2015: Review

[Kieran]

What's your best moment from 2015? Funny moment? Worst moment?

The player of the year is Novak, and it's not even close. A career year again, and a new record: six MS titles. This record has crept up incrementally since the modern Era of Exceptions, where Roger, Rafa and Novak have each taken turns to set it. Novak hasn't even been pushed a lot of the time, which exposes the dearth of opposition, and this is one thing we need to improve next season, but he was well capable of handling the next players in line when they stepped up to him at slams, which the exception of Paris.

#2 player of the year for me is Federer. As 34 year olds go, it was a miraculous season. 2 slam finals, and in neither of them was he convincingly defeated. He won Cinci too, and defeated Novak twice this year, the only man to do so.

Disappointment of the year was the Grigor's class: Raonic, Kei, Grigor, Milos etc. I know, some injuries, but these deadbeats are letting the sport down. There must have been something in the water the year these lads were born. We had no youngsters break through, and no oldsters either, because what Grigor's lads are, now.

From the youngsters, Coric showed a little, Nick flamed out, Kokk was in the news more than he was in the winners enclosure, and Thiem made no impact.

Murray would also be a big disappointment. he started the season strong, then inexplicably collapsed in the Oz final, after taking control. This final set walkabout became a feature of his game this year, and in matches against Novak and - particularly - Roger, his inability to hang at the highest levels stands in condemning contrast with the way he played in 2012-2013. Perhaps those years were just exceptions, but I hope not.

Rafa spent the season trying to find his form and confidence after missing the second part of last year through injury, and the appendix. This year he played the full season, after three seasons blighted by a debilitating cycle of injury, recuperation and return. He's back on the right track now. Let's see in 2016 how steep the Incline actually is.

Stan had a great year, regardless of his inconsistency. He found a tentative Djoker at the FO and grabbed that match by the scruff of the neck to win it. He might possibly believe he can add to his slam tally next year, and why not? he certainly looks stronger to do it than Andy.

No sing of del Potro, and surely Soderling is gone for good. These two players have been missed for a long time now. And Haas is retired now, is he?

Best match? Wawrinka against Gasquet at Wimbledon was a tremendous match.

This is just me randomly thinking out loud. Anybody any other thoughts of the year so far?

 

[mrzz]

Very good assessment of 2015, Kieran. Agreed about the best match of the year (so far...).

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, Kieran. A few follow-ups.

The Grigor generation, players born in between 1989-93, should historically be in power right now. If you go back five years to 2010, the 1984-88 generation ruled, ten years and the 1979-83 generation ruled, etc. Actually, it is consistent throughout the Open Era. Going back in five year increments and the #1 year-end player has ALWAYS been from the generation turning age 22-26 that year...until this year.

Maybe this is partially because players seem to be aging better these days, but I think a lot of it is simply a very weak generation, the weakest at least since Arthur Ashe's 1939-43 generation. I'll discuss this at greater length in my generation series.

All that said, some of the players you mentioned rised substantially. Nishikori, Raonic, and Dimitrov all went down, but the others all went up:

Thiem (b. 1993) from 39 to 19
Kyrgios (b. 1995) from 52 to 30
Coric (b. 1996) from 93 to 45
Kokkinakis (b. 1996) from 150 to 78

Not to mention other risers like Vesely, Sock, Goffin, Chung, Donaldson, etc.

Most of them, of course, are in the younger generation - which is already in much better shape than Grigor's was at a similar age. But again, more on that in my generations series. But the point is: there's hope! It might be another couple years, though, before "Generation Coric" rises to the challenge and starts competing in the big tournaments.

I agree with you on Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal. But I can't quite agree on Murray. The bad: No Slam title and his worst Slam result since 2010. The good: probable year-end #2 ranking, two Masters (he hadn't won one since 2013, and not two in a year since 2011) and generally solid play. Andy just can't beat Novak, and hasn't been able to beat Roger for awhile. But everyone else? He's pretty much the favorite - unless Rafa's incline brings him above him. Right now Rafa is just a hair below.

Berdych and Ferrer had typical seasons. Gasquet and Tsonga both bounced back a bit.

I'd also like to give recognition to Kevin Anderson, who had a surprising good year.

I honestly don't know why Soderling is even mentioned anymore.

