What the hell happens now?

[Grarliner]

I do think we need to debate and discuss this new situation in the men's game. I said before the semis that if Fed could somehow win this, I could see him winning more Slams going forward. But if he couldn't, it would be tough to see him winning any more.

Now that he has won, I really could see him winning the US Open. Not saying he will, but I could see it. I think Hurley was right in saying that in the biggest matches, Fed has come up short mentally the last few years. Well, he broke through and won so that should help that problem. Another great help would be if Djokovic draws Nadal on his side at the Open or in Australia (if Roger still holds one of the top two rankings). I think Fed can beat one of Nadal/Djokovic in a major but two back-to-back is mighty difficult.

As for #1, if you consult the Race to London, it is damn close. Roger, Novak and Rafa are separated by 290 points and in that order. RongrongLee thinks that Roger "backdoored" his way to #1 and Novak will get it back in about a month. Well ... I don't know about that. He might, he might not. But I do think Roger looks good to be top seed at the Open whether or not he loses #1 after the Olympics - Novak still defends a lot in Canada and Cincy, Rog does not.

As for taking the backdoor to #1 ... eh, I can see that a bit but not really. Roger does have eight titles in the last year. Novak has four, and just two post-USO 2011. Plus, Fed beat him to win a Slam. Pretty legit.

I think we have a very entertaining final four months of the season to look forward to. I could be wrong, but I think what happened at Wimbledon has overthrown the heirarchy somewhat. Maybe it is just an aberration, but I feel the Rafa-Novak duopoly has a few cracks in it right now. There's space for Roger, Andy and probably even Tsonga to win big titles.

So who wins the Olympics and the USO? Who finishes year-end #1? Who knows!

[lexpretend]

I think over the past few years everyone's been way too quick to accept a short-term status quo as The Way Things Are. The Big Four have been very, very close to each other for half a decade, and every time one or the other pulls ahead it's always seemed due to incremental differences rather than opening up a huge gap à la pre-Big Four Fed, or Serena 2002-03. Even last year, when the results look like total dominance, it's easy to forget how much that hinged on some very tight matches. And the minute Nole's level slipped even just a bit, Rafa and Rog were right back in it. The duopoly lasted a year but that's not a reason to think it was here to stay 4eva.

It's not like Federer is in the Sampras 2002 phase of losing to the Bastls of the world. He's been making the SFs and playing close matches against Nole all along, so I see this turn of events as a surprise but hardly a seismic shock. I really feel you can only start writing him off when he starts losing before the QFs and SFs regularly - as long as he can make those dates he's right in there with a chance.

[Old Hag]

We do overrate recent results. I think Nole is still the best player, obviously Rafa remains dominant on clay and Roger can always get into God mode and beat everyone. I don't think Roger will maintain the level he showed in the SF and F.

Roger is a weak #1. Beyond the 1 slam to Novak's 2, Roger is there because he whored 500s for this very reason and Nole has ignored every non-slam and MS. Take away any of Nole's four 0s, and he's #1 now. I was haughty to say Nole will get it back soon, though... Roger has little to defend until USO. Fall is where he hopefully doesn't burn out again like last year.

[Grarliner]

I think we accept "short term status quos" because recent years have shown us how good you have to be to reach the top and how many good players have been locked out of the Slam winner's circle by a dominant #1. Look at Hewitt and Roddick. They kept getting deep into Slams - they never won another once Roger took over.

So no, Roger wasn't in the terminal decline state where he was losing to nobodies in big matches. But neither were they for years and they could never get past him to win a major.

Also, RongRong, you're wrong. Novak does not have four zeroes. He has three. The DC one is Non-Countable. Federer has two zeroes, by the way. The only difference between them is Roger has logged ONE more 500 than Novak, thus avoiding an additional zero. That hardly amounts to whoring.

And no, Novak would not be #1 if you took away any of his zeroes. All his points-earning results are Countable right now.

I think Novak is likely to go over to Asia this fall and play Beijing for his third 500. He will probably finish the year with the same amount of 500s on his 52 weeks as Roger.

So no. He didn't whore 500s. He was just successful at them. Remember, Nole played Dubai and Basel too - he just didn't win them. Also, can you really blame Roger for adding a tournament like Rotterdam? So few tournaments are on a fast court these days.

Where do the Olympics count? 500 category or somewhere else?

[lexpretend]

Fed did vulture the indoor swing at the end of last year, a bit. The points on offer at the Paris Masters always exceed its strength compared to other MS events. Nole ran out of gas in that swing and Rafa has never excelled there.

Nole coming back down to earth this year means that the Big Three are close enough to each other that this ranking situation isn't exactly absurd. None of them are really "the best".

