The "Djoker Slam" watch!!!

[falstaff78]

Just realized Novak has an excellent chance to hold all 4 majors come next June!! I'm a huge Fed fan but this is an amazing story for tennis in my opinion.

He holds the US Open and Wimbledon.

At the AO he has won 4 of the last 5, and could only be dislodged 9-7 in the fifth set by a peaking, goating Stanhammer Slamrinka in 2014. Bookies have him at 40% for AO 2016.

Then consider that he's made the final of the FO three years in the last five, and it took two legendary performances to prevent him from reaching the final in the other two (finger-wagging goat in 2011, rejuvenated rusty bull in 2013).

And who could beat him there next year? Rafa? Don't make me laugh! He mopped the clay with him last year. Stan? Yes. If he's having an on-tournament. But that is far from given. Bookies have him at just about 40% at RG.

Together the bookies are implying a ~15% chance for the Djoker-Slam by next June. Personally I think it's likely but not overwhelmingly so.

Do you think he can pull it off?

 

[jm1980]

I'll be happy if he wins just RG and nothing else next year

 

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

Bold prediction, he won't win AO.

 

[lulzprime]

Lol.

For 3 years, the same people have been talking about Djokovic getting the FO title. Yeah, the same people. Including you, topic creator.

What happened?

 

[Gary Duane]

Just realized Novak has an excellent chance to hold all 4 majors come next June!! I'm a huge Fed fan but this is an amazing story for tennis in my opinion.

He holds the US Open and Wimbledon.

At the AO he has won 4 of the last 5, and could only be dislodged 9-7 in the fifth set by a peaking, goating Stanhammer Slamrinka in 2014. Bookies have him at 40% for AO 2016.

Then consider that he's made the final of the FO three years in the last five, and it took two legendary performances to prevent him from reaching the final in the other two (finger-wagging goat in 2011, rejuvenated rusty bull in 2013).

And who could beat him there next year? Rafa? Don't make me laugh! He mopped the clay with him last year. Stan? Yes. If he's having an on-tournament. But that is far from given. Bookies have him at just about 40% at RG.

Together the bookies are implying a ~15% chance for the Djoker-Slam by next June. Personally I think it's likely but not overwhelmingly so.

Do you think he can pull it off?

Yes. I do. There won't be any pressure on him at the AO because he only has 2 slams right now. He is strongest at the AO, and each time he beats Fed in a final I think he has to feel more invincible.

The only thing that would stop him at the FO would be a Nadal who gets his confidence back. I still don't think there was anything physical stopping Rafa from winning more. So the big question is: can he retool his game?

Great champions are most likely to do this after a fall. I think Nadal will make a racket change. I think he will do what Fed did. (Remember, Fed tried the new racket, backed away until later.)

Novak has already shown that he is willing to make changes. His 2nd serve has become much better. His serving overall has improved. And he is probably a stronger clay player than Fed, so there is no reason why he can't get the FO next year.

If he is wise he will start NOW to push to attack more. He has Becker to help him.

Also, he says how well other players are playing at age 30 or older.

 

[Cortana]

The pressure will be too high again I think. Djokovic will win the AO 2016 for sure, but the FO will be pretty tough. He might not even reach finals.

 

[falstaff78]

The pressure will be too high again I think. Djokovic will win the AO 2016 for sure, but the FO will be pretty tough. He might not even reach finals.

Interesting. Yet you picked the most bullish option in the poll?

 

[falstaff78]

Yes. I do. There won't be any pressure on him at the AO because he only has 2 slams right now. He is strongest at the AO, and each time he beats Fed in a final I think he has to feel more invincible.

The only thing that would stop him at the FO would be a Nadal who gets his confidence back. I still don't think there was anything physical stopping Rafa from winning more. So the big question is: can he retool his game?

Great champions are most likely to do this after a fall. I think Nadal will make a racket change. I think he will do what Fed did. (Remember, Fed tried the new racket, backed away until later.)

Novak has already shown that he is willing to make changes. His 2nd serve has become much better. His serving overall has improved. And he is probably a stronger clay player than Fed, so there is no reason why he can't get the FO next year.

If he is wise he will start NOW to push to attack more. He has Becker to help him.

Also, he says how well other players are playing at age 30 or older.

Great, thought-out post, as usual

 

[falstaff78]

Lol.

