Newk: Djokovic to struggle, Federer to charge

Newk: Djokovic to struggle, Federer to charge
Ticker - Sunday, December 11, 2011

Former multiple Grand Slam champion John Newcombe tells The Age that he expects No. 1 Novak Djokovic to have a hard time at the start of the 2012 season, and could see No. 3 Roger Federer re-taking the top spot.

"Djokovic is really going to struggle the first six months of next year - he's really knocked himself out,'' said Newcombe. "He's just won so many matches, and it's been pretty obvious, even at the U.S. Open, he was struggling. I even thought he was struggling at Wimbledon against Bernard [Tomic], but he was able to pull himself together. He was very lucky to win the U.S. Open, because Roger [Federer] should never have lost that match from where he was. And now since the U.S. Open, there's injuries, a sore shoulder, a sore back, and when you watch him playing, he's running on three cylinders, so I'd say that his body, it's given in. I think it will be a superhuman effort for him to repeat the six months that he had. It was an amazing run, and that is very hard to defend. It's not going to surprise me if, by the end of July next year, Roger is very close to being No.1 again."

Newcombe is not sure of No. 2 Rafael Nadal’s future. The Spaniard lost to Djokovic in the Wimbledon and U..S Open finals, as well as in four other 2011 tournaments.

"With Rafa, it's like the heavyweight champion of the world that's never been knocked out, and suddenly, gets knocked out six times within the space of six months by Djokovic," said Newcombe. "He doesn't have the same self-belief any more. All of a sudden he's having to face things, questions, that he's never doubted. So it's a question of can he get his head around this whole thing, and come back to where he was?"
http://tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15364&zoneid=25

Some good points, although he's come down decisively on a couple of issues that are actually up for grabs. For what it's worth;

1. I think he may be right about Djokovic, who has looked increasingly dodgy since Cincinatti. This brutal physical game may prove to be beyond his body, or it may not, but he does look damaged.

2. Nadal has come back from setbacks before and indeed his position will be heavily influence by the answer to Djokovic.

3. Feds been up, down, back up and back down and now is thought to be a bit back on the up. He'll handle whatever comes that's for sure. For Federer it's all about (a) the back, and (b) can his opponents continue their physical games. If not, anything is possible.

"I even thought he was struggling at Wimbledon against Bernard [Tomic], but he was able to pull himself together."

Federer was in similar position after WTF 2010, but did not win any of the G.S event. He did not reach any final except F.O 2011. Both Djokovic and Nadal have reached three finals in 2011. They have not played much in the last few months. How much time would a player take to refurbish himself. Much as a fan may like Federer to regain number one spot, is it a realistic prediction. With Tsonga, JMDP and Murray waiting to peak in 2012, the field is wide open. Perhaps the same player winning three G.S event, as it happened in 2010-11, is also not well predictable.

Is Newcombe to be dismissed as a fan now?

noleisthebest wrote:"I even thought he was struggling at Wimbledon against Bernard [Tomic], but he was able to pull himself together."

One set all, break down in 3rd iirc against a kid. Plain sailing I suppose.

I am not a fan of Newcombe. He has come up with stupid views in the past...even if here he may have some points.

Well I'm not sure if anyone wants to read measured pieces where an ex-player comes out with stuff like "difficult-to-predict, depends on fitness, could go either way, hard to work out".
Hence it's always "Murray will never/has every chance of winning a GS" or Murray must be more aggressive". Similarly it's "Rafa is finished", "Fed will be number one again".
Truth is - and whisper this - NO ONE HAS A CLUE. Who'd have predicted Djoko's stella 2011 this time last year? Even if you'd thought Nole would do quite well, who would have thought he would beat Rafa in six finals, including a couple on clay ?
It could be that we still won't know what's likely to happen in 2012 even after the AO is over. Djoko broke the trend in 2011 that had seen the winner of the AO in 2008, 2009 and 2010 fail to reach even another GS final in the rest of the year.
Having said all this, I'm predicting no change in the make-up of the top four in 2012 - although their actual positions might alter.

sirfredperry wrote: Who'd have predicted Djoko's stella 2011 this time last year? Even if you'd thought Nole would do quite well, who would have thought he would beat Rafa in six finals, including a couple on clay ?

Honestly, if anything I have been surprised that what Nole did to Nadal did not happen before 2011 with more consistency.

But yes I agree in general that no-one really knows what's going to happen. No-one knew after the FO semi how Fed v Djoko at the USO what woudl be the outcome...even when Federer was 2 MPs up in that same USO semi what was going to happen next.

If Nadal and Djoko were quite as consistent as Federer over a season, we could make a better assessment...but those two go through big form variations.

Nothing controversial about Newcombe's opinion. Usual off-season talk to get Federer fans going. We all know the story:

Start of season - Federer is the favourite
End of season - Federer thorougly beaten in slams.
Season ends.

Looking at history, Newcombe might have a point, Connors, Wilander and Nadal couldn't win multiple slams the following year after their 3 slam year....

Federer has been the only player able to win multiple slams after a 3 slam year(from 2004 to 2005, from 2006 to 2007), so that is an exception and not the norm...

Federer is an exceptional player(the GOAT), 1 in a million. Djokovic most likely will follow the same path that Connors, Wilander and Nadal followed after their 3 slam year that is a year with either 1 slam(like Nadal in 2011 or Fed in 2008) or who knows maybe zero slams like Connors in 1975 and Wilander in 1989.

That post is far to nuanced for Simplistic.

Right now I have four different slam winners in 2012. A year like that is due, last time was in 2003 and it has happened many times that four different players share the slams.

Eraldeen - you could be right. But who will get which? Are you being brave and opting for someone OTHER THAN RAFA for the French?

AO: Federer
FO: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Nadal
USO: Murray

eraldeen wrote:AO: Federer
FO: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Nadal
USO: Murray

Brave man. Rafa's domination of the French makes it almost impossible for anyone else to win all four, while his own exertions in the clay court season make it almost impossible for HIM to win all four ! Not sure, with this present top four, whether the Grand Slam is on. It's hard enough at any time, but these guys are just wearing each other out.

bogbrush wrote:That post is far to nuanced for Simplistic.

Oh, I'm not so sure bogbrush. Think you're being a bit harsh on him there !

I mean SA has been telling us about a distinct pattern that has emerged over several years, you know... a pattern whereby Federer is regularly made favourite at the start of every season to win a Slam (or two, or even three by some people....!) but it just never happens because - as SA informs us - Federer gets "thoroughly beaten" and sadly ends the season with no Slams.

He's got that right - hasn't he ...??

Well.. er... sort of.

The only exception being 2003. Oh.... hang on .... and 2004. And 2005. Oh .... and 2006. Oh and 2007 .....and hang on 2008 too ........ And 2009...... Oh and 2010.

Ah ...... just where would the world of tennis be without the unparalleled knowledge and insight of the medical wizard Dr SA

A star for you lags72.

I have written an article with similar thoughts in here ,"https://www.606v2.com/t19035-federer-poised-to-go-undefeated-to-break-novak-s-record

Haha, Simple Analyst may be right. It was a good comment from Newcombe though, well argued and might be right. But he can talk about the close US Open match, the fact of the matter is Federer was 2-7 all year against Nadal and Federer combined I believe (or something like that) and that is an equally pertinent fact perhaps.

Henman Bill wrote:the fact of the matter is Federer was 2-7 all year against Nadal and Federer combined I believe (or something like that) and that is an equally pertinent fact perhaps.

Did you mean Djokovic? h2h against FEdal:D

So if we consider Newcombes comments the Australian Open in January might be where Andy Murray has his grand slam breakthrough.

and wasnt it 10-1 against rafa and feds as he beat rafa in 6 finals and feds at aus, dubai, IW, and us open with the one loss at the french

That would be 11-1, as he was 7-0 on Nadal.

He dodged a "2" when Berdych beat Ferrer though.

when was he 7-0 on nadal at the start of the year he was at 16-7 and now he is 16-13 so that is 6-0.

Well you wouldn't expect Boggo to get the simple things right. However, 6-0 isn't any better though and no positives from it either.

LuvSports! wrote:when was he 7-0 on nadal at the start of the year he was at 16-7 and now he is 16-13 so that is 6-0.

Ah yes, I heard 7-0 talked about in the context of what would happen had they met at the WTF. The talk was all of a season where the h2h was record making, and achieved on every surface available. However they never met of course.

Looking at how the h2h closed it's probable that this will go in Djokovic's favour in 2012, which interestingly will test those Nadal fans who hang onto a clay dominated h2h deficit for Federer as "evidence" that he cannot be the GOAT. The same would go for Rafa, and he wouldn't even have the argument that it is because his opponent wasn't good enough to meet him often enough off his favourite surface.

