Top 4 - total domination

This year all nine masters titles were taken by the top four players.

14/16 semi-final slots at the grand slams were also accounted for by the top four.

It seems that the top four have a stranglehold on all of the big tournaments.

Has there ever been a year when four players have so throroughly dominated the tour? Perhaps in the Borg/Mac/Connors/Lendl era?

Is this good for the game?

Is it likely to change next year?



emancipator

emancipator wrote:
Is this good for the game?

Not if it goes on for much longer, you always need young talent coming up and shaking the tree.

But, but, the depth of the game is greater than ever because this is the Golden Era! Isn't it??!!

Well, it's a domination of four so surely that's better than the mid-noughties domination of one or two.
Even then, the matches between Fed and Rafa were titanic. Yes, it may have been a domination of the big four, but at least we've seen the big finals contested, mainly, by the top players and there have been some terrific matches.
Contrast this with some of the GS finalists from a few years back - messrs Verkerk (remember him?), Schuettler (spelling?), Gonzo, Baggy, Clement etc.
So is the big four domination good for the game ? Yes, as long as it leads to some terrific end-of-tournament match ups. No, if you want to see young talent coming through. Personally, two or three more years of Fed in the top 4 is hardly a hardship and surely can't be bad for the sport, or sport generally.

I understand your point SFP, but don't you think that the unpredictability of having an outsider or darkhorse reaching the final of a slam adds to the overall interest in the sport?

Let's be clear about it. If the domination of the top 4 was about their great shot making ability, it woudl be fine. But the wow factor comes from lower ranked like Tsonga, Dolgo, Nalby, Davydenko, Harrison, Young even who can blast the top 4 (top 3 for sure) but simply can't do it long enough cause physically there are not as fit. That in my view in the problem with teh current domination...bar Federer of course but even him is seeing his wow shots being "contained".

the only tournament in which one of the top 4 has competed in which hasn't been won by one of them is Rotterdam. Telling statistic certainly.

Is it good for the game?
not great, but neither was it great when Federer was absolutely dominant (except clay). Nobody likes sport to become too predictable, and tennis is slightly in danger of heading that way at the moment, though at least they are four guys competing at the top, so there's an element of uncertainty there.

Is it likely to change next year?
The way I see it, there's such a huge gap between the top 4 and the rest that it will take something special for the balance to change. Maybe if Del Potro can get back to his best, or even Soderling (though I'm not sure Soderling has the consistency to compete with the very best). Unfortunately I just don't see any youngsters coming through right now with the game to compete. Tomic is probably the one I see as having the best chance but I think he's mentally not that strong.

To answer BB, this era is very strong in terms of the top 4, but not all that hot when you dip outside that top 4.

bogbrush wrote:But, but, the depth of the game is greater than ever because this is the Golden Era! Isn't it??!!

My thoughts exactly bogbrush. It's hard to think of any other notion in the world of tennis that has been so comprehensively and regularly debunked as the mythical Golden Era

on the main thrust of emancipator's post : I agree overall but would say the domination is not just restricted to this past year.

In fact in terms of Slam wins (ie. as opposed to SF slots only) the domination has been going on for a long, long time and could be said to involve only three players, if we accept that Andy must realistically be considered in another category from the others until he wins his first Slam - which I sincerely hope he does.

If we go all the way back to 2004 we find that an amazing 29 of 32 Slams contested have been shared by just three guys. For most of this period the domination was by Fed & Rafa. As Fed's threat at the Slams naturally diminishes with age, Djoker has taken his place so in essence the Fedal era has simply morphed into a Nadovic era

As sfp says it's good that the we are witnessing some very hard-fought SF's and Finals involving such massively talented players. But personally I also want to see fresh new talent coming through, and it just doesn't seem to be happening. The top four spots have been held by the same guys for over three years now, only the order has shuffled. Is it because these top four are so good that they are consistently 'holding off' the others below them ..... or is it because the others just aren't good enough....??

Quite apart from the lack of youth coming through, even the more 'established' players don't really provide evidence of true strength in depth within the top 30 or so. Otherwise why would a 30 year old tennis pensioner beat five much younger players within the space of one week in Paris, without one of them managing a single set ....??

Is it good? In years to come this will be looked at as one of the strongest elites there have been. Possibly since Borg, Connors, McEnroe days. Apart from Soderling and Del Potro flirting near the top 4 for short periods, you have to say it was a monopoly between Federer and Nadal, before Djokovic and Murray consolidated it as top 4 elite. If Murray can achieve Slam success, this could be the Greatest Era in tennis.

Look at the womens side, with the changes in top 10, aside from Williams showing up at Slams is it good to have too much variation?

It would be good to see some young players make their way into the top 5.

If you look at the age of when the top made it into the top 4:

Federer: 21
Nadal: 18
Djokovic: 20
Murray: 21

If you look at the players in that age range:

Nishikori: 21 - Current ranking 25
Raonic: 20 - Current ranking 31
Tomic: 19 - Current ranking 42
Dimitrov: 20 - Current Ranking 70

Can we see them making headways in the next 18 months? Not sure

So it's a strong elite as defined by their being no competition?

Sounds like someone is starting a weak era argument.

I wouldn't say I am starting an argument about era's. I know someone who longer participates on this forum had views on era's, but who is to say that on-one from the top 4 can't win a Slam.

I just think it is a strong elite and after it runs it's course, it will be very dificult to see the same happen in the late future.

Are the top four too good or are the rest not good enough ? Could be a bit of both. This time last year, I said I could see only del P breaking up the big four and then only if he stayed fit. Delpo has done OK this year but not as well as I thought he would.
Now if delpo was to do better in the slams next year then he would challenge the top guys. Reckon we should savour a very fine top four and not bemoan a lack of challenge from the rest. At least for all the Slams you can make a reasonable case for as many as four players winning it, and I'm not sure that's happened so many times in the past.

I think that this is an exceptionally good "era" with 3 outstanding players that will all end up in the Hall of Fame. Their dedication is inspiring.
Murray's there, as well, clearly better than the rest .

Delpo has a lot to prove in 2012, I expected more from him this year, but the pack has clearly moved away even further.
Tsonga has improved, and so has Monfils (comapred to last year), Fish as well.
Berdych seems to be only a potential banana skin in 1000 Masters tournaments now.

There are a lot of other quality players.


Nole has made a huge difference to this era by finally smashing the Fedal duopoly. Nobody predicted it, but it has made this year memorable and a great, wide open setting for the next, which may be even better than this one.
The tour misses Davy and in-form Simon. Roddick looks like a stocking filler these days.