Recent years have also shown us how status quos can change dramatically, Nole's rise exemplifies that, as does Rafa turning around the H2H with Federer off clay. The holding pattern is predictable for a while - a year, maybe two - but not for longer.

It's a very interesting time now though. Nole looks so much more beatable than last year. Roger is still Olderer despite Wimbledon and you can't rely on him to sustain his indoor grass form. Rafa has kind of...mostly flopped off clay this year. Anduh is Anduh. Tsonga and Pony seem resolutely stuck beneath those four. So I think the USO is more open than it's been for a long while...

[Grarliner]

Jul 10, 2012 12:22:42 GMT -5 lexpretend said:

Fed did vulture the indoor swing at the end of last year, a bit. The points on offer at the Paris Masters always exceed its strength compared to other MS events. Nole ran out of gas in that swing and Rafa has never excelled there.

Nole coming back down to earth this year means that the Big Three are close enough to each other that this ranking situation isn't exactly absurd. None of them are really "the best".

Recent years have also shown us how status quos can change dramatically, Nole's rise exemplifies that, as does Rafa turning around the H2H with Federer off clay. The holding pattern is predictable for a while - a year, maybe two - but not for longer.

It's a very interesting time now though. Nole looks so much more beatable than last year. Roger is still Olderer despite Wimbledon and you can't rely on him to sustain his indoor grass form. Rafa has kind of...mostly flopped off clay this year. Anduh is Anduh. Tsonga and Pony seem resolutely stuck beneath those four. So I think the USO is more open than it's been for a long while...

But I say good for Fed for vulturing that swing. Historically, he has also sucked at PMS! Last year was the first time he even reached the final. So I give him credit.

I was surprised to see JMDP ranked #6 this week. From doing ... what, exactly? Ahead of Ferrer why?

For perfect symmetry, Andy wins his first Slam at the USO. But ... that may not really happen.

So who ends the year #1? This is an important question. They are all so close. I think I like Roger and Novak to earn more points than Rafa from now til the end of the year. Other than that, it's tough to know how it'll play out.

[lexpretend]

I think the Olympics will be important for Murray. I don't know whether he'll crash out early, returning to the scene of hurt so soon; or see it as a chance for redemption. Maybe the worst result would be the most likely - that he comes 4th behind the Big Three and misses out on the medals completely. He needs to medal to be talked about as a USO contender.

Olympic tennis really has grown in stature this year. It's fairly odd - despite their age and status, both Federer and Serena still lack any sort of singles medal, and it's not due to lack of caring. In fact, none of the leading women or men with the exception of Rafa have an Olympic gold in singles.

I hope Li Na gets one - I was gutted for her when she came 4th in Beijing, even if it was to stupid Bepa.

[DBBN]

Jul 10, 2012 13:56:23 GMT -5 Grarliner said:

I was surprised to see JMDP ranked #6 this week. From doing ... what, exactly? Ahead of Ferrer why?

This can't be possible. I think you need to reglass your bifocals.

[Old Hag]

The defending Olympic women's final is Demented d. Safina. The players change, but SEWTA stays the same.

[Grarliner]

Jul 10, 2012 16:42:16 GMT -5 DBBN said:

Jul 10, 2012 13:56:23 GMT -5 Grarliner said:

I was surprised to see JMDP ranked #6 this week. From doing ... what, exactly? Ahead of Ferrer why?

This can't be possible. I think you need to reglass your bifocals.

It's not that - it's the senility. It totally isn't possible. No wonder I thought it was absurd ...

[DBBN]

Your ponytail is too tight.

[Grarliner]

True.

You know what it is, he's #6 in the Race. From doing what!

[DBBN]

Asian prostitutes.

[Fedex]

I think the race for #1 comes down to Nole and Fed. Yeah, I'm writing off Nadal's chances because he hardly ever does anything post Wimbledon, throughout his career.

The winner of Wimbledon has finished the year #1 since 2004. A good omen for Federer.

[Old Hag]

But Rafa doesn't have the fatigue or "my knee is so broken I'm retiring" excuse due to overplaying for once.

[Traveling Man]

Rafa does have a 2R loss at a GS on his ranking now, unlike the Fed & Nole who only have SF and above. That'll hurt his chances of ending up at #1, besides the best part of his season being over.

The last time Rafa, Nole & Federer each won a Slam in the same year was 2008. Rafa won the remaining Slam as well as Olympic gold that year - I don't see that happening.

As for Nole he's looking more and more like Hingis everyday. 3 AO's, 1 Wimbledon, 1 US Open. One dominant year but otherwise up and down.

Murray is the huge question mark - I have a feeling he'll need to wait a long time for that GS win. It's unlikely he gets a Phillipoussis/Tsonga/Puerta type opponent for his first GS title like Fed/Nole/Rafa had in their first GS final win (as Lady pointed out after the Wimbledon final). I see a surprise early loss at the Olympics and a QF/SF loss at the US Open.

[Grarliner]

Jul 14, 2012 22:48:24 GMT -5 Old Hag said:

But Rafa doesn't have the fatigue or "my knee is so broken I'm retiring" excuse due to overplaying for once.

I'm sure he'll think up a new excuse or two.

[Grarliner]

I was going to say that what happens at the Olympics might tell us a lot about who finishes #1 but then I realized it probably won't. Only worth 750 points for the winner.

Ali keeps making the Hingis 1998 comparison with regard to Nole. How about a Connors 1982 comparison for Fed? If he rides this form to the Olympic or USO title and manages to finish #1, I'd say it would be pretty apt.

[Grarliner]

A good question to ponder is where we are in the GOAT debate ...

Rafa seriously raised his game since Fed beat Murray for the AO title two-and-a-half years ago. Since, he's won five Slams and been runner up at three. 11 Grand Slam titles including 7 at the French Open - those are very persuasive numbers. Plus, a winning head-to-head against everyone who matters. And still only 26 years old.

I had thought he looked pretty good to one day catch up with Roger. And I'm not saying that now he doesn't. But another one helps Roger's cause to keep that record going forwards. Fed doesn't want to end up like Sampras and see his records fall less than a decade after he retired.

Hey, you think Pete regrets phoning it in the last four years?

By the way, it is interesting that Roger always maintained that he had a chance to get #1 back even when things looked very bleak.

I guess that brings us to Novak. With five Slams, he's already an all-time great. But it remains to be seen whether his form of 2011 is repeatable. If it is, he might have a double digit Grand Slam total before 2015. If not ... Roger and Rafa are probably going to win a lot more.

[lexpretend]

Jul 15, 2012 3:31:07 GMT -5 Grarliner said:

I was going to say that what happens at the Olympics might tell us a lot about who finishes #1 but then I realized it probably won't. Only worth 750 points for the winner.

Maybe not point-wise, but how each of the Big Three/Four fares there could be a good indication of how the rest of their years will play out. Murray's historically gone into mini-slumps following his Slam final defeats and if he fails to get a medal we can probably forget about him for the foreseeable future. And there's the Olympic comedown effect each time too, it's hard for the medallists to get themselves up for the USO almost immediately.

[lexpretend]

Re: the GOAT debate - Fed really racked 'em up before Rafa learned to play off clay, and before Nole went gluten-free and stopped whining.

A lot of assumptions re: Roger and Rafa declining or retiring don't look to be coming true any time soon.

[Fedex]

Jul 15, 2012 3:44:06 GMT -5 Grarliner said:

A good question to ponder is where we are in the GOAT debate ...

Rafa seriously raised his game since Fed beat Murray for the AO title two-and-a-half years ago. Since, he's won five Slams and been runner up at three. 11 Grand Slam titles including 7 at the French Open - those are very persuasive numbers. Plus, a winning head-to-head against everyone who matters. And still only 26 years old.

I had thought he looked pretty good to one day catch up with Roger. And I'm not saying that now he doesn't. But another one helps Roger's cause to keep that record going forwards. Fed doesn't want to end up like Sampras and see his records fall less than a decade after he retired.

Hey, you think Pete regrets phoning it in the last four years?

By the way, it is interesting that Roger always maintained that he had a chance to get #1 back even when things looked very bleak.

I guess that brings us to Novak. With five Slams, he's already an all-time great. But it remains to be seen whether his form of 2011 is repeatable. If it is, he might have a double digit Grand Slam total before 2015. If not ... Roger and Rafa are probably going to win a lot more.

Well, if we go back to 2009, Nadal has won 6 slams and Federer has won 4. Nadal in his "peak" and Federer in his "decline" isn't that far off. Nadal isn't making any inroads in the Federer lead. 6 months ago Fed led by 6 slams. 6 months later, he still leads by 6.

Nadal is also behind the Federer pace at his age, and by all accounts, it's widely accepted that Nadal is NOT going to age as well as Federer and continue to contend and win majors into his late 20's early 30's.

If Federer wins the US Open, it's lights out for Nadal. Right now, I think he's chasing Sampras more than he's chasing Fed.

[Fedex]

Jul 15, 2012 7:13:02 GMT -5 lexpretend said:

Jul 15, 2012 3:31:07 GMT -5 Grarliner said:

I was going to say that what happens at the Olympics might tell us a lot about who finishes #1 but then I realized it probably won't. Only worth 750 points for the winner.

