PDA

View Full Version : Watching the top 3 winning everything is just getting boring


Torres
06-05-2012, 02:23 PM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

jm1980
06-05-2012, 02:26 PM
There's always the WTA.

tennis_pro
06-05-2012, 02:40 PM
I agree. As a ******* I could sacrifice Fed losing early if every member of the top 3 lost early. For once we could see an interesting tournament.

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 02:43 PM
I agree. I was rooting for both DelPo and Tsonga today, and was disappointed when neither came through.

I'll be rooting for Ferrer and Almagro tomorrow...It's not even a matter of Fed, Djokovic or Nadal winning everything, it's that they all keep playing each other. At least give me a surprise finalist once in a while. We haven't had one since...Berdych Wimby 2010?

Shangri La
06-05-2012, 02:50 PM
Don't worry Almagro will take care of business tomorrow. Vamos.

kishnabe
06-05-2012, 03:06 PM
If Nadal loses early, then Tsonga beating Djoker, and Delpo beating Federer would be awesome.

Murray/Ferrer/Tsonga/Del Potro/Almagro eyeing for a slam would be interesing.

tennis_pro
06-05-2012, 03:08 PM
If Nadal loses early, then Tsonga beating Djoker, and Delpo beating Federer would be awesome.

Murray/Ferrer/Tsonga/Del Potro/Almagro eyeing for a slam would be interesing.

There would be no excuses for Murray this time. Other than the fact that it's played on clay, of course.

Mustard
06-05-2012, 03:09 PM
It's up to the other guys to step up. Of course, once the top 3 have gone, we'll probably have an era like the early 2000s again, where a different player was winning every major. People complained about that as well.

The-Champ
06-05-2012, 03:11 PM
I actually want to see Murray win wimbledon or USO this year. I wouldn't mind him winning both tbh, just to have an unfamiliar face lifting the biggest trophy at the end.

Speranza
06-05-2012, 03:12 PM
I actually want to see Murray win wimbledon or USO this year. I wouldn't mind him winning both tbh, just to have an unfamiliar face lifting the biggest trophy at the end.

Holmes: I'd have to agree, even as a Fed fan.

TheCheese
06-05-2012, 03:13 PM
It's good for tennis to have consistency.

MichaelNadal
06-05-2012, 03:15 PM
It's up to the other guys to step up. Of course, once the top 3 have gone, we'll probably have an era like the early 2000s again, where a different player was winning every major. People complained about that as well.

Agreed. I'd rather have domination.

Mainad
06-05-2012, 03:19 PM
I'll be rooting for Ferrer and Almagro tomorrow...It's not even a matter of Fed, Djokovic or Nadal winning everything, it's that they all keep playing each other. At least give me a surprise finalist once in a while. We haven't had one since...Berdych Wimby 2010?

Murray made the 2011 AO final.

Mustard
06-05-2012, 03:20 PM
Great tennis eras are built around a solid block of top players like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray. In the past, it was Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas and Nastase.

The Bawss
06-05-2012, 03:24 PM
It's up to the other guys to step up. Of course, once the top 3 have gone, we'll probably have an era like the early 2000s again, where a different player was winning every major. People complained about that as well.

This. Before we know it total mugs like Murray will be winning slams.

Hood_Man
06-05-2012, 03:25 PM
Agreed. I'd rather have domination.

Said the bishop to the actress ;)

I think once in a while it would be great to see a non top 3 final (or even in the semis), but if it's a case of a top seed meeting a surprise finalist it's kind of a foregone conclusion what's going to happen. The 2009 US Open final aside, they've mostly gone according to script.

We do need to have top seeds winning most tournaments though (including the big ones), so that when the surprises do happen they're genuine surprises. Nadal's domination on clay from '05 to '08 and is what made his RG loss in '09 an upset of "asteroid hitting the planet and wiping out all life on earth" proportions after all.

Mustard
06-05-2012, 03:26 PM
Agreed. I'd rather have domination.

I find that tennis has golden eras at times like the present. When the major tennis prizes were wide open in the past, people were sceptical. When players like Johansson and Gaudio were winning majors, people were like "these guys shouldn't be on the level of major winners". Even Johansson himself said that he didn't see himself as a major winner.

That was called a weak era. Yet today, in this era of dominant champions who are amongst the greatest to have played the game of tennis, we have some people calling this, a weak era. LOL.

Don Felder
06-05-2012, 03:28 PM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

How would having Murray make things interesting? Murray is akin to the Utah Jazz: always in the playoffs, but everyone knows he/they have no chance to win.

But it would be nice to see some upsets like you used to get back in the day. First step towards that might be reverting back to the 16 seed system. But I doubt that'll ever happen.

Mustard
06-05-2012, 03:31 PM
How would having Murray make things interesting? Murray is akin to the Utah Jazz: always in the playoffs, but everyone knows he/they have no chance to win.

But it would be nice to see some upsets like you used to get back in the day. First step towards that might be reverting back to the 16 seed system. But I doubt that'll ever happen.

A 16 seed system would certainly change the dynamics and put the top players under more pressure early on.

LanEvo
06-05-2012, 03:32 PM
I need Federer to continue winning. He needs 20 slams.

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 03:33 PM
Agreed. I'd rather have domination.

To me it's more that the same three or four guys are ALWAYS in the semis of slams. I don't really care that Rafa will always win the French, or back when Fed always won Wimbledon/US Open. It was more who they were playing in the final.

I loved watching Fed and Baghdatis at the AO 2006, or Gonzo in 2007. Murray making his first final at the USO 2008 was interesting, b/c he'd never been to one and he was historically difficult for Fed. Soderling 09/10 RG, Berdych 2010 Wimby...At least there was someone new to see.

Djoker/Nadal/Fed/Murray have been the final four in 3 of the last 9 Majors (2011 FO and USO, 2012 AO), and 3 of the 4 have made the semis in 4 other majors. That means that in 7 of the last 9 events (soon to be 8/10), you've had at least three of the top four seeds making the semis. That to me is just getting old and tired. We need some new faces making deep runs in Majors.

skip1969
06-05-2012, 03:40 PM
A 16 seed system would certainly change the dynamics and put the top players under more pressure early on.
THIS! i've wanted to start a thread about this for the longest time, but the board seems a bit silly. i've never liked the slams going to 32 seeds. never. the notion of having to protect the 32nd player in the world from an early exit seems absolutely ridiculous to me. before, those players were in hat for the draw, and there was a greater chance of a seed drawing a tough first or second round opponent.

people on the board love bickering about eras and balls and surfaces . . . but something as simple as altering the 16 seeds has had a huge effect on how the slams play out, i think.

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 03:42 PM
THIS! i've wanted to start a thread about this for the longest time, but the board seems a bit silly. i've never liked the slams going to 32 seeds. never. the notion of having to protect the 32nd player in the world from an early exit seems absolutely ridiculous to me. before, those players were in hat for the draw, and there was a greater chance of a seed drawing a tough first or second round opponent.

people on the board love bickering about eras and balls and surfaces . . . but something as simple as altering the 16 seeds has had a huge effect on how the slams play out, i think.

I agree. They should totally go back to a 16 seed system.

Mustard
06-05-2012, 03:46 PM
THIS! i've wanted to start a thread about this for the longest time, but the board seems a bit silly. i've never liked the slams going to 32 seeds. never. the notion of having to protect the 32nd player in the world from an early exit seems absolutely ridiculous to me. before, those players were in hat for the draw, and there was a greater chance of a seed drawing a tough first or second round opponent.

people on the board love bickering about eras and balls and surfaces . . . but something as simple as altering the 16 seeds has had a huge effect on how the slams play out, i think.

I started a thread on this a while back:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=401581

We have Gustavo Kuerten, Alex Corretja, Juan Carlos Ferrero etc. to thank for the increase to 32 seeds, which started at 2001 Wimbledon following a threatened boycott of Wimbledon by leading clay-court players.

BrooklynNY
06-05-2012, 03:47 PM
I honestly agree the 32 seeding system is one of the main problems in tennis. There really is no reason to protect Seppi from a tough first round in a slam.

skip1969
06-05-2012, 03:47 PM
as to the op's point of the thread, i agree. i said a few times in the rg thread that i wanted all top four seeds upset - nothing personal. but these match-ups with fed, djoko and nadal have an inevitability that i don't enjoy.

i suppose it was great to see djoko have his year last year. but nadal on clay, fed fading/shanking away . . . i've seen it all before. i'm not one of those people who look forward to their meeting like their all epic clashes. i never liked fed/nadal matches (with every ball going to fed's backhand) and novak/rafa (with every rally lasting a lifetime).

it's just my personal feeling. i'm just eagerly waiting for a new chapter, is all.

kiki
06-05-2012, 03:56 PM
what is really boring is that all of them ( and Federer may have been the exception in the past) play just the same.

There have been other dominating trios like Borg-Mac-Connors but they certainly played a very different game and you never got bored...

Rjtennis
06-05-2012, 07:29 PM
I agree. Everyone talks about the ATP being so strong, but I dont agree. Only the top 4 players have a shot at winning slams or even big tournaments. The top 4 are strong, but the rest of the field is not even close. It makes for rather uneventful tennis. I am a huge tennis fan, but the French Open hasnt really held my interest. This years tourney has little drama and it is playing out to form once again. Heck, Nole has brought his B game to paris and still might win the thing. I guess now I wish the Nole can take it and make history by winning a calendar slam. At least that would be interesting.

I also wonder if the ATP likes having the same 3 guys winning all the time. I wonderif they worry about fans getting bored. If they do, I have a solution. Speed up the courts and balls. It alows for more upsets if a player is striking the ball well.

TopFH
06-05-2012, 07:36 PM
what is really boring is that all of them ( and Federer may have been the exception in the past) play just the same.

There have been other dominating trios like Borg-Mac-Connors but they certainly played a very different game and you never got bored...

Although Federer is also a base-liner, he plays completely different than Nadal or Djokovic.

mcenroefan
06-05-2012, 08:17 PM
I agree. Everyone talks about the ATP being so strong, but I dont agree. Only the top 4 players have a shot at winning slams or even big tournaments. The top 4 are strong, but the rest of the field is not even close. It makes for rather uneventful tennis. I am a huge tennis fan, but the French Open hasnt really held my interest. This years tourney has little drama and it is playing out to form once again. Heck, Nole has brought his B game to paris and still might win the thing. I guess now I wish the Nole can take it and make history by winning a calendar slam. At least that would be interesting.

I also wonder if the ATP likes having the same 3 guys winning all the time. I wonderif they worry about fans getting bored. If they do, I have a solution. Speed up the courts and balls. It alows for more upsets if a player is striking the ball well.

Agree on virtually all that you said. The top three are great and would be great in any era but there is no depth beyond them. The slams are useless up until the quarter/semi stage. The WTF is much more interesting in this era than the slams. They should speed up the courts or move the WTF to a more crucial part of the year to showcase it. The real problem is that great young players haven't emerged in a while.

rafan
06-05-2012, 09:22 PM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

No its not boring. When it comes down to the same top one sailing through everything every year - then yes it is boring

jelle v
06-05-2012, 09:36 PM
I don't think it's boring.. I love it.

These guys display the best tennis there is and produce the most quality in tennis.

sanimej
06-05-2012, 09:53 PM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

I hear ya.. but personally I really like this.. it just shows how solid the top 3 guys are.. this should motivate other guys in top 10 to step up and beat the top 3.. good times for men's tennis.. seeing djoker play today, gosh.. it was unreal.. I wish in my area of work I can be confident and mentally tough in pressure situations like this guy is..

Till 2010 no one would have expected djoker to play like he is playing now.. so who knows, may be murray, tsonga, delpo or berdych can dislodge the top 3 soon..

Mick
06-05-2012, 09:56 PM
well, at least now there are 3. It used to be 2 and before that there was only 1.

Sentinel
06-05-2012, 10:07 PM
as to the op's point of the thread, i agree. i said a few times in the rg thread that i wanted all top four seeds upset - nothing personal. but these match-ups with fed, djoko and nadal have an inevitability that i don't enjoy.

i suppose it was great to see djoko have his year last year. but nadal on clay, fed fading/shanking away . . . i've seen it all before. i'm not one of those people who look forward to their meeting like their all epic clashes. i never liked fed/nadal matches (with every ball going to fed's backhand) and novak/rafa (with every rally lasting a lifetime).

it's just my personal feeling. i'm just eagerly waiting for a new chapter, is all.
I agree, i used to love upsets once. However, the only point is if the player keeps it up. I remember Baggy at AO winning round after round.

However, most often the person plays flat in the next round resulting in a weak draw. e,g Kohl taking out Roddick at AO and then losing tamely to Jarko. That's why I've begun hating upsets.

skip1969
06-06-2012, 06:52 AM
. . . However, most often the person plays flat in the next round resulting in a weak draw. e,g Kohl taking out Roddick at AO and then losing tamely to Jarko. That's why I've begun hating upsets.
well, yeah. but that's why my master plan had all four losing. that way, everyone left would feel like they had just as good a chance of winning the damn thing as anyone else. (e.g. say, if tsonga, delpo, almagro, and ferrer had all made the semis).

of course, the master plan went belly up yesterday. :)

Flash O'Groove
06-06-2012, 07:14 AM
The slams are useless up until the quarter/semi stage.

