Dominance of the Big Four, revisited

[Ricardo]

wonderful final, where Fed played the best i've ever seen him play on clay and came just inches short; if only Rafa was a little off, just a little....

 

[Front242]

wonderful final, where Fed played the best i've ever seen him play on clay and came just inches short; if only Rafa was a little off, just a little....

The thing about that final was it showed Fed didn't need to adapt a game plan tailored to beat Rafa on clay. He had 2 match points playing his usual game. All that let him down was the execution. Obviously easier said than done but if he could have managed to sustain a high level of winners to low UFEs his normal game would've worked on clay in the past. Not the first strike he's adopted late in his career, which admittedly he's had to given the other top guys are much younger than him. He probably regrets that loss bigtime. Great final though for sure.

 

[Haelfix]

The thing about that final was it showed Fed didn't need to adapt a game plan tailored to beat Rafa on clay. He had 2 match points playing his usual game. All that let him down was the execution. Obviously easier said than done but if he could have managed to sustain a high level of winners to low UFEs his normal game would've worked on clay in the past. Not the first strike he's adopted late in his career, which admittedly he's had to given the other top guys are much younger than him. He probably regrets that loss bigtime. Great final though for sure.

I don't quite agree. Rome that year was playing particularly fast and the ball never jumps up as much as say RG. It was also the end of Roger's physical prime, and probably the point where he was still a better athlete than Rafa but would no longer be from that point onwards.

It was clear from that point that Rogers best tennis wouldn't beat Rafa on clay, and that he\d have to improve his backhand. His bh did improve of course, but the rest of his baseline game never was that level on clay again.

 

[Front242]

The thing about that final was it showed Fed didn't need to adapt a game plan tailored to beat Rafa on clay. He had 2 match points playing his usual game. All that let him down was the execution. Obviously easier said than done but if he could have managed to sustain a high level of winners to low UFEs his normal game would've worked on clay in the past. Not the first strike he's adopted late in his career, which admittedly he's had to given the other top guys are much younger than him. He probably regrets that loss bigtime. Great final though for sure.

I don't quite agree. Rome that year was playing particularly fast and the ball never jumps up as much as say RG. It was also the end of Roger's physical prime, and probably the point where he was still a better athlete than Rafa but would no longer be from that point onwards.

It was clear from that point that Rogers best tennis wouldn't beat Rafa on clay, and that he\d have to improve his backhand. His bh did improve of course, but the rest of his baseline game never was that level on clay again.

He was pretty damn good in the semi against Novak in 2011 but that was an anomaly I guess. He was pretty damn good in parts of the final that year too, most notably the first set. Still disgusted he lost that first set to this day. Think you're being a bit hard on him there too. I mean he had 2 match points playing his own game at Rome '06 and that was best of 5 and he's beaten him on clay in best of 3. He could just as easily have won that match as lost it. Besides Soderling obviously, that's the closest anyone has got to beating him in best of 5 on clay.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

This video distorts both fed and rafa. Makes them short and fat. It is funny.

Is not this 2006 rome final? I think it is this match that rang the death bell
to 5-set finals in Masters tournaments. Both Rafa and Roger skipped the
Hamburg tournament that was starting the next day.

I thought it terrible when tournament finals went away from best of 5 in huge events; Italian Open, Indian Wells, & Miami! With the compressed spring schedule so loaded, I guess they had to do something to eliminate withdrawals like you mentioned with Rafa and Roger! I still remember an IW final with Edberg and Agassi that went 4 sets, but took well over 4 hours with long sets! Common place now, but not so common "way back when!" They still need to push these guys to move quicker during matches! I see a little bit of it, but the guys still push the envelope; esp. Rafa!

I believe all Masters Tournament finals used to be best of 5 until this match between
Roger and Rafa. This not only made the finals into 3 sets but also paved the way for
1st rd bye for top 8 seeds in the second masters in case of consecutive masters events.

its all helped to keep the older players on tour at the top longer..so the reason why they stopped 5 set masters and brought in byes has been a big success.

even though they were at peak of careers..it is clear after a 5 hr final rafa n Federer thought, hambourg ??? no way, no dice.

