Djokovic is in a slow decline, but his fans don't acknowledge it yet

I mean I think he is worse than 2011 obviously but his lower return game won percent from this year can be explained by playing multiple big servers and the AO courts being faster than they've been in a long time.
 
ABCD said:
I have little bit different view than my friend Gary. I believe that Djokovic is improving, just the field is getting stronger making his statistics worse.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Nextgen are stronger, fitter and more athletic than ever, with average height going up too. Hard to register 40%+ return points won when you have Medvedev and Zverev firing missiles at you on both serves.
 
Fabresque said:
What do you want me to say? You keep pulling up all these stats saying he’s in decline and how his return game has been declining yet Djokovic keeps winning? He’s won 6 slams since his return from injury in 2018 and hasn’t stopped yet. All this stuff about statistics and the numbers, it’s all garbage. Wanna know when he’s declining? When one of the next genners beats him in a semifinal/final. There’s a reason the guy’s favored to reach every single slam final this year and win 2 out of those remaining 3.

So yes, keep pulling up stats. And us as Novak fans, we’ll keep enjoying the tears when he continues to tack on slams.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you see tears. If saying a player won't remain on top forever, or showing when others peaked and declined is an attack, then I'm attacking. With that logic you can say I'm attacking Fed by showing how well he played in 2015 and 2011 and still got beat.

I don't see attacks in this thread. I see an examination of how and when players - all players - decline. As for when it happens to Djokovic, I'm not predicting that. I'm just saying look at the numbers this year. If at the end of this year he's still close to 60% of games, he'll keep winning unless someone else does the same thing - which at this point is highly unlikely.

When people are incapable of being objective they always accuse others of the same thing.
 
NoleIsBoat said:
I agree.

Nextgen are stronger, fitter and more athletic than ever, with average height going up too. Hard to register 40%+ return points won when you have Medvedev and Zverev firing missiles at you on both serves.
Click to expand...
Then why do these younger players not win more against players other than Djokovic? Or against Nadal on clay? Where are the results? If you are taller, fitter and more athletic, and taller, what good is it if you don't win?
 
Gary Duane said:

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com

Here is the data, and it shows his fading ability to return compensated for improving service. This is not a troll thread, an attack or an attempt to invalidate any of his accomplishments.

In fact, the way he is losing some of his defensive ability is very slow, very subtle and may be the slowest decline we've ever seen in the history of tennis.

Aside from 2006, when he was just breaking into the ATP, his worst year ever for serving on hard was 2010, where he barely got over 82% of service game for the year. In 2011, his miracle returning year, he was very close to 85%. This year, so far, he is at very close to 91%. That's a 6% net gain on the service game, which is amazing. But his return game percentage is currently at 28%.

28% would be a dream come true for most top players, but for him it's not only a 13% drop from 2011, his miracle returning year, it's 4% below his career average.

He will have to raise that this year to keep the same dominance he's had in the past. Does that mean he's no longer the best hard court player in the world? No, because there is so far no one who is approaching that magic 60% number for all games, so he's still the guy to beat.

But keep in mind that his career average on hard is 59.76% of all games, and that average includes not only 2017, his worst year since 2006, but also every year up to 2010. So when his yearly average fall below his career average, that's a decline. Please be aware that a decline for Djokovic is at the point mostly superior to everyone else out there, so keep it in perspective.

Just remember that anything under 30% of games won on return is well below his career average, a whopping 32%. So look carefully this year to see if that number goes up, or if it goes lower.

Remember: all aging players have a decline in defensive skills. It's just a matter of how fast it happens, and now long it takes before they fall to a point they can no longer compensate.
Click to expand...
He's going to become more aggressive to compensate. Mark my words. Bigger serving, bigger forehanding, attacking second services, and hell even the backhand will be used to dictate in a year or two.
 
Third Serve said:
LOL
Click to expand...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/****...d-serbia-crash-out-of-atp-cup-to-germany/amp/

“I thought we both played well,” Djokovic said after his singles win over Zverev. “He definitely had a big serving match.

