A few questions about great champions.

1 - First why have we got 13 years of crap Next Gen?
We all have a view on this but at a time tennis gt so popular thanks to Nadal and Federer we should have a plethora of new upcoming players.

2 - When do you think was the last time a recent champion or "great" was not as "good" as his predecessors. Borg for instance might not have been as "great" as Laver (though at the time he certainly was considered so) but very few think Laver was a better player than Borg. Did not Lendl reach higher levels than Borg? Weren't Becker and Edberg better than Mc? or did we have to wait for Pete? Wasn't Pete considered the best, even if boring, player in the world and thought not many would play as well. Some even regard his serving as the best ever.
So which consistent number 1 in the world did not play as well as his previous peers? I want names.

3 - This question is how can we explain that Federer who is also viewed as a better player than his predecessor (Pete) and by many as a one century genius was overtaken and beaten by 2 younger players with no obvious talent besides their fitness while Fed was at his peak more or less (in most people's mind)

4 - And considering questions 2 and 3, can we go back to question 1 and explain the fact that Nadal and Djoko have had it thei way unchallenged unlike all other greats of the past....including the one in a century genius?

While Borg was dominating, we did not have to wait that long for Mc, or Lendl to challenge him. Yet back then Tennis was certainly not played as professionally by as many players and nations as today. Likewise, even if Lendl last quite a bit, Becker and Edberg were there to push him out, and Pete and Agassi also pushed Becker and Edberg out of the top spot.

Djokovic and Nadal have been dominant since 2011....that's 8 years of the same players. What is so special about them?

Nadal is a god.

DEC1M8 wrote:Nadal is a god.

Currently he is number 2. Also taken over at his peak by a player of similar age. more like a cod to me.

Nadal and Djokovic are the second most talented players in the world

1. I don’t think tennis is very popular right now, and it’s a disastrous choice for a young athlete who wants to be well off, unless he’s certain he’ll make the top  25 or so.

2 - 4 equipment / conditions evolution, except now there isn’t any PLUS money now plays a bigger role in keeping the top at the top because of medical treatment and even data analysis techniques.

Is it financially worse than it was 20 years ago to be a tennis player?

bogbrush wrote:1. I don’t think tennis is very popular right now, and it’s a disastrous choice for a young athlete who wants to be well off, unless he’s certain he’ll make the top  25 or so.

Don't you think that on the contrary Nadal and Federer increased the popularity amongst the youngs? Nadal and Djoko took on tennis while Pete and Agassi were at the top. could not be worse could it?  No I really think tennis has been very popular recently. And if anything the diversity of good youngsters just shows that. We can see in the US there is a problem (maybe the Pete effect)....but everywhere else in the world tennis is played more than before.

2 - 4 equipment / conditions evolution, except now there isn’t any PLUS money now plays a bigger role in keeping the top at the top because of medical treatment and even data analysis techniques.

That I agree with maybe a nuance. The lack of new technology since the new strings certainly helped Nadal and Djokovic but not only as the average age had been growing steadily in the top 100. Before a new technology meant youngsters arrived and could push anyone at the top thanks to new tools. It was easy(ier) for Becker and Agassi to push McEnroe down as the bigger frames allowed them to develop a game based on that new tool. Same when the luxilon strings arrived. One could stand slightly further back on return and still get enough power to bother the best SVers. Young Hewitt managed to be successful at a young age, like Guga thanks to those new strings...at the expense of Pete and other great servers, all disappeared more or less at once unless they have massive serve a la Isner or Karlo.

So the main thing is that new technology helped shorten the career at the top of the then top players and probably gave us a false idea of what was peaking, especially when looking at the pre-open era with little change in technology, where again, players were successful late in their career.

Now when you say medical treatment and money help them "stay" at the top. I guess you mean without evolving. But the key is that is that if they are kept fit longer, then they can improve on many other factors, shot selection, technique, timing, experience and so on as we know those things can improve and make a player better. And while doing so they are not bothered by youngsters coming with a bionic racquet or more muscles or bigger lungs than Nadal ever had.

So if those top players kept improving and lack of new technology showed the whole tour is getting older, this would explain the surreal, unheard off, long period of having no youngsters piercing through.

It doesn't quite explain the lack of success of the Dimitrov/Nishi generation, well it does but only in part. Maybe there were simply gutted, discourged by the level of professionalism and fitness the top 2 players achieved.

By popularity I mean as a rational choice for a talented athlete with options. Why slog your guts out and become the 50th best player in the World when you can earn as much by being perhaps the 10,000th best footballer? 

There are journeyman players in English football earning £15k a week without any of the exorbitant travel costs, provided coaches so they need make no investment in their own care and development. What does the World #150 make, after expenses?

The answer to 3/4 is very obvious. Unfortunately it goes against everything you’ve believed for 15 years.

The gap between football and tennis has always existed financially.
Also is there enough of an overlap of skills that many athletes could realistically choose to go professional in either football or tennis?
I know Nadal had that choice, but I doubt many others.

Slippy wrote:The answer to 3/4 is very obvious. Unfortunately it goes against everything you’ve believed for 15 years.

What is obvious?

bogbrush wrote:By popularity I mean as a rational choice for a talented athlete with options. Why slog your guts out and become the 50th best player in the World when you can earn as much by being perhaps the 10,000th best footballer? 

There are journeyman players in English football earning £15k a week without any of the exorbitant travel costs, provided coaches so they need make no investment in their own care and development. What does the World #150 make, after expenses?

This has always been the case though - probably more so in the US where salaries for their major sports have been immense for years. I’m not aware of a known drop off in tennis playing figures and there are more ranked players now than there were 20 years ago. I don’t think this is likely to be the reason.

DEC1M8 wrote:The gap between football and tennis has always existed financially.
Also is there enough of an overlap of skills that many athletes could realistically choose to go professional in either football or tennis?
I know Nadal had that choice, but I doubt many others.

Federer has hesitated also between football and tennis but I think youngsters first take on a sport because they like it, not money. And if money is their goal, then there are plenty of millionaires to satisfy them....but I agree it is one of the most difficult sport, especially compared with Golf or F1 for instance.

But all in all I dont that can be the reason for a 10 year or so draught of young slam winners. Never had that in the past.

Interesting topic.

1) We are in chartered waters. The last recent multi slam winners started at ages 25 and 29 respectively. I think the last multi slam winner to have started winning late was Vlias! That shows really how dominant the Big 3 have been for the last 15 years. However, outside of homogenization, there are other factors for me that have led to the sustained dominance:

- Increased number of seeds at Slams
- Non-slam events becoming BO3 rather than BO5
- Increased media exposure eg birth of social media and growth of internet

Now the top 2 factors for me means that any next gen don't play the "greats" as frequently over a longer match format and whilst a BO3 is not likely to boil down to fitness, a BO5 is likely to. The BO3 has consequently allowed the Big 3 not play so many long matches over a sustained period of time which arguably lends itself to a greater chance of longevity. The medicine and remedies has further allowed better conditioning. Plus financial success means players can better manage their schedules without chasing or playing in minor events. Look at Federer skipping Clay. How long has that potentially prolonged his career by being able to manage such a schedule without much detriment to his ranking?

The third point I bet many have a puzzled look. Hear me on this. Nowadays the world is much more connected. Even players who haven't accrued much in the way of on court success are much more known these days then they probably would be say 20 years ago. Imagine Sampras in this era. Set aside the state of the game. Do you think he could handle the intense media intrusion and scrutiny given how fiercely private he was? This next gen have an extra scrutiny of being more marketable and media savvy. That must really affect them and really challenge keeping their focus on the court purely. Yes they'll have people looking after their social media accounts, but you can't tell me that they don't pay attention to the negativity. Look at Murray with the "Anyone but England" comment and how long that's followed him around for. That sort of nonsense was never prevalent years ago. There's too much distraction is what I am saying. Take into account when Federer and Nadal broke through. Stuff like Twitter or Facebook hadn't registered on the radar as such. It's such a different world. 

