Big Russians vs Big Marin (Diamond Age report)
- Thread starter Meles
- Start date
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I'm also making some projections based on what I've studied. In general players either seem to start out with fully formed service games or fully formed return games. Young players, of course, we improve in both, but by the 3rd or 4th year a pattern usually arrives pretty accurately.
The only teens who start out with smoking serves usually are tall.
Let's look at some first year stats:
Karlovic:
https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/ivo-karlovic/k336/player-stats?year=2003&surfaceType=all
92% of service games.
I won't bother with more links. This is about first year on tour where there is enough data to take a guess at the future. His first two years have very little data.
Where do we start with Fed? 98 is 76%, but not much data. 99 about the same. 82% in 2000. Fed makes gains almost every year. It took a long time for his return to peak.
But we know that Fed always had the potential to be a great server.
In contrast, Djokovic won 63% of his service games his first year but already won 29% of return games. So if we had been watching back then, we probably would have said, "This kid is going to cause a lot of problems defensively, but he has to fix that serve."
Nadal was already winning 30% of his return games on clay in 2003. The return game was there from the start, pretty much, and perhaps he immediately had success serving because he had so many weapons to back up the serve. Hard to tell which developed fastest, with about 50% of service games in one year, I think 2008. I believe his serving peak came later. That seems to be the norm.
In contrast, Kyrgios by around his second year on the tour established a monster serve, and his return game just has not developed.
What I'd like to see is a graph of a whole bunch of players, showing the progression of both their return and service games. I THINK it would show that none of the teens had the strength to serve at full power when very young, but the guys who develop very quickly physically, full beard early, probably early puberty, will develop the serve fast. Other guys - Demon is a good example - are obviously not as physically mature as early, so you will see them develop return skills first. They are young and have the legs to run all day, but the big muscles for the serve come a bit later.
If I'm right, the really tall, lanky guys serve with great power earliest because they simply use their height, lankiness and a very loose arm to start firing bombs. Shorter guys, especially the ones who develop slower physically and have to work really hard to put on muscle, may not get full power on serve until much closer to age 30.
Top 10 for any good player is always a possibility, but for someone to achieve that and stay there is like a crap shoot because so much is about health and injuries.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Good thoughts because I can probably graph this for groups of players very easily.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I saw him some, but not as much because didn't go very deep at slams.
My points is Ljuby's game was not born and bred on Poly. A lot of players quickly dropped back once the current group of baseliners took hold (Frenchies, Bendy, Stan, Big4 sans Fed, Soderling and others.) I don't know Robredo well enough at all, but he's kind of the all courter (or Baghy for that matter) that had some initial traction and then just basically dropped a peg. Even Simon in 2008 made top 10 (loved him then). So was this some great wave of talent or did they have it easy as the veterans adapted to varying degrees to Poly? (Feddy adapted alright). I think it was both, but the great wave was really only the big 4. The supporting cast were probably products of tech and we see Bendy's early success and Simon, but then the pecking order finally settled by 2012. Players like Davydenko and Ferrer are interesting because they were kind of all over the place. Davydenko had some deep slam runs and then the fabled 2009 run against a decidely weak big 4. His earliest years and Ferrer's weren't all that amazing. Like Berdy they had some early success around 2006, but then dropped back a bit in the pecking order until they matured. Davydenko older than Fed. He might have actually gotten a career bump with Poly, but then the physicality of that string and the modern game did him in a bit early. Gasquet had that early ranking jump too before dropping back. My point is these middle pack players just weren't that great, but looked better because of tech advantage over the more experienced players. As I think about it, even Monfils, Tsonga, and Verdasco had the early break through then dropped back.
Now finally this big group (the geriatrics) that cleaned up with Poly is getting old enough to decline. Its becoming increasingly that the younger players are filling this vacuum and the LostGen really hardly at all. We've got prime Basilashvili making a ranking move right now, but very much like Klizan with at least one suspect ATP vulture job in Hamburg. He might crack top 20, but could easily be back out of top 40 by next Summer.
Field definitely exceptionally strong now in younger group of players, veteran geriatrics dropping like flys, Lostgen at the peak of their powers right now which is kind of scary. We can wax on about 2012 as the greatest year, but Tipsaravec in WTF worse than Sock last year. New Gen generally not chokers (save Coric lol) while the mid-pack geriatrics are dominated by choking. I'd say Ferrer, Soderling, and Gasquet did a good enough job with closing out matches, but the rest are a bit sketchy. LOL. Did Benneateau every win a title, or 0-13 in finals.
@ 1st bold part : LOL, wut ?
He faced and beat a good Federer (though not great) in WTF 09. rushed delpo so much in the final. delpo called him a ballstriking machine or sth like that.
He faced and beat a great Nadal in Doha 10 final.
robredo was a baseliner .... so was baggy.
@ 2nd bold part : LOL, no ....
2012 wasn't the greatest year. 2009 was.
In case, in 2012, Tipsarevic was #9 ranked player. Got in due to Nadal not playing. Yeah, Tipsarevic was poor in 2012 WTF, but Iook at the rest of them in 2012. Djoko, Fed, Murray, JMDP, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer.
A considerable strong field than last year's.
new gen not chokers ? well, we'll see about that.
I like Shapo's play, but he choked to some extent vs tsonga at the AO this year. Zverev chokes in slams of course.
Chung doesn't have the serve to keep it up yet.
Edit : and your poly stuff is completely out of whack and all over the place. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Man, that would be a fascinating thing to research. For instance, at what age does the service game hit its peak for each player? The return game? Off the top of my head I know that Fed hit his absolute peak returning on all surfaces averages somewhere in his 2004-2008 period. Nadal hit his peak on clay in 2008, and Djokovic hit his peak on HCs in 2011. I use all surfaces for Fed because 2015 was close to his peak on HCs, but quite obviously not on all surfaces. That's only three players, but there is perhaps a pattern. All three continue to serve at an extraordinarily high level (service game), and all three depend on back-up skills to support the serve.
