Measuring the Depth of Field Today

[OddJack]

I like J. Allen at Bleachers, She is doing a lovely sum up and comparisons here,
-----------

How do you measure the worth of a man—or more specifically, the relative strength of a professional tennis player? You do it by looking at their ranking points. It is simple enough.

The player with the most points earned by participating in tournaments, some mandatory and some voluntary, lets you know where this player stands compared to his peers.

Right now, the current No. 1 ranked player in the world has 10,765 points, accumulated over the past year. But ultimately what does that mean?

Between the top-ranked player in the world, Roger Federer, and the No. 6 ranked player, Nikolay Davydenko, there are 5,430 ATP ranking points as of April 5. On Feb. 1 2010, the spread between those same two players was over 6,000 points.

While the difference between No. 1 and No. 2 continues to hover at 3,000 points, the distance between the rest of the field in the top six shrunk dramatically following the conclusion of the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami. The fallout was a true rankings dip for all the top seeded players except Rafael Nadal.

Specifically, the difference between Nadal, now ranked at No. 3 and Novak Djokovic at No. 2 is just 650 points. The distance between Nadal and Andy Murray, now seeded No. 4, is 1,135 points while the space between Murray and Juan Martin del Potro, seeded No. 5, is a mere 110 points. Davydenko sits only 510 points behind Murray and 400 points behind del Potro. Andy Roddick, ranked No. 7, remains 555 points behind Davydenko.

This is a new world order in men’s tennis with far less space to breathe.

If you go back five years and look at the rankings race you note that in 2005, Federer sat pretty much alone at the top, some 3,000 points ahead of Roddick, and this was long before the tour doubled the points to account for the new emphasis on winning grand slams.

In 2006, Federer and Nadal as No. 1 and No. 2 sat on top of the rankings as the top two—then the rest of the field with Andy Roddick back at the No. 3 spot. The top two reigned again in 2007 with Davydenko a distant third.

In January of 2008, the top two became the top three with Novak Djokovic edging close to the number two spot while Davydenko remained a distant fourth. But in 2009 after the points doubled, the No. 4 position became inhabited by Murray—the top three became the top four in the media.

While the top four players have had periods of infringement in 2008-2009 when they bumped each other off a perch and traded positions, there was a distinct line of demarcation between the top four and the rest of the top 10.

But with del Potro’s rise after winning the 2009 U.S. Open, position No. 5 moved into the upper tier edging closer to the No. 4 ranked player.

As so many of the top players close the gap on the player in front of them, it simply means parity is arriving once again in men’s professional tennis. The last two Masters events verify that conclusion.

That definitely makes the upcoming clay court matches much more exciting and the whole tour more appealing, at least for the top-tiered tournaments.

Everyone is looking forward to Nadal and his return to reign as the Clay Court King. The point is, he’d better do well, otherwise he will begin sinking again because he has a pot-full of points to defend in order to stay level.

If you look at the potential between now and the French Open, you see that there could very well be a huge shakeup in the top ranked players—at least those ranked below Federer on the ATP ranking ladder.

Much of the potential shift will become evident when you examine the number of points the top six players must defend between now and the French Open.



Roger Federer: Points to Defend from 2009: 3,450 total points.

ATP WTM 1000 Monte Carlo [R16-90 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Rome [Semifinals - 360 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Madrid [Winner 1,000 pts]; GS Roland Garros [Winner 2,000 pts].

Federer is fairly safe now as he sits over 3,000 points ahead of Djokovic. The bulk of his points come from wins at two big tournaments, Madrid and the French Open at Stade Roland Garros. Federer has elected to play again at Estoril and will not be competing in Monte Carlo in 2010.

That means he could advance his points since he only gives up 90 points from Monte Carlo and could pick up 250 points by taking the title in Estoril, which he won in 2008. If he does better than the semifinals in Rome and does well at both Madrid and the French Open, we can expect Federer to retain his No. 1 ranking.

It also means the Swiss will surpass Pete Sampras’ record of 286 weeks on June 14 for the most weeks at No. 1.



Rafael Nadal: Points to Defend from 2009: 3,280 total points.

ATP WTM 1000 Monte Carlo [Winner - 1,000 pts]; Barcelona [Winner - 500 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Rome [Winner - 1000 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Madrid [Finalist 600 pts]; GS Roland Garros [R 16 180 pts.].

Nadal is the defending champion at Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome, as well as a finalist in Madrid. He is playing each of these tournaments and there is no expectation that he will not do well. In order to maintain his current rankings spot, he must play his level best and wait for others to falter, especially Djokovic who sits ahead of him by 650 points.

The chance for him to make up significant ground does not come until the French Open where he is only defending 180 points after being summarily dismissed by Robin Soderling last year in the fourth round.

But it also means not going down to defeat early in any of the lead-up tournaments to the red clay at Stade Roland Garros. It stands to reason to expect Nadal to take over the No. 2 spot before the French Open—but only because Djokovic will falter.



Novak Djokovic: Points to Defend from 2009: 1,900 total points.

