Agassi: Djokovic is 30 but he has body of a 25 years old man

[britbox]

In his recent interviews he said that motivation isn't problem anymore. We don't know what would have happened if Federer had won 4 slams in a row and was in exactly the same situation as Djokovic.



I think Novak has better ability to adapt game and strategy to deal successfully with opponents' different styles and approaches.



So?



I quoted Agassi but I didn't claim he truly believes what he said. I don't need to prove anything. Can you prove that most coaches say their guy has body 5 years younger than their age?



It's a matter of opinion whether Djokovic has overall better game but it isn't matter of opinion what most coaches say.



Federer won more because he faced easier opponents than Djokovic

2011 was the year of Djokovic at his absolute best but he didn't play like that in every match. For example, he played crap versus Berdych in Dubai. Against Federer at FO, Novak played well but it wasn't his best tennis.

Those stats only show slams won... What about slams lost? Where do guys like Istomin, Thiem and Querry feature in your charts when looking at competition?

 

[Busted]

He said that during interview for ESPN

Before you say Andre is talking nonsense, read this https://www.theguardian.com/science...icker-and-die-younger-regardless-of-lifestyle

Maybe we should revise our predictions about how many slams will Djokovic end his career with?

Andre is kidding himself. Phsyically, yes, Djokovic has the body of a 25 year-old. MIleage-wise? No way, no how. People said the same thing about Nadal when his game took an unexpected 3 year dip. They all want to play as long as possible because the competition for Slams is really still just 4 or 5 guys - and Roger's about to turn 36, so it's more like 3-4 guys. They both want to catch Roger at 18 - and hope he doesn't win any more Slams. Time is more on Djokovic's side than Nadal's but still - the mileage on both of their bodies continues to pile up at a much faster rate than it did on Roger's body.

 

[El Dude]

I think Novak either stays stuck at 12 or wins 16-18, with nothing in-between. Roger and Rafa are both in a "maybe one more, and then maybe one more after that" phase. Novak is either done as a Slam champion, or he's reborn and goes on a streak for a couple years. In other words, if Novak wins a Slam I think his career is revitalized and he wins a Slam or two a year for 2-3 years, before winding down in his mid-30s.

To put that another way, I might actually give Rafa and Roger an edge over Novak in winning one more Slam in their respective careers, but if they win another, I give Novak a way better chance of winning more after that.

 

[Busted]

In his recent interviews he said that motivation isn't problem anymore. We don't know what would have happened if Federer had won 4 slams in a row and was in exactly the same situation as Djokovic.



I think Novak has better ability to adapt game and strategy to deal successfully with opponents' different styles and approaches.



So?



I quoted Agassi but I didn't claim he truly believes what he said. I don't need to prove anything. Can you prove that most coaches say their guy has body 5 years younger than their age?



It's a matter of opinion whether Djokovic has overall better game but it isn't matter of opinion what most coaches say.



Federer won more because he faced easier opponents than Djokovic

2011 was the year of Djokovic at his absolute best but he didn't play like that in every match. For example, he played crap versus Berdych in Dubai. Against Federer at FO, Novak played well but it wasn't his best tennis.

I had an entire rebuttal to the whole "Federer played in a weak era" nonsense but my post got eaten by a posting glitch and I'm not going to type the whole thing again. Suffice it to say - that's baloney. Federer is 5-6 years older than Murray, Djokovic and Nadal so the fact that he's even still in the convo illustrates his greatness. He won a lot of the matchups in the early stages because he was in his prime. Now THEY are in their primes - and have been for the last 5-6 years - and Roger is past his prime even though he is still playing great tennis. People are always trying to compare apples and oranges with the stats for these 4. The question is - are the other 3 going to be as competitive at 35 as Roger is?

Go back and look at the list of players from 2006 . Plus count all the Slam winners Federer had to beat on the way dominating the tour (18 - Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Chang, Gaudio, Kuerten, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Johansson, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Krajikek, Kafelnikoc, Bruguera, ) compared to what Nole\Nadal have had to face (6 guys each - Roger, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka, DelPo) and cry me a river over how bad his competition was. Added to that - the rest of Roger's competition back in the day was more competitive than the wannabes filling out the Top 20 today. Give me Davydenko, Henman, James Blake, Mardy Fish, Fenrando Gonzalez, Soderling, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Ancic, Robredo, or Coria any day of the week over most of the other "top" players today - and yes, I threw Stan in that bunch, too. That dude can't win a regular tournament to save his life when it's far easier to win best of 3 over 7 days than best of 5 over 14 days.

Everybody loves to tweak the numbers to disprove that Federer's the GOAT, but the reality is - nobody can erase the 5-6 year age difference so these guys could all play each other in their prime. If I had to choose Roger at 25 (his prime) or Novak at 28 (his prime) - I'm taking Federer without even thinking about it too hard because he had more then 2-3 guys he had to beat week in and week out. With the numbers above - Roger's got 5-6 years on these guys, so he's played more matches - and lost more than the others. Compare everybody's numbers when they've all played an equal number of Slams - because I can guarantee you, as you see with Nole now and Nadal the last 3 years - they WILL lose more Slam matches as they age and their winning percentages won't be as high as they are now. You can see that by comparing their losses to players outside the Top 10 in Slams. They lose more Slam matches now to guys outside the Top 10 than they have in the past. Djokovic has 2 such losses in the last 3 Slams (Querrey at Wimbledon last year & Istomin at the AO). And now Nadal has had yet another one at Wimbledon after losing to Pouille at the US Open last year. Ditto with Murray losing to Mischa Zverev at the AO this year.

 

[DarthFed]

I think Novak either stays stuck at 12 or wins 16-18, with nothing in-between. Roger and Rafa are both in a "maybe one more, and then maybe one more after that" phase. Novak is either done as a Slam champion, or he's reborn and goes on a streak for a couple years. In other words, if Novak wins a Slam I think his career is revitalized and he wins a Slam or two a year for 2-3 years, before winding down in his mid-30s.

To put that another way, I might actually give Rafa and Roger an edge over Novak in winning one more Slam in their respective careers, but if they win another, I give Novak a way better chance of winning more after that.

I agree with the gist of this but I don't see him going on a huge terror again like 2011 or 2015. I also think Rafa still has similar potential to get on a big run for 1 more year (2018). If he wins RG again next year as I expect he "could" win another off clay. But that's probably the last year we would say that.

 

[DarthFed]

In his recent interviews he said that motivation isn't problem anymore. We don't know what would have happened if Federer had won 4 slams in a row and was in exactly the same situation as Djokovic.



I think Novak has better ability to adapt game and strategy to deal successfully with opponents' different styles and approaches.



So?



I quoted Agassi but I didn't claim he truly believes what he said. I don't need to prove anything. Can you prove that most coaches say their guy has body 5 years younger than their age?



It's a matter of opinion whether Djokovic has overall better game but it isn't matter of opinion what most coaches say.



Federer won more because he faced easier opponents than Djokovic

2011 was the year of Djokovic at his absolute best but he didn't play like that in every match. For example, he played crap versus Berdych in Dubai. Against Federer at FO, Novak played well but it wasn't his best tennis.

The point is that I wouldn't read a whole lot into someone's coach propping up his guy's energy level. If you're suddenly more confident based on what Agassi said...well good for you I guess.

We will agree to disagree on Djoker adjusting his game more to opponents. I actually think that's his main problem against Stan. He hasn't been able to make things difficult and change the flow of their rallies. Roger has more ways to disrupt an opponent's rhythm, more ways to adjust when things aren't going well.

I know you'll disagree but it wasn't the fact he won the non-calendar year slam that caused him to lose his motivation. I think it was the hangover from finally winning RG. I expected him to lose early at Wimbledon last year, what I didn't expect was for him to have a major crisis that has now lasted a year. Winning the Nole slam was an incredible accomplishment but it didn't make him the greatest player of all time, in fact it didn't even make him the 2nd greatest player in today's game. And that's my point, he has been chasing Fed and Rafa career-wise for many years and suddenly he seems to have lost a lot of the motivation. After Roger won RG in 2009 most saw him as the GOAT already or certainly #2 at worst behind Laver. Fed still remained motivated until winning #16 in AO and that drop in motivation was more understandable.

And Federer didn't lose multiple times to Stan and Murray in slam finals in his prime. The whole competition thing is laughable at this point. Fed had it easier in his mid-twenties compared to Nole but comparing them both around the age of 27-30 it's clear Roger had tougher competition.