 

[Great Hands]

very good assessmenty, kieran. i just take issue with acouple fo things in the andy paragraph. i agree that murray's mental walkabout when he thought novak was cramping at the ao was his worst moment of 2015. however,

a. you said that he was 'taking control'. this seems to be the myth that has been repeated about this match. i even heard jim courirer at this year's fo, a commentaotr i very much repsect, say that he thought andy 'had' novak in that final. :laydownlaughing

murray was 2-0 up in the thrid set. at one set all. one break of serve. at the start of a set. against teh greatest returner on the planet. when matches between these 2 are often breka of serve fests. a break at the start of the set is virtually menaingless. when murray was abreak up in the 3rd set, i was watchign the match live, and still had novak as the overwhelming favoruite for that set, and the match.

now, if andy had been up, say, 2 sets to 1, and had a break in the 4th, then i wld agree that he had 'control' of the match. but a break at the very start of the third set at one set all? nah. as i say, virtually meangless.

b. even if murray had been a mental titan in that match, novak still wld have won it. novak had, as he called it, a 'ohysical crisis' for about 10 minutes. then he started playing great again. and if novak plays great on rod laver arena, andy simply cannoot beat him. so i don't see murray's mental walkabout as costing him a slam, as some people seem to, completely innacuratley and bizarrely, given that murray hasnever beaten novak at the ao, and that indeed no one has in the last 5 years axcept stan, who, unlike andy, has the power to pin onvak back in the court, and even then he only squeaked through it 9-7 in the fifith.

and let's just remind ourselves that novak has;
better fh, better bh, better 1st serve (andy's is bigger byut novak's more conissitnet), better 2nd swerve, better return, a better body for tennis - more wiry, flexible etc,

i feel that discussions of andy' mwentality seem to forget that novak is jsut abetter player in every single are ao fthe game. the onlyu area that i can see that andy is better than novak is that he had better hands/touihc, but novak's touch is exceleltn, and is more than adeuate for allowing him to do eveyyi8nt ghe need sot do on the ocurt. so murray is inferior to novak in every area of th egame that allows you to win matches/slams, and yet this is rarely metnioned in favour of talking about andy' metnality. i find this bizarre.

it's a shame andy cldn't have playd better in the fifth set of fo. no excuses there. novak did, however, play more tentaively, and make manyy ue when he tried to be more aggresive, in sets 3 and 4, which he didn't in the sets 1 ans 2 which he won, allowoing andy to win them via amazinfg defense. andy had to play zt the absolute limts of his ability to win those 2 sets, even though novak was off form. hard for andy to sustaint ht level. it's the only way andy cld get sets off novak on clay, cos if novak starts playing his precision offense - i.e. going for winners anx they go in - as he did int eh 5th - andy has no chance.
still, again it did not cost him a slam as even if he had won that fifitm, there was no way he was beating stan in the final if even novak cld not do it.

so murray's mentality did nto cost him either of the first 2 slam of the year.

wd sf - i wathced that again recerntly. i struggle to sse what andy did wrong. andy had a higher first serve percetnage, fater 2nd serve pace, and faster groundstroke pace, then he'd had all tournament, all year. even int he three breaks of serve...
fed - amaxing perforamcne
andy played some amazing shots ans still lost
did very ltittle wrong
mathc up with current fed.. etc - serve, net, bh etc

montreal f - whayt it shows, - i.e. novak was a but injured, off form - i dont' think anyone wld say tht novak played anywhere near his best in that match. andy, on the other hand, palyed great - agrrssive, and stayed mentally sgrong - link to theat article.

what that articel fails to emtnion is that novak was seriously off form
and andy only just won that match, squeaked it

so... even when andy is vey mentalyl strong, and plays agressively and wlel, - i.e. does all the things people want him to do - he still needs novak so be off form to win. so when novak is not off form, novak wins. pretty simple.
and unsurpsising, given that novak has:
better fh, better bh, better 1st serve (andy's is bigger byut novak's more conissitnet), better 2nd swerve, better return, a better body for tennis - more wiry, flexible etc,

i feel that discussions of andy' mwentality seem to forget that novak is jsut abetter player in every single are ao fthe game. the onlyu area that i can see that andy is better than novak is that he had better hands/touihc, but novak's touch is exceleltn, and is more than adeuate for allowing him to do eveyyi8nt ghe need sot do on the ocurt. so murray is inferior to novak in every area of th egame that allows you to win matches/slams, and yet this is rarely metnioned in favour of talking about andy' metnality. i find this bizarre.

andy's 3 big wins in 2012-13:
fed in olypkci f played bad, for him, and novak played bad, for him, in uso f and wd f that andy won.

murray can beat fedalovic inf they undeforeform. that's true of every win he's ever had over them. there' no other way he can do it, becausd they're better. t

