Nadal, Djokovic.........................................And The Rest

This article has some interesting stats. on just how dominant Nadal and Djokovic are.

http://cleaningthelines.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/12-rafa-novak-and-a-glacier-signature-imagery-for-unbridled-dominance-vs-top-10-players/

Nadal and Djokovic are a combined 50-11 against top 10 players, a record that is more frightening when you take out the 6 matches they played against each other, leaving you with only 5 losses to other top 10 players. Of which:

Del Potro was the only man to beat both Djokovic and Nadal in 2013, another sign that he is a top 4 contender in 2014.

The other 3 losses to top 10 players were: for Nadal to Ferrer in the Masters 1000 in Paris; and for Djokovic to Murray at Wimbledon and Berdych in Rome.

No other player, not even Murray (5 wins, 6 losses) or Del Potro (6-7), has a better than 50 per cent win percentage against other top 10 players in 2013.

Wawrinka (9-12) and Berdych (7-15) have the most wins against top 10 players outside of Nadal and Djokovic. Wawrinka’s wins include 2 against Murray, 2 against Ferrer (as well as two five setters against Djokovic in grand slam tournaments). It will be interesting to see in 2014 if Wawrinka can build upon the belief that he belongs in the top 10.

This golden age is just gold plate

Yep, week to week they bring it. Have to tip your hat to them.

Even if Murray hadn't missed so much of the season with injury, and hadn't been managing an injury the rest of the time, I doubt he'd have got close to those numbers. A slam and a RU is a great season in the circumstances.

Delpo is now showing some evidence that he's ready to fine at the top table too. I think he'll get inside the top 4 next season.

It's pretty incredible when you see the numbers laid out in that way.

What's impressive is that both (Novak more than Rafa) have been vulnerable at times this season but have generally found a way to get the win.

I want to see how a fit and firing Andy responds to this duopoly. He's got the game, can he find the consistency?

Similar with Del Potro. Capable of blasting anyone off the court but equally capable of losing tamely.

Murdoch - I've just finished reading Andy's book, which is a decent read but not a great read, and he quite bluntly reiterates that his focus is slams and peaking for slams. He says the number 1 ranking simply doesn't interest him and winning slams is his only priority.

I must admit I find it more than a bit bizarre, especially if he comes back pain free. But basically, expect more hot and cold throughout the year with strong challenges for the big prizes.

I'm surprised. I'd expect him to say such things at 31, but not at 26 at the top of his game.

Speaking just after winning Wimbledon he said
"Right now I hold two of the Slams, went to the final of one of one of the other ones and won Olympic gold but I'm still not close to number one.
"It takes a whole year of just great play and consistency, maybe one day I can get there."
http://www1.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/8813167/

I guess with the consistency of Djokovic and Nadal around, aiming for the slams seems more achievable.

It is an odd thing for Murray to say. While the system for Tennis is different, I do find it odd that an elite athlete has no desire to be officially crowned the best in his sport. Imagine Vettel saying the world championship doesn't interest him, he just wants to win Monte Carlo. Of course, Slams are worth more than the #1 ranking, but having gotten the one, you'd think he'd like the other...

^ Yes Nadal and Djokovic are so good the chasing pack would do well not to waste any energy on smaller less significant tournaments as they will not have a chance. They will have a better chance if they only try and win the AO, Wimbledon and the US Open. That would be far more obtainable....

(The chasing pack wouldn't be foolish enough to chase the holy grail as it would risk making everyone laugh  )

Oh I'm sure Murray be chasing the holy grail. It's the most prestigious title in tennis, and one of the most prestigious in any sport. Champions are remembered forever, and the fact they all wear white makes it so much more magical and traditional. Plus as defending champion....

Wait.... Are we on about the same thing here?

I guess you could be talking about the second most prestigious title, but then Murray won that in 2012.

I'm confused.

I wanted to be sure that I hadn't got it wrong, so I checked with Forbes magazine who rated the slams in terms of prestige.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/05/30/what-is-the-most-prestigious-grand-slam-tennis-tournament/

So I'm still rely confused. Oh well. Night all.

^ Danny_ All the slams are prestigious but one of them is off limits to the chasing pack and so far in numerous "focused" attempts it even (frustatingly.... ) remains as far away as ever to one of the leaders of the pack. If any of the chasing pack (including Murray) stated that they were going to focus on winning the French Open it would cause some less sensitive onlookers to laugh or at least snigger...

Maybe you should send that Forbes opinion to Djokovic. It might cheer him up.... But then again probably not. IMO Djokovic isn't the fickle sort and he already has trophy's from the other prestigious slams and has already proved he's ahead of the chasing pack. He wants what Nadal has and he thinks he's good enough to steal it from him.

You're talking about the French open? The third most prestigious slam?

..... Oh.

..... I see.  

Danny_1982. It's late, your confused. Think about it tomorrow as it really is quite simple

Danny_1982 wrote:Murdoch - I've just finished reading Andy's book, which is a decent read but not a great read, and he quite bluntly reiterates that his focus is slams and peaking for slams. He says the number 1 ranking simply doesn't interest him and winning slams is his only priority.  

I can't decide if this is commendably pragmatic or unambitiously foolish.

I think we'd all accept that his relative stuggles on clay make attaining the #1 ranking harder for him. Also we'd all accept that slams are the hard currency when it comes to evaluating a player. So I can see some logic in prioritising the slams and not really engaging in battles that he doesn't have a decent chance of winning.

But I also don't really see much evidence that a player can just 'turn it on' for the big events. Form is a such a tricky, elusive thing. If a player has played well and beaten top players in lesser events, it gives momentum and confidence for the big matches.  If Rafa and Novak extend their H2Hs against Andy because Andy isn't properly focused at the non-slams, I can't see any way that benefits Andy nor any way it harms Rafa or Novak.

Didn't Djokovic say almost exactly the same thing recently - that his priority/focus is on the slams not on No. 1?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/24907129

For me, the real holy grail is the GQ award. Nadal never won it, despite all of his efforts to dress in smart fashion clothes, brand underwear and armani parfumes. A true setback for the ambitious spaniard who has so far only achieved some popularity with mature women and in the gay community.

Of course, winning the Scottish GQ award is really the fashion equivalent of winning the Malawian Premier League, plus Nadal has the highly sought "Greatest most bestest athlete in Spanish history" award... can't beat that... unless your Djokovic and own a humanitarian award.... which is one-upped by Federer being regarded as the most trustworthy person in the world after Mandela, which makes him the crown prince of the world's morality crown... a holy Grail unmatched, if I say so myself.

KR - how very dare you try and dilute Andy's GQ award. Not only is it a global award as opposed to a Scottish one, but it has recently been declared as more important than Wimbledon, the US open, that sand tournament in France, and being world number 1.

Djokovic admitted recently that he'd swap ALL his trophies just to be nominated for it. And when Federer heard Murray he won it he allegedly cried with jealousy.

This award my friend is the true holy grail, not just of sport, but for the whole of humanity. Mandela never one one! He's got nothing on our Andy!

Jaysus - I didn't realise he won the world man of the year... My mistake, I've been ignorantly thinking he beat out a moustached lady, and Alex Ferguson for the Scottish portion of the award. My mistake. Being given the GQ award is an honour above any, even if GQ's standards have slipped more than a bikini on Peaches Geldof.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Didn't Djokovic say almost exactly the same thing recently - that his priority/focus is on the slams not on No. 1?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/24907129

Yeah similar words but a different sentiment I thought.

The slams are every player's top priority.

I get the sense from some of Andy's comments that the slams are pretty much his only goal though. He doesn't care a great deal about ranking or other titles.

I think Novak's efforts post-USO show that he still cares about ranking and other events.

As for Andy, let's not forget that he has a very good chance of emulating Grinning Greg and winning BBC SPOTY. I expect this is a huge deal for Andy. He may even go as far as to record a video explaining why he's not attending in person.

I like that Andy probably won't be attending SPOTY. His logic is that the 4 days of training he'd probably have to miss might be the difference between winning the AO and not winning it. That's a proper competitor speaking.

However I agree with you Murdoch that while his words are similar to Novak's, the meaning behind them is different. He said in his book "I was one match away from holding 3 slams and the Olympics, yet I'm miles off number 1. So it's not something that I'm focussed on. I just want to win slams and number 1 isn't a goal for me."

That sounds like someone who accepts (oddly) that he's not able to bring his best week in week out like the top two... Or someone who is choosing not to (whether that's I because he's unable to physically)... Or maybe he thinks because of his clay game he'd never achieve it anyway even if he had a great year elsewhere (reasonable logic I guess).

Whatever the reason, the scratchy week to week form looks set to continue.

The top two have made minced meat of the other top ranked players their record against the top 10 is stunning. Murray I think is downplaying the #1 ranking. The bigger deal he makes out of psychologically the harder it becomes to attain. That is part of the problem I had with Novak building up the RG, if you don't get it than you have the hangover effect. For me all the top players really care about the slams and winning as many as possible so I don't see a big deal in Murray's comments.