Originally Posted by PMK is Innocent
To expand on my earlier answer. Yes, it's a knee jerk reaction for these reasons.
One, it would need to happen over an extended period of time, for example a year to 18 months.
Two, Nadal could beat most of the players on clay right handed, using only one serve. This is far from competitive and also Federer on grass.
When the above happens, that they are challenged consistently on the surface, in relation to everything else, then there might be a shift.
Until that happens, then it's adefinite no.
I'm unclear: what is a definite "no"?
sawan, I'll answer you right away what the reason is - lately people tend to see things through a very narrow time-window and consequently judge players only for what they did in recent months. They are oblivious to past. This is not only tennis related but is unfortunately a global trend, a very dehumanising thing indeed.
"The Federer exception" was a very romantic and inspiring happening that should actualy cause different reactions. People seem to forget that on the beggining of 2004, nobody believed such dominance is possible since the world of modern tennis looked so competettive, with no one able to dominate. You make it sound like circumstances themselves during previous years led to one player dominating. But I clearly remember Andy Roddick commenting during AO 2004 how he expects no.1 to shift very often in future (and I also remember that Federer, being asked by a journalis to comment on that, answered with a smile "I don't think it will change so often"
What I'm trying to say is that, for a period of time, Roger dominated at a level unheard of. I truly believe that it was a combination of: Roger's genius, mediocre competition, and a failure of those WITH ability to generate the competitive fires necessary to fight (except Rafa). This is NOT to say that Roger would not have remained #1, but he would not have been, basically, in every semi or final. As a matter of fact, his all-around game regressed BECAUSE he didn't need to utilize all his skills. Roger was never forced to come to the net: and he is suffering now.
With the emergence of Tsonga, Murray...the continuing fight of Roddick and eccentric play of Nalbandian, the top player needs to bring his 'A' game to win...which is almost impossible to do at every tourney or throughout the season.
Look at the year 1985: Wilander won the French, Edberg won the AO, Becker won Wimbledon, and Lendl won the U.S. Open. Lendl was the clear #1...but he did NOT dominate. This will, I believe, be the case from this point forward.