Is this the weakest top 10 ever?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennis_pro, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

    Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

    5. Soderling
    6. Ferrer
    7. Berdych
    8. Verdasco
    9. Melzer
    10. Monfils

    If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

    The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

    Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

    1. Federer
    2. Djokovic
    3. Murray
    4. Nadal
    5. Del Potro
    6. Davydenko
    7. Roddick
    8. Soderling
    9. Tsonga
    10. Cilic

    It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

    It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

    Anyone with me?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #1
  2. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era

    [​IMG]
     
    #2
  3. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,368
    well a few guys are missing.

    -DP will come back
    -davydenko is in bad bad. will he come back?
    -I think roddick also will make the top10 again

    with those guys back in the top 10 would be much stronger again.
     
    #3
  4. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    I would rather have Verdasco in top 10 then James Blake in top 4. :oops:
     
    #4
  5. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Anything is better than Verdasco in the top 10 who has been there for the last 2 years in comparison to Blake who was in the top 4 for a couple of weeks. Blake in 2006 was better than Verdasco will ever be, that's another thing.

    Btw isn't it the same James Blake who once led Nadal 3-0 in the h2h series?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #5
  6. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Damn, he's that great? :shock: How many slam finals has he made or masters has he won? :lol:
     
    #6
  7. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    how about this top 10 circa 92-93

    1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
    2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
    3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
    4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
    5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
    6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
    7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
    8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
    9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
    10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

    everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

    i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol
     
    #7
  8. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.
     
    #8
  9. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I was gonna bring that up at one point. I mean dang what a top 10! Together they won 50 Slams throughout the years.

    A pity that THAT'S the top 10 the Samprastards use to say how Pete's competition was tough, they forget that it got way worse and by 1996-1998 it was rather poor.
     
    #9
  10. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    Verdasco is the biggest disgrace in the history of the top 10.

    He was on his knees thanking his master for letting him get a point exactly one year ago.

    Mugdasco is an embarrassment.
     
    #10
  11. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    How many had all of these won at THAT point?
     
    #11
  12. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    If you count at the end of 1992: 25
    If you count at the end of 1993: 28

    Good point there, tho. We're gonna look at the current (or the 2008-2010 top 10 at least) top 10 a couple years from now saying how strong it actually was, Federer could win another 1-2 majors, Nadal has a couple more in him, same with Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro could win a Slam here and there making the total of them close to 50 (it's 27 for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic already at this point)
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #12
  13. stringertom

    stringertom G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,284
    Location:
    In a sureshsian vortex
    Year-ending 2001 is Reverse

    The opposite side of the coin is year-ending '01 rankings in which 6 of the top ten were multiple major winners and a seventh holds one major.
    1. Hewitt
    2. Kuerten
    3. Agassi
    4. Kafelnikov
    5. Ferrero
    6. Grossjean
    7. Rafter
    8. Haas
    9. Henman
    10. Sampras

    Also, consider this: two short years later the y-e list had disintegrated to only 2 multiple major winners, one of whom had only won one at the time (Fed).
    1. Roddick
    2. Federer
    3. Ferrero
    4. Agassi
    5. Coria
    6. Schuettler
    7. Moya
    8. Nalbandian
    9. Phillipoussis
    10. Grossjean

    2.
     
    #13
  14. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Now please, compare Murray (4) with James Blake. (4)
    Murray: 16 titles (6 masters I believe), 3 grandslam finals and still counting.
    James Blake: 2 titles (500 atp) in 2002. :lol: so basically he hasn't won anything during his best period and still managed to grab that 4th place. How deserving is that when we look how much Murray has struggled to keep his 4th spot?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #14
  15. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    speaking of pingeons, does Roddick come in mind? :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
    #15
  16. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Why compare Blake with Murray now? ISN'T VERDASCO A STRONG ENOUGH ARGUEMENT LUL?

    There wasn't much room to manouver that year since Federer swept everything on hard courts and grass courts while Nadal took every title on clay. Obviously somebody had to finish at no 3, 4, 5 and so one, thus Blake finished at no 4 having won 5 titles and reached the finals of Indian Wells and the Tennis Masters Cup (losing both to Federer which was ANYTHING but a disgrace).

    Verdasco was on his knees when he won a point against Nadal on clay, now that's a sign of a top top player if you ask me.
     
    #16
  17. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    I see... Federer was just to good hmmm... I have another question for you. How come baby Murray defeated Federer in 2006 and prime James Blake couldn't? :oops:
     
    #17
  18. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Roddick almost always gave it his best shot against Federer but Fed was just way too good, not only for Roddick but also for guys like Hewitt (15 losses in a row), Safin (10-2), Agassi (lost 8 last matches against Federer), I gues they were all pigeons.

    It's not Roddick's fault that he didn't have enough weapons to challenge Federer but he was far from being his pigeon.

    Look at the 2006 Masters Cup RR match (had match points)
    Look at 2009 Wimbledon (double break point up to be serving for the match)
    Look at 2004 Wimbledon (very tough 4-setter)
    Look at 2009 Madrid (took a set off Federer on clay)
    Look at 2007 US Open (super high quality first 2 sets)

    He never wilted against Federer saying Oh please lord Federer mercy! unlike Verdasco
     
    #18
  19. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    29,031
    Location:
    Tuning Up The Band...
    Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?
     
    #19
  20. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    If you actually saw the match you'd see that Federer was visibly tired having played 3-setters every day for a week just prior to that. I even remember what he said in the press conference: "it's tough when you play a long tournament and you're scheduled to play another pair of matches 1-2 days later"

    That's when the 1st round byes were brought to life in the Masters.
     
    #20
  21. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Far from being his pingeon??? :confused: Are you serious? 20-2 !!!
    Even a baby Djokovic and Murray defeated a prime Federer once so there is no excuse why a prime Roddick couldn't do it. So many trolls on this board are killing me with their stupidity. The mods should step in.
     
    #21
  22. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    You missed the point. I also think the Federer-Nadal is the best duo ever but compare the top 10 from 2 years ago to the current one.
     
    #22
  23. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,579
    Now, this is a real top 10! The top 10 today, aside from the top 4, is a joke. The only one that I can say I don't mind watching play is Ferrer from rank 5 to 10. The rest, forget it.
     
    #23
  24. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Hey troll, aren't you the one who told me:

     
    #24
  25. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    LOOK WHO CALLED ME A TROLL LOL

    Federer actually wanted to skip Cincinnati that year but HE WAS FORCED TO PLAY, if you want an example what a well rested Federer can do to Murray when it counts, check out 2008 US Open or 2010 AO
     
    #25
  26. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Do you know what being a pigeon means? It means handing your butt to the opponent before the match even started, Roddick gave it his best shot against Federer in many matches, another story is that it wasn't enough.

    And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.

    Djokovic barely squeaked out a win 7-6 2-6 7-6 over Federer in Canada in 2007 and he got a straight set beatdown from Federer at the US Open just a month later.
     
    #26
  27. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    29,031
    Location:
    Tuning Up The Band...
    But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.
     
    #27
  28. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Again, you missed the point.

    Federer and Nadal were both there in 2010 and 2011, now compare the top 10 in both years. Fedal being tough doesn't have to do anything with Melzer, Berdych, Monfils, Verdasco being a top 10 fail.

    Davydenko, Del Potro, Roddick were there in the top 10 in 2010 that's why THAT year looked better even though Fedal swept all 4 Slams in 2010.

    You get the point?
     
    #28
  29. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Please read again:

     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #29
  30. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Murray is leading the head 2 head against Federer. Roddick is not! 20-2!!!

    Does it matter if you win in 2 or 3 sets? A win is a win and that's something Roddick never experienced against a prime Federer.
     
    #30
  31. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka

    If your brain wasn't the size of a peanut you'd know that it wasn't Federer's decision to play in Cincinnati in 2006, the ATP forced him to participate

    Do you see the difference between "I'm playing because I hope everything is alright" and "I don't wanna play cause I know I'm tired but the ATP won't let me skip the tournament"
     
    #31
  32. MagneticCurls

    MagneticCurls Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    219
    What's so hard to understand? Federer is likely the best ever, and current Djokovic is poised to be second best ever. Simple.
     
    #32
  33. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    It actually does cause Roddick had a huge match-up issue against Federer AS HE HAD against great returners. He was 1-5 against Agassi even though they played only in the 2002-2004 period.

    What does it say for Djokovic to have a 3-5 h2h against a guy who was somebody's "pigeon"?
     
    #33
  34. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    and again:

     
    #34
  35. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    A bad match-up is still not a good excuse for a 20-2 head 2 head. Nadal is also a bad match-up for Federer, but you don't see Federer losing every single time.
     
    #35
  36. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    this is turning into a ****-war so I'll end it here
     
    #36
  37. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Nadal is not a typical match-up against Federer, even now Federer has won more hard+grass court matches against Nadal than the other way round. The 12 matches on clay out of 23 played skews the h2h big time.

    You want more examples of a bad match-up?

    Who do you consider better, Davydenko or Blake? Well guess what the h2h is - Blake 7-0

    Safin-Santoro, another one

    that's just on top of my head
     
    #37
  38. JeMar

    JeMar Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,698
    Oh, god. This is so ironic.
     
    #38
  39. rovex

    rovex Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,230
    How many clones does this anaconda have? So far I've counted 6 and im sure there are more. Dominekk in this thread is another one. This is pretty unique:
     
    #39
  40. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    12,901
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    Well, he did beat Fed in straight sets in the finals of Toronto and Shanghai last year!

    Admittedly not so good against him in GS finals,though.
     
    #40
  41. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I guess one has to be completely different than the other not to be considered a clone.
     
    #41
  42. Cassius Clay

    Cassius Clay Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    That "bad match-up" thing is nonsense. If you can't adjust your game to your rivals' then you are a complete loser. I'm not saying that any player who has a favorable H2H against any other player is, per se, the better player, because many factors should be taken into consideration. But when the players have played +20 matches and the H2H is so lopsided, then there are no doubts as to who the better player is.

    By the same token, Nadal has won more clay+hard or clay+grass matches against Federer than the other way round.

    Nadal and Federer could only meet ONCE a year (at most) on grass (Wimbledon) and most likely in the final, so you can't expect them to have a H2H evenly distributed among all surfaces. More than anything you should be thankful that most of the tournaments are played on HC (favoring Federer's title count big time). They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal. On top of that, they are 4-4 so it wouldn't have made much of a difference if they had played 12 matches as well.
     
    #42
  43. MagneticCurls

    MagneticCurls Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    219
    Therefore davydenko >>> Nadal :rolleyes:
     
    #43
  44. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,698
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Who's talking about grass courts here? It's not even Federer's best surface as they're becoming slower and slower each year.

    Matches played on particular surfaces SHOULD be evenly distributed but you can't really talk about that in the Federer-Nadal case since they've played more than half of their matches on clay which, like it or not, is a minor part of the season.

    A fair distribution would be something more like hard courts 65-70 %, clay courts 25-30 %, grass around 5 % and it's 50 %+ on clay instead. So like it or not, clay is a major factor in their h2h.

    Why I should be thankful? Hard courts have been the most dominant surface since they were introduced for the very first time, just because Nadal struggles on the surface won't make the ATP bring more clay court tournamens to life. It's Nadal's problem that's hes a far worse hardcourter in an era where hard courts are the domain of men's tennis. More than anything, Nadal should be thankful that the depth of level on clay is far worse than on hard courts, for years only Federer seemed to rise to the challenge on clay as he was chasing the GOAT status and needed to prove himself on clay.
    They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal

    Not a big deal, huh?

    Let's see how the h2h changes when we change the distribution to a more fair one.

    23 matches - 15 played on hard courts (65 %), 6 played on clay courts (27 %), 2 played on grass courts (8 %)

    So it's 7-7 on hard courts (8-7 either way), 5-1 on clay, and 1-1 (or 2-0 Federer, depends on how you look at it)

    Now the scenario changes to either 13-10 Nadal or 12-11 Nadal, not a big deal, looks nothing better than 15-8

    Of course there are tons of different factors we have to take into consideration like, the majority of matches played in 2004-2007 or post 2007, what kind of hard courts/clay courts.

    The facts are, Nadal wasn't good enough to challenge Federer outside of clay till 2008 by the time Federer hit 27. We can't just make up hypothetical matches cause there are too many factors to analyse.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #44
  45. MagneticCurls

    MagneticCurls Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    219
    "Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

    - Ralph Waldo Emerson
     
    #45
  46. Semi-Pro

    Semi-Pro Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,199
    Location:
    Toronto
    I like this quote!

    My new signature :)
     
    #46
  47. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,345
    Yeah, but at the time Ivaniseevic, Korda, Krajicek and Agassi (depending on the date) hadn't yet won a slam - so the list looks way better when viewed retrospectively.

    If Verdasko, Melzer and Monfils ever win slams in their career then the current top ten will be mostly full of slam winners too. Unlikely I know but then again Andres Gomez, Yannick Noah, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda etc (could maybe even include Ivanisevic) never really entered slams as favourites either.
     
    #47
  48. Cassius Clay

    Cassius Clay Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    That H2H is pretty even, and they have only played 10 matches. We can't take much info out of that.


    You are missing the point that most of the tournaments are played on outside HC and Nadal leads 4-1 in that department (if I'm not mistaken), so Nadal would still own the H2H by a big margin.

    On top of that, at the beginning of the rivalry Federer had the advantage of playing Baby Nadal and now Nadal will have the upper hand when facing Old Federer, thus making the H2H even more embarrasing for Federer.

    So there is no reason to suggest that their H2H is deceptive whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
    #48
  49. MagneticCurls

    MagneticCurls Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    219
    Even/lopsided are subjective terms which you use at your own preferences and are coloured by your biases. The bottom line is Davydenko has beaten Nadal more than Nadal has beaten Davy. Likewise with Nadal against Federer. Whether you call it lopsided or fairly even is meaningless and arbitrary. Numbers don't lie.
     
    #49
  50. Cassius Clay

    Cassius Clay Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    Yeah, and Nadal owns almost every single one of them, except maybe Davydenko, on the other hand Federer...
     
    #50

Share This Page