I agree with you in the fact that we all know that no top contenders will loose. However, for this french open i care less about the winner than to see somw good tennis match, and I had some. Wawrinka-Tsonga was a great match, with great winners and a very good script. There was a lot of other very intersting match. But I regret that I now have to focus only on the show, and not on the output, to enjoy a tennis match.

Djokodal Fan
06-06-2012, 08:55 AM
oh....boring? Don't watch it plain and simple!

I don't wanna see Tomic come into Semis and get bageled against a top seed!

Magnus
06-06-2012, 09:05 AM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

This. I'm getting sick of this era. I would want to see guys like Tsonga, Ferrer, Delpo, Berdych and Murray challenge the big 3 and win important titles. I mean, insert an event name, and you know the winner is one of the three unless its a really small one that none of them is participating.

The "lesser" players come to the matches with a lot of fear usually, instead of coming knowing they have nothing to lose and just go for their game.

Nadal is winning all the clay season, and then the rest of the season's titles split between Djokovic, Federer and sometimes Nadal.

BigServer1
06-06-2012, 09:10 AM
I think it's largely stylistic as well. Nadal and Djokovic especially, when they meet it's just a grind fest. I was enthralled by their US Open and AO finals, but I don't want to watch that 12 more times. I'm ready to see a fast paced, all court final contested between two strike first players...We haven't had that in a while.

Torres
06-06-2012, 11:38 AM
We need a Gaston Gaudio, Michael Stich, or Marat Safin type to appear out of nowhere and take a major to spice things up and to keep the ATP interesting. Otherwise, its boring if you know who the winner of a tournament is even before its began. eg. FO = 80% Nadal, 20% Djokovic.

MasturB
06-06-2012, 12:10 PM
As many have mentioned, it's all about guys like Berdych, Tsonga, and Delpo stepping up to knock them off.

Berdych has had several opportunities to knock off Rafa at slams in the last few years. He was steamrolling at the AO, then he just choked against Rafa in the Quarters. He had an opportunity to knock off Fed in 2009 at AO in the Quarters (he was up 2 sets to love but then choked).

Djokovic gave Tsonga 4 match points with the entire Chatrier behind Tsonga, and Tsonga still couldn't convert. Tsonga choked, then tanked in the 5th. Tsonga knocked off Federer at Wimby last year in stunning fashion, but couldn't follow it up against Nole.

Rafa well, I guess his aura at the French is bigger than his play. Almagro had a nice strategy against him but couldn't put the ball away when he needed to. He has had by far the easiest draw of the Big 4.

Murray's had several upon several opportunities to knock off Novak AND Rafa in the semis for years now. Mentally he kept collapsing. Although his mental game seems to be improving under Lendl. I really thought he was gonna beat Djokovic at the AO, but questioned if he had enough heart to beat Rafa in the Final should he have made it there.

Tsonga = All the potential there. Mentally, just not there. If he doesn't have that killer instinct now, he will never have it.

Berdych = All the power is there. Mentally? You have no idea who's going to show up.

Delpo = The game is there. Already beat a slam. He may never come back from the injury to where he was beforehand. Shame because he has a fun game to watch.

Almagro = Great all-around game. Fun to watch. Mentally just doesn't have what it takes to grind it out against the Big Dogs. Watched him today, and watched him against Nole at Indian Wells. All the strokes are there, just not mentally ready to go toe to toe for the distance.

Isner = After his serve breaks down because of leg fatigue, what does he have to offer?

I'm hoping Raonic is going to be one to not lay down and take a beating from them. I hope his loss to Fed at Madrid was a learning experience, and not something that will be stuck in his head the next time he plays one of the big 3.

Tomic I think is too laid back. He's still developing. Hope he develops a killer instinct.

Torres
06-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Murray's had several upon several opportunities

I had high hopes for Murray until I saw him against Ferrer earlier. He's just so up and down and inconsistent. He can't seem to maintain a consistently high level of performance during a match, keep his foot on the glass, or at the very least raise the intensity and force the issue at key points of the match. He's got the game, just not the boldness or the belief and determination.

mattennis
06-06-2012, 12:17 PM
Fast conditions favours upsets (one given aggresive player gets hot and can defeat a top player).

On slow conditions upsets are almost impossible.

