Indian Wells is worthy of being the "fifth Grand Slam". From topic to popularity to discussion, it has exploded in an all-round way, no less than Melbourne Park.
Moreover, on the basis of the Australian Open, we can actually go further. This season's men's tennis is really getting more and more beautiful and exciting.
For the final lineup, are you looking forward to "Gawain VS Raonic" or "Gawain VS Federer"?
Whether it's the former or the latter, this will be destined to be a nail-biting battle, comparable to the Australian Open finals and attracting all attention.
Wait, is it comparable to the Australian Open final? If it were "Gawain VS Raonic", would it also be comparable?
Not necessarily?
In fact, if Raonic can really defeat Federer and reach the final, then the meaning of the game will be different, but it will indeed create history.
As mentioned before, since the 2005 French Open, the Big Four have never missed a Grand Slam final. At least one member of the Big Four was able to reach the final stage. This record was not broken until the 2014 US Open.
Wen and Cilic both defeated each other in the semi-finals to complete the meeting.
A whole ten years.
This is also the most intuitive data of the top four dominance.
In addition to the Grand Slams, the same is true for the Masters.
Of course, there are more variables in the Masters, and the dominance of the Big Four has obviously loosened. In addition, the Big Four may not necessarily participate in all Masters tournaments, which also gives other players more opportunities.
despite this!
Since the Indian Wells Masters in 2005, there have been only a handful of times in the 90 Masters events in the ten years since the Big Four were blocked from the finals:
Nine times, to be exact.
2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, Paris in 2012, Hamburg and Cincinnati in 2006, Indian Wells and Miami in 2010.
That’s all.
It's clear at a glance.
First of all, the Paris Masters at the end of the year was the event where the Big Four's dominance was the loosest. A total of five times before and after, the Big Four collectively failed to qualify for the finals.
Secondly, there were three occurrences each in 2006 and 2010——
That was an era when Djokovic and Murray had not yet completed their transformation, the term "Big Four" had not yet appeared, and men's tennis was still a duo.
However, after Djokovic and Murray completed the puzzle, the only time the Big Four were absent from the Masters final was in Paris in 2012.
Finally, the last time all the Big Four were absent from the Masters final was in Paris in 2012. It was a familiar Paris again exactly two years ago, when Ferrer and Janowitz completed their breakthrough.
so?
If Raonic can defeat Federer to reach the final and face Gawain, then the game itself will be of epoch-making significance.
Perhaps, it was a little inferior to last year's US Open final, but this was still the first Masters final to take place among those born in the 1990s.
The frenzy of "Big Four VS Challengers" will take another step forward.
To a certain extent, media reporters seem to be looking forward to the "Gaowen VS Raonic" matchup more. After all, it is more topical and discussed.
but……
Thinking about it from another angle, can anyone really refuse the performance of "Gawain VS Federer 2.0"?
Dubai, this was just two weeks ago!
Gao Wen lost to Federer, ending the undefeated season. From then on, the media did not let Gao Wen go, making things difficult, harassing and hyping him all the way.
There wasn't even a second to breathe.
Then, from Dubai to Auckland to Indian Wells, the complaints, taunts, taunts, and pressure never stopped.
Assuming that Federer defeats Raonic and enters the final, this also means that Gao Wen has an opportunity——
Or, beat Federer and silence the media.
Or, lose to Federer and plunge yourself into disaster.
Obviously, Gawain is looking forward to a revenge opportunity to "prove himself", but the key is here:
In just two months, all four giants won?
In just two weeks, can we learn lessons and turn the situation around when we face Federer again?
The difficulty is not just a little bit, to be precise, it should be difficult to reach the sky.
Although Gawain has once again written an incredible feat in Melbourne, becoming the first player to defeat three giants in a row in the Grand Slam.
However, Nadal returned from injury and Murray returned from injury. Strictly speaking, only Djokovic's game was convincing.
However, victory is still victory, and a champion is still a champion. The media has not denied the glory and aura of Gawain's championship. The difference is:
More harsh, more difficult, more pointed, that's all.
This is also an important reason why the media made such a fuss and made a fuss out of a molehill after the loss in Dubai. They expected Gao Wen to show a more convincing and dominant performance, and they expected Gao Wen to truly take on the "challenge"
Under the banner of "Professor Alliance", it will break the existing structure of the tennis world.
But what if you can’t?
The media will never miss such an opportunity, and they will definitely stick to Gawain.
Now, the same is true.
The media still don't think Gao Wen can beat Federer. Things are definitely not that simple.
Deep down, the media is as conflicted as the fans.
On the one hand, they are looking forward to the emergence of Gao Wen or Wawrinka or other new generation players to seize power and break the overall dominance of the Big Four.
On the other hand, they resisted the end of the era of the Big Four. After all, they grew up with the Big Four and witnessed the grandeur of the entire era.
This conflicting emotion of expectation and resistance continues to pull, so they are particularly harsh when dealing with people like Gawain, Wawrinka, and Raonic.
I am already harsh and picky enough in normal times, but now I am even more critical.
The media is ready -
How should they write headlines if Gowan loses to Federer again?
"The king of football is still the king of football, and your uncle is still your uncle."
"The challengers came hard, but Federer said: No."
"Federer defends the glory of the Big Four, and challengers still have to wait a little longer to seize power."
Or maybe——
"Djokovic is still number one in the world, but Federer is still the world number one."
"What Nadal, Djokovic and Murray couldn't do, Federer did."
"Beat Gawain? Federer, two consecutive wins!"
The media doesn't mind embarrassing Serjan at all, sowing discord between Federer and Djokovic, and then expecting a good show.
Anyway, the media always, always, always chooses to side with Federer.
Gawain: It turns out that I am just a tool man.
And so on and so forth.
Even if you just think about it, it is already endless fun, and inspiration continues to burst out. How can the media be willing to miss such fun?
So, "Gawain VS Raonic", or "Gawain VS Federer"?
This is simply a problem of the century, with no choice. The men's professional tennis world is full of new vitality. It is a topic and the focus everywhere. The media is in the happiest and best time.
They were looking forward to an exciting 2015 season, but they still didn't expect it to be so exciting. They really couldn't ask for more.
