PDA

View Full Version : Has men's tennis ever been more top heavy?


Federer20042006
09-09-2012, 11:25 AM
Basically, there are only 7 players who even count at this point...especially at the slams.

The Big Four
Berdych
Tsonga
Del Potro

The latter 3 are the only guys with a chance to pull off an upset vs. any of the big 4 at a slam (well, there are slight exceptions, such as Murray playing on clay...and that ridiculous Rosol fluke this year). And really, the only player those 3 guys have a chance of pulling off an upset against is Federer.

Everyone besides those 7 may as well not even bother to show up if their hope is to win the thing.

Ferrer has no prayer of ever winning a Grand Slam. Nor does anyone outside the Top 8. They don't even freak'n count on tour right now.

I'm convinced that the next slam winner besides the Top 4 isn't even in the Top 100 yet. Tomic won't win slams. Raonic won't win slams.

I don't think Del Potro is going to win another slam, either. Berdych will never win a slam. Tsonga will never win a slam.

When you look at it that way, the ATP tour is in pretty sad shape. I guess I'm being slightly hypocritical as someone who enjoyed tennis in the days when Federer dominated and only Nadal was able to stop him from winning everything, but still. In those days there still seemed the remote possibility of the upset...of a Safin scenario emerging or something. And there were different possibilities for guys reaching the semis and finals and things of that nature for a while.

There's not even that anymore. Every Grand Slam final will be contested by a member of the big 4 for at least the next 3 years or so. I'm sure of it.

kaku
09-09-2012, 11:28 AM
Yeah it's pretty top heavy. Even those other 3 you mentioned aren't exactly 100% contenders, they're more like contenders for a dream run to the finals

tennisaddict
09-09-2012, 11:30 AM
Good post. Lots of good points.

But you feel this way only because Fed is winning lesser and lesser in majors over the last 3-4 years.

Rewind back to 2004-2008 - only 2 players were in contention - infact only 1 (Fed) for 3 majors and another 1 (Nadal) for FO. Compared to that at least you have 4 genuine contenders and 3 pretenders.

cork_screw
09-09-2012, 11:32 AM
Berdych is not top heavy. Berdych plays well when everything is going well, but if he ever gets nervous or loses confidence he plays very poorly. I have no respect for berdych after the semis with murray. It's like he didn't even care about the 2nd and third set and just gave up.

sureshs
09-09-2012, 11:37 AM
LOL how quickly you guys dismiss Ferrer

90's Clay
09-09-2012, 11:37 AM
LOL how quickly you guys dismiss Ferrer

Today shows he should be dismissed

90's Clay
09-09-2012, 11:38 AM
Thats why I project Nadal, Djoker, and perhaps Fed to win many more slams.. There has never been a more SHALLOW field in men's game in history

El Diablo
09-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Gee, let's see, in the 1960s you had Laver, Emerson, Newcombe, Stolle, Rosewall, Ashe, Smith, Santana, and plenty more. And all were also superb doubles players.

sureshs
09-09-2012, 11:44 AM
Gee, let's see, in the 1960s you had Laver, Emerson, Newcombe, Stolle, Rosewall, Ashe, Smith, Santana, and plenty more. And all were also superb doubles players.

They would have been crushed by today's players

Federer20042006
09-09-2012, 12:30 PM
Good post. Lots of good points.

But you feel this way only because Fed is winning lesser and lesser in majors over the last 3-4 years.

Rewind back to 2004-2008 - only 2 players were in contention - infact only 1 (Fed) for 3 majors and another 1 (Nadal) for FO. Compared to that at least you have 4 genuine contenders and 3 pretenders.

Well, you're right about that, but in 2004-2008, it was the first 4-5 year span in which that was the case. Prior to that, things had been much more open. So the whole Federer/Nadal dominance thing was new, and it was a question of how long it would last.

But for the past couple of years, and as we look into the future...the limited contender field has been in action for a long time now, and it's no longer a question of if it can last. It's obvious it's going to, and that makes things rather drab.

BigServer1
09-09-2012, 12:42 PM
Good post. Lots of good points.

But you feel this way only because Fed is winning lesser and lesser in majors over the last 3-4 years.

Rewind back to 2004-2008 - only 2 players were in contention - infact only 1 (Fed) for 3 majors and another 1 (Nadal) for FO. Compared to that at least you have 4 genuine contenders and 3 pretenders.

But in 2004-2008 there were players who could beat the top guys and win big tournaments.

Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby, Agassi in the earlier years, and then Novak and Murray stepped up in the later stages of that time frame. Those guys at least could step up and win matches and bigger titles. We have not seen a masters winner outside the top 4 since 2010. It's gotten pitiful.

Bjorn99
09-09-2012, 02:36 PM
It proves my point. God seems to make four special players per decade. No matter how many billions of people are on the planet. Each sport never gets many more than that at any one time.

RF20Lennon
09-09-2012, 02:41 PM
Federer Nad Djok and maaaaaaybe murray!

smoledman
09-09-2012, 02:44 PM
It proves my point. God seems to make four special players per decade. No matter how many billions of people are on the planet. Each sport never gets many more than that at any one time.

This is the truth of the matter.

90's Clay
09-09-2012, 02:46 PM
Murray hasn't even managed a slam.. He isn't that "special".. Other then maybe "special mentally" on the big stage.

smoledman
09-09-2012, 02:48 PM
Murray hasn't even managed a slam.. He isn't that "special".. Other then maybe "special mentally" on the big stage.

But look what's he done. 5th GS final, Olympic gold medal, 8 Masters 1000 titles. That's far and away better then say Berdych. Don't mention Del Potro as he's only won that 1 slam and nothing else.

90's Clay
09-09-2012, 02:50 PM
But look what's he done. 5th GS final, Olympic gold medal, 8 Masters 1000 titles. That's far and away better then say Berdych. Don't mention Del Potro as he's only won that 1 slam and nothing else.

But at least he's won a slam (And beating Nadal and Fed back to back to do it.. Something Murray CAN'T do).. If anything Murray's achievements outside of slams and the fact he can't get it done on the most important stage exposes him big time. It says he can get it done anywheres but when it matters most

tank_job
09-09-2012, 03:22 PM
It's big 3 dude, Murray will never win a slam, and will burn out mentally after he loses his 5th slam final tomorrow - and will start a Wozniacki-like decline.

He is the Wozniacki of the ATP, after all, so it is only natural that this should happen.

Hawkeye7
09-09-2012, 03:40 PM
I don't remember Wozniacki reaching 5 GS finals. She didn't even win 8 'Masters'. Nor have her results in slams or elsewhere been anywhere near as consistent as Murray's. Comparing these two is insulting to Murray.

AnotherTennisProdigy
09-09-2012, 03:54 PM
I think Muray often doesn't get the credit he deserves. He consistently makes slam semis and finals, he has masters titles, and he, although not frequently, has shown he can beat the top players. He's done everything outside winning a slam.

tacou
09-09-2012, 04:37 PM
It's top heavy but I mean, three guys have 5 or more slams, Murray is on the bubble and there are a couple dark horses, one of whom has won a slam.

Anything more widespread than that goes the other way.