Good Or Bad?

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:28 pm

After Toronto Kyrgios-Stan-gate, the trash talk scene moves to Cincinatti:

Not sure what's going on here, but "the mate who banged Stan's girlfriend" seemed to have got into trouble with Harrison last night (mind you, it doesn't take much for Harrison's hot temper to explode):

Are we back to Wild West days?

Is this good or bad for tennis?

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:34 pm

It's funny to see how all three young Ozzies (Tomic, Kyrgios, Kokkinakis) seem to be bad boys.

I don't mind a bit of "action" and feathers ruffled.

The fake, politically correct Fedal era has been nice but suffocating.

We fans need some compensation for boring tennis we have to endure Winking

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:27 pm

Just read the comments posted under Mac-Connors Yourube clip...didn't know McEnroe admitted using steroids.
Is that true?

by Tenez Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:09 pm

It's bad for 2 reasons:

1- That's not what got me watch tennis in the first place. I am interested in styles more altercations. Style says more than anything else said on a court.....though the behaviour reveals also traits, it doesn't interest me.

2- We would get used to it and escalation woudl be the only way forward to keep us interested....like in Wrestling I guess.

So a no from me.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:30 pm

I despise gamesmanship of any kind.

There is so much of it in tennis: fake MTOs, time between points, verbal abuse, "bumps" & under breath snide wind-ups in changeovers, yelling during points, grunting, jumping/moving/waving arms when receiving serve...and that's just what happens ON court.

Then there is from-the-stands coaching, hackling...

And finally, there is stuff that goes behind the closed doors...umpire exclusion and other conspiracy stuff Winking

Distinction needs to be made between genuine overflow of emotion and deliberate gamesmanship.

Problem is, umpires are too scared to put their foot down and cut the branch they are sitting on.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:35 pm

Having said the above, I love seeing emotions on court.

by luvsports! Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:56 pm

Yes Jmac was on the gear for a while.

by N2D2L Sun Aug 16, 2015 3:19 pm

This isn't bad, what we need is tennis to inspire tennis fans again, a proper rivalry at the top of the game.
There's a reason fans are having to turn up high to watch semi-finals these days. Winking

by Tenez Sun Aug 16, 2015 4:16 pm

Rivalry is one thing.....behaviour is another.

I like talent first and foremost. Talent expresses best under smooth conditions (even with McEnroe). The rest I don;t care much...even if it can spice things up......but the Kyrios kind is completely out of order.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:46 pm

luvsports! wrote:Yes Jmac was on the gear for a while.

What did he need "the gear" for?!!! Must've been in his late career....

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:53 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:This isn't bad, what we need is tennis to inspire tennis fans again, a proper rivalry at the top of the game.
There's a reason fans are having to turn up high to watch semi-finals these days.

Tennis has always had rivalries...for me it's more the quality of tennis that's the problem at the moment.

Anyone excited about Nole-Murray final tonight?

I mean I'll watch it, but more out of habit...hoping to see Murray combust and get a laugh out of it.

I personally don't need a rivalry to inspire me at all, just one player I like is enough for me to get engaged.

by luvsports! Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:44 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Yes Jmac was on the gear for a while.
What did he need "the gear" for?!!! Must've been in his late career....

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/mcenroe-i-was-given-steroids-but-did-not-know-572791.html

by Autumnleaf Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:59 am

noleisthebest wrote:Just read the comments posted under Mac-Connors Yourube clip...didn't know McEnroe admitted using steroids.
Is that true?

Afair, he took corticosteroids, which is very different from anabolic steroids. They are used to treat inflammations, not to increase muscle mass.

Banned substances from the corticosteroid class include clucocorticoids, but only if administed in a certain way, but no idea which kind of corticosteroids McEnroe took and how. Back then the list of banned substances was different too, so it might have been allowed anyway.

OT: It's very sad that young players only make headlines with "soap opera" stories like this one instead of winning some big events. Well, Kyrgios hasn't even won a small event yet. Has the interest in the actual tennis and the stories told around the game itself sunk so low that people need to be entertained by these low blow kind of stories?

While obviously I can't endorse what Kyrgios has said, the incident has gotten blown way out of proportion now. There are much more pressing issues in tennis than a young guy running his mouth. Imho, the absence of young players at the top of the game is felt acutely and it's hurting the game. ATP tried to hype up youngsters from time to time, but none of them could back it up. They are all missing something gamewise.

by Tenez Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:48 am

Autumnleaf wrote:[...... ATP tried to hype up youngsters from time to time, but none of them could back it up. They are all missing something gamewise.

They can strike the ball better than some top players....but they certainly miss fitness for now....despite some very impressive display (Coric, Kokki...).

But they also simply lack experience. It;s obvious now with the top 10 players average age being over 29, that the 20/27 period is crucial to develop many aspect of a player's game, ewspecially since the court/pace conds and technology have not changed in the last 10 years.

by Autumnleaf Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:22 pm

Tenez wrote:
Autumnleaf wrote:[...... ATP tried to hype up youngsters from time to time, but none of them could back it up. They are all missing something gamewise.

They can strike the ball better than some top players....but they certainly miss fitness for now....despite some very impressive display (Coric, Kokki...).

But they also simply lack experience. It;s obvious now with the top 10 players average age being over 29, that the 20/27 period is crucial to develop many aspect of a player's game, ewspecially since the court/pace conds and technology have not changed in the last 10 years.

If that were the only thing they are missing, I'd put more trust in them. But a very complete game is needed today to succeed at the top level, no easily exploitable weakness. The fundamentals of the game have to be sound at a very young age, even though they will obviously improve and finetune. Beside ballstriking ability a player needs great movement and athleticism too.

In fact fitness is Coric's biggest strength for now. He's already able to outgrind seasoned pros. He excels in movement, not exactly in offensive ability. He didn't make his ranking with offensive shotmaking.

Kyrgios is very average with his groundgame/ movement, although he has a great serve and some flashy shots. He currently wins 32,5% of return points, the only players worse than him in the top 50 are Raonic and Karlovic. Zverev seems to be a too-tall grinder. Haven't seen enough of Kokkinakis. I hope Thiem can improve enough on faster surfaces, on clay he is looking good. Rublev seems to be a great talent, but too early to tell where he will be able to take it.

For the older, early 90s generation Nishikori is a great ballstriker and an excellent mover, but he lacks a first class serve. Murray was able to exploit that in Montreal (although Nishikori was likely tired/slightly injured, but still: that scoreline!) and in Madrid. He also looked quite poor against players with a strong powergame (vs. Cilic, Wawrinka, Tsonga), probably because he is so vulnerable on his own serve. And of course he is injury-prone. The other players from that generation: Raonic with a great serve, but comparably bad movement, ROS and he is also injury-prone; then there's Dimitrov... his fitness has undoubtedly improved...but it wasn't enough.

It's probably no coincidence that only Nishikori made top 100 as a teen from the above group. Next to make top 100 as a teen was Tomic in 2011, another poor mover who is limited because of this.

Fed on that generation: "the generation that usually pushes players out wasn't as strong as maybe other ones. I'm talking about the players who are 25 years old right now. That generation only had a few players and the same thing for age 20 right now. There are some good ones, but not like 30 of them when we came along. I think those are usually the guys that push the older guys out. So we're able to hang on."

Top 10 average age will be above 30 this year at year end which must be some record. And it's not like the top 10 players play lights out this year, so that they would make it impossible for younger guys to break through. There is simply not much pressure from guys aged around 20. While the overall level of the game might increase (which I believe is the case), there is no reason to believe that the development would be linear.

by Tenez Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:34 pm

Autumnleaf wrote:If that were the only thing they are missing, I'd put more trust in them. But a very complete game is needed today to succeed at the top level, no easily exploitable weakness. The fundamentals of the game have to be sound at a very young age, even though they will obviously improve and finetune. Beside ballstriking ability a player needs great movement and athleticism too.

