A very weak era, is this

Since this topic has never been discussed before, I thought I might bring it up.

When the top 3 players were making it to all semis, the explanation given was that they were greats. When Murray, ranked number 4, started making semis consistently too, he was put along with the top 3. Even though he hadn't even won a grand slam, we were told that such consistency from the top 4 meant that we were in a golden era for tennis.

Look at what's happened now. Nadal withdrew from the US Open and guess what, the No.5 ranked player Ferrer promptly makes the semis. Is he also a great, or is it about time we conceded that this era is really the worst of all time outside the top4? There is absolutely no resistance to the top players from these guys. None of them are in the same class as any of the top 3, or even Murray or Ferrer. I can't recall a time when free passage to the semis was guaranteed so easily to the top 4 players. In the 1990s, they really had to fight for it.

Okay, I know that Federer lost to Berdych, but as we all know by now, it was because of the Fognini effect.

Well I have to disagree TA. If you look at he accomplishments of Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdy, and Del Po and compare them to most of the other second tier guys in the history of the tour and I think the second tier guys today are not bad and are actually pretty good and above average. I mean these guys have all carved out an impressive niche for themselves despite the fact the top 4 guys have been so consistently dominating and winning all the big chunks of points. To me this is some of the best top level competition we have ever seen. I think the early 90s was tougher, but the strength of the era is really decided by most the top 3 and 4 guys. That is true in pretty much every era.

Yes but when you consider that Nadal or Federer got to the semis of every slam back to RG2004 it shows the dominance of those guys alone. No other pair, or Top4, have ever gone so deep, so often in the Open Era.

Greater homogenisation = greater probability of dominance by a group of players.

Its not that the top 4 are so strong, or the next 4 so weak, its that the conditions make it easier for the same set of guys to go deep all the time. Indeed when you think of it the top8 has hardly changed much either...conditions are resulting in an orderly procession of rankings.
We used to get more variability before when the tour changed from one very different surface condition to another...specialists would throw spanners into the rankings works.

If this era is weak its because the spread of conditions is 'weak'.

Are any of these as good as Pat Rafter, a supposedly second-tier player in the 1990s? Or Goran Ivanisevic? These guys were genuine threats to anyone. Compare them to Ferrrer or Del Potro. Or don't. Did anyone expect Del Potro to beat Djoker yesterday? I didn't.

And guys like Rafter or Goran were threats because some conditions really suited them...quick USO or quick grass. On clay they or slow werent so hot. There you had other threats/specialists.
Today we dont have that separation of speeds and hence specialists who could threaten in their own 'backywards'...I sound like a broken record but I'm adamant that homogenisation kills competition down the line.

The timing of this thread seems very odd, given that we have just had two slams in a row where one of the top 4 failed to make the semi.

Is the OP not basically saying "if we ignore the one that didn't make the SFs, then all the top 4 made the SFs"?

Yes but if we look at rankings they show the true reflection of the game right now.

Sorry TA but you are a long way off with that post. Like I said in another thread, just as we discuss eras now and remember fondly the Borg, McEnroe and Connors era and Becker, Lendl eras etc people in the future will look back on the Roger, Rafa and Djokovic era with equal admiration. If you are claiming people will look back and say that was a weak era then you are having a laugh.

CC, first of all it is a misnomer to call it the "Roger, Rafa and Djokovic era". Federer, the greatest player I have seen is past his prime. Nadal is past his prime as well. Djokovic really never had much of a prime, just a very good year. I look back with nostalgia at 2004- say 2008 which saw a much stronger Nadal and Federer at his incandescent best, not losing to Berdych in grand slam quarters. This is everyone's era precisely because this is no one's era. Right now, particularly this year, it's as weak an era as I've seen. The proof of this is a Federer way off his prime getting back to #1 ranking.

Paint it how you will and wriggle all you want but this is how people will see this era and it certainly won't be remembered as weak.

