Worst young talent in history [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Worst young talent in history

jcempire
07-18-2012, 04:38 AM
Look at guys under 24 years old

Has done absolutely nothing

29 years old to 34 years old still in control

Unbelievable

BAMJ6
07-18-2012, 04:55 AM
Juan Martin Delpotro is the only slam winner among the 88-younger group. Then again, when the GOATrio are in a constant fight with one another did you expect any different?

But still, even the American Fantastic Four from the 90's didn't dominate clay the way this GOATtrio has. While Courier won 2 FO, Chang won one at 17 and Agassi 18 years later. You knew clay could produce a quieter GS winner back in those days

nellis_lv
07-18-2012, 04:57 AM
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5503/gzlabel1.gif

finishingmove
07-18-2012, 05:12 AM
Too much facebook, twitter and MTF.

I suggest the internet-free diet.

Mark Lenders
07-18-2012, 05:13 AM
Del Potro and Cilic are the only players under 25 years of age to have a reached a semifinal. Really makes you question this generation.

But I suppose we should give them more time.

leng jai
07-18-2012, 05:24 AM
I instantly swooned at the OP.

Smoke944
07-18-2012, 05:29 AM
suck at all!

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 06:20 AM
IF Murray was born in 1992, he would be in for one hell of a career!

Imagine, he would start his breakthrough at 2013 with Nadal and Djokovic probably declining and he would be in his mid 20s when Nadal and Djokovic are 30 with no one as talented as him in sight at his own age!

It is incredible how the "luck" factor is not taken seriously in tennis, Murray has lost 9 times to Nadal, Djokovic or Federer in slam SFs and Fs, if he was born 5 years later he might have been facing avarage players in these SFs and Fs, kind of like Agassi playing Schuettler and Clement in slam finals.

Murray might have been a 6-8 slam winner and nr1 for 4-5 years born 5 years later, I kid you not. I still think his greatest rivals would be 30-year old Djokovic and 35-year old Federer.

jcempire
07-18-2012, 03:33 PM
IF Murray was born in 1992, he would be in for one hell of a career!

Imagine, he would start his breakthrough at 2013 with Nadal and Djokovic probably declining and he would be in his mid 20s when Nadal and Djokovic are 30 with no one as talented as him in sight at his own age!

It is incredible how the "luck" factor is not taken seriously in tennis, Murray has lost 9 times to Nadal, Djokovic or Federer in slam SFs and Fs, if he was born 5 years later he might have been facing avarage players in these SFs and Fs, kind of like Agassi playing Schuettler and Clement in slam finals.

Murray might have been a 6-8 slam winner and nr1 for 4-5 years born 5 years later, I kid you not. I still think his greatest rivals would be 30-year old Djokovic and 35-year old Federer.

Maybe

but He was not

or

If he born in 1992, that's no Murray. Another TOmic or Harrison Suck at all

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 04:01 PM
Maybe

but He was not

or

If he born in 1992, that's no Murray. Another TOmic or Harrison Suck at all

Maybe. I think if any great talent appears in the 95-96 generation he might have his breakthrought very early because of the long talent drought from the ones born 89-94.

Fumus
07-18-2012, 04:04 PM
The game is much more physical than it has ever been it's hard for the younger guys to make the break through against the physically stronger and much more experienced top veterans. The game has changed.

DelPo was able to break through because he's a freak physically and able to consistently hit the ball hard enough to trouble the top players. It's harder for guys under 21 to win a slam than ever before.

HKz
07-18-2012, 04:16 PM
Yes, I think it has much to do with the change in the physical nature of the men's game. Players like Nadal and Djokovic were fortunate to be an fantastic shape, especially Rafa, at an early age which allowed them to be very successful. Your physical maturity isn't around 18 necessarily, for many this comes several years into their 20s. I mean really when you are so young, coaches are mainly concentrating on your tennis skills and not as much on your physical abilities, then when you come on the tour, they realize it is the other way around. Many pros work out much more than they actually practice tennis.

This has also made the game much more mental I think because you have to work so hard for a point these days against the top players, so these young players come out with no experience as well, you can't help it. I do not think anyone can Boris Becker their way into a slam final anymore. Upsets are inevitable, but flat out titles, no. IMO today's tennis has the smallest window of years for peak ability. More and more younger players will struggle and more and more older guys will struggle just because of the physical nature of today's game.

Hypnotize
07-18-2012, 04:17 PM
The game is much more physical than it has ever been it's hard for the younger guys to make the break through against the physically stronger and much more experienced top veterans. The game has changed.

DelPo was able to break through because he's a freak physically and able to consistently hit the ball hard enough to trouble the top players. It's harder for guys under 21 to win a slam than ever before.
I agree with your post except JMDP has had serious injures that were probably caused by the way he hit his big forehand.

I like some of the new generation and if people give them time, they will deliver. The game has changed dramatically in the last few years and barring a genetic freak, the days of teenagers winning GSs are over.

bounccer
07-18-2012, 04:20 PM
Stop with this shit "it's more physical blablabla"

Nadal 2005 (19 years old) would be top 5 easily this year, the same for the Djoker at the same age (2007) and Murray

Harrison, Dimitrov, Raonic, Goffin, Tomic don't lose because they are unfit, they lose because their level is miles behind the tops.

They are simply not good enough

Dimitrov has a great technique but no power, Harrison is even worse, Raonic has the power but not the technique, Tomic has no power too (though he's IMO the most talented), Goffin we'll see but he's not that young.

bounccer
07-18-2012, 04:25 PM
Federer was not a physical freak but he was much better than these guys at the same age too, at the same age of Raonic this year, he won Wimbledon in a fantastic fashion.

Hewitt was mentally and physically ready at 20 years old, his game would not be enough to win a slam these days but he would be top 10 at least, Roddick was already very good as a teenager with a ridiculous power, better than Raonic today, Safin was capable of total beatdown too, all of them would perhaps fail to win a slam if they was born in 1991 but the youngsters today are top 30, top 50, it's a disaster.

bounccer
07-18-2012, 04:29 PM
It's a great chance for Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro... If Nadal and Djokovic slump, in a few years they won't be any dominants and the slams will be very winnable, they have to stay at the top as longer as possible .

Federer, at the Nadal's age has already to deal with some youngs guns (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray)

mystic ice cube
07-18-2012, 04:34 PM
Sadly I agree with most you. I haven't seen many breakthrough's in men's tennis since I started watching it properly in 2007. That's 5 years. It's why JMDP was such a breath of fresh air back in 09'. You could call Nole's 2011 season a breakthrough of sorts but we always knew of his talent.

What's most worrying about the current young generation is their lack of consistency & results. Tomic might have a great tournament then lose to some mug a week later. At least challenge the guys at the bottom, and if you lose to a top player, fair enough. If it continues I can see tennis become boring & a complete anti-climax when the Fed-Rafa-Nole era has pasted.

