Is there really DEPTH in men's tennis today? I mean GREAT Depth?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by GameSampras, Jan 6, 2009.

  1. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Obviously on Grass and clay there have been pretty much 2 guys dominating the last 4 years. Fed and Nadal.


    There is no question they are great but let's be real, depth hasn't exactly been present in it's strongest form, definitely not to the degree some try and set forward.

    Hardcourts has been a little tougher but if u look at the past couple of years there have been a few guys dominating and big gap between the top guys and the rest.

    Depth has slowly improved but let's not go overboard

    Just look at this past year alone. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray RULED tennis.

    Between them they won all 4 slams and 7 of 9 masters events, plus EOY masters Cup. I call this a 4 man show and the rest far behind. They won 12 of the 14 big events. Where is the suffocating, fierce, torturous depth people speak of?


    So at the end of the day... Where is the depth? I see 4 guys and the rest the field is just.... there. Of course its more than 03-07 when there were 2 players essentially. But sadly I dont see it changing for a few more years really. At least overall. DO u see any other legit threats who can make a bang in the slams and steal one from these guys? I sure don't. Maybe Tsonga. But I still highly doubt it
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2009
    #1
  2. Zaragoza

    Zaragoza Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,433
    Location:
    Zaragoza,Spain
    I think the current top 4 are potential no.1 and there are upcoming players like Tsonga and Del Potro who are already top 10 players and getting better. It´s a strong era.
    Dominating top players will make the rest look worse so people will say there´s no depth.
    Weaker top players will make the rest look better so people will say there´s a lot of depth.
     
    #2
  3. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    if ernests gulbis is no. 50 in the world, there is great, great depth
     
    #3
  4. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,734
    1993: Sampras, Courier, Stich, Bruguera won 6 of 9 Masters series events.

    Courier, Sampras, Bruguera held all of the slams, Stich winning "Masters Cup" equivalent.

    They shared 11 out of 14 big titles.

    1994: Sampras, Agassi, Medvedev, Bruguera won 7/9 Masters series events.

    Sampras, Agassi, Bruguera split the slams, Sampras winning the masters cup.

    12/14 big titles.

    1995: Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Medvedev won all 9/9 Masters series events.

    Sampras, Agassi, and Muster won the slams.

    13/14 big titles.
    ------------------------------------

    If I use your logic, there was no depth from 1993-1995, Sampras' best years arguably.

    Also, '03-'04 was much more than two players if you want to use that argument 2005 would be the place, and even then Federer and Nadal won 11/14 big events that year with others taking some spotlight.

    Before making claims to put entire generations down look at the facts.
     
    #4
  5. zacinnc78

    zacinnc78 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,269
    Location:
    north carolina
    good work my friend!
     
    #5
  6. seffina

    seffina G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    11,635
    Yes, yes there is.
     
    #6
  7. HydroYang

    HydroYang Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    UK
    Yeah, with guys like Gulbis and Nishiori ranked so low,it is huge.
     
    #7
  8. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Simon, Del Potro, and Gulbis? Yeah there is definitely depth. I would say more than the 90's.
     
    #8
  9. EikelBeiter

    EikelBeiter Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    890
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes there is, everyone in top 50 is insane. Thing is that 3 or 4 of them are even more insane :)
     
    #9
  10. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    Absolutely there is more depth now than ever before and its only increasing. There is no comparison to the amount of depth and competition now then during the 90's for example. Federer for instance has much more rivals and competition now then Sampras did during the 90's.
     
    #10
  11. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    A lot of this depth started to happen in 2007 and hit stride in 2008. Thus why Fed only had one slam in 2008. ;)
     
    #11
  12. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    And what have Tsonga, Del Potro, Simon,Gulbis done so far of any great value? NOTHING. I dont see any Slams next to their names nor any Masters titles or any other big titles of significance. so until I see some actual results from these guys especially at the slams. I dont consider them threats. They havent won the big ones yet.

    Like I said.. Its still the big 4. The rest are just there. Many show promise. But thats all they show.. Promise. Until these guys can show they can take out the big 4 at the most important events, they dont have much significance. Sad but True
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2009
    #12
  13. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    I don't think the original poster understands what depth means. Depth does not mean that more players share the titles, that's parity. Depth refers to the high level of play amongst a lot of players. The fact that you have 4 dominant players is irrelevant. If a player came along tomorrow who was twice as good as Federer, then they would dominate the top 4 and everyone else too, it would not affect the depth on tour and would only encourage everyone else to try and get better. Even as it is, the top 4 had their fair share of losses against lower ranked players, again, not that this necessarily indicates depth, because the depth is already there.
     
    #13
  14. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    That's because the top 4 is insane. Tsonga did get to the Finals of the Australian Open. He is also a threat this year as well.
     
