By Amanda H. LeMay
Here we are at the quarterfinal stage of another grand slam and once again the top four seeds are poised to move on to take their places in the semis. In fact, over the last few years no one outside of the top 8 has made it to the semis of any grand slam and in the last decade only 3 men outside the current top 4 have won one. Some see this as a sign that we are living in a olden age of tennis. Few would dispute that Federer and Nadal (and perhaps Djokovic as well) are among the greatest to ever play the sport. But for fans is this top 4 dominance getting a little boring? I can’t think of any other sport in which the eventual title contenders are almost a foregone conclusion at the beginning of an event.
In golf, which is perhaps the best comparison as an individual sport, there have been 3 new winners at the last 4 major events and in the last decade there have been over 20 different winners at the majors. Even in team sports like football the preseason favorite is unlikely to emerge the champion at the end of the season. So what makes tennis so different? Are these top guys just that much better than the rest? It’s true that when one arrives at the top of the rankings he gets a lot of perks that help to keep him there.
The seeding system ensures that top guys don’t play each other until the later stages and in some tournaments they don’t even have to play in the first round where the system is in place. Then there is the privilege of always playing on the best courts and at the most advantageous times during the day. But at the end of the day is having the same final matches in tournament after tournament really the best for the sport? Casual tennis fans would hardly recognize the names of many exciting and capable players outside the top 20 because they rarely get their chance on the big stage. And hardcore fans regularly get their hopes up that maybe their lower ranked favorite can score an upset but it rarely happens. Maybe it is too mentally challenging for these players to believe they can really win against one of the big guys. Maybe the occasion is intimidating for them because they are used to the smaller courts with smaller crowds.
Whatever the reason though, I for one am ready for this to stop and some new blood to challenge for the big titles. I also think that more people might tune in to see some of these matches if their outcomes were a little less in doubt. How exciting would it be to have 4 NEW semifinalists at a big event? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the big 4 are boring as people but seeing only them at the end of every major is getting a bit tedious. So come on and step up Ernests, Grigor, Jerzy, Bernard and anyone else who we know has it in them to upset that close knit group. Tennis is ready!
ATP · Novak Djokovic · Rafael Nadal · Roger Federer
Scoop Malinowski · June 3, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Excellent essay Amanda as usual. Tennis and golf are so different, as so many new players emerge and win the majors like Bubba Watson, etc. Tennis seems very competitive but if the same four players are always winning, maybe it’s really not. It makes you wonder how TV ratings and sponsor money and attendance figures would be affected if the top 3 were not as dominant as they are in such a star driven sport as tennis.
Dan markowitz · June 3, 2013 at 4:43 pm
I think it’s more boring because of the matchups of Top 4 guys than the Top 4 always making semis. Ferrer makes it 5, but I’m not a big fan of any of the matchups with possible exception of Djoko-Fed. At the French, this year at least, Djoko-Nadal should be a great match. But Murray against anyone is not great and All except Fed from time to time play mostly defensive, spiny tennis. That’s why bbest match this year was Gulbis-Nadal.
Steve · June 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm
It would be great for tennis if Tsonga won a slam. He’s a very funny guy and, when he’s on, plays truly exciting tennis that’s totally different from Djoker’s and Nadal’s style of play. Sometimes I think even the top guys are bored.
Scoop Malinowski · June 3, 2013 at 6:26 pm
The top 4 are so strong I just can’t see Tsonga doing it. Tsonga can maybe beat one of them but not two or three in one tourney.
Mertov · June 3, 2013 at 7:38 pm
I think we have been spoiled. I can’t believe the quality of tennis in the matches between the top 4 are considered boring. Some of the past matches between Federer-Nadal, Federer-Djokovic, Djokovic-Nadal, and more recently Murray against one of those, in the last 6-7 years, have been easily the best quality of tennis and the most exciting matches that I have ever seen in my life, and I have been watching tennis closely since mid-to-late-70s. If these matches (and there are many, many of them, I am not just talking about 2006 Rome final, 2008 Wimbledon Final, 2011 Rome semi-final, or 2012 Australian Open Final.. There are dozens of them) do not satisfy you or you find that tennis boring, I don’t what will satisfy you, it certainly has not existed yet (unless before the 70s).
Borg-McEnroe-Connors Era also had pretty much the same semifinalist and finalists for years, and that was a golden era too, because the quality of tennis thrilled everyone and rivalries deceloped between high profile tennis. We have the same situation now.
