Is the surface homogenisation preventing upsets?

[dominikk1985]

In the last decade federer and nadal have almost never lost to a guy outside the top10 in a GS (apart from the rosol Thing). even old federer at 31 still plows through the first rounds easily. and since about 2-3 years this applies to murray and Nole too, even to ferrer who never loses to a guy outside the top10 (but never beats the top 4).

favorites always won most matches but there also have been some upsets (and not federer losing against Tsonga type upsets but real upsets where a top Player lost in the second round to a guy ranked 90 or so). those almost never happen now.

do you like that? I asume that the tournaments want to eliminate variance to always sell finals with federer, nadal, Novak or murray (or who ever is the biggest star then) and it is cool that the best win, but on the other Hand the first week of GS is almost unwatchable because of that (does anyone want to see federer or nadal beating the no. 80 6:3, 6:1, 6:2 all the time?)

would more upsets be better for Tennis?

 

[underground]

Definitely. Federer has said quite a few times regarding this in his press conference and says that this is why the top 4 always reach the 2nd week of a slam.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Not so much the homogenisation, rather the slowing.

The slowing of the surfaces has pushed the required physical and mental strengths required to play well further ahead of talent. Previously a hot talent could have a hot streak on a day and oust a top player from a tournament but that became rarer once courts were slowed - recovering during rallys, longer rallys has helped reduce upsets a significant amount, especially by the young guys who just don't have the mental fortitude to outlast a top guy long enough to beat them generally.

 

[aldeayeah]

The slowing down and the improvements in the defensive game have prevented upsets, yup.

(And the fact that the current top players are pretty good even in all-time comparisons, let's not forget that.)

 

[pds999]

I would still say it is the Top 3 then Murray (in terms of achievements certainly). Although on form so far in 2013, you could argue it is the Top 2 then Murray and Federer.

 

[dominikk1985]

I would still say it is the Top 3 then Murray (in terms of achievements certainly). Although on form so far in 2013, you could argue it is the Top 2 then Murray and Federer.

wrong thread?

 

[dominikk1985]

Not so much the homogenisation, rather the slowing.

The slowing of the surfaces has pushed the required physical and mental strengths required to play well further ahead of talent. Previously a hot talent could have a hot streak on a day and oust a top player from a tournament but that became rarer once courts were slowed - recovering during rallys, longer rallys has helped reduce upsets a significant amount, especially by the young guys who just don't have the mental fortitude to outlast a top guy long enough to beat them generally.

I agree that most upsets happened on faster surfaces (mostly grass and indoors) but weren't there more upsets on clay too?

 

[mattennis]

Yes, homogenization, slowness, 32 seeds.....they want the top-players in the final rounds and they got it.

In former eras there were much more interesting first rounds matches and everything was more unpredictable.

Today, the early rounds of the top-players are really boring.

 

[namelessone]

Actually, I don't think it has to do much with homogenization or slowing down. The problem is that almost every member of the top 4 is a very solid player, ESPECIALLY in a slam. Three of them I consider legends already so it's very tough for a guy ranked below 50 to even push them for 3 sets let alone beat them.

Even as they decline, they still have the aura, especially on their preferred surfaces. It's one thing to beat Fed on clay, try facing him on grass. It's one thing to straight set Nadal on HC, try facing him on clay. Ditto for Djoko on a slowcourt.

The level(both mental and physical, people seem to focus only on the physical) needed to pull off a win against these greats(regardless of how the greats are on the day) is astounding. It usually marks the birth or rise of a player.

 

[mightyrick]

Yes, homogenization, slowness, 32 seeds.....they want the top-players in the final rounds and they got it.

In former eras there were much more interesting first rounds matches and everything was more unpredictable.

Today, the early rounds of the top-players are really boring.

I agree completely.

Before the Open-Era, they had the layout correct. I wish they would adopt it in the modern era. They had the amateurs -- which are the modern day equivalents of the ranked ATP pros at 20+. The amateurs were all excellent tennis players in their own right, but they weren't anywhere close to being as good as professionals -- with a few exceptions.

In the Pro Majors, the first round would pit #1 against #8 or #10. FAR more interesting and entertaining. As a professional, if you wanted to play in a major, you had to WORK for it. Otherwise, you didn't even make the cut.

I like that system much better. I wish they would go back to it.

 

[jg153040]

In the last decade federer and nadal have almost never lost to a guy outside the top10 in a GS (apart from the rosol Thing). even old federer at 31 still plows through the first rounds easily. and since about 2-3 years this applies to murray and Nole too, even to ferrer who never loses to a guy outside the top10 (but never beats the top 4).

favorites always won most matches but there also have been some upsets (and not federer losing against Tsonga type upsets but real upsets where a top Player lost in the second round to a guy ranked 90 or so). those almost never happen now.

do you like that? I asume that the tournaments want to eliminate variance to always sell finals with federer, nadal, Novak or murray (or who ever is the biggest star then) and it is cool that the best win, but on the other Hand the first week of GS is almost unwatchable because of that (does anyone want to see federer or nadal beating the no. 80 6:3, 6:1, 6:2 all the time?)

would more upsets be better for Tennis?

Sampras has 19 non clay finals. Same as Fed. So he wasn't upset more.

Also, if FEDAL were upset more in early rounds, they wouldn't be called goat and clay goat.

Maybe top guys have no weaknesses. That means a player on fire can't just exploit them. They all have good defense and return of serve.

Someone should compare all top 100 players. Are all that consistent?

 

[anantak2k]

Almost all the courts play the same, on top of the game being very physical. It's all about fitness and consistency now. Talent means **** if you don't have the fitness or consistency.

 

[Gandalf]

but on the other Hand the first week of GS is almost unwatchable because of that(does anyone want to see federer or nadal beating the no. 80 6:3, 6:1, 6:2 all the time?)

They can't play against a top 30 player in week1, at least not before round 3. Hope this helps.

 

[Goosehead]

Sampras has 19 non clay finals. Same as Fed. So he wasn't upset more.

Also, if FEDAL were upset more in early rounds, they wouldn't be called goat and clay goat.

Maybe top guys have no weaknesses. That means a player on fire can't just exploit them. They all have good defense and return of serve.

Someone should compare all top 100 players. Are all that consistent?

"Also If FEDAL were upset more in early rounds, they wouldn't be called goat and clay goat." :???:

if a tree was a cloud, it wouldn't be called a tree it would be called a cloud

FEDAL don't lose early, so they are called goat and clay goat.