"The imbalance in Tennis right now."

N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Serve&Volley01;28528746 said:
Tennis right now feels like Djokovic [huge gap] Federer [huge gap] the rest of the field.

Djokovic is dominating the season and is the huge favourite to win Roland Garros. He may even more dominant than Federer's 2004/06/07 years.

Federer is not a credible threat esp. at slam's due to old age and lack of stamina and consistency, and Murray consistently loses out to Djokovic due to the Serb's superior consistency in two defensive consistent playstyles of both players. Nadal is declining faster than Federer and has been wildly inconsistent.

Dimitrov, Nishikori, and Roanic are all not ready.

What on your thoughts of this new era of Djoko domination?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Discussion from before 2015 RG
Wisdom


masterclass said:
The fact that Roger Federer well into his 34th year (he'll finish 34th and start his 35th year Aug 8) is world #2 and has been the only real consistent challenge to Djokovic since after the last French Open should say volumes about the current level of competition.

Novak was unfortunate earlier in his career to have to contend with 2 of the greatest players in history in their prime and it rather limited his results and ascendency to the very top. He suddenly came into his own in 2011 with a superb year. Of course Federer was well into his 30th year at that point but still able to bring the highest standard of tennis occasionally, and as evidenced by his return to #1 in 2012, he was able to maintain consistency at a high level. Nadal was still the one to beat at Roland Garros, and a solid threat at the other majors, but was susceptible to absences from the tour. Djokovic continued with a high standard from that point, staying in the top 1 or 2 through the present, but still not winning more than his favorite major each year except for 2014 where he won Wimbledon instead, even though Federer was hurt in 2013, Murray had his back operation and took 2014 to recover, and Nadal wasn't a factor after Roland Garros 2014.

Now he is finally poised to take advantage of a out-of-sorts, injured/recovering, or declined Nadal since mid-2014 who is a year older at Roland Garros. Murray was out-of-sorts through most of 2014, and though finally returning to a pretty high level, hasn't come close to threatening Djokovic yet as he has folded in the crunch against him, and hasn't played Federer since the WTF debacle. Del Potro has been injured for almost a year and a half. The rest of the top 10 players are a combination of older perennial top 5-10 players (Ferrer, Berdych, Wawrinka) taking advantage of a weaker next generation, and the best of that next generation - Raonic, Nishikori, and the tweener inconsistent Cilic. Tsonga has declined and is barely a threat and the rest have never really challenged.

The hope for some new strength lies in the rising younger generation of Kyrgios, Coric, Kokkinakis, Thiem, etc.
But they probably won't be ready to be year round competitive for at least 3-4 years, though they could surprise here or there.

So it is what it is. The situation is good at the moment for No1e (and for the others near the top). It would be surprising if he didn't take full advantage of this window of opportunity. Nobody knows how long it will remain open. Murray looks poised to return to full potency, but looks like he has a mental block with No1e at the moment. I don't think we can write off Nadal until he calls it quits, even though he is up and down still. And at some point the youngsters will rise.

I hope nobody begrudges No1e for his period in the sun. As I mentioned earlier, he had a tough task when he was younger and paid his dues. He is playing well, and with confidence, it should carry him to some more great victories for a time if he can stay healthy and motivated. We will see.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Debate

Tutsi Frutsi said:
The thing is Djokovic is almost 28 y.o., even if at the moment exists so called weak era then Djokovic was unlucky to spent his prime from 23 to 27 y.o in tough era. Djokovic and Nadal had to compete with each other in their peak years while 22-26 y.o Fed was grabbing lots of easy Slams during vacuum era, but Nadal and Djokovic exposed him in 2008:haha::spit:
Omnipotence said:
I'm not sure this matters. We've reached the point of diminishing returns regarding improvement in the game, especially regarding technology. Djokovic has actually evolved at a time where it might be realistic for him to hold ground at the top of the game into his 30s, with a delayed "rubber band" effect of the tour catching up, which will only probably properly start with the generations that come after Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic. You could call that lucky for Djokovic or just call it impressive that Fedalovic collectively hit a pseudo-ceiling for tennis performance, where progressing further or even just matching their level depends on being the total tennis player, rather than exploiting niches in the tactical and strategic framework of tennis.

Sometimes, quantum leaps can be observed regarding the quality of tennis, which is what Federer did starting from 2003/2004. Sampras rested on his laurels and the quality of the game at the top level stagnated for nigh on one decade. Due to this ebbing and flowing — with not one, not two, but three players having an obsessive perfectionist attitude this era — we've reached a point where there's no obvious space or tactic to dethrone the level that's been reached. One simply must now be good enough to climb Everest, which Federer, Nadal and Djokovic managed. Will the following generation ever be good enough to get there and do they have the talent? Djokovic has room to spare due to the heights he has reached, so who is going to seriously dethrone this master of all surfaces, unless he suffers not just a slight decline, but a significant one?

As such, I expect that should Djokovic remain motivated, he'll be on top for a long time yet. I think only Nadal is capable of putting a run together that could take the top rank away now. Nishikori and others? They can sneak Slams, but to dethrone Djokovic they'll need to be consistent all year round and on all surfaces.

It's up to a guy like Kyrgios IMO to readdress the balance of tennis. He provides a prototype which could unlock the defence of Djokovic — he could provide a very new angle of attack for Djokovic to deal with. Nishikori? He's too similar to Djokovic to be consistently beating him at his own game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swordtennis

Legend
Stanimal just thrashed Novak at the french. I think it is coming from alien blood fan bases and is a bit exaggerated. It will die down again. When Novak loses at the us open.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Stanimal just thrashed Novak at the french. I think it is coming from alien blood fan bases and is a bit exaggerated. It will die down again. When Novak loses at the us open.
What you need to realize is that Novak is a lock for the SF or Final every major. He just needs to win 2 big matches and if one of them happens to be a weak player, it becomes a joke of 2 weeks for him
 

swordtennis

Legend
Agree with the omnipotence comment. Djokovic is the next stage solid on every front. No weakness and has the talent to strengthen weakness.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Djokovic is pretty much king of all he surveys right now. The US hardcourts will be interesting I don't think Djokovic is doing the sweep.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
It's a pretty weak era. And it'll be weaker and weaker for the next 4-5 years. And then hopefully we can get a new supertalent like Nadal, Sampras or Edberg to take over from Djoko.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Tennis right now is a matryoshka doll painted "homogenized" and when you open it you see a matryoshka doll with Novak's face painted on it. Each successive doll has his face on it.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
It's hard to immediately think of someone who could challenge Novak for world number one in 2016. I think if Nadal can have one more resurgence, he'd be the man to do it — this is assuming Djokovic maintains something close to his current level. But, to be honest, Djokovic at his current level may still have the measure of even a peaking Nadal. Also, is Nadal peaking again for a long enough stretch to reclaim #1 really likely?

There are numerous players who can still probably win a Major IMO such as Murray or Wawrinka, but it's hard to imagine they'd be consistently excellent on all surfaces for a whole year to dethrone Novak from the top spot unless Novak dips himself. Actually, it'd have to be more than a dip.. even if he produces say, 2013 form, it would still take a peaking Nadal to really do the damage.

The lost boys (Raonic/Dimitrov/Nishikori and co.) aren't ready enough nor talented enough to be as consistently destructive as Djokovic and the super young boys are years away from reaching maturity, though they will give Djokovic a very hard time as they come to peak and Djokovic declines.

Djokovic has the fitness and the game to last well into his 30s IMO, because when he's at his best he's easily — easily — the most efficient baseline player on tour. Why? Ability to redirect the ball and always make his opponent do more work than himself. That is the key.

OK, So I see Djokovic as the world number one for 2015 and 2016. How about beyond that?

Assuming Djokovic keeps his current level or at least only dips to 2013/2014 standards, I think Nadal is the only one who could "save tennis (lol whatever)" in 2016 and I'd say that's very very unlikely.

Yo haters! Yo, yes you. You there... yes yes, great doing correspondance with you; pray for decline, you're probably gonna need it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swordtennis

Legend
h m n
Avoided the net like a plague yesterday.

Wish he was more magical than mechanical
He was not at his best yesterday. He was in better form at net at the french imo. Brilliant net play during that esp against Nadal and Murray in the first two sets. His return game was better than the french yesterday however. That saved him yesterday.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I reckon he was slightly superior at Wimbledon. I understand his lobs sucked and he didn't use the net much but his accuracy off the ground was staggering and he was in a much better mental frame of mind. He looked super hungry without being over anxious and burning up nervous energy as he did at the French, especially vs. Murray. Wawrinka did play better in the RG final though than Federer in the Wimbledon final.

