thread title - novask - under-achiving at slams? a theory
teh discussion in anohte thread of novak's record in slam finals got me thinking about why he is seen, by some, to be under-achiveing at slams. for me, it is less that he is 8-8 in slam finals, and more that his record at slams differs from his dopmainance outside of the slams over the saem time period.
in 2011, he dominated in slams and masters, but sicne the start of 2012:
At masters and wtfs, he has won 17 out of 33 masters and wtfs evets - over half of evetns in which he has competed - 52% - ridiculus really =- amazing domiance.
At slams - 4 out of 14 - 29% - far less success.
so novak has been far more successful at masters/wtfs, overall, then at slams, since start of 2012. this, for me, is what gives the feeling that he has underachieved.
why do you think that is?
i htin it si at kleast partly because novak has in fact only been truly domant on slower hards, thus rasing our expectations for him at the majors, as only one of the slams is played on slwoer hards.
the fact that novak has won only 1 uso is strange. The wind is definitely a facotr, as emtioned in another threasd, but it also shows the difference between Novak on slow and faster hards. the fact is that off slow hards, nocak is far less donenant...I mean, he’s never won Cinci, and look how Fed still dominates him on fast hards e.g. Dubai. I know USO is not fast like Dubai, but Novak is definitely more vulnerable there than at the slower AO, where his dominance is extraordinary. His vastly different level of success at AO and USO must be partly due to the surface, no? On the slower hards of the AO, it’s almost impossible to break through Novak’s defence, at least for long enough to win the match. Just ask Andy Murray, who hasn’t managed to do it in four attempts over the last 5 years (the closest he came being the SF in 2012). The only guy who has managed to beat Novak at the AO in the last 5 years is Stan, who broke through Novak's defence with his incredible power - and even then only 9-7 in the 5th!
If we look at the numbers:
On slower hards at masters and wtfs wince start of 2012 (IW, Miami, Canada, paris, wtfs)- novak has won 11 out of 17 - 65%!
and on other surfaces - 6 out of 16 - 38%!
A large difference. On slower hards, he is incredibly dominant - winning almost 2/3rds of the events, but on other surfaces, he is winning only sightly over 1/3rd.
At slams sicne start of 2012:
slow hards (ao)- 3 out of 4 - 75%
other surfaces - 1 out of 10! - 10%! A somewhat shocking stat to me, given his overall dminance in the game!
Then combine these 2 sets of stats:
slwoer hards - slams, masters and wtfs - 14 out of 21 - 67%
other surfaces - slams and masters - 7 out of 26! - 27%!
And Look at the slam finals record:
On slower hard (AO) - 5-0 - 100%
On other surfaces (FO, WD, USO) - 3-8 - 38%
I mean, if you doubt that Novak is better on slow hards than he is elsewhere, that statistic pretty much confirms it.
These stats suggest Novak is only domaint on slower hardfs, and not ont oehr surafces, and thus we actually shldn't be so sur[psued if he doesn't win a fast hards, grass or clay tournament.
what do people think?
(just joking KS, but you know I got to kick Chicago sports any chance I get).
