Federer reaches 22nd consecutive Grand Slam semi

Roger Federer has beaten Robin Soderling at the U.S. Open to reach a 22nd consecutive Grand Slam semifinal.

[Paul]

I think this is an unbelievable achievement, unlikely to be rivalled in a very long time. Though I imagine Federer himself won't be too obsessed with this record unless he wins the tournament.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

I think this is an unbelievable achievement, unlikely to be rivalled in a very long time. Though I imagine Federer himself won't be too obsessed with this record unless he wins the tournament.

I believe this is a remarkable achievement, but I think it has more to do with when Federer played, rather than how he played.

Had he attempted to do this during the era of Laver, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and Borg, I think it is VERY unlikely he would have been able to accomplish this.

Doesn't it strike anyone as unusual or weird that the only person on tour who can consistently beat, and has a clear winning record against Federer is a clay court specialist? Any of the four players I mentioned earlier, in their prime, would have given Federer fits. Yes, Federer would have won his share of matches against those guys, but no where near as many as he has won in this decade against the current competition.

[Paul]

'Had he attempted to do this during the era of Laver, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and Borg, I think it is VERY unlikely he would have been able to accomplish this.'
Hi TMD.
You and I have disagreed about this on many occasions. I don't agree with the 'more competitive era' argument but even if I did, the players you mention did not just lose to each other in slams but to other good, but lesser players (Borg to Panatta in the '76 French quarters, or to Tanner in the '79 US Open quarters just to mention 2 examples). Your argument is valid only if ALL of the Grand Slam losses came to EACH OTHER. As for Nadal being a converted clay-court specialist, I agree. But then the same applies to Borg and he went on to win 11 slams and become one of the G.O.A.T. And of course, 11 of Fed versus Nadal's 20 matches (55%) have been on clay, Nadal's best surface. It would be a lot closer if their head-to-heads had been on grass or hard. One final point: If Fed had been in the same era as Borg, Connors and McEnroe, and Lendl I can guarantee you that they would have significantly less majors to their name. Likewise do you think Borg would have won six French opens if he had played in the Nadal/Fed era? Or McEnroe 3 Wimbledons? The argument works the other way as well.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Hi TMD.
You and I have disagreed about this on many occasions. I don't agree with the 'more competitive era' argument but even if I did, the players you mention did not just lose to each other in slams but to other good, but lesser players (Borg to Panatta in the '76 French quarters, or to Tanner in the '79 US Open quarters just to mention 2 examples). Your argument is valid only if ALL of the Grand Slam losses came to EACH OTHER.

Hey Paul!

Normally you are pretty objective about these things, but, this time, I think you are taking this to an extreme.

I didn't say he would NEVER have reached a semifinal or won a slam during the golden years of tennis. I didn't even say he wouldn't have reach 10-12 straight semis. I said it is very unlikely he would have reached 22 STRAIGHT semis. At some point during that 5 year run he would have lost to one of those HOFers in the quarters, or earlier.

And, btw, I think you can swap Laver out for Wilander and get the same result. Wialnder was never the player Laver was, but Laver's competitive days were nearing an end at the start of the open era.

.

As for Nadal being a converted clay-court specialist, I agree. But then the same applies to Borg and he went on to win 11 slams and become one of the G.O.A.T. And of course, 11 of Fed versus Nadal's 20 matches (55%) have been on clay, Nadal's best surface. It would be a lot closer if their head-to-heads had been on grass or hard.

Borg won 11 Slams, but NEVER won even one on hard courts.

Yes, Nadal is a clay-court specialist. His edge over Federer on clay shows it (9-2). However, he doesn't play near as well on grass or hard courts, which are Federer's best surfaces. Yet, that series is virtually a dead heat (5-4 Federer). Shouldn't Federer be WAY ahead on his favorite surfaces?

.

One final point: If Fed had been in the same era as Borg, Connors and McEnroe, and Lendl I can guarantee you that they would have significantly less majors to their name. Likewise do you think Borg would have won six French opens if he had played in the Nadal/Fed era? Or McEnroe 3 Wimbledons? The argument works the other way as well.

I believe I did say he would have won his share of those matches. I never said they would have blown him off the court, or that he couldn't compete with them. What I am saying, is that, as great a player as he is, he wouldn't have dominated them the way he has dominated the far lesser talent he has played against in the last six years.

[Paul]

'I believe I did say he would have won his share of those matches. I never said they would have blown him off the court, or that he couldn't compete with them. What I am saying, is that, as great a player as he is, he wouldn't have dominated them the way he has dominated the far lesser talent he has played against in the last six years.'
Hi TMD. I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. There were plenty of average players around during the Connors/Borg/Mac/Lendl era: it is just that we have forgotten about them. Is it really any more objective to pick out that era as the most competitive one? I believe that the current men's tour is as competitive as I can remember; and one thing that is difficult to deny is that the strength in depth is greater today in the men's game than it was in the 60s/70s and 80s. In terms of levels of fitness/preparation/diet and even technique the gap between the top ten and the top 100 is far narrower than it was 30 years ago. You remember the late 70s/early 80s? Borg won many of his matches through superior conditioning. The Lendl era raised everybody's game in that regard and partially explains why Mac fell off the radar. Since that time no top player can expect an easy match early in a slam.
Regarding Federer: we should recall that Lendl comes next in terms of consecutive semis with a distant 10 and has himself called Federer's record 'ridiculous'. It is the fact that Fed has shattered that record so emphatically that I find extraordinary, however competitive/uncompetitive you consider the current era to be. I believe one aspect of Fed's game that is often overlooked is his athleticism, and this, as much as his technique, is what has set him apart from all but Nadal and has allowed him to reach all those semis in an era where players are in such impressive physical condition.
Finally, however great Borg/Lendl/Mac/Connors were, none of them was quite as versatile as Fed on all surfaces, which also explains his phenomenal consistency. They all had an obviously weaker surface: Borg's (as you say) was hard courts; Lendl's grass; MacEnroe and Connors clay; and Wilander grass. If clay is Federer's 'weakest' surface it is only marginally so, since he has easily been the second best clay-courter in the world for the last 5 years behind the phenomenal Nadal. Only Laver, in my book can compete with Fed for his all-court/all-surface game. I cannot separate these two as G.O.A.T.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Hi TMD. I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. There were plenty of average players around during the Connors/Borg/Mac/Lendl era: it is just that we have forgotten about them. Is it really any more objective to pick out that era as the most competitive one?

I think it is. I base my opinion on players, by year-end, who had won Slams. Or, if you like, HOF players. By either measure, the level of competition during the 2000s dropped off dramatically from the 3 previous decades. The numbers below denote how many Slams the player had won by that year-end / their total lifetime Slams:

Year-end 1973 top ten:
1. Ilie Nastase - 2/2
2. Manuel Orantes - 0/1
3. Stan Smith - 2/2
4. Authur Ashe -2/3
5. Rod Laver - 11/11
6. Ken Rosewall - 8/8
7. John Newcombe - 6/7
8. Adriano Panatta - 0/1
9. Tom Okker - 0/0
10. Jimmy Connors - 0/8

Year-end 1980 top ten:
1. John McEnroe - 2/7
2. Björn Borg - 10/11
3. Jimmy Connors - 5/8
4. Guillermo Vilas - 4/4
5. Gene Mayer - 0/0
6. Ivan Lendl - 0/8
7. Harold Solomon - 0/0
8. Jose-Luis Clerc - 0/0
9. Vitas Gerulaitis - 1/1
10. Eliot Telscher - 0/0

Year-end 1990 top ten:
1. Stefan Edberg - 4/6
2. Boris Becker - 4/6
3. Ivan Lendl - 8/8
4. Andre Agassi - 0/8
5. Pete Sampras - 1/14
6. Andres Gomez - 1/1
7. Thomas Muster - 0/1
8. Emilio Sanchez - 0/0
9. Goran Ivanisevic - 0/1
10. Brad Gilbert - 0/0

Year-end 2000 top ten:
1. Gustavo Kuerten - 2/3
2. Marat Safin - 1/2
3. Pete Sampras 13/14
4. Magnus Norman - 0/0
5. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 2/2 (+1GM)
6. Andre Agassi - 6/8
7. Lleyton Hewitt - 0/2
8. Alex Corretja - 0/0
9. Thomas Enqvist - 0/0
10. Tim Henman - 0/0

Present top ten:
1. Roger Federer - 15/15
2. Rafael Nadal - 6/6 (+1GM)
3. Andy Murray - 0/0
4. Novak Djokovic - 1/1
5. Andy Roddick - 1/1
6. Juan Martin Del Potro - 0/0
7. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga - 0/0
8. Nikolav Davydenko - 0/0
9. Gilles Simon - 0/0
10. Fernando Verdasco - 0/0

We are in the last year of the first decade of the 2000s. As you can see, the number of players who have been dominant in the Slams in this decade is way down from the past.

Other than Nadal and Federer, there are only two other players in the current top ten who have won a Slam.

Take a look at the '73 group. Those were Laver's contemporaries. Quite a group. Tim Okker is the only player in the top ten in '73 who went on to finish his career without a Slam win, and he played in 4 semifinals and one final.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

I believe that the current men's tour is as competitive as I can remember; and one thing that is difficult to deny is that the strength in depth is greater today in the men's game than it was in the 60s/70s and 80s.

Not based on the numbers listed above. I would agree that there is more parity below the top ten. There is Nadal and Federer, and, then the rest.

.

In terms of levels of fitness/preparation/diet and even technique the gap between the top ten and the top 100 is far narrower than it was 30 years ago. You remember the late 70s/early 80s? Borg won many of his matches through superior conditioning. The Lendl era raised everybody's game in that regard and partially explains why Mac fell off the radar. Since that time no top player can expect an easy match early in a slam.

I think it was Navratilova that made everyone aware of the advantages of superior fitness/conditioning when she took the women's tour by storm because of her's. She went from being a soft, pudgy overachiever, to one of the best conditioned athletes on earth. It changed training regimes for athletes everywhere.

And, you're right. McEnroe started to falter in that period because he refused to change his training habits. That, and his reluctance to use the more modern steel and graphite rackets that, he felt, would not respond as well to his game as his older, standard-head-area rackets.

While it may be true that no match is an "easy" match, there are still VERY few first and second round upsets. The disparity between the top players, and those at the bottom of the seeding order in tournaments is still pretty large.

.

Regarding Federer: we should recall that Lendl comes next in terms of consecutive semis with a distant 10 and has himself called Federer's record 'ridiculous'. It is the fact that Fed has shattered that record so emphatically that I find extraordinary, however competitive/uncompetitive you consider the current era to be.

I believe one aspect of Fed's game that is often overlooked is his athleticism, and this, as much as his technique, is what has set him apart from all but Nadal and has allowed him to reach all those semis in an era where players are in such impressive physical condition.

I agree. Regardless of the competition, it is an amazing feat of sheer consistency to appear in 22 straight semis.

However, it doesn't bode well for your argument, if you believe he was suffering from mono for a year of this run and he still managed to beat all of the other players on tour, except Nadal. Call me crazy, but, I'm pretty sure he would not have been able to do that with Laver/Connors/McEnroe/Lendl/Wi lander waiting for him in the draw.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Finally, however great Borg/Lendl/Mac/Connors were, none of them was quite as versatile as Fed on all surfaces, which also explains his phenomenal consistency. They all had an obviously weaker surface: Borg's (as you say) was hard courts; Lendl's grass; MacEnroe and Connors clay; and Wilander grass. If clay is Federer's 'weakest' surface it is only marginally so, since he has easily been the second best clay-courter in the world for the last 5 years behind the phenomenal Nadal. Only Laver, in my book can compete with Fed for his all-court/all-surface game. I cannot separate these two as G.O.A.T.

