Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by OddJack, Feb 1, 2013.
Yep and it's about to be 2 if he shows up there this year.
Didn't you say the same last year, you Djotard?
This! ...sounds like a reasonable scenario. I thin a lot will depend on his self-confidence and that is why playing a few smaller tourneys is clever. He can re-build his confidence, before running into any top players to early (top players at this stage are not only top 5, but rather top 20 or more. Unexpected losses in these tourneys however could be water on grains of doubt and uncertainty that are certainly there after a long time off competition.
Also, his knees are still hurting. Lets see what the next few weeks bring...then it might be time for a prediction. Right now it all is a big pile of guesswork for not to say BS.
Why did they not test him a bit more often before that? Obviously, should he have been taking stuff, he would have made sure to be off it with out provable traces before announcing a come back. Having said that, until proven I believe not in doping, not for Nadal, not for any other top player.
Murray, the man to beat at RG? Surely, he's joking
well, there is a big difference between the man to beat and one of the men to beat.
i think agassi and wilander are just going with experience in regards to what usually happens during a player's comeback year, especially having been gone for 7 months.
we'll see with rafa if he breaks the mold. he is quite possibly the clay goat and RG is his tournament, but we'll still just have to see.
Correction: stars are aligned for Djokovic to win CYGS this year.
You covered a few different topics there.
First, I keep hearing "New Racquet", do you mean the new version of the same raquet or something specifically different like a bigger or smaller size, weight, etc.?
As far as coming back, sometimes a rest is what people need. Aggassi went into self imposed exile, Nadal has practiced as much as his body could take, and if he's 100% physically, he will be the man to beat, despite the layoff.
Lastly, DO THEY DOPE TEST OR NOT? If so why all the ruckus about whether or not Djoke is doping? I mean is it just Nadal? Is this just random? What is the policy for drug testing in the ATP?
Yeah as if Murray's going to go from winning zero clay court tournies to winning Roland Garros. Not likely. :roll:
Nadal at 2 percent should still Win RG. Soderling was just a miracle.
2%, huh? Gee, THERE'S an objective, logical opinion...
miracles don't win tennis matches.
not that you are thinking about soderlings victory over rafa at the french open much though :twisted:
I doubt that Djokovic will win the CYGS this year. It's possible I guess, but highly unlikely IMO.
Unless Nadal gets back up to speed really quickly I would tend to agree with Agassi and Wilander.
I did? Well, feel free to cover any or all topics you want.
And about the new racket, seems like you didnt get the memo. BTW, what you read is not my writing, that's why there is a link there. I thought that's obvious.
What you saw was the opinion of Agassi, and Wilander and other retired pro players and like I said they talk from experience. What's yours experience? How did you come back from being away from pro tour?
The only slam he isnt the likely winner of at the moment is Wimbledon, and even there it is hard to say who is the likely winner. It isnt likely for Federer to win any particular slam at this point, he can win another Wimbledon or U.S Open before he retires, but he isnt the likely winner going in of any. Murray should win a Wimbledon at one point, but Djokovic is starting to won that matchup again, and Federer and Nadal have both owned him at Wimbledon to date. Nadal isnt the likely winner of Wimbledon unless he actually does return and win RG, and even then it is debateable, especialy after his abysmal 2012 performance there.
I do not see Djokovic winning the CYGS. I don't think people are realizing how hard it is. If he couldn't do it in 2011 he's not doing it period IMHO. Also IMHO if Nadal or Federer couldn't pull it off Djokovic is not doing it. Everybody overreacts these days when a guy wins the AO, and he struggled there in one of his matches to boot.
A bold statement to make when 4 out of Djokovic's 6 majors have been in Melbourne.
I agree it's very difficult, but not because he didnt win it in 2011. Nadal was a big factor Then. Yes he wasnt in the final but big matches with Nadal slowed him down.
Now with Nadal and Fed weakened he has a chance. We will know much more when clay masters and Nadal have played.
Careful, he'll put you on ignore!
that's Wilander right? The man talks absolute rubbish most of the time. I mean really crazy stupid stuff.
Nothing is impossible for Nadal on clay. He won 52 matches at RG out of 53. Think about that for a minute.
The order: thanks, I corrected it.
Actually his record is 52-1 isn't it?
2005 - 7
2006 - 14
2007 - 21
2008 - 28
2009 - 31
2010 - 38
2011 - 45
2012 - 52 Wins.
Anyway, hopefully he can make it 59-1 after this year.
I agree... His 2011 was significantly aided by Federer having a pretty sub-standard year (playing-wise) for long patches. I don't think Federer is weakened really - he came to this year's Aussie Open with a different approach and defended his points but generally played sharper imo. Djokovic showed he can be patchy too - his match with Wawrinka could easily have been a clanger.
Coming into the clay court season I wonder how it'll pan out. I think Federer's AO experiment can be considered a success in some ways, not so in others. His long-term clay pedigree is certainly better than Djokovic's and it'd only take a very minor variation in on-the-day form for Federer or Murray to send Djokovic packing. Peaking at the right time is going to be paramount if Djokovic has any chance of winning all four this year.
And at M-C, he won 44 matches out of 45. He's the clay beast
Cahill sitting courtside in Murray match thought Fed was a little slow. But no doubt Rodge will have his chances at any of the next 3 majors.
BTW, never before the importance of draw had shown itself so much in the outcome. Had Mur fallen in Djoker half, the final would have been quite a different ball game.
I don't think any player won a slam four months after coming back from a long term injury break of 6-8 months.