Federer at 31 being #1 isnt necessarily an indication of weakness per se. Agassi was #1 at 33 - was 2003 weak as well?

We have to look at the bigger picture of where tennis has been headed. Player skill is being minimised by technology gains and a general slowing down of surfaces into a more (not complete) homogenised state.

These changes have placed emphasis on fitness/stamina, not hand skills due to extended ralleying - long ralleys reward stamina more than hand skills.

Look at the players in the top 100 now...its the highest average age than ever before I believe. We know youngsters are having trouble breaking through...and in the top 10 we have 30 year olds, and some not too far behind. This is because from a fitness perspective you dont age - Federer at 31 can be just as fit as he was at 23, if not more so. The things that would normally tail off with age, i.e. explosive movement and reflexes, dont matter as much now as they can be covered over by stamina. So Federer at 31, even though we know he;s not as sharp as he once was, can stay at #1 through amazing stamina and of course some skill. Likewise we saw last night how the sharper game of Tipsy was blunted by Ferrer.

So my point is that this isnt a weak era, its an era defined by its conditions...and when it comes more down to stamina than ever before then we see those guys who have the best balance of stamina/skill are hard to usurp from the top of the game - and get better with age. As mentioned before, homogenisation leads to less variety and less competition....the same set of guys can sit on top of the rankings because if their game is good enough to dominate one surface, its good enough to dominate them all.

So I call it a 'Weak Conditions Era'.

Its not the players fault though...and its too hard to judge them as weak or strong when the conditions are as they are.
The broader question is...should we have DecoTurfII everywhere and it becomes like playing squash or badmintion - the conditions are always the same - or should it be a tour of different speeds, conditions, etc. Until the tour goes for variety then its going to be dominated by the same set of guys all the time - as it has been broadly since 2005 pretty much, and had Nadal not fallen injured (or he and Djokovic cancelled themselves out through slow conditions and long matches) then the domination would be continuing unabated.

I just love how we all of a sudden have a clambering to write off Roger and Rafa careers when they have won the most recent slams putting on vintage displays. You couldn't make it up. I reckon people should wait before making kneejerk reactions.

lydian wrote:Federer at 31 being #1 isnt necessarily an indication of weakness per se. Agassi was #1 at 33 - was 2003 weak as well?

Er, yes actually. As shown by the fact that a injured (back) Agassi could still get there. Just before Roger arrived I remember despairing at the thought of a new world dominated by Roddick and Hewitt. I'd no problem with either player, in particularly but you want a at least another two or three entering the fray

And thankfully we got it in 2004

Federer today might be No.1, but he's not as dominant as he was in 2004-6, despite some people (wrongly) saying he's playing better.

I never understand how anyone can say that this spell (say 2010 onwards) isn't of better quality than 2001-2003 and better to watch. Roddick, who in 2009 looked the best he ever had done, couldn't get near the Top 5, never mind the No.1 he had in 2003

Some seem to think it's used to excuse Murray's failings. Not for me, it isn't. This is the best spell of Tennis I've enjoyed since the 1979 to 1985 'era'. The fact that Tsonga can't get anywhere near shows the strength, the hapless Frenchman has now convinced himself that he has no chance of a Slam, simply because the current competition is too hot

Dont get me wrong I enjoy this current spell of tennis but its a period of rivalries amongst the top4 by and large. There are few shocks.
Does a lack of competition make it weak, or strong in that the top4 are amongst the strongest ever (aided by conditions IMO) from a rankings perspective. If Federer is supposed to be GOAT by many people then why is being #1 at 31 such a disgrace?
Likewise Agassi was also an all-time great so getting to #1 at 33 in slowing conditions that suited his game, talent and stamina shouldnt be a surprise either.

Federer might be less dominant today than 2004-2006 but doesnt that make 2004-6 weaker because there were less good players to challenge him? Some might argue 2003-6 was a transitional time where conditions were rapidly slowing down across the board and Federer as an emergent player from the faster late 90s but raised on clay too was best able to straddle the fast-to-slow changes.

