Red Rick
Bionic Poster
@paranoidandroid @Federer and Del Potro what about those tags yo?
There is more to this. You don't know something is ending until it is over. There was a Romantic drive in music that continued to push things forward, so it did not stop with Beethoven. That drive was alive and well for Debussy and Ravel. I'd argue that the end of this was around the end of Rachmaninov's life, which is why so called classical artists are now reproducing and no longer creating. There was the same kind of drive in jazz later, probably through to at least the 60s. And there has been something going on in pop for a long time. But right now I see nothing at all happening in music, unless you go into something like Hamilton which merged the old idea of musicals with rap.Think of musical genius like Mozart. He grew up at a specific time in history. The type of music he created was important. Competiton was fierce. The top talent pushed each other to get better. Today, it's not so important to our culture (and please understand what I'm saying here if possible). He also had a very interesting upbringing. The absolute perfect storm (read Maynard Solomon's wonderful biography on Mozart and Beethoven to understand this).
@Federer and Del Potro doesn’t like being tagged.@paranoidandroid @Federer and Del Potro what about those tags yo?
Why? Does @Federer and Del Potro rather have us talking about him or other things without him knowing?
What ever you doCan confirm. My last GF was 26, right in the range for PEAK girlfriend attributes.
Current gf is 22. She is quite a MUG. But we are working on that.
Can confirm. My last GF was 26, right in the range for PEAK girlfriend attributes.
Current gf is 22. She is quite a MUG. But we are working on that.
@Red Rick @paranoidandroid @Poisoned Slice
I'd argue in the other direction actually.
Think of musical genius like Mozart. He grew up at a specific time in history. The type of music he created was important. Competiton was fierce. The top talent pushed each other to get better. Today, it's not so important to our culture (and please understand what I'm saying here if possible). He also had a very interesting upbringing. The absolute perfect storm (read Maynard Solomon's wonderful biography on Mozart and Beethoven to understand this).
Mozart (and the culture he grew up in) arguable drove others (Beethoven, etc). Talent that wouldn't have been realized to the extent that it was, if it wasn't for the culture that drove it. Today, we don't see any Mozart's or Beethoven's. The culture in no way breeds this type of talent to maximize to freakish levels in this area.
This analogy is a bit hard to translate over to professional tennis. The culture seems to be there (Federer, Djokovic, Nadal; who certainly drove each other to achieve even higher levels of greatness than they otherwise would have) to drive even more freakish talent to even greater heights. But the generation after these guys seem to lack "something". Kyrgios arguably has the talent necessary to be one of these guys, but he certainly isn't pushing himself to these levels. Not even close. He's content to make tons of money and create a larger than life reputation based on factors not tennis related (which he's done well).
I think the issue would require serious drilling into and very, very fine analysis to fully explain, but I do very much believe that:
1) Freakish natural talent is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to achieving freakish results
2) Freakish talent will never fully develop to freakish levels in the wrong environment / culture
That's about right. I assume, btw, that you are/were a fan of Breaking Bad.I expect Kyrgios to improve a little bit, be happier with where he is in life and become an overrated top 15 player who doesn't win Slams
Yes, big oneThat's about right. I assume, btw, that you are/were a fan of Breaking Bad.
I get your point, I am simply saying it is obvious. You are using the phrase "all time great." Yes, if an all time great player appears, they will start having all time great results.Still not the point i was making. Just saying i dont think 30 is the new 25. 99% of the players on tour still peak in their 20's, that includes all Big4. The reason Big3 is still dominating is the absence of young ATGs. An ATG at 25y would crush todays field.
