Fed's Slam Window Shut

[jhar26]

I think that Roger still has a chance to add another one. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless. One could on the one hand argue that there are more contenders now than at any other point in Federer's career,which should in theory make it even harder for him. But on the other hand it's also possible that one of those "new" contenders take out Nadal or Djokovic and open the door for him, kinda like Nishikori did at the USO. That doesn't help much if you yourself run into a guy who plays the match of his life, but that's sports.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I think that Roger still has a chance to add another one. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless. One could on the one hand argue that there are more contenders now than at any other point in Federer's career,which should in theory make it even harder for him. But on the other hand it's also possible that one of those "new" contenders take out Nadal or Djokovic and open the door for him, kinda like Nishikori did at the USO. That doesn't help much if you yourself run into a guy who plays the match of his life, but that's sports.

I agree, there is this window where Nadal is injured or Djokovic is declining and the window will close more and more if the Cilic and Nishikori-type type players reach their prime.

So the question is how long will it take for Cilic/Nishikori/Dimitrov etc. to reach their prime.....and will that cover the gap left by a Nadal injury or Djokovic decline? :violins::spacecadet:

 

[Federberg]

I'm surprised that he's playing this well at 33 because only one other great player (6+ Slams) has maintained elite form at age 33 - Andre Agassi. Connors was close, I guess, but other than him you have to go back to Rosewall. But Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras were all done, or close to done, by 33 - and most a few years before.

That for me is why Connors is so underrated. Think about it... this guy was able to maintain elite status with the radical change in equipment technology (wood to graphite). Mac wasn't really able to do it so well, and he was younger!

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Imagine if Connors had played the AO more, could be on about a dozen slam titles......:idea:

Agassi too, to a lesser extent......

 

[Federberg]

Imagine if Connors had played the AO more, could be on about a dozen slam titles......:idea:

Agassi too, to a lesser extent......

I agree. It also amazes me given his game that he didn't win at RG. But as we know he skipped it occasionally to compete in the rival tour

 

[jhar26]

Imagine if Connors had played the AO more, could be on about a dozen slam titles......:idea:

Agassi too, to a lesser extent......

I agree. It also amazes me given his game that he didn't win at RG. But as we know he skipped it occasionally to compete in the rival tour

He didn't play there from 1974 up to and including 1978.

 

[Kieran]

He skipped the FO because they banned him in 1974, for playing WTT. This was critical, because Jombo won the other 3 majors. He skipped it for 4 seasons after this, and only played 2 majors a year for a few years, which possibly aided his longevity...

 

[Front242]

I think that Roger still has a chance to add another one. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless. One could on the one hand argue that there are more contenders now than at any other point in Federer's career,which should in theory make it even harder for him. But on the other hand it's also possible that one of those "new" contenders take out Nadal or Djokovic and open the door for him, kinda like Nishikori did at the USO. That doesn't help much if you yourself run into a guy who plays the match of his life, but that's sports.

I agree, there is this window where Nadal is injured or Djokovic is declining and the window will close more and more if the Cilic and Nishikori-type type players reach their prime.

So the question is how long will it take for Cilic/Nishikori/Dimitrov etc. to reach their prime.....and will that cover the gap left by a Nadal injury or Djokovic decline? :violins::spacecadet:

Of course Nadal and Djokovic could simply just lose too. It does happen. Not just Roger but everyone is going to have a harder time from now on if these other guys become consistent contenders.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Of course Nadal and Djokovic could simply just lose too. It does happen. Not just Roger but everyone is going to have a harder time from now on if these other guys become consistent contenders.

Its great for tennis :clap

They called it "the golden era" when Nadal-Federer-Murray-Djokovic were in every final, but I like the idea of new faces creating new rivalries with old faces.
Nishikori vs Nadal might be a new rivalry for example, if Madrid is a guide, and Djokovic vs Nishikori clearly.

I still have my doubts over Nishikori at the slams; not because of fitness overall, but just that he is a bit inconsistent from set to set and may play too many long matches. The slam-winners generally don't play many 5-setters (Nadal hasn't played a 5-setter at the US Open since 2004).

 

[jhar26]

Of course Nadal and Djokovic could simply just lose too. It does happen. Not just Roger but everyone is going to have a harder time from now on if these other guys become consistent contenders.

Its great for tennis :clap

They called it "the golden era" when Nadal-Federer-Murray-Djokovic were in every final, but I like the idea of new faces creating new rivalries with old faces.
Nishikori vs Nadal might be a new rivalry for example, if Madrid is a guide, and Djokovic vs Nishikori clearly.

I still have my doubts over Nishikori at the slams; not because of fitness overall, but just that he is a bit inconsistent from set to set and may play too many long matches. The slam-winners generally don't play many 5-setters (Nadal hasn't played a 5-setter at the US Open since 2004).

