How will Djokovic perform against the young generation in 2023?

[Kieran]

I don't think it is a matter of whether or not Alcaraz's #1 deserves an asterisk, or that he's undeserving. I think the point is merely that he was helped by Novak's status--his inability to play half of the big tournaments (regardless of why). If that weren't the case, it is highly unlikely that Alcaraz would be #1.

I cited Elo, which to me proves my point: Alcaraz's 2200 Elo, while very good, is equivalent to the average of a #5ish player over the course of the Open Era, and I believe is the lowest Elo by a YE #1 -- or at least close to it.

The thing about these alt-history ruminations is that although we all do them, we all also have to accept that they’re more wishful than anything. I’m convinced that if Rafa had skipped zero slams since he won his first, he’d most likely have at least 2 more. At least. You’re convinced that the evidence states that his game made him physically unable to compete. Yet in the alt-hist world, the potential for negative is redundant. In reality, things might have happened if Rafa had played even one of the slams he missed through injury. He might have injured himself even worse.

I don’t understand the Elo thing. Somewhere else in the thread you mention that according to Elo, Rafa was the fourth best player in 2017. Really? I know the slams aren’t everything, but for the three players above him, and for him, actually they are…

 

[El Dude]

I'm the one that reminded you of the 2000 points Novak didn't get from Wimbledon. But I'm still going to say that you can't say what he would have done, if/but/whatever. You're talking about a serious portion of the calendar as a fantasy,

I actually forgot about Wimbledon points - that makes my presumption even more glaringly obvious. Getting those Wimbledon points alone puts him at #1 - and that's still playing he same schedule he did, without the two Slams and four Masters.

It isn't "fantasy" to point out that Novak's Elo was 2417, Alcaraz's 2200. Nor is it fantasy to assume that Novak would have added significant points if he had played AO, the USO, and some more Masters. I'm not saying he would have won those tournaments - but he wouldn't have had to.

I mean, do you honestly disagree with this simple statement: If not for covid rules (including Wimbledon), Novak would have almost certainly been #1, and by a good margin?

 

[El Dude]

The thing about these alt-history ruminations is that although we all do them, we all also have to accept that they’re more wishful than anything. I’m convinced that if Rafa had skipped zero slams since he won his first, he’d most likely have at least 2 more. At least. You’re convinced that the evidence states that his game made him physically unable to compete. Yet in the alt-hist world, the potential for negative is redundant. In reality, things might have happened if Rafa had played even one of the slams he missed through injury. He might have injured himself even worse.

Some alt histories are more speculative than others. I wouldn't put your view on Rafa in the same category as Novak in 2022 and whether or not he would have been #1 if not for political policies (covid and Russia). For Rafa to win those extra Slams, he'd also have to beat other players. For Novak to be #1, all he'd need would be the Wimbledon points, and/or put in mediocre performances (for him) at the two other Slams and a couple Masters. This is not say that Rafa couldn't have won more Slams if healthier, but that opens the door to countless other What Ifs, while Novak in 2022 is a bit more straightforward, requiring far less finagling.

I don’t understand the Elo thing. Somewhere else in the thread you mention that according to Elo, Rafa was the fourth best player in 2017. Really? I know the slams aren’t everything, but for the three players above him, and for him, actually they are…

Well maybe the bolded part is it, right there! But it is a bit tricky, and I'm still trying to understand its subtleties, as well as its limitations. And to be frank, Rafa vs Novak in 2017 does just that.

Meaning, Rafa vs. Novak's Elo in 2017 points out the problem with looking at Elo in a vacuum. Novak, despite having the higher Elo, did not play better in 2017 than Rafa did. The problem is that he started the year at a higher point, and Rafa at a lower point. Over the course of the year, Novak dropped 110 points, and Rafa rose 102 points. The difference between the two (212 points) only tells us their relative degree of gain/loss in performance.

Probably the best way to determine "pound per pound" performance in a given year would be take the total possible number of ATP points in events entered and divide it by the player's points earned. In that sense, Rafa would come out significantly over Novak, but so too would Novak over Alcaraz in 2022.

Hmm...sounds like a research project.

 

[Kieran]

Some alt histories are more speculative than others. I wouldn't put your view on Rafa in the same category as Novak in 2022 and whether or not he would have been #1 if not for political policies (covid and Russia).

Of course you wouldn’t. You forgot also to add, if not for his own choices to

For Rafa to win those extra Slams, he'd also have to beat other players. For Novak to be #1, all he'd need would be the Wimbledon points, and/or put in mediocre performances (for him) at the two other Slams and a couple Masters.

This is true too if Rafa had been fully healthy through the whole season. It’s speculation.

Well maybe the bolded part is it, right there! But it is a bit tricky, and I'm still trying to understand its subtleties, as well as its limitations. And to be frank, Rafa vs Novak in 2017 does just that.

Meaning, Rafa vs. Novak's Elo in 2017 points out the problem with looking at Elo in a vacuum. Novak, despite having the higher Elo, did not play better in 2017 than Rafa did. The problem is that he started the year at a higher point, and Rafa at a lower point. Over the course of the year, Novak dropped 110 points, and Rafa rose 102 points. The difference between the two (212 points) only tells us their relative degree of gain/loss in performance.

Probably the best way to determine "pound per pound" performance in a given year would be take the total possible number of ATP points in events entered and divide it by the player's points earned. In that sense, Rafa would come out significantly over Novak, but so too would Novak over Alcaraz in 2022.

Hmm...sounds like a research project.

Take the night off - it’s New Year’s Eve!

 

[El Dude]

Of course you wouldn’t. You forgot also to add, if not for his own choices to

This is true too if Rafa had been fully healthy through the whole season. It’s speculation.

I have said several times that Rafa was better than Alcaraz, too. So yeah, he would have been #1 if healthy. But in terms of performance level in 2022, and thus who would have been #1 in an even playing field: Novak > Rafa > Alcaraz.

Take the night off - it’s New Year’s Eve!

Haha, but I like to nerd out with numbers! My girlfriend keeps on asking me..."What is that chart you're working on?" I'm almost embarrassed to answer..."Uh, the elo ratings of every player in the Open era with at least a peak elo of 2150..."

 

[Kieran]

I have said several times that Rafa was better than Alcaraz, too. So yeah, he would have been #1 if healthy. But in terms of performance level in 2022, and thus who would have been #1 in an even playing field: Novak > Rafa > Alcaraz.

Disagree, but happy new year!

Haha, but I like to nerd out with numbers! My girlfriend keeps on asking me..."What is that chart you're working on?" I'm almost embarrassed to answer..."Uh, the elo ratings of every player in the Open era with at least a peak elo of 2150..."

What could be better than doing what makes us happy? I spent hours futilely doing something earlier on, and can’t wait to get back at it, but now outta politeness, I have to sup Guinness and watch the clock. There’s worse things, I suppose. We’re watching Harry Potter films. Again! Too far from a town to join the mob.

Enjoy your evening, brother and have a Rafa ‘23!

 

[Moxie]

Haha, but I like to nerd out with numbers! My girlfriend keeps on asking me..."What is that chart you're working on?" I'm almost embarrassed to answer..."Uh, the elo ratings of every player in the Open era with at least a peak elo of 2150..."

I have to speculate that by now she knows you well enough to not be shocked by that.

And Happy 2023, to all my fellow Frontiersmen and women!

 

[Moxie]

I actually forgot about Wimbledon points - that makes my presumption even more glaringly obvious. Getting those Wimbledon points alone puts him at #1 - and that's still playing he same schedule he did, without the two Slams and four Masters.

Please remember that I haven't been debating this "would Novak have otherwise been #1" thing, except to say if you change one thing, you change everything. Front brought it back in to address his grudge over the Covid politics. I only ever mentioned that Alcaraz IS #1 to Fiero, who was slagging him as an "also-ran." Which basically everyone else has said is unfair on young Charlie.

It isn't "fantasy" to point out that Novak's Elo was 2417, Alcaraz's 2200. Nor is it fantasy to assume that Novak would have added significant points if he had played AO, the USO, and some more Masters. I'm not saying he would have won those tournaments - but he wouldn't have had to.

I mean, do you honestly disagree with this simple statement: If not for covid rules (including Wimbledon), Novak would have almost certainly been #1, and by a good margin?

I agree with Kieran that ELO points are a measure that you embrace, but the ATP doesn't, for example. But, again, I reminded everyone of the Wimbledon points, of which he was defending 2000. So it also depends on which #1 you're talking about: YE#1 or rolling points #1, but, sure, it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to think that he could have gotten there...possibly in both.

Still, you assume that by playing all of these other tournaments that nothing else would have happened to him other than gaining more points, even if he won none of them. You don't expect losing to people that could later have more confidence against him. You don't assume any fatigue. You don't prevision any rolling of an ankle, such as Zverev did. It's a LOT of tournaments for us to assume about, and to assume that it wouldn't have changed much, but only, as you do, in Novak's favor.

This is a little like in 2017 when the Federer fans were so angry that he played Roger's Cup, chasing, as they said, #1, hurt his back, and screwed up his chances for the rest of the year and a potential YE#1...but there was yet a lot of tennis to be played.

As to saying it's a rather surer bet, that Novak would have been #1 than that Rafa would have won more Majors if healthy, I'm not sure you're as right on that as you think. I know you think it looks easy to add 6 more tournaments to Novak's year and change very little. But, across the course of Rafa's career, even if you just think about the final at the AO in 2014, where we all saw his back go in real time...it's a lot easier and cleaner to say that that one could well have gone his way, given the H2H and that it was Wawrinka's maiden slam final, than to say how Novak's year would have gone this year had about a couple hundred things have been different. With Novak's year, you also have to add the politics. You want to take out covid policies AND the war in Ukraine. And six tournaments. That's a lot of unknowns to remove. You see my point, I'm sure.

 

[Front242]

As to saying it's a rather surer bet, that Novak would have been #1 than that Rafa would have won more Majors if healthy, I'm not sure you're as right on that as you think. I know you think it looks easy to add 6 more tournaments to Novak's year and change very little. But, across the course of Rafa's career, even if you just think about the final at the AO in 2014, where we all saw his back go in real time...it's a lot easier and cleaner to say that that one could well have gone his way, given the H2H and that it was Wawrinka's maiden slam final, than to say how Novak's year would have gone this year had about a couple hundred things have been different. With Novak's year, you also have to add the politics. You want to take out covid policies AND the war in Ukraine. And six tournaments. That's a lot of unknowns to remove. You see my point, I'm sure.

Can't agree with this at all and honestly don't think too many here would either. Wawrinka can beat anyone on his day and was leading that match before Nadal got injured. Novak missed 6 damn tournaments ffs. 6 ! It's obvious that Djokovic maintaining his world number 1 ranking was the much more sure bet there. He was so far ahead in the rankings he wouldn't have had to do much at all to finish number 1. It's a no brainer Alcaraz got to number 1 for this reason which is what started this nonsense and then it got dragged off on a tangent re Nadal for no particular reason. Back to Alcaraz though, carpé diem, good for him. Played great for much of the season and managed to get to number 1 but it's obvious to anyone and their dog who isn't in blind denial that Djokovic missing 6 tournaments had a massive impact on it all so it's clearly a combination of Djokovic missing 6 very big tournaments (2 slams and 4 masters) and Alcaraz' very good play for much of the season.

 

[Moxie]

Can't agree with this at all and honestly don't think too many here would either. Wawrinka can beat anyone on his day and was leading that match before Nadal got injured.

