2020 Predictions and Speculations

[El Dude]

I think its also important to remember, for all of us, that Roger already experienced the rise of a younger generation, in Rafa, Novak, and Andy -- all 5-6 years younger than him. It seems that we all at least subconsciously forget just how much older than them Roger is -- an entire generation, really.

Rafa and Novak haven't yet faced that "rise of the Olympians", not really - or at least not comparable in talent. Meaning, where Rafa finally reached #1 in 2008 when Roger turned 27, and for Novak it was in 2011 when Roger was 30, it makes sense that--given the slower pace of development (and decline) and lower talent level of the younger generations--that they would equal and surpass the reigning elite at a later time.

Rafa turns 34 and Novak 33 next year, so I wouldn't be surprised if we have a new #1 at some point, even if only for short period of time. The tide shift is occuring, it is just slower than expected. But it is inevitable and it can only really go in one direction. So no matter how it actually unfolds, we'll continue to see that shift in 2020 - and it may be the tipping point year.

 

[AnonymousFan]

Prediction:

AO: NextGen’s path clear with upsets and Djokovic not up to par... I’ll go Medvedev since he has lately been the most consistent (before the overplaying caught up). Medvedev def. Tsitsipas in final
FO: Nadal def. NextGen
Wimbledon: Federer def. NextGen
USO: Nadal def. NextGen

 

[Jelenafan]

Not just tennis, athletes in other sports are playing longer at a competitive level.

Methuselah ruined things by winning Majors, ‘3 of em at the age of 36-37 so that, unfairly or not, the expectations of some are that Rafa and Novak can continue to maintain their level of dominance over the rest of the field because they’re “only” 32 and 33.

It doesn’t help that, unlike Methuselah, they have also been YE ranking 1 in these creaking years.

We in the past had Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzalez and Connors who could hold own, but not to THIS level.
Both issues are relatively unprecedented in that you have 3 geriatrics, drooling and all, leading the field and that hasn’t been seen in the Open era to this extent.

It doesn’t negate that, in tennis years, as in dog years, they are OLD.

Very old.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think its also important to remember, for all of us, that Roger already experienced the rise of a younger generation, in Rafa, Novak, and Andy -- all 5-6 years younger than him. It seems that we all at least subconsciously forget just how much older than them Roger is -- an entire generation, really.

You're joking, right?

 

[tented]

I think its also important to remember, for all of us, that Roger already experienced the rise of a younger generation, in Rafa, Novak, and Andy -- all 5-6 years younger than him. It seems that we all at least subconsciously forget just how much older than them Roger is -- an entire generation, really.

It’s not quite like this. Federer turned pro in 1998; Rafa turned pro in 2001. So, while they are five years apart in terms of age, they’re only three years apart in terms of their careers. Their first majors were only two years apart: 2003 & 2005. (Novak, on the other hand, didn’t turn pro until 2003; he didn’t win his first major until 2008.) Generations are always defined as an array of ages, and certainly players only three years apart are often grouped together.

 

[Moxie]

I think its also important to remember, for all of us, that Roger already experienced the rise of a younger generation, in Rafa, Novak, and Andy -- all 5-6 years younger than him. It seems that we all at least subconsciously forget just how much older than them Roger is -- an entire generation, really.

Rafa and Novak haven't yet faced that "rise of the Olympians", not really - or at least not comparable in talent. Meaning, where Rafa finally reached #1 in 2008 when Roger turned 27, and for Novak it was in 2011 when Roger was 30, it makes sense that--given the slower pace of development (and decline) and lower talent level of the younger generations--that they would equal and surpass the reigning elite at a later time.

Rafa turns 34 and Novak 33 next year, so I wouldn't be surprised if we have a new #1 at some point, even if only for short period of time. The tide shift is occuring, it is just slower than expected. But it is inevitable and it can only really go in one direction. So no matter how it actually unfolds, we'll continue to see that shift in 2020 - and it may be the tipping point year.

Following on to what @tented posted above, and if Roger was a bit of a "late-bloomer" in terms of Majors, (as Darth likes to say; Roger's first at nearly 22, Rafa's first at barely 19,) then it's hard to separate them by a generation. Roger didn't so much confront the rise of a "younger generation," at first, as the rise of Nadal. Then Nadal had to deal with Djokovic 2.0. Then they all stayed in at solid levels, depending on the year, with Murray as the 4th Beatle. A lot of them against each other, and now they're confronting the younger generation, since what was the be the "younger generation" just below them worked out to be a damp squib. There is no mistaking that Roger is the old man of the top 3, but I think it's wrong to make a clear generational demarcation line between him and Rafa, and probably Novak. You may consider it unfortunate for Roger that he had 2 especially elite player hot on his heels, OK. They are still 1-2-3 in the rankings, so Roger is still holding his own.

 

[Moxie]

I feel like the main character of "The Big Short" movie (about 2007/2008 sub-prime crisis).

