PDA

View Full Version : Comparing the QF field to 10 years ago


Moose Malloy
06-06-2006, 06:13 PM
It seems as though the top players have done well this year compared to years past.

Rankings of the quarterfinalists this year: 1,2,3,4,6,12,63,95

from '95:1,5,6,7,9,36,61,128

from '96:1,6,7,13,14,15,19,56

from '97: 3,16,25,55,65,66,111,122

LowProfile
06-06-2006, 06:14 PM
Hehehe 97' is especially ridiculous.

jings
06-06-2006, 07:04 PM
Moose, have you got the names to hand as well? Always interesting to see who did what when.

The tennis guy
06-06-2006, 07:36 PM
I think it has a lot to do with overall slow down of men's game. Except few players, top players have to be able to play on slow courts these days. You see a lot clay to slow hard court players occupy top 16. We might have top 4 seeds in semi at French. Wow!

lacoster
06-06-2006, 08:15 PM
Those years were before they enacted the 32-seed system to prevent, let's say, 17th ranked player vs. a top 16 player in the first rd (which all the players supported). The 2001 French Open was the last GS to have 16 seeds, when no.1 Venus Williams lost to 17th ranked Barbara Schett in the first rd.
________
Magic flight (http://mflbvaporizer.com)

travlerajm
06-06-2006, 08:18 PM
Hehehe 97' is especially ridiculous.

Sometimes it turns out to be less ridiculous as time goes on. Guga had a low ranking just because he was a young guy on the rise. We're at a stage where the next generation still needs a little time before they bust onto the scene.

hlkimfung
06-06-2006, 09:55 PM
from '95:1,5,6,7,9,36,61,128


who was the no. 1 player? I remember Sampras didn't reach the qtr that year, maybe Agassi?

superman1
06-06-2006, 09:56 PM
Agassi was the man in '95.

fastdunn
06-06-2006, 11:15 PM
It seems as though the top players have done well this year compared to years past.

Rankings of the quarterfinalists this year: 1,2,3,4,6,12,63,95

from '95:1,5,6,7,9,36,61,128

from '96:1,6,7,13,14,15,19,56

from '97: 3,16,25,55,65,66,111,122

I think the tennis on each surface now is less polarized.
Top players are doing much better on all surfaces.
There still are some specialists on clay but
The differences on each surface are decreased.
The trend started at around 2001...

Rob_C
06-07-2006, 12:19 AM
from '95:1,5,6,7,9,36,61,128


who was the no. 1 player? I remember Sampras didn't reach the qtr that year, maybe Agassi?

Sampras might have been the No 1 seed because he finished '94 as year end #1, plus he won Aussie & Wimby in '94 and Wimby '95 . Agassi had that run during the summer hard court season of '95, but that would have been after the French & Wimby, which Agassi lost in the semis to Becker.

The tennis guy
06-07-2006, 08:31 AM
We have 1, 2, 3, 4 in semi at French now for men! I don't remember when was last time that happenned?

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 08:38 AM
Sometimes it turns out to be less ridiculous as time goes on. Guga had a low ranking just because he was a young guy on the rise.

But it wasn't just Guga in '97. 2 guys outside the top 100 made the qf's. One made the semis.

Agassi had that run during the summer hard court season of '95, but that would have been after the French & Wimby, which Agassi lost in the semis to Becker.

Agassi was #1 seed at '95 French, Wimbledon, & US Open. He spent most of that year #1. Which is why that US Open final loss to Sampras really got him down for the next few years.

I think it has a lot to do with overall slow down of men's game. Except few players, top players have to be able to play on slow courts these days. You see a lot clay to slow hard court players occupy top 16. We might have top 4 seeds in semi at French. Wow!

But how do you explain that more upsets happened in the 90s than today(not just on clay)
I mean the top 4 is in the semis for the first time since '85. Heck the top 4 is in the qfs for the first time since '85 as well.

