The Young Guns

by noleisthebest Mon May 20, 2013 11:06 pm

I thought we could have a breather from the heated and ever fervent Fedal debate here and have a look at the new generation of players as well as tennis they play.

I have come up with my own list (in no particular order), please feel free to add any players you have "discovered" or think belong here:

1) Milos Raonic, 22. Big serve, big forehand and.....not much else. Heavy frame that prevents him from playing base-line game he has been trying to incorporate into his original attacking style he made the breakthrough with. A bit of everything that did not bring any improvement either in his game or ranking.
Known for big-time choking when serving does not go his way. Split with his long-term coach last week and roumor has it, he is hiring Ivan Ljubicic. Big crossroads ahead for Milos.

2) Bernard Tomic, 20 . Very talented ball-striker, again, also very tall, plenty of effortless, easy power, questionable footwork and work ethics. Big serve, likes to use backhand slice and variety do disturb opponent's rhythm. Seems to be able to play well only in Australia. Currently going through tough times with his abusive father who is due to appear in court over breaking Bernard's hitting partner's nose for refusing to go and buy him a carton of milk. Father/coach banned from the tour atm.

3) Grigor Dimitrov, 22 , Again, another tall player, but this time with a single backhand which has earnt him the nickname Baby Federer he is now trying to shake off (about time, I say!). Like Raonic, Gigor has also adapted his original attacking game to base-line tennis, and being a lot lighter, is better at it than Raonic. Grigor plays with a lot of belief and that is his big weapon. He can do a lot with the ball but needs to hone his game and not scamble so much. He has the tools to cut out defence and increase attacking.

4) Jerzy Janowicz, 22 , not just tall, but super-tall (2.m 4 cm) which you wouldn't tell by his agile movement. Much better than Raonic in that department. No frills, simple attacking game centered on his very powerful serve. JJ is a complete player with lots of raw power but also light touch and good volleying, he is not a 1D giraffe a-la Isner. A player nobody wants to see in their draw in Wimbledon.

5) Benoit Pare, 24 , Tall player also with very good movement for the height, superb first serve and backhand. Tons of flair and very creative tennis. Good volleyer, as well. One to watch in RG.

6) Richard Berankis, 22 , finally someone not tall at all, but maybe that is the reason he has been suffering with results. Berankis is a great ball-striker and plays exciting, attacking tennis when he is on. He had a great start this year, but due to ranking struggling through qualifying, often losing in very tight matches. Currently playing in Nice, so a chance to see him there.

So, it's not all doom and gloom. Young players are coming and they are playing decent tennis.
Which one will win a slam first?

by Tenez Mon May 20, 2013 11:34 pm

Good post NITB....not sure about Paire there though but I am not entirely surprised you put him there. Winking

by noleisthebest Mon May 20, 2013 11:35 pm

Tenez wrote:Good post NITB....not sure about Paire there though but I am not entirely surprised you put him there.

Why not

?

by Tenez Mon May 20, 2013 11:56 pm

not sure 24 can be considered youngsters anymore.

by noleisthebest Tue May 21, 2013 12:07 am

Tenez wrote:not sure 24 can be considered youngsters anymore.

you'll send me to my early tennis grave one of these days....

by luvsports! Tue May 21, 2013 12:09 am

Good post nitb.

No goffin? Harrisons?

by noleisthebest Tue May 21, 2013 12:14 am

luvsports! wrote:Good post nitb.

No goffin? Harrisons?

well, I did say you could add "your" players...was just trying to type it out fast, so knew I would forget some. Harrison seems to be nowhere right now.
Did you know that his dad who was coaching him, beat him at some tournament when Ryan was 11 and really went for him, like he had to prove something....there was an anecdote associated with it, but I can't remember it now. Will try to dig it out later.
What do you make of those two, then?

by wilson_nxt Tue May 21, 2013 12:15 am

Goffin lost 4MPs to comeback Monfils at Bordeaux Challenger last week. Ouch.
He'll drop to 90 if loses R1 at RG. Needs to do well in Dusseldorf this week.

What happened to young Serbian Filip Krajinovic?

by noleisthebest Tue May 21, 2013 12:22 am

Filip has been suffering from a serious knee injury for a long time and has been struggling to come back ever since.
Shame as he was a big promise and a decent talent.

I don't expect much, he is a late physical developer as well, so that is an additional obstacle for him in this cut-throat physical era we are witnessing.

All young players are struggling with that side of tour, those carrying serious injuries even more. I can't imagine him pushing a raw knee thorough gruelling fitness regimes...

Maybe if he was born in a different era and played in the 80s or 90s....

by BlueClay Thu May 23, 2013 3:45 am

Tenez wrote:not sure 24 can be considered youngsters anymore.

It is not young any longer in tennis. This group of youngsters needs to start doing something soon because right now they all seem like nothing special. I like Dimitrov's style but he can't seem to get anything going.

by Tenez Thu May 23, 2013 10:10 am

The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

by BlueClay Thu May 23, 2013 7:08 pm

Tenez wrote:The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

I disagree 100% with that comment. 19 year old Nadal was beating Federer on fast hc and Murray and Djokovic were beating big players as well as that age. You cannot compare today's young guns to a young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, the latter were much better. Federer at 19 was a million times better than these young guys today. We have to face facts, so far these young guys have been a big disappointment. They may finally get hot and win a future slam here and there but none of these guys are going to be Federer/Nadal's.

by noleisthebest Thu May 23, 2013 7:16 pm

BlueClay wrote:
Tenez wrote:The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

I disagree 100% with that comment. 19 year old Nadal was beating Federer on fast hc and Murray and Djokovic were beating big players as well as that age. You cannot compare today's young guns to a young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, the latter were much better. Federer at 19 was a million times better than these young guys today. We have to face facts, so far these young guys have been a big disappointment. They may finally get hot and win a future slam here and there but none of these guys are going to be Federer/Nadal's.

The question is, would a 2005 year old Nadal beat his 2013 self at RG?
Same goes for Nole and Murray (say,2007 edition of both)
With Federer it gets a bit more complicated.

by Tenez Thu May 23, 2013 8:08 pm

BlueClay wrote:
Tenez wrote:The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

I disagree 100% with that comment. 19 year old Nadal was beating Federer on fast hc and Murray and Djokovic were beating big players as well as that age. You cannot compare today's young guns to a young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, the latter were much better. Federer at 19 was a million times better than these young guys today. We have to face facts, so far these young guys have been a big disappointment. They may finally get hot and win a future slam here and there but none of these guys are going to be Federer/Nadal's.

