Weakest field ever. EVER.

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennis_pro, Jun 15, 2011.

  1. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    Since all the Nadal fans marvel at the current competition (and why wouldn't they since Nadal is winning majors? - let's make them more worthy!), let me prove you that not only is the current field not tough, it's one of the weakest ever.

    Let's look at the semi-final line-up for the biggest 7 tournaments played thus far.

    Australian Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray + Ferrer who beat Nadal
    French Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal

    Indian Wells - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the semis
    Miami - Federer Nadal Djokovic in the semis
    Monte Carlo - Nadal Murray in the semis, Djokovic didn't play
    Rome - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in the semis
    Madrid - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic in the semis

    So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo) and 7 out of 8 in Slams (and if Nadal beat Ferrer in Australia it would've been a shocking 8 out of 8 ) That's insane.

    This also proves my point since there is absolutely no-one (and too few up and coming players like Raonic and Harrison - who aren't even halfway) challenging the top 4 for any big tournament.

    To further prove my point - I'm predicting all the top 4 players to play in the quarter-finals and at least 3 of them making the semi-finals at Wimbledon.

    For those Nadal fans who want to point out that also Federer is a part of this weak field - I agree 100%. If you take out both Nadal and Djokovic, Federer goes unchallenged in Slams for the next year at least. The reason is simple - there is no-one who can beat him. Even Andy Murray who is a part of the "big 4" can't take a set off a 29-year old Federer when it really matters. So if you take the top 2 out who's going to beat him? FERRER? ALMAGRO? FISH? Don't make me laugh.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
    #1
  2. Li Ching Yuen

    Li Ching Yuen Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    6,989
    This has nothing to do with the Top 4 being amazingly good players even in the large scheme of things.

    NOTHING AT ALL...
     
    #2
  3. viduka0101

    viduka0101 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,329
    LOL,go back to the beginning and check your flawed logic
     
    #3
  4. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,603

    I'm really, really sorry; but it makes my teeth itch - shouldn't it be 'absolutely no-one'.

    Yes - I am a grammar N@zi.
     
    #4
  5. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    typo, thx for noticing
     
    #5
  6. FlamEnemY

    FlamEnemY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,555
    And I bet if someone like Ferrer, Almagro or Fish actually did beat him, you'd say Federer is a clown to be beaten by such low-level tennis players.

    There just ain't pleasing some people. Same thing like when Jesus cured the leper and he complained that it put him out of the begging-business. True story.
     
    #6
  7. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,266
    the top 3 aren’t amazing in the way you see it. They are what you would expect as a natural progression of the sport. It's the rest of the players who are extremely weak in comparison. Apart from the top 3 the rest of past decade has had the most forgettable field of players in the history of the sport.
     
    #7
  8. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    For those who critisize me - I'm not saying that the top 4 is weak - in fact it's really solid, I'm really worried about the rest of the field.
     
    #8
  9. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    That's exactly my point. Who will remember even in 5 years that we had guys like Melzer, Almagro, Fish, Berdych, Ferrer in the top 10 in just about the same time?
     
    #9
  10. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,603
    No probs. Apologies again, but it's like fingernails down a blackboard to me.:shock:
     
    #10
  11. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yeah the mens field has been really weak ever since 2002 and Federer and Nadal have been the two who have really capatilized on it. Full credit to them though, they took full advantage of what was in front of them. They would be great players in any era, but boy it is easier to dominate and pile up those numbers for both in those one.
     
    #11
  12. Xemi666

    Xemi666 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    807
    Circular arguments FTL.
     
    #12
  13. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    Yeah, I was loosing my mind when I saw that.
     
    #13
  14. li0scc0

    li0scc0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,173
    Losing, not loosing. Additionally, please do not end a sentence with a preposition.
    :)
     
    #14
  15. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,603
    :):shock:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
     
    #15
  16. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    I could care less about grammer. :)
     
    #16
  17. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    30,441
    Location:
    Orlando FL
    Lol was that intentional Sid?
     
    #17
  18. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,603
    Of course it was! :)
     
    #18
  19. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    yep, I was just joking around with Batz.:)
     
    #19
  20. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    So you care about Kelsey Grammer?
     
