View Full Version : Are the younger players better or has tennis changed forever?

07-08-2007, 03:51 AM
It seems ridiculous that, at 26 and 24, Hewitt and Roddick may be "past it", yet both were deservedly beaten at Wimbledon by younger players. Federer was the oldest semi-finalist by 4 years, and Nadal's sheer physicality is the major factor in his rise, at just 21, to world number 2. Is this trend here to stay? Are we forever doomed to see players in their mid-twenties overtaken, just as we've come to know them, by younger, hungrier guys? Or is the new generation (Djoko, Gasquet, Murray, Nadal) just a better crop of talent than the previous one, capable of riding high in the rankings for the next 7-8 years whatever may come?

07-08-2007, 03:58 AM
Hewitt won UsOpen at 20...
Roddick at 21....

Gasquet is 21....Djokovic is 20...they havn't won a major yet....

Usually a good tennis player explode at 20....except roger..at 22!

Someone before 20...becker won wimbledon at 17!

07-08-2007, 04:17 AM
gd point well made.. I guess I'm mourning the average span of the pros' top level careers. In football eg you can watch a freeflowing players like Giggs mature, and change his game as he loses some pace and gains some craft, and here he is 15 years later still playing great, whereas in tennis if you lose your legs (not literally, although that clearly applies too) you're nowhere! And that makes it hard to forge a connection with players, if they're finished at the very top level after like 4 years!