Re: Ask Tenez Thread

[luvsports!]

They had the old spaghetti strings that got banned back around Vilas' time I think.

[Tenez]

They had the old spaghetti strings that got banned back around Vilas' time I think.

Yep...that was double layers of strings.

[luvsports!]

If Delpo hadn't been riddled with injury problems, how many slams do you think he would have won?
Murdock and BB (i think) thinks he could have won 3-4, me maybe 1 more. Thoughts?

[luvsports!]

Tenez. 

A poster on 606v2 said "no, no and no" when I said I wanted more styles to be rewarded with faster courts, carpet courts, smaller balls, low bouncing courts and more variety.

If these things did happen, the poster said it would reward just one style, aka the big servers and what we have now is fine.

Thoughts on this and also the question above?

[Tenez]

In a way he is a bit right. The balance is very difficult to find. We have on one side huge servers (better than any you could find in the 90s) and on the other side huge gladiators defending. It's going to be difficult to find a common ground.

However the simple fact that over the last decade the slams have only been won by the fittest player (bar rare exceptions) means the balance is way too much towards the fitness/slow conds side of the game. If it was not for federer (and nmore recently Stan) the last 10 years of slams  woudl have been awful, with no variety in the final stages.

I think it is time to provide smaller balls. 90% of the crowd wants to see Djoko lose. We don;t want to see this kind of tennis win anymore . We need them....just to expose the brillance of the more varied attacking players.

[noleisthebest]

In a way he is a bit right. The balance is very difficult to find. We have on one side huge servers (better than any you could find in the 90s) and on the other side huge gladiators defending. It's going to be difficult to find a common ground.

However the simple fact that over the last decade the slams have only been won by the fittest player (bar rare exceptions) means the balance is way too much towards the fitness/slow conds side of the game. If it was not for federer (and nmore recently Stan) the last 10 years of slams  woudl have been awful, with no variety in the final stages.

I think it is time to provide smaller balls. 90% of the crowd wants to see Djoko lose. We don;t want to see this kind of tennis win anymore . We need them....just to expose the brillance of the more varied attacking players.

I was actually thinking the same when I was watching Raonic-Fed!

It really is very hard to find the right balance now.

T, do you think different balls could help rather than having skiddier surface?

[Daniel]

If Delpo hadn't been riddled with injury problems, how many slams do you think he would have won?
Murdock and BB (i think) thinks he could have won 3-4, me maybe 1 more. Thoughts?

I think definitely at least 3.

Also, the balance isn't difficult to find.  We have 3 surfaces for a reason, and they should be playing like they're supposed to.

[luvsports!]

Nitb brought up Rafa's serve being better than ever or something similar.

At the '10 US Open, Rafa out of nowhere was serving in the 130mph bracket.
He put it down to a subtle grip change he made a few days before the competition. 
As a result he was damn near unbreakable at times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws5jFNAGfM4


Wanted to get your thoughts on this?

[Tenez]

Sure that tournament he was very good, 2010 was also the year they bigged up the balls at the USO and therefore hitting that fast and hard with bigger showed a better technique.....or else !

I tend to think it was essentially a technique/confident thing! He had just won wimbledon for a second time and was simply hitting flatter. He always had the power to hit that hard. But lack of confidence or simply no-need-to never pushed him to do so...though he felt he had to if he wanted to win the USO.

Off course he coudl have taken some drugs to help him too. But teh serve is essentially about timing more than sheer power.

[luvsports!]

Well Thiem is 4 years older than Zverev and Rublev, so Rublev may get there. Zverev at 19 is rising up the rankings at a rate of knots. Very mature for his age.

[luvsports!]

I see you have taken it down???

[Tenez]

Yes Rublev and Chung have stalled. Very bizarre.

What did I take down?

[luvsports!]

Nitb took a long post down.

[Tenez]

A poster (not Daniel obviously) asked me a question in PM as I believe he wants to write an article on it. I spent some time answering so I wanted to post my answers to his questions here:

AGEING and PEAKING


Poster: I put it down to more money to pay for coaches, better drugs, fitness, nutrition etc.

I am no expert but I think better drugs have little to do with it. Drugs would actually help a youngster becoming mature physically faster, a la Nadal. They help but I think Ibu is really what helps with age.  If you look at snooker for instance (as I doubt steroids and epo are used in snooker), they were all saying that mature players (Ronnie, Higgins, Williams, etc...) were doing better than the new comers. Even Allen started to win the masters now that he is over 30.   And it is a trend in many other sports. So why?


Poster: Do you think the fact that there has been no change in tech for nearly 2 decades allows older guys to stick around longer?
Now youngsters have to be insanely fit roadrunners or blast people off the court. Something the Dimi gen didn't have.

Correct. Here are the key factors in my view for tennis at least (and maybe not in this order) :
1 -  Change in technology is the reason why the old guard had shorter career then. The main argument for those who believe peaking is 27 or before is based on age average of slams won. before 2013, it was clear that most slams were won when a player was 27 or younger. A perfect example is McEnroe (and his generation): If you learn to "push and place" the ball while half volleying, it's going to be very hard to do it suddenly when a new generation who has learnt to whack the ball with bigger frames. A very young Pete and Becker very quickly had a game that killed the old generation. It is obvious that neither Pete nor Agassi would have been able to be successful that young with an old wooden racquet. In spite of McEnroe adapting to a bigger frame, his success was short lived cause he simply did not have the technique to exploit at best those new larger frames. Same happened with the new string technology. All of Federer's generation died quickly when facing the new gen who had learnt to maximise the strings potential.

2 -Sport people know that whatever money you make while young, it disappears quicker than planned when retired. There is a long list of former  sport stars getting broke or  just surviving and are often forced to turn coach (Lendl) or commentator (McEnroe) to keep a nice way of life. It means those successful years on the tour are precious and now athletes are doing their best to extend their success. They are now keen to play on whereas in the past many would have been happy to retire with a few millions in the bank. Not anymore. It's a unique opportunity to earn that much and they wish, if not need, to extend those successful years. Look at someone like Querrey for instance,  even ranked at number 21, he made $160k in the first 2 months of 2018 and will most likely make a million this year. Even karlovic at 38 has made $150 in the first  2 months and will likely get close to a $million by  year end. So this really helps the motivation as a year on tour can secure 5 years of decent life after quitting.  

3 - Experience. In tennis it is crucial. As I said many times, you cannott learn to time Nadal, Kyrgios or Federer's shots if you are not exposed to it. All those top guys are the best coaches for each others. This might be the prime reason why aging helps. The more you are exposed and have those "coaching lessons", the better you will get. All those youngsters strive to be exposed to those top players as early as possible.

4 - 3 is even more true that fitness is really "plateauing" from 27-33. And as we noticed in endurence sport, it seems being 30+ helps if anything. Ghebrelassi is the perfect example of extending his race length with age. Of course recovery gets much tougher from 27/28 (I believe).

Poster: DO you think a player peaks in their early 30's? That there is a big difference between when someone is at their most successful and at their peak?

Depends on what we mean by peaking. For instance I think Federer 06 (with his old racquet) could not beat a mature/peak Nadal and Djokovic, even if fully fit and fresh. Well maybe once in 5. Now he can beat them but maybe not at the end of a tournament, or maybe not in succession. Hence is less likely to win a slam. He is quite lucky in my view that he has not got to play them all recently as they are injured. We saw him in  14-15 play great till semis of Wimbledon and USO but then not having that extra step in the final cause Murray or simply a few long rallies from Djoko killed him physically and mentally.

Poster: When do you think the decline is? Again, what decline? Decline based on one single match or decline in terms of being able to line up 7 Bo5s in 2 weeks (or 5 Bo3 matches in a week)? In a single match I'd say a fresh 35 player who kept playing on the tour and dedicated is as good and dangerous as ever. The following day much less so. I think a player should reach his peak year (form, experience and endurence) between 28-33 for shot makers (. I think Federer would have been deadly at that period had he learnt to play with the larger frame and new strings from his learning years) and 27-31 for the retrievers. I think 2 factors play against the longevity of retrievers: Of course a more worn out body, used up by excessive retrieving but also by youngsters getter better at hitting through them.

But it is all new this ageing players so we will learn more soon about how long Djoko and Nadal can keep playing at the top. For Federer we have just seen teh decline I think....though he may seen it earlier had we seen him play with larger racquet earlier.

[Sponsored content]