Well, no real need for an introduction - the title says it all. I dread Nadal/Djokovic finals. I don't deny the rivalry. I don't deny that they have some scintillating rallies and that they go through spurts where the level of play is remarkable. What I do deny is that they have so many "epic" finals with some of the highest quality matches you'll ever see. That's simply not the case no matter what the sensationalist announcers who have no memory beyond the most recent five matches they've seen as to what is the greatest match they have ever seen.
Here's my biggest qualm: the length of a match does not translate to the caliber of a match. There are a number of reasons for this. One, long rallies do not always equate to good rallies, and two, the length of time for a match does not mean that the entire duration was spent playing. To touch on the first point, long rallies do speak to consistency and endurance. There's no doubt that these men are the two fittest players on tour, and to have these prolonged rallies without making errors is certainly not something to be overlooked. Sometimes there are spectacular points, but other times the points may just be defensive, with no one wanting to take an offensive chance in the rally, so it just keeps going. While each of these players are certainly capable of some good offensive tennis, their primary styles are trying to make the opponent break by playing relentless defense from the back of the court. When you have two guys who won't make as many unforced errors as the rest of the tour quite as quickly, it does lead to longer points. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it isn't, but it's simply repetitive. I completely understand how some may not like watching big servers like John Isner or Ivo Karlovic where the point is typically over in three shots or less. Neither type of match is particularly diverse. The matches with baseline rallies have more tactical elements to them, but by and large, when you have two players whose styles both default back to defensive baseline play by nature, it's still not as exciting as people seem to portray it. Matches between Djokovic and Federer have been far more entertaining with Federer more of an offensive, precision style baseline attack, and both players are more prone to employing change of pace tactics like coming into the net to catch an opponent off guard. Likewise, when you have a power player versus a finesse player, it makes for more compelling tennis, in my opinion.
When watching a Djokovic and Nadal match, there's almost always a constant ebb and flow in the level of play. I have long felt this sentiment about there matches, but typing this while watching the French Open final really is a prime example. You have moments where each can look completely disengaged in some of their matches. You have moments today where Djokovic gifts away five straight games with a slew of unforced errors that aren't even close to the lines. For every brilliant rally, there are three average to underwhelming ones. The matches' unforced errors outnumber winners, and those don't even contemplate forced errors that could easily be considered shots the player would ordinarily make. The periods of significant drop off in play are accentuated due to the fact that there is less variety in other potential matchups. Somehow, it seems a little more bearable if a player hits a blistering forehand wide down the line when going for an outright winner than seeing a shot that was pushed long on a ball that was right in the center of the court.
The other element, as I mentioned, is that the length of time of the match does not translate to the amount of time played. These two players take some of the most time between points of any two men on tour. I believe it was their longest ever Australian Open final that hey played where the average amount of time between points was above the legally permitted amount of time by ten seconds. When you subtract all of the time that should never have occurred in the first place from the total match time, it shaves about an hour off of the total match time. That's an hour of us watching Nadal fix his wedgie or Djokovic bounce a ball before a serve an inordinate number of times. I completely get that after a particularly long rally that the chair umpire has good reason to overlook a time violation, but I've watched points during this match in particular where there is a serve, a return unforced error, and a length of time between points that exceeded 20 seconds. Certainly these men are not cut in the mold of Roger Federer or Andy Roddick, both of whom would ordinarily take well under the allocated amount of time to return to the service line for another serve. A match with the same number of points between those two pairings will have a 60-90 minute difference over the span of five sets solely from the amount of time spent between points, not the points themselves. That's a staggering difference. Assuming the level of tennis is the same between the two matches, wouldn't you want to have all of that tennis packed into a shorter period of time? I certainly would!
Undeniably, these are the two greatest in the sport of tennis right now. As such, we can fully expect more finals between the two in their already most contested of all time rivalry. They absolutely deserve to contest these matches, and I am not taking that away from them. Still, you'll have to excuse me if you see me rooting for some Djokovic vs. Wawrinka or Nadal vs. Tsonga finals instead of this matchup, which has lost its luster in my eyes.
Showing posts with label ATP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATP. Show all posts
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
French Open Predictions
Okay, so I am a little late, as matches started today, but I just didn't get to writing about the French Open yesterday. Historically I have filled out brackets much like how most people do for the NCAA basketball tournament. I haven't done so in a while, but I still formulate outcomes and scenarios in my head. Let's take a look at what's in store:
Rafa's quarter:
Rafa has been tabbed with having a difficult draw, and it's true that it isn't exactly a cakewalk. He's the king of clay, though, and the greatest ever at Roland Garros. That said, he's as vulnerable as he's ever been on this surface coming into the event, having a run of some surprising losses this clay court season. He should destroy Ginepri in the first round, followed by a potential second round matchup with Dominic Thiem, a very nice young player. He doesn't have what it takes at this point to trouble Nadal, though. He has a potentially dangerous fourth round competitor in Nicolas Almagro, a great clay court player who actually defeated Nadal this year on the surface. I don't believe he has what it takes to do that in a best of five setting, but it makes for some interesting intrigue. Waiting for him in the quarters should be David Ferrer, so Nadal has likely the most difficult quarterfinal match of the top four seeds. Grigor Dimitrov is in this part of the draw as well, but he's got a tricky road that he just won't be able to maneuver. Ivo Karlovic is probably the worst first round opponent a person can draw for a non-seed, so he had that misfortune, and Ferrer is simply a bull on clay that he's not quite going to be able to take down, should he make it that far. No upsets here, Nadal comes through.
The Stanimal's Quarter:
Stanislas Wawrinka has followed up his incredible Australian Open run with a very lackluster set of results. Historically a very good clay court player, Stan did not have a good spring on the dirt, and he draws a tough quarter, one I don't think he makes it through. It's always tough to play a Spaniard in the first round, and Garcia-Lopez is no slouch on clay. He could have another Spaniard in Feliciano Lopez followed by a very difficult fourth round match. The match I am looking forward to is a potential third round clash between Gael Monfils and the enigma that is Fabio Fognini, probably the most hated player on tour. The two played an incredible match several years back that went five sets and was mired in a little bit of controversy. In what may have been the match ending the latest ever at the French Open, Fognini clamored for play to be halted in the fifth set. Monfils wanted to continue on, and eventually the match was suspended at 5-5 in the fifth due to lack of light. Fognini ended up claiming the match 9-7 the following day. He followed this up in 2011 with a controversial win in which he was accused of inappropriately getting treatment for cramps. Barely able to move, he pulled out the victory and received a chorus of boos after the match. He withdrew from the quarterfinals due to injury in what may have been a more political than physical move. Needless to say, the huge fan favorite Monfils will be taking on the villain Fognini. I really felt like Monfils could make a huge run here; he always plays his absolute best in front of the home crowd, as he loves the attention of the grand stage and the home crowd. His ankle and his fitness are a question mark, though. He was in good form early in the year, but is a not 100% Monfils able to take on the likes of people like Fognini and Wawrinka? Probably not, but what fun are predictions if you don't call a few upsets? The bottom of the quarter feature a slew of clay courters, the unfulfilled promise of Richard Gasquet, and Andy Murray, who has not been the same since his back surgery. As far as I'm concerned, this eighth of the draw is wide open, with Kohlschreiber having as good a chance as any to escape. Coming off a clay court title last week, he could carry that momentum into the French. This is a strange quarter in that there's a ton of talent but a real lack of results for the group on clay in 2014. This is as wide open as it gets, and I'm just going to go with Monfils as a fun pick to advance. He looked okay in his dance off, after all.
Federer's Quarter:
The draw gods were smiling on Federer this year. You don't get a much easier draw than the one he had. The only person that could even trouble him before the quarterfinals is a firing on all cylinders Ernests Gulbis. On the top half, you have Tomas Berdych as the highest seed, certainly a very capable clay court player. The Robredo is a very intriguing player in this portion of the draw. Age seems to not play a role in his ability. Truly a great competitor, he's capable of beating anyone in the quarter. Roberto Bautista Agut is another guy who could muddy the waters in this quarter, but I don't see it happening. Ultimately, I like Federer to come through this quarter with a victory over Berdych in the quarters, although it wouldn't at all surprise me to see Robredo make a quarterfinal run and even beat Federer, as he did last year at the US Open.
Novak's Quarter:
Fresh off of a victory in Rome over Nadal, Djokovic will be tested in this tournament. Let's see, clay courters in the first two rounds, constant under-achieving yet still dangerous Marin Cilic potentially in the third round, Tsonga on home turf who can beat anybody on any given day potentially in the fourth round, and his quarterfinal match is a bit of a question mark. I don't like Raonic's chances here. I think Gilles Simon knocks him off in the third round. Were Kei Nishikori 100% healthy, I'd certainly pick him, hands down, to be Djokovic's quarterfinal opponent, and while I still think he has a shot, I am not so confident in his health to hold up over the course of some potentially grueling matches against guys who will make him work. I like Simon to make a run to the quarters before he ultimately bows out to Djokovic.
In the semis, Rafa should easily dismiss my fun underdog in Monfils, and a semifinal between Federer and Djokovic should prove a bit more competitive. I see Federer jumping out to an early lead before his level of play falling like he is very prone to, and Novak wins in four sets. In the finals, we have another "epic" match between two players who commit a time violation between every single point. It's not that I don't enjoy their matches, but over the course of five sets, you can only tolerate so much ball bouncing, shorts adjusting, hair touching activity and long baseline rallies with relatively few winners before it grows a little stale. Previously I had calculated if you took all the time the two spend above the time violation mark over the course of their five set French Open final, it added about another hour to the total match time. That's a lot of wasted time. But I digress, these two will battle it out, and I think that this time, someone finally solves Nadal in a French Open final, giving Djokovic a career Slam of his own. Now there's nothing left to do but to sit back, watch some tennis, and see all my predictions go wrong!
Rafa's quarter:
Rafa has been tabbed with having a difficult draw, and it's true that it isn't exactly a cakewalk. He's the king of clay, though, and the greatest ever at Roland Garros. That said, he's as vulnerable as he's ever been on this surface coming into the event, having a run of some surprising losses this clay court season. He should destroy Ginepri in the first round, followed by a potential second round matchup with Dominic Thiem, a very nice young player. He doesn't have what it takes at this point to trouble Nadal, though. He has a potentially dangerous fourth round competitor in Nicolas Almagro, a great clay court player who actually defeated Nadal this year on the surface. I don't believe he has what it takes to do that in a best of five setting, but it makes for some interesting intrigue. Waiting for him in the quarters should be David Ferrer, so Nadal has likely the most difficult quarterfinal match of the top four seeds. Grigor Dimitrov is in this part of the draw as well, but he's got a tricky road that he just won't be able to maneuver. Ivo Karlovic is probably the worst first round opponent a person can draw for a non-seed, so he had that misfortune, and Ferrer is simply a bull on clay that he's not quite going to be able to take down, should he make it that far. No upsets here, Nadal comes through.
The Stanimal's Quarter:
Stanislas Wawrinka has followed up his incredible Australian Open run with a very lackluster set of results. Historically a very good clay court player, Stan did not have a good spring on the dirt, and he draws a tough quarter, one I don't think he makes it through. It's always tough to play a Spaniard in the first round, and Garcia-Lopez is no slouch on clay. He could have another Spaniard in Feliciano Lopez followed by a very difficult fourth round match. The match I am looking forward to is a potential third round clash between Gael Monfils and the enigma that is Fabio Fognini, probably the most hated player on tour. The two played an incredible match several years back that went five sets and was mired in a little bit of controversy. In what may have been the match ending the latest ever at the French Open, Fognini clamored for play to be halted in the fifth set. Monfils wanted to continue on, and eventually the match was suspended at 5-5 in the fifth due to lack of light. Fognini ended up claiming the match 9-7 the following day. He followed this up in 2011 with a controversial win in which he was accused of inappropriately getting treatment for cramps. Barely able to move, he pulled out the victory and received a chorus of boos after the match. He withdrew from the quarterfinals due to injury in what may have been a more political than physical move. Needless to say, the huge fan favorite Monfils will be taking on the villain Fognini. I really felt like Monfils could make a huge run here; he always plays his absolute best in front of the home crowd, as he loves the attention of the grand stage and the home crowd. His ankle and his fitness are a question mark, though. He was in good form early in the year, but is a not 100% Monfils able to take on the likes of people like Fognini and Wawrinka? Probably not, but what fun are predictions if you don't call a few upsets? The bottom of the quarter feature a slew of clay courters, the unfulfilled promise of Richard Gasquet, and Andy Murray, who has not been the same since his back surgery. As far as I'm concerned, this eighth of the draw is wide open, with Kohlschreiber having as good a chance as any to escape. Coming off a clay court title last week, he could carry that momentum into the French. This is a strange quarter in that there's a ton of talent but a real lack of results for the group on clay in 2014. This is as wide open as it gets, and I'm just going to go with Monfils as a fun pick to advance. He looked okay in his dance off, after all.
Federer's Quarter:
The draw gods were smiling on Federer this year. You don't get a much easier draw than the one he had. The only person that could even trouble him before the quarterfinals is a firing on all cylinders Ernests Gulbis. On the top half, you have Tomas Berdych as the highest seed, certainly a very capable clay court player. The Robredo is a very intriguing player in this portion of the draw. Age seems to not play a role in his ability. Truly a great competitor, he's capable of beating anyone in the quarter. Roberto Bautista Agut is another guy who could muddy the waters in this quarter, but I don't see it happening. Ultimately, I like Federer to come through this quarter with a victory over Berdych in the quarters, although it wouldn't at all surprise me to see Robredo make a quarterfinal run and even beat Federer, as he did last year at the US Open.
Novak's Quarter:
Fresh off of a victory in Rome over Nadal, Djokovic will be tested in this tournament. Let's see, clay courters in the first two rounds, constant under-achieving yet still dangerous Marin Cilic potentially in the third round, Tsonga on home turf who can beat anybody on any given day potentially in the fourth round, and his quarterfinal match is a bit of a question mark. I don't like Raonic's chances here. I think Gilles Simon knocks him off in the third round. Were Kei Nishikori 100% healthy, I'd certainly pick him, hands down, to be Djokovic's quarterfinal opponent, and while I still think he has a shot, I am not so confident in his health to hold up over the course of some potentially grueling matches against guys who will make him work. I like Simon to make a run to the quarters before he ultimately bows out to Djokovic.
In the semis, Rafa should easily dismiss my fun underdog in Monfils, and a semifinal between Federer and Djokovic should prove a bit more competitive. I see Federer jumping out to an early lead before his level of play falling like he is very prone to, and Novak wins in four sets. In the finals, we have another "epic" match between two players who commit a time violation between every single point. It's not that I don't enjoy their matches, but over the course of five sets, you can only tolerate so much ball bouncing, shorts adjusting, hair touching activity and long baseline rallies with relatively few winners before it grows a little stale. Previously I had calculated if you took all the time the two spend above the time violation mark over the course of their five set French Open final, it added about another hour to the total match time. That's a lot of wasted time. But I digress, these two will battle it out, and I think that this time, someone finally solves Nadal in a French Open final, giving Djokovic a career Slam of his own. Now there's nothing left to do but to sit back, watch some tennis, and see all my predictions go wrong!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Men's Tennis: Greatest of All Time Debate
One of the often discussed/argued sports topics of discussion revolve around which player is the greatest to ever play a particular sport. First off, I want to remove one group of participants from the discussion. There are those who state there is no point in discussing the greatest player of all time. You can't ever compare players across eras, and we'll never have a definitive answer on who is best. That's 100% correct, but who cares? Part of the beauty of sports is not the sporting events themselves, but the discussion surrounding them. We'll never know how Babe Ruth would hit against Randy Johnson. We'll never know how Wilt Chamberlain would fare in today's hyper athletic NBA. Part of the fun is speculating, taking relevant facts and tidbits into consideration, and making an assertion that others can support or refute. No, we'll never know the actual truth, but it's fun to discuss it, so that's just what I am going to do.