Scoop Malinowski · June 3, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Agree Mertov, some people are going to complain no matter what. You never know when a certain match can turn into something special. I was mesmerized by Venus vs. Urszula Radwanska, what a physical battle that was, so hard fought, they both wanted it so bad. Kirilenko vs. Sands today was a good ending. Isner and Haas was amazing. So was Isner and Harrison. Djokovic vs. Murray can be somewhat lackluster, I understand that, both play so similarly. Bottom line, regardless of the era, there will be great matches and the opposite. It’s the nature of any sport. But I’m looking forward to this SF on Friday as much as any match in the last two decades.
tootsie · June 3, 2013 at 10:26 pm
You mean the semi final between Nadal and Haas? Yeah, I’m looking forward to that too. Not so much the semi between Tsonga and Ferrer though although Tsonga can sometimes make things interesting.
Scoop Malinowski · June 3, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Haas has a shot, he’s going to be dangerous. He has to be feeling almost unbeatable after surviving Isner and dominating Youzhny today. Djokovic will be ready though. This is his tournament to make history.
Dan Markowitz · June 4, 2013 at 12:58 am
Haas has as much chance as I do against Paul George in a game of one on one. I give Wawa about a 20 per cent chance of pulling the upset. Haas about a 10 per cent chance if Djoko’s whole support team gets on the wrong metro and ends up at Versailles.
loreley · June 4, 2013 at 2:50 am
“It makes you wonder how TV ratings and sponsor money and attendance figures would be affected if the top 3 were not as dominant as they are in such a star driven sport as tennis.”
There would be other stars. Nadal vs. Gulbis would catch the audience even more. Fedal is one-sided since ages & Djokovic/Nadal is grinding tennis, just that not always the same guy wins. People go to the big tournaments no matter what.
It’s not only that the top-4 are too good. The system helps them to stay on the top.
I’m afraid that Haas & Wawrinka have already too much tennis in their bodies to hurt Djokovic & Nadal. I don’t know about Tsonga. Clay is not his best surface. Robredo can’t win another 5-setter. So it’s almost safe to predict Ferrer vs. Federer & Djokovic vs. Nadal for the Semis.
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 6:55 am
I think you’re right Lorely about saying the system helps keep the top four players at the top. Maybe Gulbis will one day shed more light on this theory )
Dan Markowitz · June 4, 2013 at 7:45 am
Huh? How does the system help the top guys stay on top? I understand that they get to play the lower-ranked players, but still at the “business end” of events, they still have to beat the players who’ve survived. Are you saying the easy matches they have at the beginning of events makes it easier for them, or are there other systemic advantages?
Steve · June 4, 2013 at 7:48 am
It’s easy to root for the #1 ranked guy and piss on everyone else but Tsonga is 10x more interesting than the current #1. We all know this. Would be nice to breathe some life into tennis. Friends and co-workers still just ask me about veteran players like Serena. No one asks me for updates on Murray or Novak.
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 7:55 am
I like Djokovic’s character on the court and how he plays. I really like his fiery spirit too, he does it just the right way. Also, most importantly, he’s smarter than everyone else, the best one is always the smartest one. Americans are still not familiar with Djokovic yet Steve, not nearly as much as they are with Fed, Rafa and Serena who turned pro about 15 years ago. I think Djokovic will stay on top at #1 for several more years and he will become much more popular in America. This will be the third year in a row Djokovic is year end #1. Did you know Rafa never held year end #1 for two years in a row?
loreley · June 4, 2013 at 8:21 am
Dan, you know it also. I said it already.
“Too many players are seeded, everything is predictable because of that. Marc Rosset judged that 32 players are seeded. Said first rounds of the top-players became boring. Federer said, it’s OK to seperate them from the rest. Fans want them to go further. Simon was the first seeded player he had to play & he struggled. Think about that.”
It’s not only the seeding. They get always the main courts & a better practise schedule. With the big money from the sponsors they can afford the best coaches are able to manage their schedule perfectly. Even Top-50 players are playing again this week at Challengers. Hunting for points & money. They are hardly in best shape for the next big tournament. It’s often like a lottery for them.
I also think it’s arrogant from Federer to say it’s OK to speperate the top-guys from the rest. There are fans who would like to watch some other guys going far.
It’s true ppl like Champions. Doesn’t matter much who the Champion is. They like even jerks like Armstrong or this guy form Southafrica who killed his girlfriend.
Steve · June 4, 2013 at 8:27 am
Scoop, Novak has been in the mix for many years.
He played in the US Open final in 2007. How many more years does he need to resonate with American fans? It’s not happening. He’s a very nice guy for sure but Tsonga has the X factor tennis yearns for.
The OP was about how predictable tennis is. It’s stagnant. Hopefully someone new will come through for once.
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 8:31 am
Well said Lorely. You just about covered it all. Of course there was the infamous quote by Marcelo Rios who said if any of the top players ever tested positive, the fans and media would never hear about it. Not sure if that conspiracy theory holds any water but if it does, it would support your original assertion.
