Thoughts about the rest of the year (post Wimbledon)

[calitennis127]

Brother, if Rafa faces Federer in the US Open, I'll be happy. Especially if it's the final.

Murray needs to react. He's in an actual crisis. Maybe he should kidnap Lendl, threaten him or pay him more.

Novak is always a threat so nothing changed.

Dimi is a good younger player - but he's 23, not 17, so he faces his own pressures to kick the door down and make an entrance. All this sitting in the waiting room until the others have died is not good. I think he'll do well, but he needs to move faster now. Should be exciting watching that pan out.

Likewise the other youngster who made a better impression on me: Kyrgios. I don't expect anything else from him this year, but he's got the mentality to go with the game, it seems. Let's wait and see.

Unfortunately, the last young player to "break through" here was cruelly exposed in the semis...

Federer v. Nadal in a US Open final would be a tough challenge for Federer, but I think that since they have no history playing at that particular event, Federer would be more likely to play loose and just execute his shots (which is why I still to this day cannot believe that he allowed that Robredo fiasco to occur last year; unbelievable!:nono).

Dimitrov may not have won a Major yet, but he took a very significant step forward in his career by extinguishing Murray as he did and then coming quite close against Djokovic. He took his reputation to another level by playing as he did in the semifinal with Djokovic, by showing that not only can he be a shotmaker, but he can compete in a grind-it-out Big 4 kind of epic match.

Dimitrov's demolition of Murray and challenge to Djokovic makes him a much more serious challenger to Nadal going forward, especially when you consider that they already had quite a battle at the Australian Open this year in the Round of 8.....

 

[Front242]

^ Yeah cali, he was a blown FH away from 2 sets to 1 lead. Barely missed.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

With so many points to defend and only hard court and indoor hard court matches left,
I don't see Rafa mounting much of an attack on #1 this year. I think Novak will finish
as YE #1.

Certainly Novak is the favorite for USO. I would not call Rafa a co-favorite for USO.
In fact, I would not be surprised if he takes an early exit there.

 

[Front242]

I hope Gulbis and Kyrgios do well for the upcoming hard court season. Pretty gutted Haas is out.

 

[Kieran]

Cali, stop, you're hurting my eyes. Federer isn't a threat to Rafa at slam level, and he hasn't been one for more than half a decade. If they meet at the US Open, I just hope it's in the final, so I can relax and enjoy the end of the tournament.

Dimi v Murray was an odd match. I certainly didn't think that Dimi "blew him away", in fact, I think the match was mostly characterised by Andy's absence, which was strange. There certainly didn't require a huge unsurmountable level by Dimi to win that one: Murray just faded meekly.

Having said that, this tournament represents a huge stride forward for Dimi. I expect him to be more aggressive in future. As I said in the semi-final thread, players are peaking later for physical reasons, but mentally he still seems like a wet-eared kid - and yet he's 23. At that age, Rafa and Roger were already established as all-time greats and their mental side was far more developed. Rafa was asked about how impressed he was with Kyrgios, at age only 19! Rafa scoffed and said he was winning slams at 19, it's not unusual for great players.

You may think that's ungracious of Rafa, but you can't accuse him of being actually wrong. And with Dimi, I think he's got to be less deferential and more impatient to nudge these fellows out of the way...

 

[Riotbeard]

Cali, stop, you're hurting my eyes. Federer isn't a threat to Rafa at slam level, and he hasn't been one for more than half a decade. If they meet at the US Open, I just hope it's in the final, so I can relax and enjoy the end of the tournament.

Dimi v Murray was an odd match. I certainly didn't think that Dimi "blew him away", in fact, I think the match was mostly characterised by Andy's absence, which was strange. There certainly didn't require a huge unsurmountable level by Dimi to win that one: Murray just faded meekly.

Having said that, this tournament represents a huge stride forward for Dimi. I expect him to be more aggressive in future. As I said in the semi-final thread, players are peaking later for physical reasons, but mentally he still seems like a wet-eared kid - and yet he's 23. At that age, Rafa and Roger were already established as all-time greats and their mental side was far more developed. Rafa was asked about how impressed he was with Kyrgios, at age only 19! Rafa scoffed and said he was winning slams at 19, it's not unusual for great players.