“It was so difficult to play against him today. Missiles from the other side of the court, both first and second serve.”

I trust Djokovic first hand testimony :whistle:
 
Taller does not necessarily mean faster on court, it also doesn't mean more accurate.
The next gen are **** poor and all of them are mental midgets. Fellows Zverev are as weak as cindrella....

Only guy who has the weapons to trouble the big 3 is Nick Kyrgios but mentally he is a wuss..... even Becker said recently that Kyrgios has the firepower to beat the big 3 and win wimbledon if he puts his mind to it.
 
Novak's decline is so slow it's barely perceptible which is excellent news for him and his fans and not so good news for his rivals and their followers.
 
NoleIsBoat said:
Djokovic and Nadal are too good.
Click to expand...
But see? We are back to:

The top players are "that good".

Everyone else is "that bad".

Nothing in between.

I think it's a bit of both.

I also think it's logical to wonder why older players are dominating so much more than ever before, with a partial exception at the beginning of the open era.
 
Beckerserve said:
Djokovic is too far back in slam race now tjough if he can only win one major a year isnt he?
Click to expand...
We don't know that he can only win one slam, not when he already won one this year, when Wimbledon was cancelled last year and when he was not beaten last year at the USO. Whatever your position is about his DQ, it shows us nothing about his level. The wise thing is just to watch and see what happens.
 
Gary Duane said:
We don't know that he can only win one slam, not when he already won one this year, when Wimbledon was cancelled last year and when he was not beaten last year at the USO. Whatever your position is about his DQ, it shows us nothing about his level. The wise thing is just to watch and see what happens.
Click to expand...
He was losing to PCB though when that happened. He struggled with RBA on same courts a couple of weeks earlier. Year before Wawrinka outclassed him before he claimed an elbow problem. Even in 2018 he got lucky Nadal was injured. 2016 he lost to wawrinka. His last dominant USO was 2015. He was much fitter back then. I have him below Nadal Thiem and Medvedev at USO.
Wimbkedon he is favourite for sure. However i have a sneaky feeling he will not win W this year. I keep saying i think Federer will. Djokovic is favourite. But i think W will see an upset.
 
What is not declining is his ability to push his opponents' minds into their individual field of incompetence.

That is why physical decline does not affect him as much as all the others.

Actually it is lack of a childish need for validation that is hurting him the most. That is the only decline he needs to address before it gets critical for him and prevent him from getting 'lonely on the Slam count top'.

So far, so good.
 
Krish0608 said:
Novak is in a decline. In fact, his decline is not any different from Federer's decline post 2012. I would say Federer played at a higher level at a similar age (Mid 2014- mid 2016). There was a peak Novak Djokovic who stopped that Federer from racking up multiple slams. There is nobody like that for Djokovic. That's the only difference. Thiem could have potentially played that role of taking over and dominating the slams. But he is way too happy with that fluke slam.
Click to expand...
I don't see Djokovic losing to the likes of Gulbis, Cilic, Seppi, Raonic in slams, like Federer did in 2014-2016. He wasn't just losing to Djokovic. And even then, in USO 2015 final Federer's problem was not Djokovic, it was his very bad mentality and terrible play on every big point. Djokovic right now is clearly better than that, he is still winning most of the big points.
 
Who exactly is in denial about his decline? Of course he is declining at a very slow rate which also has ebbs and flows in the sense that he can rediscover his top form. The fact that this is possible shows that he has not declined far.

It is quite clearly the most optimal way to decline.
 
Gary Duane said:
Of course he's more complete. He has to be at this age. That's not the point. Sooner or later that's not enough, and if you study tennis history you'll see it. The fans of all aging ATGs think that those players can compensate forever with more complete games, until they can't.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt about that. My point is that by this changes in his game he will stay relevant longer. His decline in ROS as mentioned above is very much connected with his serve improvment. Why? He changed his racket and also training habits in order to became different type of player. What I am trying to say ROS is the deliberate sacrifice to have better serve and net game. Its not about compensating per se, but about evolving in different type of player in order to stay competitive in current enviroment where the courts are getting faster and faster.
 
