Will Djokovic buck the trend?

[Carlg]

I was thinking of the Big three today and the slams they have won. What stuck out to me was how quickly Rafa and Federer fell off a cliff in terms of winning slams. I remember thinking Rafa could challenge Rogers record and then next thing I know he is stuck at 14 for what seems like forever.

Similarly, when Roger won his 17th I don't think anyone thought it would be his last!

Turning to Djokovic, with no challengers in sight besides Andy it seems the sky is the limit for him to win more slams and challenge Feds 17. Yet Djokovic only has 2 more slams before he turns 30.

Looking at past GS winners I was shocked to see that only 10 times men won as 30 year olds, only 4 times won as 31 year olds, and only 6 times older than that.

And it got me thinking: Will Djokovic suddenly hit a wall like the others did? or will he buck the trend and have his name sprinkled throught those 30+ GS winner lists?

Ken Roswell won 4 times aged 33+. Besides that, no man has won multiple GS once they have hit 31. Will Novak be Roswell 2.0? or is his window maybe smaller than we think?(the next 6 slams).

Looking at multiple winners 30+ we have Rod laver(4 times- 3 at age 30, 1 at age 31), Agassi(2 times, age 30 and 32), Conners(2 times, age 30 and 31), and Roswell (4 times, ages 33, 35,36,37).

So if Novak were to match this rare list he should win max 4 more once he hits 30. If this is true, and if he is to beat Rogers record than that would mean he would need to win both the US Open this year and the Australian Open next year.

What do you all think? Will Novak buck the trend and be the first to win 5 slams once reaching the age of 30? Will he win the next two slams and then tie these greats to beat roger? Or will he fall off a cliff like the rest of them?

If Novak isn't the exception then it looks like 2018 could mark the beginning of a new era for Men's Tennis. I am curious to see how it all unfolds!

PS- judging by the above greats and considering his recent dominance is 16 GS the most reasonable guess for what Novak ends at? winning both the next two slams and then taking two more to match the likes of Agassi and Conners.

 

[El Dude]

Good question. Rosewall played in a very different era so isn't a great comp. That said, Novak has the benefit of very weak competition and should be able to extend his window accordingly.

Roger and Rafa simply did what most greats have done: decline around age 30. Actually, Roger's last Slam at age 30 is one of the oldest in the Open Era, at least among greats. I think only Agassi, Sampras, Connors, Rosewall, and Laver were older.

 

[lob]

Djokovic is already an exception if you look at some other 'ATP geriatric' stats. For eg. Four slams in a row - not done since Laver. Three slams in a calendar year at or above age 27- did anyone do this after Laver? Our resident statistician El Dude will be able to dig out other such records.

As El Dude's impeccable analysis has shown, the mean age of ATP top 100 and top 10 have been rising fast. Only a single teen slam winner in this century. Who was before Rafa? Length of slam matches and rallies have been increasing. Etc.

Again, Dude pointed out that the 89-93 ATP generation has been astonishingly weak. Zero slam winners even after the absolute youngest among them is 5 months shy of 23? Djoker has succeeded by the weakest ever tennis generation in half a century (not his fault).

Long story short, unless he gets injured, he has plenty of time left to get to 18.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[lob]

Correction: Djoker has been Succeeded By the weakest ATP generation in half a century.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[El Dude]

I agree with your "long story short," lob. Novak is not only playing at a very high level at a relatively advanced age, he is also at or near his peak when there are no new greats at or close to their peak. Thiem and Kyrgios probably won't be greats; the nearest hopes are Zverev and Fritz, both of whom are at least 1-2 years away from prime time.

So the point is, even if Zverev continues his steady rise and finishes, say, around #20 this year, and then continues to rise next year and finishes in or near the top 10, AND he turns out to be an all-time great, it will probably be 2018 at the very earliest that we see a new all-time great (Zverev) performing at or near his prime. This means that we've got a pretty open field, and Novak has a nice context to rack up some more Slam titles.