    #14
  15. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    I really dont know how great this top 4 is compared to other eras. Early 90s, 80s, 70s and 60s for example. You can really only say the two are very consistent. (Nadal, Fed). Djoker is very inconsistent. Out of the course of the season he is up, down, all over the place. You never know what Djoker is going to show up. Murray has yet to prove he can win it when it matters most.
     
    #15
  16. You win...Sampras is GOAT. That is the point of this thread, right?
     
    #16
  17. JankovicFan

    JankovicFan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    611
    I thought we established that fans don't want "depth". They want a dominant champion. It's about being #1 and staying #1. The other guys are just fodder. Depth would mean someone different winning each tournament, no one really dominant. Depth would mean a weak hold on the top ranking, constantly vulnerable and the top spot constantly changing.

    Everything is working as it should and has been working for a long time. I don't see any opening for moving the discussion toward how great the old guys are and what pathetic punks the current players are.
     
    #17
  18. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    What does this have to do with Sampras? Im just trying to put some things into perspective here. I think people tend overrate the depth of today and the competition is all. I will say its better than the late 90s though.:)
     
    #18
  19. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    Watch him win this Australian Open. I see it as a very high possibility. He beat both Fed and Nadal in the exhibition. He's beaten Fed 3 times in a row and Nadal 2 times in a row. Djokovic wins a lot of tournaments to be considered inconsistent. He does seem disinterested at some parts of the year though.
     
    #19
  20. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    You don't make sense. First you suggest that having only 4 dominant players indicates there is no depth. Then you criticise 2 of them for not doing more winning. Which is it? Maybe they don't win more because it is pretty difficult. You know, depth in the field and all.
     
    #20
  21. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    No, that would suggest parity, not necessarily depth.
     
    #21
  22. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Well they are great players talent wise.. Taking nothing away from their ability. Im just saying its debatable how how they (Djoker, Murray) stack up in the grand scheme things compared to the greats of the other eras. If they are on a Becker, Edberg, Courier, Borg, level etc remains to be seen
     
    #22
  23. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    Listen to some people who actually know a thing or two about tennis and played at the highest level.

     
    #23
  24. andrew_fernando2

    andrew_fernando2 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    to answer the op's question.....no, it is not easier for todays players to win grand slams than it was for sampras. and this will be the same in the next generation.
     
    #24
  25. JankovicFan

    JankovicFan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    611
    Parity would mean depth exists. Cumse/cumsa. Yes, we do actually have to agree what depth means, but I think that would be argumentative. Depth obviously means more than one good player at the same level.
     
    #25
  26. S H O W S T O P P E R !

    S H O W S T O P P E R ! Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,938
    Location:
    In your thredz, stealin ur bukkits
    Of course. Before, Fed was king and everyone knew it. He was even nice enough to allow players to actually allow others to win the French Open while he takes the other 3 for a couple years. Now that Fed has fallen, the #1 spot is no longer the shield that allowed Fed to cruise. Nadal not only has to fend off Federer, but Djokovic, Murray, and a whole bunch of other players are looking to make aggressive runs for the top spot, and the new ranking system makes the rankings and the Slams much more competitive.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2009
    #26
  27. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine you have 100 players all as good as Federer in the top 100, then imagine one new arrival joins the tour who happens to be twice as good as Federer. Would you cease to think of the original 100 as any good? No, you wouldn't and nor would the depth in the field prevent the new arrival from dominating. Equally, you could have 2, 3, 4 etc new arrivals who raise their level above the original 100, but the depth would still be there. In fact, the new arrivals would encourage everyone else to improve even more. What you would not have is complete parity, but the depth would be there.
     
    #27
  28. JankovicFan

    JankovicFan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    611
    That's a strawman, because depth in the context presented is relative to the best players and best results, not to the level of the masses, mediocrity if you will, living in the shadow of those who excel, and not to hypothetical newcomers who somehow blow through the field.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2009
    #28
  29. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,237
    Tsonga made a GS final, won an AMS event and finished #6 by playing only about half a season. Del Potro won his first tournament, then three more in succession. Simon beat one of the GOAT Federer twice and Nadal on the way to his first AMS final. It was a breakout year for most of them, 09 will be where they shine.
     
    #29
  30. edmondsm

    edmondsm Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,904
    Location:
    In an in between place.
    ^^^trolling
     
    #30
  31. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    No, quality is quality. The other players in the NBA are not mediocre because they are not as good as Michael Jordan. The same parallels can be made with any talent that stands out from the other exceptional talents. You have Tiger Woods, Maradona, Michael Schumacher, you name it. If you are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, even 50th best person on the planet in a particular established field, you are going to be an outstanding talent. People who are rubbish at something could never reach these levels. Not everyone can be the Michael Jordan or Albert Einstein of their age, that's why they are Michael Jordan and Albert Einstein.

    That was a rational answer, but one can also observe with the eyes that despite the fact not everyone can elevate to the highest possible position, they are still performing at an extremely high level.
     
    #31
  32. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    Simon? Del POtro?

    hell yeah... i declare you are demential!

    here is a few examples of "amazing" players from the butpicker era...: Bagdhatis, Roddick, Ferrer, Lopez... want more?
     
    #32
  33. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    and yet you say there is depthin this era? are you confused by any chance?
     
    #33
  34. Zaragoza

    Zaragoza Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,433
    Location:
    Zaragoza,Spain
    I didn´t know Federer was the buttpicker.
     
    #34
  35. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    actually my nickname for mr cardigans is Sport Billy and his magical man purse!:twisted:

    guess what mr morality police... you fail!
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2009
    #35
  36. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York
    I agree, there's plenty of depth at the moment, a lot of young players are coming into their own now.
     
    #36
  37. norbac

    norbac Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    8,576
    I just Call Fed Godspeed Maverick, "I just gave her the ol' Godspeed Maverick on the 49'er".

    Seriously though, I think there is a lot of depth, there's more of a feeling now that anyone could lose anyday unlike a couple of years ago.
     
    #37
  38. Zaragoza

    Zaragoza Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,433
    Location:
    Zaragoza,Spain
    Not really, you fail by naming players that played their best in the Federer era.
    Baghdatis and Roddick were irrelevant last year when the Nadal era started.
     
    #38
  39. ThugNasty

    ThugNasty Guest

    Yup there is. Federer was to good and dominated everybody
     
    #39
  40. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    It's the truth. Fed is just not going to dominate anymore due to the depth of the game now. It will also work against Nadal. It will make it that much more difficult for him to win a hard court slam.
     
    #40
  41. jmverdugo

    jmverdugo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,971
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Yes there is. Is not like the top fourth and handling bagles to everyone they play against. This same question is asked every 6 months ... I wonder what is the big deal anyway.
     
    #41
  42. luckyboy1300

    luckyboy1300 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,796
    because it can skyrocket someone's achievement and belittle another someone's achievement, saying the first someone competed and dominated against a deeper field as opposed to the 2nd someone who only dominated because of a weaker opposition.
     
    #42
  43. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    Yeah basically it is another Sampras vs. Federer thread and comparing the depth that each of them faced with. It is getting old.
     
    #43
  44. kelz

    kelz Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    886
    He's not that great. Give him more time.
     
    #44
  45. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    Nadal era.... lol. You seem so confident that Nadal will hold on tightly to his spot.
     
    #45
  46. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    #46
  47. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    :twisted:
    How's it gonna be Zarzuela... are we in the Federer era or the Nadal. so all the achievments from 2004 onwards by Nadal are fiction. it only started in 2008? go figure and they never played each other....
    :twisted:

    just a few birth dates...

    Rafael Nadal Parera born June 3, 1986
    Marcos Baghdatis born June 17, 1985
    Gilles Simon born December 27, 1984
    ...

    i wonder if nadal and Federer are even in the same century???? because according to you they are not in the same era! yeah right...

    severe case of paranoia? time ports from Catalunia making the space\time balance to colapse? a case for scientists!
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009
    #47
  48. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York
    They're not in the same generation, 5 years difference is a lot in terms of a tennis career.
     
    #48
  49. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    either you are as primary thinking (not a compliment) as Zorro there or cant you see\didnt understand my point that the so called "young gun" Gilles Simon (please note the Commas) is older than the so called "Federer opponent" & "old fart\has been" Marcos Baghdatis, who happens to be one year older than NADAL!

    and this is just an example of where you fail. the other is the number of times they met in events... lets see:

    Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
    2005 French Open Mariano Puerta 6–7(6), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5
    2006 French Open (2) Roger Federer 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(4)
    2007 French Open (3) Roger Federer 6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4
    2008 French Open (4) Roger Federer 6–1, 6–3, 6–0
    2008 Wimbledon Roger Federer 6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7


    [edit] Runner-ups (2)
    Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
    2006 Wimbledon Roger Federer 6–0, 7–6(5), 6–7(2), 6–3
    2007 Wimbledon (2) Roger Federer

    so is it me or roughly 70% of NAdal's biggest wins\runner ups happened in the so called "Federer Era" while in his own era nadal only did the remaining 30%?
    hows it going to be... do we get to mesure a generation by the number of times 2 players faced or by age... anyways... you fail at both.

    this is yet another typical case of you Nadal fans wanting to have sun in the corn fields and rain in the letuces! doubles standards... my dear veronique!
     
    #49
  50. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,530
    Location:
    Weak era
    5 years isn't that much of a difference when you have Nadal who is an early bloomer and Fed who is a late bloomer.Nadal won his first slam in 2005 while Fed won his first in 2003,not that big of a difference IMO.

    One year doesn't classify as an era,if Nadal stays at the top 2-3 next years or more then you'll have a point.
     
    #50

Share This Page