top 10 in early 1999 vs top 10 in 2012 (an observation, not a battle) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

top 10 in early 1999 vs top 10 in 2012 (an observation, not a battle)

sexybeast
03-19-2012, 11:36 PM
No this is not a war between eras, but just an observation about how the disparity within the top 10 now is absolutely incredible compared to the years I remember as the most "egalitarian" which was the chaotic 98-99 years. Look at how close the top 10 was then in points:

15.03 1999

1 Moya, Carlos (ESP)-------------3,484
2 Sampras, Pete (USA)------------3,447
3 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)------3,382
4 Corretja, Alex (ESP)-----------3,250
5 Rafter, Patrick (AUS)----------3,115
6 Henman, Tim (GBR)--------------2,826
7 Krajicek, Richard (NED)--------2,677
8 Rios, Marcelo (CHI)------------2,434
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)------------2,376
10 Martin, Todd (USA)------------2,300

Now, 19.03 2012:

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)----------12,670
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)------------10,175
3 Federer, Roger (SUI)-----------9,350
4 Murray, Andy (GBR)-------------7,450
5 Ferrer, David (ESP)------------4,700
6 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)------4,535
7 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)-----------3,860
8 Fish, Mardy (USA)--------------2,910
9 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB)--------2,730
10 Isner, John (USA)-------------2,675

In 1999 the nr1 was 12% ahead of the nr5, in 2012 the nr1 is 170% ahead of the nr5.

In 1999 the nr1 was 51% ahead of the nr10 and in 2012 the nr1 is 373% ahead of the nr10.

Further more look at the slam results from AO 98 to AO 99:

AO 98 semifinalists: Kucera, Korda, Rios, Escude (Final: Korda df Rios)

RG 98 semfinalists: Mantilla, Moya, Corretja, Pioline (Final: Moya df Corretja)

Wimbledon 98 semfinalists: Henman, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras (Final: Sampras df Ivanisevic)

Usopen 98 semifinalists: Sampras, Rafter, Moya, Philippoussis) (Final: Rafter df Philippoussis)

AO 99 semifinalists: Enqvist, Kafelnikov, Lapentti, Haas (Final Kafelnikov df Enqvist)

So we have 10 different finalists in 5 finals (which would continue with Agassi df Medvedev), we have 18 different semifinalists in 20 semifinal spots (still found 4 new semifinalists in RG 99 with Agassi, Medvedev, Hrbaty, Meligeni) ....

Ofcourse in our own era we have between AO 2010 to AO 2011 4 different finalists in 5 finals and 6 semifinalists in 20 semifinal spots....

What do you prefer, the chaotic state of tennis without a dominant force which has the advantage of producing unexpected results and brings unpredictability to the sport (thereby excitement) or the brutal struggle for domination between 3-4 extremly dominant forces which reduces tennis to only be about 3-4 individuals, but also never allows the center stage in tennis to be reduced to mediocrity?

TBkeeper
03-19-2012, 11:45 PM
I've always like the chaotic state idk why ..... maybe cause i see many talents around fighting for it hardly

TennisOnWood
03-19-2012, 11:47 PM
I would love to see more younger players doing big stuff, but I can only dream about that this days

finishingmove
03-19-2012, 11:56 PM
This shows us Berdych (#7) would be #1 in 1999!

It's a strong era right now.

sexybeast
03-19-2012, 11:58 PM
This shows us Berdych (#7) would be #1 in 1999!

It's a strong era right now.

The points dont correspond what value they had in 99.

Saberq
03-20-2012, 12:00 AM
that's some good top 10 in 1999.......except Todd Martin

finishingmove
03-20-2012, 12:01 AM
The points dont correspond what value they had in 99.

Cool, so if you double the values, Murray would still be #1 :speakles:

156mphserve
03-20-2012, 12:09 AM
the WTA has been very chaotic for the past few years, no clear #1, and the top 10 has ben very close, and it's been terrible.

I don't prefer it been as predictable as it is now for the men with the same 4 players usually being in the semis, but being chaotic like the WTA is would be horrible

Middle ground is better, where the top players usually asert themselves as the big guns but it's still common for someone outside the big 4 to make a run

MuzzahLovah
03-20-2012, 12:10 AM
I do wish it was more unpredictable at the top.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 12:14 AM
Cool, so if you double the values, Murray would still be #1 :speakles:

Yes, Murray would by far be the nr1 in 1999.03.15, if we transform Moya's points to modern points:

Estoril SF 90
Barcelona SF 180
Monte Carlo W 1000
Rome R16 90
RG W 2000
Wimbledon R2 45
Stuttgart SF 90
USOPEN SF 720
Mallorca F 150
Master cup SF (3 RR wins) 600
Dubai SF 180
Indian Wells F 600

Total: 5745

Far away from Murray. Murray would probably be called a dominant force in the late 90s by beeing in 5 straight grand slam semifinals.

neme6
03-20-2012, 12:31 AM
can't compare their games at all, I've seen Agassi playing Chang a few weeks ago and they were both serving like they never did when they were in their prime, all that because of the new equipment... if they were playing in today's era they would have to change their own way of playing completely to be effective!

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 12:37 AM
can't compare their games at all, I've seen Agassi playing Chang a few weeks ago and they were both serving like they never did when they were in their prime, all that because of the new equipment... if they were playing in today's era they would have to change their own way of playing completely to be effective!

Like a cosine curve tennis pendles back and forward between chaos and order, it doesnt nescessarily have to do with equipment or surfaces, remember Mcenroe-Borg-Connors in the late 70s and early 80s? Or Laver-Rosewall in the late 60s?

Right now we are in an era of extreme order, in the late 90s and early 00s only chaos reigned. If Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic would travel together in Federer's jet and crash then thrust me we would be in for extreme chaos again.

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 12:41 AM
You have to remember how diverse the surfaces were in 1999. If we had these surfaces then, you'd have members of that pack breaking out. Agassi in particular I'd say.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 12:48 AM
You have to remember how diverse the surfaces were in 1999. If we had these surfaces then, you'd have members of that pack breaking out. Agassi in particular I'd say.

No, Agassi was still not completely into tennis in 98 and early 99. Change of surfaces cant really explain how AO 97-99 had 12 different semifinalists, or how Usopen 97-99 had 11 different semifinalists and Wimbledon 97-99 had 10 different semifinalists and RG 97-99 had 12 different semifinalists.

Surface change doesnt explain today's domination or late 90s/early 00s total lack of a dominant force or Mcenroe/Connors/Borg total domination and the early 70s chaotic period or Laver/Rosewall dominating the late 60s and so on.

Nagime
03-20-2012, 12:52 AM
I'm really surprised to not see Kuerten at the top10 because i remember that he went to QF at Roland Garros against Medvedev and if he won he would face the opponent of Moya vs Meligeni. At the time, you had bonus points according to the ranking of your opponent (God, i loved that! :D) and it was a really "big thing" in brazilian media, if Kuerten would prefer to face Meligeni, other brazilian in the SF or Moya, as if he won the title with a win over Moya (who had dropped already to number 4) he would be number 1. So, in 3 months, from number 17 (just saw it) to number 1 would be a crazy thing nowdays.

The only bad thing i remember about the bonus points - to take the topic more to the rules side of tennis - is that prevented foul play. A player who could withdraw from a match he was losing so the player couldn't get the points, as they weren't delivered if the win was by retirement. I can be mistaken, but i even think a doubtful case happened once.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 12:53 AM
I'm really surprised to not see Kuerten at the top10 because i remember that he went to QF at Roland Garros against Medvedev and if he won he would face the opponent of Moya vs Meligeni. At the time, you had bonus points according to the ranking of your opponent (God, i loved that! :D) and it was a really "big thing" in brazilian media, if Kuerten would prefer to face Meligeni, other brazilian in the SF or Moya, as if he won the title with a win over Moya (who had dropped already to number 4) he would be number 1. So, in 3 months, from number 17 (just saw it) to number 1 would be a crazy thing nowdays.

The only bad thing i remember about the bonus points - to take the topic more to the rules side of tennis - is that prevented foul play. A player who could withdraw from a match he was losing so the player couldn't get the points, as they weren't delivered if the win was by retirement. I can be mistaken, but i even think a doubtful case happened once.

This is exactly 13 years ago (15.03.1999) and thereby it doesnt take into account Kuerten's clay season 99.

Nagime
03-20-2012, 12:54 AM
Like a cosine curve tennis pendles back and forward between chaos and order, it doesnt nescessarily have to do with equipment or surfaces, remember Mcenroe-Borg-Connors in the late 70s and early 80s? Or Laver-Rosewall in the late 60s?

Right now we are in an era of extreme order, in the late 90s and early 00s only chaos reigned. If Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic would travel together in Federer's jet and crash then thrust me we would be in for extreme chaos again.

Gosh, Ferrer would be number 1 in the world :facepalm:

I'm afraid that even Murray dominating, he would still not be the king. I'm not so sure he going to semifinals or finals would convert everything in titles...

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 12:57 AM
Gosh, Ferrer would be number 1 in the world :facepalm:

I'm afraid that even Murray dominating, he would still not be the king. I'm not so sure he going to semifinals or finals would convert everything in titles...

No, Ferrer would not be nr1 at all, Ferrer would in fact be just outside the top 5, about the same ranking he got now (but a master series win away from the nr1 ranking).

If Murray would win or not slams in the 90s facing Korda, Lapentti instead of Djokovic and Federer I leave to other threads where it has been discussed.

Nagime
03-20-2012, 01:10 AM
This is exactly 13 years ago (15.03.1999) and thereby it doesnt take into account Kuerten's clay season 99.