As I remember, Sampras's return game peaked before 1995. 1994 sticks in my mind but may be wrong. Agassi will be hard to evaluate because we can't be sure he ever totally focused his talent until after his meltdown, and that makes his career very unusual.
Murray will also be an outlier, most likely, because as I recall his return skills stayed at a very high level. But did he ever reach his potential peak? If we chart Stan, we will have the same problem. When players do not fulfill their potential until later, we will never know if they could have been even better when younger.
This would also be interesting in comparing the 90s, the naughts and the 2010s. I suspect in the 90s there was an earlier decline in return, and I think we agree about why. Training was not as advanced, there were not the kind of teams there are today, other reasons. I believe you would see much the same thing looking at all players early in this century, with a clear progression of longer and longer careers and with better return stats later in careers.
This brings up another question: How does poly change this? Why would these strings and rackets change everything? We've seen all kinds of pet theories. On one hand I can certainly see how young players changing to poly early would have a distinct advantage over veterans who played a long time with the old tech, but why has it taken so long for younger players to have even a chance of wearing down today's old players when they have played with poly since almost day one? What is it about poly and the modern game that allows older players to return so well later in their careers? Find that out and we have an explanation for what is happening, because we know that the service game declines very slowly, so anything that allows players to continue to tweak the serve later AND hold on to a high quality return game is going to tip the balance in their favor.
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
G.O.A.T.
Cilic win a title before he turned 20 and has win at least a title every year from 2008.
That's a champion mentality which will not showing up from stats.
I don't see that from Kachanov and Medevdev. Yet anyway. I like both so let's see.
Medvedev win a whooping 3 titles this year (Maybe also Moscow next).
That's a champion mentality which will not showing up from stats.
I don't see that from Kachanov and Medevdev. Yet anyway. I like both so let's see.
Medvedev win a whooping 3 titles this year (Maybe also Moscow next).
Ann
Hall of Fame
I like Medvedev and Khachanov but I only see Medvedev with the potential for top 20. Khachanov is just so inconsistent, basically I like him because he looks like Liam Hemsworth.
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
G.O.A.T.
Kachanov is just so handsome. Like his game as well.
Only thing is that hat backward ugh. Wish he is wearing headband.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Keep on me I think these graphs would shed light on the impact of Poly which with more baseline game and longer rallies has put a premium on conditioning.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Well there is S&V, Llodra, Hebert, Mischa Zverev, and probably not much more. Then there are all courters and Robredo and Baghdatas fit the ball. Fed much of the time will play a ton of baseline tennis, but still would call him all courter.
On Poly I'm at best throwing out hypothesis as there is limited data online when player X switched. I've heard of Federer, Agassi, Hewitt, Blake, and Roddick's switch in the 2000s. One presumes a lot of clay courters started switching after Kuerten showed the efficacy of Poly early on at RG. Players like Safin, Moya, and JCF I'ver never seen anything, but presume Poly earlier on.
There is no doubt from 2003-2007 there was a sea change in the game with Federer surviving and thriving, Roddick taking a step back, and the rest of the early 2000 players falling off a cliff. Why did they fall off a cliff? Injury, then I say the more grueling nature of the baseline game and the stress Poly puts on the body was a contributing factor.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I want to get back to this later, but first this question:
If poly put so much strain in the body, why are a bunch of players who moved to poly early now having unprecedentedly long careers? Logically what puts more stress on the body is going to end careers, not extend them. I would presume poly would cause more and more injuries. We have seen that too (especially elbow problems.), but why are careers longer today?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I suppose the argument would be sports science has moved on as well? But it's not easy to find actual documentation on any advances.
I do think Meles' arguments about poly are just bad conjecture. You look at the injuries to some of Federer's generation;
- Safin = knee
- Hewitt = foot and hip
- Ferrero = never the same after chicken pox (think he broke some ribs falling down the stairs too)
All are different and definitely not elbow injuries.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Kuerten hip injury; nothing to do with long grueling baseline rallies with a swing perhaps not honed and developed with Poly in mind? Today if you have bad swing you simply don't make it.
Last edited:
Meles
Bionic Poster
Careers are longer today because speed is no longer the dominant attribute; its power and stamina. Clay is still culling out the older players the earliest, but even its prime window has moved back. Djokovic is classic example. Great on clay, but no RG finals until 2012. Even Federer took a bit longer to make his first RG final was only good til around 2008. So age hurts the most on clay and its much more of an advantage on other surfaces with Wimbledon now for perhaps similar reasons seems to favor older, more experienced players, and not a great surface for younger players.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
@NatF
I think you have some theories that sound logical on paper but that may or may not have validity in actual fact.
The one place that I agree with you is about later peaks, but my reason is very different. The advantage always goes to experience when experience is backed up by capability. My theory is that aging players continue to play closer to their peak as they physically decline. The idea of power and stamina changing the balance I believe is a very minor point. It's not the elephant in the room. The real change is that age players go out and play closer to their peak level for a long period of time, and there are several factors that help. I'll number them if you wish. If player A, playing at peak level at age "something" (which could now be 26, or 27) goes up against player B, who has managed to stay closer to his peak, player B can continue to win by using better strategy and more years of playing experience. Fed has been doing this for years. Both Novak and Nadal are doing it right now.
In my field, piano, careers are also lengthening, and in fact what players over the age of 70 and even over the age of 80 are able to do on piano is astounding. I linked Martha Argerich in Odds and Ends, but this is probably not the right place. She made a live performance recently that is so good, it's depressing, and I'm working a bit behind the scenes with a "young gun" who I think would kill to play this well, right now. He's 28. Martha was 77 when this recording was made.
Pianos have not changed. No poly in piano.
The difference is overall fitness, modern medicine and with those things chemicals of questionable legality (because new things are always tried successfully before they are understood and banned.)
I do not buy for one second that the same strings, poly, which you claim caused dominance earlier are now stopping it for young players.
My theory, subject to change with more facts, is that SOMETHING allowed the Big Three (or Four) and others to dominate early, and that the inability of older players to adapt to a totally new way of playing is what did many older players in.
This, I think, is the same as what you are claiming. I think you are right here.
But trying to analyze which surfaces players have most success on early and late is going to be much trickier.
I totally reject your idea that players develop slowest on clay. If you want, we can continue the debate on that point.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
On the surface:
The answer is stability. Beyond that, other factors matter such as a glut of special players collectively raising the bar and challenging each other, weaker following generations, improved sports science and whatever other noise one can muster. But the main answer is stability.
There is no equivalent change from poly to x for the current legends as traversed (typically unsuccessfully) from the previous generations in the form of gut to poly and further changes prior.
Otherwise, the biggest factor is the very special nature of the great players of today.
Although I think this is a far more satisfactory answer at first glance, for me it masks the bigger reason...
In reality:
Evolution of the game in a global and intrinsic sense has slowed, crossing a threshold in which the advantage of experience cannot be reasonably usurped but for a commensurate talent pool in a following generation; tennis has reached an illusory entelechy, one which at least curtails the march of advancement in the game to the extent that there is always time for the requisite response from those leading. Diminishing returns as a ceiling of the game at least glances on the horizon (in its state of inertia) augments the typical cycles in tennis. But this is a synchronic evaluation which does not necessarily stand against tennis history in itself, but has its analogue in so many other sports which see a likewise trend.
The answer is stability. Beyond that, other factors matter such as a glut of special players collectively raising the bar and challenging each other, weaker following generations, improved sports science and whatever other noise one can muster. But the main answer is stability.
There is no equivalent change from poly to x for the current legends as traversed (typically unsuccessfully) from the previous generations in the form of gut to poly and further changes prior.
Otherwise, the biggest factor is the very special nature of the great players of today.
Although I think this is a far more satisfactory answer at first glance, for me it masks the bigger reason...
In reality:
Evolution of the game in a global and intrinsic sense has slowed, crossing a threshold in which the advantage of experience cannot be reasonably usurped but for a commensurate talent pool in a following generation; tennis has reached an illusory entelechy, one which at least curtails the march of advancement in the game to the extent that there is always time for the requisite response from those leading. Diminishing returns as a ceiling of the game at least glances on the horizon (in its state of inertia) augments the typical cycles in tennis. But this is a synchronic evaluation which does not necessarily stand against tennis history in itself, but has its analogue in so many other sports which see a likewise trend.
Meles
Bionic Poster
I hope I didn't say players develop the slowest on clay. I think many of the young players have early success outside of slams and its harder in slams on clay and even worse on other surfaces. Federer's worst surface is clay so his peak on it was shortest. Of course Nadal is proving the reverse and we've never seen a player as formidable in his later years on clay. Much of this is due to Nadal retooling his 2nd serve game which has extended his career. His "decline" in 2015/6 was very much like Djokovic, injury hidden by player affecting serve.@NatF
I think you have some theories that sound logical on paper but that may or may not have validity in actual fact.
The one place that I agree with you is about later peaks, but my reason is very different. The advantage always goes to experience when experience is backed up by capability. My theory is that aging players continue to play closer to their peak as they physically decline. The idea of power and stamina changing the balance I believe is a very minor point. It's not the elephant in the room. The real change is that age players go out and play closer to their peak level for a long period of time, and there are several factors that help. I'll number them if you wish. If player A, playing at peak level at age "something" (which could now be 26, or 27) goes up against player B, who has managed to stay closer to his peak, player B can continue to win by using better strategy and more years of playing experience. Fed has been doing this for years. Both Novak and Nadal are doing it right now.
In my field, piano, careers are also lengthening, and in fact what players over the age of 70 and even over the age of 80 are able to do on piano is astounding. I linked Martha Argerich in Odds and Ends, but this is probably not the right place. She made a live performance recently that is so good, it's depressing, and I'm working a bit behind the scenes with a "young gun" who I think would kill to play this well, right now. He's 28. Martha was 77 when this recording was made.
Pianos have not changed. No poly in piano.
The difference is overall fitness, modern medicine and with those things chemicals of questionable legality (because new things are always tried successfully before they are understood and banned.)
I do not buy for one second that the same strings, poly, which you claim caused dominance earlier are now stopping it for young players.
My theory, subject to change with more facts, is that SOMETHING allowed the Big Three (or Four) and others to dominate early, and that the inability of older players to adapt to a totally new way of playing is what did many older players in.
This, I think, is the same as what you are claiming. I think you are right here.
But trying to analyze which surfaces players have most success on early and late is going to be much trickier.
I totally reject your idea that players develop slowest on clay. If you want, we can continue the debate on that point.
I like your take on sports science not only helping older players physically, but it also is extending their career by getting some expert analysis on what they can do to add to their game. And lets face it, if you're the most gifted and athletic you might have a little more chance of adding more to your game late in your career. Is this another way of stating the jist of your theory?
The fact that you've identified another issue that holds some water and explains what we've been seeing does not mean that my theories on Poly are invalid at all. And after seeing what you've identified I still claim Poly was a huge factor and is a huge factor. Its just had a massive impact on the game and the physics of the game. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows its Poly that's curtailed all court play and rendered serve and volley extinct. Nothing you identified would explain these massive, massive changes to the game. Poly was a bigger change than graphite. My conjectures flow from these knowns and aren't a giant leap in logic. Poly plain and simple won Kuerten 1997 RG. It was a huge tech advantage on clay at the time. Babolat famously upgraded to Babolat Hurricane at the beginning of 2010 and a lot of players followed suit. A minor change really, but many players tested and wanted the new string. Going from gut to Poly or gut/kevlar blend or something was a huge change.
