honest even in the defeat against Kyrgios - who hadn't been worked out yet and so looked very dangerous.

There can probably be a grey time in which a player might seem to have begun a permanent decline but might also just be a little off-form.

Well, it turned out that Fed wouldn't win a slam for 2.5 years after AO 2010.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Is it usually only obvious in retrospect that a player is no longer in his prime? Don't think it would have been obvious for any of those three until afterwards. By contrast, I think many did expect that Becker's win at AO 1996 - also at 28, by the way - would be the end of the line for him, even though he probably would in the end have managed a very good run at Wimbledon 1996 if it weren't for his wrist injury. Might not have won the title but probably would have made the final and had a close match against Krajicek.

Last prime slam for Murray and Wawrinka was probably Roland Garros 2017. (Wikipedia even says as much in almost those words: "The hard-fought semifinal between Wawrinka and Andy Murray marked the end for both players at the top of the sport, as both suffered injuries that took them out of the game for months from which they did not reclaim their prior preeminence. As of February 2022 neither Murray nor Wawrinka have reached a semifinal or final of a Grand Slam tournament since their 2017 French Open semifinal.")

It wasn't obvious the following day of course but by the time the next edition came, i.e. a year later, it'd been bloody obvious for quite a while. Fed's post-AO 2010 to AO '11 was still strong but no longer up to his prime standards - didn't even make a slam final in that timeframe - Djokovic's performance dropped significantly after winning RG, and Nadal came to a screeching halt after RG '14 and ended up going two and a half years without making a slam SF.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
It probably wasn't obvious even then. I think it can become obvious only some time afterwards when the loss of form turns out to be long term. I do think that some feared for Federer in the spring and summer of 2010, but by contrast I think that Djokovic's performance at US Open 2016 didn't seem that bad (obviously Wimbledon was a bad loss). The most obvious characteristic at the time was his luckiness in getting so many withdrawals. Also, Nadal actually seemed to be playing relatively well in the first week of Wimbledon 2014, and to be honest even in the defeat against Kyrgios - who hadn't been worked out yet and so looked very dangerous.

There can probably be a grey time in which a player might seem to have begun a permanent decline but might also just be a little off-form.

That's pretty much a logical platitude, no? You can't establish a permanent decline until some time passes for it to be assessed as such.

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
It wasn't obvious the following day of course but by the time the next edition came, i.e. a year later, it'd been bloody obvious for quite a while. Fed's post-AO 2010 to AO '11 was still strong but no longer up to his prime standards - didn't even make a slam final in that timeframe - Djokovic's performance dropped significantly after winning RG, and Nadal came to a screeching halt after RG '14 and ended up going two and a half years without making a slam SF.

Yes, I know that for the three of them, but I was curious about whether you think that's generally the case or sometimes the warning signs are more obvious in advance.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

abmk said:
another 2-3 RGs in 30s sans Nadal?
he only lost to nadal twice in his 30s at RG.(20/22). its not like he was dominant vs the rest of the field in RG 20 (5-setter vs tsitspas), and it was only QF in 2022.
had lost to cecch in 18, thiem in 19.

He definitely wins 20/22 without Nadal.

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
That's pretty much a logical platitude, no? You can't establish a permanent decline until some time passes for it to be assessed as such.

Right, you wouldn't know for sure, but there might be times when a player is obviously struggling to maintain a level and clearly won't be able to for much longer. Doesn't seem so with any of those three at the times you pointed to, but if you were to think about subsequent decline, it would be pretty obvious at AO 2020 that Federer was about to go another level down, I think. Or it wouldn't come as a surprise that Djokovic would have a bad 2017 after his AO 2017, whereas his Wimbledon 2016 seemed more random at the time or a letdown after winning RG. And see also my Becker example. Or Sampras at Wimbledon 2000 (very different look to Sampras at Wimbledon 1999).

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
He definitely wins 20/22 without Nadal.

Are you really that confident he'd have beaten Zverev two weeks ago?

aldeayeah · Jun 16, 2022

No @RS style 0-10 numerical ratings for each individual performance, unsubscribed.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Are you really that confident he'd have beaten Zverev two weeks ago?

Totally. Zverev always finds a way to choke. AO and USO 21 were on full display.

Ned played about as poorly as he has ever played in his entire career there and he had a lead when the match ended.

mike danny · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Are you really that confident he'd have beaten Zverev two weeks ago?

