Loved reading about the chip/block return defensive shot. Too often the commentary was reacting to the missed volleys by Novak as a big miss. All of those volleys were below the net and that's a brutal shot to make 1. on the run and 2. trying to avoid hitting it up.
And while Kyrgios talked about Novak going back to baseline defense strategy, Novak made that choice to move forward for an obvious reason.
Hi Hugh, Yes! Old school tennis lives on on grass. We even have a 180 cm champion who is as close to the 70’s height as we have seen for a while. He is gifted but do were many players closer in height to Carlos. What is old is new!
He even has a serviceable one hander which he pulls out when needed. An old shot that seems spectacular to those who did not watch it day in and day out. :)
Great piece, super insightful observations regarding return tactics and outcomes.
I was amazed by Alcaraz, I think one could rank this performance as his finest yet: not only did he make an impressive amount of decisive, brilliant, insane shorts, but he was also very focused and consistent throughout the match except for a fairly understandable minute (and, even then, he regrouped mentally quite fast).
Thanks for the insight again Hugh! I also noticed that djokovic was missing a lot of short volleys but just chalked it up to having a bad day. Didn’t realize alcaraz’s low chips were part of the source
Good analysis, but Novak's return at 5-4 40-30 in the third wasn't deep whatsoever, it landed mid-court. That game was more of a choke than a save from Djokovic.
Besides, I don't exactly agree that the Serbian's ability to hit forehands down the line on the run is unmatched - Federer was a more proficient player at this, even Nadal with his classic banana shots.
Long time since I wrote a comment to one of your analysis, which I think today was one of your best works. Two things:
1) You've mentioned how Alcaraz covered his running FH 'flaw' for the second year in a row, this time using block returns (which he also did, altough less frequently, last year) but didn't give another prop to his FH footwork adaptation on grass which you felt was key last year - that very same left foot step that steadies the upper body, which you rightfully praised Novak for in that piece. Now, maybe I havent noticed a reversion to the mean for Alcaraz because it's subtle, but I still think that this Wimbledon and especially those last two matches, it was a less weak point than it is on other surfaces.
Against Medvedev, the russian will always need to over-perform to beat him because his power in average isn't enough to put carlos in danger/kill the point against him, but I still tought he found less success going for controlled approaches (such as BH DTL) than he did when he faced him at the last US Open. And against Novak, while it maybe true his fh swing return wasn't as clean (altough I think it's a different, simpler motion, which is less leaky in general), many times in the match I felt like Novak had trouble making it leak again. That nadal-esque DTL FH on the run was a good example.
1.b (this is already getting way too long, feel free to ignore that whole comment) : the serve is Carlos's clear 'weak' part no doubt, but as you said he seems to always play his best under the biggest lights, and this was another great serve day on a day it was needed (Ruud USO 22, last year wimbledon, this year french...). So, maybe we can call it clutch gene, maybe we can also think he might start getting set into a new motion (which could also explain previous round inconsistencies) that Intuitive Tennis over on youtube broke down, which apparently happened right before the French. Will have to track it up because that could start getting way too scary for opponents.
2) Novak. It may sound like I'm overprotecting him/don't want to face a truth, but I still don't buy the general decline thing. Going into the match, I felt the same as you : many concerns are erased, including ones before the knee surgery/the whole year, and he should make it a good match. If the areas that the knees affect (FH on the run, movement in general) were the only ones affected yesterday (and clearly they were), I wouldn't have been surprised. That's something I could expect and prepared for because he wasn't tested much during the tournaments.
However, what surprised me a lot was that it wasn't the only area being shaky : parts that were great the whole tournament (especially ones which had been questionable for a good part of the year) also went missing : serve wasn't good, net game either (Alcaraz played a part no doubt, but still), rally tolerance from easier/set positions was shaky... it seems like it didn't really showed up (the Novak who faced Rune didn't show up). And I had the same feeling after the sinner match : yes there were doubts because he had the wrist injury early, short off season, virus early... so I could expect Sinner to win but not in such a turn around from what we saw in Turin for example. On this day he apparently had fever, so that could explain it. So far I don't really have explanation for such a bad day overall today.
But again, maybe I'm overrprotecting him, downplaying the opponent's part (altough I really try to make the difference), or not seeing the fact having 2 really bad days might be worrysome, and that at his age you should normally get more of them anyway.