You may think that's ungracious of Rafa, but you can't accuse him of being actually wrong. And with Dimi, I think he's got to be less deferential and more impatient to nudge these fellows out of the way...

Agreed. Did you watch roger's presser? You'll like it He pretty much said the same thing about Raonic and Dimitrov. Basically said they're not young anymore. Said Rafa was one the best teen players of all time along with borg, and that he, novak and andy had achieved much more in their early 20s so they are not comparable to the leaders of the tour...

 

[Kieran]

That's good to hear, Riotbeard. When Pete was 19, he turfed Lendl out in the quarters (Ivan had been in the previous 8 finals), Mac in the semis, and destroyed Agassi in the final of the US Open. The physical side maybe slower now, but mentally, I like the way Kyrgios went about Rafa. If that's the real him, he'll bypass Dimi and Raonic in the next couple years, while they're still waiting for the Big 4 to retire...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

*Rafa is a bit of a question remark. I'd expect him to be really hungry at the US Open, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 2014 Wimbledon marks the end of his reign as the #1 player in the sport. His clay court season wasn't quite as potent as in years past and he struggled on grass. Still, Rafa seems to play best from behind, so maybe he'll have a surge this year. I do expect him to remain an elite player for some time yet, but maybe not quite as dominant as he was in his best years.

Although I don't think Rafa will get the #1 back anytime this year, contrary to Dude's
opinion I think Rafa has another stint at #1 in him.

 

[El Dude]

Cali, I missed you - you're such a trip.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to point out what was most encouraging from Federer in this match (because it would throw a monkey wrench in your age-ism): while Djokovic was the better overall player from the baseline and it was Federer's serving that was key for him throughout the match, the level that Federer displayed from the baseline in the 4th and 5th sets was terrific, particularly in the break-back games of the 4th set. His movement was phenomenal and he started clicking with the running forehand as well as backhands where he took the ball early.

I agree. He looked great out there, although did seem to wear down in the 5th with so many weak errors and his serve falling away. But ageism, Cali? Really? Only because I point out, I don't know, facts?!

Are you aware of the FACT that only one player in the last four decades has won a Grand Slam event at Roger Federer's age, and that is Andre Agassi? Check out the list of Open Era 30+ year olds winning Grand Slams:

1968 - French Open (Rosewall, 33)
1969 - All (Laver, three at 30, one at 31)
1970 - US Open (Rosewall, 35)
1971 - Australian Open (Rosewall, 36)
1972 - Australian Open (Rosewall, 37), French Open (Gimeno, 34)
1975 - Australian Open (Newcombe, 30), Wimbledon (Ashe, 31)
1982 - US Open (Connors, 30)
1983 - US Open (Connors, 31)
1990 - French Open (Gomez, 30)
1998 - Australian Open (Korda, 30)
2001 - Australian Open (Agassi, 30)
2002 - US Open (Sampras, 31)
2003 - Australian Open (Agassi, 32)
2012 - Wimbledon (Federer, 30)

See, I just did all of that research for you, my dear friend. Notice a couple things:

1) There have been 186 Grand Slam tournaments of the Open Era, of which 18 have been won by 30+ year olds. That's 10.2%.
2) Of those 19, 11 were won in 1975 or before. From 1976 to the present, a span of 39 years and 155 Slams, only 8 have been won - which is 5.2%.
3) Taking that even further, only 6 Slams have been won in the Open Era by 32+ year olds, and only one since 1972, the last 42 years!

So I don't think it is "ageist" to suggest that winning a Slam in your 30s--especially age 32 or older--is a very difficult thing to do.

Moving on...

You just won't let go of this one, will you?

El Dude: you, like so many others (including most of Nadal's fans), misunderstand his success. Nadal never has been the "#1 player in the sport" in terms of level. He has won many of his biggest titles by parasitically sucking the life out of more talented shotmakers and weaseling his way to victories.

Was he a better player than Djokovic when he beat him at the US Open last year? Absolutely not. He was playing outstanding by his own standards, but as Djokovic has said, he (Novak) should have won that match.

We've worn these tires down before. I don't understand why you have such a difficult time understanding that a player is only as good as his results (or his success). To put it another way, there are many factors that go into results/success; you focus on only some of them and call that "level." That's all well and dandy, but is terribly partial. At the end of the day, a player is as good as his record says, and Rafa Nadal is pretty damn good.

