2020 Predictions and Speculations

[Andy22]

You Federer fans are hilarious. You've been saying that Federer is past his prime ever since 2008 when Nadal started beating him everywhere and Federer was merely 26-27. Then when Djokovic started beating Federer left and right then it didn't count cause Federer was a grandpa at 32 years old. Yet Nadal and Djokovic and many other players are showing that no Federer was not a grandpa at 32 years old since today at 32+ they are doing even better than him. Things have changed because training, nutrition and everything else has changed.

Right now it's becoming almost the norm that many players in their 30's are having some of their best results. Don't be surprised when Nadal and Djokovic at 36-38 are still on top, and then what excuse will you make for Federer? Didn't you guys already say when he was in his early 30's on how unbelievable his results were despite being "old" and how Nadal would never manage to do that? But here is Nadal as strong as ever and he is doing even better after 30 than Federer did.

Back in 1990 when Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, it was "Wow she's a dinosaur how did she do it". But Serena showed that she could do much better well after 33. It's human evolution. Nadal and Djokovic and I'm sure other female tennis players are going to show how Serena & Federer's success at 35+ is nothing special but just a result of how times have changed. And btw Seles and Graf were considered rivals despite the 5 year difference, for you to say that they were from a different era is ridiculous... Federer won his first slam at 2003, Nadal at 2005. They have played in finals for trophies about a zillion times. They are rivals and from the same era. Get over it.

[OMG] one of the most genius posts I ever seen on this forum, of course your right by a mile don't know why cazy fedheads even make age-era excurses with how good heath care is for tennis players these days doctors tennis recovery tec ect…. the age thing well Djokovic-nadal have blown that out of the water already both being better than Federer in his 30s. its good you will always tell the truth with your masterpiece posts

 

[Nadalfan2013]

As the saying goes, Front, don't feed the trolls.

All that said, while I agree with your point, I do think that with Nadal at least, the gap isn't as large as the age difference would imply, and that while the age difference is real, it is somewhat softened--at least with Rafa--due to the different trajectories of their careers. Roger was a tad of a late bloomer and Rafa an early bloomer. Roger was an elite player by 2003 at age 21-22, while Rafa reached elite form just two years later in 2005 (age 18-19). On the other hand, Roger's rise from elite to his very best was short and furious, while Rafa simmered for awhile. Meaning, the gap between them reaching their best forms is a bit larger: Roger starting in 2004, Rafa in 2008 (Novak didn't reach his peak until 2011, so the gap is even larger than the age difference between him and Roger at 7 years).

Meaning, "prime" gap for Roger and Rafa was 2 years, but the "peak" gap was 4...maybe we split the difference and say they are roughly 3 years apart in terms of development, so a half generation or so. Roger and Novak are easily a full generation.

I don't think this tarnishes Roger's legacy, nor does it prop it up further. One of the reasons I dislike the Fedal Wars is that, in the end, I think it is an apples and oranges thing. Unless one of them completely runs away with all the records, there's always going to be arguments for one over the other, and none of them really satisfy me to crown one the singular GOAT. And even if one of them has all the big records, it doesn't take away from the greatness of the other two during their primes. Each of the three has their own unique qualities that will never be surpassed. For our Roger, no matter how many Slams or weeks at #1 or titles that Novak and Rafa accrue, no one is going to "out-Federer" him, or take away from the grace and diversity of his game, which is in unparalleled in tennis history. Similar statements can be made about Novak and Rafa.

Awww the “grace” argument again... Go watch ballet if you want grace but this is men’s tennis not a ballerina show...

 

[Jelenafan]

We are exactly on the same page regarding top players outside Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. But you really seem to take offense on the word "bozo". For me not only is clear that it is relative, but it seems just a word to say that they lose to F, D and N most of the time. Maybe as a non-native English speaker I don't get the weight of the word completely.

I am not counting the likes, but I guess most will read that post you refer to as just too damn obvious. Again, we are on the same page here, as for me it seems the kind of obvious stuff that needs to be stated once in a while.

And, by the way, not necessarily results reflect perfectly talent and effort, because the (playing) conditions matter. People instantly assume that there's been a huge drop in American talent from the 90's to now. But... what if it is all about the change in playing conditions associated with the "culture" of American tennis? People will look at a player like, say, Steve Johnson, and not even call him a "bozo". Well, what this guy would achieve in the 90's or 80's? Can we be 100% sure that the difference in results would be negligible? Obviously no.

Or -- different scenario -- let us assume at some point in the 80's someone decided that all professional tennis would be on hard courts. What kind of career Nadal would have had? Maybe winning just one major or two, maybe zero (yes, because if you take out your favorite surface, you take out your major confidence builder, and then your career can be completely different). Would that mean Nadal would be less talented in this alternate world? Obviously no, only that the sport itself was less fitted to his talents. All this to say that this immediate connection between results and "talent" or even "effort" is obviously limited (even if it is still the best measurement of talent by itself).

But, man, chill out. Only about one month to the next tournament to watch (fuck, that's a lot).

While the top 200 tennis players are obviously all gifted with athletic abilities, champhions are champhions precisely BECAUSE they adapt to the particular and specific conditions they have to contend with.

The fact that, say, tennis players all in the 60’s played with wooden rackets has zero relevance to what makes a champhion today. These “ what if” scenarios do nothing to explain away why some players thrive in any era where ALL the players face the same conditions.

 

[Jelenafan]

Usually Djokovic beats him by a mere few points and is 6 years younger than him .

Didn’t know tennis was horseshoes.

 

[mrzz]

While the top 200 tennis players are obviously all gifted with athletic abilities, champhions are champhions precisely BECAUSE they adapt to the particular and specific conditions they have to contend with.

The fact that, say, tennis players all in the 60’s played with wooden rackets has zero relevance to what makes a champhion today. These “ what if” scenarios do nothing to explain away why some players thrive in any era where ALL the players face the same conditions.

I agree that ability to adapt to different conditions is one (quite important) champion's quality, but it is a bit reductionist to ignore that some could be "luckier" than others in getting a scenario which is more adapted to his needs. Maybe my countryman, Gustavo Kuerten, would have never passed the third round of a major had he played in the 60's. The racquet head/string combination of the late 90's/early 2000's fitted his powerful backhand perfectly. He would surely still have been a very good player (in the sense that top 200 players are all talented), but would he have got the same results? Maybe not, I dare to say most likely not. We all know that margins are small in tennis, so it is a long stretch to think that results would not be heavily altered if initial conditions are decisively altered.

 

[Ricardo]

We are exactly on the same page regarding top players outside Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. But you really seem to take offense on the word "bozo". For me not only is clear that it is relative, but it seems just a word to say that they lose to F, D and N most of the time. Maybe as a non-native English speaker I don't get the weight of the word completely.

I am not counting the likes, but I guess most will read that post you refer to as just too damn obvious. Again, we are on the same page here, as for me it seems the kind of obvious stuff that needs to be stated once in a while.

And, by the way, not necessarily results reflect perfectly talent and effort, because the (playing) conditions matter. People instantly assume that there's been a huge drop in American talent from the 90's to now. But... what if it is all about the change in playing conditions associated with the "culture" of American tennis? People will look at a player like, say, Steve Johnson, and not even call him a "bozo". Well, what this guy would achieve in the 90's or 80's? Can we be 100% sure that the difference in results would be negligible? Obviously no.

Or -- different scenario -- let us assume at some point in the 80's someone decided that all professional tennis would be on hard courts. What kind of career Nadal would have had? Maybe winning just one major or two, maybe zero (yes, because if you take out your favorite surface, you take out your major confidence builder, and then your career can be completely different). Would that mean Nadal would be less talented in this alternate world? Obviously no, only that the sport itself was less fitted to his talents. All this to say that this immediate connection between results and "talent" or even "effort" is obviously limited (even if it is still the best measurement of talent by itself).

But, man, chill out. Only about one month to the next tournament to watch (fuck, that's a lot).

Fair enough, just annoying to see some nobody thinks he can casually diss them ‘relatively’ when the greats talk about fellow lessers with respect. Usually people like that get beat up a lot, don’t know if el don’t know has any teeth left but sure he can still type behind the screen.

 

[Ricardo]

Pete didn’t have players beating him 10 times each in slams... he wasn’t 0-3 in Wimbledon finals on his favorite surface against the same player... Federer may have bigger numbers but Pete retired as the best of his era. I doubt Federer ever felt as the best with Nadal and Djokovic around.

Pete didn’t because there was no equivalent of Nadal and Djoker. Since your argument that Fedalvics are the same era, for Federer to have achieved much more than Pete must be pretty impressive then. Or it isn’t unless they belong to different era; so which is it?