 

[Moxie]

I think Novak either stays stuck at 12 or wins 16-18, with nothing in-between. Roger and Rafa are both in a "maybe one more, and then maybe one more after that" phase. Novak is either done as a Slam champion, or he's reborn and goes on a streak for a couple years. In other words, if Novak wins a Slam I think his career is revitalized and he wins a Slam or two a year for 2-3 years, before winding down in his mid-30s.

To put that another way, I might actually give Rafa and Roger an edge over Novak in winning one more Slam in their respective careers, but if they win another, I give Novak a way better chance of winning more after that.

That's a bit black/white. It seems pretty unlikely that Djokovic gets stuck at 12, but, like Darth, I don't see him defying the post-30 odds and going on a big tear like '11 or '15-'16, especially because he's had the confidence hit that comes with age, and because there is a gathering storm amongst the youngsters. He had a couple of nearly free-and-clear years, and that doesn't look to be the case, going forward.

I agree with the gist of this but I don't see him going on a huge terror again like 2011 or 2015. I also think Rafa still has similar potential to get on a big run for 1 more year (2018). If he wins RG again next year as I expect he "could" win another off clay. But that's probably the last year we would say that.

I think Rafa has a few more in him, too. This Wimbledon was a disappointment but not a shock.

 

[DarthFed]

That's a bit black/white. It seems pretty unlikely that Djokovic gets stuck at 12, but, like Darth, I don't see him defying the post-30 odds and going on a big tear like '11 or '15-'16, especially because he's had the confidence hit that comes with age, and because there is a gathering storm amongst the youngsters. He had a couple of nearly free-and-clear years, and that doesn't look to be the case, going forward.

I think Rafa has a few more in him, too. This Wimbledon was a disappointment but not a shock.

I sure hope not but it's possible. That's why Roger needs to keep winning

 

[Denis]

Novak has had pretty serious issues with his shoulder since 2011. You could see it again today in his 4th round match. It seems particularly concerning now. So no not the body of a 25 year old. In fact, I think the big 4 have equally had their fair share of physical issues, some fans just like to bring it up more when their player loses.

 

[El Dude]

Novak has had pretty serious issues with his shoulder since 2011. You could see it again today in his 4th round match. It seems particularly concerning now. So no not the body of a 25 year old. In fact, I think the big 4 have equally had their fair share of physical issues, some fans just like to bring it up more when their player loses.

This is simply not true, and can be backed up factually by looking at missed tournaments, retirements, etc. Not sure why it needs to be "equally." Rafa has had far more physical issues than the other three.

 

[Denis]

This is simply not true, and can be backed up factually by looking at missed tournaments, retirements, etc. Not sure why it needs to be "equally." Rafa has had far more physical issues than the other three.

Superficial thinking. Yes Rafa has taken time of from tour. That doesn't mean he has been bothered more by injuries. Novaks shoulder has been a chronic issue for the past six years at least and obviously impacts his play, just as Roger was present on the tour in 2013 but was badly affected by his back.

 

[El Dude]

Superficial thinking. Yes Rafa has taken time of from tour. That doesn't mean he has been bothered more by injuries. Novaks shoulder has been a chronic issue for the past six years at least and obviously impacts his play, just as Roger was present on the tour in 2013 but was badly affected by his back.

No, I get that. I'm not thinking superficially, just weighing and interpreting things differently. There's always the possibility that Rafa is quicker to not play when injured, while Roger and Novak are more willing to play hurt. Maybe that is a factor in one or several or many tournaments, but their entire careers? In the end it is impossible to determine, and the record is the record and it clearly shows that Rafa's has been more impacted by injury than Novak or Roger.

But to me this is just another way to prop up your boy, and to put down Rafa.

 

[Denis]

Not really. This thread is about Djokovic having the body of a 25 year old. He might be done sooner than we think. Look at DP. I hope not of course, if he can keep it up there are still a few slams left in him.

 

[Moxie]

Superficial thinking. Yes Rafa has taken time of from tour. That doesn't mean he has been bothered more by injuries. Novaks shoulder has been a chronic issue for the past six years at least and obviously impacts his play, just as Roger was present on the tour in 2013 but was badly affected by his back.