Well, there's different 30 year old's. Fed and Lopez are 35+ year olds.The 30 year old guys probably used Poly from a fairly young age. When you look around Fed's age the attrition is dramatic. Pretty much down to Feliciano Lopez. Maybe Ferrer liked the stuff, but he's gone now and as a clay courter Poly would have been on the radar in 1997 with Kuerten and others on clay. Your good foundations argument is nonsense since basically you've only got Feliciano and maybe Fed as survivors. Fed is the only top player who survived the move with Roddick barely hanging on. When is the last time we had a top player who was older than Fed. Your "good foundations" people went the way of the dodo bird quickly. Even the clay courters went down to the new hard court players using Poly. Even Fed has trouble with the latest base liners in the game and their heavy shots. Even Francis Tiafoe (who has the most objectionable forehand form by far) was giving Fed all sorts of trouble a year ago.
The 30 year old guys probably used Poly from a fairly young age. When you look around Fed's age the attrition is dramatic. Pretty much down to Feliciano Lopez. Maybe Ferrer liked the stuff, but he's gone now and as a clay courter Poly would have been on the radar in 1997 with Kuerten and others on clay. Your good foundations argument is nonsense since basically you've only got Feliciano and maybe Fed as survivors. Fed is the only top player who survived the move with Roddick barely hanging on. When is the last time we had a top player who was older than Fed. Your "good foundations" people went the way of the dodo bird quickly. Even the clay courters went down to the new hard court players using Poly. Even Fed has trouble with the latest base liners in the game and their heavy shots. Even Francis Tiafoe (who has the most objectionable forehand form by far) was giving Fed all sorts of trouble a year ago.
Can confirm. My last GF was 26, right in the range for PEAK girlfriend attributes.
Current gf is 22. She is quite a MUG. But we are working on that.
@Red Rick @paranoidandroid @Poisoned Slice
It can't be slower courts, or poly, or any of these factors alone. Anything that allows players to run around longer, hit more balls, play more pong should logically favor younger players, as it did in the past.
That's why I send you roses. Appreciate the tag.
What I extrapolate from this: A 37 yr old Thiem will win the next 10 RG
Yes of course, it didn't stop with Beethoven. That's not what I meant to imply. I didn't want to pedantically go through the history of music up until the current time. My point was to create the basis for my argument.There is more to this. You don't know something is ending until it is over. There was a Romantic drive in music that continued to push things forward, so it did not stop with Beethoven. That drive was alive and well for Debussy and Ravel. I'd argue that the end of this was around the end of Rachmaninov's life, which is why so called classical artists are now reproducing and no longer creating. There was the same kind of drive in jazz later, probably through to at least the 60s. And there has been something going on in pop for a long time. But right now I see nothing at all happening in music, unless you go into something like Hamilton which merged the old idea of musicals with rap.
Even with guys like John Williams, amazing film score composers, I don't see much happening right now with younger guys. There really are golden ages, and then they end.
Well that's the question. Why do they start in the first place? And why do they end? It can't be that the talent pool simply dries up. That just doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that the culture changes. Everyone is a product of their culture to an extent. So talent that comes along into the wrong culture, never fully develops to the extent that it would have in a different culture that would have driven it.There really are golden ages, and then they end.
Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned Kyrgios, because his case carries with it so much baggage, the discussion goes in a different direction.I get that viewpoint but I'm still quite skeptical because I can't see a single example of this untapped freakish talent right now among the younger crowd (now I'm sure there are some but they're probably choose another pro sport).
You say Kyrgios has (arguably) the talent necessary to be one of those guys while I don't think he's even in the same ballpark. What is near universal to all ATGs? Great movement, footwork and ROS. How often do guys as tall as Kyrgios even win slams? Very rarely (there's Goran, Safin and Delpo that I can think of and none of them are ATGs). I don't think Kyrgios is as talented as Murray for example, he has a flashy/showboating game (which I find entertaining actually so I'm not biased against him) but he doesn't excel at any tennis fundamentals aside from that great serve which just isn't enough. Murray has a comparable touch/feel for the ball, historically great ROS and amazing movement (especially footspeed and anticipation).
Shapovalov is a better example but even then the guy has a very mediocre ROS, that just won't do for a potential ATG.