 

[Ricardo]

As the saying goes, Front, don't feed the trolls.

All that said, while I agree with your point, I do think that with Nadal at least, the gap isn't as large as the age difference would imply, and that while the age difference is real, it is somewhat softened--at least with Rafa--due to the different trajectories of their careers. Roger was a tad of a late bloomer and Rafa an early bloomer. Roger was an elite player by 2003 at age 21-22, while Rafa reached elite form just two years later in 2005 (age 18-19). On the other hand, Roger's rise from elite to his very best was short and furious, while Rafa simmered for awhile. Meaning, the gap between them reaching their best forms is a bit larger: Roger starting in 2004, Rafa in 2008 (Novak didn't reach his peak until 2011, so the gap is even larger than the age difference between him and Roger at 7 years).

Meaning, "prime" gap for Roger and Rafa was 2 years, but the "peak" gap was 4...maybe we split the difference and say they are roughly 3 years apart in terms of development, so a half generation or so. Roger and Novak are easily a full generation.

I don't think this tarnishes Roger's legacy, nor does it prop it up further. One of the reasons I dislike the Fedal Wars is that, in the end, I think it is an apples and oranges thing. Unless one of them completely runs away with all the records, there's always going to be arguments for one over the other, and none of them really satisfy me to crown one the singular GOAT. And even if one of them has all the big records, it doesn't take away from the greatness of the other two during their primes. Each of the three has their own unique qualities that will never be surpassed. For our Roger, no matter how many Slams or weeks at #1 or titles that Novak and Rafa accrue, no one is going to "out-Federer" him, or take away from the grace and diversity of his game, which is in unparalleled in tennis history. Similar statements can be made about Novak and Rafa.

You ever notice nobody gives a shit who you crown, as if it’s about you again.....the things about you worth mentioning are only for entertaining, like Pioline

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federer is playing in the same era as Nadal and Djokovic. This is literally true as they played at thousand times. They're from a different GENERATION but same fucking era. What are we doing here? Be better guys, Jesus.

 

[Jelenafan]

I agree that ability to adapt to different conditions is one (quite important) champion's quality, but it is a bit reductionist to ignore that some could be "luckier" than others in getting a scenario which is more adapted to his needs. Maybe my countryman, Gustavo Kuerten, would have never passed the third round of a major had he played in the 60's. The racquet head/string combination of the late 90's/early 2000's fitted his powerful backhand perfectly. He would surely still have been a very good player (in the sense that top 200 players are all talented), but would he have got the same results? Maybe not, I dare to say most likely not. We all know that margins are small in tennis, so it is a long stretch to think that results would not be heavily altered if initial conditions are decisively altered.

But what’s the point? You can have “what if” scenarios where EVERY past champion in any sport would not have had the same results if conditions where different.

Would Babe Ruth have succeeded as much in Today’s baseball game? Does it matter if relative to his own contemporaries he’s an all time great?

Back to tennis: Theoretically Federer could have won less majors over changed conditions, ditto Bill Tilden, Rod Laver, Sampras, Nadal , etc. My point is the cream rises to the top in any era per the specific conditions in place then. Tennis history is littered with dozens of supremely talented players, some seemingly more “ gifted” than those with better results but who lacked the IT factor, including mental fortitude.

By your criteria, today’s champs may not have won as much , but I don’t see a direct correlation that some also-rans in this era would have then thrived and won much more, I really don’t.

 

[mrzz]

But what’s the point

The point is that there are limits to using results as an absolute an infallible method to judge a player. Obviously results are the best barometer, but in the end we are too quick to put it all in the "champion's qualities" basket.

I am not trying to open a can of worms here, just to give some balance on this apparent dominant notion that the big three are better than all the rest in every possible and conceivable aspect of the game because their results are miles above them. Guys like Tsonsa posed a threat to the big three -- in some occasions more than others, for sure -- and I am certain that they were taken much more seriously by them than by posters here.

 

[Andy22]

I would say that thiem will keep owning Federer-Djokovic like he did this season and play even better on hard courts the man is just epic+humble.

 

[Ricardo]

My point is the cream rises to the top in any era per the specific conditions in place then

Not exactly. If Lendl was only allowed on grass and Pete only allowed on clay, they’d end up being still pretty good, but not what they ended up with. Make no mistake they made huge effort to adapt to the surface but there is only so much one can do against his nature.

