It is kind of crazy how Novak is still #5...I guess that's what four Slam SFs will get you (4 x 800 = 3200 points, about two-thirds of his total).




I have very low expectations for this run, but maybe he might get one good run out of those...I'd love to see him end on a high note and win one of those, though Brussels or Metz seems far more likely than Basel or Paris.
That's what happens when you have the weakest year of competition ever. September is about to end, and we only have one player (Alcaraz) with 50+ match wins. Back in the early 2010s, you had at least 8-10 players with 50+ match wins on the season.It is kind of crazy how Novak is still #5...I guess that's what four Slam SFs will get you (4 x 800 = 3200 points, about two-thirds of his total).
As long as he stays in the top 8, he's in a decent pole position at Majors. He can keep hoping for a good draw, and for others to take out both Sinner and Alcaraz. Or, an amazing revival of his old form in Oz.It is kind of crazy how Novak is still #5...I guess that's what four Slam SFs will get you (4 x 800 = 3200 points, about two-thirds of his total).
We agree on the weakest competition ever (well, that's a bit hyperbolic, maybe the summer of 1954 was a bit worst), but not exactly on how we get to that conclusion: I do not think that relative dominance necessarily means quality. In theory you could have an ultra-competitive field where no one has a definitive edge above the rest. If we had one hundred Djokovics in the top 100, hardly anyone would have more than one title, and still the level would be huge (yes, I know that would never happen).That's what happens when you have the weakest year of competition ever. September is about to end, and we only have one player (Alcaraz) with 50+ match wins. Back in the early 2010s, you had at least 8-10 players with 50+ match wins on the season.
If Novak had this type of year in the 2010s, he would be outside of the Top 10 by now. (Just look at his down year in 2017.)