Novak Djokovic, Leader of the New Pack in Tennis

what the hell are you blabbering on about?

April 4th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Interesting prediction, I think you’re right. It amazes me how much Djokovic has improved just in the last few months. After each match he seems to gather so much experience, and use it 100% in all his future matches.

April 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Monfils? He’s the most overrated of the bunch. I’ll be surprised if he even cracks the Top 10 from the way he’s playing, or even the Top 20.

Gasquet plays well on all surfaces, but he needs to mature for another year or two. Then he will be able to win at least the French or Wimbledon. He’s definitely my favorite.

Murray is Top 10, but not a Top 5 material. I don’t see a slam in him at all.

Del Potro isn’t anything special. Berdych peaked way too early. Nadal has already proven himself, so that sets him apart. Querrey may be a decent Top 20 player, like Mardy Fish or Taylor Dent, but he won’t make an impact in majors. Bagdhatis? His AO run is the highlight of his career, and he’s just a one hit wonder.

Korolev I’m highly interested in, because he’s so talented on all fields. I think he plays a better game than Safin, and is Russia’s next big thing. He’s great on hardcourts.

April 4th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

well i must say very interesting,, being a nadal fan though im a little biased but i think nadal has found his game again after IW open, djokovic is really a great player but he has never beaten fed and i think they have some personal issues there. so i dunno if u read the presser for novak after he won in miami but after winning the match he stood up and sed ‘roger, can u hear me coming’ i mean wow! i dont roger will let live up to that though.

April 5th, 2007 at 4:34 am

“once the Fed era has passed”? Too early to say that mate. Even think that. Nadal will fade before Fed.

April 5th, 2007 at 6:50 am

My vote is for Djokovic. Look at the way he won Miami. He beat Canas in 3 straight sets. Canas beat Fed twice in a month. I’m really looking forward to the next match between Djokovic and Fed. It should be a humdinger.
Otherwise, I don’t know that he needs to muscle up so much. It might just slow him down. Currently, the way he’s playing, he doesn’t need the third or fourth set, as he’s beating all in straight sets.

April 5th, 2007 at 10:58 am

Fed has always had a bit of trouble against players who are strong on both sides, quick on their feet, grinders, and stubborn. Take Hewitt for example. Fed lost to Hewitt thrice in a row twice. Or Nalbandian. Fed lost to him 5 times in a row. Since then, he has beaten hewitt 9 times in a row, and nalbandian 8 out of 9 times (he was injured in that one close loss). Same thing is now starting to happen with Nadal. Fed is almost over his Nadal Jinx. Canas is similar. Fed will figure him out too. And once Fed figures someone out, he just beats them all the time.

Point is – Djokovic has already lost to Fed 4 times. Fed is not losing to him (except for an odd loss once in a while) until he gets old. SO I wouldn’t appoint Djokovic the “heir apparent” yet.

April 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am

Put Djokovic against a grinder on clay, and you’ll figure out why he needs to bulk up a bit. Everyone needs to be fit to play 5 sets over 5 hours these days. Players are too fit these days.

April 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Agassi fan
I didn’t say Djokovic would beat Fed. I said it would be a humdinger.
I’d pick Djokovic over the rest of the pack and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him beat Fed. It took Fed awhile to beat Nalbandian, maybe it might work the same way with Djokovic beating Fed. At any rate it will be most interesting to watch and I’m definitely looking forward to it.

April 5th, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Yeah right (yawn)

You have to cosider that Fed was not beaten by any of these new pack of guys at Indian Wells or Miami, but was taken out by a veteran (almost) of the game. In case Fed had made it past Canas and had beaten Djokovic (from their h2h, its not too hard to foresee), I am sure your column would be highlighting the supposed weakness of this era. I am pretty sure that in that case, you would be calling 2007 as the year of no competition as well. By the way, I am really surprised that you think that 2002-2006 was the age of no competition. This means you reduce all of Fed’s achievements to nothing with one stupid comment. Very sad that Fed’s hard work to reach such a pinnacle has been undermined by a blogger with such ideas.
Pathetic.

April 6th, 2007 at 2:43 am

The 2002-2006 being an era of no competition was bull*&#$ anyway – that was shown in that old thread.

If a damn superior player shows up, he WILL, by definition, make everyone else look ordinary, and gobble up everything. We’ve never seen that before in tennis (or anyotherindividual sport – 8 majors in 3 years). SO its a bit difficult for some people to comprehend.

April 6th, 2007 at 9:34 am

Sean, I have to agree with Agassi Fan and Hrishikesh. Fed dominated, as did Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, and Connors before him, but not from lack of competition. These guys figure out how to play in a zone in which they know they are going to win, and make it happen.

But Fed’s style of play makes his domination seem so much greater than it really is. He hits fantastic shots from all angles of the court, and makes it look easy. And he sometimes wins with lopsided scores. But I think that’s more a mental thing in that as his oppenents don’t believe they can win, they go away when they get behind. Like Kafelnikov used to say about Sampras, “Is Pete in the tournament? Then why should I show up. I’m not going to win it.” But the competition has been there… Safin, Roddick, Nadal, even Agassi gave him fits in the wind at the U.S. Open. But Fed’s managed to eek out vitories.

Fed’s a great player… might end his career with the most slams ever. But I put his chances of wining the French this year at 50/50, because as we all know, the dirt is the ultimate grinder’s surface. And Fed, like Pete before him, cannot use his big weapons to end points quickly.

I would give Djoko a small chance at the French. But one of his weapons is his movement, and I haven’t actually seem him move on clay, so that could be a problem. Regardless, he’s not going to be able to defeat a healthy Nadal. It will take a true dirt ball specialist to beat Rafa. Maybe Gonzo could do it now that he plays a more patient game sometimes. The match of the century would’ve been a prime Guga versus Rafa. The points would’ve never ended.

April 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Guga would have taken out Nadal on clay, I agree. 4 times out of 5.

Fed being No 1 till 2009 US open? That’s another 2.5 years. Would be quite an achievement (nearly 300 weeks consecutive).

April 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Like many people, I think that Gasquet has talent coming out of his ears. I think we’ll be seeing more of him, but I think he may need a couple of more years to grow into his game some more (apparently other people think that way too).

I had high hopes for Berdych after he won the Masters’ Series event in Paris, and still think he’ll be successful, but I feel I may have overestimated his career.

I didn’t think much about Djokovic until this year, and he’s shown that he’s got game to hang in with the big boys with his recent results. I expect that he, like Gasquet, will follow up his “young gun” mystique with a good career.

Frankly, I’m not expecting anything out of Monfils at this point. Sure, he won three out of four junior slams, but success in the juniors doesn’t always translate to success in the pros.

I didn’t think much of Murray until he took out Federer in Cincinatti. The big wins he had had before then, over Hewitt and Roddick, didn’t mean much to me at all since Hewitt and Roddick were having terrible slumps at the time (in Hewitt’s case, it’s still enduring). Honestly, I don’t think Murray would’ve had one twentieth the press he got if he weren’t British. He went five sets with Nalbandian at Wimbledon and all of a sudden everyone was talking about how he was the next guy to make it. If he had been Canadian and gone five sets, I don’t think the hype would have lasted. Murray didn’t have anything to justify his hype until the win over Federer. Since then, he’s been steady. He’ll stick around. But I’m not pinning him as a Grand Slam winner yet.

As for Nadal vs. Kuerten, I don’t think you can compare the times. It’s impossible to know who would’ve won if they had both met in their prime. Same thing with Federer and any of the great players from before his time, it’s impossible to know who would’ve won.

April 7th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

“As for Nadal vs. Kuerten, I don’t think you can compare the times. It’s impossible to know who would’ve won if they had both met in their prime. Same thing with Federer and any of the great players from before his time, it’s impossible to know who would’ve won.”

It’s impossible to know many things, but not being allowed to speculate or use our imaginations because of that, would take away a lot of fun in life.

I think Nadal would have won.

April 8th, 2007 at 11:39 am

Guga has the patience to grind it out on clay, plus many more weapons than Nadal. Would have been Guga all the way.

