Quality At The Top - Or Not

Roger has just reached his 32nd straight quarter final - a record which will be hard to beat. Rafa and Novak seem fairly likely to contest their fourth consecutive grand slam final and compete a kind of rare non-calendar year grand slam of finalists - I believe this has never happened? Even at the level of the no 4, the consistency is impressive. If Murray can beat the bookies opinion and take out Ferrer, he would achieve his sixth consecutive slam semi. He is also on course for his 5th consecutive year end no 4 ranking.

From 5 to 8, there is also a fair bit of consistency and strength. Berdych, Del Potro, Ferrer and Tsonga are all very worth that ranking level. (Tipsarevic is technically still #8 today, and Del Potro #9, but that probably won't last.) In the men's quarter finalists at this year's French Open we see seeds #1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#9,#12. Number 12 (Almagro) however I would certainly make a case is in the top 8 clay court players and it was hardly a surprise to see him beat #8 Tipsarevic, while #7 (Berdych) has only failed to make it due to a tough draw against #9 (Del Potro) in the quarter finals, which he lost in a fairly tight and good quality match. So there hasn't been a real big shock result in the whole tournament, certainly not involving a top 10 player. In fact are the quarter finalists the best 8 players in the men's game on a clay court. I think they are, you know. Berdych is up for debate but who else could argue that they should be there?

Look at the women's quarter finalists and we see #2,#4,#6,#10,#15,#21,#23 and 1 unseeded. Highest ranked seeds not there: 1,3,5. The same consistent quality of top players year after year just isn't there. Today's number one is next month's former number one. I've lost track of how many WTA players currently have to put up with "former number one" in front of their name, it is used so much it almost seems to carry a hint of "fall from grace" or dare I say it "weak era". However at least we can commend the women's game for a substantial improvement in strength in depth in the last 20 years. But at the very top we are lacking not only in obvious greats and legends but even just very good players. Put these two things together and you get a stark contrast from an era where Steffi Graf, at her peak, was so dominant she was able to hand out a double bagel in a slam final and amass Federer-like final, semi final and quarter final streaks. From the 1985 US Open to the 1994 French she did not lose before the quarter final stage. In those days, the gulf in strength and depth was tremendous. The early rounds really were tedious practice matches full of 6-0, 6-1 and 6-2 sets for the top players. It would have been the equivalent of having Murray play the 1000 ranked player in the first round, for instance.

Stefi and Martina Hingis's first round Wimbledon defeats in 1994 and 1999 respectively were truly stunning results. But in the women's game these days when the #1 or #2 loses to someone I've never heard of it barely registers anymore. It might be the story of the day on a slow day, but that's about it. How many players were genuine contenders for the men's title this year when the tournament started. Probably 2 or 3. In the women's event, you could probably say the 20th most likely winner had a similar odds to win than the 4th most likely on the men's side. In theory it should make for a more engaging tournament. It would be the equivalent of at the start of the French Open someone like Tsonga or Berdych or Almagro just being able to think I just have to put a few results together and hit some good form and I could really win this.

The women's game at the moment is really open, the equivalent of the men's from 2000-2005 without Roger Federer. Just like Sampras and Agassi were able to contest a final at the age of about 30+ each (even more notable at that time than it would be now), in recent years Kim Clijsters was able to take a couple of years out and then return and win a couple of slams straight away. This was a player who at her peak was regularly owned by Henin in big matches, and Henin is probably not really a top hall of fame legend herself. An equivalent in the men's tour might be Andy Roddick retiring in about 2007, then coming back in 2010 and immediately winning Wimbledon and the US Open.

Someone could have made a name for themselves in the women's game in recent years and won a ton of slams, but that player isn't around. The most damning indictment of the lack of real top quality at the top of the WTA was Serena Williams bashing the top 2 ranked players Azarenka and Sharapova in straight sets in Madrid recently. They were both despatched 6-1 6-3. I saw Serena at the French, and she looked disinterested, inconsistent and less lean than at her peak.