Now if he wins only 1-2 more through next year, his chances of surpassing Roger will fade quickly. I think he really needs to win AT LEAST three more through 2017--the next five Slams--to have a legit shot at 17-18. He'll have 15 Slam titles at age 30, with one more Slam before turning 31. It will be a tall order to win 2-3 more, but certainly possible.

 

[Kieran]

It'll be interesting to see what happens. What usually happens blokes at an advanced age is that niggly injuries become more serious, and more difficult to shake off, and they also find it harder to recover quickly from tough matches. Nerves affect them more, too, so their chances decrease both physically and mentally, while the natural aging process slows down reactions and reflexes, speed etc.

Nole is 29, so that's fairly old for a tennis player in the traditional sense. it's certainly heading from the bedlam and fullness of youth, into something less able, and more in need of downtime. Will he buck the trend? The question should be, how can he buck the trend? Because Mother Nature has a hold on him, and Father Time has set a clock on things. You can't really defeat these terrible twins forever. though you can manage your decline in ways that are smart...

 

[Carol]

The only exception I see in Novak is that he is lucky not having any injury (until now) and three of the greatest players are not playing their best, one because his age, the other one because his injuries and the third one his head though he has just won Wimbledon. All these is given the Serbian all the confidence that he needs to play better but...how long it's going to last? maybe one more year?

 

[El Dude]

If we look at tennis age as birth age + one-quarter year per Slam, then Novak is "29.5" with two more Slams before he turns 30 years old. Here is how other all-time greats did from 29.5 on, with the rough date they were "29.5" in parentheses:

Connors (Spring, 1982): would win two Slams that year and one more the following year, with 3 of his 8 Slams (38%) coming after age 29.5. He remained a top 10 player for another seven years.
Borg (Winter, 1985): retired four years before.
McEnroe (Summer, 1988): Won his last Slam four years before. Was still a good player and would finish #4 the following year, and stick around for a few more years as a top 20 player but was done as an elite.
Lendl (Summer, 1989): Just won his 7th Slam and would win one more the following year. 1989 was his last year as #1; he'd remain a top ten player for a few more years.
Wilander (Spring, 1994): Trying to revive his career but he'd won his last Slam six years before. In his "latter day Hewitt phase."
Edberg (Summer, 1995): Last Slam was three years before, had fallen out of the top 10 earlier that year. Would play one more year as a top 20 player.
Becker (Spring, 1997): Won his last Slam the year previously, was in rapid decline.
Agassi (Fall, 1999): Amidst a career revival and his best year. Won two Slams, finished #1. Would win half of his 8 Slams after "29.5" and remain a top 10 player for seven more years (including 1999).
Sampras (Spring, 2001): In serious decline. Would win one more Slam the next year and then retire.
Federer (Spring, 2011): Still elite, but not peak. Would win a Slam the following year, but none since.
Nadal (Winter, 2015): In career crisis, hadn't won a Slam in a year and a half (or been in a final), now spanning to over two years.

Of those eleven players, only Connors and Agassi won a significant share of their Slams after Novak's current age - three and four Slams, respectively. Lendl, Sampras, Federer would win one more, but the rest did not win any.

So the question is, will Novak be a Connors/Agassi and win a sizeable chunk of his career Slams after his current age? Or will he be a Lendl/Sampras/Federer and win only one or two more? Or will he be more like the rest, and win no more?

Obviously it is highly unlikely that he doesn't win anymore. I also think he's almost certain to win at least two more, so surpass the late careers of Lendl, Sampras, and Federer. But 3-4 more like Connors and Agassi? That seems possible, even probable. But the real question is whether he'll win a similar percentage of his total career Slams (38-50%) as they did in late career, which would mean he'll win 7-12 more, finishing with 19-24! That seems very unlikely.

So my guess is that he wins somewhere in the 3-6 range, and finish somewhere in the 15-18 range. 4-5 more seems most likely.

 

[El Dude]

It'll be interesting to see what happens. What usually happens blokes at an advanced age is that niggly injuries become more serious, and more difficult to shake off, and they also find it harder to recover quickly from tough matches. Nerves affect them more, too, so their chances decrease both physically and mentally, while the natural aging process slows down reactions and reflexes, speed etc.

Nole is 29, so that's fairly old for a tennis player in the traditional sense. it's certainly heading from the bedlam and fullness of youth, into something less able, and more in need of downtime. Will he buck the trend? The question should be, how can he buck the trend? Because Mother Nature has a hold on him, and Father Time has set a clock on things. You can't really defeat these terrible twins forever. though you can manage your decline in ways that are smart...

Yes, true. The answer is simple: stay healthy. The solution is more difficult: how to stay healthy? There is also the concern with Novak that if he loses even a fraction of his movement and speed, his game could decline quickly.

And then there's the psychological impact - once he approaches Roger's magic 17, it will get harder to overcome the mental game. To follow-up on my last overly long post, I suspect he wins the next few relatively easily, but then #16, 17 and 18 will become increasingly difficult - not only because of the mental aspect, but he'll be a year or two older, and some younger players will (hopefully) be in their peak or near it.

But as I've said before, Novak really needs to win at least three of the next five - through 2017. If he starts 2018, the year he'll be 30-31, with 15 Slams, I think he has a good chance of passing Roger. If he has 14 or less, not so much.

 

[Kieran]

Agassi is never really a good example, because he basically took a hiatus during the years he should have been knuckling down. So he kept a lot of juice in the tank, whereas Novak has been constantly drawing from the well. This is why Agassi could outlast Pete. Connors similarly went off the boil for a while, but not anywhere near the extent that Agassi did. Jimbo was never unprofessional in that way, though he obviously was in others.

Since the end of 2013, his last great season, Rafa has had the back injury, then right wrist, then appendix, and just when he finally looked competitive this year on clay, the left wrist. I think it's fair to say he's not a good example in this matter either, except as a player who's showing serious signs of the wear and tear that the long years on the tour can bring. What I've noticed is that high achievers generally have exhausted themselves by a certain point, simply by staying at and competing at the very rarest of high levels for so long. It takes its toll in every single way. How Novak will manage this remains to be seen, but he has miles on the clock, and nobody can erase them, or make them lessen in their impact. Experience has its upside, but it's gained at a price...

 

[El Dude]

Yes, true. My sense is that while great players start similarly, they all end differently. And we can also see the difference between the "lesser greats" like Edberg and Becker and the "greater greats" like Roger, S in that the latter group tends to age better. For instance, if you compare Roger and Stefan at the end of the year they turned 25, the gap is noticeable but not enormous:

Stefan (through 1992): 6 Slams, 2 year-end #1s, 37 titles, 9 Masters/WTFs
Roger (through 2006): 9 Slams, 3 year-end #1s, 45 titles, 15 Masters/WTFs

And then compare them after that year:

Stefan: 0 Slams, 0 #1s, 5 titles, 0 Masters/WTFs
Roger: 8 Slams, 2 year-end #1s, 43 titles, 12 Masters/WTFs

Those are just two players, but I think it illustrates the main difference between the two tiers of greats: the very greatest players have a longer peak and/or stronger plateau.

Novak seems very much of the latter category. Actually, he started peaking later than most greats, having a massive breakout in 2011 at age 23-24. I think part of the reason he is maintaining peak form longer than Roger, Rafa, Pete, and almost everyone else, is that he was under the reign of Roger and Rafa for so long, which required him to push himself further and find the 2011-16 form that we've been witnessing.

But all things come to an end. I suspect Novak will remain the top player for another year or two, but when all is said and done, 2011, 2015, and 2016 will be his three best years, with 2017 next but not as good as those three.