Agassi: Djokovic Can Win All 4 Slams This Year

"I don't want to start putting pressure on him Djokovic by just doing one interview, but before he won Australia I said there's a heck of a chance we're going to see the first time since Laver someone win all of them in the same year. I think he's really capable of that.

He's playing at a level above everybody at the moment. I think he still has a lot of room for improvement and if Nadal doesn't get himself right for Paris, that will be his biggest stumbling block... I think he's looking at a pretty dominating year."

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/andre-agassi-novak-djokovic-become-first-man-since-141014222--spt.html

I am not sure ayone can win calendar slam in this physical era.
He missed his chance in 2011.

Federer missed quite a few as well.

Sure he can do it....But I don't think he is as dominant above the rest. We just saw last week that there is not much between him and Federer...at least in a best of 3.
I am also convinced that others are getting closer: Nishi, Rao, Veseli, etc...

..Vesely has a record of losing those very close matches...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ve/J/Jiri-Vesely.aspx?t=pa

I was hoping you would mention Federer as I never saw any RG  Fedal matches.
If anyone could've won the calendar slam - Federer should've.
And he probably would have had he switched to a bigger frame 5-6 years ago.
I am actually annoyed with Anacone for opposing it so strongly while he was Fed's coach.
I don't think he came out with any comments since Fed started playing so well again.

Tenez wrote:Federer missed quite a few as well.

Sure he can do it....But I don't think he is as dominant above the rest. We just saw last week that there is not much between him and Federer...at least in a best of 3.
I am also convinced that others are getting closer: Nishi, Rao, Veseli, etc...

..Vesely has a record of losing those very close matches...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ve/J/Jiri-Vesely.aspx?t=pa

I really think he missed the boat on 2011.
Maybe if he wins RG, but after that pressure would be crushing him and he is not known for handling it well.

Plus his FH is too conservative this year.

Just saw this.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2015/03/9/By-The-Numbers-Novak-Costly-Slip.aspx

Inexplicable....not sure is the right word.

Yes I saw that. not sure we can draw conclusions out of a single slip up.

The conclusion I have drawn some time ago is that there is a history of "inexplicables" and that they are caused by pressure.

I think that's the main reason Nole hired Becker: to try and undo/control that deep seated (emotional?) knot in his mind.

They did it in last year's Wimbledon final, but as we can see, that doubt/fear is still present.

But it's also very much down to probablity laws...which means that anyone playing long enough will have those kind of weird occurence.

The best example is that Toronto 1000 and USO 2007 matches between Fed and Djoko. Fed was 40/0 up in Toronto serving for the set and lost to Djoko that day from that position....and funnily enough the same thing happened to Djoko when facing Fed in that first set USO final a few weeks later.

Winning a point while serving between those 2 is roughly 70% chance. so scoring 5 points in a row against the serve is about 1/4 exponent 5.....so roughly 1 chance in a 1000.

So not that surprising considering they served so many times against each others.

That 40:00 article is just one of many examples, the root remains the same regardless of statistics for that or any other particular case.
He keeps doing it, like the mind can't contain the weight of pressure and the bottom gives way uncontrolledly from time to time.
It happened last year against Berdych when he bagelled him in the first set and managed to lose the match (forgot which tournament it was), against Nieminen when he failed to beat him and take number two spot from Fed.
When he lost to Fed in RG 2011 (I admit that match is a total blur to me and I don't wish to revisit it), his loss to Nadal after touching the net, the number of times he failed to serve out the set....all those times the ball was on his racquet.
I'm pretty sure it's some kind of fear... he is quite an intelligent man.

So, yes...looking on to the rest of the season if he somehow does win all four slams, it will definitely be another one of Nole's "inexplicables".

I've just read my above post...so much psycho-babble!

But how else can one try to rationalise what goes on in the head of a tennis pro?!

noleisthebest wrote:That 40:00 article is just one of many examples, the root remains the same regardless of statistics for that or any other particular case.
He keeps doing it, like the mind can't contain the weight of pressure and the bottom gives way uncontrolledly from time to time.
It happened last year against Berdych when he bagelled him in the first set and managed to lose the match (forgot which tournament it was), against Nieminen when he failed to beat him and take number two spot from Fed.
When he lost to Fed in RG 2011 (I admit that match is a total blur to me and I don't wish to revisit it), his loss to Nadal after touching the net, the number of times he failed to serve out the set....all those times the ball was on his racquet.
I'm pretty sure it's some kind of fear... he is quite an intelligent man.