She looks cute af in that gif. My current gf kind of looks like her
I swear that a bunch of guys in their mid 20s now will have Wawrinka like late careers even though they're no talent douchebags by the standards of 10-15 years ago
I will say that Dominic Thiem is an extroardinary physical talent
With the hand-eye coordination and fine-motor skills of your average Russian bricklayerI will say that Dominic Thiem is an extroardinary physical talent
It's obvious to me. But its obviously not that obvious to some people. What counts is when a certain player peak, not If he is still dominating at 30, 32 og 37. Of course you can still dominate If the field is weak.I get your point, I am simply saying it is obvious. You are using the phrase "all time great." Yes, if an all time great player appears, they will start having all time great results.
Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned Kyrgios, because his case carries with it so much baggage, the discussion goes in a different direction.
So let's use Shapovalov then. You say he lacks certain skills. What explains that? Just unlucky that he lacks the natural talent of Federer? Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are just simply freakish talents that the world has never seen and will never see again? Maybe. But ask yourself, if they were born today into the current environment, would the develop into the freakish talents they did? Remember, their genetic advantages (freakish natural talent if you will) is identical. I'd say no. The current culture / environment wouldn't breed the Federer / Nadal / Djokovic we see today.
I don't think Thiem lacks fine motor skills. I think his technique is just too big swing based. I think he has the biggest swings I've ever seen. He has a decent slice and a pretty alright transitional and volley game. His movement is very good, but not in the leagues of the big 4, but his physical strength is brutal. Only guy I've seen at his height to serve in the 220s and do it easily. Instead he's stuck hitting ridulous kickers every time.With the hand-eye coordination and fine-motor skills of your average Russian bricklayer
I don't think Thiem lacks fine motor skills.
The ugly truth is that young guys doesnt stand a chance. When you have the whole top 100 running like rabbits till age 37-38 you can hardly do anything when being unexperienced. Benneteau is retiring, at 37, this year he made past the 1st round at all Slams. In vacuum he doesnt seems scary but guys like him are just the first roadblocks.
I think Fed is great. I do not think he is so much better than everyone else who has played the game that his late career victories are all about his royal GOATNESS and not as much about his team, his vast wealth and his priveleges.
That's an argument I did not make that I wish I did.I think Benneteau represents well one of the flaws in the argument that the top guys are still around because they're just THAT much better than everyone. There are still quite a few players of his calibre competing reasonably well at an age where they shouldn't be.
But I did.I didn't want to pedantically go through the history of music up until the current time.
That's the crux right there. I agree with your point.So talent that comes along into the wrong culture, never fully develops to the extent that it would have in a different culture that would have driven it.
[/quote]The current culture / environment wouldn't breed the Federer / Nadal / Djokovic we see today.
The question is: How much has that changed in the last 15 years, or over the last 4 or 5 decades? And what in your opinion has changed the balance of power in tennis?Not really true.
Most endurance sports have age peaks closer to 30, corresponding quite well to the current age trends of tennis. It's one of the athletic skills that peaks the latest. Explosiveness peaks earlier.
Little doubt that tennis has become a lot more endurance-intensive on the whole in the modern era. The athletic requirements are greater.
thiem is looking gorgeous
The question is: How much has that changed in the last 15 years, or over the last 4 or 5 decades? And what in your opinion has changed the balance of power in tennis?
It's a combination of diet, training and "other things" extending careers, combined with the younger guys being awful.
Time to mention again:
Thiem 25
Millman 29
Nishikori closer to 29 than 28
Delpo - almost 30
Cilic almost 30
Djokovic 31
Nadal 32
Isner 33
Do the math, then tell yourselves that this is only because the younger players are wimps. I've estimated that peaks have been extended by 2 to 3 years. I think this may turn out to be too conservative. It may now be close to 5 years.
It can't be slower courts, or poly, or any of these factors alone. Anything that allows players to run around longer, hit more balls, play more pong should logically favor younger players, as it did in the past.
The only logical explanation, no matter whether you like it or not, is that training and medicine is changing everything, giving older players a longer sweet spot to utilize their increasing understanding of the game, tactics, the mental aspect. A 30 year old in the same condition as a 24 year old should always win because of experience, knowledge. Youth used to trump everything, but no more.
Uhm I don’t think so....Federer was 24 not that long ago, Nadal even less and Djokovic just 7 years ago. I can tell you with certainty, no 30 year old was going to repeatedly outplay 2011 Djoker, 2010 Nadal or 2005/06 Federer.
Except the Big 3 have little to do with the failures of young players.Tough to break into a cartel like the Big 3 have enjoyed.
In yesteryear younger players adopted new technologies which allowed them to upset the older players.
With technology plateauing over the last 15 years the status quo is less prone to upset.
I also think the Big 3 are unequivocally the best ever to play the game.
How do you explain the rise of Isner and Anderson then?Exactly.
To believe the OP's argument, you'd have to believe that a 24 year old Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray wouldn't be able to break through now.
The more likely explanation is that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (pre-injury) are just so damn good that nobody can beat them. And certainly nobody can beat them back-to-back (to back), which is what is usually needed to win a Major.
But the OP does have a point. Federer should have declined / retired already. Nadal and Djokovic should be declining now, giving the younger players the window they need. But that's not happening. As he says, with better training (and medicine), careers are being extended. However, the most important factor is WHO'S career is being extended. All time greats. If these guys weren't so freakishly good, they'd still get overtaken by the younger players at their age anyway.
How do you feel about its spin-off, Better Call Saul?Yes, big one
I might make a thing of changing my profile depending on which TV series I'm binging
Tried to get into it twice, but not really feeling it. Also didn't like BB as much on the 3rd rewatch as during the first two times.How do you feel about its spin-off, Better Call Saul?
I enjoy BCS, even though its pacing is a bit slow. You basically get to see the making ot the BB universe.Tried to get into it twice, but not really feeling it. Also didn't like BB as much on the 3rd rewatch as during the first two times.
Thiem would be able to win GS titles in the 1990s decade. Even now he would have been a two-time RG champion, not to be resurected Nadal. He has the most chances to win the GS title from all current young players, but Bull is blocking him.Let's spin this around, which of the current crop of young players (say 20-25) would have had an ATG career if transported to either 90s or the 80s (when young slam champions were much more common)? Zverev, Thiem, Kyrgios, Poullie? How about from the previous gen of Dimitrov, Raonic and Nishikori?
What is stopping Raonic from being Sampras? Obvious massive gap in athleticism or said barriers/lack of privileges?
Let's talk in another 2-3 years. I'll be very happy to see that you are right, to see some young guys win again in majors, but I'd suggest you don't hold your breath. The whole wristy forehand thing explains guys like Sock and Kyrgios, and a few others - also Tiafoe - but it doesn't explain why many other players aren't taking home trophies.
At this point denying longer playing careers in almost all sports is a bit like saying that our climate is not getting warmer. I'm not talking about why, just saying that most people do not expect it to reverse.
The ugly truth is that young guys doesnt stand a chance. When you have the whole top 100 running like rabbits till age 37-38 you can hardly do anything when being unexperienced. Benneteau is retiring, at 37, this year he made past the 1st round at all Slams. In vacuum he doesnt seems scary but guys like him are just the first roadblocks. You have someone like Verdasco waiting in 2nd-3rd rounds, Berdych-Cilic in the R16-QF, Del Potro in the SF and the final roadblocks - possibly the greatest four guys in history of tennis who have done it all ... hundreds of times. + the ATP is cashing big loads of money on them, if their is slight chance to help them within the bounds of rules(like scheduling) they would do it.
In each round young guys are met by seasoned veterans with at least 10 years behind, imagine how you felt in the first day of your work .... now imagine after 10 years. Someone like DImitrov is mentally weak but thats partly because he couldnt snatch big victories, tournaments early in his career. If he had won Master/Slam by 22 the story could have been a lot different. Now, after being beated multiple times by the Big 4, his spirt is just broken ..