You may be right that something else also helped caused so many players to fade quickly; something other than Poly. We really need to do a thread with graphs from ultimate tennis or maybe data and other means. Some things I believe are beyond are means, but I've not dug deeply. An example would be the increase in serving effectiveness over the last decade plus. ATP has a very limited view of their data open to the public. Sackman over at tennis abstract is doing match charting and I don't see easy access to analyze that data though some experts like Craig O'Shannysey are analyzing patterns of play, etc. Craig may still be with Djoko right now. He took Anderson's career up a level. Helped engineer Dustin Brown's crushings of Nadal on grass. Its not clear to me if this data is generally available to the public or only a chose few have access. Craig may collect all his own data for his own use, I've not really dug after it. The first thing to do is to accurately measure what is going on and present the data, and then theories refined.
Some may not like that this type of anlysis somehow lessens accomplishments during such times, but the most vocal fans are Federer and when you think about his career maybe it makes it all the more amazing:
Federer 1.0 using gut, learns S&V, makes top ten, but not great in slams.
Federer 2.0 switches to Poly maybe with some early promising results on clay, but takes years for the rest of his game to develop/adapt into a much more baseline oriented player and this goes until his racket change
Federer 3.0 changes racket and approach to game with Edberg, much more aggressive game
Federer 4.0 Ljuby changes that seem dominated by a huge improvement in backhand that boosts all of Federer's numbers extending his career greatly
Will there be a Federer 5.0 come next year? I wouldn't rule it out. Looks pretty amazing to me and it wasn't like Federer got to develop his game with Poly, he was the greatest player at adapting at the time and has proven this adapting to the tour to be one of his goat attributes. Players like Nadal and Gasquet famously came in with their ultra high spin games and had early success. They're the ones and the players that shortly followed that really took off with the stuff. The clay game itself was inherently changed when the whole tour went to Poly (clay courters did so in late 90s) because suddenly a new breed of hard court baseliner was possible on clay, enter the baseliners. This does not account for the Big4 being great talents, but would they be the same players if they'd only had gut? Me thinks it was a very, very big change. Through it all, Federer rode up and down and maintained a very high level, so this only enhances his legacy in my mind and perhaps gives some justice to players particularly like Hewitt and Roddick. Maybe even Coria in some ways. Could be three or four significant factors hitting some of those players at that time. But through it all one has triumphed over adversity, the current hands down goat Federer.
continued
Meles
Bionic Poster
the finish of above post:
For younger players now we have a great young pool of talent. If you look at Recent Elo ratings at Ultimate Tennis it gives an excellent picture of the lay of the land that is far, far superior to current ranking:
Recent Elo Rating (the 2nd number by ranking is highest ranking of career, rating on far right)
1 CH 1 ESP ESP Rafael Nadal - - 2466
2 1 SRB SRB Novak Djokovic - +31 2451
3 1 SUI SUI Roger Federer - -11 2345
4 2 ARG ARG Juan Martin Del Potro - -24 2291
5 3 GER GER Alexander Zverev +6 +36 2181
6 CH 6 RSA RSA Kevin Anderson +3 +18 2175
7 5 AUT AUT Dominic Thiem -2 -32 2172
8 CH 8 CRO CRO Borna Coric +11 +100 CH 2166
9 3 JPN JPN Kei Nishikori -1 +2 2161
10 7 RUS RUS Daniil Medvedev -3 -9 2152
11 8 USA USA John Isner -1 - 2150
12 4 CRO CRO Marin Cilic -6 -32 2144
13 5 BEL BEL David Goffin -1 - 2143
14 4 CAN CAN Milos Raonic -1 -33 2109
15 11 RUS RUS Karen Khachanov - -10 2093
16 8 GRE GRE Stefanos Tsitsipas +2 +18 2089
17 16 GEO GEO Nikoloz Basilashvili -1 -1 2083
18 10 ITA ITA Fabio Fognini -1 - 2080
19 5 AUS AUS Nick Kyrgios -5 -34 2070
20 CH 20 SVK SVK Martin Klizan +1 - 2048
21 6 FRA FRA Richard Gasquet +1 +5 2047
22 3 BUL BUL Grigor Dimitrov +1 - 2041
23 22 AUS AUS Alex De Minaur +2 +13 CH 2036
24 20 CAN CAN Denis Shapovalov -4 -18 2031
25 12 GBR GBR Kyle Edmund +5 +35 2022
(with Elo you have to watch a rash of recent big wins which propelled Kyrgios to 5 and now Coric's two wins over Fed have him at 8, probably overstating their case a touch, but also may just better reflect what they can do fully healthy. In a similar vein Delpo has been top 5 since 2016 just after Olympics. So not perfect with injured players, but very good.)(Note: Chung, Jarry, Fritz, Tiafoe all back below 40 currently and rightly.)
So 11 of the current Elo top 25 are new players trying to break into slams. They don't have great major results except for probably Thiem, but its not easy peasy at majors, so something is holding them back. One factor is that we've had no technology changes recently to move the older players out. Another is my theory that the modern Poly baseline game rewards bigger serving, stamina, and power which are all things that come by the later 20's. Speed prime is 23-24 and no longer the dominant factor in tennis.
Meanwhile, until we figure this out, all the reactionary tarts on TTW are having a field day spewing out slam nonsense ad nuaseam.
