Serena Was an Underachiever, Djoker has no single outstanding weapon: Patrick Mouratoglou Interview.

[britbox]

In this video from the High Performance Youtube channel, Serena Williams' former coach Patrick Mouratoglou lays out his claim that greatness has more to do with mindset than talent.

Along the way, he states Djokovic has no outstanding weapons,and that Serena was an underachiever.

He also addresses if today’s Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner would beat prime Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Djokovic.

Quite an interesting interview.



A few bullet points to summarise the key points should you choose to watch:

• Novak Djokovic is the GOAT without a signature weapon but surpasses everyone through professionalism, adaptability, and obsessive detail.
• Roger Federer had more natural genius than Djokovic: Federer's timing, ball speed, and volleying are described as unmatched yet his genius alone wasn’t enough to outlast Djokovic.
• Rafael Nadal was a physical phenomenon -his forehand, intensity, and physical resilience are framed as extraordinary weapons but not the ultimate difference maker.
• Mindset beat talent in the Big Three era: Djokovic didn’t win because he was more gifted but because he wanted it more and never accepted mental limits.
• Serena Williams needed confrontation, not comfort. Patrick insists that respectful conflict was essential to earning her trust and success.
• Serena winning Roland Garros with a 40°C fever defines champion mentality: No practice, and barely able to function yett she refused to lose
• Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner play faster tennis than the Big Three. Today's tennis is higher - a product of evolution, speed, and modern training.
• Alcaraz and Sinner may not have survived the Big Three’s era: Mouratoglou believes Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic would have beaten them early preventing their confidence from ever fully forming, rather like the missing generations (Dimitrov etc).

 

[El Dude]

Without having watched the interview, those all seem like valid perspectives.

I find his take on Sincaraz vs. the Big Three to be very interesting, even illuminating: that two things can be true: 1) They've pushed the game forward a bit to a faster, even slightly higher, level; and B) They might have been squashed under the steamroll at a young age and never reached their current heights if they had been, say, part of Lost Gen.

Tennis is a weird sport, because it is almost always dominated by just a few players who set the tone of the tour. In the case of the Big Three era, they probably weren't more dominant over the rest of the tour than Borg or McEnroe at their best, but they did it for so long, which made it very difficult for younger guys to find the confidence needed to fully actualize their potential. I honestly think that Lost Gen was just weaker than any other generation, but at least some of that was due to "Big Three aborted" talent. This also supports the view that Andy Murray deseves to be considered an all-time great because of how he still managed to eek out so many big titles and was always in the mix, even having his moment at the top.

A bit on Serena...

As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been going over WTA history somewhat obsessively, trying to bring my knowledge closer to that of ATP history. One thing I've noticed is how "patchy" Serena's record is compared to the other GOATs (Evert, Navratilova, Graf). Not only was she less consistent year-to-year, but she won far fewer non-Slams in her best years, with one or two exceptions, and thus didn't have any seasons quite in the same class as the best years of Navratilova, Graf, even Seles and Hingis. Her best years are similar to Evert's best, but Evert had more of them.

In other words, while I think the general view that Serena at her most dominant was the most dominant player in WTA history, I don't think her record quite matches it - because of her various struggles. Now obviously she was a great player and belongs in the GOAT tier. But I can't rank her ahead of Martina or Steffi because she wasn't as dominant over the entire tour as they were (in their respective primes), so I think the question in all-time rankings is more whether to put her or Evert at #3 (or Court, if we count her full career).

All of which is a different angle that supports Mouratoglou's view that she "underachieved."