2015 - What Can We Expect?

[El Dude]

I really think borna coric could bust his way though to the top 20 by end of 2015, he is atp ready.

he's got mental equilibrium and court iq and speed and decent serve already, plus feathery shots n stuff. I really think it could happen.

Top 20 is a lot to ask - I'll be happy with top 40. But yeah, if I had to pick one young player to be the next great it would be Coric.

 

[El Dude]

As for Roger, I feel tentatively optimistic that 2015 will be similar to 2014. I don't see why we couldn't see another two or three years in the #3-5 range, with a few more years in the top 10. If he wants it bad enough. That's a lot of potential chances to get #18.

 

[DarthFed]

^^ Comparatively, he certainly has...

Nope, even far inferior players like Connors and Agassi have accomplished as much or more than Roger in his 30's...so far. Roger has aged a lot worse than Ferrer comparatively (ie, Ferrer is much closer to peak level than Roger is).

 

[DarthFed]

^ He hasn't defied time the last couple years either though, has he?

Yeah and at one point the chicken will come home to roost...

I am predicting, unlike you of course, a worst year for Roger.
He is playing with fire, when he plays this much.
IMO, DC title was his last big title.
No more slams or YEC title for him.

Thinking Roger will suddenly suck is playing with fire. You thought his 2014 would look like 2013 too.

 

[El Dude]

^^ Comparatively, he certainly has...

Nope, even far inferior players like Connors and Agassi have accomplished as much or more than Roger in his 30's...so far. Roger has aged a lot worse than Ferrer comparatively (ie, Ferrer is much closer to peak level than Roger is).

Darth, we've gone around on this one before and I'm not sure there's much to add, but I do think your expectations are just too high and that you're skewing things a bit. First of all, we have to be honest in that part of Roger's decline has to do with the rise of Nadal and Djokovic. Not all of it, but certainly part of it.

Secondly, in terms of actual results, Roger hasn't declined all that much over the last five years. Yes, five years. His winning percentage in 2014 was a fraction better than in 2012 and the best in since 2007.

Roger also made more finals of tournaments in 2014 than any year since 2007. The main difference is that A) He won fewer of those finals, and B) only one of those finals was a Slam.

But I think your main issue is that you're in a "Slam win or bust" mentality. Roger's 2014 was actually very similar to 2012 except for the fact that he faced Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon final rather than Andy Murray. He actually made more Masters finals (5 to 3), but simply couldn't convert when he got there.

Is Roger as good as he was in 2004-07? No, of course not. Is he as good as he was in 2008-09? Probably not, but that's debatable. Is he as good as he's been since 2010? I think so. Aside from his injury-plagued 2013, Roger has been very consistent since 2010.

As far as your expectations go, I think it is time to let them go. Roger is never going back to his peak - and it seems silly to be disappointed when he has yet another "sub-par" year. The guy is 33! The best we can hope for, I think, is a late career "last hurrah" Slam. It does happen - Andre in 2003, Pete in 2001, even Becker in 1996. But even that would be a wonderful bonus to what has been an incredible career. I'm just happy to see him still in the mix. He's not the best, or even second best, player any more - but he's probably the third best, which is impressive enough.

Anyhow, I'm going to predict that he wins a Slam in 2015. Look at the pattern of his Slams by year going back to 2003:

1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0

So if the pattern of gradual phasing out of Slam wins holds, he'll win one in 2015! (And then another in 2019 )

 

[DarthFed]

^^ Comparatively, he certainly has...

Nope, even far inferior players like Connors and Agassi have accomplished as much or more than Roger in his 30's...so far. Roger has aged a lot worse than Ferrer comparatively (ie, Ferrer is much closer to peak level than Roger is).

Darth, we've gone around on this one before and I'm not sure there's much to add, but I do think your expectations are just too high and that you're skewing things a bit. First of all, we have to be honest in that part of Roger's decline has to do with the rise of Nadal and Djokovic. Not all of it, but certainly part of it.

Secondly, in terms of actual results, Roger hasn't declined all that much over the last five years. Yes, five years. His winning percentage in 2014 was a fraction better than in 2012 and the best in since 2007.

Roger also made more finals of tournaments in 2014 than any year since 2007. The main difference is that A) He won fewer of those finals, and B) only one of those finals was a Slam.

But I think your main issue is that you're in a "Slam win or bust" mentality. Roger's 2014 was actually very similar to 2012 except for the fact that he faced Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon final rather than Andy Murray. He actually made more Masters finals (5 to 3), but simply couldn't convert when he got there.

Is Roger as good as he was in 2004-07? No, of course not. Is he as good as he was in 2008-09? Probably not, but that's debatable. Is he as good as he's been since 2010? I think so. Aside from his injury-plagued 2013, Roger has been very consistent since 2010.

As far as your expectations go, I think it is time to let them go. Roger is never going back to his peak - and it seems silly to be disappointed when he has yet another "sub-par" year. The guy is 33! The best we can hope for, I think, is a late career "last hurrah" Slam. It does happen - Andre in 2003, Pete in 2001, even Becker in 1996. But even that would be a wonderful bonus to what has been an incredible career. I'm just happy to see him still in the mix. He's not the best, or even second best, player any more - but he's probably the third best, which is impressive enough.

Anyhow, I'm going to predict that he wins a Slam in 2015. Look at the pattern of his Slams by year going back to 2003:

1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0

So if the pattern of gradual phasing out of Slam wins holds, he'll win one in 2015! (And then another in 2019 )

Good post and I can't argue much of it. Roger's problem this year was about not finishing the big tournaments well, simple as that. His record was great and it points to his consistency this year. If you tell me a player would go 73-12 on the year you assume they won at least 1 slam, possibly 2. So he is playing well enough to do great things...it's just that he didn't this year. I think he finishes the job next year.

 

[Riotbeard]

To be fair, outside of the French, when Fed lost at slams it was to Novak, Rafa, and an on fire cillic. Outside of cilic, both rafa and novak should be beating fed at this point when they play their best. Fed played really well in the Wimbledon final, maybe not his best possible at this point, but it was darn close. To the point where it's fairly academic. At the USO, Cillic put up an insane level, so you can't really blame fed. I think Fed maybe should have regrets about Monte Carlo, where he did not put up his best in the final.

 

[herios]

^ He hasn't defied time the last couple years either though, has he?

Yeah and at one point the chicken will come home to roost...

I am predicting, unlike you of course, a worst year for Roger.
He is playing with fire, when he plays this much.
IMO, DC title was his last big title.
No more slams or YEC title for him.

Thinking Roger will suddenly suck is playing with fire. You thought his 2014 would look like 2013 too.

He will not suck like in 2012, he will be better than that, but worse than this yyear. Around 3 titles I think, one of 250, 500 and one master.

 

[Kieran]

^^ Comparatively, he certainly has...

Nope, even far inferior players like Connors and Agassi have accomplished as much or more than Roger in his 30's...so far. Roger has aged a lot worse than Ferrer comparatively (ie, Ferrer is much closer to peak level than Roger is).

Connors played 3 - and often only 2 - slams during his younger years, and tennis was a more sedate activity, albeit one where players pushed as hard as technology and physique would allow. And Agassi took a mid-career hiatus to hang with the hippies and drop bombs, chill out, experiment with drugs. The high-end guys in the game, like Rafa, Borg and Pete, men whose slam totals eclipse the rest, are the ones we'd compare Roger with, and physically, the game has been much better to him than them. He's aged very well, comparatively, in other words...

 

[DarthFed]

To be fair, outside of the French, when Fed lost at slams it was to Novak, Rafa, and an on fire cillic. Outside of cilic, both rafa and novak should be beating fed at this point when they play their best. Fed played really well in the Wimbledon final, maybe not his best possible at this point, but it was darn close. To the point where it's fairly academic. At the USO, Cillic put up an insane level, so you can't really blame fed. I think Fed maybe should have regrets about Monte Carlo, where he did not put up his best in the final.

On paper Roger has no business losing to Novak or Rafa on grass even now. But I give credit to Nole, he was fantastic and took out a good version of Roger. Roger wasn't aggressive enough on his forehand, aside from that he was excellent. If Djokovic was his usual level on grass he would've lost convincingly.

