2016 Australian Open Tennis Championships

[bottle]

All true. And what really got me was Murray's break the angle and hit down the line backhands. Each one, always at a crucial moment, hit the net or landed two feet outside of the singles court. The error was so constant that the theoretical correction for it seemed to be something technical such as "make contact with the 80 mph oncoming ball a bit earlier."

[stroke]

Fair enough.
But not Djokovic's fault with Borg quitting or the surfaces or his opposition. Djokovic is only handling what the current environment provides him. And he's doing a damn good job handling it. I'm more on your side of the fence as well when it comes to this, but we can both agree that what Djokovic is doing these days is pretty damn impressive.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I agree. Novak is now the very best player of a very good era, and he has now overcome Roger and Rafa. It has been a long work in progress for him and a champions will. I really liked Borg, but he did retire maybe too early without really embracing the McEnroe challenge. Of course, Roger is older and obviously not in his prime, but he still is very tough, and to me Novak was just showed so much mettle with those Wimbledon and US Open wins vs Roger.

[stotty]

Roger's longevity...

Of course, Roger is older and obviously not in his prime, but he still is very tough, and to me Novak was just showed so much mettle with those Wimbledon and US Open wins vs Roger.

I think Roger has given Novak and Murray...and others....the idea that tennis doesn't have to end at 31. But there is something that few seem to realise about Roger that might be unique to him. Roger manages to progress deep into the draw of slams because he dispatches lesser players so easily...ridiculously so. This has been vital because he conserves so much energy for those last two rounds. I am not sure the others top 3 will be able to do this as they get into their mid-thirties.

That said, the cracks are showing. Roger is a little slower across the expanse and this has showed in his last two slam finals. A five set win against Novak certainly looks out of reach, and winning in three straight would seem nye on impossible. I am not sure a player can engineer a four set win based around having a mental and physical breather, but this might be only way.

I do feel the secret of Roger's longevity lies in his efficiency and economical style. Murray and Rafa don't have that. Novak does to an extent but not like Roger.

[klacr]

I agree. Novak is now the very best player of a very good era, and he has now overcome Roger and Rafa. It has been a long work in progress for him and a champions will. I really liked Borg, but he did retire maybe too early without really embracing the McEnroe challenge. Of course, Roger is older and obviously not in his prime, but he still is very tough, and to me Novak was just showed so much mettle with those Wimbledon and US Open wins vs Roger.

Roger Federer is still, at his age, the only player on tour that mildly compete with an in-form Djokovic. That speaks volumes about Federer. How many other players would have won even three games off Djokovic in those first two sets in the semi? The level Djokovic was competing at...no one, except for Roger. And despite getting blown out in those first two sets, it wasn't Roger's talent that turned the tide, and it wasn't Djokovic taking his foot off the gas...It was Roger's heart, fire and competitiveness of a champion that he raised his level and won the 3rd set.

As Djokovic asserts himself as head and shoulders above all players, the argument will now infiltrate the tennis discussion forums as to "who would win, The current Djokovic or the vintage Fed from 2005-2007?" it can also be phrased in the question "Would Djokovic still be as dominant if Federer were younger?"

Personally, I'm thrilled just to be witnessing this level. It may not be the tennis style I prefer to see, but witnessing dominance in any sport is a unique opportunity to assess, evaluate and ponder the bar-talk hypotheticals. And as teachers, hopefully learn and study what makes them great.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stroke]

I agree, Fed is the most efficient, easy on the eye(to use Jason Goodall quote) of all time. I just don't think we will see another one like him.

[tennis_chiro]

Murray has to go through a major metamorphosis!

I think you are all missing the boat a little bit. No one can compete with Djokovic when he plays at the level he demonstrated last week in the semis and finals. There are a couple of guys who are capable of almost hanging with Novak, but they are all clearly well behind. It will take one of those guys who is close to take advantage of the one area where they might have an advantage over Novak. To do that, this player would have to forego his results for at least a year to perfect his ability in the forecourt and take advantage of that one area. And this assumes that he already has adequate forecourt habits and technique that would enable him to develop adequate proficiency in the forecourt to employ that strategy on a much greater basis. I only see one player who has the necessary technical skills to be able to pull this off along with the necessary backcourt game to stay close to Novak…Murray. He actually has excellent volleying skills; unfortunately, he has never been inclined to rely on them.

