Even shorter Slams?

In this period, where the depth of the game is akin to a toddlers paddling pool, perhaps we should even skip the quarters and just have 4 guys enter the tournaments?

Honestly, there is so little to see in Slams nowadays until the last three matches.

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

Yah will rather prefer a slam where the likes of Ljubicic are seeded 3rd or 4th and lose in the early rounds to any player who can hit the ball over the net to show there is depth in the game.

It's not like the good old days of, say, Wimby 1996, where the top 12 failed to reach the semis.
Instead of Djoko/Ferrer, we could be watching a 1/4 final of Washington/Radulescu.

Malivai Washington was a colossus of the tennis world. Really underachieved.

We're one set away from having the Top 4 in the semi-final for the 2nd slam in a row and 3rd in the last 5. Indeed, since the start of 2011 and assuming Djoko finishes off Ferrer, the current top 4 will have taken 18 of the 20 available slam semi final spots since 2011, with only an injured Nadal missing out in last year's AO and Fed being legitimately beaten by an inspired Tsonga at Wimbledon.

Evidence of strength at the top, or of weakness below the big 4?

With 29 year old Ferrer sat at #5, the latter is the only intelligent conclusion.

bogbrush wrote:With 29 year old Ferrer sat at #5, the latter is the only intelligent conclusion.

He's younger than Federer.

erictheblueuk wrote:

bogbrush wrote:With 29 year old Ferrer sat at #5, the latter is the only intelligent conclusion.

He's younger than Federer.

Well zippedy doo! He's a straight up and down player close to 30, and he's #5 even after losing the points off his AO 2011 semi-final.

The entire Worlds tennis stock is inferior to him, apart from the top #4.

So I'm afraid there's no depth.

I dont agree there is no depth in men's tennis, there are players like Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling,Berdych, Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt. Nalbandian. Roanic, Isner, Nishikori, Monfils, Almagro, Fish etc,. I wont say they are talent less junks.

IC
Of the ones you list, Soderling has an excuse because of injury and ill health, Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian are over the hill (possibly Daydenko as well) and were never quite a match for the current top 4 anyway.

Del P, Tsonga and Berdych are clearly players who on their good days are extremely good, but certainly the latter two have too many poor days. This is why they are still behind the hard working but limited Ferrer in the rankings. Maybe Del P will make it back to his USO winning form - he is still young, but at the moment he's ranked in the correct group (i.e. between 5 and 10)

Raonic and Nishikori (and add in Tomic and Dolgopolov) have some ability and are improving, but the results in this tournament shows that they still have a lot of improving to do if they are even going to get to Murray's level, never mind the top 3. Of what I've seen of them, I see a couple with Top 10 potential and the others being Top 16.

Isner, Almagro and Fish aren't all that - look at how many Masters level titles they have between them for a clue as to their level. Yes, obviously they are infinitely more talented that you or me, but in the grand scheme of things, they aren't going to be long-remembered players.

As for Monfils - does the word 'frustrating' have any meaning? Sometimes looks brilliant but can be far too passive and has achieved far less in his senior career than would be expected based on his junior performances relative to Murray.

SO from my original question of whether the Top 4 dominance is because they are so good or the rest are poor, I'd answer with 'a bit of both'.

I don't understand the gripe with Ferrer and his age considering the likes of Ferrero who were topping the rankings at number 1 less than a decade ago were no better than him. His age is irrelevant considering in an era of ever improving athleticism, he remains one of the best movers on tour. He's among the top 3 returners of serve and has improved steadily throughout his career.

A player like Berdych is a potential multi-slammer and in raw ability and style, is no different from the highly hyped Marat Safin. Tsonga isn't any less talented than the likes of Ljubicic and James Blake.

The current status of the game is an indication of how truly great the top 4 are. Being totally forthright, you'll note it's only Fed fans who try to denigrate this era as lacking depth.

I've not seen a single ex-player, pundit, commentator or journalist worth his salt posit a lack of depth in the modern game.

mthierry wrote:I don't understand the gripe with Ferrer and his age considering the likes of Ferrero who were topping the rankings at number 1 less than a decade ago were no better than him. His age is irrelevant considering in an era of ever improving athleticism, he remains one of the best movers on tour. He's among the top 3 returners of serve and has improved steadily throughout his career.

