What has happened to the ATP? (Summary of recent months)

[sportmac]

It's becoming the WTA

That's great news! That means soon the ATP will have multi slam winners that are under 25 and not have to brag about having a next gen "one Masters wonder", they'll have a top 30 that's not dominated by 30 year olds and they'll be able to let the nextgen stand on their own instead of creating special tournaments just for them so they can at least win something.

 

[Fedberg20]

Obviously we disagree on the quality of the AO final and there were many more memorable matches like Zverev - Murray, Istomin - Djokovic, Feds 5 setters etc.

Absolutely agree there. Especially comparing it with all those tournaments where you had Murray and Djokovic bore to death every single spectator and TV viewer, this year's edition was marvelous. Had absolutely everything: shocking results (Istomin, M. Zverev, Evans), deep/deep-ish runs by outsiders (M. Zverev, Istomin) and relative outsiders (Dimitrov, Goffin, Tsonga), some superbly tight or quality 5-setters (Rog vs Nishikori, Karlovic vs Zeballos, A. Zverev vs Nadal, M. Zverev vs Isner, Kyrgios vs Seppi, Wawrinka vs Klizan) and of course brilliant SF matches and a truly epic 5th set of the final. Also worth mentioning what Roger did to Berdych there, what a performance.

And in case you are wondering, I watched all of these matches in part or whole. You really need to be an extremely demanding fan or simply hate the end result not to appreciate that tournament. One of the best in recent memory for me.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

OK.

You say that you stick to the facts and have no agenda whatsoever regarding the ATP, but let's examine some of your arguments.

You point at a LL being a winner in a small tournament, but let us see who this LL is.
It is Rublev, a 19 y o bright prospect whose results this year have been phenomenal almost everywhere.
You portraying him as a lucky loser, as though luck is the only reason he is winning (and of course implying that his opponents are playing all bad) is a massive bias for no "apparent" reason.
That is one massive dent in your reasoning as far as lack of bias is concerned.
For example, I see Rublev's run as a massive positive development of the ATP.
Let's review your "research" on the second LL.
It seems that you missed a couple of important points when reviewing him :
1) it seems that the Hamburg tournament is one, where he finds his game. After all, he won it in 2014, beating in the final the clay MUG.... David Ferrer
2) a player with highest ranking of 21
3) a Davis Cup winner with Argentina in 2016
4) 2nd-4th Round at he Majors
5) a good doubles player

Wow fascinating. Was I wrong though? Were Rublev and Mayer lucky losers? Yes or no? Sorry I didn't feel the need to go and post all their past achievements. The fact was that they were lucky losers, they lost to someone in qualifying yet got into the main draw and won the title. In Mayer's case, it was to a player ranked in the 900's.

I will point out at several other things that point to either agenda or massive knee jerk reaction :

1) quoting Thiem's win at RG over Djokovic as part of the weak tour is laughable.

Djokovic has an injury that forced him to scrap the season and you are going to trash him for losing against a very good clay court player like Thiem?

I trashed Djokovic for his loss because 2 weeks earlier he thrashed Thiem 6-1 6-0. Something you just failed to mention. The results were complete opposites, Djoko thrashed Thiem, Thiem thrashed Djokovic. If it were random players then who cares, except it was the defending French Open champ. And I don't believe Djokovic was that injured at the French Open loss considering a few weeks later he won Eastbourne and made the Wimbledon QF. Quit being defensive of Novak.

Also, Zverev.

After the effort and the required level to win a masters on clay it is more than normal to see his level drop and get stunned by an experienced player who has other scheduling priorities and experience.

Not everyone is Nadal on clay, so lambasting him for his early loss is nothing but shortsighted.

Re Ofner, who is obviously having a spell of good form, having in mind his play at Wimbledon.

Re to your comments on upsets in R1 of multiple tournaments.