But I feel like maybe he just had for some reasons two atrocious games against opponents he couldn't afford to have atrocious day against (and maybe could when the competition was in a bit of a middle ground - berrettini, kyrgios, etc) and his averages, margins and percentages haven't gone down that much from end 23 and once he can grab up some form without any problematic circunstance he can go at it again including in BO5. But maybe I'm just delusional, being too heavy on circunstance and not realising 1-2% percentages loss might be too important (but maybe they're still there).
That really is way too long (and badly written as a french guy)
Re Novak, I think there's an element of Alcaraz playing consistently amazing and showing up all guns blazing. Against any other opponent, or even a lesser version of Alcaraz, you remove a few insane points here and there, or add a purple patch at some point before the third, and suddenly there's a bit of space and time to gather confidence / pace and sneak into the match, maybe not instantly but certainly over the course of several sets. It's easy to look relatively bad against an opponent playing well, just as it's easy to look great against an opponent struggling. The volleys, yeah, they were not there for Djokovic, but again he could have easily survived that in different circumstances.
I agree! He looked gimpy and slow. I think he would NOT have lasted on hard courts. On the softer grass he was better but he seemed much less than 100 percent. At times I sensed he couldn’t push off well. Almost as if the knee might have swelled up.
I don't buy the general decline theory either. They have been claiming this for years, especially when he hurt his elbow. Let's see how he goes during the US Open hardcourt series.
Awesome write-up Hugh! Have loved reading these since I discovered your work last year. Inspired me to start writing my own articles.
I think Djokovic didn't want to get drawn into long rallies as he wasn't fully comfortable/confident with his movement and none of his previous opponents were able to expose it. Ties in with the respect he has for Carlos' game. Was strange seeing him landing off balance from his serve at times too. I guess we'll never know how much of an issue it was. Hopefully we can see them play again in the US with Djokovic fitter.
Fun fact about the Alcaraz forehand hit point graphic: it was myself that put that out to tv. It's quite a nice visual for players that hit a lot of run-around forehands and have to cover a lot of ground to get out to those wide forehands.
Thanks again for the write-up and look forward to the next one!
I think "the worst" might be a tad harsh...no? I mean it was just a few days ago that Medvedev, within obvious earshot to chair Eva Asdaraki-Moore, told her...words not worth repeating here. Plus then we have Zverev with bashing his racquet against the chair a year or two back.
Yet I agree 100% with you when it comes to Novak's general on-court behavior. As the statistical GOAT, he absolutely should behave like the august player that he is, instead of mimicking Ben Shelton's "hanging up" gesture like a callow teenager. It's sad, really, that the greatest player ever doesn't have the same appeal as his rivals, but I think it's also his negative/abrasive behavior that has brought him his riches (they fuel him, don't you think?). The tragedy is almost at the level of Greek mythology...like Cassandra who was gifted with sight but nobody would ever believe anything she said.
"You'll be the greatest tennis player ever," said Zeus, "but you'll also be the least liked." So cruel!
It's one thing to be fueled by negativity and another to project it back or outwards. Michael Jordan was infamous for turning anything into a personal affront and then using that to fuel his performances. And yet, he was beloved and richly rewarded for it.
Novak doesn't have the ability to turn on the charm or, at least, present a humble self-effacing facade that hides that grinding anger. Hard to do, I admit, but it's something he never even grew into as he got older. One could argue that the evidence over the past 5 years has made him appear even stranger to people.
Good point about Jordan -- yeah, even now when I hear he was not the greatest of people, I still think positive thoughts about him.
I think Novak has tried to be a better presence on court...and failed. It's just not who he is. I have no doubt he'll still be around for a few more years, competing for more wins, but he, too, will soon be gone, and then the Big 3 will come to a close for good.
I think the thing that's always held Novak back from being beloved is an underlying insecurity about being beloved. As different as Federer and Nadal are from one another, both were at ease with themselves and I think people pick up on that.
Bravo!
Loved reading about the chip/block return defensive shot. Too often the commentary was reacting to the missed volleys by Novak as a big miss. All of those volleys were below the net and that's a brutal shot to make 1. on the run and 2. trying to avoid hitting it up.
And while Kyrgios talked about Novak going back to baseline defense strategy, Novak made that choice to move forward for an obvious reason.
