Australian Open 2023 F: Novak Djokovic vs. Stefanos Tsitsipas

[Kieran]

Amazing how the H2H record in slams is always forgotten I guess all the Clay wins don't count

Clay is a third world surface for mules and donkeys, did you not know this?

 

[shawnbm]

I have always thought hard courts is the fairest test as a "middle ground" between grass and clay. You get a true bounce on hards and one can play baseline more typical to clay), serve and volley (more typical until fifteen years ago on grass) or a mix of both. But that does not mean one should demean another player just because of their dominance on one surface. To me there have historically been more "one-offs" on clay and grass until the Big Three came along. These three, though, dominated all of the surfaces at various points in time, although one on clay was beyond all others.

 

[don_fabio]

A nice article about the yesterday final, this was written by a croatian blogger, I just used google translate.
It's worth reading.

"I'm playing great tennis and I'm enjoying it," said Stefanos Tsitsipas after his semi-final victory over Karen Khachanov. "Simply, whatever happens on the field, I don't think about being negative. Even if things don't work out, I'm very optimistic and positive, no matter who I'm playing against. It's something that was kind of lacking in my game. I truly believe in what I can provide on the field. That is more than enough."

As we wrote in the previous text, Tsitsipas has one rather obvious flaw in his game. The three matches he played with Novak Đoković at the end of last season also showed that. Tsitsipas managed to create three break opportunities in them. The information is correct, don't worry. In the ATP 500 final in Astana, he won a total of seven points on the return; in the semi-finals of the Masters in Paris in three sets he took 16 points on the return, and at the final Masters in Turin in two sets he took 13 of them. Of course, he lost all three matches.

This is a problem that has been bothering Tsitsipas for a long time, but it seems that he sees the world with slightly different eyes. OK, of course you won't talk about your shortcomings after reaching the Grand Slam finals, and of course athletes in general are not really willing to be self-critical in public - except when they open up completely in some kind of interview - but again we see that he was talking in the context of what was missing in his game. Here, however, he talks about a better mentality on the field.

Apart from the fact that one should not draw big conclusions after only 11 matches in the new season, and on the basis of a Grand Slam where the competition is average - so we can safely say that we have unfairly neglected the women's tournament, especially the great final - one more thing should be noted ; it's that mentality depends on the tools you have in your game.

Because you can be as positive as you want, but if you have, let's say, a below-average return for a top 5 player, it is questionable how much being very optimistic and positive can help you. OK, maybe sometimes it will — after all, it's a detail that can make you a slightly better player — but that doesn't change the fact that you still have the same, utterly palpable and glaringly obvious flaw in the game. A shortcoming that against the best, in the long run, you simply cannot hide. Nor can you sneak into the match against Novak Đoković in the final of the Australian Open.

Exposing weakness

One thing needs to be cleared up right away. Djokovic is a legend of this sport. He now has 22 Grand Slam titles on his account, and as of yesterday, 10 Australian Open titles. In that tournament, he has a record of 89 wins and eight losses; looking since 2011, he has 71 wins and three losses. If the biggest challenge in this sport is to beat Rafael Nadal in Roland Garros, then we can now safely say that the second biggest challenge is to beat Djokovic at the Australian Open.

Tsitsipas, on the other hand, played a total of 27 matches in this tournament, and yesterday he entered the final for the first time. And that's where every serious story ends.

Đoković is a better tennis player than Tsitsipas and in a match like this he would very likely win if the latter had devoted most of the off-season to the return. However, it's not about that and it's boring to point it out; after all, if I'm not mistaken, Tsitsipas wants to win a Grand Slam and he wants to beat Djokovic. Only, to even have a chance to do that, he would first have to stop living in a parallel reality. In that reality, in a speech after the match, he will modestly and humbly say that Đoković makes him a better player and brings out the best in him, although I don't really understand what exactly he is talking about. In fact, I would rather say that Djokovic perhaps best of all exposes his greatest weakness.

It was like that yesterday.

Tsitsipas won five points on the return in the first set; he had the first break point in the match with a 5-4 lead in the second set — so, at the same time, a set point that Nole would save, to say the least, with a brave forehand winner — and that was largely only because Djokovic was going through crisis. Not only did he not have a break point until that result, but he never even reached deuce. We are talking about the now third player in the world. He ended up losing that set in a tie-break, but we'll get to that later; after Nole's great emotional discharge in that second set, Tsitsipas broke him in the first game of the third set, only for Nole to make a rebreak in his own way.