Since Djokovic first became Djokovic he has won 2 of the 6 non AO major events, 3 of 9 if we extend to the Olympics and WTF. That is still more than anyone else in that span. With Nadal out of commision entirely for the moment, and Federer continuing to age, and Djokovic continuing to only get better, the odds just keep getting better for him.
I wonder when Djokovic's knees are going to start going kaputt with all that sliding he does on HC.
Anyway, no surprise if Djokovic wins RG 2013, no major surprise if Rafa wins it either. Still want Rafa to win, of course.
How can djoker possibly be continuing to get better when he clearly peaked in 2011 and is almost 26, heading out of his prime years?
When did this myth of most players being old at 26 come from. Maybe Nadal did but rising to World #2 and becoming a Slam Champion at only 18, and with his playing style and injury proneness that is hardly a surprise. I believe it is myth started by Federer fans when Nadal overtook him and Djokovic challenged him hard while still in his prime at 26 and 27, oh god prime Federer has to be invincible every year so he must be past his prime, when in reality he didnt leave his prime until almost 29. Djokovic like most players at only 25 or 26 is still in his prime, and will continue to be so for another several years atleast, to the dismay of many (and myself included if Rafa comes back strong as I grudingly concede Djokovic has been the same constant thorn in his side his entire career that Nadal was to Federer the entire career of Roger). As for his exact playing level and peaking or not, he already ended 2012 and started 2013 playing superior tennis to what he played most of 2012, so whether he reaches or surpasses 2011 or not, he is already on the up again in that department.
I don't think any player ever did what Nadal has done on clay. Surely, you're aware that Nadal has broken records left and right on the red stuff by now. Any other player winning 7 RG and losing there just once? He can definitely win this RG. Whether or not it has been done before is totally irrelevant.
There is substantial data to demonstrate that, barring a few outliers, elite tennis player performance peaks between 22 and 25 and declines thereafter.
What you are saying is correct in that at 26 a player is not "old" and is still very close to his best. On the other hand Mariecon's point, as I understood it, is valid as well. Namely that at 26 a player starts moving AWAY from peak performance and is unlikely to IMPROVE.
Lendl and Connors are two obvious counterexamples but they are huge outliers in this regard.
Well add Agassi, so now you would have atleast 3 outliers. Add Laver and Rosewall (both Open Era players) now you have 5. Sampras arguably played his best ever tennis in 1997 and mid 1999 before the injury at ages 27 and 28, so add another one. Becker played some of his best tennis ever in 1995 and 1996 and he was in his late 20s by then, so there is another.
I would request you to take a look at the thread below. I have plotted the ages of all 444 finalists at majors and season finales in the open era. as you will see the overwhelming majority of 22-25 year-olds outperform 26+ year-olds. The sample size is statistically significant. I have further charts and analysis which I hope you will find interesting.
by the way totally agree about agassi also being an outlier (he slipped my mind).
laver and rosewall were 29 and 33 respectively at the start of the open era; they performed really well in the first few years of the open era. but it is difficult to conclude from this that they were at their best - we don't know how much better they would have performed if the open era had started while they were in the 22-25 range. any comparisons between post-68 and pre-68 are not apples to apples.
sampras won 8 majors in the 4 years he was 22-25 and only 4 over the next 7 years. becker won a single major after turning 26. so while these two guys certainly hit highs after the age of 26, they could not sustain those highs for multiple seasons.
Rod Laver won the grand slam in 1969 age 30/31.
yep he sure did
This guy won his seventh My Olympia title at age 33. Undefeated from 1970 to 1980, missing 76-79.
Still has peaks that put todays monsters to shame.
Looks like Nadal will easily clean up at FO based on today's performance.
Yep, Nadal looking to wear down his opponents on the red stuff as usual. A lot of pain coming the other guys 'way. Again!!
One match is too soon to tell, he looked rusty (as you'd expect) and was playing no offence a nobody.
Well, let's see, of the last 5 Slams, only one player has 2 Slams, and that player is Nole, so I wouldn't label him over the hill just yet...
looks like a juicer to me...
I don't know how they can say that so far away from RG.
There is still a lot of tennis and big clay court tournaments to be played.
More than enough time for Nadal to get back to close to his best and I think that can still be good enough to beat anyone.
I could understand it if the tournament was a month away but seems very premature to be writing off his chances this early.
LOL this is my favorite part. Sorry to derail the thread but I was thinking about this. Serena comes back in under 1/8th the time she takes off. She has GOT to be doping. Look how hard it is for Del Potro. Yet Serena comes back and wins slams after skipping EVERY warm up event.
This is the best and most similar example to compare with Djokovic. Both won a slam and then didn't start winning them regularly until 3 years later. Like you said, Sampras won 8 majors in the 4 years he was 22-25 and only 4 over the next 7 years. Djokovic won 5 majors in the 4 years he was 22-25 and he will definetely win less than that over the next 7 years. He has played 600 matches already and that is when players slow down their slam winning as we have seen since 1990. It happened to Federer and Nadal as well. It's called mileage.
I don't think any of these great players won the same number of slams after 600 matches played than they did before reaching 600 matches. Even Agassi slowed down after 600 matches played in the very early noughties. Agassi won like 5 slams(I think?) before reaching 600 matches played and won just 3 slams after reaching 600 matches. Sampras won about 11 slams before the 600 mark and just 3 after. Federer won 12 slams before 600 matches played and then 5 slams after. Nadal won 9 slams before 600 matches mark and then just 2 slams after that. None of them, not even Agassi, won as many slams after 600 mark than they had won before reaching the 600 matches played mark. I wouldn't be surprised if Djokovic wins only 3 more slams.
Separate names with a comma.