2008: Return of 80's and 90's Tennis-the end of domination [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

2008: Return of 80's and 90's Tennis-the end of domination

sawan66278
03-23-2008, 05:04 PM
Okay...I've calmed down after the Rafa loss...and spent some time reflecting on the current scenario. What I find interesting is the reaction of MTF to the current state of the men's game.

Each loss by Rafa or Roger or Novak is sign that the player is facing complete humiliation...and a drop down the rankings into oblivion. Each victory over major opponents is viewed as complete ascension...and a sign of domination...a "running of the table" with respect to the slams. All or nothing.

What has led to this perception? I call it the Federer Exception. Roger Federer's dominance has NEVER been seen in the history of the sport. In the past, world #1's were clearly the best, but on ANY GIVEN DAY, they could lose...early...to players out of the top 10...and that was simply par for the course in a season so long.

Back in the 80's and 90's, before streaming matches, tennis channels, etc...each tournament was not under the magnifying glass. One would often not even be aware of losses or victories, if one didn't take a look through the scores in the newspapers the next day. There were no details about the matches themselves...just scores. Now, every match is seen, analyzed, discussed on the Internet...and blown out of proportion.

Believe me: players are not going to get caught up in feeling sorry for themselves if they lose in Rotterdam...or even most Masters Series events. Back in the 80's and 90's, top players regularly lost to their rivals...and nothing much was made about it. The slams were the only matches that got extensive coverage, and players and fans viewed tourneys as preparation for the slams...glorified training, if you will.

Now, a player like Novak defeats Rafa...and the fanboy/fangirl perception is that he will win most of the slams...making every final...and knocking Roger and Rafa out of their spots forever. Believe me: most players can hit all the shots...its all mindset...and that comes and goes. Yes, Novak will probably be #1, but will he stay #1 as long as Roger? Almost definitely not.

Federer may be the best player ever. But his reign of dominance was the exception, rather than the rule. Even Rafa's dominance at the #2 spot was the exception. During the eras of the 80's and 90's, even Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe, etc...never dominated to the extent that they won EVERYTHING...or did well in each slam.

Now, the men's game is returning to what it once was: a competitive arena where the top guys will be battling for the top spot and slam titles. And tennis will benefit for by this competition.

Let the games TRULY begin.

Action Jackson
03-23-2008, 05:06 PM
The answer to that is No.

This is what is known as a knee jerk reaction.

ltaravilse
03-23-2008, 05:10 PM
Novak will be at #1 longer than Roger... Roger's domination ends this year at Wimbledon

Smoke944
03-23-2008, 05:14 PM
The answer to that is No.

This is what is known as a knee jerk reaction.

...which is synonymous with an MTF reaction :cool:

Action Jackson
03-23-2008, 05:15 PM
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.

Boris Franz Ecker
03-23-2008, 05:15 PM
Roger Federer's dominance has NEVER been seen in the history of the sport.

Has been seen.

They called him Lendl.

Little exception was his final success.

DDrago2
03-23-2008, 05:58 PM
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" :)

sawan66278
03-23-2008, 06:46 PM
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.

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm unclear: what is a definite "no"?



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.

i am going to have to go along with some of the others here. Nadal and fed are having their problems for sure but as has been pointed out, Nadal is still the King of Clay and Fed is still the King of Grass. their crowns would have to snatched away in order to draw any reliable conclusions that the rest of the field has caught up.

Fed, Djokovic, and Nadal are a class apart still. rest do not come close. they may get their wins here and there but they are not nor ever will in league of the top 3. its easy to beat Rafa on hard courts but go take him on in a best of 5 sets match on clay and see what happens. he is 34-0 on clay in best of 5 sets matches. you can make that 41-0 already.

same with Fed on grass. he comes alive at Wimbledon and may be the best grass court player the world has ever seen. somebody has to actually snatch the Wimby away from him. same at the U.S. Open. I am predicting that Djokovic will win that title but it still has to be done.

Nadal`s game is limited and his knees will be shot unless he stays off the hard courts but Fed could regroup and fight back. we dont know for sure at this point.

bottom line: top 3 are a breed apart. the rest dont compare.

stebs
03-23-2008, 07:31 PM
Federer has for sure moved down a level from the unique results he achieved to something tangible but at the same time still for a major we have Nadal for RG, Federer for Wimbledon and then Djokovic for the USO. Yes the chances of an imposter breaking this up is very much higher than it was when Federer was crushing people but still tennis is no crapshoot right now and we have had one major and one AMS and look at the SF's; 3 of the 4 competitors the same and probably the same winner also. Tennis is beggining to look like it may be more competative but until that can be applied to more than just the HC's I can't get on board. Federer has 5 straight Wimbledons and Nadal has won 3 straight RG's plus almost every AMS in sight on the red stuff. Plus, look at the HC break ups, a slam a piece for Djokovic and Federer. If the Serb wins tonight that will also be 3 HC AMS events for him and one for Federer. It's hardly VERY competative when we have the 14 premier events in tennis split between four people.

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 07:38 PM
Federer has for sure moved down a level from the unique results he achieved to something tangible but at the same time still for a major we have Nadal for RG, Federer for Wimbledon and then Djokovic for the USO. Yes the chances of an imposter breaking this up is very much higher than it was when Federer was crushing people but still tennis is no crapshoot right now and we have had one major and one AMS and look at the SF's; 3 of the 4 competitors the same and probably the same winner also. Tennis is beggining to look like it may be more competative but until that can be applied to more than just the HC's I can't get on board. Federer has 5 straight Wimbledons and Nadal has won 3 straight RG's plus almost every AMS in sight on the red stuff. Plus, look at the HC break ups, a slam a piece for Djokovic and Federer. If the Serb wins tonight that will also be 3 HC AMS events for him and one for Federer. It's hardly VERY competative when we have the 14 premier events in tennis split between four people.

exactly.

sawan66278
03-23-2008, 08:18 PM
What I'm trying to say is that yes, there are three heavy favorites in the men's game. However, there is enough depth that these three CAN be knocked off earlier than the semis...Tsonga, Gasquet, Murray, Misha...these players have the ability to win...and prevent utter dominance...AT LEAST on hard courts.

Yes, Stebs, the possibility exists that on clay and grass, the top two will continue to dominate...but a loss here or there, does NOT mean lack of dominance. Too many people are predicting the complete fall of Rafa and Roger...and the utter dominance of Djokovic. And yet: Roddick won Dubai.

All I'm saying is that the men's game is TOO deep to assume that the Federerian form of dominance, by ANY player, will not be seen again...at least for a while...until Silva joins the tour.:devil:

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 08:31 PM
What I'm trying to say is that yes, there are three heavy favorites in the men's game. However, there is enough depth that these three CAN be knocked off earlier than the semis...Tsonga, Gasquet, Murray, Misha...these players have the ability to win...and prevent utter dominance...AT LEAST on hard courts.

Yes, Stebs, the possibility exists that on clay and grass, the top two will continue to dominate...but a loss here or there, does NOT mean lack of dominance. Too many people are predicting the complete fall of Rafa and Roger...and the utter dominance of Djokovic. And yet: Roddick won Dubai.

All I'm saying is that the men's game is TOO deep to assume that the Federerian form of dominance, by ANY player, will not be seen again...at least for a while...until Silva joins the tour.:devil:

Silva will take over the planet when the time comes. people can make book on that.


you are right. top guns can be knocked off here and it happened here in Indian Wells but it is more of an aberration. Fish cannot really consistently beat the top guns. Davydenko is a basket case sometimes and Hewitt is a has been. Nadal is in a major slump and Fed may have been ill. so this in not a good time to test the real domination of Nadal and Fed. they have--afterall-- owned the planet and all the slams and most the masters series events for the last 4 years. some of that is likely to conitnue as both will regroup and fight back.

maybe Djokovic is just what they needed to wake up.

juninhOH
03-23-2008, 08:35 PM
If the players read those threads they'd get depressed hahahaha (piggy roasting, fedtard excuses, nole thread)

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 08:39 PM
If the players read those threads they'd get depressed hahahaha (piggy roasting, fedtard excuses, nole thread)


nadal and fed are depressed. they have been reading our posts. tell them MTF also offers shrink services.

Sunset of Age
03-23-2008, 08:40 PM
nadal and fed are depressed. they have been reading our posts. tell them MTF also offers shrink services.

I can think of some other services I'm quite willing to offer them as well. :angel:

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 08:41 PM
I can think of some other services I'm quite willing to offer them as well. :angel:


and what might those service be? they dont like 100 year old women.