Admittedly, the match was actually already over then because no one turns Nole around when he leads 2-0 in sets; none other than Jürgen Melzer at Roland Garros 2010. Be that as it may, Tsitsipas won two return points at 1-1 in the third set, only to win one more point before the end of the match. It was in a tie-break at 5-2 for Nole, and previously the person in question had a streak of 20 points won on the serve.

Unused opportunity

In total, Tsitsipas won 25 points in the return match, and in 15 of 17 Đoković's service games, he failed to even reach deuce. Yes, we can again talk about the fact that Djokovic has become fantastic on the serve in the meantime - not so much because of the speed of the serve, but because of the placement - but
we can also talk about the fact that for a top 5 player who has the ambition to become a Grand Slam winner, this is worryingly little.

What are the consequences of such a game on the return?

Well, apart from one that is quite obvious, which is that you depend too much on the serve, and that against the best returner of all time, the other is that you depend too much on the small opportunities that will still present themselves. Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, Đoković also has moments in the match when he becomes extremely nervous, which, after all, he himself will confirm. After all, how emotionally involved he was in this match, or in the tournament in general, was shown by the scenes after the match when he completely fell apart, as well as his statement that it was one of his most important titles, which was partly due to the fact that on the eve of the tournament he was close to withdrawing due to injury.

Be that as it may, Đoković entered into a crisis in the middle of the second set, and one of the harbingers of that is often those scenes when he starts lashing out at people from his box, actually most often at our poor Goran, who starts to stir and act uncomfortable as if he would prefer to jump out of his own skin — and the fact that he is willing to endure such a thing speaks volumes for his greatness.

Be that as it may, that crisis ended up lasting until the end of the second set; how did Tsitsipas use it? Not at all. He was nervous himself and we watched a rather ugly tie-break; of the first nine points, eight of them went to the returner's side, and as the graphics at the beginning of the third set showed, both of them slowed down their forehand speed in that tie-break, that is, they played more conservatively under pressure. At 4-2, Đoković made a double that ended up in the net, and the speed of that serve was 129 km/h (the average of his second serve in the match was 149 km/h). He was obviously squeezed, but Tsitsipas didn't know how to use it; in that set he made 12 unforced forehand errors, four of which came in that tie-break. He had a tiny chance to complicate the match, he didn't use it and that was it. The match was actually already over then.

In tennis, as in life

From a tactical point of view, there were some other interesting things, such as the fact that Djokovic unexpectedly looked for Tsitsipas's forehand a lot with his forehand, but there is no point in going into that too deeply now. One of the reasons was actually that in general at this Australian Open he hit his forehand probably harder than ever, something he worked on intensively in the pre-season. Three years ago, his average forehand speed at this tournament was 124 km/h; two years ago 126 km/h, and this time 131. In other words, he was even more aggressive on the forehand side, and only in the match with Tsitsipas did he show that he can neutralize his forehand in this way as well.

That's how the man who is now already 36 years old and who has 22 Grand Slams and 93 won tournaments managed to find another part of his game that he could improve. And that is essentially the difference between Djokovic and Tsitsipas.

On the one hand you have a 24-year-old young man who may be a very good tennis player, but who has a marked and glaringly obvious deficiency in his game; however, that young man lives in a parallel reality of his own in which he only needs to be very optimistic and positive on the court — and of course, play as many tournaments as possible — and everything will work out. I guess it's just a matter of time.

On the other hand, you have this man who has conquered everything there is to conquer, but who is still looking for a way to become better than he already is. And that is the fundamental reason why it would be completely unfair if Djokovic did not win the Australian Open.

Admittedly, injustice, or perhaps misfortune, in this sport are categories that you can really rarely refer to. Or at least you shouldn't. Because, generally speaking, and as we have already stated many times, and as this match demonstrated, tennis really is like life. As you sow, so shall you reap.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

A nice article about the yesterday final, this was written by a croatian blogger, I just used google translate.
It's worth reading.

"I'm playing great tennis and I'm enjoying it," said Stefanos Tsitsipas after his semi-final victory over Karen Khachanov. "Simply, whatever happens on the field, I don't think about being negative. Even if things don't work out, I'm very optimistic and positive, no matter who I'm playing against. It's something that was kind of lacking in my game. I truly believe in what I can provide on the field. That is more than enough."

