Groundhog tennis

I dont know about anyone else (?) but for me tennis is getting a bit...er...a lot, dull in general in current times.

Ok I'm a keen player and that will never change, so my interest can never truly go, but an insidious feeling of negativity has been creeping up on me the past few months. And when I read all the tennis forums I think its mirrored all across them too - the men's pro game just isnt firing people up like it used to. Something is going badly wrong. Its nothing to do with Nadal being AWOL, or Federer mopping up, or Novak dipping, etc. But therein lies the clue. The turgidity, for that is the only word for it, of the game revolving around the same 3-4 players is making the game a snooze-fest. When you combine that with no variety and ralley-fests its a complete turn-off. Tennis is more than just 3 players + 1 - surely? But it doesnt feel that way.

And now we see Tsonga and Berdy both eulogiseing what we all know yesterday. That basically the top 3 (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic) are unbeatable at slams rendering everyone else as also rans. This is from 2 of the only guys who have a chance of really beating these guys at slams. So if they feel this what must the guys ranked 40 and below think? In effect they're just fighting for non-podium positions. How dispiriting must that be.

And how dispiriting as a spectator. For all the talk of dark horses, deep runs and shocks the game has become as predictable as the jetstream sat on top of the UK. You may as well skip the events and turn on the TV on the 2nd weekend (1st weekend for Masters) and watch the same semis between the top 4 (assuming Nadal was present). Its permanent GroundHog Day and I'm tired of it.

Its getting to the point where forums are starting to run out of things to discuss - when there are no other realistic winners of slams or Masters what else is there to discuss that isnt fluff/window dressing? So the usual negative topics percolate around to fill the vacuum of interest in the actual play...PEDs, MTOs, physicality, is Novak the same as 2011, is Nadal the same as 2010, is Federer playing better than ever, cupcakes, rigging, etc, etc. Ok, they're interesting topics per se, but not ad infinitum. More recently its a clamour for changes in the game because we all know the game is becoming a Formula 1 procession....and now the ATP realise this too. Where are the discussions we could be having about some unknowns breaking through, or a new slam or even Masters finalist. I switch on the TV for tennis and like Bill Murray I feel like its any part of the year just a slightly different coloured backboard behind the court with the same players on it.

So ATP - please, please, please do something before the game gets permanently wounded. The procession of 3-4 guys from Jan to Dec is getting boring no matter how big a fan of one player you are. Where is the competition, where are the young players, where is the variety, the shocks (ok, Rosol aside), the genuine interest in who might win a slam....its all so predictable. I was watching USO last night and I was thinking, yep not a bad match but these guys have NO chance of getting to the semis...and so the first 10 days are window dressing for the main event, i.e. the semis and final, and that is sad really.

Rant(ish) over. Anyone else feeling similar?

As long as Nadal wins (plays at-least) I'm fine tbh.

...but the bigger picture IMBL?

But I agree that tennis, is getting too predictable in who will reach the latter stages (as long as they are fully fit).
Hopefully neither Djokovic or Federer will win the USO, if Murray or anyone else wins it could open a new can of worms.

lydian wrote:...but the bigger picture IMBL?

lol I've posted it now

I fear for interest in the men's tour if Federer and Nadal left in short succession the way it currently is...

Too true.

Novak's first round opponent basically needn't have bothered tgurning up. On second thoughts maybe he didn't anyway. Some imposter with a ludicrous wig tried his luck and was dismissed so contemptously that no-one had actually twigged who he was as he exited stage left post haste.

Frankly the only discussion in the absence of Nadal is whether Murray will break his slam duck or not although Novak will no doubt enjoy the next few warm-up matches in the meantime.

Wake me up when it's all over.

I disagree lydian, I am sorry I like the mens game and the modern tour and modern players. I don't feel that much is wrong with it. I just think that it has always been a top down tour maybe by a notch or two it is a little bit more top heavy now than usual. I think it is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder type thing. I think the death of variety is a bit overstated, players still volley quite a bit but they can't really run in early after every point, still many points finish at net and it is a vital part of a complete game. Now can we maybe play around the edges and see if we can speed up a couple of tourney's here and there, sure, but i don't see wholesale problems with the game.

I agree as well lydian. There's some excitement in the same 4 winning everything for a couple of years (Wow, that's cool, it's never been done before etc). but by now it's become a bit old hat. I would love to see 4 new semi-finalists at the USO (or even Murray winning it).
At least last year had something new from Djoko, but did it have to be Fed back on top again now? A bit of a yawn.
Rosol's victory vs Rafa was great for the shock value - if only Benneteau had beaten Fed as well - but that's a small oasis in the desert.
And like you say, there's only so much that can be said about the top 4 on the forums before it gets a bit stale. Unfortunately the young guns, if there are any, don't give us much to talk about either.