In other words, if he's a parasite then he's damn good one! And furthermore, he has proven that "parasitism" can be a very effective path to greatness.

Let me use a quick baseball analogy to illustrate the point. A pitcher can throw the best curveball in the business but if they don't have a good fastball (with movement and location, to boot), and a decent changeup, they probably won't be a great pitcher. What I hear you saying is "Rafa's curveball is only decent, therefore he's not great." But Rafa throws a lot of other pitches, and the overall result is devastating.

His clay court season wasn't quite as potent as in years past and he struggled on grass.

Sir, of what do you speak?

Again, look at the results. From 2005 to 2014 there were only two years in which Rafa didn't win at least two clay Masters, 2011 when Novak ruled the roost, and 2014.

He was still quite dominant, but the edge was taken off a bit by losing to Ferrer and Almagro.

You need to better understand the science of gnat-ology. He will be around, lurking and ready to pounce as soon as Djokovic, Federer, Dimitrov, Murray, Del Potro (when he comes back), etc. slip up.

You make it sound like Rafa only wins when someone else loses, rather than what I've seen time and time again: Rafa makes people lose.

Personally, I pulled for Murray to win Wimbledon because I knew just how badly he wanted it and how much it meant to his country. That said, I really don't want to see him win any more Majors because I find his playing style to mostly be pretty boring and I don't think he is a very interesting player to watch. He got his first Major, then he got his Wimbledon trophy; anything more is not something I care to see.

I agree, actually. I was cheering Andy on before he won his first Slam, and then again last year at Wimbledon. But now I'd rather others win.

Agreed. He is very talented, and the next two years is his time to step up and make it happen.

Did you catch my worst-case scenario for him in that other thread?

I think Kyrgios is a much better prospect. Raonic is not very interesting.

I agree. I didn't mention Kyrgios because I think he's got some bumps in the road ahead of him. Who knows, maybe he's arrived but I think he's still got to work his way into the mix. Still, he looks really, really close. But I think he'll be more of a threat in 2015 and beyond, and more of a curiosity this year.

That said, right now I'd rate Kyrgios behind only Dimitrov and Raonic of the Young Guns, and ahead of Vesely, Thiem, Janowicz, and everyone else (I'm not sure if I count Nishikori, as he turns 25 this year). Long-term his outlook may be even better than Dimitrov.

He did have good results in Monte Carlo, Madrid, and Roland Garros. I wouldn't write him off just yet. Talent-wise, he is more in the 6-10 range as opposed to the 1-5 range anyway.

Again, agreed. Perhaps it is less of a drop-off in talent and more of just a coming down to earth.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Cali, stop, you're hurting my eyes. Federer isn't a threat to Rafa at slam level, and he hasn't been one for more than half a decade. If they meet at the US Open, I just hope it's in the final, so I can relax and enjoy the end of the tournament.

Dimi v Murray was an odd match. I certainly didn't think that Dimi "blew him away", in fact, I think the match was mostly characterised by Andy's absence, which was strange. There certainly didn't require a huge unsurmountable level by Dimi to win that one: Murray just faded meekly.

Having said that, this tournament represents a huge stride forward for Dimi. I expect him to be more aggressive in future. As I said in the semi-final thread, players are peaking later for physical reasons, but mentally he still seems like a wet-eared kid - and yet he's 23. At that age, Rafa and Roger were already established as all-time greats and their mental side was far more developed. Rafa was asked about how impressed he was with Kyrgios, at age only 19! Rafa scoffed and said he was winning slams at 19, it's not unusual for great players.

You may think that's ungracious of Rafa, but you can't accuse him of being actually wrong. And with Dimi, I think he's got to be less deferential and more impatient to nudge these fellows out of the way...

I think actually Rafa is right in what he said, but what gives it a strange taste is that he is far more complimentary towards upcoming players when he wins against them. I think this year he was praising Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic quite a lot and even Kokkinakis, who is the same age as Kyrgios and lost to Rafa at the Australian Open rather easily, got a much more positive sounding assessment from him.