But I'm not into the era comparisons... there's too many variables, changes and the players themselves change over time too - as Federer has also showed. I just think this era is slower than early 2000s, than 1990s. It breeds a different type of player...and renders comparisons even with 2003 when conditions were faster/balls smaller/strings less poly based somewhat useless IMO.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry TA but you are a long way off with that post. Like I said in another thread, just as we discuss eras now and remember fondly the Borg, McEnroe and Connors era and Becker, Lendl eras etc people in the future will look back on the Roger, Rafa and Djokovic era with equal admiration. If you are claiming people will look back and say that was a weak era then you are having a laugh.

Obviously, THE player that defines this era (basically the last 8 years) is Federer - other than a calendar year slam, there's very little missing from his record in terms of the Open era. Most slams in total, career slam, longest streaks of slam final appearances (holding the 2 best streaks), longest streak and longest time in total at #1. Quite simply a stunning record.

The fact that Nadal has such a good record as well when he has been essentially a contemporary of Federer (I know he's younger, but he came through to the top at a much younger age and looks like he may fade out at a similar time) is nothing short of outstanding. 11 slams including the career slam, and THE outstanding record of anyone at RG (or indeed at any slam - 7 titles in 8 years, with only 1 defeat ever in the tournament).

Add to this the performance of Djokovic over the last 4 years, with 5 slams and counting, and you are adding a player who is currently borderline great and could go on to be another in the list of genuine all time greats.

Behind these 3, obviously Murray is one of the outstanding players to have not (yet?) won a slam, while the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling have proven that on their day they can beat anyone (although they rarely string these days together sufficiently to win the biggest tournaments) - not much different from any other era, in having players with big but inconsistent games dominating the lower part of the top 10.

No doubt the vast majority of people will look back at this era in 10-20 years time and just go WOW, in the same way we look back at Borg/Mac/Connors and Becker/Lendl/Edberg as periods where clusters of outstanding champions were competing against each other. People won't really discuss whether Fed and Nadal were past their prime in 2011, as they will see that both still went on to win slam titles in 2012 - 2011 will just be viewed as Djokovic having an astonishingly good year.

Only downside at the moment is the point repeatedly made by Lydian, that homogenisation of playing conditions and the current racket technology has allowed a more 'one size fits all' baseline game to become overwhelmingly dominant and has (at least to some extent) meant that the top 4 are rarely challenged by players who are surface specialists (bar Murray on clay). I guess this shows in how over the last 5 years, only one player from outside the current top 3 has won a slam.

Speaking of weak bladders I suggest leaving the beer alone

dummy_half. An excellent summing up. It seems that some players just can't win with some posters. If you take home a trophy it's because it's a "wee keera" and if you lose then you're passed it.
If people don't think much of the current crop of top players - arguably some of the greatest the sport has ever seen - I don't think they are going to be particularly enamoured of the game in, say, 10 years time.
More optimistically, there's usually a player, or players, who emerge that people can get behind (and also have a good argument about).

dummy_half wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry TA but you are a long way off with that post. Like I said in another thread, just as we discuss eras now and remember fondly the Borg, McEnroe and Connors era and Becker, Lendl eras etc people in the future will look back on the Roger, Rafa and Djokovic era with equal admiration. If you are claiming people will look back and say that was a weak era then you are having a laugh.

Obviously, THE player that defines this era (basically the last 8 years) is Federer - other than a calendar year slam, there's very little missing from his record in terms of the Open era. Most slams in total, career slam, longest streaks of slam final appearances (holding the 2 best streaks), longest streak and longest time in total at #1. Quite simply a stunning record.

