Players Under the Microscope / Matthew Walton / 13 March 2008 /

Matthew Walton tries to make sense of a season that so far has been full of surprises...

You get the feeling there's been a shifting of the sands recently on the ATP Tour.

We've witnessed no-shows by the well-established, dominant forces of the game (Federer, Nadal). There has been the progression by some of the tour's rising stars (Djokovic, Murray).

We've also seen a return to winning ways by some familiar names (Roddick, Almagro) and, most interestingly of all, an abundance of big priced but little known winners (Llodra, Nishikori, Llodra (again), Stakhovsky, Darcis).

Now we've commented on such matters before and discussed this possible changing of the guard. Would you prefer, we argued, a predictable pattern to the formbook? Federer, Nadal and Djokovic hoovering up every tournament they enter. Or, would you favour the current climate of uncertainty as we have it at present. And, let's not forget, those three players have won just one of the nine events they have collectively entered this year - previously unheard of form.

However, that one victory was the one big event we've seen in 2008 as Novak Djokovic won the Australian Open (where both Federer and Nadal, it's worth noting, also put up their best showings of the year to date).

The lesser lights may be winning the regular tournaments but can they transfer that form into the blue riband events? We've seen these guys win at [100.0] plus - and often when the big boys aren't even in attendance - but will there be such a winner at Indian Wells or Miami during the next few weeks?

This brings us onto our topic for discussion. As the saying goes 'Form is temporary, class is permanent' so the point we wish to highlight is whether these new, upcoming players can finally wrest the Masters Series titles off the old-guard.

The table below would suggest this is unlikely to happen. We'll look at the Masters Series events on clay (Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg) and indoors (Madrid, Paris) in due course but here we'll consider the outdoor, hard court events.

There are two early season tournaments (Indian Wells, Miami) and two later in the year (Canada, Cincinnati).

Going back over the last eight years, these four events have hosted 32 Masters Series tournaments. Of these, a total of 29 (90%) have been won by Grand Slam winners. Only Pavel, Enqvist and Corretja failed to land a Slam title in their career, although the last two were both runners-up. What's more, since 2003, the combined 20 winners have all recorded Grand Slam success.

On the face of it that would give little hope for the contenders.

However, Federer has reported a viral complaint of late, Nadal seems to be going backwards on hard courts, Djokovic has struggled since Melbourne and guys like Hewitt and Safin have fallen off the radar completely. Andy Roddick, by default, seems the only live runner!

Further substantiation to this counter-argument is also given when the list of Masters Series runners-up is considered.

Indian Wells has seen James Blake and Tim Henman (twice) make the final in recent years. Over in Miami, Ivan Ljubicic and even Jan-Michael Gambill have made it through to the decider. Canada has also produced Richard Gasquet as a runner-up and Cincinnati has seen both James Blake and Mardy Fish narrowly missing out on the title.

As you can see, it's not as if every Masters Series final is Grand Slam winner v Grand Slam winner. There are very evident signs of 'lesser' players competing in finals and without stretching the point too far, that 90% figure highlighted above could easily be down at a less startling percentage. In short, don't write off this new talent, this irresistible force just yet.

The final selection decision will come down to a value judgment. When was the last time you saw Roger Federer at bigger than [2.60] for a tournament? Likewise, Rafael Nadal at [10.0]. Surely too big to miss.

Mind you, they're not that price without due reason. Both are more vulnerable now than at any time over the past two or three years. Question is, can the new blood on tour step up when it really matters - keep winning the run-of-the-mill events but also start to stake a claim in the premier tournaments as well. Time for Andy Murray ([20.0]), Nikolay Davydenko ([55.0]), David Ferrer ([65.0]) et al to move on up?

As with all things, the passing of time dictates a natural evolution of talent. Players steadily improve, plateau and ultimately decline as new ones take over. It's just so far, in barely 10 weeks of action in 2008, we seem to have experienced an accelerated version of that trend.

A little premature to make such claims? Well, if Messrs. Federer and Nadal bomb out at Indian Wells, you just wait for their obituaries to be written. But, should they win, it'll be business as usual for the immovable objects at the top of the world rankings.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: