There have been 26 Grand Slams since Roland Garros in 2005. There have been a total of only 4 different winners.
In the previous 26 Grand Slams, there were 13 different winners, including such unlikely candidates as Thomas Johansson and Gaston Gaudio. (Oh that 2004 Roland Garros semi between Henners and Coria, what might have been ...)
One might think that it is better for a sport to have more rather than less unpredictability. And yet the concentration of Premier League winners, in the same way as the current ATP domination, suggests the opposite.
__________________
"Where Ratty leads - the rest soon follow" (Professor Henry Brubaker - The Institute of Studies)
From a commercial point of view, it is better for a few players/teams to dominate, in my opinion. Would ManU be such a big brand in Asia if it shared its titles with six other teams? One can argue that the six other teams would share the spoils but I think it is difficult for glory hunters (who make up for 80% of a sport's revenue, I guess) to join the bandwagon if there are too many good teams around.
I would personally like to have more unpredictability in tennis. Cannot exactly give a reason for this but I enjoy going into a Slam fortnight without knowing the winner (or two guys with 99% chance) beforehand.
I do too, but (sorry to get a bit cosmic), it seems that humans, and of course other animals, NEED established hierarchies, and actually don't really like underdogs winning too often.
You and me, fish guy, we must just be natural rebels ...
__________________
"Where Ratty leads - the rest soon follow" (Professor Henry Brubaker - The Institute of Studies)
