How long can Novak remain in his prime form?

[El Dude]

So far as I can see there's no evidence that Raonic is anywhere near peaking. He's improving steadily. Don't think we can say Kei or Dimi are peaking yet either

Not Kei, even? The only way I can see him improving is his stamina and health, which I suppose is possible. I could see him being really good for short periods of time, which is why I think he's a good darkhorse to win a Masters this year.

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nole seems to have had most of his health issues in the first half of his career. I do not wish it on anyone, but I am wondering how Nole would deal with coming back from a serious injury, like what Rafa had to got through, or Andy, at this stage of his career. I mean, Nole is a very emotional player and confidence is a huge part of his game. How would those play into coming back from a , say, 6 months absence from the tour? How long would it take for him to get to his best level? I hope we do not have to find out, by the way...

Barring injury, I think he can stay the best player in the tour for another 3-4 years. He takes care of his body as well as anyone and and he is extremely strict with his diet.

 

[Federberg]

So far as I can see there's no evidence that Raonic is anywhere near peaking. He's improving steadily. Don't think we can say Kei or Dimi are peaking yet either

Not Kei, even? The only way I can see him improving is his stamina and health, which I suppose is possible. I could see him being really good for short periods of time, which is why I think he's a good darkhorse to win a Masters this year.

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

If there's any lesson this era is teaching us it's that players are peaking much much later than ever before. It's what makes me cautious with these 24 - 25 year olds. So many players are achieving their best results later and later..

 

[Kirijax]

So far as I can see there's no evidence that Raonic is anywhere near peaking. He's improving steadily. Don't think we can say Kei or Dimi are peaking yet either

Not Kei, even? The only way I can see him improving is his stamina and health, which I suppose is possible. I could see him being really good for short periods of time, which is why I think he's a good darkhorse to win a Masters this year.

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

If there's any lesson this era is teaching us it's that players are peaking much much later than ever before. It's what makes me cautious with these 24 - 25 year olds. So many players are achieving their best results later and later..

Very good point. We need to adjust our way of measuring players' longevity maybe.

 

[Obsi]

Barring injury, I think he can stay the best player in the tour for another 3-4 years.

If Novak stays No. 1 for another 3 years, he would pass Federer for most weeks at No. 1.

 

[Front242]

Doubt he'll ever manage to beat the consecutive weeks at number 1 though. That record is pretty safe for years to come I reckon.

 

[Riotbeard]

So far as I can see there's no evidence that Raonic is anywhere near peaking. He's improving steadily. Don't think we can say Kei or Dimi are peaking yet either

Not Kei, even? The only way I can see him improving is his stamina and health, which I suppose is possible. I could see him being really good for short periods of time, which is why I think he's a good darkhorse to win a Masters this year.

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

If there's any lesson this era is teaching us it's that players are peaking much much later than ever before. It's what makes me cautious with these 24 - 25 year olds. So many players are achieving their best results later and later..

This is more true of players ranked around 15-30. Outside of Ferrer, no top 10 players hit their prime in terms of results after their perceived physical peak. Certainly the best players on the tour right now played that way by the time they hit 25 years old.

Even Berdych, who has had a better latter career has not won a masters since he was quite young (his best achievement).

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

in prime a long time...I really feel this year djokovic could do something really special.

so mote it be. let the daggers of future battles be drawn.

 

[herios]

Not Kei, even? The only way I can see him improving is his stamina and health, which I suppose is possible. I could see him being really good for short periods of time, which is why I think he's a good darkhorse to win a Masters this year.

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

If there's any lesson this era is teaching us it's that players are peaking much much later than ever before. It's what makes me cautious with these 24 - 25 year olds. So many players are achieving their best results later and later..

This is more true of players ranked around 15-30. Outside of Ferrer, no top 10 players hit their prime in terms of results after their perceived physical peak. Certainly the best players on the tour right now played that way by the time they hit 25 years old.

Even Berdych, who has had a better latter career has not won a masters since he was quite young (his best achievement).

Not just Ferrer. Wawrinka also scored his best results at 28-29. You may say that before his leap he was a 15-30 range player, but the big push he hade was spectacular from where he was and he stayed as a top 4 player as a consequence for a full year.

 

[nehmeth]

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

Wouldn't that, in part, be due to the fact that Dimitrov has a much larger, as yet untapped up side with regard to his talent, variety of shots, and athleticism compared to Raonic who his rather a one trick pony and building his game around it?

Mentally/killer instinct/will to win, or whatever you may call it, Raonic is ahead of Grigor. At the end of the day this (to me) is why Milos has been more successful.