HKz
07-18-2012, 04:36 PM
Stop with this shit "it's more physical blablabla"

Nadal 2005 (19 years old) would be top 5 easily this year, the same for the Djoker at the same age (2007) and Murray

Harrison, Dimitrov, Raonic, Goffin, Tomic don't lose because they are unfit, they lose because their level is miles behind the tops.

They are simply not good enough

Dimitrov has a great technique but no power, Harrison is even worse, Raonic has the power but not the technique, Tomic has no power too (though he's IMO the most talented), Goffin we'll see but he's not that young.

Federer was not a physical freak but he was much better than these guys at the same age too, at the same age of Raonic this year, he won Wimbledon in a fantastic fashion.

Hewitt was mentally and physically ready at 20 years old, his game would not be enough to win a slam these days but he would be top 10 at least, Roddick was already very good as a teenager with a ridiculous power, better than Raonic today, Safin was capable of total beatdown too, all of them would perhaps fail to win a slam if they was born in 1991 but the youngsters today are top 30, top 50, it's a disaster.

You are being extremely contradicting.. You are saying stop saying it is physical but you are point out players like Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt who WERE all physical beasts early on. Roddick and Murray also needed to bulk up before they had true success. So you don't bullshit me and give contradicting thoughts. No shit Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt made it because they put in the physical effort early on in their career. And don't bring Federer into this, he started merely at the beginning of this physical era, and he is obviously one of a kind, he should not be compared to the general, it isn't fair to others to do so.

Again, the main problem for players born around the early 90s, is that they grew up in a era of junior tennis that was still looking up to a men's tour that was still not as physical as the game is today, so coaches similarly concentrated their bulk of regime on the tennis rather than the fitness. It has only been a modern change for many coaches to concentrate much more on their students' physique. I know many of the coaches at the tennis academies around my city and they are started to push their players to the gym at a younger age and some even have them do more workouts than tennis. So I really don't think we will see a change for new talent quite some time.

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 04:42 PM
You are being extremely contradicting.. You are saying stop saying it is physical but you are point out players like Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt who WERE all physical beasts early on. Roddick and Murray also needed to bulk up before they had true success. So you don't bullshit me and give contradicting thoughts. No shit Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt made it because they put in the physical effort early on in their career. And don't bring Federer into this, he started merely at the beginning of this physical era, and he is obviously one of a kind, he should not be compared to the general, it isn't fair to others to do so.

How about Gasquet, Berdych, Cilic, Baghdatis, Nalbandian, Safin, Coria, Murray and so many more who had some great success already at 20 and under?

All of them were in slam SFs or won master series at a younger age than Raonic right now. All of them were physical beasts?

Seriously?

bounccer
07-18-2012, 04:45 PM
You are being extremely contradicting.. You are saying stop saying it is physical but you are point out players like Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt who WERE all physical beasts early on. Roddick and Murray also needed to bulk up before they had true success. So you don't bullshit me and give contradicting thoughts. No shit Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt made it because they put in the physical effort early on in their career. And don't bring Federer into this, he started merely at the beginning of this physical era, and he is obviously one of a kind, he should not be compared to the general, it isn't fair to others to do so.

I wasn't referring to you particulary beacause almost everybody say the same, but IMO they are wrong. It would be right if these youngsters were in the top 15 and were beaten only by the top guys but it's not the case, they lose more often than not against the top 30 today, they are really very very far away, i can't see any generation that weak, the 1975/1977 generation was weak too but less IMO. Worse, every youngster lake of something which is almost impossible to compensate (power, touch)

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 04:56 PM
I wasn't referring to you particulary beacause almost everybody say the same, but IMO they are wrong. It would be right if these youngsters were in the top 15 and were beaten only by the top guys but it's not the case, they lose more often than not against the top 30 today, they are really very very far away, i can't see any generation that weak, the 1975/1977 generation was weak too but less IMO. Worse, every youngster lake of something which is almost impossible to compensate (power, touch)

There are also observations you can make with the eyes (everything is not about stats), Raonic just isnt good at anything else than serving, Harrison is not much more than a pusher without any great shots and Tomic lacks power and a great serve for his height.

Anyway, when you see 33-year old corpse Blake outpowering Harrison in 1st round, 34-year old Stepanek completely outplaying Tomic with his own unorthodox game and journeymen like Becker and Querrey completely outplaying Raonic at his own game you know that something is seriously lacking in this generation.

People forget players like Gasquet, Monfils and Baghdatis had their peak at around 20, like many other players (Coria, Hewitt, possibly Safin). It is a great age for tennis, almost peak age. Around 21-22 is definetly peak age and players like Roddick, Del Potro, Nadal, Cilic, possibly Murray were at their best at that age (Raonic's age). Federer peaked at 23-24 because his game had more potential to expand upon, same cant be said about the likes of Raonic and Harrison, but even Federer who is known as a lateboomer showed signs of greatness at 19-20.

Murray at just turned 21 against still teenager Del Potro in 2008 QF of Usopen for those who already forgot how great players are supposed to play at that age (notice, I havent taken the best players of the generation: Djokovic and Nadal as the bar for youngsters, because you cant expect another generation to produce these kind of players):

H9S3icamHr0

Honestly
07-18-2012, 05:01 PM
Federer.

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 05:17 PM
Look at Gulbis oozing with talent in 2008 against Nadal, just turned 20:

Yh0tmuHoEIs

Now, even he turned out to be nothing but false promise at that age but it is scary that no one of Raonic, Tomic or Harrison comes close to Gulbis 2008 level of tennis. Here is Murray at an age 7 months younger than Tomic going toe to toe with 2006 Federer in Cincinatti and winning:

GI0zP1Tqh6I

This is what talent looks like, not one drop of it can be seen in the likes of Harrison and Raonic. It can be seen sometimes in Tomic but never at the same rate as Murray at his age, mind you that Murray was not the greatest talent of his generation.

gindyo
07-18-2012, 05:52 PM
you are not really going to use youtube highlights to prove you point are you? If those were any indication of how good a player is/was then Dimitrov would be in top 5 already.

this is him at 17 against the then #1 and AO Champion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcxXUcnbMc

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-18-2012, 06:21 PM
its really worrying at this point

no one has broken through at all- by the time rog was 25 nadal, nole and murray were already eestablished

which youngster is established right now?

theres no rumors of huge talent coming up either-
yeah, it helps keep the top 4 up there- and you have to give them credit for being so strong- but at the same time no one else is looking like they will be challenging them any time soon

dimitrov isnt there mentally
nishikori just doesnt seem to have that extra gear
donald young just hasnt progressed at all since 16

if we have another batch of kids come through who are head cases then fed could be winning slams at 40

Alex999
07-18-2012, 06:41 PM
There are also observations you can make with the eyes (everything is not about stats), Raonic just isnt good at anything else than serving, Harrison is not much more than a pusher without any great shots and Tomic lacks power and a great serve for his height.

