Rankings of youngsters - Under 21 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rankings of youngsters - Under 21

bouncer7
03-16-2012, 01:27 AM
it's not official but pretty cool links

ranking
http://live-tennis.eu/rankings_under_21

race
http://live-tennis.eu/race_under_21

Kudla no.4 in Race :bowdown: Dimitrov no.17 :)

JurajCrane
03-16-2012, 01:31 AM
Disappointed that Horansky is already 19 and gained only 6 points this year. Great junior, poor profi.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 01:52 AM
Great depressing list. Tomic is the only promising guy on that list, still seriously questionable if he is going to be more than a top 10 player. Raonic is Karlovicesque but slightly better playing tennis, how much can he improve when he is turning 22 in 6 months?

Looking for 18 year olds, I find a Kubler ranked 64th turning 19 in 2 months. 400th in the world is not good when you are turning 19, remember Rafa was nr2? Nah, wont be so cruel to compare these bunch of avarage joes to Rafa, sorry lets say Djokovic and Murray were ranked in the top 20 when they turned 19. At the time Tomic is losing in 1st round here in IW, Djokovic was making finals of both Indian Wells and Miami (winning Miami).

This is clearly the worst generation I have ever seen. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can safely dominate for another half decade or so.

bouncer7
03-16-2012, 01:54 AM
suprised that Argentina have more players in top100 then Spain, France or USA

Argentina 9

Usa, Spain and France 7

Smoke944
03-16-2012, 01:59 AM
Great depressing list. Tomic is the only promising guy on that list, still seriously questionable if he is going to be more than a top 10 player. Raonic is Karlovicesque but slightly better playing tennis, how much can he improve when he is turning 22 in 6 months?

Looking for 18 year olds, I find a Kubler ranked 64th turning 19 in 2 months. 400th in the world is not good when you are turning 19, remember Rafa was nr2? Nah, wont be so cruel to compare these bunch of avarage joes to Rafa, sorry lets say Djokovic and Murray were ranked in the top 20 when they turned 19. At the time Tomic is losing in 1st round here in IW, Djokovic was making finals of both Indian Wells and Miami (winning Miami).

This is clearly the worst generation I have ever seen. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can safely dominate for another half decade or so.

:lol:

Let's not compare average joes to Rafa, instead let's compare them to a guy that already has 5 slams and will win many more!

:stupid:

bouncer7
03-16-2012, 02:01 AM
This is clearly the worst generation I have ever seen. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can safely dominate for another half decade or so.
You forgot Andy cause Murray could easily win slam in his thirties :devil:

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 02:22 AM
:lol:

Let's not compare average joes to Rafa, instead let's compare them to a guy that already has 5 slams and will win many more!

:stupid:

Ok, let us compare them to Gasquet defeating Federer in Monte Carlo at 18 and later playing final in Hamburg.

Anyway, the point is that we need a heir to take over from Djokovic, Federer and Nadal and it wont be any of these clowns. I need to look for players in their mid 20s rather 17-20 year olds, Del Potro turning 24 with all injury proneness seem the only one with slight possibility of taking over in the coming 3-4 years. Murray turning 25 ofcourse, all of these are just starting to leave their peak years and we are talking about them as only possible heirs to Djokovic/Nadal/Federer. Maybe even Federer at 33 is Djokovic's heir? :lol:

These youngsters are all a bunch of pranksters, will be around to get a spanking from 30-year olds in 3-4 years.

Lestat
03-16-2012, 03:06 AM
I wonder if some of these argentinian youngsters worth something. I have only seen playing Delbonis, great body and serve but I couldnt see anything remarkable.
Arguello? I hope he is better than his brother :S

Filo V.
03-16-2012, 03:23 AM
Dimitrov with 70 points in 2.5 months is not going to cut the mustard and why he's struggling to maintain his top 100 ranking.

Stebe on 60 points is even worse.

mark73
03-16-2012, 03:45 AM
Goes to show how great the big three are. Three best ever in terms of ability. Would be neat to have prime Fed compete with Nadal and Djokovic to see who is the best all time.

cmoss
03-16-2012, 03:57 AM
Can't say anything yet.

Not necessary younger & earlier = better player in the future.

ChampionshipPoints
03-16-2012, 04:42 AM
Raonic is number one on that list and he will stay #1. The only one with the potential to reach top 5. I don't think that Tomic will go anywhere.

gulzhan
03-16-2012, 05:33 AM
Donskoy 8th and Kuznetsov 12th-- not bad for declining Russian tennis :o

navy75
03-16-2012, 06:12 AM
I've been commenting for quite sometime on just how weak that this generation is. There has to be some sort of record being set right now, as Tomic and Harrison are the only players under 20 to even be in the top 100.

