Lendl Leaves Zverev

Cashman

Hall of Fame
I would really love to know what those "off court" issues are. Girlfriend? Partying? Weed/alcohol?
Very curious.
No big secret. He split with his agent at the end of last season. Now he's trying to manage his multi-million dollar business affairs himself, at the same time as he's fighting his ex-agent in the courts.

Big ask for a 21yo kid, and no small wonder that his tennis is suffering.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
No big secret. He split with his agent at the end of last season. Now he's trying to manage his multi-million dollar business affairs himself, at the same time as he's fighting his ex-agent in the courts.

Big ask for a 21yo kid, and no small wonder that his tennis is suffering.
Very interesting. Do you know what went wrong with the agent and why doesn't he just hire another one?
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
It depends what that 'something' is. Everything I have read about Lendl indicates that he is pretty abrasive and has very little respect for people who lack work ethic and commitment. I reckon he could add a lot to any player who has a thick skin and a desire to push themselves physically and psychologically.

On the other hand I think that sort of old-school 'cup of concrete' mentality would be nothing but destructive to someone like Zverev - who is clearly struggling with direction, motivation and off-court turmoil. He probably needs a coach who's a bit more tuned-in to how to help him manage that.
Great analysis!
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Lendl also owns 8 majors and 270 weeks at #1. What does Zverev own in comparison to that? :cool:
He's had 2 years in a row with 2+ tier 1 titles. That seems like no big deal to you? Well, here is the list of players who have had at least 2 consecutive years of winning more than 1 tier 1 event since 1970:
Nastase (3 cons years)
Connors (2 + 3)
Borg (7)
Vilas (2)
McEnroe (8)
Lendl (3 + 5)
Wilander (2 + 2)
Becker (2 + 2 + 2)
Agassi (3 + 3)
Courier (3)
Sampras (5 + 2)
Muster (2)
Kuerten (3)
Hewitt (2)
Federer (5 + 4)
Nadal (10 o_O + 3)
Djokovic (6 + 2)
Murray (4 + 2)
Zverev (2)

Guess what? All those players became #1 (#2 for Vilas)
Zverev has a great future if he can just put his head together.
 
Last edited:

beltsman

G.O.A.T.
I like Lendl. Did a magnificent job with Murray. But not sure what he brought to the table for Zverev.

Sasha had 3 Masters titles before Lendl joined (and none since) and he was already playing well enough so I'm even unsure of Lendl's contribution to his WTF title too, in all honesty. I heard he couldn't join Zverev at RG because he had clay allergies (leading Johnny Mac to joke that Lendl had no allergies when he beat Mac). I think Lendl doesn't want to even try with Zverev anymore.

I saw this partnership doomed a long time back. Their personalities are very different. It's better they have parted ways.

Lendl in it for the money? Didn't seem like he was dedicated here.
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
He's had 2 years in a row with 2+ tier 1 titles. That seems like no big deal to you? Well, here is the list of players who have had at least 2 consecutive years of winning more than 1 tier 1 event since 1970:
Nastase (3 cons years)
Connors (2 + 3)
Borg (7)
Vilas (2)
McEnroe (8)
Lendl (3 + 5)
Wilander (2 + 2)
Becker (2 + 2 + 2)
Agassi (3 + 3)
Courier (3)
Sampras (5 + 2)
Muster (2)
Kuerten (3)
Hewitt (2)
Federer (5 + 4)
Nadal (10 o_O + 3)
Djokovic (6 + 2)
Murray (4 + 2)
Zverev (2)

Guess what? All those players became #1 (#2 for Vilas)
Zverev has a great future if he can just put his head together.
Seems like this can be said of many young players.
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
This is the complete list. You see other young players in this list? Current? Former who didn't make it? Because I don't.
It is actually a very impressive list.
No, I am talking about just your "mind" comment. I could name about 5 other guys on tour that could be perennial top 10 and have several slam finals, a couple slams, and 5+ masters if they got their minds right. I would say this would be an extremely successful career.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Lendl also owns 8 majors and 270 weeks at #1. What does Zverev own in comparison to that? :cool:
Lendl is legit the most underrated superstar in history. His resume is absolutely loaded in all categories and if I were to make an all time ranking, the only players in the open era I’d put above Lendl are the big 3, Sampras and Borg; that’s it tbh.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
No, I am talking about just your "mind" comment. I could name about 5 other guys on tour that could be perennial top 10 and have several slam finals, a couple slams, and 5+ masters if they got their minds right. I would say this would be an extremely successful career.
My comment was directly linked to the list. I couldn't make that comment about any other "young hopeful" because there is no other in that list.
ETA: I am NOT talking about "what if" conjectures here. I am pointing out what Z has already achieved and the fact that all other players having achieved it as well turned out great. WITH NO EXCEPTION.
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
My comment was directly linked to the list. I couldn't make that comment about any other "young hopeful" because there is no other in that list.
Good point, but I see Zverev on a downward spiral, and as we have seen with other players, it is not easy to come out of it.

