Cracks in the glass ceiling?

[Moxie]

I just read this article in The Guardian, which is from more than a week ago, but interesting on the point of 'Is the revolution starting to happen in men's tennis?' It seems that Stan is leading the charge, and I was just going to add it to Luxilon Borg's thread, but I thought it merited its own conversation.

Even before Wawrinka beat Djokovic and Nadal to win the AO, there have been interlopers with the nerve to take out the big guns in recent years: Rosol, Darcis, Stakhovsky. Cilic recently beat Murray, though, we've yet to see Andy back in full stride. And Pablo Andujar nearly took out Nadal in Rio, on clay.

Is this the beginning of the Revolution by the rest of the field, or at least the strongest and bravest amongst them? How much shake-up will we see in 2014?

 

[TsarMatt]

I don't think there is any revolution. The Rosol, Darcis, and Stakhovsky wins all happened on the grass and they have done very little since. Andy is obviously far from 100%, as well, and Nadal nearly lost on clay at a 500, best-of-3 set event, but that hardly constitutes "revolution" IMO.

I think we'll see a few more major upsets in 2014, but the tennis order we're witnessing now won't be challenged.

 

[calitennis127]

My prediction: very little shake-up.

Let's get one thing clear about Wawrinka - as great a story as it was for him to win Melbourne, he should not have beaten Djokovic or Nadal. Djokovic played below his standards, and though Wawrinka played a marvelous first set, he was very fortunate that Nadal's back went out early in the second.

Besides Wawrinka's Melbourne run, there is precious little evidence that anyone will crack the Top 4, or the Top 6 if you include Ferrer and Del Potro. Nadal took pretty much everything last spring and summer, except Miami and Wimbledon (both to Murray), and Monte Carlo (to Djokovic). Then Djokovic took everything in the fall. If Wawrinka's somewhat fortuitous run at Melbourne (one that is very unlikely to be repeated) had not occurred, we would not be having this conversation at all.

The wins by Rosol, Darcis, and Stakhovsky were pure aberrations. And besides - one of the Top 4 won the events where those guys got their upsets. So why are we even discussing them? Early-round upsets have always happened.

In 2008, Djokovic lost to Kevin Anderson at Miami early. Nadal lost to Simon, albeit not early, at Madrid. Were those matches supposed to be some kind of significant harbinger in the landscape of men's tennis? Clearly not.

Also, Andujar almost beat Nadal at Rio. But Zeballos beat him at Vina del Mar last year. And how significant did that loss turn out being for the landscape of men's tennis at the highest level in 2013?

The talent gap is still very wide between the Top 4/Top 6/Top 10 and most other players on tour. Wawrinka's unlikely victory doesn't change that.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I just read this article in The Guardian, which is from more than a week ago, but interesting on the point of 'Is the revolution starting to happen in men's tennis?' It seems that Stan is leading the charge, and I was just going to add it to Luxilon Borg's thread, but I thought it merited its own conversation.

Even before Wawrinka beat Djokovic and Nadal to win the AO, there have been interlopers with the nerve to take out the big guns in recent years: Rosol, Darcis, Stakhovsky. Cilic recently beat Murray, though, we've yet to see Andy back in full stride. And Pablo Andujar nearly took out Nadal in Rio, on clay.

Is this the beginning of the Revolution by the rest of the field, or at least the strongest and bravest amongst them? How much shake-up will we see in 2014?

I don't think there is going to be any revolution either. The interlopers you mentioned all scored victories against compromised opponents. Fed was clearly not 100% against Sergei and Rafa's knees were toast against Darcis, who by the way has not played a match since.

Of course you will see some surpises here and there, but no revolution. Stan is now in the club so let's see if he can build on it.

Murray is to me the most vulnerable. He has taken the worst losses overall of the big four...against Cilic a few times, Donald Young, and a few others. He has stunk up the joint at IW and his clay seasons have so far been generally unimpressive.