Yep. I agree with one exception.

Federer and Laver were/are both great all-court players. However, Connors was just as adept on any surface. Many people forget that, in addition to his hard court Slams, and Wimbledon wins, he was an excellent clay-courter. He won the US Open once when it was played on grass, once on clay, and three times on hard court. He, also, made it to the French semis 4 times, beating quite a few clay-court specialist along the way.

Connors was the first men's tennis player to win Slams on 3 surfaces, and still holds the record for the most consecutive US Open semifinals with 12 ('74-'85). Unbelievable.

[Paul]

'However, it doesn't bode well for your argument, if you believe he was suffering from mono for a year of this run and he still managed to beat all of the other players on tour, except Nadal. Call me crazy, but, I'm pretty sure he would not have been able to do that with Laver/Connors/McEnroe/Lendl/Wi lander waiting for him in the draw.'

Hi TMD. At last we can talk about tennis rather than race politics. Look, I have never used mono as an excuse for the whole of 2008, the way some people have. I believe it definitely affected Fed in the Aussie Open in 2008. But let's say you're right. Even if he had met, say, Laver in the Aussie Open quarters in 2008 and lost, he would still have held the record of consecutive semis at 14. In the end all we can do is speculate. As I have said previously the argument works the other way as well. I hold Laver in the highest esteem but I am not so sure if facing Nadal and Fed at their best he would have won 2 calendar grand slams. Would he really have been able to take out Nadal at RG and Fed at Wimbledon, Australia and the US Open? Your argument is based on the presupposition that all but Nadal and Fed are deficient, rather than the fact they are great, great players who are better than a bunch of great players. The relative lack of Grand Slams from the others is as much a reflection of the exceptional standard set by Fed and Nadal than it is a reflection of their inability. Seeing how well Delpo played yesterday (even allowing for Nadal's injury) I hardly feel that the standard of tennis suddenly drops when you get to the world no3 and below.

[Paul]

'Federer and Laver were/are both great all-court players. However, Connors was just as adept on any surface. Many people forget that, in addition to his hard court Slams, and Wimbledon wins, he was an excellent clay-courter. He won the US Open once when it was played on grass, once on clay, and three times on hard court. He, also, made it to the French semis 4 times, beating quite a few clay-court specialist along the way.
Connors was the first men's tennis player to win Slams on 3 surfaces, and still holds the record for the most consecutive US Open semifinals with 12 ('74-'85). Unbelievable.'
I know TMD from your previous posts that you have a soft spot for Jimbo, and believe it or not, so do I. And I am mindful of the fact that he won one US Open on clay. But with the best will in the world you cannot say that Jimbo was the second-best clay-courter in the world for a 5-year period the way Federer was. I'm not sure you can even say he was ever the second-best clay-courter, despite his US Open victory. He never reached the final at RG either nor won one of the premier clay-court events like Monte Carlo/Rome etc. I admit he probably skipped a few of them, but I would dispute the fact that he was in Fed's league on clay.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Hi TMD. At last we can talk about tennis rather than race politics. Look, I have never used mono as an excuse for the whole of 2008, the way some people have. I believe it definitely affected Fed in the Aussie Open in 2008. But let's say you're right. Even if he had met, say, Laver in the Aussie Open quarters in 2008 and lost, he would still have held the record of consecutive semis at 14. In the end all we can do is speculate. As I have said previously the argument works the other way as well. I hold Laver in the highest esteem but I am not so sure if facing Nadal and Fed at their best he would have won 2 calendar grand slams. Would he really have been able to take out Nadal at RG and Fed at Wimbledon, Australia and the US Open? Your argument is based on the presupposition that all but Nadal and Fed are deficient, rather than the fact they are great, great players who are better than a bunch of great players. The relative lack of Grand Slams from the others is as much a reflection of the exceptional standard set by Fed and Nadal than it is a reflection of their inability. Seeing how well Delpo played yesterday (even allowing for Nadal's injury) I hardly feel that the standard of tennis suddenly drops when you get to the world no3 and below.

