It used to be that the top players in men's tennis had big weapons, including the serve and forehand.

Now the top players have no weapons, but they have no weaknesses as well.

Sampras weapons were his serve and forehand. Federer was at the top, but is on his way down with a big forehand. Roddick's serve was once enough to get him to number one in the world, but now he probably will never win another major title. At one time Blake could knock players like Nadal right off of the court with his big forehand. But now Nadal has defeated Blake the last two times that they have played, and it was on Blake's best surface, a hard court.

I think top ten players like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Simon, and Del Potro all have relatively similar styles of play and will stay in the top ten. They are all very solid baseliners, but are efficient at the net when they have to be. Other differences in these players are their quickness and the amount of spin that they put on the ball. Nadal and Del Potro are on opposite sides of the spectrum of speed and spin, while the others fall somewhere in between.

Nadal's forehand is good, but not as big as Federer or Blake. Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, and Del Potro have very good backhands and serves, but I wouldn't call them weapons. Nadal, Djokovic, and Simon are very fast, but I wouldn't say their speed is what hurts their opponents.

Results thus far this season prove my point. This weekend in Abu Dhabi, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Davydenko, Blake, and Roddick competed in the World Tennis Championships, an Australian Open warm-up exhibition tournament. Murray defeated Blake in straight sets and Davydenko defeated Roddick in straight sets. Murray then defeated Federer in 3 sets, while Nadal defeated Davydenko in straight sets. Murray then won the title when he defeated Nadal in 3 sets.

Even though the season just started, Murray looks like he could eventually take the number 2 or 3 spot in the rankings by the end of the season if he continues this level of play. I think he will have to win at leat one major tournament to do that. Maybe it will be the Australian or US Open.

Interesting pov, Dedric. How does this work, though? Are they with no weaknesses actually that much better at neutralizing the weapons? Better defense, better preparation, better tactics, more impact of technology? Are they somehow making fewer errors on their side, so they don't need as many weapons (or such an obvious one like a big forehand or big serve)?

Djoko seems very talented as a shotmaker, particularly on hard courts. Murray has grown in to being a tremendous counterpuncher. Nadal is, of course, with very few weaknesses at the present.

While Federer has that powerful forehand, I actually don't see him as having weaknesses either. Instead, it seems that the new generation plays more like he does...with games that are strong on both sides plus the serve, and.....and the ability to defend. Which leads to the ability to modify tactics as the match progresses (see Nadal and Murray, esp.). Roddick, Blake, and some of the older generation, other than Federer, pretty much always seem to have one speed, one tactic, and don't seem to be able to make their defense punish their opponents.

Thanks for getting us started in the new year. Stimulating thoughts heading toward the AO.

The top players have no weapons and no weaknesses? Oh, jeez...

It's an interesting argument, Dedric. We're in the power baseline era. The problem for players with big weapons is that they usually also have big weaknesses that can be exposed -- think Karlovic the ace machine, or Gonzalez, who hits the fur off the ball on the forehand, but has a slice and little else on the backhand. Blake is a bit like that as well. He's either in the zone, or out of it.

I love the dynamism of some players who hit big, like Safarova on the women's side, but have come to see that in this era, big hitting only counts for so much if you aren't rock-solid consistent and don't have a lot of variety. The ATP is riddled with big hitters who lack strategy and mental fortitude and full games. Berdych, Gonzo, Verdasco...

I can see how a top 10 of solid players might be unexciting. While Djokovic, Nadal, and Simon have different stroke production/form, they are similar in a lot of ways. All these players have terrific weapons, but not the kind that show as huge numbers in the 'winners' category.

As the leader of a slightly older generation and style, Federer can tally up the winners with the forehand and the serve, but when he runs into any of the three players named above, and Murray, his backhand is a flaw. It's a strong shot against the majority of the tour, but against those players, it's a weakness.

This year, Murray may establish himself as a Federer-caliber big server, and that might bring him dominance on hard courts. Tsonga has huge weapons when they are firing. And Gulbis and Cilic have potentially big games. Early on against Roddick at the USO, Gulbis was playing a brand of next generation big weapon tennis. But he couldn't maintain it. Tsonga did maintain it for a whole match against Nadal at the Australian last year.

Have to disagree, Dedric. Federer's Forehand has been called by Tennis Magazine's Survey last year of The Game's Greatest Shots as the Best in the history of the game. Most of the current players were interviewed in the spring as to which current players have the best of various shots, and all of them mentioned Federer or Nadal as having the Best Forehands in the game today. Murray went so far as to saying he gave the edge to the Nadal Forehand over Federer because Nadal's is as strong, powerful and effective but he gives up fewer errors off that side than Federer. I guess it depends on how you define the term "weapon". Federer and Nadal have Forehands that allow them to either take control of a point or put their opponents clearly on the defensive with that single shot, and they can do it time and again on the biggest stages at the biggest moments. That's what I'd call a weapon.

Blake's forehand?? Hmm. If you think it's as good as Federer's then I'm wondering why Blake has never been as far as a Major Semi-Final in his career? And forget the "exhibitions" - those are basically paid training or experimentation events that are for the audience there, and little more. Especially for Roddick who's under a new coach and Nadal who's only played in 1 full ATP event (Madrid) since the US Open.

I think I'd consider the Fed's forehand a weapon, and as much improved as his backhand is, it's still somewhat of a liability. Rafa's been able to hit high 'n deep to the Fed's backhand with better success than most players, and it's paid dividends. The Fed just isn't comfortable with shoulder high, or higher, backhands.

"Angles" aren't really a stroke, per se, so people may overlook them as a "weapon," but Rafa's groundstrokes produce some of the most devistating angles this side of a retired Monica Seles. He can whip them out in a normal ho-hum midst of a rally, or actually produce them when turning a defensive shot-on-the-run into an offensive winner. Whatever you want to call all that, , I'd say it's a weapon.



Well that's not really true, Nadal played in Paris last year after Madrid. Granted he retired in the QF to Davydenko, he was there and had won two previous matches against Serra and Le Monf. I'd say after the massively grueling year he had last year up to that point, he's a real full-time player and not an "exhibitionist...", well, you know what I mean.

I agree to some degree with the argument that today's top players have no (major) weaknesses. First of all, I'd only say that about the top 4 players. From #5 on down, the weaknesses are lot more noticeable: Davydenko's net game (that two-handed backhand volley is killing him), Simon's 2nd serve, Roddick's movement and court position, etc.

But no major weapons? Yikes! You totally lose me there. If Rafa's forehand isn't a weapon, then what the heck is? He can hit it with monster topspin, monster pace, and much to his opponents chagrin, oftentimes both. Even Novak's forehand, which I concede isn't the weapon that either Rafa's or Fed's is, is still a shot that Novak uses to dominate points and hit outright winners.

Because of advances in racket and string technology, shots are getting bigger and bigger. Sampras's big first serve was usually in the 122-124 range, and even the really flat ones were "just" 128-129. Novak, who has a good serve but hardly an overpowering weapon, hits his 1st serve around 125. The big boys in the serving department (Tsonga, Roddick, Karlovic) boom the first one in the high-130s. Serving speed was always recorded in Sampras's day, but rarely the speed of groundstrokes, so comparing groundstroke speed is a bit iffier. But I do recall once the crowd oohing and aahing over an Agassi forehand winner that was clocked at 101 mph. Little Gilles Simon hit a forehand winner during 2008 TMC at 102 mph!

So Le Monf beat Rafa today in Doha, 6-4, 6-4, his first win against him. He'll play Roddick in the semis, interestingly enough, against whom he has a 3-1 record. The Fed's pummeling Kohlschreiber right now, and Murray has to play Stakhovsky (who?), so unless something very strange happens, it'll be Murray and the Fed in the semis.

...We now return you to your discussion, already in progress....