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 10:03 am
Steve, Fed and Rafa are two tough acts to follow. It’s like trying to follow popular icons Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson. As a foreigner from a very small country like Serbia, it’s even harder for Djokovic to be accepted and embraced. But I’ve liked him from the get go, since interviewing him after he beat Monfils in five sets at US Open as a teen. Always believed in his talent and smarts. I think he will one day be accepted and embraced all over the world for the great champion he is, but like I said, succeeding legends like Fed and Rafa is not an easy thing to do and people will at first resist accepting the interloper. Let me ask you a question: When was the last time the ATP was NOT predictable?
loreley · June 4, 2013 at 10:29 am
Probably before they changed the seedings & the speed of the courts.
Without looking up there have been more different Semifinalists & Champions that time. There were also more younger players in top-100.
Amanda · June 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
I think the ATP was less predictable in the early 2000s. You had Hewitt, Safin, JCF, Federer, Roddick, Sampras and others all competing for majors. It wasn’t until probably 2006 that Fedal starting totally dominating. The addition of Djokovic and Murray added a bit of spice at first but now it seems like there is such a gulf between them and the rest. It would be almost impossible to imagine a slam winner from out of the top 10 now – like when Tojo upset Marat to win Australia in 2002. He was #18 at the time. Can you imagine Gilles Simon (current #18) winning a slam??
Henk · June 4, 2013 at 10:36 am
Really don’t understand the fuss. Today’s top players weren’t top players when they started. They were up and coming potential top players once too. They had to go through the exact same thing as today’s up and coming players will have to go through. Today’s top five had to hit their way through the rankings and seedings and were facing the top players of their era, ranked as low as 50 or even lower. They were playing on what you consider “lesser” courts too until they became the main event(s).
It’s absolutely correct not to let top players face each other until the final rounds, simply because they have earned their status!
One of the reasons top seeds get byes is because they usually go deep in the previous tournaments.
Come on guys, I also really enjoy Milos, Ernests and Grigor. I, amongst others, watched Kei Nishikori in the Orange Bowl finals and when he won his first ATP tournament in Delray in 2008, I was regarded an idiot for writing it would be matter of time WHEN and not if he would join the top players. When he played Rafa at Queens that same year (08), Rafa already said then Kei had the potential to be top five. However, none of these guys are playing and winning as many matches as the present bunch of top players. You simply cannot compare Novak’s present 32 wins and 4 lost and Rafa’s 40-2 versus Milos’ 20-9, Grigor’s 19-12 and Ernests’ 21-8. Not even Tsonga’s 25-8 comes close to the top guys’ results.
So, let them earn their top spots, like all other top players have had to do. It’s like in real life. You want to give a Harvard graduate a top executive job immediately after graduation and before he’s tried some ground floor work? Or take away the top position from a guy with a less famous school’s degree but who has proven he is the best at his job?
Steve · June 4, 2013 at 10:38 am
Well there’s predictable and then there’s 10 consecutive slam finals by Fed, Rafa at the FO and the same three or four guys in every slam nowadays
Take the 90s, the’96 FO final, Kafelnikov vs. Stich.
Or Goran’s unseeded 2001 Wimby win (which I actually predicted cause he was my #1 fav. player) but 99% predicted Sampras at the outset…now that’s some exciting tennis.
What about Chang’s miracle victory at the French?
Harold · June 4, 2013 at 11:19 am
Henk is absolutely right. Everyone starts with zerp ATP points and earns their ranking. They scored a big win early in their careers and krpt going, probably winning the tournament. While guys like Gulbis and DImitrov don’t look like they’ll ever do that. So far, they have proven not to be mentally tough enough. I have watched Gulbis up close at all of his USO, great talent, but you can see the noise in his head, and you just wait for him to implode.
Tsonga and Berdych beat Fed in Quarters of Majors, it’s on them to go on and finish, not the big 4 to step aside,
As far as “boring” tennis, maybe someone here should open a Tennis Academy that features exciting tennis. The main object is to win, showing emotion, which half the time is phony, doesn’t do anything. Think guys like Hewitt cost himself stamina in the 5th sets of matches with his “come ons”
loreley · June 4, 2013 at 11:28 am
Seeding makes sense. Nobody denies that. But to seed 32 players is too much. It were only 16 players seeded before they changed it in 2001 Wimbledon. The reason was that some clay courters who used to lose in early rounds boycotted the tournament.
Byes are not a good thing. Other guys have to qualify or play week after week. They have to travel much more. The top players are better prepared & rested for most of the time. One reason for the Byes is that they want top-10 players for smaller tournaments.
I’m also not sure that all the players have to go the same path. Someone here pointed out that Federer was feeded with wildcards from the start. Look at the young players from US, France or Australia, they had/have it easier than the Pole Janowicz for example, because they get into main draws with wildcards. I’m pretty sure for Murray it was the same.
Remember Bodo saying that he didn’t believe that Djokovic would make it to the top, because he is from Serbia.
Harold · June 4, 2013 at 11:31 am
What is unfair is that the top 4 play all their matches with replay, that needs to changed
Harold · June 4, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Yes, number 1 junior’s get wildcards, plus i’m sure the ones that show the most potential and get signed by the bigger sponsors get as many WC ‘s as possible. But it’s a business and tournament directors are not in business to level the playing field.
The “bye” thing is a tough case.
Think the players union does a bad job by not having the 64 player draw tourneys have 64 players instead of 56.
But, it’s tough on top players playing in Finals on Sunday, then having to travel and play on Monday or Tuesday
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Very good discussion and well said Amanda, Henk, Steve and Loreley. Amanda it seems impossible that a longshot/lower seed like Johansson or Kuerten or Chang can win a major today. It’s just not happening. No way. So true about the travel and grind. The top players do not have to travel as much and that is another advantage. Of course they have earned that privilege. Another thing to contemplate: Hewitt got I think over ten WCs last year and Monfils also got close to ten in the last year. They are giving WCs to established veterans with marquee names and not the younger players anymore. Interviewing Charlie Pasarell for my Fed book he told me IMG’s Gavin Forbes asked for a WC for the young Fed and he gave it to him. I think giving all these WCs to the veterans like Hewitt and Monfils also tips the balance in favor of the older players, and it goes against the young up and comers. A small tip but still a tip nonetheless.
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm
True Amanda, also Nalbandian was in that mix, Gaudio too a little bit, Coria, Puerta, Moya, Albert Costa, Henman, Rafter, Philippoussis should have been more of a factor.
Amanda · June 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm
I didn’t mean to suggest that the top players all played boring tennis (although I don’t really like the defensive styles of Nadal and Murray). What I find boring is that they are the only ones who can make it to the end of these big tournaments. I would rather see some variety!
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 1:02 pm
I hear you Amanda, if Djokovic vs. Murray were to be the finals for the next four majors, it would be hard to get excited to see those finals. Rafa vs. Djokovic would be thrilling though. But like you say, the best would be to get some new players crashing these major final parties.
Scoop Malinowski · June 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm
BTW, an email from a friend who after seeing the Djokovic-Gencic conversation and video has now become a Djokovic fan this week. He was previously a huge Federer and also Rafa fan. This illustrates how Djokovic is beginning to gradually become embraced by the public. …
within a week i was concerted to be a novak fan becoz of you scoop, i was wrong with the impression of novak! let’s see now if he can win french, this will be the last surface he needed to win to be really called a great player. fed won in 2009, nadal won on all grandslam surface. he needs to win this year or there is always next year and after that next next year! he still young!
Another example is a friend down at the courts we play at, a black dentist named Tom, he bets Rafa I bet Djokovic, for the last couple of years. On Sunday when I offered to bet again on Djok, with him to take his man Rafa in the SF, to my surprise, he hesitated, muttered something about he has to think about it. I said “Why? You always bet Rafa.” He replied, “He wins too much.”
Amanda · June 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Well Tsonga is crashing the party but he isn’t really new – just pretty inconsistent. 😉 But anyway, at least there will be one new RG finalist this year. Yay!
Henk · June 4, 2013 at 1:38 pm
What some find “boring” others find attractive and amazing.
Best example of someone that, despite ending a year as World No.1 junior, did not get any wildcards is Marcos Baghdatis. He was so fortunate to have a (then starting) Patrick Mouratoglou as a sponsor/benefactor who took him under his wings and made him move from Cyprus to Paris in his very early teens. Without wildcards he had to fight through qualies and when given the opportunity to face Federer on center court in the 2nd round of the USO in 04, he charmed the whole world with his great smile and taking a set off Roger, accepting he still had some way to go. The year after (05) he faced Roger in the round of 16 at the AUS Open and then in 06 stood opposite Roger in the finals. Unfortunately his shoulders – at that time – couldn’t bear the big head he was getting (he admitted that) so he fell of the radar and has only once in a while shown what he’s really capable of.
What I’m trying to get at is, that if the talent, passion and true desire is there, that player WILL make it. No seeding, wildcard, bye or rich daddy is going to change that. To win a tournament you will have to beat all the others players on the way to championship.
Steve · June 4, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Stan kinda pulled his version of a McEnroe against Gasquet. He over-complained about some calls and recharged/reset himself and changed the momentum. This is very hard to do for most players. I wonder if he’s bold enough to try this against Rafa. Hopefully he won’t be mentally defeated before the match even begins.