Last edited:
Gary Duane said:
It's all about how long those return stats can drop for a whole year without causing a fatal weakness in slams. It's common sense to conclude that when return goes down, serve has to go up to compensate.

There is another thing that is even more important to me. The very top of the game can evolve even faster than the rest of the tour for awhile, or the top can maintain a gap. This is not the first time we've seen this. When the evolution is generated by a change in equipment, generally the young players are most favored. When it's just a tweaking of tech already in place, the older players may benefit more.

At the beginning of the open era the former touring pros had already developed a higher level and it took years for the younger players to beat them. And that was when age was a larger factor. The reason may be that there were no significant changes in rackets or training.

When Fed burst upon the scene poly was still pretty new, and they young players were changing the game. And some old ones, like Agassi. But the main thing is that there was an evolution going on in equipment and other things.

Things have been quite static for a few years. Perhaps the last big change was Fed's change to the newer racket, but that was not evolution. It was his late move to getting on board with what everyone else was already doing, mainly bigger racket heads and other advances. That's how he raised his stats so much in 2015, back to where he was in 2011. That's not normal.

It seems that when the tech is static, it takes longer for the young guys to break through. That's not all of it. There are other factors, but I do believe it is part of it.
Click to expand...
I agree. I made the same point a month ago in another weak era thread.

socallefty said:
Maybe the greats in previous eras got pushed out faster because of technology changes. Wood to metal and then graphite pushed out those who grew up on wood when confronted with players who grew up with graphite. Grass surfaces for most major tournaments gave away to more hard courts and promoted more baseline play. Poly strings and maybe slowing down of surfaces (as a reaction to poly) pushed out players who grew up before the poly era when confronted with players who grew up with poly - power baseline style with heavy spin predominated after that.

We haven’t seen any technological changes that are significant in the last fifteen years and training/nutrition methods to keep older athletes in top health have gotten better. It is possible that some of the greats of the Seventies/Eighties/Nineties could have stuck around longer and won more Slams if not for technological advances.

When there was no technological change in the Sixties when most tennis was on grass and everyone played with wood and gut strings, many greats played and won till their late thirties and early forties also. Maybe, the Big 3 have been helped by the fact that there has been no significant change in strings, racquets or surfaces that have made their game less viable - meanwhile they still have the aura and mental strength that is tough for younger players to cope with especially if you have to beat two of them in a Bestof5 tournament. Players are getting taller and first serves are getting even bigger (130+ for top players instead of 115+), but otherwise the game seems to have stopped evolving in the last decade.
Click to expand...
 
socallefty said:
I agree. I made the same point a month ago in another weak era thread.
Click to expand...
In my opinion the game has definitely evolved significantly, but it's not all for the better.

  1. Player size has increased a lot, which is where I just assume growth hormones in juniors.
  2. Double handed backhands have gotten more and more flat. It seems to dominate the cross court exchanges on HC, but it seems to have a bit of a rock/paper/scissors dynamic going on sometimes
  3. Forehands have gotten a lot worse among young players it seems. I have no idea why. Maybe it's the racket setups of these young guys, maybe it's growing up with gigantic sweet spots and this having a worse learning curve, etc.
  4. Average shot quality has increased a lot. The amount of attackable sitters generated is a lot less than 15 years ago
  5. Approaching on any short ball has died completely. Even guys like Djokovic would quite frequently hit a topspin backhand and "i guess I'll go to net now" in like 2007 and frequently get owned.
 
Top players must know how good their eyesight is but I am surprised more don’t seem to wear contacts or glasses. Djokovic will be able to at least have the best eyesight money can buy. Maybe some others are missing a trick there.
 
