The Indian Wells final will feature two players the world of tennis, indeed sport, is far too familiar with: Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic.
It is with mixed emotions I bring you news of the looming depression that is setting in on the ATP tour.
It’s not a distaste of the current guard that disappoints me with their continuous success; I’m a die hard fan of the ‘Big Four’ and forever will be, but rather, a continuous frustration for the lack of improvement and grit shown by the next generation of players.
For ten years now Federer and Co. have dominated world tennis like no other generation before them, lavishly partaking in finals of every slam together year after year.
Since 2013 there have been whispers and signs that the party is closing down.
Federer floundered through 2013, hampered with typical old-man problems (back pain and four children) finishing with an abysmal ranking of world number 6.
Murray and Nadal both missed much of that year with back and knee injuries respectively.
Only Djokovic has been free of trouble since then, with his only black spot being a lack of grand slam success given his regular forays to the final.
Last year we saw two members from the ATP world tour (that group of players known as ‘the other guys’) break through for maiden grand slam wins. Stan Wawrinka (Australian Open) and Marin Cilic (US Open) both defeated Big Four members to break the status quo of men’s tennis at Grand Slams and inject a sense of mystery and excitement for the 2015 season.
Sure Roger Federer had a resurgence that included a Wimbledon final and return to world number 2, but the feeling among many was that 2015 was the year. The year that youth finally prevailed, that age took its toll on Federer. Those fearless youngsters would swing freely to titles over doubting, tired veterans.
Well it’s mid March now and you’d be forgiven for thinking we’re in the midst of the GFC and the iPhone 3 is fresh out of China. Little has changed. Novak won in Australia, Federer is the only bloke challenging him, and two other familiar names round out the top four in the rankings.
I hate to say it, but the perfect word to describe being a tennis fan right now is ‘nice’. It’s nice. That’s it. You know who’s going to win. You know who will put up a little challenge and then step aside. We’ve rehearsed this for years now.
Nice little stories are being forged, it’s nice seeing Roger do so well in his twilight years, it’s nice that the Big Four continue to face each other in finals and add to their legacy, it’s nice that the youngsters are winning the odd match here and there in a quarter-final over their heroes. It’s really nice.
As a tennis fan, I’m already worried. I can’t sit back and enjoy this nice time in the game because just over the hill is a sign that says ‘Wrong way! Turn back’. What on earth will happen to tennis when these four leave us? Of course it will go on, but you know what I mean. It’s depressing.
I constantly hear people say, “The sport’s bigger than (insert member of Big Four)”.
What?
I know that. I remember Sampras and his band of rivals from the 90s. I know there were a few years where our own Lleyton Hewitt snuck a few slams in before the next big generation took over. I know.
The problem is, the Big Four nearly is bigger than tennis. They have accounted for 37 of the last 40 grand slams. 37 out of 40! That is ridiculous. That will not happen again in my lifetime, I’m sure of it.
I’ll look forward to tomorrow’s final; I love watching Federer v Djokovic on any surface. I’ll sink into my couch lazily while these two put on a display of outrageous tennis. They rarely disappoint.
Once it’s over, I’ll go back to anxiously looking for a challenger. Someone to look forward to years down the track. Someone to drag tennis out of the impending tennis doldrums.
Matt
Guest
Where are the Swedes now in tennis?
Johnno
Guest
Or Rafter.
Johnno
Guest
Harvey overall, I reckon the men's top 50 more competitive anyday over the women's top 50, and has been that way since the open era started in 1970.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
I have always preferred watching womens tennis as it seems more competitive, however, I can't stand to watch it now no matter how competitive due to the incessant screeching that goes on. Never heard a peep from them before Seles, now to just seems like a tactic to annoy, but who, the players or the audience?
Bandy
Roar Guru
yes clipper we have been spoiled, and now I can see the future setting on the horizon. I dearly hope I'm wrong. Surface homogenizations and strings have helped the current 4 excel on all surfaces, it was harder to do so in previous eras so we'll give pete and lendl a pass there.
peeeko
Roar Guru
i agree, i dont think the tennis powers would want a return to the era of the late nineties when we had such number 1 platers as Gustavo Kuerten, Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya and Thomas Muster
clipper
Guest
Johnno, I would rate Safin quite high - he was a very talented player, but sometimes the mental side got to him. A pity he wasn't around with Sampras and Agassi, as he may have had more GS success - he demolished Sampras at the US Open and could match it with anyone, but on the other side he lost to Thomas Johansson at the Aus Open.