Sunset of Age
03-23-2008, 08:44 PM
and what might those service be? they dont like 100 year old women.

Ah, CD, gracious as ever. :worship:

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 08:47 PM
Ah, CD, gracious as ever. :worship:


you know i am playing. i think if Nadal read my posts, he would quit tennis.

Sunset of Age
03-23-2008, 08:51 PM
you know i am playing. i think if Nadal read my posts, he would quit tennis.

:lol: So am I, as you should know by now. ;)
And yes there are times I actually think you are trying to talk Raf into quitting his tennis career. :p

Clay Death
03-23-2008, 08:56 PM
:lol: So am I, as you should know by now. ;)
And yes there are times I actually think you are trying to talk Raf into quitting his tennis career. :p


not me. i need him to win 7 French Opens and i will be happy.

stebs
03-23-2008, 09:05 PM
i need him to win 7 French Opens and i will be happy.

Good to see you have realistic targets. :lol:

Action Jackson
03-24-2008, 08:35 AM
I'm unclear: what is a definite "no"?


It's pretty obvious what I was saying, stebs has pointed it out, as has Drago as well.

We are not seeing the end of domination and if there was true parity within the ATP, then the fact that Nadal and Federer are so far ahead on the respective surfaces I mentioned earlier, if they weren't, then there would be more credence to it.

BlueSwan
03-24-2008, 09:07 AM
Okay...I've calmed down after the Rafa loss...and spent some time reflecting on the current scenario. What I find interesting is the reaction of MTF to the current state of the men's game.

Each loss by Rafa or Roger or Novak is sign that the player is facing complete humiliation...and a drop down the rankings into oblivion. Each victory over major opponents is viewed as complete ascension...and a sign of domination...a "running of the table" with respect to the slams. All or nothing.

What has led to this perception? I call it the Federer Exception. Roger Federer's dominance has NEVER been seen in the history of the sport. In the past, world #1's were clearly the best, but on ANY GIVEN DAY, they could lose...early...to players out of the top 10...and that was simply par for the course in a season so long.

Back in the 80's and 90's, before streaming matches, tennis channels, etc...each tournament was not under the magnifying glass. One would often not even be aware of losses or victories, if one didn't take a look through the scores in the newspapers the next day. There were no details about the matches themselves...just scores. Now, every match is seen, analyzed, discussed on the Internet...and blown out of proportion.

Believe me: players are not going to get caught up in feeling sorry for themselves if they lose in Rotterdam...or even most Masters Series events. Back in the 80's and 90's, top players regularly lost to their rivals...and nothing much was made about it. The slams were the only matches that got extensive coverage, and players and fans viewed tourneys as preparation for the slams...glorified training, if you will.

Now, a player like Novak defeats Rafa...and the fanboy/fangirl perception is that he will win most of the slams...making every final...and knocking Roger and Rafa out of their spots forever. Believe me: most players can hit all the shots...its all mindset...and that comes and goes. Yes, Novak will probably be #1, but will he stay #1 as long as Roger? Almost definitely not.

Federer may be the best player ever. But his reign of dominance was the exception, rather than the rule. Even Rafa's dominance at the #2 spot was the exception. During the eras of the 80's and 90's, even Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe, etc...never dominated to the extent that they won EVERYTHING...or did well in each slam.

Now, the men's game is returning to what it once was: a competitive arena where the top guys will be battling for the top spot and slam titles. And tennis will benefit for by this competition.

Let the games TRULY begin.

Good post. I actually think that you touch upon one aspect of this that may in itself have changed the game. The very fact that EVERY match is scrutinized these days raises the stakes. More importance is attached to matches that previously noone took much notice of. This means that mental giants like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will seperate themselves from the rest of the field when it comes to consistency, even if the rest of the field has the ability to beat the top 3 on a given day.

Think of how Sampras conducted his career. Sampras took loads of losses in "unimportant" matches during any given season and noone made a big deal of it. Only the slams truly mattered. This also contributed to Sampras' longevity.

On the topic of Llendl, that someone else rose. Despite having an impressive career and having been #1 for more than 5 years combined, Llendl NEVER dominated the game. He was #1 because he was - by far - the most consistent player on the circuit. He remained focused year in and year out and rarely lost to players who weren't at the very top of the rankings - however Llendl often lost to the top players in the most important matches, as proven by his 11 losses in GS finals.