In this particular discussion, I have never argued that Laver would have done better against Nadal/Federer, than Federer would have done against Laver/Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Len dl/Wilander. I'm not even sure how this discussion morphed into a who's-the-greatest-of-all-time discussion. My argument was that Federer would not have reached 22 straight semis.

I still believe that. There is no way Federer could have beaten all of those HOFers for 5 straight years, in the '70s,'80s or '90s. There were just too many quality players to beat at every Slam.

I, also, can't believe we are still arguing about the level of competition. Currently, There is nothing close to '70s group of Nastasie/Smith/Ashe/Laver/Rose wall/Newcombe/Connors, or the '80s group of McEnroe/Borg/Connors/Lendl/Wil ander/Vilas in the top ten. Even the '90s group is daunting with Edberg/Becker/Lendl/Agassi/Sam pras. These guys are ALL HOFers, and light-years ahead of the current group.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

'Federer and Laver were/are both great all-court players. However, Connors was just as adept on any surface. Many people forget that, in addition to his hard court Slams, and Wimbledon wins, he was an excellent clay-courter. He won the US Open once when it was played on grass, once on clay, and three times on hard court. He, also, made it to the French semis 4 times, beating quite a few clay-court specialist along the way.
Connors was the first men's tennis player to win Slams on 3 surfaces, and still holds the record for the most consecutive US Open semifinals with 12 ('74-'85). Unbelievable.'
I know TMD from your previous posts that you have a soft spot for Jimbo, and believe it or not, so do I. And I am mindful of the fact that he won one US Open on clay. But with the best will in the world you cannot say that Jimbo was the second-best clay-courter in the world for a 5-year period the way Federer was. I'm not sure you can even say he was ever the second-best clay-courter, despite his US Open victory. He never reached the final at RG either nor won one of the premier clay-court events like Monte Carlo/Rome etc. I admit he probably skipped a few of them, but I would dispute the fact that he was in Fed's league on clay.

You may be right.

With Connors, it is difficult to tell exactly where he ranked on clay over any 5 year stretch. From '74 thru '78, Connors, for various reasons, didn't even play in the French Open. Those were his peak years, and he would most certainly have won at least once. He skipped many of the other tournaments because of disputes with the governing bodies.

During his peak years he may not have been the second best clay-courter in the world, but he was easily the 3rd or 4th best.

[TMD]

Hey Paul!

I found this Wikipedia page that lists all of a players majors, before and after the beginning of the open era (1968):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_play...

Take a look.

[Paul]

Hi TMD, thanks for the article, which I look forward to reading. What are your views on yesterday's final? I have to say, although Federer was not at his best and obviously I'm disappointed having stayed up till 1.30 am to see my favourite lose, Delpo is mightily impressive. I think both Fed and Nadal should be a little worried. The duopoly you have been complaining about may be coming to an end! Is this the changing of the guard you have been waiting for? Obviously time is not on Federer's side and Nadal still has plenty of opportunities for more slams, but I have to say that Delpo is as of now a major threat on all surfaces bar grass, where he still has to improve. Next year will be very interesting: I still see Fed as favourite for Wimbledon and Nadal for RG, but the hard court slams are now going to be increasingly difficult for both of them if you also throw Murray and Djokovic into the mix. That Delpo forehand is scary!

[Paul]

'I, also, can't believe we are still arguing about the level of competition. Currently, There is nothing close to '70s group of Nastasie/Smith/Ashe/Laver/Rose wall/Newcombe/Connors, or the '80s group of McEnroe/Borg/Connors/Lendl/Wil ander/Vilas in the top ten. Even the '90s group is daunting with Edberg/Becker/Lendl/Agassi/Sam pras. These guys are ALL HOFers, and light-years ahead of the current group.'

Do you still believe this after seeing Delpo's performance against Nadal and Federer?

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Hi TMD, thanks for the article, which I look forward to reading. What are your views on yesterday's final? I have to say, although Federer was not at his best and obviously I'm disappointed having stayed up till 1.30 am to see my favourite lose, Delpo is mightily impressive. I think both Fed and Nadal should be a little worried. The duopoly you have been complaining about may be coming to an end! Is this the changing of the guard you have been waiting for? Obviously time is not on Federer's side and Nadal still has plenty of opportunities for more slams, but I have to say that Delpo is as of now a major threat on all surfaces bar grass, where he still has to improve. Next year will be very interesting: I still see Fed as favourite for Wimbledon and Nadal for RG, but the hard court slams are now going to be increasingly difficult for both of them if you also throw Murray and Djokovic into the mix. That Delpo forehand is scary!

Hey Paul! I must say, I was very surprised at the outcome of the US Open.

Watching that final, I kept thinking Federer was about to close out Delpo. And then something very curious happened - Federer blinked. He started missing first serves, and spraying backhands all over the place. VERY uncharacteristic, and the beginning of the end.

If you recall, we recently had a conversation about the length of the tennis season. Too many matches wearing players down. Both Federer and Delpo have played in 61 matches this year (wow!), but, I would imagine, Federer has played under quite a bit more pressure than Delpo. He's the favourite, and, arguably, the GOAT. He's supposed to win. That's quite a burden to bare.

That final looked like a worn out Federer playing a worn out Delpo. The quality of tennis was high, but very slow and lacked energy. The final set was one of the strangest I have watched in a LONG time. Federer was completely listless, almost catatonic. Delpo looked like he would collapse at any moment, and neither player wanted to expend any energy on the other's serve.

In the end, it was Delpo's serve placement and forehand that sealed it. And Federer's 62 unforced errors? That's either nerves, or fatigue, or some combination of the two.

As far as the level of competition goes, one slam does not a dynasty make. Del Potro had an excellent tournament and finally broke through. That still doesn't make this current group rise to the level of 7 HOFers in the '70s, or 5 HOFers in the '80s or '90s.

Federer made it to the Final, and Nadal to the semis, where they both were beaten by the eventual champion. Djokovic did well to get to the semis, but, of course, he lost to Federer in a five-setter, again. This time in straight sets. He doesn't appear to be gaining any ground. What of Murray's loss in straight sets to Cilic? What was THAT all about? He's not gainig any ground, he's losing it.

What happened to Andy Roddick? Don't you think, by now, he should be able to beat someone with nothing more than a big serve? Especially, considering that Verdasco had no problem with him, at all? Every time it looks like he's taking a step forward, he takes two steps back.

This group needs to step it up, and play like they want to win some Slams. Del Potro is on his way. Where are the rest?

[TMD]

One last observation.

Despite the fact that Nadal only reached the fourth round of the FO, didn't play, at all, at Wimbledon, and then took an extended leave of absence from the tour, he still has played in more tournaments (14), this year, than Federer (12), and more matches (62), this year, than Federer (61) or Delpo (61).

As a matter of fact, only two players on tour have played in more matches than Nadal - Djokovic (18 tournaments, 73 matches) and Murray (15 tournaments, 66 matches), both of whom have played the entire season. Had his knees not given out, I'm sure Nadal would have eclipsed their numbers, and set a record this year for matches and tournaments played.

Whoever is scheduling tournaments for Nadal is doing him no favors. Maybe it's time for him to find a new manager.

[Paul]

'In the end, it was Delpo's serve placement and forehand that sealed it. And Federer's 62 unforced errors? That's either nerves, or fatigue, or some combination of the two.'
Agreed. Fed had less time to recover from his semi than Delpo, which would maybe partially explain the fatigue, but his serving was uncharacteristically sloppy and ultimately, as in Australia, cost him the match.
'As far as the level of competition goes, one slam does not a dynasty make. Del Potro had an excellent tournament and finally broke through. That still doesn't make this current group rise to the level of 7 HOFers in the '70s, or 5 HOFers in the '80s or '90s.'
Partially agreed. Let's see how Delpo handles the burden of expectation. However, so far as Federer, and even more so, Nadal are concerned, Delpo possesses various dangerous attributes that the other young guns have yet fully to demonstrate:
1) His mental strength. For all that Federer squandered opportunities, Delpo's mind does not wander a la Djokovic, nor does he suddenly become too passive when in trouble, a la Murray. I was really impressed by his maturity, which even Federer was forced to acknowledge: first grand slam final against reigning 5-time champion, whom he had also never beaten and in the cauldron of New York, which has quite a boisterous atmosphere.
2) His height. This may seem a flippant point but is an especially valuable attribute when playing Nadal. Where Federer struggles with Nadal's high-bouncing topsin forehand directed at his backhand side, Delpo, because of his greater height, does not and therefore neutralises one of Nadal's major weapons. Delpo's power and height are obviously a threat to everyone, including Federer, but I believe he presents a particularly bad match-up for Nadal, especially on hard courts.
3) I've been impressed with Federer's general revival of form (he also volleyed well throughout the tournament), but clearly at 28 he does not have time on his side. Nadal, admittedly has yet fully to recover from injury, but i believe that he is going to have his work cut out to win that elusive US Open if he meets Delpo, unless he modifies his strategy and improves his serve. I agree we shouldn't suddenly jump on the Delpo bandwagon, and wait and see what he does next year, but he has in my mind narrowed the gap with the top 2 and scored a small, but significant psychological blow both to Federer and Nadal.

[Paul]

'Djokovic did well to get to the semis, but, of course, he lost to Federer in a five-setter, again. This time in straight sets. He doesn't appear to be gaining any ground. What of Murray's loss in straight sets to Cilic? What was THAT all about? He's not gainig any ground, he's losing it.'

Hi TMD. I agree with much of this. Murray is suffering from 'OBS'(Overrated Brit syndrome) i.e. excessive expectation is heaped on his shoulders because the UK hasn't had a real champion for so long; and of course, he is failing to live up to it where it really counts. Contrary to the States where the media and public have a more sober and balanced appreciation of their athletes, here in the UK where sporting success is more sporadic, British athletes are disproportionately showered with praise when they win and excessively lambasted when they lose. This is what has happened to Murray, especially after that loss to Cilic. He is better than Federer when he wins, and worse than a club amateur when he loses. I do believe he has the talent to win a few slams if he learns how to peak physically at the right time. But I don't think it's going to happen at Wimbledon, where he is under too much scrutiny: I believe it will be Australia or the US and it HAS to be next year or the following year at the latest.

As for Djoko, well he is beginning to play well again. Mentally he appears to have a slight problem with Federer at the slams and strangely, also with Roddick. Federer can't stay at the top much longer and I think for Djoko it very much depends on the draw he gets. I still think he'll win more slams and it wouldn't surprise me if he gets one next year. He also knows how to play Delpo.

What happened to Andy Roddick? Don't you think, by now, he should be able to beat someone with nothing more than a big serve? Especially, considering that Verdasco had no problem with him, at all? Every time it looks like he's taking a step forward, he takes two steps back.

Roddick? I agree. Mentally I think he is still shot by that Wimbledon final. But I still retain hope that he can do a Goran i.e. win Wimbledon when Fed starts to fade (the way Goran did when Sampras was slightly past it) and if he avoids Nadal. Let's not forget that were it not for Fed, Roddick would have won at least 4 slams by now. But I think his window of opportunity is closing everywhere bar Wimbledon.

This group needs to step it up, and play like they want to win some Slams. Del Potro is on his way. Where are the rest?

I think the sheer brilliance of Fed and Nadal has inhibited them. This is why I can never fully agree with you about the weak era. I really do think that the current crop are every bit as talented as in other eras and it's only a matter of time before they depose Fed and Nadal, who are exceptional. I expected it to happen sooner but next year it might.