clipper
Guest
The problem is that Mens tennis has been lifted to such lofty heights that it is now the norm to have such close and engaging finals and that the aftermath, even if it returns to how it was in previous eras, will be looked upon as a let down. Who could've predicted that this era would produce arguable 3 of the top 5 players ever? Not only that, but they can all perform on all surfaces, unlike Sampras with Clay and Lendl with grass.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Where you still have Sampras/Agassi in the early 2000's is another example of tennis doldrums. After them and before Federer, we had Hewitt, ferrero, gaudio, roddick, johansen - these guys were the top crop/slam winners for 3 years or so and in hindsight they aren't all-time greats of the calibre Sampras/Federer etc. We are about to enter a time of transition with no all-time greats like the early 2000's in my opinion.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Well if you go just on slam wins then sure that's fine - although a die hard follower might also acknowledge that murray has been far more consistent than those other 3 you name, and arguably had stiffer competition to deal with in Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic all around to beat - 3 all-time greats.
jamesb
Guest
Oh yeah, forgot about Wilander and another Swede, Bjorn Borg, of course. How did I forget Borg! Gee, the Swedes produced some great players. And they have some great fans.
Johnno
Guest
jambs you didn't acknowledge Wilander.
Johnno
Guest
Hugh in my view Murray is no more better player than Pat Rafter or Hewitt, or Safin. A pest more than a great or formidable opponent.
Bandy
Roar Guru
I understand your point that tennis has always had great rivalries, my point is that the next generation of young 20-something players don't look like they will be able to fill the shoes, and we will be left with 3-5 years of tennis that, quite frankly, won't have the standard we've become accustomed to for the last 10 years. I think to exclude Murray leaves a big gap because you must remember finals count too, as they stop another player outside the big four from making any impact on the game. Murray has numerous GS finals and also a lot of masters 1000's wins, which are a big deal on the tour. On top of that, in the rankings he has consistently been in the top four and has a very respectable h2h with all of them.
jamesb
Guest
I agree with Johnno, it really is the "big three". Federer (17), Nadal (14) and Djokovic (8) are so far in front of Murray (2). Murray needs to win a couple more slams to even be considered. At the moment, he is on the same number of slams with Hewitt. But I also agree with the article. We need potential greats to come through to replace Fed, Rafa and Novak. Just look through in the last 5 or 6 decades. 1960's- Rod Laver 1960's/1970's- Newcombe, Rosewall 1970/80's- Connors, McInroe 1980's- Lendl 1980's/90's- Edberg, Becker 1990'/early 2000's- Sampras, Agassi 2000's, 2010's- Fed, Rafa, Novak 2010's/2020's- ?????
Johnno
Guest
But Hugh, great rivalries in tennis have been going on for years. Evert/Navratalova seemed to go on for about 12 years. Many complained women's tennis was becoming so boring, I liked the 80's in men's tennis and early 90's there was an even spread too. The Fed/Nadal/Novak dominance has been going on for a long time now. Murray I know what you mean, but he has only won 2 GS titles. He did win an Olympic singles gold ableit at his home Olympics, when Fed had an off day, only 3 weeks earlier beating murray at wimbledon same venue.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Johnno, while many people think an even spread of slams is better, for me, tennis is healthy when great rivalries are forged which produce tennis of the highest level. The same people winning right now have won for 10 years and the sport has been immensely popular and better off since the big four came in and gave us so many memorable performances. How many people look back on the early 2000's with as fond memories when safin and Hewitt were winning? It's not called a golden age because the tennis is even, its called the golden age because we are seeing incredible tennis from the top. I know great players are in the future, I agree with you there, how long before they surface is my worry. The next generation in line (dimmitrov, raonic, nishikori etc.) are already 24,25 - hardly youngsters anymore - and they haven't made many inroads at slam level. I fear once fed and co leave the game tennis will be a free-for-all. To exclude Murray is a little unfair as he has numerous masters and slam finals.
Johnno
Guest
Nonsense. How will tennis go to the doldrums, if anything it will be better. As the grand slams will be evenly spread, who wants the same people winning. And tennis shows every generation new players emerge. When Sampras/Agassi faded, in came Hewitt and Safin. There will be great players in the future, every bit as good as Fed and Nadal. People used to say when Sampras was around no one great would come about and in came Fedrer/Nadal,then Novak. I liken more to a big 3 anyway. as Murray has only won 2 grand slams. Becker/Edberg won 6 grand slams each, and Wilander won 7 Grand slams, and Lendl won 8. Far more than Murray. Jim Courier won 4. I'd call it more the big 3, the Fed/Nadal/Novak show. But good players will come through. Same in women's tennis, many thought after Evert/Navratalova monopoly for so long no one would step up, then cam Graff, then came Seles, now Serena Williams. There will always be others,hardly the doldrums.