Anyway, when you see 33-year old corpse Blake outpowering Harrison in 1st round, 34-year old Stepanek completely outplaying Tomic with his own unorthodox game and journeymen like Becker and Querrey completely outplaying Raonic at his own game you know that something is seriously lacking in this generation.

People forget players like Gasquet, Monfils and Baghdatis had their peak at around 20, like many other players (Coria, Hewitt, possibly Safin). It is a great age for tennis, almost peak age. Around 21-22 is definetly peak age and players like Roddick, Del Potro, Nadal, Cilic, possibly Murray were at their best at that age (Raonic's age). Federer peaked at 23-24 because his game had more potential to expand upon, same cant be said about the likes of Raonic and Harrison, but even Federer who is known as a lateboomer showed signs of greatness at 19-20.

Murray at just turned 21 against still teenager Del Potro in 2008 QF of Usopen for those who already forgot how great players are supposed to play at that age (notice, I havent taken the best players of the generation: Djokovic and Nadal as the bar for youngsters, because you cant expect another generation to produce these kind of players):

H9S3icamHr0
good post Mr. Masterclass. Even as a Nole fan (and I've been his fan before he won his first slam btw) I find all of current youngsters just pathetic. I'm even getting tired of the top 3 winning everything left and right... I keep hoping that some of these youngsters can challenge them but it seems to be so hopeless ... I've been watching tennis since 80s, yet I've never seen 3 players to be so dominant.

Mark Lenders
07-18-2012, 06:47 PM
There are also observations you can make with the eyes (everything is not about stats), Raonic just isnt good at anything else than serving, Harrison is not much more than a pusher without any great shots and Tomic lacks power and a great serve for his height.

Anyway, when you see 33-year old corpse Blake outpowering Harrison in 1st round, 34-year old Stepanek completely outplaying Tomic with his own unorthodox game and journeymen like Becker and Querrey completely outplaying Raonic at his own game you know that something is seriously lacking in this generation.

People forget players like Gasquet, Monfils and Baghdatis had their peak at around 20, like many other players (Coria, Hewitt, possibly Safin). It is a great age for tennis, almost peak age. Around 21-22 is definetly peak age and players like Roddick, Del Potro, Nadal, Cilic, possibly Murray were at their best at that age (Raonic's age). Federer peaked at 23-24 because his game had more potential to expand upon, same cant be said about the likes of Raonic and Harrison, but even Federer who is known as a lateboomer showed signs of greatness at 19-20.

Murray at just turned 21 against still teenager Del Potro in 2008 QF of Usopen for those who already forgot how great players are supposed to play at that age (notice, I havent taken the best players of the generation: Djokovic and Nadal as the bar for youngsters, because you cant expect another generation to produce these kind of players):

H9S3icamHr0


That was a great match. Although JMDP lost and ended the match in tears, it was in that match that I knew that, bar any unforeseen circumstances, Delpo would win a Slam before Murray and probably win more than Murray. He lost that one due to fatigue (his incredible summer run) and inexperience, but it did look like his time was about to come, which was confirmed in the following year.

bounccer
07-18-2012, 06:52 PM
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/topfourseeds_sf.GIF

This year, the top 4 is the equivalent of the 80s with Mc Enroe/Lendl/Connors...

It's the 90s wich were pretty unpredictable, because of the surfaces, the specialization, or the lack of a big boss with a complet game? Tough to say.

The top 4 who will stay longer can take a lot of slams late in his career ala Agassi

Fed=ATPTourkilla
07-18-2012, 06:58 PM
Fact is that the next generation sucks ass big time. You get all this 'weak era' stuff from haters but this is different because there is very clear proof of how weak the players are.

From EVERY generation that I can remember, going back to Sampras, you had the best young guys hitting the top 10 before they reached 20, and also showing that they could really damage the very top players in the world. Going back to Becker winning Wimbledon in 1985, Sampras' first US Open win, Chang winning as a teenager. From the next generation you had Hewitt, Safin I think both reached world no 1 before age 20; I think Roddick was top 10 as a teenager too. I remember a 19 year old Fed beating Sampras and then really threatening Henman (should have beaten him but for some tiebreak choking). Nalbandian was very strong at age 20 too, can't remember his ranking but if it wasn't top 10 it was very close. That generation, often accused of being weak, looks unplayably good compared to the post Murray/ Djokovic generation. From the generation after that, obviously Nadal was winning Slams in his teens; Murray and Djoker were both top 10 or very close.

Compare today's youth. Grigor at 21 isn't even a threat to the old vulture players like Ferrer, there is no way he is anything vaguely resembling a threat to Djokovic.

You can make a forecast from this: Djokovic/ Murray/ Nadal can continue to hold the top rankings until well into their 30s. There are not even any Roddick level players coming up to threaten them, let alone a new generation of GOATs. The players who will ultimately kick them out are only 14/15 years old today.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
07-18-2012, 07:20 PM
OK I am exaggerating a little bit. Just looking at some players and when they hit the top 10...

Sampras generation

Sampras 19yrs 0 months
Agassi 18yrs 1 month
Kuerten 20yrs 10 months
Kafelnikov 20yrs 11 months
Ivanisevic 19rs 0 months

Federer generation

Federer 20yrs 9 months
Hewitt 19yrs 2 months
Safin 20yrs 4 months
Roddick 19yrs 11 months
Nalbandian 21yrs 0 months

Nadal generation

Nadal 18yrs 10 months
Djokovic 19yrs 9 months
Murray 19yrs 11 months
del Potro 20 yrs 0 months
Gasquet 21yrs 0 months

Current young players - No data available!

You cannot tell for sure how good someone will be by their achievements at an early age, eg Hewitt hit the top 10 almost 2 years before Fed but ultimately turned out to be a weaker player. But almost all the players who turn out to be any good hit the top 10 between the ages of 18 and 21 at the very latest. Lots of them also had Slam achievements or even wins to back up their rankings, showing their potential (I can't be bothered tracking down data for this).

Nobody from the current group of young players is even matching Gasquet, let alone Nadal or Agassi!

nellis_lv
07-18-2012, 07:21 PM
I'm starting to wonder why this is always the #1 topic for some posters here.

duong
07-18-2012, 08:02 PM
It's a great chance for Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro... If Nadal and Djokovic slump, in a few years they won't be any dominants and the slams will be very winnable, they have to stay at the top as longer as possible .

for Djokovic too (I can see him beating Fed's slams record), even for Nadal but I believe less in him ageing well whereas he already must have plasma injections every 3 months at 26 years old,

but actually the players from generations 85-87 who will age very well as Ferrer or Federer do today will have great chances in the future.

I can even imagine Gasquet winning Wimbledon at 30 years old ... or Monfils winning Roland-Garros, why not ?

I agree that generations 88-94 at least look really weak comparing to the previous ones. People talked about a "weak era" when Fed was at his best but although, Fed benefitted from weaker older generations, his generation was great (not as great as the 3 players Nadal-Djokovic-Murray though)

I also agree that Murray could have been much luckier :lol:

Burrow
07-18-2012, 08:23 PM
18 year old Marat Safin just after defeating Agassi in 5 sets vs 21 year old defending champion Kuerten
cl3Pm4qFFhs

22 year old Juan Carlos Ferrero
NdI-J8_Xhdg

19 year old Lleyton Hewitt overcoming Costa in 5
fS_2B2T9xk8

20 year old Juan Carlos Ferrero wins the Davis Cup for Spain in 2000 vs. 19 year old Hewitt
dRMDZSim274

It's a shame that there are no young players coming through like this any more and it's a shame that Gulbis has no motivation to reach his potential.

Litotes
07-18-2012, 08:29 PM
for Djokovic too (I can see him beating Fed's slams record

Can you really? I can't even see him beating Sampras, and think he will have great difficulties beating Borg. Not ruling that last one out, but it's certainly not a given.

If we lack youngsters to take him out, sooner or later his own generation is going to take bigger chunks out of him. Having won less means having played less, which could give them better health later in their careers. Not all of them, obviously, but I am sure some of them will test him as time passes.

bounccer
07-18-2012, 08:35 PM
Djokovic winning 18 slams? Highly unlikely, Djokovic hasn't a big weapon (a really massive weapon like Sampras's serve or Federer's forehand), as soon as he will lose a step, he will be toast, no to mention he's already 25, in the middle of his career, Federer had 9 slams at te same age, Djokovic had to win as many slams as Sampras in his entire career, to me it's like a very strange prediction Duong, but i put this on your pessimisme "maladif" (you're french, you will understand what i mean)

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 08:49 PM
you are not really going to use youtube highlights to prove you point are you? If those were any indication of how good a player is/was then Dimitrov would be in top 5 already.

this is him at 17 against the then #1 and AO Champion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcxXUcnbMc

It is not about the highlights per say that will tell people something about these players, I watched those matches and hope people remember watching these matches themselves. Remember how Murray played when he was 19? Or still 18 in Bangkok final which he lost against Federer but still showed so much talent.

The highlights are only there to remind people of these matches. Tomic showed some great potential at 17, but there has been no evolution since then and he is soon 20. He is the only one of those in top 50 (Raonic, Harrison) that got real talent, but Murray was alot better at his age.

emotion
07-18-2012, 08:51 PM
it is a very very weak generation, really undeniable. And there is such an upcoming hole with fedal gone if something happens to nole, a 29 year old almagro or tipsa could sneak a slam, as could cilic or the second incarnation of del potro

duong
07-18-2012, 09:04 PM
Djokovic winning 18 slams? Highly unlikely, Djokovic hasn't a big weapon (a really massive weapon like Sampras's serve or Federer's forehand), as soon as he will lose a step, he will be toast, no to mention he's already 25, in the middle of his career, Federer had 9 slams at te same age, Djokovic had to win as many slams as Sampras in his entire career, to me it's like a very strange prediction Duong, but i put this on your pessimisme "maladif" (you're french, you will understand what i mean)

for mebeing pessimistic would rather be predict that Nadal would beat Fed's record because that I would hate, but Djokovic is OK.

But I don't understand the pessimism about an ageing Djokovic : see how Agassi and Ferrer aged ;)

and he's only 3 slams behind Fed at the same age.

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm starting to wonder why this is always the #1 topic for some posters here.

I find 2 things interesting in the current era:

1.The complete domination of 3 players against the rest of the tour which just wont end.

2.After a very productive and succesfull generation, the sudden stop of new talents appearing and sudden radical aging of the tour with 30+ players just not going away.

Both these happenings have never been seen before in the open era and is therefor very interesting, these graphs show why these are unique events that should be discussed:

Top 100 age:

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Top100Ages.GIF

Top 4 % in GS SF:

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/topfourseeds_sf.GIF

Note that this is a 3-year rolling avarage and not updated in 2012, we are really right now after Wimbledon 2012 up to 75% which is as you can see on the graph clearly a record.

r2473
07-18-2012, 09:15 PM
I'm worried about the under 25-year old talent on mtf

Ouragan
07-18-2012, 09:36 PM
it is a very very weak generation, really undeniable. And there is such an upcoming hole with fedal gone if something happens to nole, a 29 year old almagro or tipsa could sneak a slam, as could cilic or the second incarnation of del potro

Scary thoughts.

Smoke944
07-18-2012, 09:37 PM
Everyone here that is actually having a serious discussion in a jcempire thread should leave MTF and never come back. Crazy stuff.

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 09:39 PM
for Djokovic too (I can see him beating Fed's slams record), even for Nadal but I believe less in him ageing well whereas he already must have plasma injections every 3 months at 26 years old,

but actually the players from generations 85-87 who will age very well as Ferrer or Federer do today will have great chances in the future.

I can even imagine Gasquet winning Wimbledon at 30 years old ... or Monfils winning Roland-Garros, why not ?

I agree that generations 88-94 at least look really weak comparing to the previous ones. People talked about a "weak era" when Fed was at his best but although, Fed benefitted from weaker older generations, his generation was great (not as great as the 3 players Nadal-Djokovic-Murray though)

I also agree that Murray could have been much luckier :lol:

It is interesting that Federer indeed benefited from a weak older generation but had great rivals his own age and later faced an even greater challenge from a very good generation of teenagers coming up every year 2005-2008, Nadal/Djokovic had some though opposition from Feds own generation but now they are benefiting the lack of youngsters challenging them at their mid 20s.

Litotes
07-18-2012, 09:41 PM
Both these happenings have never been seen before in the open era and is therefor very interesting, these graphs show why these are unique events that should be discussed:


Never been seen before? What about the start of the Open Era? We had a +30 Laver on top with a four year older Rosewall still competitive, and even Gonzales still winning some smaller tournaments at +40. Ashe wasn't a teen either.

I would love to see your chart comparison drawn a little further back in time.

sexybeast
07-18-2012, 09:51 PM
Never been seen before? What about the start of the Open Era? We had a +30 Laver on top with a four year older Rosewall still competitive, and even Gonzales still winning some smaller tournaments at +40. Ashe wasn't a teen either.

I would love to see your chart comparison drawn a little further back in time.