Yes, Zverev would just against Djokovic too.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Yes, I know that for the three of them, but I was curious about whether you think that's generally the case or sometimes the warning signs are more obvious in advance.

The signs of a possible permanent decline were clear early on, in terms of their tennis quality taking a hit.

I wasn't yet following tennis in 2010 but Fed's continued undereperformance after AO is very clear and would have been no less clear if I were watching live. I would say Wimbledon was the event where his post-prime decline was shown decisively; alright, he can screw up in smaller events, peak Soderling can beat him at RG in damp conditions in a close match, but nearly losing in the first round to Falla at freaking Wimbledon was something else, and then of course the loss to Berdych where Fed was just a lot more erratic and struggled on return compared to the whole 03-09 period.

For Nadal, the early sign post-'14 AO was when he nearly lost to Andujar in Rio - Pablo doesn't even come close to having weapons that could trouble prime Nadal on clay. The troubles continued in the clay season - Almagro in Barcelona, Ferrer in MC (straight sets!), Djokovic in Rome (ok that's an acceptable loss) and even Nishikori was beating Nadal in Madrid before his back gave way. Ned put in a proper performance at RG again (although his opponents didn't play as well) but it was only a temporary respite so really it wasn't surprising when the decline proved to be lasting.

For Djokovic, I noted that he was starting to slip as early as the first match in IW when he lost the first set 2-6 to Bjorn Fratangelo. Djokovic didn't lose another set there and took the title but the cracks were there and I said as much on both TTW and MTF, although he turned it back strongly at RG so it was somewhat surprising to see his form drop so quickly but still that didn't come totally out of the blue. I figured something was bothering him as early as February (elbow perhaps) and RG was a temporary respite because he was extremely motivated to win, and once he did it he wanted to relax for a while but those underlying troubles didn't let him and we saw what happened.

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
The signs of a possible permanent decline were clear early on, in terms of their tennis quality taking a hit.

I wasn't yet following tennis in 2010 but Fed's continued undereperformance after AO is very clear and would have been no less clear if I were watching live. I would say Wimbledon was the event where his post-prime decline was shown decisively; alright, he can screw up in smaller events, peak Soderling can beat him at RG in damp conditions in a close match, but nearly losing in the first round to Falla at freaking Wimbledon was something else, and then of course the loss to Berdych where Fed was just a lot more erratic and struggled on return compared to the whole 03-09 period.

For Nadal, the early sign post-'14 AO was when he nearly lost to Andujar in Rio - Pablo doesn't even come close to having weapons that could trouble prime Nadal on clay. The troubles continued in the clay season - Almagro in Barcelona, Ferrer in MC (straight sets!), Djokovic in Rome (ok that's an acceptable loss) and even Nishikori was beating Nadal in Madrid before his back gave way. Ned put in a proper performance at RG again (although his opponents didn't play as well) but it was only a temporary respite so really it wasn't surprising when the decline proved to be lasting.

For Djokovic, I noted that he was starting to slip as early as the first match in IW when he lost the first set 2-6 to Bjorn Fratangelo. Djokovic didn't lose another set there and took the title but the cracks were there and I said as much on both TTW and MTF, although he turned it back strongly at RG so it was somewhat surprising to see his form drop so quickly but still that didn't come totally out of the blue. I figured something was bothering him as early as February (elbow perhaps) and RG was a temporary respite because he was extremely motivated to win, and once he did it he wanted to relax for a while but those underlying troubles didn't let him and we saw what happened.

Ah, yes it is a good idea to look at the non-GS performance, too. Certainly makes it very complicated in the case of Becker, because while he didn't end up producing a prime level Wimbledon in 96 because of his wrist injury, his form indoors at the end of 96 was at least prime level and arguably peak. So, although it might have seemed as though AO 96 was one last hurrah for him, that appearance was deceptive.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
Totally. Zverev always finds a way to choke. AO and USO 21 were on full display.

Ned played about as poorly as he has ever played in his entire career there and he had a lead when the match ended.

Can we pronounce Zverev the WOAT slam choker by now or is there still competition? Coria's choke was of course the most publicised but in terms of volume he only had a real shot at two slams (RG 03 and 04), choking both (03 to Verkerk in straights, 04 to Gaudio as everyone knows). Zverev has also choked on the verge of winning a slam (arguably worse since he served for it, on HC), but also pretty much every other slam where he made it deep and didn't just get rekt (AO 20, AO 21, USO 21, RG 22 - a hypothetical non-choking Zed certainly had a shot at them all, Djokodal were beatable).

