Damien Kayat examines the strength of the current status quo on the ATP circuit.
Those expecting yet another vintage Djokovic-Nadal marathon final were left with rather a sour taste last Sunday. Truthfully, I don’t think I have ever seen arch competitor Rafael Nadal capitulate in such depressing fashion. It reminded one of a former heavyweight champion’s punch-drunk attempt to launch a latter-day comeback. It was Djokovic’s third consecutive Slam in a triumphant return to the pinnacle of men’s tennis. Djokovic will be looking to make history at Roland Garros, becoming the first man to win each Grand Slam on multiple occasions. The question is, can anyone really stop him? Or are we witnessing an inevitable period of success for the indomitable Serb? And where exactly is the cavalry?
There are many who wax lyrical about this golden era of men’s tennis. And you can’t help but see why, with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic holding a combined 52 Grand Slam titles between them. But there is another way to skin that cat. Isn’t it mildly concerning for men’s tennis that none of the so-called ‘Next Gen’ talents have managed to break through the Grand Slam threshold? It feels as if I have been writing the same post-slam autopsy report for six years. The chastening defeats of Lucas Pouille and Stefanos Tsitsipas in the semi-final stage exemplifies my point.
It has generally been contemporaries that have challenged the status quo of the dominant group. Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka are notable while both Marin Cilic and Juan Martin Del Potro can boast of Grand Slam triumph. Is this just a result of one particularly superior generation of players preceding a slightly weak outcropping of talent? I think that the likes of Alex Zverev are making one cardinal error time and time again. They are simply playing in too many events. The same can definitely be said of David Goffin in years gone by. There is such a clamour for ATP rankings points that the younger players seem determined to capitalize on each and every opportunity. I believe that this has been hugely disruptive towards Zverev and has contributed to his infamous Grand Slam lethargy.
It can’t be a coincidence that both Federer and Djokovic’s resurgence were immediately predated by periods of detachment from the game. Nadal’s intermittent injury concerns have also likely helped the Spaniard retain his zest for the game. They all realize the cold hard fact that players are ultimately measured by success on the Grand Slam circuit. To use a weird sporting analogy, ATP Tour titles are akin to English domestic football cup competitions. The FA Cup and League Cup have largely become disposable events in the footballing landscape, often seen as potential impediments to progression in the more prestigious tournaments. Perhaps that is the attitude that the likes of Zverev should start to employ.
Another thing that I have noticed is that the contemporary player seems to generally lack all-court consistency. Thiem is seen as the natural successor to Nadal on clay while Zverev and Dimitrov are expected to dominate the hardcourts. This sense of specialization has a slightly manufactured feeling to it. The truly great players are able to win on any surface. To that extent, Stefanos Tsitsipas has to be commended over the course of the last year. He has shown his all-court potential, which bodes well for an extended future near the top of the sport.
I don’t mean to be the purveyor of doom. It’s understandable that people will be excited by a prospective Grand Slam. I just feel that the Djokovic excitement masks a disturbing trend of stagnation in the broader reaches of the men’s game. In reality, those epic matches between the top three have actually become overly familiar and vaguely institutional, like watching a new Fast and the Furious every year or so. The tennis world deserves a new franchise.