Sometimes just a great and unique weapon is enough. Certainly used to be the case...nowadays teh weapon would have to be extra special (just an amazing Serve followed by FH for instance) with of course decent everything else. Kokki seems very promising as he seems to have some weapons with pretty good fitness.

In fact fitness is Coric's biggest strength for now. He's already able to outgrind seasoned pros. He excels in movement, not exactly in offensive ability. He didn't make his ranking with offensive shotmaking.

Yes that's another "unique weapon" in that case.

Fed on that generation: "the generation that usually pushes players out wasn't as strong as maybe other ones. I'm talking about the players who are 25 years old right now. That generation only had a few players and the same thing for age 20 right now. There are some good ones, but not like 30 of them when we came along. I think those are usually the guys that push the older guys out. So we're able to hang on."

Yes but fed is well aware (and I read) that fitness is the reason why youngsters are not making it earlier.....and fitness is very much tied to money imo. You need money to afford best "teams".

Top 10 average age will be above 30 this year at year end which must be some record. And it's not like the top 10 players play lights out this year, so that they would make it impossible for younger guys to break through. There is simply not much pressure from guys aged around 20. While the overall level of the game might increase (which I believe is the case), there is no reason to believe that the development would be linear.

To me this proves one thing....like it did before the open era......peaking in tennis is certainly not 27! but closer to 30, even 31

by Tenez Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:36 pm

well let me correct that last statement:
30-32 is the players has a complex, technical game, probably 28 if relying too much on sheer fitness.

by noleisthebest Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:04 pm

Autumnleaf wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:Just read the comments posted under Mac-Connors Yourube clip...didn't know McEnroe admitted using steroids.
Is that true?

Afair, he took corticosteroids, which is very different from anabolic steroids. They are used to treat inflammations, not to increase muscle mass.

Banned substances from the corticosteroid class include clucocorticoids, but only if administed in a certain way, but no idea which kind of corticosteroids McEnroe took and how. Back then the list of banned substances was different too, so it might have been allowed anyway.

Thanks.

I am not a medical/doping expert so names mean little to me; to me Mac looked like a complete amateur compared to today's "pros" when it comes to athleticism.
His legs had no definition at all, hence my surprise at him linked with steroid use.

I associate steroids with the image of gigantic, roppled pumped Nadal in a sleeveless top.

by noleisthebest Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:09 pm

luvsports! wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Yes Jmac was on the gear for a while.
What did he need "the gear" for?!!! Must've been in his late career....

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/mcenroe-i-was-given-steroids-but-did-not-know-572791.html

I find it interesting how his ex-wife grassed him...similar to Armstrong.

Hell hath no fury....

by noleisthebest Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:14 pm

Autumnleaf wrote:
In fact fitness is Coric's biggest strength for now. He's already able to outgrind seasoned pros. He excels in movement, not exactly in offensive ability. He didn't make his ranking with offensive shotmaking.

Yes, Coric is superfit, but I'd say his main strength is his movement.
He is very natural in that department, like Nadal.

He even has a good all-court awareness but average ball-striking, i.e. weaponless.

Because he has little potential, it's hard to see him win much in future. He is not bringing anything new to the table.

by Tenez Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:41 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Autumnleaf wrote:
In fact fitness is Coric's biggest strength for now. He's already able to outgrind seasoned pros. He excels in movement, not exactly in offensive ability. He didn't make his ranking with offensive shotmaking.

Yes, Coric is superfit, but I'd say his main strength is his movement.
He is very natural in that department, like Nadal.

He even has a good all-court awareness but average ball-striking, i.e. weaponless.

Because he has little potential, it's hard to see him win much in future. He is not bringing anything new to the table.

I don;t think players need to bring something new on the table. Just doing something better than the rest. Best example Djoko. He is not bringing anything new but moves quicker than his peers and can last longer. If Coric just improves further on his mouvement and stamina, chances is that within 2 years he will play better than Djoko (doesn't mean he will win more than Djoko, of course).

by noleisthebest Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:56 pm

I think Nole did bring stg new to the table: his exceptional court coverage.

In the beginning of his career it was not so pronounced, he was not scrambling a lot, but did slide on hard courts.

As soon as thing slowed down he took off!

He has at least a step on Federer (esp laterally), and that's what brought him all success, that extra bit of time on the shot he can't create safely otherwise.

I noticed last night he was starting to loosen up (even under pressure!), I appreciated the effort.
Even when he played Chardy he engaged in some heavy ball pounding CC FH exchanges... (hence the elbow trouble)...

They would all love to have Fed's and Nishi's ball-striking talent but their job is to win.

by noleisthebest Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:03 pm

As for Coric overtaking Nole with tennis, possible, but as you said, too late.
It's a bit like wanting to be 20 again with the wisdom of old age.

So until he brings stg new to the table - no big winning.

by Autumnleaf Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:03 pm

Tenez wrote:Sometimes just a great and unique weapon is enough. Certainly used to be the case...nowadays teh weapon would have to be extra special (just an amazing Serve followed by FH for instance) with of course decent everything else.

Exactly what I mean. This weapon would have to be extraordinary now if they have shortcomings in other areas. A big serve + FH combo wouldn't get it done imho. The best player are too good on return now and will force that guy to hit more shots.

If he can't back it up with great movement and an at least decent, i.e. very solid backhand ... Now who among the youngsters has such an extraordinary weapon + very decent in all other areas?

Tenez wrote:Yes but fed is well aware (and I read) that fitness is the reason why youngsters are not making it earlier.....and fitness is very much tied to money imo. You need money to afford best "teams".

This is one viable theory to explain the disturbing lack of youngsters in recent years, but it doesn't answer every question, e.g. why so few teens even made top 100 in the last few years. The theory may still get disspelt. The theory is based on the assumption that every generation/ year has the same potential which I personally doubt.

Back in 2005 Nadal was the benchmark of fitness level, other players could only dream of his level. Still he was challenged even then by a very young Djokovic, despite young Djokovic's comparative lack of fitness. Even Murray beat Nadal in the USO 2008.

Is Dimitrov really held back by fitness issues now? Nishikori? Raonic? It's going beyond that imho. So in short: I believe it is a factor, but I don't believe it's the only factor.

Tenez wrote:To me this proves one thing....like it did before the open era......peaking in tennis is certainly not 27! but closer to 30, even 31

The exact age probably depends on the individual and form is generally more important than age. Some parts of the game like tactical astuteness will likely improve with age, while others will deterioriate like physicality. To keep it up will be harder and harder. How long can improved parts make up for the declined parts? The median top 100 player is indeed 28 years old right now.

It will depend on how important exactly is a part to the player's game. Do they depend mostly on their physicality to win or do they have technical excellence to fall back on? I'm not sure the reference back to the beginning of the Open Era can help because the physicality of this era is so much stronger which should be the part of the game that will fail a player with increasing age. We are in unchartered territory imho, especially because the effect of PEDs is unknown, but they can not stop inevitable physical decline, only slow it. I expect Nadal to continue his fall this time, I gave him the benefit of doubt until the FO.

I loved what Roddick said on that topic (and he will know the effects of PEDs as well): At a certain point, my body couldn’t do it. You look at Jim Courier. He did the same thing. Lleyton Hewitt did the same thing, and his body has been touch-and-go for a while. You are starting to see it with Rafa [Nadal] a little bit more maybe.

So here's what we do know:

The structure of the ATP 100 has begun to change rapidly. The Number of guys born before 1984 (will be at least 31 at YE 2015) decreased from 29 (2014 YE) to 22 (this year's race so far). It's now surely a matter of time until they will no longer be able to hold on; more will retire next year. The number of guys born between 1985-1987 (aged 28-30) decreased from 38 to 33, their hold on the game is slipping already, this development will likely continue in the next few years. Players born after and including 1988 (<= 27 years) significantly increased their numbers from 33 to 45. I expect this change to arrive at the top of the game in due time.

Is a guy like Federer who is that good in his mid-thirties really the norm now rather than the deviation? This will be the most interesting trend to follow in the coming years.

by Tenez Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:03 pm

Federer : "We all agree that he definitely crossed the line by a long shot," Federer told the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Roger Federer: "We want kids to be wanting to get into this sport because it's a nice sport."

"We're not used to that kind of talk in tennis. I know in other sports it's quite common, maybe normal. Not in our sport, really.
"It's normal that the tour comes down hard on him and explains to him that it's not the way forward."

=====================
And I agree with that. Likewise I like the classic tennis crowds....I donlt like the new nationalistic ones.

by Tenez Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:37 pm

Good post....BUT....

The exact age probably depends on the individual and form is generally more important than age. Some parts of the game like tactical astuteness will likely improve with age, while others will deterioriate like physicality. To keep it up will be harder and harder. How long can improved parts make up for the declined parts? The median top 100 player is indeed 28 years old right now.

But what matters are those at the top. I am pretty sure that not many older players would hang around the satellite circuit ranked 400 in the world. So the larger the ranking scope the younger the age it should be. The top 10 have an average of 29 for now and that says a lot!

It will depend on how important exactly is a part to the player's game. Do they depend mostly on their physicality to win or do they have technical excellence to fall back on? I'm not sure the reference back to the beginning of the Open Era can help because the physicality of this era is so much stronger which should be the part of the game that will fail a player with increasing age. We are in unchartered territory imho, especially because the effect of PEDs is unknown, but they can not stop inevitable physical decline, only slow it. I expect Nadal to continue his fall this time, I gave him the benefit of doubt until the FO.

I actually don’t think so. I think the reason we are back to the same stats as pre-open era is the fact conditions have been the same for the last 10 years. No change in new racquet technology, strings or court pace…and that is crucial and unique in the open era! McEnroe was only beaten by those who learnt to play with bigger frames, Pete and co were beaten by younger players with new strings and bigger balls (Hewitt/Guga) and Federer was beaten by super fitness and new strings/lighter racquets.

But nothing has changed since 2003…12 years of same conditions….you won’t find such a stretch in the open era. Hence in my view, This is why you see a 30yo Stan able to produce a tennis solid and good enough to beat a Djoko. He would have never been able to play 7 matches in a row at that level at 27!

I loved what Roddick said on that topic (and he will know the effects of PEDs as well): At a certain point, my body couldn’t do it. You look at Jim Courier. He did the same thing. Lleyton Hewitt did the same thing, and his body has been touch-and-go for a while. You are starting to see it with Rafa [Nadal] a little bit more maybe.

Well yes but Djoko and Murray can carry on….it seems. Problem with Nadal is simply that more than any one else he was relying on sheer power and legs (standing further back)…and simply he is beaten by the new generation….not the old one. So again, it’s more his game and fitness not evolving the issue more than him declining.

The structure of the ATP 100 has begun to change rapidly. The Number of guys born before 1984 (will be at least 31 at YE 2015) decreased from 29 (2014 YE) to 22 (this year's race so far). It's now surely a matter of time until they will no longer be able to hold on; more will retire next year. The number of guys born between 1985-1987 (aged 28-30) decreased from 38 to 33, their hold on the game is slipping already, this development will likely continue in the next few years. Players born after and including 1988 (<= 27 years) significantly increased their numbers from 33 to 45. I expect this change to arrive at the top of the game in due time.

I don’t think it will change….The only thing that could do is that if youngsters start to find new drugs and drug earlier…a la Coric or Kokki. That could bring the average peak age back to 27. But from 27 to 31, shotmaking progreses considerably still, plus experience and so on. Even Sampras won his last slam at 31! It means at 31 he was better than at 27..even if less consistent. Cause the level of tennis as he says the level was much better (or tougher) in 2002 than in 1997!

Is a guy like Federer who is that good in his mid-thirties really the norm now rather than the deviation? This will be the most interesting trend to follow in the coming years.

He certainly is an exception….though I think his reign was really shorten by the new strings and super fitness. I don’t think anyone would get close to him nowadays had that “super fitness” been readily available. Or had the conds stayed as when he learnt tennis.

by noleisthebest Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:55 pm

I don't like new nationalistic crowds either...especially the vulgar and aggressive ones.