For 3 years, the same people have been talking about Djokovic getting the FO title. Yeah, the same people. Including you, topic creator.

Err...since 2011 the entire world has been talking about it.

 

[lulzprime]

Err...since 2011 the entire world has been talking about it.

Al... right.

He hasn't won FO yet. Let's talk again when he does, until then... whatevs man.

 

[Gary Duane]

Err...since 2011 the entire world has been talking about it.

Something to think about:

Fed racked up 10 Fs at slams, to go with his 17 wins.

Novak now has 8.

His weakness compared to Fed is still in wins. In order to close the slam gap, he has to win bigger at age 29 and older. It was at age 29 that Fed dramatically lost his edge.

At age 28 Fed won 3 out of 4 slams, again, only it is easy to overlook because it was not in the same calendar year.

Had he won the AO in 2009, he would have had a "Fed-slam". So at age 28 he was still playing like a maniac.

At age 29 he won no slams.

Zip.

Most fans are not old enough to realize how quickly things change, or how quickly they changed in the past.

With the style of play that Novak uses, a few injuries or a loss of a half step in speed will be huge.

It's not just the young guns he has to watch out for. Other players are going to peak as later as 28, because the element of tennis is changing. Suddenly he is the "Lion in Winter".

Most likely he will face what Nadal already faced this year, and what Fed faced a few years ago. Maybe 28 is the new 26, but I don't believe 30 or 31 will ever be easy in this sport. If he is able to keep his #1 position, he is going to have to add to his game.

His FH is already very VERY good. I think his BH rates with the best I've ever seen, and I think the 2HBH is the shot of the future. But when you think about it, there is not reason why a guy with a great 2HBH can't also attack the net, because Novak has a good 1HBH already. People forget that modern players possess great 1HBH slices, something that Evert, Borg Connors didn't have - yet Connors was frequently at the net, with a far weaker serve.

There are signs that Novak is already working on this. He was 21/32 at the net in the final. If he can do that against Fed, the most dangerous player in the world for him right now on HCs, he can start coming in way more against lesser players, especially in early rounds.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I prefer him not being favored for French Open. Everyone wanted Federer to win Wimbledon and US Open so badly, throwing Djokovic into the shadow. Federer was swept aside soon after.
Irony is that Djokovic could have the least competition at FO, which is the only tournament he failed to win. I am assuming Nadal is not going to come back from the dead again.
Lets draw attention to Federer and him aiming for an 18th Slam in Paris or Wawrinka defending it.

 

[PaulFCB]

2011: Wimbledon and US Open: Wins in 4 sets against Nadal, followed by Australian Open 5 sets victory, against Nadal.
2015: Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows 4 sets against Federer, Australian Open 5 setter against Federer? Maybe a similar final to the one in 2009 when Roger does well till the 5 set when he gets slayed.

I kinda doubt it but who knows, maybe Roger will take it slowly with other tournaments and give it all at them Slams.
Finals against Nadal were easier in 2011 than against Roger in 2015 ( especially this at the US ).
Back then he had some medical treatment, now he had the fall.
Federer would have to be better at Melbourne considering it comes after winter break but we saw what Seppi did to him.

I really am looking forward to the French for No1e, I am sure he is too ( not that it wasn't the case in 2012, but how many consecutive titles can you win? )

 

[helterskelter]

Difference is that Federer faced a much stronger cohort of players in the 23-26 age range who could step up when Federer dropped off ever so slightly. Djokovic doesn't have that threat.

Something to think about:

Fed racked up 10 Fs at slams, to go with his 17 wins.

Novak now has 8.

His weakness compared to Fed is still in wins. In order to close the slam gap, he has to win bigger at age 29 and older. It was at age 29 that Fed dramatically lost his edge.

At age 28 Fed won 3 out of 4 slams, again, only it is easy to overlook because it was not in the same calendar year.

Had he won the AO in 2009, he would have had a "Fed-slam". So at age 28 he was still playing like a maniac.

At age 29 he won no slams.

Zip.

Most fans are not old enough to realize how quickly things change, or how quickly they changed in the past.

With the style of play that Novak uses, a few injuries or a loss of a half step in speed will be huge.

It's not just the young guns he has to watch out for. Other players are going to peak as later as 28, because the element of tennis is changing. Suddenly he is the "Lion in Winter".