For younger players now we have a great young pool of talent. If you look at Recent Elo ratings at Ultimate Tennis it gives an excellent picture of the lay of the land that is far, far superior to current ranking:
Recent Elo Rating (the 2nd number by ranking is highest ranking of career, rating on far right)
1 CH 1 ESP ESP Rafael Nadal - - 2466
2 1 SRB SRB Novak Djokovic - +31 2451
3 1 SUI SUI Roger Federer - -11 2345
4 2 ARG ARG Juan Martin Del Potro - -24 2291
5 3 GER GER Alexander Zverev +6 +36 2181
6 CH 6 RSA RSA Kevin Anderson +3 +18 2175
7 5 AUT AUT Dominic Thiem -2 -32 2172
8 CH 8 CRO CRO Borna Coric +11 +100 CH 2166
9 3 JPN JPN Kei Nishikori -1 +2 2161
10 7 RUS RUS Daniil Medvedev -3 -9 2152
11 8 USA USA John Isner -1 - 2150
12 4 CRO CRO Marin Cilic -6 -32 2144
13 5 BEL BEL David Goffin -1 - 2143
14 4 CAN CAN Milos Raonic -1 -33 2109
15 11 RUS RUS Karen Khachanov - -10 2093
16 8 GRE GRE Stefanos Tsitsipas +2 +18 2089
17 16 GEO GEO Nikoloz Basilashvili -1 -1 2083
18 10 ITA ITA Fabio Fognini -1 - 2080
19 5 AUS AUS Nick Kyrgios -5 -34 2070
20 CH 20 SVK SVK Martin Klizan +1 - 2048
21 6 FRA FRA Richard Gasquet +1 +5 2047
22 3 BUL BUL Grigor Dimitrov +1 - 2041
23 22 AUS AUS Alex De Minaur +2 +13 CH 2036
24 20 CAN CAN Denis Shapovalov -4 -18 2031
25 12 GBR GBR Kyle Edmund +5 +35 2022
(with Elo you have to watch a rash of recent big wins which propelled Kyrgios to 5 and now Coric's two wins over Fed have him at 8, probably overstating their case a touch, but also may just better reflect what they can do fully healthy. In a similar vein Delpo has been top 5 since 2016 just after Olympics. So not perfect with injured players, but very good.)(Note: Chung, Jarry, Fritz, Tiafoe all back below 40 currently and rightly.)
So 11 of the current Elo top 25 are new players trying to break into slams. They don't have great major results except for probably Thiem, but its not easy peasy at majors, so something is holding them back. One factor is that we've had no technology changes recently to move the older players out. Another is my theory that the modern Poly baseline game rewards bigger serving, stamina, and power which are all things that come by the later 20's. Speed prime is 23-24 and no longer the dominant factor in tennis.
Meanwhile, until we figure this out, all the reactionary tarts on TTW are having a field day spewing out slam nonsense ad nuaseam.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
"Surpassing Cilic".
How is this an achievement for a player who is aiming for the top? Cilic is a mug.
How is this an achievement for a player who is aiming for the top? Cilic is a mug.
Meles
Bionic Poster
These are all sound though I'm still digesting that last paragraph.....lol you've got some words I've not seen before.
1. I agree that the last change has resulted in the Big 4 still dwarfing the game. They have a combination of speed and size that stands above the current crop of players though I fancy Tsitsipas and now Medvedev quite fast for their size (Zedrot too I suppose.) Might as well include Khachanov who looked amazing today. Still no one, except maybe Dimitrov, rivals their athleticisim in the 6' 1" to 6' 3" range. None in the past either though I fancy Pancho Gonzales.
2. No technology change makes it harder; agree and this might also account for some dissatisfaction in the game in late 90's into early 2000's as hard for someone to just roll in and blow the doors off the old farts like Agassi, Sampras, et al.
3. The above is all stability, so check
4. I don't buy fully tennis reaching entelechy, realization of potential. I'd buy we might be hitting the wall on sports medicine. Data analysis of tennis has not realized its full potential by a long shot. This may be the case in other more lucrative sports involving much more money and assets. I do buy that perhaps tennis expanded back a few decades to beyond the traditional great tennis powers; now we don't have a way to expand the talent pool except perhaps the outlawing of video games.
More tennis nations will be slow in coming. My other thing I've noticed is many of the current crop of players have not only one, but two parents who are tennis experts. Most of the new super talent have been coached from a very, very young age by experts. (Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, Fritz, Tiafoe grew up in USTA center literally living on the grounds, Medvedev might be the highest exception and he's a very, very smart player at getting a lot out of his game, so the bar has been set very high by these players and many of them may end up being greater than we think.)
Meles
Bionic Poster
LOL. I'm trying to be reasonable Saby. I didn't pick Delpo or Safin for a reason.
Just watched Medvedev and Khachanov play each other and they really, really impressed me. When current Elo ratings come out after this weeks tournaments they'll both probably be sitting on the cusp of the top ten current Elo. These are both guys that I would have said at end of last year and well, well into this year would never reach the top 20. They've both exploded this Summer for some reason. Are they still Mugs? Khachanov maybe a thug, but he's not Mug. Medvedev strokes and game and personality fit the bill for Mugdom, but has won three events this year as qualifier.
He'd probably be even higher if he wasn't banged up on his favorite surface grass (Med really just got on the radar last grass season). Hard to hand him his mug just yet.Cilic is a mug with a Masters, a slam, and two slam finals. The Big Russians look on track for Cilic like careers, but maybe a little more without all the choking.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Don't think he left his hat on today? Noticed Coric going hatless after pool of sweat on court from bill of cap at US Open caused him to mentally implode.
I'm amazed at what some find handsome. Next someone will be extolling Meddy as a great beauty lol.
Meles
Bionic Poster
18 titles and 14 runner-ups. Good number of titles so far and no losing ratio in finals like Bendych; pays to have a better serve. Mugikori 11-13 right now after losing 8 straight finals lol.
I think Khach and Med will be three each after today. They'll need six by end of next year to come even with Cilic. Cilic had better first two big years on tour with three titles to Khachs's 1 and Med's 0.
My eye test is in love with the Big Russians' games. I think they'll both be hovering just in or around the top ten for some time. They might surprise us with one more big surge in level next year.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
OK. You wrote:
Unclear. "Culling out the older players the earliest" sounds as though you are saying that older players slip earliest on clay. You talk about Novak with no RG finals until 2012 (around age 25), Fed taking longer to make his first RG final but "only good till around 2008".
This is absolutely unclear. Of course it's harder to win slams than other tournaments. Are you saying it is even worse trying to win early in non-clay slams?
I will say that logically I would guess players win earlier on clay and later on grass, the idea being that quick strike, aggressive play might extend careers and the pure stamina/speed required on clay might wear out older players. But you claim that more stamina now favors OLDER players, and after having looked at the history of all majors in the OE, I can't find definitive evidence that great players win first on clay and later on grass. Which may not be your point, but I'm very confused here.[/QUOTE]
metsman
G.O.A.T.
how can you put medvedev who is 140 pounds of balding scarecrow and safin who was 210 pounds of sex in the same sentence? Khachanov...sure, even though he's a 6'6" pusher.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Hold on. Two very different things here. I agree that poly has been a huge factor, and on one point I agree. When the way the game is played suddenly makes a huge change, a permanent change, young guys learning to play with those changes are going to greatly benefit. We can go further: Look at guys who had to step into the court with the opposite foot because that's the way the game was played. They could not suddenly retool their serves to leap into the court with the back foot after it became legal to jump over the baseline when that used to be a foot fault. Laver and Rosewall continued stepping in. Connors and Borg leapt in on the back foot, and the only guy I've ever seen jump on on the left foot who is a rightie was Becker.
Poly demanded a whole new way of playing, so naturally players already in their mid 20s or older would be extremely challenged, although some probably were able to adapt. You know more about this than I do, but it's logical.
So I agree here. But I absolutely do not agree that poly directly increases the length of careers. I believe that happens from other factors.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes, and more:
1. Top players now have the most money for teams, physios and so on.
2. Top players can travel in luxury, not only moving from place to place fast but also with their teams.
3. You can't underestimate loneliness on the top, and I know about this from music. You look at the top pianists in the world and think of their fame, both the classical and pop guys, but playing by yourself in front of an audience is lonely as hell if you have to go back to a hotel room after performing. Evert once said she never really got to see London, Paris or NYC because she was so busy training.
4. Young guys are not as bothered by this loneliness, because they are hot on the trail of fame and publicity. It's new.
5. Traveling with other players your own age changes this whole balance. Fed traveled with Edberg, so he was never really alone, and how he has the other guys. He has no time to feel lonely. That's huge when you are married and have kids. Read about what life was like for guys like Laver and Rosewall, who constantly complained about not getting to spend time with their families.
6. Matches are spaced well, with the biggest events now mostly having roofs and a pretty much guaranteed day of rest. Best of 5 is not such an impediment to older players when they know they get a day off.
7. Let's add a special mention of weather. This goes with 6, but when you play where you are guaranteed to play at a reasonable time, meaning you get rest, this is most helpful for older players who obviously do not recover as quickly.
8. The perks of being a top player have never been greater. Forget about the prize money, which is almost obscene. The top guys are practically treated like royalty. Compare with champions from decades ago who had sometimes got to USO matches by riding on the subway.
9. How much difference does it make to get ice baths, time in whirl pools, rubdown by top physios right after matches?
10. How different is it to immediately get results from an MRI to find out whether a niggling pain is temporary or serious?
11. How different is it, right now, to get the kind of surgery both Fed and Novak got in the last few years? A few decades ago such injuries would have ended their careers. Who knows what they are doing for Nadal? Does anyone think that Nadal, living two or three decades ago, would still be winning majors with the kind of medical problems he has had?
12. What about things that are legal, but things we don't even know about? Who knows what vitamins, minerals and "supplements" these top players are taking? And that's even being naive, assuming they really are all legal.
13. Whatever substances the top players take, even when legal, probably cost a lot of money, or the medical advice about how and when to take them. What chance do you think young players trying to break into the top have of getting all sorts of such things that cost a lot of money?
In short, the game is weighted in favor of old, successful players who have already won a lot of money. That's not poly. That's just a different version of the rich and powerful getting more money and power. It's the way the world works.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Yes I'm saying is harder to win earlier in non-clay slams, yet clay also takes time to have the whole package. Average age of slam winners on clay surely the youngest.
The idea that younger players have more stamina than older plays is nonsense. Maybe Fed is finally flagging, but I seem to recall the disciples crowing about the great 2017 run.
Mind you I'm talking about Poly era stuff. If we went back to gut that would drop winners ages much more as serve and baseline/stamina less important. Poly has been a great edition to tour in final analysis because it has extended every players career.
Last edited:
Meles
Bionic Poster
LOL. Poor Meddy. Just in the same post, not the same sentence.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes I'm saying is harder to win earlier in non-clay slams, yet clay also takes time to have the whole package.
[/quote]
OK. Making sure I am understanding correctly. Slam winners are still likely to win on clay first, but EVEN on clay it takes longer today. Is that your position? I would agree with that, but for another reason perhaps. You keep talking about how long it takes to develop. I'm talking about how long it takes for players to wind down. Perhaps now both points are true.
There is absolutely no doubt that careers are extended, but I gave you many reasons for this that have nothing to do with poly.
Anyone playing with poly is going to massacre anyone else not using poly, so when you talk about young guys switching over to poly and wiping out the "dinosaurs", there I agree with you. But the other is just an assumption that is unfounded. There are many reasons older players have extended careers that have nothing to do with strings.[/quote]
[/quote]
OK. Making sure I am understanding correctly. Slam winners are still likely to win on clay first, but EVEN on clay it takes longer today. Is that your position? I would agree with that, but for another reason perhaps. You keep talking about how long it takes to develop. I'm talking about how long it takes for players to wind down. Perhaps now both points are true.
I would check that by taking all major winners on clay, then on grass, and then averaging the ages. I don't think we can tell anything now, because Nadal has sucked all the air out of the room on clay.
I don't believe I ever said that. I said that younger players recover faster, for the same reason that very young people stay out drinking all night but still get up and do things. Older people spend half the day in bed with hangovers.
You can't generalize from the results of one player. The idea of players over 30 having spectacular results is hardly new. Laver got his Grand Slam in 69 and turned 31 in August of that year. Djokovic is basically doing much the same thing right now, so if he gets AO 2019 and then competes for RG next year, he's in the Laver category. But I don't for one moment believe that stamina increases in tennis after age 30, and we know all too well how often injuries happen that require more down time over age 30.
I absolutely do NOT believe that, and every time you say it I will challenge you.
There is absolutely no doubt that careers are extended, but I gave you many reasons for this that have nothing to do with poly.
Anyone playing with poly is going to massacre anyone else not using poly, so when you talk about young guys switching over to poly and wiping out the "dinosaurs", there I agree with you. But the other is just an assumption that is unfounded. There are many reasons older players have extended careers that have nothing to do with strings.[/quote]
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Ages, approximate:
I summed all ages rounded, so it won't be off much.
All majors: 24.9
RG 24.3
Wimbledon 24.7
Figure on average RG winners are maybe 4 months younger than Wimbledon winners and 6 months younger than the winner of the average major.
The idea that players are much younger winning RG is mostly a myth.
I summed all ages rounded, so it won't be off much.
All majors: 24.9
RG 24.3
Wimbledon 24.7
Figure on average RG winners are maybe 4 months younger than Wimbledon winners and 6 months younger than the winner of the average major.
The idea that players are much younger winning RG is mostly a myth.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Horrible analysis. You just look at RG and no other clay events? I've looked at tons and tons of players and they almost all decline first on clay. For many a lot of their first tournament wins are on clay and much, much less later in their career. What were you expecting to see? I warned you RG still was not easy to win at a young age.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Horrible analysis? Majors are the most stable events in the OE. Anything else throws all sorts of variables into the mix. What events are you going to pick? How are you going to weight them?
I see nothing more important on clay than winning RG, so I assume when and how players win that slam shows us when they decline. Looking at majors gives us 203 data points. Would be 204, but there was no AO in 1968.
Prove your point. Give me your data. Tell me the records of all these "tons and tons" of player, what years they won the most on clay. Otherwise another example of "I don't know it for a fact, I just know I'm right."
If I'm looking at winning on clay, I'm going to look at the biggest clay prize in tennis, when people first win it, when they last win it, and the average age winning it. Same for grass, but Wimbledon, although that picture is more complicated given that two other majors were once played on grass.
How in heaven's name are you going to come up with a better metric than the age at which players win majors, and how often they do it at what age? Facts are stubborn things, Meles.
Now, if you want to debate stamina, which you claim increases later in careers, how are we going to separate that from recovery? And how are we going to measure, right now, how things change according to how many matches top players are still able to play each year as they age? How are we going to balance strength, stamina, recovery, foot speed, hand eye coordination and simply getting wiser with age? There are too many variables here!
Meles
Bionic Poster
tagged you with thread with the data!Horrible analysis? Majors are the most stable events in the OE. Anything else throws all sorts of variables into the mix. What events are you going to pick? How are you going to weight them?
I see nothing more important on clay than winning RG, so I assume when and how players win that slam shows us when they decline. Looking at majors gives us 203 data points. Would be 204, but there was no AO in 1968.
Prove your point. Give me your data. Tell me the records of all these "tons and tons" of player, what years they won the most on clay. Otherwise another example of "I don't know it for a fact, I just know I'm right."
If I'm looking at winning on clay, I'm going to look at the biggest clay prize in tennis, when people first win it, when they last win it, and the average age winning it. Same for grass, but Wimbledon, although that picture is more complicated given that two other majors were once played on grass.
How in heaven's name are you going to come up with a better metric than the age at which players win majors, and how often they do it at what age? Facts are stubborn things, Meles.
Now, if you want to debate stamina, which you claim increases later in careers, how are we going to separate that from recovery? And how are we going to measure, right now, how things change according to how many matches top players are still able to play each year as they age? How are we going to balance strength, stamina, recovery, foot speed, hand eye coordination and simply getting wiser with age? There are too many variables here!
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
You probably edited and added the tag. Better to quote in the future. If you add a tag after writing a post, it doesn't show up. I have no alert.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Meles
Bionic Poster
How about Khach's third whopping title of the year beating the best in the game?
Khach at 5 in current Elo:
1 CH 1 ESP ESP Rafael Nadal - - 2466
2 1 SRB SRB Novak Djokovic - -13 2438
3 1 SUI SUI Roger Federer - +3 2373
4 2 ARG ARG Juan Martin Del Potro - - 2291
5 CH 5 RUS RUS Karen Khachanov +9 +124 CH 2248
6 5 RSA RSA Kevin Anderson -1 -11 2228
7 3 JPN JPN Kei Nishikori -1 +18 2208
8 5 AUT AUT Dominic Thiem - +15 2180
9 3 GER GER Alexander Zverev -2 -5 2162
10 8 CRO CRO Borna Coric - +1 2161
11 7 RUS RUS Daniil Medvedev -2 -12 2152
12 4 CRO CRO Marin Cilic +1 +21 2146
13 5 BEL BEL David Goffin -1 - 2143
14 8 GRE GRE Stefanos Tsitsipas -3 -34 2110
15 8 USA USA John Isner - -6 2109
Karen reminding me a bit of Soderling more and more.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Strong clay era.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Wow. 22.5 year old Khach now at 2248 and way far ahead of Soderling at a similar age at 2040. Berdych and Soderling eating some serious dust.
Khach has all of next year to widen his lead over Soderling on titles:
Loss 0–1 Oct 2003 Stockholm Open, Sweden International Hard (i) United States Mardy Fish 7–5, 3–6, 7–6(7–4)
Loss 0–2 Feb 2004 Open 13, France International Hard (i) Slovakia Dominik Hrbatý 6–4, 4–6, 4–6
Win 1–2 Oct 2004 Grand Prix de Tennis de Lyon, France International Carpet (i) Belgium Xavier Malisse 6–2, 3–6, 6–4
Win 2–2 Feb 2005 Internazionali di Lombardia, Italy International Carpet (i) Czech Republic Radek Štěpánek 6–3, 6–7(2–7), 7–6(7–5)
Loss 2–3 Feb 2006 US Indoor Championships, United States Intl. Gold Hard (i) Germany Tommy Haas 3–6, 2–6
Khachanov 4-0 with Masters 1000. Soderling didn't win again until October 2008 at age 24. Diamond Age rolls on.
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
G.O.A.T.
Okay somebody please explain wth is ELO is.
Meles
Bionic Poster
@mightyrick is on the Med train.
Khach has slacked off a bit so far this year, but is ranked 8th, but a lot of points to defend upcoming. Medvedev a strong candidate for World Tour Finals has lept up to 7th in the ATP race narrowly behind Nishikori. Meddy is currently ranked 9th.
Diamond Age B team rolls on, but some demur.
Khach has slacked off a bit so far this year, but is ranked 8th, but a lot of points to defend upcoming. Medvedev a strong candidate for World Tour Finals has lept up to 7th in the ATP race narrowly behind Nishikori. Meddy is currently ranked 9th.
Diamond Age B team rolls on, but some demur.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Its used in chess and very effective for tennis. For me Recent Elo (which has a shorter tail) does a better job than ranking at showing the best players at the moment on tour. The amazing thing about Elo on Ultimate Tennis Statistics it rebuilds backwards as well and we have good Recent Elo rankings/ratings back to 1969.
Ranking in the early pro era was not always the best. Ranking lags too much as we can see with Khachanov right now at 8, but his Recent Elo has him at 14:Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Rankings Table
Weekly ATP and Elo rankings
www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com
Let's graph the big guys
:Karen Khachanov, Daniil Medvedev, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych, Marin Cilic, Juan Martin Del Potro
We can see that the twin Russian Towers are not in Delpo's league at a young age, but Daniil at around 2250 is doing quite well. Soderling, Bendych, and Cilic around age 26 or 27 so Daniil likely to keep climbing through the next 3 to 4 season.
Diamond Age B team doing quite well.
edit: Here is the above graph without Delpo and much more easy to follow along on the scores:
Karen Khachanov, Daniil Medvedev, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych, Marin Cilic
Its easier to see here that Khach hit the higher peak of 2300+ after Paris and that both are ahead of their counterparts save Delpo at this age.
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
@mightyrick is on the Med train.
Khach has slacked off a bit so far this year, but is ranked 8th, but a lot of points to defend upcoming. Medvedev a strong candidate for World Tour Finals has lept up to 7th in the ATP race narrowly behind Nishikori. Meddy is currently ranked 9th.
Diamond Age B team rolls on, but some demur.
He's the only train I'm on. As I've said before, I think his biggest barrier to overcome is fitness and health. If he's able to get a little stronger without gaining too much weight (weight is the killer of big guys), then I definitely think he will be ATG material. There's nobody else I see doing anything close to him (yet).
Meles
Bionic Poster
Its time to tally his HARD court stats right now so you're not completely out on a limb:
2017 61.2% of serve points won, 35.9% (Filtering for full ATP events only) for just 49.0% points won
2018 65.5% of serve points won, 37.7% on return and a nice 51.5% points won (turned 22 early in year)
2019 68.3% serve points, 39.7% on return and a quite impressive 53.7% of points won (2019 using Tennis Abstract as Ultimate Tennis hasn't updated with Citi Open data)
For Citi Open, Meddy was a huge 75.9% on serve for the week with 35.0% return points for 55.0% points won.
Kyrgios was 72.4% on serve and 33.4% on return for an average 52.9% points won for a tournament winner.
Delpo's best points won on hard was last year at 53.5% and even in 2009 only managed 52.5% points won on hard courts.
The think I love about Medvedev is his return points won for his height. If we compare with Delpo he is very close and so far this year better except for Delpo's 2008 where he hit a whopping 42.0% return points won on hard courts. Medvedev clearly has a good enough return game to win slams as Federer career is 40.0% on hard courts.
I follow a lot of the young players statistics and Medvedev's jump on return is very, very nice, but I'm even more surprised on his serve where he's gone from a measly 61.2% serve points won to 68.3% and rising this year. Fed is 69.7% hard court points won career, Roddick 71.3%. Lots of potential improvement on serve numbers is possible and even Federer did not really peak on serve until age 34. Med will need to maintain or improve his return level the next few years so when the inevitable slow decline starts in two years he's not suddenly Roddick 2.0 without enough return game to come through at majors.
I still rate Tsistsibot, FAA, Zverev, and Shapo as greater talents, but they've not hit the age of around 23 where the big jump happens in stats for the top players (its happened for Meddy and Khach). You really don't know what you'll have until age 24 and Thiem who I watch quite closely peaked his movement this Spring at age 25.5 to my eyes. Their likely will be exceptions each way. Tsistspas and Shapo are on the razors edge on return and could be on the Roddick 2.0 track if things don't pick up by the end of 2020.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Mad Lad has his Masters ahead of Cilic
How good is the Diamond Age B Team right now? Medvedev with over 56% points won for Washington to Cincy swing has planted himself as one of the three favorites for the US Open. Delpo over similar US Open Series events just a little over 52%.
How good is the Diamond Age B Team right now? Medvedev with over 56% points won for Washington to Cincy swing has planted himself as one of the three favorites for the US Open. Delpo over similar US Open Series events just a little over 52%.
Similar threads
