A very weak era, is this

First topic message reminder :

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.

Exciting times were suprises were always a possibility.....

BTW: didn't know Lewis was ranked in the top 5 in year '83.....

Absolutely, Jeremy_Kyle. You got to love the way Chris Lewis is dragged into this, conveniently forgetting that that was a one-time display in a grandslam. Apparently, Ferrer is a superb player and ranked #5 in the world, and yet no one really thnks he has a chance against Djoker. Yesterday, no one really gave Del Potro a chance against Djoker either. The same for Berdych against Murray.

Absolutely NS! The absence of clay courts in the UK is woeful and a huge reason why we have Murray at #4 (learnt on clay)...and then the next highest is #200! For a nation our size thats shocking.

Yep, Pat McEnroe on behalf of USTA said there was a major tennis rethink going on and loads of clay courts are now going to be installed.
Learning on clay does groove your game much more - they recognise that the typical US player of huge serve and FH isnt going to cut it anymore.

Its not by coincidence that Spain has the most players in the top 100...given the preponderance of clay courts around the country. Yet the ATP want everything to be HC...because they're based out of USA where thats all they have laid down.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: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?

In itself, not much.

Tyson Gay is the 2nd fastest man ever over 100m. His odds of winning the Olympics were quoted around 10-1.

Does this mean this is this a weak era for athletics?

Tennisanorak,

I can recall when Tim Henman played the top players of that time and was never given a chance of beating them. I'd hazard a guess that is pretty commonplace throughout history of tennis. What you can't accept is that Ferrer etc are one of the best players in the world and very consistent but has problems reaching massive heights because of who stands in his way ie Roger Federer (greatest player of all-time), Rafael Nadal (greatest clay courter of all-time) and multiple slam winner Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray (regarded as the greatest player never to have won a slam). Massive hurdles for anyone top overcome.

I go along with lydian's view on this as in the homogenisation of surfaces has a lot to answer for.

TA - have you been listening to ANY of the discussion points on here??? Homogenisation means that we are getting an orderly procession of the top 4 making semis..and the next 4 making quarters. In the early 00s or 90s when there were still some specialists around you got different results. But the point is that Ferrer is a decent player, he plays to his ranking most of the time and wins his fair share of lower events. I dont remember Goran winning many slams in the 90s when he was consistently ranked #2-4...so you could argue it was weak because he wasnt challenging Pete or Andre!

We have some green clay at our club and I have played on the red clay as well. It is much easier to go from playing on clay to hardcourt. The game simplifies on hardcourt the movement and the ball striking. So it is good to get your grounding on a clay court. But you will get a lot more big western and heavy spinning forehands and super fit guys which seem to be the end of the game according to some.

lydian wrote:
TA - have you been listening to ANY of the discussion points on here??? Homogenisation means that we are getting an orderly procession of the top 4 making semis..and the next 4 making quarters. In the early 00s or 90s when there were still some specialists around you got different results. But the point is that Ferrer is a decent player, he plays to his ranking most of the time and wins his fair share of lower events. I dont remember Goran winning many slams in the 90s when he was consistently ranked #2-4...so you could argue it was weak because he wasnt challenging Pete or Andre!

Spot on lydian.

We could throw that at the early 2000's as Tim Henman never even reached a slam final but was ranked inside the top four and am sure there are many other players like that such as Tommy Haas, Magnus Norman etc etc etc

TA

Consider what Ferrer has to do to live up to his ranking (most of the time) - seeded in the top 8, he at best has to beat someone ranked #9 to #16 (and quite often in fact only someone lower than that) in the 4th round to make the QF. This is something he does very well, so consistently picks up a good chunk of ranking points. What he doesn't do much of is beat the guys above him (the only match-up you'd favour him for is against Murray on clay).

By comparison, the guys immediately below him in the rankings are more streaky players - more likely to pull of the surprise result by beating a top 4 player late in a tournament, but also more likely to put in a poor performance and lose in the early rounds. As such, their ranking points totals tend to be based on fewer good tournaments

I disagree with yout last two sentences though - I think most of us expect Berdych to provide a very tough match for Murray (I'd put Murray as favourite, but only very marginally especially considering Berdy's H2H advantage), and wouldn't have been particularly shocked if Del Potro had proven too strong for Djokovic.

While Ferrer maybe doesn't have the weapons to beat the top 4, the guys below him in the rankings do if they play to the top of their game and if their opponent is a bit off. The point is that Djokovic and Nadal in particular have very few off days (Fed and Andy perhaps a few more), and the likes of Del Potro or Berdych don't have all that many days where they give the 9/10 or 10/10 performance needed to take advantage of that.

Henman is a great example pretty much all of the posters respect Henman as a good top 10 player a good second tier player. Now put his career accomplishments up against Berdych or Del Pos of the world is he head and shoulders better than the other two. Berdych has been to one more grandslam final than henman and should barring injury surpass henman's career titles haul as well. But somehow the tennis was great back then and awful now because the second tier is lacking. With due respect to TA, the level of competition in the second tier is not lacking when compared TO WHAT THE AVERAGE HAS BEEN FOR THIS TYPE OF PLAYER. I mean are Aaron krickstein and brad gilbert more talented than Del Potro or Henman for that matter. If these second tier guys were regularly beating the top guys and lifting slams then they wouldn't be second tier guys now would they?

Tim Henman against Sampras yes, but please tell me another player from the 1990s against whom you'd have Tim Henman at the same odds as Ferrer against Djokovic tomorrow. Yes, he didn't win a slam, but he had a real shot at winning one which is more than that can be said of Ferrrer. Yes, of course it's subjective whether this is because he isn't good enough or because the top 4 are all all time greats. Some go with the latter view, I go with the former. Hey, if this were set in stone, there wouldn;t be any debate, would there!?

Tennisanorak maybe it is time to move with the times (they are a changing with the climate), and get yourself one of those lightweight but strong, breathable jackets

Yes but Henman didnt play in THIS era. Henman was a fast court player so played well on fast surfaces. Similarly if this was the 90s Ferrer would have a fair crack at the French Open...given he's pushed Nadal hard on clay in the past. I would rate his chances vs Nadal as similar to Henman vs Sampras.

Lydian, your points are well- taken. You offer an explanation of a phenomenon whereas others deny the phenomenon. There is a difference.

Well for a start Tim Henman himself openly says Andy Murray is a far better player than he was and yet (ranking wise) both have scaled similar heights so doeas that alone tell us something? I'd say so. As for the odds tomorrow I cannot comment as I haven't seen them but what you don't seem to accept is the sheer quality of Djokovic especially on this surface compared to Ferrer who is stronger on clay. Until very recently he was world No.1 and the dominant force in world tennis last year. And I would say that unbiased bookmakers would have made Henman very long odds to beat Agassi/Sampras as well to be honest.

CC, what chance would you give for Ferrer against Djokovic on clay? Curious.

I am not a betting man but would say perhaps 60-40 in favour of Djokovic. You do seem to be obsessing over David Ferrer though. The bloke is renowned for being one of the most consistent players on tour and if you were to have a bet on a player to reach the quarters you'd bet on him. You seem to be judging the fact he has no slam wins as proof he is a poor player and that is plain wrong. He has no slams as his chief opponents are legends of the game.

This debate is getting ridiculous

After Safin's AO win in 2005, there was no player who won a slam outside the top 2, until AO 2008....

Indeed - when was the last time a player over #4 ranking won a slam? (Marat was 4, Djokovic in 2008 was 3)

lydian wrote:Indeed - when was the last time a player over #5 ranking won a slam?

This last 9/10 years or so (2003-2012) has been dominated by a handful of players.
Whether that makes it a strong or weak era I don't know....

But there are too many articles on the same topic. One debate should be confined to one article, or at-least one aspect of a debate.

Good era's don't have choke artists like Tsonga and Murray in the top 6. So no, it's lightyears from being a strong era.

And it seems far too coincedental to me that these topics have sprung up like beanstalks since Federer's semi-final defeat by Berdych.

CC, you mean this sort of debate never happened before yesterday?

Every era has its chokers.
Yes IMBL...but it'll fizzle down to one thread in due course, lets not be too autocratic.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And it seems far too coincedental to me that these topics have sprung up like beanstalks since Federer's semi-final defeat by Berdych.

---

Exactly, Federer is not around, as soon as that happens people start dissing the tournament and the players remaining and talking down the tournament it has happend for years. Some Nadal fans started doing it with USO from the second Nadal couldn't play. I personally have found the matches I have watched in this open to be gripping affairs for the most part with a lot of quality shotmaking. I defy someone to watch the Tipsy and Ferrer match and say that this match was lacking in shotmaking. I saw some incredible shots of all forms in that match.


TA, the fact remains the second tier is not weak objectively. If you look at their numbers and what they have been able to ACCOMPLISH DESPITE THE BLOW OUT OF BIG WINS AT THE TOP, you will find them to be pretty normal when compared to what is expected of your typical 5 to 10 type of player.

Furthermore, because of the nature of tournament tennis parity is another name for weakness. You don't have to beat the top 20 en masse to win the title but to win a slam you have to most likely beat one or two of the top handful of players in a five set match. Look at poor berdych, for him to win the title he will have to beat Federer,Murray, and djoko in successive rounds. And this in a tournament that didn't even have Nadal. For one of the second tier guys to win a slam on the tour today he could conceivably have to beat the Goat, 11 time grandslam champ Nadal, and Djokovic in successive 5 set matches. How many of the one and two slam winners of past eras would be able to pull that feat off on any surface, so why convict the second tier players based on a hurdle that no second tier could ever hope to clear?

Choking is off topic to the OP, but if we are going to digress to the subject of choking - I have a few questions for the experts:

a) Do chokers choke to the same extent against higher ranked players as they choke against lower ranked players?

Subsidiary question to a) If they choke to a greater extent against higher ranked players, why might this be the case?


b) Is it possible to choke and still win the match?
Subsidiary question to b) If not - why not?