 

[August]

So little talk about Wawrinka here. Outside the big 4, I have most faith in him. Look at his racord in the last three HC slams:

AO '13: R16 - 5-set loss to (eventual champ) Djokovic
USO '13: SF - 5-set loss to Djokovic
AO '14: Won

Not many players have such a great record from last three HC slams. And outside the big 4, he's the one I have most faith on to win a slam. He's had some very bad tournaments this year, esp. RG. But I say it was mental more than anything. AO & MC titles showed what a beast he can be. I think this year's success made him lose focus. First after the AO but after some weak performances he seemed again focused at MC. Then maybe being one of the favourites for RG caused him to be unfocused.After poor RG, he seemed well composed at Wimby and played a competitive match against Fed. Maybe the poor RG performance brought him back to earth, I hope can keep his level from Wimby. If he can play his best tennis, he's definitely a bigger threat than the likes of Ferrer, Berdych, Dimitrov, Raonic, or Gulbis. Some of those lack the mentality, some of those lack the consistency, some of those lack both. Stan has showed he can get the job done, he's won a slam and a Masters.

 

[Moxie]

Cali, I missed you - you're such a trip.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to point out what was most encouraging from Federer in this match (because it would throw a monkey wrench in your age-ism): while Djokovic was the better overall player from the baseline and it was Federer's serving that was key for him throughout the match, the level that Federer displayed from the baseline in the 4th and 5th sets was terrific, particularly in the break-back games of the 4th set. His movement was phenomenal and he started clicking with the running forehand as well as backhands where he took the ball early.

I agree. He looked great out there, although did seem to wear down in the 5th with so many weak errors and his serve falling away. But ageism, Cali? Really? Only because I point out, I don't know, facts?!

Are you aware of the FACT that only one player in the last four decades has won a Grand Slam event at Roger Federer's age, and that is Andre Agassi? Check out the list of Open Era 30+ year olds winning Grand Slams:

1968 - French Open (Rosewall, 33)
1969 - All (Laver, three at 30, one at 31)
1970 - US Open (Rosewall, 35)
1971 - Australian Open (Rosewall, 36)
1972 - Australian Open (Rosewall, 37), French Open (Gimeno, 34)
1975 - Australian Open (Newcombe, 30), Wimbledon (Ashe, 31)
1982 - US Open (Connors, 30)
1983 - US Open (Connors, 31)
1990 - French Open (Gomez, 30)
1998 - Australian Open (Korda, 30)
2001 - Australian Open (Agassi, 30)
2002 - US Open (Sampras, 31)
2003 - Australian Open (Agassi, 32)
2012 - Wimbledon (Federer, 30)

See, I just did all of that research for you, my dear friend. Notice a couple things:

1) There have been 186 Grand Slam tournaments of the Open Era, of which 18 have been won by 30+ year olds. That's 10.2%.
2) Of those 19, 11 were won in 1975 or before. From 1976 to the present, a span of 39 years and 155 Slams, only 8 have been won - which is 5.2%.
3) Taking that even further, only 6 Slams have been won in the Open Era by 32+ year olds, and only one since 1972, the last 42 years!

So I don't think it is "ageist" to suggest that winning a Slam in your 30s--especially age 32 or older--is a very difficult thing to do.

Moving on...

You just won't let go of this one, will you?

El Dude: you, like so many others (including most of Nadal's fans), misunderstand his success. Nadal never has been the "#1 player in the sport" in terms of level. He has won many of his biggest titles by parasitically sucking the life out of more talented shotmakers and weaseling his way to victories.

Was he a better player than Djokovic when he beat him at the US Open last year? Absolutely not. He was playing outstanding by his own standards, but as Djokovic has said, he (Novak) should have won that match.

We've worn these tires down before. I don't understand why you have such a difficult time understanding that a player is only as good as his results (or his success). To put it another way, there are many factors that go into results/success; you focus on only some of them and call that "level." That's all well and dandy, but is terribly partial. At the end of the day, a player is as good as his record says, and Rafa Nadal is pretty damn good.

In other words, if he's a parasite then he's damn good one! And furthermore, he has proven that "parasitism" can be a very effective path to greatness.

Let me use a quick baseball analogy to illustrate the point. A pitcher can throw the best curveball in the business but if they don't have a good fastball (with movement and location, to boot), and a decent changeup, they probably won't be a great pitcher. What I hear you saying is "Rafa's curveball is only decent, therefore he's not great." But Rafa throws a lot of other pitches, and the overall result is devastating.