Physically, Murray is right there with Djoker, but he is being forced to work much harder than Novak because of Djokovic’s baseline precision. If Murray ever wants to be something other than the guy that loses to Novak in the major finals, he has to do something to tip the scales back in his favor. I don’t think it is possible for him to wrest Djoker’s baseline superiority from him. But at the same time, even as Novak continues to work to improve his front court play, it seems clear that he will never be that good as an instinctual, reactive volleyer; he just never developed the necessary skills early enough. On the other hand, Murray almost has that game at his disposal; not quite yet though. Most important, he has demonstrated no inclination to develop and rely on it.

It would take some kind of a “come to Jesus” moment for Murray to make the necessary commitment, but judging by Federer’s and Ferrer’s longevity, he still has a good 5 years left in his legs.

Just a couple of the things he would have to do:

1. Commit to developing a +100mph second serve. He moved it up significantly in the last year, but he has to go even further if he wants to neutralize or at least reduce the advantage Djoker has returning second serves. HIs fastest second serve in the final was 171KMH(about 107mph), so he can do it.

2. He’s shown he can throw in the occasional 135mph first serve, but he averaged less than 120 mph in the final (190KMH). That has to be near 130 and it would take a sea change in Andy’s attitude toward serving in all the other matches he plays through the year. And this strategy on first and second serves would probably cost him more double-faults and a few more losses the rest of the year until he gets used to it. His service motion is good enough; but the mindset has to make a complete change.

3. He would have to press and play aggressively going forward in matches he knows he can win by simply waiting for the opponent to miss. Again, this will probably cost him a few extra losses through the year, but if he wants to get to the next level, he would have to do this. Part of this change in tactical philosophy would force him to further develop shots with which he already has some facility, but with which his proficiency has to be greatly improved to survive the test of Novak’s passing shots. This would include further development of his slice approach shots. (Yeah, d_b, stop smiling.)

I don’t think anyone has quite the combination of available tools and physical and mental toughness to truly be able to give Novak any real competition the next two years. Wawrinka can get hot and pull an upset, but he doesn’t seem to be getting any more consistent. Federer will continue to try to cheat father time, but it is a losing battle and I don’t think he is as fundamentally solid on the baseline as Murray; just too many errors when Djoker extends him on the baseline. Roanic showed me something different in the way he was moving to the net (something I’m offering Murray could duplicate with a little work) and he has an unbelievable serve, but it won’t mean anything if he can’t break; he’s just not nearly as mobile or fast as Murray. I do think he will be the next top three player if he gets healthy, but it would come down to a stare-down with Novak and I think the Canadian blinks first.

I still believe in CAP. Consistency Accuracy and Power, necessarily in that order. The more powerful player wins by forcing the more consistent accurate player out of his comfort zone. Djokovic is clearly the most consistent. Federer has beaten him in three sets by making him uncomfortable, but he can’t sustain it over 5 sets. Wawrinka is like catching lightning in a bottle. And I don’t see anybody else who is close. If someone doesn’t find a way to make Novak uncomfortable, I’d say he is even money for not only the Djoker slam (ending with the French this year), but for the Golden Slam with the Olympics and all four in 2016.

don

[don_budge]

Realistically Speaking…The 2016 Australian Open…ATP 2000…Melbourne, Australia

It would take some kind of a “come to Jesus” moment for Murray to make the necessary commitment, but judging by Federer’s and Ferrer’s longevity, he still has a good 5 years left in his legs.

don

I've never been one to disagree here on the forum and although sometimes I might have a different take on some of your posts…I find that you are always Fundamentally Correct (FC)

This part of your post is what really caught my eye…a "come to Jesus moment". Guys like Andy Murray do not have "come to Jesus" moments. His game is not going to change one iota…it is cast in stone. I highly doubt that he has five years left in his legs. He's a pretty big lug and his physique does not suggest this kind of sustainability to me. He relies so much on his movement and retrieving that looking at the shape of his legs and judging from the condition of his back…he may be running out of time in a couple of ways.

He would have to reinvent himself if he were to fill the prescription that you have prescribed for him to have a bit more success. He would have to bite the bullet. Judging him from what I have observed he doesn't have that type of soul. He is not searching for revelations of these sort…he will try to eke out everything he can from what he has been doing since he was a junior. You might see a modification here or there but he doesn't have the kind of wherewithal to make the sort of metamorphosis you are describing.

The one thing that he may decide to work on is his service motion (which I did a fairly significant write up on not so long ago) because this is something that is within the realm of his limited psyche. This is where he should start as there is much unrealized potential in the execution of his motion. I think for a top level player it is pretty bad all things considered.