Of the list you provided, how many had a slump like this AFTER achieving those things?
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Good point, but I see Zverev on a downward spiral, and as we have seen with other players, it is not easy to come out of it.

Of the list you provided, how many had a slump like this AFTER achieving those things?
The year is not even over. A slump of a few months is nothing. Z could still finish this year with more than 1 tier 1 (there are 6 tier 1 events left)
 

Alex78

Hall of Fame
Part of the puzzle: Apparently, Zverev senior and Lendl didn't get along at all. Zs still viewed himself as the primary coach and thought Lendl was only there to complement his coaching. Then Zs got mad at the bills Ivan sent and in the end, they didn't see eye to eye.
That's what I've been gathering from (various) German media, so take this with a grain of salt.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
When Edberg went away I didn't hear anyone lambasting Federer for his "attitude" yet it was clear that Edberg didn't do the job he was hired for.
I don't agree with that at all. I think what Fed did under Edberg was amazing, and often the results of a teacher or coach materialize under the next teacher or coach just because things take time to gel. Ljubicic stepped into the spotlight at just the right time, so he gets the credit, but it's about timing, not about being a better coach or mentor.
 
I don't agree with that at all. I think what Fed did under Edberg was amazing, and often the results of a teacher or coach materialize under the next teacher or coach just because things take time to gel. Ljubicic stepped into the spotlight at just the right time, so he gets the credit, but it's about timing, not about being a better coach or mentor.

We have to agree to disagree here. If we accept that that is the case then we can say that about any coach that left and the results came after that. I don't believe that Federer hired Edberg only to improve his volley. It was already good to very good. I believe that Federer hired Edberg to incorporate the aggressiveness in his new game. Something that they didn't manage to bring to a successful end where it mattered most (which is IMO the reason why Federer let Edberg go). I am more agreeing with Cashman here, that it is Federer fault of hiring the wrong coach for the job, or maybe identifying the wrong priorities.

:cool:
 
C

Chadalina

Guest
I like Lendl and Sasha, but it wasnt working out.

He had a big serve and aggressive ground game and now he is falling back after a sabre...

Dude is very wide and Ivan had him playing like ferrer.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
We have to agree to disagree here. If we accept that that is the case then we can say that about any coach that left and the results came after that. I don't believe that Federer hired Edberg only to improve his volley. It was already good to very good. I believe that Federer hired Edberg to incorporate the aggressiveness in his new game. Something that they didn't manage to bring to a successful end where it mattered most (which is IMO the reason why Federer let Edberg go). I am more agreeing with Cashman here, that it is Federer fault of hiring the wrong coach for the job, or maybe identifying the wrong priorities.

:cool:
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Supposedly a big reason why he split with Edberg was because of losing twice in 2015 to Djokovic in slam finals. He lost in 5 sets at W. Then in 4 sets at the USO. We don't know if he would have done any worse against Rafa in 2917 at the AO. How is Fed's record at majors any better now other than he did not face Novak again in a major until this year. How was the result at W better? His other two majors were against Cilic.

I see absolutely zero evidence that he is a better player right now or in the last couple years than he was in 2015. For Ljubicic to claim that he has made a difference Fed needs a win against Novak at a major.

Fed started to dominate Rafa off clay in 2015, not 2017. Fed had his 4th best year for points in 2015 and 4th best year for winning games. Novak took him down in the finals of Rome. And at IW. Without Novak Djokovic 2015 would have been one of Fed's best years ever. You can't blame Edberg for Djokovic winning the H2H. What has changed this year? And Djokovic is not as strong as he was then.
 
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Supposedly a big reason why he split with Edberg was because of losing twice in 2015 to Djokovic in slam finals. He lost in 5 sets at W. Then in 4 sets at the USO. We don't know if he would have done any worse against Rafa in 2917 at the AO. How is Fed's record at majors any better now other than he did not face Novak again in a major until this year. How was the result at W better? His other two majors were against Cilic.

I see absolutely zero evidence that he is a better player right now or in the last couple years than he was in 2015. For Ljubicic to claim that he has made a difference Fed needs a win against Novak at a major.

Fed started to dominate Rafa off clay in 2015, not 2017. Fed had his 4th best year for points in 2015 and 4th best year for winning games. Novak took him down in the finals of Rome. And at IW. Without Novak Djokovic 2015 would have been one of Fed's best years ever. You can't blame Edberg for Djokovic winning the H2H. What has changed this year? And Djokovic is not as strong as he was then.

