[Burrow]

Originally Posted by green25814

Yes, Ferrer really is amazing. If I was still an aspiring tennis player like I was at 14 he'd be my idol tbh. Never used to like him but the way he has got better and better with age (considering his style of play) is incredible

The thing is, it's now impossible to analyse the change in Ferrer's physical attributes from the age of 20 to now because he most certainly had a different lifestyle, diet and training regime. One of the biggest problems in Sports Science is inconsistency, as such, where such in depth and prolonged analysis could potentially lead to new findings. It's of course unreasonable to assume we will be able to monitor an elite athlete's life for 10 years, or even 5, but it's something that would really, really intrigue me, especially in someone like Ferrer.

I've never really been a fan of Ferrer, but I have nothing but respect towards his professionalism. If only all players had this and young players took notice, we would have a more competitive tour albeit more mechanical. Either way, it should be inspiring for youngsters to note that despite being far from the most technically able player on tour, he has used his best assets to his advantage and in my opinion, probably reached his potential, with some luck along with way. (Court homogenisation)

Originally Posted by Taejin

Murray maybe struggled to enter top 5 or to stay in top 10 at first, but he never struggled to stay in top 30 or 50, let alone top 250

I don't know if this is directed to me or not, as it's irrelevant as I was purely speaking on behalf of Murray's physical change.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Burrow

I don't know if this is directed to me or not, as it's irrelevant as I was purely speaking on behalf of Murray's physical change.

Nope, I meant that both Murray and Djokovic with plenty of physical/stamina issues were still way ahead of their today's counterparts.

[Maccie]

I think it's mainly a mental thing. First, being able to perform under the immense pressure now takes some time to get used to. Especially the top guys now play their best tennis on the big points. Most people need some experience before they are able to do this.

Second the tactical aspect in tennis has become much more important the last years. Young guys lack the experience to correctly change their tactic during a match, something that's really hard to do if you're playing yourself.

I think allowing a coach on the court would help a lot in this. However I'm still not sure what my opinion is on this point.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Maccie

I think it's mainly a mental thing. First, being able to perform under the immense pressure now takes some time to get used to. Especially the top guys now play their best tennis on the big points. Most people need some experience before they are able to do this.

Second the tactical aspect in tennis has become much more important the last years. Young guys lack the experience to correctly change their tactic during a match, something that's really hard to do if you're playing yourself.

I think allowing a coach on the court would help a lot in this. However I'm still not sure what my opinion is on this point.

No.

And are you saying the youngsters of 2000 would have struggled to perform better in this era?

It's simple, the talent pool is considerably weaker than in years past and the young players are physically and mentally inept.

[duong]

From what I read on this debate, I think that people should be careful that the debate is not so much youngsters (teens are mentioned here for instance) vs oldies (>=30 years old),

but rather youngsters vs players with an "average age" (24-28)

The phenomenon of youngsters failing to emerge is much more visible than any phenomenon of old players having more success nowadays. Statistically, players who are 30 years old or more still appear to quickly decline, even though it appears less visible at the present moment because there was a high number of very good players in Fed's generation, and also a relatively high number of players who managed to better use some important parts of their potential with time (Ferrer, Fish, Melzer, Benneteau, Lopez, Youzhny, even Federer are in that case).

I say that especially because of that comparison with cycling or marathon which has led to the argument of the endurance of >30-years old guys.

Like Burrow, I don't think it's relevant in tennis.

But ... the question remains whether a 24-year-old guy may be more endurant and solid than a youngster, both physically and mentally. Also knows his body better ... and maybe uses doping better, because, sorry, when one speaks of the undeniable improvement of the doctors and physios' watch in tennis, I can't help thinking of the possibility of doping either.

Especially, as far as solidity is concerned and as I said, I'm surprised by the number of youngsters who have had big injuries in recent years. I gave a list a few posts ago and that list appears to be very long to me.

Of course, in that "endurance", one can't help thinking as well of the "mental endurance", that is the ability and motivation to work hard and constantly, as some said. One can think that players when they get a little bit older may be harder at work, one can also think that youngsters nowadays are not brave enough.

PS : Burrow spoke of Kuerten : when Kuerten emerged, he was nearly 21 years old.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by duong

From what I read on this debate, I think that people should be careful that the debate is not so much youngsters (teens are mentioned here for instance) vs oldies (>=30 years old),

but rather youngsters vs players with an "average age" (24-28)

Not sure. Players 24-28 are usually at their best and if they outperform younger ones, that's pretty much expected. However, people speak about stamina and endurance and then you have Haas and Stepanek who are both nearly 35 and doing much better than most if not all of 'youngsters'.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by duong

From what I read on this debate, I think that people should be careful that the debate is not so much youngsters (teens are mentioned here for instance) vs oldies (>=30 years old),

but rather youngsters vs players with an "average age" (24-28)

The phenomenon of youngsters failing to emerge is much more visible than any phenomenon of old players having more success nowadays. Statistically, players who are 30 years old or more still appear to quickly decline, even though it appears less visible at the present moment because there was a high number of very good players in Fed's generation, and also a relatively high number of players who managed to better use some important parts of their potential with time (Ferrer, Fish, Melzer, Benneteau, Lopez, Youzhny, even Federer are in that case).