Ogi44 said:
There is no doubt about that. My point is that by this changes in his game he will stay relevant longer. His decline in ROS as mentioned above is very much connected with his serve improvement. Why? He changed his racket and also training habits in order to became different type of player. What I am trying to say ROS is the deliberate sacrifice to have better serve and net game. Its not about compensating per se, but about evolving in different type of player in order to stay competitive in current enviroment where the courts are getting faster and faster.
Click to expand...
OK, but I think you're missing my point. It's addition. Service games plus return games. 92/28, 90/30, 88/32, like that. If the total falls, a player - any player - becomes less dominant. Now, if a player is only concentrating on slams, and if those numbers stay up in slams, it's OK. But there is a very strong correlation between 60% and majors, to the point that if you examine top players, you will see that they win most of their slams at those numbers or close for the year, and far less when that number goes lower. I'm talking about hard slams and now. It's lower for grass, even higher for clay. And everything used to be higher.

I'm not predicting. I'm correlating. Now, you can test this yourself over the next few years and see if it holds true. It has helf true for everyone else in the open era. If the return numbers fall lower, the only way to keep up that 60% or so is to raise the service numbers.

Now, if at some point that number drops to 57%, like 88/26, or 89/25, and he's still winning hard slams, he will have totally broken the norm. Other players have done it. It's not impossible. Wawrinka did it more than once. It's just highly unusual, and generally the only players who pull it off are extremely aggressive and have very strong service games, more like Sampras.
 
Terenigma said:
Yes but he is declining slower than Nadal and can still overtake the slam lead if Nadal doesn't win the French.
Click to expand...
That assumes that the only person who can challenge him is Nadal. And that's true if no one younger steps up in the next couple years. On the basis of what we just saw at the AO, I'm not at all confident that things are going to change in the next couple years barring both Novak and Nadal getting injured.
 
Whilst Novak's not my fav of the big 3, he has my full respect when it comes to his tactical skill and point construction.
By that I mean his ability to translate stats and metrics to the court. If you're interested in that, braingametennis.com is a great place to start.

Comparing his athleticism to the best (and fastest) of the younger players, it's clear nature has taken it half-step-toll.
That being said, just like Fed did a few years ago, Novak has stepped up his tactics-game to whole other level.

Look at these serve stats from his AusOpen campaign:
www.braingametennis.com

Should You Serve More To The Forehand? Novak Does. - Brain Game Tennis

G’day, Traditional tennis mantra dictates that the primary serve location is to your opponent’s backhand return. ✅ Then you sprinkle in some surprise serves to the forehand. The theory is that backhand groundstrokes hurt you less than forehands (correct) and that philosophy blindly carries over...
www.braingametennis.com www.braingametennis.com

He was predominantly serving to the opponent's FH(!). I think his serve has gotten almost as effective as Roger's, not because it packs a punch or has epic rotations - I'd actually wager it's considered pretty middle of the ATP road in those depts, but it seems it's hard to read for the opponent. And it looks like it's even harder to guess, and those things are not a coincidence.

So maybe he's not as fast as he used to be, and maybe he doesn't win as much as in his glory days, but it looks to me like he has a slam-playbook that's reserved for the big matches.
 
Gary Duane said:

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com

Here is the data, and it shows his fading ability to return compensated for improving service. This is not a troll thread, an attack or an attempt to invalidate any of his accomplishments.

In fact, the way he is losing some of his defensive ability is very slow, very subtle and may be the slowest decline we've ever seen in the history of tennis.

Aside from 2006, when he was just breaking into the ATP, his worst year ever for serving on hard was 2010, where he barely got over 82% of service game for the year. In 2011, his miracle returning year, he was very close to 85%. This year, so far, he is at very close to 91%. That's a 6% net gain on the service game, which is amazing. But his return game percentage is currently at 28%.

28% would be a dream come true for most top players, but for him it's not only a 13% drop from 2011, his miracle returning year, it's 4% below his career average.

