- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,130
- Reactions
- 5,779
- Points
- 113
Even though I want to bring up two different (although related) topics, rather than start two threads I'm going to write this one in two parts.
Part 1: Roger, the 2014 Edition
After his performance at the Australian Open, and taking into account the context of the last few months in which his game improved from the dog days of summer last year, here's what I take away about Roger Federer, the 2014 Edition:
1) Roger is, once again, an elite player. He isn't the player he was from 2004-09, or even 2012, but he looks more like 2010-11 than he does 2013. I know, Tsonga is erratic and Andy not back up to full strength, but remember that a few months ago Roger couldn't even beat a top 10 player. Now, at the very least, he's right there with Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga and Wawrinka in the "near-elite," but it also seems possible that he's still a notch above them, right there with Andy in the #3-4 range.
2) Rafa still has his number, and it isn't particularly close. It reminds me of when I used to wrestle with my little sister. I might let her think she was going to win, but there was never any doubt. Rafa has won their last five matches against each other going back almost two years to the 2012 Indian Wells, which means...
3) Roger will never win another Slam unless Rafa is beaten by someone else. I just don't see it happening, not even at Wimbledon. The physical edge is surmountable - Roger at his very best can approach non-clay Rafa, but only if we take psychology out of the picture, and we can't; Rafa's psychological edge is just too great.
Part 2: Roger's vs. Novak/Rafa/Andy's experience of upcoming talent
One thing that crossed my mind is that Roger has experienced something that it looks like Rafa, Novak, and Andy will never experience: young, great players coming up and pulling the throne away from you while you're still in, or close to, your prime. Consider this:
When Roger was Rafa's age (27) or even Novak's and Andy's age (26), and still very much in his prime - this was 2007-08 - Rafa was already a great player, and both Novak and Andy were excellent, just a step behind. Actually, Rafa was on the map from 2005, when Roger was 23-24, although didn't win his first non-clay Slam until 2008, when Roger was almost 27.
Roger's last year of sole dominance - that is, as the clearly best player in the game, was 2007, although partially due to Rafa's injury in 2009, he was also the best player that year.
But here's the point I'm getting at: While Rafa, Novak, and Andy have a stronger core peer group to play against (each other) than Roger did, there are no young players coming up that are comparable to what the were to Roger. In 2014, Rafa will be turnig 28 years old, and Novak and Andy 27 years old (hard to believe, no?). That's 2008-09 for Roger, when Rafa 22-23 and had entered his prime, and Novak and Andy were 21-22 and already really good. I just don't see any players in the 21-23 range, what we could call "early prime," that are anywhere close to what those guys were in 2008-09. The best players in that range include Raonic, Janowicz, Nishikori, Dimitrov, and Pospisil. Maybe Grigor is stepping it up and will be a legit challenge to the Big 3+1, but remember that Rafa is exactly (only) 5 years older than Dimitrov, and Novak and Andy (only) 4y years older - so Rafa was the same age as Grigor is now in 2009, and Andy and Novak in 2010. I don't see Dimitrov being anywhere near their respective levels. At best he might be where Roger was in 2001 (at age 19-20), Rafa was in early 2005 (18-19), Novak in early 2007 (19-20), or Andy in mid-2008 (21); in other words, his trajectory is way behind, which makes it very unlikely that he'll be as good a player as the current Big Four were.
In some ways, its kind of a bummer, because it means that we won't get to see a new generation swell up and take the mantle like Rafa, Novak and Andy did, to really challenge them while they're still near in their peaks. Instead what is most likely to happen is a gradual decline by those three, which will be masked by the relative lack of younger talent.
Now there is the argument that players are taking longer to come into their own these days. its worth noting that David Ferrer had his best years at age 30-31, Stanislas is playing his best tennis at age 28, and Berdych and Tsonga don't seem like they're any lesser than they were a few years ago. Watching Grigor play, I got the sense that he was still a year or so away from really coming into his own, so maybe he'll reach an elite level by the time he turns 24 in 2015. But even then, can we expect Janowicz and Raonic to be similarly great? What about Pospisil and Carreno Busta and the forgotten Bernard Tomic? 20-year old Jiri Vesely looks promising, but elite level? Hard to see it.
Of the age 21-23 group, only Dimitrov seems to have true elite potential, and he's far from a sure thing. I think he'll win a Slam or two, but it may be because he peaks between the great era of the current Big Four, and the next generation of elites.
So we really have to look at teenagers, age 17-19 players like Nick Kyrgios, Christian Garin, and Borin Coric, for the next possible elites...and its just way too soon to tell if they're going to be all-time greats, or just another wave of very good players who miss the mark of true greatness. Either way, by the time these guys get to that breakout age of 21-22, Rafa, Andy and Novak will be entering their 30s and not the players they are today, so we're never going to see them really challenged by the next great generation like Roger. Their later years will be more similar to Pete Sampras' than they were, say, to Edberg's, Becker's, and Lendl's, who had to face young and hungry players like Sampras and Agassi.
