Novak Djokovic - Golden Slam?

Yes, Querry was playing well, but he didn't have to play that great to win. The story here is what was wrong with Novak. There are quite a few theories floating around Wimbledon this evening. Some more plausible than others, but I don't buy the line that he simply cracked under the pressure of going for the Golden Slam.
 
There's no way that anything can crack Novak. He was already holding all four major titles. There could be something else up, but it certainly wouldn't be cracking under pressure.
 
Who knows? S*#& happens. I'm not too worried about any gossipy stuff. I'll leave that to the tabloids. Tennis is tough. Grand Slams are tough. The mighty fall regularly. That's really all there is to it as far as my interest goes.
 
Everyone has to lose at some point. He lost to a guy ranked, what? 28th? That's the 28th ranked player in the world. He's pretty damned good. It happens.
 
Didn't Novak admit that there was something, during his press conference, but that "now is not the time to talk about it"? A few years ago he used to end match wins by looking to the sky and thanking someone, and I don't recall him ever telling us who that was either. Whatever it is or was, it isn't anybody's business but his own.
 
Barry_Green said:
Didn't Novak admit that there was something, during his press conference, but that "now is not the time to talk about it"? A few years ago he used to end match wins by looking to the sky and thanking someone, and I don't recall him ever telling us who that was either. Whatever it is or was, it isn't anybody's business but his own.
Click to expand...

Yes, he said he "wasn't really 100%". What he means by "really" is anyone's guess. And, whether it is his "own business", we can only properly judge if, and when, we find out what is bugging him. He's a young father, it could be something as simple as his baby keeping him awake. It could, of course, be something more sinister. One thing we do know is a punter bet $53,000 on him to win. I expect he wants to know what's up too...
 
Well -- I can't see as to how it would be anybody but his business, unless the allegation is doping or some other rules violation? I mean, it could have been something as simple as (dare I say it) diarrhea. Certainly something he wouldn't want to talk about, but something that could definitely affect his performance.

And fools bet on sports all the time. That isn't anyone's fault but his own, is it? Someone bet $126,000 on Mike Tyson to beat Buster Douglas, and that didn't work out for him either... things happen in sports. Sometimes Pete Sampras has to stagger over and vomit in the middle of a match (although he came back to win that one). Sometimes Serena goes insane and threatens to shove a ball down a ball girl's throat. Maybe Djokovic found out half an hour earlier that his wife was cheating on him, or something equally upsetting. Who knows?
 
I really don't get the impulse to imagine that something "sinister" is up. There's nothing about Djokovic which indicates he'd be into anything "sinister." He lost. He didn't play well, and he doesn't want to talk about it. It happens. Let it go.

I remember Nadal going out early, and he was (as is their style) being grilled by the British press about it. Nadal was baffled, and basically said "what's the big deal? I lost. There isn't a war, there isn't a famine, I just lost a tennis match." I also similarly recall Roddick going after another British reporter (I don't even remember the question), saying "Look, I have a professional obligation to sit here and take questions. You have a professional obligation not to ask childish questions." All this tabloid crap is exactly that, and the notoriously brutal, nasty British press is one of the dark sides of Wimbledon. Let a guy lose without suggesting some "sinister" under-working. And I couldn't possibly care less if some chump put down 50 large on a sports match. It's his own money to throw away.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's a good question for a few guys. Wawrinka didn't win his first major title until he was 29; Ferrer didn't even win a Masters 1000 until he was 30, and hit his career ranking peak at 31 years old. There's something about aging in tennis nowadays... used to be by the time you were 30, you were done and gone. Nowadays some of the best players aren't even hitting their stride 'til they're around 30. Querrey's 28 and a half, so maybe he's just beginning the best part of his career now?
Click to expand...

Remember when McEnroe was making something of a comeback in the late '80s? They were celebrating him as a venerated old man of the sport making a surprise resurgence. He wasn't even 30.
 
I know. Borg retired at 26! Now Novak has done something that nobody in the men's game has done in nearly fifty years and something only done by two other men ever -- he won four grand slam titles in a row -- and he didn't pull off that feat until he was 29. Remember when the records were being set over who was the youngest to do something - whether it was Chang or Hingis or Seles... now it's the over-the-hill gang that's representing. I mean, look at the top five, at their ages: 29, 29, 34, 30, and 31. Berdych and Gasquet are both in the top 10, and they're both 30; I expect Tsonga might be ranked in the top 10 after this run, and he's 31. I'm tellin' ya, 29 is the new 17 in tennis. :P
 
When the guys my age started taking over around then - Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang, et al - they were in their late teens. Becker was only a few years older, but hit the scene at 17. That wasn't unusual, but now if a 19-year-old found himself on a court, you'd never expect him to win.

Did the game change, or the players?
 
David Jimerson said:
When the guys my age started taking over around then - Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang, et al - they were in their late teens. Becker was only a few years older, but hit the scene at 17. That wasn't unusual, but now if a 19-year-old found himself on a court, you'd never expect him to win.

Did the game change, or the players?
Click to expand...

Or the equipment?
 
But wouldn't you expect all those factors to affect all ages of players equally? Thiem's eating the same thing Ferrer is, they're both using top-line equipment...

Maybe something about the way the equipment lets you play, that takes less of a toll on the body of the older player? Maybe with the old shoes and the old racquets you had to really beat the stuffing out of yourself to make a good play, and so you burned yourself out sooner, whereas with modern equipment the players don't have to push themselves quite so far? Even so, I'd assume that the bonuses of youth would still play a factor and equal-equipment applying equally, you'd still expect the teens/20's to beat up on the 30's...

I don't know the reasons, I'm just looking at the results. And Tsonga will definitely be in the top 10 after this week, so at least 8 of the top 10 are going to be 29 years or older. There's gotta be some verifiable reason... and Serena's far and away at the top of the women's game, and she's 34, and Venus is back in the top 10 and making a heck of a run at Wimbledon and she's 36! And Vinci's #7, and she's 33... so 3 of the top 10 women are 33 or older. And the rest of them aren't entirely infants either; Radwanska's #3, at 27; Kerber's #4, at 28; Azaranka's #6, at 27. Six of the top 10 are 27 or older, and if you add Kvitova in (at 26), then seven of the top 10 are 26 or older. But the fun stat is that 3 of the top 10 are 33 or older.

Whatever's changed, it's clear that something has changed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top