Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
One of the reasons Fed, Nadal, and Serena are pilling up records is no new talent is emerging on the tour, in both men and women circuits.

I believe this is the first time since tennis became a profession ( going back 50 years) that such a phenomenon has occurred.

Each new generation brought it's pool of new stars. But not this decade.

A society phenomenon ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
suck a phenomenon has occurred.
I think your pun there may have been intentional. :lol:

It's definitely weird. And I think that's another reason it's best not to compare players of different generations, or to try to determine a GOAT. Too many variables. And Serena has never really faced anyone considered one of the greats. (OK, she faced Seles, but by that time, she was way past her prime.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
WTA is so inconsistent - since Serena no one has dominated the game and I don't think she had strong rivalries. Seles was passed her prime, Hingis couldnt keep up with the power players and Venus always loses to Serena.
Azarenka was a threat but had a few injuries and then went on maternity leave.
At least, Kerber has managed to win a few Grand Slams within the last few years.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
13,117 Posts
The future stars Shap and Tsi are still too young to dominate so it's too early to call. We are talking here of players 22+ years old only.

Additionally the thing is players mature and reach their peak later now than 15 years ago (check Stan) so even the likes of Thiem/ Chung/ Coric/ Khachanov still have a lot of time to prove their point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
I honestly think you forget just how good the big 3 are. I also think players are lasting much longer now due much greater fitness. Players look after themselves way better and are able to compete for longer. I don't think players in the past ever spent so much time on conditioning as they do now. Honestly don't think that the 22 and unders are bad either. I have hope for them in 2019.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't see any next gen player, man or woman, who isn't going to start chocking on the important points.

They can run around the court, hit monstruous forehands, serve like Ivanisevic. But when crunch time comes, they'll always crumble.

Always.

Has money corrupted the sport so much that the young gen just doesn't care to put up a fight in critical situations ?

Agassi, Pete, Edberg, Becker, Courier didn't choke when the going got tough.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
137 Posts
One of the reasons Fed, Nadal, and Serena are pilling up records is no new talent is emerging on the tour, in both men and women circuits.

I believe this is the first time since tennis became a profession ( going back 50 years) that such a phenomenon has occurred.

Each new generation brought it's pool of new stars. But not this decade.

A society phenomenon ?
No, it is more due to technological change.

And yawn, what an uninteresting thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
The young generation tennis players are skilled, talented and have the capability to win a GS. However, their mental state is in shambles. They cannot control their nerves. The recent match between Nadal and Khachanov has shown that. Khachanov was obviously the better player between the two but he could not control his nerves so he double faulted 3 times during the crucial TB. He lost of course. If khachanov were a mental giant, he would have beaten Nadal in 3 straight sets.

Also due to great health management/technology, the Big 3 can sustain high quality tennis beyond the "expected" prime. Athletes nowadays are generally older and can play for more years compared to their 90s counterpart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,922 Posts
Nobody has ever had to follow up on three ATG like these players have to. Not a small task to dethrone three of the best ever. And at the same time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
I wouldn't worry about this lack of new generation taking up because it must be earned, not given. I think that they will earn their way in the ranking due to veterans staying too long in top 100 with GS prize money for R1 loss is too high to retire that early, making 200k a year is not that bad as long as you continue to play well at Challengers' tour and the 250, leaving the young players lack of match experience against top 30 players on a regular basis. That is the problem.

Our young players are getting some match experience against the best of the world like Shapovalov in 5 setter against Seppi who is older and was a former top 30 and Anderson is top 10 so as long as he continues to fight for the win, he will only get better. He has the stamina of outlasting them with a back to back with a quality tennis. I firmly believe that Denis would have broken Anderson had not for a bad call. FAA was able to take a set off from Shapovalov before retiring with a bad timing with heat and humid affecting his heart. I haven't gotten a chance to see how Stefanos defeated Djokovic but it hasn't translated to Slams yet but it will as he continues to gain some experience. Zverev is a disaster when it comes to Slams performance against lesser players.

It has to do with the big match experience, Federer had his match experience against Agassi who at that time were one of the greats at a young age. Nadal had one of those matches against Agassi. Those examples helped them to become a big match player. Now, contrast to today's system, the young players who are in challengers is having a hard time getting some match experience and only the Slams they get it only to be overwhelm by the atmosphere in a R1 match or R2 match. They would be knocked out by veterans before getting a chance to play a top 10 most often than not. Their ranking is not high enough to be in a DE of a Masters with top 40 gaining the EL and most of the top 40 are mostly veterans, even in their 30's before this season. Now, more young players are at top 40, enabling them to gain some match experiences against top 10 more often than not will only help them defeating the big 4 sooner than later. They will learn what it worked and what it didn't work on their way to become a Slam champion one day.

The new Slam champions will come in bunch before the big 3 retire as they learn how to play tennis against them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
I would like to add one thing, Federer or Nadal skipping Masters tournaments also are the problem, it robbed the young players a chance of a match for a big match experience and by the time they meet in the Slams, they don't know what to do because everything is new to them as one of the example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
While barely 18, Agassi pushed Wilander to 5 sets in the semis at RG 1988.

Becker won Wimbledon at 17.

Chang won RG 1989 at 17.

Wilander won RG 1982 at 17.

Neither chocked when it mattered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
While barely 18, Agassi pushed Wilander to 5 sets in the semis at RG 1988.

Becker won Wimbledon at 17.

Chang won RG 1989 at 17.

Wilander won RG 1982 at 17.

Neither chocked when it mattered.
TL;DR version:
Teenage champions are not the norm, they are the exceptions. The norm is a winner anywhere in the twenties.

Long version:
Let's not act like winning a GS in the teens used to be the norm. It never was.

Out of the 51 champions that won their first GS in the Open Era (which excludes Rosewall, Laver & Newcombe), only six(!) were teenagers when they won, which equates to around 12%. Historically speaking, the majority of first-time champs (40/51 = 78%) were in the twenties.

No. of champs in age brackets:
 
Age <20: 6
Age 20: 7
Age 21: 6
Age 22: 6
Age 23: 3
Age 24: 6
Age 25: 7
Age 26: 4
Age 27: 1
Age 28: 1
Age 29: 1
Age 30: 2
Age 31+: 1


Here's the list of the 51 champs and their ages at which they won their first GS (teens are bolded):
 
Code:
[U][B]Name[/B][/U]			[U][B]1st GS[/B][/U]	[U][B]Age[/B][/U]
Arthur Ashe		USO	25
Jan Kodes		RG	24
Stan Smith		USO	24
Andres Gimeno		RG	34
Ilie Nastase		USO	26
Jimmy Connors		AO	21
[B]Bjorn Borg		RG	17[/B]
Manuel Orantes		USO	26
Mark Edmondson		AO	21
Adriano Panatta		FO	25
Roscoe Tanner		AO	25
Vitas Gerulaitis	AO	23
Guillermo Vilas		RG	24
John McEnroe		USO	20
Brian Teacher		AO	25
Johan Kriek		AO	22
[B]Mats Wilander		RG	17[/B]
Yannick Noah		RG	23
Ivan Lendl		RG	24
Stefan Edberg		AO	21
[B]Boris Becker		WB	17[/B]
Pat Cash		WB	22
[B]Michael Chang		RG	17[/B]
Andres Gomez		RG	30
[B]Pete Sampras		USO	19[/B]
Jim Courier		RG	20
Michael Stich		WB	22
Andre Agassi		WB	22
Sergi Bruguera		RG	22
Thomas Muster		RG	27
Yevgeny Kafelnikov	RG	22
Richard Krajicek	WB	24
Gustavo Kuerten		RG	20
Pat Rafter		USO	24
Petr Korda		AO	30
Carlos Moya		RG	21
Marat Safin		USO	20
Goran Ivanisevic	WB	29
Lleyton Hewitt		USO	20
Thomas Johansson	AO	26
Albert Costa		RG	26
Juan Carlos Ferrero	RG	23
Roger Federer		WB	21
Andy Roddick		USO	21
Gaston Gaudio		RG	25
[B]Rafael Nadal		RG	19[/B]
Novak Djokovic		AO	20
Juan Martin del Potro	USO	20
Andy Murray		USO	25
Stan Wawrinka		AO	28
Marin Cilic		USO	25
I remember making pretty much the same argument with the same data last year, shortly after I joined. You can observe a lack of variety and tactics in the younger players, but not lack of talent. We've simply been engorged with the brilliance of the Big 3. Expectations need to be managed if one wants to avoid disappointments.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
Agassi, Pete, Edberg, Becker, Courier didn't choke when the going got tough.
This is before my time, so I decided to take a look and see what others said about these players.

Agassi: Going got tough, he quit.

Agassi vs Courier in the 1991 French Open final was one as well though. There was a rain delay and Agassi came back and pretty much fell apart. He should have even won in straight sets with all the chances he had in that 2nd set. It was ironic he choked away the French Open title as a brash youngster then finally won it by someone else choking 8 years later.

Sampras: Going got tough, he retired from the sport.

Edberg: Choked in Big Matches

Edberg played a horrible match vs Becker in the 89 Wimbledon final. There was no shame at all in losing to Becker that day the way he played but Edberg did not play well at all. He was missing easy volleys, serving poorly, returning poorly even off Becker's second serve. Edberg is the same guy who beat Becker in 2 of their 3 Wimbledon finals from 88-90 and most feel would have 3 for 4 without a kind of unlucky semifinal loss in 91. That being said there is no way IMO Becker can be so much better then him during this time to spank him that badly in any Wimbledon final no matter how well he played unless Edberg was far off which he clearly was.

Edberg also did choke away the 89 French Open final to Chang. He wasted tons of break chances, mostly dumping easy returns in the bottom of the net. He made Federer look like a mental giant when he plays Nadal on clay by comparision.

Edberg also choked multiples times at the U.S Open before 1991, horribly underperforming. Like in 1989 getting destroyed in the 4th round (winning only 6 games) vs an aging Connors. Actually this was far worse then getting being served a bagel by an on fire Becker in the Wimbledon final, this was a true embarassment really, being held to only 6 games by a now 37 year old Connors. In 1990 being the heavy favorite to win the Open after a dominant summer, and losing in the 1st round to Volkov, granted a dangerous unseeded player, but really getting spanked here too 6-3, 7-6, 6-2 after dominating the summer hard court season.

His loss in the 1991 Australian Open semis vs Lendl where he squandered 4 match points was considered a choke by many people at the time too.

I do think Edberg was arguably a bit of the choking type, certainly a nervy big event performer. At the very least the poster who said he was a big choker in slams in 1989 is dead on the money, and overall this might well be true as well.

Courier: Not sure why he is here, he is outclassed by the others in this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,069 Posts
One of the reasons Fed, Nadal, and Serena are pilling up records is no new talent is emerging on the tour, in both men and women circuits.

I believe this is the first time since tennis became a profession ( going back 50 years) that such a phenomenon has occurred.

Each new generation brought it's pool of new stars. But not this decade.

A society phenomenon ?
No, you got it wrong.

Big 3 are so great, and are showing such longevity, no-one can get through, except for a Masters 1000.
These are the greatest 3 of all time. And the fact they occurred simultaneously (except Fed, earlier) makes them even better, they fo5rce each other to be better, and to play longer trying to pass each other in the record books.

Gen useless (nasty term) was lacking in huge talent, there is huge talent in Next gen, lots of it, but they'll have to wait for more Big 3 decline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
New players don't lack talent. Many of them are extremely talented and have great potential. But talent only is meaningless. In the Rafa vs Pospisil match, Pospisil seemed tired! I thought, how on earth can a guy 10 years younger than Rafa feel tired after barely 3 sets played.
Many of the young gen are just lazy and tennis is a complex sport. Zverev seems arrogant, Kyrgios is a lost cause. They simply don't have what it takes. And younger people today are obvious not used to working hard and are very egocentric.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top