I keep hearing that the top 100 is deeper than it was 10 years ago. Yet more upsets, & more very low ranked player made the 2nd week of majors more often then compared to today.

And just looking at the french draws from '96, '97, so many dangerous low ranked players floating around. Arazi, Larsson, Norman, Mantilla, Pioline, Karbacher, Tillstrom, Berasategui, Clavet, Squillari, Korda. Medvedev, Gaudenzi

To me Ljubicic being in the semis at the French is a sign that something's wrong.

dubsplayer
06-07-2006, 08:38 AM
'97 my favorite year. Rafter made the semi's. :-)

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 09:18 AM
Moose, have you got the names to hand as well? Always interesting to see who did what when.


from '95: (1) Agassi,(5) Muster,(6) Chang,(7) Bruguera,(9) Kafelnikov,(36) Costa,(61) Furlan,(128) Voinea

from '96: (1) Sampras,(6) Kafelnikov,(7) Courier,(13) Krajicek,(14) Rosset,(15) Stich,(19) Pioline,(56) Karbacher

from '97: (3) Kafelnikov,(16) Bruguera,(25) Rafter,(55) Arazi,(65) Norman,(66) Kuerten,(111) Blanco,(122) Dewulf-qualifier who made the semis

from '98: (3) Rios, (12) Moya, (14) Corretja, (15) Mantilla, (17) Pioline, (23) Muster, (39) Dewulf, (45) Arazi

The tennis guy
06-07-2006, 09:26 AM
But how do you explain that more upsets happened in the 90s than today(not just on clay)
I mean the top 4 is in the semis for the first time since '85. Heck the top 4 is in the qfs for the first time since '85 as well.

I keep hearing that the top 100 is deeper than it was 10 years ago. Yet more upsets, & more very low ranked player made the 2nd week of majors more often then compared to today.

And just looking at the french draws from '96, '97, so many dangerous low ranked players floating around. Arazi, Larsson, Norman, Mantilla, Pioline, Karbacher, Tillstrom, Berasategui, Clavet, Squillari, Korda. Medvedev, Gaudenzi

To me Ljubicic being in the semis at the French is a sign that something's wrong.

If you talk about less upsets today than in the past, 32 seeds tell most of the story. Top players are more vulnerable in the first week of slam. Seed 32 to help them through to week 2 (that was the purpose, and it has achieved its goal). Once they are there, upset happens less often.

I don't see Ljubicic in semi as something wrong. He got the luck of the draw. Instead of a low ranked player got the draw openned up for him in the past, Ljubicic a #4 seed got the draw openned up for him.

Brettolius
06-07-2006, 09:32 AM
To me Ljubicic being in the semis at the French is a sign that something's wrong.
What about Henman in the semi's 2 years ago? That was really bizarre! At least Ljubicic grew up on clay...he's mainly a baseliner, and he'e having a far better year than Henman of 2 years ago.

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 09:35 AM
If you talk about less upsets today than in the past, 32 seeds tell most of the story. Top players are more vulnerable in the first week of slam. Seed 32 to help them through to week 2 (that was the purpose, and it has achieved its goal). Once they are there, upset happens less often.


I think its more than that. Looking through these draws, many of the seeds that lose during the 1st week of slams aren't losing to guys that are ranked in the top 32. Some ridiculous upsets, players outside top 100 even 200 were beating top 16 guys.
Not sure what that means, maybe top 16 are better today, or top 100 was better back then.

The tennis guy
06-07-2006, 09:45 AM
As I said in several posts back, top players are a lot more clay courter friendly today than in the past because Players are playing more and more on slower surfaces. Ancic would definitely have developed into a different player if he were playing in 90s. Now he has become a consistent performer on slower surface.

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 10:09 AM
As I said in several posts back, top players are a lot more clay courter friendly today than in the past because Players are playing more and more on slower surfaces.