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
The signs of a possible permanent decline were clear early on, in terms of their tennis quality taking a hit.

I wasn't yet following tennis in 2010 but Fed's continued undereperformance after AO is very clear and would have been no less clear if I were watching live. I would say Wimbledon was the event where his post-prime decline was shown decisively; alright, he can screw up in smaller events, peak Soderling can beat him at RG in damp conditions in a close match, but nearly losing in the first round to Falla at freaking Wimbledon was something else, and then of course the loss to Berdych where Fed was just a lot more erratic and struggled on return compared to the whole 03-09 period.

For Nadal, the early sign post-'14 AO was when he nearly lost to Andujar in Rio - Pablo doesn't even come close to having weapons that could trouble prime Nadal on clay. The troubles continued in the clay season - Almagro in Barcelona, Ferrer in MC (straight sets!), Djokovic in Rome (ok that's an acceptable loss) and even Nishikori was beating Nadal in Madrid before his back gave way. Ned put in a proper performance at RG again (although his opponents didn't play as well) but it was only a temporary respite so really it wasn't surprising when the decline proved to be lasting.

For Djokovic, I noted that he was starting to slip as early as the first match in IW when he lost the first set 2-6 to Bjorn Fratangelo. Djokovic didn't lose another set there and took the title but the cracks were there and I said as much on both TTW and MTF, although he turned it back strongly at RG so it was somewhat surprising to see his form drop so quickly but still that didn't come totally out of the blue. I figured something was bothering him as early as February (elbow perhaps) and RG was a temporary respite because he was extremely motivated to win, and once he did it he wanted to relax for a while but those underlying troubles didn't let him and we saw what happened.

Nadal had a subpar season between AO and RG in 2014.

It's nowhere near comparable to Djokovic playing poorly in the opening rounds of every big tournament between Doha and RG, just to invariably raise his level when it mattered.

I didn't expect either to plummet that hard, but Novak's was far more abrupt. He had injury struggles, but he also had stretches when he was fit, yet still playing poorly.

Fed's decline was more underperformance than anything. His overall level still dropped fairly liniarly if you look at how he played during YEC 10 and the following big events in 2011, which was borderline primeish.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Can we pronounce Zverev the WOAT slam choker by now or is there still competition? Coria's choke was of course the most publicised but in terms of volume he only had a real shot at two slams (RG 03 and 04), choking both (03 to Verkerk in straights, 04 to Gaudio as everyone knows). Zverev has also choked on the verge of winning a slam (arguably worse since he served for it, on HC), but also pretty much every other slam where he made it deep and didn't just get rekt (AO 20, AO 21, USO 21, AO 22 - a hypothetical non-choking Zed certainly had a shot at them all, Djokodal were beatable).

I think Zverev takes the crown at this point.

Goran/Coria/Davydenko/Cilic/Dimitrov were on the list, but Zverev is something else right now.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Ah, yes it is a good idea to look at the non-GS performance, too. Certainly makes it very complicated in the case of Becker, because while he didn't end up producing a prime level Wimbledon in 96 because of his wrist injury, his form indoors at the end of 96 was at least prime level and arguably peak. So, although it might have seemed as though AO 96 was one last hurrah for him, that appearance was deceptive.

I think a recurring wrist(?) injury resurfaced in '97 and that was what killed his career, right? Certainly you couldn't predict that based on his excellent finish to the '96 season.

jl809 · Jun 16, 2022

I did end up doing this analysis for age 19-29, and Nadal comes out on top (partly due to how OP youngdal was), followed very narrowly by Fed and then narrowly by Djokovic.

It does feel like Djokovic always comes bottom of this stuff tbh, a bit like when I worked out that Federer would have 23 slams and Djokovic would only have 15 if he’d been born in the same year as Federer

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
Nadal had a subpar season between AO and RG in 2014.

It's nowhere near comparable to Djokovic playing poorly in the opening rounds of every big tournament between Doha and RG, just to invariably raise his level when it mattered.

I didn't expect either to plummet that hard, but Novak's was far more abrupt. He had injury struggles, but he also had stretches when he was fit, yet still playing poorly.

Fed's decline was more underperformance than anything. His overall level still dropped fairly liniarly if you look at how he played during YEC 10 and the following big events in 2011, which was borderline primeish.