His clay court season wasn't quite as potent as in years past and he struggled on grass.

Sir, of what do you speak?

Again, look at the results. From 2005 to 2014 there were only two years in which Rafa didn't win at least two clay Masters, 2011 when Novak ruled the roost, and 2014.

He was still quite dominant, but the edge was taken off a bit by losing to Ferrer and Almagro.

You need to better understand the science of gnat-ology. He will be around, lurking and ready to pounce as soon as Djokovic, Federer, Dimitrov, Murray, Del Potro (when he comes back), etc. slip up.

You make it sound like Rafa only wins when someone else loses, rather than what I've seen time and time again: Rafa makes people lose.

Personally, I pulled for Murray to win Wimbledon because I knew just how badly he wanted it and how much it meant to his country. That said, I really don't want to see him win any more Majors because I find his playing style to mostly be pretty boring and I don't think he is a very interesting player to watch. He got his first Major, then he got his Wimbledon trophy; anything more is not something I care to see.

I agree, actually. I was cheering Andy on before he won his first Slam, and then again last year at Wimbledon. But now I'd rather others win.

Agreed. He is very talented, and the next two years is his time to step up and make it happen.

Did you catch my worst-case scenario for him in that other thread?

I think Kyrgios is a much better prospect. Raonic is not very interesting.

I agree. I didn't mention Kyrgios because I think he's got some bumps in the road ahead of him. Who knows, maybe he's arrived but I think he's still got to work his way into the mix. Still, he looks really, really close. But I think he'll be more of a threat in 2015 and beyond, and more of a curiosity this year.

That said, right now I'd rate Kyrgios behind only Dimitrov and Raonic of the Young Guns, and ahead of Vesely, Thiem, Janowicz, and everyone else (I'm not sure if I count Nishikori, as he turns 25 this year). Long-term his outlook may be even better than Dimitrov.

He did have good results in Monte Carlo, Madrid, and Roland Garros. I wouldn't write him off just yet. Talent-wise, he is more in the 6-10 range as opposed to the 1-5 range anyway.

Again, agreed. Perhaps it is less of a drop-off in talent and more of just a coming down to earth.

I give you kudos, El Dude, for having the patience to take on Cali. He clearly has a pet against Nadal, and about 3/4s of his response to you is about negating Rafa's actual talents, or complaining about matches that he "should" have lost. It's an old trope from him, and I expect that you're beating against a stone wall, but good effort.

 

[britbox]

Djoker? Yes!

Federer? :Lolz:

Dimi? :nono

umm that was the best i have seen fed play in a good while against djokovic nonetheless. dont know what you are laughing about. i agree that he might still lose to rafa but if he plays like that hes got more than a chance especially on hards.

Fed would be better equipped to beat Nadal at Cincinnati. I wouldn't hold my breath in a 5 set match anywhere these days.

 

[El Dude]

I for one think that Roger still has a chance of beating Rafa. Consider that their last five meetings were the AO and in 2013, the time when Roger was really struggling (by the AO he seemed to be righting the ship, but still).

Before that Rafa was still dominant, but it wasn't absurd - Roger would still beat him every once in a while - at Indian Wells in 2012 is the last time, then the WTF in 2011.

The Roger we're seeing today is closer to the 2009-12 Roger than the 2013 Roger. That Roger was probably the favorite on grass, indoor hards, and if not even on outdoor hards, was at least competitive.

 

[Fiero425]

I for one think that Roger still has a chance of beating Rafa. Consider that their last five meetings were the AO and in 2013, the time when Roger was really struggling (by the AO he seemed to be righting the ship, but still).

Before that Rafa was still dominant, but it wasn't absurd - Roger would still beat him every once in a while - at Indian Wells in 2012 is the last time, then the WTF in 2011.

The Roger we're seeing today is closer to the 2009-12 Roger than the 2013 Roger. That Roger was probably the favorite on grass, indoor hards, and if not even on outdoor hards, was at least competitive.

The problem is 5 sets with Roger against Rafa being run around like a chicken, reaching up for his backhands where he can't get much on the ball! He would have to be playing "lights out" and Rafa struggling a bit; indoors Fed's best chance at this stage in his career! :nono :angel:

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I don't know. I know Djoker likes being the number 1 player, but I feel like he plays better when he is ranked lower. I think he likes hunting versus being the hunted. I hope this win gives him the confidence he wants going into the US Open. He can easily become a double digit slam champion if he focuses and takes the US Open and Australian next year to get to 9 and then it would be just a matter of time to get to at least 10.

Nadal it is really hard to say. He is like Serena in that they can both either go on a tear or fall flat on their faces.

Roger, it will be interesting to see. Will this loss effect him for the better or worse? I think for the better. Djokovic was the better player, but even then Roger kept it close. It bodes well for him especially if Djokovic, Nadal or Murray are off with their games.

Andy, well, I think we aren't going to see Andy really put together his game until next year. He has had flashes of brilliance and flashes of absolute terrible.

I think the most interesting thing to me will be where Dimitrov and Raonic go from here with their semis appearance at Wimbledon.

 

[tented]

I for one think that Roger still has a chance of beating Rafa. Consider that their last five meetings were the AO and in 2013, the time when Roger was really struggling (by the AO he seemed to be righting the ship, but still).

Before that Rafa was still dominant, but it wasn't absurd - Roger would still beat him every once in a while - at Indian Wells in 2012 is the last time, then the WTF in 2011.

The Roger we're seeing today is closer to the 2009-12 Roger than the 2013 Roger. That Roger was probably the favorite on grass, indoor hards, and if not even on outdoor hards, was at least competitive.

The problem is 5 sets with Roger against Rafa being run around like a chicken, reaching up for his backhands where he can't get much on the ball! He would have to be playing "lights out" and Rafa struggling a bit; indoors Fed's best chance at this stage in his career! :nono :angel:

I agree. Roger's most likely chance of beating Rafa would be indoors. It wouldn't surprise me if he beats him in London or Paris/Bercy, for example.

But best-of-five? It has only happened 3 times, the last of which was seven years ago.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know. I know Djoker likes being the number 1 player, but I feel like he plays better when he is ranked lower. I think he likes hunting versus being the hunted. I hope this win gives him the confidence he wants going into the US Open. He can easily become a double digit slam champion if he focuses and takes the US Open and Australian next year to get to 9 and then it would be just a matter of time to get to at least 10.

Nadal it is really hard to say. He is like Serena in that they can both either go on a tear or fall flat on their faces.

Roger, it will be interesting to see. Will this loss effect him for the better or worse? I think for the better. Djokovic was the better player, but even then Roger kept it close. It bodes well for him especially if Djokovic, Nadal or Murray are off with their games.

Andy, well, I think we aren't going to see Andy really put together his game until next year. He has had flashes of brilliance and flashes of absolute terrible.

I think the most interesting thing to me will be where Dimitrov and Raonic go from here with their semis appearance at Wimbledon.

Many good points, Sundaymorningguy. Funny, folks say that Rafa does better as the hunter, too. The best #1's of recent decades have been Roger and Pete. They both seemed to like being the King, and were comfortable with a target on their backs. For sure Nadal, Djokovic and Andy, too, are used to the chase.

You've also got a point about Rafa and Serena, who can either be slash-and-burn or crash-and-burn.

I'm not waiting for next year on Andy Murray, though I hope he figures out a good coaching situation, either Amelie or the next one. He seems fit now, post-surgery, so he should show some moxie in the next few months, if he has the right hunger.

Dimitrov to me is the one who's most making a move. Raonic, too, though I have lesser hopes for him at the very top. What about Nishikori? Then Gulbis and Dolgopolov?

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I think until now it's hard to make a case that getting to number 1 is a problem for Novak. In 2011 he was assured of the top ranking after winning the Wimbledon semi final and then not only won the final, but also the first tournament he went into as number 1 (Montreal), the US Open and the Australian Open 2012.

Then after getting it back in the fall of 2012 he won the WTF and the Australian Open 2013. So in the short term being number 1 seems to be more of a good than a bad thing to Novak, but one could argue that he lost a bit of drive mid to long term.

 

[lacatch]

As has been said many times before, Novak is a highly demonstrative, emotional player. I think this win will give him just the shot of confidence he needed to win the big matches with Nadal more consistently. I think the interesting challenge is how he balances personal and work life. People say Fed can do it (now with 4) so certainly Novak can, except they are obviously two very different people with different temperaments.