I think Novak certainly shold have made more, but I do think that slower slice ball made it more difficult.
Hi Hugh, Yes! Old school tennis lives on on grass. We even have a 180 cm champion who is as close to the 70’s height as we have seen for a while. He is gifted but do were many players closer in height to Carlos. What is old is new!
a synthesis of new and old elements. Incredible player
He even has a serviceable one hander which he pulls out when needed. An old shot that seems spectacular to those who did not watch it day in and day out. :)
Great piece, super insightful observations regarding return tactics and outcomes.
I was amazed by Alcaraz, I think one could rank this performance as his finest yet: not only did he make an impressive amount of decisive, brilliant, insane shorts, but he was also very focused and consistent throughout the match except for a fairly understandable minute (and, even then, he regrouped mentally quite fast).
That mental focus for the whole match, even with the blink when serving for it, was impressive for sure.
Thanks for the insight again Hugh! I also noticed that djokovic was missing a lot of short volleys but just chalked it up to having a bad day. Didn’t realize alcaraz’s low chips were part of the source
Great analysis.
Good analysis, but Novak's return at 5-4 40-30 in the third wasn't deep whatsoever, it landed mid-court. That game was more of a choke than a save from Djokovic.
Besides, I don't exactly agree that the Serbian's ability to hit forehands down the line on the run is unmatched - Federer was a more proficient player at this, even Nadal with his classic banana shots.
Ball would have landed about a metre from the baseline
Hi Hugh,
Long time since I wrote a comment to one of your analysis, which I think today was one of your best works. Two things:
1) You've mentioned how Alcaraz covered his running FH 'flaw' for the second year in a row, this time using block returns (which he also did, altough less frequently, last year) but didn't give another prop to his FH footwork adaptation on grass which you felt was key last year - that very same left foot step that steadies the upper body, which you rightfully praised Novak for in that piece. Now, maybe I havent noticed a reversion to the mean for Alcaraz because it's subtle, but I still think that this Wimbledon and especially those last two matches, it was a less weak point than it is on other surfaces.
Against Medvedev, the russian will always need to over-perform to beat him because his power in average isn't enough to put carlos in danger/kill the point against him, but I still tought he found less success going for controlled approaches (such as BH DTL) than he did when he faced him at the last US Open. And against Novak, while it maybe true his fh swing return wasn't as clean (altough I think it's a different, simpler motion, which is less leaky in general), many times in the match I felt like Novak had trouble making it leak again. That nadal-esque DTL FH on the run was a good example.
1.b (this is already getting way too long, feel free to ignore that whole comment) : the serve is Carlos's clear 'weak' part no doubt, but as you said he seems to always play his best under the biggest lights, and this was another great serve day on a day it was needed (Ruud USO 22, last year wimbledon, this year french...). So, maybe we can call it clutch gene, maybe we can also think he might start getting set into a new motion (which could also explain previous round inconsistencies) that Intuitive Tennis over on youtube broke down, which apparently happened right before the French. Will have to track it up because that could start getting way too scary for opponents.
2) Novak. It may sound like I'm overprotecting him/don't want to face a truth, but I still don't buy the general decline thing. Going into the match, I felt the same as you : many concerns are erased, including ones before the knee surgery/the whole year, and he should make it a good match. If the areas that the knees affect (FH on the run, movement in general) were the only ones affected yesterday (and clearly they were), I wouldn't have been surprised. That's something I could expect and prepared for because he wasn't tested much during the tournaments.
However, what surprised me a lot was that it wasn't the only area being shaky : parts that were great the whole tournament (especially ones which had been questionable for a good part of the year) also went missing : serve wasn't good, net game either (Alcaraz played a part no doubt, but still), rally tolerance from easier/set positions was shaky... it seems like it didn't really showed up (the Novak who faced Rune didn't show up). And I had the same feeling after the sinner match : yes there were doubts because he had the wrist injury early, short off season, virus early... so I could expect Sinner to win but not in such a turn around from what we saw in Turin for example. On this day he apparently had fever, so that could explain it. So far I don't really have explanation for such a bad day overall today.
But again, maybe I'm overrprotecting him, downplaying the opponent's part (altough I really try to make the difference), or not seeing the fact having 2 really bad days might be worrysome, and that at his age you should normally get more of them anyway.