Most likely he will face what Nadal already faced this year, and what Fed faced a few years ago. Maybe 28 is the new 26, but I don't believe 30 or 31 will ever be easy in this sport. If he is able to keep his #1 position, he is going to have to add to his game.

His FH is already very VERY good. I think his BH rates with the best I've ever seen, and I think the 2HBH is the shot of the future. But when you think about it, there is not reason why a guy with a great 2HBH can't also attack the net, because Novak has a good 1HBH already. People forget that modern players possess great 1HBH slices, something that Evert, Borg Connors didn't have - yet Connors was frequently at the net, with a far weaker serve.

There are signs that Novak is already working on this. He was 21/32 at the net in the final. If he can do that against Fed, the most dangerous player in the world for him right now on HCs, he can start coming in way more against lesser players, especially in early rounds.

 

[helterskelter]

I agree with you, but I actually think that Djokovic may face more threats in Australia than in France. If he can hold his nerve, then unless Nadal somehow recovers his form, he should win the French at last. Wawrinka hitting a purple patch is basically the only thing that can stop him, unless someone like Coric or Thiem improves incredibly rapidly in the next nine months. However, in Australia, both Wawrinka and Murray can push him. I know his record against Murray in Australia is very dominant, but the 2012 match was very close, and both 2013 and 2015 were close for the first two and a half sets (and roughly three hours!) If Murray's fitness has improved from those years (it probably has improved since January 2015, whereas in January 2013 he got an injury that is unlikely to recur), then he could be a tough match.

It'd be ironic if Djokovic held three of the four Slams and the one he didn't hold was in Australia!

Just realized Novak has an excellent chance to hold all 4 majors come next June!! I'm a huge Fed fan but this is an amazing story for tennis in my opinion.

He holds the US Open and Wimbledon.

At the AO he has won 4 of the last 5, and could only be dislodged 9-7 in the fifth set by a peaking, goating Stanhammer Slamrinka in 2014. Bookies have him at 40% for AO 2016.

Then consider that he's made the final of the FO three years in the last five, and it took two legendary performances to prevent him from reaching the final in the other two (finger-wagging goat in 2011, rejuvenated rusty bull in 2013).

And who could beat him there next year? Rafa? Don't make me laugh! He mopped the clay with him last year. Stan? Yes. If he's having an on-tournament. But that is far from given. Bookies have him at just about 40% at RG.

Together the bookies are implying a ~15% chance for the Djoker-Slam by next June. Personally I think it's likely but not overwhelmingly so.

Do you think he can pull it off?

 

[PaulFCB]

Difference is that Federer faced a much stronger cohort of players in the 23-26 age range who could step up when Federer dropped off ever so slightly. Djokovic doesn't have that threat.

Federer had Philippoussis, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis or Gonzelez in finals, something Djokovic would've payed for, if these were his rivals, he would've probably had 18 Grand Slams by now.
Someone like Safin was a good rival but only for brief period of time until his yacht sank somewhere in the Pacific.
Roger won all finals until he met Nadal. Djokovic not only faced big opponents, but if it wasn't enough they were frequently in their top form and you know if he didn't beat them then, nobody else could've in that day, not the same thing goes for Roger with Agassi at 34 or his London valet, Andy.
Djokovic only had Tsonga in 2008 easy( easy though he destroyed Nadal in the SF ) while Wawrinka was in Iron Man-mode that he may most possibly not repeat again.
Federer had God-Mode Del Potro in 2009 but he could've won the match anyway.
How would've a final against Cilic or Berdych look for No1e last night? One hour and a half live murder?

 

[helterskelter]

Federer had Philippoussis, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis or Gonzelez in finals, something Djokovic would've payed for, if these were his rivals, he would've probably had 18 Grand Slams by now.
Someone like Safin was a good rival but only for brief period of time until his yacht sank somewhere in the Pacific.
Roger won all finals until he met Nadal. Djokovic not only faced big opponents, but if it wasn't enough they were frequently in their top form and you know if he didn't beat them then, nobody else could've in that day, not the same thing goes for Roger with Agassi at 34 or his London valet, Andy.
Djokovic only had Tsonga in 2008 easy( easy though he destroyed Nadal in the SF ) while Wawrinka was in Iron Man-mode that he may most possibly not repeat again.
Federer had God-Mode Del Potro in 2009 but he could've won the match anyway.
How would've a final against Cilic or Berdych look for No1e last night? One hour and a half live murder?