Nadal is a marvel of pumping iron and today’s racket technology. Give him a wooden racket, and he’s not even a top 20 player. Give him a few more years in age, he’s not even a top 20 player in today’s era – by age 25, he won’t be.

April 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Roger is a great player, but I am looking forward to more competition. It’s fun to see the up and comers really push the whole field. My biggest concern with Monfils is his mental game; he strikes me sometimes as one card short of a full deck. Murray looked good to me and then I watched that game against Novak. Yikes! That kid just faded. I bet Brad Gilbert had a fit. Anyway, nothing against Fed, but he’s just not that exciting to watch. I know, I know. He makes it look easy. That’s kind of my point. Bring on the new blood!!!!

April 8th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

lets see. This year’s french is critical.

April 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

“Give him a wooden racket, and he’s not even a top 20 player.”

Obviously, since he’s probably never trained a day in his life with a wooden racket. If you gave any player today a wooden racket and put them against somebody using something modern you would find that the wooden racket player would have a remarkably difficult time.

Now, had he been brought up using wooden rackets, back in the sixties and seventies, there’s not much reason to count him out like that.

April 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Or are we just picking on Nadal?

April 8th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

I don’t pick on Nadal, but I will say that people are less afraid of his game than 2 years ago. Sure, he can hit the ball with a lot of power, depth and spin combined, but there are times when his ball lands a little shorter, and the topspin jumps the ball right up into the players’ strike zone, which can make them really hit the ball on-the-rise and harder, therefore making it tougher for Nadal.

As for Djokovic, he’s definitely the leader of the pack of the new generation right now. I love how efficiently he hits the ball. And while hitting it, his upper body balance is one of the best, if not the best, on tour. The good thing is, it seems he’s learning the mental balance part of it now. If he keeps that up, I think he will go quite far.

April 8th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

If you give ALL of today’s players a wooden racket (just out of the blue), Nadal would be one of those who will be hurt the most. Playing 20 feet behind the baseline, he will get chewed up unless he generates the power he does due to his biceps and rackets.

April 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

With the reduction in power in groundstokes, even a Henman would serve and volley Nadal to death. A baseliner called Borg had a tough time against Mcenroe. Nadal plays even further back.

April 9th, 2007 at 7:17 am

Also, the wicked topspin that Nadal generates requires a huge sweet spot in the racket. Wood rackets don’t have that.

April 9th, 2007 at 7:18 am

Sean, totally agree Guga would win over Nadal. Guga had the patience to grind, and the firepower to hit winners even on clay. And his backhand was better than even Fed’s.

Wood racket discussions are always fun. I think the players who hit a flatter ball would rise to the top. All that top spin everyone hits would be greatly reduced. So, I disagree with Sean and think Nadal’s game would suffer. As would Roddick’s. Pete was so great because he learned to hit flat with a wood racket, then switched to graphite, and crushed the ball at will. Fed’s forehand form can be extremely flat, he would do well too.

Moving on, I think we’re all kind of agreeing on one thing… Fed’s chances at the French are not good. No one’s picking him.

Sean, your comments on Monfils are interesting. Monfils plays so far back, and he flies around the court like a bird, his game seems too loose. He’s fun to watch… but so much energy is wasted. I would pick Murray over him everytime. Murray is getting better every week. He moves great. Hits clean, takes the ball early, maybe even a little earlier than Djoko. Djoko seems to have the mental edge right now… we’ll see as they start playing on clay.

There are going to be some great matches this year. And the tournaments leading up to the French will be very telling.

I would still pick Nadal as the huge favorite. Canas is my dark horse. And Fed as third in line.

April 9th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I already picked these guys a year ago. Someone mentioned that none of them beat Federer at Indian Wells or Miami, but look what they did before that: Nadal several wins, Gasquet win over Federer at Monte Carlo, Baghdatis scared Federer at Australian, Berdych beat Federer, etc. In fact, this group has more wins over Federer in the past 18 months than his peers (Blake, Ljubicic, etc) and they haven’t peaked yet. In his peer group, only Canas and Nalbandian have multiple notable wins and Nalbandian doesn’t seem to have that ability anymore. Nadal will never develop a full attacking game necessary to win Wimbledon or the US Open; he will win 5 slams mostly Roland Garros and an Australian title. Monfils won’t get into the top 5 since he plays with talent and heart but not with his head. Baghdatis has talent but not consistency or great fitness; he has a slam in him. Berdych will get to #1 like Nadal and win 2-4 slams; his game is so big (he has straigh set wins over Nadal and Federer). Gasquet may never win a slam; beautiful backhand but doesn’t quite have the rest of the game and Berdych, Baghdatis and Djokovic have more talent; Richard might win 1 slam and get to a couple finals like every other Frenchman and a #2 or #3 ranking. Murray doesn’t have the power or great shotmaking to dominant. He uses his head very well, but that may only get him to #2 and 1-2 slams; yet he may be the Englishman to finally break the drought at Wimbledon; Andy will develop a better serve and already has a great return game that can win at Wimbledon. Djokovic is the most talented of the group; he could get to #1 in two years as Federer passes his prime. That doesn’t mean Federer won’t win another major after two years, rather he could pick up 5-6 more slams over the next 2 years and another 2-3 after that (for maybe 17-18 slams). Djokovic has potentially 6-9 slams in him. What will limit him is the talent in this group which is much deeper than the talent Federer had to face. Federer may be the greatest player of all time, but ironically, the players he had to face were past their prime (Agassi, Sampras), or never really destined to be truly great (Nalbandian, Blake, Ferrero), or a bit younger. His best multiple slam competitors closest in age are Safin and eventually Roddick. Anyhow, Djokovic has a brilliant all-court game, terrific volleys, outstanding drop shot, great angles, very good serve, etc. So I’d rank him eventually ahead of Nadal, then Berdych as the third best in the group as time tells. As for Querrey? He obviously will be better than Donald Young (who may never get into the top 15) and could have 1-2 slams in him.

April 10th, 2007 at 12:24 am

whoa u totally down played MURRAY who has played bigger and better players than Novak…its was disapointing the spring season didnt lead to a murray title in the major ones…but he surely was better overall???

April 10th, 2007 at 6:42 am

whot think that djokovic wouldnt be number 1 is stupid. at the and of this jear he will be number 3 and at the end of 2008 might be br.1

April 10th, 2007 at 7:18 am

and for marry i must say that he is spoilt badly behaved child and euronews demonstrate how is a.marry very powerful but the truth it isnt that

April 10th, 2007 at 7:21 am

Dr. Tennis, right or wrong, you do speculate well!! I like your analysis, and largely agree with it.

Fed will end up with 8 wimbledons, 5 US, 4 Aus, and 1 french, for a total of 18.

The 1 french will be this year. it will also be a calendar grand slam. He’s just not going to work that hard after that.

April 10th, 2007 at 10:25 am

I think that Djok will be there around in the top 5 next 5 years. He has got the game and also attitude. Still I think, Nadal will be the top contender for #1 sport for the next few years. What he has done at the age of 20, nobody in the history of tennis has acheived (7 Masters, 2 slams). He has improved his hard court game a lot and I think if he can get few more miles on his serves, it will be hard to beat him. Not sure about Murry after seeing him loosing 1 & 0 to Djok.

April 10th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

i know djokovic personal he is my friend bolieve me when i say noyoke will be num 3 at the end of this year and after that will be number 1
first time,when he beath govnar pederer(rodzer) and that will be very soon its over 100 will be no.1 maybe no for 2 years but shure for 3 jears

April 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

why u all think that its not possibile to win roger canjas do that,why cant do that djokovic!!!
u thint that because nobody win roger except canjas and nadal cant do that djole.to seem u dont know quality and what are serbs

April 10th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Korolev is no grinder. Anyone who watched him play Blake at TTC open knows that he has a big game (like Blake) but is prone to making lots of errors. Have you even watched him play?