2 times this year, andy [played fedalvic and they uinderfoemrford, and he won. just as he did in 2012-13. so ther is no evidence that murray was better tthen than now.
as i've metuoned before in oterh thread, ao15 f played out almost exactly like ao13 final, when am was with lendl.


fed of 2012-13 was nto fed of today. fed of today is far tougher mathcup for andy. and it was grass and cicni, fed' faves, and when he is was in incredible form.

now if, say, in 2016, andy plays feadlaovic in a slam sf or f, and they're significantly off form, e.g. a bit injured, tired form a 5th set int eh prevopus roudn etc, and andy still dioesnt' win, then i will agree that he was better in 2012-13. but this scenario did not happen in 2015. so there is no evidence to suppor tthat claim. andy did his job of beating fedalvoic when they wer'etn playing that well this year, as he has doen since around 2008.

 

[kskate2]

Good and fair assessment Kieran. I thought the match between Kei/JWT at RG was pretty good too. Lots of drama, a mini roof collapse and the French crowd going nuts when Jo inexplicably couldn't close it out the first few times of asking. :cover

 

[nehmeth]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

Joao Sousa and Kevin Anderson, have both had very good years.

 

[herios]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

 

[Carol]

The best player in 2015 has been Novak (and he is) without any doubt, his confidence goes beyond the limite. Federer goes right behind, I have to give credit about his results at his age and his still dedication after to reach the 17 GS and all the achievements during his whole career. And the third best player has been Wawrika though not very consistent
Them Muzz, Berdych, Tsonga, Nish, Simon, Monfils, Ferru, Isner.....what can I say? all of them are in the same package, a lime and sand due to injuries or lack of confidence or negative reactions, it wasn't the best season at all
And Rafa? well, after to have his worst year of his career which is difficult to believe and to see how bad has played, he has done the best fall season since 2005 on his least favorite surface reaching the finals in Beijing, semis in Shanghai and finals in Bercy, not bad, not bad at all, he needs just one more step ahead to reach more achievements and I'm sure he will
We'll see now what is going on in London, crossing fingers to see a good and better competition

 

[lacatch]

The best player in 2015 has been Novak (and he is) without any doubt, his confidence goes beyond the limite. Federer goes right behind, I have to give credit about his results at his age and his still dedication after to reach the 17 GS and all the achievements during his whole career. And the third best player has been Wawrika though not very consistent
Them Muzz, Berdych, Tsonga, Nish, Simon, Monfils, Ferru, Isner.....what can I say? all of them are in the same package, a lime and sand due to injuries or lack of confidence or negative reactions, it wasn't the best season at all
And Rafa? well, after to have his worst year of his career which is difficult to believe and to see how bad has played, he has done the best fall season since 2005 on his least favorite surface reaching the finals in Beijing, semis in Shanghai and finals in Bercy, not bad, not bad at all, he needs just one more step ahead to reach more achievements and I'm sure he will
We'll see now what is going on in London, crossing fingers to see a good and better competition

Well since Carol35 feels that I give her a hard time, I want to COMPLIMENT her on a rational summary of 2015 . One small thing--I think you meant Rafa reaching the quarter finals in Bercy

 

[Carol]

The best player in 2015 has been Novak (and he is) without any doubt, his confidence goes beyond the limite. Federer goes right behind, I have to give credit about his results at his age and his still dedication after to reach the 17 GS and all the achievements during his whole career. And the third best player has been Wawrika though not very consistent
Them Muzz, Berdych, Tsonga, Nish, Simon, Monfils, Ferru, Isner.....what can I say? all of them are in the same package, a lime and sand due to injuries or lack of confidence or negative reactions, it wasn't the best season at all
And Rafa? well, after to have his worst year of his career which is difficult to believe and to see how bad has played, he has done the best fall season since 2005 on his least favorite surface reaching the finals in Beijing, semis in Shanghai and finals in Bercy, not bad, not bad at all, he needs just one more step ahead to reach more achievements and I'm sure he will
We'll see now what is going on in London, crossing fingers to see a good and better competition

Well since Carol35 feels that I give her a hard time, I want to COMPLIMENT her on a rational summary of 2015 . One small thing--I think you meant Rafa reaching the quarter finals in Bercy

My bad, I meant Basel :blush:

 

[mrzz]

About Murray, the results argument is very strong (as it should be), but watching him play you fell like he had a (perennial) number two written all over him. It seems that he would always yield to the dominant player of the occasion.

 

[herios]

About Murray, the results argument is very strong (as it should be), but watching him play you fell like he had a (perennial) number two written all over him. It seems that he would always yield to the dominant player of the occasion.

Exactly. I do not understand why some are disappointed in him this year, like Kieran for example.
He finished last year #6, now most likely will be finishing the year at a record #2 for him. How is that not good? He also had his best clay season ever and he won 2 masters, more than anyone not named Djokovic. Were folks expecting slams from him? IMO he is the classic dark horse, and I am sorry to say, but those 2 slams he won had an opportunistic flavor. And not because he defeated Novak in both and I am biased towards Novak.
But everyone knows that he won Wimbledon against a flat Nole who was not up for it after marathon battle against DelPotro, while he had an easy-breezy SF against Janowicz. And in the USO final, he just handled the wind a lot better than Nole.
His results in slam finals speak for themselves. He is the perennial runner up....
Also there was a rhetoric that once Murray has his monkey of his back of winning a slam, he will go on and win a slew of them. They just forgot who he is up against, some of the best players ever, who will always be better than Andy on an average day.

 

[nehmeth]

Also there was a rhetoric that once Murray has the monkey off his back of winning a slam, he will go on and win a slew of them.

:snicker I remember that one.

 

[Carol]

The real problem of Muzz is that he is better player than his results say. He has probably the smarter game of the tour and the stronger legs though he looks sometimes too tired :nono but his attitud and how reacts depending how the match goes are not their friend, he plays and loses many times against himself and that's not best and positive way to win :s

 

[Kieran]

I forgot Murray won 2 MS titles this year: Montreal slipped my mind. But as for a "slew of GS titles", I'm not sure who ever predicted that. Fact: he was better before Lendl left, and he was beating Roger more often than not, and holding his own against Novak.

Shout-outs to Kevin Anderson are deserved - and Richard Gasquet, who has found Haas-levels of late career commonsense and determination, where these were absent when he was younger.

And of course, Berdych, who reached the QF of every tournament he ever played in his career, and didn't upset that pattern much in 2015. Henceforth Mr Birdman, you shall be referred to as "The Quarter-Master..."

 

[El Dude]

Fact: he was better before Lendl left, and he was beating Roger more often than not, and holding his own against Novak.

Yes, he was better before Lendl left but let's investigate the other two claims. Lendl coached Andy from Dec 31, 2011 to Mar 19, 2014 - so just over two years, which encapsulated both of Andy's Slam titles. Here is how he fared against Roger and Novak before, during, and after Lendl:

vs. Roger
Before Lendl: 8-6 (0-2 at Slams)
During Lendl: 3-4 (1-2 at Slams)
After Lendl: 0-4 (0-1 at Slams)

So as you can see, he was actually better in terms of overall record against Roger before Lendl started coaching him. It is just that he won his only Slam match of six against Roger under Lendl.

vs. Novak
Before Lendl: 4-6 (0-1 at Slams)
During Lendl: 4-5 (2-2 at Slams)
After Lendl: 1-10 (0-3 at Slams)

So we see a similar record before and during Lendl, but Novak is completely dominant after.

So here is what is weird about Andy. Overall, against Novak and Roger, he is similar before (12-12) and during (7-9) Lendl, even a tad better before (although worse at Slams, 0-3 vs 3-4). But after...well, he's been utterly dominated to the tune of 1-14 (0-4 at Slams) against Novak and Roger.

EDIT: Here's Rafa.

vs. Rafa
Before Lendl: 5-13 (2-6 at Slams)
During Lendl: na (on WO in favor of Andy)
After Lendl: 1-2 (0-1 at Slams)

The only thing of note here is that the two have barely played each other over the last four years, just three times. It is also interesting to note how much they played eachother before - especially at Slams. Before Lendl, Andy played Rafa eight times at Slams vs. three times vs. Novak and Roger combined.

And here's the composite...

vs. Novak, Roger, and Rafa
Before Lendl: 17-25 (2-9 at Slams)
During Lendl: 7-9 (3-4 at Slams)
After Lendl: 2-16 (0-6 at Slams)

Overall: 26-50 (5-19 at Slams)

So it is clear that he simply hasn't been as competitive against the three best players on tour since splitting with Lendl. Before and during is similar overall, although with Andy being much better at Slams - that seems to be the edge that Ivan gave him: not really improving his overall results or even skills, but helping him with his mentality in the high pressure situations of Slams.

 

[Kieran]

Thanks for doing that, Dude, it makes for very interesting reading...