I wasn't talking about their earlier careers but about their later careers. From 2010 onwards, Federer's younger competition were very tough (Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, principally). Which 23 or 24 year old now is even close to being that good? That highest-ranked player who's less than 24 is #20.

 

[mattosgrant]

I prefer him not being favored for French Open. Everyone wanted Federer to win Wimbledon and US Open so badly, throwing Djokovic into the shadow. Federer was swept aside soon after.
Irony is that Djokovic could have the least competition at FO, which is the only tournament he failed to win. I am assuming Nadal is not going to come back from the dead again.
Lets draw attention to Federer and him aiming for an 18th Slam in Paris or Wawrinka defending it.

I don't think there will be much attention on Federer winning #18 in Paris, since even the staunchest Federer fanboys know that will never in a million years happen there. I also think Wawrinka will get little attention (more than Cilic at this U.S Open though) to defend unless he wins the Australian Open. The attention and pressure will all be on Djokovic and hopefully he handles it. It will be nothing like the U.S Open this year and being overshadowed so heavily by Serena and Federer.

 

[mattosgrant]

Difference is that Federer faced a much stronger cohort of players in the 23-26 age range who could step up when Federer dropped off ever so slightly. Djokovic doesn't have that threat.

Yes exactly. That is why I remain adamant Djokovic will likely reach or pass Nadal's slam mark, and could (not easy but definitely could) reach or pass Federer's. A lot of it depends on when the next generation blooms, or if that generation is a huge bust ala the Raonic one.

 

[helterskelter]

Yes exactly. That is why I remain adamant Djokovic will likely reach or pass Nadal's slam mark, and could (not easy but definitely could) reach or pass Federer's. A lot of it depends on when the next generation blooms, or if that generation is a huge bust ala the Raonic one.

He'll need a Serena-like late career surge to match Federer, but perhaps. I still expect Nadal to win another Slam at some point in the next couple of years, though.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

hard to say...I mean look at Serena she had an unseeded player take her out

Pressure does something to even the best.

we have seen it happen to Novak at RG several times now

it would almost seem better for him to lose the AO if he wants chances to win at the FO cause then the pressure build will be less- he was at his boiling point at RG this year....after the release he's played a great season.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I don't think there will be much attention on Federer winning #18 in Paris, since even the staunchest Federer fanboys know that will never in a million years happen there. I also think Wawrinka will get little attention (more than Cilic at this U.S Open though) to defend unless he wins the Australian Open. The attention and pressure will all be on Djokovic and hopefully he handles it. It will be nothing like the U.S Open this year and being overshadowed so heavily by Serena and Federer.

The recovery he showed at Wimbledon and stability in US Open final gives big confidence. I hope the french will give him a bit of support towards the career grand slam goal.
I know Fed and Stan will not receive much attention, but IMO Novak performs his best tennis when other players are expected to win.

 

[mattosgrant]

My dream season for next year would be something like:

Australian Open- Murray
French Open- Djokovic
Wimbledon- Djokovic or Federer
U.S Open- Wawrinka

 

[mattosgrant]

He'll need a Serena-like late career surge to match Federer, but perhaps. I still expect Nadal to win another Slam at some point in the next couple of years, though.

I don't see Nadal winning another slam, but you never know. I could see him win another French maybe.

For Djokovic to reach 18 would have to be something roughly like this:

2016- 2 or 3 slams
2017- 2 or 3 slams
2018- 2 slams
2019- 1 slam

Yeah would be a challenge. Either that or winning slams past 2019 (the year he turns 32).

 

[Cortana]

I still think that Djokovic will have a Serena scenario in the future. Winning more slams after 28 than before.

 

[Gazelle]

Main problem for Djokovic winning the Djoker Slam will be winning RG, like it is every year. He doesn't have the luxury of meeting old man Fed in the finals there.

 

[jm1980]

I still think that Djokovic will have a Serena scenario in the future. Winning more slams after 28 than before.

Not going to happen unless the field is completely devoid of decent young talent

 

[PaulFCB]

Which seems to be the case.