Djokovic didn't quite plummet for the rest of '16, right? Canada W - USO F - Shanghai SF - Paris QF - YEC F, a very clear drop but it wasn't catastrophic yet; 2017 was much worse. I mean he would've won IW/Miami just as well with his USO/YEC level I'm pretty sure, no clutchrinka/fightray there (Nadal not so good), just like he won Canada (where he was arguably no better than in USO/YEC, the Berdych match was an epic study in birdbrain in particular). Ok, what I really mean is that "raising level" is overrated and I don't think that happened to any significant degree; if beating Nishikori and Goffin is the yardstick then Djokovic destroyed Nish even at the YEC, and Nadal wasn't great yet either. The IW final over Botnic was very dominant but Milos was hurt so I can't say it's more impressive than double breadsticking a healthy Kei at the YEC which is considered a bad performance from Joe 'cause he lost the final to Murray.

Fred didn't have a drastic dip like Djokodal did at that age yet, that came in 2013. Still his decline was perfectly clear.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

jl809 said:
I did end up doing this analysis for age 19-29, and Nadal comes out on top (partly due to how OP youngdal was), followed very narrowly by Fed and then narrowly by Djokovic.

It does feel like Djokovic always comes bottom of this stuff tbh, a bit like when I worked out that Federer would have 23 slams and Djokovic would only have 15 if he’d been born in the same year as Federer

Nadal always wins pre-prime due to how precocious he was - already partly prime and winning slams while the other two were still learning. Fed wins prime and post-prime. Djokovic always loses these comparisons despite his superior consistency because he has the lowest top peak if you put all three in the same basket: while Nadal absolutely dominates clay (and makes an occasional inroad elsewhere), Djokovic is badly shafted by Federer at WB/USO/YEC and only has AO left and he's nowhere near as dominant there as Nadal at RG, so the overall totals go Fed>Nad>Joe. Without Fed it would be Joe>Ned since Joe is much more reliable off clay; although Nadal on clay > Joe off clay in terms of dominance, and Nadal off clay > Joe on clay, non-clay comprising 3 slams + YEC to clay's 1 slam means Joe's off-clay advantage wins out.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Djokovic didn't quite plummet for the rest of '16, right? Canada W - USO F - Shanghai SF - Paris QF - YEC F, a very clear drop but it wasn't catastrophic yet; 2017 was much worse. I mean he would've won IW/Miami just as well with his USO/YEC level I'm pretty sure, no clutchrinka/fightray there (Nadal not so good), just like he won Canada (where he was arguably no better than in USO/YEC, the Berdych match was an epic study in birdbrain in particular). Ok, what I really mean is that "raising level" is overrated and I don't think that happened to any significant degree; if beating Nishikori and Goffin is the yardstick then Djokovic destroyed Nish even at the YEC, and Nadal wasn't great yet either. The IW final over Botnic was very dominant but Milos was hurt so I can't say it's more impressive than double breadsticking a healthy Kei at the YEC which is considered a bad performance from Joe 'cause he lost the final to Murray.

Fred didn't have a drastic dip like Djokodal did at that age yet, that came in 2013. Still his decline was perfectly clear.

The bold is fundamentally false.

How about Doha final, AO SF-F, IW SF-F, Madrid whole tournament, RG QF-F

He played either his B or A game in all of those matches. Miami and Rome weren't great, true, but 4 big tournaments and a masterclass in Doha are a good sample.

Aside from YEC, no tournament played after RG is at that level. Canada and USO may have been serviceable in terms of getting wins, but it was on a weaker level still.

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
I think a recurring wrist(?) injury resurfaced in '97 and that was what killed his career, right? Certainly you couldn't predict that based on his excellent finish to the '96 season.

Yes, it was the injury that he sustained at Wimbledon 96. He seemed to have got over it but then it came back to haunt him. I also think he gave up because he knew he couldn't challenge Sampras on grass, which was a shame because he was still probably better than anyone else on grass and at least was roughly on a par with Ivanisevic or Krajicek. And he could and did give Sampras a run for his money indoors.

But what I was saying was that I think many did believe at the time of his revival from mid-95, which terminated with him winning the AO 96, that it was one last hurrah. He even said that he had promised Barbara to win one more slam. And I remember a newspaper report on the first Saturday of Wimbledon 96, the day after his wrist injury, that the AO win had felt like the old tiger beating back the young cubs one last time and that the wrist injury was the equivalent of time's winged chariot calling him home. So, we have the odd thing that people were writing him off in late 95/early 96 when he was doing better than he had done for years, that he got an injury that seemed to confirm their prognosis that he was on borrowed time, that he then seemed to shrug off the injury and play even better than in the late 95/early 96 stretch and arguably as well as he ever had in the 96 indoor season, and that the wrist injury then recurred and he gave up his slam career prematurely.