It is true, the late 60s and early 70s (pre-Connors/Borg/Vilas) had weak youngsters and great older players. That was very long time ago, but I see signs this weak younger generation might be worse than the ones playing in the dawn of the open era. Here is the graph for avarage age of slam fields in the open era:

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/field_ageslam.GIF

duong
07-18-2012, 10:22 PM
It is interesting that Federer indeed benefited from a weak older generation but had great rivals his own age and later faced an even greater challenge from a very good generation of teenagers coming up every year 2005-2008, Nadal/Djokovic had some though opposition from Feds own generation but now they are benefiting the lack of youngsters challenging them at their mid 20s.

yes, Nadal/Djokovic's case is rather like Sampras's : tougher old generation but less tough younger generation, but the young generation now is even worse than the generation of Kuerten-Rios's.

And it seems to get worse and worse every year : I keep stats for the rankings reached at 17, 18 ... until 22, and it's worse and worse every year.

The 1994 generation for instance is worse than the 1993 one which was worse than the 1992 one. And the 1995 generation doesn't seem to be a problem in junior tournaments for the 1994 generation. Only Quinzi (1996) then Kozlov (1998) really have exceptional results (but Tomic had better ones than Quinzi at the same age)

Actually the 1992 generation (not only Tomic and Harrison, but also a bunch of good players although not top-ones) was the only one which looked promising, but well it's still hard to see one of them reach the very-top. I believe more in Tomic than the average MTFers do, but still it's far from the Murray we saw from the Cinci 2006 highlights and Murray was one year younger than Tomic now (I remembered this match had been great, and actually it was : Fed used the slice too much, that's the main difference with now but well Murray also was quite aggressive in his shots :eek: )

Edda
07-19-2012, 12:10 AM
All of this "new young talent" will turn out, in a few years' time, to be nothing but overgrown spoiled brats. When Pete Sampras was finishing his career, Roger Federer was starting his. I see nobody to take the place of Federer, Nadal and my other favorite players.

n8
07-19-2012, 12:52 AM
Apparently being born on Feb 1st is a sign of junior success.

Saville (1994) - two time junior Grand Slam winner (current boys' world number two)
Quinzi (1996) - highest ranked 1996 born player (current boys' world number four)
Kozlov (1998) - highest ranked 1998 born player (current boys' world number 68)

Alex999
07-19-2012, 01:17 AM
Fact is that the next generation sucks ass big time. You get all this 'weak era' stuff from haters but this is different because there is very clear proof of how weak the players are.

From EVERY generation that I can remember, going back to Sampras, you had the best young guys hitting the top 10 before they reached 20, and also showing that they could really damage the very top players in the world. Going back to Becker winning Wimbledon in 1985, Sampras' first US Open win, Chang winning as a teenager. From the next generation you had Hewitt, Safin I think both reached world no 1 before age 20; I think Roddick was top 10 as a teenager too. I remember a 19 year old Fed beating Sampras and then really threatening Henman (should have beaten him but for some tiebreak choking). Nalbandian was very strong at age 20 too, can't remember his ranking but if it wasn't top 10 it was very close. That generation, often accused of being weak, looks unplayably good compared to the post Murray/ Djokovic generation. From the generation after that, obviously Nadal was winning Slams in his teens; Murray and Djoker were both top 10 or very close.

Compare today's youth. Grigor at 21 isn't even a threat to the old vulture players like Ferrer, there is no way he is anything vaguely resembling a threat to Djokovic.

You can make a forecast from this: Djokovic/ Murray/ Nadal can continue to hold the top rankings until well into their 30s. There are not even any Roddick level players coming up to threaten them, let alone a new generation of GOATs. The players who will ultimately kick them out are only 14/15 years old today.
THIS. I simply don't see Djokovic, Nadal and Murray going anywhere any time soon. They are in their prime and they will probably rule next 4-5 years (assuming they stay healthy). They can simply toy with players like Dimitrov, Tomic, Raonic etc. I simply see nobody right now who can seriously threaten them. I remember back in 2006 how excited I was about Djokovic, Murray and Gasquet. Nole and Murray were only 19yo, Richie was 20 I think. Nowadays, I'm not excited about any of these youngsters. I really like watching Dimitrov, he plays very 'pretty' tennis, love his technique, but again he won nothing ... and top guys like Nole or Rafa will simply blow him off the court at any given moment. I totally agree that some future GS champion/future#1 is 14/15 yo right now.

BroTree123
07-19-2012, 01:19 AM
I feel the "young up-and-coming talents" are getting worse and worse as time passes.

sexybeast
07-19-2012, 01:23 AM
I cant wait to watch this Kozlov kid somewhere, it is really impressive to be ranked almost top 50 in juniors when you are just 14.

When Kozlov is 19 Djokovic will be 30 and Nadal 31, perfect time to present yourself as the saviour of tennis after a 10-year old drought in the talent department.

On the other hand, didnt Young win the orange bowl tournament at 14?

Smoke944
07-19-2012, 01:25 AM
I cant wait to watch this Kozlov kid somewhere, it is really impressive to be ranked almost top 50 in juniors when you are just 14.

On the other hand, didnt Young win the orange bowl tournament at 14?

No. I mean he might have won the U14 or U16 Orange Bowl then, but I know you mean the ITF U18 one.

Mark Lenders
07-19-2012, 01:25 AM
Anyone has any bets on who the next under 25 to make the semis of a Slam will be - so far only Delpo and Cilic did it?

My money is on Nishikori; he should do it assuming he has no more injuries and that he doesn't keep playing 5-set marathons in early rounds.

Asadinator
07-19-2012, 01:29 AM
Federer was not a physical freak but he was much better than these guys at the same age too, at the same age of Raonic this year, he won Wimbledon in a fantastic fashion.

Federer had a big physical growth once he got to 18/19 years of age, from then on his body hasn't grown, just got leaner. He was always athletic though,

sexybeast
07-19-2012, 01:32 AM
No. I mean he might have won the U14 or U16 Orange Bowl then, but I know you mean the ITF U18 one.

Ok, but he was nr1 at 15 years and 6 months which is simply amazing. He got to the ITF U18 final at 14, but he didnt win it.

sexybeast
07-19-2012, 01:34 AM
Anyone has any bets on who the next under 25 to make the semis of a Slam will be - so far only Delpo and Cilic did it?

My money is on Nishikori; he should do it assuming he has no more injuries and that he doesn't keep playing 5-set marathons in early rounds.

Nishikori with his work ethics and humble personality has the potential to be a Ferrer kind of guy, a consistent top 5 player at best. But if the top 3 (and Murray) declines there will be room for these kind of players.

My say is that Nishikori will turn 25 when Djokovic and Murray seriously start to decline and will then have some late 20s success. I bet on Tomic to get to Wimbledon SF or Australian Open SF sometime in 2013-2015 but that kid could go to one awfully wrong direction (might be doing it already), there are so many dangerous signs.

Mark Lenders
07-19-2012, 01:43 AM
Nishikori with his work ethics and humble personality has the potential to be a Ferrer kind of guy, a consistent top 5 player at best. But if the top 3 (and Murray) declines there will be room for these kind of players.

I was only asking who the next under 25 to make semis will be, making no predictions about how much they can achieve.

Still, Nishikori is far more talented than Ferrer - that much was obvious in their USO 2008 match back when Kei was 18 - I'd be immensely surprised if he didn't have a considerably better career once all is said is done, injuries or not.

I do agree that with physical beasts like Nadal and Nole at the top, it's very hard for a player with Kei's natural limitations in terms of power to break through. He's solid at every facet of his game, which is all you can ask from a guy his size, and a tremendous fighter, but that can only take you so far of course. Would still tip him as one of the most likely guys to succeed among the new generation (guys under 25 really).

My say is that Nishikori will turn 25 when Djokovic and Murray seriously start to decline and will then have some late 20s success. I bet on Tomic to get to Wimbledon SF or Australian Open SF sometime in 2013-2015 but that kid could go to one awfully wrong direction (might be doing it already), there are so many dangerous signs.

This is a possibility for sure.

Whiznot
07-19-2012, 01:54 AM
Very interesting thread. Sexybeast where did the informative charts come from?

leng jai
07-19-2012, 02:01 AM
I was only asking who the next under 25 to make semis will be, making no predictions about how much they can achieve.

Still, Nishikori is far more talented than Ferrer - that much was obvious in their USO 2008 match back when Kei was 18 - I'd be immensely surprised if he didn't have a considerably better career once all is said is done, injuries or not.

I do agree that with physical beasts like Nadal and Nole at the top, it's very hard for a player with Kei's natural limitations in terms of power to break through. He's solid at every facet of his game, which is all you can ask from a guy his size, and a tremendous fighter, but that can only take you so far of course. Would still tip him as one of the most likely guys to succeed among the new generation (guys under 25 really).



This is a possibility for sure.

I like Kei but you must be pretty optimistic to think he will match Ferrer's career let alone surpass it considerably.

Smoke944
07-19-2012, 02:08 AM
Ok, but he was nr1 at 15 years and 6 months which is simply amazing. He got to the ITF U18 final at 14, but he didnt win it.

check again, U18 final was when he was 15

Mark Lenders
07-19-2012, 02:13 AM
I like Kei but you must be pretty optimistic to think he will match Ferrer's career let alone surpass it considerably.

I'm always pretty optimistic regarding my favorite players, a group where Kei is most definitely included, but don't think this requires any optimism at all. Kei is far more talented than Ferrer, not to mention inarguably one of the best players of his generation/age group.

I'd have to be pretty pessimistic not to believe he'll grab at least one Masters title and give himself a shot at a Slam at some point. Among under 25 players, only Del Potro can be considered, beyond any doubt, clearly better than him at the moment, so other than his talent and having time on his side being only 22, he also benefits from belonging to a generation that doesn't seem that strong. I'd be pretty pessimistic not to think he can eclipse Ferrer's achievements.

leng jai
07-19-2012, 02:20 AM
I'm always pretty optimistic regarding my favorite players, a group where Kei is most definitely included, but don't think this requires any optimism at all. Kei is far more talented than Ferrer, not to mention inarguably one of the best players of his generation/age group.

I'd have to be pretty pessimistic not to believe he'll grab at least one Masters title and give himself a shot at a Slam at some point. Among under 25 players, only Del Potro can be considered, beyond any doubt, clearly better than him at the moment, so other than his talent and having time on his side being only 22, he also benefits from belonging to a generation that doesn't seem that strong. I'd be pretty pessimistic not to think he can eclipse Ferrer's achievements.

It depends on how much his peers improve and how healthy he is. Kei I talented but limited by his physique. Do think he is going to improve significantly? To me he looks like he has already reached 95% of his potential. I know you don't like Ferrer but he has had an extremely good career considering his physical stature. No one in this era besides the top 3 are winning slams so you can't put that against him. The fact he hasn't won a Masters is a pretty big blemish though. Nishikori has the advantage of peaking after the big 3 finish up so he will definitely have chances.

BroTree123
07-19-2012, 02:23 AM
Kei is a mysterious one. He's either on or he's way off.

Mark Lenders
07-19-2012, 02:33 AM
It depends on how much his peers improve and how healthy he is. Kei I talented but limited by his physique. Do think he is going to improve significantly? To me he looks like he has already reached 95% of his potential. I know you don't like Ferrer but he has had an extremely good career considering his physical stature. No one in this era besides the top 3 are winning slams so you can't put that against him. The fact he hasn't won a Masters is a pretty big blemish though. Nishikori has the advantage of peaking after the big 3 finish up so he will definitely have chances.

True, his physique/health will always be an issue unfortunately. I have to disagree that he has reached 95% of his potential though, really can't agree at all. He has had major injury setbacks every time he started fulfilling his potential and stringing good results, most recently after having a good end to 2011 (even beating Djokovic, albeit at a tour event) and then a very good Australian Open (beating Tsonga). I think that if he can have a run of good health, then we'll see him fulfill his potential. It's pretty much impossible for Kei to have fulfilled 95% of his potential already given all the setbacks he's had.

Ferrer has indeed had a good career especially for a guy his size. But he has never won a title over 500 and doesn't seem particularly likely to; I'd be very surprised if that was the case with Kei, especially since his best years will probably come post-big 3. Kei is definitely the more talented shotmaker as well, his backhand down the line is one of my favorite shots in tennis.

chenx15
07-19-2012, 02:43 AM
here is the screening door to reach the upper echelon of tennis now. first you have to go through the berdych and tsonga. once you passed those, you go through murray and ferrer, then the Trio of death. just getting through the first level is tough enough, getting through second level is almost impossible, imagine when you get to meet the trio. Shyte!

leng jai
07-19-2012, 02:44 AM
I didn't mean 95% of his potential in results. He can definitely have much better results provided he has a clean run of health. Game wise I don't see him improving that much but in 95% is a bit harsh. I don't see his serve getting any bigger or his groundstrokes getting any bigger. To me he's like a poor man's Djokovic in a way but without the X-factor. The good thing for Kei is that he has very little weaknesses in his game but no discernible weapon. That's great for a solid consistent career but usually no good for big results. We'll see though. With the relatively week generation coming up a 5-10% improvement and decent health could well be enough to challenge for slams and win Masters.