I would argue that his current results at Majors are arguably better. Even in his loss at Wimbledon, he was much much closer to winning the whole thing and that after dispatching Nadal in an impressive fashion. At AO 2017 he won the battle with Nadal from the baseline, so I would say that whatever influence Edberg had on him wasn't pivotal for his success there. He had one match in 2015 with Nadal and it was in Basel, where the conditions favour Federer. Agreed, 2015 would have been a very good year for Federer if not for Djokovic, but that is as much a result of the condition of the tour as anything else. Nadal went missing and the most top guys were slumping like crazy.

Better player, no, not by a long shot, as his movement is even worse than it was before.

:cool:
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I would argue that his current results at Majors are arguably better. Even in his loss at Wimbledon, he was much much closer to winning the whole thing and that after dispatching Nadal in an impressive fashion. At AO 2017 he won the battle with Nadal from the baseline, so I would say that whatever influence Edberg had on him wasn't pivotal for his success there. He had one match in 2015 with Nadal and it was in Basel, where the conditions favour Federer. Agreed, 2015 would have been a very good year for Federer if not for Djokovic, but that is as much a result of the condition of the tour as anything else. Nadal went missing and the most top guys were slumping like crazy.

Better player, no, not by a long shot, as his movement is even worse than it was before.

:cool:
The thing we don't know and can't know is what effect losing all those matches in 2015 did to him everywhere else. For instance, I remember Fed's win in Cincy that year. I hoped that was a sign, but then the rest of the year went the other way. You can see that Fed was more competitive this year at W, but I don't believe Novak is playing on the same level as in 2015. Regardless, it's all conjecture. ;)
 
The thing we don't know and can't know is what effect losing all those matches in 2015 did to him everywhere else. For instance, I remember Fed's win in Cincy that year. I hoped that was a sign, but then the rest of the year went the other way. You can see that Fed was more competitive this year at W, but I don't believe Novak is playing on the same level as in 2015. Regardless, it's all conjecture. ;)

What do you think was the reason behind the reduced level of Djokovic at this year's Wimbledon compared to 2018?

:cool:
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
What do you think was the reason behind the reduced level of Djokovic at this year's Wimbledon compared to 2018?

:cool:
I have NO idea!!! I've been trying to figure this guy out for several years now. He looked like he was about done at the beginning of 2018, then takes off like a rocket for most of the rest of the year but then looks flat at the WTF. Losing to Zverev? At the tour finals???

Then he looked out of this world at the AO this year, but afterwards who knows. I see dips in results for Rafa and Roger, but Novak has these unexpected drops in intensity with mood swings that include looking almost disinterested but then swinging to anger outbursts during matches. My own hunch is that we are seeing more and more of an age decline. The big thing now is how fast it continues. He's already gotten two slams in the bag this year, thought I still think he was lucky as hell in winning W this year. His fans think he's going to go on winning this way for years. I'm skeptical. Fans never see a major, permanent decline coming until it happens.

His footprint is that when he wins more than 60% of games, he has good years. The only good year he had where he fell below that was last year, but it was a weird year. If you track his games starting with W in 2018, he was right back to 60.6% of games. Even that partial year is nowhere near his best, but you get the idea.

Watch the rest of this year. If he falls below 60% of games at the end of the year, that's a sure sign of decline. If he gets down to 59% he'll dip below his career average, and if he stays down there he is unlikely to win more majors.

It's no surprise that his stats were best in 2011 and 2015. 2015 was a bit lower, but possibly the 12 months during his Nole slam were even higher. Next is 2013, and Nadal ruined his party that year.

Thing to take note of: Novak has never won more than one major when game% won for the year have fallen below his career average except for last year, which was an incredibly strange year. Watch what happens the rest of this year.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
hqdefault.jpg
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
As for the off-court issues: Zverev (clan) thought they could just walk away from his manager and join Fedr's management group, even though they have a valid contract. They thought they had the clout to simply end the contract (just like it seems to be the standard with professional football players...). Arpey, on the other hand, did not comply and put Z into a situation where he was/is worrying too much about the business side of his tennis.

some wrong judgement here.
professional football players don't have the possibility to unilaterally end contracts.

1. If we talk about the contract with current club.
When they want to change the club, and have the agreement with the new club, but the current club doesn't want to let go, or demands a too high price, then some players do tricks and don't show up at the training, fool around, etc. trying to force the sale.
But they can't terminate the contract without payment.
Look at Neymar, he had to transfer 220 Mio EUR to Barcelona to be able to go.
Barca had to pay 120 Mio EUR to see Griezmann on the training ground, and it's not finished yet, with Atletico demanding another 80 Mio EUR

2. If we talk about contracts between agent and football player, which would be more appropriate to Zverev situation, then I didn't hear about any player being able to simply terminate a contract at will, without compensations.
 
