Why are the youngsters struggling?

I keep reading here that Djoko, Nadal and to a lesser extend Murray are exceptional players and “no talented” youngsters come close. I strongly disagree.

Djokovic's rise to success is very interesting as it explains quite clearly the problem those youngsters are facing. I think we can all agree that Djoko turned out to be a better player than Nadal (I am not saying greater) but just that before Djoko injured himself a year ago he was nearly unbeatable and provided a game far more efficient and "professional" than Nadal. Yet he lived long in the shadow of Federer and the Spaniard, in spite of being only one year younger than Nadal. Sure unlike the current crop of young players, Djoko won his first slam at 21 but it is fair to say that Federer had his mono at that time and helped Djoko get through his first slam. Fed beat Djoko twice after that AO defeat that same year (2008).
So my point is that Djoko kept on being barred from winning slams from Feb 2008 to 2011 losing to Federer, Nadal every time or to the more mature players : Kholi (FO), Haas (W), Safin(W), Berdych (W), Roddick (AO), Tsonga (AO), Melzer (AO). Never did Djokovic lose to a younger player in a slam in that period.
Yet Djoko had to wait his 24th year to finally beat nadal regularly, in spite of being only a year younger! And why did he suddenly beat Nadal everywhere from then on? Cause he suddenly became “as professional” as Nadal, in other words extremely fit. It took him that long to understand and catch up with Nadal’s professional approach to the game. It did not matter he could beat Nadal in b03 before, it did not matter he was able to do more with the ball than Nadal,…he simply was not professional enough to beat him on the big stage. Imagine if Nadal had been 2 or 3 or 4 years older than Djoko…how long would it have taken for Djoko to catch up Nadal? More so, imagine if all the older players had learnt the game with those new strings, It would have been much tougher for Djoko to displace that older generation.

Imagine again if Nadal had learnt the game with those nat gut strings where the topspinner like Bruguera, Wilander, had long been extinct, destroyed by the flat hitters baseliners of Courier or Agassi? Imagine Nadal without being able to spin the ball nearly as much….what would he have achieved?
Murray to some extend shows that he needed even more time to succeed in spite of understanding the physical and professional side of the game very early.

But I think it is fair to say that those RRunners would most likely have never beaten Federer had he learnt the game with those new strings and a 100inch racquet…or likewise, they would have never been able to hammer his BH had they had to play with Nat gut and a 90inch racket.
But more importantly if all those players older than Nole , Andy and Nadal had had the same weapons.
The first to benefit from this new technology was Guga then Hewitt and Nalbandian….it clearly explains why these guys were very successful young and they managed to build a good positive H2H v Federer who adopted the new strings and slightly larger (90in from 85in!!!)frame later (2002).
So going back to our youngsters, they clearly are at a disadvantage as they not only have to catch up on so much learning to become a pro a la Nadal or Djoko but they never had the advantage to arrive on the scene with new weapons like some of their elder peers.
This means they will really struggle to get all those slams for grab that Djoko and Nadal enjoyed, the competition will be even stiffer and as a result the mental side much tougher too.

I however can see that their game will get much better than the current crop of “successful” RRunners.

Good analogy with "Djoko" & Nadal.

My explanarion is:

1) no new technology (which you first pointed out some time ago)
2) no match playing experience + good players are protected by draw/seeding
3) the young players who had success are fit (Coric/Zverev/Thiem) & all play gutless percentage game (not so much Thiem, but he does play from behind the baseline)

When I watch Chung or Rublev I think why aren't they ranked better?
Then you see who beats them and it's all C grade players whose only advantage is experience, nothing else.

Ramos had no right to beat Rublev in Wimbledon...more like Rublev threw it all away.

Shapalov looks very good I hope he breaks through next year.

Also, I think with tennis offering more money than ever before, young players are being groomed and moulded by ATP and subjected to unneccessary pressiure they don't need on too of everything else.

They are very similar to today's and children of yesteryear: we all went to play in the morning and came back home formdinner in the evening full of adventures.