Comparatively speaking, almost all of the top 32 are light years ahead of where this current crop is when the current top 32 were under 21. Just imagine how many Grand Slams that Nole, Rafa, or Fed could have had they been born either ten years earlier or ten years later.

Ouragan
03-16-2012, 09:07 AM
Berankis only 14th, what a waste.

ossie
03-16-2012, 09:46 AM
not everyone matures at the same rate guys. you are expecting these youngsters to steadily win bigger and bigger tournaments and rise in the rankings when they clearly lack the experience to do so. it is not a matter of time and age i think. one day one the youngsters games will just click and he will start winning maybe someone you never heard of there is no reason to panic just yet.

Evitman
03-16-2012, 11:24 AM
Still early, but in general, a quite disappointing generation so far. All they have at the moment are Raonic's 3 MM titles and Tomic's fluke Wimbledon QF run.

Jverweij
03-16-2012, 11:44 AM
Don't you guys think this has something to do with the physicality of today's tennis? At 19 and younger, their bodies will not have matured enough to endure the ever growing length of rallies... The longer rallies also take alot more out of players mentally, which usually requires more experience.

I think this will explain the lack of teenagers in the top 100. I do still have the feeling that it is not the most talented generation..but I might be mistaken.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 11:50 AM
Don't you guys think this has something to do with the physicality of today's tennis? At 19 and younger, their bodies will not have matured enough to endure the ever growing length of rallies... The longer rallies also take alot more out of players mentally, which usually requires more experience.

I think this will explain the lack of teenagers in the top 100. I do still have the feeling that it is not the most talented generation..but I might be mistaken.

Chang, Nadal, Hewitt and Borg all loved to tire their older peers in endless rallies when they were 17-19.

Jverweij
03-16-2012, 11:54 AM
right, thats 3 guys, in as long as 30 years. I'm pretty sure they would statistically be seen as exceptional cases.

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 12:00 PM
Maybe even Federer at 33 is Djokovic's heir? :lol:

Fed at 33 would be much safer bet than any of the 'youngsters'

right, thats 3 guys, in as long as 30 years. I'm pretty sure they would statistically be seen as exceptional cases.

Maybe they are not strong enough to play back to back 5-setters, but they surely can't be weak/tired in the their first match in best of three?

HKz
03-16-2012, 12:03 PM
I've been commenting for quite sometime on just how weak that this generation is. There has to be some sort of record being set right now, as Tomic and Harrison are the only players under 20 to even be in the top 100.

Comparatively speaking, almost all of the top 32 are light years ahead of where this current crop is when the current top 32 were under 21. Just imagine how many Grand Slams that Nole, Rafa, or Fed could have had they been born either ten years earlier or ten years later.

The problem is the game has become so physical that many of these young guns either are not near their physical peak or they just don't train them hard enough to get used to the grueling nature of today's game. Sure, they might be in great shape and certainly could be compared to other players in the past who broke into the top of the sport at a young age, but just in the last 10 years or so, the game has changed drastically in terms of physique. Look at how strong Nadal was at 18. Even Federer took a little while to develop physically until he was able to start winning slams. Sure, much of it was mental, but you have to comment that he did become much better physically as well.

Chang, Nadal, Hewitt and Borg all loved to tire their older peers in endless rallies when they were 17-19.

Game has completely changed though. Nadal is the only one out of the list that can be compared to today's game. Borg and Chang not at all. I mean just look at the speed of baseline play back then. You certainly didn't need to be built like David Ferrer to challenge the top players in terms of physical endurance.

But yes, as one mentioned, the combination of a highly required fitness level coupled with mental strength are the reasons why it is much harder to break through in this sport today.

rinnegan
03-16-2012, 12:51 PM
Still not giving up on Dimitrov.

TennisOnWood
03-16-2012, 01:18 PM
Still not giving up on Dimitrov.

You will, soon

Alex999
03-16-2012, 01:31 PM
very weak generation. I agree. I think that Raonic does have a potential to become a champion but he is too so far away. Dimitrov is too hyped, not sure

masterclass
03-16-2012, 01:48 PM
not everyone matures at the same rate guys. you are expecting these youngsters to steadily win bigger and bigger tournaments and rise in the rankings when they clearly lack the experience to do so. it is not a matter of time and age i think. one day one the youngsters games will just click and he will start winning maybe someone you never heard of there is no reason to panic just yet.

very weak generation. I agree. I think that Raonic does have a potential to become a champion but he is too so far away. Dimitrov is too hyped, not sure

I think ossie is pretty on target in his assessment.:yeah:, even though it does appear generally weak at the moment as Alex says. :)
Raonic needs to improve his all around game a bit and fitness level, plus get a break through win against anyone in the top 5 or 6 to help his confidence against the top players, and he could rise fairly fast. The others simply have not shown enough yet, though I like what I saw from young Ryan Harrison this tournament. Tomic has the game to succeed, but he needs the mentality and determination to go along with it. That might come with maturity, it might not.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Mystique
03-16-2012, 02:01 PM
The young guns of 2001: Safin, Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Haas, Grosjean, Ferrero - 4 of them ended in top 10 in 2001, and all seven in the top 15 with basically all of them having made some breakthrough victory or the other

A decade later: Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, Dimitrov, Stebe, Goffin - NOTHING to talk about this mix of headcases and mugs except Raonic serving his way to 3 titles. :shrug:

:facepalm: this coming generation

bouncer7
03-16-2012, 02:06 PM
4 of them playing today in some challengers . Only Kuznetsov reached SF

Jverweij
03-16-2012, 02:07 PM
Maybe they are not strong enough to play back to back 5-setters, but they surely can't be weak/tired in the their first match in best of three?

ofcourse not, but it's not them getting tired that does the damage. The problem is mostly to maintain full concentration and sustain a consistent high level through gruelling baseline exchanges. Most of the players inside the top 100 have adapted to this standard, but youngsters haven't. Fitness and mentality just seems to play a bigger role these days and both are mostly caused by frequent repetition (play loads of matches at a certain level) and to a lesser degree by talent.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 02:41 PM
Gasquet in 2007 was Dimitrov's age and was already known as a "wasted" talent. He had been to several master series finals, Wimbledon SF and won alot of titles by that time. Younger talents like Djokovic and Murray were passing him in lighting speed making poor Gasquet just outside top 10 look really bad.

Dimitrov outside top 100 is just upcoming and a "late bloomer" according to some, too late to even be that.

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 02:48 PM
Gasquet in 2007 was Dimitrov's age and was already known as a "wasted" talent. He had been to several master series finals, Wimbledon SF and won alot of titles by that time. Younger talents like Djokovic and Murray were passing him in lighting speed making poor Gasquet just outside top 10 look really bad.

Dimitrov outside top 100 is just upcoming and a "late bloomer" according to some, too late to even be that.

Yea, some players from the top 10 or 20 are regularly bashed on being "failed", while they are still leaps and bounds ahead of the so-called talented youngsters, with supposedly huge late bloomer potential.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 02:51 PM
So the coming generation of youngsters suck because they didn't achieve the same results as a previous generation at that age?

What fallacious thinking. My generation will be LATE BLOOMERS. Not a late bloomer as in winning a slam at 22, but late bloomer as in hitting one's peak from 24-28.

I don't understand this thinking of trying to find the next talented young kid and hyping them up, fucking up their mentality, and causing them to burn out and retire at 23.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 02:57 PM
Game has completely changed though. Nadal is the only one out of the list that can be compared to today's game. Borg and Chang not at all. I mean just look at the speed of baseline play back then. You certainly didn't need to be built like David Ferrer to challenge the top players in terms of physical endurance.

But yes, as one mentioned, the combination of a highly required fitness level coupled with mental strength are the reasons why it is much harder to break through in this sport today.

I dont belive that at all, Nadal and Hewitt can certanly be applied to show how young players who likes long rallies peak early, the tour should be filled with these kind of players running from one side to the other, why was Ryan Harrison at 20 more tired than Simon at 27 yesterday in their little running contest?

Youth never tires and is relentless, that is what I have learned since early on in tennis. What they dont have in experience they make up with high energy level, fast legs and relentless ability to play "kamikaze tennis".

It has been proven that young players peak earlier on clay than other surfaces because they can rally all day with older players and not be outserved or outmanuevered so easily, why would slower surfaces be bad for young players today?

I think this is all excuses for what can easily be explaines as a bad crop, whatever talent previous generations had is not to be seen in this one with the naked eye, I think of myself someone who can detect talent, I knew Federer was more talented than his whole generatio when he was ranked behind 4 of them, I knew Nadal and Murray were very special from the first match I saw them play (Djokovic surprised me I must say), I knew Kuerten had something incredible at hand when I saw his 3rd round match in RG 97 and he had won only 20 atp matches.

In this next generation I see nothing except Tomic, nothing at all and in Tomic I see weaknesses that he probably wont be able to overcome to reach the absolute top, odds are that he will be a good top 10 player and not much more than that.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 03:17 PM
So the coming generation of youngsters suck because they didn't achieve the same results as a previous generation at that age?

What fallacious thinking. My generation will be LATE BLOOMERS. Not a late bloomer as in winning a slam at 22, but late bloomer as in hitting one's peak from 24-28.

I don't understand this thinking of trying to find the next talented young kid and hyping them up, fucking up their mentality, and causing them to burn out and retire at 23.