As we wrote in the previous text, Tsitsipas has one rather obvious flaw in his game. The three matches he played with Novak Đoković at the end of last season also showed that. Tsitsipas managed to create three break opportunities in them. The information is correct, don't worry. In the ATP 500 final in Astana, he won a total of seven points on the return; in the semi-finals of the Masters in Paris in three sets he took 16 points on the return, and at the final Masters in Turin in two sets he took 13 of them. Of course, he lost all three matches.

This is a problem that has been bothering Tsitsipas for a long time, but it seems that he sees the world with slightly different eyes. OK, of course you won't talk about your shortcomings after reaching the Grand Slam finals, and of course athletes in general are not really willing to be self-critical in public - except when they open up completely in some kind of interview - but again we see that he was talking in the context of what was missing in his game. Here, however, he talks about a better mentality on the field.

Apart from the fact that one should not draw big conclusions after only 11 matches in the new season, and on the basis of a Grand Slam where the competition is average - so we can safely say that we have unfairly neglected the women's tournament, especially the great final - one more thing should be noted ; it's that mentality depends on the tools you have in your game.

Because you can be as positive as you want, but if you have, let's say, a below-average return for a top 5 player, it is questionable how much being very optimistic and positive can help you. OK, maybe sometimes it will — after all, it's a detail that can make you a slightly better player — but that doesn't change the fact that you still have the same, utterly palpable and glaringly obvious flaw in the game. A shortcoming that against the best, in the long run, you simply cannot hide. Nor can you sneak into the match against Novak Đoković in the final of the Australian Open.

Exposing weakness

One thing needs to be cleared up right away. Djokovic is a legend of this sport. He now has 22 Grand Slam titles on his account, and as of yesterday, 10 Australian Open titles. In that tournament, he has a record of 89 wins and eight losses; looking since 2011, he has 71 wins and three losses. If the biggest challenge in this sport is to beat Rafael Nadal in Roland Garros, then we can now safely say that the second biggest challenge is to beat Djokovic at the Australian Open.

Tsitsipas, on the other hand, played a total of 27 matches in this tournament, and yesterday he entered the final for the first time. And that's where every serious story ends.

Đoković is a better tennis player than Tsitsipas and in a match like this he would very likely win if the latter had devoted most of the off-season to the return. However, it's not about that and it's boring to point it out; after all, if I'm not mistaken, Tsitsipas wants to win a Grand Slam and he wants to beat Djokovic. Only, to even have a chance to do that, he would first have to stop living in a parallel reality. In that reality, in a speech after the match, he will modestly and humbly say that Đoković makes him a better player and brings out the best in him, although I don't really understand what exactly he is talking about. In fact, I would rather say that Djokovic perhaps best of all exposes his greatest weakness.

It was like that yesterday.

Tsitsipas won five points on the return in the first set; he had the first break point in the match with a 5-4 lead in the second set — so, at the same time, a set point that Nole would save, to say the least, with a brave forehand winner — and that was largely only because Djokovic was going through crisis. Not only did he not have a break point until that result, but he never even reached deuce. We are talking about the now third player in the world. He ended up losing that set in a tie-break, but we'll get to that later; after Nole's great emotional discharge in that second set, Tsitsipas broke him in the first game of the third set, only for Nole to make a rebreak in his own way.

Admittedly, the match was actually already over then because no one turns Nole around when he leads 2-0 in sets; none other than Jürgen Melzer at Roland Garros 2010. Be that as it may, Tsitsipas won two return points at 1-1 in the third set, only to win one more point before the end of the match. It was in a tie-break at 5-2 for Nole, and previously the person in question had a streak of 20 points won on the serve.

Unused opportunity

In total, Tsitsipas won 25 points in the return match, and in 15 of 17 Đoković's service games, he failed to even reach deuce. Yes, we can again talk about the fact that Djokovic has become fantastic on the serve in the meantime - not so much because of the speed of the serve, but because of the placement - but
we can also talk about the fact that for a top 5 player who has the ambition to become a Grand Slam winner, this is worryingly little.

What are the consequences of such a game on the return?

Well, apart from one that is quite obvious, which is that you depend too much on the serve, and that against the best returner of all time, the other is that you depend too much on the small opportunities that will still present themselves. Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, Đoković also has moments in the match when he becomes extremely nervous, which, after all, he himself will confirm. After all, how emotionally involved he was in this match, or in the tournament in general, was shown by the scenes after the match when he completely fell apart, as well as his statement that it was one of his most important titles, which was partly due to the fact that on the eve of the tournament he was close to withdrawing due to injury.