I say that especially because of that comparison with cycling or marathon which has led to the argument of the endurance of >30-years old guys.

Like Burrow, I don't think it's relevant in tennis.

But ... the question remains whether a 24-year-old guy may be more endurant and solid than a youngster, both physically and mentally. Also knows his body better ... and maybe uses doping better, because, sorry, when one speaks of the undeniable improvement of the doctors and physios' watch in tennis, I can't help thinking of the possibility of doping either.

Especially, as far as solidity is concerned and as I said, I'm surprised by the number of youngsters who have had big injuries in recent years. I gave a list a few posts ago and that list appears to be very long to me.

Of course, in that "endurance", one can't help thinking as well of the "mental endurance", that is the ability and motivation to work hard and constantly, as some said.

PS : Burrow spoke of Kuerten : when Kuerten emerged, he was already more than 20 years old.

Kuerten won Roland Garros at 20, so no.

And about the 24 year old vs. "youngster", carrying the potential to be more physically superior is also completely irrelevant. I'm not going to repeat myself, so I shall leave it at that.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Taejin

Not sure. Players 24-28 are usually at their best and if they outperform younger ones, that's pretty much expected.

yes, but the difference with the past situation is that the difference between players aged 24-28 and youngsters is bigger than in the past.

Originally Posted by Taejin

However, people speak about stamina and endurance and then you have Haas and Stepanek who are both nearly 35 and doing much better than most if not all of 'youngsters'.

they are marginal cases, and there have always been marginal cases like that, but I see that you associate stamina and endurance with oldies, which was precisely my concern in this debate which I mentioned in previous post.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Burrow

Kuerten won Roland Garros at 20, so no.

And about the 24 year old vs. "youngster", carrying the potential to be more physically superior is also completely irrelevant. I'm not going to repeat myself, so I shall leave it at that.

he was 20, nearly 21, not a teen, I should not have used the word "more" (which in my mind means "after the 20th birthday).

But I see that you've decided to refuse any reading/listening to me and arguing anyway, which is a popular method at the moment, OK let it be.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by duong

they are marginal cases, and there have always been marginal cases like that, but I see that you associate stamina and endurance with oldies, which was precisely my concern in this debate which I mentioned in previous post.

Not really, I'm merely using them because if someone at 35 can keep up, surely someone at 19 or 20 shouldn't have that much problem to do the same. I mean, it's just best of 2 most of the times, and often they don't even go further then R2, they can't be that tired unless they don't really train too hard.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by duong

he was 20, nearly 21, not a teen, I should not have used the word "more" (which in my mind means "after the 20th birthday).

But I see that you've decided to refuse any reading/listening to me and arguing anyway, which is a popular method at the moment, OK let it be.

Well if you had read my posts, you'd have seen that I was referring to anyone under the age of 21, as I had clearly stated.

I have covered every detail of your post in my initial posts, which are based on scientific evidence and educated analysis, unlike yours, so if you'd like to have a sensible discussion, I'd suggest you address my points instead of ignoring them and stating what really is guesswork and in regards to the doping comment, juvenile and ignorant nonsense.

[Game.Petzschner]

Originally Posted by Serverer

Isnt it obvious? Tennis has become extremely physical. Only athletes with peak endurance and strength can compete. And it takes time to reach that level. No 19 year old is winning the tour de france any time soon either.

this

[duong]

Originally Posted by Burrow

Well if you had read my posts, you'd have seen that I was referring to anyone under the age of 21, as I had clearly stated.

I have covered every detail of your post in my initial posts, which are based on scientific evidence and educated analysis, unlike yours, so if you'd like to have a sensible discussion, I'd suggest you address my points instead of ignoring them and stating what really is guesswork and in regards to the doping comment, juvenile and ignorant nonsense.

no I had read your posts back and hadn't seen in your posts anything related to what I mentioned in my post about youngsters vs 24-28 year old guys.

You're contemptuous, which is a popular attitude in this forum at the moment (Lenders, Latso, now you), but which is a negation of the interest of a forum imo.

Anyway I give up, despise whoever you want if you like it.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by duong

no I had read your posts back and hadn't seen in your posts anything related to what I mentioned in my post about youngsters vs 24-28 year old guys.

You're contemptuous, which is a popular attitude in this forum at the moment (Lenders, Latso, now you), but which is a negation of the interest of a forum imo.

Anyway I give up, despise whoever you want if you like it.

I had already explained why those 30 years old, or older have in an advantage of attaining high VO2 max and Lactate threshold scores is irrelevant, so why would it be any different in regards to 24 year olds? Sometimes you are required to use your brain, instead of having information spoon fed.

And thank you, I'll keep what I think (and have thought for some time, reading your posts) of you to myself.

[AndyNonomous]

I see the Omerta is in full form at MTF.

The posts that expose the obvious reason for this phenomena are deleted, and all we are left with are fools with their denial trying to explain away the obvious.