Cracks in the glass ceiling?

[isabelle]

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

Les sans culottes are certainly making a move, very interesting fot tennis IMO

 

[britbox]

That's called a "Perfect Storm" Baron.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Kieran]

I think that the natural course of time is taking its due on Federer, but I'd still back him ahead of anyone else whose name isn't Rafa, Novak or Andy. Stan has peaked. I don't see it all coming together that way for him again. Who else? Tsonga? I'm starting to yawn. Berdyich? His mammy loves him. Who else?

We're gonna have to follow El Dude and skip a generation, look at the guys who are aged between 17 and 23, and even then, are they ready to take names at the slams and MS tourneys? last season, Rafa took two slams and 5 MS, Nole and Andy took the rest of everything else worth winning.

I'm not sure the article is declaring with any conviction that a change is gonna come. I mean, "Grigor Dimitrov, who took a set off Nadal in Melbourne and might have won had he held his nerve," - okay, but hasn't Grigor played two other tourneys this year? And has he shown that he's separating from the bunch and ready to wear long trousers? Rafa has also played two other events - and won them both. Getting a set off Rafa in a slam and then doing nothing after is not a hopeful sign.

I think eventually the top lads have to decay, but unless Rafa goes lame, and Murray has fitness issues, I don't see it being this year...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ 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!

Rosol, Darcis, Sergei S., et al...they are what Jimmy Connors calls "stoppers". They produce a totally unexpected result in knocking out a top player, then lose in the next round. You will see a few stoppers a year in slams or in Masters 1000 events.

For the record, the Tsonga defeat of Nadal in 08 was hardly the case of a "nobody". Tsonga was a young gun who everyone knew was going top 10. He was no Steve Darcis or Rosol.

The bottom line is that there will always be shockers here and there, but it is not a sign of the changing of the guard, unless one of those "stoppers" goes on to win a slam.

 

[Front242]

^ No need to tell me about Tsonga back then as I backed him to win that match which he did very nicely I didn't think he'd win by the scoreline that he did but he probably didn't either!

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

OK, I'm not being a jerk, but how can you make such a general statement if by your own admission, you don't know anything specific about it? Like, how can we state that players are making moves if literally none of them (with the exception of one) look like they are?

 

[Front242]

^ Here's why...

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7l8dx-h8M&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

[Moxie]

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

OK, I'm not being a jerk, but how can you make such a general statement if by your own admission, you don't know anything specific about it? Like, how can we state that players are making moves if literally none of them (with the exception of one) look like they are?

I don't think I made a general statement. TBH, I was putting this out there as a notion, which I do think is valid, i.e., that the aura is off the top guys, and a shake-down is coming. I was surprised how many took it to heart that I might be (heaven forfend!) suggesting that les sans culottes were just about to storm the castle and win majors. I wasn't suggesting that, at all, nor do I think the piece was. I thought it interesting to posit that there are, as I suggested in my subject line "cracks in the glass ceiling." Wawrinka winning AO. (Forget the caveats. He still did.) Andujar taking Rafa for a wild ride on clay in Rio. I was pleased that so many posted on the thread, but I have to say, I was surprised at how nearly all defended the status quo. I, myself, am very invested in the status quo…I want Rafa to win his 17th or possibly 18th Major in the next few years. I am just asking if the under-cards are beginning to make noise, not be intimidated, in the way they used to be, and if 2014 might be volatile. There is a lot of noise around here that everyone wants a shake-up, but, basically no one bit for it on this thread. I still expect the usual suspects to win the big brassy things, this year, but I was asking if the aura was off the top guys. Nothing more controversial than that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ Didn't "defend" the status quo. This thread is not about defending since you weren't attacking anyone.

In fact, in my very first post I said that cracks have been slowly developing for a while since these 4 have been on top forever. The obvious one is Federer getting old, and he's no longer a lock for semis, which obviously leaves room for others. However, what I did say is that as far as the other 3 is concerned, there isn't enough evidence. Murray is struggling due to the injury he sustained last year. I'm sure at this time one year ago, you could have argued that there are cracks in the top 4 as Fed is declining and Nadal was out injured for a while. There's somewhat of a similar situation here.

What I strongly disagree with however, is that other people are making a move. The top 4 being shaky (to an extent) is one thing but people making moves is another. In other words, the top 4 being shaky means more losses than usual, which is fair. But people making moves implies that specific players will not only deliver the occasional upset, but are actually here to stay, and perhaps even take their spot. This is what I don't agree with one bit, and when I asked you to name a few (other than Stan, obviously), you couldn't. The younger guys are not good enough right now, which leaves us with the Berdyches and Tsongas of the world. Sorry, I don't think you'll be seeing them seriously challenge for majors any time soon. Meanwhile, Del Potro is struggling with injury.