I would say the very fact that he's had to skip so many Majors is rather the proof, if you need any, that Rafa has had the most injury issues of the Big 4. I'm not doubting that Novak has a shoulder issue, but he's been able to play through it, and win a lot. It may be that it's starting to affect him more, as it would, over time. Same with Roger's back. But they both have long runs of consecutive Majors. That speaks to relative good health.

No, I get that. I'm not thinking superficially, just weighing and interpreting things differently. There's always the possibility that Rafa is quicker to not play when injured, while Roger and Novak are more willing to play hurt. Maybe that is a factor in one or several or many tournaments, but their entire careers? In the end it is impossible to determine, and the record is the record and it clearly shows that Rafa's has been more impacted by injury than Novak or Roger.

But to me this is just another way to prop up your boy, and to put down Rafa.

Appreciate your backing up Rafa's history of injuries. There has long been talk that his playing style would shorten his career. It hasn't, but it's kept him from playing some periods of time in his best years. Roger has been especially healthy, and Novak hasn't been particularly unfortunate with injuries. They are professional athletes, and there will be physical issues. But being a little gimpy isn't the same as being unable to play.

 

[isabelle]

how old is Manacor's bull's body ? and Sir Andy's body ???

 

[Ricardo]

In his recent interviews he said that motivation isn't problem anymore. We don't know what would have happened if Federer had won 4 slams in a row and was in exactly the same situation as Djokovic.



I think Novak has better ability to adapt game and strategy to deal successfully with opponents' different styles and approaches.



So?



I quoted Agassi but I didn't claim he truly believes what he said. I don't need to prove anything. Can you prove that most coaches say their guy has body 5 years younger than their age?



It's a matter of opinion whether Djokovic has overall better game but it isn't matter of opinion what most coaches say.



Federer won more because he faced easier opponents than Djokovic

2011 was the year of Djokovic at his absolute best but he didn't play like that in every match. For example, he played crap versus Berdych in Dubai. Against Federer at FO, Novak played well but it wasn't his best tennis.

He has been competitive with Novak all these years when Novak is in his prime while he is further and further away from his own prime. The only explanation possible is that he can only do so with a superior game...despite its declining and also his loss of physical prowess and speed.

 

[Obsi]

Those stats only show slams won... What about slams lost?

The stats include matches lost.

Where do guys like Istomin, Thiem and Querry feature in your charts when looking at competition?

Why should Istomin be included?

Andre is kidding himself. Phsyically, yes, Djokovic has the body of a 25 year-old. MIleage-wise? No way, no how.

Agassi isn't kidding himself if he meant to say that Djokovic physically has body of a 25 years old.

People said the same thing about Nadal when his game took an unexpected 3 year dip.

I don't remember people saying that Nadal has body 5 years younger than his age.

Federer is 5-6 years older than Murray, Djokovic and Nadal so the fact that he's even still in the convo illustrates his greatness.

Federer is still in the convo because his style of play is far less taxing on his body. You overestimate how great he is.

He won a lot of the matchups in the early stages because he was in his prime. Now THEY are in their primes - and have been for the last 5-6 years - and Roger is past his prime even though he is still playing great tennis. People are always trying to compare apples and oranges with the stats for these 4. The question is - are the other 3 going to be as competitive at 35 as Roger is?

The question is: would Federer play so well at age 35 if his style was taxing on body as Nadal's Djokovic's or Murray's?

Go back and look at the list of players from 2006 . Plus count all the Slam winners Federer had to beat on the way dominating the tour (18 - Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Chang, Gaudio, Kuerten, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Johansson, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Krajikek, Kafelnikoc, Bruguera, ) compared to what Nole\Nadal have had to face (6 guys each - Roger, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka, DelPo) and cry me a river over how bad his competition was. Added to that - the rest of Roger's competition back in the day was more competitive than the wannabes filling out the Top 20 today. Give me Davydenko, Henman, James Blake, Mardy Fish, Fenrando Gonzalez, Soderling, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Ancic, Robredo, or Coria any day of the week over most of the other "top" players today - and yes, I threw Stan in that bunch, too. That dude can't win a regular tournament to save his life when it's far easier to win best of 3 over 7 days than best of 5 over 14 days.

Everybody loves to tweak the numbers to disprove that Federer's the GOAT, but the reality is - nobody can erase the 5-6 year age difference so these guys could all play each other in their prime. If I had to choose Roger at 25 (his prime) or Novak at 28 (his prime) - I'm taking Federer without even thinking about it too hard because he had more then 2-3 guys he had to beat week in and week out. With the numbers above - Roger's got 5-6 years on these guys, so he's played more matches - and lost more than the others. Compare everybody's numbers when they've all played an equal number of Slams - because I can guarantee you, as you see with Nole now and Nadal the last 3 years - they WILL lose more Slam matches as they age and their winning percentages won't be as high as they are now. You can see that by comparing their losses to players outside the Top 10 in Slams. They lose more Slam matches now to guys outside the Top 10 than they have in the past. Djokovic has 2 such losses in the last 3 Slams (Querrey at Wimbledon last year & Istomin at the AO). And now Nadal has had yet another one at Wimbledon after losing to Pouille at the US Open last year. Ditto with Murray losing to Mischa Zverev at the AO this year.

The point is that I wouldn't read a whole lot into someone's coach propping up his guy's energy level.

It makes sense that Novak has 5 years younger body than his age.

We will agree to disagree on Djoker adjusting his game more to opponents. I actually think that's his main problem against Stan. He hasn't been able to make things difficult and change the flow of their rallies.

For many years Federer hasn't been able to successfully adjust game and strategy to Nadal.

Roger has more ways to disrupt an opponent's rhythm, more ways to adjust when things aren't going well.

No, he doesn't.

I know you'll disagree but it wasn't the fact he won the non-calendar year slam that caused him to lose his motivation. I think it was the hangover from finally winning RG. I expected him to lose early at Wimbledon last year, what I didn't expect was for him to have a major crisis that has now lasted a year. Winning the Nole slam was an incredible accomplishment but it didn't make him the greatest player of all time, in fact it didn't even make him the 2nd greatest player in today's game. And that's my point, he has been chasing Fed and Rafa career-wise for many years and suddenly he seems to have lost a lot of the motivation. After Roger won RG in 2009 most saw him as the GOAT already or certainly #2 at worst behind Laver. Fed still remained motivated until winning #16 in AO and that drop in motivation was more understandable.

Finally winning FO was the primary reason for Djokovic's loss in motivation but winning 4 slams in a row substantially contributed to that.

And Federer didn't lose multiple times to Stan and Murray in slam finals in his prime. The whole competition thing is laughable at this point. Fed had it easier in his mid-twenties compared to Nole but comparing them both around the age of 27-30 it's clear Roger had tougher competition.

Overall, looking at whole careers, Novak faced harder opponents than Federer.

He has been competitive with Novak all these years when Novak is in his prime while he is further and further away from his own prime. The only explanation possible is that he can only do so with a superior game...despite its declining and also his loss of physical prowess and speed.

The explanation is that Federer has a far less taxing style of play which enables him to be competitive in 30s.

 

[britbox]

I'll address one of your points... Why should Istomin be included? Because he knocked Novak out of the AO - his backyard. So, yeah... Istomin should also be included as the tough level of competition Novak faced in compiling these numbers.

Anyway, after today's news I'm not sure this is the opportune time to be telling the world how Novak's body is holding up as a man five years younger.

 

[Ricardo]

The explanation is that Federer has a far less taxing style of play which enables him to be competitive in 30s.

You are avoiding an obvious question. If Fed has an inferior game in every aspect he cannot possibly be competitive with peak Novak even if he was also at his peak which clearly isn't the case. The fact that he got beat around as he aged and still manages to get wins over Novak every year says opposite to your claim.

Hard to swallow I know, especially for Novak fans. But you simply cannot have an inferior player who is much older and slower and still score regular wins against someone at his peak, who is claimed to be 'superior'.

 

[Federberg]

Looking at the originator of this thread, I chuckled. Obsi, why don't you have your own original contributions?

It's always a link to some pundit or ex-players views supporting your player. Why on earth do you think we should place the views of a paid surrogate about his own player over what we see with our own eyes? A paid surrogate by the way, that before his association with Novak, was quite clear about who he thinks is the best player. We would love to hear what you actually think, if you have the confidence to do so...