With Roger Federer's reign of supreme dominance in the mid 2000s, the talk of tennis greatest of all time appeared it was going to be an easier and easier argument to make. Roger was less man and more machine in those days, easily dismissing the players he faced in nearly every match, making many look foolish in the process. "The Maestro", as he was called for his beautiful precision game and graceful movement on court, is largely responsible for the elevation of the sport; his reign of supremacy forced oncoming players to elevate their levels of play, and yet Federer always seemed to have a switch he could flip to take his game to a level no one else possessed. Or no one until a man named Rafael Nadal came around, at least. Rafa was the first of a number of supremely talented and driven young guns ready to burst onto the scene, followed shortly thereafter by Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. These three men have significantly muddied the waters in the greatest of all time discussion, not necessarily staking a claim for themselves yet, quite so early in their careers, but due to their results against Federer. Nadal is the obvious one, as he has by and large owned Federer due to a game that is Roger's kryptonite, a stubbornness by Federer to change his style of play early on in the rivalry when Nadal's game was far less developed and well rounded than it is today, and a preponderance of matches on clay, where it is very difficult to argue against Rafa for being the greatest of all time on that surface.
So let's take a step back from these four men and talk about the argument of the GOAT as a whole. What makes someone the greatest? Is it purely in the numbers? If so, which numbers? Total titles? Major titles? Wins overall? Is it measured by dominance over the field? Weeks at number one in the world? Does one have to excel on all surfaces? Is it better to have a short term level of supreme success or a long term level of great success? These are all questions that people have varying opinions on, which inevitably lead to differences in opinion on who is the greatest of all time. What also muddies the water is crossing of eras, as is the case in all sports. Tennis went from a game that was played with wooden racquets entirely on grass courts to one with graphite racquets, all sorts of new string technology, and a myriad of court surfaces including multiple types of clay, multiple types of hard, grass, and previously even carpet, and surfaces are found both indoors and outdoors. The game is also more globalized than ever, with players coming out of more and more countries than ever before. The game evolved from on where the goal was to try and move forward towards the net more often than not to one where players rarely stray from the baseline due to the evolution of racquet technology. Tennis is perhaps one of the harder sports to compare across eras because of the technology changes, surface changes, and the fact that it is an individual sport with one on one matches and ever fluctuating levels of competition.
So who are the names that regularly find their way into the discussion? Well, there are more than I am going to list, but the main culprits that seem to come up repeatedly are Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal is creeping in on the discussion as well.
Laver has won two calendar year Grand Slams, an unmatched feat. He is considered by many, not all, to be the best player of his time. What makes evaluating this hard is he played both before and after the Open Era and at a time when tennis was mixed between amateur and professional ranks, complicating matters on participation in tournaments. Tournaments had fewer matches and not nearly the same level of competition back then, and in my personal opinion, I don't see how he makes the cut due to these facts.
Bjorn Borg was as relentless as of a competitor as they came. His superior athleticism and grit won him a total of 11 Grand Slam events, all at the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg retired young at the age of 26 due to burnout (more mental than physical, although he lived a fast lifestyle), and he often didn't make the trip down to Australia for the Australian Open (as was common in his time). Borg is statistically the most dominant Grand Slam player in terms of winning percentage, and had he played a longer career and more events, he certainly would have had several more titles to his name. He was a baseline player in a time when there were not really baseline players, and this alone makes him a very compelling argument that he was a revolutionary talent and very well could be the greatest to ever play. How much does he get knocked for not having a lengthy career to continue to amass titles, though?
Pete Sampras, before Roger Federer came along, was the leader in Grand Slam titles, and probably the single most dominant force Wimbledon has ever seen. His weeks spent ranked number one and his overall number of Grand Slam titles cemented him as the greatest in the eyes of many. Sampras really had no rivals that were largely successful against him, either. He's got probably the greatest second serve of all time, and he probably could have continued his success had he abandoned his 85 sq. inch racquet when the rest of the tour went to 90-100 sq. inch racquets (many players never elect to make a big transition in racquets like this due to the difficulty). The argument against him is that he was not a great player on clay, and he never had good success at the French Open. To be lacking in one area of the game when there are other well rounded players at similar levels of greatness diminish his standing a bit. Additionally, with Federer stealing away a number of his records, including Grand Slam titles, and Nadal poised to tie and then overtake the Grand Slam mark himself, his biggest arguing point is gone.