ATP WTM 1000 Monte Carlo [Finalist - 600 pts]; Belgrade [Winner - 250 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Rome [Finalist - 600 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Madrid [Semifinalist 360 pts]; GS Roland Garros [R 32 90 pts.].

Djokovic has many points he could lose early on as a finalist in both Monte Carlo and Rome as well as the winner in the Serbian tournament in Belgrade in 2009. The Serb has certainly been off his game of late and one wonders if he will be ready for the rigors of clay. Only 650 points ahead of Nadal, losing early in these opening clay court events could cost Djokovic the No. 2 ranking.

The Serb has an opportunity to make up ground at the French Open where he went out early in the Round of 32, securing only 90 points. Perhaps the challenge to hang onto the No. 2 spot will spur Djokovic into action. But nothing in his on court demeanor suggests he is aggressively seeking a remedy to his recent spate of premature losses.



Andy Murray: Points to Defend from 2009: 910 total points.

ATP WTM 1000 Monte Carlo [Semifinalist - 360 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Rome [R32 - 10 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Madrid [Quarterfinalist 180 pts]; GS Roland Garros [Quarterfinalist 360 pts.].

Andy Murray, now reunited with his girlfriend, has a solid chance to gain some ground on the players ranked ahead of him at the start of the clay court season. He has few points to defend and therefore, a golden opportunity to overtake the No. 3 player, 1,135 points ahead of him at the moment.

Finally he accepted a wild card into the event at Monte Carlo where he finished as a semifinalist a year ago. His entrance into the tournament this year means the Scot is trying to bolster his falling rankings. Improving upon last year’s finishes could do Murray a world of good and propel him back to his winning ways.

The finish line is clearly marked for Murray, but you have to wonder at his commitment at this point. The time is now, Mr. Murray.



Juan Martin del Potro: Points to Defend from 2009: 1,270 total points.

ATP WTM 1000 Monte Carlo [R32 - 10 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Rome [Quarterfinalist - 180 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Madrid [Semifinalist 360 pts]; GS Roland Garros [Semifinalist 720 pts.].

Del Potro is the player most would anticipate moving up fast during the current clay court season. But at this point, it is hard to predict how completely recovered the Argentine is from his lingering wrist injury. This ailment has kept del Potro off the court for some time and, even when he competed, the injury evidently affected his ability to play the game at his best level.

Del Potro is only 110 points behind Murray and it would take little to overtake the Scot, especially because del Potro has few points to defend until his semifinal finish at the French Open.

Scheduled to compete at Monte Carlo, it will be crucial for the Argentine to show himself fully fit and ready to compete. If that is the case, we can expect del Potro to continue his climb up the rankings ladder.

 

[OddJack]

Nikolay Davydenko: Points to Defend from 2009: 910 total points.

ATP WTM 1000 Monte Carlo [Quarterfinalist - 180 pts]; Barcelona [Semifinalist - 180 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Rome [R32 - 10 pts]; Estoril [Semifinalist - 90 pts]; ATP WTM 1000 Madrid [R16 90 pts]; GS Roland Garros [Quarterfinalist 360 pts.].

With a modest amount of points to defend, Davydenko is always a dangerous player on clay with his speed and stamina in full force. But it is hard to imagine that the Russian will be able to play with a broken wrist. It has been reported that Davydenko may be out for as long as three months. Without playing, Davydenko cannot advance—he can only fall further back—unless he can protect his ranking because of his injury.

Of the two sitting just behind Davydenko, Andy Roddick and Robin Soderling, you have to give the edge to the Swede Soderling, who has shown how well he can play on the red clay.

While some clay court events are currently underway, the real action does not begin until next week. Some of the questions about the top players’ mental edge will be answered as they head to Monte Carlo where Nadal has reigned supreme for five straight years. Do we expect him to win number six? Most do and with good reason. A loss at this event for Nadal would signal a real shift at the top. Stay tuned...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...nikolay-davydenko-measuring-the-depth-on-clay

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

I'll take another route.

A simple basic one.


8 years ago, Johansson won a grand slam, Clement was doing pretty well too.

Take today, take some Top 15 guys, like Gonzalez and Cilic for example.

Who would win?

Well, i'm willing to bet my mom and some more that the two, Cilic and Gonzo could humiliate the others, on any given surface and day.

 

[thalivest]

I'll take another route.

A simple basic one.


8 years ago, Johansson won a grand slam, Clement was doing pretty well too.

Take today, take some Top 15 guys, like Gonzalez and Cilic for example.

Who would win?

Well, i'm willing to bet my mom and some more that the two, Cilic and Gonzo could humiliate the others, on any given surface and day.

Johansson beat Kafelnikov 8 times in a row. He wasnt the chump many think he is.

Clement made a fluke slam final. 33 year old Schuettler was in the Wimbledon semis two years ago. Take your pick.

What is so great about Gonzalez and Cilic? Gonzalez has one good shot, and Cilic is a young ball basher who has hardly achieved anything.

 

[dropserve]

It's true, the depth has grown.
We have 6-7 players who could be a threat in slams today.
3 years ago there were only 2 (fed-nadal).
2 years ago djoko got to the equation.
Today we have more.
The only thing that remains the same is Federer being No1, except 1 year.