I have NO idea!!! I've been trying to figure this guy out for several years now. He looked like he was about done at the beginning of 2018, then takes off like a rocket for most of the rest of the year but then looks flat at the WTF. Losing to Zverev? At the tour finals???

Then he looked out of this world at the AO this year, but afterwards who knows. I see dips in results for Rafa and Roger, but Novak has these unexpected drops in intensity with mood swings that include looking almost disinterested but then swinging to anger outbursts during matches. My own hunch is that we are seeing more and more of an age decline. The big thing now is how fast it continues. He's already gotten two slams in the bag this year, thought I still think he was lucky as hell in winning W this year. His fans think he's going to go on winning this way for years. I'm skeptical. Fans never see a major, permanent decline coming until it happens.

His footprint is that when he wins more than 60% of games, he has good years. The only good year he had where he fell below that was last year, but it was a weird year. If you track his games starting with W in 2018, he was right back to 60.6% of games. Even that partial year is nowhere near his best, but you get the idea.

Watch the rest of this year. If he falls below 60% of games at the end of the year, that's a sure sign of decline. If he gets down to 59% he'll dip below his career average, and if he stays down there he is unlikely to win more majors.

It's no surprise that his stats were best in 2011 and 2015. 2015 was a bit lower, but possibly the 12 months during his Nole slam were even higher. Next is 2013, and Nadal ruined his party that year.

Thing to take note of: Novak has never won more than one major when game% won for the year have fallen below his career average except for last year, which was an incredibly strange year. Watch what happens the rest of this year.

Thank you for your answer. I will be watching for sure where this year is going. Suffice to say, what you say (apart from being supported by stats) also makes sense as he in fact gets older. I have the feeling that the huge void below the big 3 is so pronounced that Djokovic can basically unwind for most of the season without losing much belief in his abilities to sustain his level when he most needs it, and that enables him to peak his focus and (obviously) game at crucial junctures of the tournaments. That is why I am sceptical of the opinions of people that laugh when there is a talk about draws with the idea that the big 3 are just that much better that it doesn't matter who they get before and at the SFs.

Would you mind sharing what sources you use for your stats? Tennisabsract? Something else?

:cool:
 

Alex78

Hall of Fame
some wrong judgement here.
professional football players don't have the possibility to unilaterally end contracts.

1. If we talk about the contract with current club.
When they want to change the club, and have the agreement with the new club, but the current club doesn't want to let go, or demands a too high price, then some players do tricks and don't show up at the training, fool around, etc. trying to force the sale.
But they can't terminate the contract without payment.
Look at Neymar, he had to transfer 220 Mio EUR to Barcelona to be able to go.
Barca had to pay 120 Mio EUR to see Griezmann on the training ground, and it's not finished yet, with Atletico demanding another 80 Mio EUR

2. If we talk about contracts between agent and football player, which would be more appropriate to Zverev situation, then I didn't hear about any player being able to simply terminate a contract at will, without compensations.

Yeah of course; mine was a simplified and ironic statement on what seems to be the norm when football players want out of a contract they signed themselves. Just throw a tantrum and/or threaten to boycott the team and you'll get your wish in the end. Of course there's more involved than that so leaving out the legal stuff, but to me it seems Z clan was/is thinking "anyone can get out of their contract easily (in professional sports)" and they didn't anticipate Apey would not oblige their desire. I've heard they claim Apey didn't fulfill his part of the deal (by not promoting Z well enough on the international stage, not enough class-A deals and what have you), but he's shooting back where he was supposed to fold.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
This first, the rest later:
Would you mind sharing what sources you use for your stats? Tennisabsract? Something else?

:cool:
Nothing fancy at all, just carefully making and updating data files. TA has very complete lists of matches, so for modern players it's very accurate. For older players, like Borg for example, nothing seems to be complete. By checking against sources I think I've found a lot of what is missing, but there used to be guys in the Former Pros section who had amazing info I can't even get close to. So for guys like Laver I just collected the data available and hope that it gives an OK overview. Not all matches are there, but probably just using what IS there you get a pretty good figure. Having more matches, including ones from very small, invitational events, actually tanks the stats because those were often only the very best of the best going toe to toe.

This is even more true for the "lost decades" of the 50s and 60s. If you get a game% then for guys like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver those stats look pretty poor. But that's because of the very small fields and the number of times the top players faced each other in almost every event. It's kind of like having the Big 4 plus a few more very good players to round out a touring group meant to entertain and pull in money.. That's why these guys had a field day when they were let loose in the Open era.

