State Your Controversial Opinions Here

[tented]

Rafael Nadal does actually lose matches in which he isn't injured or "off his game." Sometimes he is simply outplayed.

(Ducks tomatoes)

I don't think that's controversial; I think it's factual. Anyone who doesn't agree is guilty of fanboyism/fangirlism. (I may have just invented two words.)

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

This is just a pet peeve, not a controversy, even though it HAS the potential to create one: Semi finals in slams should always be played on the same day.

 

[tented]

This is just a pet peeve, not a controversy, even though it HAS the potential to create one: Semi finals in slams should always be played on the same day.

And scheduled back-to-back. Don't have one start at 1:00 PM, and the other scheduled as the final match of the night session, therefore not begin until, say, 10-11 PM.

 

[mrzz]

It is Rafael Nadal himself, not his uncle/coach Tony, who has a great tactical mind.

 

[El Dude]

Roger Federer's statistical decline in 2008 and on wasn't only about him declining, it was also because of the rise of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Andy Murray not part of the Big Four. I know he doesn't have the same credentials as the other members especially on Clay but he deserves to be in that group.

 

[Front242]

It is Rafael Nadal himself, not his uncle/coach Tony, who has a great tactical mind.

If that were true he wouldn't have been caught on tv so many times getting coached. I'm sure his tennis iq is high but he has been caught getting a lot of help many times in his career from his uncle.

 

[mrzz]

It is Rafael Nadal himself, not his uncle/coach Tony, who has a great tactical mind.

If that were true he wouldn't have been caught on tv so many times getting coached. I'm sure his tennis iq is high but he has been caught getting a lot of help many times in his career from his uncle.

Fact, but this might be more psychological than anything (which maybe it is an even worst offense). From the outside anyone will always have an opinion. I do not think it would be possible to transmit much in such short notice, anyway.

But it is in fact because of this very reason that I think my point is controversial.

 

[tennisville]

There was never a big 4 at the same time. It was always either a Big 2 or Big 1 and Murray was never a part of that group of 3

 

[tennisville]

Another one, Madrid surface is actually pretty close to the surface in Roland Garros after they redesigned the courts in 2013. its only because of its past record that its still labelled as a poor preparation for Roland Garros

 

[Federberg]

There was never a weak era. Just a time when no one player stood out. Over time tennis players get better and better...

 

[El Dude]

I'm thinking these opinions are mainly to be stated and not responded to, but what the heck...

There was never a big 4 at the same time. It was always either a Big 2 or Big 1 and Murray was never a part of that group of 3

I think this is basically true except for one year: 2012. All four of the Big 4 won a Slam and they were relatively close together. So it goes something like this:

Big One: 2004 (Federer)
Big Two: 2005-06 (Fedal)
Big Two + One: 2007 (Fedal + Djokovic)
Big Two + Two: 2008-10 (Fedal + Djokurray)
Big One + One + Two: 2011 (Djokovic + Nadal + Fedurray)
Big Four: 2012
Big Two: 2013 (Nadalkovic)
Big One + Two: 2014 (Djokovic + Fedal)
???: 2015

Ok, that was confusing and a bit silly. But my point is that--to agree with you--the dominance has moved around, but that there was actually one year, 2012, that could be considered the Year of the Big Four. And of course if we want to be generous we could call 2008-14+ the "Era of the Big Four" in that over those seven years (and perhaps more), those four were by far the dominant players in the game.

If you look back at 1973-81, you'd see a similar situation with Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl.

There was never a weak era. Just a time when no one player stood out. Over time tennis players get better and better...

Yeah, maybe. But I think both are true - that players get better and better (overall), but that talent also fluctuates. Macro and micro cycles. For instance, I think it clear that the field was much stronger in the mid-80s to early 90s than in the late 90s to early 00s, even if the overall (longer term) trajectory is towards improvement.

Talent also pools in different ways. Sometimes it is centered on just a few players with a big drop-off after that (e.g. the Big Four and everyone else). But sometimes it is more evenly dispersed and/or the "curve" from the elite to the near-elite is more gradual.

The nice thing about the era we're transitioning into is that there is going to be more dispersal. Actually, there already is in my opinion, as evinced by the fact that Wawrinka and Cilic won Slams last year. While I think Djokovic, Nadal and Murray will still take home the majority of Slams in 2015 to maybe 2017, the gap is slowly narrowing. But the Big Four aren't getting any younger and as they age and slowly decline, the lesser talents below them will be a bit closer in the rearview mirror and, at some point, will equal and then surpass them.

Generations rise and inevitably fall. Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are of an age that the baton would be starting to be passed if there was a strong young generation coming up. But as I've said before, I don't think the upcoming generation (age 21-25ish) is going to surpass the current elites; at best they'll rival them as the older players decline and the younger players peak. For a new level dominant group we might have to wait for the next generation, currently age 16-20ish (e.g. Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, etc).

So we might see something like this, in terms of which generations are dominating the stage:

2001-06: Generation Federer (with Nadal alone creeping in the last two years)
2007-09: Transition
2010-15/16: Generation Nadal/Djokovic
2015-17: Transition
2018-?: Generation Kyrgios/Coric/Zverev

Or something like that. I might do an actual study of the top 10 for different years and figure out a ranking system to see "Generational Top 10 Dominance." Sounds like a fun way to waste an hour or two.

 

[Fiero425]

"If you look back at 1973-81, you'd see a similar situation with Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl."

I like it; probably right, but I'd put Nastase in there somewhere even though he only won 1 major during that period at '73 FO! He made Connors look bad a lot in the mid 70's, lost a Wimbledon final to Borg in '76, reached #1 in the World, and won the Masters 4 times! I find him to be the most talented in those years, but couldn't keep his emotions in check and didn't quite hit the ball hard enough to hurt Borg! He's the "Marat Safin" of that era; IMO! The equivalent today would be the addition of Del Potro since commentators had anointed him the next great player; hasn't happened though due to injury! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[mrzz]

How could I forget:

The blue clay was FANTASTIC. (I really mean it. Please spare me of all your old arguments. I know them all and already (easily) argued elsewhere that they are simply false.)

By the way, fantastic thread. Lots of nice points. Congrats, Broken.

 

[El Dude]

"If you look back at 1973-81, you'd see a similar situation with Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl."

I like it; probably right, but I'd put Nastase in there somewhere even though he only won 1 major during that period at '73 FO! He made Connors look bad a lot in the mid 70's, lost a Wimbledon final to Borg in '76, reached #1 in the World, and won the Masters 4 times! I find him to be the most talented in those years, but couldn't keep his emotions in check and didn't quite hit the ball hard enough to hurt Borg! He's the "Marat Safin" of that era; IMO! The equivalent today would be the addition of Del Potro since commentators had anointed him the next great player; hasn't happened though due to injury! :angel: :dodgy:

Interesting "real life" perspective on Nastase, thanks for that. Maybe if I had written "1974-81" it would have made more sense to not include him. From the record at least, Nastase peaked in 71-73 and slipped a bit in 1974 although was still top ten for a few more years. But I love the Safin comp - very interesting.