The real change in atp will happen when Fed loses his No1 spot and stop being in all the slam finals. That may be in 1,2,3 or 4 years. It depends on many things.

The conclusion is that 300 weeks at No1 is a lock right now despite the observation that the depth has grown. The only real threat for Fed, Nadal, had injury problems and that caused him much ground.

I see Federer reaching at least 20 slams

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Johansson beat Kafelnikov 8 times in a row. He wasnt the chump many think he is.

Clement made a fluke slam final. 33 year old Schuettler was in the Wimbledon semis two years ago. Take your pick.

What is so great about Gonzalez and Cilic? Gonzalez has one good shot, and Cilic is a young ball basher who has hardly achieved anything.

Don't really know why I'm replying to this, 'cause by the looks of it you seem pretty turned against todays generation, but I'll give it a shot.

I'm not talking about the Gonzalez that loses to claycourt mugs in his hometown because he parties too much or something...or the Cilic that's been the victim of overloaded schedule.

I'm talking about the guy that thrashed/demolished Rafael Nadal about 3 years ago, and the guy that has had 2 consecutive great runs in grand slams in which he put down many of the top guys on the tour. Yeah, those would make any of those players you just mentioned: Kafelnikov, Schuettler, Clement, Johansson look like amateurs.

Oh and another fun fact, Gonzalez hits more winners with his backhand which is his (terrible) weak side than Clement has hit since 2003 with any shot.

And one more thing, the Schuettler run at Wimbledon is easy to explain: first of all there is no grass court season, which simply neutralizes the field from the start. Sure there are the big guys: Roger and Rafa, Roddick and some others that are very good on it, but besides them, there's a lot of mediocrity on this surface. Plus the fact that RS is a decent glass court player himself that had a very good draw that year. He quietly exited the tourney that year after a good ol' beatdown from Rafa, if my memory is correct.

Let's take a look at the current top 10, maybe even 15 and tell me a player that is so out of place that he could be definitely outclassed by any of the players that ventured at the top of the ATP 5-10 years ago?

The first 7 players are untouchable. On a decent day, it would take a whole lot of great tennis to beat those guys, no matter who you'll put them against from the previous era.

 

[thalivest]

Don't really know why I'm replying to this, 'cause by the looks of it you seem pretty turned against todays generation, but I'll give it a shot.

I'm not talking about the Gonzalez that loses to claycourt mugs in his hometown because he parties too much or something...or the Cilic that's been the victim of overloaded schedule.

I'm talking about the guy that thrashed/demolished Rafael Nadal about 3 years ago, and the guy that has had 2 consecutive great runs in grand slams in which he put down many of the top guys on the tour. Yeah, those would make any of those players you just mentioned: Kafelnikov, Schuettler, Clement, Johansson look like amateurs.

Actually you were dissing virtually every player outside the current top 10 when someone said Berdych was not the most talented player outside the top 10. You even called Monfils and Verdasco both jokes yet Monfils was ranked in the top 10 not long ago, and Verdasco was virtually all of last year. So make up your mind.

Kafelnikov has won 2 slam titles and the Olympic singles Gold and was ranked in the top 10 for many years. Are you actually implying Gonzalez is a better player than Kafelnikov, LOL! The 2007 Australian Open was the tournament of Gonzalez's life by far, and still didnt end up with the trophy. One event does not a career mark. I should also remind you that Davydenko is a weaker version of Kafelnikov's game and Davydenko is 6-0 or something vs Gonzalez.

As for Johansson he has a slam title, Masters title, and Davis Cup title. Gonzalez has an Olympic Gold in doubles.

Now back to Cilic. He has accomplished or proven what up to now exactly? His grand achievements thus far are scraping past a badly injured Del Potro and Roddick to make the semis of one slam where he lost easily, and beating Nadal to make a 500 final where he lost easily. Potential is not achievements.
Let me know when he has some more of those.

Oh and another fun fact, Gonzalez hits more winners with his backhand which is his (terrible) weak side than Clement has hit since 2003 with any shot.

Clement and Gonzalez are totally different players, Clement could only dream of hitting a forehand like Gonzalez, but Gonzalez could only dream of having the mobility and incredible defensive skills of Clement. Also you obviously never saw Clement in the early 2000s (his peak) play if you think Gonzalez's backhand is better.

And one more thing, the Schuettler run at Wimbledon is easy to explain: first of all there is no grass court season, which simply neutralizes the field from the start. Sure there are the big guys: Roger and Rafa, Roddick and some others that are very good on it, but besides them, there's a lot of mediocrity on this surface. Plus the fact that RS is a decent glass court player himself that had a very good draw that year. He quietly exited the tourney that year after a good ol' beatdown from Rafa, if my memory is correct.

Yes the current grass court field totally sucks. We are in agreement there.

Let's take a look at the current top 10, maybe even 15 and tell me a player that is so out of place that he could be definitely outclassed by any of the players that ventured at the top of the ATP 5-10 years ago?

The first 7 players are untouchable. On a decent day, it would take a whole lot of great tennis to beat those guys, no matter who you'll put them against from the previous era.

Teh first 7 players are untouchable!?!? Like I said earlier Davydenko is a lesser version of Kafelnikov's game, a poor mans Kafelnikov if you will, and Kafelnikov was beat up on by the top dogs of his era. Imagine Roddick playing in the early-mid 90s with Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang, Courier, and an array of surface specialists and you think he would be anywhere near untouchable.

Yes the current field is better than the mid 2000s, and the mid 2000s is better than the early 2000s. The fields in 1997, 1998, 2002 especialy were the worst in history so the field has improved gradually since then and isnt bad now. However it still isnt even close to the toughest field ever if that is what you are suggesting. It is a good field, which is a big improvement from 5-10 years ago, but still there have been better.

 

[Augustus]

Actually you were dissing virtually every player outside the current top 10 when someone said Berdych was not the most talented player outside the top 10. You even called Monfils and Verdasco both jokes yet Monfils was ranked in the top 10 not long ago, and Verdasco was virtually all of last year. So make up your mind.

Kafelnikov has won 2 slam titles and the Olympic singles Gold and was ranked in the top 10 for many years. Are you actually implying Gonzalez is a better player than Kafelnikov, LOL! The 2007 Australian Open was the tournament of Gonzalez's life by far, and still didnt end up with the trophy. One event does not a career mark. I should also remind you that Davydenko is a weaker version of Kafelnikov's game and Davydenko is 6-0 or something vs Gonzalez.

As for Johansson he has a slam title, Masters title, and Davis Cup title. Gonzalez has an Olympic Gold in doubles.

Now back to Cilic. He has accomplished or proven what up to now exactly? His grand achievements thus far are scraping past a badly injured Del Potro and Roddick to make the semis of one slam where he lost easily, and beating Nadal to make a 500 final where he lost easily. Potential is not achievements.
Let me know when he has some more of those.



Clement and Gonzalez are totally different players, Clement could only dream of hitting a forehand like Gonzalez, but Gonzalez could only dream of having the mobility and incredible defensive skills of Clement. Also you obviously never saw Clement in the early 2000s (his peak) play if you think Gonzalez's backhand is better.



Yes the current grass court field totally sucks. We are in agreement there.



Teh first 7 players are untouchable!?!? Like I said earlier Davydenko is a lesser version of Kafelnikov's game, a poor mans Kafelnikov if you will, and Kafelnikov was beat up on by the top dogs of his era. Imagine Roddick playing in the early-mid 90s with Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang, Courier, and an array of surface specialists and you think he would be anywhere near untouchable.

Yes the current field is better than the mid 2000s, and the mid 2000s is better than the early 2000s. The fields in 1997, 1998, 2002 especialy were the worst in history so the field has improved gradually since then and isnt bad now. However it still isnt even close to the toughest field ever if that is what you are suggesting. It is a good field, which is a big improvement from 5-10 years ago, but still there have been better.

Excellent post, I agree completely. Also Johansson wasn't a bad player at all, very big serve. When playing his best, he could have blown a sub-par Nadal off the court as well on HC.

Top 7 untouchable LMAO, just ask Djokovic or Murray what it feels like to be untouchable right now.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Actually you were dissing virtually every player outside the current top 10 when someone said Berdych was not the most talented player outside the top 10. You even called Monfils and Verdasco both jokes yet Monfils was ranked in the top 10 not long ago, and Verdasco was virtually all of last year. So make up your mind.

Kafelnikov has won 2 slam titles and the Olympic singles Gold and was ranked in the top 10 for many years. Are you actually implying Gonzalez is a better player than Kafelnikov, LOL! The 2007 Australian Open was the tournament of Gonzalez's life by far, and still didnt end up with the trophy. One event does not a career mark. I should also remind you that Davydenko is a weaker version of Kafelnikov's game and Davydenko is 6-0 or something vs Gonzalez.

As for Johansson he has a slam title, Masters title, and Davis Cup title. Gonzalez has an Olympic Gold in doubles.

Now back to Cilic. He has accomplished or proven what up to now exactly? His grand achievements thus far are scraping past a badly injured Del Potro and Roddick to make the semis of one slam where he lost easily, and beating Nadal to make a 500 final where he lost easily. Potential is not achievements.
Let me know when he has some more of those.



Clement and Gonzalez are totally different players, Clement could only dream of hitting a forehand like Gonzalez, but Gonzalez could only dream of having the mobility and incredible defensive skills of Clement. Also you obviously never saw Clement in the early 2000s (his peak) play if you think Gonzalez's backhand is better.



Yes the current grass court field totally sucks. We are in agreement there.



Teh first 7 players are untouchable!?!? Like I said earlier Davydenko is a lesser version of Kafelnikov's game, a poor mans Kafelnikov if you will, and Kafelnikov was beat up on by the top dogs of his era. Imagine Roddick playing in the early-mid 90s with Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang, Courier, and an array of surface specialists and you think he would be anywhere near untouchable.

Yes the current field is better than the mid 2000s, and the mid 2000s is better than the early 2000s. The fields in 1997, 1998, 2002 especialy were the worst in history so the field has improved gradually since then and isnt bad now. However it still isnt even close to the toughest field ever if that is what you are suggesting. It is a good field, which is a big improvement from 5-10 years ago, but still there have been better.