And no, Andujar taking Nadal for a wild ride counts for nothing because A) He didn't win B) Nadal still won the tournament C) Andujar is hardly among the "sans culottes" since he's irrelevant to this conversation (in other words, him winning would mean no more than Horacio beating Rafa last year. An upset. That's it). If "wild rides" are enough proof now then it says a lot really.

Not defending anything. I'm just questioning the foundation of the argument.

 

[Moxie]

^^ Didn't "defend" the status quo. This thread is not about defending since you weren't attacking anyone.

In fact, in my very first post I said that cracks have been slowly developing for a while since these 4 have been on top forever. The obvious one is Federer getting old, and he's no longer a lock for semis, which obviously leaves room for others. However, what I did say is that as far as the other 3 is concerned, there isn't enough evidence. Murray is struggling due to the injury he sustained last year. I'm sure at this time one year ago, you could have argued that there are cracks in the top 4 as Fed is declining and Nadal was out injured for a while. There's somewhat of a similar situation here.

What I strongly disagree with however, is that other people are making a move. The top 4 being shaky (to an extent) is one thing but people making moves is another. In other words, the top 4 being shaky means more losses than usual, which is fair. But people making moves implies that specific players will not only deliver the occasional upset, but are actually here to stay, and perhaps even take their spot. This is what I don't agree with one bit, and when I asked you to name a few (other than Stan, obviously), you couldn't. The younger guys are not good enough right now, which leaves us with the Berdyches and Tsongas of the world. Sorry, I don't think you'll be seeing them seriously challenge for majors any time soon. Meanwhile, Del Potro is struggling with injury.

And no, Andujar taking Nadal for a wild ride counts for nothing because A) He didn't win B) Nadal still won the tournament C) Andujar is hardly among the "sans culottes" since he's irrelevant to this conversation (in other words, him winning would mean no more than Horacio beating Rafa last year. An upset. That's it). If "wild rides" are enough proof now then it says a lot really.

Not defending anything. I'm just questioning the foundation of the argument.

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

The field was not "rolling over" to the big 4 (that's the same argument many raised when Fed was dominating). The big 4 were just that much better. Big difference.

Again, I'm not defending the big 4's supremacy. I'm merely talking results, which are incontestable.

 

[herios]

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

The field was not "rolling over" to the big 4 (that's the same argument many raised when Fed was dominating). The big 4 were just that much better. Big difference.

Again, I'm not defending the big 4's supremacy. I'm merely talking results, which are incontestable.

Moxie, I am with you. For those in denial, they could stay in denial until they will have egg on their face!
The guy who cracked the ceiling was actually Ferrer who got a seat in the top 4 for almost a year by now. That was obtained based on a master title and a place in a slam final.
The crack was widened by Stan now.
Who knows who is next?
In a few months, we will be able to confirm or not.
I am certain by one fact, the Top 4 has peaked in 2011-2012, they are now less dominant and we are seeing starting a period of transition where more players will pocket the big titles than in the last few years. I am expecting at least one master to go to someone unexpected and more slam finalists than usual this year.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

The field was not "rolling over" to the big 4 (that's the same argument many raised when Fed was dominating). The big 4 were just that much better. Big difference.

Again, I'm not defending the big 4's supremacy. I'm merely talking results, which are incontestable.

Moxie, I am with you. For those in denial, they could stay in denial until they will have egg on their face!
The guy who cracked the ceiling was actually Ferrer who got a seat in the top 4 for almost a year by now. That was obtained based on a master title and a place in a slam final.
The crack was widened by Stan now.
Who knows who is next?
In a few months, we will be able to confirm or not.
I am certain by one fact, the Top 4 has peaked in 2011-2012, they are now less dominant and we are seeing starting a period of transition where more players will pocket the big titles than in the last few years. I am expecting at least one master to go to someone unexpected and more slam finalists than usual this year.

I should say to Broken that "roll over" was a poor choice of words. Of course the Big 4 were just better, but now there seems to be a bit more belief in the locker room that they're beatable. On occasion.

Anyway, herios, I was thinking, too, that it might feel like the beginning of the transition out of the Big 4 era. It's inevitable that cracks will start to appear. Not that I even expect too many surprise winners on the big stages, yet, just a few more unexpected turns. Think Wimbledon last year: while there were unexpected upsets, it was still a Murray v. Djokovic final. 2014 may be a little more like that…more upsets, but still a lot of the usual suspects on the final Sunday. I do think the change will be gradual, and take time, though, given the ages of 3 of the Big 4.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

The field was not "rolling over" to the big 4 (that's the same argument many raised when Fed was dominating). The big 4 were just that much better. Big difference.

Again, I'm not defending the big 4's supremacy. I'm merely talking results, which are incontestable.