Re to your comments about several top seeds not reaching the final stages of Wimbledon, when three of them have withdrawn with injuries and Nadal has been beaten by a better player on that day (hardly a recent phenomenon as well).

These are all just 1000 excuses for each loss. Sorry you're unable to handle all these losses and notice a pattern. This isn't an attack on the ATP Tour, just recognizing that this is definitely something we haven't seen in recent years. When did we last have 2 lucky losers win titles? When did we last have a defending champ get thrashed by a player he easily thrashed 2 weeks earlier? When did we last have so many 30+ title winners?

Oh and i'm so sorry I expected Zverev to back up a MASTERS TITLE WIN by winning a SIMPLE SLAM 1R.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Wow fascinating. Was I wrong though? Were Rublev and Mayer lucky losers? Yes or no? Sorry I didn't feel the need to go and post all their past achievements. The fact was that they were lucky losers, they lost to someone in qualifying yet got into the main draw and won the title. In Mayer's case, it was to a player ranked in the 900's.

So, you refuse to analyse property the context of their successes?

I trashed Djokovic for his loss because 2 weeks earlier he thrashed Thiem 6-1 6-0. Something you just failed to mention. The results were complete opposites, Djoko thrashed Thiem, Thiem thrashed Djokovic. If it were random players then who cares, except it was the defending French Open champ. And I don't believe Djokovic was that injured at the French Open loss considering a few weeks later he won Eastbourne and made the Wimbledon QF. Quit being defensive of Novak.

I don't need to mention something just for the sake of it.

He trashed Thiem, his injury got worse and was trashed by a player who is a very good clay court player.

What you "believe" is up to you, but unless you think that Djokovic tanked this match you are not going past my explanation.

Also, you saying things like "quit being defensive of Djokovic" shows why you are making such threads.

I have no history of "defending" Djokovic and I am not going to start one, just because he lost and a month later stopped playing for the rest of the season.

These are all just 1000 excuses for each loss. Sorry you're unable to handle all these losses and notice a pattern. This isn't an attack on the ATP Tour, just recognizing that this is definitely something we haven't seen in recent years. When did we last have 2 lucky losers win titles? When did we last have a defending champ get thrashed by a player he easily thrashed 2 weeks earlier? When did we last have so many 30+ title winners?

Oh and i'm so sorry I expected Zverev to back up a MASTERS TITLE WIN by winning a SIMPLE SLAM 1R.

You are an ignorant with no knowledge to speak of and a drama queen, who, from this last part of your post proved without a shadow of a doubt that you made this thread with the exact same purpose some people here said.

I criticised your post, but was willing to discuss, if proper arguments are given.

The way you descended into empty unsupported series of stupid comments, unfounded criticism and simple twisting of facts (wow at trying to spin Rublev's run as a negative) tells me that indeed you are looking for ways to put down the ATP.

From now on I consider you a WTA fanboy who does their PR by trying to take digs at concurrent (and better) tours.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

The way you descended into empty unsupported series of stupid comments, unfounded criticism and simple twisting of facts (wow at trying to spin Rublev's run as a negative)

You do realize he lost in QUALIFYING right? He lost to some player then ranked in the 170's and luckily got into the main draw. If it wasn't for someone withdrawing, he never would have gotten in, never would've made the final and never would have won. Sorry that I think it's a bit negative or embarrassing for a player to lose to some unknown person outside of the top 150 in qualifying and then JUST sneak their way into the main draw based on a withdrawal and then win the title. If not for a withdrawal, none of that would've happened. Talk about luck.

You are an ignorant with no knowledge to speak of and a drama queen, who, from this last part of your post proved without a shadow of a doubt that you made this thread with the exact same purpose some people here said.

I criticised your post, but was willing to discuss, if proper arguments are given.

The way you descended into empty unsupported series of stupid comments, unfounded criticism and simple twisting of facts (wow at trying to spin Rublev's run as a negative) tells me that indeed you are looking for ways to put down the ATP.

From now on I consider you a WTA fanboy who does their PR by trying to take digs at concurrent (and better) tours.

Notice how i'm still not mentioning the women's tour but you are? Pretty much sums up most of your content on this thread. You're so shocked by the thought that someone could realize there's been a big change in the ATP tour this year that you turn this thread into some sort of "prop up" for the WTA tour when my original post never mentioned it (funny that).

If anyone is loving the drama it's you with your constant nonsense. Don't like my thread? Leave and stop posting. There's a bunch of other people who seem to think it's been interesting and summed up the recent months on the ATP tour. Feel free to spend some time to actually post a thread on this forum which generates interesting discussion, instead of going out of your way to attack my threads.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You do realize he lost in QUALIFYING right? He lost to some player and then luckily got into the main draw when if it wasn't for someone withdrawing, he never would have gotten in, never would've made the final and won. Sorry that I think it's a bit negative for someone to lose to some unknown player outside of the top 150 and then JUST sneak their way into the main draw and win the title. If not for a withdrawal, none of that would've happened. Talk about luck.

Having luck is not the main reason for beating quality opponents to win a title.

Neither is luck Rublev's whole year of excellent results.

Notice how i'm still not mentioning the women's tour but you are? Pretty much sums up most of your content on this thread. You're so shocked by the thought that someone could realize there's been a big change in the ATP tour this year that you turn this thread into some sort of "prop up" for the WTA tour when my original post never mentioned it (funny that).

On a forum, where "new" posters start their existence with threads with disclaimers that they like this or that player, just to blast him in the same post and state that they have no agendas, just to expose massive bias, your statement has zero value.

0.

If anyone is loving the drama it's you with your constant nonsense. Don't like my thread? Leave and stop posting. There's a bunch of other people who seem to think it's been interesting and summed up the recent months on the ATP tour. Feel free to spend some time to actually post a thread on this forum which generates interesting discussion, instead of going out of your way to attack my threads.

I actually gave you a chance to "generate interesting discussion ", which you refused to do.

Instead you choose to descend into fanboyism and obtuse insistence.

You turn your own thread into a joke and that in itself shows that what really matters to you is that you made that OP.

 

[SLD76]

That's great news! That means soon the ATP will have multi slam winners that are under 25 and not have to brag about having a next gen "one Masters wonder", they'll have a top 30 that's not dominated by 30 year olds and they'll be able to let the nextgen stand on their own instead of creating special tournaments just for them so they can at least win something.

I've been saying for ages , in terms younger players emerging , the WTA has been far healthier than the ATP for a while now


Yes , you still have Serena and to a lesser extent VEnus, but these are all time once in generation talents


And even still with Serena prospering at least the WTA has slam champions that were born in the 90s+(Kvitova, Garbine, Ostapenko, Azarenka is close but she was born in 1989)


Lack of talent isn't the WTA's problem, it's consistency

Garbine looked like she forgot how to play during most of clay season, only to be rock solid mentally and win Wimbledon


Once these girls figure out to be consistent week in and week out the WTA is in for some good times


Not necessarily Golden Era (97-2008) but healthy , competitive and entertaining

 

[Gizo]

The lack of young players emerging and making significant waves on the ATP tour is incredibly worrying and has already been commented on. In previous eras when I attended tennis tournaments, I also liked to look out for exciting young rising stars. Other than Wimbledon I don't have the time to attend other tournaments nowadays, but still it's very slim pickings in the rising stars department. To me that's just boring. The worry thing isn't necessary the inability of the younger players to challenge Federer or the Nadal, but the fact that has taken so long for them to even overtake the second tier of players that were born in the early to mid 80s.

I am British, but I also don't like the insane European domination of men's tennis. In theory the range of nationalities of the top players shouldn't matter, but in reality it kind of does, and I would prefer to see a greater geographical spread in that department.