So, yes...looking on to the rest of the season if he somehow does win all four slams, it will definitely be another one of Nole's "inexplicables".

Obviously it doesn't! It very rare;y happens to him. This is exactly what those stats say.

I think those are different than the loss of fitness he gets during the match. That's not related imo. The drop of fitness are essentially due to successive long rallies which sent him off track for a while until he gets his second breath.

the loss to Fed in FO11 is very different from that FO loss to Nadal because of the net. ..and all those are pointing to different things.

noleisthebest wrote:I've just read my above post...so much psycho-babble!

But how else can one try to rationalise what goes on in the head of a tennis pro?!

tennis is so much ups and down....otherwise we would only have straight sets wins and losses.

One thing is sure though Fed is by far the mentally strongest player.....this is something I only fully realised recently. He is also getting stronger mentally cause he has less and less pressure of winning.

Still, those "inexplicables" are so interesting...

Maybe it's all a lot simpler than we think.

Back to topic, winning all 4 slams in a year will now be totally different than in Laver's time: the pre-open, open and with the arrival of Nadal this new/physical era, where one can win on three surfaces in one year (still theoretical, though, as it hasn't happened yet), with the same style of play.

There still are adjustments needed for all surfaces, but nowhere near as big as in the past.

I haven't thought about it at all for 2015 until I read Aggasi's interview this morning but it sounds interesting now.
Fed couldn't do it because he couldn't cope with Nadal's physicality.
Nadal couldn't do it because his cycle couldn't last 12 months.
Really, can Nole do it?

At last, the secret about Nole's excellent returning is out:

noleisthebest wrote:Back to topic, winning all 4 slams in a year will now be totally different than in Laver's time: the pre-open, open and with the arrival of Nadal this new/physical era, where one can win on three surfaces in one year (still theoretical, though, as it hasn't happened yet), with the same style of play.

There still are adjustments needed for all surfaces, but nowhere near as big as in the past.

I haven't thought about it at all for 2015 until I read Aggasi's interview this morning but it sounds interesting now.
Fed couldn't do it because he couldn't cope with Nadal's physicality.
Nadal couldn't do it because his cycle couldn't last 12 months.
Really, can Nole do it?

Well I mentioned many times that in teh past the surfaces were not that important either as the wooden racquet limited what one could do with them. It was therefore quite common to win Wimby and FO the same year. It's the larger graphite racquets which have really made grass and clay play very differently.

So now i would say is more like pre-graphite era...Excepte maybe that Wimby 2nd week is probably as slow as the FO.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Back to topic, winning all 4 slams in a year will now be totally different than in Laver's time: the pre-open, open and with the arrival of Nadal this new/physical era, where one can win on three surfaces in one year (still theoretical, though, as it hasn't happened yet), with the same style of play.

There still are adjustments needed for all surfaces, but nowhere near as big as in the past.

I haven't thought about it at all for 2015 until I read Aggasi's interview this morning but it sounds interesting now.
Fed couldn't do it because he couldn't cope with Nadal's physicality.
Nadal couldn't do it because his cycle couldn't last 12 months.
Really, can Nole do it?

Well I mentioned many times that in teh past the surfaces were not that important either as the wooden racquet limited what one could do with them. It was therefore quite common to win Wimby and FO the same year. It's the larger graphite racquets which have really made grass and clay play very differently.

So now i would say is more like pre-graphite era...Excepte maybe that Wimby 2nd week is probably as slow as the FO.

You're right!
Borg is the ultimate example...was it because of his DBH?
Then again, Mac was not as successful on clay, same for Lendl on grass, but both brilliant players.

For old times's sake...

noleisthebest wrote:
You're right!
Borg is the ultimate example...was it because of his DBH?
Then again, Mac was not as successful on clay, same for Lendl on grass, but both brilliant players.

His mouvement essentially. It was very difficult to get past him with a wooden racquet.

Mc was taking the ball too early for hot bouncy clay. he really was too young to have a chance to win the FO with a wooden racquet. Early for him the graphite racquet made it harder for him to win there.

Both Mc and Lendl were very close to win Wimby and FO though.