Wawrinka is also a bit of an inconsistent head case, and it was "his day" in part because Nadal's back went. We can argue about this over and over again, but Wawrinka had never even taken a set off of Rafa before that match. He even lost the 3rd due to his own head. If you watched the AO final this year and still don't think Rafa could have pulled off that win, at 8 years younger, than you are living in denial. I've never said he "would" have, just that his chances were pretty good.

Novak missed 6 damn tournaments ffs. 6 ! It's obvious that Djokovic maintaining his world number 1 ranking was the much more sure bet there. He was so far ahead in the rankings he wouldn't have had to do much at all to finish number 1. It's a no brainer Alcaraz got to number 1 for this reason which is what started this nonsense and then it got dragged off on a tangent re Nadal for no particular reason.

The thread got dragged off on a #1 and Covid tangent by you, my friend. It's about Djokovic and the youngsters. Nothing to do with who would have been #1 this year until you had to bring up your Covid grievances. The rest, including Rafa, was a follow-on.

Back to Alcaraz though, carpé diem, good for him. Played great for much of the season and managed to get to number 1 but it's obvious to anyone and their dog who isn't in blind denial that Djokovic missing 6 tournaments had a massive impact on it all so it's clearly a combination of Djokovic missing 6 very big tournaments (2 slams and 4 masters) and Alcaraz' very good play for much of the season.

I don't remember the same outrage from Federer fans when 2020 was a shortened and weird season, and Nadal didn't defend his points at the USO the tune-ups, which could have changed the YE#1 that year. One player decided to skip the USO for his personal reasons having to do with Covid, and you don't care. Another player decides to skip the next USO due to Covid for HIS personally reasons, two years later, and you're outraged at the unfairness. You rank the weird outcomes in these times based on your own personal beliefs.

 

[Fiero425]

Can't agree with this at all and honestly don't think too many here would either. Wawrinka can beat anyone on his day and was leading that match before Nadal got injured. Novak missed 6 damn tournaments ffs. 6 ! It's obvious that Djokovic maintaining his world number 1 ranking was the much more sure bet there. He was so far ahead in the rankings he wouldn't have had to do much at all to finish number 1. It's a no brainer Alcaraz got to number 1 for this reason which is what started this nonsense and then it got dragged off on a tangent re Nadal for no particular reason. Back to Alcaraz though, carpé diem, good for him. Played great for much of the season and managed to get to number 1 but it's obvious to anyone and their dog who isn't in blind denial that Djokovic missing 6 tournaments had a massive impact on it all so it's clearly a combination of Djokovic missing 6 very big tournaments (2 slams and 4 masters) and Alcaraz' very good play for much of the season.

I felt a certain way about 2016 where Novak had been on a run from 2015, defended his AO chp., then went on to complete his Nole-Slam by winning his 1st FO! Not sure if he just took a breath allowing his level to slip, but his consistantly making SF's & Finals helped the cause! But this allowed Murray to steal the YE #1 ranking winning 500 level events even though Novak won 2 majors and was a finalist in a 3rd! With 4 Masters, he still lost that distinction of having another YE #1 separating him from Fedal by 3 owning 8 today; 2 over Sampras! It all depends on where your loyalties lie sticking up for your fave!

 

[Front242]

Wawrinka is also a bit of an inconsistent head case, and it was "his day" in part because Nadal's back went. We can argue about this over and over again, but Wawrinka had never even taken a set off of Rafa before that match. He even lost the 3rd due to his own head. If you watched the AO final this year and still don't think Rafa could have pulled off that win, at 8 years younger, than you are living in denial. I've never said he "would" have, just that his chances were pretty good.

Look, Norrie had never won a set against Nadal in 4 matches and just beat him yesterday. It happens. I'm not going to entertain that nonsense anymore about the AO 2014.

The thread got dragged off on a #1 and Covid tangent by you, my friend. It's about Djokovic and the youngsters. Nothing to do with who would have been #1 this year until you had to bring up your Covid grievances. The rest, including Rafa, was a follow-on.