The fact that Nadal has such a good record as well when he has been essentially a contemporary of Federer (I know he's younger, but he came through to the top at a much younger age and looks like he may fade out at a similar time) is nothing short of outstanding. 11 slams including the career slam, and THE outstanding record of anyone at RG (or indeed at any slam - 7 titles in 8 years, with only 1 defeat ever in the tournament).

Add to this the performance of Djokovic over the last 4 years, with 5 slams and counting, and you are adding a player who is currently borderline great and could go on to be another in the list of genuine all time greats.

Behind these 3, obviously Murray is one of the outstanding players to have not (yet?) won a slam, while the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling have proven that on their day they can beat anyone (although they rarely string these days together sufficiently to win the biggest tournaments) - not much different from any other era, in having players with big but inconsistent games dominating the lower part of the top 10.

No doubt the vast majority of people will look back at this era in 10-20 years time and just go WOW, in the same way we look back at Borg/Mac/Connors and Becker/Lendl/Edberg as periods where clusters of outstanding champions were competing against each other. People won't really discuss whether Fed and Nadal were past their prime in 2011, as they will see that both still went on to win slam titles in 2012 - 2011 will just be viewed as Djokovic having an astonishingly good year.

Only downside at the moment is the point repeatedly made by Lydian, that homogenisation of playing conditions and the current racket technology has allowed a more 'one size fits all' baseline game to become overwhelmingly dominant and has (at least to some extent) meant that the top 4 are rarely challenged by players who are surface specialists (bar Murray on clay). I guess this shows in how over the last 5 years, only one player from outside the current top 3 has won a slam.

Nail on the head.

This debate is getting a bit repetitive now, and that comments sums up the positives/negatives very well, so we can say that is the conclusion.

I may regret saying this, but Djokovic has to save tennis tomorrow by stopping this anti-tennis merchant Daveed, imagine what the Mayan civilization would think of us if Daveed was to make a grand slam final.

I would rather watch a chess marathon than have Daveed in a play off for the USO.

JM - have just posted about "the admirable" Daveed on the Stefanki/Tsonga coach topic. Ferrer may not be everybody's cup of tea but he's one of those sportsmen who rarely fails to give 100% and, from what I can gather, appears to be one of the nicest guys on the circuit.
Sure that no one would fancy facing him in a GS semi and should he upset Djoko (he probably won't) he'll give Murray/Berdych a tremendous scrap in the final.

Sirfredperry, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion whether Ferrer is a nice guy on the circuit or not. Whatever next, that Murray's last name starts with an "M"? JM's point was that if Ferrrer were to make the final, it would be a bit of a surprise, to say the least.

Actually that wasn't his point at all, his point was that if Ferrer made the final it would bad for tennis because he doesnt like the way Ferrer plays tennis and obviously finds it very boring.

To be fair Ferrer is remarkably resilient...about 140 weeks inside the top 7 and a top20 player since 2005. This is a guy who broke the top50 by 20y10m so he's not without talent...remember there are very few guys now breaking into the top100 under 21. Infact Ferrer went from playing his first ATP match to top 50 within 10 months. So lets not underestimate his ability.

Ok his game isnt the much exciting but I do have admiration for someone who maximises every last ounce of their ability. On the face of it there's no way he should have beaten Tipsarevic last night but he found a way to stick in and come through. I wouldnt want a tour full of Ferrer's but he adds grit and determination to the mix...and guys like Tomic, Dimitrov, etc could learn alot from this player who pushes the argument as best player at 5'9 or under in the modern game...

Killer938, point taken. It would also point to a very weak era if Ferrer makes the final. I just can't see him getting past the semis in the 1990s, though he would have done well on the clay.

Thanks Killer938. Ferrer was described as an anti-tennis merchant. Bit harsh.

Why is it a weak era if a guy like Ferrer makes the final...previous era's have had plenty of guys make slam finals with nowhere near the record Ferrer has.

Lydian, isn't it surprising that someone whose strength is "grit and determination" is ranked so high? That's because all the shotmakers out there are so inconsistent that they can't string together 5 shots in a row. Now, in the 1990s, we had great shotmakers.

