Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 248 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Doesn't it look like we are having a generation of N(obodies), N(on-greats) these days?

Overhyped new balls do not perform as expected. The only one of them who more or less met expectation is Hewitt, but it looks like he is heading into some crisis as well. Safin can't get back on track. Ferrero looked promising at some Slams , but always finds the right time for a meltdown. Federer's mind and game is elsewhere. Sampras and Agassi play much less impressive tennis than they played 2-3 years ago, yet they won last two Slams. It starts more and more looking like this generation simply doesn't want. Previously, at any given time there were at least 3-4 active players who could be considered one of greats. But with Courier and Boris retired, we are left with two remaining dynosaurs and pretty much nobody after them. It is not their great form that keeps Agassi and Sampras from retiring. It's just that the form of whole tour is degrading quicker than the game of Andre and Pete is degrading with age. After they retire we could easily be looking into one-slam-wonder-fest for few more years.

Who could stop that? I hate to say that, but the only one from contemporary youngs that seems to be able to combine a tennis talent, physical power and mental determination to become a great player could be Roddick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
You are assuming of course, that none of Federer, Ferrero, Safin, Haas etc, will ever get it together? All who average about age 22?

I seem to recall a certain Andre Agassi had people wondering wether or not he'd ever fulfill his promise when he was younger, and lose his first three slam finals...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I seem to recall a certain Andre Agassi had people wondering wether or not he'd ever fulfill his promise when he was younger, and lose his first three slam finals...
Yes, but to balance it, by then we had Courier, Sampras, Becker, Edberg. And now? And to think that either of Federer, Ferrero, Safin or Haas can be even considered in the same league as Agassi in terms of talent is a bit of exxageration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Aren't you too quick to draw the conclusions? I think you are.

Some random reasons that come to my mind:

#1 - Sampras is considered a great player (except, maybe, tennischick :p). What was the time span between his 1st and 2nd slam?

#2 - Are the new balls so bad? How many of them were at Shanghai?

#3 - It was probably the first time that Roddick did someting notable outside the USA and you already call him the "next big thing"? Following your own logic, what are the guarantees that he won't become another Safin (whom you seem to write off now)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
That was hardly my point. Although I don't think that considering Safin in the same league of talent would be that much of a stetch, that's a totally different topic.

My point was merely that you are looking at a group of guys who are young, and seem to be saying that none of them have 2 or 3 slams in them - yet Roddick has tons of them? :confused:

I find that comment a little strange.

I was merely making note of the fact that people mature at different times - much like how Andre showed so much talent young, then took a few years to develop it (then fell of the wagon again, but that's irrelevant for my point).

Rafter, for example, didn't win his first slam until he was 24.
 

·
Gugaholic
Joined
·
84,779 Posts
Well, between the old balls (over 30) and the new balls, we do have active players like Kuerten (26), Moya (26), Johansson (27) and Costa (27) who did manage to win a Slam or 2.

Honestly, I don't think saying Federer, Ferrero and/or Safin consider at the same talent level as Agassi is exageration. They probably don't have the mental toughness and/or confidence that Agassi has right now but Agassi didn't have them too at 22.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
Looking at guys averaged 22 and calling them "Generation N" is folly at the present time.

In ten years time, who knows what we will be saying?

So much can happen in one year, let alone ten (right Lleyton?), that jumping to such a broad conclusion like this is not reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
My point was merely that you are looking at a group of guys who are young, and seem to be saying that none of them have 2 or 3 slams in them - yet Roddick has tons of them?
No. 2 or 3 Slams would put them in the league of brugueras. kafelnikovs, rafters or kuertens, who are certainly notable players. But we are talking about prospects for becoming one of all-time greats. We are talking about players with Tour-dominating potential. I can imagine Roddick dominating the Tour. Perhaps Safin could do that too, if he'd get a new head from somewhere, but as long as he is saying that he is not prepared to sacrifice his other joys of life for tennis, I wouldn't bet on it. Ferrero or Federer? Nope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
Well ys, you are entitled to your opinion.