I said it got dragged off on a tangent/derailed about Nadal and that was not by me. Before Nadal fans brought him into it, the discussion was about Alcaraz ending 2022 as world number 1 which, yes, had to do with covid obviously enough since this is why Djokivic wasn't allowed to play in 6 tournaments and which clearly had a massive bearing on the year end rankings. My covid grievances? The grievances were about the unscientific bs that Djokovic wasn't allowed play and nothing more.

I don't remember the same outrage from Federer fans when 2020 was a shortened and weird season, and Nadal didn't defend his points at the USO the tune-ups, which could have changed the YE#1 that year. One player decided to skip the USO for his personal reasons having to do with Covid, and you don't care. Another player decides to skip the next USO due to Covid for HIS personally reasons, two years later, and you're outraged at the unfairness. You rank the weird outcomes in these times based on your own personal beliefs.

You keep harping on about this being about MY personal beliefs. It's got zero to do my beliefs, it was based on nonsense since the vaccines don't stop transmission so he should have been allowed play all 6 tournaments that he was banned from playing. Who was the player that decided to skip the USO due to personal reasons 'cos the player I believe you're alluding to had no choice to choose, the decision was not his but the dumb unscientific and corrupt policy in the US ? You've somehow turned Djokovic's choice to not take this crap into my personal beliefs which doesn't make any sense at all.

I think it was Nadal you're referring to who decided to skip it over covid. Afraid of a sniffle. Fair enough. Probably feels a bit silly in hindsight. Anyway why would I care ? It's not fair. 1 had a choice, the other did not....

 

[Front242]

I felt a certain way about 2016 where Novak had been on a run from 2015, defended his AO chp., then went on to complete his Nole-Slam by winning his 1st FO! Not sure if he just took a breath allowing his level to slip, but his consistantly making SF's & Finals helped the cause! But this allowed Murray to steal the YE #1 ranking winning 500 level events even though Novak won 2 majors and was a finalist in a 3rd! With 4 Masters, he still lost that distinction of having another YE #1 separating him from Fedal by 3 owning 8 today; 2 over Sampras! It all depends on where your loyalties lie sticking up for your fave!

Murray bust himself up so badly it ruined his career too. Wonder if he'll look back when his career is over and if it was really worth playing all those mickey mouse events to get number 1 and ending up busting his hip.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Nadal injured his back in his warm up before his match at the AO against Wawrinka I was there live and watching Rafa in his warm up, just to make that clear., he suddenly stopped, after practicing his serves and went off the court.

 

[Front242]

Nadal injured his back in his warm up before his match at the AO against Wawrinka I was there live and watching Rafa in his warm up, just to make that clear., he suddenly stopped, after practicing his serves and went off the court.

Looked terribly injured alright up to 0-2 in set 2.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Looked terribly injured alright up to 0-2 in set 2.

Well that maybe your take on it, it wasnt mine, when he was practicing his serve in his warm up and suddenly stopped he bent over and gripped his back, people around the court, went 'oh no' and he quickly went off, he wasnt moving as well as usual. I am not making excuses for Rafa, just stating the fact, Stan deserved in the end to win the match

 

[Moxie]

Look, Norrie had never won a set against Nadal in 4 matches and just beat him yesterday. It happens. I'm not going to entertain that nonsense anymore about the AO 2014.

We both know that Best of 5 and best of 3 are very different...best of 5 favoring the top player. We also know the difference between a player at 27 and a player at 35. The comparison means essentially nothing, and you know that.

 

[Moxie]

Looked terribly injured alright up to 0-2 in set 2.

That's when we all saw his back go, right? Point is, he was hampered in that final, which we all agreed about.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

That's when we all saw his back go, right? Point is, he was hampered in that final, which we all agreed about.

Moxie, his back wasnt 100% before he started the final to be fair, he went off the court quickly when practicing his serve

 

[Front242]

That's when we all saw his back go, right? Point is, he was hampered in that final, which we all agreed about.

Of course. Anyone could see that after 0-2 set 2. Before that no.