 

[lulzprime]

Federer had Philippoussis, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis or Gonzelez in finals, something Djokovic would've payed for, if these were his rivals, he would've probably had 18 Grand Slams by now.
Someone like Safin was a good rival but only for brief period of time until his yacht sank somewhere in the Pacific.
Roger won all finals until he met Nadal. Djokovic not only faced big opponents, but if it wasn't enough they were frequently in their top form and you know if he didn't beat them then, nobody else could've in that day, not the same thing goes for Roger with Agassi at 34 or his London valet, Andy.
Djokovic only had Tsonga in 2008 easy( easy though he destroyed Nadal in the SF ) while Wawrinka was in Iron Man-mode that he may most possibly not repeat again.
Federer had God-Mode Del Potro in 2009 but he could've won the match anyway.
How would've a final against Cilic or Berdych look for No1e last night? One hour and a half live murder?

All you're saying here are IFs. IF, IF, IF, IF and more IFs.

Why is it Fed's fault if Djokovic or Nadal weren't born a few more years earlier so that you know, they'd be on the same prime time as Fed in 04-07? So all of a sudden, Fed doesn't deserve all the achivements he has?
Not Fed's fault if Djokovic parents didn't get under the rug and made him a few years earlier now is it?

Use some of your brains before you post next time, please.

 

[Backspin1183]

You underestimate Nadal. He has nothing to lose now and will be a thorn for the Djoker again.

 

[PaulFCB]

All you're saying here are IFs. IF, IF, IF, IF and more IFs.

There are no ifs, just facts.
Nadal and Djokovic came to overtake Federer, stop him from winning more, which they achieved and it's a fact, no an if.

 

[Cortana]

Maybe Djokovic should lose AO to win RG. The pressure of winning RG is already pretty high, but winning RG and being the holder of the last 4 GS titles?

 

[lulzprime]

There are no ifs, just facts.
Nadal and Djokovic came to overtake Federer, stop him from winning more, which they achieved and it's a fact, no an if.

Err... Djokovic only started overtaking Fed in 2010, consistently. Nadal only overtook Fed in 2008, consistently (other than on clay).

That's pretty much after Fed's prime of 04-07. So yeah, you're just spouting "ifs". Oh "IF" Djokovic was as dominant as he is now in 04 (and not moping around in juniors/futures/challengers), Fed wouldn't have won that many majors now would he? Well, too bad... that's just all "IF". Situations were different a decade ago, you just can't compare it like apples to apples today.

I could say the same thing, if there wasn't a Federer, Roddick would have won a few more slams until you know... Nadal shows up.
Oh wait, IF Fed was a pro in the early-mid 90s, Sampras wouldn't even have 14 slams too! Oh what a glorious comparison, right?

Yeah, IF man, IF.

 

[falstaff78]

Something to think about:

Fed racked up 10 Fs at slams, to go with his 17 wins.

Novak now has 8.

His weakness compared to Fed is still in wins. In order to close the slam gap, he has to win bigger at age 29 and older. It was at age 29 that Fed dramatically lost his edge.

At age 28 Fed won 3 out of 4 slams, again, only it is easy to overlook because it was not in the same calendar year.

Had he won the AO in 2009, he would have had a "Fed-slam". So at age 28 he was still playing like a maniac.

At age 29 he won no slams.

Zip.

Most fans are not old enough to realize how quickly things change, or how quickly they changed in the past.

With the style of play that Novak uses, a few injuries or a loss of a half step in speed will be huge.

It's not just the young guns he has to watch out for. Other players are going to peak as later as 28, because the element of tennis is changing. Suddenly he is the "Lion in Winter".

Most likely he will face what Nadal already faced this year, and what Fed faced a few years ago. Maybe 28 is the new 26, but I don't believe 30 or 31 will ever be easy in this sport. If he is able to keep his #1 position, he is going to have to add to his game.

His FH is already very VERY good. I think his BH rates with the best I've ever seen, and I think the 2HBH is the shot of the future. But when you think about it, there is not reason why a guy with a great 2HBH can't also attack the net, because Novak has a good 1HBH already. People forget that modern players possess great 1HBH slices, something that Evert, Borg Connors didn't have - yet Connors was frequently at the net, with a far weaker serve.

There are signs that Novak is already working on this. He was 21/32 at the net in the final. If he can do that against Fed, the most dangerous player in the world for him right now on HCs, he can start coming in way more against lesser players, especially in early rounds.

Another outstanding post. Please see this chart which I've shared previously. It perfectly illustrates your point. And I agree that some time next year we can expect to see Novak losing half a step.

