Shorter Slams

Todays 4th round matches produced the usual straight sets no drama fare, typical of ths no-depth era.

We may as well just cut the cr@p and start at the last eight.

The drama in the first rounds usually comes from Nadal who struggles while getting proper slam fit.

However this year they gave him an pensioneer, a nervous toddler, and a good friend to allow him to get into his stride.

Haas and Federer are contemporaries, so the potential Fedal match is the same as the HaDal?

BB... there was enough drama in Berdych-Almagro and Clijsters-Na matches. Berdych needs some body-armour.

Ha ha! Maybe we should just put Nadal and Djokovic in the final...

No, Nadal will certainly be praying Federer removes another nemesis in JMDP in the quarter. At this event the big man could seriously take him out.

bogbrush wrote:No, Nadal will certainly be praying Federer removes another nemesis in JMDP in the quarter. At this event the big man could seriously take him out.

Both JMDP and Federer are threats to Nadal.

They are but I was just trying to quicken things up for bogbrush...

Is Federer really a threat to Nadal, this is outdoor hard courts here. All the intangibles always ineveitably seem to fall Nadal's way... or maybe I should be more positive about Fed's chances. I think if he gets to the finals he should win whoever he plays.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! Maybe we should just put Nadal and Djokovic in the final...

Well that's even more boring. Let's give it straight to Djokovic then!

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Is Federer really a threat to Nadal, this is outdoor hard courts here. All the intangibles always ineveitably seem to fall Nadal's way... or maybe I should be more positive about Fed's chances. I think if he gets to the finals he should win whoever he plays.

I find as Fed ages that because the bad days come more often I am generally pessimistic, but very often pleasantly surprised.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! Maybe we should just put Nadal and Djokovic in the final...

Well that's even more boring. Let's give it straight to Djokovic then!

No doubt Djokovic is pleased to see such a tough route to the final for the only guy to push him in a Slam last year.

bogbrush wrote:Todays 4th round matches produced the usual straight sets no drama fare, typical of ths no-depth era.

We may as well just cut the cr@p and start at the last eight.

Apart from Harrison against Murray I think you have a point.

It's been plain sailing so far for the top 4 and very disappointing by most of the younger players trying to make a name for themselves.

newballs wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Todays 4th round matches produced the usual straight sets no drama fare, typical of ths no-depth era.

We may as well just cut the cr@p and start at the last eight.

Apart from Harrison against Murray I think you have a point.

It's been plain sailing so far for the top 4 and very disappointing by most of the younger players trying to make a name for themselves.

As I've been trying to say elsewhere but everyone gets all upset about it for some reason.... Its very hard to make the breakthrough to the top levels. The difference in support between the very top players and other players that in reality are not that far behind them is huge. It looks increasingly difficult to bridge that gap.

All the players in the draw are the worlds tennis elite (the top 100 - 150 with a few qualifiers and wildcards thrown in). Yet some will have a huge entourage - coach, 2nd in command coach, hitting partners, physical trainers, dietitians, etc etc not to mention members of family and others will to give an example of a player playing tomorrow will travel just with thier wife.

The very top players have such a huge advantage even before they have hit a ball. I think this sort of gap has got bigger in recent years and I can only see it getting even bigger unless the problem is addressed. There are huge financial rewards for the very top players but then there is a steep drop. I would guess its possable to be in the top 100 as a player and still find it difficult to break even let alone be able to hire a coach or make a living. It is catch 22 as without being at the very top its impossable to have the extra support and without the extra support its difficult to make the breakthrough.

I don't know what the answer is but IMO that is the problem...

Interesting point HE, that issue for me is much more worthy of attention than the length of the tour.

I can see what you mean Hawkeye but the top guys all started at the bottom and worked their way up to where they are now. Don't think many of them had the money to employ huge entourages when they started.

HE - The difference is not the entourage. It's fitness for 3 of the top 4 and a one in century talent (plus good fitness) for the fourth.

The closest to them are also physycal athletes (Delpo, Tsonga Berdych) which have a good mixture of talent and fitness, ort should I say easy power and fitness.

Raonic, Harrison and Dimitri lost cause their fitess was not as good. They all lead at some stage in the match they lost but simply did not have the fitness to keep it up.

bogbrush wrote:Todays 4th round matches produced the usual straight sets no drama fare, typical of ths no-depth era.

We may as well just cut the cr@p and start at the last eight.

Why don't you just start watching from the quarter finals ?

"Raonic, Harrison and Dimitri lost cause their fitess was not as good. They all lead at some stage in the match they lost but simply did not have the fitness to keep it up."

While that may not be entirely untrue, they also lost because they were havign to play their A+ level to be equal or ahead of their opponents, and it is very difficult for anyone to keep that up over an extended period. Also, in the case of Harrison, Andy made a few tactical adjustments having figured out some of the strengths and weaknesses of Harrison's game (which to me looked to be very similar to Andy's anyway, perhaps with just a bit more aggression off the ground), and so got a few more errors and a few fewer winners.

Teenz's obsession with the physical fitness totally discounts the psychological challenge that playing the top 4 presents - look as the Tomic v Federer match or the Llodra v Murray match. In both matches the lower ranked player started off playing extremely good tennis and maintained a high level for about a set and a half, but despite that found themselves a set and a break down. At this point both Tomic and Llodra mentally threw in the towel, implicitly saying 'I can't do any more than that, and you're still getting the better of me'.

dummy_half wrote:
Teenz's obsession with the physical fitness totally discounts the psychological challenge that playing the top 4 presents - look as the Tomic v Federer match or the Llodra v Murray match. In both matches the lower ranked player started off playing extremely good tennis and maintained a high level for about a set and a half, but despite that found themselves a set and a break down. At this point both Tomic and Llodra mentally threw in the towel, implicitly saying 'I can't do any more than that, and you're still getting the better of me'.

Why would you go down psycologically if you can start a match well? To start a match playing well is a psychological strength, isn't it?

The Tomic Fed case is a special one cause Federer don;t use his superior physique to win. He has other means. But on the three examples I took (Harrison, Dimitri and Raonic) you woudl expect the stronger phsychological player to start better right? But they did not.

It's a clear mistake to separate the psychological from the physical side. PLayers don't! They know it's all about getting fitter. Only when they are equally fit that the psychology comes into play.

Look at wat happened to Nadal (one of the "mentally strongest player") when he faced a fit player like him last year? He choked at almost all important games!

erictheblueuk wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Todays 4th round matches produced the usual straight sets no drama fare, typical of ths no-depth era.

We may as well just cut the cr@p and start at the last eight.

Why don't you just start watching from the quarter finals ?

My comments are about the state of the game, not my personal preference.

Your comment is crass and utterly fails to understand the debate is about the state of the game.

Isn't this now 5 slams in a row when the top 4 have all made the QFs (USO 2010, Andy lost in R4 iirc)?

We have 6 of the top 8 plus Del Potro, a former slam winner whose ranking is slightly lowered because of coming back from long term injury last year, so 7 very predictable quarter finalists. Only Nishikori is really a surprise, and he deserves it based on beating the players who he was seeded to lose to in R3 and R4.

It does raise an interesting question as to why there is such a gulf between the top handful of players and the rest - part of the answer is that the top 4 are all pretty consistent and don't often give (big tournament) matches away against lower ranking opponents (Murray hasn't done this since before the clay season last year, but is still more likely to than the three above him).
Ferrer at #5 is consistent (and not short of athletic ability), but simply doesn't have a big enough game to really challenge, while the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling (if/when he gets back from illness and injury) have occasional great performances but are much more 'hot and cold' type players who might hit 60 winners in a match or 60 UEs.

There are some reasonably talented younger players coming up, but from what they have shown so far, they look like they have the potential to get into the current top 10 or so rather than the top 3 or 4. So far it looks like there could be a bit of a (WTA style) transitional period after the current top 4 retire, as there doesn't seem to be an outstanding talent coming through.

bogbrush wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Todays 4th round matches produced the usual straight sets no drama fare, typical of ths no-depth era.

We may as well just cut the cr@p and start at the last eight.

Why don't you just start watching from the quarter finals ?

My comments are about the state of the game, not my personal preference.

Your comment is crass and utterly fails to understand the debate is about the state of the game.

Dude, I'm just responding to what you wrote in your article, if you think it's too "crass" then feel free to alert the moderators.

You just completely missed the point and so didn't respond to the point. No need to run to teacher.