 

[Federberg]

^I completely agree with this. The more variety you have in your game the longer it will probably take to maximise your potential. I haven't given up on Dimi yet

 

[Federberg]

It's a phenomenon that's increasing in frequency. Perhaps the multi-slam winners will still win early, but there's no doubting that more and more success is being achieved in later years. If that's the current trend, can we so easily write off players who are only about 24yrs old? Personally I dont think we should

 

[Riotbeard]

If there's any lesson this era is teaching us it's that players are peaking much much later than ever before. It's what makes me cautious with these 24 - 25 year olds. So many players are achieving their best results later and later..

This is more true of players ranked around 15-30. Outside of Ferrer, no top 10 players hit their prime in terms of results after their perceived physical peak. Certainly the best players on the tour right now played that way by the time they hit 25 years old.

Even Berdych, who has had a better latter career has not won a masters since he was quite young (his best achievement).

Not just Ferrer. Wawrinka also scored his best results at 28-29. You may say that before his leap he was a 15-30 range player, but the big push he hade was spectacular from where he was and he stayed as a top 4 player as a consequence for a full year.

I forgot about Stan! The point still stands Rafa, Novak, Roger, and Juan Martin (and even Andy) all hit their peaks by their mid-20s, so yes some people may peak late, but this hardly can be considered an era dominated by people peaking late.

 

[herios]

Dimitrov is still a ways off, I think. You're right, Milos is still improving, but I think he's closer to his best than Grigor is.

Wouldn't that, in part, be due to the fact that Dimitrov has a much larger, as yet untapped up side with regard to his talent, variety of shots, and athleticism compared to Raonic who his rather a one trick pony and building his game around it?

The second "trick" of the one trick pony, his FH is better than Grigor's btw.
And talent does not convert into results if you are playing efficiently.

 

[Riotbeard]

^^^

His forehand is a more atomic shot, but his movement is not good enough, so he can't consistently be set up well enough. Dimi hits a better forehand more consistently because of his movement.

When he can get there, John Isner has a great forehand, but it doesn't account for much, because the guys is so slow and is rarely set up to crack it.

 

[El Dude]

This is more true of players ranked around 15-30. Outside of Ferrer, no top 10 players hit their prime in terms of results after their perceived physical peak. Certainly the best players on the tour right now played that way by the time they hit 25 years old.

Even Berdych, who has had a better latter career has not won a masters since he was quite young (his best achievement).

Very good point and one I've thought about, although I think it is more true for top 5 elite players than it is for the "second tier" 5-15 guys, some of whom do reach their peak a bit later. But we still have yet not seen a truly great player not be great by the time they are 21 or 22. Even "almost greats" are all very good by that age.

It's a phenomenon that's increasing in frequency. Perhaps the multi-slam winners will still win early, but there's no doubting that more and more success is being achieved in later years. If that's the current trend, can we so easily write off players who are only about 24yrs old? Personally I dont think we should

I wouldn't write 24 year olds off from attaining greater heights, but I think that we can write them off from true greatness if they aren't pretty great by the time they are 24, or at least odds are they won't be truly great.

It seems like the critical range is 19-21. If a player isn't great by the time he turns 22, he almost certainly will never be great (by "great" I mean multi-Slam winner, #1 ranking, etc). Again, I'm not saying that a 22 year old can't or won't improve, but if you're #80 at 22, chances are you'll never be a top 5 player.

Maybe I'll do some research on players of different tiers and what their rankings were at different ages, to really get a sense of range and average.

 

[Great Hands]

^I completely agree with this. The more variety you have in your game the longer it will probably take to maximise your potential. I haven't given up on Dimi yet

The biggest problem for Dimi at the moment is mental IMO. The number of times I have seen him play a nervous shot or double fault on a big point...too many times. His play when it matters most is decidedly dodgy. But I do hope he can improve further, because when he plays well it's a joy to watch.

As a grass court player, in particular, his potential is immense, because he moves so well on it, it rewards his variety, slice and touch more than other surfaces, and gives his serves and groundies more venom (the same advantages it gives Murray, actually, even though they have very different styles). Dimi did great on the grass last year, winning Queens and SF of WD. I'm looking forward to seeing him on the green stuff again this year.

 

[Great Hands]

Maybe I'll do some research on players of different tiers and what their rankings were at different ages, to really get a sense of range and average.

I sense the next blog entry brewing...