Djokovic needs to relax at RG more. There was no fear or doubt in Djokovic in the Wimbledon final and he could effortlessly control the court. It was hard for him at RG because the balls were apparently even heavier than usual so you needed to be really strong to consistently penetrate the court. Stan might be the strongest dude on tour. At RG, obviously Nole's performance vs Nadal was exemplary and for the moment he has totally conquered the match-up.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Also, to add, Djokovic's game this year is better built for the faster surfaces than the slower ones. He returns slightly less well and takes care of service a lot better... but taking care of service on clay isn't quite so important.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Djovak will fall in due time, and before that regress to 2012-2014 level. The predictions taking the form of "wowzer, current #1 looking good, will rule tennis for 10 years" have been heard quite a few times over the years.

Murray will be Y.E. #1 in 2016.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Djovak will fall in due time, and before that regress to 2012-2014 level. The predictions taking the form of "wowzer, current #1 looking good, will rule tennis for 10 years" have been heard quite a few times over the years.

Murray will be Y.E. #1 in 2016.
For this to happen, he has to improve his service game. His contemporaries have left him in the dust in this dep. while Murray has remained stagnant. His clay season this year gives optimism that he can give himself a shot at #1 because he can garner good ranking points in all conditions, but if Novak maintains something similar to his current level then he is simply a better player than Andy.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Murray won't finish above Djokovic in the rankings until both are probably too inconsistent to be #1 anyway. I think he'll get a YE #2 though.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
For this to happen, he has to improve his service game. His contemporaries have left him in the dust in this dep. while Murray has remained stagnant. His clay season this year gives optimism that he can give himself a shot at #1 because he can garner good ranking points in all conditions, but if Novak maintains something similar to his current level then he is simply a better player than Andy.
I fully agree that the hold-game is what Murray needs to focus on.

Murray served great through much of clay season. He's been making slight improvements/changes already, for instance dialing down the first serve a little bit in order to get a higher percentage. He's also making some adjustments to the second serve, kicking it a bit better.

Serve and hold-game also the easiest and most realistic aspect of one's game to improve.

". . . if Novak maintains something similar to his current level": well, he will probably not (2015 level that is), but rather regress a wee bit towards his level from the three previous years. Murray is also close to Novak's level in the here-and-now on each surface. He's been on a gentle but steady upwards curve for about half a year now. With confidence and some adjustments, this curve can ascend further. And thence it remains to see where Djokovic's curve goes through this fall and the next year.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
@Sysyphus

He needs to seriously think about how he backs up the serve and how to protect the 2nd serve. He needs a more specific tactical approach for his service games. I want to see the perfectionist in Andy Murray truly awaken. I honestly don't think it has yet.
 
Three things which feel bad in this "imbalance", and none are directly Nole's winning itself:
1) Dominant player is off his absolute best, but is STILL dominating the tour
2) Top challengers of the dominant player are all old slow declining players
3) Dimitrov/Nishikori/Raonic are useless

Honestly, I'm already starting to pay more attention to the real youngsters. Kokkinakis is my top pick, I really wish he will improve rapidly! I also like Zverev, although he still has to improve his physique and get rid of errors. Hopefully Coric and Kyrgios can soon get to the business ends of slams and really challenge the top player. The slow declining players will never do that.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Three things which feel bad in this "imbalance", and none are directly Nole's winning itself:
1) Dominant player is off his absolute best, but is STILL dominating the tour
2) Top challengers of the dominant player are all old slow declining players
3) Dimitrov/Nishikori/Raonic are useless