Here's how I think it plays out. He has an excellent chance at australia, as usual. He will make one last almighty push at the FO, where I would be scared to bet on anyone against him. I think he will win it and show us all what a champion he is - 29 or not.

Starting thereafter we start to notice a decline. First at Wimbledon (where he was within a whisker of losing to Anderson this year) and thereafter at the US Open (where he beat Roger despite being taking fewer overall return points (38% vs 39%).

Ironically I think Roger will have a better chance at both wim and the US open next year. Because 35 is not too different from 34. But 29 is VERY different from 28.

 

[helterskelter]

Not going to happen unless the field is completely devoid of decent young talent

28 might be pushing it, as he had eight Slams on his 28th birthday, so even with the two he's got since, he needs another six.

But he only had six Slams on his 27th birthday, and already has four since then, so winning at least as many after his 27th birthday as before it seems pretty likely at this point, wouldn't you say? I can see him only winning two further Slams, but I think it's rather unlikely that he'll win less than that from here on out.

 

[helterskelter]

Why is 35 not very different from 34? Because Agassi made the US Open final at 35? I think that, if you looked at the number of players of 34 who reached Slam quarter-finals or semi-finals, you'd find that it was quite a bit higher than the number who did so at 35. And I think that you'd find the same thing if you reported on results on the regular tour. For example, there have been quite a few people who either won tour titles or reached finals at 34 and 35, but there has been no 36-year-old winner of a tour title since Connors in 89. Karlovic was 10 days or so short when he won Delray Beach earlier this year. And he fell narrowly short by losing the Newport final in July.

It would seem logical to me (given how aging works in general) to suppose that the difference between 34 and 35 is significantly greater than is the difference between 28 and 29. Aging speeds up after a certain point. Or, put it this way, even assuming a constant state of aging, at first the best players have a cushion from the pack, so that they can still win even despite aging. But once that cushion goes, the same percentage decrease in ability will affect their results much more.

If I recall correctly, you appealed to the cushion yourself when pointing out that Federer's results were much better at an advanced age than his peers. Because Federer had the cushion, he could still be competitive when he'd lost a step. But because Roddick, Hewitt, and Ferrero had much less of a cushion, when they lost a step they went way down in the rankings.

On another note, you need to update your chart! Federer just made a major final at 34, and you list there as being 0 finalists aged 34 in the last 10 years!

Another outstanding post. Please see this chart which I've shared previously. It perfectly illustrates your point. And I agree that some time next year we can expect to see Novak losing half a step.

Here's how I think it plays out. He has an excellent chance at australia, as usual. He will make one last almighty push at the FO, where I would be scared to bet on anyone against him. I think he will win it and show us all what a champion he is - 29 or not.

Starting thereafter we start to notice a decline. First at Wimbledon (where he was within a whisker of losing to Anderson this year) and thereafter at the US Open (where he beat Roger despite being taking fewer overall return points (38% vs 39%).

Ironically I think Roger will have a better chance at both wim and the US open next year. Because 35 is not too different from 34. But 29 is VERY different from 28.

 

[falstaff78]

Why is 35 not very different from 34?

apologies for not being clearer. i meant we have evidence to suggest that 29 is not the same is 28. but as yet no concrete evidence that 35 is different from 34. because of small sample sizes. for all we know the decline after 30 is fairly slow until the age of 40.

On another note, you need to update your chart! Federer just made a major final at 34, and you list there as being 0 finalists aged 34 in the last 10 years!

yeah i know. will do it after the depression of the final wears off

 

[helterskelter]

apologies for not being clearer. i meant we have evidence to suggest that 29 is not the same is 28. but as yet no concrete evidence that 35 is different from 34. because of small sample sizes. for all we know the decline after 30 is fairly slow until the age of 40.




yeah i know. will do it after the depression of the final wears off

To get enough of a sample, you'll have to either look at regular tour events or at players getting to the intermediate rounds. You could also use the rankings by age. You probably already know of this site, but it is useful: http://tennisabstract.com/reports/rankingsByAge.html. It shows the rankings sorted by age for all ages of 22 and below and of 28 and above.

It also shows a clear shift over time, by the way. Right now, 20 of the top 28 are 28+, and 20 of the top 43 are 29+ (a few weeks ago, there were 20 men aged 29+ in the top 40). 20 of the top 67 are 30+.