About your first part of this post: You need to check that thread again and read my explanation about the comparisons I made there and also keep in mind the context in which they were made and towards whom I was replying to.

I'm not saying Gonzalez is the GOAT or something.
We could go and discuss about this for ever and run around in circles too.

Fact is: I've been watching tennis for about a dozen years and I've noticed a couple of things and this is probably just a general impression of mine: I love tennis now, then I didn't, I just like it.

Why?...because tennis now is better, the players are better, the game is more competitive and attractive, and some players have really pushed the boundaries of this sport to where many wouldn't have thought it would come in years to come.

Sure...we don't really have any fast surfaces anymore, some things have changed etc... But still, I trust my instincts instead of over-analyzing and over-analyzing and comparing and reach to some conclusions that aren't highly mirroring any true light upon the real value of these eras.

Thing about rankings, there's been hundreds of players that have ventured in the Top 10 over the years, and one thing that I feel, is that the current one (which has been relatively constant for the last couple of years) is the strongest one. (I dare say, from the last 2 decades)

All those players that I watched then: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Rafter, Gaudio, Phillipoussiss. Let's compare them to a Davydenko, a Del Potro, a Roddick, maybe even a Soderling of today.

Just because the players in the first pack reached their peak during a time when there was virtually no other player that could dominate the men's field that doesn't mean too much. In fact, to me, for some of those, and for some occasions, it's worth half a crap.

I look at it like this: There were some grand slams, and some people had to take them, and no one backs off from that. Sure there have been some amazing runs (Safin, maybe that Ivanisevic win, due to the circumstances etc..), but you have to admit, there's no way some of those players would've even survived in a Top 5 of today, let alone pose any treats to the big guys.

A good example is how Federer simply thrashes Hewitt EVERY TIME he has the chance.

Btw, did you actually bring Kafelnikov's 2 slam wins into discussion?...like SERIOUSLY?...

Another favorite of mine from the aforementioned pack of all-time "greats" is Kuerten, another player that proved how strong past eras were. S U R E.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Top 7 untouchable LMAO, just ask Djokovic or Murray what it feels like to be untouchable right now.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I have read in awhile.

Please tell me you just didn't asses two players because of their off-form in two tournaments.

 

[thalivest]

Why wouldnt winning 2 slams be part of the discussion of you as a player (re- Kafelnikov)? What are you implying, that is someone you can just brush off about a players career as it if it didnt exist, LOL! If winning slams were easy why hasnt Davydenko won 2 of them, or even 1. I am not a Kafelnikov fan at all, in fact I found him a bore and sourpuss. However he did win 2 slams, that is a fact.

Another favorite of mine from the aforementioned pack of all-time "greats" is Kuerten, another player that proved how strong past eras were. S U R E.

Kuerten was a great player, especialy on clay. Do you not remember the schooling he gave prime Federer with a busted up hip? Heck he has a 2-1 head to head vs Federer despite all the matches being after hip surgery and even beat him in straight sets on hard courts in 2003 not long before Federer won Wimbledon.

 

[thalivest]

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I have read in awhile.

Please tell me you just didn't asses two players because of their off-form in two tournaments.

Djokovic last 2 years alone in slams has lost to not only Roddick and Tsonga, but a way past his prime Safin on grass, Kohlschreiber, 30 something Haas (a player of the weak early 2000s era) you refer to), and Tsonga. And dont even get me started listing on the long list of Murray's losses to not so great opponents since he first became a top 5 player in summer of 2008. Are they always off form?

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Why wouldnt winning 2 slams be part of the discussion of you as a player (re- Kafelnikov)? What are you implying, that is someone you can just brush off about a players career as it if it didnt exist, LOL! If winning slams were easy why hasnt Davydenko won 2 of them, or even 1.

Um, did you read my post?...and understand what I was aiming for?

(I think you take things too literal, actually what you're just asking me now is already answered in my two posts)

Okay, Davydenko hasn't won a slam because of some guys named Roger Federer, the best player of all time, and another dude from Spain, called Nadal, best clay courter of all time and also Top 4-5 in the last two decades of tennis.

Furthermore I will say this: Davydenko, which is a Top 6-10 player in the current field.

If he reaches a semi-final in the current field, it's like Kafelnikov winning 5 grand-slams in a row. That's my comparison.

And also, why are you always reporting players to their achievements in a certrain era when this thread is more about comparing fields from totally different periods?...do you really think it's that relevant?

I'd say, go on and look at their tennis, at their game and kind of the opposition they were up against to.

 

[Augustus]

About your first part of this post: You need to check that thread again and read my explanation about the comparisons I made there and also keep in mind the context in which they were made and towards whom I was replying to.

I'm not saying Gonzalez is the GOAT or something.
We could go and discuss about this for ever and run around in circles too.

Fact is: I've been watching tennis for about a dozen years and I've noticed a couple of things and this is probably just a general impression of mine: I love tennis now, then I didn't, I just like it.

Why?...because tennis now is better, the players are better, the game is more competitive and attractive, and some players have really pushed the boundaries of this sport to where many wouldn't have thought it would come in years to come.

Sure...we don't really have any fast surfaces anymore, some things have changed etc... But still, I trust my instincts instead of over-analyzing and over-analyzing and comparing and reach to some conclusions that aren't highly mirroring any true light upon the real value of these eras.

Thing about rankings, there's been hundreds of players that have ventured in the Top 10 over the years, and one thing that I feel, is that the current one (which has been relatively constant for the last couple of years) is the strongest one. (I dare say, from the last 2 decades)

All those players that I watched then: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Rafter, Gaudio, Phillipoussiss. Let's compare them to a Davydenko, a Del Potro, a Roddick, maybe even a Soderling of today.

Just because the players in the first pack reached their peak during a time when there was virtually no other player that could dominate the men's field that doesn't mean too much. In fact, to me, for some of those, and for some occasions, it's worth half a crap.

I look at it like this: There were some grand slams, and some people had to take them, and no one backs off from that. Sure there have been some amazing runs (Safin, maybe that Ivanisevic win, due to the circumstances etc..), but you have to admit, there's no way some of those players would've even survived in a Top 5 of today, let alone pose any treats to the big guys.

A good example is how Federer simply thrashes Hewitt EVERY TIME he has the chance.

Btw, did you actually bring Kafelnikov's 2 slam wins into discussion?...like SERIOUSLY?...

Another favorite of mine from the aforementioned pack of all-time "greats" is Kuerten, another player that proved how strong past eras were. S U R E.

What is your problem with Kafelnikov? He wasn't as bad as you make him look, he won those two slams fair and square, beating Sampras, Stich, Courier, Martin, Haas among others. I admit his draws weren't very hard and he certainly isn't one of the all time greats, but come on, you can't be serious if you say he would be dominated by Davydenko or Soderling.

About Hewitt, of course he's inferior to Federer as a tennis player but he's way past his prime as well. In 2000-2002 he was a very good player and dominated Federer early in their careers.

 

[El Diablo]

One needs to remember that ranking points are largely arbitrary and meaningless, and thus not an extremely useful way to assess players. For example, let's say the winner of a tournament receives 100 points. What shall we give the runner-up? 70 points? 50 points? 40 points? A choice is made by the people who do the ranking system, but it is ARBITRARY and has no absolute significance. If we give the runner up 70 points, two finals put him ahead of the guy who wins one tourney. If we give him 40 points, two finals have him trailing the guy who wins one tourney. It's all based on arbitrary decisions made ahead of time, not based on some kind of scale that would actually measure who the better player is (a scale that I doubt exists.)

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Djokovic last 2 years alone in slams has lost to not only Roddick and Tsonga, but a way past his prime Safin on grass, Kohlschreiber, 30 something Haas (a player of the weak early 2000s era) you refer to), and Tsonga. And dont even get me started listing on the long list of Murray's losses to not so great opponents since he first became a top 5 player in summer of 2008. Are they always off form?

Wait...

That argument is actually in my favor.

Tsonga and Roddick are both part of the current top10 (on and off for Tsonga) which proves furthermore how strong the field is.

Kohlscheiber, on that day, was possessed by tennis, and if you had watched that match, you'd agree with me, i'm sure. Upsets happen.

30 something Haas?....please read my opinion about the "grass court season"...plus mister Tommy is Top15 material, too bad he is always injured, which is why he isn't in the top in the first place.

 

[thalivest]

Um, did you read my post?...and understand what I was aiming for?

(I think you take things too literal, actually what you're just asking me now is already answered in my two posts)

Okay, Davydenko hasn't won a slam because of some guys named Roger Federer, the best player of all time, and another dude from Spain, called Nadal, best clay courter of all time and also Top 4-5 in the last two decades of tennis.

Furthermore I will say this: Davydenko, which is a Top 6-10 player in the current field.

If he reaches a semi-final in the current field, it's like Kafelnikov winning 5 grand-slams in a row. That's my comparison.

And also, why are you always reporting players to their achievements in a certrain era when this thread is more about comparing fields from totally different periods?...do you really think it's that relevant?

I'd say, go on and look at their tennis, at their game and kind of the opposition they were up against to.

Davydenko has never played Nadal in a slam. I dont believe he has even played Djokovic in a slam. His only slam meeting with Roddick was way back in January 2005. He hasnt played Murray or Del Potro in slams since they were even ranked in the top 20 that I know of, and his only slam meeting vs Hewitt I know of was back in 2003. Other than his slam losses to Federer, many which he blew many chances with easy errors if you watched those matches as I am sure you have, he hasnt lost to anyone near unbeatable.

I have watched both Kafelnikov and Davydenko play many times. Like I said Kafelnikov is an upgraded Davydenko. Let me ask you straight up though, do you really believe Davydenko is a better tennis player than Kafelnikov?

As for Federer, if Davydenko can give Federer such a hard time in slams multiple times times (2006 Australian, 2007 French, 2010 Australian) and if Kafelnikov is a much better version of Davydenko, why wouldnt Kafelnikov have been able to ever beat Federer in slams?