Honestly, I'm already starting to pay more attention to the real youngsters. Kokkinakis is my top pick, I really wish he will improve rapidly! I also like Zverev, although he still has to improve his physique and get rid of errors. Hopefully Coric and Kyrgios can soon get to the business ends of slams and really challenge the top player. The slow declining players will never do that.
It is this landscape that you describe that makes it realistic for Djokovic to be at or at least near the top as a serious Slam contender well into his 30s. The tour is in a state right now where even if someone usurps Djokovic, it's unlikely that he won't be a dangerous contender still and at least up until the point that Kyrgios/Coric/Kokki and co. mature and develop something approaching fairly complete games. So what's that.. at least a 2 year window where Djokovic is a perennial Slam thread and probably a much longer period for which he can be a general threat, much like Federer has been in the last few years somewhat. And, when Djokovic is in that period of his career, there's no guarantee that the next great will be good enough to consistently hold him off. Imagine if Djokovic wasn't one of the best players of all time — Federer may have won a couple of extra Slams in his later years. When Djokovic is 31/32, who is to say that the next great who is currently barely an adult will be of that calibre (the calibre that Djokovic is in his pomp as compared to Federer in his older years).
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
i have a feeling that Borna Coric is about to rise up and start taking Djokovic to the woodshed. Stay tuned.
Omnipotence said:
Coric is very limited technically. He's a very good athlete though, maybe even a great one. He's also very resourceful. You know no better than me who will rise from those who are currently teenagers. I chose Kyrgios and not Coric because Kyrgios provides a unique puzzle for Djokovic should he put his game together. Coric is based on the Djokovic archetype, though with snappier and more abbreviated stroke mechanics and a more fluid core rotation (and much less flexibility). So if Coric can do what Djokovic more or less does but better, then he might dethrone Djokovic, but for that to happen he'd need to surpass Djokovic at his own game. Djokovic is the master of that game. Kyrgios plays differently. He could prove to be a worthy foil to Djokovic's paradigm. Focusing too much on the specific player suggestion misses the point somewhat, which is more to do with play style than necessarily a specific player.

The overriding point is that if Djokovic is to be dethroned from his top position by someone other than members of the Trifecta, then I imagine that they'd need to give Djokovic a totally new look, a new configuration. The road Coric is heading down, he'll always be slightly behind Djokovic unless he's genuinely as or more talented. Don't get me wrong, I think both Coric and Kyrgios could find great success on the tour. We just don't know, but the archetype Coric is basing his game on is the safer bet for top level success on the tour given recent evidence, but doesn't inspire me with confidence that he'd ever end up being better than Djokovic unless the great Serbian gets old.
What is the likelihood that a player with a similar mantra to Djokovic can reach anything remotely close to Djokovic's level of proficiency within say the next 2 years? Even if Coric reaches his potential, is that potential as great as Djokovic's who is an all-time great of the game? If he's in Novak's archetypal mold, he'll need to be better than it than the father himself. I suspect Coric will have to depend on some serious decline.
 
What is the likelihood that a player with a similar mantra to Djokovic can reach anything remotely close to Djokovic's level of proficiency within say the next 2 years? Even if Coric reaches his potential, is that potential as great as Djokovic's who is an all-time great of the game? If he's in Novak's archetypal mold, he'll need to be better than it than the father himself. I suspect Coric will have to depend on some serious decline.
Yes, Coric WILL depend on decline, AND his own physical and game improvement. Remember, Djokovic will start to seriously decline in 2016, and Coric will keep on improving. Coric peak will probably be much less than Djokovic peak, but he will probably still challenge the declining Djokovic soon. If everything goes perfect with Coric, he will really challenge Djokovic, at latest from the start of 2017 on IMO.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
@torpantennis

Coric is more prodigious than Kokkinakis but I expect Kokkinakis to achieve and be a minimum of a perennial top-ten player. Neither of them have a game that especially interests me but they are both on an "ideal" path for "modern tennis". Kyrgios is against the grain but presents some new ideas.

Coric has wins against Nadal and Murray and is ranked inside the top 40 at 18. I have serious doubts about his game but it's hard to argue against those results during the most nascent stages of his pro career.
 

Hollywood401k

Semi-Pro
It really is the time for the very young to step up. There's some talent there and an opportunity if they can adopt some of the old guard's training professionalism. Even if they do, Novak's going to do some damage for at least another solid year.
 
@torpantennis

Coric is more prodigious than Kokkinakis but I expect Kokkinakis to achieve and be a minimum of a perennial top-ten player. Neither of them have a game that especially interests me but they are both on an "ideal" path for "modern tennis". Kyrgios is against the grain but presents some new ideas.