And yet it's still the case that there are only two men born in the 1970s in the top 190 (Karlovic and Hernych). So, it seems as though even today, players aged 36 or more are not competitive on tour.

To show the time contrast, I used the drop-down menu to look at the ages of players in 2005, 1995, and 1985 (just for examples).

In 2005, the #20 ranked 28-year-old was #89 and the #20 ranked 30-year-old was #122. There were at that point NO players born in the 1960s who ranked in the top 676, so basically the entire tour was 35 or younger.

In 1995, the #20 ranked 28-year-old was #101 and the #20 ranked 30-year-old was #207. There seem to have been two players born in the 1950s who were still competing on tour: Connors, the #415 despite being 43, and Mike Bauer who was #787 at 36.

In 1985, the #20 ranked 28-year-old was #110 and the #20 ranked 30-year-old was #140. The highest ranked player born in the 1940s was Ilie Nastase, who was ranked #431 at 39 years old.

The evidence also shows a clear and continuing drop in the number of players competing in their teens (and in recent years, early 20s) over the years.

For reasons of time, I haven't looked at each year individually, but could do so if you think it'd be something you'd be interested in. I'm not so good at making bar charts as you are, though!

Sorry you're disappointed about the final. But getting to the final at 34 is still a good achievement. I may have doubts about whether players in their late 20s have to decline or not, but I think it's pretty clear that a player in his mid-30s is up against an age barrier, albeit not so huge a barrier as in the past.

 

[Gary Duane]

Please see this chart which I've shared previously. It perfectly illustrates your point. And I agree that some time next year we can expect to see Novak losing half a step.

It would be interesting to see this same graph with slam finalists!

But I have a question: I assume those are slam winners. But Rosewall alone won the AO in 71 and 72. Is this incomplete?

 

[falstaff78]

.

This is only from 2005-2015. And it's for major finalists.

Also it's not updated for the US open. So you could add one more to the 34 and 28 buckets.

I could do a different cut if you'd like? Can share it tomorrow

 

[Aesthetics_above_all_else]

I really wouldn't be very surprised if Djokovic won every slam in 2016, I think he's heavily favored over anyone anywhere.

 

[helterskelter]

I really wouldn't be very surprised if Djokovic won every slam in 2016, I think he's heavily favored over anyone anywhere.

Not going to happen. You're right that he's firm favorite everywhere. Let's say for argument's sake, and being slightly generous, that his chance is 50% at each Slam. If that's the case, then his chance of winning them all is 6.25%.

 

[Gary Duane]

This is only from 2005-2015. And it's for major finalists.

Also it's not updated for the US open. So you could add one more to the 34 and 28 buckets.

I could do a different cut if you'd like? Can share it tomorrow

Oh, got you. But I'd really like to see what we have for the whole open era. I think the spread would be much the same, but things like Laver's grand slam year would add weight to older players winning. I believe, for instance, that Laver was either 30 or 31 as he won each slam in 69.

The following year Rosewall reached a F, then won Wimbledon. He was just a couple months shy of 36. Then he won the AO in in 71 and 72. He was only a slam away from a career slam, winning the FO in 68, and when you think about the fact that the man was born in 34, he won his first slam as a pro at about age 33.5.

If something can be done once, it can be done again. I think to some extent we have to look at parallels between that period and what is going on right now, because it's not just a matter of Fed pushing the envelope, in two Fs this year. If someone had taken Novak out - and it has happened before - there were lots of older guys ready to pounce, and by the QFs Cilic was the youngest.

I think we need to keep in mind your chart but also guess that the grouping of slams being won may be moving up a year or two due to training, surgeries and better meds.

 

[falstaff78]

Oh, got you. But I'd really like to see what we have for the whole open era. I think the spread would be much the same, but things like Laver's grand slam year would add weight to older players winning. I believe, for instance, that Laver was either 30 or 31 as he won each slam in 69.

The following year Rosewall reached a F, then won Wimbledon. He was just a couple months shy of 36. Then he won the AO in in 71 and 72. He was only a slam away from a career slam, winning the FO in 68, and when you think about the fact that the man was born in 34, he won his first slam as a pro at about age 33.5.

If something can be done once, it can be done again. I think to some extent we have to look at parallels between that period and what is going on right now, because it's not just a matter of Fed pushing the envelope, in two Fs this year. If someone had taken Novak out - and it has happened before - there were lots of older guys ready to pounce, and by the QFs Cilic was the youngest.