2) I would say clearly Djokovic and Nadal not as great as Federer, prior to that I would say Courier wasn't better than Edberg as that would be the nearest to a form of consistency and before that maybe Lendl.

3) Well Nadal had one play essentially which was the pummel the Federer BH. Now that worked a treat and no-one before Nadal really had the skill or the discipline to carry out such an effective tactic. He took the game that essentially Hewitt built and really added layers to it. Beast like endurance but also that topspin. Federer was drawn into encounters with him that were long rallies and don't think Federer really ever got to grips with that given it was Nadal who made the inroads on Federer's preferred surfaces rather than Federer breaking Nadal on clay. What is more interesting now is that the rivalry is back to where it was say around 2006. Where Federer has reclaimed grass and the hardcourt and Nadal still has an iron grip on Clay. Since Federer has shored up the BH, the rivalry has taken a different dimension meaning Nadal is taking on more risk to having to beat Federer. Which many would've wished for at the height of their respective powers. 

Djokovic is different animal altogether. Whilst many would lump Nadal and Djokovic together by the main characteristic of their games being fitness, the 2 of them are different in many ways. Djokovic doesn't play the topspin game like Nadal and also Djokovic hits much flatter and also played a much longer length in groundstrokes because of the lack of topspin and importantly Djokovic has a much better serve than Nadal. 

The bigger question with Djokovic, is how not only did he surpass Federer but also Nadal. In my view he pushed Nadal and Federer to play with much more smaller margins than they had with each other. Take 2011. The way Djokovic owned Nadal. No-one had done that before and no-one has done it since. It was pure tennis perfection as he took time away from Nadal in rallies and Nadal never really overcame that. It was more the Djokovic game changed massively from what it was back then. 

Now Djokovic with Federer was different because Federer wasn't facing the topspin brutality he did with Nadal. Also Djokovic didn't have the height on returns of the Nadal groundstroke which meant Djokovic played passively by hitting a consistent length and forcing Federer to blink. The perfect example of this was the Wimbledon Final 2014. 

Why have others failed who've been more perceived as more talented? Del Potro you'd have to say cursed by injuries. Murray, just didn't have a strong enough game. Wawrinka? Too streaky and inconsistent. Take the ill-fated first next gen: Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori. Mixture of poor discipline (Dimi), lack of expansiveness (Raonic) and just shit luck with injuries and piss weak mentality (Nishi). Kyrgios is a prat where the penny will never drop it seems. 

4) Taking into account all the factors above. For this generation, it's a different challenge. It's not the sport has changed to the extent that allows evolution, it's that the world has. Looking back at when there was a natural line of succession, the world wasn't so different to the extent that it influenced the game as the changes in the world recently have. The same factors which has preserved Djokovic's and Nadal's dominance are the same which have done for Federer too.

Here are my answers and they explain it all:

1 - We do have a plethora of new players and they look quite damn good to me, especially when compared to Djokovic and nadal at the same age.

2 - I do not recall a champ not being as good as the previous one. Maybe Courier was not as good as Edberg as LK suggests  but that is debatable Edberg never won a match v Courier when he reached 26 which is still see as "peak" by most and Courier was only 22...so not the best example. and in any case Pete came to sort them out and it did not last long enough to really go against the trend.

3 - Fed, the best player of all time, is being rattled at his so-called peak in 2005 - 2007 by young players of 20yo or so. Nadal was being challenged by Djoko as early as 25 losing 7 finals in a row. But Djoko is the exception, he has been unchallenged when fit for the last 8 years. Fed was caught up so quickly cause he simply did not train and learn quickly under the new slow conditions and technology (adapted to new strings in 2002 and getting a decent size racket in 2015 only). We can actually see that this new racquet in 2015 gave him the possiblity to cut through draws at USO and Wimbledon with more ease than in the past but was also plagued with niggles which made him more vulnerable. Had fed learnt with the same conditions as Nadal and Djoko, I believe those 2 would have had to wait much longer before overtaking Federer, in spite of Federer never catching them on the physical side.

4 - It all makes sense if you consider that with no technology change and fitness becoming so important and helping pro staying fit longer, than the top players actually improved when after 26/7 which for the first time in history of open era tennis, makes the task for youngsters much harder to reach that consistency to displace the current top who benefit of a 0 innovation period.

Now the proof in the pudding will be, if we all stay around here, to see the level of tennis those youngsters will play when they reach 25/26 and maybe even later. So stay tuned!

legendkillar wrote:Interesting topic.

1) ....That shows really how dominant the Big 3 have been for the last 15 years.

yes but why? As you pointed out, Murray and Stan also got successful late.

- Increased number of seeds at Slams
- Non-slam events becoming BO3 rather than BO5
- Increased media exposure eg birth of social media and growth of internet

they do play a role.....but slightly negligible to me.

The third point I bet many have a puzzled look. Hear me on this. Nowadays the world is much more connected. Even players who haven't accrued much in the way of on court success are much more known these days then they probably would be say 20 years ago. Imagine Sampras in this era. Set aside the state of the game. Do you think he could handle the intense media intrusion and scrutiny given how fiercely private he was? This next gen have an extra scrutiny of being more marketable and media savvy. That must really affect them and really challenge keeping their focus on the court purely. Yes they'll have people looking after their social media accounts, but you can't tell me that they don't pay attention to the negativity. Look at Murray with the "Anyone but England" comment and how long that's followed him around for. That sort of nonsense was never prevalent years ago. There's too much distraction is what I am saying. Take into account when Federer and Nadal broke through. Stuff like Twitter or Facebook hadn't registered on the radar as such. It's such a different world. 

But today young players are also helped in handling it when given those big sponsoring contract so quite negligeable as an influence.

2) I would say clearly Djokovic and Nadal not as great as Federer, prior to that I would say Courier wasn't better than Edberg as that would be the nearest to a form of consistency and before that maybe Lendl.

I am not talking about "great". I am talking about Djokovic dislodging Federer and Nadal in 2011 and becoming "better" than both.

3) Well Nadal had one play essentially which was the pummel the Federer BH. Now that worked a treat and no-one before Nadal really had the skill or the discipline to carry out such an effective tactic. He took the game that essentially Hewitt built and really added layers to it. Beast like endurance but also that topspin. Federer was drawn into encounters with him that were long rallies and don't think Federer really ever got to grips with that given it was Nadal who made the inroads on Federer's preferred surfaces rather than Federer breaking Nadal on clay. What is more interesting now is that the rivalry is back to where it was say around 2006. Where Federer has reclaimed grass and the hardcourt and Nadal still has an iron grip on Clay. Since Federer has shored up the BH, the rivalry has taken a different dimension meaning Nadal is taking on more risk to having to beat Federer. Which many would've wished for at the height of their respective powers. 

Whatever the reasons , Bizarre to see a one in a century genius being caught up so quickly. The new technology is again the clear reason to me as we saw Federer not losing to Nadal since (bar this non event at the last FO).

Djokovic is different animal altogether. Whilst many would lump Nadal and Djokovic together by the main characteristic of their games being fitness, the 2 of them are different in many ways. Djokovic doesn't play the topspin game like Nadal and also Djokovic hits much flatter and also played a much longer length in groundstrokes because of the lack of topspin and importantly Djokovic has a much better serve than Nadal. 

I don;t think Djoko hits much flatter. A lot of his shots have spin or are blocked and use pace a la Hewitt.
T

he bigger question with Djokovic, is how not only did he surpass Federer but also Nadal. In my view he pushed Nadal and Federer to play with much more smaller margins than they had with each other. Take 2011. The way Djokovic owned Nadal. No-one had done that before and no-one has done it since. It was pure tennis perfection as he took time away from Nadal in rallies and Nadal never really overcame that. It was more the Djokovic game changed massively from what it was back then.

 I agree but that in essence was exactly what allowed Hewitt to take the tennis world by storm. Djoko simply did it with a much better fitness and probably learnt to play with those new strings earlier than Djoko so became better at it.