Moving forward to the current era, Roger Federer is now considered by many to be the greatest ever. The reasons listed at the opening of the analysis only partially tell the story. When looking at the list of records and marks Federer holds, it's dumbfounding. If not the greatest of all time, he is certainly the most consistently great of all time. His marks of consecutive finals, semifinals, and quarterfinals in Grand Slam events demonstrate a remarkable run of simply not ever having a bad day. All great players have that bad day where they lose to someone they'd beat 19 times out of 20, but for years in the events that mattered most, Federer didn't. The semifinals mark in particular is one I simply cannot imagine falling. The knock on Federer is twofold: he dominated during a "weak" era of competition, and how can you be the greatest ever when your main rival owned you? First of all, the notion that he dominated a weak era is a bit unfair. The game is more global than ever before and is deeper than ever before, making it more likely to get knocked out in the earlier rounds, something Federer rarely ever did. I also don't think that gives players like Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, among others, their due. When you look at some of the players Federer toppled en route to a Grand Slam title and compare to some of the people Sampras knocked off, there are many cases where Sampras probably had an easier path. Certainly, the accomplishments of Nadal and Djokovic winning their titles over the past few years are more impressive a task, as there is a glut of top end talent in the years around the turn of the decade.
As for Nadal's dominance of Federer, that one becomes harder and harder for me to dismiss. I initially stood by there not being any shame in the lopsided record against the greatest of all time on clay, and it's not Roger's fault Rafa couldn't advance to hard court finals earlier in his career when Fed would always be waiting for him. That only carries so much merit, though. What really stands out in my mind is that Federer was always perceived as a supreme mental player, and Nadal single handedly ruined that. Not only did Federer lose his edge, but it became a weakness. When you look at the leads he has blown, the break point opportunities missed, the inexplicable errors, and a stubborn determination to not change his game in order to try and prove no one could beat him from the baseline, it really is staggering to think how many more titles he could have. Had he pulled out that epic five setter in Rome, maybe the entire fabric of tennis is different. Maybe his confidence has that extra little boost he needed to not crumble under pressure. But that didn't happen, and when you compare Federer's record against Nadal, a lopsided record, Murray, a slight edge to Murray and one that figures to grow as Federer ages, and Djokovic, a slight edge to Federer with Djokovic in his prime and Federer in the twilight of his career, the head to head numbers really don't suggest Federer being as dominant as his overall numbers. Now, I want to say, this is extremely harsh nitpicking. Anyone who denies Federer's greatness is either bitter or delusional. Still, these results leave just enough doubt to make someone hesitant crowning him the all time greatest.
Finally, and the jury is still largely out on him, is Rafael Nadal. Nadal is no slouch with 13 Grand Slam titles, can claim to be the greatest of all time on clay, and also has multiple Slams on both grass and hard courts. Easily one of the fiercest competitors of all time, the question with him has never been the results, but the health. Having already missed significant time due to injury, the question is how many more titles does he realistically have in him with Djokovic being a top rival now, Murray coming into his own (or at least he was before his back surgery), and some of the next wave of young talent starting to figure things out and making their way towards and into the top 10. Suppose he cannot stay healthy, though, look at where he ends up even today! All the Grand Slams, the myriad of Masters Series titles, well more than Federer. His greatness started at a much younger age, and despite playing second fiddle to Federer for years, his stranglehold over their head to head careers gives him a little bit of a boost in his all time standing. Do his career accolades, when you dig deeper into the list, stack up against Federer's? Maybe not in all categories, but when you look at his winning percentages, his titles, and his all surface game that he never quite gets enough credit for, he's at least within shouting distance. As of right now, I don't think he quite gets the nod to be the greatest of all time. I do think, however, that he still has at least a couple of more Slams in him and some more fight in him yet; the man has never stopped finding ways to improve his game. He used to be a purely relentless defensive baseline player. No serve, no net game, just ridiculous range and a loopy topspin forehand. Now his serve is respectable, he is solid at net, can play a more offensive style game, and he's still as fit and relentless as ever. I think he is the type of player that can reinvent himself to suit his declining physical abilities to add some additional longevity to his career.
So, did I leave the picture hazy enough for everyone? I didn't even mention a lot of others who could be thrown in the mix, either. Now, I did say that part of the fun is going out and making a case for one person. I don't want to back off of that. My feeling is I really have to give it to Federer at this point, with the sense that Nadal will overtake him in the coming years, and that Borg probably would hold the spot had he continued his career. Feel free to make a case for someone else; I am all ears!
With Roger Federer's reign of supreme dominance in the mid 2000s, the talk of tennis greatest of all time appeared it was going to be an easier and easier argument to make. Roger was less man and more machine in those days, easily dismissing the players he faced in nearly every match, making many look foolish in the process. "The Maestro", as he was called for his beautiful precision game and graceful movement on court, is largely responsible for the elevation of the sport; his reign of supremacy forced oncoming players to elevate their levels of play, and yet Federer always seemed to have a switch he could flip to take his game to a level no one else possessed. Or no one until a man named Rafael Nadal came around, at least. Rafa was the first of a number of supremely talented and driven young guns ready to burst onto the scene, followed shortly thereafter by Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. These three men have significantly muddied the waters in the greatest of all time discussion, not necessarily staking a claim for themselves yet, quite so early in their careers, but due to their results against Federer. Nadal is the obvious one, as he has by and large owned Federer due to a game that is Roger's kryptonite, a stubbornness by Federer to change his style of play early on in the rivalry when Nadal's game was far less developed and well rounded than it is today, and a preponderance of matches on clay, where it is very difficult to argue against Rafa for being the greatest of all time on that surface.
So let's take a step back from these four men and talk about the argument of the GOAT as a whole. What makes someone the greatest? Is it purely in the numbers? If so, which numbers? Total titles? Major titles? Wins overall? Is it measured by dominance over the field? Weeks at number one in the world? Does one have to excel on all surfaces? Is it better to have a short term level of supreme success or a long term level of great success? These are all questions that people have varying opinions on, which inevitably lead to differences in opinion on who is the greatest of all time. What also muddies the water is crossing of eras, as is the case in all sports. Tennis went from a game that was played with wooden racquets entirely on grass courts to one with graphite racquets, all sorts of new string technology, and a myriad of court surfaces including multiple types of clay, multiple types of hard, grass, and previously even carpet, and surfaces are found both indoors and outdoors. The game is also more globalized than ever, with players coming out of more and more countries than ever before. The game evolved from on where the goal was to try and move forward towards the net more often than not to one where players rarely stray from the baseline due to the evolution of racquet technology. Tennis is perhaps one of the harder sports to compare across eras because of the technology changes, surface changes, and the fact that it is an individual sport with one on one matches and ever fluctuating levels of competition.
So who are the names that regularly find their way into the discussion? Well, there are more than I am going to list, but the main culprits that seem to come up repeatedly are Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal is creeping in on the discussion as well.
Laver has won two calendar year Grand Slams, an unmatched feat. He is considered by many, not all, to be the best player of his time. What makes evaluating this hard is he played both before and after the Open Era and at a time when tennis was mixed between amateur and professional ranks, complicating matters on participation in tournaments. Tournaments had fewer matches and not nearly the same level of competition back then, and in my personal opinion, I don't see how he makes the cut due to these facts.
Bjorn Borg was as relentless as of a competitor as they came. His superior athleticism and grit won him a total of 11 Grand Slam events, all at the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg retired young at the age of 26 due to burnout (more mental than physical, although he lived a fast lifestyle), and he often didn't make the trip down to Australia for the Australian Open (as was common in his time). Borg is statistically the most dominant Grand Slam player in terms of winning percentage, and had he played a longer career and more events, he certainly would have had several more titles to his name. He was a baseline player in a time when there were not really baseline players, and this alone makes him a very compelling argument that he was a revolutionary talent and very well could be the greatest to ever play. How much does he get knocked for not having a lengthy career to continue to amass titles, though?
Pete Sampras, before Roger Federer came along, was the leader in Grand Slam titles, and probably the single most dominant force Wimbledon has ever seen. His weeks spent ranked number one and his overall number of Grand Slam titles cemented him as the greatest in the eyes of many. Sampras really had no rivals that were largely successful against him, either. He's got probably the greatest second serve of all time, and he probably could have continued his success had he abandoned his 85 sq. inch racquet when the rest of the tour went to 90-100 sq. inch racquets (many players never elect to make a big transition in racquets like this due to the difficulty). The argument against him is that he was not a great player on clay, and he never had good success at the French Open. To be lacking in one area of the game when there are other well rounded players at similar levels of greatness diminish his standing a bit. Additionally, with Federer stealing away a number of his records, including Grand Slam titles, and Nadal poised to tie and then overtake the Grand Slam mark himself, his biggest arguing point is gone.
Moving forward to the current era, Roger Federer is now considered by many to be the greatest ever. The reasons listed at the opening of the analysis only partially tell the story. When looking at the list of records and marks Federer holds, it's dumbfounding. If not the greatest of all time, he is certainly the most consistently great of all time. His marks of consecutive finals, semifinals, and quarterfinals in Grand Slam events demonstrate a remarkable run of simply not ever having a bad day. All great players have that bad day where they lose to someone they'd beat 19 times out of 20, but for years in the events that mattered most, Federer didn't. The semifinals mark in particular is one I simply cannot imagine falling. The knock on Federer is twofold: he dominated during a "weak" era of competition, and how can you be the greatest ever when your main rival owned you? First of all, the notion that he dominated a weak era is a bit unfair. The game is more global than ever before and is deeper than ever before, making it more likely to get knocked out in the earlier rounds, something Federer rarely ever did. I also don't think that gives players like Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, among others, their due. When you look at some of the players Federer toppled en route to a Grand Slam title and compare to some of the people Sampras knocked off, there are many cases where Sampras probably had an easier path. Certainly, the accomplishments of Nadal and Djokovic winning their titles over the past few years are more impressive a task, as there is a glut of top end talent in the years around the turn of the decade.
As for Nadal's dominance of Federer, that one becomes harder and harder for me to dismiss. I initially stood by there not being any shame in the lopsided record against the greatest of all time on clay, and it's not Roger's fault Rafa couldn't advance to hard court finals earlier in his career when Fed would always be waiting for him. That only carries so much merit, though. What really stands out in my mind is that Federer was always perceived as a supreme mental player, and Nadal single handedly ruined that. Not only did Federer lose his edge, but it became a weakness. When you look at the leads he has blown, the break point opportunities missed, the inexplicable errors, and a stubborn determination to not change his game in order to try and prove no one could beat him from the baseline, it really is staggering to think how many more titles he could have. Had he pulled out that epic five setter in Rome, maybe the entire fabric of tennis is different. Maybe his confidence has that extra little boost he needed to not crumble under pressure. But that didn't happen, and when you compare Federer's record against Nadal, a lopsided record, Murray, a slight edge to Murray and one that figures to grow as Federer ages, and Djokovic, a slight edge to Federer with Djokovic in his prime and Federer in the twilight of his career, the head to head numbers really don't suggest Federer being as dominant as his overall numbers. Now, I want to say, this is extremely harsh nitpicking. Anyone who denies Federer's greatness is either bitter or delusional. Still, these results leave just enough doubt to make someone hesitant crowning him the all time greatest.
Finally, and the jury is still largely out on him, is Rafael Nadal. Nadal is no slouch with 13 Grand Slam titles, can claim to be the greatest of all time on clay, and also has multiple Slams on both grass and hard courts. Easily one of the fiercest competitors of all time, the question with him has never been the results, but the health. Having already missed significant time due to injury, the question is how many more titles does he realistically have in him with Djokovic being a top rival now, Murray coming into his own (or at least he was before his back surgery), and some of the next wave of young talent starting to figure things out and making their way towards and into the top 10. Suppose he cannot stay healthy, though, look at where he ends up even today! All the Grand Slams, the myriad of Masters Series titles, well more than Federer. His greatness started at a much younger age, and despite playing second fiddle to Federer for years, his stranglehold over their head to head careers gives him a little bit of a boost in his all time standing. Do his career accolades, when you dig deeper into the list, stack up against Federer's? Maybe not in all categories, but when you look at his winning percentages, his titles, and his all surface game that he never quite gets enough credit for, he's at least within shouting distance. As of right now, I don't think he quite gets the nod to be the greatest of all time. I do think, however, that he still has at least a couple of more Slams in him and some more fight in him yet; the man has never stopped finding ways to improve his game. He used to be a purely relentless defensive baseline player. No serve, no net game, just ridiculous range and a loopy topspin forehand. Now his serve is respectable, he is solid at net, can play a more offensive style game, and he's still as fit and relentless as ever. I think he is the type of player that can reinvent himself to suit his declining physical abilities to add some additional longevity to his career.
So, did I leave the picture hazy enough for everyone? I didn't even mention a lot of others who could be thrown in the mix, either. Now, I did say that part of the fun is going out and making a case for one person. I don't want to back off of that. My feeling is I really have to give it to Federer at this point, with the sense that Nadal will overtake him in the coming years, and that Borg probably would hold the spot had he continued his career. Feel free to make a case for someone else; I am all ears!
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
The Demise of United States Tennis
This post will definitely illustrate that I am more blogger than expert on the topics I write about more often than not. I am fairly young, 25 years old, and didn't get into tennis until I was 17. That gives me a very limited frame of reference to work with on the tennis front historically, but it doesn't mean I don't have opinions on the state of tennis in the United States. It's no secret to tennis fans that the USA has been mired in a slump on the men's side of the professional tour. The USA has had Serena Williams carrying the country on her back on the woman's side, and Sloane Stephens has shown that she has all the potential to be a force at the top of the women's game, though certainly nowhere near the level of Serena. In general, though, interest in tennis has waned compared to levels it has been in the past, and the men don't have anyone in sight that has a shot at the top 5 in the next few years, let alone a number one. Fans here remember the days where we had champions like Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Chang, Connors, et al. I have heard many different contributions to the discussion as to why we are struggling so much, but the two big things that stand out to me: athlete engagement and style of play.
Athlete engagement is a huge piece to the whole equation. One argument is that if our best athletes played the sport, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sure, if LeBron James happened to be working on his serve instead of his jumper, maybe he'd be number one in the world right now. I don't so much concur simply because freakish athleticism isn't commonplace at the LeBron James level on the tour from any country, and it historically hasn't been. There is a great lack of engagement in the sport as a whole, though. There are several factors that contribute to this, and I think that media presence, rather, lack thereof, is high on that list. Today we live in a high speed age with internet streaming and thousand of channels, but it comes at a cost. For hardcore fans, it has enabled access to more tennis than ever possible in the past, but it has cut out a large number of the more casual viewers. You go from a large number of people having a little access on common channels to fewer people have a ton more access because the average viewer isn't going to spend extra money for the tennis channel. And, of course, big television companies and cable providers want to milk every penny they can, so you see more and more coverage on the tennis channel and less and less everywhere else. Tennis flat out gets bumped from ESPN programming for just about anything, too: fishing, NASCAR, talk shows, college cheerleading, spelling bees, poker, you name it, it's televised instead of tennis. Certainly visibility is not what it once was.
Along the lines of the technology we have available, kids have more things to occupy their time with aside from sports. Growing up today in a country with a great deal of disposable income, kids have their handheld games, computers, video games, etc. That's not to say children don't still enjoy sports, but there's not quite the same need for it as before. Due to the prevalence of the football and basketball video games, too, there's perhaps more gravitation to those sports than tennis than before as well. You certainly cannot say the same about tennis video games. I don't think this point can be understated. In a prior post I mentioned how playing Madden 2000 was what got me into football. Personal anecdote aside, though, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to assert that technology does play a big role.