    #20
  21. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    2002 had no dominant player. Hewitt was number 1 throughout that year because he was the most consistent player of all, but he was never dominant. In fact, Hewitt was 2-3 years away from playing his best level of tennis. I don't believe this "weak era" stuff, though. Federer and Nadal have raised the bar ridiculously high at the very top of men's tennis. Sampras felt like a dominant player in his era, but his dominance is nothing compared to Federer's dominance.
     
    #21
  22. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    When Connors and Borg dominated you still had Vilas, Vitas, young McEnroe, Nastase, and various court specialists behind them. When Borg and McEnroe dominated you had Connors, Lendl, young Wilander, Vilas, Vitas, and various court specialists behind them. When Sampras and Agassi dominated you had Becker, Courier, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rafter, and various court specialists behind them. When Graf and Seles dominated tennis there were still alot of strong players behind them. Navratilova (even in old age and past her prime was a great player), Sabatini, Sanchez, Novotna, Pierce, Fernandez, Capriati, Martinez. Or when the Williams dominanted in the early 2000s there was Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Pierce, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, all behind them. Just because 2 players dominate does not mean the rest have to suck. However most of the current top 10 are tomatoe cans who you couldnt imagine winning a slam in any era.
     
    #22
  23. Tony48

    Tony48 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    6,899
    Not true. Plenty people are challenging Murray. They just end up choking :)

    But in all seriousness, I'm content with the way things are with the ATP. If things were like the WTA, it would be an epic mess. The top 4 are the top 4 for a reason: they perform with the most consistency and always deliver. Things weren't always like this; Murray & Djokovic had to bump people out of the way not long ago.
     
    #23
  24. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,596
    The fact that four players are very dominant in no way demonstrates that other players are "weak." They may in fact be quite good, but not quite to the level of the fearsome foursome. But in fact, I think the data demonstrates a different point, which is that the top players now gear their schedules so much towards the majors that they're less likely to be knocked off in a major because they're less likely to enter a major tired or injured. When I first really got into watching tennis in the 70s the top players played week in and week out -- you don't win over 100 titles as Connors did by not entering lots of tournaments. During the "Summer of Vilas" -- was it '77? -- we saw Vilas play almost every week that summer. More recently the top ranked guys take more time off until a few weeks before a major when they ramp up their schedules.
     
    #24
  25. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The current top 4 are fine. The 5-10 should be players of Nalbandian or Davydenko level atleast though. There is nobody even of that caliber anymore. Soderling was good the last 2 years but he seems in decline already. I doubt he will have any close matches with the top 4 this year. Berdych was a flash in the pan, he isnt even real top 10 caliber let alone someone who can push for the top 5. Ferrer is solid, I guess he is an ok guy to have in the top 10 but he will never be a threat to win a slam, he doesnt even have close to the weaponary to pull it off. And the rest are worse than Ferrer, Soderling and Berdych. How can people like Melzer, Almagro, Fish, Verdasco, all spend time in the top 10 in the last year.
     
    #25
  26. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    If we removed the top 4 from the 2011 Wimbledon draw, who do you think would win the title? Someone would have to step up to the plate ;)
     
    #26
  27. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,624
    i can't believe many took the bait and are proposing serious arguments for/against the OP :)
     
    #27
  28. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    The world didn't just suddenly stop producing good tennis players.

    I think Top 10 would look remarkably different if the people who were supposed to be up there were playing like it. If Del Potro were healthy and back in 2009 form, he'd be a lethal #5. Despite all the bashing he gets on this board because of his collapse, Cilic should be a legitimate top 10 player and is a real talent. Strange that a guy renowned for his mental strength has completely lost it. Hate to say it, but I wonder if Goran has something to do with it. Kind of unfair to say that, but when a usually calm guy starts breaking rackets and goes from challenging Murray for the AO final despite being absolutely exhausted to losing in the first round of every slam, something is wrong.

    There's plenty of talent right now, there just aren't a lot of guys willing to pay the price/healthy/mentally strong right now. Might be a generational thing. "Tennis? Practice? Bah....I'd rather surf the net on my new iPhone!"
     
    #28
  29. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,949
    so is this your conclusion?;):

    "this is such a mug era, no wonder a well past his prime 30-year old Federer can still well compete for Slams"
     
    #29
  30. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    If Federer is fit there is simply no-one who can beat him before the semi-finals of a Slam. Playing in semi-finals of Slams means that he's still in contention for majors so techincally yes, you are right.
     