I think we need to keep in mind your chart but also guess that the grouping of slams being won may be moving up a year or two due to training, surgeries and better meds.

If you look at my age distribution thread it has all sorts of cuts. They are two years old though.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ution-of-all-open-era-major-finalists.453446/

 

[Gary Duane]

If you look at my age distribution thread it has all sorts of cuts. They are two years old though.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ution-of-all-open-era-major-finalists.453446/

That's great. It's exactly what I was looking for.

I'm always looking for the largest time-frame possible.

For instance, I am not so concerned with what has happened from 2000 to now, or 2005 to now, because this would show what is recent. I am more interested in a much larger period, so a graph for all of the open era is superior.

It would be fascinating to see slams by age for a period starting when slams were first played.

My theory right now is that there is a kind of seesaw between times when very young players are dominant, and when older players are on top. The Laver/Rosewall era is an example of a time when older players dominated. I might take your idea and highlight such eras, but I think you could do it better than me.

Then there are times such as the beginning of the Connors era, when older players were totally phased out.
The last time we saw aging players dominate was probably 1999. Agassi won the FO and the USO, so he would have been 29, I think, and Sampras won Wimbledon, at age 28. And it is important that Agassi won the AO in 2000, Sampras Wimbledon the same year. Then Agassis won the AO in 2001, Agassi won the AO again in 2003.

I hope I have those years right. I am very tired right now.

But it seems that aging players continue winning slams in a period I call the "Lions in Winter". Then the new generation takes over.

 

[Chanwan]

I voted unlikely, because so many things can go wrong, but he's the clear cut favorite for both and can certainly do it. Pressure will be immense at the FO though. But AO is on paper slightly tougher for him to win unless Rafa returns to top form.

 

[helterskelter]

Agree with you about cycles. In the late 90s and early 00s there was an era of older player dominance, then a long period in which young players dominated, but in the last several years older players are doing well again. Did you know that of the last 24 Slams, 23 have been won by a player aged 24 or more and all 24 of them have been won by a player aged 23 or more?

To apply a concept from American politics, one thing that I think the last 20 years show us is that it's difficult to unseat incumbents. Top players can go on dominating for longer than one would expect, and the arrival of new stars can be delayed by that.

That's great. It's exactly what I was looking for.

I'm always looking for the largest time-frame possible.

For instance, I am not so concerned with what has happened from 2000 to now, or 2005 to now, because this would show what is recent. I am more interested in a much larger period, so a graph for all of the open era is superior.

It would be fascinating to see slams by age for a period starting when slams were first played.

My theory right now is that there is a kind of seesaw between times when very young players are dominant, and when older players are on top. The Laver/Rosewall era is an example of a time when older players dominated. I might take your idea and highlight such eras, but I think you could do it better than me.

Then there are times such as the beginning of the Connors era, when older players were totally phased out.
The last time we saw aging players dominate was probably 1999. Agassi won the FO and the USO, so he would have been 29, I think, and Sampras won Wimbledon, at age 28. And it is important that Agassi won the AO in 2000, Sampras Wimbledon the same year. Then Agassis won the AO in 2001, Agassi won the AO again in 2003.

I hope I have those years right. I am very tired right now.

But it seems that aging players continue winning slams in a period I call the "Lions in Winter". Then the new generation takes over.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

I think he has a great shot at this. He so dominant down at Oz. And he due a break of luck at RG. If he bags both he strengthens his GOAT status and you could even make a strong case then he jumps Nadal and Sampras as the 2nd greatest player and he would be on his way to fed's status.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think he has a great shot at this. He so dominant down at Oz. And he due a break of luck at RG. If he bags both he strengthens his GOAT status and you could even make a strong case then he jumps Nadal and Sampras as the 2nd greatest player and he would be on his way to fed's status.

No one has won 4 slams in row since Laver, although Fed came close four times. So if Novak can do it, that would be huge. But everyone is going to be gunning for him now. I think the biggest danger is going to come from younger players, not the old guard.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

I really wouldn't be very surprised if Djokovic won every slam in 2016, I think he's heavily favored over anyone anywhere.

I think he's the one guy in men's tennis who can actually achieve that right now, but I just feel like he's got to lose to someone at a slam, of course picking who and which slam is the hard part. Would be nice to see him win the French but not the Australian next year.