Coric has wins against Nadal and Murray and is ranked inside the top 40 at 18. I have serious doubts about his game but it's hard to argue against those results during the most nascent stages of his pro career.
Yes, Coric has had very consistent results, at only 18. If he keeps on improving, he should get to top 25 or better next year and inside top 10 in 2017. But Coric seems to have no clear attacking weapons. I like Kokkinakis, his forehand looks like it can have all the potential to be an all-court attacking weapon. He can flatten it out superbly, and get to the net behind it already. That pattern reminds me of peak Federer, the flat forehand into the backhand corner and then pick the easy volley at net was such a great pattern to watch back then. I hope Kokkinakis can also develop that pattern more! (modern day Fed hits too loopy for that pattern, and Nadal used to own the flat approach so that made Federer to add spin to his forehand in about 2006-7)
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Eh, as long as Djokovic remains motivated to compete he's going to be a factor in the Slams for a long time as Federer has been. The quality of players coming after Djokovic though probably won't equal the calibre of Djokovic himself, so he may snag more in his older years than Federer did. It depends on the talent and quality coming up. I predict that Raotrovkori will peak about the same time as the Kyricnakis group and create a rather strong if not spectacular dynamic at the top of the men's game with a Djokovic hanging around and maybe one of his peers. For Djokovic to not factor in Slams for the next about 4 years, he's going to need to lose considerable motivation or suffer from serious injury. He's created a standard that's hard to topple because it demands great proficiency in most/all parts of the game to best, as it did with Federer and Nadal.

The charts are boring. Would rather judge what I'm seeing in front of my eyes at the very moment.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Immediate threats to Djokovic

  • Wawrinka
  • Murray
  • Federer
Longer term threats (next 36 months)

  • Nishikori
  • Raonic
  • Dimitrov
  • Kyrgios
  • Coric
  • Nadal
  • Physical decline
  • Waning hunger
  • Injury
I think Federer and Murray have been dealt with for the moment. Murray might be able to come back at Djokovic at the US Open and Wawrinka should be hugely dangerous.

In 2016, I expect at least a couple of the name in the second list to make a real push and have great results. It's doubtful that some will produce consistent enough results to topple Djokovic from the #1 spot though unless Nadal has an unreal resurgence. Murray perhaps has the credentials to sneak something but IMV Djokovic would have to dip below his level from 2013-14 for Murray to cash in. We know Djokovic won't win every Slam going because that's not his way. Some of those names may snag a Slam, but probably won't usurp Djokovic from the pinnacle of the game until at least 2017. A Nadal resurgence is about the only thing that can happen to challenge #1 assuming Djokovic keeps up his very high level. Currently, Kyrgios and Coric especially, are rising quickly. Still, they need time to really tool up, especially with the stratospheric baseline standards currently being achieved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Coric WILL depend on decline, AND his own physical and game improvement. Remember, Djokovic will start to seriously decline in 2016, and Coric will keep on improving. Coric peak will probably be much less than Djokovic peak, but he will probably still challenge the declining Djokovic soon. If everything goes perfect with Coric, he will really challenge Djokovic, at latest from the start of 2017 on IMO.
You don't know that Djokovic will begin to decline at all in 2016, yet alone decline seriously. The mantra that's been spread on these boards about decline being inevitable at 28 and a half or 29 is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a logical proof. Google "inductive fallacy" if you don't believe me. The point is: that something has happened a bunch of times doesn't prove that it has to happen; that something hasn't happened doesn't prove that it can't happen.
 
Immediate threats to Djokovic

  • Wawrinka
  • Murray
  • Federer
Longer term threats (next 36 months)

  • Nishikori
  • Raonic
  • Dimitrov
  • Kyrgios
  • Coric
  • Nadal
  • Physical decline
  • waning hunger
I think Federer and Murray have been dealt with for the moment. Murray might be able to come back at Djokovic at the US Open and Wawrinka should be hugely dangerous.

In 2016, I expect at least a couple of the name in the second list to make a real push and have great results. It's doubtful that some will produce consistent enough results to topple Djokovic from the #1 spot though unless Nadal has an unreal resurgence. Murray perhaps has the credentials to sneak something but IMV Djokovic would have to dip below his level from 2013-14 for Murray to cash in. We know Djokovic won't win every Slam going because that's not his way. Some of those names may snag a Slam, but probably won't usurp Djokovic from the pinnacle of the game until at least 2017. A Nadal resurgence is about the only thing that can happen to challenge #1 assuming Djokovic keeps up his very high level. Currently, Kyrgios and Coric especially, are rising quickly. Still, they need time to really tool up, especially with the stratospheric baseline standards currently being achieved.
You probably should add "injury" to the second list. I know you might include it within "physical decline" but I think it's different (and more likely to happen in 2016).