It's true that he might ramp up some necessary miles per hour but he is also going to have to consider what you refer to as CAP (consistency, accuracy and power) and I refer to as the definition of power (control is power; control being various parts speed, spin and placement) when he delves into his book of serving tactics. When serving to the likes of Novak Djokovic you have to have the nervy tactical spine to go from fastballer to cunning control (SSP).

Regarding his advances to the net it doesn't appear to me that he has the physique for this type of play coupled with the deficiencies in his service motion and approach game. I am not so certain of his volley play as others…I have yet to see him demonstrate it on a consistent basis. I think he is rather spotty up and around the net.

He certainly doesn't have the mindset and you have recognized this as well when you say it would take him a year to develop it…it ain't going to happen. He is too into protecting among other things his points, his income, his ego. It will be impossible for him to have the necessary Jesus moment when his whole subsistence is based on greed and self satisfaction. Let's face it…he has never been the top dog and at this point he doesn't see himself as the top dog which is the first step in becoming top dog. Novak has beat him way too soundly and mercilessly recently for him to have those kind of illusions. He has that look about him when he plays Djokovic of a dog that has been beaten too much.

It appears that the only thing that will bring Novak down is Father Time or Lady Luck. There isn't anything on the horizon that remotely threatens his rule and one never knows about the future and what it brings in terms of health and fortune. An injury can terminate things and the way he throws himself around the court this is a possibility…although hopefully unlikely.

As for Roger Federer…he has seen better days. His career is in the twilight stage…he is straddling the day and the night. He is betwixt and between. One might say that it is a shame but everything passes in the end. There isn't any getting around it. He prolonged his career with a long overdue change in equipment and one has to wonder if he was having a "Borg moment" when he didn't change in time to salvage another handful of Slam titles. His tactical about face also is keeping him in the game a tad longer as well. The recent defeats of Djokovic in his prime are testimony to all that you have said in your post and it is too bad that there doesn't seem to be a horde of players coming down the pipe with this sort of play in their tennis genes.

Federer's legs just do not have it in them to carry him to the finish line in a three out of five venue with play being what it is these days. I wouldn't count him out if the courts were slicked up as Fred Stolle was lamenting in the article that I posted in this thread. When Federer is serving up to his potential he gives Djokovic everything he can handle. For some strange reason Federer elected to receive serve in his semifinal and it was all downhill from that moment. He should have started serving and tagged "Mr. Invincible" with a couple of real stunning shots in the very beginning to set the tone of the match. Instead he allowed Djokovic to do just that and now the results are written in stone.

The others may be missing the boat a little but that is only because of a lack of perspective. They haven't seen what we have. But more and more they are coming to the realization that what I have been saying all along is true…and which you yourself will have a hard time disputing. Stotty and klacr certainly seem to get it. In the end we will all be on the same page. Reality is a funny thing. Sometimes it is hard for some to get their head around it but once they have been woken up it gets harder and harder to deny. You can say what you want about the modern game of tennis but it isn't really tennis. Entire significant aspects of the game have been effectively entirely engineered extinct. It's a dreadfully dull affair when taken at face value. It hasn't been that great of an era. Realistically speaking.

[klacr]

FACT: Tennis players will have to change their games, styles and tactics if they want to consistently compete with and beat Djokovic. Are they willing to learn, adapt and evolve? Are they willing to embrace the net, learn all the serves, gain mastery in all the shots and use the whole court? If not, I hope they are content with second place.

Djokovic is raising the level of not just his game, but hopefully of others. They need to open their eyes, adapt and evolve. Djokovic is the best in the world at his particular style, and unfortunately for everyone else, they play that style. Time to take a look in the mirror, time to make a move. Time to be bold...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1v_7T6p8U

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Knee surgery for Roger....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35482027

[don_budge]

The Knees are part of the Ageing Legs...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35482027

For the last several months I have been saying the only difference between Roger and Novak Djokovic are the former's ageing "older" legs. There are many more miles on Federer's legs and joints than on Djokovic's.

I thought that Roger was moving much more gingerly on the game changes. I didn't notice it so much when he was playing. Once the ball is in play the pain goes away. I wonder when he actually injured it. I don't thing meniscus surgery is so serious these days. It's amazing how far knee surgery has evolved in the last forty years.

The beginning of the end? No…that was some time ago. This guy has been soldiering on the last couple of years and really seeming to enjoy it. Making the absolute best of his game with less than optimal conditioning (read age). It's testimony to his longevity as to just how efficiently he does things on the tennis court. It's why he is the "Living Proof" in my tennis teaching paradigm.

[klacr]

Roger and rest of tour gonna need more than great knees to beat Novak.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton