Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
I've always like the chaotic state idk why ..... maybe cause i see many talents around fighting for it hardly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
I would love to see more younger players doing big stuff, but I can only dream about that this days
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,624 Posts
This shows us Berdych (#7) would be #1 in 1999!

It's a strong era right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #5

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,595 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,336 Posts
I do wish it was more unpredictable at the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
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.
 

·
.
Joined
·
29,637 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
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)!
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top