Maybe this week is hijacking this thread, but a couple things about today's results --

about Monfils' win over Nadal, not so much because it happened (though I've always thought Rafa was a bad match-up for Gael), but because of how decisive it was. Not only did Monfils win in straights, but he won very decisively statwise, claiming 55% of the points played. Most interestingly, he had numerous break opportunities against Rafa while Rafa had only one (which he converted) against him. It all sounds like a domination.

Second, I kinda wish I'd mentioned Stakhovsky in the predictions thread, because he's performing better than Nishikori, Petzschner, Kunitsyn, and a few others that I did. But most accounts he has a big game that is best indoors, perhaps on grass, and on hard courts.

Fed has a great backhand -- not a liability at all, not by any stretch of the imagination. Nobody else is doing any better against Nadal on grass and clay, so it's hard to imagine what backhand would not be a "liability" by that standard.

Well, while up to interpretation, it's no question which groundstroke his opposition picks on and in doing so has allowed the competition to catch him. (Surpass in Rafa's case, and appearing more and more as in Murray's case as well) And your ranking or record against other players is certainly no indication of quality of shots relative to themselves in a players arsenal. That's like saying Elena Dimentieva's serve isn't a liability because she's #4 in the world and is beating lots of other players, if not almost all of them, "so it's hard to imagine what serve would not be a liability by that standard."

...this just in...Murray beats the Fed....again...


Murray's really starting to own the Fed, in official matches he's 5-2 against Roger. 6-2 if you count China last week. It'll be interesting, though, to see if Murray can eventually beat him during a best-of-five slam at some point, but it's definitely headed in that direction. He plays Roddick (who he's 5-2 against) in the final. Good win, BTW, for Roddick over Monfils, who's given him problems in the past.


...we now return you to your thread...appropriately discussing how men's tennis is changing....

Having seen the Doha tournament so far, I'm firstly not sure it's doom time for Nadal having lost to Monfils. It's one thing to lose when you're playing a good match, but Nadal was not anywhere near what he was in his first two matches. His Unforced Errors were uncharacteristically high, which is out of character for him given he hits his forehad with a lot of margin for safety with all the topspin. When his shots go long or wide with regularity, it's a rare sight. Agassi always said that if he kept his UFE's at 15 he'd win every match he played. Which is also Nadal's MO. But he still managed to take the Doha Doubles title with Marc Lopez, taking down the World #1 Doubles team of Nestor / Zimonjic. So all in all, he has a lot to be happy about for the week as a whole.

Federer, on the other hand, didn't come off looking all that good, again. He lost to the same guy now for the 4th straight time, and the way he lost it was less than inspiring. He guts out a tight first set, then Murray runs over him. Now, maybe he just wanted a few matches in before Australia to save himself for the Best of Fives there, plus pick up his fat appearance fee. Murray did have a lot more invested in the match since he's the titleholder in Doha. Still though, if Federer was looking for confidence or momentum going into Australia, this had to be less than what he hoped.

While I do think that the longer points in modern tennis make it harder for players with glaring weaknesses (would Edberg be able to win so many majors with his forehand today?), I certainly don't agree that the top players have no weaknesses. Djokovic and Murray, I'll give you--I'm hard pressed to think of two past players with more overall solidity in their games. But beyond the top four, there are a fair number of near-elite players with shaky backhands (e.g. Blake, Tsonga) or serves (Simon, Ferrer). Even Federer and Nadal generally win by dictating with their forehands. If they're forced into trading backhands with the likes of Murray, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian or Gasquet, they can run into trouble.

Roddick has stayed in the top ten despite a great number of weaknesses--his movement, backhand and service return are all below par for a top player. However, his serve is probably still the biggest single weapon in tennis and keeps him competitive with all but the big four.

Edited to add: While Federer and Nadal may not generate quite as much pace on their forehand as Blake and Gonzo, they have bigger shot repetoires and greater consistency, so I think their strokes are superior.