Well at least he is comically trying to save face. Reality is the "strongest" point of a Federer fan, or not?. Talking about what would have happened, the last time i checked it was a shaking Federer who choked at the thought of Nadal doing the career slam final loss on him at the USO.

I like the consistency of thought and projection too. Of posters here.

BB- read your post on the ridiculous Mr Overend's blog on Djokovic's year.

this was my riposte

"Jonathan Overend cites Federer's 81-5 in 2005. perhaps he should look a year later and find out that Federer's win loss in 2006 was a staggering 92-5. yes 92-5 and that included 3 Grand Slams, one GS runner up, and the WTF. as if to prove that 2006 wasnt a freak year, he went out and won those very same Slams and WTF the next year too.

Djokovic has had a dream year, but to call it the best ever year for any player just because he beat Federer and Nadal 10 times this year is ridiculous.

oh, by the way, Overend should look up who beat Djokovic in a slam this year."

Fed ended the season well, but I would reserve judgement on his 2012 prospects until he plays the top players, when they're not dead on their feet.

He won 3 tournaments in a row, but who did he actually beat? In Basel he won by beating Starace, Nieminen, Roddick, Wawrinka & Nishikori. In Paris he beat Mannarino, Gasquet, Monaco, Berdych & Tsonga. In London he beat Tsonga twice, Nadal, Fish & Ferrer.

Out of all of those matches, even when he was playing his poorest, you'd still expect him to beat those players (with the exception of Rafa).

2012 could be an interesting year, but I wouldn't hail the return of the king until he does it against a fully fit Djoko, Nadal, Murray & Potro.

It's tiredly predicatable that Fed wins an, admittedley significant event, that it now means in the media's eyes - he's back to his very best and everyone else is there to make up the numbers

The fact that Fed is the only one of the Top 4, not to have beaten two of his three rivals on the way to a title for more than two years - seems not to be seen of any significance

For a 30-year old, Roger is remarkably good. That's why he's the GOAT. But I maintain that if the other three are on form, they will now and do indeed beat him

However, as there are question marks against Nole and Nadal - given their poor form since the US Open (how much did that grueling power fest really take out of them?) he is obviously one of the favourites. But is actually no more of a hot favourite than Murray - who did better in the Slams last year

The hilarious thing is, if he loses to say Nole in the Semi's at Aus - then the same media 'experts' will be queuing up to tell us he's finished

banbrotam wrote:It's tiredly predicatable that Fed wins an, admittedley significant event, that it now means in the media's eyes - he's back to his very best and everyone else is there to make up the numbers

The fact that Fed is the only one of the Top 4, not to have beaten two of his three rivals on the way to a title for more than two years - seems not to be seen of any significance

For a 30-year old, Roger is remarkably good. That's why he's the GOAT. But I maintain that if the other three are on form, they will now and do indeed beat him

However, as there are question marks against Nole and Nadal - given their poor form since the US Open (how much did that grueling power fest really take out of them?) he is obviously one of the favourites. But is actually no more of a hot favourite than Murray - who did better in the Slams last year

The hilarious thing is, if he loses to say Nole in the Semi's at Aus - then the same media 'experts' will be queuing up to tell us he's finished

Marcus - you are right to point out that the ultimate test always comes in meeting top 5 opposition.

However, in your prefacing that list of Fed's opponents in his season-ending unbeaten run there's an implication that these lower-ranked guys don't offer any significant obstacles, and that they should be beaten routinely (by players like Federer).

Easier said than done ! - both currently, and throughout tennis history.

Even just taking the last two seasons by way of illustration, it's interesting to see how often the 'Big Four' can be taken out in their attempt to win a tourney by players ranked outside the top five

Here are the respective number of losses suffered during 2010 & 2011 (combined) by the big guys at the hands of non top-five players :

Rafa : 14

Fed : 14

Novak :13

Murray : 19

The fact that Fed is the only one of the Top 4, not to have beaten two of his three rivals on the way to a title for more than two years - seems not to be seen of any significance
___________________________

I think that looks wrong. At last year's tour finals he beat all three of them.

This year's final he did beat Rafa, so no idea where tat stat come from.

Henman Bill - Apologies, I should have stated that I meant Masters and Slams

Invisiblecoolers - Rafa is just one of his rivals. I'm talking about two