Quite a few people have, over the past few months, given Robredo and Davydenko a lot of stick, saying they don't deserve to be in the top 10, and that they are merely 'transitional' players, keeping their places in the top 10 warm until the more deserved younger players rise up the rankings.

Yet, at the Australian Open, both players have justified their places in the top 10, by reaching the quarter-finals (with Davydenko still in the draw).

Robredo may well have just lost to a below-par Federer (and his game doesn't match up to that of the Swiss genius at all), but he has played very well this tournament, and beat Gasquet in previous round.

Davydenko, meanwhile, has also been in ominous form, and beat another young pretender, Berdych, in previous round.

For me, its quite clear - Robredo and Davydenko are some way off Federer, but they are bona fide top 10 players who deserve their places among the elite. The younger players, though (and yes, I am including Murray in that, despite his fantastic performance against Nadal) still have a lot to prove.

Hear! hear!
You have been one the very few recognizing Davydenko's talent MrI. I believe he is injured but still the way he dismissed Berdych was very impressive and his game is actually very pleasing to watch. He reads serves better than anyone out there, is extremely fast on his legs, takes the ball very early and hits rather flat with great angles (doesn't this remind you someone?). Some however will still consider a heresy to compare him with the more charismatic Agassi but purely on a tennis level, both gave Federer roughly the same amount of trouble when facing Federer over their respective last 8 losses to him. Davydenko has really improved in the last 12 months and is now a really different player.

I agree with Mr I. There is no argument about them being top 10 justified IMO. They have earned that ranking fair and square, and they are performing in the slams to justify that ranking. Okay, so they are nto likely to win slams or get to world number one but that si cos Federer is just a class above them I'm afraid but who isn't he a class above? No one. it's not their fault that the gulf between him and the rest is so great. I cant; say either excite me much, but that is not the point. And on the young guns coming through, maybe they seem more exciting at the mo but will any of them get to the top ten and do any better than the likes of Davy and Robredo? We're talking the likes of Berdych, Djoko, Murray and Monfils I guess. And Gasquet, but he seems to have been around a while and is just not living up to expectation (great player though). My pick of that lot to go far is Murray becasue he has the variety and unusual talent, and Djoko who lacks the finesse of Murray but seems very determined and quite an exciting talent. He needs to get his mental side in check though, as he looked very frustrated the other day and I think Murray is comign together much better at the moment. But there are still the big guns of Federer to contend with, and he isn't going anywhere and scarily has the potential to improve, as does Nadal.

I know you are very excited about Murray's prospect SB. But Nadal is really struggling ATM. He does not know whether to attack more or play his old game. I would need to see more of Murray before making a final judgement about his potetial though I agree he has a nice and clever game.

My point is everybody looks good playing Nadal now.

THIS I HAVE AGREE WITH!!!!!!!!

Do you think so? I actually thought Nadal had improved his game, going to the net a bit more and so on. I don't see him being able to play the defensive and longer rallies for as long as he needs to to have longevity like Federer so I think that's a smart move. But whether in transition of his game of not, he's still world number 2 and a tough competitor for anyone to take on.

Of course on Murray we will have to see, and yes I am excited. :D But I do think the way forward in today's game is to be different, and develop flair and variety which is why at the moment I back Murray to do better than the other young guns, with a reservation about Djoko of course cos it might well be him that does the best. :)

They're all great players - esp. Davydenko. But NONE of them will even take one set of the Fedmeister. Nada! Not Davy, not Robredo as we saw last night, and not Gonzo. All except - maybe - Roddick and Nadal. This is why I hope Nadal gets through to the final. But I think Fed could even beat him in straight three sets.

Yes he is trying to improve his game but he looks like he is in between two games (if not two minds) when he plays. he made quite a few unforced errors as a result and kept going from trying to attack to retreating to his old game. You can see - I thought - that as a result his confidence was really down. before everything was simple for him as he only had one plan. Now he is crossing the desert, one feels.

But Well done to Murray, as I said he has a lovely game. But just 6 months/ a year ago, it was extremely hard to pull winners against nadal. Now everybody does.

Davy took sets off Fed more than once and had some close ones as well. Davy in form like he was in Paris would have been a tall order even for Federer.

They work so hard. They are consistent excellent ball strikers with great fitness and sound technique. Those kind of players will always exist at the periphery of the top. Credit to them they work really hard even if they are 'boring' for certain people.

HI SB - This is what I meant about the relatively of yesterday performance by Murray. Nadal is nowhere as good as he used to be just 6 or 8 months ago.

I think you may be right about 'crossing the desert'. And this gives us some idea about Nadal's comments of wanting to stay in the top 8, and to improve his game: he is really working on developing a 'plan B', playing more attacking tennis etc.

His previous 'plan A' seems to have suffered a little bit for it; this is not surprising if you are making serious alterations to your game plan, to be honest.

But I think Nadal fans can take some heart from this: clearly he is willing to make the changes now (while he is still young and can do so), and maybe sacrifice some of the potential results he could have even with a somewhat limited game, to try and have better all-round success later in life. I think this is a very good attitude, and bodes well for his chances of the future. You don't develop an aggressive all-court game overnight ...

I doubt whether he can change his game plan successfully. I am actually quite "worried" about his career from now. How can he catch up with an aggressive game when his competition started when they picked a racket up? Can we see him outplay Blake, Gonzo, Djoko, Berdych now at their own game? I doubt it. I even think it is impossible. Yes he can make winners as well but if we thought Gonzo and Gasquet were unconsistent, wait for Nadal once he starts attacking. Besides, his opposition will love the extra pace, especially Federer.

So what is he left with? In my view bettering his old game, still pretty pacy, but find a bit more length and cut the errors. he will always be at the mercy of a good attcker having a good day but that is the nature of his game, on the other end in a best of 5, he would always remain a huge danger (if he were to play like he was 6 months ago. The only problem with this solutin is that his body might not last too long and this is why i am "worried" in terms of his career. Either way you look at it, I don't see much solution.

Davydenko and Robredo deserve their place in the rankings, simply due to the circular reasoning that the rankings are devised so that the people who occupy them deserve their place.

No weapons has gone up in my estimation since he butchered the weakened field at Paris, he proved he deserved his ranking in style. Robredo did well to justify his seeding at Australian Open and he doesn't suffer many shocking defeats... that's about the best I can do for him I'm afraid.

However, the fact that No weapons and Robredo deserve their rankings highlights the shoddy standard of play outside the top 2. Sure, you get guys like Gonzo, he's a decent player and I hope he gets more consistency (he won't come close to taking a set off Fed in the final mind), but most of these players have all the attributes of journeymen.

In defence of these two in particular, all I ever hear is 'Well, you know, he's solid and consistent and hard to beat'... JOURNEYMAN. No weapons.

Oh and don't get me started on Ljubicic, he is to tennis what Jade Goody is to England.

Wise Analyst, life is too short to waste by watching and obsessively posting about a sport you don't enjoy. Time for new hobbies and interests. Away from television and computer screens.

But Wise, what were chang's weapons when he inflicted a 5/0 h2h wins over Sampras before chang started to lose a bit of his speed? What were Hewitt's weapons when he started to beat Sampras even on grass?

Being on the ball and being able to hit the last ball of the rally in the court is simply the best weapon. It does not matter whether you have the best serve in the tour, if it is returned by the best returner and that gets him more points than the best server.

I think you should redefine your definition of "tennis" weapon. For Nadal for instance, it was his legs...today we saw how vulnerable he is without his speedy move..

Tired argument. I support a football team that used to be great, now they're not. I still follow them just as keenly. However, I did enjoy the first week of the Aussie Open and enjoyed Gonzo's performance today - I didn't spend the match accusing Nadal of gamesmanship and faking injuries, for example.

And for the record I haven't watched a second of Jade Goody, sadly it's hard to get away from tales of this wretched yet strangely omni-present stain on society right now.

Tenez, I agree that a good defence is just as much of a weapon as a good offence. For me, Davydenko has neither in abundance; his main weapon is his solidarity, something which I really have difficulty describing as a 'weapon'.

Chang and Hewitt were able to read Sampras's game superbly and use it to great advantage along with their foot speed. The latter especially is a bit of an embarrassment on Sampras's career, but he was definitely past his best then.

But I don't even think Davy's best weapon is his consistency. That was more Nadal's weapon. It took me a while to understand how good Davy's game was but I simply find this obvious now. he takes the ball very early, hits it flat with great angles, the opposite of Nadal in fact and pure rhythm and timing are needed for that.

What I don't really like about him is actually his lack of determination and the fact that he does not prepare for great events like slams as he should. More interested in grabbing the appearance fee wherever he can which probably does not help his overall image. But talent wise.....he is number 3 and if he stays injury, he willl be hard to dislodge.

Davy's a strange one for me, since he's very slowly changed from an actual journeyman into the 3rd best player. I was impressed by his ball-striking (apart from at the end of the second set!) in the US Open match against Murray last year; he finds good angles like you say and generally hits the ball early and cleanly. He doesn't really seem to choke either. I'm not bothered about his money-grabbing attitude - to be honest I reckon he's slightly surprised about his own elevation and is thinking 'Let's rake it in while I can'.

The difference is, whereas you view these qualities as a weapon, I view them as his main strength. I'm convinced he'd get absolutely blown off court by a good serve-volleyer, and talent-wise I can't agree he's number 3. If that were the case surely we'd have been talking about him like we do now about Murray etc. Gasquet and Safin are two who, in my humble opinion, have way more talent than the Russian, and there are plenty of others too. In terms of utilising his talent though, he's probably top 2.

I think a lot of people (Wise included) get fooled about players like Davydenko, just because they're not as big a name in the press. So people have to manufacture excuses why their not so good; "no weapons", "only ranked because of the number of events he plays". They're all pretty hollow arguments. The truth is, he's a very talented player, who just doesn't have the same hype machine behind him that many of the other top players do.

I see your point about SVers blasting him off court. But he is after all the one with, if not the best returning stats in the game so I doubt he can be blast off court as you say. Look at how he handled Ancic in Paris for instance.

True and his baby hair on this uncharismatic head doesn't help to be sure.

Afraid it's not down to the media Nick, I can't stand them.

I just watch Davydenko and see a 'souped-up' journeyman. You know, like a car owned by the spotty 17 year old kid round the corner. It's a Vauxhall Corsa; it gets you from A to B absolutely fine but it's not spectacular. But this kid's put a huge fat exhaust pipe on the back and installed neon lights and it starts to look better.

Some people are fooled into thinking it's now a good car ;)2

does it? I personally prefer the unmodifed Vauxhall.


Same applied to Agassi. I preferred him when he got rid of his large exhaust pipe (jeans shorts) and fluo lights on his hair,

Ahh, but that's just the point, Wise. Davydenko doesn't have the glitz and glamour, just the results. It's just a bit too hard to break through as a slam winner these days, with Nadal out there on clay and Fed grabbing up everything else.

Neon lights (Davy's tuft - I actually kinda like that!) do tend to make it look better. The exhaust pipe of course improves the performance, but at the end it's still a Vauxhall Corsa. It still gets rinsed at the traffic lights by Fed's BMW and Sampras's Bugatti Veyron ;)2

Yeh course Nick. Davydenko's the only one of these much maligned players who I reckon could win a Slam without Nadal and Federer around. He went some way to showing that at Paris.

However, I still say, after watching him play, he doesn't have anything in his game that would have gotten him to number 3 in another era. And there have been two occasions when he should have made the finals of Slams - against Puerta in the semis of the French, and today against Haas. He came up short.

Sampras's Buggati Veyron or Davyd's donky? Not an easy answer for me.

Sampras did have the odd match where he kept stalling, whereas a donkey will keep plodding on for ever. Once Pete found that accelerator though, we'd soon find out that the guy sat on the donkey sure wasn't Jesus.

:D

Nikolay deserves his place in the top 10, it's a shame he had to lose to Haas, but as I think somebody pointed out Niki is injured. As we saw this time last year, Nikolay can give even the mighty Federer a good scare.

Robredo has been consistent and has justified his seeding. He may never win a slam or even reach a SF but he belongs in the top 10.

Tommy and Niki are like Nadia and Patty - continually mocked for being consistent, for being capable of big wins when on form, for maybe not having the exciting personality of other less consistent players. If Ana Ivanovic was as consistent as Nadia would anyone be complaining about her present in the top 10? I doubt it.

Let's leave these players and respect their abilities. Maybe they won't remain in the top 10 for years but they have earn their places - I mean if I was 1/10 as good as any of them I'd be a very happy person :D