A player like Berdych is a potential multi-slammer and in raw ability and style, is no different from the highly hyped Marat Safin. Tsonga isn't any less talented than the likes of Ljubicic and James Blake.

The current status of the game is an indication of how truly great the top 4 are. Being totally forthright, you'll note it's only Fed fans who try to denigrate this era as lacking depth.

I've not seen a single ex-player, pundit, commentator or journalist worth his salt posit a lack of depth in the modern game.

Oh dear, dear dear. So a guy who in his prime never bettered #4 in the "weak era" is now, at 29, and ranked #5 is proof of how wonderful the top 4 are?

Berdych > Safin? Yeah, they're both tall and mad, but that's where it ends.

Federer fans have no vested interest; did you know that if Federer were to win this event, then of the 12 Slams since AO '09 he would have won 4 (same as Nadal, one ahead of Djokovic)? No, the true VIs are the fans of Murray (desperate to vindicate the Slamless one) followed by a few others who want to believe that tennis only began with their boys.

I think you summed your viewpoint up in your first three words.

mthierry wrote: Being totally forthright, you'll note it's only Fed fans who try to denigrate this era as lacking depth.

Being totally fortright it is the anti-Fed who try to denigrate the pre2007 eras. For those, tennis started with Nadal and Murray, Before them it's tabula rasa . Djoko fans tend to have a much better perspective on eras. They know Djoko is a logic continuation of teh game which started in the 1870s...if not before.

bogbrush wrote:

mthierry wrote:I don't understand the gripe with Ferrer and his age considering the likes of Ferrero who were topping the rankings at number 1 less than a decade ago were no better than him. His age is irrelevant considering in an era of ever improving athleticism, he remains one of the best movers on tour. He's among the top 3 returners of serve and has improved steadily throughout his career.

A player like Berdych is a potential multi-slammer and in raw ability and style, is no different from the highly hyped Marat Safin. Tsonga isn't any less talented than the likes of Ljubicic and James Blake.

The current status of the game is an indication of how truly great the top 4 are. Being totally forthright, you'll note it's only Fed fans who try to denigrate this era as lacking depth.

I've not seen a single ex-player, pundit, commentator or journalist worth his salt posit a lack of depth in the modern game.

Oh dear, dear dear. So a guy who in his prime never bettered #4 in the "weak era" is now, at 29, and ranked #5 is proof of how wonderful the top 4 are?

Berdych > Safin? Yeah, they're both tall and mad, but that's where it ends.

Federer fans have no vested interest; did you know that if Federer were to win this event, then of the 12 Slams since AO '09 he would have won 4 (same as Nadal, one ahead of Djokovic)? No, the true VIs are the fans of Murray (desperate to vindicate the Slamless one) followed by a few others who want to believe that tennis only began with their boys.

I think you summed your viewpoint up in your first three words.

Your arguments about Ferrer makes no sense. He's a better, more confident, more complete player than he was at 24 so why should his age matter in the circumstances. You say at his prime, he couldn't crack the "weak era" top 4 but I would ask how you come about the submission of that period being his prime. The early to mid 20's being the prime of most players doesn't mean it applies to all. David Ferrer at 29 is playing as well as Ferrero in his early 20's - probably better.

As for the Safin/Berdych point, Marat was a childhood hero of mine and my best player till he retired but he's no more talented than a Berdych (barring Thomas' mental frailties). And saying there's no similarity between both suggests you don't know their styles particularly well.

Federer fans DO have a vested interest which is reactionary to those that label his period of ultimate dominance and near invincibility a "weak era". Quit acting like you don't understand why they'll look to denigrate this era.

Tenez wrote:

mthierry wrote: Being totally forthright, you'll note it's only Fed fans who try to denigrate this era as lacking depth.

Being totally fortright it is the anti-Fed who try to denigrate the pre2007 eras. For those, tennis started with Nadal and Murray, Before them it's tabula rasa . Djoko fans tend to have a much better perspective on eras. They know Djoko is a logic continuation of teh game which started in the 1870s...if not before.

I actually agree with the first sentence but it applies as well to Fed fans who look to deride the competition in this era to spite the "weak era" theorists.