It's not Sharapova's fault. She's a good player. But surely, if you accept that there is such a think as weak eras and strong eras, the women must be in a weak era now. The contrast has never been greater. An amazing transformation since in 1990-2000 each tour was as good as the other, and the women's matches were just as and sometimes more entertaining. Hard to see what has happened, since you would think the distribution of good players amongst eras would be more even, but I suppose it's just pure chance?

Henman bill I think we are seeing a very strong and stable period in tennis over the course of the last few years, the level of power and physicality in the game is going up. The players are bigger, stronger, and faster all in one. People like to dismiss any talk about the qualitative difference between the quality of tour in different periods but we are certainly in an especially deep period like the early 90s and 80s.

The ranking is stable because physicality has outshone everything else, leaving it well nigh impossible to upset the ratings. Over bo5 this holds true for individual matches as well whereas there can be some surprises over bo3.

When the game reverts to courts that permit shot making to rule over physical conditioning we'll see variable results again, but not before.

Its very difficult to argue its a weak era by your own statements, the top seeds are getting knocked out early by outsiders means the competition is very tough and nobody can take their ranking for granted and hence it can be said as a strong era.

I understand what you trying to say there is no dominant champion in this era, this doesnt mean the competition is stronger or weaker.

Cibulkova's performance against Azarenka was awesome, its not like VA played a Poopie level of tennis, its just the other one played better, so just coz some outsiders plays tennis well and not top seeds doesnt mean its a weak era, I completely disagree with the article.

HB... I am that you have singled out WTA and are harking back to days of Graf/Seles/Henin/Williamses/Clijsters/Navaratilova/Evert/Vicario and further back.

Cibulkova has let VA off the hook earlier this year, Mona Barthel had MPs against VA, so what? Masha is still playing.

Shvedova is a very good doubles player, and has some titles with Vania King. She played a fantastic match. So did Errani. Kerber has improved quite a bit this year.
Kvitova is the W champion.

It is not all that bad on the Women's side.

Men's side is doing well and is consistent and has longevity. Women's side less so.

I think the problems with the women's tennis are serious. There seems to be a real lack of quality shot making and variety at the top of the game. Everyone seems to just hit flat shots, (not even much topspin used) and play the same baseline game essentially. there also appears to be a complete disregard for the importance of holding service games, perhaps their match format should be best of 15 tiebreaks instead as the consistent breaks of serve are just ridiculous.

Whereas in the men's game the top 4 can be categorised as Nadal and Djokovic - offensive baseliners, perhaps Murray a defensive baseliner & Fed an all rounder, in spite of these 'categories' all four can play a variety of styles and shots (some better than others) to a reasonable extent. Irrespective of the surface, the top 8 in the men's game usually always bring at least their 'B game' to the big tournies, a consistency desperately lacking in the women's game.
With the frequent changes in top ranking, I personally feel it takes away the prestige of being no.1 when it is passed amongst so many different players.

I have been impressed by Azarenka this year, who deservedly showed she was the best when it truly counts unlike her predecessor. However at present I only really see three bonafide stars in the women's game - Azarenka, Sharapova & Kvitova (I'd include Serena too if we could be certain she was truly focused on tennis, though granted she's had injury concerns recently)

Women's side is certainly not as good as Men's now , but lets not start this weak era strong era debate. I actually see WTA is getting better with some strong consistent player up the top with Azarenka, Kvitova, Masha etc,..

You dont replace Graff, Navratilova, Hingis, Henin, Williams etc,. so easy, same will be the case in ATP for few years once Fed retires.

On the men's Fedalovicurray have spoiled the fans by being consistent, surface homogenization being one factor.

SoCal will argue that surface homogenization has not the same impact on WTA as ATP, but he forgets about the differences between ATP and WTA.

When the womens game was predictable and ran to the seeding, many said that the womens game lacked quality in depth. Now that the womens game doesn't run to the seeding, many say it is because the womens game lacks quality.

When the mens game was less predictable with tournaments not running to their seedings, many said that there was in depth quality to the field. Now that the mens game is predictable with tournaments running to their seeding, many say it is because of high quality and consistency.

Exactly, NS!!

This is the heart of the era comparisons fallacy. You simply cannot, ever, prove one eras strength or otherwise through records. In every era 4 Slams a year get handed out. Whether they go to one or four tells you nothing about the standard.

Thanks for your comments. Yes I agree that a small number of players dominating does not necessarily mean a strong era per se, and a very open field does not necessarily mean a weak era.

However surely players 1-4 being stronger than average is more likely than players say 10-100 being weaker than average. My argument would be, that, due to statistical variability inherent in everything, it is significantly more likely than #1-4 could be quite a bit weaker or stronger in a given moment, whereas #10-100's strength should tend to average out. At least over a 5 or 10 year period. Over a longer period the strength of #10-100 could improve more substantially due to slow underlying trends as the game improves. Tricky one, but that is what I think anyway.

It is possible to have no-one dominating and yet a strong era. However when you also look at the quality of play in the women's game, I think it is a weak era. But for sure it's just an opinion, not something that can be (easily) statistically proven.

I think the women are significantly more stronger and physically fit than in the past. The British ladies nowadays find it a struggle to break into the top 100 let alone the top 50.

Nore Staat wrote:When the womens game was predictable and ran to the seeding, many said that the womens game lacked quality in depth. Now that the womens game doesn't run to the seeding, many say it is because the womens game lacks quality.

When the mens game was less predictable with tournaments not running to their seedings, many said that there was in depth quality to the field. Now that the mens game is predictable with tournaments running to their seeding, many say it is because of high quality and consistency.

This isn't really an accurate representation. For the WTA, in the era of the Williams, Davenport, Hingis, Capriati, Mauresmo and the rising Belgians in Henin and Clijsters, you'd have been hard pressed to find anyone questioning the quality or depth of the tour. While there was no empirical form of measurement, the quality was evident to the fans and the early noughties saw probably the only period the popularity of the WTA arguably surpassed the men's tour.

Subsequently though, this quality at the elite level has been eroded by several top players who are physically and emotionally burnt out before the end of their physical prime or injuries and health problems or the sort of borderline apathy you see from Serena. Even current world no. 1, Sharapova, probably played her best tennis as a teenager when she had greater competition from genuine greats and before the shoulder problems.

The depth of the general fields is stronger than ever - that's a given with increased general participation- but I feel there's a dearth in real elite level talent. All I see is mentally weak, pale imitations of true greats. If Henin and Clijsters came back now, and Serena cared enough, they'd still stroll to the finals of the big titles. Even Hingis would be very competitive on this tour.

Isn't the women's tour going through the same issues as the men's i.e. so physical now that you have to be both physically and mentally mature to cope? That would explain why so many relative veterans are winning their first slam and why younger players can't dominate. Wozniacki could clean up at the smaller events but her limited game was then found out at the slams whilst players like Stosur and Li Na could translate earlier doubles success and so-called "late development" in singles into slam wins.

One positive ray of hope though is that there could be some younger players come through who do more than simply just bash the ball as hard as possible to challenge the grinders. Martic from Croatia particularly looks to have an all court game with lots of variety for grass, hard and clay court success.

newballs wrote:Isn't the women's tour going through the same issues as the men's i.e. so physical now that you have to be both physically and mentally mature to cope? That would explain why so many relative veterans are winning their first slam and why younger players can't dominate. Wozniacki could clean up at the smaller events but her limited game was then found out at the slams whilst players like Stosur and Li Na could translate earlier doubles success and so-called "late development" in singles into slam wins.

One positive ray of hope though is that there could be some younger players come through who do more than simply just bash the ball as hard as possible to challenge the grinders. Martic from Croatia particularly looks to have an all court game with lots of variety for grass, hard and clay court success.

I don't think there's any similarity at all between both tours. There's actually a vast contrast, imo.