The last 31 grand slams (i.e. every single slam this so far this decade), and 52 out of the last 53 dating back to Gaudio’s 2004 RG triumph, have been won by European players. Of course that one exception was Del Potro’s 2009 US Open title.

The last 66 masters series events, and 85 out of the last 86 dating back to Nalbandian’s back to back titles at Madrid and Paris in 2007, have been won by European players. That one exception was Roddick’s Miami title in 2010.

So far this decade, 107 of the 108 ‘big’ tournaments (that includes the grand slams, the Olympics, the YEC and masters series events) have been won by European players, including all 31 grand slam events. Again the sole exception was Roddick's 2010 Miami title which right at the start of the decade, which means that the last 105 big tournaments (and counting) have all been won by European players. It looks pretty likely that there could be a total European clean-sweep of the men's grand slams in the 2010-2019 decade.

1997-2002 was certainly a golden era in the geographical diversity department, especially 2001 when all 4 male grand slam champions were from different continents; Agassi, Kuerten, Ivanisevic and Hewitt.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Wow fascinating. Was I wrong though? Were Rublev and Mayer lucky losers? Yes or no?

You point that out thinking it's a negative. But that could easily be looked at from the perspective that it shows how good and deep the ATP is.

I assume you're too busy with your Social Justice Warrior activities to actually play tennis. It's a game of matchups - they could have lost in qualies to someone who is just has something in their game that's tough for them to deal with.

ATP is doing fine. WTA is...

(dumpster fire)

 

[Flash O'Groove]

He trashed Thiem, his injury got worse and was trashed by a player who is a very good clay court player.

What you "believe" is up to you, but unless you think that Djokovic tanked this match you are not going past my explanation.

Also, you saying things like "quit being defensive of Djokovic" shows why you are making such threads.

I have no history of "defending" Djokovic and I am not going to start one, just because he lost and a month later stopped playing for the rest of the season.

You are an ignorant with no knowledge to speak of and a drama queen, who, from this last part of your post proved without a shadow of a doubt that you made this thread with the exact same purpose some people here said.

I criticised your post, but was willing to discuss, if proper arguments are given.

The way you descended into empty unsupported series of stupid comments, unfounded criticism and simple twisting of facts (wow at trying to spin Rublev's run as a negative) tells me that indeed you are looking for ways to put down the ATP.

From now on I consider you a WTA fanboy who does their PR by trying to take digs at concurrent (and better) tours.

I really don't understand your posts, nor GhostofMecir's ones. The OP create an interesting thread, where frankly no sane person will see any hidden evil agenda, and both of you jump on him with great aggressivity.

All that AussieDarcy did was point out a serie of unpredictable, quite silly results. Thiem is a good clay player, and him being absolutely trashed by a far from prime Djokovic was an unpredictable silly result. Then Djoko lose to Zverer, which was quite exiting, then Zverev lose to Verdasco in the first round, which was not very exiting but very silly, and then Verdasco lose to anyone, etc. etc. etc.

And basically it has been like this all year long with the only saving grace being Federer and Nadal outstanding form which gave all of this mess a lustre of brilliance. Now of course you can find all the excuse you want. Thiem got trashed by Djokovic because he was too high from his victory on Nadal. But then his victory on Nadal wasn't that impressive because Nadal was tired of winning so much and preferred to rest to trash Thiem at RG. And X did lose in the qualifier but it was against a qualifier having quite a good spell and he anyway X has sometime been quite good on clay or may become a promising player, and so on and so on.

At the end the simple truth pointed out by Aussiedarcy is that all of this is happening this year and not in the previous years, during which many promising players were there, and many sometime good clay players were there too, yet lucky loser winning tournaments was rare. As was pure trashing followed by a reverse trashing from the same player, or an other "sometime good player".

If there is a hidden agenda here it's from your side. Disappointing from both of you who usually are good to great posters.