 

[Busted]

According to Tignor's preview of the Indian Wells final, Roger remarked that Novak is "in his prime." This is clearly true, at least looking at the record. While Novak has never reached the heights of his amazing 2011 season, we should remember that 2011 was, by my quick estimation, one of the five or so greatest years in Open Era history - to go along with Laver's 1969, Connors in 1975, McEnroe in 1984, and Federer in 2006 (not to mention 2004 and 2005). So while Novak in 2012-14 wasn't as good as 2011, he has still been playing at a very high, elite level - his peak. His fans certainly hope that 2015 will be his second multi-Slam season, and they have good reason to.

But I bring this up because we talk a lot about the declines of Roger and Rafa, but not much about the other third of the great trinity. Presumably this is because, unlike the other two, there's been no sign of decline yet (except among his most ardent fans, who think his true level is 2011 and anything less is him not playing at his best...hey, every player has their super-biased supporters ;-)). But let us not forget that Novak will be 28 in two months. Even if players are reaching their peaks later, the clock is certainly ticking. It is hard to imagine Novak maintaining his current level for more than two or three more years.

So this is my question: When do you think we'll start seeing signs of decline from Novak and what will it look like? Novak is a very well-rounded player, but is undoubtedly best known for his incredible defense and ability to reach almost anything. Presumably the decline will start when he slows down a bit, even just a fraction. He is in incredible shape, so my guess is that this won't happen for another couple years yet, but that we might start seeing the first glimmers of it sometime in 2017, the year he turns 30.

The other big factor in decline is drive. For players in their 30s, especially with so many accomplishments, this is huge. But considering that Novak has spent so much of his career in the wake of Federer and Nadal, I could see this not being a problem - that he'll desperately want to match them as best he can.

What do you think?

In his prime? Maybe another 18 months. Look at Nadal. He's about to turn 29 and in 2013 he looked unbeatable. Did anyone really see such a steep decline coming after his 2013 season and being in the Aussie final in 2014? Nope. Will Nole play past 30? I don't really see it unless the competition is weak. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'll be playing just because he loves everything about the sport and the tour, a la Fed. And given that a huge part of his game is predicated on his ability to play 4-6 hour matches? No, I don't see him being around at 31.

 

[Denis]

According to Tignor's preview of the Indian Wells final, Roger remarked that Novak is "in his prime." This is clearly true, at least looking at the record. While Novak has never reached the heights of his amazing 2011 season, we should remember that 2011 was, by my quick estimation, one of the five or so greatest years in Open Era history - to go along with Laver's 1969, Connors in 1975, McEnroe in 1984, and Federer in 2006 (not to mention 2004 and 2005). So while Novak in 2012-14 wasn't as good as 2011, he has still been playing at a very high, elite level - his peak. His fans certainly hope that 2015 will be his second multi-Slam season, and they have good reason to.

But I bring this up because we talk a lot about the declines of Roger and Rafa, but not much about the other third of the great trinity. Presumably this is because, unlike the other two, there's been no sign of decline yet (except among his most ardent fans, who think his true level is 2011 and anything less is him not playing at his best...hey, every player has their super-biased supporters ;-)). But let us not forget that Novak will be 28 in two months. Even if players are reaching their peaks later, the clock is certainly ticking. It is hard to imagine Novak maintaining his current level for more than two or three more years.

So this is my question: When do you think we'll start seeing signs of decline from Novak and what will it look like? Novak is a very well-rounded player, but is undoubtedly best known for his incredible defense and ability to reach almost anything. Presumably the decline will start when he slows down a bit, even just a fraction. He is in incredible shape, so my guess is that this won't happen for another couple years yet, but that we might start seeing the first glimmers of it sometime in 2017, the year he turns 30.

The other big factor in decline is drive. For players in their 30s, especially with so many accomplishments, this is huge. But considering that Novak has spent so much of his career in the wake of Federer and Nadal, I could see this not being a problem - that he'll desperately want to match them as best he can.

What do you think?

In his prime? Maybe another 18 months. Look at Nadal. He's about to turn 29 and in 2013 he looked unbeatable. Did anyone really see such a steep decline coming after his 2013 season and being in the Aussie final in 2014? Nope. Will Nole play past 30? I don't really see it unless the competition is weak. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'll be playing just because he loves everything about the sport and the tour, a la Fed. And given that a huge part of his game is predicated on his ability to play 4-6 hour matches? No, I don't see him being around at 31.

Novak takes better care of his body than anyone else. From a very early age he was doing his stretching business with the view of competing as long as possible. He also has a less physical style than Nadal, and is working hard on improving his serve which will ensure his longlivity more.

We can't look into the future, but I hope people like you will be proven wrong.

What is this crap that Roger 'loves the game so much'? Not more than anyone else. :Nono: