Rafa Nadal: a difficult road ahead

In another article, written in the old 606 before the beginning of the clay season, I questioned Nadal ability to handle the pressure of having to defend a massive amount of ranking points, at a time when his dominance over tennis seemed challenged by the Djokovic’s rise. The article turned out to be prescient. In the first 7 months of 2011, Nadal has seen his total ranking points eroded, from the peak of 12,450 reached at the end of 2010 to the current 11,270. It’s a gross loss 1,200 circa, which should be further adjusted to reflect the 500 points earned playing an additional tournament this year (Barcelona open): total: - 1,700.

Now: Nadal is approaching the hard court season, his weakest surface, with still a consistent 4,000 points and a US Open to defend, and a big question mark over his ability to compete against Djokovic. In this circumstances it’s not unimaginable a scenario where Nadal could continue his ranking points slide, and, potentially, a close contest for the number 2 spot against Federer in the months to come.

Let's not forget Nadal is yet to defend ANY non-clay title in his entire career.

That is quite amazing.

He certainly has a tough road ahead.

If you look at his non clay performance this year:-

Wimbledon (Finalist)
Miami Masters 1000 (finalist)
Indian Wells Masters 1000 (Finalist)
AO Qtrs

Apart from Novak who's playing like a superman, who's done better ?

He probably will hang onto No.2 simply because Federer would need to win Cinni and the USO to displace Nadal with any certainly for the year end ranking and it's no sure thing Fed will do both.

I think Nadal has done a good job of defending his points and his overall performance has been reasonable. Had he won Wimbledon, we would all be saying how well he's done this year. It is more pertinent to ask how he hasn't defended any non clay titles successfully. Some on here have said it's not important but it is revealing in itself that he hasn't, especially if anyone is going to make the case he's the best ever. He's been playing tennis for quite a few years, he's had the opportunities too, especially in the last 3 years. It suggests he's brilliant on clay and good on the other surfaces, the opposite of his main rival.

erictheblueuk wrote:If you look at his non clay performance this year:-

Wimbledon (Finalist)
Miami Masters 1000 (finalist)
Indian Wells Masters 1000 (Finalist)
AO Qtrs

Apart from Novak who's playing like a superman, who's done better ?

Erick: consider that: Miami and IW are amongst the slowest HC on tour, yet Nadal has not been able to win any of them. AO 1/4: represents probably his worst performance in Slam in the last 3yrs. Competition is expected to hot up in the HC season with a wider array of players likely to have a say in the big tourneys. Finally: we don’t know yet how well Nadal will react to the recent loss of the top spot and the recent hammering from Djokovic.
It’s just an hypothesis for the moment, but the impression is that other players may be able to catch up with the Nadal’s game in the months to come.

The USO will be very big; win it and Nadal has dispelled the clouds, moved to 11 Slams and stamped himself back on the game by retaining a non-clay Slam.

Lose it and the questions get bigger and bigger; back to just the French in possession, time ticking by and falling behind Federers Slam pace.

If he lost it and Federer won it there'd be a real chance of moving towards World #3 ranking in the foreseeable future.

Yes: big importance = big pressure.

Probably Cincinnati and Montreal will be very good indicators to see how things are likely to shape up for the USO

I actually think that Nadal is fine, he isn't playing poorly. This season he has a better winning percentage against top ten players than he does in terms of his career average. One guy has upped the level. I think barring an injury by Djokovic that Nadal lost the year end number 1 ranking at wimbeldon. I can't see him repeating at the USO namely because Novak is playing too well and looks to be a strong favorite, and more top players can trouble Nadal on a fast hardcourt. Nadal just needs to keep the gap from growing too big this season so that he can put together an early season rush. Novak has a huge number of points to defend early in the season next year, Nadal can actually carve into Novak's lead in the clay court season next year. But I think with Novak's emergence one thing is clear, for Nadal to regain the #1 in the near future he will most likely have to solve the djokovic riddle and find away to regain some control of that rivalry. Novak is not going anywhere and these two look like they are going to meet in quite a few finals in the future.

In my mind that is the biggest question mark about Nadal's future, can he figure out the Novak 2.0 riddle? This will be the biggest hurdle in my mind and I don't think he will be able to. Maybe he can find away not to get dominated 5-0, but overrall I have always felt like Novak matches up well with Rafa. And new Novak really matches up well with Rafa.

Well, Federer had his (prime)time, Nadal had HIS (prime) time, it's time for Nole now, no?

noleisthebest wrote:Well, Federer had his (prime)time, Nadal had HIS (prime) time, it's time for Nole now, no?

well, yes, that's for sure but....in the past usually the big were shared (unequally) between the best in class. it is an anomaly of the last 6 to 7 years the fact that two individuals have monopolised tennis to such a staggering degree.....I personally wouldn't mind to see new players showing up (and Roger obviously amongst them )

Can't see Roger ever returning to the #1 ranking unless Novak and Rafa both suffer injury issues. Roger could have a swan song and take a slam maybe two if he has some good fortune. But consistently outplay those 2 for 52 weeks if both are healthy I think is beyond him at this stage of his career.

I don't think this is even the biggest priority for Fed....but as I said the real fight right now is for the N2 spot. can't really see Nole being challenged on the top spot for a good while

I dont think Federer is bothered about #2, thats a red herring, he wants to be #1 or anywhere else, the rest makes no difference to him.

Djokovic has played the best he can ever play on 2011, and people are claiming Nadal is done?

Anyone would think Djokovic was the new Federer.

Reality check - he isn't.

All 2011 could prove to be is a flash in the pan for Djokovic.

Nadal hasn't played lights out tennis since the US Open, yet has reached5 Masters 1000 finals and 2 slam finals.

When Djokovic wasn't at his best, he couldn't get into a championship match for love nor money.

"All 2011 could prove to be is a flash in the pan for Djokovic."
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an utter delusion ...

noleisthebest wrote:"All 2011 could prove to be is a flash in the pan for Djokovic."
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an utter delusion ...

It may be impossable for you to be objective.

hawkeye wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"All 2011 could prove to be is a flash in the pan for Djokovic."
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an utter delusion ...

It may be impossable for you to be objective.

wishful thinking... Why can't people get used to the fact that Fedal era is over.....and that there ARE other players better than them....

Or do all FEDAL fans think the two would never retire and continue winning everything for ever....

I think, barring injuries, that Novak will continue to do well because after he seriously challenged for the US in 2007, won the AO in 08 and then slightly lost his way, doing well but not challenging Fed and Rafa as predicted, he knows the highs and lows really well and he has found a way to deal with his preparation both physical and mental and of course he is riding high on confidence. As Fed said recently, when you have a run of form like that, when you find yourself at 6 games all in a third set, and 6 all in the tie-break, you just feel you can't lose - that is the feeling Nole must have at the present.

My fears for him are his attritional play - I just don't know how he gets to everything, and I feel that sliding on all surfaces must hurt the joints big time in the long run.

There is no way that Rafa is losing a step or two yet, and he has had a very good year, losing only really to Nole - however, that is how it begins as it did with Fed. My reservation with Rafa is, like Andy, I just feel he is not enjoying his tennis this year as much as he did last year, but perhaps he is just not enjoying the rivalry with Nole?

noleisthebest wrote:"All 2011 could prove to be is a flash in the pan for Djokovic."
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an utter delusion ...

Sure it is.

Djokovic is 24 years old, so with his tough style of play, his peak could last another 1-3 years. He already has knee troubles.

He hardly going to dominate like Federer or Nadal.

noleisthebest

I was just saying that its obvious what direction your wishful thinking is taking you! How can you be objective? It may be impossable for you to see the wider picture.

lydian wrote:I dont think Federer is bothered about #2, thats a red herring, he wants to be #1 or anywhere else, the rest makes no difference to him.

don't think either. yet if you want to get beck to N1 you need first to be N2 right? Also, there are unquestionably some advantages in being N2: the biggest is that you don't meet the N1 until the final.....

hawkeye wrote:noleisthebest

I was just saying that its obvious what direction your wishful thinking is taking you! How can you be objective? It may be impossable for you to see the wider picture.

I don't know even where to begin , so I won't....

LeBron's Homie wrote:Djokovic has played the best he can ever play on 2011, and people are claiming Nadal is done?

Anyone would think Djokovic was the new Federer.

Reality check - he isn't.

All 2011 could prove to be is a flash in the pan for Djokovic.

Don't think so: firstly Djokovic has had the upper against Nadal consistently and not one off. In several occasions he has dominated neatly Nadal, who was playing at his very best in the prior matches. It’s apparent that Djokovic feel comfortable when playing Nadal: a bit like Federer playing Roddick. On the other hand, it is also clear that Djokovic isn't equally comfortable in playing Federer. He's probably going to win a lot more but not to dominate in the same fashion as Nadal and Federer.

noleisthebest wrote:

hawkeye wrote:noleisthebest

I was just saying that its obvious what direction your wishful thinking is taking you! How can you be objective? It may be impossable for you to see the wider picture.

I don't know even where to begin , so I won't....

I'm sure I can guess where you would have ended so havn't missed much...

Have to agree with jeremy at this point the onus is on Nadal to prove he can beat Djokovic again regularly. If Nadal doesn't do it there isn't much to fear that I have seen out of the younger players. Murray could get there but he still hasn't figured it out quite yet. And then you have JMDP, who I could only see being a real threat to Novak on an outdoor hardcourt, Novak has never really had problems handling him. I am not forgeting Fed but this was sort of prognostication as to what Djokovic will face in the near term future. I think Fed's threat slowly wanes with each passing year. If Novak has good health and he has been very durable the last few years I think he will be a dominant #1.

Oh Socal, please forgive me for repetition here because I have challenged you on this point on other thread, but

the irony is delicious - there you are on rankings thread stating as 'facts' that it is clear that this era (post 2005) is so much stronger than previous era, yet by your own admission you see nothing 'much to fear that I have seen out of the younger players' - surely that means this golden age, this scintillating era is not as healthy as it could be, there has always been something to fear for any great from the younger players (spot the odd 20yr old in top 100) - look at poor old Feeble Fed and all his weak era cohorts forced to battle the Terrific Trio.

You see you will say it is because Novak, Rafa and Murray are stronger than all who went before etc, etc ad naseum, but some may say (and I include myself in latter category) - Now it is not just the Terrific Trio who are keeping the 20 year olds out of the top 100, is it? Maybe some of those Feeble lot from the 'weak era' are reluctant to relinquish their places - just a thought!

time please wrote:Oh Socal, please forgive me for repetition here because I have challenged you on this point on other thread, but

the irony is delicious - there you are on rankings thread stating as 'facts' that it is clear that this era (post 2005) is so much stronger than previous era, yet by your own admission you see nothing 'much to fear that I have seen out of the younger players' - surely that means this golden age, this scintillating era is not as healthy as it could be, there has always been something to fear for any great from the younger players (spot the odd 20yr old in top 100) - look at poor old Feeble Fed and all his weak era cohorts forced to battle the Terrific Trio.

You see you will say it is because Novak, Rafa and Murray are stronger than all who went before etc, etc ad naseum, but some may say (and I include myself in latter category) - Now it is not just the Terrific Trio who are keeping the 20 year olds out of the top 100, is it? Maybe some of those Feeble lot from the 'weak era' are reluctant to relinquish their places - just a thought!

Nice spot.

Every so often the contradtictions emerge. Soon I'll be hearing something really crazy, like a guy who wasn't even a regular top ten player in the weak era is now #6 at 29. No, that would be just too silly to happen in the "Golden Era".

bogbrush - but you will have to shout it, I fear - very selective hearing abounds!

emancipator wrote:He certainly has a tough road ahead.

A tough road indeed for the multi-millionaire 10-time slam winner. I always thought it would be a struggle for Nadal to reach Federer's total, unless he could find a way to consistently land hard court slams. Now with Djokovic showing his pedigree on grass, Nadal's dominion, so to speak, has shrank further. Ultimately though I think the man himself is happy to have won all four and to be in double figures. It's hardly a failure to not reach the record set by the greatest of them all. Too many posters on here want to take - and make - things personal.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

emancipator wrote:He certainly has a tough road ahead.

A tough road indeed for the multi-millionaire 10-time slam winner. I always thought it would be a struggle for Nadal to reach Federer's total, unless he could find a way to consistently land hard court slams. Now with Djokovic showing his pedigree on grass, Nadal's dominion, so to speak, has shrank further. Ultimately though I think the man himself is happy to have won all four and to be in double figures. It's hardly a failure to not reach the record set by the greatest of them all. Too many posters on here want to take - and make - things personal.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:If you look at his non clay performance this year:-

Wimbledon (Finalist)
Miami Masters 1000 (finalist)
Indian Wells Masters 1000 (Finalist)
AO Qtrs

Apart from Novak who's playing like a superman, who's done better ?

Erick: consider that: Miami and IW are amongst the slowest HC on tour, yet Nadal has not been able to win any of them. AO 1/4: represents probably his worst performance in Slam in the last 3yrs. Competition is expected to hot up in the HC season with a wider array of players likely to have a say in the big tourneys. Finally: we don’t know yet how well Nadal will react to the recent loss of the top spot and the recent hammering from Djokovic.
It’s just an hypothesis for the moment, but the impression is that other players may be able to catch up with the Nadal’s game in the months to come.

He was injured at the AO and if it wasn't for Novak superman I think he'd have won those other events. So I repeat my question off the clay, apart from Novak who's done better ?

erictheblueuk wrote:He was injured at the AO and if it wasn't for Novak superman I think he'd have won those other events. So I repeat my question off the clay, apart from Novak who's done better ?

I agree Eric. Nadal is 51-3 against the rest of the field this year, 27-3 off clay.

[quote="erictheblueuk"]

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:If you look at his non clay performance this year:-

Apart from Novak who's playing like a superman, who's done better ?

He was injured at the AO and if it wasn't for Novak superman I think he'd have won those other events. So I repeat my question off the clay, apart from Novak who's done better ?

This article addresses two points. 1. Whether Nadal has been able or not to defend his leadership during the year 2. Whether Nadal is likely to regain the leadership in the near future or not.
Every other question outside these points is clearly off topic.

After 32 posts no thread has ever avoided going off topic.

I think the World Record was 12 posts; that was a Rafalito thread about Rafas new shirt, and 6 of those posts were from Wooffie.

time please wrote:Oh Socal, please forgive me for repetition here because I have challenged you on this point on other thread, but

the irony is delicious - there you are on rankings thread stating as 'facts' that it is clear that this era (post 2005) is so much stronger than previous era, yet by your own admission you see nothing 'much to fear that I have seen out of the younger players' - surely that means this golden age, this scintillating era is not as healthy as it could be, there has always been something to fear for any great from the younger players (spot the odd 20yr old in top 100) - look at poor old Feeble Fed and all his weak era cohorts forced to battle the Terrific Trio.

You see you will say it is because Novak, Rafa and Murray are stronger than all who went before etc, etc ad naseum, but some may say (and I include myself in latter category) - Now it is not just the Terrific Trio who are keeping the 20 year olds out of the top 100, is it? Maybe some of those Feeble lot from the 'weak era' are reluctant to relinquish their places - just a thought!

Not really again your failure to adequately read what you criticize comes into play here with this rather long and condescending post. However I will attempt to adequately address your points. What I have been saying is that the if you look at the current crop of 23-26 years that they are better than crop of young players behind them. I have repeatedly stated that the 18-22 year olds are not up to snuff of the previous generation of talent. There is no secret here. But if you look at the fact that in Nadal, Djoko, and Murray were all born in a one year span, and that behind them you have players in the same age group like Tsonga, Berdy, Gazza, Monfils etc. that you are looking at a deeper talent pool in this block of players than those that came before them and it only strengthens my argument when these players are outperforming the generation that comes after them. One of the reasons that so few younger players can break out into the very top quickly is because of the strength of the current top players.

This is not the first time this has happened in tennis with the influx of cash into the game in the mid to late 70s we also had a boom of high quality players throught the late 70s and 80s as well. It happens in football as well were a nation has a few years of great national teams and a lot of quality players come up in a 5 year span. So I really don't see what exactly is so controversial about this argument. I acknowledge it is never difficult to dominate at the top of the game in any era. I just think the competition is stronger now than it was 5-10 years ago and I am not the only person to see it and comment on it.

I think Rafa will continue to add major laurels in the future, I just don't know if he is ever going to be able to return to the glory days of 2010 or 08, similar to how Fed can't go back to 04-07. In 09 Rafa lost the number 1 but that was because of injury and it was apparent he was not winning for that reason. This season is different Nadal has made the finals of all but 2 tournaments he has entered in, he is winning a higher percentage of matches against the top 10 than his career average. He has had some minor injuries but has played at or near his best for the whole year. The difference between now and 09 and that comeback to number 1 is that it isn't just injury, someone else is better right now and has emphatically proven that in 5 matches on 3 different surfaces. In some way being at or near your best and still losing is what is most disconcerting for Nadal's future prospects.

[quote="Jeremy_Kyle"]

erictheblueuk wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:If you look at his non clay performance this year:-

Apart from Novak who's playing like a superman, who's done better ?

He was injured at the AO and if it wasn't for Novak superman I think he'd have won those other events. So I repeat my question off the clay, apart from Novak who's done better ?

This article addresses two points. 1. Whether Nadal has been able or not to defend his leadership during the year 2. Whether Nadal is likely to regain the leadership in the near future or not.
Every other question outside these points is clearly off topic.

Blah, Blah, Blah !

Whether on topic or not the only thing stopping Nadal dominating the game on all surfaces is this 2011 version of Novak.

After Novak's tame exit at the 2010 WTF I can't believe anyone, even his greatest fans saw this steak coming.

[quote="erictheblueuk"]

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:If you look at his non clay performance this year:-

Apart from Novak who's playing like a superman, who's done better ?

He was injured at the AO and if it wasn't for Novak superman I think he'd have won those other events. So I repeat my question off the clay, apart from Novak who's done better ?

This article addresses two points. 1. Whether Nadal has been able or not to defend his leadership during the year 2. Whether Nadal is likely to regain the leadership in the near future or not.
Every other question outside these points is clearly off topic.

Blah, Blah, Blah !

Whether on topic or not the only thing stopping Nadal dominating the game on all surfaces is this 2011 version of Novak.

After Novak's tame exit at the 2010 WTF I can't believe anyone, even his greatest fans saw this steak coming.

Oh yea of little faith!!!

2010 WTF was all about Davis Cup that followed the following weekend....

noleisthebest wrote:2010 WTF was all about Davis Cup that followed the following weekend....

Back then did you see this streak coming ?

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:Oh Socal, please forgive me for repetition here because I have challenged you on this point on other thread, but

the irony is delicious - there you are on rankings thread stating as 'facts' that it is clear that this era (post 2005) is so much stronger than previous era, yet by your own admission you see nothing 'much to fear that I have seen out of the younger players' - surely that means this golden age, this scintillating era is not as healthy as it could be, there has always been something to fear for any great from the younger players (spot the odd 20yr old in top 100) - look at poor old Feeble Fed and all his weak era cohorts forced to battle the Terrific Trio.

You see you will say it is because Novak, Rafa and Murray are stronger than all who went before etc, etc ad naseum, but some may say (and I include myself in latter category) - Now it is not just the Terrific Trio who are keeping the 20 year olds out of the top 100, is it? Maybe some of those Feeble lot from the 'weak era' are reluctant to relinquish their places - just a thought!

Not really again your failure to adequately read what you criticize comes into play here with this rather long and condescending post. However I will attempt to adequately address your points. What I have been saying is that the if you look at the current crop of 23-26 years that they are better than crop of young players behind them. I have repeatedly stated that the 18-22 year olds are not up to snuff of the previous generation of talent. There is no secret here. But if you look at the fact that in Nadal, Djoko, and Murray were all born in a one year span, and that behind them you have players in the same age group like Tsonga, Berdy, Gazza, Monfils etc. that you are looking at a deeper talent pool in this block of players than those that came before them and it only strengthens my argument when these players are outperforming the generation that comes after them. One of the reasons that so few younger players can break out into the very top quickly is because of the strength of the current top players.

This is not the first time this has happened in tennis with the influx of cash into the game in the mid to late 70s we also had a boom of high quality players throught the late 70s and 80s as well. It happens in football as well were a nation has a few years of great national teams and a lot of quality players come up in a 5 year span. So I really don't see what exactly is so controversial about this argument. I acknowledge it is never difficult to dominate at the top of the game in any era. I just think the competition is stronger now than it was 5-10 years ago and I am not the only person to see it and comment on it.

Exactly socal - why is this era so strong if it lacks young challengers. Please note I am enjoying it and don't wish to label it as anything, but I am responding to you trying to make your 'evidence' as you call it fit your theory and in doing so you ever so conveniently discard what doesn't fit. Me, I will argue that but by doing so I am not criticising the level of play of the top four at all - like most tennis fans I am enthralled by it, but then I was by Nalbandian, Safin and Hewitt too - clearly they didn't quite live up to your high standards. I'd start supporting ping pong in a few years, if I were you, because if you thought that lot were a little bit disappointing, I don't think you are going to be gripped in the future after the fab four are no more.

Thank you so much for responding to my condescending post - I am sorry if I seemed a little brusque, but the combination of my mother-in-law for a week may not have helped my irritation levels. I do think you might consider whether you, yourself don't sound just a little more than a tad exasperated on a few posts?

time please wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:Oh Socal, please forgive me for repetition here because I have challenged you on this point on other thread, but

the irony is delicious - there you are on rankings thread stating as 'facts' that it is clear that this era (post 2005) is so much stronger than previous era, yet by your own admission you see nothing 'much to fear that I have seen out of the younger players' - surely that means this golden age, this scintillating era is not as healthy as it could be, there has always been something to fear for any great from the younger players (spot the odd 20yr old in top 100) - look at poor old Feeble Fed and all his weak era cohorts forced to battle the Terrific Trio.

You see you will say it is because Novak, Rafa and Murray are stronger than all who went before etc, etc ad naseum, but some may say (and I include myself in latter category) - Now it is not just the Terrific Trio who are keeping the 20 year olds out of the top 100, is it? Maybe some of those Feeble lot from the 'weak era' are reluctant to relinquish their places - just a thought!

Not really again your failure to adequately read what you criticize comes into play here with this rather long and condescending post. However I will attempt to adequately address your points. What I have been saying is that the if you look at the current crop of 23-26 years that they are better than crop of young players behind them. I have repeatedly stated that the 18-22 year olds are not up to snuff of the previous generation of talent. There is no secret here. But if you look at the fact that in Nadal, Djoko, and Murray were all born in a one year span, and that behind them you have players in the same age group like Tsonga, Berdy, Gazza, Monfils etc. that you are looking at a deeper talent pool in this block of players than those that came before them and it only strengthens my argument when these players are outperforming the generation that comes after them. One of the reasons that so few younger players can break out into the very top quickly is because of the strength of the current top players.

This is not the first time this has happened in tennis with the influx of cash into the game in the mid to late 70s we also had a boom of high quality players throught the late 70s and 80s as well. It happens in football as well were a nation has a few years of great national teams and a lot of quality players come up in a 5 year span. So I really don't see what exactly is so controversial about this argument. I acknowledge it is never difficult to dominate at the top of the game in any era. I just think the competition is stronger now than it was 5-10 years ago and I am not the only person to see it and comment on it.

Exactly socal - why is this era so strong if it lacks young challengers. Please note I am enjoying it and don't wish to label it as anything, but I am responding to you trying to make your 'evidence' as you call it fit your theory and in doing so you ever so conveniently discard what doesn't fit. Me, I will argue that but by doing so I am not criticising the level of play of the top four at all - like most tennis fans I am enthralled by it, but then I was by Nalbandian, Safin and Hewitt too - clearly they didn't quite live up to your high standards. I'd start supporting ping pong in a few years, if I were you, because if you thought that lot were a little bit disappointing, I don't think you are going to be gripped in the future after the fab four are no more.

Thank you so much for responding to my condescending post - I am sorry if I seemed a little brusque, but the combination of my mother-in-law for a week may not have helped my irritation levels. I do think you might consider whether you, yourself don't sound just a little more than a tad exasperated on a few posts?

Actually socal, you are quite right - I don't read thoroughly - still trying to shut myself away from mother-in-law

I love Tsonga to bits, and Gasquet too - Berdych (not so much - lot of promise come to very little apart from a few sterling results), Monfils is brilliantly entertaining etc, but this lot stronger than the guys in the few years before - no way, sorry. They have promised much but been hugely disappointing in the main though hopefully Tsonga will re discover that lovely inventive game now his is sans coach again. The media may have presented them as a golden era at first, but that is not so, they have rarely seriously threatened and when they do, you think here we go only for them to fade in threat quite easily.

The top four (even Fed in his dotage) are simply a class apart. And really it is extraordinary that the 30 year old Fed should hold the No 3 spot as securely as he does - that shows his class, but also the lack of depth behind, I'm afraid!

I think it is a tad premature to start looking beyond Nadal and Federer that the moment. No doubt Djokovic has taken massive strides and this year has certainly been his to claim as his own. I can't remember an upcoming slam by where Federer and Nadal will certainly be going in as underdogs. This is will be somewhat unfamiliar territory for both players. Often it has either been one or other, but not both at the same time. Pressure will be on both Djokovic and Murray which we be unusual to them.

Nadal no doubt will enjoy being an underdog again. As I think will Federer. Djokovic, however now the best around at this moment in time will need this US Open title to demonstrate he is able to handle the mantle of being the number 1 player in the world.

This makes the US Open the most anticipated Slam in years.

legendkillar wrote:I think it is a tad premature to start looking beyond Nadal and Federer that the moment. No doubt Djokovic has taken massive strides and this year has certainly been his to claim as his own. I can't remember an upcoming slam by where Federer and Nadal will certainly be going in as underdogs. This is will be somewhat unfamiliar territory for both players. Often it has either been one or other, but not both at the same time. Pressure will be on both Djokovic and Murray which we be unusual to them.

Nadal no doubt will enjoy being an underdog again. As I think will Federer. Djokovic, however now the best around at this moment in time will need this US Open title to demonstrate he is able to handle the mantle of being the number 1 player in the world.

This makes the US Open the most anticipated Slam in years.

Agree with much of this LK. It seems like each time a slam rolls around that it has many fascinating strands - i.e. Aussie saw Nadal trying to win 4 straight, FO had the #1 on the line and also whether Djokovic could keep his streak going or whether Nadal still ruled on clay, etc. I take it is a good sign that men's tennis in a good place. It reamins to be seen whether this is the start of long dominance by Djokovic or that this will be seen as his best period in years to come. Both Nadal and Federer have some regrouping to do, Murray remains something of a conundrum and I hope Del Potro can really hit his straps during the North American swing and add to the intrigue.

time please wrote:[
Exactly socal - why is this era so strong if it lacks young challengers. Please note I am enjoying it and don't wish to label it as anything, but I am responding to you trying to make your 'evidence' as you call it fit your theory and in doing so you ever so conveniently discard what doesn't fit. Me, I will argue that but by doing so I am not criticising the level of play of the top four at all - like most tennis fans I am enthralled by it, but then I was by Nalbandian, Safin and Hewitt too - clearly they didn't quite live up to your high standards. I'd start supporting ping pong in a few years, if I were you, because if you thought that lot were a little bit disappointing, I don't think you are going to be gripped in the future after the fab four are no more.

Thank you so much for responding to my condescending post - I am sorry if I seemed a little brusque, but the combination of my mother-in-law for a week may not have helped my irritation levels. I do think you might consider whether you, yourself don't sound just a little more than a tad exasperated on a few posts?

Well sorry to hear about your mother in law. I don't know how the young players of the 18-22 block develop, so far JMDP has kept them from being a complete loss. And we don't know if lets say Raonic, Tomic, or Harrison might all bloom into some top notch talent. But what I will say is that their initial progress has been slow and we have to wait and see. What you must look at frankly is the quality of the current top echelons of the game right now is top notch. Every era really comes down to judging the top 8 or 10 guys of the period at most, really the top 5. These are the players who make an impact at the grandslam level the rest are mainly players that can pull of an upset or go on a run to the semis or finals occassionally. And as you have conceded the top 4 is playing frighteningly well and at a high level. I would state that the best 4 today is more competitive and playing at a higher level than what we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s I really don't see what is so controversial about that position.

Djokovic's stupendous 7 months are indisputable, but keep in mind, they are 7 MONTHS, not a year, or a career.

It may be that he raises a third Major trophy in 2011, or not. He may well win a couple next year, but none of this is guaranteed, and there are so many factors that work to bring about the conditions and results of what will happen along the tour for the rest of 2011, and then that of 2012.

I feel Nadal is too good, and too much of a problem solver, to write him off as a Major winner in the future; same for Federer. I think Federer is more likely to take another Major than not to, but things do have to fall into place a little, at this point in his career. It's not just about him anymore, as it was from 2004 - 2007.

For Djokovic to have taken that No 1 ranking from Nadal, after his 3 Major year, last year, and making the finals of each of the TMS series so far, shows what a huge accomplishment Djokovic has achieved. But backing it up is another issue, and we have to wait and see how that goes.

The "up and coming" players are only going to improve with more matches, wins, losses, etc., and exposure to playing some of the "greater" players more often.

I did expect Djokovic to become a different player after his Davis Cup win; he's a very emotional player and winning that Cup meant the World to him. The EXTENT of his winning this year, I did not foresee, and I think we will see Djokovic lose more regularly in the next year, than he has done over the past 7 months. You can control certain things, but not everything and one needs a little luck here and there, to win that amount. It's not that talent doesn't put him in the place, but once there, a little luck can change things around. A net cord at a tough moment, etc., etc.,

Nadal will be back in the winners' circle, Djokovic will lose more than he has done in the past 7 months, and Federer will continue to threaten at least, and possibly raise another Major trophy in the next year.

For people to take the past 7 months and think it means that this will continue regardless for the next 1-3 years, is not wise. Things can, and in the game of tennis have, changed on a dime. We'll see how the next chapter goes at Flushing Meadows, but I think this is another example of people "taking it too far, too quickly." As Federer said in Australia in January - talk to me in three months or so.....then we had Nadal over Federer in Paris, then Djokovic over Nadal in SW19. That's three of four Major final places, taken by the two players, people were intimating had "finished" their time at the top of the game.

Let's just take it week by week, see what happens both in the run up to, and, the US Open before we start engraving that trophy.

No 1 - well Nadal will have to play his best HC season, and Djokovic will have to take a few early losses, but I think in all probability, Djokovic will end 2011 as the World's No 1 ranked player; it would be an honour well deserved indeed.

ylopnom, I don't assume that Djoko will continue the way he has played this last 7 months for the next 2 or 3 years. I am already happy with all he has achieved in his career. But at the same time can't see him going back to the Djokovic of 09 and 10, in 08 he won a grandslam, the year end masters, and a masters title. I think his form even if it moves back off of current form will probably go back to something like 08 or better. And I'll take a slam and the year end master's as a good year.

I think Djokovic is on cloud 9 right now, but we should remember that Hewitt also looked imperious in 2001 but was only briefly able to hold at the top; their style of play is very wearing and can lead to injury, as it did for Lleyton.

yloponom68 wrote:Djokovic's stupendous 7 months are indisputable, but keep in mind, they are 7 MONTHS, not a year, or a career.


I feel Nadal is too good, and too much of a problem solver, to write him off as a Major winner in the future; same for Federer. I think Federer is more likely to take another Major than not to, but things do have to fall into place a little, at this point in his career. It's not just about him anymore, as it was from 2004 - 2007.

Some very valid points. BTW: you were talking about Rafa or Uncle Tony?