Nadal And Djokovic Dominant Top Two

First topic message reminder :

The end of year ranking points for the top ten are as follows (apart from Davis Cup Final points)

1) Nadal 13,030
2) Djokovic 12,110
3) Ferrer 5,800
4) Murray 5,790
5) Del Potro 5,250
6) Federer 4,205
7) Berdych 4,180
8) Wawrinka 3,730
9) Gasquet 3,300
10) Tsonga 3,065

Has there ever been a more dominant top two? I'm not sure but in the years when Federer and Nadal consistently held the top two spots were they as far as this ahead of the pack? Both Nadal and Djokovic have more than double the ranking points of the rest of the top five and three times the ranking points of the rest of the top ten. There is roughly a 6,000 point gap between them and the chasing pack. Nadal has a remarkable 10,000 points more than the number ten ranked player.

Nadal and Djokovic are a very dominant top two!

HM, obviously Murray winning Wimby was great, but I'd much rather it had been Henman. The other three can provide great entertainment, of course, but I sort of have to artificially choose who I want to win in order to invest some emotion into it.

But I've mentioned before than the main attraction for me is playing tennis, far more than watching. I can't think of a single match I've watched that I've enjoyed as much as dozens that I've played. Maybe Henman vs Kafelnikov, which I saw on centre court or a couple of Davis Cup matches I went to.

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Federer occupied a transition era between serve & volley dominated era (as regards grass & hard courts with clay courts favouring classic baseline style) to a baseline dominated era.  It seems that technology (racket & strings) was the main determiner of this change in the sport.  Nadal was the first to optimise himself to the new baseline dominated era (with help from Toni).  Although Federer is generally labelled as a baseline player he is a more of an in-betweener (especially since he never developed a capable double handed back hand).

Technology, and conditions played a part but Federer a great player was able to adjust while other lesser players couldn't. You can call it transitional if you like that is just a diplomatic way of saying weak in my opinion. I mean the dark ages were also a transitional period on a historic scale between the renaissance and the death of the Roman Empire, transitional eras are usually not deemed to connote strength.

The dark ages - that's a bit of an elitist western attitude to have - apparently the Arabs / Persians were having their Golden age at that time.

Anyway some questions: during the Serve & Volley period there were some traditional baseliners that had success away from the clay courts: Andre Agassi & Chang spring to mind. Lendl(?) & Borg - two others. Anyone agree with that?

The Persian Golden age ended either with Alexander and the second golden age ended with the Arab Conquest. Since that conquest we have been going backwards and not forwards in terms of pride, prestige, and accomplishment. In terms of art, poetry, mathematics and architecture the Arab golden age was fostered by Persians as Arabs were tent dwelling nomads before the rise of Islam. So our so-called third golden age was actually the property of our conquerors and credited to their account. Lets just say I doubt the very existence of the Arab golden age, at least it was not golden for the Persians.

JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, obviously Murray winning Wimby was great, but I'd much rather it had been Henman. The other three can provide great entertainment, of course, but I sort of have to artificially choose who I want to win in order to invest some emotion into it.

But I've mentioned before than the main attraction for me is playing tennis, far more than watching. I can't think of a single match I've watched that I've enjoyed as much as dozens that I've played. Maybe Henman vs Kafelnikov, which I saw on centre court or a couple of Davis Cup matches I went to.

I really liked Henman, loved watching him at Wimbledon every year and that run to the FO semi was awesome to watch. But I never invested in him in the way I have with Murray. From a really early age I really believed Murray had the raw ability to to be a great, and watching him slowly develop into the player he has become has been incredible to watch. Especially against such brilliant opponents. Watching him win Wimbledon is probably my favourite sporting moment that I've watched.

With Tim it was always a bit like watching the England football team, trying to convince myself that he could do it but deep down knowing that he just didn't quite have enough. Not that he didn't have a very good career of course. Only relative to a few of his peers could he be considered a failure.