Maybe not point-wise, but how each of the Big Three/Four fares there could be a good indication of how the rest of their years will play out. Murray's historically gone into mini-slumps following his Slam final defeats and if he fails to get a medal we can probably forget about him for the foreseeable future. And there's the Olympic comedown effect each time too, it's hard for the medallists to get themselves up for the USO almost immediately.

Murray didn't have Lendl in his corner for those previous 3 slam defeats either. I would advise against using the past as a predictor of the future in this instance.

[DBBN]

Jul 15, 2012 9:15:20 GMT -5 Fedex said:

Murray didn't have Lendl in his corner for those previous 3 slam defeats either. I would advise against using the past as a predictor of the future in this instance.

Yeah. This time he actually won a whole set.

[Fedex]

Jul 15, 2012 9:43:23 GMT -5 DBBN said:

Jul 15, 2012 9:15:20 GMT -5 Fedex said:

Murray didn't have Lendl in his corner for those previous 3 slam defeats either. I would advise against using the past as a predictor of the future in this instance.

Yeah. This time he actually won a whole set.

I think people are being too hard on Murray. He played a very good final, IMO. Federer was just vintage though and probably surprised Murray with his frequent forays into the net.

[Grarliner]

Jul 15, 2012 9:14:06 GMT -5 Fedex said:

Jul 15, 2012 3:44:06 GMT -5 Grarliner said:

A good question to ponder is where we are in the GOAT debate ...

Rafa seriously raised his game since Fed beat Murray for the AO title two-and-a-half years ago. Since, he's won five Slams and been runner up at three. 11 Grand Slam titles including 7 at the French Open - those are very persuasive numbers. Plus, a winning head-to-head against everyone who matters. And still only 26 years old.

I had thought he looked pretty good to one day catch up with Roger. And I'm not saying that now he doesn't. But another one helps Roger's cause to keep that record going forwards. Fed doesn't want to end up like Sampras and see his records fall less than a decade after he retired.

Hey, you think Pete regrets phoning it in the last four years?

By the way, it is interesting that Roger always maintained that he had a chance to get #1 back even when things looked very bleak.

I guess that brings us to Novak. With five Slams, he's already an all-time great. But it remains to be seen whether his form of 2011 is repeatable. If it is, he might have a double digit Grand Slam total before 2015. If not ... Roger and Rafa are probably going to win a lot more.

Well, if we go back to 2009, Nadal has won 6 slams and Federer has won 4. Nadal in his "peak" and Federer in his "decline" isn't that far off. Nadal isn't making any inroads in the Federer lead. 6 months ago Fed led by 6 slams. 6 months later, he still leads by 6.

Nadal is also behind the Federer pace at his age, and by all accounts, it's widely accepted that Nadal is NOT going to age as well as Federer and continue to contend and win majors into his late 20's early 30's.

If Federer wins the US Open, it's lights out for Nadal. Right now, I think he's chasing Sampras more than he's chasing Fed.

You're cherry-picking the numbers, aren't you? Compare Slam victories from 2010 onwards ...

I concur that is has been widely accepted that Nadal isn't going to age well. I just don't really believe that anymore. Roger himself said last year that he believes Rafa will be around for many years to come. I think so too. I think it is in Nadal's character to go on about how he won't but I wouldn't believe that. It's his usual "modesty".

The question for him is whether he can win Slams which aren't held on clay and I think the answer is still a resounding yes. I think if he can't do more than win RG every year, yes, he'll never catch up with Roger. But if he can, and I think he can, he just might.

It all depends on Roger. If he has a few more in the bag, and I think he might, he has a very good chance of setting a record which will be unassailable for a very long time.

Wimbledon was really big for him. He needed to end the Slam drought. Now that he has, let's see if he can ride the momentum to an Olympic gold or US Open title.

[lexpretend]

It was "widely accepted" five years ago that Rafa would be done by now. He's proved everyone wrong about his physical duress many times over, so I'm just assuming he'll have normal longevity from here on in. He's never had a major injury (ie, one that takes him out of the sport for a year à la Safin, Pony, Silliams, Justine), much as he whines and will continue to whine about his knees, which is remarkable.

With the exception of Fed over Rafa on clay I think any Big Three match-up has the potential to go any way right now, which makes long-term predictions a fool's game to an extent.

[Old Hag]

Not yet. Rafa just hit 26, the first line where the wall historically begins for defensive players of his ilk. He does have the super topspin, which should keep him elite on clay and similar surfaces, but otherwise I'd be shocked if he's a top player on hardcourts, etc... in 2 years.

