Tennis: ATP/WTA Tour 2014

[kumar713]

Djokovic still the Fav to win but Fed won't give up. His best chance to add 1 more GS.

[Yoda-esque]

wow,6 fecking times!! ur the lucky charm :two_thumbs_up: meanwhile fed is having an incredible run this year,he looks a strong contendor for the USO. meanwhile murray has lost it completely,very poor season for him

Doing it at 33.

[zep1706]

Nadal out of the US open. Federer is the heavy favorite now.

[zep1706]

Doing it at 33.

I think you guys are overplaying the age thingy. Many players are playing good tennis at that age these days. The guy he beat Ferrer is only 8-9 months younger than him. Robredo who beat Djokovic is also 32. Haas at 35 had a very good season last year. It is not uncommon to see players playing well in their 30s now a days. Even Agassi won his last slam at the age of 33 and played US open final at 35.

[Dil Dil India]

Don't think it is being overstated to be honest. It is uncommon for a 30 plus (let alone 33) year old to be winning slams or masters. Who was the last 30 plus slam winner? AA I guess about a decade ago. There aren't too many oldies winning Masters either. In recent history there has been what Ferrer in 2012 Paris when he might have just turned 30? A 33 yr old still competiting and winning titles despite so much mileage in his legs is every bit as impressive as say a teenager bursting onto the scene IMO. I am fairly certain Djo and Nadal won't win a single slam after 30 or too many other titles either. There are still two years for that but I am certain of it.

[zep1706]

Don't think it is being overstated to be honest. It is uncommon for a 30 plus (let alone 33) year old to be winning slams or masters. Who was the last 30 plus slam winner? AA I guess about a decade ago. There aren't too many oldies winning Masters either. In recent history there has been what Ferrer in 2012 Paris when he might have just turned 30? A 33 yr old still competiting and winning titles despite so much mileage in his legs is every bit as impressive as say a teenager bursting onto the scene IMO. I am fairly certain Djo and Nadal won't win a single slam after 30 or too many other titles either. There are still two years for that but I am certain of it.

It's not about winning slams, it's about playing at your top level. There are only a handful of players that win these big titles anyway. You pointed out old, let me ask you when was the last time a young player (~23) won a Masters 1000? I think you will have to go back to Djokovic or Murray. If you look at the tour it is quite clear that almost everyone is playing well in their late 20s. Wawrinka is playing his best tennis at 29. Other top 20 players are also above 26-27 except one or two. In fact ignoring Dimitrov and Raonic, Djokovic may be one of the youngest players in the top 30 at 27. Hardly anyone expected that Nadal would last this long having 10 consecutive slams and masters winning season which no player in the history has. So let's not jump the gun as yet. Besides I don't see any young and upcoming talent that can take away the crown from these guys. So their competition is also getting old.

[Dil Dil India]

It's not about winning slams' date=' it's about playing at your top level. There are only a handful of players that win these big titles anyway. You pointed out old, let me ask you when was the last time a young player (~23) won a Masters 1000? I think you will have to go back to Djokovic or Murray. If you look at the tour it is quite clear that almost everyone is playing well in their late 20s. Wawrinka is playing his best tennis at 29. Other top 20 players are also above 26-27 except one or two. In fact ignoring Dimitrov and Raonic, Djokovic may be one of the youngest players in the top 30 at 27. Hardly anyone expected that Nadal would last this long having 10 consecutive slams and masters winning season which no player in the history has. So let's not jump the gun as yet. Besides I don't see any young and upcoming talent that can take away the crown from these guys. So their competition is also getting old.[/quote'] Fair enough about only a handful of players winning the big titles, but look 33 is a geriatric in tennis terms. Precious few players age as well as Federer has and are able to maintain that standard for so long. With all due respect to Haas, while he may have had a good season, he has been playing what 250 and 500 events? Hardly comparable to winning Masters or playing a Wimbledon 5 setter. It's certainly about winning/doing well than just about your own top level IMO. Surely what that top level is and whether that is good enough to push the big boys of the current day is also relevant? Otherwise someone could be playing their top level tennis in some random low tier events or getting knocked out in the first rounds despite playing their top level. A match like Robredo beating Djo can't really count any more than 19 year old Kyrgios beating the then World number 1 Nadal in a GS (a more notable achievement) would IMO. One-offs can happen anywhere, it is the consistency and the ability to string performance after performance day in and day out that counts. Wawrinka is indeed playing his best tennis at 29 and it is true that different players peak at different times (as I myself have said in the past), but unless he can keep it up for another couple of years you can hardly use it to club him in the bracket...and of course he doesn't have anywhere close to the top level grill that Federer's body has gone through. Maybe I'm jumping the gun wrt Djo and Nadal winning slams after 30, maybe not. Time will tell. Out of the two, Nadal is the one I am more certain about. Just don't see him ageing well. In many ways I liken Federer to Tendulkar. Incredible longevity and sheer consistency. Where Tendulkar went out on a low after being downright horrible, Federer's graph seems to be headed the other way. Only time will tell how it turns out though. Thus far the signs are good. As an aside, I am genuinely curious as to how many players in the modern era have won slams in their 30s. I know Aggasi and Federer, who else?

[zep1706]

Maybe I'm jumping the gun wrt Djo and Nadal winning slams after 30, maybe not. Time will tell. Out of the two, Nadal is the one I am more certain about. Just don't see him ageing well.

Nadal has been proving people like you wrong ever since he arrived at the scene. First he won't win outside clay, then he won't win any slam outside FO, then he won't win Wimbledon, then he won't win on hard courts, then he won't win US open. I would be very careful to bet against it. I am sure about one thing. He has his eyes set on the slam record. If injuries that he can't control does not stop him, then fatigue won't stop him from giving him 100%.

[zep1706]

As an aside, I am genuinely curious as to how many players in the modern era have won slams in their 30s. I know Aggasi and Federer, who else?

Sampras, Connors. It is definitely difficult but not unheard of. Laver, Rosewell etc also won but won't call them modern.

[zep1706]

Fair enough about only a handful of players winning the big titles' date=' but look 33 is a geriatric in tennis terms. Precious few players age as well as Federer has and are able to maintain that standard for so long. With all due respect to Haas, while he may have had a good season, he has been playing what 250 and 500 events? Hardly comparable to winning Masters or playing a Wimbledon 5 setter. [/quote'] Everyone has an upper limit. Not everyone can be a slam winner. It's about whether they have been able to reach that limit. Many recent players including Ferrer have showed that it is possible to do that in the 30s as well.

[Dil Dil India]

Nadal has been proving people like you wrong ever since he arrived at the scene. First he won't win outside clay' date=' then he won't win any slam outside FO, then he won't win Wimbledon, then he won't win on hard courts, then he won't win US open. I would be very careful to bet against it. I am sure about one thing. He has his eyes set on the slam record. If injuries that he can't control does not stop him, then fatigue won't stop him from giving him 100%.[/quote'] Haha easy mate you seem to have marked me down as some sort of Nadal hater, I am not. I don't generally hate anyone - no sportsman certainly unless you count the ball eating cheat Afridi. I never thought he wouldn't win outside clay, I did think he wouldn't be as effective though and that is there for all to see TBF. Like I said, only time will tell. The style of his play means he won't age as well as some of the other players and it is incredibly tough enough to win slams as it is. Let's wait and see.

[Dil Dil India]

Sampras, Connors. It is definitely difficult but not unheard of. Laver, Rosewell etc also won but won't call them modern.

As yes, Sampras totally forgot. He won a US Open didn't he? Laver and Rosewell yeah not modern. Of course it isn't unheard of but when only a handful of players have managed it, it is very very difficult particularly if your game is heavily reliant on your body and speed.

[zep1706]

Haha easy mate you seem to have marked me down as some sort of Nadal hater, I am not. I don't generally hate anyone - no sportsman certainly unless you count the ball eating cheat Afridi. I never thought he wouldn't win outside clay, I did think he wouldn't be as effective though and that is there for all to see TBF. Like I said, only time will tell. The style of his play means he won't age as well as some of the other players and it is incredibly tough enough to win slams as it is. Let's wait and see.

No I have not marked you as a hater. You are certainly a "doubter". Doubters and haters had declared that Nadal wouldn't last more than 2-3 seasons in 2005-06 and would burn out in his mid 20s. That hasn't happened yet, so let's wait and see. You also conveniently ignored the point about competition. The competition is also getting old. Raonic has no game, Dimitrov is overrated, Nishikori is more injured than the old guys. Where are the youngsters that would take it to these guys?

[Dil Dil India]

Everyone has an upper limit. Not everyone can be a slam winner. It's about whether they have been able to reach that limit. Many recent players including Ferrer have showed that it is possible to do that in the 30s as well.

I don't agree. Merely playing at your ''upper limit'' isn't enough IMO. Depends what the level is and what kind of competition it is. If the level is low then it is obviously easier to keep it up. If say an average ICFer in his late 20s started playing tennis now he could probably keep up that level or better it in his late 30s. I don't think you can count stuff like that can you? For that reason I wouldn't count Ferrer in that list. He doesn't win (or even go deep in GS) or Masters with any regularity to be bestowed that tag.