And yes, Cilic was on fire, but Roger compromised his chances by laying an egg vs. Monfils. If he had full energy he could've at least made things more complicated for Cilic and if things got tight...who knows how Marin would've handled it. So I was more pointing towards Roger's huge drop of form starting in the QF of USO.

 

[herios]

And yes, Cilic was on fire, but Roger compromised his chances by laying an egg vs. Monfils. If he had full energy he could've at least made things more complicated for Cilic and if things got tight...who knows how Marin would've handled it. So I was more pointing towards Roger's huge drop of form starting in the QF of USO.

And that is why I am saying there is no more slams in his future. By the second week of a slam, his level drops. His stamina is an issue. He will find a way to lose in the QF at the USO like he did in the last 3 tries, at RG he went backwards the last 2 years, AO is next where he has been in the SF at least up to now. He will lose there in the QF soon, as well.
The only chance to go very deep in a slam in only Wimbledon, where points are very short.

 

[El Dude]

A few random thoughts.

Kieran, if Federer had followed Borg's career path he would have retired after not only losing to Rafa on his home turf at Wimbledon in 2008, but losing the #1 ranking after 237 weeks. Borg says he was losing his interest in tennis, but I think he also couldn't stand being #2, or even "#1b." In 2008 Roger became "#1b" - and was helped to #1 in 2009 by one Mr. Robin Soderling and Rafa's injury. But he soldiered on after the Wimbledon loss and won 3 of the next 5 Slams and one after that as well.

If Borg hadn't retired is one of the biggest "What Ifs" in tennis history. I'd like to think that, like Roger, he'd have won a few more Slams and probably ended in the 14-16 range. But you just never know.

Also, I agree that the tour is far more grueling now. One of the downsides of this is that old guys don't stick around anymore to play a Slam here and a Slam there. I was looking through some old stats and found that Vic Seixas, a top amateur player of the early 50s, stuck around and played the US Open--and occasionally Wimbledon--every year until 1969, when he was...46 years old. The great Pancho Gonzales played some tournaments until 1973, when he was 45, and of course Ken Rosewall actually won a Slam at age 37 and played his last Slam in 1978 at the age of 43. You just don't see that anymore - except for, of course, Jimmy Connors. But Jimmy won his last Slam at 30 and played in his last Slam just before his 40th birthday.

Darth, I think Cilic would have beaten anyone at the US Open - he was playing at a ridiculously high level. As for Roger having no business losing to Novak or Rafa on grass, I would agree except for the simple fact that Novak really, really wanted it - more than Roger, even. Novak had something to prove and it really turned around. As for Rafa, well we all know he's in Roger's head. Roger shouldn't lose to Rafa on grass, but Rafa's just got that mental/match-up edge.

 

[El Dude]

And yes, Cilic was on fire, but Roger compromised his chances by laying an egg vs. Monfils. If he had full energy he could've at least made things more complicated for Cilic and if things got tight...who knows how Marin would've handled it. So I was more pointing towards Roger's huge drop of form starting in the QF of USO.

And that is why I am saying there is no more slams in his future. By the second week of a slam, his level drops. His stamina is an issue. He will find a way to lose in the QF at the USO like he did in the last 3 tries, at RG he went backwards the last 2 years, AO is next where he has been in the SF at least up to now. He will lose there in the QF soon, as well.
The only chance to go very deep in a slam in only Wimbledon, where points are very short.

This is, unfortunately, inevitably true. But magic can happen - and we've all seen Roger pull rabbits from hats numerous times. Wimbledon is his best shot, but perfect storms - at ANY Slam - are possible. I mean, imagine him being on the opposite side of the draw from Novak and Rafa at Roland Garros, and then Novak and Rafa dueling it out in a five hour five-set SF slugfest. Let's say Roger gets Andy or Kei in the SF and goes through to the Final and faces a tired, jittery Novak. Sure, Novak would probably still win, but Roger COULD take him.