    #30
  31. CocaCola

    CocaCola Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,154
    For me it is way better to have a great top 4 dominant players than having different players wining every tournament and then losing in 1st round next week. Just wait for Del Potro to find his best form and it will be better.
     
    #31
  32. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    Why do you attribute your own quote to me? I said I agree but that doesn't give you right to use it as MY quote.
     
    #32
  33. Joe Pike

    Joe Pike Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,309
    We could improve the field dramatically by killing Federer, Nadal and the Djoker ...
     
    #33
  34. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,949
    the quote is what you said the other day in another thread...so it's your quote not mine.
     
    #34
  35. Magnus

    Magnus Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,172
    IMO today's field is MUCH worse than the one in 2004-2007, but last time I said it I was attacked by the horde of *******s around here.
     
    #35
  36. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Jersey
    Shouldn't you also point out that almost all the finals included just top 4 players?
     
    #36
  37. Tammo

    Tammo Banned

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,875
    I think this is one of the strongest fields ever.
     
    #37
  38. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    would you bother finding it, instead of talking out of your a**?
     
    #38
  39. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Jersey
    Not really.

    "A strong era, in my opinion, is whenever I choose it to be. You see, if Federer is winning, it is a strong era. As soon as he loses, it's weak."--*******'s thought process.

    Anyway, I see a strong era as one where there are many contenders for the tourneys that count, but there is still a list of who is the best.
     
    #39
  40. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    30,441
    Location:
    Orlando FL
    [​IMG]
     
    #40
  41. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,132
    Having a few dominant players = weak era

    Parity = weak era

    I hope you're taking notes. I don't want to have to go over this again.
     
    #41
  42. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,865
    Location:
    VA Beach
    I think the quality 5-20 is the weakest it's been in a while. Anyone 5-20 can lose to 21-100. Everyone rips on the WTA for the same thing, but for the ATP it's okay I guess.

    Just look at RG, Berdych loses to some French journeymen after having a 2 set lead, Melzer loses to some Czech guy, Almagro loses to a doubles specialist. 3 guys that made the QF or better last year lost to nobodies in the first 2 rounds of the tourney. 1-4 is as strong as ever, but the separation between the top and the next tier is getting wider and wider. Guys like Florian Mayer and JI Chela are top 20? Really?

    No disrespect to any of these guys, they're all pros of course and much better than I could ever be. But they're weak relative to what you usually see in the top 20.

    A quantitative display of the weakness of the field now - compare the point totals of the top 20 players this time in 2009, 2010, 2011, and of course which top 10 has the least points?

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=08.06.2009&c=&r=1#
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=07.06.2010&c=&r=1#
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=13.06.2011&c=&r=1#
     
    #42
  43. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    Wait, so the fewer winners the better? Is 2004-2007 the toughest era, then, since only one man was winning almost everything in site?
     
    #43
  44. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    Yep. You needed around 3150 points to be ranked in the top 10 in mid 2009 and mid 2010. Right now you need 2200 (a 30% drop!).
     
    #44
  45. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Jersey
    I define strong fields for WTA and ATP separately. I mean, years wise.

    For me, the WTA was strong when Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Henin, et al were competing for slams and it wasn't guaranteed who would win.
     
    #45
  46. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Jersey
    why "at least three"? Why is one not good enough?
     
    #46
  47. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    Why 3? Why can't there be 1-2 or 10? I want good reasons, not because this era contains 3 great players one of which is your favorite one.
     
    #47
  48. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,647
    that doesn't makes sense, there's virtually one guy who's winning Slams right now and it's Nadal, he's won 4 out of the last 5 and I'm sure such a fanboy like you would think that he'd win in Australia if he wasn't injured (that would make it 5 out of the last 5), not the ideal "toughest era" if there's only 1 player, just as in 2004-2007 who's almost dominating everyone completely.
     
    #48
  49. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Jersey
    Not really.

    Don't be redundant.

    Umm, where does Nadal factor into this?
     
    #49
  50. Manus Domini

    Manus Domini Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Jersey
    And it serves more of a purpose to have three players whose skills are not clearly tested? How do we know Naderovic is really a powerhouse? How do we really know it isn't weaker than Hewalberick?
     
    #50

Share This Page