Anyway, I've always said I much prefer playing to watching.

Agreed there JHM...looks like we might have to play the game rather more than talk about it for the forseeable future. I think my recent exasperation about lack of motivation in posting is also linked to this general malaise in watching the current game.

Socal, fair enough for your opinion but the results speak for themselves!
Never before on tour have the top4 dominated proceedings like this. Never.
Yet Federer himself has stated that the current top4 arent necessarily any better vs previous top 4s.
So why are the top 4 winning everything, and it really is literally everything, when they couldnt before? Are we to believe that this top4 are the best 4 players ever? Or the non-top4 are the worst...or that there is something in the conditions that allows the current top4 to dominate much more easily?

Lets look at results. You have to go back 17 Masters before anyone other than a top 4 won one! And thats across all surfaces. And then another 7 before than one. So thats just 2 different winners outside top4 in the last 24 Masters event!

You have to go back 12 slams for a non-top 4 winner (Del Potro, #5), and then back to AO2005 for another one before that.
Thats just 1 slam winner outside the top4 since February 2005 - 7 and half years ago!

Its a Formula 1 procession.

Caused by a lack of true variety. If you had more variety, i.e. something approaching surface specialists, you would be getting different winners. You dont even get clay specialists anymore. The top4 are winning everything because they dont have to vary their games much from one event to the next. They can play on clay as they play on hardcourt, as they can play on grasscourt. There is hardly any S&V play, and we see matches getting longer and longer as ralley-fests become the norm with slowing conditions and increasing racquet tech. Its killing the game. If you think the game is in rude health then I'm very surprised.

I did an articles a few weeks back that showed there was only 1 player 19yo or under within the top 400 or so players. The youth cannot break through, the game has become centered around stamina/conditioning which suits older athletes rather than explosive movement and reflexes thats suits younger players. This means the game is not moving forwards...it cant be if the same guys have been dominating since 2005. Please explain to me why players under 20 are not breaking through anywhere near the top of the game? Why are the top4 dominating as neevr before?

The longer the ATP do nothing about conditions to break the dominance, the longer it continues to sleepwalk into the barren desert called the WTA.

Question you have to ask yourself lydian is where can tennis go to in terms of new heights?

During the 00's we saw courts slowed down to try and appease the masses who felt 2-3 shot rallies just was not tennis was all about. Let's be honest tennis has had periods of doldrums which have lasted years. Take Laver. Once he exhausted all his powers around 1971 we had to wait until 1974/5 for Connors, Borg and Vilas to make tennis interesting again. Once Vilas and Connors succumbed to the rigours of form and Borg retired, we were then treated to McEnroe, Wilander and Lendl. Behind them in the youth ranks you had Becker and Edberg who went on to have success on the tour. Then when metal racquets came on to the tour and strings started to evolve, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander fell away. Sampras, Courier, Ivanisevic brought in the new 'power' hitting age. Agassi and Rafter were the exception, but other big hitters like Martin, Phillopoussis, Rusedski, Krajcek epitomised the 90's style of tennis which was hit hard.

The 00's demanded change. Hewitt, Safin, Grosjean, Nalbandian, Davydenko were the new breed which combined stamina and power, but not in massive quantity. Federer came along and just became like the lone ranger in being a player with so much talent in abundance. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic took the game to even greater heights combining talent and high energy and fitness. Federer has remained a constant in terms of still being successful despite such drastic changes. Diets, supplements, strings all came along changed the modern day player.

Tennis is in an usual place at the moment. The sport and it's observers find themselves looking backwards to the past in order to blood change into the sport. Look at Raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov. All thought to head change, yet they can't find a permanent way into the reckoning. The question is where does tennis go from here? Well most are crying out for the 3 different surfaces to play just like 3 different surfaces. Something so simple. Yet I still don't think that will attract new fans or even satisfy the masses. How about new faces? Do we want to see the back of the current crop so youth is given a chance? Or will we find ourselves years later saying 'the game needs a Federer or Nadal'

For me the game needs something it has never seen before. For me that is in the form of new talent playing in a way we haven't seen.

Yes but talent cannot break through anymore, thats the problem here.