They want the top-3 players to reach the SF everywhere, because that is what they think the average tennis fan want to see and that makes much more money.

Put very different conditions here and there, and especially very fast conditions in some tournaments and you will see many more top-3 casualties.

MasturB
06-06-2012, 12:19 PM
I had high hopes for Murray until I saw him against Ferrer earlier. He's just so up and down and inconsistent. He can't seem to maintain a consistently high level of performance during a match, keep his foot on the glass, or at the very least raise the intensity and force the issue at key points of the match. He's got the game, just not the boldness or the belief and determination.

He may just not like clay.

If he had played the same against Ferrer on Hardcourt or grass, I might agree.

Murray's not exactly on par with Big 3 on clay.

Love all
06-06-2012, 12:40 PM
If 8-10 players share next 12 slams then you will complain of not having a great champion and express ur admiration for Fedalovic era.

dimeaxe
06-06-2012, 01:11 PM
Delpo = The game is there. Already beat a slam. He may never come back from the injury to where he was beforehand. Shame because he has a fun game to watch.





I'm sorry I have to tell you, but it's a BS, Agassi had also wrist surgery in '94, and look what he did in his career after that.

kiki
06-06-2012, 01:51 PM
Although Federer is also a base-liner, he plays completely different than Nadal or Djokovic.

He used to 6 or 7 years ago, when he was the undisputed number one, but he has made too much following of Djokovic and nadal who, being more natural at that game ( technically as well as phisycally ), always will get the final word.

jk175d
06-06-2012, 02:00 PM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

Not to me. I just want to see great tennis. These three are arguably three of the 5 greatest players to ever play the game. Boring??

silencer1
06-06-2012, 07:33 PM
I dont get it. By tha logic, wasn't the Federer domination on every surface except clay the most boring period in tennis ?
And Fed and Rapha winning every GS, that wasn't boring to you if you think like that ?
I think this is great period for tennis to have 3 all time great players( maybe greatest players of all time who knows?), so why not see them win everythig?

maleyoyo
06-06-2012, 07:54 PM
It seems that no matter how their opponents play, they somehow manage to edge through.

I'm getting bored of watching Djokokic, Nadal and Federer winning absolutely everything.

Seriously, I'd rather have Tsonga, Delpo, Murray and AnyoneElse in the semis.

Would be alot more interesting, and would be nice to see someone else pick up a trophy for change.

I donít see it that way because it makes me appreciate the top 3 even more. They are true champions for working the butts off to stay at the top. All the rest has to earn it. Unlike other team sports like soccer, baseball, basketball where they can buy championships and titles, the top 3 have nothing else to rely on but themselves to consistently win matches.

The menís semis at RG showcase the 4 best clay court players. Whatís not to like?
Would you prefer the up and down like yoyos of the WTA? Itís a complete joke in my opinion.

jk175d
06-06-2012, 07:59 PM
I donít see it that way because it makes me appreciate the top 3 even more. They are true champions for working the butts off to stay at the top. All the rest has to earn it. Unlike other team sports like soccer, baseball, basketball where they can buy championships and titles, the top 3 have nothing else to rely on but themselves to consistently win matches.

The menís semis at RG showcase the 4 best clay court players. Whatís not to like?
Would you prefer the up and down like yoyos of the WTA? Itís a complete joke in my opinion.

exactly, I always get the feeling that people who say Fed or Nadal winning all the time is boring aren't true fans of tennis. Why would you NOT want to see the BEST players play the game? Enjoy it while you still can! Same thing with Tiger when he was always winning in golf. When someone plays THAT great in a sport you love, how could you not be thrilled and entertained to watch it?

sonicare
06-06-2012, 08:53 PM
I had high hopes for Murray until I saw him against Ferrer earlier. He's just so up and down and inconsistent. He can't seem to maintain a consistently high level of performance during a match, keep his foot on the glass, or at the very least raise the intensity and force the issue at key points of the match. He's got the game, just not the boldness or the belief and determination.

IMO. He doesn't have the game. He's missing the one thing that wins majors. A devastating forehand. Forehands win majors. Not backhands.

Just look at nole as an example. Always had a great bh but didn't start dominating until he developed a devastating forehand.

timeisonmyside
06-06-2012, 09:16 PM
In three years when I have to sit through a Raonic vs Tomic Wimbledon final, I'll be longing for these days.

timeisonmyside
06-06-2012, 09:17 PM
Also, with a busy Wimbledon-Olympics-USO summer schedule this year, I think we'll see some surprise finalists/winners.