He will have to raise that this year to keep the same dominance he's had in the past. Does that mean he's no longer the best hard court player in the world? No, because there is so far no one who is approaching that magic 60% number for all games, so he's still the guy to beat.

But keep in mind that his career average on hard is 59.76% of all games, and that average includes not only 2017, his worst year since 2006, but also every year up to 2010. So when his yearly average fall below his career average, that's a decline. Please be aware that a decline for Djokovic is at the point mostly superior to everyone else out there, so keep it in perspective.

Just remember that anything under 30% of games won on return is well below his career average, a whopping 32%. So look carefully this year to see if that number goes up, or if it goes lower.

Remember: all aging players have a decline in defensive skills. It's just a matter of how fast it happens, and now long it takes before they fall to a point they can no longer compensate.
Click to expand...
So basically his 2021 stats are similar to Fed’s career stats in the two categories?
 
smalahove said:
Whilst Novak's not my fav of the big 3, he has my full respect when it comes to his tactical skill and point construction.
By that I mean his ability to translate stats and metrics to the court. If you're interested in that, braingametennis.com is a great place to start.

Comparing his athleticism to the best (and fastest) of the younger players, it's clear nature has taken it half-step-toll.
That being said, just like Fed did a few years ago, Novak has stepped up his tactics-game to whole other level.

Look at these serve stats from his AusOpen campaign:
www.braingametennis.com

Should You Serve More To The Forehand? Novak Does. - Brain Game Tennis

G’day, Traditional tennis mantra dictates that the primary serve location is to your opponent’s backhand return. ✅ Then you sprinkle in some surprise serves to the forehand. The theory is that backhand groundstrokes hurt you less than forehands (correct) and that philosophy blindly carries over...
www.braingametennis.com www.braingametennis.com

He was predominantly serving to the opponent's FH(!). I think his serve has gotten almost as effective as Roger's, not because it packs a punch or has epic rotations - I'd actually wager it's considered pretty middle of the ATP road in those depts, but it seems it's hard to read for the opponent. And it looks like it's even harder to guess, and those things are not a coincidence.

So maybe he's not as fast as he used to be, and maybe he doesn't win as much as in his glory days, but it looks to me like he has a slam-playbook that's reserved for the big matches.
Click to expand...

He is serving to the FH, because most of his opponents have a stronger BH (return) than FH (return).

:cool:
 
It would be more obvious that he’s declining if there were any halfway decent players following him in the next generations. That said, I often credit Djokovic as being by far the best of the big four it comes to taking care of his health. Going into his 28-year-old season he only had six slams. Since then he’s racked up another 12, all of his major comp has been steadily falling off since 2013-14 while here he is still healthy and playing at a level reasonably close to his prime years. Credit to him for being able to stay healthy and fit and exploit the generational vacuum. That said, he would have the same experience Federer did in his later years if he was being chased by ATGs himself.
 
StrongRule said:
I don't see Djokovic losing to the likes of Gulbis, Cilic, Seppi, Raonic in slams, like Federer did in 2014-2016. He wasn't just losing to Djokovic. And even then, in USO 2015 final Federer's problem was not Djokovic, it was his very bad mentality and terrible play on every big point. Djokovic right now is clearly better than that, he is still winning most of the big points.
Click to expand...
Against whom exactly?
 
From an eye test and likely statistically, it seems Novak has worked hard to improve both his serve and his volleying including the transition game to the net. So, he is able to finish points quicker and doesn’t have to out-grind opponents on as many points from the baseline anymore. That might be as much a reason for his Slam success in his thirties as any health advantage he has over other peers of his age. He is constantly trying to improve while taking into account any natural deterioration that happens with his speed and quickness due to age.

Apart from Thiem who has made his shots more compact in the last couple of years making him more of a threat on hard courts, I don’t see any systematic improvement in technique amongst any of the other top-ranked younger players that is very visible to see. Zverev looked like the best threat to the older ATGs 2-3 years ago, but has gone backwards so much with his second serve that the service yips impedes his ability to win big matches.
 
