Where are the rising young stars?

Hello peeps n homies,



There is a dearth of young superstars in the men's game at the moment.

Of the up and coming stars, I believe there is only one who has the potential to mix it with the top four. The rest may have their time in the sun but only once the inevitable decline sets in with the top four (or perhaps top 3, not sure if Murray quite fits in the same bracket, yet).

Most of these youngsters are in the 19-21 age group. However, I just don't seen anything too special about any of them. The likes of Nadal, Djoker, and Murray at the same age were already firmly established top players. They all clearly had the potential to be top 5 material, and in fact were so. In the early noughties, the likes of Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were already displacing the old guard as mere teenagers. A decade before, the Sampras, Agassi, Courier trio were making their marks on the game at a similar age. Even Federer, who was considered a relatively late bloomer, by age 19 had beaten Sampras at W and reached two slam QF's. By 21, Federer was considered an underachiever for having not won a slam, yet he was already in the top 6 and had won a number of tournaments.

Milos Raonic, I think is the only one of the current crop with a game to threaten the top players. Big serve, big FH - he has weapons. But, unfortunately, like Del-Potro, his big frame may predispose him to recurrent injuries.

Tomic is a Murry-esque player, but he doesn't have the fitness, the movement or the defense of Murray, at the moment. He is also so tall and gangly that I can't really envisage him catching up to Murray in those areas.

Harrison, just average. Indeed a poorer version of Roddick. He's gutsy, feisty, but lacks the all round game to be a serious threat. Neither does he possess the Roddick serve or the booming FH (of the earlier A-Rod)

Dimitrov (how long have we been talking about this one?) - looks elegant, models his game on Federer, but has nowhere near the same degree of precision and incisiveness. His serve isn't as good, and his movement is more laboured. Also lacks the potent Federer FH (basically he STILL looks like a junior version of Federer, except he's now almost a seasoned pro).

So where are all the rising stars? Where is the next superstar? I honestly cannot see anyone (except possibly Raonic) from the current young crop who has the potential to surpass any of the top four whilst they are still playing close to their best.



emancipator

Pretty tough one to call really emancipator

Raonic looks the most likely to rock the apple cart. Let's hope he can stay injury free. Tomic if he continues improving could join that group later in time. Dimitrov needs to get some form. Seems to have slipped away towards the end of the season.

I will keep a careful watch on Jack Sock and Oliver Golding and how they fare on the mens tour. A decent run at some of the smaller events could help improve their ranking.

You have mentioned four younger players who are in ATP.

Did you look at the younger players in the ITF Juniors?

Thiem, Berta, Golding, Broady, Saville, Monteiro,...

Berta and Vesely are ATP now.

legendkillar wrote:Dimitrov needs to get some form. Seems to have slipped away towards the end of the season.

Dimitrov played well at Hopman cup.

laverfan wrote:You have mentioned four younger players who are in ATP.

Did you look at the younger players in the ITF Juniors?

Thiem, Berta, Golding, Broady, Saville, Monteiro,...

Berta and Vesely are ATP now.

I am aware of the above.. however the transition from juniors to seniors is a huge one. Very few successfully make that transition.

I am therefore very weary of predicting success based on junior results.. hence I've stuck to the prominent young players who have already made a successful transition.

I haven't been following the Hopman Cup LF

I find that Sky Sports News discriminates against tennis. Plus at work I miss the internet news so when I get home it is like 2 days have passed. I shall check out the latest results

Don't see Raonic making it to the very top. Great serve, decent FH, but that's about it. Movement is poor, BH is purely a rallying shot, touch not great, etc. Of the bunch you mention, Tomic seems the most likely bet, but needs to get his head in shape. Dimitrov people rave about because he has a game which is pleasing on the eye, but he's way too inconsistent to make the very top.

Not too sure about the juniors as haven't seen enough of them to pass judgement.

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason the rising young stars don't measure up with those at the top of the game because those at the top are just so good? It may sound daft but I think there is a great deal of truth to it. People should remember that Roger Federer is seen by many as the GOAT, Rafa Nadal was tipped by many to surpass Federer's achievements, Novak Djokovic now looks a good bet to go on to take in excess of 10+ slams and Andy Murray has no slams but an impressive slam record all the same. To ask up and coming youngsters to rise and challenge such lofty stars and even surpass them in my eyes is just asking too much.