Yes, but even now. Could you imagine n.16 Gasquet becoming top1 (or even top5) after Roland Garros? And it was not a perfect clay season. In the may 3rd ranking he was still 16 in the world, going to 14 on may 10 and 8th on may 24. So, it would be like Fish (or Berdych, or Del Potro or Isner) could go to number 1 after a Grand Slam title. With a RG title they would at most pass Ferrer and still be a very long way of top4. But if a guy from the top60, 70 like Kuerten himself on 97 would won 2.000 points today he would jump to the top10 right away, and at the time Kuerten only got to twenty something with his maiden title.

So, yes, today the points are very but very concentrate among the top4 players, and even the top8 in a matter of fact, and this is for sure happening because of the "neutralization" of the surfaces. So, for exemple, if Kuerten missed the clay season back then, he would probably be out of the top10 for the entire year. But now, if Ferrer loses it, he will still be number 5 (his best result is at AO actually).

Now on the trivia part, still about the RG99, which is a favorite tournament of mine, as growing watching tennis. The final were between Agassi (14) x Medvedev (100), as the semifinalists were Hrbaty (30) and Meligeni (54). Translated to today's rankings the semifinals would be between Monfils x Soderling (injured, but let's say Wawrinka 29 or Youzhny 31) and Karlovic vs. Ungur.

So you see, is not THAT difficult (ok, appart from Ungur, but you have to remember that Medvedev was a former top10). Yes, we have big names almost out of the top30, and distributed among the top100, even outside. But now for the physical part of the game, i can't see Hewitt doing a Ivanisevic run and even reaching the QF at Wimbledon...Because it now every draw is divided between Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray and who can beat them when (and very very very few who can do this - even once)

Nagime
03-20-2012, 01:11 AM
No, Ferrer would not be nr1 at all, Ferrer would in fact be just outside the top 5, about the same ranking he got now (but a master series win away from the nr1 ranking).


No, i mean if Nadal, Murray, Federer and Djoko would be killed in a crash (or by chaos lovers :p)!

Nagime
03-20-2012, 01:13 AM
One thing i certainly miss from the 90's (apart of Kuerten and Meligeni) are the moroccans. I always thought one of them (El aynaoui?) would be the next big thing - on clay? - but never happened

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 02:19 AM
No, i mean if Nadal, Murray, Federer and Djoko would be killed in a crash (or by chaos lovers :p)!

Ok, I dont know if Ferrer would be nr1 at all. In chaos totaly unexpected things might happen, I can see someone like Gasquet winning RG or Wimbledon without the top 4 around, or how about Almagro becoming top 3 winning RG, maybe Roddick would go win Wimbledon or someone like Nalbandian doing a magic run in Australian Open. Who would be nr1? Who would win slams? I think various players would be nr1, anyone in the top 15 would have a fair chanse to win a slam, some guys outside top 50 could make a run to slam finals. Tomic might also break through at any minute in that case and so on, but you are right that Ferrer would be the most consistant player who would probably be nr1 more often than most guys.

n8
03-20-2012, 03:06 AM
Thanks so much for choosing the exact ranking edition Moya was number one. Things were so different back then. Top players lost in early rounds very often and it wasn't a big deal. Now if one of the top four go out early it's a riot.

In the year preceding Moya's rise to the top he lost in one of his first two matches of:
Miami
Hamburg
Halle
Wimbledon
Umag
Cincinnati
Indianapolis
Long Island
Vienna
Stuttgart
Paris
Sydney
Australian Open
Marseille

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 03:07 AM
Of course the OP is at it again trying with the era thing. Doesn't take into account the surfaces.

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 03:18 AM
No, Agassi was still not completely into tennis in 98 and early 99. Change of surfaces cant really explain how AO 97-99 had 12 different semifinalists, or how Usopen 97-99 had 11 different semifinalists and Wimbledon 97-99 had 10 different semifinalists and RG 97-99 had 12 different semifinalists.

Surface change doesnt explain today's domination or late 90s/early 00s total lack of a dominant force or Mcenroe/Connors/Borg total domination and the early 70s chaotic period or Laver/Rosewall dominating the late 60s and so on.

Surface change does because all of them today are similar in speed and players can play the same game on all of them. The only problem comes if a player struggles with movement on a particular surface.

Back then things were very diverse, hence the semi final line ups varied in a lot of the slams that were played.

McEnroe didn't dominate clay and Lendl didn't dominate grass btw.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:19 AM
Thanks so much for choosing the exact ranking edition Moya was number one. Things were so different back then. Top players lost in early rounds very often and it wasn't a big deal. Now if one of the top four go out early it's a riot.

In the year preceding Moya's rise to the top he lost in one of his first two matches of:
Miami
Hamburg
Halle
Wimbledon
Umag
Cincinnati
Indianapolis
Long Island
Vienna
Stuttgart
Paris
Sydney
Australian Open
Marseille

Yes, everyone could lose almost at any moment anywhere except Sampras in Wimbledon. Crazy things happened in that era, for example Korda and Rios played in rd1 in Australian Open 97 where Rios easily beat him in 3 sets and next year Rios and Korda were playing final against each other. One very negative thing in this era were AO finals, that was too random for its own good, here I have seen horrible finals in late 90s and early 00s, a negative outcome from all the chaos (on the other hand very exciting early rounds).

Take a look at some of the finals:

97 Sampras df Moya 6-2 6-3 6-3
98 Korda df Rios 6-2 6-2 6-2
01 Agassi df Clement 6-4 6-2 6-2
03 Agassi df Schuettler 6-2 6-2 6-1

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:23 AM
Surface change does because all of them today are similar in speed and players can play the same game on all of them. The only problem comes if a player struggles with movement on a particular surface.

Back then things were very diverse, hence the semi final line ups varied in a lot of the slams that were played.

McEnroe didn't dominate clay and Lendl didn't dominate grass btw.

Once again within every surface no one could dominate except Sampras. No one could dominate any slam, anyone could beat anyone. It has very little to do with surfaces, AO 97-99 had no semifinalist in common and it was all played on the same surface.

In fact with today's surfaces back in the late 90s it would become even more unpredictable because Sampras would not dominate grass (the only thing consistant in the late 90s was Sampras on grass).

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 03:31 AM
Once again within every surface no one could dominate except Sampras. No one could dominate any slam, anyone could beat anyone. It has very little to do with surfaces, AO 97-99 had no semifinalist in common and it was all played on the same surface.

In fact with today's surfaces back in the late 90s it would become even more unpredictable because Sampras would not dominate grass (the only thing consistant in the late 90s was Sampras on grass).

In my opinion, Agassi, whose game transcended to slow courts well (and likes faster clay) would have been at the top of the game if you put the surfaces of today back to 1999. It's simply perfect for his game whereas a finesse player like Rios would probably drop due to defensive grinders thriving.

With those surfaces being faster, what you also should take into account is the ability for a player to 'get hot' and have a good two weeks hitting the ball. Nowadays if they 'get hot' they'd just find the ball coming back over the net over and over and over if they tried it on these courts against these top players.

Schuettler did that in 2003. In fact his AO draw was a very tough and impressive run with the only asterisk being Safin's pullout in R3. Blake, Nalbandian and Roddick were knocked over before Agassi's destruction.

BigJohn
03-20-2012, 03:32 AM
The WTA used to be like the ATP is right now (a couple of players always on top of everybody else) and the ATP used to be anyone can win. It's like the two tours dynamics flip-flopped.

I do find it more interesting when there is a lot of competition, but it was great to see Graf, Seles, Hingis, Henin dominate the tour (these ladies were good players even if one was loud), just like it was a joy to see Federer in his glorious reign. Luckily, it is very unlikely that we'll see another Fed domination era, so things are about to get interesting again.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:33 AM
Of course the OP is at it again trying with the era thing. Doesn't take into account the surfaces.

Surfaces? What is to say about surfaces?

The 90s was so unpredictable that Rafter and Krajicek played RG semifinals, that is on slower claycourts than today. Ivanisevic played 2 clay master series finals, not much more needs to be said really.

You can throw in any surfaces you want, you can make players in the late 90s play only on rebound ace all year long and you would still not be able to predict who would be in semifinal in any tournament.

reery
03-20-2012, 03:40 AM
6 slam winners vs 3 slam winners now.

Homogenization of the surfaces allows the same players to dominate and win Career Slams now.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:40 AM
In my opinion, Agassi, whose game transcended to slow courts well (and likes faster clay) would have been at the top of the game if you put the surfaces of today back to 1999. It's simply perfect for his game whereas a finesse player like Rios would probably drop due to defensive grinders thriving.

With those surfaces being faster, what you also should take into account is the ability for a player to 'get hot' and have a good two weeks hitting the ball. Nowadays if they 'get hot' they'd just find the ball coming back over the net over and over and over if they tried it on these courts against these top players.

Schuettler did that in 2003. In fact his AO draw was a very tough and impressive run with the only asterisk being Safin's pullout in R3. Blake, Nalbandian and Roddick were knocked over before Agassi's destruction.

Agassi would indeed benefit from today's surfaces in the 90s, but he was not consistent like players today. He was beatable, could be taken out in early rounds on his favorite surfaces.

Faster claycourts would be specially to Agassi's advantage, he was several times beaten by claycourt specialists in QF or so in RG, in Wimbledon obviously he would like his chanses atleast in lets say 01 Wimbledon. I still dont see Agassi beating Sampras on any kind of grass.

I really dont think you can change surfaces to end the top 4 domination today, you could only change the order within the top 4. If you play in ultrafast grasscourts you would make Federer almost uneatable, on Monte Carlo like claycourts in RG Nadal is unbeatable (also even in MC Djokovic and Federer have been his main rivals). No one would challenge the top 4 on any kind of surface really, Djokovic would probably not get to SF on 90s grasscourts.

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 03:48 AM
6 slam winners vs 3 slam winners now.

Homogenization of the surfaces allows the same players to dominate and win Career Slams now.

Very simple and Federer was honest enough to say that for himself.

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 03:51 AM
Agassi would indeed benefit from today's surfaces in the 90s, but he was not consistent like players today. He was beatable, could be taken out in early rounds on his favorite surfaces.

Faster claycourts would be specially to Agassi's advantage, he was several times beaten by claycourt specialists in QF or so in RG, in Wimbledon obviously he would like his chanses atleast in lets say 01 Wimbledon. I still dont see Agassi beating Sampras on any kind of grass.

I really dont think you can change surfaces to end the top 4 domination today, you could only change the order within the top 4. If you play in ultrafast grasscourts you would make Federer almost uneatable, on Monte Carlo like claycourts in RG Nadal is unbeatable (also even in MC Djokovic and Federer have been his main rivals). No one would challenge the top 4 on any kind of surface really, Djokovic would probably not get to SF on 90s grasscourts.

If you brought those surfaces to today it's pretty simple. Nadal rules on only clay, Djokovic's success would be limited to maybe Australia, while this past-prime Fed is vulnerable to a hot ballbasher these days and that's where a Berdych or a Tsonga might win the US Open or Wimbledon (in Jo's case)

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:52 AM
6 slam winners vs 3 slam winners now.

Homogenization of the surfaces allows the same players to dominate and win Career Slams now.

You will see that when this top 4 ends we will have the same kind of surface but no one will be able to dominate in the transition era that will come, look at the WTA playing on these homogenized surfaces and no one can dominate anyone.

jcempire
03-20-2012, 03:53 AM
No this is not a war between eras, but just an observation about how the disparity within the top 10 now is absolutely incredible compared to the years I remember as the most "egalitarian" which was the chaotic 98-99 years. Look at how close the top 10 was then in points:

15.03 1999

1 Moya, Carlos (ESP)-------------3,484
2 Sampras, Pete (USA)------------3,447
3 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)------3,382
4 Corretja, Alex (ESP)-----------3,250
5 Rafter, Patrick (AUS)----------3,115
6 Henman, Tim (GBR)--------------2,826
7 Krajicek, Richard (NED)--------2,677
8 Rios, Marcelo (CHI)------------2,434
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)------------2,376
10 Martin, Todd (USA)------------2,300

Now, 19.03 2012:

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)----------12,670
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)------------10,175
3 Federer, Roger (SUI)-----------9,350
4 Murray, Andy (GBR)-------------7,450
5 Ferrer, David (ESP)------------4,700
6 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)------4,535
7 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)-----------3,860
8 Fish, Mardy (USA)--------------2,910
9 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB)--------2,730
10 Isner, John (USA)-------------2,675

In 1999 the nr1 was 12% ahead of the nr5, in 2012 the nr1 is 170% ahead of the nr5.

In 1999 the nr1 was 51% ahead of the nr10 and in 2012 the nr1 is 373% ahead of the nr10.

Further more look at the slam results from AO 98 to AO 99:

AO 98 semifinalists: Kucera, Korda, Rios, Escude (Final: Korda df Rios)

RG 98 semfinalists: Mantilla, Moya, Corretja, Pioline (Final: Moya df Corretja)

Wimbledon 98 semfinalists: Henman, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras (Final: Sampras df Ivanisevic)

Usopen 98 semifinalists: Sampras, Rafter, Moya, Philippoussis) (Final: Rafter df Philippoussis)

AO 99 semifinalists: Enqvist, Kafelnikov, Lapentti, Haas (Final Kafelnikov df Enqvist)

So we have 10 different finalists in 5 finals (which would continue with Agassi df Medvedev), we have 18 different semifinalists in 20 semifinal spots (still found 4 new semifinalists in RG 99 with Agassi, Medvedev, Hrbaty, Meligeni) ....

Ofcourse in our own era we have between AO 2010 to AO 2011 4 different finalists in 5 finals and 6 semifinalists in 20 semifinal spots....

What do you prefer, the chaotic state of tennis without a dominant force which has the advantage of producing unexpected results and brings unpredictability to the sport (thereby excitement) or the brutal struggle for domination between 3-4 extremly dominant forces which reduces tennis to only be about 3-4 individuals, but also never allows the center stage in tennis to be reduced to mediocrity?

I can't agree with you

If you can put them on same page. I don't think Top 10 in today would beat those guys in 1999

Noway

Sport is not just sport in today
So be smart, Players not get better in today

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 03:54 AM
You will see that when this top 4 ends we will have the same kind of surface but no one will be able to dominate in the transition era that will come, look at the WTA playing on these homogenized surfaces and no one can dominate anyone.

That's because the WTA's full of hot and cold erratic ballbashers. The top of the ATP is defensive grinders who are unbeatable cos the courts are too slow for any 'ballstrikers' to beat them with attacking tennis.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:55 AM
If you brought those surfaces to today it's pretty simple. Nadal rules on only clay, Djokovic's success would be limited to maybe Australia, while this past-prime Fed is vulnerable to a hot ballbasher these days and that's where a Berdych or a Tsonga might win the US Open or Wimbledon (in Jo's case)

I can see Tsonga winning Wimbledon 2011 on faster grasscourts, but that is the only case I can remember where clearly it felt someone outside the top 4 could win. Berdych would not beat Nadal 2010 on any grasscourt, he couldnt return Nadal's serve even on slow grasscourts and he is a headcase.

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 03:56 AM
I can see Tsonga winning Wimbledon 2011 on faster grasscourts, but that is the only case I can remember where clearly it felt someone outside the top 4 could win. Berdych would not beat Nadal 2010 on any grasscourt, he couldnt return Nadal's serve even on slow grasscourts and he is a headcase.

I was thinking more the US Open in Berdych's case.

jcempire
03-20-2012, 03:57 AM
And I believe we can put those guy in a 3D movie

i believe guys in today would lose to guys in 1999

I would go all in.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 04:00 AM
I was thinking more the US Open in Berdych's case.

I think the Usopen has been pretty fast except maybe in 2011, I dont even remember people complaining about Usopen slowing down before Nadal started to win there. Anyway, Berdych would not beat Nadal 2010 and not Djokovic 2011 (he couldnt beat Djokovic even when Djokovic was semi-injured on the fastest outdoor hardcourt tournament in Cincinatti). Also Berdych is horrible in the Usopen, has never even been to QF.

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 04:01 AM
I think the Usopen has been pretty fast except maybe in 2011, I dont even remember people complaining about Usopen slowing down before Nadal started to win there. Anyway, Berdych would not beat Nadal 2010 and not Djokovic 2011 (he couldnt beat Djokovic even when Djokovic was semi-injured on the fastest outdoor hardcourt tournament in Cincinatti).

US Open slowed down in 05 with the blue courts but still remained medium/fast in pace until 2011 when they slowed it down big time.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 04:07 AM
US Open slowed down in 05 with the blue courts but still remained medium/fast in pace until 2011 when they slowed it down big time.

But how fast do you want courts to be to stop the top 4? I think of the fastest tournaments like Cincinatti and Dubai where the top 4 has dominated every year (mostly Djokovic/Federer/Murray). Queens and Halle have mostly been dominated by Federer/Nadal/Murray aswell.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 04:09 AM
I dont belive in the hypothesis about faster courts meaning more unpredictability at all, in the late 90s the most predictable tournaments were Wimbledon and 2nd to Wimbledon Usopen. Australian Open was completely unpredictable and RG was not the same any 2 years.

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 04:10 AM
But how fast do you want courts to be to stop the top 4? I think of the fastest tournaments like Cincinatti and Dubai where the top 4 has dominated every year (mostly Djokovic/Federer/Murray). Queens and Halle have mostly been dominated by Federer/Nadal/Murray aswell.

Federer likes fast hard courts of course so his Cincy and Dubai runs are no surprise. And Nadal only won Queens once, he's been taken out by the likes of Mahut and Tsonga there.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 04:17 AM
Federer likes fast hard courts of course so his Cincy and Dubai runs are no surprise. And Nadal only won Queens once, he's been taken out by the likes of Mahut and Tsonga there.

Point is that someone in the top 4 will dominate every kind of surface, make it faster and Federer wont lose a set like he has done in Cincy, Basel, Halle and Dubai so many times. Make clay slower and Nadal will lose no more than 2 games per set, like in Monte Carlo or the slowest, most rainy edition of RG I can remember i nrecent time in 2008. Djokovic and Murray will do fine on most kind of courts, Djokovic not so much on fast grass and indoor and Murray not so much on clay (even if he played wonderful in Monte Carlo last year).

rocketassist
03-20-2012, 04:19 AM
Point is that someone in the top 4 will dominate every kind of surface, make it faster and Federer wont lose a set like he has done in Cincy, Basel, Halle and Dubai so many times. Make clay slower and Nadal will lose no more than 2 games per set, like in Monte Carlo or the slowest, most rainy edition of RG I can remember i nrecent time in 2008. Djokovic and Murray will do fine on most kind of courts, Djokovic not so much on fast grass and indoor and Murray not so much on clay (even if he played wonderful in Monte Carlo last year).

The point is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will lose more often playing their normal game on faster courts if their opponent's having a hot ballstriking day cause they won't be able to miraculously get every shot back in play.

Asadinator
03-20-2012, 05:02 AM
The WTA used to be like the ATP is right now (a couple of players always on top of everybody else) and the ATP used to be anyone can win. It's like the two tours dynamics flip-flopped.

I do find it more interesting when there is a lot of competition, but it was great to see Graf, Seles, Hingis, Henin dominate the tour (these ladies were good players even if one was loud), just like it was a joy to see Federer in his glorious reign. Luckily, it is very unlikely that we'll see another Fed domination era, so things are about to get interesting again.

Except that ATP in 1999 is much better than WTA of 2012.

heya
03-20-2012, 07:23 AM
djokovic was not playing his normal game in dubai and indian wells. he obviously was very passive and unintense. he was just going through the motions.
in indian wells, he rarely ever lost serve at 5-3, and totally served horribly and did nothing on 0-30 chances like in the semi. if he was in need of winning this, he would've won in 2 sets vs. isner.

TennisGrandSlam
03-20-2012, 07:39 AM
Sampras was not very dominant in 1998, he won only 4 titles including Wimbledon.

Without doubt, Why Rios, Rafter, Moya and Kafelnikov could take NO.1 within 1998-99.

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 07:40 AM
Except that ATP in 1999 is much better than WTA of 2012.

This.

cmoss
03-20-2012, 07:47 AM
I want some fresh air. :rolleyes:

Let there be chaos!!

Navratil
03-20-2012, 09:03 AM
The points dont correspond what value they had in 99.

Ok but Berdych's results (1 GS final + 1 GS semi in 2010) could have been worth a # 1 ranking a decade before ;)

After the domination of Sampras and Agassi the was a real big gap on the ATP tour 1999.

Moya, Rios & Co were the Wozniackis of the ATP :D



The tour level these days with 3 GOATS at the top plus Murray, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick & Co is better than ever!

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 09:20 AM
The tour level these days with 3 GOATS at the top plus Murray, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick & Co is better than ever!

Hahahahahaha.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-20-2012, 11:06 AM
1999-2005 greatest tennis era

almost a metaphor for life itself

you had the choas
then you had the first signs of order and control (hewitt)
you had the old guard making a last stand (agassi)
you had the young pretenders making a mockery of rankings (safin- federer at wimbledon)

then you had the true legend take charge- (federer)

asmazif
03-20-2012, 11:18 AM
the young pretenders making a mockery of rankings is my favourite aspect of life

BigJohn
03-20-2012, 11:40 AM
Except that ATP in 1999 is much better than WTA of 2012.

This.

Was talking about the tour hierarchy dynamics...

Timariot
03-20-2012, 01:38 PM
Point is that someone in the top 4 will dominate every kind of surface, make it faster and Federer wont lose a set like he has done in Cincy, Basel, Halle and Dubai so many times. Make clay slower and Nadal will lose no more than 2 games per set, like in Monte Carlo or the slowest, most rainy edition of RG I can remember i nrecent time in 2008. Djokovic and Murray will do fine on most kind of courts, Djokovic not so much on fast grass and indoor and Murray not so much on clay (even if he played wonderful in Monte Carlo last year).

It is generally agreed (including by players themselves, at least Federer and IIRC also Nadal have addressed the issue) that slowing of the courts has magnified the differences between players. Back in the '90s, if you met a player with a good serve, who was having a great day, you were going to lose, regardless of who you were. Another, smaller factor is that Slams had only 16 seeds, odds of meeting a really good player at R1 or 2 were much greater.

Although back in the day of 1999, the parity and crazy changing of #1 players were widely moaned about (compared to well-organized pecking order and rivalries on WTA), one has to admit that in retrospect, that Top 10 was really strong.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 01:48 PM
It is generally agreed (including by players themselves, at least Federer and IIRC also Nadal have addressed the issue) that slowing of the courts has magnified the differences between players. Back in the '90s, if you met a player with a good serve, who was having a great day, you were going to lose, regardless of who you were. Another, smaller factor is that Slams had only 16 seeds, odds of meeting a really good player at R1 or 2 were much greater.

Although back in the day of 1999, the parity and crazy changing of #1 players were widely moaned about (compared to well-organized pecking order and rivalries on WTA), one has to admit that in retrospect, that Top 10 was really strong.

It is ok to prefer chaotic state in tennis to a few players dominating, but to make it about surfaces is to miss the point. I mean if slow courts is good for whoever dominates tennis then how come complete chaos has reigned in rebound ace in Australia the whole late 90s and early 00s while Sampras dominating fast grasscourts was more predictable than death in the 90s?

If anything slower grass would make the late 90s even more unpredictable.

Just to make a point about how unpredictable tennis was at that time, you know that Moya and Corretja played a YEC final in 1998?

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 01:57 PM
The point is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will lose more often playing their normal game on faster courts if their opponent's having a hot ballstriking day cause they won't be able to miraculously get every shot back in play.

