14 out of the top 16 seeds in the round of 16

Not surprising. The mens game has no depth these days. Atleast the top 6 are really good, and the 7-16 guys are improving so it is a better field than the horrible field 2-8 years ago. And atleast somewhat better than the horrible womens field were nearly everyone in the top 100 except the computer #2 and computer #3 on grass are at a similar hopeless level.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
Not surprising. The mens game has no depth these days. Atleast the top 6 are really good, and the 7-16 guys are improving so it is a better field than the horrible field 2-8 years ago. And atleast somewhat better than the horrible womens field were nearly everyone in the top 100 except the computer #2 and computer #3 on grass are at a similar hopeless level.
you really have nothing else to talk about don't you ? go on droning on like a broken record about the same thing ad nauseum...

other than 80-87, the field in pretty much every era can be considered "inferior". Ya, that includes the Sampras era as well.

Whats the point, however ?
 
Not surprising. The mens game has no depth these days. Atleast the top 6 are really good, and the 7-16 guys are improving so it is a better field than the horrible field 2-8 years ago. And atleast somewhat better than the horrible womens field were nearly everyone in the top 100 except the computer #2 and computer #3 on grass are at a similar hopeless level.

I interpret this the other way round. If it's so hard for the rank-and-filers to get past the top 16 (or 6), depth in the upper echelons is pretty good.
 

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
Not surprising. The mens game has no depth these days. Atleast the top 6 are really good, and the 7-16 guys are improving so it is a better field than the horrible field 2-8 years ago. And atleast somewhat better than the horrible womens field were nearly everyone in the top 100 except the computer #2 and computer #3 on grass are at a similar hopeless level.
Actually the complete opposite is true. The mens game has the greatest depth these days, greater than any eras in the past. Thats why 14/16 made to the second week. We are witnessing the strongest field today. Even Hewitt and Safin admitted it.
 
Actually the complete opposite is true. The mens game has the greatest depth these days, greater than any eras in the past. Thats why 14/16 made to the second week. We are witnessing the strongest field today. Even Hewitt and Safin admitted it.
ANY era is an exaggeration imo. Late 70s, late 80s had great depth too. But I agree that this is a good era.
 
My post wasnt entirely negative. I have been impressed by the improved depth of the top 5, top 10, and even top 15 compared to what it was from 2002-2006 especialy. However it doesnt show much depth outside the top 15 if almost all the top 16 make the round of 16.
 

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
My post wasnt entirely negative. I have been impressed by the improved depth of the top 5, top 10, and even top 15 compared to what it was from 2002-2006 especialy. However it doesnt show much depth outside the top 15 if almost all the top 16 make the round of 16.
lol how much depth is enough depth for you? top 16 make round 16, 32 make 3rd round, top 64 make 2nd round and top 128 make 1st round? lol
 
WHen you have oustanding players #1 and #2 during so long, the following players try even harder to get there, and they belive they can grow a little bit more.... this #1 is the limit and all make greater effort to get there, and that is why the level now is so high.
 

Polvorin

Professional
Not surprising. The mens game has no depth these days. Atleast the top 6 are really good, and the 7-16 guys are improving so it is a better field than the horrible field 2-8 years ago.
Yes, we know. If Federer wins it is because there is no depth. If Federer loses it's because he's not really that great. You really don't have to post anymore because we already know what you will say. You are free to carry on with your life.
 
Top