Now Djokovic with Federer was different because Federer wasn't facing the topspin brutality he did with Nadal. Also Djokovic didn't have the height on returns of the Nadal groundstroke which meant Djokovic played passively by hitting a consistent length and forcing Federer to blink. The perfect example of this was the Wimbledon Final 2014

A la Hewitt....who also gave Federer some tough matches.

Why have others failed who've been more perceived as more talented? Del Potro you'd have to say cursed by injuries. Murray, just didn't have a strong enough game. Wawrinka? Too streaky and inconsistent. Take the ill-fated first next gen: Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori. Mixture of poor discipline (Dimi), lack of expansiveness (Raonic) and just shit luck with injuries and piss weak mentality (Nishi). Kyrgios is a prat where the penny will never drop it seems. 

We agree on this. But overall, I think they all lack the fitness and discipline, professionalism of Nadal and Djokovic.

4) Taking into account all the factors above. For this generation, it's a different challenge. It's not the sport has changed to the extent that allows evolution, it's that the world has. Looking back at when there was a natural line of succession, the world wasn't so different to the extent that it influenced the game as the changes in the world recently have. The same factors which has preserved Djokovic's and Nadal's dominance are the same which have done for Federer too.

Very simply 0 technology improvement since the last luxilon came up and 0 progress on the steroid, EPO side of the sport than the youngsters would have access than the top player would not.

Here's my answers not having read anything other than the opening post.

1) A social media generation that hasn't learnt the value of delayed gratification as it is a completely alien concept now. In tennis though it would seem it is still an ingredient to being a champion, knowing how to want something putting work in for something that will pay off down the line. IIRC Mcenroe talking about his penultimate Borg loss at Wimbledon said he was surprised by how much Borg still wanted it having already won it 4 times and how he was taken by surprise by that as he expected the 5th set to be easier. Not sure anyone will ever want it that badly again...

Further on the social media/tech thing, I'm not sure this is as valid as it's way more of a guess than above but maybe it does make you more stupid. I didn't think Nadal or Djokovic were particularly intelligent with their tennis but they look like geniuses next to the new gen; not all of that is down to experience.

2) Not sure I can give the names you're looking for here, though I will say that we'll be seeing this situation very soon with a bunch of paper champions after these guys retire. It was paramount for the new gen to push them out when they were still relatively good if for nothing that the credibility of the game. They've failed though I'll bet that they have has never even occurred to them.

3) Having watched Federer through 2008 and seen him shank regulation shots with his grounds strokes with no pressure on him, I'd say something changed that year and even though the following year went better, he was never the same as 04-07. I've never had the same confidence watching him play anyone that I had back then. 

I'd also say courts were slowed closer to Federer's prime, in particular USO, and him sticking to the smaller racquet when needing power off the backhand. Though Federer is able to run and defend, his mentality is that of an attacking player who's aim is to end points fast. Nadal and more recently Djokovic's game got to him in that the ball would come back more than it should for the quality and risk of the shot. In watching him in the past I've thought he could still have won some of the points against their retrievals had he made himself ready to hit another shot. Some of this is due to slower courts and some is due to Nadal and Djokovic's ability and play style.

Whereas Djokovic's great skill in the return of serve is apparent to me, Nadal's is much less so; standing miles back and looping the ball when it's slowed down completely isn't a great returner to me. The overriding feeling is Federer lost way more than he should have done to Nadal, and he let him into his head way more than he should have done. Like he said himself, he played him on clay too much during the early rivalry, and even then had 1 or 2 more of those meetings gone his way, in particular Rome 2006, it may have been a much different story. It's inconceivable he was even a break down in the fifth in the AO17 given how much better he was playing.

It's been pointed out before that it takes a different mental strength to attack. I think while Nadal and Djokovic's games are more physically demanding, Federer's is more mentally so.

4) Age still has an effect and Federer from 2006 would mop the floor with current Nadal and Djokovic. The new players are just so shit that they can't take advantage of their youth. I do feel a bit for Thiem in the FO final, had he maintained the level he brought to the first 2 sets he would have had a very good chance, it looked like he was stronger and had more energy than Nadal. He did get screwed by scheduling but then so did Nadal in 2007 wimbledon and so I still think being the younger guy should have found a way.

My guess would be that while isn't a factor between the new gen and the big 3 due to quality difference perhaps explained by my answer to 1, it is still a factor in the rivalry between the big 3. I disagree that he was overtaken in his prime as he was never the same after 2007 to me. An illustrative example would be the 2009 wimbledon final where he was serving and returning well but couldn't rely on his groundstrokes to outmatch Roddick, even after having had decent groundstrokes in the semi against Haas.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Interesting topic.

1) ....That shows really how dominant the Big 3 have been for the last 15 years.

yes but why? As you pointed out, Murray and Stan also got successful late.

- Increased number of seeds at Slams
- Non-slam events becoming BO3 rather than BO5
- Increased media exposure eg birth of social media and growth of internet

they do play a role.....but slightly negligible to me.

The third point I bet many have a puzzled look. Hear me on this. Nowadays the world is much more connected. Even players who haven't accrued much in the way of on court success are much more known these days then they probably would be say 20 years ago. Imagine Sampras in this era. Set aside the state of the game. Do you think he could handle the intense media intrusion and scrutiny given how fiercely private he was? This next gen have an extra scrutiny of being more marketable and media savvy. That must really affect them and really challenge keeping their focus on the court purely. Yes they'll have people looking after their social media accounts, but you can't tell me that they don't pay attention to the negativity. Look at Murray with the "Anyone but England" comment and how long that's followed him around for. That sort of nonsense was never prevalent years ago. There's too much distraction is what I am saying. Take into account when Federer and Nadal broke through. Stuff like Twitter or Facebook hadn't registered on the radar as such. It's such a different world. 

But today young players are also helped in handling it when given those big sponsoring contract so quite negligeable as an influence.

2) I would say clearly Djokovic and Nadal not as great as Federer, prior to that I would say Courier wasn't better than Edberg as that would be the nearest to a form of consistency and before that maybe Lendl.

I am not talking about "great". I am talking about Djokovic dislodging Federer and Nadal in 2011 and becoming "better" than both.

3) Well Nadal had one play essentially which was the pummel the Federer BH. Now that worked a treat and no-one before Nadal really had the skill or the discipline to carry out such an effective tactic. He took the game that essentially Hewitt built and really added layers to it. Beast like endurance but also that topspin. Federer was drawn into encounters with him that were long rallies and don't think Federer really ever got to grips with that given it was Nadal who made the inroads on Federer's preferred surfaces rather than Federer breaking Nadal on clay. What is more interesting now is that the rivalry is back to where it was say around 2006. Where Federer has reclaimed grass and the hardcourt and Nadal still has an iron grip on Clay. Since Federer has shored up the BH, the rivalry has taken a different dimension meaning Nadal is taking on more risk to having to beat Federer. Which many would've wished for at the height of their respective powers. 

Whatever the reasons , Bizarre to see a one in a century genius being caught up so quickly. The new technology is again the clear reason to me as we saw Federer not losing to Nadal since (bar this non event at the last FO).

Djokovic is different animal altogether. Whilst many would lump Nadal and Djokovic together by the main characteristic of their games being fitness, the 2 of them are different in many ways. Djokovic doesn't play the topspin game like Nadal and also Djokovic hits much flatter and also played a much longer length in groundstrokes because of the lack of topspin and importantly Djokovic has a much better serve than Nadal. 

I don;t think Djoko hits much flatter. A lot of his shots have spin or are blocked and use pace a la Hewitt.
T

he bigger question with Djokovic, is how not only did he surpass Federer but also Nadal. In my view he pushed Nadal and Federer to play with much more smaller margins than they had with each other. Take 2011. The way Djokovic owned Nadal. No-one had done that before and no-one has done it since. It was pure tennis perfection as he took time away from Nadal in rallies and Nadal never really overcame that. It was more the Djokovic game changed massively from what it was back then.

 I agree but that in essence was exactly what allowed Hewitt to take the tennis world by storm. Djoko simply did it with a much better fitness and probably learnt to play with those new strings earlier than Djoko so became better at it.

Now Djokovic with Federer was different because Federer wasn't facing the topspin brutality he did with Nadal. Also Djokovic didn't have the height on returns of the Nadal groundstroke which meant Djokovic played passively by hitting a consistent length and forcing Federer to blink. The perfect example of this was the Wimbledon Final 2014

A la Hewitt....who also gave Federer some tough matches.

Why have others failed who've been more perceived as more talented? Del Potro you'd have to say cursed by injuries. Murray, just didn't have a strong enough game. Wawrinka? Too streaky and inconsistent. Take the ill-fated first next gen: Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori. Mixture of poor discipline (Dimi), lack of expansiveness (Raonic) and just shit luck with injuries and piss weak mentality (Nishi). Kyrgios is a prat where the penny will never drop it seems. 

We agree on this. But overall, I think they all lack the fitness and discipline, professionalism of Nadal and Djokovic.

4) Taking into account all the factors above. For this generation, it's a different challenge. It's not the sport has changed to the extent that allows evolution, it's that the world has. Looking back at when there was a natural line of succession, the world wasn't so different to the extent that it influenced the game as the changes in the world recently have. The same factors which has preserved Djokovic's and Nadal's dominance are the same which have done for Federer too.

Very simply 0 technology improvement since the last luxilon came up and 0 progress on the steroid, EPO side of the sport than the youngsters would have access than the top player would not.

1) The why? Simply they are much more accustomed to success. Remember when you spoke of the experience factor? It's the same with success. Experience it, and you know how to handle it and the trappings and pressure that come with it. Not saying it's the only factor, but look at some of the next gen. Buckle in the big matches and the big points. 

2) It's not negligible. I think if anything you underplay it. Look at Slams. Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and even whomever was 4th would benefit from 3 early matches which aren't testing and that really at the QF was when it got serious. The odds are they wouldn't face a top tenner until the QF's or even the SF. However, those early 3 matches allowed them to play themselves into form without much trouble. Imagine playing a player in the top 20 in the earlier rounds or round 1? Different pressure. Also the reduced set format. Think about it. Imagine if the matches were BO5 in all tournaments. Not only ask if Federer would have lasted as long as he has, would Djokovic or Nadal sustained the levels of endurance if playing BO5 week in week out over the years? Served as a real layer of protection.

3) As I stated they do have those who handle it. You still can't tell me they ignore the negativity. Profile is just as important. More so for securing sponsors. Again another factor they have to deal with more these days. Imagine Borg in today's climate. 

4) The question was about who wasn't better than the previous dominant player. I answered it. See below for the rest.

5) It's not bizarre as you are working on the basis that Federer as a genius is infallible. There was a flaw in his game and Nadal struck upon it. Look at how many players against Federer tried that tactic since then. Many still go to the BH even if it wasn't there main tactic. Federer has since got a bigger racquet. Not new in the tech sense (But to Federer it is). Kevalar strings are available to all and yet we are not seeing more youngsters use it. Which shows there must be a unique talent that gets the best out of that. The other question is what racquet tech is still left undiscovered? Look at other sports. Tech wise it's gone as far as it can. Cricket changes format and rules, Golf tweaks with the courses, football tries to further enhance footwear and the balls. Tennis is anything can only look at surfaces and balls.

6) Djokovic hits much more flatter than Nadal. As you say its more the pace.

7) Hewitt was blighted by injuries. Imagine how he would've improved should he had not had those injuries. Remember 2009 when he experienced a renaissence? That despite being half the player he was. Just as Ferrero experience about 1 year later. Both players seemingly less talented and yet had enough without the sharpness they had in their heydays. Djokovic may have learnt with the new tech and fitness, but my god the man is ridiculously flexible. That's something not taught and bought from a bottle. Just genetics. 

8) As above. Yes he might be similar to Hewitt, but his movement much more cleaner and quicker. The flexibility. Imagine if he was more rigid on his feet say like Roddick. Even with fitness he wouldn't move as cleaner. Look at Monfils. Fantastic mover, but an absolute moron!

9) They lack discipline and professionalism. That's something even doping wouldn't improve. That's born out of mindset. Look at Tsitsipas. Playing more doubles meaning more matches. Going to burn himself out at this rate. 

10) As I stated earlier. Where can tennis go with the tech?

I'd add that in addition to young players having less inherent motivation, the sponsors and the millions that roll in just for winning a few points against one of the main players also stunts their hunger and progress.

naxroy wrote:Nadal and Djokovic are the second most talented players in the world

I don't like to see a word like "second" next to Nole's name.
He's the best, full stop!

bogbrush wrote:1. I don’t think tennis is very popular right now, and it’s a disastrous choice for a young athlete who wants to be well off, unless he’s certain he’ll make the top  25 or so.

2 - 4 equipment / conditions evolution, except now there isn’t any PLUS money now plays a bigger role in keeping the top at the top because of medical treatment and even data analysis techniques.

You cannot be serious!
Tennis has never been so popular and high quality. Even Rafa has developed his game and become good to watch and that says something coming from me.

Dynamics have changed and as a result we have more excellent players in the pot. So the Babies will have to wait for their turn.

They can't get their inheritance while the parents are alive, can they?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I'd add that in addition to young players having less inherent motivation, the sponsors and the millions that roll in just for winning a few points against one of the main players also stunts their hunger and progress.

Tomic being the definitive posterboy for that attitude to the limit.

legendkillar wrote:
1) The why? Simply they are much more accustomed to success. Remember when you spoke of the experience factor? It's the same with success. Experience it, and you know how to handle it and the trappings and pressure that come with it. Not saying it's the only factor, but look at some of the next gen. Buckle in the big matches and the big points.

 Because they have not got the fitness. Federer explained it very well when playing Hewitt younger and it is obvious v Djoko and Nadal. They have the skills to take sets off them...even beat them in TMS1000 but not in slam. And what's the difference between TMS and slams? more physically enduring.

2) It's not negligible. I think if anything you underplay it. Look at Slams. Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and even whomever was 4th would benefit from 3 early matches which aren't testing and that really at the QF was when it got serious. The odds are they wouldn't face a top tenner until the QF's or even the SF. However, those early 3 matches allowed them to play themselves into form without much trouble. Imagine playing a player in the top 20 in the earlier rounds or round 1? Different pressure. Also the reduced set format. Think about it. Imagine if the matches were BO5 in all tournaments. Not only ask if Federer would have lasted as long as he has, would Djokovic or Nadal sustained the levels of endurance if playing BO5 week in week out over the years? Served as a real layer of protection.

But that does not explain 10 years of youngsters not winning slams.

3

) As I stated they do have those who handle it. You still can't tell me they ignore the negativity. Profile is just as important. More so for securing sponsors. Again another factor they have to deal with more these days. Imagine Borg in today's climate. 

What would Borg, Nadal or Djoko do? How could they catch up the 10 years or so experience those now have? Again, even Djoko the "best of them all" did not become a regular slam winner before being 24. It took him 4 more years than Rafa because he simply took him longer to get fitter.

10) As I stated earlier. Where can tennis go with the tech?

I dunno. One thing they could do is speed up the balls. That would certainly annihilate all string points of Nadal and Djokovic who thrive with those huge balls. It is no coincidence Hewitt won Wimbledon (and Nalby was in the final) the year they provided those bigger balls.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I disagree that he was overtaken in his prime as he was never the same after 2007 to me. An illustrative example would be the 2009 wimbledon final where he was serving and returning well but couldn't rely on his groundstrokes to outmatch Roddick, even after having had decent groundstrokes in the semi against Haas.

But you cannot deny that even in 2006 he lost in Dubai v 21yo Nadal, in 2007 Federer lost Djokovic in Montreal and the 2007 USO final was dead close......Do you really think that Federer 2007 would have beaten the 2011 version of Djokovic? in 2009 and 2010 Federer is in my view way better than this 2007 version. The way he demolished Nadal and Djokovic in London 2009 and 2010 showed that he has learnt from playing them.

Do you really think you can beat Rafa without training/playing against him, and that all those matches did not make him a better player?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
1) The why? Simply they are much more accustomed to success. Remember when you spoke of the experience factor? It's the same with success. Experience it, and you know how to handle it and the trappings and pressure that come with it. Not saying it's the only factor, but look at some of the next gen. Buckle in the big matches and the big points.

 Because they have not got the fitness. Federer explained it very well when playing Hewitt younger and it is obvious v Djoko and Nadal. They have the skills to take sets off them...even beat them in TMS1000 but not in slam. And what's the difference between TMS and slams? more physically enduring.

2) It's not negligible. I think if anything you underplay it. Look at Slams. Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and even whomever was 4th would benefit from 3 early matches which aren't testing and that really at the QF was when it got serious. The odds are they wouldn't face a top tenner until the QF's or even the SF. However, those early 3 matches allowed them to play themselves into form without much trouble. Imagine playing a player in the top 20 in the earlier rounds or round 1? Different pressure. Also the reduced set format. Think about it. Imagine if the matches were BO5 in all tournaments. Not only ask if Federer would have lasted as long as he has, would Djokovic or Nadal sustained the levels of endurance if playing BO5 week in week out over the years? Served as a real layer of protection.

But that does not explain 10 years of youngsters not winning slams.

3

) As I stated they do have those who handle it. You still can't tell me they ignore the negativity. Profile is just as important. More so for securing sponsors. Again another factor they have to deal with more these days. Imagine Borg in today's climate. 

What would Borg, Nadal or Djoko do? How could they catch up the 10 years or so experience those now have? Again, even Djoko the "best of them all" did not become a regular slam winner before being 24. It took him 4 more years than Rafa because he simply took him longer to get fitter.

10) As I stated earlier. Where can tennis go with the tech?

I dunno. One thing they could do is speed up the balls. That would certainly annihilate all string points of Nadal and Djokovic who thrive with those huge balls. It is no coincidence Hewitt won Wimbledon (and Nalby was in the final)  the year they provided those bigger balls.

1) It's not fitness that caused Tsitsy to lose to Fabbiano! Or Wawrinka. As I stated much earlier, he is playing more matches than he needs to. So he is accumulating fatigue. Goes back to what I said earlier, season and tournament management. Federer isn't chasing double matches nor is Nadal or even Djokovic. You talk about the difference a 15 second breather between points does. Same principle applies here. 

2) But it does in part Ten. These youngsters not playing Federer, Djokovic or Nadal frequently at Slams as they are bloody losing in the earlier rounds! Imagine only 8 seeds. Would see earlier encounters.

3) We talking media coverage. Imagine peak Borg having to contend with social media. You'd have more Woofie's! Facebook wasn't around when Nadal or Djokovic were growing. For the next gen they would've grown up with this. All it takes is an ill advised tweet or comment and that brings a whole new level of criticism and scrutiny. Those not born into it or having it ingrained in their upbringing would be smarter and more mature to understand the pitfalls. 

4) I'd agree. Do something with the balls and surfaces. 

Look Ten it is clear to me you want this conclusion to ultimately be "Nadal and Djokovic through sheer fitness won"

You've asked the question on the Next Gen and I've given you a multitude of factors which IMO have served to provide further challenges to them. You are unwilling to accept that the characters or personality traits for these players play zero part in them not winning Slams. There isn't even a defined 2nd tier players. As I have said previously there was a time you had Murray, Roddick, Del Potro, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga that competed amongst themselves and rarely lost to journeymen on different surfaces. Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov are losing to such players. Until they iron out those deficiencies, they will be the latest nearly men. Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, just weren't good enough. They are more exposed to defeats journeymen given they've since aged. In their time though, they were well short.

Fitness allows them to improve on other factors: essentially exposure to each others. In short they have had the best coaches (each other and the rest of the field) for longest and that makes them better players than they were even 3 years ago....even if I agree they are more likely to get hurt nowadays.

And that explains why this next gen suffers. Zverev, Tsi , Kyrios, Thiem are there to exploit any loss of fitness but until then they can't make up for that 10 more years experience those older guys benefit.

Remember what Pete said. He played his best tennis on his last tournament.

There is no other logical reason for not having new Becker, Nadal or Chang.

Tenez wrote:Fitness allows them to improve on other factors: essentially exposure to each others. In short they have had the best coaches (each other and the rest of the field) for longest and that makes them better players than they were even 3 years ago....even if I agree they are more likely to get hurt nowadays.

And that explains why this next gen suffers. Zverev, Tsi , Kyrios, Thiem are there to exploit any loss of fitness but until then they can't make up for that 10 more years experience those older guys benefit.

Remember what Pete said. He played his best tennis on his last tournament.

There is no other logical reason for not having new Becker, Nadal or Chang.

But those very coaches you speak of have worked with other pros. Take Jez Green. Fitness and conditioning coach for Murray. Now works with Zverev. So what's stopping him from winning? Rasheed for example created Hewitt. Couldn't replicate that formula with Dimitrov or even Tsonga. Fitness didn't get Dimitrov over the line, or even Tsonga or for the time being Zverev. 

The next gen don't suffer because they ain't fit. They are fit. They just aren't mentally fit! 

Yes Pete said he played his best tennis last tournament. It was his last tournament. So no pressure or even expectation. That and a draw that opened up beautifully. He beat Rusedski who famously stated he was going to beat Pete before the match (another classic in a long list of them for that prat) and also had the huge benefit of Agassi taking out Hewitt who done him the year before. 

Like I said earlier, Cameron Norrie. Considers himself as fit as he can be. Probably not the only the pro tennis player who thinks and feels the same. 

Put yourself in the position of the next gen. These guys have watched Federer, Nadal and Djokovic beat up the field way into their primes and beyond. That field has all but vanished and they've beaten up another that followed. They are now petering out. This 3rd generation face the same. You tell me how the hell they can approach that without an element of fear when they've seen 3 players effectively see off 2 generations already? 

You look for logic. As I've explained, the racquets, strings, coaches are available to all and some have even used them. That has still not translated into anything like the success of the Big 3. You call it lack of fitness. I call it they are just not good enough.

legendkillar wrote:But those very coaches you speak of have worked with other pros. Take Jez Green. Fitness and conditioning coach for Murray. Now works with Zverev. So what's stopping him from winning? Rasheed for example created Hewitt. Couldn't replicate that formula with Dimitrov or even Tsonga. Fitness didn't get Dimitrov over the line, or even Tsonga or for the time being Zverev.

 My mistake. I did not make clear enough I meant "tennis coaches" as Nadal being a coach to Federer and vice versa. No coach can train you play v Rafa for instance. Only playing v Rafa can help you find the solutions. Federer and Djoko lost quite a few times before finding the keys. Having more than 10 years of exposure playing not only the top 3 /4 and the rest of the field, cannot be replaced by playing satellite and having a coach. Those guys nowadays need training against the best players and the rest of the field (top 100 players who also have got older and have more experience) to reach a better level. As mentioned in the past that could be done quicker by having trained with new technology or arriving with muscles, technique not seen before. Now it is simply much harder.

The next gen don't suffer because they ain't fit. They are fit. They just aren't mentally fit! 

Totally disagree with that. You can see to start with how they flare better in less demanding tournaments than slams. Slams and tms show you constantly that despite the possible upsets they can achieve, as the tournament goes on, the age of players gets older. Just look at the last 2 slams.

If they could last physically long enough they would be very strong mentally. Why would it be different for them than it is for Djoko and Rafa? They clearly have not reached that physical level. Maybe Thiem has, cause he is now 24 like Djoko was but unfortunately he has not got the experience to win his match with more ease and arrives tired at the business end of tournaments....when he gets there.

Yes Pete said he played his best tennis last tournament. It was his last tournament. So no pressure or even expectation. That and a draw that opened up beautifully. He beat Rusedski who famously stated he was going to beat Pete before the match (another classic in a long list of them for that prat) and also had the huge benefit of Agassi taking out Hewitt who done him the year before. 

Really? I can't see why playing his last tournament brings no pressure? Whatever the reasons he won, we should listen to a what a player says.

Like I said earlier, Cameron Norrie. Considers himself as fit as he can be. Probably not the only the pro tennis player who thinks and feels the same. 

Are we having a serious conversation here? I am sure Norrie is bloody fit, I never saw him play but I doubt he is as fit as Nadal or Djokovic.

Put yourself in the position of the next gen. These guys have watched Federer, Nadal and Djokovic beat up the field way into their primes and beyond. That field has all but vanished and they've beaten up another that followed. They are now petering out. This 3rd generation face the same. You tell me how the hell they can approach that without an element of fear when they've seen 3 players effectively see off 2 generations already? 

If Tsi comes back with more muscles and stamina than Nadal, he won't be scared and coudl use his guile and tactics that Nadal hasn't got. Problem is without that physical base, or a 2m long racket there is no way around those top 3.

You look for logic. As I've explained, the racquets, strings, coaches are available to all and some have even used them. That has still not translated into anything like the success of the Big 3. You call it lack of fitness. I call it they are just not good enough.

I am not sure you get the point. Yes technology is available to all...but experience isn't. That experience which makes you a better player. Just look at Federer at 35 at the AO 17 and compare that with his previous matches v Nadal where we knew he was doomed. New technology and experience is what helped him beat Nadal even though he had a groin injury and played long sets to get to the final. Look how heve never lost a set v Nadal after that.

It's dead obvious!

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:1. I don’t think tennis is very popular right now, and it’s a disastrous choice for a young athlete who wants to be well off, unless he’s certain he’ll make the top  25 or so.

2 - 4 equipment / conditions evolution, except now there isn’t any PLUS money now plays a bigger role in keeping the top at the top because of medical treatment and even data analysis techniques.

You cannot be serious!
Tennis has never been so popular and high quality. Even Rafa has developed his game and become good to watch and that says something coming from me.

Dynamics have changed and as a result we have more excellent players in the pot. So the Babies will have to wait for their turn.

They can't get their inheritance while the parents are alive, can they?

Perhaps in Serbia. 

Tennis is nothing in the States, at least Men's tennis. Everything else is way more lucrative and to those saying t'was ever thus, that's wrong. Footballers are now earning 2, 3, 500k a week and make no contribution to travelling and coaching expenses. Ordinary players are doing the same but down a factor of 10 or 20. Still miles ahead of anyone outside the top 40 or maybe even higher.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:But those very coaches you speak of have worked with other pros. Take Jez Green. Fitness and conditioning coach for Murray. Now works with Zverev. So what's stopping him from winning? Rasheed for example created Hewitt. Couldn't replicate that formula with Dimitrov or even Tsonga. Fitness didn't get Dimitrov over the line, or even Tsonga or for the time being Zverev.

 My mistake. I did not make clear enough I meant "tennis coaches" as Nadal being a coach to Federer and vice versa. No coach can train you play v Rafa for instance. Only playing v Rafa can help you find the solutions. Federer and Djoko lost quite a few times before finding the keys. Having more than 10 years of exposure playing not only the top 3 /4 and the rest of the field, cannot be replaced by playing satellite and having a coach. Those guys nowadays need training against the best players and the rest of the field (top 100 players who also have got older and have more experience) to reach a better level. As mentioned in the past that could be done quicker by having trained with new technology or arriving with muscles, technique not seen before. Now it is simply much harder.

The next gen don't suffer because they ain't fit. They are fit. They just aren't mentally fit! 

Totally disagree with that. You can see to start with how they flare better in less demanding tournaments than slams. Slams and tms show you constantly that despite the possible upsets they can achieve, as the tournament goes on, the age of players gets older. Just look at the last 2 slams.

If they could last physically long enough they would be very strong mentally. Why would it be different for them than it is for Djoko and Rafa? They clearly have not reached that physical level. Maybe Thiem has, cause he is now 24 like Djoko was but unfortunately he has not got the experience to win his match with more ease and arrives tired at the business end of tournaments....when he gets there.

Yes Pete said he played his best tennis last tournament. It was his last tournament. So no pressure or even expectation. That and a draw that opened up beautifully. He beat Rusedski who famously stated he was going to beat Pete before the match (another classic in a long list of them for that prat) and also had the huge benefit of Agassi taking out Hewitt who done him the year before. 

Really? I can't see why playing his last tournament brings no pressure? Whatever the reasons he won, we should listen to a what a player says.

Like I said earlier, Cameron Norrie. Considers himself as fit as he can be. Probably not the only the pro tennis player who thinks and feels the same. 

Are we having a serious conversation here? I am sure Norrie is bloody fit, I never saw him play but I doubt he is as fit as Nadal or Djokovic.

Put yourself in the position of the next gen. These guys have watched Federer, Nadal and Djokovic beat up the field way into their primes and beyond. That field has all but vanished and they've beaten up another that followed. They are now petering out. This 3rd generation face the same. You tell me how the hell they can approach that without an element of fear when they've seen 3 players effectively see off 2 generations already? 

If Tsi comes back with more muscles and stamina than Nadal, he won't be scared and coudl use his guile and tactics that Nadal hasn't got. Problem is without that physical base, or a 2m long racket there is no way around those top 3.

You look for logic. As I've explained, the racquets, strings, coaches are available to all and some have even used them. That has still not translated into anything like the success of the Big 3. You call it lack of fitness. I call it they are just not good enough.

I am not sure you get the point. Yes technology is available to all...but experience isn't. That experience which makes you a better player. Just look at Federer at 35 at the AO 17 and compare that with his previous matches v Nadal where we knew he was doomed. New technology and experience is what helped him beat Nadal even though he had a groin injury and played long sets to get to the final. Look how heve never lost a set v Nadal after that.

It's dead obvious!

1) As I stated earlier, if those next gen aren't reaching the back end of Slams, how the hell can they learn by experience in beating those players???!!! Come on. Think about it! 

2) They are fit Ten. Some of them just don't manage schedules properly and play many more tournaments than the likes of Nadal or Djokovic. Case in point Nadal and Djokovic played no grass events prior to Wimbledon and both faring better than those that did. Again as above. Think about it. 

3 and 4) Listen to players? You'll listen to Pete, but not Norrie? Because he isn't Nadal/Djokovic fit? Ten these feckers should be and probably are fitter. Like in point 2. If they are having to play more matches because they enter more tournaments, odds are they are going to be knackered! If Djokovic or Nadal had to play the exact same number of tournaments and rounds as those, results could very well be different. Think about it. Ten if a player goes into a match or even tournament knowing it's their last, they are not going to feel the weight of expectation or pressure they'd normally feel. The press didn't consider Pete a contender at that 2002 USO and even his decision to call quits he kept to himself. Look for example at Alastair Cook last year at test level. Hadn't scored a century in over 18 months and in his last innings did. Said himself hadn't played with such freedom for a while. 

5) Ten Tsitsy could bloody consume his body weight with Popeye esq spinach laced with EPO and he still wouldn't beat those guys because he has the muscle mass!!! It needs a brain behind it. If he enters all the tournaments known to man, he is going to experience fatigue during the season!!! The commentators were saying this at the FO for Christ's sake questioning the wisdom to start playing doubles when he had made such inroads in Singles post AO. Like I said, Nadal and Djokovic are not chasing the minor tournaments! They both haven't played any grass events leading into Wimbledon and yet positioned beautifully to go deep. Tsitsy has and fell at the first hurdle at Wimbledon. They are going to be much fresher aren't they? Again I don't think you are giving much consideration at all to these players playing minor tournaments. When was the last time Djokovic, Nadal or even Federer played a 500 event prior to the US Open? Penny to a pound Tsitsy, Zverev or even Thiem will play Salem or Washington before the Masters events. By doing that they accumulate fatigue. Look how drained Murray was when he chased the 500 events post US Open when going for No.1. He broke himself! These guys will be experiencing the same thing as they doing this all season long. 

6) I get it. However, I don't think you get it. Yes experience is vital, but until these guys start making serious inroads and succeeding that allows them not to play more tournaments, it's going to be an endless loop. Schedule management is an ongoing experience that only their bodies and minds will tell them what they can tolerate and can't. Forget tech and what have you. Nadal and Djokovic have very good schedules that enable enough rest between tournaments. These lower ranked guys aren't. Chasing the points wherever they may be.

Maybe this process was slowly happening before the Big Three/Four.  Look at the main rivals to Sampras during his career - starting with Becker, Edberg, Lendl, then Courier, Agassi, Rafter (Ivanisevic?) - nobody cropped up in the middle of Sampras's career from the subsequent generation (or half-generation) to harry him like, for example, Lendl did to McEnroe or Wilander/Becker/Edberg did to Lendl, and then Courier, Sampras, Agassi did to their 'betters'.  We had to wait until the Sampras/Agassi decade was pretty much over when we saw Hewitt and Safin briefly, and then Federer emerge; don't forget how Agassi clung on tenaciously in the latter 1990's and early 2000's.  

One thing that Sampras faced (and greats before him in the 1980's), which the Big Three do not, was very varied conditions with real 'specialist' challengers - so talk of Sampras's 'rivals' only really works away from the clay on the faster surfaces - there was even a marked difference between his and Agassi's performances at the once fast USO and the once slow AO.

I think that the ability of 'lesser' players to work through as specialists may have something small to do with it as part of the overall picture - but it doesn't go anything like far enough to explain it all.  One can look at Murray and Djokovic who emerged when Federer was in his prime and both immediately caused him problems for 4-5 years before really making their imprints.

Perhaps one area that might be making a difference is the cloying insistence on 'respect' being shown.  Connors and McEnroe did not show 'respect' to their 'betters', nor did Lendl, Wilander, or Becker, and nor, in a less overt way did Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic (remember his and his family's spats with Federer, and Fed's criticisms of Murray - even Stan & Fed have had needle).  Those guys got out there and pushed more storied players about - there was kick-back, and some, like McEnroe and Connors, ended up dividing opinions vigorously, but that sort of behaviour from the young was expected and given a bit more latitude than in today's corporate and collegiate world.  Granted that Kyrgios is in large part an idiot, but I like him because he's the only player who doesn't bathe himself in exaggerated 'respect' for the people he needs to beat. Perhaps this is an important part of beating those with big reputations - not so much the overt shows of disrespect, which can become a counter-productive distraction or source of motivation for the opponent, but avoidance of the underlying state of mind symptomatic with overt shows of respect.

I'd rather see players like FAA, Zverev, and Tsitsipas ruffling feathers, working out how to build ways of needling the likes of Fed/Djoko/Nadal into a proper game plan and doing it rather than wittering on about being honoured to play their idols &c &c.. You can bet each time such a guy beats someone in the Big 3 they'll be working on his weaknesses and how to snuff him out.*  

The collegiate circuses of the WTF and the Laver Cup are, wittingly or not, quite useful vehicles for elder statesmen to keep grateful Juniors in their respectful places.

* I do appreciate that part of the problem is that these guys regularly lose to 'lesser' players they should be pushing through to get at the Big 3, but I still think there is something in the 'respect' point.  They should be scrabbling over one another to get at and dethrone the Big Three.

Good points barry. Certainly agree with Kyrgios. He doesn't fawn in admiration for the Big 3 and feels an added spur to put one over on them. Tsitsy has it in small doses. I recall a recent defeat to Federer at Dubai in which he was proper pissed in the press conference. You can see there is potential there. It's just ridding of the inconsistency.

barrystar wrote:Maybe this process was slowly happening before the Big Three/Four.  Look at the main rivals to Sampras during his career - starting with Becker, Edberg, Lendl, then Courier, Agassi, Rafter (Ivanisevic?) - nobody cropped up in the middle of Sampras's career from the subsequent generation (or half-generation) to harry him like, for example, Lendl did to McEnroe or Wilander/Becker/Edberg did to Lendl, and then Courier, Sampras, Agassi did to their 'betters'.  We had to wait until the Sampras/Agassi decade was pretty much over when we saw Hewitt and Safin briefly, and then Federer emerge; don't forget how Agassi clung on tenaciously in the latter 1990's and early 2000's.

  
Good point. There was a decently long period where technology hardly changed when racquets became larger (1982 rougly) but strings stayed more or less the same. The larger frames helped Pete and Agassi (and Becker too who if I remember learnt to play with a big frame from a very young age). But we had roughly to wait until new strings came up with Guga/Hewitt to see new young champions. Chang is another one who benefitted from an extended racket length and huge thighs goving Pete lots of trouble at first regardless the surface. So this added data renforces my point that without technology change, youngsters struggle more.

On a sided note for those who do not see the real importance of fitness.

Look at Nadal and Djokovic....they would rather rest than train and play match on grass. This is when you think about it, crazy when you realise how different this surface should play v clay.

But no! For those 2 athletes being fit for the distance is far more important than gaining practice on grass. And you tell me fitness is not that important for those 2?

Tenez wrote:On a sided note for those who do not see the real importance of fitness.

Look at Nadal and Djokovic....they would rather rest than train and play match on grass. This is when you think about it, crazy when you realise how different this surface should play v clay.

But no! For those 2 athletes being fit for the distance is far more important than gaining practice on grass. And you tell me fitness is not that important for those 2?

Where does Borg fit into this analysis - he never played on grass between RG and Wimbledon?

With wooden racquets grass and clay were not playing that different. One had to place the ball, play with care.

It is the bigger racquet frames which allowed for free swinging of the racquet and added enough power to play a clay game on clay and a SVing game on fast surfaces. The larger frame is what really created clay specialist and grass specialist. From that moment the FO/Wimby double became almost impossible.

And to go back to my point, we see again that as the tournament goes on the average age of the remaining players grows steadily.

Djoko and Nadal are by far the better players of their generation but being of that age certainly gave them a huge breathing time.

One has to be of bad faith not see the trend. Or are some saying that this new generation will never be as good as Querrey and Goffin?

I would accept that racquet technology emphasised the differences between clay and grass, but I don't think you can say that they were not playing that different in Borg's time.  S&V was very prevalent on grass in his day, not least because players wanted to take out the uneven low skidding bounces and found it slippery to move on (Borg was the first player to wear soles with rubber studs like all modern players do now).  Also, if you look at the lists of early Open Era winners and finalists at RG on the one hand, and Wimbledon on the other (and Aus and USO when they were on grass), they are very different.

One reason for Borg not competing on grass may be that he was invariably in the RG final and there was even less time between the two slams than there is now.

They were playing differently but not enough to make the FO/Wimbledon double a rarity like it became after the larger frames came up.

PS - I meant won both the FO and WImbledon....not necessarily in the same year.

I don't think your specific argument is following the evidence Tenez, I think you are a little bit bending it to your views.

Only Laver and Borg managed the double and there was a big gap until Nadal and Federer did, and Djokovic and Murray have made the two finals in the same year too.

If you look at players who made both the RG and Wimbledon finals, if not in the same year, but in close proximity, there are plenty from the post-wooden racquet era, mid-late 1980's - 1990's, e.g. Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe in 1984, Courier, Agassi, Stich.

barrystar wrote:I don't think your specific argument is following the evidence Tenez, I think you are a little bit bending it to your views.

Only Laver and Borg managed the double and there was a big gap until Nadal and Federer did, and Djokovic and Murray have made the two finals in the same year too.

If you look at players who made both the RG and Wimbledon finals, if not in the same year, but in close proximity, there are plenty from the post-wooden racquet era, mid-late 1980's - 1990's, e.g. Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe in 1984, Courier, Agassi, Stich.

And what about Patty, Trabert, Lew Hoad, the musketeers etc???? Who is bending his view?

Tenez wrote:With wooden racquets grass and clay were not playing that different. One had to place the ball, play with care.

It is the bigger racquet frames which allowed for free swinging of the racquet and added enough power to play a clay game on clay and a SVing game on fast surfaces. The larger frame is what really created clay specialist and grass specialist. From that moment the FO/Wimby double became almost impossible.  

Funny you say that. 

Between 1970 and 1985 only 1 player made both the French Open and Wimbledon finals in the same year. Borg.

Between 1985 and 2000, 4 did. Lendl, Edberg, Courier and Agassi.

Strange abnormality if it was easier to play clay and grass with wooden racquets wouldn't you say?

I was responding to your specific point that there is something colourable about Djokovic & Nadal not competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon by mentioning Borg; you then backed your point up by saying that grass and clay did not play that differently in Borg's time, of wooden racquets.  Hence my focus on Borg's time and that which followed it.  Of course I'd accept that there were players in the Amateur era who could play on grass and clay.

To return to your original point that there is something colourable about Djoko and Nadal training rather than competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon - I still think it's a bad one.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:With wooden racquets grass and clay were not playing that different. One had to place the ball, play with care.

It is the bigger racquet frames which allowed for free swinging of the racquet and added enough power to play a clay game on clay and a SVing game on fast surfaces. The larger frame is what really created clay specialist and grass specialist. From that moment the FO/Wimby double became almost impossible.  

Funny you say that. 

Between 1970 and 1985 only 1 player made both the French Open and Wimbledon finals in the same year. Borg.

Between 1985 and 2000, 4 did. Lendl, Edberg, Courier and Agassi.

Strange abnormality if it was easier to play clay and grass with wooden racquets wouldn't you say?

That's really bending the reality!! Why take 1970 and 1985?

I am talking about wooden racket (1946-1982) v larger frame/nat strings (1982 -2002) roughly. There it is bloody fucking clear that it became a real challenge to have both the FO and Wimbledon trophies, let alone in the same year.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:With wooden racquets grass and clay were not playing that different. One had to place the ball, play with care.

It is the bigger racquet frames which allowed for free swinging of the racquet and added enough power to play a clay game on clay and a SVing game on fast surfaces. The larger frame is what really created clay specialist and grass specialist. From that moment the FO/Wimby double became almost impossible.  

Funny you say that. 

Between 1970 and 1985 only 1 player made both the French Open and Wimbledon finals in the same year. Borg.

Between 1985 and 2000, 4 did. Lendl, Edberg, Courier and Agassi.

Strange abnormality if it was easier to play clay and grass with wooden racquets wouldn't you say?

That's really bending the reality!! Why take 1970 and 1985?

I am talking about wooden racket (1946-1982) v larger frame/nat strings (1982 -2002) roughly. There it is bloody fucking clear that it became a real challenge to have both the FO and Wimbledon trophies, let alone in the same year.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:With wooden racquets grass and clay were not playing that different. One had to place the ball, play with care.

It is the bigger racquet frames which allowed for free swinging of the racquet and added enough power to play a clay game on clay and a SVing game on fast surfaces. The larger frame is what really created clay specialist and grass specialist. From that moment the FO/Wimby double became almost impossible.  

Funny you say that. 

Between 1970 and 1985 only 1 player made both the French Open and Wimbledon finals in the same year. Borg.

Between 1985 and 2000, 4 did. Lendl, Edberg, Courier and Agassi.

Strange abnormality if it was easier to play clay and grass with wooden racquets wouldn't you say?

That's really bending the reality!! Why take 1970 and 1985?

I am talking about wooden racket (1946-1982) v larger frame/nat strings (1982 -2002) roughly. There it is bloody fucking clear that it became a real challenge to have both the FO and Wimbledon trophies, let alone in the same year.

You are taking that view to the extreme. I used a set of years (15) as an equal metric as a passage in time. 

How the fuck seriously could you use 1946 as a real tangible given the tournaments are not even the fucking same!! They played 3 sets prior to the final!! 

Fucking bending reality? You are in a different one all together!

barrystar wrote:I was responding to your specific point that there is something colourable about Djokovic & Nadal not competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon by mentioning Borg; you then backed your point up by saying that grass and clay did not play that differently in Borg's time, of wooden racquets.  Hence my focus on Borg's time and that which followed it.  Of course I'd accept that there were players in the Amateur era who could play on grass and clay.

To return to your original point that there is something colourable about Djoko and Nadal training rather than competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon - I still think it's a bad one.

To me it is another very clear evidence that being fit is more important than getting exposure on grass for those 2. And Borg not playing because less time between FO amd Wimby can explain his case unlike Nadal and Rafa. Having said that I believe you know that what really made Borg the player he was in that new open era was also his superior fitness to the rest of the field.

For the sake of not derailing the original thread, Ten you said earlier posters were downplaying fitness. They are not. We accept it is a crucial part of the modern game, but not the only one. 

Now to the reason that Nadal and Djokovic don't play warm up events before Wimbledon? Who knows. They fact they choose not to doesn't suggest a sense of urgency for ranking points as opposed to players outside the top 10.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:I was responding to your specific point that there is something colourable about Djokovic & Nadal not competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon by mentioning Borg; you then backed your point up by saying that grass and clay did not play that differently in Borg's time, of wooden racquets.  Hence my focus on Borg's time and that which followed it.  Of course I'd accept that there were players in the Amateur era who could play on grass and clay.

To return to your original point that there is something colourable about Djoko and Nadal training rather than competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon - I still think it's a bad one.

To me it is another very clear evidence that being fit is more important than getting exposure on grass for those 2. And Borg not playing because less time between FO amd Wimby can explain his case unlike Nadal and Rafa. Having said that I believe you know that what really made Borg the player he was in that new open era was also his superior fitness to the rest of the field.

I agree that Borg's fitness was legendary, and it was a large part of his superiority over others. I have also read that when his racquets went to the stringer there was a worn patch on the soft spot exactly the same size as a tennis ball - like all fit sportsmen fitness was a platform from which he did his work.  Any professional sportsman who doesn't attempt to obtain an advantage by working harder than his opponents only has himself to thank.  

You say 'exposure' on grass, I think you mean 'competitive' exposure on grass - for sure they'll have masses of exposure on grass in their training.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:I was responding to your specific point that there is something colourable about Djokovic & Nadal not competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon by mentioning Borg; you then backed your point up by saying that grass and clay did not play that differently in Borg's time, of wooden racquets.  Hence my focus on Borg's time and that which followed it.  Of course I'd accept that there were players in the Amateur era who could play on grass and clay.

To return to your original point that there is something colourable about Djoko and Nadal training rather than competing on grass between RG and Wimbledon - I still think it's a bad one.

To me it is another very clear evidence that being fit is more important than getting exposure on grass for those 2. And Borg not playing because less time between FO amd Wimby can explain his case unlike Nadal and Rafa. Having said that I believe you know that what really made Borg the player he was in that new open era was also his superior fitness to the rest of the field.

I agree that Borg's fitness was legendary, and it was a large part of his superiority over others. I have also read that when his racquets went to the stringer there was a worn patch on the soft spot exactly the same size as a tennis ball - like all fit sportsmen fitness was a platform from which he did his work.  Any professional sportsman who doesn't attempt to obtain an advantage by working harder than his opponents only has himself to thank.  

You say 'exposure' on grass, I think you mean 'competitive' exposure on grass - for sure they'll have masses of exposure on grass in their training.

Any player who has their racquets strung to 80lbs tension would suggest to me more emphasis was placed on ball control than anything else.

Which in turn makes Raonic's 40lbs tension more baffling!