Be that as it may, Đoković entered into a crisis in the middle of the second set, and one of the harbingers of that is often those scenes when he starts lashing out at people from his box, actually most often at our poor Goran, who starts to stir and act uncomfortable as if he would prefer to jump out of his own skin — and the fact that he is willing to endure such a thing speaks volumes for his greatness.

Be that as it may, that crisis ended up lasting until the end of the second set; how did Tsitsipas use it? Not at all. He was nervous himself and we watched a rather ugly tie-break; of the first nine points, eight of them went to the returner's side, and as the graphics at the beginning of the third set showed, both of them slowed down their forehand speed in that tie-break, that is, they played more conservatively under pressure. At 4-2, Đoković made a double that ended up in the net, and the speed of that serve was 129 km/h (the average of his second serve in the match was 149 km/h). He was obviously squeezed, but Tsitsipas didn't know how to use it; in that set he made 12 unforced forehand errors, four of which came in that tie-break. He had a tiny chance to complicate the match, he didn't use it and that was it. The match was actually already over then.

In tennis, as in life

From a tactical point of view, there were some other interesting things, such as the fact that Djokovic unexpectedly looked for Tsitsipas's forehand a lot with his forehand, but there is no point in going into that too deeply now. One of the reasons was actually that in general at this Australian Open he hit his forehand probably harder than ever, something he worked on intensively in the pre-season. Three years ago, his average forehand speed at this tournament was 124 km/h; two years ago 126 km/h, and this time 131. In other words, he was even more aggressive on the forehand side, and only in the match with Tsitsipas did he show that he can neutralize his forehand in this way as well.

That's how the man who is now already 36 years old and who has 22 Grand Slams and 93 won tournaments managed to find another part of his game that he could improve. And that is essentially the difference between Djokovic and Tsitsipas.

On the one hand you have a 24-year-old young man who may be a very good tennis player, but who has a marked and glaringly obvious deficiency in his game; however, that young man lives in a parallel reality of his own in which he only needs to be very optimistic and positive on the court — and of course, play as many tournaments as possible — and everything will work out. I guess it's just a matter of time.

On the other hand, you have this man who has conquered everything there is to conquer, but who is still looking for a way to become better than he already is. And that is the fundamental reason why it would be completely unfair if Djokovic did not win the Australian Open.

Admittedly, injustice, or perhaps misfortune, in this sport are categories that you can really rarely refer to. Or at least you shouldn't. Because, generally speaking, and as we have already stated many times, and as this match demonstrated, tennis really is like life. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Thanks Don for that post,
The Young Greek's fhand did go missing in the final, a shot I thought he had to have was his bhand down the line in the final, also he needs work on his slice. I feel clay suits his game more at present, when he gets more time on the ball for his shots.

 

[don_fabio]

Thanks Don for that post,
The Young Greek's fhand did go missing in the final, a shot I thought he had to have was his bhand down the line in the final, also he needs work on his slice. I feel clay suits his game more at present, when he gets more time on the ball for his shots.

Yes, BH DDL is crucial. Agree also about the slice (he could learn a thing or two from Federer, playing somewhat similar games) and clay in general. He has more chance there, he will have more time for all shots, including the return. If he stays focused after this loss, he has a reasonable chance to go deep in RG.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yes, BH DDL is crucial. Agree also about the slice (he could learn a thing or two from Federer, playing somewhat similar games) and clay in general. He has more chance there, he will have more time for all shots, including the return. If he stays focused after this loss, he has a reasonable chance to go deep in RG.

I think I said before, when we were talking about his chances of winning at the AO, to me his best chance at present, a GS title on clay.

 

[El Dude]

I've felt for a few years that Tsitsipas has a better overall package of tools than Medvedev and Zverev to be a top player. I mean, he even has the good looks and swagger. But something is just missing. He almost seems like a lesser version of a great player - and doesn't quite have that extra something to neutralize a Novak or Rafa playing their A/B game at a Slam event.

And unfortunately for him, by the time Novak joins Rafa in the downward spiral, it may be too late - with Alcaraz and Rune coming more fully into their own. On the other hand, those guys are likely to be as good as the Big Three, so I think he'll get a Slam trophy or two (or three).

FAA might be similar to Tsitsipas in that way, as far as being well rounded and good in every way, but not having that "hyper-weapon" to take down the best of the best on a regular basis.