Well clearly you have not seen Nadal and Djoko play in 2005/6 etc... Even Federer improved quite a bit from 2007 to 2010. When I say improved, I mean essentially adapted to the dramatic change of game due to slower conds.

Nadal played much better in 2008 than in 2006 and even much better in 2010, 11 and 12. They have constantly raised the bar, the physical and technical bar. ...And yet you have an 21 yo taking a set of mature Nadal on clay et you have him beating Nole on clay...something Nadal could not do a week before.

You will be another one very surprised when those guy mature cause what they lack for now is fitness but shot wise a few are already considerably better than the top players....bar Federer.

by Tenez Thu May 23, 2013 8:12 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
Tenez wrote:The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

I disagree 100% with that comment. 19 year old Nadal was beating Federer on fast hc and Murray and Djokovic were beating big players as well as that age. You cannot compare today's young guns to a young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, the latter were much better. Federer at 19 was a million times better than these young guys today. We have to face facts, so far these young guys have been a big disappointment. They may finally get hot and win a future slam here and there but none of these guys are going to be Federer/Nadal's.

The question is, would a 2005 year old Nadal beat his 2013 self at RG?
Same goes for Nole and Murray (say,2007 edition of both)
With Federer it gets a bit more complicated.

For Federer it is a bit more complicated because of his back, otherwise it would be pretty obvious too. I'd say his best matches have been in 2011 and 2012. Before he had amazing superiority over lesser players on faster surfaces. I am 100% convinced that had Federer evolved in the last decade on the same surfaces he learnt to play, he woudl have been even more impressive in 2011/2012.

One of his best match ever has to be against Monaco at USO 2011....the year he shoudl have beaten top Djoko in succession in slams.

by noleisthebest Thu May 23, 2013 10:12 pm

I agree that Federer of 2011 and at times in 2012 was better than in his younger years.
I thought his 4th set in last year's Wimbledon final was sublime.

by BlueClay Thu May 23, 2013 10:54 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
Tenez wrote:The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

I disagree 100% with that comment. 19 year old Nadal was beating Federer on fast hc and Murray and Djokovic were beating big players as well as that age. You cannot compare today's young guns to a young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, the latter were much better. Federer at 19 was a million times better than these young guys today. We have to face facts, so far these young guys have been a big disappointment. They may finally get hot and win a future slam here and there but none of these guys are going to be Federer/Nadal's.

The question is, would a 2005 year old Nadal beat his 2013 self at RG?
Same goes for Nole and Murray (say,2007 edition of both)
With Federer it gets a bit more complicated.

100% he would imo.

by BlueClay Thu May 23, 2013 10:58 pm

Tenez wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
Tenez wrote:The thing is a 19yo Nadal, Murray or Djoko woudl go nowhere today against the most recent versions.

This is why those youngsters need more time. At 21 they can take sets out of the very best players...that is a huge achievement.

I disagree 100% with that comment. 19 year old Nadal was beating Federer on fast hc and Murray and Djokovic were beating big players as well as that age. You cannot compare today's young guns to a young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, the latter were much better. Federer at 19 was a million times better than these young guys today. We have to face facts, so far these young guys have been a big disappointment. They may finally get hot and win a future slam here and there but none of these guys are going to be Federer/Nadal's.

Well clearly you have not seen Nadal and Djoko play in 2005/6 etc... Even Federer improved quite a bit from 2007 to 2010. When I say improved, I mean essentially adapted to the dramatic change of game due to slower conds.

Nadal played much better in 2008 than in 2006 and even much better in 2010, 11 and 12. They have constantly raised the bar, the physical and technical bar. ...And yet you have an 21 yo taking a set of mature Nadal on clay et you have him beating Nole on clay...something Nadal could not do a week before.

You will be another one very surprised when those guy mature cause what they lack for now is fitness but shot wise a few are already considerably better than the top players....bar Federer.

Clearly you would be incorrect, I have seen Nadal and Djokovic play in 2005/06 and imo there is no contest between a young Nadal/Djokovic and Federer and the young guys today. Those guys were much more talented than the young guys playing today IMO. In addition I do not agree with you that the Federer of 2007-2010 improved quite a bit. I have seen Federer many times live and the way he played in 2003-2007 was much superior to his play after that period.

I don't see the same degree of talent in the young guns today compared to a young Federer or Nadal. JMO.

by BlueClay Thu May 23, 2013 10:59 pm

noleisthebest wrote:I agree that Federer of 2011 and at times in 2012 was better than in his younger years.
I thought his 4th set in last year's Wimbledon final was sublime.

With all due respect, that is complete rubbish. The Young Guns 364988687

by Tenez Thu May 23, 2013 11:25 pm

BlueClay wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
The question is, would a 2005 year old Nadal beat his 2013 self at RG?
Same goes for Nole and Murray (say,2007 edition of both)
With Federer it gets a bit more complicated.

100% he would imo.

by Tenez Thu May 23, 2013 11:35 pm

BlueClay wrote:Clearly you would be incorrect, I have seen Nadal and Djokovic play in 2005/06 and imo there is no contest between a young Nadal/Djokovic and Federer and the young guys today. Those guys were much more talented than the young guys playing today IMO. In addition I do not agree with you that the Federer of 2007-2010 improved quite a bit. I have seen Federer many times live and the way he played in 2003-2007 was much superior to his play after that period.

I don't see the same degree of talent in the young guns today compared to a young Federer or Nadal. JMO.

I don't think many would agree with you. It's like saying Ferrer is better than Nadal on clay. Even the players themselves agree that their level has gone up (essentially physically) considerably over the recent years.

What you fail to see in my opinion is that tennis has become much more physical and this is why youngsters fail to succeed early. Even Federer who was extremely talented did not deliver before he was 22...when 13 years yearlier a lesser talent like Pete could win a slam at 19. Nowadays tennis tends towards cycling...you do not have TDF winners younger than 26 and those are exceptions...the average is 31.