Moxie, I am with you. For those in denial, they could stay in denial until they will have egg on their face!
The guy who cracked the ceiling was actually Ferrer who got a seat in the top 4 for almost a year by now. That was obtained based on a master title and a place in a slam final.
The crack was widened by Stan now.
Who knows who is next?
In a few months, we will be able to confirm or not.
I am certain by one fact, the Top 4 has peaked in 2011-2012, they are now less dominant and we are seeing starting a period of transition where more players will pocket the big titles than in the last few years. I am expecting at least one master to go to someone unexpected and more slam finalists than usual this year.

Ferrer carcked the sealing due to Federer's decline, which I acknowledged. What denial? I love how you dare speak of "eggs on faces" after you've been predicting the top 4's demise since 2008, and cry vindication when they lose, only to completely get proven wrong again and again. I don't understand why this thread is turning into "who is right?" We actually have results and evidence...

Of course the top 4 is less dominant now, since Fed is 32. That's hardly a revolutionary observation.

PS: LOL @ Ferrer cracking the top 4. Yeah, he sure did look like he caused cracks in the ceilings by getting his butt handed to him every time they play. I like David, but come on...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

The field was not "rolling over" to the big 4 (that's the same argument many raised when Fed was dominating). The big 4 were just that much better. Big difference.

Again, I'm not defending the big 4's supremacy. I'm merely talking results, which are incontestable.

Moxie, I am with you. For those in denial, they could stay in denial until they will have egg on their face!
The guy who cracked the ceiling was actually Ferrer who got a seat in the top 4 for almost a year by now. That was obtained based on a master title and a place in a slam final.
The crack was widened by Stan now.
Who knows who is next?
In a few months, we will be able to confirm or not.
I am certain by one fact, the Top 4 has peaked in 2011-2012, they are now less dominant and we are seeing starting a period of transition where more players will pocket the big titles than in the last few years. I am expecting at least one master to go to someone unexpected and more slam finalists than usual this year.

I should say to Broken that "roll over" was a poor choice of words. Of course the Big 4 were just better, but now there seems to be a bit more belief in the locker room that they're beatable. On occasion.

Anyway, herios, I was thinking, too, that it might feel like the beginning of the transition out of the Big 4 era. It's inevitable that cracks will start to appear. Not that I even expect too many surprise winners on the big stages, yet, just a few more unexpected turns. Think Wimbledon last year: while there were unexpected upsets, it was still a Murray v. Djokovic final. 2014 may be a little more like that…more upsets, but still a lot of the usual suspects on the final Sunday. I do think the change will be gradual, and take time, though, given the ages of 3 of the Big 4.

It is the beginning of the transition out of this era. Fed is past his prime. Who knows how long Nadal's body will hold up, etc... But a transitional period could last a few months or a few years. For example, Fed's transitional period out of his prime started in 2008. Yet look at how much he's won during that period. Also, for the top 4 to transition out, you actually need someone good enough to take their place. That's what many don't seem to realize. Even a sub-par Nadal (not saying he's playing sub-par. I'm talking hypothetically), an old Federer, a shaky Djokovic, etc... are still good enough for the most part, to beat most on tour.

 

[britbox]

I'm not taking a combative position on this, I was merely presenting a topic for discussion. I do think it's interesting, however, that, given an open topic, how many have chosen to defend the supremacy of the Big 4. The point, which I may have not made clearly, is not that a particular player is making a move, but that the field seems to be less inclined to roll over to the Big 4. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic. There is no foundation to my argument. It's not an argument. I was merely curious if others were seeing a sea-change, and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I didn't make clear enough, originally, what I thought was interesting about the Guardian article.

The field was not "rolling over" to the big 4 (that's the same argument many raised when Fed was dominating). The big 4 were just that much better. Big difference.

Again, I'm not defending the big 4's supremacy. I'm merely talking results, which are incontestable.

Moxie, I am with you. For those in denial, they could stay in denial until they will have egg on their face!
The guy who cracked the ceiling was actually Ferrer who got a seat in the top 4 for almost a year by now. That was obtained based on a master title and a place in a slam final.
The crack was widened by Stan now.
Who knows who is next?
In a few months, we will be able to confirm or not.
I am certain by one fact, the Top 4 has peaked in 2011-2012, they are now less dominant and we are seeing starting a period of transition where more players will pocket the big titles than in the last few years. I am expecting at least one master to go to someone unexpected and more slam finalists than usual this year.

Ferrer carcked the sealing due to Federer's decline, which I acknowledged. What denial? I love how you dare speak of "eggs on faces" after you've been predicting the top 4's demise since 2008, and cry vindication when they lose, only to completely get proven wrong again and again. I don't understand why this thread is turning into "who is right?" We actually have results and evidence...

Of course the top 4 is less dominant now, since Fed is 32. That's hardly a revolutionary observation.

PS: LOL @ Ferrer cracking the top 4. Yeah, he sure did look like he caused cracks in the ceilings by getting his butt handed to him every time they play. I like David, but come on...

Agreed, Federer cracked the ceiling floor by falling through it... not Ferrer busting his way into the attic.