Mark Lenders
07-19-2012, 03:02 AM
I didn't mean 95% of his potential in results. He can definitely have much better results provided he has a clean run of health. Game wise I don't see him improving that much but in 95% is a bit harsh. I don't see his serve getting any bigger or his groundstrokes getting any bigger. To me he's like a poor man's Djokovic in a way but without the X-factor. The good thing for Kei is that he has very little weaknesses in his game but no discernible weapon. That's great for a solid consistent career but usually no good for big results. We'll see though. With the relatively week generation coming up a 5-10% improvement and decent health could well be enough to challenge for slams and win Masters.

I reckon his serve could continue to improve - he has made some strides there -, although it will never be a huge weapon. What he also needs to improve, crucially is his focus within a match, especially over 5 sets. His Australian Open campaign, while heroic in a way, ended up in disappointing fashion because he was so exhausted he couldn't even put up a fight against Murray. Needing 5 sets to beat Tsonga is understandable, but he shouldn't have got into marathons in his early round matches and did so because of concentration lapses. The same thing happened in USO 2008 when he wasted a two set lead over Ferrer and ended up winning an epic marathon, draining him of all energy for his next match against JMDP. I do enjoy Kei's marathons, but he needs to cut it out a bit and be fully focused for an entire match to go deep in big tournaments.

I agree with the poor man Nole's thing. His style does resemble Nole a bit; of course Novak is more taller, allowing him to generate more power and be more athletic. The lack of discernible weaknesses is what most impresses me about Kei's game too: for a guy his size, being solid at every facet of the game is all you can ask. I do consider his backhand down the line a weapon though, he's one of the best at that shot.

And yes, decent health and slight improvements should be enough for Kei to have a chance at Masters/Slams, to be a contender in a few years. It's not like there seems to be any all-conquering force in his generation or a wealth of great players either.

cutesteve22
07-19-2012, 03:25 AM
Just hope those veterans could hold as long as they could, I won't watch tennis when Dimitrov Harrison Raonic Goffin Tomic or something start dominating mens tennis

Alex999
07-19-2012, 03:58 AM
Just hope those veterans could hold as long as they could, I won't watch tennis when Dimitrov Harrison Raonic Goffin Tomic or something start dominating mens tennis
I wouldn't really worry about it because Dimitrov, Chubby Harrison, Goffin (how old is he?), spoiled brat Tomic will never dominate men tennis :cool:. :angel:

Litotes
07-19-2012, 04:50 AM
It is true, the late 60s and early 70s (pre-Connors/Borg/Vilas) had weak youngsters and great older players. That was very long time ago, but I see signs this weak younger generation might be worse than the ones playing in the dawn of the open era. Here is the graph for avarage age of slam fields in the open era:


Thanks for the chart! :yeah: Interesting indeed. So we are at a place not very unlike the early 70s, but still not the same, I think, as there were a couple of really old (tenniswise) players then making an impression on the average age. Probably means more young ones too.

Sure looks like the current two generations still on top are exceptionally strong, making it tough indeed for the young ones.

duong
07-19-2012, 10:47 AM
I like Kei but you must be pretty optimistic to think he will match Ferrer's career let alone surpass it considerably.

Mark Lenders is one of these on this board who constantly underrate and sometimes despise Ferrer, that's why in his eyes, Ferrer's scale is not high at all :lol:

Nishikori has a lot of talent but I don't understand why Ferrer is so much underrated : that he didn't win a Masters 1000 tournament is just because his best surface is clay and there's one guy on this surface, you know. Besides, even on other surfaces, Ferrer has faced more competition than Nishikori will probably later. Mark Lenders talked about Nishikori's backhand down-the-line : Ferrer managed to be great on that shot this year :lol:

As for Nishikori, your 95% is maybe a bit pessimistic, he can surely improve tactically and physically.

Time Violation
07-19-2012, 11:21 AM
You are being extremely contradicting.. You are saying stop saying it is physical but you are point out players like Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt who WERE all physical beasts early on. Roddick and Murray also needed to bulk up before they had true success. So you don't bullshit me and give contradicting thoughts. No shit Nadal, Djokovic and Hewitt made it because they put in the physical effort early on in their career. And don't bring Federer into this, he started merely at the beginning of this physical era, and he is obviously one of a kind, he should not be compared to the general, it isn't fair to others to do so.

Lol at Djokovic being physical beast early on, whenever the conditions were hot and/or humid, it was cross your fingers and hope for the best :) Not to mention that according to ATP site, Tomic is 196 cm / 91 kg, how much more should he "bulk up", 120+? :p

jcempire
07-19-2012, 11:58 AM
Just hope those veterans could hold as long as they could, I won't watch tennis when Dimitrov Harrison Raonic Goffin Tomic or something start dominating mens tennis

yeah, Federer could play until 37

Burrow
07-19-2012, 12:14 PM
I genuinely don't see why Nishikori is constantly being described as a "talented player". Anyone who reaches the top 20 is a talented sportsman but this is relative to the rest of the field. As you've said leng jai, there's no stand out shot. He's a good all-rounder and I believe that plenty of his good shot making comes from defensive positions and not enough from attacking positions, which is correlated to his good movement, so I don't see why he merits this "talented" tag. It's not like he consistently dictates with attacking tennis. I'm completely indifferent towards him, I'm a little confused as to why he has so many admirers, maybe it's because he's young, seems like a decent guy and because it's nice to have an Asian guy doing well when there's been talk of Asian tennis booming for quite a few years now, without much follow through.

The height thing is a little bit of an excuse, to me, there have been guys his height or close who've been able to create power from the baseline by flattening the ball out like Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Grosjean and even Olivier Rochus could hit the ball with phenomenal pace and surprisingly extremely flat from the baseline during his prime.

leng jai
07-19-2012, 12:18 PM
I genuinely don't see why Nishikori is constantly being described as a "talented player". Anyone who reaches the top 20 is a talented sportsman but this is relative to the rest of the field. As you've said leng jai, there's no stand out shot. He's a good all-rounder and I believe the majority of his good shot making comes from defensive positions, which is correlated to his good movement, so I don't see why he merits this "talented" tag. I'm completely indifferent towards him, I'm a little confused as to why he has so many admirers, maybe it's because he's young, seems like a decent guy and because it's nice to have an Asian guy doing well when there's been talk of Asian tennis booming for quite a few years now, without much follow through.

The height thing is a little bit of an excuse, to me, there have been guys his height or close who've been able to create power from the baseline by flattening the ball out like Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Grosjean and even Olivier Rochus could hit the ball with phenomenal pace and surprisingly extremely flat from the baseline during his prime.

Thats basically my view on him. Technically very solid but lacks the X-factor to win big matches. I've also yet to see the killer instinct required for winning consistently on the big stage. Time will tell though. He will definitely improve and be a decent threat for slams.

He's popular because he walks around on the court like a boss.

