Talent's Deep, Yet Divide Bigger Than Ever

MELBOURNE, Australia — The question at the Australian Open this week is whether tennis, especially men's tennis, is too easy.

After two plus rounds at the first major tournament of the year, we've seen dozens of 6–0 sets, prompting many to ask what's wrong with the allegedly deep men's and women's fields. Roger Federer has lost six games in two matches. Novak Djokovic, the no. 3 seed, scored one love set in the first round and lost five games in the second round. Rafael Nadal, the no. 2 seed, struggled in his first match, but lost four games in his second one. Though the men have played more love sets than the women — unusual, even though the men play more sets and thus have more chances to win them at love — the women have not stayed away from shutouts or near shutouts. Amelie Mauresmo, the former world no. 1, lost the first set of her first match and won the next two without dropping a game. Marta Domachowska and Agnieszka Radwanska, two young women from Poland, both won their first-round matches 6–1, 6–1.

Other anecdotal evidence of weakness abounds. Take Juan Martin Del Potro, the 19-year-old Argentine — I should say highly touted Argentine — who retired in the second round after losing the first two sets to David Ferrer. Word is Del Potro's back injury might have merited retirement, but it's worth noting he quit last year's Australian Open, too, after falling behind 4–0 in the fifth set (I saw the match and he simply gave up). In fact, he's retired nine times since January 2006 (compare that to Federer, who has never retired from a match). Want more evidence? Richard Gasquet, the 21-year-old Frenchman, complained before this tournament began that the combination of the new surface in Melbourne and heavier Wilson balls, which he said fluff up on the gritty court, hurt his shoulder and gave stronger players an advantage. This is the same man who decided to forfeit his second-round match at the U.S. Open last year because he had a cold. More? Have you taken a look at David Nalbandian's midsection? The Argentine has never been the trimmest player on tour and he still runs well, but perhaps he wouldn't hurt himself so often if he shed a few pounds.

Put all this together and it adds up to columns such as yesterday's in Melbourne's the Age that suggested the women should receive more prize money than the men, since the best men have hardly had to work this tournament. So there you have it: More lopsided matches, more whining, and more pounds are softening the sport. Except that it's not true. No, something more complicated is going on in the world of tennis these days, especially men's tennis.

It's easy to refute the theory that this tournament has been less competitive through two rounds. Just compare it to last year's U.S. Open. So far, the men in Melbourne have played 16 five set matches compared to 14 through two rounds at last year's U.S. Open. They have played more total sets (345 to 339), more tiebreakers (58 to 56), and more games (3,306 to 3,293). The numbers are essentially identical, yet no one disparaged the quality of play at the U.S. Open — Federer even lost two sets in the early going. This tournament is no different. I haven't run the numbers, but I'd be shocked to learn that today's players, overall, don't work harder — that is, play more games, sets, and hours — tournament to tournament than players of the past. Just dig up a few old draw sheets and look for yourself (a random example gleaned from 15 seconds on the Internet: Jimmy Connors won a love set in three out of his first five matches at the 1984 U.S. Open and didn't lose a set in any of those matches, including a 7–5, 6–2, 6–0 drubbing of John Lloyd in the quarterfinals). Most players who have spanned several generations agree that the men usually have to work hard from the beginning of tournaments these days — a few years ago, Jonas Björkman told me it was the biggest difference between tennis in his earlier days and tennis today.

There's no doubt that overall, men's tennis is deeper now. Twenty and 30 years ago, the sport didn't have dozens of tall, strong men from two dozen different countries — most of the best were American, British, and Australian. The pool of talent is now larger. Yet, somehow, the two best players in the world — Federer and Nadal — are not only far, far ahead of the average player, but far, far ahead of the players immediately behind them (stranger still, Federer is far ahead of Nadal). Nadal earned enough ranking points last year to be ranked no. 1 in any other era in the history of tennis. The only reason he wasn't is that Federer, for the second straight year, won all the other important tournaments that Nadal didn't win.

One would think that when a sport finds its way to more countries, offers more prize money, and attracts more talent, the differences at the top would become smaller, not larger. I don't pretend to know why that hasn't happened, but it hasn't. Federer is well on his way to becoming the greatest player the game has ever known; Nadal, in my book, is already the best no. 2 the game has ever known. (He's held that position for more consecutive weeks than anyone and hasn't lost a match at the French Open in his career — how many all-time greats can say that?) The last man to win a major title other than Federer or Nadal was Marat Safin at the 2005 Australian Open. He won't be repeating that feat this year, now that he has lost to Marcos Baghdatis, the 2006 finalist, in the second round. He doesn't see Federer losing to anyone else.

"He's the best by far, and he will be the best of tennis," Safin said. "I don't think anybody on ATP Tour can be compared to him."

It's only the third round in Melbourne, so there's plenty of time for someone to shake up the tournament, the most likely candidate being Djokovic. But if he doesn't do it, don't think that tennis has gone soft. It's tough out there for almost everyone — really, every man except one.

Mr. Perrotta is a senior editor at Tennis Magazine. He can be reached at tperrotta@tennismagazine.com.