Is Tennis Getting Older?

You know what they say about wine: the older the better.....

According to S. Tignor of tennis.com, similar principle can be applied to the state of tennis today: more and more players seem to be ageing well and fulfilling their potential in their late 20s, flourishing in their early 30s.

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/10/golden-era-or-groundhog-era/39713/#.UHRdpBi0bgo

It's not only Federer that's doing well: there's Haas, Stepanek, Hewitt, Davydenko, Youzhny, Karlovic, even Blake - they don't seem to be going anywhere!

Is it that the slower playing conditions have enabled them to improve their endurance and rely less on their reflexes, or is it that this particular generation of players is more talented than the "young ones"

Harrison is 20, Raonic, Dimitrov are 21 (Djokovic was 19 when he won his first slam), Dolgopolov and Paire are 23.

Remember 17-year old Becker winning his first Wimbledon? Are we ever going to see that again?

Is the requirement of superior fitness hindering younger generation or is it just a coincidence of the lack of real prodigal talent?

It is nice to watch and follow maturing of players, see them grow on you, mellow with age and mature in their game.

Although, I can't think of any other older player except Federer that has added to their game much: Kohlshreiber, Tipsarevic and Ferrer actually played better tennis 5 years ago, they are just fitter now and hit the ball harder as a result.

The top 4 have took all the limelight in the last decade, I think it's interesting to (for once) observe the tour as a whole for a change

What are your thoughts?
Who is your favourite Oldie?

I would say that for the physique to develop to the point needed to combine both strength and endurance, it takes time, plus slower conditions favor both those "skills". Now, it is also to be noted that contrary to what people who talk about golden era etc., the generation of Fed, Haas, Blake etc. is more talented than the later generations as they had to really play all-court tennis as their courts had more variability (with the racquets and balls technologies being different too), so it is not surprising to see them perform well when healthy, especially on slightly faster courts where the Rafa and co. don't perform as well... Favorite oldie playing right now except Federer, no hesitation: Haas (who, bar injuries, could have been top 3 for longer and win masters and even slams on either grass or clay...)

I must say I have a soft spot for Dr Misha...I like his communist style of militant sharp hitting, and the fact that he is the only player I can think of that uses his backhand as a weapon even in these slower conditions, he goes for it like nobody else!
And the all-court tennis he plays with such zest!

Plus, all his antics of drawing blood on his head with the racquet, his post-match racquet salute, the message (I forgot which one it is at the moment, remembered it! was "sorry") he drew on clay during some match this year (he felt helpless), and yes, his doctorate and the sagely beard that had to follow in order to cement the image...

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0015/7883/mikhael_youzhny_crop_340x234.jpg
http://www.ontennis.com/files/images/mikhail-youzhny-chennai2008-6_0.jpg
http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/tenisasko.blogsome.com/images/Youzhny.jpg

Maybe this little article about Tomic throws some light on at least HIS case/problem and why the "youngens" are lagging behind the "oldies":

"There will come a day when an article written after Bernard Tomic loses a match doesn’t contain the word “tank.” Today is not that day.
The 19-year-old Australian won a mere eight points in the second set of a 6-4, 6-0 loss to Florian Mayer in the first round of the Shanghai
Masters on Tuesday. Tomic admitted to being mentally fatigued from a long, pressure-packed year and told reporters that he did not go all-out in the second set of the 46-minute match:Could Bernard Tomic declare that he had given a 100 per cent effort in his first-round match in Shanghai yesterday? No.
”Today I gave about 85 per cent,” he said.”Today I gave 100 per cent in the first set,” he said. ”I felt in the second set, my 100 per cent wasn’t even close to where it should be. That’s where I think mentally … the mental skill is one of my biggest problems.”Asked earlier if he had been injured in the second set, Tomic said: ”Mentally I was, that’s for sure.”

Is it that the slower playing conditions have enabled them to improve their endurance and rely less on their reflexes, or is it that this particular generation of players is more talented than the "young ones"

=====================================

I have always said that. If it was not so physical nowadays, those players of 2003-2007 woudl still be dominating.

I agree with Sphair. It's a combination of skills and stamina which improves even after 28 as we can see in cycling. However I do not think the physical players will have a successful late 20s early 30s. They are more likely to have like Wilnader, Borg, Chang, Hewitt a shorter career cause they do not have the weapons to save their bodies.

In short yes it has. When the conditions changed it was like it was commercial thinking. People want more rallies for their money and whilst that concept is true in economical thinking, from an athlete's point of view it offers nothing in terms of restbite. The Grass was season which flew by and it was good that players had something from a surface which shortened matches quite significantly. What is so bad about tennis nowadays is that tournament directors/organisers have no interest in player welfare and are very ignorant to the fact a tennis season is very long and extremely tiring when you factor in travelling. The mandatory tournaments that have to play offer little time for rest for the players.

Watching the US Open Final this year. Yes I was delighted with Murray winning. However, if I was a paying customer in terms of being at the match I would've been annoyed with the quality of tennis. Yes the moment itself historic in value, but not in terms of quality.

We are now seeing players pushing themselves to levels which are un-sustainable. Nadal for instance we could see the beginning of the end. Djokovic you wonder how his body must be feeling under the hours upon hours spent out on court this year.

It needs change to allow progression for the youngsters and also offer the old guard something to relax on.

legendkillar wrote: What is so bad about tennis nowadays is that tournament directors/organisers have no interest in player welfare and are very ignorant to the fact a tennis season is very long and extremely tiring when you factor in travelling. The mandatory tournaments that have to play offer little time for rest for the players.

I'd approach the problem from a different angle. The culprit is "us" fans, the players and the string technogy. The TDs are just there to provide what we want. It's "us" because "we" like those long rallies and can't see the difference between a well executed risky shot and a ball retrieved thanks to ridiculous fitness. In fact we hear more WOWs from the crowd from Nadal getting a ball back from 4m outside the trameline than a risky flat BH DTL. The new strings are largely responsible for making Nadal's shot much easier than it would have been with nat gut. And finally it's the players fault to have developed the physical side of the game so I do not want to hear them complain about it, especially those who have pushed that physical barrier further. Tey are the one who ave made the game so physical cause they simply did not have the talent to win more easily and they approached tennis purely as a business instead of a sport they loved.

Watching the US Open Final this year. Yes I was delighted with Murray winning. However, if I was a paying customer in terms of being at the match I would've been annoyed with the quality of tennis. Yes the moment itself historic in value, but not in terms of quality.

Yes but that applies to 7 of the last 10 slams finals unfortunately. Take Federer out and the shot making quality drops to ridiculous levels.

We are now seeing players pushing themselves to levels which are un-sustainable. Nadal for instance we could see the beginning of the end. Djokovic you wonder how his body must be feeling under the hours upon hours spent out on court this year.

It needs change to allow progression for the youngsters and also offer the old guard something to relax on.

Yep! I have been saying that for a but, haven't I?

legendkillar wrote: What is so bad about tennis nowadays is that tournament directors/organisers have no interest in player welfare and are very ignorant to the fact a tennis season is very long and extremely tiring when you factor in travelling. The mandatory tournaments that have to play offer little time for rest for the players.

I'd approach the problem from a different angle. The culprit is "us" fans, the players and the string technogy. The TDs are just there to provide what we want. It's "us" because "we" like those long rallies and can't see the difference between a well executed risky shot and a ball retrieved thanks to ridiculous fitness. In fact we hear more WOWs from the crowd from Nadal getting a ball back from 4m outside the trameline than a risky flat BH DTL. The new strings are largely responsible for making Nadal's shot much easier than it would have been with nat gut. And finally it's the players fault to have developed the physical side of the game so I do not want to hear them complain about it, especially those who have pushed that physical barrier further. Tey are the one who ave made the game so physical cause they simply did not have the talent to win more easily and they approached tennis purely as a business instead of a sport they loved.

Indeed those players shouldn't moan, but are seeing a player in Nadal at 26 who could be at the end of his career. Should that be the case then we can say that from a 'natural' perspective that his body has run it's course. I do believe Murray and Djokovic have the shot making ability, but time and time again we are seeing weapon blunting tactics. The US Open final we saw Murray blunt Djokovic. The AO Final we saw Djokovic oust Nadal by simply outrallying the guy.

Yes I would agree the strings have made the defensive element of the game the new attacking if you would. A natural gut makes spin less possible and relies much more on the feel of the ball and the length you choose to hit. Kevlar strings make short balls hit into the deuce court kick up like a mule.

Watching the US Open Final this year. Yes I was delighted with Murray winning. However, if I was a paying customer in terms of being at the match I would've been annoyed with the quality of tennis. Yes the moment itself historic in value, but not in terms of quality.

Yes but that applies to 7 of the last 10 slams finals unfortunately. Take Federer out and the shot making quality drops to ridiculous levels.

I would be more inclined to agree with that assessment. However a lot hedges on the tactics that Djokovic or Nadal would employ. In the BO3 Djokovic attacked Nadal like no other and in a BO5 he has stretch that out and play more junk than usual

We are now seeing players pushing themselves to levels which are un-sustainable. Nadal for instance we could see the beginning of the end. Djokovic you wonder how his body must be feeling under the hours upon hours spent out on court this year.

It needs change to allow progression for the youngsters and also offer the old guard something to relax on.

Yep! I have been saying that for a but, haven't I? [/quote]

Aye you have been saying it

legendkillar wrote:

Indeed those players shouldn't moan, but are seeing a player in Nadal at 26 who could be at the end of his career. Should that be the case then we can say that from a 'natural' perspective that his body has run it's course. I do believe Murray and Djokovic have the shot making ability, but time and time again we are seeing weapon blunting tactics. The US Open final we saw Murray blunt Djokovic. The AO Final we saw Djokovic oust Nadal by simply outrallying the guy.

But Nadal could have had a longer career at ranked #10. He chose, and one cannot blame him, to reach the top and win as many slams and the ONLY WAY he could do that was by burning his body quicker. ....though to be frank I am not sure he is that injured.

Watching the US Open Final this year. Yes I was delighted with Murray winning. However, if I was a paying customer in terms of being at the match I would've been annoyed with the quality of tennis. Yes the moment itself historic in value, but not in terms of quality.

Abysmal but they have no choice. They either look better and lose (that was why Djoko lost set 1 and 2) or they grind it and win. In both cases their defense is much better than their attacking game.

I don;t think Murray is any different than Djoko. He actually defends more and is less naturally built to do so.

Well Murray has carved a career out of defensive play. The US Open played right into his hands because the conditions added another 50% on top of risky shots. I have always said that windy conditions often bring the best out of the 'feel' players and Murray and Djokovic were both too cautious. Take the Wimbledon final and Murray was able to play more riskier shots because the wind was a lesser factor compared with the US Open.

I often feel Murray's problems have often been the balance of tactics. Either he plays far too defensive or he doesn't play enough variation in matches. I think if he became more aggressive playing, he might generate the same level of results. Lendl has worked wonders and it does pain me to admit that not being a fan of him becoming a coach.

Djokovic this year for me has often been too passive in early stages of matches. In 2011 he would literally come out and set his stall. Yes he hasn't had much of good time off the court and the French Open certainly must've thrown him mentally, he has however seemed content to play to beat of his opponent in rallies. I do hope Djokovic can reclaim that form that has served him so well in the past.

In whole what does tennis do? Does it take the technology out of the game? For example in golf there has been criticism over the long and belly putters and the crazy advantage they give players. Yes I find that the strings are giving too much advantage to some of the more average players, but I often feel players who at 18 don't get near the top 250 at that time are doomed to fail. I think use they can limit the material in strings to create a fairer playing field. I also feel they can do something with the surfaces. I only find myself enjoying Doha and Queens which play with some speed.

legendkillar wrote:
I often feel Murray's problems have often been the balance of tactics. Either he plays far too defensive or he doesn't play enough variation in matches. I think if he became more aggressive playing, he might generate the same level of results. Lendl has worked wonders and it does pain me to admit that not being a fan of him becoming a coach.

.

Murray's problem is still his lack of a weapon forehand. He's working on it, but it just does not come to him naturally as a weapon. Without a versatile aggressive forehand he is forced to play the way he does.
having seen him live, his backhand is a great shot, naturally aggressive, more of a weapon than forehand which is just lagging behind.
He can belt it cross court alright but that's about it.

He does not have the attacking mindset at all.

legendkillar wrote:that form that has served him so well in the past.

In whole what does tennis do? Does it take the technology out of the game? For example in golf there has been criticism over the long and belly putters and the crazy advantage they give players. Yes I find that the strings are giving too much advantage to some of the more average players, but I often feel players who at 18 don't get near the top 250 at that time are doomed to fail. I think use they can limit the material in strings to create a fairer playing field. I also feel they can do something with the surfaces. I only find myself enjoying Doha and Queens which play with some speed.

It's very simple. They can keep the variety of strings but then ball suppliers should make the balls slightly harder and smaller so that strings won't bite into the ball as much (less spin), which will bring the tennis slightly back towards the beginning of the 00s where a more attacking player could win slams. Less spin woudl give SVing a real chance again.

The problem might be the big servers could become nearly unstoppable.

Or we keep things as they are but we widen slighly the width of the court. It wont make much difference to the baseliner who typically hardly get close to the tramelines but it will give the attacking players a slightly bigger target worth going for.

Could altering the balls help?
To me , that looks the easiest solution.

Of course....the babolat FO11 balls woudl make a big difference on other surfaces. They could turn wimby into 1990s wimby overnight.

Tenez wrote:Of course....the babolat FO11 balls woudl make a big difference on other surfaces. They could turn wimby into 1990s wimby overnight.

that would be great, not too much, just like they did it in RG last year, it was perfect!

.