 

[Jelenafan]

I've felt for a few years that Tsitsipas has a better overall package of tools than Medvedev and Zverev to be a top player. I mean, he even has the good looks and swagger. But something is just missing. He almost seems like a lesser version of a great player - and doesn't quite have that extra something to neutralize a Novak or Rafa playing their A/B game at a Slam event.

And unfortunately for him, by the time Novak joins Rafa in the downward spiral, it may be too late - with Alcaraz and Rune coming more fully into their own. On the other hand, those guys are likely to be as good as the Big Three, so I think he'll get a Slam trophy or two (or three).

FAA might be similar to Tsitsipas in that way, as far as being well rounded and good in every way, but not having that "hyper-weapon" to take down the best of the best on a regular basis.

Yo, EL Dude, why don't we wait to see how the rest of the year unfolds to see if Rafa is in some kind of permanent downward spiral? OK? We have still have FO, W and the USO along with most of the season. Unless you've already written off his chances for the rest of the year... ; )

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I've felt for a few years that Tsitsipas has a better overall package of tools than Medvedev and Zverev to be a top player. I mean, he even has the good looks and swagger. But something is just missing. He almost seems like a lesser version of a great player - and doesn't quite have that extra something to neutralize a Novak or Rafa playing their A/B game at a Slam event.

And unfortunately for him, by the time Novak joins Rafa in the downward spiral, it may be too late - with Alcaraz and Rune coming more fully into their own. On the other hand, those guys are likely to be as good as the Big Three, so I think he'll get a Slam trophy or two (or three).

FAA might be similar to Tsitsipas in that way, as far as being well rounded and good in every way, but not having that "hyper-weapon" to take down the best of the best on a regular basis.

It is all about playing 'consistently' in tournaments and majors, able to maintain that consistency in the business end of tournaments and majors, I agree with your thoughts on Tsitsipas, who has a better overall package of tools that Medvedev and Zverev.
Tsitsipas was up 2 sets to love against Novak at RG, then let it slip away,mentally I feel that is an area than lets him down, I saw it in his SF match against KK, he should have won in straight sets, serving for the match he was broken, to me it was a mental slip and let KK win the 3rd set, he reset in the 4th and won.Tsistipas has to work on his slice, and his return game, maybe those 2 things could help him going forward in his career.

 

[El Dude]

Yo, EL Dude, why don't we wait to see how the rest of the year unfolds to see if Rafa is in some kind of permanent downward spiral? OK? We have still have FO, W and the USO along with most of the season. Unless you've already written off his chances for the rest of the year... ; )

I haven't totally written him off, but I am concerned. He's 2-7 in his last nine matches...that's the worst such streak of his career, even during his dip in 2015-16. I think he was 1-5 at one point, but I can't remember when without checking again.

But I've learned to never fully write Rafa off. I thought he was spiraling the drain in 2015-16 -- everyone did, except maybe @the AntiPusher , if I remember correctly - and then he resurged in 2017 and won 8 more Slams. If he bounces back, though, it will be a dead-cat bounce, imo - maybe a rise during clay season, peaking at--and winning--Roland Garros. But I think that's his only real chance of winning a Slam, and perhaps big title (clay season).

 

[Jelenafan]

I haven't totally written him off, but I am concerned. He's 2-7 in his last nine matches...that's the worst such streak of his career, even during his dip in 2015-16. I think he was 1-5 at one point, but I can't remember when without checking again.

But I've learned to never fully write Rafa off. I thought he was spiraling the drain in 2015-16 -- everyone did, except maybe @the AntiPusher , if I remember correctly - and then he resurged in 2017 and won 8 more Slams. If he bounces back, though, it will be a dead-cat bounce, imo - maybe a rise during clay season, peaking at--and winning--Roland Garros. But I think that's his only real chance of winning a Slam, and perhaps big title (clay season).

Sooo Glad you haven't "totally" written him off...LOL ; )

 

[El Dude]

Sooo Glad you haven't "totally" written him off...LOL ; )

Jelenafan, I'm just saying that you might want to take a beat and consider where Rafa is at. He's going to be 37 in a few months, is injured, and coming off one of the worst stretches of his career. Rafa is an amazing champion and "comebacker," and I'm not Fiero--I have immense respect for him--but even he is mortal. Father Time catches us all.

For whatever reason, Rafa fans seem to be particularly prone to denial about his decline. Maybe it is for good reason - he's come back so many times and surprised us all. But Roger fans were (mostly) well aware of his decline, and never expected that 2017-18 rise. Who knows, Rafa is the age Roger was in 2018, so he could have another push in him...but at this point, I think his chances of winning RG this year--at least at this point in the season--are as low as they've been since 2016.

But I'm not saying it can't or even won't happen, or that he should be written off. I'm just being realistic about where Rafa is, in 2023.

 

[Jelenafan]

Jelenafan, I'm just saying that you might want to take a beat and consider where Rafa is at. He's going to be 37 in a few months, is injured, and coming off one of the worst stretches of his career. Rafa is an amazing champion and "comebacker," and I'm not Fiero--I have immense respect for him--but even he is mortal. Father Time catches us all.

For whatever reason, Rafa fans seem to be particularly prone to denial about his decline. Maybe it is for good reason - he's come back so many times and surprised us all. But Roger fans were (mostly) well aware of his decline, and never expected that 2017-18 rise. Who knows, Rafa is the age Roger was in 2018, so he could have another push in him...but at this point, I think his chances of winning RG this year--at least at this point in the season--are as low as they've been since 2016.

But I'm not saying it can't or even won't happen, or that he should be written off. I'm just being realistic about where Rafa is, in 2023.

Wow, you did go down the "fandom rabbithole". The old "Player X" fans are more realistic than "Player Y" fans...

Like Nadal fans never worry about injuries or that his career may end at any time. Of course Rafa fans are worried about his recent play, for crissaskes...that doesn't mean they are ready to bury him by January already or to say *if* he wins the FO this year it's a dead cat bounce. And you do realize that Nadal fans have been hearing about his "decline" from others for about 15 years now? LOL IF it happens this year , it happens, can't change that. But call us in denial because we haven't quite written him off for the rest of his year and the rest of his career or that he may still channel some of the competitive fire for Major runs.

But go ahead and canonize the Federer fans for their levelheadedness, though I dunno, if Rafa had gone nearly 5 years like Roger did without winning a Major I'm sure a skosh of them would have acknowledged Rafa was in decline. : )

 

[Moxie]

Wow, you did go down the "fandom rabbithole". The old "Player X" fans are more realistic than "Player Y" fans...

Like Nadal fans never worry about injuries or that his career may end at any time. Of course Rafa fans are worried about his recent play, for crissaskes...that doesn't mean they are ready to bury him by January already or to say *if* he wins the FO this year it's a dead cat bounce. And you do realize that Nadal fans have been hearing about his "decline" from others for about 15 years now? LOL IF it happens this year , it happens, can't change that. But call us in denial because we haven't quite written him off for the rest of his year and the rest of his career or that he may still channel some of the competitive fire for Major runs.

But go ahead and canonize the Federer fans for their levelheadedness, though I dunno, if Rafa had gone nearly 5 years like Roger did without winning a Major I'm sure a skosh of them would have acknowledged Rafa was in decline. : )

I have to agree with you that El Dude's choice of "dead cat bounce" was a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, (and a bit revealing.) I do think he's wrong to say that Nadal fans seem "particularly prone to denial about his decline." We might argue that we've been more sanguine that Federer and Djokovic fans for years, having had to listen to it since 2009. We've also had to put up with folks dancing on his grave before time. We've had to put up with condescending patting on the head over suggesting that the best choice to win the French Open again was Nadal since, I think about 2016, when he still had 5 in front of him. To date. Yes, the Dude says he hasn't counted Rafa out completely yet, but that's no reason to sneer at us, if we haven't, either.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I have to agree with you that El Dude's choice of "dead cat bounce" was a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, (and a bit revealing.) I do think he's wrong to say that Nadal fans seem "particularly prone to denial about his decline." We might argue that we've been more sanguine that Federer and Djokovic fans for years, having had to listen to it since 2009. We've also had to put up with folks dancing on his grave before time. We've had to put up with condescending patting on the head over suggesting that the best choice to win the French Open again was Nadal since, I think about 2016, when he still had 5 in front of him. To date. Yes, the Dude says he hasn't counted Rafa out completely yet, but that's no reason to sneer at us, if we haven't, either.

I found his comment about Rafa fans ' are in denial' a bit condescending? I have said many times I am surprised that Rafa is still playing at the age of 36, quite frankly I didnt think he would be playing past 30 years old.I think most of us here on this board are quite aware his best playing days are behind him, in saying that he will always try to be at his competitive best at any tournament he enters.

 

[El Dude]

You folks are WAY too defensive and reading a lot more into my words than I intend (sneering? a bit revealing? Moxie back to her old tricks of assuming everyone's out to get Rafa, and thus her!). The irony is that you're just fulfilling the "Rafa fan" stereotype, and continually circling the wagons, taking any disagreement as an attack on the Great One. So yeah, now I'll actually sneer a bit, and throw in some Fiero-esque emoticons to liven things up.

Jelena, despite my clarifications you still think I'm "burying him." I'm not. Read the nuance, please. Or rather, read the entirety of what I actually wrote, not just the stuff that you can twist so you can take offense and circle up with the other oppressed Rafa fans.

My view isn't so simple as Roger fans being more level-headed. That's not what I'm saying; you're taking one from the Moxie playbook and assuming a slight when there wasn't one. Again, par for the course for Rafa Cultists!

But sneering hypebole aside, I think a lot of the difference has to do with the arcs of their careers. Roger burned brighter for a shorter period of time (2004-07), while Rafa reached those heights for shorter spells, but had a longer period of being at a high plateau. Meaning, Roger fans accepted his decline because he was so dominant early on and then because he dropped and wasn't winning many Slams after 2009....so 2012 was a welcome surprise, 2017-18 even more so. Rafa never had an extended high peak like Roger did in those early years, but also didn't have huge gaps between Slams, and has had stronger comebacks, so it makes sense that his fans would be more in denial about Father Time finally, inevitably, catching up.

But what I see missing, and the main factor of this "denial," is looking at simply chronology: that is, Rafa's age. And then couple that with his recent performance relative to the rest of his career. Something is (probably!) different. I'm not saying definitely so. If anything, I'm saying, "Get ready, folks - this may be the end." And you're thinking I'm saying, "Haha, Rafa sucks and is done!"

So what I'm actually saying is this: The likelihood of another 2017 or 2013 comeback is less likely now, because he's 36-37. It could happen, but if it does it will probably be less bright and shorter in duration. So maybe "dead cat bounce" wasn't the right term, but it is more like the last jump or two of a skipping stone.

 

[Ricardo]

I've felt for a few years that Tsitsipas has a better overall package of tools than Medvedev and Zverev to be a top player. I mean, he even has the good looks and swagger. But something is just missing. He almost seems like a lesser version of a great player - and doesn't quite have that extra something to neutralize a Novak or Rafa playing their A/B game at a Slam event.

And unfortunately for him, by the time Novak joins Rafa in the downward spiral, it may be too late - with Alcaraz and Rune coming more fully into their own. On the other hand, those guys are likely to be as good as the Big Three, so I think he'll get a Slam trophy or two (or three).

FAA might be similar to Tsitsipas in that way, as far as being well rounded and good in every way, but not having that "hyper-weapon" to take down the best of the best on a regular basis.

those guys are likely to be as good as the Big Three? since then is it so easy to be 20 slam winners?

 

[Jelenafan]

You folks are WAY too defensive and reading a lot more into my words than I intend (sneering? a bit revealing? Moxie back to her old tricks of assuming everyone's out to get Rafa, and thus her!). The irony is that you're just fulfilling the "Rafa fan" stereotype, and continually circling the wagons, taking any disagreement as an attack on the Great One. So yeah, now I'll actually sneer a bit, and throw in some Fiero-esque emoticons to liven things up.

Jelena, despite my clarifications you still think I'm "burying him." I'm not. Read the nuance, please. Or rather, read the entirety of what I actually wrote, not just the stuff that you can twist so you can take offense and circle up with the other oppressed Rafa fans.

My view isn't so simple as Roger fans being more level-headed. That's not what I'm saying; you're taking one from the Moxie playbook and assuming a slight when there wasn't one. Again, par for the course for Rafa Cultists!

But sneering hypebole aside, I think a lot of the difference has to do with the arcs of their careers. Roger burned brighter for a shorter period of time (2004-07), while Rafa reached those heights for shorter spells, but had a longer period of being at a high plateau. Meaning, Roger fans accepted his decline because he was so dominant early on and then because he dropped and wasn't winning many Slams after 2009....so 2012 was a welcome surprise, 2017-18 even more so. Rafa never had an extended high peak like Roger did in those early years, but also didn't have huge gaps between Slams, and has had stronger comebacks, so it makes sense that his fans would be more in denial about Father Time finally, inevitably, catching up.

But what I see missing, and the main factor of this "denial," is looking at simply chronology: that is, Rafa's age. And then couple that with his recent performance relative to the rest of his career. Something is (probably!) different. I'm not saying definitely so. If anything, I'm saying, "Get ready, folks - this may be the end." And you're thinking I'm saying, "Haha, Rafa sucks and is done!"

So what I'm actually saying is this: The likelihood of another 2017 or 2013 comeback is less likely now, because he's 36-37. It could happen, but if it does it will probably be less bright and shorter in duration. So maybe "dead cat bounce" wasn't the right term, but it is more like the last jump or two of a skipping stone.

As Disreali once said, “there are lies, damned lies and there are statistics.”

I was going to post the following last nightt but figured you as a stats guy already knew this:

I have to agree with you that El Dude's choice of "dead cat bounce" was a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, (and a bit revealing.) I do think he's wrong to say that Nadal fans seem "particularly prone to denial about his decline." We might argue that we've been more sanguine that Federer and Djokovic fans for years, having had to listen to it since 2009. We've also had to put up with folks dancing on his grave before time. We've had to put up with condescending patting on the head over suggesting that the best choice to win the French Open again was Nadal since, I think about 2016, when he still had 5 in front of him. To date. Yes, the Dude says he hasn't counted Rafa out completely yet, but that's no reason to sneer at us, if we haven't, either.

Aa far as STATS, both players careers trajectories have shaped what the fans consider "decline".

Federer won 15 Majors (once he won his first) over a period of 7 years, the next 7 years he won 5. You want another stat, Roger went through one 7 year period where he won a total of 2 Majors. He once went 15 Majors without winning one.

Nadal’s trajectory *is* different. He did not acquire 15 in a bunch, but he did keep winning Majors consistently throughout his career. At his worst 7 year period (including 0 for 2 years) he won 6 Majors. His driest spell (again 2015/16) was going 9 Majors without winning one.

So yea, “decline” as viewed by their fans is understandably different. How is it denial when Nadal has won consistently , as recently as 2 Majors last year?

**********
Of course he’s turning 37, of course its getting harder & harder to comeback from yet another injury.

All I’m saying is despite his age, his actual career trajectory even with injuries has been quite consistent over the last 18 years. So if some of his fans haven't completely written him off his chances for one last comeback by now, IMO its hardly sone delusional denial as you imply.

ElDude, I actually have no problem you writing hin off, as you said even if he wins the FO this year it would merely be a “deadcat bounce” in your eyes. I actually thought it was funny in a twisted way. Though I would have said a “dead bull bounce” ; )

 

[El Dude]

those guys are likely to be as good as the Big Three? since then is it so easy to be 20 slam winners?

I meant to write "unlikely." Of course I don't think that FAA, Rune etc will be as good as the Big Three - or at least that it is very, very unlikely. We've been spoiled and need to recalibrate to "garden variety" greats of the Edberg/Becker mold.

 

[El Dude]

As Disreali once said, “there are lies, damned lies and there are statistics.”

I was going to post the following last nightt but figured you as a stats guy already knew this:



Aa far as STATS, both players careers trajectories have shaped what the fans consider "decline".

Federer won 15 Majors (once he won his first) over a period of 7 years, the next 7 years he won 5. You want another stat, Roger went through one 7 year period where he won a total of 2 Majors. He once went 15 Majors without winning one.

Nadal’s trajectory *is* different. He did not acquire 15 in a bunch, but he did keep winning Majors consistently throughout his career. At his worst 7 year period (including 0 for 2 years) he won 6 Majors. His driest spell (again 2015/16) was going 9 Majors without winning one.

So yea, “decline” as viewed by their fans is understandably different. How is it denial when Nadal has won consistently , as recently as 2 Majors last year?

**********
Of course he’s turning 37, of course its getting harder & harder to comeback from yet another injury.

All I’m saying is despite his age, his actual career trajectory even with injuries has been quite consistent over the last 18 years. So if some of his fans haven't completely written him off his chances for one last comeback by now, IMO its hardly sone delusional denial as you imply.

ElDude, I actually have no problem you writing hin off, as you said even if he wins the FO this year it would merely be a “deadcat bounce” in your eyes. I actually thought it was funny in a twisted way. Though I would have said a “dead bull bounce” ; )

Yeah, I understand - and is actually close to what I'm saying. I get why there's "denial," I just think now is different than the past because of his age, and because of his recent performance which has a different quality than past dips, imo. I still see a lot of his old skills there, I just don't see them congealing for another dominant run, more than maybe a strongish clay season and maybe that one last RG title.

Dead bull bounce works! But there's a chance of it being an "Aging Bull's Last Hurrah." Thus I'm not writing him off, just think we're very close to the end.