Part 1: Roger, the 2014 Edition
After his performance at the Australian Open, and taking into account the context of the last few months in which his game improved from the dog days of summer last year, here's what I take away about Roger Federer, the 2014 Edition:
1) Roger is, once again, an elite player. He isn't the player he was from 2004-09, or even 2012, but he looks more like 2010-11 than he does 2013. I know, Tsonga is erratic and Andy not back up to full strength, but remember that a few months ago Roger couldn't even beat a top 10 player. Now, at the very least, he's right there with Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga and Wawrinka in the "near-elite," but it also seems possible that he's still a notch above them, right there with Andy in the #3-4 range.
2) Rafa still has his number, and it isn't particularly close. It reminds me of when I used to wrestle with my little sister. I might let her think she was going to win, but there was never any doubt. Rafa has won their last five matches against each other going back almost two years to the 2012 Indian Wells, which means...
3) Roger will never win another Slam unless Rafa is beaten by someone else. I just don't see it happening, not even at Wimbledon. The physical edge is surmountable - Roger at his very best can approach non-clay Rafa, but only if we take psychology out of the picture, and we can't; Rafa's psychological edge is just too great.
Part 2: Roger's vs. Novak/Rafa/Andy's experience of upcoming talent
One thing that crossed my mind is that Roger has experienced something that it looks like Rafa, Novak, and Andy will never experience: young, great players coming up and pulling the throne away from you while you're still in, or close to, your prime. Consider this:
When Roger was Rafa's age (27) or even Novak's and Andy's age (26), and still very much in his prime - this was 2007-08 - Rafa was already a great player, and both Novak and Andy were excellent, just a step behind. Actually, Rafa was on the map from 2005, when Roger was 23-24, although didn't win his first non-clay Slam until 2008, when Roger was almost 27.
Roger's last year of sole dominance - that is, as the clearly best player in the game, was 2007, although partially due to Rafa's injury in 2009, he was also the best player that year.
But here's the point I'm getting at: While Rafa, Novak, and Andy have a stronger core peer group to play against (each other) than Roger did, there are no young players coming up that are comparable to what the were to Roger. In 2014, Rafa will be turnig 28 years old, and Novak and Andy 27 years old (hard to believe, no?). That's 2008-09 for Roger, when Rafa 22-23 and had entered his prime, and Novak and Andy were 21-22 and already really good. I just don't see any players in the 21-23 range, what we could call "early prime," that are anywhere close to what those guys were in 2008-09. The best players in that range include Raonic, Janowicz, Nishikori, Dimitrov, and Pospisil. Maybe Grigor is stepping it up and will be a legit challenge to the Big 3+1, but remember that Rafa is exactly (only) 5 years older than Dimitrov, and Novak and Andy (only) 4y years older - so Rafa was the same age as Grigor is now in 2009, and Andy and Novak in 2010. I don't see Dimitrov being anywhere near their respective levels. At best he might be where Roger was in 2001 (at age 19-20), Rafa was in early 2005 (18-19), Novak in early 2007 (19-20), or Andy in mid-2008 (21); in other words, his trajectory is way behind, which makes it very unlikely that he'll be as good a player as the current Big Four were.
In some ways, its kind of a bummer, because it means that we won't get to see a new generation swell up and take the mantle like Rafa, Novak and Andy did, to really challenge them while they're still near in their peaks. Instead what is most likely to happen is a gradual decline by those three, which will be masked by the relative lack of younger talent.
Now there is the argument that players are taking longer to come into their own these days. its worth noting that David Ferrer had his best years at age 30-31, Stanislas is playing his best tennis at age 28, and Berdych and Tsonga don't seem like they're any lesser than they were a few years ago. Watching Grigor play, I got the sense that he was still a year or so away from really coming into his own, so maybe he'll reach an elite level by the time he turns 24 in 2015. But even then, can we expect Janowicz and Raonic to be similarly great? What about Pospisil and Carreno Busta and the forgotten Bernard Tomic? 20-year old Jiri Vesely looks promising, but elite level? Hard to see it.
Of the age 21-23 group, only Dimitrov seems to have true elite potential, and he's far from a sure thing. I think he'll win a Slam or two, but it may be because he peaks between the great era of the current Big Four, and the next generation of elites.
So we really have to look at teenagers, age 17-19 players like Nick Kyrgios, Christian Garin, and Borin Coric, for the next possible elites...and its just way too soon to tell if they're going to be all-time greats, or just another wave of very good players who miss the mark of true greatness. Either way, by the time these guys get to that breakout age of 21-22, Rafa, Andy and Novak will be entering their 30s and not the players they are today, so we're never going to see them really challenged by the next great generation like Roger. Their later years will be more similar to Pete Sampras' than they were, say, to Edberg's, Becker's, and Lendl's, who had to face young and hungry players like Sampras and Agassi.