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

What is your problem with Kafelnikov? He wasn't as bad as you make him look, he won those two slams fair and square, beating Sampras, Stich, Courier, Martin, Haas among others. I admit his draws weren't very hard and he certainly isn't one of the all time greats, but come on, you can't be serious if you say he would be dominated by Davydenko or Soderling.

About Hewitt, of course he's inferior to Federer as a tennis player but he's way past his prime as well. In 2000-2002 he was a very good player and dominated Federer early in their careers.

Kafelnikov was good for his time, that's for sure. But nowhere near as good as those slam wins make him to be in others peoples eyes. There are many other players that are/were better than him that only had one slam win or none. He was an overachiever. Good for him.

If I had to draw a comparison I'd say he is a little bit worse than the Davydenko of today(last year form). A player that would be pleased enough to reach a quarter-final at best with the current field.

 

[Augustus]

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I have read in awhile.

Please tell me you just didn't asses two players because of their off-form in two tournaments.

Please explain to me why you describe Nadal (loses to a lot of players on HC, near unbeatable on clay though), Djokovic (actually was very good only in late 2007, early 2008, streaky after that period), Murray (only dominant in non-slam HC tournaments in 2008-2009), Del Potro (scary good during USO 2009, not much besides that), Roddick (good player yes, untouchable... yeah right), as untouchable.

What exactly makes them that much better than Kafelnikov, Kuerten (one of the all-time greats on clay) or even Johansson?

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Davydenko has never played Nadal in a slam. I dont believe he has even played Djokovic in a slam. His only slam meeting with Roddick was way back in January 2005. He hasnt played Murray or Del Potro in slams since they were even ranked in the top 20 that I know of, and his only slam meeting vs Hewitt I know of was back in 2003. Other than his slam losses to Federer, many which he blew many chances with easy errors if you watched those matches as I am sure you have, he hasnt lost to anyone near unbeatable.

I have watched both Kafelnikov and Davydenko play many times. Like I said Kafelnikov is an upgraded Davydenko. Let me ask you straight up though, do you really believe Davydenko is a better tennis player than Kafelnikov?

As for Federer, if Davydenko can give Federer such a hard time in slams multiple times times (2006 Australian, 2007 French, 2010 Australian) and if Kafelnikov is a much better version of Davydenko, why wouldnt Kafelnikov have been able to ever beat Federer in slams?

I'm talking about prime-Davydenko. He has been around for many years, and has progressed ever since he came on tour, he never really had a peak for most of his career so it's hard to put some results to his side and go and and banther about how good he is. I just look at his tennis and at what he has managed to show us all tennis fans when he is in his best form, which has been the last year or so.

The last question you put I cannot answer, because I don't think Kafelnikov is better than Davydenko.
Upgraded Davydenko?...don't think so, first of all, movement, movement, movement, movement.

Also don't forget Evgheny played on lightning fast surfaces in his prime, something that Davy hasn't benefited from.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Please explain to me why you describe Nadal (loses to a lot of players on HC, near unbeatable on clay though), Djokovic (actually was very good only in late 2007, early 2008, streaky after that period), Murray (only dominant in non-slam HC tournaments in 2008-2009), Del Potro (scary good during USO 2009, not much besides that), Roddick (good player yes, untouchable... yeah right), as untouchable.

What exactly makes them that much better than Kafelnikov, Kuerten (one of the all-time greats on clay) or even Johansson?

Their tennis.

All these players play against each other and against some other very talented players part of the strong field of today. So there you go...of course there are going to be less slam opportunities for them. It's simple math.

But I look at their tennis, and that's why I keep them in such high regards. Because they impress me, not their results.

Del Potro - can play scary tennis, scary for anyone.
Davydenko - plays ping-pong on a tennis court.
Roddick - can go unbrekable like few players have, even in the recent history of tennis.
Djokovic - unreal baselining tennis, UNREAL...in his prime of course
Nadal - words fall short to describe how far his tennis was up at some point...
Federer - g.o.a.t

Even the lesser ranked players:

Soderling: sheer, overwhelming power...
Tsonga - rare breed of tennis, on a good day can beat almost anyone...
Cilic - sharp shots, good serving, slingshot forehands, wicked player..
Gonzales - AO2007 has proven the monster that he can be...
Nalbandian - again, unreal baselining and construction of points...
and there are more...

 

[vandre]

It's true, the depth has grown.
We have 6-7 players who could be a threat in slams today.
3 years ago there were only 2 (fed-nadal).
2 years ago djoko got to the equation.
Today we have more.
The only thing that remains the same is Federer being No1, except 1 year.

who are these 6-7 who could be a threat in slams today? i don't see them. what do you mean by threat? are they threats to make it to the second week at a slam? are they capable of beating the big boys in a final after playing and winning 6 tough matches prior? again, i don't know who you'd be talking about.

btw, is djoko still in the equation?

 

[Augustus]

Their tennis.

All these players play against each other and against some other very talented players part of the strong field of today. So there you go...of course there are going to be less slam opportunities for them. It's simple math.

But I look at their tennis, and that's why I keep them in such high regards. Because they impress me, not their results.

