What Now for Tennis' Big Five?

It's hard to know what to do with yourself on the days after a weekend of sports like that. French Open finals, Champions League final, Women's World Cup, NBA finals, Ireland - England friendly, Canadian Grand Prix, Gemili running sub 10 seconds and the Epsom Derby, as well as the ongoing FIFA and Salazar/Farah controversies. You get to the Monday and the only consolation is that we don't have to endure any more England friendlies until November. 

With so much sport, we might have hoped for a few upsets to keep us on the edge of our seats but instead of a few little ones, we got just one big hit. Sunday's blistering performance from Stan Wawrinka has shaken up the tennis hierarchy. He has of course shown his capability before but this was something new. Beating an injured Nadal on hardcourt is nothing compared to toppling Djokovic on a 28 game unbeaten run in a Slam final. So where does it leave the big 5 of the men's game?

Djokovic - unquestionably the dominant player of the tennis world and clearly ahead of anyone else. His consistency and quality will see him atop the rankings for a long time yet and most likely favourite for every major for the next two years. Still some mental frailties when things are against him but he's so good that it rarely matters in the end. Currently on 8 Slams, it's hard to see him getting to Federer's mark of 17, especially as he's so far only ever once (2011) won more than one in a season.

Federer - appears to be in a strange place now in his career. Retains the class and style of his younger years but lacks the consistency to genuinely threaten at the business end of slams. Losses to the likes of Seppi, Cilic, Gulbis, Robredo and Stakhovsky in the last 2 years suggest that he is likely to have to settle for 17 Slams. With nothing more to prove or achieve, but still world number 2 for now and still capable of beating anyone, he does genuinely appear to just enjoy being on the tour and playing tennis. Of course he'd love to win another big one but he's content enough making a mockery of those who say he should retire just because he's no longer the best.

Murray - what could prove to be a very significant spring for Murray, with a breakout claycourt season. Winning two clay titles, beating Nadal in Madrid and looking thoroughly comfortable on the dirt. In significant tournaments (Slams/1000 series) this year he has only lost to Djokovic. Likely to overtake Federer for No 2 in the world later in the summer and almost a certainty to add to his 2 Grand Slams at some point in the next year or so. Definitely worth a flutter on him to build on a high level of confidence with a second Wimbledon title in a month's time. Probably won't have quite enough to overhaul Djokovic to top the rankings but he may well run him close soon enough. 

Wawrinka - simply one of the best individual performances I've ever seen. Devastating striking of the ball on such a regular basis. We've seen success from the likes of Del Potro and Soderling in the past just thumping it as hard as possible but nothing like what Stan produced. He will continue to be a threat, particularly at Slams where he turns it up a notch but such high risk tennis will never lead to a very top ranking. 

Nadal - ah Rafa, what are we going to do with you? One of the most physical, powerful and dominant players in history is something of a shell of his former self. So often throughout his career he has been held back by injuries and at some point it might need to be considered that he's not going to recover fully. Few players define competitiveness as much as Nadal but does he have it in him to beat Djokovic and Murray, especially from a current ranking of 10th? I hope so, but I fear not. 

A Chance for Someone New?

With the US Open starting today, there has to be a chance of an outsider taking a debut Grand Slam title for the second time this year. None of the usual suspects are on top form and some of the next generation such as Raonic and Dimitrov are starting to turn potential into ability. Both reached maiden Slam semi finals at Wimbledon and in the near future that may well become victories. Flushing Meadows also has a tendency to be a productive tournament for players who only win one or two in their career. Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Del Potro and Murray all won their first major in New York and none have managed more than 2 in total.

Perhaps it's because it's later in the season and so there can be fitness issues affecting the field. The fatigue element may well have played a part in Federer failing to win since the last of his 5 consecutive titles in 2008, aged 27. He has won each of the other Slams since he last triumphed in New York, but not even reached the final here. The Swiss star's dominance coming to an end has brought about a season of the title changing hands each year. The last 6 years have produced 5 different winners (only Nadal x2) and no-one has defended their title from the previous year. That trend will continue again with this edition with Nadal's withdrawal due to injury.

Nadal's absence means that since his Grand Slam debut aged 17 at 2003 Wimbledon, he has been missed 7 majors, including one in each of the last 3 years. To compare, Federer's debut was at Roland Garros 1999, also aged 17. Since then he has never been absent, missing out only 1999 US Open main draw by losing in qualifying. Tomorrow he will appear in his 60th consecutive Grand Slam. Nadal will not overhaul Federer's record of GS titles, because his absence (and injury) record limits how many he has the chance to win. Rafa has actually only won 1 Slam outside of Roland Garros in the last 4 years and it's pretty unlikely he'll still be at the top of his game when he's 32.

Normally you'd think that Nadal's absence would mean the title is pretty much a guarantee for Murray or Djokovic. As it happens, both have been on a fairly feeble run of form, the Scot losing in the QFs of his last 3 tournaments, the Serb in the last 16 of his last 2. Of course they will rise to the big occasion but in the significantly tougher side of the draw, (Djokovic, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Murray, Raonic, Isner), it will take a mighty turn of form for either of them to be holding the trophy aloft in a fortnight. Federer has shown at Wimbledon that he is still in the hunt for the majors and with a relatively weak route to the final (Karlovic, Fognini, Dimitrov, Ferrer), he may well put the American drought behind him. That being said, his performance the last two years doesn't fill you with confidence if you're a Fed fan (2013 Last 16 loss to Robredo, 2012 QF loss to Berdych). For once, none of the major players look like safe bets.

Hence why it might just be the time for a breakthrough from someone new...

Can Rafa get to 18 Slams?

After Rafa's stunning US Open campaign, the question on everyone's lips is whether he can go onto break the record for male Grand Slam winners. At the moment Roger Federer holds the record with 17, and it's widely accepted now that he is highly unlikely to add to that tally given his showing at the last couple of majors. As of the other night, Rafa now has 13 Slams: 1x Aus, 8x Fre, 2x Wim, 2x US, and needs another 5 to hold the record out on his own.

He now has an unparalleled 9 consecutive years with at least 1 Grand Slam victory (incidentally he also holds a similar unmatched record for 9 consecutive years winning a Masters Series/1000 Series title), and not many would bet on 2014 breaking that streak. 

It doesn't take an expert tennis analyst (luckily for me) to recognise that the main thing standing in Rafa's way is likely to be his own fitness. Over the last 5 years or so, he has been decidedly held back by recurring injuries, and in particular tendonitis in his knees. The chances of him being fully fit for all of the slams over the next 2 or 3 years seem slim at best. 
If there was less competition then he might be able to cruise to the odd title but with Murray and Djokovic (as well as the likes of JMDP, Wawrinka, Berdych, even Federer) around, he will have to be at his best to win a Slam. Even then it might not be enough.

There has been lots of talk about this being one of the best years in tennis history but just a couple of months ago he was knocked out of Wimbledon in the first round. Then, all of the discussion was about Nadal's knees and his ability to play on surfaces other than clay.

At most he is likely to have 3 years left at the very top, before the physical nature of his play restricts his chances of claiming the biggest prizes, even on clay. That means potentially just 12 more chances. Can he win 5 of them to enhance his claim to be considered the greatest ever? Only time will tell.


Geeky statto alert:

It is interesting (I appreciate this is a subjective term) to look at the ages of Grand Slam winners. The below graph shows the progression in terms of slam victories for each of the best known major winners.

You should be able to click on the graph to open it up and see more, but here are a few highlights that I thought were interesting. 

1) Aged 27, only Federer had more Slams than Rafa.
2) At 25 years old, Federer and Borg had 11 Slams, Sampras and Rafa 10. Borg retired without winning another, Pistol Pete kept going for years longer and added a consistent 1 per year, and then another aged 31.
3) Djokovic is considered one of the greatest and aged 25 he was behind only McEnroe (who didn't win another), and the above 4. He hasn't won one as a 26 year old yet so he's got a long way to go to catch up those in double figures.
4) Murray's slow start to winning Slams, mirroring his coach Lendl, is demonstrated as well, with the two of them being the oldest to claim their maiden slams from this list.
5) Agassi won more than half of his Slams after he turned 28, so there could yet be lots to come from RN/ND/AM all moving into the 2nd half of their careers.
6) I'm really geeky

PS I sort of just chose players who are best known for the chart, and left off the likes of Laver/Rosewall who won Slams both pre and post-Open era because it was too confusing.

A Genuine Four Horse Race?

With the start of Wimbledon just days away, it seems only right to take a minute to look ahead to what could be yet another fascinating Grand Slam tournament. 
It is not often that all of the big four can be considered to have a genuine chance of winning. Djokovic could win anything, Nadal is the world's form player, Murray comes off the back of a victory at Queen's and carries incredible home support while reigning champion Federer can simply never be written off on grass. I'm sure there will be suggestions of an outsider having a chance, someone like Tsonga, Berdych or Del Potro but the reality is that needing to be beat 2 or 3 of the top ten over 5 sets will be too much for anyone else. I believe we have a genuine four horse race.

A few years ago the men's tennis world was utterly dominated by Federer and Nadal, as the great rivals won 24 of the 28 majors from '04 to '10. Only with Djokovic's sudden and meteoric rise to prominence in 2011 was the stranglehold broken. Since then, the spoils have been somewhat more shared, in such a way that the four Slams are currently held by four different men, for the first time since 2003. Any of the four could quite possibly be holding the golden trophy aloft in a fortnight's time, but what is almost certain is that there will be some epic clashes in there. Nadal being ranked 5th may or may not have much of an effect as there are inevitably going to be multiple match ups of the top men however the draw throws them together. The last time there was a straight sets final between 2 of the 4 was the 2011 Aussie Open, and if you take Murray's streak of final defeats out of the equation, it's the 2008 French Open.

Obviously there's no telling when a Lukas Rosol might come along again and keep us all on our toes, but I for one hope that we'll be seeing the four of them battling it out in two weeks' time. 

For the geekier among you I've quickly worked out what ranking points they'll all be on at the end of the tournament depending on how far they make it:

	R1 (10)	R2 (45)	R3 (90)	R4 (180)	QF (360)	SF (720)	F (1200)	W (2000)
Djokovic	11840	11875	11920	12010	12190	11830	12310	13110
Murray	7370	7405	7450	7540	7720	8080	8560	9360
Federer	5750	5785	5830	5920	6100	6460	6940	7740
Ferrer	6870	6905	6950	7040	7220	7580	8060	8860
Nadal	6860	6895	6940	7030	7210	7570	8050	8850

(current points, based on last year's performance is in bold)

And if you really like stats, here are their respective winning records, both for 2013 to date and all time at Wimbledon:

Djokovic 2013: 33-5 (86.8%) / Wimbledon all time: 32-7 (82%)
Murray 2013: 27-5 (84.4) / Wimbledon all time: 30-7 (81.1%)
Federer 2013: 26-7 (78.8%) / Wimbledon all time: 66-7 (90.4%)
Nadal 2013: 43-2 (95.6%) / Wimbledon all time: 36-6 (85.7%)

Relevance to Sunday 7th July = 0%

A Welsh Grand Slam?

From the seal and porpoise-infested currents of the Pembrokeshire coast, to the peaks of Snowdonia, to the royally inhabited island of Anglesey, to the sprawling metropoleis of Rhosllannerchrugog, Llanfair Caereinion and Ystradffin, south through the Brecon Beacons into the urban centres of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport, a few weeks ago a gentle breeze began, swirling to a quiet whisper, growing louder each weekend, and now at a level audible across the land of the dragon, building to a crescendo and a mighty Welsh roar at the Millenium Stadium on March 17th...

"Y Gamp Lawn" "Y Gamp Lawn" "Y Gamp Lawn" "Y Gamp Lawn"

A straightforward win against the Italians this weekend will leave Warburton, North & Co. all lined up for the Grand Slam (I know my educated readership didn't need a translation of 'Y Gamp Lawn' but who knows who else might stumble on the blog and feel a little lost).
They've come through tough matches in London and Dublin, despite being second best for significant parts of both matches. Neither Ireland nor England took advantage of a Welsh sin-bin, and some poor decisions didn't help either host close out winning positions, but the World Cup semi-finalists showed a determination and skill to fight back and get impressive results in both matches. And winning ugly is part of being champions. Just ask that well known battling midfielder Samir Nasri, who knows about as much about winning ugly as Tim Henman.


After a strong showing in the World Cup, lots of talk discussed Welsh prospects for the Six Nations and if Graham Price is right, this team is on the verge of a great achievement, earned by a mixture of powerful attacking rugby, grit, determination and some lack in clinical finishing of their opponents. 


But let us not forget that Wales were lauded after a World Cup in which they actually lost 3 times (South Africa, France & Australia), and could easily have been heading home after a weak display against Samoa. It was Les Bleus that ended the dream in New Zealand and Les Bleus who could do it again on St Patrick's Day. In all likelihood the French will have beaten England in Paris and so will be vying for the Six Nations crown themselves. And after all, how many times have Wales beaten France in the Six Nations at the Millenium Stadium?


Once. 2008. After home wins over Scotland and Italy, and away wins at Ireland and England (sounding familiar?), they sealed the Grand Slam over the French. They'll need much of the same in a couple of weeks...