It was super frustrating - even as an Edberg fan who had usually cheered against Becker a few years previously - to see him playing a bunch of minor events in late 97 and through 98 while refusing to put his hat in the ring at Wimbledon 98 or the hard court slams. Even if he were past his best, it would still have been worth hanging around until Wimbledon 99, which did turn out to be his last slam.

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

mike danny said:
Yes, Zverev would just against Djokovic too.

Just what? Choke or get injured? I think the former is probably true but the latter is probably untrue.

@InsideOut900 I agree that Djokovic would probably have won. I'm just not sure I'd say it was definite.

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
I think Zverev takes the crown at this point.

Goran/Coria/Davydenko/Cilic/Dimitrov were on the list, but Zverev is something else right now.

Don't think it's fair to Ivanisevic and Cilic to have them on the list when both won one. They are ATG slam chokers but to be WOAT tier, I think you have to choke every single time and never get over the finish line. I will refer this question to our resident expert at distinguishing OAT from ATG levels, Mr @AnOctorokForDinner for confirmation.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
@InsideOut900 I agree that Djokovic would probably have won. I'm just not sure I'd say it was definite.

Zverev is usually even less confident against Novak than Rafa, especially after 2021, this aside from the fact Nadal played like garbage there and it's an easier match-up for Zed.

I think some still don't realize how incomprehensible that choke was.

Zverev basically played about as well as he could have in the first set and still threw it away. Then the 2nd set was even worse, it was just awful all around.

mike danny · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Just what? Choke or get injured? I think the former is probably true but the latter is probably untrue.

@InsideOut900 I agree that Djokovic would probably have won. I'm just not sure I'd say it was definite.

Choke obviously

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
Zverev is usually even less confident against Novak than Rafa, especially after 2021, this aside from the fact Nadal played like garbage there and it's an easier match-up for Zed.

I think some still don't realize how incomprehensible that choke was.

Zverev basically played about as well as he could have in the first set and still threw it away. Then the 2nd set was even worse, it was just awful all around.

I certainly realize how bad it was. 6-2 up in a tiebreak then loses and serves for a set and serves three DFs + gets taken to a tiebreak despite breaking serve four times and having a good serve for indoor tennis. Still think if he had won the second set TB, he would probably have won because Nadal was so tired. Even if Nadal did win the TB, if Zverev hung in there (a big if), he might well still have a chance, because Nadal would probably have to throw in a 1-6 third set to avoid wasting energy.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
I certainly realize how bad it was. 6-2 up in a tiebreak then loses and serves for a set and serves three DFs + gets taken to a tiebreak despite breaking serve four times and having a good serve for indoor tennis. Still think if he had won the second set TB, he would probably have won because Nadal was so tired.

Yeah, all the Zverev compassionate bots now celebrating #22 with no mention of lucky Nadal was to have that match cut short.

I will grant it that the roof made it terrible for Nadal and there is no way he would have played as poorly otherwise, but that was still a great challenge he didn't have to survive.

mike danny · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
I certainly realize how bad it was. 6-2 up in a tiebreak then loses and serves for a set and serves three DFs + gets taken to a tiebreak despite breaking serve four times and having a good serve for indoor tennis. Still think if he had won the second set TB, he would probably have won because Nadal was so tired. Even if Nadal did win the TB, if Zverev hung in there (a big if), he might well still have a chance, because Nadal would probably have to throw in a 1-6 third set to avoid wasting energy.

That's a big if though as far as Zverev was concerned and the prior dynamics didn't do him any favors: choked the first set away and choked when serving for the second.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
The bold is fundamentally false.

How about Doha final, AO SF-F, IW SF-F, Madrid whole tournament, RG QF-F

He played either his B or A game in all of those matches. Miami and Rome weren't great, true, but 4 big tournaments and a masterclass in Doha are a good sample.

Aside from YEC, no tournament played after RG is at that level. Canada and USO may have been serviceable in terms of getting wins, but it was on a weaker level still.

