Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They need to re-evaluate the ranking system. Players should get points for beating top players and not making to the quarters, semis, finals, or win due to luck. If they do that, I am sure Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro will be in the top 7 above Ferrer.
This makes no sense at all. If there were no point system, how would we determine who the "top players" are? There's no committee that gets together and says, "These will be our top players for the 2013 season."
You don't get a Top 10 ranking based on luck. Lukas Rosol got lucky. Stan Stakhovsky got lucky. Jerzy Janowicz got lucky. Obviously, none of those guys are in the Top 10. To get points, you need to be consistent week in, week out. Really, the only thing that separates Novak Djokovic from the super hot club player in Boca last Thursday night is consistency. Whereas we might have a Federer-like day only one day out of our 25,000+ days on this Earth (but more likely never), Roger Federer has those types of days pretty much every day.
So no, players should not be awarded point based on beating top players because the points are in fact what's used to determine who the top players are.
Andre Agassi. Wimby '92, USO '94 and Aussie '95. What do I win???
Who knows if Andy will go on to win multiple Slams. I definitely see him winning another one. Not many guys can be compared to Agassi, though. It's more likely that Murray's career follows the trajectory of Yevgeny Kafelnikov's than Andre Agassi's.
Murray is already much, much better than Kafelnikov.
Guys like Kafelnikov and even Oz's own Llyeton Hewiit, won 2 Slams, but were never as consistent as Murray beyond that.
And we all know Murray will win more than 2 Slams - so his trajectory his surpass those other 2 very quickly.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that Andy Murray will have as good a career as Andre Agassi. What I DID mean to imply is that Murray is likely to win at least another Slam or two and his "window" will likely remain open for another 2-3 years, if not longer.
For whatever it is worth, I was surprised when I saw how similar Murray's and Agassi's Grand Slam accomplishments were at the same age. Even their Masters 1000 event records are similar (I think Murray has won 9 M1000 events and appeared in 12 finals, and at the same age Agassi had won 8 M1000 events and appeared in 12 finals.)
murray is extremely level headed , I can see him kicking on from here and winning plenty more slams
my sister who lives and breathes tennis , reckons that Federer at his peak was untouchable and that neither murray , nadal or jokovic would have stood a chance had he maintained that form but with him getting old and nadal having regular injury problems , murray is on a park with jokovic , they should share much of the spoils between them going forward if you exclude nadal,s dominance at the French open
Murray is already much, much better than Kafelnikov.
Guys like Kafelnikov and even Oz's own Llyeton Hewiit, won 2 Slams, but were never as consistent as Murray beyond that.
And we all know Murray will win more than 2 Slams - so his trajectory his surpass those other 2 very quickly.
I do think Murray is better than Kafelnikov.
But we don't know if he'll win more Slams. He probably will, but at the end of the day, his overall accomplishments will be closer to Kafelnikov's than Agassi's. Agassi has 8 Majors and 60 career titles (and the Career Slam). I doubt he'll get anywhere close to that with Nadal and Djokovic still winning titles along with Federer who can likely pick at least one off within the next 2 years.
And I'm not sure if we can look at what Agassi did in his 30s and extrapolate that later success over Murray's career. We have to remember that Agassi basically quit tennis (psychologically, anyway) after his loss to Pete Sampras at the '95 U.S. Open. He was ranked in the 100s at the start of the 1998 season and wasn't playing much at all. So those 3 to 3.5 years of not playing much tennis really rejuvenated him physically and mentally. I'm pretty sure his career would have been totally different had he not checked out for a while. He was burned out.
Murray, on the other hand, is not likely to take a mental retreat any time soon. And he can't afford to. The game is so much more physical now. In 3 to 3.5 years time, there will be a new group of fit young players competing for titles. Murray won't be able to compete with them (even Roger, as great as he is, is finding himself vulnerable these days). So that means he needs to win Slams now. The days of winning Slams in your 30s a la Andre Agassi are gone. I mean, Agassi didn't win any Slams after Federer truly arrived on the scene (Wimby '03).
^^^ I agree with most of what you are saying, and that Murray and also Djokovic (almost exactly the same age) probably only have 3-4 years to amass as many Slams and titles as possible.
Even the great Sampras, who won the 2002 US Open at 31 - which was his last - was well and truly on the downhill run by then, his previous win was Wimbledon 2000 over 2 years earlier.
Not sure about Federer snaring one more Major title though, he would need virtually everything to go his way for that to happen now
Nadal too, has tapered outside of Clay since the 2010 US Open victory, largely due to the Jokers superb 2011- early 2012 Season, but still could win another Hard Court Slam.
The form we saw from Juan Martin del Potro - suggests he will be right in the mix in the next couple of years as well, provided he can stay injury-free.
Tsonga is still around, but has disappointed when he needed to step up another level, same too with Berdych.
The next batch of up and comers are still coming as well.
The "Golden Era"' of Men's Tennis can't last forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