Slice Winner
07-19-2012, 12:19 PM
Nishikori actually has great sense around the net, and good volleys. Unfortunately, he probably can't call it a weapon as his serve and groundstrokes aren't big enough to get him in there with any regularity.

I'd call him a Tipsarevic, rather than a poor man's Djokovic. O wait, same thing.
:lol:
*runs*

Burrow
07-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Thats basically my view on him. Technically very solid but lacks the X-factor to win big matches. I've also yet to see the killer instinct required for winning consistently on the big stage. Time will tell though. He will definitely improve and be a decent threat for slams.

He's popular because he walks around on the court like a boss.

What I think we might see is that that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray's level decrease so considerably, that Nishikori, whose level may plateau, begins to succeed because there are such few young players rising. It's tough for me to imagine him succeed any higher than Masters Series level, I have nothing against the guy, but tennis really would be in dark days would this happen.

I still have no idea what you mean by this. :lol:

bounccer
07-19-2012, 12:32 PM
There're a lot of "poor-man Djokovic" these days. Djokovic is a sort of super generic tennis player. He's good in everything but he has not a "signature", an unique shot.

I don't think any tennis teacher will say to his boys "ok look at the Federer movement/timing, (Nadal topspin, Sampras serve...) try to copy it", because it's basically impossible, Djokovic has perfects shots in every aspect of the game but he hasn't any shot which made you think "oh well, nobody can do the same forehand/backhand/serve than this guy."

We'll have many Djokovis in the future, most of them will be "poor man Djokovic" because it's very difficult to be as complete as him, but he will be definitely the model now, Federer and Nadal are very "specials."

Time Violation
07-19-2012, 12:59 PM
There're a lot of "poor-man Djokovic" these days. Djokovic is a sort of super generic tennis player. He's good in everything but he has not a "signature", an unique shot.

I don't think any tennis teacher will say to his boys "ok look at the Federer movement/timing, (Nadal topspin, Sampras serve...) try to copy it", because it's basically impossible, Djokovic has perfects shots in every aspect of the game but he hasn't any shot which made you think "oh well, nobody can do the same forehand/backhand/serve than this guy."

We'll have many Djokovis in the future, most of them will be "poor man Djokovic" because it's very difficult to be as complete as him, but he will be definitely the model now, Federer and Nadal are very "specials."

Being able to be "real Djokovic" instead of "poor man's Djokovic" is unique enough, no? :p

leng jai
07-19-2012, 01:07 PM
There're a lot of "poor-man Djokovic" these days. Djokovic is a sort of super generic tennis player. He's good in everything but he has not a "signature", an unique shot.

I don't think any tennis teacher will say to his boys "ok look at the Federer movement/timing, (Nadal topspin, Sampras serve...) try to copy it", because it's basically impossible, Djokovic has perfects shots in every aspect of the game but he hasn't any shot which made you think "oh well, nobody can do the same forehand/backhand/serve than this guy."

We'll have many Djokovis in the future, most of them will be "poor man Djokovic" because it's very difficult to be as complete as him, but he will be definitely the model now, Federer and Nadal are very "specials."

First of all Djokovic's overhead and volleys are far from perfect, nor his serve. It's not a shot per se but anyone who has studied him closely would know his balance when hitting on the full stretch is as big a weapon as anything else you can possess. It may sound trivial but it is a vital reason why he has the ability to stay neutral in rallies where most other players would be struggling. It always gets overlooked because it's not as immediately obvious as a big serve or forehand.

duong
07-19-2012, 01:17 PM
As Nadal said, Nishikori has "a great ability to change directions, which is very important in the modern game".

It's a Djokovic's ability as well,

but I would like such players to play more like Davydenko, more aggressive, take the ball earlier.


I don't think any tennis teacher will say to his boys "ok look at the Federer movement/timing, (Nadal topspin, Sampras serve...) try to copy it", because it's basically impossible

well his movement is far from Fed's but apart from that, Dimitrov has more imitated Fed than any player has imitated Djokovic :lol:

duong
07-19-2012, 01:20 PM
It's not a shot per se but anyone who has studied him closely would know his balance when hitting on the full stretch is as big a weapon as anything else you can possess. It may sound trivial but it is a vital reason why he has the ability to stay neutral in rallies where most other players would be struggling. It always gets overlooked because it's not as immediately obvious as a big serve or forehand.

yes exactly that's really Djokovic's specificity :yeah:

If I think of another one who has that kind of ability but not that level of course, I can only think of Del Potro for whom the shots in full extension, in defense even more than in offense, are also one of his most underrated strengths.

Time Violation
07-19-2012, 01:20 PM
well his movement is far from Fed's but apart from that, Dimitrov has more imitated Fed than any player has imitated Djokovic :lol:

To his great success? ;)

bounccer
07-19-2012, 02:12 PM
Christian Harisson is not that bad, he's 18 years old and he win some match in the futures, he just lost in the Newports qualif against Mello (3 sets) He can be a decent player.

Boluda looks hopeless though, it's weird considering how much he was hyped when he won two "les petits as" in a row, he was considered as the futur Nadal, but he's too small and at 19 he isn't be able to past more than one round in the clay's futurs tournaments, at the same age, his idol won Roland Garros...

TBkeeper
07-19-2012, 02:12 PM
As Nadal said, Nishikori has "a great ability to change directions, which is very important in the modern game".

It's a Djokovic's ability as well,

but I would like such players to play more like Davydenko, more aggressive, take the ball earlier.



well his movement is far from Fed's but apart from that, Dimitrov has more imitated Fed than any player has imitated Djokovic :lol:


Hey man no one wants to take the ball early cause it is difficult and they're "kitties"

duong
07-19-2012, 02:17 PM
Christian Harisson is not that bad, he's 18 years old and he win some match in the futures, he just lost in the Newports qualif against Mello (3 sets) He can be a decent player.

Boluda looks hopeless thought, it's weird considering how much he was hyped when he won two "les petits as" in a row, he was considered as the futur Nadal, but he's too small and at 19 he isn't be able to past more than one round in the clay's futurs tournaments, at the same age, his idol won Roland Garros...

Harrison (Christian, Ryan's brother) was injured for one year and a half at 15 years old until summer 2011 : that has clearly hampered his development but also means that the fact he already has results now is even more remarkable and hopeful.

Boluda has also been injured for one year, has only come back recently.

bounccer
07-19-2012, 02:22 PM
Harrison (Christian, Ryan's brother) was injured for one year and a half at 15 years old until summer 2011 : that has clearly hampered his development but also means that the fact he already has results now is even more remarkable and hopeful.

Boluda has also been injured for one year, has only come back recently.

Boluda has the Rochus's height with an average touch, he's not good for him. When he was 14 he was stronger than his pairs but now he has a physical disavantage.