You're right that expecting the rising young stars (say, 21 years and younger) to challenge the current top 4 is unrealistic.

But I'm afraid there are very few of these rising young stars even in the top 100 of the rankings. I've haven't counted but if there are more than 5 it would surprise me...

It would be interesting to see some statistics on age distribution of the top 100 over time. Are we experiencing a "weak era" of young guns?

Has anyone not thought of 'late bloomers?'

Tim Henman and David Ferrer made the top 10 at 24. Fish and Melzer made the top 10 aged 29 and recently Tipsarevic at the age of 27. Let's be honest, Slam success is difficult in era which has produced top great as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. An achievement for the youngsters would be to break the top 10.

Good point LK. But is the lack of rising young stars because the 'late bloomers' are so strong, or can the success of the late bloomers be explained by the absence of rising young stars?

I think it supports Tenez' theory that professional tennis has become such a 'physical' sport. Drawing a parallel to e.g. cycling (which is one of the most physical sports around): very few if any can win the Tour de France in their early twenties.

It does make me wonder though PS if Del Potro had stayed fit whether him breaking into the top 4 and staying there would've given more confidence to say a Soderling or even Berdych in their respective Slam finals. It is something I often think about. It is like a tier of tennis in some ways. Take the 80's which for me produced the strongest crop players when you had Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and fringe players as Chang, Cash, Kriek who enjoyed Small Slam success in that period. In the 90's you had Sampras, Agassi, Courier who ate up the Slams and fringe players such as Rafter, Krajicek, Brugera who enjoyed minimal Slam success. I think if you look at the 2000's where Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have had the major honours and fringe players as Safin, Hewitt, Del Potro. I think there are tiers, and I think more so now due to the lack of Slam success from ranking 4 downwards opens the possibility of a window of opportunity for a talented youngster to make some strides into.

Craig,

The point is that regardless of how strong one considers the top four to be there is nothing that stands out about these current youngsters. None of them have the wow factor that was apparent with the great youngsters of the past. They look at best like an average bunch. It's very difficult to point at any of them and say with any conviction, this is a player destined for great things.

In terms of actual results it's not really the top four who are getting in their way and stopping their progression. Collectively they've played maybe one or two matches (that I can think of) against the top four. Dimitrov and Dolgopolov have been around for a while now and yet not made much of a mark (relatively speaking of course). Harrison, Tomic and Raonic are still of course very new to the tour.

You would see this wow factor if they were playing in a 2003 field but now this wow factor is suffocated by today's physical game.

Dolgo's pace of play for instance is extremely impressive. Watch how quick he plays. Certainly more impressive than Nadal and Djoko at teh same age. Just look at Nadal 2005 and 2006 now. You won't be impressed by his short balls and even footwork, compared to his today's game. Dolgo's game has a lot of waste cause he is pushed like players were not in the past. We saw for instance how he could have taken the first set of Djoko at the last USO and woudl have probably beaten Djoko 2010. But a year later and the bar is pushed even higher for everybody else.

You could say the same of all those youngsters I can see their talent, pretty impressive talent in fact for some. Certainly more talented than Djoko and Nadal were at the same age.

What I like is that, bar Tomic maybe, they have an agressive game trying to hit through the retrievers and I am pretty sure it's going to pay off in a year or so. You will see then the extend of their talent.

I think that's a fair point Tenez.

The physicality is probably stifling the touch, feel players. Unfortunately, those are the prevalent conditions in today's game so in order to be the next rising star you have to match and surpass the field regardless of the style of tennis.

In that sense, the wow factor relates to effectiveness of a player's game in the modern era. With that in mind, none of the current crop really stand out to me, except possibly Raonic, if he can solidify his BH.

However, if the conditions were speeded up, then the attacking youngsters could prove to be the real deal.

I am not a fan of Raonic but he may have the right mixtureof serve and baseline game to get through.

It would take someone more talented than Federer to create this wow factor nowadays. In fact much more talented.

We just have to accept that 24 is now the age youngsters have to deliver. But I won't be surprised if we see some blooming later even. We can forget teh time when Chang serving under arm, or Wilander moonballing no end coudl win slams at 17.

Speeding up the grass- and hardcourts would definitely make the game more attractive! Attacking and taking risks would be rewarded again.

But how to prevent that the 'Karlovics' of this world won't benefit too much?

Maybe the number of second serves should be limited? Or the service line should be closer to the net? Any other ideas?!

prostaff85 wrote:Speeding up the grass- and hardcourts would definitely make the game more attractive! Attacking and taking risks would be rewarded again.

But how to prevent that the 'Karlovics' of this world won't benefit too much?

Maybe the number of second serves should be limited? Or the service line should be closer to the net? Any other ideas?!

I actually would not mind giving those guys a little bit more chance. Not making it too easy for them but fairer. I quite enjoyed the Isner Nadal battle on clay. I think it should be closer on grass and HC.

Tenez wrote:I actually would not mind giving those guys a little bit more chance. Not making it too easy for them but fairer. I quite enjoyed the Isner Nadal battle on clay. I think it should be closer on grass and HC.

I agree, that match was fascinating. But wasn't the dominance of big servers the reason why the game was slowed down?
Improvements in racket and string technology made it too "easy" for big servers to do well. This has been countered by modifying court surfaces and balls, but now the balance is not right either...

Rather than just turning back the clock, some other finetuning should be done to restore this balance. For attacking players, it should be very difficult to win Roland Garros, and for defensive players (retrievers) it should be very tough to win Wimbledon. The 'career Grand Slam' and even the "calendar Grand Slam' are becoming too easy now. The Wimbledon 2011 final was more like the French Open in London!

legendkillar wrote:Has anyone not thought of 'late bloomers?'

Tim Henman and David Ferrer made the top 10 at 24. Fish and Melzer made the top 10 aged 29 and recently Tipsarevic at the age of 27. Let's be honest, Slam success is difficult in era which has produced top great as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. An achievement for the youngsters would be to break the top 10.

I also think is correct to consider the new hopes a bit "at large" including all the players who are heading to top say 20 or got there during the last season and have the potential to rise further in the top 10.

Judging from this pov the situation is probably less pessimistic than what is generally thought.

Just to mention few: Del Potro, Dolgo, Fish, Raonic, Nishikori, Tomic, Tsonga, Tipsi are all players who may make a mark in the incoming season and contribute to mix things up even for the top guys.

I am not really sure about Dimitrov. Sometimes he looks a bit too slow and inconclusive, but played great against Tsonga in Wimbo. Hope anyway he can make it too!

prostaff85 wrote: But wasn't the dominance of big servers the reason why the game was slowed down?

Yes. And something had to be done. The problem is they slowed the conds at the same time that string technology gave the ruturners a huge boost. Those 2 factors completely shift the balance despite servers becoming more powerful. Hewitt and Nalbandian for instance were both using Luxilon strings in Wimbledon's 2002 final. Those strings allow for power and spin giving teh volleyer very little chance on those slow courts. We all remember Henman being the sitting duck when facing Hewitt who had those strings and excellent footwork.

Had they kept the conditions as they were, it woudl have been more balanced thanks to the strings giving more control to the returners.

Before those strings returners had no choice but to stand close to the baseline (Agassi/Federer style) and whack the returns hoping to force a mistake. Now they can stand further back and dip the ball in the ball in the volleyer feet which he won't be able to put away easily, giving those super athlete a good chance of a passing on the 2nd shot if not already passed in the return.

My view is that they should revert to past conds (balls and courts) and see how is everybody doing. I'd love that actually. It woudl helped teh serve volleyers but it woudl not guarantee them wins.

My suggestion is to have variations so some surfaces are faster and some are slower, providing a judicious mix of varying conditions. This would allow different types of players to succeed, rather than just one type.

Tenez wrote:My view is that they should revert to past conds (balls and courts) and see how is everybody doing. I'd love that actually. It woudl helped teh serve volleyers but it woudl not guarantee them wins.

Interesting, I think you may be right Tenez! I know some posters here think you are only using this 'conspiracy theory' because you cannot accept that Nadal has started beating Federer on all surfaces, but I see it more as a broader analysis of why the game has changed so much in the past 10 years.

Although I enjoy the current rivalries, I do think the game offerered more variety in the eighties and nineties, with players having very different tactics and styles.

Question is: as it is all rather obvious, are there any plans to do something about it?! Or do most people prefer the current, more monotonous game with just a couple of superstars fighting it out from Paris to London to New York?

It seems that the trend now is increasingly towards short careers and a need to bulk up and mature before making it in the first place.

Knowing a little bit about Ollie Golding's development and his mum's concerns it might be worthwhile considering her opinion. She thinks he's got less than ten years all told to make a career out of the game. Considering he's now 18 and not yet high enough ranked for the Aussie Open qualifiers then that could be 8 to 9 years at the highest level (assuming , of course, he makes the top 100).

Food for thought.

Where are the rising young stars?

Here....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/young_bright.html

But to be serious for a mo, there are many good players in the wings waiting to pounce, but we won't really see much of them for the next 12 months, until the top 5 get sorted and the olympics are over and we see just how the top tier players get shuffled around and these youngsters are put through their paces at the top events.

2013 imo will see the emergence of players that will likely try to charge against the top 4 and make impressions, this year will be dominated by the top 5/6, but that doesnt mean the upstarts wont get a taste of blood, I'm sure a few masters events will throw up an exciting protege here and there and give us a glimpse of things to come.

The bar has been set and its up to them to step up and try to knock the top 4 off their perch, try being the operative word. Tomic and Harrison are two players I expect to make big waves this year, but its 2013 for them before any of those waves wash over the likes of Djokovic.

Lets not forget the game has been steadily speeding up in the Open Era...its not just racquets/strings, etc...its the players too. Modern training techniques squeeze eevry last ounce out of players potential movement, etc. If you look at football...well the grass or ball has hardly changed much...but the game is also so much faster. Its the way of things.
Technology only amplifies this further.

Racquets dont make as big a difference as you think...what about when they gave Phillipousis an old beaten up wooden racquet and he still served at 140mph with it. However, slowing the conditions is going against that progression so the better movement is turned into long ralley battles rather than amazing athletics at the net, etc. They need to speed things up...they need to find the right speed index and stick to it...as the rate of progress will start to slow down.

Rising young stars need many years now to find a way of competing in current tour conditions. Its a brutal tour and younger bodies literally cant take it...its odd in a way that despite the grind of the tour the players need years to build up optimal fitness/strength to reach and stay at the top. Guys like Tomic have the talent but not the body. You need both today as the top 4 show...infact has anyone seen Tsonga without a shirt on...not exactly a wimp!

lydian wrote:infact has anyone seen Tsonga without a shirt on...not exactly a wimp!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bQj9ESdHGQ

Thanks LF...he's a strong guy for sure!

lydian wrote:

Racquets dont make as big a difference as you think...what about when they gave Phillipousis an old beaten up wooden racquet and he still served at 140mph with it. However, slowing the conditions is going against that progression so the better movement is turned into long ralley battles rather than amazing athletics at the net, etc. They need to speed things up...they need to find the right speed index and stick to it...as the rate of progress will start to slow down.

Depends on what you mean by racquet. Strings make a huge difference. More so than the recent increase in fitness even. For sheer serve pace a wooden or graphite won't make much difference, however try to put the spin and power with a wooden racquet and natural strings and you will see how big the difference is. But the racquet and strings play a much bigger role at returning even.

Strings have completely changed the dyamic of the game. No way you could afford to be in the trameline and pull easy winners with natural strings. It required a very risky shot to pull a passing then. Now with teh new strings it's an advantage to be in the trameline cause it gives you more options than holding the center of the court.

So yes racquets and more so strings are probably the biggest change in tennis over the last 10 years. Give Nadal natural gut for instance and 50% of his spin is gone giving the attacking players a much easier ball to attack.

"Give Nadal natural gut for instance and 50% of his spin is gone giving the attacking players a much easier ball to attack"

But they would have to have natural as well, so their options are 50% less spin for playing a passing shot.

Not sure that gut gives 50% less spin, Borg, McEnroe, Nastase all had amazing talent to give the ball a lot of top spin, esp on the top spin lob, which was very effective against a net player.

I agree that strings have given a new dynamic as well as racquet design, but I dont see how its made the game any less skillful than 30 yrs ago, which many posters here have talked about. The courts and the balls may have slowed the game too, but that opens the door for far more finesse and technique. I believe we are witnessing a new era in the skills needed to be a No1 and a slam winner, not just stamina or strength, but in litheness and ability to pull off what was an amazing shot 8 yrs ago, and is now run of the mill. (between the legs shot for one example)

Ball, racquet, string and human body design are all part of todays game, its finding the best mix of all these facets that give a player a huge chance to be the best.

prostaff85 wrote:Interesting, I think you may be right Tenez! I know some posters here think you are only using this 'conspiracy theory' because you cannot accept that Nadal has started beating Federer on all surfaces, but I see it more as a broader analysis of why the game has changed so much in the past 10 years.

Of course. Some don;t realise that I would love to see someone even more talented than Federer, that means to see someone make the game look even more easy. I woudl not mind to see a talented player beating Federer on the talent side, especially now that he has achieved more than everybody else.

Today's successful games rely very little on talent but essentially on physical prowess and stamina helped by unknown science and diets and that I cannot support cause we don;t know whose prowess it belongs to: the doctors that fixe knees and shoulders? those who created egg chambers, special diets allowing running like no-one could 5 years ago? The coach that advise NOT to play with your natural arm??!!! This is Frankeinstein tennis to me. Where is the human side in the player?

Worse when you see how limited a player is as soon as someone joins him on that physical sphere or how badly beaten they can be if they are not 110%.

From Young stars -> Strings + Physicality -> Nadal. The limitations are obvious, Tenez.

prostaff85 wrote:

Although I enjoy the current rivalries, I do think the game offerered more variety in the eighties and nineties, with players having very different tactics and styles.

Purely subjective PS, correct?

Do you see popularity of Tennis being eroded due to such differences?

laverfan wrote:From Young stars -> Strings + Physicality -> Nadal. The limitations are obvious, Tenez.

Exactly. It makes no sense to talk about the lack of young stars without mentioning the above.

laverfan wrote:

prostaff85 wrote:

Although I enjoy the current rivalries, I do think the game offerered more variety in the eighties and nineties, with players having very different tactics and styles.

Purely subjective PS, correct?

Do you see popularity of Tennis being eroded due to such differences?

I would put more emphasis being on the 'rivalry' aspect of the tennis of 80's/90's. I guess back then there was a element of 'needle' between the players which seems to be in lacking these days.

All the Top 4 are unique amongst not only players now, but players of the past in as much they can all do great shots on the run, i.e. they are great movers. This has little to do with physicality - more to do with their skills (particularly Fe) which means they appear to have so much more time

Actually out of all the youngsters, I can only see Tomic having the potential to challenge the Top 4 - whilst they are around

However, we must remember that it is now an older game. It was always inevitable that physical fitness would be the thing that improves the most as time goes on (i.e. 80's to know) simply because we all know so much more about our bodies

Hence, speeding up the courts would make no difference. Reflex, 'layers like Federer or great returners like Murray / Nole would simply be even more dominant

But the reason why, we feel that there are no great youngsters, is because we are comparing them to the much criticised (well if you're not Fed ) Top 4. We need to wake up and realise that they are a unique crew

Also, it's inevitable in five years, that some of these youngsters will dominate. By then Tsonga, Berdy and a few of the other pretenders are over 30 - they will obviously be replaced as these replacements get more confident then they will be beating whichever of the Top 4 are around

Finally, whilst I've always thought that the current youngsters were overated - it's actually the players in the 21-23 year old bracket who most disappoint. I mean where exactly are they. We've had Del Potro winning a Slam and nothing else - no Masters and very few Slam semi's, to such a degree the only others we're pining our hopes on are Cilic, Dolgo and maybe Bellucci ( )

I meant the racquet only Tenez, clearly the strings are a huge factor...not just what they are but the tension itself.

Agree Jubba...even Sampras was playing with natural gut and could generate alot of spin when he wanted. What has changed much more is stroke production itself. I suggest people read about stretch shortening cycle (SSC) and how its changed the game much more than strings or racquets. Nadal will create huge levels of spin whatever strings you give him, not the same as now, but still huge - look at his arm action and the way he whips around the ball...and the SSC as I mention above. This type of stroke would be completely alien to players in the 60s/70s/80s, even 90s mainly.

banbrotam wrote:All the Top 4 are unique amongst not only players now, but players of the past in as much they can all do great shots on the run, i.e. they are great movers. This has little to do with physicality - more to do with their skills (particularly Fe) which means they appear to have so much more time

Be serious Banbro! Do you really think Murray is a natural great mover? Have you checked the size of his legs compared to his brother Jamie or even compared to when he arrived on the tour?

It's physicality and string technology. There is no going around that.

lydian wrote:
Agree Jubba...even Sampras was playing with natural gut and could generate alot of spin when he wanted.

Depends on what we called spin. Of course we coudl generate spin but nothing like today. Especially not at 37kg tension like Pete's racquet.

At the time it was all about holding to the center of the court and try to send your opponent in the trameline to finish off an easy volley. That is the key difference with today's tennis (fitness and string) which allows a very fit player to get the ball very late, way outside of the court and pull a winner with more ease than if he had held the center of court. Being bossed around becaomes an advantage.

Once we understand that, we understand modern tennis.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:From Young stars -> Strings + Physicality -> Nadal. The limitations are obvious, Tenez.

Exactly. It makes no sense to talk about the lack of young stars without mentioning the above.

LK has a link on the Tennis HoF thread, where there is a UTube link of a match between Fraser and Laver, 1960 W. If you watch the match (from the third set onwards), the physicality of the encounter (despite the graininess of the video) is very obvious. Fraser even slips and falls on his face, which I had not remembered from my original match. Fraser is out of breath, while Laver waits.

Tennis at the top echelons has always been about great athletes and great play across the ages. The change, as BanBro says, is the advances in our knowledge. Jubba also echoes that all factors should be considered to produce a good tennis player, just not one.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:All the Top 4 are unique amongst not only players now, but players of the past in as much they can all do great shots on the run, i.e. they are great movers. This has little to do with physicality - more to do with their skills (particularly Fe) which means they appear to have so much more time

Be serious Banbro! Do you really think Murray is a natural great mover? Have you checked the size of his legs compared to his brother Jamie or even compared to when he arrived on the tour?

It's physicality and string technology. There is no going around that.

Tenez. I know you feel that Murray is Scotland's answer to 'The Terminator' and as usual, you sidetrack from the central theme to get your Nadal and / or Murray and / or Nole attack in - but Murray's quickness around the court was observed back in 2004.

What he didn't have then or until around 2008 was the physicality to sustain it - but saying that this physicality is the only thing that makes him the player he is now is wrong

Now let's get back to the subject

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:From Young stars -> Strings + Physicality -> Nadal. The limitations are obvious, Tenez.

Exactly. It makes no sense to talk about the lack of young stars without mentioning the above.

LK has a link on the Tennis HoF thread, where there is a UTube link of a match between Fraser and Laver, 1960 W. If you watch the match (from the third set onwards), the physicality of the encounter (despite the graininess of the video) is very obvious. Fraser even slips and falls on his face, which I had not remembered from my original match. Fraser is out of breath, while Laver waits.

Yes...and I hope you can see the difference in physicality between this time and today. It's huge despite players having roughly the same genetic code at 99.99%!

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:From Young stars -> Strings + Physicality -> Nadal. The limitations are obvious, Tenez.

Exactly. It makes no sense to talk about the lack of young stars without mentioning the above.

LK has a link on the Tennis HoF thread, where there is a UTube link of a match between Fraser and Laver, 1960 W. If you watch the match (from the third set onwards), the physicality of the encounter (despite the graininess of the video) is very obvious. Fraser even slips and falls on his face, which I had not remembered from my original match. Fraser is out of breath, while Laver waits.

Tennis at the top echelons has always been about great athletes and great play across the ages. The change, as BanBro says, is the advances in our knowledge. Jubba also echoes that all factors should be considered to produce a good tennis player, just not one.

You're wasting your words, 'laverfan'. Once again Tenez hijacks one of the best articles of the year so far, by craftily coming out with some good comments so he can then start talking about his favourite subject - Fed success = Talent, Nadal / or Nole / or Murray success = Physicality

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:All the Top 4 are unique amongst not only players now, but players of the past in as much they can all do great shots on the run, i.e. they are great movers. This has little to do with physicality - more to do with their skills (particularly Fe) which means they appear to have so much more time

Be serious Banbro! Do you really think Murray is a natural great mover? Have you checked the size of his legs compared to his brother Jamie or even compared to when he arrived on the tour?

It's physicality and string technology. There is no going around that.

Tenez. I know you feel that Murray is Scotland's answer to 'The Terminator' and as usual, you sidetrack from the central theme to get your Nadal and / or Murray and / or Nole attack in - but Murray's quickness around the court was observed back in 2004.

What he didn't have then or until around 2008 was the physicality to sustain it - but saying that this physicality is the only thing that makes him the player he is now is wrong

Now let's get back to the subject

100% correct Banbro

The conds more than anything else has dictated the technology and the conditioning players require nowadays. Check out the video I posted in the vault with Laver in 1960 and tell me that speed and stamina were not starting to feature heavily in the game even at amateur level. Speeding up Wimbledon would help actually put an emphasis back on the all round game. Part of the reason tennis was not a heavy feature in the popularity stakes was due to TV coverage being restricted to just Wimbledon and did not paint a picture of the what tour was offering. While S and V is a dead art, Wimbledon may be the best place for it to come back, and may even throw one time Slam winners, but least it will require improvement from the baseliners of this world. Speed up the US Open so it has a lot to offer the baseliners and S and V's. Look at Isner v Nadal at the FO that had evertyhing. Went from a S and V paradise to a baseliners dream. That was entertaining.

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez. I know you feel that Murray is Scotland's answer to 'The Terminator' and as usual, you sidetrack from the central theme to get your Nadal and / or Murray and / or Nole attack in - but Murray's quickness around the court was observed back in 2004.

What he didn't have then or until around 2008 was the physicality to sustain it - but saying that this physicality is the only thing that makes him the player he is now is wrong

Now let's get back to the subject

It's the fact you don;t understand the dynamics of the game that prevents you from seeing the very obvious point I make.

You are a fan only worried of the reputation of the top players. I am a tennis fan explaining why young players are nowhere to be seen nowadays unless they have gladiators bodies like Nadal or Golliath frames like Delpotro.

I wish you had a bit more expertise in teh game. You want to sound like a connoisseur but clearly you are way too partial towards teh top 4 to really understand what's their strengths and weaknesses.

Tenez wrote:Yes...and I hope you can see the difference in physicality between this time and today. It's huge despite players having roughly the same genetic code at 99.99%!

The human Genome has not changed significantly over the lifespan of homo sapiens.

Many modern sports have been around for a few hundred years, and humans have adapted to playing Tennis and Football and Rugby, so what are you suggesting?

If you consider the difference between Tilden and Laver, it is very similar to Laver to Djokovic, so Tilden's compatriots contemporaries would make the 'same' argument, as you are making. In 2050, Tenez-2050 will make the same arguments as what you are saying now.

You have quite a bit of Science knowledge, and still refuse to see the bigger picture.

laverfan wrote:
You have quite a bit of Science knowledge, and still refuse to see the bigger picture.

Or is it you refusing to see the difference between the physicality of today's game compared to the Tilden or Laver time?

Anybody can see it, I am sure. It's huge.

The thing is part of evolution in sport in general and tennis aside, there will be players that can meet the demands of their sport and even push the boundaries further to another level. That's the science in any sport. Some run faster, some run longer, some hit harder, some do all of it better than everyone else.