 

[Great Hands]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

Guys, I think you need to rememebr that Thiem is 3 YEARS older than Coric. The fact that you are comparing them in the same bracket at all is a compliment to Coric. You're talking about them as if they're the same age. Coric is a baby. Thiem is at the age where he SHOULD be starting to make some noise. At Thiem's age, all-time greats had already won slams, and even the much-criticised Andy Murray was in fact, by Thiem's age, the fourth best player in the world behind 3 all-time greats. Thiem is only at no. 19 in the world, behind makeweights. (Puts Murray's misfortune to be in such a tough era in perspecitve). By Thiem's age, Andy had already reached a slam final, losing only to arguably the greatest player ever after beating another GOAT-contender, Nadal, who was world no.! and had won the last 2 slams, in the semi. The best Thiem has done, at the same age, is 4th round. This year, he went backwards and didn't make it past the 3rd round. And that's just comparing him to a 2-time slam winner, not an all-time great.

Just to be clear, I like both Coric and Thiem, but comparing a guy at 18 (turns 19 in a few days) to a guy at 22 on the same terms is unfair.

Coric has an excellent all-around game, a good mental attitude/intensity, and looks like he has a good physique for tennis (even more so in a few years). I also really like Zverev. Coric and Zverev are the most excting younger playerws I have seen. They are the first I've got excited about since Murray and Djokovic, my two favourite players of all time, came on the scene. Coric and Zverev are both much younger than Thiem, so they have longer till they're elite players. (To put it in perspective, when Thiem was Coric's age, he was ranked no.405 in the world! Coric is ranked 45!)

The match Coric and Zverev played at Cinci this year was one of the most entertaining matches featuring teeenagers I've seen in some time. Both have very complete games for players so young. If they are contesting grand slam finals one day, that'll be just fine by me.

 

[Great Hands]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

Guys, I think you need to rememebr that Thiem is 3 YEARS older than Coric. The fact that you are comparing them in the same bracket at all is a compliment to Coric. You're talking about them as if they're the same age. Coric is a baby. Thiem is at the age where he SHOULD be starting to make some noise. At Thiem's age, all-time greats had already won slams, and even the much-criticised Andy Murray was in fact, by Thiem's age, the fourth best player in the world behind 3 all-time greats. Thiem is only at no. 19 in the world, behind makeweights. (Puts Murray's misfortune to be in such a tough era in perspecitve). By Thiem's age, Andy had already reached a slam final, losing only to arguably the greatest player ever after beating another GOAT-contender, Nadal, who was world no.! and had won the last 2 slams, in the semi. The best Thiem has done, at the same age, is 4th round. This year, he went backwards and didn't make it past the 3rd round. And that's just comparing him to a 2-time slam winner, not an all-time great.

Just to be clear, I like both Coric and Thiem, but comparing a guy at 18 (turns 19 in a few days) to a guy at 22 on the same terms is unfair.

Coric has an excellent all-around game, a good mental attitude/intensity, and looks like he has a good physique for tennis (even more so in a few years). I also really like Zverev. Coric and Zverev are the most excting younger playerws I have seen. They are the first I've got excited about since Murray and Djokovic, my two favourite players of all time, came on the scene. Coric and Zverev are both much younger than Thiem, so they have longer till they're elite players. (To put it in perspective, when Thiem was Coric's age, he was ranked no.405 in the world! Coric is ranked 45!)

The match Coric and Zverev played at Cinci this year was one of the most entertaining matches featuring teeenagers I've seen in some time. Both have very complete games for players so young. If they are contesting grand slam finals one day, that'll be just fine by me.

 

[Great Hands]

About Murray, the results argument is very strong (as it should be), but watching him play you fell like he had a (perennial) number two written all over him. It seems that he would always yield to the dominant player of the occasion.

Exactly. I do not understand why some are disappointed in him this year, like Kieran for example.
He finished last year #6, now most likely will be finishing the year at a record #2 for him. How is that not good? He also had his best clay season ever and he won 2 masters, more than anyone not named Djokovic. Were folks expecting slams from him? IMO he is the classic dark horse, and I am sorry to say, but those 2 slams he won had an opportunistic flavor. And not because he defeated Novak in both and I am biased towards Novak.
But everyone knows that he won Wimbledon against a flat Nole who was not up for it after marathon battle against DelPotro, while he had an easy-breezy SF against Janowicz. And in the USO final, he just handled the wind a lot better than Nole.
His results in slam finals speak for themselves. He is the perennial runner up....
Also there was a rhetoric that once Murray has his monkey of his back of winning a slam, he will go on and win a slew of them. They just forgot who he is up against, some of the best players ever, who will always be better than Andy on an average day.

thank you, herios, thank you! i agreew ith every word of this1

the nonsense bandied about about adny still anoys me. it's the idea that 'if only he wer sotger mentally, he'd be beating fedalboci left right and center.