 

[sportmac]

You point that out thinking it's a negative. But that could easily be looked at from the perspective that it shows how good and deep the ATP is.

I assume you're too busy with your Social Justice Warrior activities to actually play tennis. It's a game of matchups - they could have lost in qualies to someone who is just has something in their game that's tough for them to deal with.

ATP is doing fine. WTA is...

(dumpster fire)

The ATP is doing fine? They have no one under 28 except for Zverev who's won a "big" tournament. They can't even get to the finals of the big tournaments let alone win them.

The ATP should be putting on a lostgen tournament to go along with their nextgen one so all those "good and deep" ATP players will have a chance at wining something "meaningful".

After those guys over 30 retire the next slam winners will get there through attrition. That's the way to become a champion. Don't step up and take it, wait out the old guys.

Seriously, a 35 year old takes 6 months off, comes back and wins a slam almost immediately, wins both Indian Wells and Miami, takes more time off then wins Wimbledon. And you use "good and deep" to describe his competition. 27 year old Donskoy and 39 year old Haas. There's that ATP depth at work.

But hey, it's going to be thrilling watching the likes of Sock and Raonic and Dmitrov and Goffin battle it out with Theim and Zverev for a slam. What a future eh?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I really don't understand your posts, nor GhostofMecir's ones. The OP create an interesting thread, where frankly no sane person will see any hidden evil agenda, and both of you jump on him with great aggressivity.

All that AussieDarcy did was point out a serie of unpredictable, quite silly results. Thiem is a good clay player, and him being absolutely trashed by a far from prime Djokovic was an unpredictable silly result. Then Djoko lose to Zverer, which was quite exiting, then Zverev lose to Verdasco in the first round, which was not very exiting but very silly, and then Verdasco lose to anyone, etc. etc. etc.

And basically it has been like this all year long with the only saving grace being Federer and Nadal outstanding form which gave all of this mess a lustre of brilliance. Now of course you can find all the excuse you want. Thiem got trashed by Djokovic because he was too high from his victory on Nadal. But then his victory on Nadal wasn't that impressive because Nadal was tired of winning so much and preferred to rest to trash Thiem at RG. And X did lose in the qualifier but it was against a qualifier having quite a good spell and he anyway X has sometime been quite good on clay or may become a promising player, and so on and so on.

At the end the simple truth pointed out by Aussiedarcy is that all of this is happening this year and not in the previous years, during which many promising players were there, and many sometime good clay players were there too, yet lucky loser winning tournaments was rare. As was pure trashing followed by a reverse trashing from the same player, or an other "sometime good player".

If there is a hidden agenda here it's from your side. Disappointing from both of you who usually are good to great posters.

If you don't understand them try to do it.

I replied to him with facts that show that he didn't do his homework to which he replied with dramatic posts full of BS.

Losses happen and ignoring injuries, scheduling and development of players is no way of analysing the game, as isn't cherry picking through stats.

What do you make of his analysis of Rublev's result?

 

[smoledman]

I think once 2017 is said and done, there will be plenty of compelling storylines.

Fred's resurgence back to dominance.
Ralph dominating the clay again like the old days.
Rise of Sascha Zverev to be the clear #1 NextGen.
The decline of Djokovic, Murray & Stan at the same time.

That's all I have so far. Maybe one of the other #NextGen will surprise, like Tiafoe?

 

[SLD76]

You point that out thinking it's a negative. But that could easily be looked at from the perspective that it shows how good and deep the ATP is.

I assume you're too busy with your Social Justice Warrior activities to actually play tennis. It's a game of matchups - they could have lost in qualies to someone who is just has something in their game that's tough for them to deal with.

ATP is doing fine. WTA is...

(dumpster fire)

Meanwhile the WTA has 3 slam champions, two of them multi slam champions, who were born in the 90s


Meanwhile the 90s guys in the ATP can't contend with the big four nor the second and third tier guys who have been in the top ten/20 forever