If you hit peak at 24-28 maybe the generation younger than you will just take over and share the pie with oldies at 30-32, like in 2000-2002 when it was Agassi, Sampras and a bunch of youngsters 10 years younger than them fighting for the big ones, a generation without 25 year olds fighting for slams.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 03:18 PM
If you hit peak at 24-28 maybe the generation younger than you will just take over and share the pie with oldies at 30-32, like in 2000-2002 when it was Agassi, Sampras and a bunch of youngsters 10 years younger than them fighting for the big ones, a generation without 25 year olds fighting for slams.

You never know :shrug:

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 03:23 PM
You never know :shrug:


You know every player peaks around 24-25, what you are talking about is not peaking at that age but having the breakthrough at 24-25. Djokovic is that age and peaked, he had his breakthrough when he was 19 reaching final of both Indian Wells and Miami 2007. Murray who is a late bloomer had his breakthrough later, because he had a more complicated game, that was in 2008 summer winning Cincinatti and reaching Usopen final, he was then Dimitrov's age.

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 03:34 PM
You never know :shrug:

Sure. How many examples you have where the whole generation was peaking around 27-28 on average?

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 03:46 PM
You know every player peaks around 24-25, what you are talking about is not peaking at that age but having the breakthrough at 24-25. Djokovic is that age and peaked, he had his breakthrough when he was 19 reaching final of both Indian Wells and Miami 2007. Murray who is a late bloomer had his breakthrough later, because he had a more complicated game, that was in 2008 summer winning Cincinatti and reaching Usopen final, he was then Dimitrov's age.

Yes, yes. The generation of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, and the previous of Hewitt, Roddick, Federer, and Safin, Ferrero, all had broken through and even won slams by 20-21.

My generation though, will be different. The game is changing. The trend now is for guys to break through in the mid 20's. Look at Isner. Its the college thing too, more kids (those whose parents have less money) electing to go to college for 4 years and then taking chances after that. This I think is a good idea. Yes, you don't peak as early, but you still will have a 10 years or so career. Also, hitting the tour full time starting from 22-23 and then playing for 10 years until 32-33 will be the trend now as opposed to going full time from 18-19 until 28-29. Or in Nadal's case, 16-17 until 26-27. I think its good, allowing guys to mature a bit before the insane pressure of the tour.

Sure. How many examples you have where the whole generation was peaking around 27-28 on average?

It is a new age.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 03:56 PM
Tennis is foremost an european sport so the whole college thing cant be applied here, also players like Isner and Blake who went to college are not top tier material, can play some good tournaments, a couple of slam QF and some years in top 10 but not the ones to dominate the sport.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 03:59 PM
Well, it looks like the only thing I can do is convince you myself of the future, so wait about 4-5 years until I am #1 :yeah:

In the meantime, continue to fret :yeah: :D

jcempire
03-16-2012, 04:08 PM
getting worse

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 04:15 PM
Well, it looks like the only thing I can do is convince you myself of the future, so wait about 4-5 years until I am #1 :yeah:

In the meantime, continue to fret :yeah: :D

#1 in what? Posting on MTF? :)

P.S.

It was a rhetorical question, but nice to be confident I guess :p

ChampionshipPoints
03-16-2012, 06:05 PM
Whereas in the past, kids would start practicing sports and fitness at a tender age, nowadays, it's often not the case. Video games is often more appealing than practicing sports. That could partly explain the late blooming and the lack of fitness.

alter ego
03-16-2012, 06:23 PM
Whereas in the past, kids would start practicing sports and fitness at a tender age, nowadays, it's often not the case. Video games is often more appealing than practicing sports. That could partly explain the late blooming and the lack of fitness.

I'm fucking tired of hearing this idiotic argument. Murray is almost addicted to video games, Nadull plays with his latino lovers on his playstation all the time.
You know, video games weren't invented in the last 2 years.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 07:00 PM
If people dont like the reason given that kids dont play outside anymore, the 2nd best argument is that there is no reason, it just happens to be so that the next generation lack talent.

Everything in this planet is about odds, so every 3 year generation may be 1/10 to have a player like Federer/Laver and 1/5 to have Nadal/Sampras/Borg and 1/4 to have Djokovic/Lendl/Mcenroe/Agassi and 1/2 to have a Kuerten/Courier/Murray/Hewitt and so on (completely speculative odds here), there is a small chanse one 3 year generation might have none of those mentioned above, not even a Roddick/Del Potro/Ivanisevic (every generation use to have more than one of those).

Take the 77-79 generation, there we find only one slam winner in Gaudio and that was a fluke slam winner. We find a fluke slam finalist in Clement and a wasted talent in Haas, Ljubicic might be the best player of this generation if you count in consistency and he was never in a slam final.