Doha and AO were before the beginning of the fall.
Was IW really better than Canada in SF/F level-wise? Doubt. Djokovic beat Monfils and Nishikori fairly easily other than a little wobble in the second set of the final. He struggled more with Nadal (who hwas better than either, still it's only 2016dal) but less with Raonic (who was worse than either due to being hurt).
Madrid and RG yes, I mentioned RG where Djokovic turned it around for a while, Madrid goes there too.
The Wimbledon loss was shocking but what followed was kind of like the IW-Miami decline with some further gradual decline as the year progressed - the pattern had already been set. What I'm saying is the drastic change actually occurred right after AO when Djokovic suddenly went from peak to declining. Remember he also took five sets to beat Kukushkin in DC the week before IW. In retrospect it somehow looks like the Dubai retirement marked the beginning of the decline even though the reason (eye infection) had nothing to do with Noel's subsequent struggles.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Doha and AO were before the beginning of the fall.
Was IW really better than Canada in SF/F level-wise? Doubt. Djokovic beat Monfils and Nishikori fairly easily other than a little wobble in the second set of the final. He struggled more with Nadal (who hwas better than either, still it's only 2016dal) but less with Raonic (who was worse than either due to being hurt).
Madrid and RG yes, I mentioned RG where Djokovic turned it around for a while, Madrid goes there too.
The Wimbledon loss was shocking but what followed was kind of like the IW-Miami decline with some further gradual decline as the year progressed - the pattern had already been set. What I'm saying is the drastic change actually occurred right after AO when Djokovic suddenly went from peak to declining. Remember he also took five sets to beat Kukushkin in DC the week before IW. In retrospect it somehow looks like the Dubai retirement marked the beginning of the decline even though the reason (eye infection) had nothing to do with Noel's subsequent struggles.

That's so far fetched to a point I don't even feel like going into details.

Yeah, he was better in the IW semi and final than Canada, clearly so in the 2nd of the Nadal match and the final against Mugronic.

Canada Djoko never hit his offensive stride, it felt like a limbo grinding with his B- game, kinda like Miami, except everything he produced after Canada was worse than anything between Doha-RG by some margin.

The whole "turned it behind for a while" feels weird, you could sense at RG 16 Djoko was much into it physically and mentally, I never got the same impression anywhere afterwards.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Yes, it was the injury that he sustained at Wimbledon 96. He seemed to have got over it but then it came back to haunt him. I also think he gave up because he knew he couldn't challenge Sampras on grass, which was a shame because he was still probably better than anyone else on grass and at least was roughly on a par with Ivanisevic or Krajicek. And he could and did give Sampras a run for his money indoors.

But what I was saying was that I think many did believe at the time of his revival from mid-95, which terminated with him winning the AO 96, that it was one last hurrah. He even said that he had promised Barbara to win one more slam. And I remember a newspaper report on the first Saturday of Wimbledon 96, the day after his wrist injury, that the AO win had felt like the old tiger beating back the young cubs one last time and that the wrist injury was the equivalent of time's winged chariot calling him home. So, we have the odd thing that people were writing him off in late 95/early 96 when he was doing better than he had done for years, that he got an injury that seemed to confirm their prognosis that he was on borrowed time, that he then seemed to shrug off the injury and play even better than in the late 95/early 96 stretch and arguably as well as he ever had in the 96 indoor season, and that the wrist injury then recurred and he gave up his slam career prematurely.

It was super frustrating - even as an Edberg fan who had usually cheered against Becker a few years previously - to see him playing a bunch of minor events in late 97 and through 98 while refusing to put his hat in the ring at Wimbledon 98 or the hard court slams. Even if he were past his best, it would still have been worth hanging around until Wimbledon 99, which did turn out to be his last slam.

Both Edberg and Becker could've hung in there for a bit longer but it's not fun when you no longer get even close to winning anything big. They didn't have the single-minded drive to keep playing no matter what so long as the body allowed. Not uncommon for many great players at the time. Perhaps that's a healthier mindset.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
That's so far fetched to a point I don't even feel like going into details.

Yeah, he was better in the IW semi and final than Canada, clearly so in the 2nd of the Nadal match and the final against Mugronic.

Canada Djoko never hit his offensive stride, it felt like a limbo grinding with his B- game, kinda like Miami, except everything he produced after Canada was worse than anything between Doha-RG by some margin.

The whole "turned it behind for a while" feels weird, you could sense at RG 16 Djoko was much into it physically and mentally, I never got the same impression anywhere afterwards.

Strange that you would say that. What is so unreasonable about the concept of Djokovic being in a gradual fall post-AO all season? IW was better than Canada but not nearly to the degree AO was better than IW from QF onwards... come on, no? He did seem to have shaken it off by RG so I did think it had been a temporary dip at the time, turned out the Madrid-RG resurrection had been temporary instead.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Strange that you would say that. What is so unreasonable about the concept of Djokovic being in a gradual fall post-AO all season? IW was better than Canada but not nearly to the degree AO was better than IW from QF onwards... come on, no? He did seem to have shaken it off by RG so I did think it had been a temporary dip at the time, turned out the Madrid-RG resurrection had been temporary instead.

Because he played meh in all Doha matches until the F and the first 4 rounds of AO.

The only matches from early season that were better were the Doha F and AO semi.
And both happened in his favourite playing conditions, it has to be mentioned, no way he was gonna play like that in IW or on clay.

I don't rate AO final better than IW final or RG final at all. They are about on par. You won't convince me on that either.

Even in Rome when his level wasn't that good he was very much into in mentally and fighting hard, unlike the countless chokes from the 2nd part of the season.

You can have fluctuations of form throughout, remember his IW/Miami/Canada/Cincy runs in 2015, but it doesn't mean you are suddently just falling off. The mental aspect was very much there and he raised his level many times post AO

helterskelter · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Both Edberg and Becker could've hung in there for a bit longer but it's not fun when you no longer get even close to winning anything big. They didn't have the single-minded drive to keep playing no matter what so long as the body allowed. Not uncommon for many great players at the time. Perhaps that's a healthier mindset.

Edberg was way further from his best when he retired at the end of a year-long retirement tour at the end of 96 than was Becker when he called it abruptly in mid-97. Edberg had made one slam QF of the previous 11 slams. Even being #14 was only the result of turning his year around starting at RG, when he had sunk to about #50. Becker honestly was more or less on a par with anyone other than Sampras on grass. Maybe the injury was just too much but it doesn't explain why he kept playing minors - he played five events + Davis Cup in late 97 but not the US Open, and in 98 he played 11 events but no slams. The week after Wimbledon 98 (which he skipped), he beat world #2 Marcelo Rios on clay in Gstaad! I totally understand Becker retiring after Wimbledon 99, but the two years between Wimbledon 97 and Wimbledon 99 are incomprehensible to me. I don't get playing a mid-sized schedule of minor events without entering any slams.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
Because he played meh in all Doha matches until the F and the first 4 rounds of AO.

The only matches from early season that were better were the Doha F and AO semi.
And both happened in his favourite playing conditions, it has to be mentioned, no way he was gonna play like that in IW or on clay.

I don't rate AO final better than IW final or RG final at all. They are about on par. You won't convince me on that either.

Even in Rome when his level wasn't that good he was very much into in mentally and fighting hard, unlike the countless chokes from the 2nd part of the season.

You can have fluctuations of form throughout, remember his IW/Miami/Canada/Cincy runs in 2015, but it doesn't mean you are suddently just falling off. The mental aspect was very much there and he raised his level many times post AO

Hmm. It's always funny when upon deeper analysis it turns out Djokovic wasn't even playing that great, lolol. If you put so much premium on the mental aspect I suppose you have a good point since Joe deflated most of all after RG, although he could've still covered for that had he got the very winnable USO final but didn't happen. Then again, if it weren't Stan who was always ready to play Djok in a slam match, but del Slicetro or Sadmadev, Djokovic most probably wins anyway and suddenly the whole season turns out pretty omazenk even if Joe still loses YEC to Mandy. From the USO final onwards Novak's shaky mentality was fully on display as he kept flopping in every big match, true.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

helterskelter said:
Edberg was way further from his best when he retired at the end of a year-long retirement tour at the end of 96 than was Becker when he called it abruptly in mid-97. Edberg had made one slam QF of the previous 11 slams. Even being #14 was only the result of turning his year around starting at RG, when he had sunk to about #50. Becker honestly was more or less on a par with anyone other than Sampras on grass. Maybe the injury was just too much but it doesn't explain why he kept playing minors - he played five events + Davis Cup in late 97 but not the US Open, and in 98 he played 11 events but no slams. The week after Wimbledon 98 (which he skipped), he beat world #2 Marcelo Rios on clay in Gstaad! I totally understand Becker retiring after Wimbledon 99, but the two years between Wimbledon 97 and Wimbledon 99 are incomprehensible to me. I don't get playing a mid-sized schedule of minor events without entering any slams.