After RG 2018 I wrote that Fedal were done winning majors. I was completely wrong since from then on Nadal won 2 and Federer had two MP's to win one. However, for me the basic reason why I thought so is still there (and both fan bases will hate me for that):

They are not playing that well anymore. Each one in his own way, but in the end, that is what I really feel when watching them both. Of course, they "know" how to win matches (and majors), and that counts a lot. Federer has the "advantage"that grass is still the most peculiar surface so a lot of players struggle with it. But still, I really don't think either one has a scary level anymore, actually far from it in most cases, and that is why I will repeat my prediction of no Fedal majors in 2020 -- or ever. Of course I will still root for Federer.

And now I am almost including Djokovic. Apart from one match in the Paris tournament, I also don't think Djokovic was particularly impressive in 2019. So, I won't be surprised with zero majors from him as well. At AO the big three will still be all top seeded, so this boost their chances as a group.

In other words, right now there are a lot of players that simply know that they have a shot at them, anywhere (yes, even Nadal at RG). I mean, if you were Thiem, what would you think (since every single year since 2017 you beat the guy on clay)? Of if you were Fognini? Yeah, yeah, I know that RG is different, that is not the point. The point is that players who felt like it is to beat him (on clay), or soundly beat him (off clay) won't get in court scared. And, as I said, the level difference is not that great anymore. Actually, as I said, I think the big three have more than occasionally a level gap to some players.

So, having said that, I will go out on a limb and double(ish) down on my early prediction: zero majors for the big three in 2020.

I think you are absolutely right to say that they (Big 3) are not playing as well as they once did. I also appreciate your pointing out that grass is the outlier, not clay, as is often put forward. I totally agree that the younger players don't feel so intimidated by them, so that advantage is (somewhat) gone. Also, as you say, though, they know how to win matches, and to win Majors. So, the only thing that I will say about your prediction, (which you made last year, as you admit,) is that to assume that all 3 come to a screeching halt at Majors, at the same time, is rather a big assumption, and especially that it be this year. To say that they are gliding towards the end, I agree with. To say they fall of a cliff this year, all three at once, I think is, well, a very bold prediction.

 

[tented]

I think you are absolutely right to say that they (Big 3) are not playing as well as they once did. I also appreciate your pointing out that grass is the outlier, not clay, as is often put forward. I totally agree that the younger players don't feel so intimidated by them, so that advantage is (somewhat) gone. Also, as you say, though, they know how to win matches, and to win Majors. So, the only thing that I will say about your prediction, (which you made last year, as you admit,) is that to assume that all 3 come to a screeching halt at Majors, at the same time, is rather a big assumption, and especially that it be this year. To say that they are gliding towards the end, I agree with. To say they fall of a cliff this year, all three at once, I think is, well, a very bold prediction.

Indeed. You have to go back to 2003 to find a year in which the Big 3 didn’t win at least half of the majors. It’s been three years since someone else won even one. True, they’re not what they used to be, but they’re still dominating to an unheard of degree. Until there’s a year in which only one of the majors is won by one of them, it’s unrealistic to write them off, but I don’t think 2020 will be that year.

 

[mrzz]

To say they fall of a cliff this year, all three at once, I think is, well, a very bold prediction.

Yes, it is. And surely there is absolutely no common cause behind an (eventual/possible/predicted by me) simultaneous fall of those three. If it happens, for sure it will be a coincidence.

The Fedal part I actually don't think is that bold. Is Djokovic who I think may still have more fuel to burn. But he has also dropped his form, and he also lost the "fear factor" -- even if to a smaller degree. Still, once one new player wins a major, all of them will be instantly energized. I mean, apart from Thiem winning RG, if anyone else wins any of the majors, for sure the rest of the pack will believe "it could have been me".

You put it all together and that is why I think that when the big three start not winning majors as a group, the transition will be sharp. They will not go gently in to that good night.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think its also important to remember, for all of us, that Roger already experienced the rise of a younger generation, in Rafa, Novak, and Andy -- all 5-6 years younger than him. It seems that we all at least subconsciously forget just how much older than them Roger is -- an entire generation, really.

Rafa and Novak haven't yet faced that "rise of the Olympians", not really - or at least not comparable in talent. Meaning, where Rafa finally reached #1 in 2008 when Roger turned 27, and for Novak it was in 2011 when Roger was 30, it makes sense that--given the slower pace of development (and decline) and lower talent level of the younger generations--that they would equal and surpass the reigning elite at a later time.

Rafa turns 34 and Novak 33 next year, so I wouldn't be surprised if we have a new #1 at some point, even if only for short period of time. The tide shift is occuring, it is just slower than expected. But it is inevitable and it can only really go in one direction. So no matter how it actually unfolds, we'll continue to see that shift in 2020 - and it may be the tipping point year.

Yeah this is a good point.

It made me think however, of a slightly unrelated point, about how things have a way of balancing out. Rafa and Novak haven't faced the rise of the Olympians, but their generation WAS the Olympians. That generation of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and Cilic (obviously they're not all on the same level) have all won slams and were serious threats. And of course, the fact that Nadal, Novak and Murray had to deal with one another all in their primes, is something Roger never had to deal with.