[lexpretend]

Hingis speaks on this. Short version: Fed is scared of Rafa but not Nole.

straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/after-comeback-speculation-hingis-is-happy-with-her-place-and-federers/?ref=tennis

WASHINGTON — A year after she made waves in Switzerland and in the tennis world with the revelation that she had been asked by Roger Federer about coming out of retirement to play mixed doubles with him for Switzerland at the London Olympics, Martina Hingis seems content with where the year has taken her — even if that’s not to the Games.

Hingis, 31, and Federer, 30, ultimately agreed that it was in his interest to focus his energies on singles and on defending his 2008 gold medal in men’s doubles with his partner, Stanislas Wawrinka.

“I was kind of flattered that he asked me, but at the end we decided not to play,” Hingis said in an interview Thursday in Washington before a World Team Tennis match. Hingis and Federer reached the mutual decision during a phone call in November. It was at her visit to Washington for World Team Tennis in 2011 that Hingis first disclosed that she had been asked to consider a comeback by one of Federer’s coaches.

“I mean, I would have to get back into great shape, playing doubles or mixed doubles at the Grand Slams,” Hingis, who retired in 2007 and is now working as a coach for junior prospects in Paris, said of her reasons for not wanting to return to competition. “And him, having finished up the season so well, he had a great opportunity, his sights on getting back where he is today.

“He kind of felt that feeling, that tingling sensation that he had a chance. And you could see when he was winning those indoor events that he felt like, O.K., he beat Nadal, he beat Djokovic, so maybe he has his opportunities to do it at a Grand Slam. And now at Wimbledon it just all came back together. And wow, back to No. 1, and being able to have only 20 days in between, this is his chance to win the Olympics as well.
“So that’s what I said back then: ‘If I was your coach? I would tell you you have to focus on the singles.’

“He became No. 1, he won Wimbledon. So all his dreams, they got realized. And now having the pole position to win the Olympics, the one thing he hasn’t got yet, I think is a great opportunity.”

“I haven’t seen Roger in such fantastic shape in two and a half, three years, since the last time he won a Grand Slam,” Hingis said. “I think the moment Nadal loses at a Grand Slam, he felt like this is his opportunity. I think mentally, Nadal, for him, is such a barrier, that once he lost he saw the draw open — and he’s not afraid of Djokovic. He never was, and I think every time he sees the opportunity to beat him. And although he didn’t a couple times — U.S. Open, match points — but he beat him last year. So I think he’s not afraid of someone like Djokovic, but Nadal is not his kind of player.

“But wow, the matches, the tennis he produced in the semifinals, finals. There’s not much to say. Wow. And I think also it helped him that the roof was closed, it felt more like playing indoors. Sometimes everything falls in place, and this was his year.”

Though the two ultimately decided against the potential Olympic partnership, Hingis seemed to have enjoyed the excitement surrounding the possibility that she and Federer might team up, calling the sudden attention and speculation “unbelievable.”

“I think both of us, we didn’t think that it’s going to be such an explosion, you know?” Hingis said. “The people kept asking me, ‘So, you’re playing with Federer?’ and all that: ‘That’s great! Wish you luck!’ And I’m like, ‘Well, we haven’t decided!’ ”

“Then when we decided not to play, everyone was like, ‘Aw, it would have been so great.’ But yeah, I loved that kind of positive attitude about it.”

But though she enjoyed the encouragement, it seemed Hingis was perhaps most daunted by the possibility of facing one particular opponent — Serena Williams, the Wimbledon champion, who may not enter the mixed doubles competition.

“Really, it’s for people who are out there right now,” she said of the Olympics. “If we had to face some team like, I don’t know, Serena and Roddick, or Serena and like one of the Bryan brothers — I mean, this is crazy! I mean, I would play with Roger, but I’m not the same player as when I was winning Grand Slams.”

Hingis, who sat in the royal box at Wimbledon’s Centre Court to watch the women’s final for a second straight year, took special notice of Williams’s record-setting serving.

“Twenty-four aces?” Hingis said in disbelief, citing the number Williams struck in her straight-set win over Victoria Azarenka in the semifinals. “That was probably the aces I did in a whole season! And she does it in one match.”

[Grarliner]

I think Hingis is right. But more than that, the pressure of meeting Rafa in a Slam final is to know that he needs to beat him much more than Rafa needs the win. The head-to-head is already considerably stacked in Rafa's favor. So the pressure to beat him in Slams is great.

Novak might be a different story ... he doesn't have the heavy topspin. Roger may think all he needs is to have a good day.