5 sets masters were epic..but I don't mind not having them if it means a higher participation percentage of players in other tourneys.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^OH the irony of Pistol 'cantplayonclay' Petros winning a clay masters that Federer can't win.

that's a stat attack and that's a fact.

he had a match point on his racket.........

Federer had 2 match points..didn't he, 15-40.

Yes. Go to the four-hour mark, and you'll be there.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUma7TL_RDk[/video]

thought so..Federer choked both match points, that first one needed an in/out cc forehand just like the one he hit at break point down in 3rd set vs Haas at RG 2009 QF.

Still Federer has 2 wins on clay vs rafa, I hope they don't meet again on clay..as a fan of both I don't enjoy seeing fed lose on clay again and again to the 'king of clay' (2-13 on clay) .

 

[Fiero425]

This video distorts both fed and rafa. Makes them short and fat. It is funny.

Is not this 2006 rome final? I think it is this match that rang the death bell
to 5-set finals in Masters tournaments. Both Rafa and Roger skipped the
Hamburg tournament that was starting the next day.

I thought it terrible when tournament finals went away from best of 5 in huge events; Italian Open, Indian Wells, & Miami! With the compressed spring schedule so loaded, I guess they had to do something to eliminate withdrawals like you mentioned with Rafa and Roger! I still remember an IW final with Edberg and Agassi that went 4 sets, but took well over 4 hours with long sets! Common place now, but not so common "way back when!" They still need to push these guys to move quicker during matches! I see a little bit of it, but the guys still push the envelope; esp. Rafa!

I believe all Masters Tournament finals used to be best of 5 until this match between
Roger and Rafa. This not only made the finals into 3 sets but also paved the way for
1st rd bye for top 8 seeds in the second masters in case of consecutive masters events.

its all helped to keep the older players on tour at the top longer..so the reason why they stopped 5 set masters and brought in byes has been a big success.

even though they were at peak of careers..it is clear after a 5 hr final rafa n Federer thought, hambourg ??? no way, no dice.

5 sets masters were epic..but I don't mind not having them if it means a higher participation percentage of players in other tourneys.

This has been the bane of my aggravation with the tour! They keep making accomodations for the top players; hense the lack of significant upsets! That happened all the time in past eras and it's where you had odd players winning large events! Everything about today's tennis bothers me so I shouldn't vent here! This is just one of many things that have made watching the game less fun to watch! :huh: :s

 

[Kieran]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

 

[Fiero425]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

Thanks for the article! I've only read a couple paragraphs, but it's hitting the exact subject I was referencing here; rigged tours! It's not like I want to see a bad final like Bartoli & Lusicki at Wimbledon, but it should happen sometime if not for accomodations made so that the Big 4 are always "right there" for majors and Masters! :clap :clap :clap

 

[Kieran]

Well, when he says "rigged", I think he means it benevolently, but the tour now perfectly suits players of an aggressively defensive style of play. All across the board and on every surface. And of course, this lack of diversity is the double edged sword of the men's tour...

 

[BalaryKar]

To get a bit of more insight, Fed during 04-07 went 27/56, just one short of the absolute 50% mark. Nadal's top 4 years (5,8,10,12) gets him 23/56, Noles top 4 years 22/56. Sampras Top 4 years is at a distant 18/56. Only Nadal+Nole in the last 4 years are better with 36/56. Ridiculous stat there.

Sorry for the confusion. In a year there are 9 masters + WTF + 4 slams. That's 4*14 =56 top titles for grab. Also, for Federer, these are consecutive years while for Nole+Nadal+Sampras, their Top 4 years, results wise, are not consecutive. Hope this clarifies Kieran.

 

[Kieran]

Hey BalaryKar,

I don't understand, what's that stat mean? What's the "56" refer to?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

WTA is total crap. I saw one match in which there were 27 service games played
and there were 32 breaks of service.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

Bodo is talking crap. He claims that the surfaces have all been homogenized
and have become slow. However, he feels that this affects only Men and not Women.
Last time I checked, the men and women play on the same surfaces in all the slams.

 

[Kieran]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

WTA is total crap. I saw one match in which there were 27 service games played
and there were 32 breaks of service.

Only 32? :huh: :lolz:

Bodo is talking crap. He claims that the surfaces have all been homogenized
and have become slow. However, he feels that this affects only Men and not Women.
Last time I checked, the men and women play on the same surfaces in all the slams.

It would have more effect at a higher level, surely? It's evidential in the men's, but in the women's game, they're all over the place. And he didn't say it didn't affect the women at all, far as I recall, he just said they've managed to maintain more variety in the players who are challenging for titles...

 

[Fiero425]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

Bodo is talking crap. He claims that the surfaces have all been homogenized
and have become slow. However, he feels that this affects only Men and not Women.
Last time I checked, the men and women play on the same surfaces in all the slams.

Bodo's right in so many ways! Women holding serve has always been a problem going back to past generations! Return of serve was stressed more with only a handful of women who served well enough to hold without problems! Even Martina Navratilova had difficulties; esp. on clay! I remember '83 Family Circle Cup where she played Tracy Austin; both couldn't hold initially! The first set had one hold and that was Austin at 5 all; Martina lost serve again giving it up 5-7! Navratilova shook herself and wiped Tracy out 6-0, 6-1, but that lone game was her losing serve again! It happens! Gabriela Sabatini was serving for Wimbledon twice in '91 against Graf; lost it! I could go on!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

Bodo is talking crap. He claims that the surfaces have all been homogenized
and have become slow. However, he feels that this affects only Men and not Women.
Last time I checked, the men and women play on the same surfaces in all the slams.

It would have more effect at a higher level, surely? It's evidential in the men's, but in the women's game, they're all over the place. And he didn't say it didn't affect the women at all, far as I recall, he just said they've managed to maintain more variety in the players who are challenging for titles...

If there is less variety in men's game today (I agree that it is true), it cannot be blamed
so much on the homogenization of courts. It is probably because we are not getting enough
men bold enough to play a game like Aga.

Also, he talks about the importance of baseline defensive play. That again has not
helped much in WTA actually. Anglique Gerber,Caroline Wozniaki and Jelana Jankovic
are very good base line defensive players. But, they have not had much success actually.

The WTA had its own periods when the top players were very dominant. Think of
the times of Martina or Steffi Graf. Martina won more wimbledons than Pete and Fed.
These things go in cycles. After a few years, we may have a situation of dominant
women players and field with parity in men.

 

[Fiero425]

I know a lot of people don't like him, but Peter Bodo gives a fair summary of things here. The WTA is not interesting to me, it's an inferior product, but he makes a few telling and interesting comparisons between the two tours, focussing on numbing predictability of the Big 4 to win all the majors, and 99.9% of the MS titles too...

Bodo is talking crap. He claims that the surfaces have all been homogenized
and have become slow. However, he feels that this affects only Men and not Women.
Last time I checked, the men and women play on the same surfaces in all the slams.

It would have more effect at a higher level, surely? It's evidential in the men's, but in the women's game, they're all over the place. And he didn't say it didn't affect the women at all, far as I recall, he just said they've managed to maintain more variety in the players who are challenging for titles...

If there is less variety in men's game today (I agree that it is true), it cannot be blamed
so much on the homogenization of courts. It is probably because we are not getting enough
men bold enough to play a game like Aga.

Also, he talks about the importance of baseline defensive play. That again has not
helped much in WTA actually. Anglique Gerber,Caroline Wozniaki and Jelana Jankovic
are very good base line defensive players. But, they have not had much success actually.

The WTA had its own periods when the top players were very dominant. Think of
the times of Martina or Steffi Graf. Martina won more wimbledons than Pete and Fed.
These things go in cycles. After a few years, we may have a situation of dominant
women players and field with parity in men.

Let me know when it happens! I might start watching more! :s :angel:

 

[BalaryKar]

Skeletor and He-Man
The like was for them.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Skeletor and He-Man
The like was for them.

l liked a bit of he-man/skeletor battles from the old days..I HAVE THE POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.


"Heh heh heh heh heeehhhhhhhh ..sooooo he-man we meet again".. "unfortunately for you skeletor"