Why No Young Slam Contenders?

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:12 am

There is a resurfacing of the criticism of lack of youngsters in contention in the latter stages of slams and many theories abound. Of course many may very well be correct in saying they aren't up to standards of old but I have a different theory.

It is widely accepted that tennis has changed in the last decade or so what with a more homogenised set of surfaces and when Nadal came on the scene he pushed the physical barriers to a new level that other young players at that time such as Djokovic and Murray eventually got around to matching (or nearly). In short the sport now is far more physical because of the homogenised surfaces elongating rallies. Now talent does go a long long way without doubt but if you lack the supreme fitness you haven't got a prayer of breaking into the big time. To reach the supreme fitness it takes years of muscle and stamina building and unless youngsters spot that at an early age and act on it then they'll learn their lesson the hard way. There are a good crop of youngsters out there as Kyrgios has already beaten Nadal and Federer and Coric has beaten Murray but my theory is to crack the big time and compete at slams you need great fitness levels especially if you draw fitness maters Nadal, Djokovic or Murray and the youngsters just aren't quite there yet. Also lets remember how rich the top of the game is now in talent. The top players in the world such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be remembered as all-time greats so to expect youngsters to topple them when they are still playing at a high level is fanciful. I mean in ten years time isn't it expecting too much for Kyrgios, Dimitrov et al to usurp Federerm Djokovic and Nadal for achievements? After all legends are so very hard to replace.

by bogbrush Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:21 am

This stands up until we look at the rankings and see that the #2 is virtually 34 and widely recognised as being very vulnerable in or after long matches. That's not a conditioning edge.

We have to look to other reasons for youth to be unable to usurp the older players than conditioning.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:29 am

bogbrush wrote:This stands up until we look at the rankings and see that the #2 is virtually 34 and widely recognised as being very vulnerable in or after long matches. That's not a conditioning edge.

We have to look to other reasons for youth to be unable to usurp the older players than conditioning.

Yes BB but Fed is a freak as his records show so is it really so eye-opening that he is still right up there at his age?

Conditioning plays a big part for me but as I said the blokes at the top now (Murray aside) will retire as legends of the game so to expect today's youngsters to be able to usurp them when I can't see the same legend-like status awaiting them is unrealistic is it not?

by dummy_half Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:30 am

Craig

The weakness of that argument is apparent when you look at the age that Djokovic and Murray were when they broke through to being really competitive at the top of the game - the surface (relative) homogenisation had happened before they came through, but they showed that being excellent shot-makers and movers can take you a long way even if you don't have the edge in absolute fitness that Rafa had.

I'd argue that Federer has never been (and never tried to be, perhaps because he's seen what it has meant in terms of injuries) as super-fit as the other 3 yet he has remained competitive well into the twilight of his career - last year he almost added another Wimbledon title. Now, you can make an argument that it was Djokovic's superior fitness that saw him win out in the end, but the consensus seemed to be that both played very well that match and Novak was just a bit better and more consistent.

OK, maybe it is difficult for the following generation to get the better of Fedalovicurray - three all time greats and one very good, but they have also failed to match the likes of Ferrer (very fit, but relatively limited game), Berdych (big hitter but not as super-fit) or Wawrinka (streaky shot maker).

My case has never been that the 20 year olds aren't competitive - historically, it has only been the truly outstanding ones who have been, but that the current 25 year olds (+/- 2 years) have not done better. You'd expect them to at least dominate the lower part of the top 10 if they were good. OK, Del Potro is a big miss from that generation, but only really Nishi has impressed me - Raonic still has too many limitations to be anything other than a serve monster, while Dimitrov has the shot making ability, moves reasonably well but lacks a bit in the space between the ears.

by HM Murdock Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:34 am

Craig, I agree in part but my view is rather different.

I agree that the similarity in surface assists the top players to stay at the top.

The fitness argument, I'm on only partially convinced by. Rafa, Novak and Andy are clearly outliers in terms of fitness and if a match becomes a war of attrition, it tips in their favour.

The problem with the theory is that I don't see them beating the younger players by attrition. It's more commonly normal length matches and normal length rallies. The telling factors do not strike me as being legs and lungs but rather skill, tactics and temperament.

It also doesn't explain why players like Berdych, hardly a fitness merchant, are yet to be displaced.

Your closing sentences align more closely to my view.

Every generation, apart perhaps from the Sampras-Federer interregnum, has produced "all time great" players.

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. The years pass, they keep on coming.

But then they stopped coming. And it's not just about big titles. The games of Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov et al do not approach greatness.

Greatness has hibernated for a generation.

I have mild hope for Kyrgios, Kokkinakis and, to a lesser extent, Coric. They appear to have enough inert "talent" to be capable of doing great things.

The question is do they have the work ethic and focus of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? Those three players have a healthy dose of talent but are single-mindedly relentless at working hard to improve.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:37 am

dummy_half wrote:Craig

The weakness of that argument is apparent when you look at the age that Djokovic and Murray were when they broke through to being really competitive at the top of the game - the surface (relative) homogenisation had happened before they came through, but they showed that being excellent shot-makers and movers can take you a long way even if you don't have the edge in absolute fitness that Rafa had.

I'd argue that Federer has never been (and never tried to be, perhaps because he's seen what it has meant in terms of injuries) as super-fit as the other 3 yet he has remained competitive well into the twilight of his career - last year he almost added another Wimbledon title. Now, you can make an argument that it was Djokovic's superior fitness that saw him win out in the end, but the consensus seemed to be that both played very well that match and Novak was just a bit better and more consistent.

OK, maybe it is difficult for the following generation to get the better of Fedalovicurray - three all time greats and one very good, but they have also failed to match the likes of Ferrer (very fit, but relatively limited game), Berdych (big hitter but not as super-fit) or Wawrinka (streaky shot maker).

My case has never been that the 20 year olds aren't competitive - historically, it has only been the truly outstanding ones who have been, but that the current 25 year olds (+/- 2 years) have not done better. You'd expect them to at least dominate the lower part of the top 10 if they were good. OK, Del Potro is a big miss from that generation, but only really Nishi has impressed me - Raonic still has too many limitations to be anything other than a serve monster, while Dimitrov has the shot making ability, moves reasonably well but lacks a bit in the space between the ears.

I am not arguing that the youngsters may not be good enough but to compete in the here and now talent alone will not get the job done. Remember that those at the top of the sport will retire as legends so perhaps to expect youngsters to be competing just now is asking too much?

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:44 am

HM Murdoch wrote:Craig, I agree in part but my view is rather different.

I agree that the similarity in surface assists the top players to stay at the top.

The fitness argument, I'm on only partially convinced by. Rafa, Novak and Andy are clearly outliers in terms of fitness and if a match becomes a war of attrition, it tips in their favour.

The problem with the theory is that I don't see them beating the younger players by attrition. It's more commonly normal length matches and normal length rallies. The telling factors do not strike me as being legs and lungs but rather skill, tactics and temperament.

It also doesn't explain why players like Berdych, hardly a fitness merchant, are yet to be displaced.

Your closing sentences align more closely to my view.

Every generation, apart perhaps from the Sampras-Federer interregnum, has produced "all time great" players.

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. The years pass, they keep on coming.

But then they stopped coming. And it's not just about big titles. The games of Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov et al do not approach greatness.

Greatness has hibernated for a generation.

I have mild hope for Kyrgios, Kokkinakis and, to a lesser extent, Coric. They appear to have enough inert "talent" to be capable of doing great things.

The question is do they have the work ethic and focus of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? Those three players have a healthy dose of talent but are single-mindedly relentless at working hard to improve.

Good post. It does depend a lot on what you will call all-time great players though. It is certainly not inconceivable that once the current top players have retired then you will get Kyrgios or Dimitrov becoming a multi-slam winner who will improve with age and force into that great list of players. I don't think so but it is a possibility as someone has to win the slams.

by HM Murdock Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:46 am

I'll add another tangential factor into the mix - charisma.