In previous eras you always had talent breaking through young...Borg, Mac, Wilander, Edberg, Chang, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic to name but a few...they all got to top 50 by age 19. Now we only have Tomic and then nothing for 100s of places. If that doesnt sound alarm bells then nothing will.

When you talk about the 00s...it wasnt a complete decade of similar conditions. Its started fast court-wise but then slowed between 2001-2003. It then further slowed from 2005-6 onwards. At the same time Luxilon strings became commonplace, racquet heads increased in size, etc. So it went power/speed to power/stamina to stamina. Speed isnt as big a factor in winning now because I dont believe for a second there arent faster guys than the top 4 out there in the under 20s, as good as Federer/Nadal, etc, are speedwise. They're fitter than just about everyone and speed doesnt seem to be able to count as much anymore...when conditions are slower thats no surprise is it.

Its not about going to the past, I agree. Its about the future of the game and what the ATP have allowed to happen has sent the game backwards to a test of conditioning, not true talent. Ideally the game should be both...yes the 90s was perhaps too fast....but now its too slow. The ATP overreacted. The continued to overreact. As they slowed things down even further they did nothing to stop racquet tech...so a double whammy was created. Then they 'wisely' increased the size of the balls. Just what was needed.

The future of the game must lie in all areas of the court being used - but not necessarily in one match/event. At the moment the net is a place to shake hands...this has to change for some events/surfaces. The top4 can dominate because they are the fittest and most skilled in these conditions, plus they do not have to change their games from one event to the next. If you are dominant on one surface/condition, you can be dominant on them all.

The future of the game needs variety, this is the ONLY way the current domination can, and should, be broken. The game needs conditions where you get the Taylor Dents, the Nadals, the Federer's, the Dolgo's, the Stepaneks, the Musters, etc...and the young players dont need years of gym conditioning to be able to break into the top 100, never mind the top 4.

Talent can breakthrough. There just isn't enough of it.

.

For years I have been hearing the whole Nadal, Djokovic and Murray saga of they are not talented yet with all this 'new' talent no-one can break that monopoly. That to me answers that very question. The new crop are not as talented as they are painted to be.

Stats on tennis as a growing sport BTW:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/594875-the-global-evolution-of-tennis-is-bringing-the-sport-to-new-markets-an-analysis
http://www.usta.com/Get_Involved/News_and_Events/News/Tennis_fastest_growing_sport_in_America/
http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/more-people-playing-tennis/
http://www.acefitness.org/certifiednewsarticle/1185/tennis-everyone-growing-participation-means/

The top4 are very talented, make no mistake...but its much easier to dominate across all surfaces now. Talent also comes in many shapes and guises.
But new raw talent must be out there given the sport is growing, and yet with more people playing than ever no young talent is breaking through at anywhere near top levels. I dont believe that elite academies are teaching poorly, and many good ex-players now make a living from good coaching too given more people play and want to learn the sport.
a) I just feel that new talent now has to wait years until it has developed physically to a point where it can get anywhere near breaking into top 100 (due to slow conditions)
b) Top4 can dominate due to lack of variety...the basis of how talent can shine has become narrowed. Bruguera couldnt used to win Wimbledon and fast court players couldnt French Open but they were both highly talented, just in different ways. Now the same type of talent can win all surfaces....making it hard for a greater number of players to break into slam wins.

I have an idea.

lydian if we take out Stamina and Strings which are the biggest influencing factors in the game right now. Who in the current game do you think would be in the top 10 today? I think then that way we can better understand how much 'talent' in itself contributes to a player make up. I will do the same thing and we can see where we think the talent lies and how much Stamina and maybe not the right Strings are affecting progression.

Force the players to play a set figure of serve volley, we'll see some upsets. Done. Capiche!

The make up of the top 10 per se is not the point of my article. All the top 10 are very fit...they have to be. But clearly they all have talents in different ways...however, the type of talent that wins slams has become more narrow than ever given all slams play much more similarly than before. We dont have uber-slow clay, and uber-fast grass anymore for example...we have medium paced courts just about everywhere whatever the surface. We have 6 Masters series on surfaces that are either DecoTurf or play very similar to it. 2 slams on almost similar HC now. Grass than plays almost the same as French Open or Australian. All these surfaces place the reliance on extended ralleying much more than point-killing hands skills. A reliance on extended ralleying is fed by better strings and better stamina.

For sure guys like Dolgo, Youhzny, Raonic, Isner, Goffin and Dimitrov would probably be higher ranked if there were faster conditions in general given their hands skills or faster serves.

Would Goran Ivanisevic today win a slam, or even get to a final? Are there more Goran's out there...almost certainly. Should the tour be full or Goran's or Ferrer's...neither in my opinion. But the tour is much more pointed in the Ferrer direction than ever before. Would Ferrer be a top 5 player in the 80s or 90s, I doubt it without his 105 sqin racquet, amazing fitness and poly strings. What I want is a tour with guys like Ferrer and Goran in abundance...Ferrer might have gone deep in clay in the 90s at slams...as Goran did on fast surfaces. But now the composite players who are adept on medium paced surfaces can dominate them all. As I say, the basis of winning talent has been narrowed by the conditions IMO...notwithstanding that guys like Federer are a case apart in any era. Nadal/Djoko/Murray less so.

The point about these same 4 guys are winning everything is that the similar conditions through the year allow the same 4 guys to win everything. The lack of variety in speed means talent and age relating to innate speed is negated. Better strings and slower surfaces mean ralleys to go on and on. In general players who are the most adept at ralleying on medium pace conditions over long periods will be the best beneficiaries in current conditions. Skills related to quick point-killing are generally not in abundance anymore...I'd like to see a tour that rewards this approach more. Then we would see a greater number of surface winners in my opinion, until then I find the tour rather boring and not unlike a Formula 1 procession.

I am with lydian on this. It is getting boring to see same set of players reaching semis/finals in all the major tournaments. Even if the shocks are happening it ends up as a one-off performance than a ascendancy for a particular player.

I have never been so disinterested about a grand slam than the current US open. May be it is because Nadal is not playing which makes me relax which in turn removes the excitement for me ?!!

I've been writing about this too!

https://www.606v2.com/t34185-the-golden-age-is-just-gold-plate

https://www.606v2.com/t34039-weak-era-or-golden-era

https://www.606v2.com/t33923-the-so-called-golden-age-of-tennis-is-boring-without-rafa

This years US Open has even made me feel nostalgic for recent history.

https://www.606v2.com/t34112-what-matches-will-be-most-memorable-from-this-golden-era

Whoever wins there will be no dramatic story line. Any new winner won't herald a new breakthrough it will come from one of the faces that have been around forever and will not be career changing at this stage. Even a Federer Djokovic final won't guarantee much drama. Federer is at the stage in his career when a slam here or there makes little difference and Djokovic would feel little pain being beaten by Federer. The dramatic live or die story line from the FO this year feels like something from the distant past...

Perhaps this is the Stagnation Era?

The Era of Homogeniety.

lydian wrote:In previous eras you always had talent breaking through young...Borg, Mac, Wilander, Edberg, Chang, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic to name but a few...they all got to top 50 by age 19. Now we only have Tomic and then nothing for 100s of places. If that doesnt sound alarm bells then nothing will.

That is what I have begun to find very depressing over the last 18 months - it's not that it is not exciting watching the top guys, it is the feeling that there is no challenge anywhere on the distant horizon that is so boring.

lydian wrote:Yes but talent cannot break through anymore, thats the problem here

Maybe the top talent is just a little bit too special, so the 'normal' talent has to get better. Maybe we should just appreciate the quality of Tennis we have now, for what it is - pretty darn good

And I don't feel as nostalagic to the likes of Taylor Dent as you do - superior play based on the fact that someone's got a good serve, doesn't make the game better IMHO

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps this is the Staggeringly 3 horse racing Era?

yup

Agree TP...I'd love to see a new challenger to the top guys emerge, or even be seen to be perhaps there in a few years but there's no-one

I don't agree with that banbrotam. Yes the top 4 are great players but top 4 players in the past werent able to dominate in all slams because conditions didnt allow them too. I don't believe these guys are better as a whole vs say Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Edberg. I enjoy watching them but not winning everything...maybe it's just a dearth of other talent out there at the moment. Or maybe new talent can't find a find to break through under current conditions given the paucity of 19 yo's in top 400.

Re: Taylor Dent, it's the S&V approach he brought that I miss...guys that were out and out attackers. We don't have that on tour anymore. Homogeniety has consigned these guys to history in the favour of ralleyers. Again, it's not 1 type of player I like. I'd just like some VARIETY!

banbrotam wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes but talent cannot break through anymore, thats the problem here

Maybe the top talent is just a little bit too special, so the 'normal' talent has to get better. Maybe we should just appreciate the quality of Tennis we have now, for what it is - pretty darn good

And I don't feel as nostalagic to the likes of Taylor Dent as you do - superior play based on the fact that someone's got a good serve, doesn't make the game better IMHO

Here, here big serve tennis is terribly dull in actuality. That is the reason in the first place that they started slowing the courts in the early 2000s. I don't feel like tennis is broken and needs to be drastically overhauled.

If the courts are so similar and homogenised etc.- then why in the last few years has Federer won 7 Grand Slams on grass, but only one on clay.

Yes, the difference in surfaces are less than they used to be- but due to the fact that we have 3(+1) players who are so consistent every-time the idea of all the courts being the same gets drilled into our heads.

Also Lydian if you do find the bigger tournaments a bit too predictable for your liking, then you should follow 250 tournaments. They are normally not so predictable (as long as its not one of those clay ones which Daveed Ferret just picks off in his sleep).

Are these the same 105 sq inch racquets, poly strings, large balls and slow courts that have produced 7 different women's champions in the last 7 slams.

To be honest I think Federer, Djokovic and Murray would dominate across all surfaces in any era, all are extremely gifted ball strikers with well rounded games (Nadal would struggle on hard and grass for sure... because of his style of shot).

I think a large factor is the money. As prize money for the top players has inflated beyond reason, so they can afford training and conditioning beyond the vast majority of the ATP tour. I have read articles and biographies that allude to this fact.

IMBL....clearly not all surfaces are the same and I dont say that.

But they are MORE similar than ever before. Surface tinkering is happening all the time, balls are adjusted and yet the equipment the players use is left untouched. It seems an anathema to me to be adjusted the conditions when racquet tech is moving on. Its like changing the length of golf courses to >600 yeards because the clubs have become too powerful. ATP/ITF have their head in the sand wrt racquet tech. Its just easier to make the surfaces similar. Which destroys what was unique about them in the first place, might as well just DecoTurf the lot of them.

Federer may not have won RG but he's got to the final many times. Likewise Nadal has got to the final of AO, USO outside of winning too. Since when did a Top4 consistently get to all slam semis/finals before? Are we to believe this current top 4 is unique, the best quartet ever? Better than Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Edberg or Mac/Wilander/Lendl/Becker who couldnt do something similar? Is Murray really that good?

I watch 250 events but we're talking about the domination of the top 4 here...who dont play many 250 events. By definition, you will get more variation there...but only due to their absence.

The bigger picture here is that I do not believe the future of the game is in good health. We have 4 dominant guys and no-one (Delpo aside sometimes) who can touch them...Tsonga and Berdych are not getting any younger. Other top10ers have no chance. There are no <24 yos challenging in any shape or form. Nothing on the horizon. Either I'm being overly negative or something is awry...

The point about racquet/strings and slow courts is that they create the type of game we see on the WTA - and where the men's game may be headed. Ralley-fests. In this scenario its mainly the fitter or stronger athletes who get to the finals of the slams. The fitness/strength element makes it hard for younger players to break through, but more so on the mens side where variance in strength/fitness IMO is greater.

This isnt about who is winning specific slams, more that current conditions favour allow those able to dominate to win across all surfaces, i.e. allowing them to get to slam semis/finals consistently as never before. We never used to see men winning all 4 slams before 2009 in modern conditions after slams werent all on grass - just Agassi...now we almost have 3 (Novak's not far away) who will have likely done it in 3-4 years period. Why is that?

On the women's side we see pretty much similar names in semis/finals although yes there is more variation - and yes I believe that is a symptom of how conditions have made their game evolve, i.e. the WTA may be 5 years ahead of the mens game in terms of detriment of talent coming through, or rather able to come through.

The current men's top 4 is largely analogous to the Williams/Henin/Clijsters era in mid2000s - when conditions had already slowed then as well. With those women players having retired (woo-hoo Robson!) or coming to ends of their careers the women's game is now where the men's game may be headed once we have lost the current top 4, i.e. no new shining talent based around hand-skill/point-killing emerging. Unless you call Azarenka, et al, shining new talent? So what I'm postulating is that outside the current domination who learnt the game perhaps when conditions were still quicker across the board, maybe the men's game is going into transition where the WTA has already gone but for the moment dominant players can reach semis/finals of all slams much more easily than before. We have a short-term issue of domination, perhaps followed by a transition to a long-term issue of conditions blunting talent.

In short I'd like to see more variation, that variation allows new talent to emerge - it broadens the basis of talent. Current speed conditions make it hard for new talent to break through. My view is that we may see a 1-dimensional type of player emerge in future once the current 4 have gone, as we have seen more and more on the WTA - and then, yes we may get different winners more and more. This situation is exacerbated by racquet tech.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree and I acknowledge its not a straight forward discussion, many factors are involved. Plus ATP and WTA arent completely analogous due to inherent differences between men's and women's tennis - women's tennis has been baseline dominated for a longer time than the men's side. I'm more than happy to hear opposing theories but my feeling is that the future of the game just doesnt look good and its literally turning me off...or perhaps I need to stick to the 250 events as IMBL says...but that seems to simply reinforce the issue that the 500/1000/2000 events are currently a procession.

No complaints from me about the domination of the top four, except to say that I'm missing Rafa in a way that I did not think possible (I'm not a great fan but I love the challenge he presents to the others).
For UK enthusiasts we have a Brit near the top of the tree. You have Djoko who is a match up (at least he was last season) for Rafa and has had great duels with Fed and Andy. And finally you have Rog enjoying an Indian summer.
Trust me, we'll miss these guys when they're gone. Everyone could then be talking about a dearth of talent at the top and sighing for the days of the Noughties/Teenies big four.
Only really been following the scores somewhat sketchily and have seen little real action, but the USO seems to have served up some terrific matches already, with numerous guys overturning two-set deficits to win. So it's not all doom and gloom.

Oh I agree we'll miss them when they're gone...that kind of is what worries me, i.e. we're headed towards the mix of non-descript ballbashers we see with abundance on the women's tour. But even so, a tour dominated by just 4 guys I'm not sure is good for the game either.

To be honest I hope I'm proved wrong in terms of future dearth of talent but my analysis of emerging 18-21 year olds (below) didnt make for good assessment of where the game is headed.

https://www.606v2.com/t32948-is-the-future-of-the-game-in-jeopardy
+ There are only 7 players aged 21 and under in Top 100 overall ATP rankings
+ Leading 21 yo's are Dimitrov and Goffin. Tomic is nearly 20 now.
+ There are no players under 19 within the top 441 players! (Dominic Thiem, 18, from Austria #442)
+ Contrast that by 18y 7m Nadal/Djoko/Federer/Murray were all ranked #50-75...

Lydian. yes, the lack of youngsters in the higher - or even lower - ranks is a worry.
It's absolutely ages (2008 I think) since a teenager (Cilic?) won a tournament. When you think about the number of tourneys Rafa, Djoko and Andy M won as teenagers, it's quite a contrast.
One thing you could say about this is that the physical nature of the game means guys could get really good much later. Only prob with that is that they may not have that many years at the top due to exhaustion.

Lydian, this is a really interesting thread and I agree with much of what you say.

Where I differ from you is that I really don't see the lack of youngsters breaking through as being related to the conditions. I simply think that likes of Roanic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc are inferior players to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, even when comparing at the same ages.

Sports always moves in cycles and inevitably at some point a "generation" will not be as good as the one preceding it.

Look at the Australian cricket, English rugby, Scottish Football, English middle distance runners, Manchester Utd youth teams, or almost any other sport you can think of.

Top level talent is not a steady stream. A fallow period always comes along sooner or later.

We may even be pressing the panic button a little early with tennis. Murray, Nadal and Djoko are only 25/26 and will be around for a while yet (Nadal injury permitting). There is no reason to assume that Raonic and Co are the generation to replace them. Today's 15 and 16 year olds will be turning 20 as Rafa, Novak & Andy are hitting 30. For all we know, it's that generation that will take over at the top of the tree.

I also think lydian that there is a lack of investment from governing tennis bodies and also governments globally. Look at Rafa, Novak and Andy. Would Rafa have gotten as far as he has without the outlay on tennis coaches? Would have Novak made it had his dad not taken out loans from gangsters? Would have Andy got as far as he has without the LTA funded Gilbert in his early days?

Look at Golding. Won the US Junior last year and hasn't contested a tournament outside of the UK since. The LTA haven't the luxury of coaches they had before. From a financial perspective can Golding afford to travel to tournaments with the pressure of breaking even for the event as well as gaining ranking points? This is an aspect overlooked in such an argument. I think it was Petchey the other day who said that Spain haven't much talent in the junior ranks.

Take Laura Robson. Won Wimbledon juniors 4 years ago and is only in the last 12 months started to progress up the rankings post that success. Same with Watson. Taken 2 years.

Players don't have the luxury of a standard wage as it were or the luxury of massive financial backing. Sponsorships are a premium now.

You coach your child lydian, would you take the massive financial risk of say a loan or risk your property for your child to succeed on the tour as this is what many parents probably ask themselves and we may not even be seeing some real top talent who miss out on the opportunity due to costs.

LK2 - Some good points. Of course with Robson, strict rules about workloads for teenagers prevented her playing that much after the Junior Wimbledon triumph. Also she has suffered injuries. I was fully expecting her to have done more and done it earlier. But I think I'm right in saying she's still the youngest player in the top 100 - and she's moving up, as well.

lydian wrote:+ Contrast that by 18y 7m Nadal/Djoko/Federer/Murray were all ranked #50-75...

There is a counter argument that Sampras/Ivanisevic/Courier/Agassi (to some extent) were beginning to wane, which made room for young guns.

Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero filled such a gap.

The current Top 4 have shown no desire to vacate the Pantheon anytime soon.

There is a specific poster who drummed the 'physical' thing, which is one of the main ingredients of attrition tennis.

HM Murdoch wrote:Lydian, this is a really interesting thread and I agree with much of what you say.

Where I differ from you is that I really don't see the lack of youngsters breaking through as being related to the conditions. I simply think that likes of Roanic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc are inferior players to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, even when comparing at the same ages.

Sports always moves in cycles and inevitably at some point a "generation" will not be as good as the one preceding it.

Look at the Australian cricket, English rugby, Scottish Football, English middle distance runners, Manchester Utd youth teams, or almost any other sport you can think of.

Top level talent is not a steady stream. A fallow period always comes along sooner or later.

We may even be pressing the panic button a little early with tennis. Murray, Nadal and Djoko are only 25/26 and will be around for a while yet (Nadal injury permitting). There is no reason to assume that Raonic and Co are the generation to replace them. Today's 15 and 16 year olds will be turning 20 as Rafa, Novak & Andy are hitting 30. For all we know, it's that generation that will take over at the top of the tree.

I agree on the aspect of Raonic etc, but disagree on the urgency - and these points are connected imo (I don't have a "humble" opinion, as you know ).

Any aspect of the game now is usually formed 5-10 years ago, by the coaching and "sorting" environment. This environment is causing a reduction in SHBH (as a by-product) alongside all the rest.

I believe the situation is beyond urgent, it's already created the situation where in 2014-16 the game will plummet in popularity as Federer and - possibly - Nadal disappear from the game. Djokovic is a lovely player but he doesn't have the popularity, charisma or whatever of those two and it's no fault of his at all, it's just the way things are, and anyway asking him to carry the game on his own is absurd.

It can't be fixed UNLESS they radically and massively change the equipment. It is exactly like Formula 1 when Ferrarri and Schumacher cleaned up for years. Bernie and the crew saw the problem and took action - pity we don't have little Bernie in charge of the ATP!

bogbrush wrote:Bernie and the crew saw the problem and took action - pity we don't have little Bernie in charge of the ATP!

We do have Big Brad though.

BTW, USO courts look very slow. Surprised Wang beat Karlovic.

bogbrush wrote:Any aspect of the game now is usually formed 5-10 years ago, by the coaching and "sorting" environment. This environment is causing a reduction in SHBH (as a by-product) alongside all the rest.

I agree with you on this but I would differentiate between the coaching and the conditions. If the #1 player and 27% of the top 30 have a SHBH, there is no reason to believe the conditions make this technique redundant. If it is being coached out of kids, that is a failure of coaching.

bogbrush wrote:It can't be fixed UNLESS they radically and massively change the equipment. It is exactly like Formula 1 when Ferrarri and Schumacher cleaned up for years. Bernie and the crew saw the problem and took action - pity we don't have little Bernie in charge of the ATP!

I'm mildly surprised to see you air such a view BB; you normally strike me as a survival-of-fittest, anti-interference in the market kind of a chap!

I think my view is maybe a little more nuanced (i.e. wishy washy!) than yours here. The game has obviously reached a tipping point with regard to massive baseline rallies. When technology and fitness begin to make 30+ shot rallies the norm, tennis and the players suffer. Djoko v Nadal at AO12 was a classic in a kind of freak show way but it would be agony if every final was like that.

There are two things I'm not so sure on though:
1) That changing the technology will somehow unshackle this new generation of players who are currently being held back (I don't think this a point you were making but it relates to this thread in general). I believe that the truly talented players will be lurking at the top of the game, whatever the conditions. I see the lack of younger (i.e. aged 18 - 21) players breaking through as being chiefly due to a lack of truly talented younger players.

2) Changing technology would hopefully bring about a greater variety of styles of play. This is undoubtedly a good thing. But if it also brings a greater variety of champions, I'd hesitate to declare this beneficial. I think a sport needs its stars. I personally found the recent run golf has been through, where it had 16 different winners in 16 consecutive majors, made it less interesting. I think it drew larger interest when Tiger was dominating. That's maybe just personal preference though. But I'm sure more kids are drawn to a sport when that sport has stars who dominate the game?

So, in essence, I think I'm in favour of refining the technology rather drastic overhaul. I think the smaller balls idea that is being discussed is a good one. So is smaller and standard racquet head size.

But I also quite like the fact that there is enough similarity in conditions that a good hard court player isn't totally a fish out of water on clay. Yes, maybe conditions are too similar nowadays. But I don't want the sport to recoil too far the other way.

p.s. what do you mean Novak doesn't have charisma?!

Excellent post by Murdoch and I have to concur. I don't see a need for drastic changes. I mean do we need to drastically change and slow down the courts because of one AO final where the two best defensive players play each other on the slowest of all hardcourts? I mean should we change the game because Isner played Mahut for 11 hours in a fifth set that went into the 70s?

Again the proponents of radical change overstate the problems and fail to address adequately what happens when you speed up the conditions do the players who now hold 90 plus percent of the time hold 95 or 100 percent of the time?

As murdoch stated the surfaces need to be fair enough where the cream can rise to top. I don't have any fondness for specialists. I don't want to see some unknown hawaiian grip artist who can't win a match on hardcourt beating the best players in the world because he spends all year just playing on clay. Or some pituitary freak cleaning up in the indoors and on grass because no one can break him, while the rest of his game is mediocre at best. I don't want to favor one trick ponies who train to have an unfair advantage on one surface or another.

And the game does need stars, certainly when Fed leaves and Nadal leaves you just can't replace these types of players. There maybe a retrenchment but other great players always rise up to carry the baton. So I just don't see the need for Fed is leaving, Nadal is leaving doomsday scenarios.

But again this my problem with the radical change proponents. They overstate the problem and understate the side effects of their proposed cure.

socal1976 wrote:Again the proponents of radical change...

Who are the proponents of radical change?

BB is calling for radical change did you not read his post. Banning technology, shrinking the balls, and tweaking the surfaces in my mind would constitute radical change.

I believe the situation is beyond urgent, it's already created the situation where in 2014-16 the game will plummet in popularity as Federer and - possibly - Nadal disappear from the game. Djokovic is a lovely player but he doesn't have the popularity, charisma or whatever of those two and it's no fault of his at all, it's just the way things are, and anyway asking him to carry the game on his own is absurd.

It can't be fixed UNLESS they radically and massively change the equipment. It is exactly like Formula 1 when Ferrarri and Schumacher cleaned up for years. Bernie and the crew saw the problem and took action - pity we don't have little Bernie in charge of the ATP!.

HE USES THE SPECIFIC WORDS RADICAL CHANGE THAT IS WHO.

It wasn't dull just a short time ago and the conditions were the same as today so it's not the conditions. IMO the only time when conditions contributed to dullness in mens tennis was in the boring snooze fest 90's Zzzzz. But that was fixed.

socal1976 wrote:BB is calling for radical change did you not read his post. Banning technology, shrinking the balls, and tweaking the surfaces in my mind would constitute radical change.

I believe the situation is beyond urgent, it's already created the situation where in 2014-16 the game will plummet in popularity as Federer and - possibly - Nadal disappear from the game. Djokovic is a lovely player but he doesn't have the popularity, charisma or whatever of those two and it's no fault of his at all, it's just the way things are, and anyway asking him to carry the game on his own is absurd.

It can't be fixed UNLESS they radically and massively change the equipment. It is exactly like Formula 1 when Ferrarri and Schumacher cleaned up for years. Bernie and the crew saw the problem and took action - pity we don't have little Bernie in charge of the ATP!.

HE USES THE SPECIFIC WORDS RADICAL CHANGE THAT IS WHO.

A radical change to the equipment doesn't require any changes to the courts. I would be radical to the racquets, which would mean no return to your dreaded 1990's borefests. It would just alter the balance of power away from hackers towards great timing, away from defenders towards attackers, and away from attrition towards hitting winners.

To HM Murdoch, my free-market approach applies here; tennis is an entirely contrived game (unlike a sport like running) which is a creation of rules. Manipulating those rules to rescue the game from what I believe will be complete tedium is a sensible reaction to anticipated customer dissatisfaction.

Oh, and regarding Novaks charisma; have you really looked at that hairstyle?

socal1976 wrote:BB is calling for radical change did you not read his post.

You want me to read BB's posts?