The problem is, it's the "nice" and classic countries that have created the nationalistic ones.

by Tenez Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:00 pm

noleisthebest wrote:I don't like new nationalistic crowds either...especially the vulgar and aggressive ones.

The problem is, it's the "nice" and classic countries that have created the nationalistic ones.

That a crowd supports its players that's normal. What I don't like are those following their players with flags and so on and are particularly loud on sections of the crowd. They are a new phenomenon.

by Autumnleaf Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:56 am

Disclaimer: I hope you are wrong, else we are well on our way to enjoy a few more years of Djokovic dominance. Big Grin

You might hope that the younger guys will start to beat him, but so far this year he has exclusively lost to guys older than himself (Karlovic, Federer, Wawrinka, Murray)! Last year he was beaten 7 times by older guys (Wawrinka, Federer 3x, Nadal, Robredo, Tsonga) and only once by a player a bit younger (Nishikori).

Tenez wrote:But what matters are those at the top. I am pretty sure that not many older players would hang around the satellite circuit ranked 400 in the world. So the larger the ranking scope the younger the age it should be. The top 10 have an average of 29 for now and that says a lot!

I knew that argument was coming. Big Grin

I agree generally. The question is why have guys who are now aged around 25 not managed to make top 10? Shouldn't their games have matured by now to the point where they should be able to beat guys like Ferrer for a place in the top 10? Or could it be that this age group simply isn't good enough? I want them to finally become contenders, but as described in the other post they are seriously lacking.

Tenez wrote:I think the reason we are back to the same stats as pre-open era is the fact conditions have been the same for the last 10 years. No change in new racquet technology, strings or court pace…and that is crucial and unique in the open era! (...)

I don't know much about this early stage of historical development, but from what I've heard the game has now become a lot more physical which should be harder on guys in their 30s. There might also have been adaptation effects when the pro-tour united with the amateur tour. Still only 2 players have ever succeeded to win a major past 33 (Rosewall, Andres Gimeno). Agassi was the only other player to have won a major past age 32 and he won it in an era of rapid change (2003) which he benefitted from despite being an older player. He is the oldest Nr. 1 of the Open Era at 33 years of age. This means no young player was better equipped to adapt to changing conditions than him.

Winning majors between 30 and 32 is less unusual: there are several players from different eras who have managed at advanced age (Connors, Sampras, Federer among them). None of them was able to sustain dominance at that age however.

Tenez wrote:Problem with Nadal is simply that more than any one else he was relying on sheer power and legs (standing further back)…and simply he is beaten by the new generation….not the old one. So again, it’s more his game and fitness not evolving the issue more than him declining.

Nadal is a curious case as always. So far this year he has lost vs. Berrer (much older), Berdych (older), Fognini 2x (2 years younger), Raonic (younger), Verdasco (older), Djokovic 2x (1 year younger), Murray (1 year younger), Wawrinka (older) Dolgopolov (younger), Brown (older), Nishikori (younger). I can't see a pattern of him losing to younger players here. Last year he lost vs. Coric and Klizan, but he also lost vs. Feliciano Lopez!

To me it looks more like that when Nadal is not in form for whatever reason, he is losing to all kind of in-form or top players, regardless their age. The only young guy in the list who has truly surpassed him is Nishikori, hence he is ranked in front of Nadal. Raonic might have been on the way - but he is stopped in his tracks for now.

Tenez wrote:(...) But from 27 to 31, shotmaking progreses considerably still, plus experience and so on. Even Sampras won his last slam at 31! It means at 31 he was better than at 27..even if less consistent. Cause the level of tennis as he says the level was much better (or tougher) in 2002 than in 1997!

At some point - and I think you'll agree - a player's level will decrease with age/ he can no longer keep up his athletic prowess. It's arguable when exactly and it's depending on the individual.

At the moment the level of tennis seems to stagnate rather than develop. A more detailed look:

Number 1 Djokovic has improved, but would you say his level has never been seen before (which is what his fans claim)? How much of this is form and how long can he keep it up?

Number 2 Murray still suffers from the same weaknesses that he showed in the beginning of his career (weak second serve, movement not quite at the very top level, defensive court positioning - all of which got exposed in the Wimbledon SF and repeatedly in his matches vs. No. 1.

Number 3 Federer had a lot of time to make progress with his shotmaking and I think we can say he is quite accomplished there. That didn't help him though vs. Seppi and a Kyrgios who had much less time to develop his game. I think it's safe to say (and he has admitted as much himself) that physically his best days are behind him.

Number 4 Nishikori still suffers from fragility and a weak serve. No wins over the other top 5 guys this year. Number 5 Wawrinka shows up 4 times a year at most (with an impressive level admittedly). I expect him to keep it up for another year or two. Guys beyond No. 6 have been shown incapable of top 5 wins this year so far.

The field is lagging, they are made to look like a bunch of beginners when they play the very top. No youngish player (around 25) in sight who looks ready to take over any time soon. Not impressive.

by Tenez Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:02 pm

Autumnleaf wrote:I knew that argument was coming. I agree generally. The question is why have guys who are now aged around 25 not managed to make top 10? Shouldn't their games have matured by now to the point where they should be able to beat guys like Ferrer for a place in the top 10? Or could it be that this age group simply isn't good enough? I want them to finally become contenders, but as described in the other post they are seriously lacking.

I think for the same reasons we do not have 25 yo TDF champions. If peaking fitness wise were 25-27 then the TDF champions would be around that age. It's so physical that being 25 or younger is actually a disadvantage. Plus in tennis there is the technical/game development taking longer too. The other reason, I think – and maybe even more important - is money. One needs to be able to afford the best team, diet, training, etc….

I don't know much about this early stage of historical development, but from what I've heard the game has now become a lot more physical which should be harder on guys in their 30s. There might also have been adaptation effects when the pro-tour united with the amateur tour. Still only 2 players have ever succeeded to win a major past 33 (Rosewall, Andres Gimeno). Agassi was the only other player to have won a major past age 32 and he won it in an era of rapid change (2003) which he benefitted from despite being an older player. He is the oldest Nr. 1 of the Open Era at 33 years of age. This means no young player was better equipped to adapt to changing conditions than him.

But Rod Laver’s best year seemed to have been 1969…..he was 31! The most difficult achievement in tennis history was achieved at the age of 31! I am not saying a player improves past 32, well some aspects of the game do….but the physical side (recovery) starts really to be eating up on the technical gains.

Winning majors between 30 and 32 is less unusual: there are several players from different eras who have managed at advanced age (Connors, Sampras, Federer among them). None of them was able to sustain dominance at that age however.

Yes…but as I said, tennis was evolving so fast at that time due to tons of youngsters learning the game…with new technology. That is what we are seeing in Golf after the Tiger Wood effect.

To me it looks more like that when Nadal is not in form for whatever reason, he is losing to all kind of in-form or top players, regardless their age.

True. But I also thought that when he was winning right and left he also had so many close matches …just that he was winning those systematically. Now those close matches don’t always go his way…and that to me is the field improving, learning how to deal with his game….and Nadal also having less time to recover between points.

At some point - and I think you'll agree - a player's level will decrease with age/ he can no longer keep up his athletic prowess. It's arguable when exactly and it's depending on the individual.

There are 2 factors. I think a tennis player can play his best at 34 easily….but on the day only. Certainly not able to consistently produce 5 matches of that level in a week or 2 which is required for a slam or TMS.

So the question is could Federer at 27 having learnt the game of SVing be able to beat Djoko of 2015 more easily than Federer of 2015? To me the answer is very clear. Fed would have struggled a lot versus Djoko 2015 as he already had tough matches v Djoko 2007! We saw clearly how Federer disposed of Murray in Wimby 15, something he would have struggled in 2007. Federer evolved too….unfortunately his recovery time has also increased considerably since…so he can only produce great perf more sporadically. That’s why it is so blurr. It’s not all down to Federer, it’s very much down to the opposition too. Without Djoko, Federer woudl have won Wimby as easily as 2006 or 2007....despite the field being better. That's why oppositioon is so important and systematically disregarded by tennis fans who only see the game through their favourite player.

Number 1 Djokovic has improved, but would you say his level has never been seen before (which is what his fans claim)? How much of this is form and how long can he keep it up?

Again, it’s the opposition who will push him out, not his age, no different than Federer and all champs before him. (as in Nadal pushing Federer down though we can agree Federer is a bit of an exception as he was able to learn the way to beat those new physical players. No one of his generation managed to do the same). Djoko might stay a little bit longer cause of no conds change in the last 12 years and the game being more physical, helping him more than the 25yo. Nonetheless, I expect Djoko to run into trouble soon….by the new generation.

Number 3 Federer had a lot of time to make progress with his shotmaking and I think we can say he is quite accomplished there. That didn't help him though vs. Seppi and a Kyrgios who had much less time to develop his game. I think it's safe to say (and he has admitted as much himself) that physically his best days are behind him.

Frankly, I would not take the Seppi match too seriously.
Well yes, his recovery time is just too long nowadays, especially since he seems a clean player. But again, on the day? And remember we were having this discussion about federer declining in 2009! which clearly was a joke in retrospect....considering that 6 years later he can produce amazing performance and still beat the world number 1.

by Autumnleaf Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:10 am

Tenez wrote:I think for the same reasons we do not have 25 yo TDF champions. If peaking fitness wise were 25-27 then the TDF champions would be around that age. It's so physical that being 25 or younger is actually a disadvantage. Plus in tennis there is the technical/game development taking longer too. The other reason, I think – and maybe even more important - is money. One needs to be able to afford the best team, diet, training, etc….

I'd agree if we were talking about endurance only; endurance does peak at late 20s/ early 30s.

ETA: I checked the age of the TdF winners. The oldest TdF winner ever was 36 years old - in 1922 (!), youngest was 20 in 1904. Very young winners (<23) were always an exception (8 riders since 1903, last in 1965), older winners (>32) happened more often (17 since 1903). If we only include the EPO era, youngest winners were 24 (Ulrich and Contador), oldest winner 34 (Armstrong, Evans), so this seems to be the best age in this endurance sport. Team organization may play a part in younger riders not winning more. Average age of winners all time is 28,7. Since 2000 it's 29,5 and this includes Armstrong winning every year from 28 up to 34 (not a great sample for stats).

But tennis isn't a marathon or the TdF. It's a sport of short sprints with quick changes of directions, repeated over and over. The technical component is important as well, but obviously without the physical foundation a player won't be able to execute his shots.

Let's take a look at another sport where you need sprints with changes of direction and a lot of stamina to boot. A technical sport that provides a lot of data and accounts for the effects of drug use.

In this article the author researched the age of the players of the 7 best European teams which made up a sample of 100 players. We can safely assume that these are among the best players across all teams, that's why they are playing for Real Madrid and not La Coruna.

The data supports your theory that prime age isn't very young: very few (special) players became regulars before age 23, defenders even later at ca. 25 years of age. I think we can observe the same development in tennis: 23-25 is prime athletic age.

However - how long will that physical prime last? The data in football suggests that players start to slow down between age 27 and 29. They can still be very, very good, but may start to sprint less often and tackle less than younger players. This is the age when players have to leave these elite clubs more often than not. Only very few (special) guys past 30 still played in these clubs and they were past their very best already.

Interestingly enough this age distribution in football isn't that different from traditional prime age in tennis which was indeed skewed a little toward younger age due to technical changes. Without these changes we would likely see prime age move to mid- to late 20s, i.e. corresponding to physical athletic prime as seen in football. This is even more likely in the modern game that is increasingly more physical and shotmaking prowess counting for less now.

It shows Novak Djokovic in the prime age range and (special) Roger Federer far outside it. Their results support the theory that the best time to play tennis is mid 20s to late 20s.

by Sponsored content

Good Or Bad?

Good or Bad?

Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Re: Good Or Bad?

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31