I'm not really a fan of the 'Big 4' label but one thing I will say is that they have four distinct and charismatic personalities.

You may not necessarily like them but they elicit a response, ranging from love to hate, from the viewing public. There's something about them.

Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov. Nice guys but hardly compelling characters.

But when we jump to Kyrgios, Kokkinakis and Coric, we have interesting characters again. A little bit of ego, a little bit of needle, a little bit of humour. Tennis is more interesting for them.

I think it's not a coincidence that so many of the great players have strong personalities. Even the understated ones like Borg and Edberg were understated in a 'cool' way. Borg's lack of expressiveness was interesting. Raonic's is dull.

(Sampras is the exception to this. Fabulous player but a very dull man.)

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:50 am

young Croatian player, Ana Konjuh:

"Tennis itself is becoming the least impirtant thing in tennis - fitness is the main thing, how well you are prepared, how long you can last; 10 years ago , different tennis was played compared to today's.

Mental approach is very important, you must have a good "head"'- look at top 10, nobody is "crazy", everyone's thinking "tennis, tennis and only tennis".

You need to be calm and know exactly what you want to do, then work hard to achieve it."

by sirfredperry Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:56 am

I think there should be more concern about the mid-20 age range not challenging the big four rather than the 18-22 group. Yes, Nishi and Cilic ruled the roost at the USO last year and Raonic can be handful.
But the big four are still dominating the big events (just look at the monopoly of the 1,000-pointer tournaments). I wonder, though, whether Murray, Rafa and Djoko will be able to emulate Fed by staying highly-ranked well into their 30s.

by HM Murdock Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:57 am

LuvSports! wrote:young Croatian player, Ana Konjuh:

"Tennis itself is becoming the least impirtant thing in tennis - fitness is the main thing, how well you are prepared, how long you can last; 10 years ago , different tennis was played compared to today's.

Mental approach is very important, you must have a good "head"'- look at top 10, nobody is "crazy", everyone's thinking "tennis, tennis and only tennis".

You need to be calm and know exactly what you want to do, then work hard to achieve it."

I disagree that fitness is the most important thing (hence David Ferrer's slam tally) but it's not controversial or shocking that fitness and mental strength are vital assets in a one-on-one athletic sport.

by dummy_half Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:01 am

LS

I actually think the 2nd and 3rd points are more significant than is often made out. Mentality / mental strength / competitiveness (call it what you will) still separates out the likes of Nadal, Sharapova or Williams from others who may have as much inherent 'ability'.

Focus is important as well - know your goals and how to get to them. Something Murray has been very good at, even if some of us have criticised on occasion that his focus on becoming uber-fit has compromised some of the more interesting aspects of his 'natural' game.

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:08 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:young Croatian player, Ana Konjuh:

"Tennis itself is becoming the least impirtant thing in tennis - fitness is the main thing, how well you are prepared, how long you can last; 10 years ago , different tennis was played compared to today's.

Mental approach is very important, you must have a good "head"'- look at top 10, nobody is "crazy", everyone's thinking "tennis, tennis and only tennis".

You need to be calm and know exactly what you want to do, then work hard to achieve it."
I disagree that fitness is the most important thing (hence David Ferrer's slam tally) but it's not controversial or shocking that fitness and mental strength are vital assets in a one-on-one athletic sport.

But she's a pro tennis player and experiencing it first hand no?

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:09 am

dummy_half wrote:LS

I actually think the 2nd and 3rd points are more significant than is often made out. Mentality / mental strength / competitiveness (call it what you will) still separates out the likes of Nadal, Sharapova or Williams from others who may have as much inherent 'ability'.

Focus is important as well - know your goals and how to get to them. Something Murray has been very good at, even if some of us have criticised on occasion that his focus on becoming uber-fit has compromised some of the more interesting aspects of his 'natural' game.

Knowing that you are fitter and able to retrieve a lot more balls boosts your mental strength.
The opponent has to take more risks, go for broke even and that is very tough and can cause you too choke.

I think having great fitness and defence massively enhances your mental strength.

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:13 am

LuvSports! wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:young Croatian player, Ana Konjuh:

"Tennis itself is becoming the least impirtant thing in tennis - fitness is the main thing, how well you are prepared, how long you can last; 10 years ago , different tennis was played compared to today's.

Mental approach is very important, you must have a good "head"'- look at top 10, nobody is "crazy", everyone's thinking "tennis, tennis and only tennis".

You need to be calm and know exactly what you want to do, then work hard to achieve it."
I disagree that fitness is the most important thing (hence David Ferrer's slam tally) but it's not controversial or shocking that fitness and mental strength are vital assets in a one-on-one athletic sport.

But she's a pro tennis player and experiencing it first hand no?

Also Ferrer is 5'9. That's a huge disadvantage. He's done great for his height.

by HM Murdock Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:21 am

LuvSports! wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:young Croatian player, Ana Konjuh:

"Tennis itself is becoming the least impirtant thing in tennis - fitness is the main thing, how well you are prepared, how long you can last; 10 years ago , different tennis was played compared to today's.

Mental approach is very important, you must have a good "head"'- look at top 10, nobody is "crazy", everyone's thinking "tennis, tennis and only tennis".

You need to be calm and know exactly what you want to do, then work hard to achieve it."
I disagree that fitness is the most important thing (hence David Ferrer's slam tally) but it's not controversial or shocking that fitness and mental strength are vital assets in a one-on-one athletic sport.

But she's a pro tennis player and experiencing it first hand no?

I'd like to know which big titles she thinks are being won by players based predominantly on fitness.

I also wouldn't necessarily view the opinion of a 17 year old who turned pro last year as being the final word on how much tennis has changed in the last decade! Wink

by HM Murdock Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:25 am

LuvSports! wrote:Also Ferrer is 5'9. That's a huge disadvantage. He's done great for his height.

Do you see Ferrer as a multi slam winner if he were taller?

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Jun 2015, 11:45 am

No but it certainly would have helped. He would have more purchase on his shots and cover the court even quicker most likely. Improved serve, return and groundies.

by Henman Bill Tue 02 Jun 2015, 12:36 pm

The fitness argument for lack of young success does rely on a logic that players in their early 30s (Federer, Ferrer) are logically going to be fitter than players in their early 20s (the current youngsters who are not breaking through). This may not stand up to comparison with other sports or thorough analysis.

It's not as if Nishikori, Tomic, Raonic are playing the big 4 off the court for a set and a half and then tiring. The big 4 are strong in all areas including mental, talent, tactics as well as fitness.

Fitness is just one part of the equation.

by Henman Bill Tue 02 Jun 2015, 12:45 pm

Djokovic (28) v Nadal (29)
Murray (28) v Ferrer (33)
Nishikori (25) v Tsonga (30)
Wawrinka (30) v Federer (33)

* Nadal turns 29 tomorrow, June 3rd, on the day of the match.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:28 pm

The point is though that to expect a teenager to break on the scene who is not muscled-up and has not gone through an ultra-rigorous fitness programme just isn't going to happen in this day and age. Supreme fitness is not the be all and end all but it sure helps to turn close defeats into narrow wins by having the ability to recover from lengthy points quickly mid-match etc which in turn extends runs in tournaments, improves ranking which in turn improves your draws and helps development greatly.

As for why Ferrer, Berdych and Nishikori are not being displaced by them well these blokes are all still excellent players. Granted in comparison to the Federer, Djokovic and Nadals of this world they may not look it but again they are on a different plateau and will retire from the game as legends.

by bogbrush Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:34 pm

Ferrer and Berdych are legends? You must be kidding! I know the word has been cheapened in recent times but if they're going into that pot we will new words for others.

I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:34 pm

bogbrush wrote:Ferrer and Berdych are legends? You must be kidding! I know the word has been cheapened in recent times but if they're going into that pot we will new words for others.

I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating.

What I mean (don't wish to edit it now) is that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will retire as legends but Ferrer, Nishikori and Berdych are excellent players and am sure would have been multiple slam winners without the current top players not around.

by bogbrush Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:35 pm

Henman Bill wrote:The fitness argument for lack of young success does rely on a logic that players in their early 30s (Federer, Ferrer) are logically going to be fitter than players in their early 20s (the current youngsters who are not breaking through). This may not stand up to comparison with other sports or thorough analysis.

It's not as if Nishikori, Tomic, Raonic are playing the big 4 off the court for a set and a half and then tiring. The big 4 are strong in all areas including mental, talent, tactics as well as fitness.

Fitness is just one part of the equation.

This statement alone should be enough to kill the conditioning argument.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:39 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:The fitness argument for lack of young success does rely on a logic that players in their early 30s (Federer, Ferrer) are logically going to be fitter than players in their early 20s (the current youngsters who are not breaking through). This may not stand up to comparison with other sports or thorough analysis.

It's not as if Nishikori, Tomic, Raonic are playing the big 4 off the court for a set and a half and then tiring. The big 4 are strong in all areas including mental, talent, tactics as well as fitness.

Fitness is just one part of the equation.
This statement alone should be enough to kill the conditioning argument.

I do think I said that it is quite possible the current crop of youngsters aren't that great but that may be down to more the standard of player they are striving to replace. I mean if we cut to the school of youngsters of say 1999 how many of them went on to be legends of the game?

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:51 pm

Bartoli talking about the crucial importance of fitness

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 2:53 pm

Fitness of the kind Rafa, Novak and Andy have is necessary. Was it really that way say 15 years ago? I'd say no it wasn't so you could get a scrawny talented teenager shaking things up (if they had the talent of course) and then the fitness naturally came along later.

by Henman Bill Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:10 pm

When you're talking about an 18 year old not breaking through because of fitness, I can buy that, but when you don't even have any 20-24 year olds in the top ten, then something else must surely be at work.

by Henman Bill Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:14 pm

One argument is that the rewards are too heavily towards the top players, you know ranked #3 earning $20 million a year while ranked #150 earning $150,000 a year and spending say half that on expenses. Some youngsters may go through a tough phase around 15-18 or so and make other career choices, when they could have broken through.

Even if you make say $75,000 a year that is a good salary, but you have to factor in that it all goes out the window if you get injured, and then you are back to career square one at the age of say 33, potentially having to compete with graduates ten years younger to start out in some new profession.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 02 Jun 2015, 10:14 pm

Henman Bill wrote:When you're talking about an 18 year old not breaking through because of fitness, I can buy that, but when you don't even have any 20-24 year olds in the top ten, then something else must surely be at work.

Oh don't get me wrong I am not saying the youngsters of today are destined for greatness but it may be down to a combination of A. A more physical time for tennis which we are in B. The top players are just so good C. The youngsters (teenagers) are not good enough.

Like I said earlier you do get spells of lean periods of youngsters coming through such as the late 1990's. I can only recall Federer making the grade from that class.

by MMT1 Wed 03 Jun 2015, 6:24 pm

I think the issue with young contenders has less to do with the big 4 and more to do with a few non-technical issues. Prior to 2002, only 16 players were seeded at the majors, but since then there have been 32 seeds. A seeded player avoids other seeded players and is more likely to remain longer in the draw, which is great for seeded players, but less so for young unseeded players to sneak their way through a hole in the draw. Also, since 2003 (I believe) there has been required participation of top players at the Masters 1000s (in draws relatively smaller than the majors), meaning it's harder to avoid seeded players, and in turn harder to earn the points needed to be seeded at the majors. Also, because top players play all the Masters 1000s, mid tier players (ranked 10-50) are more likely to gain an advantage over other mid-tier players at the 250s and 500s, again making it harder for a young unseeded player to build the points needed to be seeded at the majors.

I understand the tendency to base this change on the evolution of the game either technically or physically, but I think the answer is changes to how the majors and the ATP tour rank and seed players, and frankly force players to play more often (both directly and indirectly). This is one of the reasons why I am quite certain there is rampant doping in tennis, because the amount they play, is way too much for so many players to have so much success into their 30s - particularly untalented players who seem to persist strictly from "hard work".

by temporary21 Wed 03 Jun 2015, 6:26 pm

When you look at the level Novak and the other top ten are pushing. It's no wonder there aren't any. It's all in head and young players struggle there moreso

by slashermcguirk Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:17 am

I genuinely believe that the reason why the younger crop are not breaking through is simply down to two factors.

1) They are up against 3 of the greatest players that have ever lived who have shown remarkable consistency. You can also throw in Murray who is a class above the others and is a superb tennis player. After that you have the likes of Ferrer, Berdych and Wawrinka who are very experienced and excellent players in their own right. The top 4 also have an aura about them and the younger players must definitely feel that, they have been growing up watching these guys dominate the tour and that has to play on your mind when you see them in the draw.

2) The fitness levels of the top 4 and the likes of Ferrer are out of this world. Younger players often have the talent but are not used to competing over 5 sets at such high intensity. The slams are the only events along with Davis cup that are played over best of 5 sets. As a result the younger players don't have the stamina. Look at the problems that Murray and Djokovic had in their early years, they overcame this through determination and really hard work, which coupled with their amazing talent and mental strength enabled them to break through.

The fact is that regardless of all this weak era nonsense, this current generation are extremely good and they are so fit. It really doesn't surprise me at all that the younger guns have struggled through, they are really up against it with the top players. Don't underestimate how intimidating it must be trying to break through that current top 3 or 4 players, they have achieved more than most can ever dream of and to break through that takes remarkable talent, mental strength, fitness and consistency. These traits combined are possessed by very few, they just happen to be playing at the same time, ie Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray.

Before you had Sampras and Agassi, then you had becker and Edberg, wilander and lendl, borg and McEnroe / Connors etc.

They all dominated but just in some cases not for as long a period of time and cross surfaces.

by bogbrush Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:26 am

Fitness again?

That only stands up if the young guys are doing great until late in the 2nd set.

As for the top 3 being amazing, Federer is over the hill and Nadal has disappeared from the top 10.

by slashermcguirk Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:31 am

Bogbrush, you clearly don't appreciate just how good the likes of Federer and Nadal still are at the game of tennis. Just because they are performing lower than at their peak, they are still phenomenal players. Federer only recently beat Djokovic in Dubai and we know how good Djokovic is this year. Also, did you see his level against Novak in the Wimbledon final last year??

Just because these players are not at their peak doesn't mean they are not still brilliant players. If you think they have suddenly become very average players, you need to go and watch them play. Nadal's level has clearly dropped this year but he is still a force to be reckoned with and I wouldn't bet against him coming back strong again.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:33 am

bogbrush wrote:Fitness again?

That only stands up if the young guys are doing great until late in the 2nd set.

Or if winning big against top players then losing their next matches a la Kyrgios after beating Nadal X 2 and Federer and Raonic on beating Murray. Again not saying it may be because the current crop aren't destined for greatness but the class of 99 was thin on the ground as well was it not? I only recall Federer of that era really making it so you can get lean spells of top notch players breaking through and this may be another one or may be a case where you wait until Novak et al have hung up their racquets before they break into slam-winning category.

by bogbrush Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:35 am

I'm just saying it's not fitness, and Nadal now isn't one of the ten best players on the planet.

by temporary21 Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:39 am

He still is in the race. His results are as good as berdychs. Point is fed and Nadal have earned more credit than that. The young guys are too soft mentally until they get older to beat them

by bogbrush Thu 04 Jun 2015, 11:44 am

The race is balls, the ranking is a year and decides what's what. In any case I'm only making the point that 2 of the alleged big 3 are not anything like what they were.

by Born Slippy Thu 04 Jun 2015, 12:10 pm

In my view its a combination of there having been no significant technological advancements in tennis for 10-15 years. The old guard are therefore not having to adapt - meaning the fact youngsters adapt quicker is of no assistance. Its also the fact the older players generally are staying healthier for longer and playing for longer.

If there is no significant physical or technical advantage to the youngsters, then the older players' experience will usually give them the edge.

by slashermcguirk Thu 04 Jun 2015, 12:18 pm

Wawrinka vs Tsonga up first on chatrier tomorrow. Delighted to hear that, at least gives a better chance of catching some of the Djokovic vs Murray match after work tomorrow Smile

by temporary21 Thu 04 Jun 2015, 12:24 pm

Great for Tsonga too. No chance of a flat crowd

by LuvSports! Thu 04 Jun 2015, 12:29 pm

temporary21 wrote:He still is in the race. His results are as good as berdychs. Point is fed and Nadal have earned more credit than that. The young guys are too soft mentally until they get older to beat them

Rank, Name & Nationality	Points	Week Change	Tourn Played
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)	6,385	0	8
2 Murray, Andy (GBR)	3,760	0	9
3 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)	3,030	0	10
4 Ferrer, David (ESP)	2,555	0	10
5 Federer, Roger (SUI)	2,465	0	9
6 Nishikori, Kei (JPN)	2,390	0	10
7 Wawrinka, Stan (SUI)	2,230	1	11
8 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)	2,200	-1	10
9 Raonic, Milos (CAN)	1,540	0	10
10 Monfils, Gael (FRA)	1,075	0	11

by HM Murdock Thu 04 Jun 2015, 12:50 pm

slashermcguirk wrote:Wawrinka vs Tsonga up first on chatrier tomorrow. Delighted to hear that, at least gives a better chance of catching some of the Djokovic vs Murray match after work tomorrow

Djokovic v Murray.
On the slowest surface.
Scheduled 2nd.
Rain forecast.

They won't have enough time to finish!

by Henman Bill Thu 04 Jun 2015, 3:11 pm

This argument about how the youngsters are blocked off by the big 3 (or 4) is being overstated for me because it's not as if the youngsters are even ahead of the likes of Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer.

Forget about the big 3 for a minute the question is why are their no youngsters even outranking Tsonga, Berdych, Stan, and Ferrer.

OK you have Nishikori, who's what 24/25, but he's only one, and does he even count as a youngster.

Raonic, Dimitrov are also not exactly teenagers, and overall their performance so far is a little below the likes of the 4 stalwarts mentioned above.

by slashermcguirk Thu 04 Jun 2015, 3:38 pm

Forecast to be 32 degrees in Paris tomorrow, going to be tough going for the mens semi finals!

As for the rain, surely not...............that is a speciality for Wimbledon. Thank God they have a roof at Wimbledon these days, seems to rain every 2nd day in London

by MMT1 Thu 04 Jun 2015, 4:51 pm

Henman Bill wrote:This argument about how the youngsters are blocked off by the big 3 (or 4) is being overstated for me because it's not as if the youngsters are even ahead of the likes of Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer.

Forget about the big 3 for a minute the question is why are their no youngsters even outranking Tsonga, Berdych, Stan, and Ferrer.

This is an excellent point - young players have to get through the field to contend at majors - there are actually a surprising number of wins and/or very competitive matches by younger players against the big 4 (in various tournaments, not just the majors) but the problem for them is that they can't put it together consistently against the field, and this is where I think the advantage has been tipped in favor of second tier players with the seeding and required tournaments. Without that, they would be exposed more readily by lower ranked players as was the case in the past. To say that the game is more competitive is a given, but there have been ebbs and flows of periods where younger players are doing better en masse.

One thing that helped America's last golden generation on the men's side was the explosion of the money in the men's game and changes in racquet technology that allowed them to build their rankings against the older generation of players that is more difficult now. There were no required tournaments in the 80's, so the younger players could pick and choose smaller tournaments with few top players to compete and build their ranking. Then when it came time to face the top players in the majors, their ranking/seeding facilitated their progression. Chang, Courier, Agassi and Sampras were all 20 years old or younger, but seeded, when they reached their first major finals.
The problem is that today, the leap in points from the tournaments where young players can compete now is so big that they get very little help from the challengers and futures to facilitate their progression through bigger tournaments - in other words the hill is steeper due to changes in the tour, rather than technical or physical changes in the game itself.

by Sponsored content