I didn't just mean clay. Lots of extreme upsets at Wimbledon as well back then(see '96,'97 especially). Most top seeds made the 2nd week at W last year.
Its very clear to me that the top 100 isn't any deeper today compared to 10 years ago. The actual match results seem to confirm this.
There were a lot of dangerous unseeded big servers at Wimbledon back then & a lot of dangerous unseeded claycourters. Now I don't see many of either in the draws.

The tennis guy
06-07-2006, 12:26 PM
I didn't just mean clay. Lots of extreme upsets at Wimbledon as well back then(see '96,'97 especially). Most top seeds made the 2nd week at W last year.
Its very clear to me that the top 100 isn't any deeper today compared to 10 years ago. The actual match results seem to confirm this.
There were a lot of dangerous unseeded big servers at Wimbledon back then & a lot of dangerous unseeded claycourters. Now I don't see many of either in the draws.

There are still a lot of unseeded big servers at Wimbledon today. However, they are just not as dangerous on today's firm grass as on soft grass. If you actually list name, you'll notice not much difference.

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 12:40 PM
There are still a lot of unseeded big servers at Wimbledon today.

Like who? Karlovic? and?

If you actually list name, you'll notice not much difference.

Useeded players at '96 Wimbledon:
Krajicek(who did well on slow grass in '02)
Philippoussis(also did well on slow grass)
Volkov
Rafter
Matsuoka(qf year before)
Rusedski
Rostagno
Draper(won queens)
Stoltenberg
Henman
Woodbridge
Woodforde
Wheaton
Stark
Eltingh
Johannson
Medvedev
Vacek
Bjorkman
Siemerink
Forget

The tennis guy
06-07-2006, 01:11 PM
Like who? Karlovic? and?

Useeded players at '96 Wimbledon:
Krajicek(who did well on slow grass in '02)
Philippoussis(also did well on slow grass)
Volkov
Rafter
Matsuoka(qf year before)
Rusedski
Rostagno
Draper(won queens)
Stoltenberg
Henman
Woodbridge
Woodforde
Wheaton
Stark
Eltingh
Johannson
Medvedev
Vacek
Bjorkman
Siemerink
Forget

Krajicek, Philpoussis, Woodforde would have been seeded if there were 32 seeds back then.

Your list actually confirms there were not many dangerous big servers even back then. Most players on your list were just serve and volleyers which were very effective on soft grass. They are not that effective on today's grass.

I can give you same dangerous list outside of top 16 as of current ranking (many of them would have played well on those fast grass):
Johannson
Berdych
Grojean
Agassi
Haas
Tursonov
Gasquet
Rusedski
Schrichpan
Murray
Lopez
Mirnyi
Soderling
Karlovic
Hanescu
Dent
G Mueller
Merlzer
Henman
Moodie
Bjorkman
Mayer
Gimelstob
Fish
D Norman

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 01:36 PM
Sorry, Grosjean would have absolutely no chance on fast grass of 90s. That he is among the best grassourters today shows how low quality the field is.
Haas played many times on fast grass(not well), I don't think he ever would have had a good result at Wimbledon in the 90s. Melzer? Mayer? Wow, you must really think a lot of these guys.

You included a lot of players that did play on fast grass & did well, but are now on the verge of retirement. I don't think they are legit threats to anyone today. Rusedski is very old, he well in the 90s when he was young. Gimelstob & Norman upset seeds in the 90s. I don't really consider them players of today, they are more players of the past. Ditto Bjorkman.

Your list is pretty sad actually. Remind me when any of those guys get a set off of Federer or Hewitt. Top seeds have cakewalks to the 2nd week of any slam nowadays. I'm not surprised at all that top 4 are in the semis of the French, the depth isn't that great today.
2nd straight year that top 4 are in the semis of a slam. It only happened twice the entire decade of the 90s. Wouldn't be surprised if it happens again at Wimbledon of the US Open.