Nishikori is not a big server. So he's not gonna have many "Fed-express" kinda games and he's gonna get broken a few times in most of his matches. That means that he often will have to play more sets per major and work harder for his wins than some of his rivals. But on the other hand he's still improving also and we don't know how great he will be when he's at his peak. But a guy like Raonic has a somewhat similar problem, but for different reasons. He's a great server but a comparitively poor returner. He's not quite an Isner, but still... But of course, it's also true that rallies in a Raonic match are usually much shorter than in a Nishikori match.

 

[Front242]

Of course Nadal and Djokovic could simply just lose too. It does happen. Not just Roger but everyone is going to have a harder time from now on if these other guys become consistent contenders.

Its great for tennis :clap

They called it "the golden era" when Nadal-Federer-Murray-Djokovic were in every final, but I like the idea of new faces creating new rivalries with old faces.
Nishikori vs Nadal might be a new rivalry for example, if Madrid is a guide, and Djokovic vs Nishikori clearly.

I still have my doubts over Nishikori at the slams; not because of fitness overall, but just that he is a bit inconsistent from set to set and may play too many long matches. The slam-winners generally don't play many 5-setters (Nadal hasn't played a 5-setter at the US Open since 2004).

Totally agree, it was boring to see the same guys winning everything and I'm all for new winners in masters and slams. Next year will be interesting to see if the trend continues. Probably way too early but I'd love to see Kyrgios get his act together and win either a masters or slam. He tends to play incredible for a few games and then get rattled as against Robredo when things aren't going his way. The first 5 games he played in set 1 though was some of the most frighteningly in the zone offensive tennis I've ever seen. Robredo was just left shaking his head but I guess they both knew it couldn't and in fact, didn't last.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

 

[Front242]

^ Well it's better than one or two for sure but nonetheless it shows there are so many also rans who play very good matches only to blow it when it counts most. At least now some are emerging who can keep it together most of the match and in some cases all the way through.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The thing is every sport, including tennis, needs both continuity and change.

If every slam is going to be won by a different guy, there won't be any dominant player(s)
who will be the face of tennis and the marketability of the sport will suffer. People need
a hero, a player(s) with name/face recognition.

On the other hand, if the same player(s) keeps on winning eternally, then there will
not be any unpredictability, which is why people watch sports (don't know who will
win, at least in principle) and hence the marketability of the sport will suffer.

It was not boring for me before, as we had few different players winning, not just
one all the time. It may be boring for a while after the "three and half men" retire
and before new stars emerge. But, I am sure new stars will emerge even if we
have to skip the "Cilic" generation and wait for "Coric" generation.

 

[tented]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

 

[jhar26]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

That's true, but in those days there wasn't as much tennis on television as there is today. Where I lived you only got to see the latter stages of the FO and Wimbledon. So that made people more eager to see Connors, Borg and McEnroe fight it out with each other. But now you can see every single match that the big four play either on television or online, so people are more quickly saturated. Watching Connors vs Borg once or twice a year is not the same as watching Nadal vs Djokovic six or seven times a year.

Even so, personally I'm not tired of the big four. They always produce dynamite tennis. Nevertheless it's even more exciting if some others guys are able to challenge them.

 

[ftan]

If there is anything I have learnt from this US Open , it is never say never. Not in my wildest dreams I ever thought Cilic will will win a Slam. I mean Tsonga , Berdie yes they had a chance , however small it was, but Cilic ? really?
So when we talk about Federer who is an all time SLam champion .. you never know. He might get hot one Slam and his other competitors may lose .. I mean really who knows. The window is small I agree but I won't say it is shut

 

[GameSetAndMath]

An excerpt from Fed's interview after his SF loss.

Q. This is the first time in a long time without either you, Nadal, or Djokovic playing final. Does that mean something or...

ROGER FEDERER: You create your stories. You said the same in Australia, everybody; and then we know what happened at the French Open final, Wimbledon final. But this is another chance for you guys, you know. So you should write what you want. I don't think so, but...

 

[Moxie]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

Some serious tennis fans might want to see new finalists/winners, but it doesn't appear the public at large does. The ratings for the men's final "drew just a 1.9 overnight rating, down 32 percent from Rafael Nadal’s win over Novak Djokovic last year, reports Sports Business Daily. It was also less than half the 4.0 rating drawn by the women’s final between Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki, played on Sunday."

The public wants at least one of "those guys."

 

[herios]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

Some serious tennis fans might want to see new finalists/winners, but it doesn't appear the public at large does. The ratings for the men's final "drew just a 1.9 overnight rating, down 32 percent from Rafael Nadal’s win over Novak Djokovic last year, reports Sports Business Daily. It was also less than half the 4.0 rating drawn by the women’s final between Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki, played on Sunday."

The public wants at least one of "those guys."

Public at large will change their choices too. They always do, but always are lagging.