Nadal destroys Ferrer – and reveals a weakness in the men’s game
Nadal destroys Ferrer – and reveals a weakness in the men’s game
Nadal is back, in a big way. That’s good for tennis isn’t it? Specifically, is that good for men’s tennis? For a few years now, tennis fans have delighted in telling each other how privileged they are to be watching the sport in such a golden age. The “big four” as they’re now known since Andy Murray made his bones in New York last year – as strong a cohort as ever seen in the game, certainly three of those top four men are talked about in revered tones regarding their legacies. But Rafa Nadal’s rehabilitation has just taken an interesting twist, which does raise an important question.
Are these four rightly heralded as greats, or is the rest of the field just so weak?
Nadal’s comeback has so far been carefully managed – clay court tournaments among relatively weak fields in Chile and Brazil, but the Mexican Open had something different – a fellow Spaniard by the name of David Ferrer who has risen to a higher world ranking in Rafa’s absence, and won his first Masters 1000 event in Paris at the end of last year. He’s a big name, a big star, a man with a very successful career – and he was absolutely slaughtered.
Ferrer was seeded first for the draw in Acapulco (The tournament organisers clearly reading too much into the rankings!) and Nadal second. It should’ve been a tightly fought, close affair. You’d normally expect three sets, you certainly wouldn’t expect Nadal to only drop two games in the whole final. Nadal has been back for a few weeks, but it was in the final of the Mexican Open where he really made an impact and demanded to be noticed by his peers.
It’s always going to be difficult to compare players from different eras. What would Djokovic make of Ivan Lendl at the other end of the Arthur Ashe stadium? How would Murray deal with Sampras’ serve at Wimbledon? Who would win between Borg and Nadal on the clay courts at Roland Garros? And who would prevail if Roger Federer face Rod Laver in… well, in the Rod Laver Arena? All fascinating conversations that have been had in the past, are being had now, and will continue to be had for the foreseeable future – all arguments that won’t ever be settled.
But if Murray’s win in New York becomes an sole slam victory for him, then when he hangs up his racquet he won’t be considered and all-time great. He’s already a British sporting legend, absolutely no doubt about that at all, but globally he’s still got some way to go if he wants to be up there. Yevgeny Kafelnikov has more slam titles, so does Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin. All great players, but of each of their generations they are not in the top 3 or 4.
Sports eras do not generally fall into easily understood and equal brackets such as a decade. There are overlaps and some players like Borg, Connors and Nadal stand astride decade boundaries – and people like Sampras and Federer almost define their own eras – a decade is perhaps too long for most athlete’s prime years. However, it is possibly to roughly group cohorts of contemporaries into brackets and declare them as “an era”. An example would be late sixties to early seventies – the era of Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall, Nastase and Vilas; Mid-seventies to mid-eighties is of course the domain of people like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander and Ashe. Two very powerful groups of players – and it’s notable that the fifth player mentioned in each cohort is a multiple grand slam winner. What can we boast of now? Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray – without even the fifth we’re down to a single slam winner. Of course three of that four have (potentially) several years of peak condition to win further slams. But to pick a fifth? Ferrer, Tsonga, del Potro, Berdych?
To put that into real perspective let’s line the “big four” +1 against the best the mid-eighties to early nineties has to offer – the era of Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Courier, McEnroe, and Becker.
Can you imagine McEnroe coming back from long-term injury and completely destroying Stefan Edberg or Ivan Lendl in an hour and five minutes? No.
Strength in depth is the key here. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are truly magnificent tennis players, but apart from that and perhaps Murray – what do we have to offer to history? Not much at all really. Time for a reality check.
The good news of course is that if this isn’t the greatest ever era for men’s tennis, the next one just could be. Well, maybe the one after the next.
Nadal is back, in a big way. That’s good for tennis isn’t it? Specifically, is that good for men’s tennis? For a few years now, tennis fans have delighted in telling each other how privileged they are to be watching the sport in such a golden age. The “big four” as they’re now known since Andy Murray made his bones in New York last year – as strong a cohort as ever seen in the game, certainly three of those top four men are talked about in revered tones regarding their legacies. But Rafa Nadal’s rehabilitation has just taken an interesting twist, which does raise an important question.
Are these four rightly heralded as greats, or is the rest of the field just so weak?
Nadal’s comeback has so far been carefully managed – clay court tournaments among relatively weak fields in Chile and Brazil, but the Mexican Open had something different – a fellow Spaniard by the name of David Ferrer who has risen to a higher world ranking in Rafa’s absence, and won his first Masters 1000 event in Paris at the end of last year. He’s a big name, a big star, a man with a very successful career – and he was absolutely slaughtered.
Ferrer was seeded first for the draw in Acapulco (The tournament organisers clearly reading too much into the rankings!) and Nadal second. It should’ve been a tightly fought, close affair. You’d normally expect three sets, you certainly wouldn’t expect Nadal to only drop two games in the whole final. Nadal has been back for a few weeks, but it was in the final of the Mexican Open where he really made an impact and demanded to be noticed by his peers.
It’s always going to be difficult to compare players from different eras. What would Djokovic make of Ivan Lendl at the other end of the Arthur Ashe stadium? How would Murray deal with Sampras’ serve at Wimbledon? Who would win between Borg and Nadal on the clay courts at Roland Garros? And who would prevail if Roger Federer face Rod Laver in… well, in the Rod Laver Arena? All fascinating conversations that have been had in the past, are being had now, and will continue to be had for the foreseeable future – all arguments that won’t ever be settled.
But if Murray’s win in New York becomes an sole slam victory for him, then when he hangs up his racquet he won’t be considered and all-time great. He’s already a British sporting legend, absolutely no doubt about that at all, but globally he’s still got some way to go if he wants to be up there. Yevgeny Kafelnikov has more slam titles, so does Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin. All great players, but of each of their generations they are not in the top 3 or 4.
Sports eras do not generally fall into easily understood and equal brackets such as a decade. There are overlaps and some players like Borg, Connors and Nadal stand astride decade boundaries – and people like Sampras and Federer almost define their own eras – a decade is perhaps too long for most athlete’s prime years. However, it is possibly to roughly group cohorts of contemporaries into brackets and declare them as “an era”. An example would be late sixties to early seventies – the era of Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall, Nastase and Vilas; Mid-seventies to mid-eighties is of course the domain of people like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander and Ashe. Two very powerful groups of players – and it’s notable that the fifth player mentioned in each cohort is a multiple grand slam winner. What can we boast of now? Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray – without even the fifth we’re down to a single slam winner. Of course three of that four have (potentially) several years of peak condition to win further slams. But to pick a fifth? Ferrer, Tsonga, del Potro, Berdych?
To put that into real perspective let’s line the “big four” +1 against the best the mid-eighties to early nineties has to offer – the era of Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Courier, McEnroe, and Becker.
Can you imagine McEnroe coming back from long-term injury and completely destroying Stefan Edberg or Ivan Lendl in an hour and five minutes? No.
Strength in depth is the key here. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are truly magnificent tennis players, but apart from that and perhaps Murray – what do we have to offer to history? Not much at all really. Time for a reality check.
The good news of course is that if this isn’t the greatest ever era for men’s tennis, the next one just could be. Well, maybe the one after the next.
Nadal is back, in a big way. That’s good for tennis isn’t it? Specifically, is that good for men’s tennis? For a few years now, tennis fans have delighted in telling each other how privileged they are to be watching the sport in such a golden age. The “big four” as they’re now known since Andy Murray made his bones in New York last year – as strong a cohort as ever seen in the game, certainly three of those top four men are talked about in revered tones regarding their legacies. But Rafa Nadal’s rehabilitation has just taken an interesting twist, which does raise an important question.
Are these four rightly heralded as greats, or is the rest of the field just so weak?
Nadal’s comeback has so far been carefully managed – clay court tournaments among relatively weak fields in Chile and Brazil, but the Mexican Open had something different – a fellow Spaniard by the name of David Ferrer who has risen to a higher world ranking in Rafa’s absence, and won his first Masters 1000 event in Paris at the end of last year. He’s a big name, a big star, a man with a very successful career – and he was absolutely slaughtered.
Ferrer was seeded first for the draw in Acapulco (The tournament organisers clearly reading too much into the rankings!) and Nadal second. It should’ve been a tightly fought, close affair. You’d normally expect three sets, you certainly wouldn’t expect Nadal to only drop two games in the whole final. Nadal has been back for a few weeks, but it was in the final of the Mexican Open where he really made an impact and demanded to be noticed by his peers.
It’s always going to be difficult to compare players from different eras. What would Djokovic make of Ivan Lendl at the other end of the Arthur Ashe stadium? How would Murray deal with Sampras’ serve at Wimbledon? Who would win between Borg and Nadal on the clay courts at Roland Garros? And who would prevail if Roger Federer face Rod Laver in… well, in the Rod Laver Arena? All fascinating conversations that have been had in the past, are being had now, and will continue to be had for the foreseeable future – all arguments that won’t ever be settled.
But if Murray’s win in New York becomes an sole slam victory for him, then when he hangs up his racquet he won’t be considered and all-time great. He’s already a British sporting legend, absolutely no doubt about that at all, but globally he’s still got some way to go if he wants to be up there. Yevgeny Kafelnikov has more slam titles, so does Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin. All great players, but of each of their generations they are not in the top 3 or 4.