By creating data files for all the really famous players I can then filter according to event, time period, surface, opponent and round. It's just a simple data file, so it takes some time to do this. But it also gives me more freedom. For instance, I can take a guy like Djokovic and see what he did from Wimbledon 2015 through RGH 2016, including all matches during that time period. This only gives me games. I don't have point data and so depend on the ATP for that, which TA and other sites also do. But I know from long experience that points are in a predictable mathematical relationship to games so that games-50/points-50 comes out pretty close to 2.

And I can tell you that Novak is 61.64% of games for 15-16. That's very high, of course. This is AS. I could get the same for each surface. My figures include DC, and I always include TGs, so any 7/6 match gives 7 games to the winner. The ATP for some arcane reason doesn't do that. I could, of course, filter out things like DC, but it takes longer and doesn't change a year much.

So for the period starting with Wimbledon 15 and through RG 16 that 12 month period (or close to it) is 62.37% of games. Not a record, but very high.

That's all I'm doing. From that we know that Novak won around 56% of points for that period, which is obscenely high. You would find the same point situation for Mac in 84, Connors in 74 and Borg in his last dominant years. Normally you only see % like that for top players during their most dominant years, and of course Nadal is over 60% of games for his career on clay, higher, so over 55% for points for his career. That means Borg was also around there too on clay.

Finally, because games are highest on clay and lowest on grass, players like Fed and Sampras - especially Sampras - have lower AS game% because their totals or averages are actually hurt by clay. In spite of the fact that clay is normally highest, for those two those stats are lowest, which is striking, and so points are also lowest. Borg/Nadal type players are the opposite. Clay spikes their numbers on AS.

For careers for modern players you can just go by the ATP profiles, but they are rounded, so you have to get the data from places like TA, who somehow have access to the data but display answers to 1 decimal. The ATP display is, like everything else on their site, just horrible. Until a few years ago even their lists for all top players were rounded, and there is not data there for guys who are weak servers or weak returners. It's a mess.
 
This first, the rest later:

Nothing fancy at all, just carefully making and updating data files. TA has very complete lists of matches, so for modern players it's very accurate. For older players, like Borg for example, nothing seems to be complete. By checking against sources I think I've found a lot of what is missing, but there used to be guys in the Former Pros section who had amazing info I can't even get close to. So for guys like Laver I just collected the data available and hope that it gives an OK overview. Not all matches are there, but probably just using what IS there you get a pretty good figure. Having more matches, including ones from very small, invitational events, actually tanks the stats because those were often only the very best of the best going toe to toe.

This is even more true for the "lost decades" of the 50s and 60s. If you get a game% then for guys like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver those stats look pretty poor. But that's because of the very small fields and the number of times the top players faced each other in almost every event. It's kind of like having the Big 4 plus a few more very good players to round out a touring group meant to entertain and pull in money.. That's why these guys had a field day when they were let loose in the Open era.

By creating data files for all the really famous players I can then filter according to event, time period, surface, opponent and round. It's just a simple data file, so it takes some time to do this. But it also gives me more freedom. For instance, I can take a guy like Djokovic and see what he did from Wimbledon 2015 through RGH 2016, including all matches during that time period. This only gives me games. I don't have point data and so depend on the ATP for that, which TA and other sites also do. But I know from long experience that points are in a predictable mathematical relationship to games so that games-50/points-50 comes out pretty close to 2.

And I can tell you that Novak is 61.64% of games for 15-16. That's very high, of course. This is AS. I could get the same for each surface. My figures include DC, and I always include TGs, so any 7/6 match gives 7 games to the winner. The ATP for some arcane reason doesn't do that. I could, of course, filter out things like DC, but it takes longer and doesn't change a year much.

So for the period starting with Wimbledon 15 and through RG 16 that 12 month period (or close to it) is 62.37% of games. Not a record, but very high.

That's all I'm doing. From that we know that Novak won around 56% of points for that period, which is obscenely high. You would find the same point situation for Mac in 84, Connors in 74 and Borg in his last dominant years. Normally you only see % like that for top players during their most dominant years, and of course Nadal is over 60% of games for his career on clay, higher, so over 55% for points for his career. That means Borg was also around there too on clay.

Finally, because games are highest on clay and lowest on grass, players like Fed and Sampras - especially Sampras - have lower AS game% because their totals or averages are actually hurt by clay. In spite of the fact that clay is normally highest, for those two those stats are lowest, which is striking, and so points are also lowest. Borg/Nadal type players are the opposite. Clay spikes their numbers on AS.

For careers for modern players you can just go by the ATP profiles, but they are rounded, so you have to get the data from places like TA, who somehow have access to the data but display answers to 1 decimal. The ATP display is, like everything else on their site, just horrible. Until a few years ago even their lists for all top players were rounded, and there is not data there for guys who are weak servers or weak returners. It's a mess.