Yes but TA grit and determination are as necessary as amazing FHs and BHs. Ferrer is up there as GOAT of grit and determination...we shouldnt just discount its importance. The tour in 80s, 90s, 00s has never just been full of shotmakers...you always have those guys who make it difficult for the others. The Gilberts, the Musters, the Ferrers...as long as we have a good mix of players I'm happy...and Ferrer has had a very good career if you look at what he's achieved...plus he;s not without ball striking talent admittedly from a more defensive perspective. Just think the thread is being a harsh on him and much 'worse' players than him have made slam finals in the past, even in the 80s (Chris Lewis anyone?), yet we dont call those weak eras.

There's always been room at the top for the hard grafters. I would put Davydenko and Chang into this category and even Hewitt, who has/had no real killer shot but plenty of guts and never-say-die spirit.

Good article TA!

Ferrer cosistently in the quarters and semis in slams does show there is poor quality in the top 10. More than that, it shows clearly this is the age of the retriever: attacking players like Dimitrov, Raonic, Kholi and Delpotro just cannot compete equally on conditions where tennis is ever more approaching long distance running.

The grinders rule: Murray, Djokovic, Nadal and Ferrer are prepared to retrieve balls until the exhaustion of their opponents; the percentage game is the only rewarding tactic and S&V seems destined to sport museums.

Not sure why Ferrer gets so much criticism - he's a tremendous athlete and defensive player, and will scrap for everything. His high ranking is a reward for his consistency and for good targetting of tournaments - 1500 points come from his 4 x 250 and 1 x 500 titles this year, and on completion of the USO he will have at worst 2 x slam semi final and 2 x slam quarter final appearances this year.

OK, he doesn't often beat the top 4 (although he will always make them work for their victory), but similarly he doesn't often fail to live up to his seeding (having made the QF or better in 5 of the 7 Masters Series events counting in his rankings), which is more than can be said for the likes of Tsonga or Berdych.

I know many don't like his style of play, but it undoubtedly works for him, and it is interesting to see the way that someone of small stature copes in this era of tall and powerful players.

Without reading the comments your arguments Tennisanorak are not strong enough to take seriously - it can be boiled down to the following:

a) Ferrer beats Tipsy to reach the semi-final
b) Ferrer is not a top four player and is therefore cr&p.
a and b imply a weak era.
c) Berdych beating Federer doesn't fit my weak era thesis hence I will raise some BS to cover it.

The conclusion you drew from a & b doesn't wash because someone outside of the top four had to reach the semi-finals because of Nadals absence. What we actually have are two players from outside the top four reaching the semi's.

The only thing one can conclude is the top four are supremely fit and supremely consistent. This is the age of extreme consistency, extreme fitness. It is also the age where technology (mainly) and conditions favour the baseliner.

I would just like to highlight two sentences from dummy_half and Jeremy_Kyle, above. This is exactly the point I am tring to make in this thread. Yes, we had Chris Lewis and Malawai Washington, but were they ever ranked so high. Ferrer's game gets him to #5 even when he is over 30, when a retriever like him should be on the decline. What does that tell you about the shotmakers in this era outside the top 4?

"he doesn't often beat the top 4 (although he will always make them work for their victory), but similarly he doesn't often fail to live up to his seeding"

"Ferrer cosistently in the quarters and semis in slams does show there is poor quality in the top 10."

Nore Staat, Ferrer was seeded #4 for this tournament, so it's only Berdych who is the no top 4 player. You say "the top four are supremely fit and supremely consistent.". Well, please read my initial post carefully. Initially, we said this about Federer and Nadal, and then added Djoker. Later, we added Murray to this supremely fit and consistent list. Now, when one of the top 4 doesn;t play and still the #4 seed Ferrer reaches the semis, instead of looking at the competition below him, we tend to add Ferrrer also to this supremely fit and consistent list.