 

[Jelenafan]

The point is that there are limits to using results as an absolute an infallible method to judge a player. Obviously results are the best barometer, but in the end we are too quick to put it all in the "champion's qualities" basket.

I am not trying to open a can of worms here, just to give some balance on this apparent dominant notion that the big three are better than all the rest in every possible and conceivable aspect of the game because their results are miles above them. Guys like Tsonsa posed a threat to the big three -- in some occasions more than others, for sure -- and I am certain that they were taken much more seriously by them than by posters here.

Completely get your effort not to have a complete bashing of other players in the era who came up short of the big 3.

I already agreed with you that other players were physically gifted, and Tsonga is a very good example. Exceptionally quick and agile for his size and he had explosive power. On occasion he could out hit practically anyone off the court. However I’m curious, other than injuries, (admittedly a huge other)which decimates any player, what conditions/circumstances do you think contributed to his reaching only 1 Major early in his career?

 

[Front242]

Completely get your effort not to have a complete bashing of other players in the era who came up short of the big 3.

I already agreed with you that other players were physically gifted, and Tsonga is a very good example. Exceptionally quick and agile for his size and he had explosive power. On occasion he could out hit practically anyone off the court. However I’m curious, other than injuries, (admittedly a huge other)which decimates any player, what conditions/circumstances do you think contributed to his reaching only 1 Major early in his career?

Well, it's mostly down to injuries. He's had a ton of knee surgeries and is slow as a snail compared to 10 years ago. Besides that, his backhand is fairly poor tbh. And of course, if he doesn't serve well, his chances of winning matches goes way, way down unlike say the big 3 who can still manage to win ugly even when their games are well off.

His shot selection is baffling too at times. I still remember those 4 match points (think it was 4 anyway without checking) against Djokovic at RG. His shot selection was plain dense there and he could've won the match if he played more sensibly.

 

[mrzz]

Completely get your effort not to have a complete bashing of other players in the era who came up short of the big 3.

I already agreed with you that other players were physically gifted, and Tsonga is a very good example. Exceptionally quick and agile for his size and he had explosive power. On occasion he could out hit practically anyone off the court. However I’m curious, other than injuries, (admittedly a huge other)which decimates any player, what conditions/circumstances do you think contributed to his reaching only 1 Major [FINAL] early in his career?

You just gave Tsonga a major! He actually was just the first name that came to my mind, so I would not be able to compile the list of qualities that yourself and then @Front242 presented. I would add a very good net game (something which I failed to realize at first honestly).

As Front said, the bh was/is a liability, but who knows, with two less surgeries for some reason, or quicker courts in general, and had he won a major early on... could not he developed in to a different player? Yes, I won't stop repeating that I know quite well that those what if scenarios are, to begin with, unreal. I am only using them, as you already acknowledged, as a way to argue that those guys are bloody good as well. BTW one of the very few top level matches that I watched on spot (being from South America I don't get that many chances) was precisely Federer x Tsonga. For the occasional viewer, for sure their level seems pretty evenly matched.

Or still... (sorry for the long post) Wawrinka. Can someone precisely tell what happened around 2013/2014, that, as we say here on the boards, transformed the guy into "Stanimal"? What is the difference between 2015 Wawrinka and 2012 Wawrinka, if you, say, watch some random matches during the year? Could someone decisively tell "this is the major winner, this is the top 20 guy"? Sometimes it seems that it is just a very small click that makes a hell of a difference.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Well, it's mostly down to injuries. He's had a ton of knee surgeries and is slow as a snail compared to 10 years ago. Besides that, his backhand is fairly poor tbh. And of course, if he doesn't serve well, his chances of winning matches goes way, way down unlike say the big 3 who can still manage to win ugly even when their games are well off.

His shot selection is baffling too at times. I still remember those 4 match points (think it was 4 anyway without checking) against Djokovic at RG. His shot selection was plain dense there and he could've won the match if he played more sensibly.

Very good post Front especially in regards to JoWillieTs"s shot selection's.That points to one major area, JoWillieTs team (coaching). Can someone name who has been a mainstay coach for Joe without using Google? Rasheed would be my first guess although I remember him with Monfils. We all know who were with the Big 4 including Stan who had Magnus Norman.

 

[don_fabio]

You just gave Tsonga a major! He actually was just the first name that came to my mind, so I would not be able to compile the list of qualities that yourself and then @Front242 presented. I would add a very good net game (something which I failed to realize at first honestly).

As Front said, the bh was/is a liability, but who knows, with two less surgeries for some reason, or quicker courts in general, and had he won a major early on... could not he developed in to a different player? Yes, I won't stop repeating that I know quite well that those what if scenarios are, to begin with, unreal. I am only using them, as you already acknowledged, as a way to argue that those guys are bloody good as well. BTW one of the very few top level matches that I watched on spot (being from South America I don't get that many chances) was precisely Federer x Tsonga. For the occasional viewer, for sure their level seems pretty evenly matched.

Or still... (sorry for the long post) Wawrinka. Can someone precisely tell what happened around 2013/2014, that, as we say here on the boards, transformed the guy into "Stanimal"? What is the difference between 2015 Wawrinka and 2012 Wawrinka, if you, say, watch some random matches during the year? Could someone decisively tell "this is the major winner, this is the top 20 guy"? Sometimes it seems that it is just a very small click that makes a hell of a difference.

Belief and maybe balls of steel is sometimes what makes a difference. As much as forehand and backhand are important it is in the head where many matches are half won before they even begin.

Same happened with Cilic when he went on his run to win USO. He came there believing he can win it. Big3 spent all these years just crushing the dreams of other guys on tour, turning them from believers to doubters and then to just regular victims in big3 path to glory.

 

[Jelenafan]

You just gave Tsonga a major! He actually was just the first name that came to my mind, so I would not be able to compile the list of qualities that yourself and then @Front242 presented. I would add a very good net game (something which I failed to realize at first honestly).

As Front said, the bh was/is a liability, but who knows, with two less surgeries for some reason, or quicker courts in general, and had he won a major early on... could not he developed in to a different player? Yes, I won't stop repeating that I know quite well that those what if scenarios are, to begin with, unreal. I am only using them, as you already acknowledged, as a way to argue that those guys are bloody good as well. BTW one of the very few top level matches that I watched on spot (being from South America I don't get that many chances) was precisely Federer x Tsonga. For the occasional viewer, for sure their level seems pretty evenly matched.

Or still... (sorry for the long post) Wawrinka. Can someone precisely tell what happened around 2013/2014, that, as we say here on the boards, transformed the guy into "Stanimal"? What is the difference between 2015 Wawrinka and 2012 Wawrinka, if you, say, watch some random matches during the year? Could someone decisively tell "this is the major winner, this is the top 20 guy"? Sometimes it seems that it is just a very small click that makes a hell of a difference.

Tsonga, Tsonga, Tsonga..

I still remember the expectations when Tsonga bursted through at the AO when he made it to the finals before losing to Novak. Many thought he represented a new prototype of tennis player.

Just my perception but I never got the feeling Tsonga ever had that obsessive desire to win and the almost pathological aversion to losing that many champs have. Probably makes for a more balanced individual, but.....

 

[Jelenafan]

Not exactly. If Lendl was only allowed on grass and Pete only allowed on clay, they’d end up being still pretty good, but not what they ended up with. Make no mistake they made huge effort to adapt to the surface but there is only so much one can do against his nature.

Here’s the deal, Lendl was not allowed to only play on grass, and Pete was not allowed to play only on clay. Lendl was very proficient on HC and clay and Pete was very proficient on grass and HC because those playing surfaces were also AVAILABLE to them to succeed in. That impacted their formative years of training.

Relatively late in their development did they try to adapt to their worst surfaces, though I do wonder how committed Pistol Pete truly was to red clay.

It’s amazing to me how well Lendl did on grass ( 2 Wimbledon finals, 5 Semifinals, 1 AO final (on grass) 2 Semifinals) when he avoided it like the plague practically until his mid twenties. He WILLED himself to be a top grasscourt player. Lendl beat Boris Becker on Wimbledon grass in consecutive years (1988-89) in the SF, actually had a 3-1 grasscourt head2head versus Becker on the surface. He had a memorable SF loss to eventual winner Stefan Edberg 7-9 in the 5th at the AO one year. Compare that with one Wimbledon Grass Slam winners Pat Cash, Michael Stich, and Richard Kraijeck.

Here’s another “ what if” scenario, an 8 year old Lendl is raised in an era where only grasscourt tennis is played, I’m willing to bet Ivan would have found a way to be a champ.

ETA: I dare say in the Open era Ivan had the best grasscourt record of those who never won a Major on grass.