Very interesting read and thank you for taking the time to explain your approach.

:cool:
 

OldschoolKIaus

Hall of Fame
Lendl left Zverev, can our young hero survive?
Will a new coach make it in time to save the US tour?
Maybe one of Zverev's old heroes is ready to dive in?

Next time on Junkball Z!
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
The rest. (headache, typing to relax after Advil and hoping for more sleep...)
Thank you for your answer. I will be watching for sure where this year is going. Suffice to say, what you say (apart from being supported by stats) also makes sense as he in fact gets older.
It's amazing how games and points line up with peaks. Fed went through the roof early, as you know, but he began to decline in 2007. You won't see this from results in a year when he won 3 slams and was stopped for the GS by Rafa. But his games and points started to drop. Why? Interesting question. Fed followed the earlier pattern. His career followed the usual norm with a peak in returning in the early 20s - which even now is not so different. Because he started out serving at such a high level, any drop in return was going to be reflected in overall stats. So this brings up an interesting question: are the larger heads and lighter rackets helping older players? Rafa and Novak are really a different generation in the way they played and still play changed tennis, and Fed had to evolve. They weren't the only two players changing, and in my mind Fed resisted evolving because, like all players, he did not worry about changing until he started to lose his edge.

Novak has followed the same pattern, but with a huge twist. If you check his early game, he had a serving weakness, and that weakness actually worsened in 2010. His return was evolving the whole time, but in waves. Then in 2011 the return went to a peak rarely seen, and of course he was around 24 then, exactly the time when former champions have mostly peaked. His return dropped after that year, so 2011 was clearly his peak returning. But his serve improved, and that's why 2015-2016 was a 2nd peak, this time with reduced defense but improved offense (serve.) So long as the serve stats go up as return stats go down, players stay at the same place. They may even win more, since the serve is such a massive weapon, and winning serve easily gives players an extra gear (Sampras.)

That's where the difference is for Novak. He was part of the generation after Fed, and he has faced no one who has further evolved the game. That allows him to coast.

But his return stats are going down with age, as they do with all players. Top players continue to control offense because they know what they are doing, where they are moving, and they are dictating play. The last time I checked he was 33.46% of return games this year, above his career average, and for any other player in the universe that would be peak. But not for him. 2018 was lower, but it was a weird year. 2019 is his 6th best year, but that's also behind 5 years, and we need to see how that holds up because it has been falling since the AO. I think that number will now fall. But we'll see.

His service % of games this year is 85%. That's below his career average. So unlike Fed, his service numbers are dropping. It's his 9th best year serving, meaning that he was better in 8 other years. One of those years was 2008.

Three possibilities:
1. We are seeing a decline, but it has not yet shown up in big wins.
2. He's trending up, which is possible, but he has generally been strongest in the spring, so the numbers need to come up or at least stay level for the rest of the year.
3. His career continues to be unpredictable because he has had strange peaks and valleys already.

There are two things that suggest a decline. The first is a fall in returning without an improvement or continued peak in serving. The other is his reduced schedule. Both the falling return numbers and reduced schedule suggest age, and how could that not be happening after the age of 30 for a guy whose biggest strength has been movement and recovery? But the continued struggles with serve need to be reversed, because when an aging player starts to drop stats in service games, he can never pick up the balance by improving the return.
I have the feeling that the huge void below the big 3 is so pronounced that Djokovic can basically unwind for most of the season without losing much belief in his abilities to sustain his level when he most needs it, and that enables him to peak his focus and (obviously) game at crucial junctures of the tournaments.
I agree totally. But part of this void is that a few players raised the bar so high, evolving the game, that until someone young figures out something new all the momentum remains with the aging players until they are finally over the hill.
That is why I am sceptical of the opinions of people that laugh when there is a talk about draws with the idea that the big 3 are just that much better that it doesn't matter who they get before and at the SFs.
You can't laugh at facts. Right now no one can touch these guys. That could change any time, but it remains in the realm of coulda, shoulda, woulda. Thiem has been the most impressive in challenging on clay, but some of the newer things he brings to the game are negated by serious weaknesses he may never plug. To win the younger players have to raise their game to the levels the Big 3 reached at their peaks, and no one is doing that. You can see the problem by looking at stats when the Big 3 are filtered out. You don't see anyone winning even 54% of points. Around 53% is about the most I see, and that's not good enough. It never was in the past. To pass that threshold you need someone great, a future ATG. I'm sure it will happen. You have to think that part of the problem is that the Big 3 at best sucked all the air out of the room, and at this point there is no glory left for everyone else. Just one major win by someone young would at least partially reset things. But first it has to happen.
 
Last edited:

haqq777

Legend
On a side note: Haters can hate all they want but even they can't deny that Sasha fights even when he is down, regardless of outcome. Doesn't just tank or gets disinterested when things don't go his way. I am watching his match versus Krajinovic (who I really like). Was down a set and break in second, and everything was looking bleak but he kept fighting. Turned the match around.
 
But it begs the question why Zverev couldn't build on his reasonably successful 2017-18 seasons and do pretty much nothing in 2019. Was this really Lendl's fault or is it because, as Lendl said in his statement, Zverev suddenly had too many private distractions wich were preventing him from focussing on improving his game eg. Zverev himself talked about the upset caused by his ongoing legal dispute with his ex-manager.

Yes. He has a legal dispute and apparently he also had a very ugly break up with a girlfriend (btw just read they are now a couple again). A lot of off the field stuff.but lendl also didn't look motivated. Question is what came first, was lendl not motivated from the get go or did he lose motivation because sashas off court issues kept him from working hard.
 

xFedal

Legend
The rest. (headache, typing to relax after Advil and hoping for more sleep...)

It's amazing how games and points line up with peaks. Fed went through the roof early, as you know, but he began to decline in 2007. You won't see this from results in a year when he won 3 slams and was stopped for the GS by Rafa. But his games and points started to drop. Why? Interesting question. Fed followed the earlier pattern. His career followed the usual norm with a peak in returning in the early 20s - which even now is not so different. Because he started out serving at such a high level, any drop in return was going to be reflected in overall stats. So this brings up an interesting question: are the larger heads and lighter rackets helping older players? Rafa and Novak are really a different generation in the way they played and still play changed tennis, and Fed had to evolve. They weren't the only two players changing, and in my mind Fed resisted evolving because, like all players, he did not worry about changing until he started to lose his edge.

Novak has followed the same pattern, but with a huge twist. If you check his early game, he had a serving weakness, and that weakness actually worsened in 2010. His return was evolving the whole time, but in waves. Then in 2011 the return went to a peak rarely seen, and of course he was around 24 then, exactly the time when former champions have mostly peaked. His return dropped after that year, so 2011 was clearly his peak returning. But his serve improved, and that's why 2015-2016 was a 2nd peak, this time with reduced defense but improved offense (serve.) So long as the serve stats go up as return stats go down, players stay at the same place. They may even win more, since the serve is such a massive weapon, and winning serve easily gives players an extra gear (Sampras.)

That's where the difference is for Novak. He was part of the generation after Fed, and he has faced no one who has further evolved the game. That allows him to coast.

But his return stats are going down with age, as they do with all players. Top players continue to control offense because they know what they are doing, where they are moving, and they are dictating play. The last time I checked he was 33.46% of return games this year, above his career average, and for any other player in the universe that would be peak. But not for him. 2018 was lower, but it was a weird year. 2019 is his 6th best year, but that's also behind 5 years, and we need to see how that holds up because it has been falling since the AO. I think that number will now fall. But we'll see.

His service % of games this year is 85%. That's below his career average. So unlike Fed, his service numbers are dropping. It's his 9th best year serving, meaning that he was better in 8 other years. One of those years was 2008.

Three possibilities:
1. We are seeing a decline, but it has not yet shown up in big wins.
2. He's trending up, which is possible, but he has generally been strongest in the spring, so the numbers need to come up or at least stay level for the rest of the year.
3. His career continues to be unpredictable because he has had strange peaks and valleys already.

There are two things that suggest a decline. The first is a fall in returning without an improvement or continued peak in serving. The other is his reduced schedule. Both the falling return numbers and reduced schedule suggest age, and how could that not be happening after the age of 30 for a guy whose biggest strength has been movement and recovery? But the continued struggles with serve need to be reversed, because when an aging player starts to drop stats in service games, he can never pick up the balance by improving the return.

I agree totally. But part of this void is that a few players raised the bar so high, evolving the game, that until someone young figures out something new all the momentum remains with the aging players until they are finally over the hill.

You can't laugh at facts. Right now no one can touch these guys. That could change any time, but it remains in the realm of coulda, shoulda, woulda. Thiem has been the most impressive in challenging on clay, but some of the newer things he brings to the game are negated by serious weaknesses he may never plug. To win the younger players have to raise their game to the levels the Big 3 reached at their peaks, and no one is doing that. You can see the problem by looking at stats when the Big 3 are filtered out. You don't see anyone winning even 54% of points. Around 53% is about the most I see, and that's not good enough. It never was in the past. To pass that threshold you need someone great, a future ATG. I'm sure it will happen. You have to think that part of the problem is that the Big 3 at best sucked all the air out of the room, and at this point there is no glory left for everyone else. Just one major win by someone young would at least partially reset things. But first it has to happen.
85% Service games won for Djokovic is very poor especially for 2019...... He needs it to be around 87/88%...... to compensate for the decline in return number.
 
I think with or without Lendl, Z was going to plateau. I have no idea why I've thought this for a few years since he started being really visible other than he was so hyped and I just wasn't seeing it totally. I think Lendl just happened to be on board when this plateau happened. I just never really have seen the mental components that would make Z a champion or able to hang in there when his skills weren't working on a given day. I agree though, they don't seem like their personalities would mesh at all.

Lastly, I wonder if because he was coached by his dad for much of the time, that he has a way of reacting and interacting with a coach that is less than professional and not helpful to the process. I'd make a good guess that this is part of the dynamic that makes the coaching partnerships he's had unsuccessful. Just as a viewer, no matter who the coach has been I don't see him playing any differently no matter which coach he's been with. No improvements really. TBH, I was shocked that he made it to #4 (I think even #3, right?). To me, that just said that the rest of the field wasn't doing their part because to me he doesn't have a top 3 or 5 game. Maybe they were caught off-guard since he was young and they were somewhat surprised by him/his game/all the hype. Now they aren't and everything's settled in and they know how vulnerable he is. Just my take.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
On a side note: Haters can hate all they want but even they can't deny that Sasha fights even when he is down, regardless of outcome.

So? He could be Nadalesque in his fighting spirit, it's not going to reduce the hate for him. The loathing for Zverev centers around how he is as a human being. His tennis is secondary in this equation.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
@schnejan
#Zverev said they didnt have contact and was surprised that it happened during tournament/via media. Zverev made clear that he has nothing but respect for him. They wanted to talk after Hamburg anyway and end was clear. "I have the best coach and I'm happy - for now" (smiled)
 

BringBackWood

Professional
I thin zverevs problems are rather deep rooted, and possibly the early, somewhat lucky success may have hindered him. His FH,unreliable & unabie to take it early, needs to be completed reshaped, Serve, much like Delpo's isn't good enough for a very tall man. No transition game, & he's stuck playing the generic baseline grinding game of the young guns, at 6 1/2 feet. Good luck with that.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
As for the off-court issues: Zverev (clan) thought they could just walk away from his manager and join Fedr's management group, even though they have a valid contract. They thought they had the clout to simply end the contract (just like it seems to be the standard with professional football players...). Arpey, on the other hand, did not comply and put Z into a situation where he was/is worrying too much about the business side of his tennis.
Also, Z and his hot Russian girl friend broke up (in all likelihood, she left him), so that can also make a (young) man feel miserable...
Finally, Z's dad was (severely?) ill and in hospital, his brother suffered from (minor? self-diagnosed?) depression/burnout syndroms, and who knows what else happened within the Z clan?
Thanks for all the info. Isn't he back with his girlfriend though?
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
There was not much chemistry between them.
The predictability of this event was undeniable.

:sick:
 

tex123

Hall of Fame
I think with or without Lendl, Z was going to plateau. I have no idea why I've thought this for a few years since he started being really visible other than he was so hyped and I just wasn't seeing it totally. I think Lendl just happened to be on board when this plateau happened. I just never really have seen the mental components that would make Z a champion or able to hang in there when his skills weren't working on a given day. I agree though, they don't seem like their personalities would mesh at all.

Lastly, I wonder if because he was coached by his dad for much of the time, that he has a way of reacting and interacting with a coach that is less than professional and not helpful to the process. I'd make a good guess that this is part of the dynamic that makes the coaching partnerships he's had unsuccessful. Just as a viewer, no matter who the coach has been I don't see him playing any differently no matter which coach he's been with. No improvements really. TBH, I was shocked that he made it to #4 (I think even #3, right?). To me, that just said that the rest of the field wasn't doing their part because to me he doesn't have a top 3 or 5 game. Maybe they were caught off-guard since he was young and they were somewhat surprised by him/his game/all the hype. Now they aren't and everything's settled in and they know how vulnerable he is. Just my take.
His dad was a former atp pro. Most players would kill to have a atp pro for a parent to coach and guide him/her.

He has all the ingredients to dominate the sport. If he can just put it all together. I would be happy if he hired Magnus Norman as his coach. He would see results immediately in my opinion.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
His dad was a former atp pro. Most players would kill to have a atp pro for a parent to coach and guide him/her.

He has all the ingredients to dominate the sport. If he can just put it all together. I would be happy if he hired Magnus Norman as his coach. He would see results immediately in my opinion.


with that forehand?
:oops::rolleyes:o_O:giggle:
 
Top