The 90-92 generation might be even worse than the 77-79 generation, now what scares me is that the void goes beyond 3 years, the 93-95 generation shows early signs of beeing even worse than 90-92 even if it might be too early to tell and the ones born in 89 are vastly worse than every year 85-88.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 07:24 PM
If we compare 77-79's ranking 1999 to 90-92's rankings in 2012 we find the following:

In 1999.03 we had:

Haas ranked 19th
Kiefer ranked 30th
Puerta ranked 37th
Hrbaty ranked 40th
Gambill ranked 44th
Zabaleta ranked 51th

Compare it to the 90-92 generation:

Raonic ranked 27th
Tomic ranked 36th
Harrison ranked 72th

And nothing more.

Now the 77-79 generation was surrounded by a strong 76 (Moya, Kuerten, Rios) and a strong 80 (Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero) and in 99 we already had Safin, Hewitt and Ferrero ranked inside top 50, Kuerten, Moya and Rios were all top 10 with Moya as nr1.

Compare it with 89 with Nishikori and Young as only representatives and no one in 93 in top 400 (Safin was ranked 26th in 1999.03)!

The 94ers dont even exist in top 600 and that is comparable to Federer in 1999.03 ranked just outside top 100.

MaxPower
03-16-2012, 07:41 PM
The problem is the game has become so physical that many of these young guns either are not near their physical peak or they just don't train them hard enough to get used to the grueling nature of today's game. Sure, they might be in great shape and certainly could be compared to other players in the past who broke into the top of the sport at a young age, but just in the last 10 years or so, the game has changed drastically in terms of physique. Look at how strong Nadal was at 18. Even Federer took a little while to develop physically until he was able to start winning slams. Sure, much of it was mental, but you have to comment that he did become much better physically as well.



Game has completely changed though. Nadal is the only one out of the list that can be compared to today's game. Borg and Chang not at all. I mean just look at the speed of baseline play back then. You certainly didn't need to be built like David Ferrer to challenge the top players in terms of physical endurance.

But yes, as one mentioned, the combination of a highly required fitness level coupled with mental strength are the reasons why it is much harder to break through in this sport today.


This. Makes no sense bringing up those historic arguments. It's a new deal. Let's not act like 17-20 year olds with peak conditioning and tons of pure will can move in and grind down the top for big titles like Borg, Wilander, Chang, Nadal all did on clay.

What happens today if a youngster intends to win that big clay title? those young players run into some kind of physical beast. Could be a relentless Ferrer that has a body built through 2 decades of hard training. Could be one of those big hitters like Berdy/Delpo/Soderling/Tsonga etc that hit so hard that even if you had Borgs/Nadals legs at 17 you would be without chance as crushing 220kmh serves and 150kmh groundstrokes are finding the lines. Could be one of the top4 that are all defensive beasts paired with insane physical ability and mental strength and then that youngster has no edge on them anyway.

The bar has been raised. Gonna take a few more years before youngsters can pass the new higher bar. A better version of young Nadal would have a chance because he was unusually developed at 16-17. The reason for that I don't want to speculate in but it's very very hard to be that strong and fast at a young age. They won't come around often "naturally"

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 07:49 PM
This. Makes no sense bringing up those historic arguments. It's a new deal. Let's not act like 17-20 year olds with peak conditioning and tons of pure will can move in and grind down the top for big titles like Borg, Wilander, Chang, Nadal all did on clay.

What happens today if a youngster intends to win that big clay title? those young players run into some kind of physical beast. Could be a relentless Ferrer that has a body built through 2 decades of hard training. Could be one of those big hitters like Berdy/Delpo/Soderling/Tsonga etc that hit so hard that even if you had Borgs/Nadals legs at 17 you would be without chance as crushing 220kmh serves and 150kmh groundstrokes are finding the lines. Could be one of the top4 that are all defensive beasts paired with insane physical ability and mental strength and then that youngster has no edge on them anyway.

The bar has been raised. Gonna take a few more years before youngsters can pass the new higher bar. A better version of young Nadal would have a chance because he was unusually developed at 16-17. The reason for that I don't want to speculate in but it's very very hard to be that strong and fast at a young age. They won't come around often "naturally"

If we look beyond statistical arguments, I can see with my own eyes that the young generation lacks talent. Harrison is no talent, Raonic is no talent, Dimitrov is no talent and Tomic is a talent without a big game (reminds me of Hingis without the moonballs), probably wrong kind of tennis to reach the top in this era.

You say a 19 year old Nadal would not get past Ferrer, Berdych and company on clay? Remember Del Potro in 2009 reaching SF in RG and winning Usopen aged 20-21, you think he would not break through in 2012 at that age?

I dont see that big change in the game really, until very, very recently the game was flooding with 18-21 year olds breaking through. Cilic, Del Potro having amazing results at the age of 90-92ers 3 years ago, Djokovic and Murray beeing absolute top players in slam finals 4 years ago and so on.

Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer were all around then and about at the same level as now, also you had prime Federer around and still these players could break through at a young age.

ChampionshipPoints
03-16-2012, 07:53 PM
I'm fucking tired of hearing this idiotic argument. Murray is almost addicted to video games, Nadull plays with his latino lovers on his playstation all the time.
You know, video games weren't invented in the last 2 years.

YOU are a fucking idiot if you are ignoring or don't know the facts. Even if video games have been around for a while, it took some time for them to become a widespread problem. Besides, the fact that Nadal and Murray enjoy that practice, didn't impede on their achievements and they are doing it as adults. Nowadays however, instead of a racket, kids - even as toddlers - prefer to stay on their XBox or computers most of the time and they grow up like that. Have you ever heard of childhood obesity, how much of an epidemic it is, you fucking ignorant?

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 08:07 PM
Also, these 90-92ers barely get to play these amazing power players like Berdych and Tsonga or Ferrer (players 18 year old Nadal was cruising through in 2005), the 90-92ers are losing to players like Russell, Benneteau and Chela in early rounds or challenger semfinals, there really is no excuse for some of their results lately.

JediFed
03-16-2012, 08:41 PM
The longest span without an ATP tour number 1?

December 14th 1946 (Stan Smith) to September 2nd 1952 (Jimmy Connors).

5 years 9 months.

Novak Djokovic - May 22nd 1987.

To match that gap, we'd be looking at players through to the end of 1992.

December 31st, 1992 (19 years 2 months).

Connors reached world number 1 at July 29th, 1974, at the age of 21 years and 10 months.

Still too early to be worried about the generation coming up. That's 2 years and 8 months gap between them and where Jimmy Connors was when he reached number 1.

That still gives the 1992 guys over 2 years to develop, and any of the ones in between (including Murray and Del Potro), a chance to reset the clock.

Lots can change in 2+ years.

alter ego
03-16-2012, 08:44 PM
YOU are a fucking idiot if you are ignoring or don't know the facts. Even if video games have been around for a while, it took some time for them to become a widespread problem. Besides, the fact that Nadal and Murray enjoy that practice, didn't impede on their achievements and they are doing it as adults. Nowadays however, instead of a racket, kids - even as toddlers - prefer to stay on their XBox or computers most of the time and they grow up like that. Have you ever heard of childhood obesity, how much of an epidemic it is, you fucking ignorant?

You may be an old senile fart but I'm not. I'm 24 just like Murray and Djokovic and I remember well my young days. I remember playing counter strike with my mates in 2000, Fifa in 1999 and so onwards (I'm not even going to talk about the Nintendo days). And I'm from fucking Romania, I'm sure Murray and Nadull had access to far better games in their childhood than me.
As for childhood obesity I have news for you, Canada + USA ≠ the world. So if you and your family are fat stop worshiping McDonald's and MOVE your fucking ignornant butt!

ChampionshipPoints
03-16-2012, 09:01 PM
You may be an old senile fart but I'm not. I'm 24 just like Murray and Djokovic and I remember well my young days. I remember playing counter strike with my mates in 2000, Fifa in 1999 and so onwards (I'm not even going to talk about the Nintendo days). And I'm from fucking Romania, I'm sure Murray and Nadull had access to far better games in their childhood than me.
As for childhood obesity I have news for you, Canada + USA ≠ the world. So if you and your family are fat stop worshiping McDonald's and MOVE your fucking ignornant butt!

The problem is getting worse and worse and it has become an epidemic only lately. And in the techology world, just a few years make a huge difference. Do you understand that?

Anyway, I am not proud of myself for having lowered myself to your level, as I see that you're an idiot. I am not in the habit of wasting my time with idiots.

Please go away!

alter ego
03-16-2012, 09:12 PM
The problem is getting worse and worse and it has become an epidemic only lately. And in the techology world, just a few years make a huge difference. Do you understand that?

Anyway, I am not proud of myself for having lowered myself to your level, as I see that you're an idiot. I am not in the habit of wasting my time with idiots.

Please go away!

The only thing that is getting worse and worse is your brain. I attack your pathetic argument and what do you do, oh yeah, an ad hominem attack. And now you say you're not lowering yourself? :lol:

Hypnotize
03-16-2012, 09:13 PM
How can this be "Rankings of youngsters - Under 21" when a large number of players on the list are already 21. Shouldn't it be Rankings of youngsters - Under 22? :confused:

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 09:15 PM
The bar has been raised. Gonna take a few more years before youngsters can pass the new higher bar. A better version of young Nadal would have a chance because he was unusually developed at 16-17. The reason for that I don't want to speculate in but it's very very hard to be that strong and fast at a young age. They won't come around often "naturally"

Hm... they don't have to win slams already of course, but I guess they could play a set of "lights out" tennis occasionally, that is, if they are as talented as some claim they are - show some pulse :) Tomic did it so far, Raonic also, but others not so much.

MaxPower
03-16-2012, 09:30 PM
If we look beyond statistical arguments, I can see with my own eyes that the young generation lacks talent. Harrison is no talent, Raonic is no talent, Dimitrov is no talent and Tomic is a talent without a big game (reminds me of Hingis without the moonballs), probably wrong kind of tennis to reach the top in this era.

You say a 19 year old Nadal would not get past Ferrer, Berdych and company on clay? Remember Del Potro in 2009 reaching SF in RG and winning Usopen aged 20-21, you think he would not break through in 2012 at that age?

I dont see that big change in the game really, until very, very recently the game was flooding with 18-21 year olds breaking through. Cilic, Del Potro having amazing results at the age of 90-92ers 3 years ago, Djokovic and Murray beeing absolute top players in slam finals 4 years ago and so on.

Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer were all around then and about at the same level as now, also you had prime Federer around and still these players could break through at a young age.

Nadal is by far the most physically developed youngster tennis has seen. He had endurance and strength as a 16-20 year old that was quite insane. Hence why I said in my post that if a "new Nadal" arrives I expect results but I also hinted I don't think we will see many 17-20 year olds like that in a natural way. Takes doping or some very rare genes to be that developed.

And yes if Ferrer was like today vs a young Nadal he would likely have stopped him. Ferrer is one of the best examples of how a strong work ethic pays off over the years and give a solid advantage. Look how insanely ripped that man is. Veins literally popping out and such insane maxing out of his physical capabilities. He is a result of many many years of hard training that no 17-20 old can match.

It's a known fact that in many sports where the physical demands start to shift more and more toward endurance the age also shifts upwards.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 09:47 PM
Nadal is by far the most physically developed youngster tennis has seen. He had endurance and strength as a 16-20 year old that was quite insane. Hence why I said in my post that if a "new Nadal" arrives I expect results but I also hinted I don't think we will see many 17-20 year olds like that in a natural way. Takes doping or some very rare genes to be that developed.

And yes if Ferrer was like today vs a young Nadal he would likely have stopped him. Ferrer is one of the best examples of how a strong work ethic pays off over the years and give a solid advantage. Look how insanely ripped that man is. Veins literally popping out and such insane maxing out of his physical capabilities. He is a result of many many years of hard training that no 17-20 old can match.

It's a known fact that in many sports where the physical demands start to shift more and more toward endurance the age also shifts upwards.

Look, we can disagree on some things like old Ferrer beating young Nadal on clay and so on, but this is just a distraction from the real issue at hand. "Youngsters" (20-21 year olds) are losing to Hewitt, Rochus, Malisse and barely get to meet Ferrer, Djokovic and Nadal.

MaxPower
03-16-2012, 10:19 PM
Look, we can disagree on some things like old Ferrer beating young Nadal on clay and so on, but this is just a distraction from the real issue at hand. "Youngsters" (20-21 year olds) are losing to Hewitt, Rochus, Malisse and barely get to meet Ferrer, Djokovic and Nadal.

You think that Hewitt, Rochus and Malisse are doing better than players like Raonic, Tomic and so on? Give me a break.

There is no real crisis. Just a new time. Youngsters will rarely win anything big, rarely even 250 titles. It's a new deal so deal with it. It's not lack of real tennis talent, the number of young players are bigger today and there should be more talent. It's just that the physical demands are different. The demands of a physical "hardness" and endurance is high.

Many sports have been like that for a long time like cross country skiing. The unique mix there makes it impossible for the juniors to compete with seniors. They aren't physically ready even at 20. Sometimes a rare genetical freak can transcend that but most will hit their breakthrough at 22-25 somewhere.

Tennis is going that path, becoming more and more of an endurance sport where 17-20 youngsters are at a clear disadvantage because they aren't "ready" physically

I doubt you'll ever see young generations that can match the old ones from now on. It will be like this from now on. You will rarely see U21 players doing big results.

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 10:35 PM
You think that Hewitt, Rochus and Malisse are doing better than players like Raonic, Tomic and so on? Give me a break.

There is no real crisis. Just a new time. Youngsters will rarely win anything big, rarely even 250 titles. It's a new deal so deal with it. It's not lack of real tennis talent, the number of young players are bigger today and there should be more talent. It's just that the physical demands are different. The demands of a physical "hardness" and endurance is high.

Many sports have been like that for a long time like cross country skiing. The unique mix there makes it impossible for the juniors to compete with seniors. They aren't physically ready even at 20. Sometimes a rare genetical freak can transcend that but most will hit their breakthrough at 22-25 somewhere.

Tennis is going that path, becoming more and more of an endurance sport where 17-20 youngsters are at a clear disadvantage because they aren't "ready" physically

I doubt you'll ever see young generations that can match the old ones from now on. It will be like this from now on. You will rarely see U21 players doing big results.

Raonic, Harrison and Tomic have lost to Meltzer, Hewitt, Rochus, Lopez, Muller, Benneteau, Lammer, Kohlshreiber, Bohli, Fish, Davydenko, Mahut and Cipolla the last 6 months.

Half of those players are 30+ and past their prime, none I would call a physical beast and some are ranked outside the top 200. These are the kind of players these players lose to, all these players were around when Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro were 20 years old and had their breakthrough and most of those players were much better than they are now. Except Davydenko who was a topclass player 3 years ago, none of those caused any trouble to young Nadal/Djokovic/Murray/Del Potro.

Facts are facts, look at the results and tell me if this is acceptable? If only we could weight in a couple of impressive results and say they are simply inconsistent, Raonic is 21 1/2 and won a couple of mickey mouse events beating nobodies while Del Potro at 21 was beating Nadal and Federer back to back in slam SF/F.

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 10:51 PM
You think that Hewitt, Rochus and Malisse are doing better than players like Raonic, Tomic and so on? Give me a break.

Tomic and Raonic are doing ok, everybody generally agrees, however now that you mention it, Hewitt is doing better than the "so on" part - R4 at AO, that's pretty solid.

MaxPower
03-16-2012, 10:56 PM
so you expect youngster to have perfect records vs veterans in this modern age? Even Borg lost matches to veterans. He did NOT lose to players younger than himself but early in his career he did slip vs many veterans. In fact it took a long time before he lost to a player younger than himself.

So when you assess talented youngsters rather look at when they lose to players younger than themselves. Much better indicator than matches vs veterans. 30 year old is no age. Former top players will always find ways to win matches.

But as I said I think we have to get used to this. The question is if the U21 simply suck donkeyballs or if the veterans simply are better in this day and age. Could be a combination too.

One thing I'm sure of. The veterans are definitely better today than they used to be back in the day. People know about the value of nutrition and taking care of themselves past 30. Yet again I could use a Ferrer example. Or Federer, Fish or most players you listed above. They are extremely serious. The amount of hours they put in is crazy. In fact I think many 30+ players practice harder than the U21 ones. Yet I don't think the U21 ones of today practice less than the U21s of past eras

sexybeast
03-16-2012, 11:01 PM
Maxpower, what I once again find incredibly odd is that you think the tour has changed so much in 3 years, why is that?

Del Potro and Cilic were doing very good in 2009 against veterans and top players and even GOATS (they both beat Federer, Nadal, Murray at 20-21), Murray and Djokovic 4 years ago was doing even better. What do you think has changed so much in 3-4 years?

We dont need to go back to Borg's era to find young players achieving great thing, the same kind of players these youngsters are facing had to deal with some real talents only 3-4 years ago.

Time Violation
03-16-2012, 11:09 PM
^^Yup, good point, Delpo and Čilić are only 2-2,5 years younger than today's newcomers, can't be that much different already.

MaxPower
03-16-2012, 11:26 PM
well Delpo and Cilic aren't your typical youngsters. Both are very tall? Close to 2ms both of them I think. They had some advantage many other youngsters don't have. I think Raonic and Tomic are partly successful for the same reason too. A guy like Harrison that seems to have more will than all of those don't have any such edge

scarecrows
03-16-2012, 11:37 PM
Andrey Kuznetsov (21) RUS 313 +2 - Lost in Qualification Indian Wells R1
Lost in Rabat SF
Lost in Dallas R32

he played 2 tournaments in different continents in the same week

too good

SapELee
03-17-2012, 06:27 PM
well Delpo and Cilic aren't your typical youngsters. Both are very tall? Close to 2ms both of them I think. They had some advantage many other youngsters don't have. I think Raonic and Tomic are partly successful for the same reason too. A guy like Harrison that seems to have more will than all of those don't have any such edge

That is one of the things that I love most about Ryan, his will and desire to win. He always give his all in every match and will keep on fighting even when down on matchpoint. He reminds me of Lleyton Hewitt in that sense. Ryan has a champion's mentality; he thinks that he can win against anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. No match is too big for him. Some people may think that is arrogant, but as his fan I love it :angel:.

shuhrat
03-17-2012, 06:52 PM
Andrey Kuznetsov (21) RUS 313 +2 - Lost in Qualification Indian Wells R1
Lost in Rabat SF
Lost in Dallas R32

he played 2 tournaments in different continents in the same week

too good
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=182646
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=182685 :wavey:

arm
03-17-2012, 06:55 PM
Gastão Elias is #23 :banana: :bounce: