Mens Tennis Forums banner

Reason behind the younger generation's struggle?

  • Lack of talent

    Votes: 15 32.6%
  • Older tennis legends

    Votes: 11 23.9%
  • Changes in tennis

    Votes: 8 17.4%
  • Combination of the above. Please elaborate.

    Votes: 12 26.1%
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,868 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've seen a lot of discussion about this topic, but no general poll.

What's the reason behind older players dominating the Tour and younger players not winning Slams or coming anywhere close to #1?

Is it the lack of talent of recent generations?

Is it the number of active tennis legends? (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic)

Is it the changes in tennis? Young player don't have the physical abilities to fight for big titles?

Is it a combinatiom of the above mentioned factors? If so, which ones?


It's impossible to prove what's the right reason behind it, future will tell. I'm just curious about MTF's opinion since I've never seen a poll about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
Fitness and physics peaked around 2006-2010.

So far no fitter/faster/stronger guys than Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and couple others can't be found. They are either on same level (very rare) or much worse. Talent might be there for youngsters, but talent is defly there for the beforementioned generation.

Coupled with experience, younger players will need much more time to get on their level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,800 Posts
Mix between lack of talent and older generations. Players born 85-87 have done very well. It's just a shift in era's. Once Novak, Rafa, Andy, Stan ect retire then there will be a lot more youngsters making in impact at a high level and the average age will get younger. Genuinely though 89-94 have been very poor at producing players. It's simply a lack of talent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
Plus with the advancements in medicine, technology, nutrition, fitness training and so forth players can play longer than ever at a high level.
This is granted. Basically, being younger doesnt give any advantages these days except vs 32+ not fitness oriented players. Barred injuries, Djokovic/Murray won't look much slower/weaker at 32/33. They have all the money and technology of this world to make that happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,181 Posts
The main reason - lack of talent. After 2007 definitely the weakest era ever in terms of new young players.
Also game became more physical. Talentless hacks and pushers like Nadal etc. turned tennis in to Athletics (also "thanks" to slowing down of surfaces that benefited to physical monsters)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
894 Posts
a) advancement of medicine, nutrition and better training programs enabled better body maintenance. The body normally matures at 16-20 and its form can now be sustained and/or improved over larger periods of time. On the other hand, cognitive development shows no significant change - players' brains become fully mature at 24-26 years of age. Older players now have the upper hand because they have equal or better bodily fitness and better cognition (plus experience)

b) the young guns are hyperdistracted (consequence: poor focus and discipline). Growing up with gadgets, internet and social networks rewired their brain differently from older generations. Fed used internet at 17, Rafa and Nole at 12-14. Kyrgios used the net since kindergarten. Guys like Kyrg and Nishi also have a symbiotic relationship with smartphones and social networks. Fed in contrast despises the lack of privacy inherent in using smartphones.

c) mature players are better managers of their teams and have more money to invest in their game. The Big 3 have big teams.

d) the tension and competitiveness between the big 4 is 'special'. They've played ridiculous amounts of matches between them and caused many a ruin to each other.

My 2c on this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xcom and 92738

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
a) advancement of medicine, nutrition and better training programs enabled better body maintenance. The body normally matures at 16-20 and its form can now be sustained and/or improved over larger periods of time. On the other hand, cognitive development shows no significant change - players' brains become fully mature at 24-26 years of age. Older players now have the upper hand because they have equal or better bodily fitness and better cognition (plus experience)

b) the young guns are hyperdistracted (consequence: poor focus and discipline). Growing up with gadgets, internet and social networks rewired their brain differently from older generations. Fed used internet at 17, Rafa and Nole at 12-14. Kyrgios used the net since kindergarten. Guys like Kyrg and Nishi also have a symbiotic relationship with smartphones and social networks. Fed in contrast despises the lack of privacy inherent in using smartphones.

c) mature players are better managers of their teams and have more money to invest in their game. The Big 3 have big teams.

d) the tension and competitiveness between the big 4 is 'special'. They've played ridiculous amounts of matches between them and caused many a ruin to each other.

My 2c on this issue.
I'm with your 2c here:yeah:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,427 Posts
What is certain is that the Big 4's presence can at most be a partial factor, since younger players also perform very poorly in terms of winning 250's or reaching slam semis etc, when often they are not even facing the Big 4.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,801 Posts
Lack of talent. There are no so talanted players as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray. We can't see even a guy like Del Potro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Mostly disconnected parenting and the technological onslaught. If you look at most top players you see that they had supporting parents and they weren't stuck head into screen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,854 Posts
a) advancement of medicine, nutrition and better training programs enabled better body maintenance. The body normally matures at 16-20 and its form can now be sustained and/or improved over larger periods of time. On the other hand, cognitive development shows no significant change - players' brains become fully mature at 24-26 years of age. Older players now have the upper hand because they have equal or better bodily fitness and better cognition (plus experience)

b) the young guns are hyperdistracted (consequence: poor focus and discipline). Growing up with gadgets, internet and social networks rewired their brain differently from older generations. Fed used internet at 17, Rafa and Nole at 12-14. Kyrgios used the net since kindergarten. Guys like Kyrg and Nishi also have a symbiotic relationship with smartphones and social networks. Fed in contrast despises the lack of privacy inherent in using smartphones.

c) mature players are better managers of their teams and have more money to invest in their game. The Big 3 have big teams.

d) the tension and competitiveness between the big 4 is 'special'. They've played ridiculous amounts of matches between them and caused many a ruin to each other.

My 2c on this issue.
Good points, especially b) and c). But the big 4 doesn't play a big role here, they didn't even make it to lose to them, they were losing in 2R, 3R, R16 at best. That horrendous generation around Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic, just showed they weren't that good as their predecessors. It shows even now, 1 final and 2 semis while they're at least 24 years old. The new generation should be better, but look at Coric with his fitness, do you think he's in worse shape than Nadal was at 18? It's not so about fitness I think, of course it's important, but the raw talent can do much even without it.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
53,570 Posts
Mostly disconnected parenting and the technological onslaught. If you look at most top players you see that they had supporting parents and they weren't stuck head into screen
Load of rubbish I'd say.You can't tell about parenting for players across the board because you only see/hear of the ones who are successful. Who is to say Djokovic got better parenting than his brother Djorde or many other players. I have no doubt Nick Kyrgios has a lot of support from parents. Istomin has been known to take his mother along as coach.
 

·
Onwards and Upwards!
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
A combination of them being mostly mugs and older players just being better :shrug:
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
53,570 Posts
Mostly disconnected parenting and the technological onslaught. If you look at most top players you see that they had supporting parents and they weren't stuck head into screen
Good points, especially b) and c). But the big 4 doesn't play a big role here, they didn't even make it to lose to them, they were losing in 2R, 3R, R16 at best. That horrendous generation around Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic, just showed they weren't that good as their predecessors. It shows even now, 1 final and 2 semis while they're at least 24 years old. The new generation should be better, but look at Coric with his fitness, do you think he's in worse shape than Nadal was at 18? It's not so about fitness I think, of course it's important, but the raw talent can do much even without it.
You forget it was Nishikori who last had a breakout ATP title win at the age of 18 in 2008 beating Querrey and James Blake to win Delray Beach. Nishikori also took a set off Nadal at Queens and defeated Ferret at the USO that year, but had to miss the 2009 and part of 2010 season starting from scratch after wrist surgery. He's catching up on time lost now. Back then Nadal predicted top 5 sealed for Nishikori and he was right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,624 Posts
a) advancement of medicine, nutrition and better training programs enabled better body maintenance. The body normally matures at 16-20 and its form can now be sustained and/or improved over larger periods of time. On the other hand, cognitive development shows no significant change - players' brains become fully mature at 24-26 years of age. Older players now have the upper hand because they have equal or better bodily fitness and better cognition (plus experience)

b) the young guns are hyperdistracted (consequence: poor focus and discipline). Growing up with gadgets, internet and social networks rewired their brain differently from older generations. Fed used internet at 17, Rafa and Nole at 12-14. Kyrgios used the net since kindergarten. Guys like Kyrg and Nishi also have a symbiotic relationship with smartphones and social networks. Fed in contrast despises the lack of privacy inherent in using smartphones.

c) mature players are better managers of their teams and have more money to invest in their game. The Big 3 have big teams.

d) the tension and competitiveness between the big 4 is 'special'. They've played ridiculous amounts of matches between them and caused many a ruin to each other.

My 2c on this issue.
Agreed with pretty much everything here, and I'll just say that b) is probably the most important reason. Growing up before the "social [network] era" gives the current guys a big advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,115 Posts
Its a natural progression, a strong era followed by a weaker one, then a stronger one will follow so will be looking at about 2017-18 for the next strong era to begin to kick in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,617 Posts
Well, it's not quite unprecedented. Connors broke out in 1974, winning three slams on his way to number one that summer. The other slam went to Borg.

Let's take a look at the 1973 US Open.

Seeds were Stan Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Laver, Rosewall, Kodes, and Okker. First young player was Orantes at 8. Connors at 9 and Newcombe at 10.

So, it's somewhat similar to today, except that Kei is higher ranked than 8, and you have Raobot.

Nastase? Out in the second round to Andrew Pattison. Young Rhodesian. Best showing would be at the 1975 US open where he reached the QFs. Newcombe would pinch Pattison, knocking him out.

Ashe? Borg dropped him. Scalp number 2 for the young guns. Ancient old gun Pilic would squash Borg.

Number 4 Laver lost in a hard fought 5 setter as young gun Amritraj outlasted him. Amritraj would see his draw opened up when fellow seeded young gun Panatta also lost in the third round, to Stone, another part of the old guard. Amritraj would straight set Stone to reach the Quarters.

The best young gun, Orantes got crushed by fellow young gun Ross Case in the third round. Case, himself would lose to another young gun, Onny Parun who earned the QFs berth.

Okker? He lost to Connors in straight sets.

This left:

Parun (young gun) vs Stan Smith (old guard)
Pilic (old guard) vs Kodes (old guard)
Rosewall (Old Guard) vs Amritraj (young gun)
Connors (young gun) vs Newcombe (old guard)

Parun, Connors and Amritraj went down without winning a set. The old guard was triumphant - but in the earlier rounds you could see their vulnerability. 3 of the old guard (Nastase, Laver and Ashe) had lost to the younger guard - Ashe's loss to Borg perhaps the most prescient.

So what the heck happened to the old guard in 1974? In the Australian Open?

Only two, Dibley and Newcombe reached the quarters. 6 of 8 were the new guard, and None of the old guard won a set.

But, it's just the Australian Open. No one plays there...

Or do they? In the French, sans Connors, you have: Jauffret, part of the old guard, Orantes, Borg and Solomon.

In the QFs you have Cornejo, Jauffret, and Nastase - only three of 8 - with Jauffret winning his match, and Nastase going down in 5.

Kodes lost to Jauffret, Ashe lost to Orantes, and that was that.

Surely Wimbledon will be different!

Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Nastase, Kodes, Okker, Rosewall. Crush the youngsters! Don't let them rise!

Second highest ranked youngster - Borg? Hope of the ages? Winner of the French? Defeated. By Ismail El-Shafai.

Winner of just one singles tournament beat Borg at Wimbledon. Crush the youngsters! Don't let them rise!

There's just one problem.

Newcombe vs Rosewall doomed Newk. Smith vs Rosewall doomed Smith. Ashe lost to Tanner, who lost to.. Rosewall again.

So all the old guard was in one half.

The other half, had Nastase, Okker and Kodes. Surely they would stop Connors!

Nastase lost to Dick Stockton.

Okker to fellow old guard - Metreveli. And Kodes?

In a massive, five setter with Connors in the QF. Winner faces the other old guard. Stockton took out a second member of the old guard, Metreveli to drop to Connors in 4 in the SF.

Smith? Fell in a five setter to Rosewall who outlasted him. Two epic matches - followed by one of the shortest finals. The world had changed. Connors was now number 1 and the new guns had finally, finally, broken through.

Will it happen the same here? We'll find out. Will the Old guard shut out the young guns once again in the quarters?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWW

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
The answer is an amazing current generation, combined to less than average talented upcoming generation.

Nothing to do with perceived "fitness and physical abilities" or similar nonsense. If anything that should benefit younger generation. Tennis has been constantly changing for decades and that was never the issue, and it is not an issue now. Just a bunch of delusional fangirls making up stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,051 Posts
Lack of talent and Fighting spirit is the reason. I don't see any hunger in players like Raonic, DIMITROV and Nishikori.

Nishikori is a fighter but not on the level of a Nadal. And you have to be now to beat the great Djokovic. Nothing less will work
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top