For the record, I believe Roger is the G.O.A.T. But I also believe his earlier period of domination didn't have as much credible competition. I understand all reservations about the presumptions and speculations and conjecturing concerning weak era theories considering how biased and subjective they could be but the blurred lines and obscure margins in such a case doesn't refute the existence of weaker eras of the game. Afterall, a lot of those refuting it in the men's game decry the lull in women's game which would be contradictory.

I've not, until recently, heard anyone denigrate this 'era'.
I've heard various posters say 2000-2003 was weak, 2002-2006 was weak, 2003-2007 was weak, and the actual 'weak era' start and end dates are almost always defined by the posters favourite player/least favourite player, rather than actual evidence.
No-one ever goes back before 2000 because no-one can be bothered.

Current players/commentators almost always say the 'current era' is strong - probably because there's not a great deal of difference between 'eras' - they're all strong.
'Fed fans', and others such as myself, tend to say that
1. There are different strengths and weaknesses in any 'era'
2. There can be no definitive start/end date to an 'era'
3. The current 'era' is not, overall, a great deal different to any other 'era'

By the way, those who vehemently argue against the weak era theory may wish to avoid talking about "cake-walk" or "easy" GS draws considering, in principle, it's not fundamentally different from a weak era argument. Players can only beat what's infront of them so that should apply to Murray who the hounds are saying has pretty much got a bye to the semis of Melbourne.

mthierry wrote:For the record, I believe Roger is the G.O.A.T. But I also believe his earlier period of domination didn't have as much credible competition.

That's the problem. It was the best competition available. End of and at that time you had to deal with players who had learnt to play tennis with natural gut and there was no PRP, amazing recovery drinks and so on. So to score a point you could not afford to just send the ball back and wait for a mistake. You had to be technicallly very strong. It was not a choice. The exception, funnily enough, was Hewitt. He was the super fit guy abale to absorb the power of all those shotmakers and push them into mistake, cause he was actually with Guga one of teh first to adopt the luxilon strings. Giving him as a retruner a great advantage. But he was young and able to make already the most of the new technology. Not the case of all the other players.



In that respect, you cannot compare the way Nadal, Murray and Djoko play with the way they woudl have played had they born 10 years or even 5 years earlier. It makes a huge difference in the way you develop your game.

What I don;t uderstand is that you cannot see that in 5 years, you will hear the fans of the future champion say that Djoko had it easy like we now realise that before Djoko, Nadal had it easy, able to moonball his way to 10 slams. Not even Wilander with a more complete game coudl do that then.

Sorry that one throw-away question has started a Wee Kiera discussion.
However, just for the record, let's look at the top 10 for this week in 2005, so in the Federer era prior to Nadal's emergence:
1 - Federer
2 - Roddick
3 - Hewitt
4 - Safin
5 - Moya
6 - Coria
7 - Henman
8 - Agassi
9 - Nalbandian
10 - Gaudio

Doesn't look particularly much weaker than the current top 10 - indeed probably has slightly better strength from 5 downwards and with previous slam winners ranked 1-5, 8 and 10. Coria and Nalby had reached slam finals and Henman multiple slam SFs.

Had a quick look, and 04 / 03 weren't much different, and of course by 06 Nadal had come through and the top 10 looked pretty strong with Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Nalbandian and Davy in there, Safin just outside

Tenez wrote:

mthierry wrote:For the record, I believe Roger is the G.O.A.T. But I also believe his earlier period of domination didn't have as much credible competition.

That's the problem. It was the best competition available. End of and at that time you had to deal with players who had learnt to play tennis with natural gut and there was no PRP, amazing recovery drinks and so on. So to score a point you could not afford to just send the ball back and wait for a mistake. You had to be technicallly very strong. It was not a choice. The exception, funnily enough, was Hewitt. He was the super fit guy abale to absorb the power of all those shotmakers and push them into mistake, cause he was actually with Guga one of teh first to adopt the luxilon strings. Giving him as a retruner a great advantage. But he was young and able to make already the most of the new technology. Not the case of all the other players.



In that respect, you cannot compare the way Nadal, Murray and Djoko play with the way they woudl have played had they born 10 years or even 5 years earlier. It makes a huge difference in the way you develop your game.

What I don;t uderstand is that you cannot see that in 5 years, you will hear the fans of the future champion say that Djoko had it easy like we now realise that before Djoko, Nadal had it easy, able to moonball his way to 10 slams. Not even Wilander with a more complete game coudl do that then.

We'll have to disagree with most of those points. I can't see how anyone could say Nadal had it easy. Neither can I take it seriously to posit Nadal has "moonballed" his way to 10 slams. I play tennis and I know and face moonballs. I know for a fact I would have great difficulty controlling Nadal's "moonballs".

It's difficult to reconcile how anyone can watch Nadal pull off the most jaw dropping winners while stretched and contorted into the most difficult positions with all his angles seemingly shut off and still saying he moonballed his way to those titles. We'll simply never agree on that one.

dummy_half wrote:Sorry that one throw-away question has started a Wee Kiera discussion.
However, just for the record, let's look at the top 10 for this week in 2005, so in the Federer era prior to Nadal's emergence:
1 - Federer
2 - Roddick
3 - Hewitt
4 - Safin
5 - Moya
6 - Coria
7 - Henman
8 - Agassi
9 - Nalbandian
10 - Gaudio

Doesn't look particularly much weaker than the current top 10 - indeed probably has slightly better strength from 5 downwards and with previous slam winners ranked 1-5, 8 and 10. Coria and Nalby had reached slam finals and Henman multiple slam SFs.

Had a quick look, and 04 / 03 weren't much different, and of course by 06 Nadal had come through and the top 10 looked pretty strong with Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Nalbandian and Davy in there, Safin just outside

More comedy from Federer fans. Really? You produced that list?
First of all tell us all how old Agassi was in 2005 then may be i can give you basic Tennis education. Roddick at No.2 alone ridicules that ranking and makes it impossible to consider it a serious top 10 but a group of comedians assembled to amuse us.

Simple_Analyst wrote:More comedy from Federer fans. Really? You produced that list?
First of all tell us all how old Agassi was in 2005 then may be i can give you basic Tennis education. Roddick at No.2 alone ridicules that ranking and makes it impossible to consider it a serious top 10 but a group of comedians assembled to amuse us.

By the way everyone, this is S_A's idea of 'respecting' all players. I can certainly spot a comedian in there somewhere

Julius are you accusing me of disrespecting those players? You should be blaming dummy_half for disrespecting serious tennis discussions by producing that list.

Great list dummy_half, 10 distinct games in the top 10, a reflection of the variety of court surfaces and conditions on the tour at the time.

I think it's more a case of a strong top 4 than a weak 5-100.

It's easy to see how by random chance 4 very good/great players might appear together when at other times you might see say 2.

A significantly weaker 5-100 is not going to occur though random chance since chance would average out more or less over that number of players and I see no underlying reason for it to occur either.

It's a subjective argument though, hard to say for sure.

I think some people need to read what moonballing is then watch Nadal play then use logic to work out that you wouldn't be able to win 10 GS titles, even if we accept the false premise of a weak era (many of those titles were won against Federer who cannot be called anything other than a great player by anyone not looking to be sectioned...) or the (false) idea that all of the courts have been made into multicoloured clay which suits Nadal. Even if that were all true, 10 GS still says you are doing something right to win games, which mostly involves perfect fetch--> passing shot rally finishes. In any bloody sport, feel free to laud your favourite teams or players, but attacking another with no evidence reeks of insecurity and obsession. Grow up and stop whinging

It's called moonballing. Moonballing evolved with technology and Nadal plays an advanced professional form of monballing like it or not. At 22 you still have a lot of growing up to do before telling me to grow up. I was not 15 like you when Nadal won his first FO. I have seen it before.

Oh and stop whinging too.

Telling Tenez to grow up and SA that he should be sectioned in the same post.

Welcome to the forum ChequeredJersey.

I'm pretty sure that "I'm older therefore I'm more mature and know better" is not a valid argument, and I'm sure I have a lot of growing up to do but that doesn't excuse you attacking a real person who (I assume here and I apologise if I am wrong) you do not know or has had any apparent personal affect on your life in why appears to be a non-jocular (or frankly logical) manner

perhaps we should even skip the quarters and just have 4 guys enter the tournaments?

We should skip the nursery level of play in the first 2 rounds, maybe then we won't have situation where totally cack players like Kunitsyn, Rosol, Gimeno, Prodon etc get easy money for appearing in a R128/64 making tennis look an amateur sport.

I say we just allow 32 players into the main draw (therefore 17-32 will have to qualify to make the 1st round).

That comment shows a distinct lack of appreciation and respect of just how good a top 100 (500) player is Josiah.

You sound like one of they old guys on 606 who used to say, without any hint of a joke, that they could beat someone like Boggo or James Ward.

I'm guessing the OP is a joke, but anyone agreeing with it in sincerity needs to step back and have a think about the big picture.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm pretty sure that "I'm older therefore I'm more mature and know better" is not a valid argument, and I'm sure I have a lot of growing up to do but that doesn't excuse you attacking a real person who (I assume here and I apologise if I am wrong) you do not know or has had any apparent personal affect on your life in why appears to be a non-jocular (or frankly logical) manner

You were in your pram when Mats Wilander won his first slam at 17 moonballing his way to a FO versus great players like Clerc, Lendl and Vilas. So it is possible to win slams moonballing. If you can win one slam moonballing, you can also win 7, 10 or maybe more. But it remains moonballing. That's how some of us like to call this form of tennis. It describes it best.

But the reason you need to grow up is not so much your lack of of experience and knowledge but the fact you are attacking me for expressing a view on a tennis player on a tennis forum. Clearly that is immature and fanboyish and shows you cannot separate you fanatic emotions and have a proper conversation about a tennis player on a tennis forum. So unlike Dj, I won;t welcome you here. But feel free to stay and learn.

That comment shows a distinct lack of appreciation and respect of just how good a top 100 (500) player is Josiah.

Atleast I am sticking up for the good of the game, lopsided first 2 rounds usually from players floating around 40~60 is not going to look good for the game, which happens alot these days.

I was just amused by the fact that he insulted the anti-Nadal and the anti-Federer group in one fell swoop.

This place is like San Quentin prison. You've got to join a gang early, or you're set for an unconfortable stretch.

It dawns on me that my above post is rather hypocritical. Oops

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Atleast I am sticking up for the good of the game, lopsided first 2 rounds usually from players floating around 40~60 is not going to look good for the game, which happens alot these days.

But what about the good matches that these players produce?

Are lop-sided results a brand new thing? Is there any proof that players winning matches easily has resulted in a loss of interest from tennis fans?

The fact that these events have 128 players is an important distinction between these events and lesser events. Do you think they should change it because some so-called tennis fans can't watch tennis unless 'big-names' are playing each other?

djlovesyou wrote:I was just amused by the fact that he insulted the anti-Nadal and the anti-Federer group in one fell swoop.

This place is like San Quentin prison. You've got to join a gang early, or you're set for an unconfortable stretch.

I'm going to go with pro-both Federer and Nadal thanks. It's not a mutually exclusive view and if I did dislike certain players' style I don't see the appeal in shoving it at people. It's fairly usual to obsess over something you think is good. Over something you think is bad is just plain weird. Thanks for the slightly sardonic welcome I think I'll manage to not lose sleep over the lack of one from Tenez

djlovesyou wrote:I was just amused by the fact that he insulted the anti-Nadal and the anti-Federer group in one fell swoop.

This place is like San Quentin prison. You've got to join a gang early, or you're set for an unconfortable stretch.

The problem lies essentially with those feeling directly attacked when their players is criticised (or simply described). As much as SA and I have different views, we remain courteous with each other. That's maturity.

But what about the good matches that these players produce?

These are few and far between, there are hardly any examples these days due to the lack of talent outside the top 16.

Are you suggesting to me that players outside the top 16 are not as good as the players in the top 16?

Wow, I'm now going to look at tennis in a brand new light...this is incredible insight.

Are you suggesting to me that players outside the top 16 are not as good as the players in the top 16?

I never made such an obvious statement did I? You are trying to twist my words, your sarcasm has also been duly noted, it's a pity you choose to belittle me despite not knowing my qualifications, which are probably of a much higher standard than yourself.

Do you need qualifications to act like a know-it-all on a tennis forum these days?