Now, children are sanitised, told what to say, mollycoddled etc...there is no genuine individualism.

Yes same thing but in shorten version.

When Fed  compares his first Wimbldon with now he says his team is much bigger. I believe back then he is only accompagnied by his coach whereas now he has a whole team working for him. You see Djoko has now 2 pro players, including a slam winner, as advisers and a whole team of physio, trainer, etc...this is what I refer to by being "more professional" as those guys know the best way to train and recover thanks to having the best diet and pepole around too.

That is even more obvious when you see how 2 world junior champions like Murray and Chardy evolved. Andy was given the best guys in the business, training even with Michael Johnson and putting 7lb of muscles etc given lots of WCs and then Chardy on his own trying fight his way up on his own. Of course Murray wanted it more and this why he managed to find all the help required to get to the top quicker.

But as fan of the game it is important to appreciate why some players are more successful than others. And i must say I am not impressed by those successful RRunners buying their way up.

Lol ...i will correct tomorrow...to tough to write from phone.

They're struggling cos they're a bit shit let's be brutally honest here.

Crafty Federer offers some insight and encourages young players toward a style to beat RRunners that might pull up the Slam ladder behind him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/07/17/roger-federer-questions-people-dont-play-like/

Because they are gutless bottlers and also probably don't have the talent...  and certainly aren't putting the hours in. Tomic and esp Kyrgios DO have the talent - but both don't seem to give much of a toss. Zverev is the only player I've seen who looks like carrying the torch - and he will.  I guess most on tour now are just happy to pick up a pay check.

I can see a Thiem winning the French not too far off. The guys power is overwhelming if he can take advantage of it. He'll make Stan look normal.

I am not convinced by Thiem. His match v nadal at FO was useless.  We'll see.

bogbrush wrote:Crafty Federer offers some insight and encourages young players toward a style to beat RRunners that might pull up the Slam ladder behind him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/07/17/roger-federer-questions-people-dont-play-like/

yes, I saw that and he is right to some extend. But let's not forget that even him, with so much talent, was beaten consistently in his probably best physical years by those younger, less mature versions of RRunners. He was lucky to be at the top of his game then so it gave him many occasions to play and learn from them too. The youngsters have much less exposure and it's harder for them to catch up. We can see when the conds gets faster, then the gap between those RRunners and the younger players narrows.

bogbrush wrote:I can see a Thiem winning the French not too far off. The guys power is overwhelming if he can take advantage of it. He'll make Stan look normal.

His power ....and his legs. Standing so far back back requires a huge coverage. Thiem, like Zverev are "professional" which means less relying on talent and more on fitness.

Tenez - you can't seriously be trying to argue that Chardy, the son of a banker, with the benefit of the highly successful French tennis federation behind him was disadvantaged compared to Murray?

The fact is that, whilst both won junior slams, Chardy was nearly a year older than Andy when he won his junior slam. Indeed, despite being younger than Chardy, Andy was good enough when Chardy was winning that title to be out-classing Nalbandian on centre court until fitness issues stopped him in his tracks. 

It's fair enough not enjoying the way the likes of Novak or Andy play. However, trying to argue that they are no more talented than a player like Chardy is risible.

Slippy wrote:Tenez - you can't seriously be trying to argue that Chardy, the son of a banker, with the benefit of the highly successful French tennis federation behind him was disadvantaged compared to Murray?

Of course I will argue. Money is not everything. Otherwise Gulbis woudl be number 1. The French federation is excellent for all young players but it is known that once they are on the tour, they are on their own. Murray was really taught to be "professional" by former very professional athletes. Likewise you will not convince me that Andy is bigger than Jamie just because he works harder. There is more to it but we agreed to disagree on that.

The fact is that, whilst both won junior slams, Chardy was nearly a year older than Andy when he won his junior slam. Indeed, despite being younger than Chardy, Andy was good enough when Chardy was winning that title to be out-classing Nalbandian on centre court until fitness issues stopped him in his tracks. 

really this is watching that match from a fan perspective. I never saw Nalby playing that poorly until he started to play a bot decent.

It's fair enough not enjoying the way the likes of Novak or Andy play. However, trying to argue that they are no more talented than a player like Chardy is risible.

This is my very point. Being "professional" is about killing talent and winning without needing this very fluctuating variable. That;'s exactly why those guys are consistent. I'll show you in a following post a very interesting stat.

Tenez wrote:Yes same thing but in shorten version.

When Fed  compares his first Wimbldon with now he says his team is much bigger. I believe back then he is only accompagnied by his coach whereas now he has a whole team working for him. You see Djoko has now 2 pro players, including a slam winner,  as advisers and a whole team of physio, trainer, etc...this is what I refer to by being "more professional" as those guys know the best way to train and recover thanks to having the best diet and pepole around too.

That is even more obvious when you see how 2 world junior champions like Murray and Chardy evolved. Andy was given the best guys in the business, training even with Michael Johnson and putting 7lb of muscles etc given lots of WCs and then Chardy on his own trying fight his way up on his own. Of course Murray wanted it more and this why he managed to find all the help required to get to the top quicker.

But as fan of the game it is important to appreciate why some players are more successful than others. And i must say I am not impressed by those successful RRunners buying their way up.

Djoko's the least privileged of the top 4 and by some margin.
He's earnt his way there before he could afford the big team.

When he first beat Federer, I think it was Miami 2007, he was not fit, and neither was Federer injured.
And neither were there any long rallies.
And he wasn't a pusher like Murray.

Yes, not elegant and flashy as Fed then but not as bad as you portray him either.

... wrote: Djoko's the least privileged of the top 4 and by some margin.
He's earnt his way there before he could afford the big team.

Well as I said unlike Federer he was helped by the new technology. I think he was really helped by his team too and more so by understanding how to get close to those players: cutting mistakes down and becoming super fit.

When he first beat Federer, I think it was Miami 2007, he was not fit, and neither was Federer injured.
And neither were there any long rallies.
And he wasn't a pusher like Murray.

Canada. Was slow and Fed had 3 MPS or 3 SPs on his serve 40/0. Djoko was already fit for the standard of the time, he was not as much as a pusher but still a pusher actually.

Yes, not elegant and flashy as Fed then but not as bad as you portray him either.

when I look at him in his young years, he is not nearly as aggressive as I thought he was then...and he only became really successful when he became very fit....not before.

I never saw young Nole as a pusher.
He was an agressive baseliner always.

When he became fit he was only more relaxed and less attacking, playing aggressive percentage.

... wrote:I never saw young Nole as a pusher.
He was an agressive baseliner always.

When he became fit he was only more relaxed and less attacking, playing aggressive percentage.

I agree. I thought he was very aggressive in 2007.

I don't necessarily think getting fit was the turning point though. I'd say that 2011 was pretty similar to his early days in style.

To my eye, it was around maybe 2013-2014 that he became more of a percentage player. That's when the forehand got more spinny and he defaulted too easily to passive play when he got nervous.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/extrastats/index.html

Interesting stats: the 4 longest rallies in Wimbledon this year have the 3 RRunners involved in hit (2 nadal, 1 Murray, 1 Djoko).

I also read in that same database that the distance ran per point by the top 16 seeds is almost double those of higher ranking.

This is exactly what I mean by "professional". It;s all about fitness....unless you are Federer.

Federer does not figure in that top 20 longest rallies list!

And of course those long rallies have the purpose of blunting the sharpness of the more aggressive players, those who are not as fit, and need to time the ball flatter, with thinner margins.
again....That's what being profesional is all about.

Depends on what grounds you consider youngsters.

Take in isolation Tomic, Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov who essentially are nearly all in the same age bracket. Think collectively their results over Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray equates to nearly 20%? That is quite a horrific record to have and I for one believe they carry those scars. All the equipment in the world is not going to bridge that gap. If Anyone of those 4 got to the back of a Slam or Masters with either of the big 4, I don't rate their chances. Mentally, they are beaten before a shot is played. Many sports have seen such instances where the younger generation can't break through an elite group of players. Golf when Woods and Mickelson enjoyed sharing the Majors, apart from the odd abnormality, players like Poulter, Donald, Casey, Mahan, Westwood, Choi just a few who struggled against the field led by Woods and Mickelson. Just Woods's presence on the tee would leave most of the field feeling defeated before a tee shot was struck. All had the game to win a Major, but mentally scarred from mainly Wood's destruction of the field prior to 2005. Snooker when you look at Hendry and even Davis before, White, Williams, Ebdon couldn't get a nose in before those players hit declines. Athletics look at Backley in Javelin. Knew he could never beat Zelenzy like Hingsen could never beat Thompson in the decathlon. Sometimes being born in the wrong era can be a curse.

If you take now Thiem, Zverev, Kyrgios, Coric. Had some impressive results against the current big crop, but getting over the cusp is pretty damn tough. They have the tools like Dimi, Nishi, Tomic and Raonic, but not the mental tools that make a challenger a champion. It's almost like 1 step forward, 2 backwards. Take Zverev and Federer. Played 3 times and 2-1 to Federer. When you consider Federer struck first in Rome and then Zverev in Halle soon after and then a year later Federer hits back, Zverev (given what happened to Federer after Wimbledon 16) might be asking himself "was that result a one off? was he really at his best?" take Kyrgios. Beaten Djokovic twice this year and has an 2-0 record on him. Is that to say that when Djokovic returns to full health that Kyrgios will win the next encounter?

Athletes can defeat themselves with doubt. Tennis is littered with them. I've yet to see the streak or even swagger in any of the younger generation that signals to me they are going to embark on a hostile takeover of the current guardians of the top.

Does equipment conditions really serve as an equalizer? It would worry me if a player's belief in themselves came from the equipment used rather than the talent in their hands. Look at McEnroe. Played with a wooden racquet and eventually graphite. Yet with the changes he was still making Grand Slam semi's. That man was going to make a fight of it regardless on court even if meant playing with a frying pan!

Do I believe a Thiem could beat Nadal or Djokovic in a Slam final? I do. But I don't Thiem himself does. I don't believe the tour is producing players with the winning and conquering mentality. I see that as an issue across sport in a wider context. Youngsters not displaying a ruthless winning mentality.

But isn't this exactly what Federer was saying about the young players? He named Nadal and Murray as players who it was almost crazy to try to beat by out-rallying. He implied it was a bad enough idea for him.

I thought he was very direct when he said he looks at an opponent, sees he volleys like 2% of the time and thinks oh ok, that's no problem then.

I read it as a direct address to the likes of Sacha Zverev to get up there. I saw an interview with him on TSN when Mischa was playing Federer and he was asked whether he'd any tips for his brother. He laughed that his brother would be serve volleying every other point which "I'm not going to do even twice" !!!! 

You don't overcome a competitor by playing to his strengths. That's true in business as it is in sport. The answer to the next generation overcoming the RRunners won't be to RRun better than them. Forget it. They need to out-power and / or play like Federer does, or their version of. Take time away, take the neutral return away. It was noticeable that Federer didn't enjoy Berdych coming forward. 

Yes, they need great fitness because you shouldn't have deficiencies but focus on gaining advantage, not neutralizing weakness.

Oh indeed. You don't try and better opponents main strengths. It's a form of madness. Always made me laugh watching people trying to outdrive Tiger and find heaps of rough. Just play with in yourself and get him on the short game. That's what I loved about Gary Player. Like McEnroe a real tough son of bitch that took the apparoach of I know how to win, I need to get the match/tournament on my racquet/club. I find it frustrating watching someone not willing to turn the match themselves. Hence why playing Murray must be great for those who know they can force him into a shell.

Equally making the same mistakes time and time again infuriates the life out of me. That's why watching Raonic, Nishi, Tomic and Dimi annoys me because enivitably they will face a big player and try and play their game which they will trample over.

Coric clearly doesn't have a plan b. Kyrgios clearly doesn't have a brain. Zverev is pure power and that's it. Thiem probably shows the more promise in thinking about his approach, but again doesn't seem to be following the curve.

Sometimes however, someone just does something amazing that can't be explained or matched and you hold your hands up and just say "well played" I always think back to the Masters 1975 when Nicklaus on the 16th Par 3 was level with Weiskopf and Miller and he hit his tee and had a 40fter for a birdie. Miller and Weiskopf watched from the 16th tee as Nicklause sunk that ridiculous putt and essentially winning it on that hole as he won by 1 stroke.

I've said this a ton of times... but a lot of these baseliners are ... miles behind the baseline.  And yet all their opponents are serving the same - returning the same - and not doing any drop shots or anything else.  They are content to just brainlessly play a baseliner's game.  So they deserve to lose - since their brains are baseline too. Nadal was MILES behind the baseline v Muller (after going 2-0 down)... and Muller refused to do a single thing differently. For that he damn nearly lost against a baseline slugger on grass.

bogbrush wrote:But isn't this exactly what Federer was saying about the young players? He named Nadal and Murray as players who it was almost crazy to try to beat by out-rallying. He implied it was a bad enough idea for him.

I thought he was very direct when he said he looks at an opponent, sees he volleys like 2% of the time and thinks oh ok, that's no problem then.

I read it as a direct address to the likes of Sacha Zverev to get up there. I saw an interview with him on TSN when Mischa was playing Federer and he was asked whether he'd any tips for his brother. He laughed that his brother would be serve volleying every other point which "I'm not going to do even twice" !!!! 

Yes but I have also heard him say that the only way he could beat the likes of Hewitt and Nalbandian back then was to become as fit as them. Being able to hold a rally versus hewitt is what allowed him to reverse the negative H2H. he said it himself. When he was regularly beaten by young Nadal, it was essentially due to the fact that nadal has raised the physical bar one up from Hewitt...to levels Federer coudl not even reach. And how did nadal get beaten? again by someone being able to rally with him, one not afraid to instill those 20+ rallies.
And I am pretty sure that Zverev and Thiem will become better lung busters than Nadal and Djokovic.

That's one way to beat those guys....with their own weapons like they themselves beat the previous generation. I agree that's not the only way. But for now on those slow conditions it seems it is. We don;t know whether neo-BH Federer could beat fit 2016 Djoko...we will never know it seems sadly but Federer did not have an answer to Djoko on slow HC so it s not surprise that the 24-26 yo are also struggling.

You don't overcome a competitor by playing to his strengths.

Arguable as mentioned above. Especially if conditions do not favour attacking tennis.  

That last point is something I've learned from business, not tennis.

legendkiller wrote:Do I believe a Thiem could beat Nadal or Djokovic in a Slam final? I do. But I don't Thiem himself does. I don't believe the tour is producing players with the winning and conquering mentality. I see that as an issue across sport in a wider context. Youngsters not displaying a ruthless winning mentality.

Everytime Thiem beats a top guy, he plays a very poor next game. He himself acknowledged it that in slams/masters just beating a one guy is not enough. There is another one in the next round and he struggles with this scenario. So unless he gets some favorable draws opening up, he can't win big.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkiller wrote:Do I believe a Thiem could beat Nadal or Djokovic in a Slam final? I do. But I don't Thiem himself does. I don't believe the tour is producing players with the winning and conquering mentality. I see that as an issue across sport in a wider context. Youngsters not displaying a ruthless winning mentality.

Everytime Thiem beats a top guy, he plays a very poor next game. He himself acknowledged it that in slams/masters just beating a one guy is not enough. There is another one in the next round and he struggles with this scenario. So unless he gets some favorable draws opening up, he can't win big.

Rhiem beat a very injured Djikovic in fo.
We all remember how a fit Nole destroyed him there in 2016.

Thiem can't beat anyone of big boys in slams yet.

He is good for atp 500 events atm.

... wrote:Rhiem beat a very injured Djikovic in fo.
We all remember how a fit Nole destroyed him there in 2016.

As usual, you giving this injury excuse too easily for Djokovic. 

In 2009 AO QF Fed destroyed Delpo with double bagels. Then at the USopen final Deplo outhit Fed. That does mean Fed was injured or Just because a player gets destroyed in a match, he certainly can't do anything in the next unless the opponent is injured.

Thiem beat a fit and in-form Nadal at Rome. No reason to think he couldn't beat Djokovic.

Djokovic 2015 was unbeatable, doesn't mean 2017 will also be unless injured. The tables in tennis turn very fast, you may have missed it.

To me Thiem stands to far back to bother the best players. He is however number 3 in the race so he clearly has been playing best (or more consistantly) after Fedal.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkiller wrote:Do I believe a Thiem could beat Nadal or Djokovic in a Slam final? I do. But I don't Thiem himself does. I don't believe the tour is producing players with the winning and conquering mentality. I see that as an issue across sport in a wider context. Youngsters not displaying a ruthless winning mentality.

Everytime Thiem beats a top guy, he plays a very poor next game. He himself acknowledged it that in slams/masters just beating a one guy is not enough. There is another one in the next round and he struggles with this scenario. So unless he gets some favorable draws opening up, he can't win big.

I agree certainly on the favourable draw element. Sometimes that is the break one requires to overcome that mountain of a task.

It's a case of he is competitive with his current rivals ala Zverev/Kyrgios, but not dominating them which then as you say makes the next step up of opponent the more difficult to win against.

Hence why I don't think Thiem believes he can win against the top guys like Zverev.

Kyrgios is a curious case because he does seem to have that attitude of not being fazed by the occasion, but often is overcome with stupidity which really detracts from his game.

Tenez wrote:To me Thiem stands to far back to bother the best players. He is however number 3 in the race so he clearly has been playing best (or more consistantly) after Fedal.

If standing far back was a blocker in winning slams, Nadal shouldn't have won any. 

In my assessment Thiem's problem is more mental than anything else. The same which Stan and Murray had for large part of their career. He doesn't really believe he belongs in the slam contender's league. A win against a top guy is as upset and hence overwhelming for him. He finds it difficult to repeat that performance in the next round.

A good coach can solve this. It did for Stan and Murray. Why not Thiem. provided he can get one.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:To me Thiem stands to far back to bother the best players. He is however number 3 in the race so he clearly has been playing best (or more consistantly) after Fedal.

If standing far back was a blocker in winning slams, Nadal shouldn't have won any. 

Nadal stopped winning because he stayed back and understood he had to stand closer. he lost again recently cause he could not handle Muller heavy flat shots.

In my assessment Thiem's problem is more mental than anything else. The same which Stan and Murray had for large part of their career. He doesn't really believe he belongs in the slam contender's league. A win against a top guy is as upset and hence overwhelming for him. He finds it difficult to repeat that performance in the next round.

His problem for me, standing back, is also his advantage. He can afford to stand back against most players and this is why he has been the 3rd most consistent player so far...but I doubt he will stay that high on HC where standing back does not pay nearly as much. nadal can stand closer and his FHs are hurting more than Thiem's.

I'd say unlike Stan, Stan plays with less margins, takes the ball earlier, and runs much less. That's why he is not as consistent.

I find Thiem being closer to Nadal's style than Stan's. The SHBH is the only think they have in common and they hit it differently....though both are great.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:To me Thiem stands to far back to bother the best players. He is however number 3 in the race so he clearly has been playing best (or more consistantly) after Fedal.

If standing far back was a blocker in winning slams, Nadal shouldn't have won any. 

Nadal stopped winning because he stayed back and understood he had to stand closer. he lost again recently cause he could not handle Muller heavy flat shots.

He's just won the french open again.  Standing back isn't why he is losing more off clay - it's because he is older.  His timing isn't as good.  He was a better player 5-10 years ago. Standing back is only a problem for Nadal on faster surfaces that require better reflexes - and he's standing back precisely because he can't take the ball as early as he once could.  Nevertheless, he is still winning even then.  You again want two opposite things to be true.

Daniel wrote:He's just won the french open again.  Standing back isn't why he is losing more off clay - it's because he is older.

 It's funny. You can;t see an obvious injury but you can see nadal shaking like an old man.

Brilliant!

You must be so puzzled to see a 32 yo Froome teaching those youngsters another lesson.

Wherever you look at it you are proven wrong. You are such in denial. It's a joke. Stop raising the subject....it doesn't work in your favour.

Move on.

Daniel wrote:

He's just won the french open again.  Standing back isn't why he is losing more off clay - it's because he is older.  His timing isn't as good.  He was a better player 5-10 years ago. Standing back is only a problem for Nadal on faster surfaces that require better reflexes - and he's standing back precisely because he can't take the ball as early as he once could.  Nevertheless, he is still winning even then.  You again want two opposite things to be true.

But Nadal could never take the ball early. He takes it as late as physically possible.
Courts are too small for him, that's why he loves Chatrier, it gives mire space to move back and run around.

In fact,  the older he got the closer to the baseline (i.e. hit the ball earlier, or less late in nos case) he played.

And the only reason he is playing closer to the baseline now is because he is forced to by others imoroving in ball striking and fitness, so able to hit with him....

30+ years old is old for a tennis player.  I once again refer you to the Open Era statistics. Overwhelming evidence of how human biology affects tennis.  They are all there for you, Tenez. Stop arguing with me and the Open Era - and start accepting your theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese. 

Daniel, I stay well out of this one but I will make one point about those statistics.

We talk about equipment, balls, courts and their effect on style and records but we often forget the effect of medical treatment. Pete Sampras now lies behind Nadal in the Siam count but if Rafa had played 20 years previously he'd be retired by now with far fewer Slams.

Pretty much everyone bar the odd outlier retired sooner than they would do today. This makes the Open Era age profiles you refer to an unreliable guide to current performance.

It really doesn't. The statistics are as true today as they were 20,30,40  years ago.  You won't find ANY concrete evidence that people are fitter or have better reflexes etc when they are in their 30s, because that is also against known human biology (not just stats). It's also true even in one dimensional sports such as running. Tenez continually uses Federer as a gauge (and yet he was at his best in 2004-7 - something Tenez then throws out of the window like with a magic wand). It's only ever been this current time that older players are having more success - and that's down more to the weak field we have - especially among the younger players.  And you haven't stayed well out of this one when you have just posted that :P

My point isn't that reflexes do or don't fall apart, I'm saying in the bulk of the Open Era most players simply never got to show where they were in later years as various injuries do took their toll they were either impaired or retired.

Whether Federer was better or worse in 2004-7 isn't my point, it's that old stats aren't entirely comparable.

As it happens I think Federers improved equipment, tactical nous, and ball striking makes him a better player despite his physical decline. He's obviously slower and has less stamina but he plays a better game while he can hold it together.

I'd say they are true because there is no evidence going against them.  With the exception of Federer, players overwhelmingly don't win Wimbledon after 30 (for example).  That's as true now as it was in 1968. A fact.  And there are hundreds of other trends that are not altered and won't be.  But you aren't addressing the actual argument here - that Tenez believes players play better in their 30s.  And as a rule.  The rest is nonsense. The Open Era stats alone show it to be a nonsense - even if there are exceptions. I know that isn't the point you want to address- but it is mine.

Results alone don't prove that. As I say there is physical injuries to consider and also the oka t of new players often with new technology but always with the chance to learn from what the last generation do.

I think older players have handicaps in those respects though the current lot of oldies don't have a technology problem. 

I'm not saying players are better over 30. I'd say they must be better tactically and in stroke execution, that's inevitable. Whether they can get round is another matter, and we're back to fitness.

bogbrush wrote:.... He's obviously slower has less stamina but he plays a better game while he can hold it together.

Is it obvious, really?

Yeah, I'd say he's a little easier to get out of position and playing his squash shots. It's not like he's geriatric or anything but I reckon it's part of the reason he attacks so much now, get the guy on the back foot before he gets one in because really Federer can't play that game any more.

Well it is not obvious to me...yet I can see when he is a bit stiff on his leg. If he lost a 10th of a second over a 20m race that woudl be a lot...and still very difficult to see with a naked eye.

I remember when McEnroe mentioned he lost a step......in Wimby 2007! Frankly...when you see rallies of AO17 final, It's very difficult to see the difference with any of his youngest years.

Regarding stamina it is interesting to see Gebrselassie extending his races' length as he got older, finishing his career with marathons wins at 36yo, even beating the world record at 35yo.

I think his real problem is the recovery ability. It;s getting really hard on the muscles teh following day.....not as easy to get rid of the lactic acid when you age.

I think Federer as well Nadal were faster in 2009.
Here's a clip from AO 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkI4FpZDQcc


Overall probably one of the best matches they played. Fed could have won, had he played better BP's. 

Rallies at 
09:00
10:15
give you a clue how fast they were.

But the most obvious is the one at 11:00. Here you see some court coverage both men no longer are able to. 

Also striking to see how harmless Fed's BH was. He simply did not have the flat pacey BH he has now. Good ankles, good spin, but the shot was just not compelling enough against NAdal.

It's not obvious to me. Some of the retrieving by Nadal in that AO17 v Zverev and Dimi has hardly anything matched in the past.

Also I think because the pace being faster in 2017, there is a clear strategy not to waste energy and run crazy like before. Nadal has to stand closer and knows he has 0 chances standing as far back as 2009. If you watch the semi Verdy/Nadal 2009 it absolutely obvious nadal has all the time in the world, standing 5mn back to retrieve balls he woudl not have retrieved in 2017, not because he s slower but because the ball would have flown past him then.

If they had lost an obvious pace since 2009, they would not have won both their slams without dropping a set.
Some of the pace played by kyrgios in Miami asked the best of federer's pace.

I agree however that he certainly refuses to run nealy as much as 2009. he probably can't...but if there is an important point...I challenge anyone to make the difference as he will be lightening fast like he coudl even be injured in that 5th set of the AO on some of teh key points. .

His forehand was also more precise and deadly - and he didn't get nervous or bottle big moments on his own serve anywhere near as much.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdOoQUWdfqk

3:19.  Good example - just fires it down the line.  End of point. Does it so many times it's unreal.  He does it today too, but not with the frequency and not usually as devastating as that. You can see how good he is moving there too... all the way through. Let's also not forget that he now uses a larger racquet, precisely because his fine tuning went out by a fraction and he started to miss more.

gallery play wrote:I think Federer as well Nadal were faster in 2009.
Here's a clip from AO 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkI4FpZDQcc


Overall probably one of the best matches they played. Fed could have won, had he played better BP's. 

Rallies at 
09:00
10:15
give you a clue how fast they were.

But the most obvious is the one at 11:00. Here you see some court coverage both men no longer are able to. 

Also striking to see how harmless Fed's BH was. He simply did not have the flat pacey BH he has now. Good ankles, good spin, but the shot was just not compelling enough against NAdal.

I agree with Tenez 100%.

I can't see any difference in speed, if anything, Federer could be faster now as his and Nadal's shots are less loopy i.e. they have less time to get to them.

The more time goes by, the more AO 2017 looks the best tennis Fed's ever played; conditions were perfect.
And that's my favourite slam of his.

His legs look more toned and muscular than ever. Just look at the sizeog his calves!

If only there was a pill for freshness!