Maybe instead of just considering the top 4 players to be so supremely awesome, we should wonder at whether they face any competition at all.

It is of course a matter of perspective, but surely even Ferrer reaching the semi when seeded #4 tilts it towards the less competition from anyone seeded below #4 theory?

Put another way, let's accept the hypothesis that the top 4 are awesome which is why none of the others normally beat them before the semis. Now one of the top 4 withdraws and Ferrrer too reaches the semis. So is he also so awesome that none of the others can beat him? Or maybe the others just aren't that good? (compared to the 1990's lower ranked players).

On a separate point Ferrer is clearly an excellent player who has steadily improved based on supreme fitness. His Wimbledon 2012 performances were outstanding, thrashing Del Potro in the fourth round and challenging but not quite overcoming Murray in the quarter-final. I thought the Ferrer-Murray match brought out the best tennis in Murray because anything less would have seen Ferrer win to make the semi-final.

Elsewhere it has been reported that the Tipsy - Ferrer quarter-final was one of the matches of the whole year. Receiving standing ovations during (before the final set tie-breaker) and at the end of the match. Of course for those that don't actually watch the match and "see" the match, this is just another statistic to fit a simplified model of the game.

"Ferrer is clearly an excellent player"

Ivanisevic was too- did he make literally every semi or quarter? There was much more competition.

In any case, your post clearly highlights my points. How he will beat the Tipsarevics and Del Potros, but come up short against the Murrays and Djokovics. It is almost like a computer program, this era, where all the players other than the top 4 are forbidden from beating the top 4. Every time the top 4 is beaten, we have to sit up and take notice. It wasn't always thus!

"Ferrer is clearly an excellent player"

Ivanisevic was too- did he make literally every semi or quarter? There was much more competition.

In any case, your post clearly highlights my points. How he will beat the Tipsarevics and Del Potros, but come up short against the Murrays and Djokovics. It is almost like a computer program, this era, where all the players other than the top 4 are forbidden from beating the top 4. Every time the top 4 is beaten, we have to sit up and take notice. It wasn't always thus!

On another separate matter, if the talent outside the top four is weak, why on earth aren't there any other British male players in the top 200? In other era's the second, third ranked British players were much more highly ranked:

Ranking, Player, ATP points
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 7,290
193 Goodall, Josh (GBR) 262
242 Baker, Jamie (GBR) 193
248 Ward, James (GBR) 187
311 Bogdanovic, Alex (GBR) 142
337 Evans, Daniel (GBR) 131
358 Smethurst, Daniel (GBR) 115
371 Bloomfield, Richard (GBR) 108
423 Ward, Alexander (GBR) 87

Nore Staat, that is an interesting question. Maybe Britain is suffering from the same phenomenon- a very good top player, but nothing much afterwards?

Tennisanorak wrote:Nore Staat, that is an interesting question. Maybe Britain is suffering from the same phenomenon- a very good top player, but nothing much afterwards?

I call it the Roger Draper effect. There is also probably something to do with the way sport and tennis is structured within our schools and outside the schools, as well as cultural / educational issues (24 hour electronic media, virtual sports (gaming), virtual society ..."

One other factor to consider when understanding the "present era" is how professional everyone is with their preparation and training (apart from say Gulbis). It is no longer valid to talk about a player and his coach - nowadays they have teams, nutritionists, fitness coaches, movement coaches, physiologists, strategists, psychologists etc. With the way the rewards are allocated the better the player the more they can afford in improving their "team" [oxygen tents, egg chambers etc].

I think this professionalism is an additional key factor when considering the consistency and maximising of talent and fitness. This professionalism has also resulted in better attitudes to each and every slam tournament, with schedules built to maximise performances at each slam event (with acclimitisation etc). In the past for example, the Australian Open, was NOT given the same respect as it is nowadays.

Does anyone recall 2007 USO SF contestants?