So seeing a 22 yo like Dimi or 21 like Tomic threatening Djoko shows how much talented those guys are. What they miss is teh stamina...but we know now that it's something which can be easily acquired.

by BlueClay Fri May 24, 2013 1:57 am

Tenez wrote:
BlueClay wrote:Clearly you would be incorrect, I have seen Nadal and Djokovic play in 2005/06 and imo there is no contest between a young Nadal/Djokovic and Federer and the young guys today. Those guys were much more talented than the young guys playing today IMO. In addition I do not agree with you that the Federer of 2007-2010 improved quite a bit. I have seen Federer many times live and the way he played in 2003-2007 was much superior to his play after that period.

I don't see the same degree of talent in the young guns today compared to a young Federer or Nadal. JMO.

What you fail to see in my opinion is that tennis has become much more physical and this is why youngsters fail to succeed early. Even Federer who was extremely talented did not deliver before he was 22...when 13 years yearlier a lesser talent like Pete could win a slam at 19. Nowadays tennis tends towards cycling...you do not have TDF winners younger than 26 and those are exceptions...the average is 31.

So seeing a 22 yo like Dimi or 21 like Tomic threatening Djoko shows how much talented those guys are. What they miss is teh stamina...but we know now that it's something which can be easily acquired.

I understand the "youngsters fail to succeed early because tennis is more physical" argument but I disagree with it. Federer did not deliver until he was 21 or 22 because he was mentally a flake by his own admission until he was a little bit older, but when you watched a young Federer even as a junior, you could see the immense talent that he had and knew he was going to be great if he got it together mentally. Federer was winning titles by age 19, so was Nadal, so was Sampras, so was Borg, etc. etc. etc. These young guys are not winning ATP titles because they are missing something whether it be the mental stamina or the tennis skills or whatever. Sure Dimitrov is talented and he may go on and win some slams in the future, somebody from the young generation has to win them eventually, but he is no Federer, far from it.

by paulcz Fri May 24, 2013 7:53 am

I also see that there is a quite big gap between current youngsters level and generation of Nole, Nadal, Murray at the same age.

Only youngster with a complete game is Dimi, who is going to get on the top. But I rather think that he is a kind of player to cause a surprise, but not a player with a great confidence and mental toughness, which Nole/Nadal/Fed have.

To compare the game of players when they were about 20 and 26 is very tricky and I think it is a bit foolish. When they are about 20 surely they are fresher, not struggling with legs or back, but tactically and mentally they are still developing. Around 20 they still work on their shotmaking, but basic traits of all their shots are practically unchangeable. I can see clearly improved the shotmaking and mainly tactical approach from Nole, Murray, Nadal, but Fed is a different story due to his health troubles and also his game is very stubborn and practically he does not change anything. Another thing is that even if he changed his game, whether that would bring any fruits. It is clear to whom especially. I do not think so.

by Tenez Fri May 24, 2013 8:28 am

BlueClay wrote:I understand the "youngsters fail to succeed early because tennis is more physical" argument but I disagree with it. Federer did not deliver until he was 21 or 22 because he was mentally a flake by his own admission until he was a little bit older, but when you watched a young Federer even as a junior, you could see the immense talent that he had and knew he was going to be great if he got it together mentally. Federer was winning titles by age 19, so was Nadal, so was Sampras, so was Borg, etc. etc. etc. These young guys are not winning ATP titles because they are missing something whether it be the mental stamina or the tennis skills or whatever. Sure Dimitrov is talented and he may go on and win some slams in the future, somebody from the young generation has to win them eventually, but he is no Federer, far from it.

Fine...but you are wrong and those youngsters will prove it by winning those top guys before they have time to decline.

You coudl make a parallel with Djoko who kept failing over the distance, often retiring with breathing or physical problems..and suddenly at 24 in 2011 no-one could touch him and overlasting everybody including Nadal (which also goes on to contradict your point very much that current Djoko woudl not beat his own 2007 version).

by noleisthebest Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:23 pm

R.Paglliaro and S.Tignor had a very interesting dialog on a few young players and their slam chancess/success.
I couldn't agree more with both of them esp regarding Raonic and his style. They managed to capture them all really well in comparison with each other.

RP: " When I think of Nishikori, I think about what Rafael Nadal said after they played for the first time at Queen's Club in 2008. Rafa had rampaged through Roland Garros without losing a set, and after Kei took a set off him on grass, Nadal said, "He is very, very good. He’s gonna be Top 10 for sure, Top 5. I am 100 percent sure. He play very easy. Very talented player. When he has a little bit time with the forehand, he kill you every time."

Hearing a guy with one of the best forehands ever say that about another guy's forehand is like hearing Pete Sampras say a guy's serve is unreturnable. Nishikori has the strokes to beat almost anybody on most surfaces; I just think his body may be too brittle for him to do it consistently over best-of-five-set matches at a major. He's already had several lower-body issues and movement is critical for him, so perhaps Michael Chang can help him strengthen that area. I think Grigor Dimitrov, who followed his first Grand Slam quarterfinal with a first-round exit in Paris, is more likely to reach a major semifinal first, but Nishikori is more likely to win a Masters title first.

Speaking of first-time quarterfinalists, Milos Raonic is fresh off his first major quarterfinal in Paris. Is he the next non-Big 4 player most likely to reach a Grand Slam final? If so, where is that most likely to happen"

ST: "You're right, Raonic is the logical place to go when we talk about the game's future right now. And of course, I just watched him lose to Peter Gojowczyk 6-4, 6-4 in the second round in Halle. He has been tapped in the past as a future Wimbledon winner—Richard Evans, the British journalist, predicted three years ago that he would win it in 2015. But Raonic has had more success on clay recently than anywhere else, making the semis in Rome and the quarters in Paris, losing to Novak Djokovic in both places.

Raonic has generally made good on his promise, Richard, but would you look forward to a future with him winning Grand Slams? I respect what he does and how he goes about it, but I can't say I find his game entertaining."

RP: "Movement and shot-making excite me more than power and service winners, so I don't get the same buzz watching Raonic as I do from Nishikori or Dimitrov or Dominic Thiem. I enjoy Raonic most when we see his point-killing power pitted against a shotmaker. Raonic vs. Nishikori in Madrid last month and Raonic vs. Dimitrov at the Australian Open in January were both really entertaining matches for me because of that contrast.

I would agree Raonic seems closer to a major final breakthrough (or future Davis Cup final), but he's got to improve his return game and tiebreaker performance to get there. He's been good, not great, in breakers this year, and since breaking serve is a challenge for him, he's likely to find himself in a few more.

Grass has been Raonic's least successful surface, but he's played only 19 grass-court matches in his career, so I have to think he'll adapt. He improved his movement on dirt, and I think he's got to be more assertive on grass. Look at what Jerzy Janowicz, a better mover than Raonic but one who doesn't play nearly as high-percentage tennis, did in reaching the Wimbledon semis last year. Why can't Raonic, particularly if he plays a few times with the roof closed, make a run there?"

ST: "That's a good point about Raonic being more fun to watch when he's playing a shot-maker. In that way, he's a little like David Ferrer for me. If they're playing a grinder, both Milos and Ferru can be dull, but paired with a guy with some flair, they make for good straight men, or drummers keeping a beat. "

by Tenez Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:03 am

I disagree with what they say in principle in the first 2 paragraphs . Nadal is more right, Tignor and Pagliario a bit less. Nishi's FH is not that great actually. His BH is certainly very strong in comparison. Nadal is right in saying "...when Nish has a little bit of time his FH is great! But Nadal is the one who gives him most time. Like Soderlings' best FH were played against Nadal and certainly not against players who could cope with his pace. Same with Rosol's FH v Nadal and Rodol's FH v Kholy...2 different equations.

It's all about who is on the other side. Nishi plays great v Nadal certainly, in particular a weak nadal but I'd need to see more v the more versatile and attacking players.

by Daniel Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:00 am

imho this year is Fed's last chance to get another Slam. Wimbledon and the US Open. If he doesn't do it this time, I can't see him doing it again.
PS wrong thread.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:27 am

I'm beginning to lose hope with the young players. When Fed was at his prime, there was young Nadal ready to take it up from Fed. Federe knew it, everyone knew it. There was also a Djokovic consistently behind Nadal and Fed, but biting on their heels at every possible chance. He did rise to the top getting the better of both.

Now, who is chasing Djokovic? I just don't see anyone. No surprises the kind of year Djokovic is having. There is just no player ready to take him on. Stan can beat him, but we know Stan will not be doing is so much to take him at all times.

All young players who showed promise in 2014, have all fizzled out. I'm not sure whom to look at as the next #1. They are just bunch of top-50 players buying time.

I don't see anyone can take down Djokovic in the next 2 years.

Djokovic may end up even challenging Fed;s weeks at #1 and even Slams. He is already setting records for Masters. And the sad part is, his records will make him look far far better than he actually is.

by noleisthebest Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:20 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I'm beginning to lose hope with the young players. When Fed was at his prime, there was young Nadal ready to take it up from Fed. Federe knew it, everyone knew it. There was also a Djokovic consistently behind Nadal and Fed, but biting on their heels at every possible chance. He did rise to the top getting the better of both.

Now, who is chasing Djokovic? I just don't see anyone. No surprises the kind of year Djokovic is having. There is just no player ready to take him on. Stan can beat him, but we know Stan will not be doing is so much to take him at all times.[

All young players who showed promise in 2014, have all fizzled out. I'm not sure whom to look at as the next #1. They are just bunch of top-50 players buying time.

I don't see anyone can take down Djokovic in the next 2 years.

Djokovic may end up even challenging Fed;s weeks at #1 and even Slams. He is already setting records for Masters. And the sad part is, his records will make him look far far better than he actually is.

It only appears so.
Speed up the courts only a little - and it's a very different story.

Nole's strength is in his defending, it's his ability to chase the ball that's enabling him to dominate.
He's mastered the conditions, that's all.

So you have to take time away from him and that's super tough in slow conditions. Fed didn't have that problem when he was dominating, and he would have dominated longer had the courts not been slowed down for Nadal and all that came with it.
Those are the facts we can't ignore.
Times are changing, and dynamics are not as they used to be, so it's important to take a new perspective and try to understand why young players can't break through.

On fast courts Fed beat Nole twice this year. And Stan did it on a slow court when it mattered.

Stan does not flog himself and is not desperate to play finals of every tournament. He's done well in slams, though.

Because fitness is so key in today's tennis, young players are very disadvantaged.
It's boys trying to compete with men.

It's a new territory and we haven't had this situation before.

Where it will end - I don't have a clue, but it's not looking good.
The easiest thing would be to speed things up.

Now try to tell that to Larry Ellisons of this world or sponsors like Babolat.

But one thing we shouldn't do is blame the youngsters.

by Tenez Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:05 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I'm beginning to lose hope with the young players. When Fed was at his prime, there was young Nadal ready to take it up from Fed. Federe knew it, everyone knew it. There was also a Djokovic consistently behind Nadal and Fed, but biting on their heels at every possible chance. He did rise to the top getting the better of both.

Now, who is chasing Djokovic? I just don't see anyone. No surprises the kind of year Djokovic is having. There is just no player ready to take him on. Stan can beat him, but we know Stan will not be doing is so much to take him at all times.

All young players who showed promise in 2014, have all fizzled out. I'm not sure whom to look at as the next #1. They are just bunch of top-50 players buying time.

I don't see anyone can take down Djokovic in the next 2 years.

Djokovic may end up even challenging Fed;s weeks at #1 and even Slams. He is already setting records for Masters. And the sad part is, his records will make him look far far better than he actually is.

Again those most likely to bother Djoko (Fed and Stan) are actually older than him.

The time Nadal stepped up on the tour is a very different era than now. Nadal would have very little success nowadays if he came back as the 20yo he was. It is no coincidence that the top players are getting older and youngsters simply mature later.

It simply confirms what I have been saying for years: the lack of technology and court pace changes are simply allowing older players to last longer...whereas before they were pushed down by youngsters having learnt with new technology or fitness diet (in the kind of nadal).

There is no other explanation.

by Autumnleaf Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:04 pm

Tenez wrote:Again those most likely to bother Djoko (Fed and Stan) are actually older than him.

Yeah, this is what rotla is worrying about, I believe. Because they are not the guys who will prevent Djokovic from winning everything in sight. Wawrinka beat him at the FO, this was Djokovic's only significant loss this year. Will he repeat next year? Maybe, more likely not. Federer got to 2 major finals in an impressive way, but failed to truly challenge in the final. Recently he has shown a worrying tendency to upset losses. The rest of the top 10 can't even hold a candle to Djokovic right now.

I don't care too much for reasons or explanations, fact is there are no players younger than Djokovic looking likely to take over anytime soon and barring injury this will most likely lead to his continued dominance over the tour. Incredibly enough he is still the youngest MS1000 winner (slam winners DelPo and Cilic are younger). He may even win the Holy Grail of tennis next year.

by Tenez Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:32 pm

Autumnleaf wrote:

I don't care too much for reasons or explanations, fact is there are no players younger than Djokovic looking likely to take over anytime soon and barring injury this will most likely lead to his continued dominance over the tour. Incredibly enough he is still the youngest MS1000 winner (slam winners DelPo and Cilic are younger). He may even win the Holy Grail of tennis next year.

No I don't think so again. One of those youngsters (22 to 26) can become very good over a 6 months period.

Look at how Anderson also turned into a player who coudl beat the top 4....just over a few months. I am pretty sure that things won't go as "planned" for the top players. They certainly have become much more focused and pro than the rest of the field...but the rest of the field has more potential.

by Autumnleaf Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:43 pm

Tenez wrote:One of those youngsters (22 to 26) can become very good over a 6 months period.

Shouldn't they at least be expected to beat Ferrer/Berdych/Gasquet etc. comfortably by now, before they can gun for the big guys?

Anderson was most improved player last year imho, played to the full of his potential. Still no threat to the very top. Winking

by luvsports! Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:21 pm

Beat Murray and almost beat Djoko at Wimby. Not far off.

by Tenez Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:17 am

Autumnleaf wrote:
Tenez wrote:One of those youngsters (22 to 26) can become very good over a 6 months period.
Shouldn't they at least be expected to beat Ferrer/Berdych/Gasquet etc. comfortably by now, before they can gun for the big guys?

Well I would not put Gasquet and Djoko in the same box as Ferrer. They again are less consistent but have more potential. Gasquet is similar to one of those youngsters ...just maturing way too late. But that's what it takes nowadays. Hopefully, Cilic, Nishi, Rao and Dimi will start to deliver very soon.

Anderson was most improved player last year imho, played to the full of his potential. Still no threat to the very top.

he was the biggest threat to DJoko at Wimbledon.....and destroyed Murray at the USO....something we coudl not have envisaged when he was 27!

With a bit more confidence, he can do much better....but my point is that the other youngsters will do much better.

by noleisthebest Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:31 pm

Chung won the 2015 ATP Most Improved Player award. Applause

Paire won the Comeback Player of the Year. Bubbly

by Daniel Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:08 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Djokovic may end up even challenging Fed;s weeks at #1 and even Slams. He is already setting records for Masters.

That isn't even remotely possible. I do hope you realize that. It's literally as close to impossible as can be because Djokovic is 28. No player in the history of the game has won 7 slams after 28. No player has been WN1 for the amount of weeks required at 28+. And that's considering the massive lack of competition there was for Rosewall and the early days of the Open Era.

It isn't going to happen. You guys around here are running around like headless chickens as if Djokovic is the best thing since sliced bread. He isn't. He's a good player with little competition currently, but one that is entering (actually HAS entered) inevitable physical decline. All I'm seeing on forums is how he's going to win 4 slams next year and will be winning slams until he's 35. You guys need to start entering reality.

Tell you what, I am willing to bet any of you right now 100 UK Pounds (if I had 10,000 I'd bet it) that Djokovic won't reach 17 slams and won't come close to 302 weeks N1. Let's stop this crappy "debate" and start putting money where the mouth is.

by Tenez Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:14 am

Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams plus 2 Finals from 29 (not 28) .so not out of this world.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Thu Nov 12, 2015 9:06 am

FedererKing wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Djokovic may end up even challenging Fed;s weeks at #1 and even Slams. He is already setting records for Masters.

That isn't even remotely possible. I do hope you realize that. It's literally as close to impossible as can be because Djokovic is 28. No player in the history of the game has won 7 slams after 28. No player has been WN1 for the amount of weeks required at 28+. And that's considering the massive lack of competition there was for Rosewall and the early days of the Open Era.

It isn't going to happen. You guys around here are running around like headless chickens as if Djokovic is the best thing since sliced bread. He isn't. He's a good player with little competition currently, but one that is entering (actually HAS entered) inevitable physical decline. All I'm seeing on forums is how he's going to win 4 slams next year and will be winning slams until he's 35. You guys need to start entering reality.

Tell you what, I am willing to bet any of you right now 100 UK Pounds (if I had 10,000 I'd bet it) that Djokovic won't reach 17 slams and won't come close to 302 weeks N1. Let's stop this crappy "debate" and start putting money where the mouth is.

Not remotely possible? Its much closer than that. He is now with 10 slams. and His lead on the #2 is more than 7000 points. So he is not losing the #1 spot anytime before wimbledon. Mostly thats been the time where #1 can change as seen in the last 8 years.

And who all are chasing him? In times when Murray is your #2 best player and comfortably, there is just no one to knock Djokovic off that spot. This is my worry. The best guys who could have taken him down Delpotro and Nishikori both are always injured. Fed is perhaps playing his last year in 2016, and he can't keep him down for long enough to snatch his ranking.

Tenez says about lack of technological innovations and court pace, but I think its more than that. Technology and science can't reach a peak and stop, it must have been growing. Only not easy to spot given the low quality of players who are using them. Nadal was a quality player and he totally used the technology for his advantage. Technology alone can't do everything. If the current below 25-26 players can't beat a 33 yo Ferrer and Berdych and Gasquet who all were also marred by injuries this year then what chance do they have against Federer or a Djokovic just with a new technology.

Simply put, Djokovic looks to rule as #1 for the entire 2016 and easily. Win min 2 slams and 4 masters.

by noleisthebest Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:01 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Not remotely possible? Its much closer than that. He is now with 10 slams. and His lead on the #2 is more than 7000 points. So he is not losing the #1 spot anytime before wimbledon. Mostly thats been the time where #1 can change as seen in the last 8 years.

If Nole had a better FH, I'd contemplate the possibility of him winning more and dominating longer.
I mean a proper, full-blooded attacking forehand.

But because he doesn't, I think he'll have a free reign to win like in 2015 for another year.
And of course, that's not a given either.
There are enough quality players now who can upset him or drain him on the day, like Murray did in the RG SF, or like Delpo did in Wimbledon 2013 etc.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Tenez says about lack of technological innovations and court pace, but I think its more than that. Technology and science can't reach a peak and stop, it must have been growing. Only not easy to spot given the low quality of players who are using them. Nadal was a quality player and he totally used the technology for his advantage. Technology alone can't do everything. If the current below 25-26 players can't beat a 33 yo Ferrer and Berdych and Gasquet who all were also marred by injuries this year then what chance do they have against Federer or a Djokovic just with a new technology.

Simply put, Djokovic looks to rule as #1 for the entire 2016 and easily. Win min 2 slams and 4 masters.

The thing that has been growing is quality of ball-striking.

You will know rotla from your own playing experience that you are now a better player than when you started, and that maybe if you had more time and money to spend on a coach, you could keep improving despite getting older. You hit the ball harder and more precise, maybe even riskier now than 5 years ago.
And all that using that same racquet you have.
In a small way that is how it is with pros.

If you have 18 and 28 year olds competing with the same technology, the 18 year old will have very little to overtake with - the the 28 year old will have superior stamina, experience, shot selection, timing, confidence...and crucially money to invest into body maintenance.

The only chance an 18 year old could possibly have is to be a genius, to have exceptional hand to eye coordination and skip over the years of hitting the ball and practicing he would naturally be having to do, by having superior ball timing only a natural talent can give.

And even if the 18 year old is a genius, he is still disadvantaged as he can't physically compete with a 28 year old. It's the world of boys and men.

If the sport was clean, young players would have a chance to progress quicker.

Finally, if the conditions were faster - fitness would not be so crucial.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:46 am

nitb wrote:There are enough quality players now who can upset him or drain him on the day, like Murray did in the RG SF, or like Delpo did in Wimbledon 2013 etc.

RG 2015 : Djokovic Played great, Stan played even better. No tiring, no draining, nothing else.
Wimbledon 2013: Djokovic played poor, Murray was just his solid self. No tiring, no draining, nothing else.

nitb wrote:If you have 18 and 28 year olds competing with the same technology, the 18 year old will have very little to overtake with - the the 28 year old will have superior stamina, experience, shot selection, timing, confidence...and crucially money to invest into body maintenance.

The 18 yo and the 28 year old are NOT playing with the same technology. You seem to be saying the same thing as Tenez that in the last 10 years no technology has any bit of improvement. Such that the current 28 yo are still playing with what they did when they were 18. Not possible. 10 years and NO improvement?

If it was difficult for any late 20s player to adopt new technology, like Fed and it holds same for everyone including Djokovic. Djokovic isn't changing his racquets and strings and diets etc with every year so as to keep himself upto date. Its not possible, never was. But the technology is definitely changing and the new players are using them. So Djokoivic is upto-date with sports science can't be true.

Or there is no improvement in sports science in the last 10 years which I don't agree.

I can only see that there arn't any new good players coming up who can use the technology well enough to beat the current top guys.

Is it impossible? The complete lack of talented youngsters? I think its possible that there are just no good talented skilled players coming up. Look how American tennis was in the 80s and 90s, even early 2000s. Nothing reduced for them in the last 10 years. But look who all are the top American players. Isner is the lone top-20 who often going in-out of this list. Why? Maybe because America didn't produce any good players in the last 10 years at all.

It took so so long for a new British player to win a GS, when they always had the resources to build new good players. Why it didn't happen for so long? Simply because there weren't any good talented players at all.

This is how I see for the young <25 players. They are okay, maybe top-50, but that's all. Some are just buying time till the current top guys retire.

by Daniel Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:55 pm

No no, I want your money where your mouth is. I'm prepared to bet you 100 quid he doesn't even reach 16 and that he doesn't equal or beat Federer's WN1 weeks.

It is not going to happen. I've just told you why - he's 28. He'd have to have the greatest post 28 career in the history of the Open Era to even stand a chance.

by Tenez Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:23 pm

ROTLA wrote:Tenez says about lack of technological innovations and court pace, but I think its more than that. Technology and science can't reach a peak and stop, it must have been growing. Only not easy to spot given the low quality of players who are using them. Nadal was a quality player and he totally used the technology for his advantage. Technology alone can't do everything. If the current below 25-26 players can't beat a 33 yo Ferrer and Berdych and Gasquet who all were also marred by injuries this year then what chance do they have against Federer or a Djokovic just with a new technology.

Simply put, Djokovic looks to rule as #1 for the entire 2016 and easily. Win min 2 slams and 4 masters.

tennis technology and court pace have not evolved for years. One cannot dismiss this simple fact.

100cm3 racquets have been there for years, there is hardly any change between Nadal's 2005 and 2015 racquet and Djoko and federer use exactly the same strings and fed has been using them since 2002.....over 13 years now. So if you dismiss facts to prove me wrong then it;s difficult to have a coherent discussion.
I might be wrong in my reasoning but the facts simply cannot be denied. There might be improvement in diet technology but I have not seen more extraordinary physical performance since nadal 2005 arrival.

So this sudden ageing of the tour across the whole top 100 has to be explained by some factors. Saying that no youngsters are coming up is one possibility but it seems to me so clear that those who we thought were journey players suddenly achieve much better results later in life.

already 3 or 4 years ago, we had a glimpse of this with Ljubijic finally winning his first TMS1000 at 32 or 33 beating guys he could not beat before, same with Davydenko turning into an amazing player even winning the masters in London.

Nowadays we have guys like Stan winning slams, Gasquet becoming a challenger again, and even Anderson blasting Murray off his best tournamenet and surface and gettting closer to being a top 10 while being closer to be a 30er.

It seems to me a few of you are not willing to see what is actually bloody obvious.

by noleisthebest Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:14 am

And just as we thought we knew everything... Winking

One of our most promising young guns, 19 year old Chung, is currently spending 4 of his off-season weeks in Korean Army!!!

Apparently he is lucky to have won a gold medal for Korea in Asian Games, otherwise, he'd have to serve full 2-3 years of national service....

http://www.tennis.co.kr/News/Details?category=internal&seq_no=26399&page=1

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:50 am

tenez wrote:tennis technology and court pace have not evolved for years. One cannot dismiss this simple fact.

This is just not possible. What are the tennis equipments makers doing then for 10 years? Science can't be stalled at all. Even from business point its not possible to keep selling the same thing for 10 years in sports and with success. It may not be revolutionary, but it definitely has to be there.

Tell me one thing non-food item that that sold great in 2005 and is still selling in the same way in 2015? Get a absolute top-end Mobile phone from 2005 and try selling it in 2015? You won't have any buyers. Sports is no different.

Tenez wrote:there is hardly any change between Nadal's 2005 and 2015 racquet and Djoko and federer use exactly the same strings

This is also my point Tenez. Djokovic and Nadal and Fed have been using 10+ year old technology and still succeeding. You have concluded that technology hasn't changed in these many years, I see it differently. I see that technology has moved as its just not possible to stall science but its difficult for players to keep moving up-to-date with technology. So these Nadals, djokovic and Fed etc. are still holding on to what they did 10+ years back, and why would they need to because they are still quite successful with it.

The new science be is shoes, racquets, diets, training equipments, training methods, etc. and even doping science have moved ahead and are totally available to the new generation of players. Why are they still lagging behind? Simply because they are just poor quality players. Science alone can't do it all for them, it can give an advantage but not everyone has the skill to take it.

And this is my point, that good quality in players has been in severe short supply. And as I said before, this is not impossible.

The older players are still succeeding in their late age because there are not enough younger players to throw them off their seats. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic have all be beating the top-ranked guys even occasionally while they were in their teens. The current young guns lose miserably even to the ones ranked 5+
.

by Tenez Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:21 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Tell me one thing non-food item that that sold great in 2005 and is still selling in the same way in 2015? Get a absolute top-end Mobile phone from 2005 and try selling it in 2015? You won't have any buyers. Sports is no different.

it's exactly the same technolohy. JUst different paint job. The grommets technology has evolved but did not bring any significant change and most companies have not adopted it. But even the "new" grommet design was available 10 years ago so in fact nothing changed.
The improvement now is to embed an electronic chip in the racquet to gather data (how many FH or BH you have played, how many spin one puts in, etc....so it is a passive improvement. It does nothing to change your game and none of the pros are using it anyway. It's for amateurs who have lots of time in their hands. But unlike new strings when they came up, it's not going to help you keep the ball in court...or hit more powerful shots.

A similar thing wthat sells great in 2005 as in 2015 without changing/evolving? A cricket bat, a basketball, a bicycle, a pingpong bat, golf clubs, etc...There is very little margin of improvement with a piece of graphite and strings. So clearly no significant improvement was made. Trust me on this. The last change was lighter racquets and strings but that happened over 10 years ago.

This is also my point Tenez. Djokovic and Nadal and Fed have been using 10+ year old technology and still succeeding. You have concluded that technology hasn't chance in these many years, I see it differently. I see that technology has moved as its just not possible to stall science but its difficult for players to keep moving up-to-date with technology. So these Nadals, djokovic and Fed etc. are still holding on to what they did 10+ years back, and why would they need to because they are still quite successful with it.

Well to start with Fed changed significant technology. When he arrived he was playing with small frame and nat gut. Then in 2002 he adopted the "real new technology" slightly bigger frame (85in to 90in) AND luxilon strings. So for him that was a game changer and all players of his age did the same too. Fed changed again a couple of years ago with an even bigger frame. So it's clear that we have reached a plateau there in terms of technology improvement, thus far. Nadal, changed strings (but with no significant improvement) and so on There is no point changing material if there is no tangible benefits. It's not like Borg and McEnroe playing with small wooden racquets and then the big graphite frames come on board and all youngsters adopt it.

I hope you can easily see the huge difference between playing with an old wooden racquet and going to twice the frame size, 50% less weight and graphite. That is a significant change. The last significant change is synthetic strings.

There has been no significant change since which have helped youngsters like those new improvement did in the past. It's a fact. No point discussing further on this.

The new science be is shoes, racquets, diets, training equipments, training methods, etc. have moved ahead and are totally available to the new generation of players. Why are they still lagging behind? Simply because they are just poor quality players. Science alone can't do it all for them, it can give an advantage but not everyone has the skill to take it.

But what science in shoes, racquets, training equipement is going to significantly help a youngster over his older peers? Answer your own question! Explain how a new shoe (available for all) is going to help a youngster move differently?

And this is my point, that good quality in players has been in severe short supply. And as I said before, this is not impossible.

wrong facts hence questionable conclusion.

The older players are still succeeding in their late age because there are not enough younger players to throw them off their seats. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic have all be beating the top-ranked guys even occasionally while they were in their teens. The current young guns lose miserably even to the ones ranked 5+

When Djoko and Murray came on board, they were better than Nadal at the same age. Yet it took them 5 years to or more to overtake him. It's more obvious with Murray, he was very close to Nadal when he arrived on the scene...but it is only when he reached 27/28 that he proved tp be significantly better than Nadal. Both were improving and Nadal managed to stay ahead of Murray all those years....whereas to me it was clear that Murray was going to end up a better player than Nadal but of course with a fraction of his slam count count Nadal benefitted from maturity.

It's clear to me that Murray is a better player....even on clay he gave Djoko much more trouble than Nadal at the last FO....but unfortunately playing like nadal was in FO 2010....is not good enough to win FO2015.

Nishi, Dimi will end up having a better game than Djoko.....but they are not 1 year younger like Murray and Djoko were to Nadal, they are 3 or 4 years younger...and without the help of technology, it's a huge gap. 3 or 4 years of practice and knowledge out of 15 years...is huge and cannot be dismissed!

by Tenez Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:29 am

BTW, had Fed not adopted the new strings, bigger frame in 2002, he woudl have struggled much more to pierce through.

This new technology had the same effect the larger frame had for McEnroe in 1984.

Fed became a star a few months after adopting the new strings, and McEnroe had his amazing year after dropping his wooden racquet for graphite in 83. Unfortunately for fed and Mac.....the youngsters who adopted that technology while kids knew how to make the most of that technology by changing technique while they were still young.

The truth is ROTLA had Federer adopted the new technology while he was child...not Djoko, nor Murray or Nadal would have been able to beat him. So in fact we would have had only one great player and all the rest chasers......like all those who belong to Fed's generation. Or the other way aroung without new string technology, Nadal Murray and Djoko could have never benefited of their extra spin and stamina and woudl have been with the rest of the pack.

by noleisthebest Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:44 am

Tenez wrote:
The improvement now is to embed an electronic chip in the racquet to gather data (how many FH or BH you have played, how many spin one puts in, etc....so it is a passive improvement. It does nothing to change your game and none of the pros are using it anyway. It's for amateurs who have lots of time in their hands. But unlike new strings when they came up, it's not going to help you keep the ball in court...or hit more powerful shots.

So true!
We have someone in the club just like that...a different colour porche for each of the week kind of guy.
When he bought that Babolat racquet with the chip, masses thronged about him as he was showing it off...
It's as useful as a pedometer telling you how many calories you burnt while walking to the corner shop and back.

He can't hit the ball to save his life though and even moaned how our newly instslled tennis wall is cr@p because he isn't able to even string three shots on it! Laugh

Yes, I wrote about it here two years ago...

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t520-my-babolat-day?highlight=My+babolat+day

by noleisthebest Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:58 am

Tenez wrote:BTW, had Fed not adopted the new strings, bigger frame in 2002, he woudl have struggled much more to pierce through.

This new technology had the same effect the larger frame had for McEnroe in 1984.

Fed became a star a few months after adopting the new strings, and McEnroe had his amazing year after dropping his wooden racquet for graphite in 83. Unfortunately for fed and Mac.....the youngsters who adopted that technology while kids knew how to make the most of that technology by changing technique while they were still young.

The truth is ROTLA had Federer adopted the new technology while he was child...not Djoko, nor Murray or Nadal would have been able to beat him. So in fact we would have had only one great player and all the rest chasers......like all those who belong to Fed's generation. Or the other way aroung without new string technology, Nadal Murray and Djoko could have never benefited of their extra spin and stamina and woudl have been with the rest of the pack.

Yes!
A Croatian friend still occasionally plays with the same racquet Goran used.

He says how he sometimes gets the ball on the sweetspot and then it flies like a rocket off the strings (I can just imagine! He is a similar height and build to him).

Those were the days of pure talent and timing...

by noleisthebest Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:15 am

Tenez wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Tell me one thing non-food item that that sold great in 2005 and is still selling in the same way in 2015? Get a absolute top-end Mobile phone from 2005 and try selling it in 2015? You won't have any buyers. Sports is no different.
it's exactly the same technolohy. JUst different paint job. The grommets technology has evolved but did not bring any significant change and most companies have not adopted it. But even the "new" grommet design was available 10 years ago so in fact nothing changed.
The improvement now is to embed an electronic chip in the racquet to gather data (how many FH or BH you have played, how many spin one puts in, etc....so it is a passive improvement. It does nothing to change your game and none of the pros are using it anyway. It's for amateurs who have lots of time in their hands. But unlike new strings when they came up, it's not going to help you keep the ball in court...or hit more powerful shots.

A similar thing wthat sells great in 2005 as in 2015 without changing/evolving? A cricket bat, a basketball, a bicycle, a pingpong bat, golf clubs, etc...There is very little margin of improvement with a piece of graphite and strings. So clearly no significant improvement was made. Trust me on this. The last change was lighter racquets and strings but that happened over 10 years ago.

This is also my point Tenez. Djokovic and Nadal and Fed have been using 10+ year old technology and still succeeding. You have concluded that technology hasn't chance in these many years, I see it differently. I see that technology has moved as its just not possible to stall science but its difficult for players to keep moving up-to-date with technology. So these Nadals, djokovic and Fed etc. are still holding on to what they did 10+ years back, and why would they need to because they are still quite successful with it.
Well to start with Fed changed significant technology. When he arrived he was playing with small frame and nat gut. Then in 2002 he adopted the "real new technology" slightly bigger frame (85in to 90in) AND luxilon strings. So for him that was a game changer and all players of his age did the same too. Fed changed again a couple of years ago with an even bigger frame. So it's clear that we have reached a plateau there in terms of technology improvement, thus far. Nadal, changed strings (but with no significant improvement) and so on There is no point changing material if there is no tangible benefits. It's not like Borg and McEnroe playing with small wooden racquets and then the big graphite frames come on board and all youngsters adopt it.

I hope you can easily see the huge difference between playing with an old wooden racquet and going to twice the frame size, 50% less weight and graphite. That is a significant change. The last significant change is synthetic strings.

There has been no significant change since which have helped youngsters like those new improvement did in the past. It's a fact. No point discussing further on this.

The new science be is shoes, racquets, diets, training equipments, training methods, etc. have moved ahead and are totally available to the new generation of players. Why are they still lagging behind? Simply because they are just poor quality players. Science alone can't do it all for them, it can give an advantage but not everyone has the skill to take it.
But what science in shoes, racquets, training equipement is going to significantly help a youngster over his older peers? Answer your own question! Explain how a new shoe (available for all) is going to help a youngster move differently?

And this is my point, that good quality in players has been in severe short supply. And as I said before, this is not impossible.
wrong facts hence questionable conclusion.

The older players are still succeeding in their late age because there are not enough younger players to throw them off their seats. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic have all be beating the top-ranked guys even occasionally while they were in their teens. The current young guns lose miserably even to the ones ranked 5+
When Djoko and Murray came on board, they were better than Nadal at the same age. Yet it took them 5 years to or more to overtake him. It's more obvious with Murray, he was very close to Nadal when he arrived on the scene...but it is only when he reached 27/28 that he proved tp be significantly better than Nadal. Both were improving and Nadal managed to stay ahead of Murray all those years....whereas to me it was clear that Murray was going to end up a better player than Nadal but of course with a fraction of his slam count count Nadal benefitted from maturity.

It's clear to me that Murray is a better player....even on clay he gave Djoko much more trouble than Nadal at the last FO....but unfortunately playing like nadal was in FO 2010....is not good enough to win FO2015.

Nishi, Dimi will end up having a better game than Djoko.....but they are not 1 year younger like Murray and Djoko were to Nadal, they are 3 or 4 years younger...and without the help of technology, it's a huge gap. 3 or 4 years of practice and knowledge out of 15 years...is huge and cannot be dismissed!

Excellent post, T.

For me, the interesting thing now is to see when and how Nole and Murray will plateau.

That will give us many answers.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30