April 10th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

The Dr. is IN! Great comments. Slam counts and everything. Djoko with 6-9 slams? Do you really think he has that much firepower? I’m not seeing it in his game yet. I think he needs a little more time than Murray to set up his shots, and against a big flat hitter like Fed, Berdych, even a hot Gonzo, I think he’ll have some trouble. On clay though, he might go deep into tournaments, if he has the fitness, which is suspect right now. And what about Ancic? If he gets healthy again, how would Djoko fair against a solid net player, say on Grass?

Fed winning this year’s French is big prediction. Anyone else care to agree with Agassi Fan? Seems like the good Dr. may be thinking this is the year for Fed. I think Fed missed his chance last year. He should’ve won it. Now Nadal’s getting back into winning form. Canas is going to be around. Safin could be lurking, and might pull an Australian on everyone. Sean, I agree that a journeyman dirt baller will probably take Canas out at the French. Where the heck is Coria when you need him? But he has a chance to get to the quarters if he’s playing like he’s been playing lately.

The Dr. really nailed some great points. Gasquet is missing some #1 ranking elements to his game. He’s another guy who needs time to set up his shots. But he could pull off a French. Baghdatis is an also ran. Until he takes his fitness to the next level, he’s not gonna pull out a slam. He was cramping against 36 year old Agassi… come on. And Murray does have shot making abilities. He’s actually quite creative out there; only getting better each week.

What’s most interesting is that we have a great mix of styles right now. Pure power guys; Nadal, Gonzo, Roddick, Blake, Berdych, Tursinov (throwing everyone a curve here), Safin. Finesse guys; Murray, Haas, Robredo, Ljubicic, Federer, Ancic (could be in power category too). Grinder guys; Canas, Baghdatis, Davydenko, Nalbandian.

Djoko’s game is still a toss up for me. He’s part grinder, part power. Like a Safin, but without the mental issues. The more I think about it, he could pull of a French, if he can keep the number of sets he plays low, and if someone else takes out Nadal, he’s got a good chance.

April 11th, 2007 at 3:43 am

Oops… I meant that Fed could be in power category. Not Ancic. Ancic would be the power-less category. He has a nice volley though.

April 11th, 2007 at 3:46 am

before is before look now dojoleta only 3 players beath him(Yuzni,Rodzer,Nadal) that is all djokovic know much beatter to play then nadal only.
djokovic is a yang player and he doesnt know to play finals did u look indiana wels final?
in first set u can see that djoke is stupid for tennis,that he doesnt know to play, but in seackound u see that djoke was much beattear than nadal but nadal won. bolive me sor some big finals for djoke its over.
and look djoke about 2 jears before and look him now!!!! u can see only resoults from before year

April 11th, 2007 at 4:17 am

buduci, you are right about Djoke. He is very very good. But how is his fitness? Can he go 5 sets. You know how playing on Clay can be very tiring. And Djoke has been more of a defensive player, so he’s doing more running than Nadal or Federer. But you may be right in that Djoke is the 3rd or 4th best player in the world right now.

April 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

yes u are right about that Djoke need condition,yes and i think that he cant go 5 sets.But if u only watch his game 2 year ago and this year his condition is much beatter then before everythnig is posibile.he progress in every next game.

From wich country u are?(yellowballspanker)

April 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

yes yes for nadal all sey that he is master at clay. frankness tennis in serbia wasnt popular.but when Jelena J. and Nole start to win every players it was the most popular sport in serbia even of waterpolo.(World chamions,Euro champions…).
and in last time i watch much tennis that i dont know how play nadal on clay bu i will find out when maybe play Nole vs Nadal.
For that i cant right now sey enything.

April 11th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

buduci, i’m from California, home of Pete Sampras. I even seem him walking around Santa Monica now and then. Yes, Djoko has improved greatly in two years. And it took Federer a few years to find his game on the pro tour, so Djoko has plenty of time. He’s probably still growing physically, his fitness will get better as he gets stronger. He could play himself into shape as well now that he goes deep into tournaments.

April 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

yellowballspanker,i’m sorry i dont know any Pete Sampras who is that?

April 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Great to see Djokovic make the Quarterfinals of the French Open for the second consecutive year in a row. Andreev in the next match will be no easy beat. If he beats Andreev, I think it will put him in very good stead for possibly winning the FO!

June 6th, 2007 at 1:17 am