But I feel like maybe he just had for some reasons two atrocious games against opponents he couldn't afford to have atrocious day against (and maybe could when the competition was in a bit of a middle ground - berrettini, kyrgios, etc) and his averages, margins and percentages haven't gone down that much from end 23 and once he can grab up some form without any problematic circunstance he can go at it again including in BO5. But maybe I'm just delusional, being too heavy on circunstance and not realising 1-2% percentages loss might be too important (but maybe they're still there).
That really is way too long (and badly written as a french guy)
Re Novak, I think there's an element of Alcaraz playing consistently amazing and showing up all guns blazing. Against any other opponent, or even a lesser version of Alcaraz, you remove a few insane points here and there, or add a purple patch at some point before the third, and suddenly there's a bit of space and time to gather confidence / pace and sneak into the match, maybe not instantly but certainly over the course of several sets. It's easy to look relatively bad against an opponent playing well, just as it's easy to look great against an opponent struggling. The volleys, yeah, they were not there for Djokovic, but again he could have easily survived that in different circumstances.
I agree! He looked gimpy and slow. I think he would NOT have lasted on hard courts. On the softer grass he was better but he seemed much less than 100 percent. At times I sensed he couldn’t push off well. Almost as if the knee might have swelled up.
I don't buy the general decline theory either. They have been claiming this for years, especially when he hurt his elbow. Let's see how he goes during the US Open hardcourt series.
Awesome write-up Hugh! Have loved reading these since I discovered your work last year. Inspired me to start writing my own articles.
I think Djokovic didn't want to get drawn into long rallies as he wasn't fully comfortable/confident with his movement and none of his previous opponents were able to expose it. Ties in with the respect he has for Carlos' game. Was strange seeing him landing off balance from his serve at times too. I guess we'll never know how much of an issue it was. Hopefully we can see them play again in the US with Djokovic fitter.
Fun fact about the Alcaraz forehand hit point graphic: it was myself that put that out to tv. It's quite a nice visual for players that hit a lot of run-around forehands and have to cover a lot of ground to get out to those wide forehands.
Thanks again for the write-up and look forward to the next one!
Wow I didn't realise that! Like the serving piece for Djoker. Subscribed!
Djoker may be one of the best heels, but you're 100% right, of the Big 4, he has always been the most gracious in defeat.
But also the worst behaved on court, which is why fans don't give him much credit for his grace post-match.
I think "the worst" might be a tad harsh...no? I mean it was just a few days ago that Medvedev, within obvious earshot to chair Eva Asdaraki-Moore, told her...words not worth repeating here. Plus then we have Zverev with bashing his racquet against the chair a year or two back.
Yet I agree 100% with you when it comes to Novak's general on-court behavior. As the statistical GOAT, he absolutely should behave like the august player that he is, instead of mimicking Ben Shelton's "hanging up" gesture like a callow teenager. It's sad, really, that the greatest player ever doesn't have the same appeal as his rivals, but I think it's also his negative/abrasive behavior that has brought him his riches (they fuel him, don't you think?). The tragedy is almost at the level of Greek mythology...like Cassandra who was gifted with sight but nobody would ever believe anything she said.
"You'll be the greatest tennis player ever," said Zeus, "but you'll also be the least liked." So cruel!
Worst among the Big 3 (fine, 4)...
It's one thing to be fueled by negativity and another to project it back or outwards. Michael Jordan was infamous for turning anything into a personal affront and then using that to fuel his performances. And yet, he was beloved and richly rewarded for it.
Novak doesn't have the ability to turn on the charm or, at least, present a humble self-effacing facade that hides that grinding anger. Hard to do, I admit, but it's something he never even grew into as he got older. One could argue that the evidence over the past 5 years has made him appear even stranger to people.
Good point about Jordan -- yeah, even now when I hear he was not the greatest of people, I still think positive thoughts about him.
I think Novak has tried to be a better presence on court...and failed. It's just not who he is. I have no doubt he'll still be around for a few more years, competing for more wins, but he, too, will soon be gone, and then the Big 3 will come to a close for good.
I think the thing that's always held Novak back from being beloved is an underlying insecurity about being beloved. As different as Federer and Nadal are from one another, both were at ease with themselves and I think people pick up on that.