Ferrer works very hard. What (or who) has stopped Murray from winning a slam so far, is the same for Ferrer as well, is it not?

Posters who dislike Ferrer's brand of Tennis have a conscious choice.

PS: Federer is 56-7 in 2012 with 6 titles, second is Ferrer at 53-11 with 5 titles. He deserves some respect.

I would say that for his height he has a better serve than most, getting the ball into court at over 120mph at 5'9' requires some skill...and some spin along with the power! Some of the shots he got back from Tipsy driven hard into the corners were remarkable, and some great passes too.

The fact he's doing so well though is also down to the convergance of surfaces we see on tour. Anyone playing a great clay-based game will excel across most of the tour now.

Let's face facts....
Federer - brought up on clay
Djokovic - brought up on clay
Nadal - brought up on clay
Murray - trained on clay at Barcelona since 14yo
Delpo - brought up on clay (and hard)
Ferrer - brought up on clay
etc.

These guys are adept on slow surfaces...Tsonga, Berdych, and others who are highly ranked but not consistent didnt have that upbringing. The top guys are very strong on clay and slow conditions...and because its slower everywhere they are so consistent with it.

What you mean by conscious choice? I don't like watching Ferrer and I don't think I made any choice regarding that. I give plenty of credit to the guy for his hard work, although I cannot help but noting he'll never be a superstar. He is an outsider who for most of his career has been floating in and out the top 10 never winning big prizes and rarely beating the big names, who happen to be ranked n.5 at 31.

Tennisanorak wrote:Are any of these as good as Pat Rafter, a supposedly second-tier player in the 1990s? Or Goran Ivanisevic? These guys were genuine threats to anyone. Compare them to Ferrrer or Del Potro. Or don't. Did anyone expect Del Potro to beat Djoker yesterday? I didn't.

When was Rafter a second tier player, and Del Po is a better all around player than Ivanisivic on anything but a grass or inddor. On clay and outdoor hardcourt I would take del po anyday of the week and twice on sunday.

lydian wrote:I would say that for his height he has a better serve than most, getting the ball into court at over 120mph at 5'9' requires some skill...and some spin along with the power! Some of the shots he got back from Tipsy driven hard into the corners were remarkable, and some great passes too.

The fact he's doing so well though is also down to the convergance of surfaces we see on tour. Anyone playing a great clay-based game will excel across most of the tour now.

Let's face facts....
Federer - brought up on clay
Djokovic - brought up on clay
Nadal - brought up on clay
Murray - trained on clay at Barcelona since 14yo
Delpo - brought up on clay (and hard)
Ferrer - brought up on clay
etc.

These guys are adept on slow surfaces...Tsonga, Berdych, and others who are highly ranked but not consistent didnt have that upbringing. The top guys are very strong on clay and slow conditions...and because its slower everywhere they are so consistent with it.

Brad Gilbert has been pumping up Ferrer's serve as the most improved weapon on tour. He was not hitting 124 mile an hour aces five and six years ago on tour, I don't like watching his style but matched up with a more aggressive player ferrer is actually a very good foil. The tipsy match was one of the best I have seen this year, plenty of great shots by both guys.

Lydian: so are you suggesting that Draper should be promoting the building and maintenance of clay courts in our neighbourhoods, schools and clubs. On clay there is more emphasis, on fitness, cleaner technique, consistency, tactics (longer drawn out games). With technology and conditions what one learns on the clay courts one can transfer over to the grass and hard courts.

ps for those adults wanting to learn / improve their game I suppose you are also suggesting spending time on the clay courts would be a good move.

pps isn't this what the USTA will be doing - building more clay courts.

Djokovic is quoted in the range of 1/14 and 1/20 to win the USO SF.

What does this say regarding the quality of a match involving n.2 and n.5 in the world?

I wonder what Chris Lewis' odds were in his final against Mac in the 83 wimby, probably as bad as that or worse and that was the final.