That's the point, no? A good second half of the season saw him make a slam QF for the first time into years and rise back in the rankings. It's possible he'd be able to maintain that for a while and even crack the top ten anew. Becker didn't exactly impress at '97 Wimbledon by receiving two breadsticks from PETE, probably didn't see himself possibly winning anymore so what's the point.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Hmm. It's always funny when upon deeper analysis it turns out Djokovic wasn't even playing that great, lolol. If you put so much premium on the mental aspect I suppose you have a good point since Joe deflated most of all after RG, although he could've still covered for that had he got the very winnable USO final but didn't happen. Then again, if it weren't Stan who was always ready to play Djok in a slam match, but del Slicetro or Sadmadev, Djokovic most probably wins anyway and suddenly the whole season turns out pretty omazenk even if Joe still loses YEC to Mandy. From the USO final onwards Novak's shaky mentality was fully on display as he kept flopping in every big match, true.

He are getting on the same page.

First half of 2016 Djoko can be seen as either fantastic or overrated if you switch perspectives.

He was up and down, but raised his level when needed almost every time.
Played some peak matches, but was also more vulnerables on multiple occasions.

Post RG he choked many matches, more than I can remember.

AnOctorokForDinner · Jun 16, 2022

InsideOut900 said:
He are getting on the same page.

First half of 2016 Djoko can be seen as either fantastic or overrated if you switch perspectives.

He was up and down, but raised his level when needed almost every time.
Played some peak matches, but was also more vulnerables on multiple occasions.

Post RG he choked many matches, more than I can remember.

Basically every loss (except Olympics vs Delpo where Joe got outhit and did well to force TBs at all) involved Djokovic failing on key junctions, which is essentially a reflection that he was still good enough to contend but had too many lapses that left him exposable.

InsideOut900 · Jun 16, 2022

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Basically every loss (except Olympics vs Delpo where Joe got outhit and did well to force TBs at all) involved Djokovic failing on key junctions, which is essentially a reflection that he was still good enough to contend but had too many lapses that left him exposable.

His average level was lower, meaning very few bright performances if any at all and he was unclutch as ever too.

A quite frustrating combo, maybe what Fed fans experienced in big matches in 2015-2016 at times.

movies99 · Jun 16, 2022

Topspin_80 said:
Since the big 3 turned 30 yo they have won:

Federer played 8 slams finals, winning 4, and losing 4.

Nadal played 10 slams finals, winning 8, and losing 2.

Novak played 10 slams finals, winning 8, and losing 2.

Advantage Nadal and Djokovic.

Apparently somebody thinks than winning 4 is better than winning 8.

and that losing 4 is better than losing 2.

Federer is a great player, fantastic, memorable, but he's not better than Nadal or Djokovic throughout his career, let alone after 30.

P.S. Federer is out of the race, Nadal and Djokovic, still playing on.

No matter what font and size you use, accordingly to them he is hypothetical

DSH · Jun 16, 2022

More propaganda from Federer fans.
They should nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, after all, he does everything well, according to their perception.

mike danny · Jun 16, 2022

DSH said:
More propaganda from Federer fans.
They should nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, after all, he does everything well, according to their perception.

What exactly is propaganda?

TheNachoMan · Jun 16, 2022

mike danny said:
What exactly is propaganda?

Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (born 5 May 2003) is a Spanish professional tennis player. He has been ranked as high as world No. 6 in singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). Alcaraz has won five ATP Tour singles titles, including two Masters 1000 titles, and produced his best Grand Slam performances at the 2021 US Open and 2022 French Open by reaching the quarterfinals.

mike danny · Jun 16, 2022

TheNachoMan said:
Carlos Alcaraz Garfia (born 5 May 2003) is a Spanish professional tennis player. He has been ranked as high as world No. 6 in singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). Alcaraz has won five ATP Tour singles titles, including two Masters 1000 titles, and produced his best Grand Slam performances at the 2021 US Open and 2022 French Open by reaching the quarterfinals.

Well played

Topspin_80 · Jun 16, 2022

movies99 said:
No matter what font and size you use, accordingly to them he is hypothetical

The font size is to catch your eye. No biggie.

Year-by-year comparison of the Big 3’s level in their 30s at each slam

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Rookie

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

TheNachoMan

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Similar threads