Style of play is pretty important as well. The game is now pretty well dominated by baseliners, particularly balanced baselines that have the ability to play defensive tennis. That is not to say that Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray or Roger Federer don't have brilliant offensive games, but all four of them have been able to keep themselves afloat in matches playing defense when their offensive games are not clicking. These men are tremendously fit and well suited for long rallies where consistency is key. Surfaces have become more homogenized in the past several years as well. Wimbledon plays much more slowly than it did in the 90s, and hard courts have slowed a little bit as well. Indoor carpet has vanished and replaced with indoor hard courts, which granted are still fast, but they don't have the same bounce. String and racquet technology is suited towards more spin and higher margin shots, and it really makes passing shots so much easier, preventing net players from being more prevalent like they used to be. All things considered, the style of play is less conducive towards aggressive play than it has been for some time, and the American strategy on court has more or less been to bash serves and forehands and play aggressively. Sure, a guy can get hot and go on a run, but it doesn't bode well over the course of a season, and it's certainly been the case in the results that the steady, more defensive players like David Ferrer have been able to excel with great consistency as opposed to more offensive players with less of a physical style, like Richard Gasquet, for example. It takes some time to adjust training strategy and player development to cycle its way through the game, so it stands to reason that it may been some time before you really see a change in tactics by US players.
Of course, we have to give credit where credit is due; other countries have had players working their tails off, and the game is deeper than ever before with more countries becoming more and more prevalent in the sport. I give these people all the credit in the world. It still does not take away from the decline of US tennis due to our own circumstances. I don't know what, if anything the USTA can do to reverse the trend. Certainly they are trying some things to increase engagement, and I believe they are working, but other countries don't have to try these gimmicks to drum up interests, and I feel the gap will continue to widen between other countries and the USA. There's a danger of it becoming a self-fulfilling cycle - there are no major American men's players that youngsters want to grow up emulating, so fewer kids go out trying to be Pete Sampras. Hopefully we will start to see the trend reverse, and not for the US's sake, but for tennis's sake; there can never be too many dynamic players on the tour!
What are your thoughts on the US decline in tennis?
Athlete engagement is a huge piece to the whole equation. One argument is that if our best athletes played the sport, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sure, if LeBron James happened to be working on his serve instead of his jumper, maybe he'd be number one in the world right now. I don't so much concur simply because freakish athleticism isn't commonplace at the LeBron James level on the tour from any country, and it historically hasn't been. There is a great lack of engagement in the sport as a whole, though. There are several factors that contribute to this, and I think that media presence, rather, lack thereof, is high on that list. Today we live in a high speed age with internet streaming and thousand of channels, but it comes at a cost. For hardcore fans, it has enabled access to more tennis than ever possible in the past, but it has cut out a large number of the more casual viewers. You go from a large number of people having a little access on common channels to fewer people have a ton more access because the average viewer isn't going to spend extra money for the tennis channel. And, of course, big television companies and cable providers want to milk every penny they can, so you see more and more coverage on the tennis channel and less and less everywhere else. Tennis flat out gets bumped from ESPN programming for just about anything, too: fishing, NASCAR, talk shows, college cheerleading, spelling bees, poker, you name it, it's televised instead of tennis. Certainly visibility is not what it once was.
Along the lines of the technology we have available, kids have more things to occupy their time with aside from sports. Growing up today in a country with a great deal of disposable income, kids have their handheld games, computers, video games, etc. That's not to say children don't still enjoy sports, but there's not quite the same need for it as before. Due to the prevalence of the football and basketball video games, too, there's perhaps more gravitation to those sports than tennis than before as well. You certainly cannot say the same about tennis video games. I don't think this point can be understated. In a prior post I mentioned how playing Madden 2000 was what got me into football. Personal anecdote aside, though, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to assert that technology does play a big role.
Style of play is pretty important as well. The game is now pretty well dominated by baseliners, particularly balanced baselines that have the ability to play defensive tennis. That is not to say that Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray or Roger Federer don't have brilliant offensive games, but all four of them have been able to keep themselves afloat in matches playing defense when their offensive games are not clicking. These men are tremendously fit and well suited for long rallies where consistency is key. Surfaces have become more homogenized in the past several years as well. Wimbledon plays much more slowly than it did in the 90s, and hard courts have slowed a little bit as well. Indoor carpet has vanished and replaced with indoor hard courts, which granted are still fast, but they don't have the same bounce. String and racquet technology is suited towards more spin and higher margin shots, and it really makes passing shots so much easier, preventing net players from being more prevalent like they used to be. All things considered, the style of play is less conducive towards aggressive play than it has been for some time, and the American strategy on court has more or less been to bash serves and forehands and play aggressively. Sure, a guy can get hot and go on a run, but it doesn't bode well over the course of a season, and it's certainly been the case in the results that the steady, more defensive players like David Ferrer have been able to excel with great consistency as opposed to more offensive players with less of a physical style, like Richard Gasquet, for example. It takes some time to adjust training strategy and player development to cycle its way through the game, so it stands to reason that it may been some time before you really see a change in tactics by US players.
Of course, we have to give credit where credit is due; other countries have had players working their tails off, and the game is deeper than ever before with more countries becoming more and more prevalent in the sport. I give these people all the credit in the world. It still does not take away from the decline of US tennis due to our own circumstances. I don't know what, if anything the USTA can do to reverse the trend. Certainly they are trying some things to increase engagement, and I believe they are working, but other countries don't have to try these gimmicks to drum up interests, and I feel the gap will continue to widen between other countries and the USA. There's a danger of it becoming a self-fulfilling cycle - there are no major American men's players that youngsters want to grow up emulating, so fewer kids go out trying to be Pete Sampras. Hopefully we will start to see the trend reverse, and not for the US's sake, but for tennis's sake; there can never be too many dynamic players on the tour!
What are your thoughts on the US decline in tennis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)