Del Potro - can play scary tennis, scary for anyone.
Davydenko - plays ping-pong on a tennis court.
Roddick - can go unbrekable like few players have, even in the recent history of tennis.
Djokovic - unreal baselining tennis, UNREAL...in his prime of course
Nadal - words fall short to describe how far his tennis was up at some point...
Federer - g.o.a.t

Even the lesser ranked players:

Soderling: sheer, overwhelming power...
Tsonga - rare breed of tennis, on a good day can beat almost anyone...
Cilic - sharp shots, good serving, slingshot forehands, wicked player..
Gonzales - AO2007 has proven the monster that he can be...
Nalbandian - again, unreal baselining and construction of points...
and there are more...

Yeah of course, every top 20 player is capable of playing great tennis now and then. Soderling, Tsonga, Cilic, Gonzalez, Nalbandian can be very impressive from time to time, but at least just as often they look downright mediocre to me (in pro-terms of course).

Players like Philippousis, Kuerten (btw a better player than everybody on your list except Federer and Nadal) or Kafelnikov could play scary tennis as well, in my opinion they would be top 10-15 players in 2010 as well in their primes.

 

[davey25]

who are these 6-7 who could be a threat in slams today? i don't see them. what do you mean by threat? are they threats to make it to the second week at a slam? are they capable of beating the big boys in a final after playing and winning 6 tough matches prior? again, i don't know who you'd be talking about.

btw, is djoko still in the equation?

There are basically 2 guys who can win slams today. One is named Roger, one is named Rafael. The rest basically can only sneak one out by fluke essentialy. Djokovic was a bonafide slam contender from Spring 2007-Summer 2008 I will admit, despite only winning 1. He has plateaued and fallen off since then, and is no more than a pretender to actually win slams now. For all we know the Rafael as a potential slam winner may be no longer, and if that is the case dont be surprised if Roger wins the next 7 or more slams in a row. It is not like Djokovic or Murray will ever beat him in a slam in the next few years, let alone the remainder of the field. Del Potro could be good if he could ever stay healthy. Roger's non slams tanking these days (that is what he is doing like it or not people) and Rafa's injuries is making the field look like it has alot more "depth" then it really does.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

Yeah of course, every top 20 player is capable of playing great tennis now and then. Soderling, Tsonga, Cilic, Gonzalez, Nalbandian can be very impressive from time to time, but at least just as often they look downright mediocre to me (in pro-terms of course).

Players like Philippousis, Kuerten (btw a better player than everybody on your list except Federer and Nadal) or Kafelnikov could play scary tennis as well, in my opinion they would be top 10-15 players in 2010 as well in their primes.

Kuerten was a great clay courter. He had some good results on indoor courts as well, but because he wasn't a very complete player, I never ranked him to high.

Kafelnikov was just lucky to peak when he did, with his movement he would have a really hard time in the Top 30 today.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

funny how those who defend todays field as being deep come up with nothing else than their opinion to justify such belief...

yet, if in my opinion i say that Djokovic is not more impressive than Enqvist or that Nadal is not more impressive than Guga on clay, im just a plain fool and i have no basis for my opinion...

funny stuff...

 

[dmt]

funny how those who defend todays field as being deep come up with nothing else than their opinion to justify such belief...

yet, if in my opinion i say that Djokovic is not more impressive than Enqvist or that Nadal is not more impressive than Guga on clay, im just a plain fool and i have no basis for my opinion...

funny stuff...

Guga at his best was probably as good a claycourter as Nadal is, but he wasnt as consistent. Still both of them are fantastic claycourters

 

[davey25]

That is how I would compare Kuerten to Nadal on clay too. Kuerten at his best was atleast as good, but he was nowhere near as consistent as Nadal. That said the French Open was where he nearly always brought his best, and had hip stayed together he could have won 5-6 Frenchs by winning 2 or 3 out of the next 4 from 2002-2005.

 

[1970CRBase]

Kuerten was a great clay courter. He had some good results on indoor courts as well, but because he wasn't a very complete player, I never ranked him to high.

Kafelnikov was just lucky to peak when he did, with his movement he would have a really hard time in the Top 30 today.

Kafelnikov was good for his time, that's for sure. But nowhere near as good as those slam wins make him to be in others peoples eyes. There are many other players that are/were better than him that only had one slam win or none. He was an overachiever. Good for him.

If I had to draw a comparison I'd say he is a little bit worse than the Davydenko of today(last year form). A player that would be pleased enough to reach a quarter-final at best with the current field.

You are Pete or Fed or AA or any of those guys? You are in a position to offhandedly diss the two of the most talented top professional players of the 90's and talk about one being "incomplete" another being an "overachiever"? You are one of those many people better than Yevgeny who are so much better to be conceited enough to dare to snub his talent? Do any of these pros, who have reached the top of their craft, ever dare sit around and arrogantly, casually dismiss their peers left and right?

Ah yes, TTW, the land of super g.o.a.ts wherein it's inhabitants (and inmates) everyone, to a man & his keyboard all believe that they know better than the pros (most in particular Federer, incidentally), what they should do and how they should play their tennis!