The tennis guy
06-10-2006, 01:25 PM
Sorry, Grosjean would have absolutely no chance on fast grass of 90s. That he is among the best grassourters today shows how low quality the field is.

It is just not true. Grojean as a 20 year old get to round of 16 in 99 in losing to Sampras. He also won tournament on fast grass. He is certainly better than Washington who got to final one year, at least consistency wise.

Many players I included are not doing well on grass right now. However, they could have done quite well on fast grass, Dent, Mirnyi, Melzer, etc. There are just not enough fast court tournaments for these players to get their serve and volley game better today.

The tennis guy
06-10-2006, 01:30 PM
Top seeds have cakewalks to the 2nd week of any slam nowadays.

I just don't know what you have been watching. There are a lot more 5 setters by top players in slams these days except Federer of course.

Chadwixx
06-10-2006, 01:36 PM
To me Ljubicic being in the semis at the French is a sign that something's wrong.

Sampras did it and he is no where nearly as good on clay as lube. People get lucky, a good draw takes you along ways. Lube should be thanking the tournament director for putting him in the roddick quarter. A good player receiving the "american" draw is a guarenteed semifinalist.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-10-2006, 01:37 PM
Sorry, Grosjean would have absolutely no chance on fast grass of 90s. That he is among the best grassourters today shows how low quality the field is.
Haas played many times on fast grass(not well), I don't think he ever would have had a good result at Wimbledon in the 90s.


I still dont agree with that since like I said another time you could have somebody like Washington make the Wimbledon final in 96, while Stoltenberg was in the semis that same year. Then in 97 you would have Pioline in the final, and Woodbridge in the semis. In 93 you had Jim Courier reaching a Wimbledon final, and yet he was weak enough on grass to to lose before the round of 16 almost every other year he played at Wimbledon, that cant be attributed simply to depth. Yeah most definitely I could see Grosjean reaching a couple of semis, and alot of quarterfinals on grass back then.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-10-2006, 01:44 PM
Like who? Karlovic? and?



Useeded players at '96 Wimbledon:
Krajicek(who did well on slow grass in '02)
Philippoussis(also did well on slow grass)
Volkov
Rafter
Matsuoka(qf year before)
Rusedski
Rostagno
Draper(won queens)
Stoltenberg
Henman
Woodbridge
Woodforde
Wheaton
Stark
Eltingh
Johannson
Medvedev
Vacek
Bjorkman
Siemerink
Forget

Melzer? Mayer? Wow, you must really think a lot of these guys.

The 4 I highlighted atleast are no better then a Melzer or a Mayer. Also how is Draper winning Queens an example of the strength of the field on grass back then, LOL!

Rhino
06-10-2006, 02:04 PM
Melzer? Mayer? Wow, you must really think a lot of these guys.
The 4 I highlighted atleast are no better then a Melzer or a Mayer. Also how is Draper winning Queens an example of the strength of the field on grass back then, LOL!

Dude don't stain this board with your embarrassing lack of tennis knowledage.
Go back to the first round of the Bulgarian table-tennis highlights-boards where you belong and leave the insightful comments for the rest of us, FOOL.
Your jibba-jabba is no longer tolerated.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-10-2006, 02:16 PM
Dude don't stain this board with your embarrassing lack of tennis knowledage.
Go back to the first round of the Bulgarian table-tennis highlights-boards where you belong and leave the insightful comments for the rest of us, FOOL.
Your jibba-jabba is no longer tolerated.

LOL! You are now one that deems who is worthy to discuss tennis on here, and who has tennis knowledge. All of your posts are ridiculous, and your pathetic tennis knowledge is about on par with my little sister's pet gerbals. Go crawl back under your rock ugly slug. I have seen all those people play and I doubt you have, and if you did you were probably too much of a fool to recognize if they were hitting forehands or backhands.

The most insightful think you probably have ever said or done is burp at a buffet.