Nadal resurgence is definitely the most likely reason for Djokovic not to be #1 in 2016, probably followed by injury. Physical decline is unlikely to be marked for another year or two beyond that, and he has the hunger because he wants to catch Nadal and knows he has a limited time in which to do so.

Kyrgios could be a threat. It's going to take Coric and Kokkinakis much more than another year before they are remotely likely to be threats on anything other than a one-off basis.
 
@helterskelter

I kind of felt "physical decline" had that covered but I'll add it anyway.
Well, injury is one of the major causes of physical decline, but doesn't physical decline mean the inevitable aging process, while injury has a strong element of chance to it?

{As one example of injury leading to physical decline, had Novak's coach not injured his wrist at Wimbledon 1996, he might well have carried on as a top player until about the end of the 1990s. He was still clearly the #2 player on fast surfaces in those days - albeit Krajicek played so well at Wimbledon that year that he'd likely have beaten him in the final had Becker made it there. Becker's form even after the injury in late 96 was still pretty good, but over the long term it definitely led to his final decline, although that was partly due to loss of confidence.}

{It'd also be plausible to make a similar argument to the McEnroe/Borg one and say that Becker retired because he was no match for Sampras on grass or outdoor hard and wasn't happy being the second-best player. He could at least push Sampras hard on carpet, but I don't think he wanted to stay in the game just to win more Tour Finals titles.}
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
You probably should add "injury" to the second list. I know you might include it within "physical decline" but I think it's different (and more likely to happen in 2016).

Nadal resurgence is definitely the most likely reason for Djokovic not to be #1 in 2016, probably followed by injury. Physical decline is unlikely to be marked for another year or two beyond that, and he has the hunger because he wants to catch Nadal and knows he has a limited time in which to do so.

Kyrgios could be a threat. It's going to take Coric and Kokkinakis much more than another year before they are remotely likely to be threats on anything other than a one-off basis.
I agree that the Nadal resurgence is the current best bet, and yet that also looks rather unlikely. I think Novak is good for a while.. he won't win every single Slam but it's hard to see him losing the #1 position any time soon. Kyrgios provides something different and I think he can develop a game that will drive Djokovic insane. Coric seems like a player who has a similar mantra to Djokovic but is behind in development by 10 years, so he needs serious time I think before he can be anything other than a Djokovic-lite.


Well, injury is one of the major causes of physical decline, but doesn't physical decline mean the inevitable aging process, while injury has a strong element of chance to it?

{As one example of injury leading to physical decline, had Novak's coach not injured his wrist at Wimbledon 1996, he might well have carried on as a top player until about the end of the 1990s. He was still clearly the #2 player on fast surfaces in those days - albeit Krajicek played so well at Wimbledon that year that he'd likely have beaten him in the final had Becker made it there. Becker's form even after the injury in late 96 was still pretty good, but over the long term it definitely led to his final decline, although that was partly due to loss of confidence.}

{It'd also be plausible to make a similar argument to the McEnroe/Borg one and say that Becker retired because he was no match for Sampras on grass or outdoor hard and wasn't happy being the second-best player. He could at least push Sampras hard on carpet, but I don't think he wanted to stay in the game just to win more Tour Finals titles.}
I see what you're saying but I just had it in mind that if he does get injured then he'll certainly be physically worse off and less able. Anyway, I added it to the list.
 
I agree that the Nadal resurgence is the current best bet, and yet that also looks rather unlikely. I think Novak is good for a while.. he won't win every single Slam but it's hard to see him losing the #1 position any time soon. Kyrgios provides something different and I think he can develop a game that will drive Djokovic insane. Coric seems like a player who has a similar mantra to Djokovic but is behind in development by 10 years, so he needs serious time I think before he can be anything other than a Djokovic-lite.
Novak's chances of being the year-end #1 this year must be about 80%. Even were he to not play another match, Murray would need 3,800 more points and everyone else 5,000!

I'm not a bookmaker but I bet if one of us rang one and asked them to give us odds on Novak ending 2016 as #1, they would put his chances at slightly greater than 50%.

As for 2017, it's too early to tell. I can see Kyrgios being a serious threat by then. I think Coric will take longer, although in the long-run he's likely to be more consistent.
 

swordtennis

Legend
I would love it if Kokkinakis, Coric or Big Nick K annihilated Djokovic in a final. Hopefully in 2017 each one of them destroys him in successive major finals. Kokk at the AO, Coric at the French and Nick at Wimbledon. Then Djokovic wins another US Open. lol Dreamland.

Have a feeling Stan is going to be thumping the ball at the US Open.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
@helterskelter

Coric is rising super fast and I think it's based mainly on his already hugely professional fitness regime, which he seems to have worked on more than his tennis in the last year or so if I had to guess — good for a fast rise but there are serious holes in his game, so I think he'll hit a wall over the next year or so. Still, perhaps it's not a bad way to go about things and then learn on the job by being consistently over-matched against players who have vastly better "tennis skills" as things stand.

To me, Kyrgios, though not complete, already has a superb, dangerous and potent skill-set, and if he worked on his footwork and fitness he'd explode as a force at the top of the game. Kokkinakis has the fundamentals down and he's a great athlete to boot, the question is whether he's Berdych good (perennial top-tenner lacking the x factor) or better.
 
@helterskelter

Coric is rising super fast and I think it's based mainly on his already hugely professional fitness regime, which he seems to have worked on more than his tennis in the last year or so if I had to guess — good for a fast rise but there are serious holes in his game, so I think he'll hit a wall over the next year or so. Still, perhaps it's not a bad way to go about things and then learn on the job by being consistently over-matched against players who have vastly better "tennis skills" as things stand.

To me, Kyrgios, though not complete, already has a superb, dangerous and potent skill-set, and if he worked on his footwork and fitness he'd explode as a force at the top of the game. Kokkinakis has the fundamentals down and he's a great athlete to boot, the question is whether he's Berdych good (perennial top-tenner lacking the x factor) or better.
They could all have excellent careers. Still, if I had to bet on who will next be the world #1 apart from Novak Djokovic, I would bet on either Andy Murray or Rafael Nadal!

In the long-term, I can see Kyrgios having a Safin/Wawrinka-like career, with some real highs but also lulls, and Coric being more Murray-like, with much greater consistency but perhaps slightly lower elite performances.

I need to watch more of Kokkinakis before I comment on his potential. I have never been very impressed with Dominic Thiem, although I've only seen him play four or five times.
 
C

Cenarius

Guest
The only imbalance in tennis is AO as slam.It should have been FO,W and UO from 1988 onwards.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
They could all have excellent careers. Still, if I had to bet on who will next be the world #1 apart from Novak Djokovic, I would bet on either Andy Murray or Rafael Nadal!

In the long-term, I can see Kyrgios having a Safin/Wawrinka-like career, with some real highs but also lulls, and Coric being more Murray-like, with much greater consistency but perhaps slightly lower elite performances.

I need to watch more of Kokkinakis before I comment on his potential. I have never been very impressed with Dominic Thiem, although I've only seen him play four or five times.
I find it hard to imagine Coric would be more consistent than Murray, who is very consistent, and yet have a lower elite performance. Interesting theory. When a player is even more consistent than the likes of a Murray, they tend to win about 9 Slams by the age of 28. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray_career_statistics

Just for a quick glance.
 
I find it hard to imagine Coric would be more consistent than Murray, who is very consistent, and yet have a lower elite performance. Interesting theory. When a player is even more consistent than the likes of a Murray, they tend to win about 9 Slams by the age of 28. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray_career_statistics

Just for a quick glance.
A poorly written sentence on my part. I meant that Coric would have a lower-level elite performance than Kyrgios but more consistency, just as Murray probably has a lower elite performance than Wawrinka or Del Potro, but much more consistency.
 
@helterskelter
Oh I see. That makes a lot more sense. I'm inclined to agree.
Although now that I think about it, I may be too in hock to the Safin/Hewitt paradigm. I think wawrinka did play better in his slam wins than Murray did in his, but I can't actually think of a del Potro performance that's better than Murray's best. His game is certainly more explosive but has he put on a better performance?
 
Top