Murray most definetly would, he is very fragile to a player coming in redhot against him anywhere. Nadal and Djokovic are too mentally strong for that, specially Djokovic has no problems with Berdych and Del Potros, he can put another gear from the baseline. Nadal has also adapted to ballstrikers and I dont see him as having the same weaknesses against them as he used to, he can dominate on serve and big forehands and take charge and take the important points in a match to turn it around, see his matches against Del Potro and Berdych recently where he was beeing outplayed but then started playing more aggressive himself and won almost every important point in these 2 matches.

Djokovic ofcourse is one of the most clutch players I have ever seen in my life, if he needs to win 2-3 tiebreaks against a redhot ballstriker to win a slam match he would do that. I really dont think this is about surfaces, this is about consistency. We have seen Connors, Borg and Lendl be as consistent as the current top 3, extreme dominance from top players is nothing new in tennis.

Sampras only had consistency in Wimbledon, Agassi never was an unstoppable force anywhere. He lost to Spadea, Berasategui and Chang in his favorite tournament Australian Open in what should be the best years of his life. It is not so much about fast surfaces enabling big servers and ballstrikers to go hot against top players in the 90s, it has more to do with top players not beeing consistently good in every slam.

Sombrerero loco
03-20-2012, 02:24 PM
This shows us Berdych (#7) would be #1 in 1999!

It's a strong era right now.

:spit:
i just cant :haha:

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:38 PM
1995 was probably the most dominant display from the top 4 in the 90s, it looked like this:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA)..........4,842
2 Agassi, Andre (USA)..........4,765
3 Muster, Thomas (AUT).........4,474
4 Becker, Boris (GER)..........3,325
5 Chang, Michael (USA).........3,211
6 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)....2,560
7 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE)........2,505
8 Courier, Jim (USA)...........2,471
9 Ferreira, Wayne (RSA)........2,144
10 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO).....1,861

This year was completely scripted, you had Agassi-Sampras playing finals in both hardcourt slams and Agassi winning the slower hardcourt in Australia, Sampras winning in Usopen. You had Sampras and Becker battling it out in Wimbledon final and indoor tournaments, Becker winning the YEC indoors. Muster dominating clay almost like Nadal winning RG, Rome and Monte Carlo and another huge amount of clay titles. Agassi and Sampras played in 5 out of 6 finals in big outdoor hardcourt tournaments (Agassi winning Canada, Miami, Australia and Sampras winning Indian Wells and Usopen), Agassi also won Cincinatti against Chang in the final. Muster took home another 3 master series, Medvedev took the odd one in Hamburg and Sampras battled it out against Becker in Paris indoors.

Overall the top 5 (with Chang) got into 23 out of 28 big final slots (master series finals+YEC+grand slams), which is comparable to figures today.

Ok, some surprises was in the bag like Becker battling the Monte Carlo final against Muster in 5 sets and Muster beating Sampras indoors and winning master series indoors, it is still pretty similar to our own era in terms of top 4 dominating that tennis year. After that year everything went chaotic with Agassi going into existensial crisis, Becker still had a good 96 but was declining at a very fast pace and Muster also virtually disappeared from center stage after 95.

swebright
03-20-2012, 03:40 PM
That's WTA days of ATP.

Soon WTA will be ATP with Vika dominating.

ATP will be like WTA (especially when the big 3 are gone; but I don't see Feddy, Rafa, Nole leaving the games for another 5 years).

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:46 PM
That's WTA days of ATP.

Soon WTA will be ATP with Vika dominating.

ATP will be like WTA (especially when the big 3 are gone; but I don't see Feddy, Rafa, Nole leaving the games for another 5 years).

Not so long ago you had Henin-Clijsters and Williams-Williams dominating according to the script, it also had nothing to do with surfaces. These things go in cycles, people look for explanations to everything but doesnt take into consideration randomness which may be the most important factor in so many events that take place.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:58 PM
Lets take a look at how succesfull the top 4 has been taking final slots in the master series, YEC and grand slams the latest years:

2011:23 out of 28 final slots (top 5 25 out of 28 final slots and top 6 27 out of 28 final slots)

2010:17 out of 28 final slots

2009:20 out of 28 final slots (Soderling, Davydenko and Del Potro showing impressive resistance against top 4)

2008:20 out of 28 final slots

2011 I think is the most dominant display from the top in tennis history, there is nothing leftover for lower ranked players at all. Even at the end of the year when the top 2 were virtually gone at the end of the season Murray and Federer just took everything they could during this period.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 04:36 PM
Here are the downsides of chaos:

mRCSXcg36kY

CO7AVEmKUXw

Saberq
03-20-2012, 04:42 PM
strong era in 2003

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 05:03 PM
strong era in 2003

The first half of 2003 was an extension of the chaos 1998-2002 (Verkerrk and Schuettler reaching slam finals and so on), second half started to bring order to mens tennis.