[Dil Dil India]

No I have not marked you as a hater. You are certainly a "doubter". Doubters and haters had declared that Nadal wouldn't last more than 2-3 seasons in 2005-06 and would burn out in his mid 20s. That hasn't happened yet' date=' so let's wait and see. You also conveniently ignored the point about competition. The competition is also getting old. Raonic has no game, Dimitrov is overrated, Nishikori is more injured than the old guys. Where are the youngsters that would take it to these guys?[/quote'] I am surprised that Raonic has "no game''. When there was talk about Nadal's tough draw at Wimby this year Raonic was a part of it. Now that he gets pwned by Federer he has no game? Dmitrov is certainly not overrated. No one says he's as good as the big 3 or something. He choked vs Djokovic in that Wimbledon semi. With a bit more experience against an older Djokovic(or whoever) he is less likely to fall short. Let us wait and see.

[zep1706]

I don't agree. Merely playing at your ''upper limit'' isn't enough IMO. Depends what the level is and what kind of competition it is. If the level is low then it is obviously easier to keep it up. If say an average ICFer in his late 20s started playing tennis now he could probably keep up that level or better it in his late 30s. I don't think you can count stuff like that can you? For that reason I wouldn't count Ferrer in that list. He doesn't win (or even go deep in GS) or Masters with any regularity to be bestowed that tag.

You have no idea about Ferrer. The guys plays every week. He probably plays more matches than anyone else on tour. I never said that it is easier to win tournaments in 30s. That is basic common sense. And what Federer is doing this year is remarkable. But more and more people are playing well in their 30s these days. Federer is not the only one. Of course he is better than most of those guys. But physically it is possible to what he is doing.

[zep1706]

I am surprised that Raonic has "no game''. When there was talk about Nadal's tough draw at Wimby this year Raonic was a part of it. Now that he gets pwned by Federer he has no game? Dmitrov is certainly not overrated. No one says he's as good as the big 3 or something. He choked vs Djokovic in that Wimbledon semi. With a bit more experience against an older Djokovic(or whoever) he is less likely to fall short. Let us wait and see.

Raonic was pwned many times by Nadal too. but at Wimbledon I think it is common knowledge that big servers trouble Nadal these days. But I would be very surprised if he beats Nadal at other slams. But it is clear that he struggles whenever he does not get the 1st serve % high like the recent matches against Federer. Dimitrov is not consistent enough to be a real threat and somewhat overrated imo. So your bets are on these two guys or do you have anyone else in mind?

[Dil Dil India]

That is what. Ferrer plays a lot of lower tier competitions as well. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer at 40 will probably easily win club contests; that won't mean they've aged well because they'll all get shellacked by all and sundry on the competitive circuit. There may be more people playing well in their 30s but there aren't (m)any winning slams or titles past it...not titles that aren't 250 or 500 series anyway...and none of them have played 25 GS finals! There's a difference between some 30 year old playing well at China and Timbuktu Open and someone who at 33 is still pushing the current world number 1 after all the GS and everything and winning Masters.

[Dil Dil India]

Raonic was pwned many times by Nadal too. but at Wimbledon I think it is common knowledge that big servers trouble Nadal these days. But I would be very surprised if he beats Nadal at other slams. But it is clear that he struggles whenever he does not get the 1st serve % high like the recent matches against Federer. Dimitrov is not consistent enough to be a real threat and somewhat overrated imo. So your bets are on these two guys or do you have anyone else in mind?

I rate Dmitrov, Raonic and Nishikori(who admittedly spends more time on the sidelines than playing tennis :haha:). In 2-3 years (when Djo and Nadal will be 30+) who knows, a bloke like Kyrgios may end up doing great too. I don't see any of the so-called big 4 winning then anyway (Federer will be gone surely by then).

[zep1706]

That is what. Ferrer plays a lot of lower tier competitions as well. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer at 40 would probably easily win club contests; that doesn't mean they've aged well because they'll all get shellacked by all and sundry on the competitive circuit. There may be more people playing well in their 30s but there aren't (m)any winning slams or titles past it...not titles that aren't 250 or 500 series anyway...and none of them have played 25 GS finals! There's a difference between some 30 year old playing well at China and Timbuktu Open and someone who at 33 is still pushing the current world number 1 after all the GS and everything and winning Masters.

Ferrer does not play club level contests. Matches against top 100 of the world for someone like him is never easy. Physically he puts as much effort as Federer if not more. It is true that Federer has a lot of miles on his body after playing more than 1000 matches. So his resurgence this year has been remarkable. I have never denied that. But some people behave as if Federer is not supposed to be winning and it is a miracle. I don't agree with that. It is not a miracle and it has been done before.