I can't see Roddick dominating the tour anymore than I can see Ferrero doing it - and for the record, I can't see Ferrero doing it. But I have seen no indication from Roddick that he is all of a sudden going to start winning 2 or 3 slams a year, for several years in a row. I HAVE seen that from Hewitt, obviously. But Roddick? He makes on slam semifinal and he's all of a sudden the shit? You've been watching too much American TV.

The next "dominant" player may quite possibley be a younger player who we haven't been considering yet.

Regardless- it appears that you didnt' want a discussion at all, and you merely wanted to voice an opinion that cant' be backed up with facts.

Which is fine and dandy - it just would have been nice if you made that a littl clearer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Besides, didn't you see a question mark in the title of the thread? And plenty of "could", "would", "seem"s?

I am not making any conclusion. I am stating a possibility, which, as it seems to me, becomes more and more distinct. And I am not asking you or anyone to rule out or support that conclusion. Because there is no conclusion. Do I state that what I wrote is a certainty? No. What I am asking you is your opinion about what do you think is going to happen. You don't have to say that these players are still young and could become all-time greats. Because it is obvious. But what I am asking is what do you think the chances of that are? What do you think is the likeliest scenario? How much is a possibility that there will indeed be a Generation N?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
I really fail to see the point of these pessimistic threads prophesying the doom of the new generation in terms of Grand Slams and achievement in tennis. If the triumphs of Johansson and Costa last year and the surprise runner-up achievement of Schuettler this year taught us nothing else, it's that people who were considered to have great promise will sometimes take time to mature and develop into Slam winners. Note the above three were/are 26 at the time of their success.

It seems to me that Hewitt looks a heavy favourite for quite a few years at Wimbledon, not that I think that's a good thing, and Ferrero is surely going to claim RG this year or the next - he can sweep through the early rounds so comfortably most of the time. Safin and Federer both have some mental inconsistencies, but I'm sure they have a couple of Slams in them.

At the moment Agassi is still the most consistently successful at the top level, but it's not like he's suddenly going to get the Grand Slam this year or completely dominate tennis, he'll be gone in a couple of years' time, touchwood, and a handful of people will step up to take his place. There will be no completely dominating player in tennis as in the Sampras/Agassi era, and I think that's a good thing. Anyone who wins too much and shuts out everyone else becomes insufferable after a while - look at the endless all-Williams finals on the WTA Tour.

In a perfect world every young, potential Grand Slam winner and every established contender who deserved to win a Slam would do so; we know that's not going to be the case, but I for one am confident there will be an effective balance and blend of winners at the top of the game. I like the fact that people from the Top 100 can cause upsets to the top-ranked players in minor and major tournaments, since it means that those who do win these big events know they have truly earned it. We talk of how incredibly dominant McEnroe, Connors, Borg etc. were in their day, but to be honest most of their early rounds were virtual walkovers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,816 Posts
Honestly, I don't want the times when one player dominated the field back. And if that happens to be Roddick, as you suggested, I will officially stop watching tennis, but as of yet, I'm not shaking in fear.

But lack of domination does not mean that the form of the whole tour is degrading fast. Quite the opposite. Sure, the really great players don't come by very often, but does that make tennis in between unwatchable? But I will not go into another depth debate, because I've stated my views a zillion times before.

I will say this again though, because I never get tired of saying it. Calling the players who are on the tour now nobodies is extremely disrespectful. And calling them nobodies in the first years of their career, before they've even had a chance to prove themselves, is even worse. It's short-sighted to say the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
well I still hold a candle of hope for Marat. He looked like he had refound his serve at end of lasst year. Unfortunately he's had an interupted start to this year but he's still unbeaten :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
So we should all be compared by the dotcom standard now (get rich fast and young or else you'll be considered a failure)? So by 22 or 23, if you didn't win a slam or multiple slams, you are pretty much doomed and what's the point of carrying on as we see no future in you :rolleyes:. If you see it that way, sure, tennis this generation really sucks and why watch anymore?

Chang won his first slam at 17, ppl started expecting Pete and Andre to do the same and were they not all disappointed that they didn't win a slam at their teens? When they all turn 20, I wonder if ppl say, geez, what the hell happened to those 2 :rolleyes:. And looked at the ladies, like Graf, Seles and Hingis had success at 16 and ppl were laughing at Richard Williams when his daughters didn't make much mark until they are about 19. Now, see who's laughting. I'm glad that I didn't come out to say stupid things and write them off the bet before the Williams made it big.

But I must ask, what's the logic about Roddick? So he did well in AO and have a brilliant match. Did we not see Federer overcame his own nerve and dethroned King Pete on his own backyard back in Wimby 01? Did we not see Safin whose the "nutcase" and almost quitted tennis but the same year beat the still-in-form Sampras in Toronto and USO in 2000? And I recalled that Ferrero was a set down and managed to win the next 2 sets in Rome to win his first ever TMS title against the then claycourt-King Guga in 2001. Besides his epic battle with El Aynaoui in AO, I can't think of any Roddick match which is so remarkable to make you think he is any different from the rest.

Whether Roddick is going to dominate is yet to see and I won't say that he will or won't. But my point is, anyone of these players have their moment when they were able to put things together and win a brilliant match. I don't see why you think Roddick is any better or worse than any of them. I also remembered his meltdown against Sampras in USO, against Rusedski in Wimby and against Arthurs in RG. I won't run to the front and declared that he is not meant to be then. Sure I criticized his past slam performances, but I know it didn't mean that he's no good ever. But just based on AO this year, I won't run to the front to declare he's gonna be the best ever either. So humor me by sharing with us your logic maybe?

I don't see how these New Balls are overhyped. Sure, at 2000, for the sake of the new ATP campaign, they were handpicked as the best among the new generation. And so they are as all of them are Top 10 now. But did someone promise you that one of them will dominate the tennis world? Should they?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,038 Posts
I don't understand how lack of dominance on Tour is a bad thing. As others have rightly said before me, one or two players dominating (see: all Williams all the time via the WTA) makes for excruciatingly boring tennis.

I'd rather watch the ATP, with its "nobodies" fighting hard to win titles (3 maiden titlists in the first 5 weeks of play) and push to the top than watch the same player or two win over and over and over and get so far ahead it becomes a question of, what's the point anymore?

And as for Roddick becoming the dominant player on tour -- while he is currently sitting out with a severe wrist injury that is spreading tendonitis up his right arm and may require surgery -- well, never knew you had such a well-developed sense of humor, ys ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,388 Posts
Those nobodies winning the majors starts to get annoying at one point, but it does show the depth in the men's game and that's a good thing. As said before if you win a major nowadays, you really deserve it. Give the new balls some time and they will compete in the GS finals. I'm already looking forward to the rivalries. Oops that's another thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Look at the original New Balls - most of them - Haas, Kiefer, Philippoussus, Lapentti, Gambill will probably be listed as "veterans" as soon as next year. And how many Slams do they have among them? Kuerten - no matter how many non-clay non-slams he wins, will go into history as one surface player, as long as he does not make his mark in Slams on other surfaces. And he should never have been considered a New Ball, to start with. Jolly Roger.. Maybe.. Maybe not. Most likely not. Safin.. Perhaps the most realistic chance for becoming a big player from all generation.. But, we all know what the problem is.. Hewitt.. With his intensity it's impossible to last very long. And to win, he has to play with maximum intensity. At times he already looks like a burnout. All these guys look like satsfied veterans no longer having a drive to be the best. It's no wonder that we already start looking for a big aplyer rom the next generation - Roddick, Youzhnyi, Matheiu as a potential future great.. That is, for those who still have a drive..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
I agree 50% with TennisHack and 50% with Ilhame. :angel:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
well we all know one thing and that the men will always play better than the women.

and you know it. :p
 
1 - 20 of 248 Posts
Top