Kieran said:
This is right, but not only are the youngsters who are there now weak, but apart from the top 3 +1 (and I'll always use the +1, because Murray just isn't of the calibre of the other three), so are the older players. Look at Tsonga. Look at Ferrer, who at least has a huge heart. These guys aren't gonna be taking any big prizes in the foreseeable either...
Unfortunately I think its 2+2 at this point, at least that's my fear based upon Roger's 2013 so far, but I hold out hope that we'll see another run from Roger and even another Slam title.
But I agree with you. For the last few years there's been a steep drop-off between the elite and rest of the field. For a couple years it was unclear whether Murray was "worst of the best" or "best of the rest"; after winning Olympic gold, the US Open, and being a frequent Slam finalist, I think he has earned his place in the elite, although not a candidate for best in the game. If Andy is no longer the best player in Open Era history to never win a Slam, he could challenge Guillermo Vilas eventually for best player never to be ranked #1 (although Vilas should have in 1977 when he won two Slams and #1 Connors didn't win any, but that's another conversation).
For a bit there Soderling seemed like the "diplomat" between the two camps, and then it looked like Del Potro could fill that spot, or even become a true elite, but he hasn't been able to differentiate himself from the near-elites since returning from injury.
If Federer doesn't turn himself around maybe he'll be that in-betweener, although its actually looking like he isn't any better than the Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych group right now, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
So right now I see some rather distinct groupings:
Candidates for best player in the game: Djokovic, Nadal
(small but significant gap)
"Lesser elites": Murray, Federer
(big gap)
"Near-elites": Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro
(big gap)
Everyone else
We talk about that gap between the "lesser elites" and "near elites" being rather large, but the gap between the "near elites" and everyone else is just as large; the only difference is that it is more traveled - players are frequently challenging for a spot in the near elites, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Wawrinka hang out there for a bit, and it only seems like a matter of time before Raonic, Janowicz, and Dimitrov knock on the door.
But the last player to join the true elites of the game was Andy Murray, and he's been in the top 5 for five years now. Del Potro challenged but didn't get there, perhaps largely due to injury, and I think is unlikely to ever win a Slam again.
I think the big concern is that there's no one that looks like a serious candidate to rise any higher than the near elites. I think Raonic, Janowicz, and Dimitrov are all near-elite talents, but I don't see any as true elites. Beyond them, well...who is there? No one, at least no one on the horizon.
So even if and when Novak, Rafa, and Andy start losing a half-step (which is very common around age 27), it will be somewhat masked by the lack of top young talent. In another year or two I think we'll enter a 2-3 year period in which the current greats are slipping (if only a bit, which is all it will take to be challenged), the current young guns are peaking, and the next great(s) haven't entered their prime yet, although we'll probably know who they might be by then. Who knows when this period will start, but I'd guess we'll start seeing the first signs of it in 2014, it will be quite underway in 2015, and last until 2017 or 2018, when players currently age 17-18 will be 21-22 and really coming into their own (like Kyrgios). So 2014-2018 will probably be similar to 1999-2003, when Sampragassi was on the decline and Fedal hadn't risen yet (although, to be fair, Agassi was having a renaissance, but their combined dominance wasn't quite as significant).