Sports eras do not generally fall into easily understood and equal brackets such as a decade. There are overlaps and some players like Borg, Connors and Nadal stand astride decade boundaries – and people like Sampras and Federer almost define their own eras – a decade is perhaps too long for most athlete’s prime years. However, it is possibly to roughly group cohorts of contemporaries into brackets and declare them as “an era”. An example would be late sixties to early seventies – the era of Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall, Nastase and Vilas; Mid-seventies to mid-eighties is of course the domain of people like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander and Ashe. Two very powerful groups of players – and it’s notable that the fifth player mentioned in each cohort is a multiple grand slam winner. What can we boast of now? Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray – without even the fifth we’re down to a single slam winner. Of course three of that four have (potentially) several years of peak condition to win further slams. But to pick a fifth? Ferrer, Tsonga, del Potro, Berdych?
To put that into real perspective let’s line the “big four” +1 against the best the mid-eighties to early nineties has to offer – the era of Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Courier, McEnroe, and Becker.
Can you imagine McEnroe coming back from long-term injury and completely destroying Stefan Edberg or Ivan Lendl in an hour and five minutes? No.
Strength in depth is the key here. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are truly magnificent tennis players, but apart from that and perhaps Murray – what do we have to offer to history? Not much at all really. Time for a reality check.
The good news of course is that if this isn’t the greatest ever era for men’s tennis, the next one just could be. Well, maybe the one after the next.
Topics: Acapulco, Andy Murray, David Ferrer, frafael nadal, Mexican Open, Sports, Tennis, Tennis News
Share this article:
Follow 10SBALLS.COM on:
10sBalls Top Stories
- No Key Biscayne, No Problem; New Site, Same Great Miami Open Tennis Event
- 10SBALLS SHARES FAVORITE EPA TENNIS PHOTOS Of 2018
- THE PERFECT HOLIDAY GIFT FOR ANY TENNIS PLAYER & FAN
- ATP MEN’S TENNIS • WILL IT MOVE FROM LONDON TO MANCHESTER OR TOKYO OR SINGAPORE? OR TURIN?
- ALIX RAMSAY WRITES TO “TENNIS SANTA CLAUS” WITH HER WISHES • ANDY MURRAY!
- CALIFORNIA CHAMPIONSHIPS AT THE JACK KRAMER CLUB – DECEMBER 15 TO 22 2018 • UTR • ORACLE • AND AN AWESOME NEW TENNIS EVENT
- 10sBalls.com Shares Alix Ramsay’s Rambling On About Tennis and The Holidays
- ROGER FEDERER JOINED BY RAFA NADAL FOR THE 2019 LAVER CUP FESTIVITIES IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
- TENNIS PLAYERS’ UNION – IS IT NEEDED? BY MARK WINTERS
- Tennis News: Wilson’s Revolution Is Here – THE CLASH
- ROTTERDAM TENNIS TOURNEY DIRECTOR RICHARD KRAJICEK ANNOUNCES DAVID GOFFIN TO PLAY IN 2019 ABN AMRO
- JELENA VEMIC’S PHOTO GALLERY
- TENNIS NEWS FROM LONDON • 10SBALLS REPORTS ON THE LAWN TENNIS WRITERS HOLIDAY LUNCHEON AT WIMBLEDON’S DEBENTURE CLUB
- 10sBalls.com Shares a Great Gift For A Tennis Player – The Functional Tennis Match Journal
- BNP PARIBAS TENNIS OPEN NAMED 2018 WTA PREMIER MANDATORY TOURNAMENT OF THE YEAR FOR FIFTH STRAIGHT YEAR
In Case You Missed It
EUGENIE BOUCHARD NAMED 2018 TENNIS CANADA FEMALE PLAYER OF THE YEAR / EUGENIE BOUCHARD NOMMÉE JOUEUSE DE L’ANNÉE 2018 DE TENNIS CANADA
Tennis Canada announced on Wednesday that Eugenie Bouchard is the winner of the 2018 Excellence Awards in the Female Player of the Year and Singles Player of the Year categories.
TENNIS NEWS • CALIFORNIA CHAMPIONSHIPS • TOMMY HAAS, TAYLOR FRITZ, STEVE JOHNSON, MARDY FISH AND MORE
Time to get tickets to watch! Surly you have heard about The Largest Open Tennis Event in America!
TENNIS NEWS • RAFA NADAL CONFIRMS RETURN TO PRACTICE, EYES ABU DHABI EXHIBITION AND AUSTRALIAN SUMMER
According to Uncle Toni, Rafael Nadal was supposed to be back at practice on either Dec. 4 or 5. Well, better late than never!
Conchita Martínez prepara la temporada 2019 de Karolina Pliskova en Tenerife
Española y checa ya trabajaron juntas durante el pasado Open de Estados Unidos