Sure seems like it, a chance at a home slam retirement. Meanwhile, Djokovic with different luck is 35 looking at another 4-5 years on tour.
Yes, but there are two major and highly relevant differences between them:
1) Djokovic has not suffered from anything like the same injury problems that Monfils has. Obviously, players who are injured all the time are less likely to still be playing at a very advanced age than are players who are generally fairly insusceptible to injuries, just as those who don't have major health problems in middle age and early old age are much more likely to live to advanced old age than are those who do have such health problems.
2) Djokovic has more of a cushion than does Monfils that enables him to still be competitive while at an old age. We can see in lots of sports these days that the very top players go on longer than other players do (*). No doubt part of this is because of being able to afford to pay for treatment and coaches, but Monfils is successful enough that he can pay for a lot of things (nowhere near on a par with Djokovic, of course). Yet a small decline is much worse for Monfils than it is for Djokovic.
* This is pretty clear in the World Cup, where (for example), Messi is still Argentina's main man at 35.5, while marginally younger contemporaries such as Higuain and Aguero are not only not in the squad but retired from professional football shortly before they turned 35. (Di Maria did start all three group games, though, and Otamendi is also still playing - but defenders are clearly going on much longer than forwards these days - e.g. Thiago Silva is still captaining Brazil and a regular starter at 38 and Dani Alves is still getting some playing time at 39.5, while defensive midfielder Busquets - a regular starter in 2010 - was the sole survivor from Spain's winning campaign that year).