I obviously don't subscribe to the idea that Roger's competition was weak by any means, but he certainly never had a peer his own age as good as those guys. Roger had to deal with younger rivals who were far better than any younger generation Nadal/Novak have had to deal with, but conversely, his own generation wasn't close to his level, despite it being by and large, a very talented and underrated one.

 

[isabelle]

Why do you think so?

he's getting older and older and young guns often beat him (see Masters) so it'll become harder and harder even quite impossible imo

 

[atttomole]

he's getting older and older and young guns often beat him (see Masters) so it'll become harder and harder even quite impossible imo

We all know that. However, Roger has surprised his fans by winning grand slam titles when most people thought he was done. At Wimbledon he had 2 match points and didn’t serve well. Therefore, you can’t rule out Federer at this point.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

We all know that. However, Roger has surprised his fans by winning grand slam titles when most people thought he was done. At Wimbledon he had 2 match points and didn’t serve well. Therefore, you can’t rule out Federer at this point.

I applaud Federer for still playing. When he was stuck at 17 slams for nearly 5 years between 2012-2017 I thought that he should have retired. But he persevered and was able to add 3 more slams and make it harder for Nadal & Djokovic to catch him. He also was able to regain some respect in the Nadal h2h and even his recent win over Djokovic in the WTF helped protect his weeks at no.1 record as well as not getting passed by Djokovic with a 6th YE1.

That being said, Nadal IMO will still pass him but I understand why Federer is still playing it's because he's still able to do some damage. He's still no.3 in the world and with the right draw and a little bit of luck he can still add a slam, but it's getting much harder.

 

[Fiero425]

We all know that. However, Roger has surprised his fans by winning grand slam titles when most people thought he was done. At Wimbledon he had 2 match points and didn’t serve well. Therefore, you can’t rule out Federer at this point.

He was done for the most part! He was wandering the tour with just his name and a few Masters victories for 5+ years between '12 Wimbl. win & '18 AO! He wow'd the masses with a few major finals, but for the most part little better than Connors was after his last major win in '83 USO! Jimmy hung on long enough to have that '90 USO run that was so memorable! Federer went it a few better by actually taking 3 more majors, but I think the run is over! The NG'rs might as well start calling themselves "Lost2" if they allow that old man to work them for much longer! I don't think that's possible with the steadiness of Med, Tsitsipas, Thiem, & even airhead Zverev! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Yes, it is. And surely there is absolutely no common cause behind an (eventual/possible/predicted by me) simultaneous fall of those three. If it happens, for sure it will be a coincidence.

The Fedal part I actually don't think is that bold. Is Djokovic who I think may still have more fuel to burn. But he has also dropped his form, and he also lost the "fear factor" -- even if to a smaller degree. Still, once one new player wins a major, all of them will be instantly energized. I mean, apart from Thiem winning RG, if anyone else wins any of the majors, for sure the rest of the pack will believe "it could have been me".

You put it all together and that is why I think that when the big three start not winning majors as a group, the transition will be sharp. They will not go gently in to that good night.

Whether correct or not, in the end, you get "post of the week", in my opinion, for quoting Dylan Thomas. (Used to post here, and was a Nadal fan.)

I understand why you say that "Fedal" is less of a bold prediction, for sinking, but here is where they are not so tied at the hip, and the 5 years difference could some into play. Like many, I don't expect to see Rafa playing at 38, but he's got a few good years in him, yet. Djokovic has shown more vulnerability than most expected...thinking the invincibility would return, but I agree that he could have "more fuel to burn." And that he will. As to the young guns, I think they have already begun to believe "it could be me." Medvedev pushed the envelope hard at the USO. (Honorable mention to Berrettini who made the SFs.) Tsitsipas won the WTF. This is a lot of not just knocking on the door (or the glass ceiling,) but pounding on it. More than we've seen for some 15 years.

 

[mrzz]

Used to post here, and was a Nadal fan.

You got me on that for full two seconds. That is way above average.

 

[Moxie]

You got me on that for full two seconds. That is way above average.

 

[atttomole]

I applaud Federer for still playing. When he was stuck at 17 slams for nearly 5 years between 2012-2017 I thought that he should have retired. But he persevered and was able to add 3 more slams and make it harder for Nadal & Djokovic to catch him. He also was able to regain some respect in the Nadal h2h and even his recent win over Djokovic in the WTF helped protect his weeks at no.1 record as well as not getting passed by Djokovic with a 6th YE1.

That being said, Nadal IMO will still pass him but I understand why Federer is still playing it's because he's still able to do some damage. He's still no.3 in the world and with the right draw and a little bit of luck he can still add a slam, but it's getting much harder.

So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO.

 

[Moxie]

So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO.

That presumes a healthy Djokovic, and there wasn't one. You only get what's in front of you. We could go back to RG when Nadal wasn't healthy, to the same argument.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

So you think Nadal doesn't need a lucky draw to win outside of RG? Do yo think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic if they had met at the US Open this year? I think it would have been a demolition, not very different from what happened at the AO.

:cuckoo: