What do you think is easier?

09-10-2007, 04:48 PM
After spending some time at the top, does experience kick in to give a player extra protection? Or it's easier to be young and unburdened by a history of achievements?

09-10-2007, 06:20 PM
They're both about equal...it takes a special type of person to do either IMO.

But I think the great weight and pressure of achievement is acknowledged less than the gumption it takes to take on the best.

09-10-2007, 06:55 PM
No idea. Both things have their own difficulties - newcomer has respect, leader feels pressure, newcomer has nothing to lose, a contrario the leader... it depends on particular people's attitude I think

09-10-2007, 07:02 PM
Nice question. As others have said, both present difficulties and probably lead to less in quality of tennis.

Looking back, it may have been a boon for Federer to have played his first slam final against a non-veteran (even though Scud had reached finals before). Same with Roddick, same with Hewitt, same with Nadal, same with Ferrero.

All the more credit to Safin for pulling out the first big one against Sampras.

09-10-2007, 07:15 PM
History suggests that only a select few players manages to stay on top for several years. Psychologically, I think it's much easier to be on the rise than to be at the top defending against the up-and-comers.