Gary Duane said:
But see? We are back to:

The top players are "that good".

Everyone else is "that bad".

Nothing in between.

I think it's a bit of both.

I also think it's logical to wonder why older players are dominating so much more than ever before, with a partial exception at the beginning of the open era.
Click to expand...
You see, I have an issue with regards to the bolded. When we say 'older players' can we please limit that to just the Big 3? Put aside the Big 3 for a sec and tell me the age bracket of those dominating the last couple years. The answer: 21-27 - give or take a year. If you're referring to players other than the Big 3, shouldn't Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, Murray, Wawa, Nishikori, Raonic etc be dominating?
 
Druss said:
You see, I have an issue with regards to the bolded. When we say 'older players' can we please limit that to just the Big 3? Put aside the Big 3 for a sec and tell me the age bracket of those dominating the last couple years. The answer: 21-27 - give or take a year. If you're referring to players other than the Big 3, shouldn't Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, Murray, Wawa, Nishikori, Raonic etc be dominating?
Click to expand...
Well, here's the thing: I agree with you, totally, but I also believe the average age of slam winners is going to go down again. I don't think it will go back to being peak at age 24, because for sure things are changing. But I firmly believe that there is a parallel between now and the Laver period, for reasons that are both different and the same. Laver and his group went through a kind of trial by fire that the rest of the world was not ready for, so when that group was unleashed upon the we world, the former amateurs were simply not there. It took them a few years to catch up. Today we remember Laver and even old people - like Rosewall - as if they are a bit older, but in fact it was 69 when Laver won his GS, yet he was born in 38, and Ken was born at the end of 34. Yet most people could not beat these two. I think it's a lot like that today, but for different reasons.
 
Beckerserve said:
He was losing to PCB though when that happened. He struggled with RBA on same courts a couple of weeks earlier. Year before Wawrinka outclassed him before he claimed an elbow problem. Even in 2018 he got lucky Nadal was injured. 2016 he lost to wawrinka. His last dominant USO was 2015. He was much fitter back then. I have him below Nadal Thiem and Medvedev at USO.
Wimbkedon he is favourite for sure. However i have a sneaky feeling he will not win W this year. I keep saying i think Federer will. Djokovic is favourite. But i think W will see an upset.
Click to expand...

LLLOLLL
 
Druss said:
You see, I have an issue with regards to the bolded. When we say 'older players' can we please limit that to just the Big 3? Put aside the Big 3 for a sec and tell me the age bracket of those dominating the last couple years. The answer: 21-27 - give or take a year. If you're referring to players other than the Big 3, shouldn't Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, Murray, Wawa, Nishikori, Raonic etc be dominating?
Click to expand...
They kind of have. I just went through this (don't know why?). Food for thought.

Number of slam QF appearances 2011-2021 (through AO)

Players Born after 1990: 57
Big 3: 87
Players Born before 1991 (excluding Big 3): 176

The youngsters born after 1990 didn't really start making appearances in slam QFs regularly until 2017. If we limit it to that, they're still not dominating, though they're starting to get somewhere.

Number of slam QF appearances 2017-2021 (through AO)

Players Born after 1990: 49
Big 3: 34
Players Born before 1991 (excluding Big 3): 45

The youngsters have a small lead on the players of roughly Djokovic's generation (not counting the Big 3) within only the last 4 season and the current one. It's small. I'm sure it'll grow, and frankly, it's taken them most of the decade to make any progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheMaestro1990
Djokovic's decline
Replies
35
Views
4K
reaper
R
NatF
Federer/Nadal improvement and decline: ATP Matchfacts
3 4 5
Replies
235
Views
20K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
D
Do you think Nadal is in a slight decline??
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
Deleted member 21996
D
J
The acid test for Nadal is the French Open (Don't hammer those nails in just yet)
Replies
29
Views
2K
spinovic
S
Ussy
Djokovic and the decline of ability at 28/29
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
MasturB
MasturB
Back
Top