 

[Front242]

I don't personally think there were any injury issues with the losses of Fed to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis to be honest. They were just beaten by guys playing the best matches of their lives and that's it. Pity poor Darcis hasn't been able to play since falling on his shoulder. Saying Nadal's knees were toast after he'd just won the French Open is a bit bloody much sorry. Likewise Fed seemed fine there and they were both just beaten. A few points separated the winners from losers in both very close wins/losses.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I find all this talk of cracks in the top 4 odd, as though they're completely unexpected and have come out of the blue. They have been dominant forever, so of course it was bound to come to an end at one point or another (not saying it's happened already. It hasn't). My favorite was someone saying "I've been calling it for years." Well yeah, if you've been calling it for years, it just means you've been wrong for years... At one point, you'll be right.

Anyway, Federer is 32 and past his prime so what did people really expect? Murray just had back surgery and struggling to return to fitness/form. Nadal and Djokovic are still very much the best two players in the world. No need to overanalyze. That's all there is to it. Of course there are cracks and it was always going to happen. But no, there is no major "change." Who are these players making said change happen? Wawrinka...and?

"Even before Wawrinka beat Djokovic and Nadal to win the AO, there have been interlopers with the nerve to take out the big guns in recent years: Rosol, Darcis, Stakhovsky. Cilic recently beat Murray,"

The very fact that we can name them on a few fingers says it all. This is overblown. We're naming a few losses spread out over multiple years involving 3-4 different players (ie combining all of the top 4's losses and lumping them together). Other than Federer declining, I don't see evidence of huge changes regarding the other 3 (though it will happen one day). Novak lost a match? It happens. It was his first loss to someone other than the big 4 at a slam in forever. One loss does not make a revolution. Nadal? I don't know about anyone else but he's been looking pretty dominant since his come back to me. Murray was reaching Slam finals routinely before his injury (Wimbledon 2012, US Open 2012, AO 2013, Wimbledon 2013). That's 4 finals in 5 slams appearances (he missed RG 2013). Not too bad.

I think people love to come up with narratives.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't personally think there were any injury issues with the losses of Fed to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis to be honest. They were just beaten by guys playing the best matches of their lives and that's it. Pity poor Darcis hasn't been able to play since falling on his shoulder. Saying Nadal's knees were toast after he'd just won the French Open is a bit bloody much sorry. Likewise Fed seemed fine there and they were both just beaten. A few points separated the winners from losers in both very close wins/losses.

Fed's back was absolutely an issue in that match. What has Sergei done since? NADA.

Maybe it is pushing it to say that Nadal was compromised against Darcis but do you think he was really think he would have lost if fresh? If they. Played 20 more times how many sets would Darcis win in your estimation.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I find all this talk of cracks in the top 4 hilarious, as though they're completely unexpected and have come out of the blue. They have been dominant forever, so of course it was bound to come to an end at one point or another (not saying it's happened already. It hasn't). My favorite was someone saying "I've been calling it for years." Well yeah, if you've been calling it for years, it just means you've been wrong for years... At one point, you'll be right.

Anyway, Federer is 32 and past his prime so what did people really expect? Murray just had back surgery and struggling to return to fitness/form. Nadal and Djokovic are still very much the best two players in the world. No need to overanalyze. That's all there is to it. Of course there are cracks and it was always going to happen. But no, there is no major "change." Who are these players making said change happen? Wawrinka...and?

"Even before Wawrinka beat Djokovic and Nadal to win the AO, there have been interlopers with the nerve to take out the big guns in recent years: Rosol, Darcis, Stakhovsky. Cilic recently beat Murray,"

The very fact that we can name them on a few fingers says it all. This is overblown. We're naming a few losses spread out over multiple years involving 3-4 different players (ie combining all of the top 4's losses and lumping them together). Other than Federer declining, I don't see evidence of huge changes regarding the other 3 (though it will happen one day). Novak lost a match? It happens. It was his first loss to someone other than the big 4 at a slam in forever. One loss does not make a revolution. Nadal? I don't know about anyone else but he's been looking pretty dominant since his come back to me. Murray was reaching Slam finals routinely before his injury (Wimbledon 2012, US Open 2012, AO 2013, Wimbledon 2013). That's 4 finals in 5 slams appearances (he missed RG 2013). Not too bad.

I think people love to come up with narratives.

Have to agree. 4 or 5 rather odd losses over the course of a year for the Big 4 in between making semis and finals of slams is not a revolution in the making.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The revolution in Ukraine spilled over to Dog.

 

[Front242]

I don't personally think there were any injury issues with the losses of Fed to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis to be honest. They were just beaten by guys playing the best matches of their lives and that's it. Pity poor Darcis hasn't been able to play since falling on his shoulder. Saying Nadal's knees were toast after he'd just won the French Open is a bit bloody much sorry. Likewise Fed seemed fine there and they were both just beaten. A few points separated the winners from losers in both very close wins/losses.

Fed's back was absolutely an issue in that match. What has Sergei done since? NADA.

Maybe it is pushing it to say that Nadal was compromised against Darcis but do you think he was really think he would have lost if fresh? If they. Played 20 more times how many sets would Darcis win in your estimation.

What Sergei has done since makes no difference. He played unreal that day, likewise Rosol, Darcis, and Soderling when he beat Nadal and Fed at RG '09 and '10. It wasn't anything to do with being fresh. Both Nadal and Federer were fresh, they had 2 weeks rest since RG!

Nadal's problem has always been tricky opponents on the first week when the grass is faster. Fed didn't actually play that badly and his back couldn't have been an issue or he wouldn't have been in 3 TBs and lost one set 7-5, he'd have lost dismally and he didn't. I still say both guys just lost and that's it. Fair play to their opponents that day. As to any of the above playing 20 more sets and not just Darcis, again, it's pointless. The fact remains, the sets they played on those given days were the best they ever played. Likewise with Tsonga in AO '08 against Nadal. He likely will never win 3 sets like that again against Nadal and maybe not even one with those scorelines, but it doesn't detract from how he played that day...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't personally think there were any injury issues with the losses of Fed to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis to be honest. They were just beaten by guys playing the best matches of their lives and that's it. Pity poor Darcis hasn't been able to play since falling on his shoulder. Saying Nadal's knees were toast after he'd just won the French Open is a bit bloody much sorry. Likewise Fed seemed fine there and they were both just beaten. A few points separated the winners from losers in both very close wins/losses.

Fed's back was absolutely an issue in that match. What has Sergei done since? NADA.

Maybe it is pushing it to say that Nadal was compromised against Darcis but do you think he was really think he would have lost if fresh? If they. Played 20 more times how many sets would Darcis win in your estimation.

What Sergei has done since makes no difference. He played unreal that day, likewise Rosol, Darcis, and Soderling when he beat Nadal and Fed at RG '09 and '10. It wasn't anything to do with being fresh. Both Nadal and Federer were fresh, they had 2 weeks rest since RG!

Nadal's problem has always been tricky opponents on the first week when the grass is faster. Fed didn't actually play that badly and his back couldn't have been an issue or he wouldn't have been in 3 TBs and lost one set 7-5, he'd have lost dismally and he didn't. I still say both guys just lost and that's it. Fair play to their opponents that day. As to any of the above playing 20 more sets and not just Darcis, again, it's pointless. The fact remains, the sets they played on those given days were the best they ever played. Likewise with Tsonga in AO '08 against Nadal. He likely will never win 3 sets like that again against Nadal and maybe not even one with those scorelines, but it doesn't detract from how he played that day...

Hold on a sec. There are few arguments here, and one is a false argument. To put Darcis, Sergei S., or Rosol in the same league as Tsonga or Solderling is absurd. Solderling is a two time slam finalist and Tsonga a finalist with multiple semis. Legit Top 10.

There are always going to be blips on the radar..remember Canas beating fed two times in a row? Lowly Donald Young beating Murray at IW..Jokers loss to Haas in Miami....some even called Jokers loss to Grigor D a lark...

Let's call a lucky win for what is.

For the record, Sergei did play great, then got pummeled in the next round.

 

[Front242]

I don't personally think there were any injury issues with the losses of Fed to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis to be honest. They were just beaten by guys playing the best matches of their lives and that's it. Pity poor Darcis hasn't been able to play since falling on his shoulder. Saying Nadal's knees were toast after he'd just won the French Open is a bit bloody much sorry. Likewise Fed seemed fine there and they were both just beaten. A few points separated the winners from losers in both very close wins/losses.

Fed's back was absolutely an issue in that match. What has Sergei done since? NADA.

Maybe it is pushing it to say that Nadal was compromised against Darcis but do you think he was really think he would have lost if fresh? If they. Played 20 more times how many sets would Darcis win in your estimation.

What Sergei has done since makes no difference. He played unreal that day, likewise Rosol, Darcis, and Soderling when he beat Nadal and Fed at RG '09 and '10. It wasn't anything to do with being fresh. Both Nadal and Federer were fresh, they had 2 weeks rest since RG!

Nadal's problem has always been tricky opponents on the first week when the grass is faster. Fed didn't actually play that badly and his back couldn't have been an issue or he wouldn't have been in 3 TBs and lost one set 7-5, he'd have lost dismally and he didn't. I still say both guys just lost and that's it. Fair play to their opponents that day. As to any of the above playing 20 more sets and not just Darcis, again, it's pointless. The fact remains, the sets they played on those given days were the best they ever played. Likewise with Tsonga in AO '08 against Nadal. He likely will never win 3 sets like that again against Nadal and maybe not even one with those scorelines, but it doesn't detract from how he played that day...

Hold on a sec. There are few arguments here, and one is a false argument. To put Darcis, Sergei S., or Rosol in the same league as Tsonga or Solderling is absurd. Solderling is a two time slam finalist and Tsonga a finalist with multiple semis. Legit Top 10.

There are always going to be blips on the radar..remember Canas beating fed two times in a row? Lowly Donald Young beating Murray at IW..Jokers loss to Haas in Miami....some even called Jokers loss to Grigor D a lark...

Let's call a lucky win for what is.

For the record, Sergei did play great, then got pummeled in the next round.

Ah come on, now you're calling them lucky wins. Geez, give these guys some damn credit :nono It doesn't take for a guy to have reached a slam final to play an incredible match one day in his whole life! And I'm well aware Sergei lost next round and so what does that mean? Absolutely nothing in context to how he played against Federer. What it actually means is he didn't do his homework and that game plan was awfully misguided against Melzer, but it doesn't detract one iota from how he played the match before and never will. Fair play to him, he played a fantastic match against Fed and there was no luck, likewise with Darcis. Both thoroughly deserved those wins for how they played and luck is insulting and downright untrue anyway.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't personally think there were any injury issues with the losses of Fed to Stakhovsky or Nadal to Darcis to be honest. They were just beaten by guys playing the best matches of their lives and that's it. Pity poor Darcis hasn't been able to play since falling on his shoulder. Saying Nadal's knees were toast after he'd just won the French Open is a bit bloody much sorry. Likewise Fed seemed fine there and they were both just beaten. A few points separated the winners from losers in both very close wins/losses.

Fed's back was absolutely an issue in that match. What has Sergei done since? NADA.

Maybe it is pushing it to say that Nadal was compromised against Darcis but do you think he was really think he would have lost if fresh? If they. Played 20 more times how many sets would Darcis win in your estimation.

What Sergei has done since makes no difference. He played unreal that day, likewise Rosol, Darcis, and Soderling when he beat Nadal and Fed at RG '09 and '10. It wasn't anything to do with being fresh. Both Nadal and Federer were fresh, they had 2 weeks rest since RG!

Nadal's problem has always been tricky opponents on the first week when the grass is faster. Fed didn't actually play that badly and his back couldn't have been an issue or he wouldn't have been in 3 TBs and lost one set 7-5, he'd have lost dismally and he didn't. I still say both guys just lost and that's it. Fair play to their opponents that day. As to any of the above playing 20 more sets and not just Darcis, again, it's pointless. The fact remains, the sets they played on those given days were the best they ever played. Likewise with Tsonga in AO '08 against Nadal. He likely will never win 3 sets like that again against Nadal and maybe not even one with those scorelines, but it doesn't detract from how he played that day...

Hold on a sec. There are few arguments here, and one is a false argument. To put Darcis, Sergei S., or Rosol in the same league as Tsonga or Solderling is absurd. Solderling is a two time slam finalist and Tsonga a finalist with multiple semis. Legit Top 10.

There are always going to be blips on the radar..remember Canas beating fed two times in a row? Lowly Donald Young beating Murray at IW..Jokers loss to Haas in Miami....some even called Jokers loss to Grigor D a lark...

Let's call a lucky win for what is.

For the record, Sergei did play great, then got pummeled in the next round.

Ah come on, now you're calling them lucky wins. Geez, give these guys some damn credit :nono It doesn't take for a guy to have reached a slam final to play an incredible match one day in his whole life! And I'm well aware Sergei lost next round and so what does that mean? Absolutely nothing in context to how he played against Federer. What it actually means is he didn't do his homework and that game plan was awfully misguided against Melzer, but it doesn't detract one iota from how he played the match before and never will. Fair play to him, he played a fantastic match against Fed and there was no luck, likewise with Darcis. Both thoroughly deserved those wins for how they played and luck is insulting and downright untrue anyway.

They get full credit. But I have yet to see any of the guys use ANY of those wins as career building blocks. That tells me there WAS an element of luck involved. No, there wins were not pure luck.

Famous for a day does not a career make.

And since you did not address, I take it you agree that lumping in losses to Tsonga, Solderling, or even Berdych with losses to Rosol, Darcis, or Sergei S are false equivalents.

 

[Front242]

^ Firstly, yeah sure none were able to capitalize. Rosol didn't do anything since except win DC for his country. Not bad but besides that yeah, in fairness not much but he played unreal that day at Wimbledon, especially set 5. Stakhovsky has done nothing of note since but again, none of this detracts from how he played that day. Darcis played so well and put so much blood, sweat and tears into his win he fell on his shoulder and hasn't been able to play at all since, so you can leave him out.

No one is claiming they made anyone's career but they surely tampered with the chances of Fed and Nadal going further in those tournaments and potentially adding to their respective slam counts so that in itself is a big deal.

As for your last paragraph above, I never claimed anything about those losses to Tsonga, Soderling or Berdych being equivalent, although frankly if you want to go down that route, Tsonga was a relative nobody and unseeded when he beat Nadal at AO '08, Soderling had only truly arrived in terms of slam performances in 2009 so it was still a big upset. Check his results prior to RG 2009. The only guy known to have given trouble prior to those upsets was Berdych who had given Fed some tricky matches since early days.

To address your allusion to luck.....many players get divine intervention for at least one day where they serve tons of aces and paint lines like a pro. It's not luck though, a day where things seem to be going your way a whole lot better than usual I'd call it. Otherwise was x lucky when y was playing crap and that's why he won. You could talk nonsense like that for every match ever played!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I would separate Stan's win from all the other names mentioned above, because he has been giving signs of improvement for a couple of years now, beating Murray, taking Nole to the brink. He still has to prove he belongs, mind you. I think if Dimitrov was able to pull of the win against Nadal at the AO, which looked possible at times, that would have been a big "crack in the ceiling " moment for me.

 

[Moxie]

Personally, I do think "les sans colottes" are making a move. I'm just curious as to which of them it will be.

 

[DarthFed]

Big part of this equation is that Fed has went from an automatic place in the semis to just another top ten player. That already knocks it down to 3 and Murray has the injury so it's not surprising to see him struggle right now.

The surprising "crack" might be Djokovic as he looks more 2009-2010 than 2011 and even 2012. A loss early at his home slam to Stan is enormous and we have to go back to RG last year to find a slam he didn't have a miserable performance in. At this point Djokovic playing bad is still top 2 in the world so you will still see him go deep in slams more often than not but you wonder if you might see more mega upsets at his expense. He needs to stop the bleeding at slams...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

they were not lucky wins..just because they lost in the next round against a zero after beating a so-called big 4 player.

there was no luck..they just player better.

 

[britbox]

^ Yeah, luck isn't the right word. Not sure what is really. Isolated displays of great tennis where everything dovetailed and came together.

 

[kskate2]

That's called a "Perfect Storm" Baron.