I think the key for Roger going forward, and it proved successful this year, is to shorten points as much as possible. He won't beat Rafa or Novak in a five-setter, but he could beat them in three, maybe four.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I will fact check it later.

But, off the top of my head, contrary to popular opinion, Roger's average performance at AO is
better than his average performance at any of the other slams including Wimby and USO.

Also, when last year in AO, when he won one of the matches that he played, AO was the slam
in which he had won more matches than any other slam (of course, it has partly to do with
AO being the first slam of the year and thus getting a head start).

So, I will not give up Roger winning AO again. Further, Novak's stranglehold on AO was
broken last year. It remains to be seen as to whether Novak can win it again this year (he
probably could and possibly even maintain a second installment of stranglehold just like
Rafa at RG after his 2009 loss).

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Connors started 1992 usopen age 39 but played last match in 2nd rd on/just past 40th burfdayy.

 

[Fiero425]

Connors started 1992 usopen age 39 but played last match in 2nd rd on/just past 40th burfdayy.

After trouncing old man Ken Rosewall back in '74, he decided to hang around just as long to embarrass himself! He truly had no life; same with McEnroe still trying to entertain as a "blue hair!" :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, all of this really means that if we see a Wimby final in 2024 between Roger and a New Young Thing no one should be surprised and start wearing "age is just a number" T-shirt designed by Cali.

While I think Rog won't retire by end of 2016, I believe he will quit as soon as it becomes
clear to him that his chances of winning another slam are negligible.

Another related way of putting it: While I can see Roger playing even after getting out of top 10, I don't see him playing after becoming an unseeded player in Grand Slams.

 

[Fiero425]

So, all of this really means that if we see a Wimby final in 2024 between Roger and a New Young Thing no one should be surprised and start wearing "age is just a number" T-shirt designed by Cali.

While I think Rog won't retire by end of 2016, I believe he will quit as soon as it becomes
clear to him that his chances of winning another slam are negligible.

Another related way of putting it: While I can see Roger playing even after getting out of top 10, I don't see him playing after becoming an unseeded player in Grand Slams.

It would never happen! With 32 seeds in a draw, he could take a couple years off and still be entitled to an honorary seed of #32! Back in '82, Evonne Goolagong had taken off for the birth of Morgan maybe and Wimbledon gave her #16 seeding! Of course she went out in the 2nd round to a little known junior champion; Zina Garrison! I think Roger will always get some kind of elevation due to his record in the majors! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[herios]

I mean, imagine him being on the opposite side of the draw from Novak and Rafa at Roland Garros, and then Novak and Rafa dueling it out in a five hour five-set SF slugfest. Let's say Roger gets Andy or Kei in the SF and goes through to the Final and faces a tired, jittery Novak. Sure, Novak would probably still win, but Roger COULD take him.

I do not need to imagine anything. Ernie Gulbis could wait for him AGAIN in R16 in Paris

 

[britbox]

A few random thoughts.

Kieran, if Federer had followed Borg's career path he would have retired after not only losing to Rafa on his home turf at Wimbledon in 2008, but losing the #1 ranking after 237 weeks. Borg says he was losing his interest in tennis, but I think he also couldn't stand being #2, or even "#1b." In 2008 Roger became "#1b" - and was helped to #1 in 2009 by one Mr. Robin Soderling and Rafa's injury. But he soldiered on after the Wimbledon loss and won 3 of the next 5 Slams and one after that as well.

I think that's a bit of a misconception with Borg - that McEnroe ran him out of tennis. He was definitely burnt out but I don't think being the world #1 (or not being as the case may be) had much influence. He asked to play a reduced schedule and was told he couldn't, he then asked for a wildcard to the French Open and was denied one. Borg may have quit tennis but the tennis authorities didn't do much to accommodate him in the slightest.

He also played some exhibitions with Connors and McEnroe over the next couple of years. Not the "exhibitions" we think of now - these were huge money matches and in some cases more lucrative than grand slams. I think Borg was beating McEnroe more often than not and slightly surprisingly losing to Connors more often than not. I don't think fear of not being #1 had any impact - the guy was just played out mentally. He'd won a hell of a lot in a short space of time.