Is Men's Tennis Really in Good Hands After Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal?

One of the most common laments you hear in tennis these days is that women's tennis is in dismal shape, with no one really good enough to challenge for majors consistently Slam in, Slam out.

I'm not here to dispute that.

Four of the last five world No. 1's—Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina and Caroline Wozniacki—have one solitary Grand Slam title between them. Once Serena Williams retires, there appears to be no one capable of taking the women's game by the scruff of the neck and really cementing her place among the legends, like what Steffi Graf did in the late 1980s and what Roger Federer did for men's tennis in 2004.

You tend to hear equally frequently that men's tennis is the healthiest it's ever been, with more people competing for Grand Slams and able to beat the top guys than before. There's more competition now than in any other tennis era. We're told that the future of men's tennis is bright and healthy.

This claim disturbs me deeply. While there's no doubt men's tennis right now is more intriguing than most people ever recall it to be, is it really accurate to say that will continue to be the case in the next eight years or so? Once Federer and Rafael Nadal stop competing at the highest level (I'll give Federer another two years and Rafa another three), can we really say, confidently enough, that men's tennis will not slip into the anarchy and chaos presently gripping its female counterpart?

There's the immediate claim that Novak Djokovic is a shining light in the game, one who will be a force to be reckoned with for at least another five to six years, and someone who'll almost unquestionably add many more Grand Slams and other trophies to his current haul. What worries me, however, is that we could come to a stage where Djokovic is the only real contender at majors (much like Serena Williams) and no one of the current crop of budding tennis players can truly be called a champion.

We have, after all, seen numerous bright tennis careers go unrewarded so far in the last 10 years or so. Wasn't Richard Gasquet supposed to be a multiple Grand Slam champion when he appeared on the cover of a French tennis magazine at the age of nine, or when he beat Federer despite being just 18 years old and ranked No. 100 in the world? Wasn't Tomas Berdych supposed to be leading the new generation when he took Federer out when the Swiss was at his majestic best in the Olympics of 2004?

This list could go on, but I think the point is clear: Recent youngsters have failed to perform when put to the test on the big stage. This is what separates the excellent players from the champions: The latter can respond to pressure—they can actually thrive on it. We see people like Stanislas Wawrinka, Gael Monfils and even Andy Murray—the most conceivable future threat to Djokovic—wilt under intense pressure.

There is, therefore, the depressing possibility that once Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are gone, the men's game could suffer a huge slump because there is an enormous difference between the quality and mentality of Novak Djokovic and all his other contenders.

Once Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi retired, people could tell that Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt and Federer were among the next lot who would dominate men's tennis. Can we, however, say with the same conviction that Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison and Grigor Dimitrov will be among the next batch of Grand Slam champions?

I don't think so.