In a recent interview with Tennis World USA, Marat Safin claimed that it was much easier to win a grand slam now than in his era. The Russian who won two slams, the US Open in 2000 and the Australian Open in 2005, said: “At that time there were more quality players. In the top 20 there were big names like Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Norman, Kafelnikov. The level was higher than today. Now there are only four or five players who dominate. The rest are far away”.
So, does he have a case?
Juan Carlos Ferrero was asked about the matter yesterday by Spanish site Punto de Break and he agreed with Safin. “I don’t think the level has gone up but it has stalled a bit and that’s why the players at the top dominate so much. There aren’t 18 or 19 year olds knocking on the door. Back in the day you would face Agassi or Sampras at that age and give them a good match or even beat them. Winning a grand slam is always difficult but on clay before there were more specialists like Nalbandian, Cañas, Coria, Gaudio…now there’s only really Ferrer, Nadal and Djokovic. Before there were ten or twelve players who made it tough for you but now Djokovic or Nadal reach the quarters or semis of Roland Garros with a lot of ease”, said the former world number one.
To analyse the different eras I have taken the period between 1998 and 2006 as Marat Safin’s, and 2007-2015 as the current generation in order for both to have the same amount of years.
From 1998 to 2006 there were seventeen different grand slam champions (Korda, Moya, Sampras, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Kuerten, Safin, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Johansson, Costa, Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Gaudio and Nadal). In fact in the years 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 ther were four different champions, which is a clear sign that no one dominated the game.
In the period between 2007 and 2015 there have only been seven different champions (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic and Wawrinka) and there have only been four different winners in a single season in 2012 and 2014.
This diversity in the first period can also be seen amongst the winners of the World Tour Finals (Masters Cup) and Masters Series events. The likes of Rios, Krajicek, Corretja, Rusedski, Enqvist, Philippoussis, Norman, Pioline, Ferreira, Portas, Pavel, Grosjean, Cañas, Mantilla, Henman, Coria, Nalbandian and even current players Robredo and Berdych popped up with wins.
After that it was all mainly occupied by Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray with odd threats of resistance from Davydenko, Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Ferrer or even Ljubicic.
Looking at the mere numbers it would seem that Safin is wrong and in fact it was cheaper to win a grand slam back then as, quite simply, more of them were being shared. The absence of a clear dominator opened the door to more contenders and, as they were more equally matched, the outcome was more unlikely and, perhaps, fun because of the uncertainty.
The clear case in sample in Roger Federer. The Swiss maestro burst onto the scene in 2004 by winning three grand slams and, to this day, has been winning or contending for grand slams.
Perhaps where Safin and Ferrero could have a case is in that there was a stronger ‘midfield’ on tour. This is the reason why there were more surprises back then than now, and when I mean surprises, I’m talking about any seed falling at an early stage, because I strongly believe that Djokovic, Nadal and Federer would have dominated and won the same amount of slams now as they would have back then.
As an example of the strength in depth I have randomly chosen the 2002 Roland Garros draw to take a look at the 32 seeds and compared it to this year’s French Open.
If you look at the top eight seeds, it would seem that the current crop are stronger: 2002 (Hewitt, Safin, Haas, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Henman, Kuerten, Federer) v 2015 (Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Berdych, Nishikori, Nadal, Ferrer, Wawrinka). But when you look at the final eight seeds you would feel inclined that the former was pluckier: (Robredo, Mirnyi, Escude, Lapentti, Nalbandian, Schalken, Gaudio, Ljubicic) v (Karlovic, Garcia-Lopez, Tomic, Fognini, Kyrgios, Mannarino, Troicki, Verdasco). I think more of the 2002 crop would be capable of pulling off an upset than this year’s group.
Obviously this is just a single selection and doesn’t encompass or justify a verdict on both eras. Everyone will have their opinion as you can’t measure the quality of a player but the feeling is that ten years ago or so there was a greater variety of tennis players, as there was also a greater variety of playing surfaces. There were clay court specialists, who were as good as anyone in the world on that surface, and then the same on grass. Today, regardless of the surface, the same players make the same rounds. A unification in surfaces has led to a unification in players. Big serves and huge forehands are what you get from any youngster coming through. You no longer see a player like Fabrice Santoro or Pat Rafter; Gaston Gaudio or Sebastien Grosjean. Therefore once you have sussed out how to beat one of them, you know how to beat them all, and therefore there is no new challenge or surprise factor.
So to answer the main question of the article, it would be harder to win a grand slam for most players in Marat Safin’s era, but for Nadal, Federer or Djokovic it would have been the same as their level is substantially above anyone from the last twenty years.
