Anybody else not excited by tennis anymore?

[Dolgopolov85]

Berdych has certainly declined. He used to be a constant fixture in the top 10. Now he is no.18 and hasn't been top 10 for more than a year. Tsonga has also declined. Both players used to be dangerous second tier players when they were younger. Now they are irrelevant.

As for Wawrinka and Delpo, here are my explanations:

Wawrinka never really had a prime before 2013. He was mostly a journeyman who couldn't put a dent in the dominance of the top players. He didn't and still doesn't have much mileage since he wasn't relevant in the biggest tournament. I doubt he would have still been as good in his later years if he had started winning big at a significantly younger age.

Delpo has had his prime years stolen by various injuries. So he also doesn't have much mileage on him since for many years he was sidelined.

With Berdych, I would say he still fairly gets up for the slams. Has lost to Fed in three of the last five slams failing which he might have gotten deeper in the draw. I don't disagree with your explanations for Wawrinka and Delpo but my point is we can't just look at players' age and say, "Oh, look, the young ones aren't able to dislodge oldies." It's not quite that simple. Again, if Agassi was able to win the AO at nearly 33, what's the big deal about Fedal's success? They are fitter and move better than him. I don't really agree with the reasoning that compares a Lendl being eased out with Fedal running the table in their 30s. How many past greats had to play a 14 slam champion in a slam final? Fed was in that situation that last year and it's entirely unprecedented. We have never had two players who both have surpassed the previous slam record playing in tandem. So it's going to take a lot to dislodge them. And since they are still playing brilliantly, why not just celebrate their brilliance while it lasts?

 

[tenisdecente]

Come on, this is not rocket science. The current tour sucks, I would laugh even harder if peak versions of Nadal and Federer would be in this era. It would be so pathetic and laughable at the same time

 

[cc0509]

No, McEnroe also declined early because he had no interest in building up his endurance. Sampras had thallassemia. Agassi had debilitating injuries and besides wasn't in the same league of greatness as Fedal so where's the comparison? When you have two of the greatest players of all time still fighting for the slam record, it IS going to be very hard to dislodge them. Why does anybody find this surprising? Forget his age, did Nadal actually look slow and were his shots weak at MC? Yeah, didn't think so.

The point is that they all had younger people challenging them. They were all ATGs, no worse than Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. The reason the younger players aren't dislodging Fedalovic isn't due to the fact that Fedalovic are so much better than past ATGs(that's ridiculous) but it's because the younger players aren't good enough, motivated enough, etc. It's really that simple. Fedalovic must be scratching their heads in disbelief that the younger players aren't doing what THEY did years ago to aging players, i.e. challenge those aging players.

 

[cc0509]

Except Mac and Lendl were contemporaries.

Yes, that's true and Lendl was probably a bad example but Lendl was challenging McEnroe and prevented him from winning slams. But the point is that there were also players younger than McEnroe who were challenging him, i.e. Becker, Agassi, etc.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

The point is that they all had younger people challenging them. They were all ATGs, no worse than Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. The reason the younger players aren't dislodging Fedalovic isn't due to the fact that Fedalovic are so much better than past ATGs(that's ridiculous) but it's because the younger players aren't good enough, motivated enough, etc. It's really that simple. Fedalovic must be scratching their heads in disbelief that the younger players aren't doing what THEY did years ago to aging players, i.e. challenge those aging players.

So after all these years on TT, you've never heard of Tier-1, Tier-2 etc? At the end of 201, Fedalovic already had 17, 14 and 12 slams respectively. You will have to explain to me how that is not significantly better than Lendl/Connors/McEnroe/Becker/Edberg/Wilander/Agassi. Only Borg is in the ballpark of Nadalovic and Sampras in the ballpark of Fedal. Borg ran away way early from tennis so it's not at all clear he had already won the last slam he possibly could have. As for Sampras, he already had the slam record and had been running on fumes for quite a while so he had lost the motivation to keep playing. Had he taken care of his body and also had somebody chasing him rather than Agassi chasing crystal meth, maybe Sampras would have played longer and added more slams too. Lastly, from McEnroe to Becker was a big transition from wood to graphite which badly affected McEnroe and likewise from gut to poly during Sampras to Safin-Hewitt-Fed. There has also been no comparable shift in equipment that benefits the younger players. So it's not at all surprising that they can't break through. What exactly did Fedal do to aging players by the way? There were only two real ATGs in the 90s - Sampras and Agassi. Agassi was already 33 when Fed began beating him and Sampras played Fed once and lost in 5 sets before retiring. Neither of Fedal actually pushed ATGs into retirement. If this were true, Agassi wouldn't have hung around till 2006 when his back finally forced him to retire.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Come on, this is not rocket science. The current tour sucks, I would laugh even harder if peak versions of Nadal and Federer would be in this era. It would be so pathetic and laughable at the same time

They would mop up even harder lol. There STILL is no next-gen. I know we call them that, but they aren't really.

 

[Shank Volley]

They would mop up even harder lol. There STILL is no next-gen. I know we call them that, but they aren't really.

I still think Nishikori could have done something big if he didn't also have bones made out of chalk and tissue paper where his tendons should be. He has all the shots and the consistency off the ground that's king in the game these days.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Seriously, it's becoming uninteresting to watch now. I've barely watched any matches this year. I cannot be the only one who feels this way, players are either always injured or getting old.
Even this week I knew Rafa would walk MC; lo-and-behold, he did. The next few months are pretty predictable- Rafa to eat up all the clay titles and Roger the grass titles.
And don't get me started on the NextGen players man, they're all pathetic. What happened to Shapovalov? - He was supposed to be the next big thing after Montreal next year and now I have barely heard his name mentioned since. Zverev-LOL, this guy can't even get to the second week of a slam, can't get past Nishikori (after being a set up ffs,) plays some of the most robotic and uninspiring tennis I have ever seen and he is somehow #4 in the world.
Andy and Novak are already finito so it's all downhill after Fed and Rafa move on, folks. Enjoy them while you can.

From an ATP standpoint, at the start of the year I was really excited, but once the Australian Open started, we found out that so many of the top guys were still injured from last season. Djokovic, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori etc. etc were all out or compromised with injury.

I think big credit has to go to Del Potro, his level through Indian Wells and Miami really helped to carry momentum when it was looking like there was a real vacuum at the top.

Right now? I am really excited by tennis again. Nadal is fit again, Djokovic is starting to play better, Nishikori is nearly back to his best, and we even have Wawrinka starting to feel more comfortable in his comeback.

We've got everyone back and playing. After a slow start it's starting to really look like the real deal again.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I still think Nishikori could have done something big if he didn't also have bones made out of chalk and tissue paper where his tendons should be. He has all the shots and the consistency off the ground that's king in the game these days.

#Nissin-kori

 

[Mainad]

From an ATP standpoint, at the start of the year I was really excited, but once the Australian Open started, we found out that so many of the top guys were still injured from last season. Djokovic, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori etc. etc were all out or compromised with injury.

I think big credit has to go to Del Potro, his level through Indian Wells and Miami really helped to carry momentum when it was looking like there was a real vacuum at the top.

Right now? I am really excited by tennis again. Nadal is fit again, Djokovic is starting to play better, Nishikori is nearly back to his best, and we even have Wawrinka starting to feel more comfortable in his comeback.

We've got everyone back and playing. After a slow start it's starting to really look like the real deal again.

You know very well we haven't so why are you conspicuously avoiding mentioning him?

 

[Gary Duane]

There has also been no comparable shift in equipment that benefits the younger players. So it's not at all surprising that they can't break through.

Things have stabilized re equipment, and medicine/science is giving a huge boost to aging players.

We have to see what happens as other players reach around age 30, to see if THEY get challenged by younger players.

But to be honest I am very bored with what is going on right now. It's stagnant.

 

[vbranis]

All I can add to this is that we were extremely fortunate to witness the Fedalovic era (and the Sampras/Agassi era for that matter) and it is very very difficult to see 1, 2, or 3 players totally dominate the game to such an extent in the future. Doesn't mean it isn't possible, but it's highly unlikely. I think many of us got spoiled and came to expect similar future superstars, but the fact is that what these guys were able to achieve is mindbogglingly difficult.

Once these guys retire, the ATP will be where the WTA is today. Slamless #1's and guys outside the top 10 frequently winning major titles. Sort of what happened around 2001-2004.

 

[zagor]

So after all these years on TT, you've never heard of Tier-1, Tier-2 etc? At the end of 201, Fedalovic already had 17, 14 and 12 slams respectively. You will have to explain to me how that is not significantly better than Lendl/Connors/McEnroe/Becker/Edberg/Wilander/Agassi. Only Borg is in the ballpark of Nadalovic and Sampras in the ballpark of Fedal. Borg ran away way early from tennis so it's not at all clear he had already won the last slam he possibly could have. As for Sampras, he already had the slam record and had been running on fumes for quite a while so he had lost the motivation to keep playing. Had he taken care of his body and also had somebody chasing him rather than Agassi chasing crystal meth, maybe Sampras would have played longer and added more slams too. Lastly, from McEnroe to Becker was a big transition from wood to graphite which badly affected McEnroe and likewise from gut to poly during Sampras to Safin-Hewitt-Fed. There has also been no comparable shift in equipment that benefits the younger players. So it's not at all surprising that they can't break through. What exactly did Fedal do to aging players by the way? There were only two real ATGs in the 90s - Sampras and Agassi. Agassi was already 33 when Fed began beating him and Sampras played Fed once and lost in 5 sets before retiring. Neither of Fedal actually pushed ATGs into retirement. If this were true, Agassi wouldn't have hung around till 2006 when his back finally forced him to retire.

Comparing achievements across different eras is iffy just because the tour was structured differently in the past. Borg didn't have "only" 11 slams because he retired yong but also because AO wasn't even as important as today's masters. 6 of Fed and Novak's slam count came at AO, Borg's best result there was R3 because something like Rome masters was 10 times more important at the time. Sampras could have switched to a bigger stick and re-dedicated himself to the game but would that lead into more slam victories? Remember, young Fed was maturing fast in the next few years and Safin and Hewitt were still hanging around until 2006, he'd have young opposition to stop him.

For a moment if you remove Fedal who exactly from the younger crowd stands out? Is it Dimitrov with his double-faulting woes and mental midgetry in big matches (and let's be honest, no stand-out weapons), Zverev who can't beat a top 50 player in a slam, Kyrgios who barely trains and has a terrible attitude (and no, he doesn't have McEnroe level talent), Thiem who has a point construction of a 15 year old, Nishikori who can't play two tourneys in a row without getting injured and mopes around the court when playing big names, Raonic who has poor athleticism and serve which too often abandons him in big matches etc. You see those guys as multiple slam winners in an earlier era (without the big 3 boogeymen which are rignt now down to 2)? I really don't, they're about Todd Martin level of players to me, at best.

Do you think any of them capable of a Safin 2000 USO F performance? Remember, Sampras lost one set (and that to his nemesis, Krajieck) on his way to the final that year. Or prevailing over Sampras in a 2001 type Wimbledon match, who of them is capable of displaying such consistent serving level and mental focus for 5 sets on grass (and remember, Fed was the flaky one of his peer group at the time). Sampras was past his best already but he was no frail old man in either of those matches, he was still tough to beat when he showed up. Do you see any of them having 1/10th the competitive fire of Hewitt who was already challenging Sampras and Agassi as a 17 year old?

No new equipment shifts, Fedal being amazing players with never-ending dedication locked in a slam race, better injury treatments etc, notwithstanding yonger players should be doing better against them and in general for my money. It wasn't that long that an ATG in genuine prime form was shellacking the beejezus ouf of both of Fedal, very much exposing the diminished aspects of their games. I personally believe a young group with the talent of grit of many secondary era players (Courier, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Safin, Hewitt etc.) would be making their presence known far more than today's young guns (well more like firecrackers and water pistols). Ditto for a guy like Murray who's stuck in-between them and ATGs.

 

[metsman]

Comparing achievements across different eras is iffy just because the tour was structured differently in the past. Borg didn't have "only" 11 slams because he retired yong but also because AO wasn't even as important as today's masters. 6 of Fed and Novak's slam count came at AO, Borg's best result there was R3 because something like Rome masters was 10 times more important at the time. Sampras could have switched to a bigger stick and re-dedicated himself to the game but would that lead into more slam victories? Remember, young Fed was maturing fast in the next few years and Safin and Hewitt were still hanging around until 2006, he'd have young opposition to stop him.

For a moment if you remove Fedal who exactly from the younger crowd stands out? Is it Dimitrov with his double-faulting woes and mental midgetry in big matches (and let's be honest, no stand-out weapons), Zverev who can't beat a top 50 player in a slam, Kyrgios who barely trains and has a terrible attitude (and no, he doesn't have McEnroe level talent), Thiem who has a point construction of a 15 year old, Nishikori who can't play two tourneys in a row without getting injured and mopes around the court when playing big names, Raonic who has poor athleticism and serve which too often abandons him in big matches etc. You see those guys as multiple slam winners in an earlier era (without the big 3 boogeymen which are rignt now down to 2)? I really don't, they're about Todd Martin level of players to me, at best.

Do you think any of them capable of a Safin 2000 USO F performance? Remember, Sampras lost one set (and that to his nemesis, Krajieck) on his way to the final that year. Or prevailing over Sampras in a 2001 type Wimbledon match, who of them is capable of displaying such consistent serving level and mental focus for 5 sets on grass (and remember, Fed was the flaky one of his peer group at the time). Sampras was past his best already but he was no frail old man in either of those matches, he was still tough to beat when he showed up. Do you see any of them having 1/10th the competitive fire of Hewitt who was already challenging Sampras and Agassi as a 17 year old?

No new equipment shifts, Fedal being amazing players with never-ending dedication locked in a slam race, better injury treatments etc, notwithstanding yonger players should be doing better against them and in general for my money. It wasn't that long that an ATG in genuine prime form was shellacking the beejezus ouf of both of Fedal, very much exposing the diminished aspects of their games. I personally believe a young group with the talent of grit of many secondary era players (Courier, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Safin, Hewitt etc.) would be making their presence known far more than today's young guns (well more like firecrackers and water pistols). Ditto for a guy like Murray who's stuck in-between them and ATGs.

A 20 year old del Potro was taking it to a much better version of Federer and even after a million surgeries still gives him his toughest battles, but somehow these "young guns" just have it way too tough.

 

[Subway Tennis]

You know very well we haven't so why are you conspicuously avoiding mentioning him?

Not intentional, Mainad. You're right I should have included Murray in this list also. I was actually listening to a podcast the other night that mentioned he may make a return in Glasgow alongside Dan Evans - Murray can be beastly on clay and I wish he too were out there. Looking forward to the comeback, and hoping he is back in time for U.S. hardcourt season.

 

[Bartelby]

They built up the mystique of the big four so much that now they no longer really compete against each other it is all a bit of an anti-climax.

 

[zagor]

A 20 year old del Potro was taking it to a much better version of Federer and even after a million surgeries still gives him his toughest battles, but somehow these "young guns" just have it way too tough.

Yep, I think what is lost in all these complex rationalizations and analysis about the modern tennis era (the game is too physical, Fedal are exceptional, no major equpment shifts, etc. etc.) is that at the end of the day you either have the game and grit to back it up or you don't, that holds true for every era regardless of anything else. Delpo has both and managed to display it despite a very limited window of opportunity to do so, was only 20 too (so none of this today's game is too physical, the players peak later mumbo-jumbo).

Am I honestly to believe that Dimitrov and Thiem would have somehow ended up being tennis powerhouses if they grew up in the 90s or 80s without Fedal holding them down? They're era fillers, Piolines and Todd Martins at best (and I'm probably underseling those two in this comparison).

 

[Dolgopolov85]

A 20 year old del Potro was taking it to a much better version of Federer and even after a million surgeries still gives him his toughest battles, but somehow these "young guns" just have it way too tough.

But the fact that Delpo with all his talent (or Wawrinka for that matter) has lost the vast majority of his matches against Fedalovic show also that the bar has been raised. If it's tough even for these two or Cilic, where does that leave other players?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Comparing achievements across different eras is iffy just because the tour was structured differently in the past. Borg didn't have "only" 11 slams because he retired yong but also because AO wasn't even as important as today's masters. 6 of Fed and Novak's slam count came at AO, Borg's best result there was R3 because something like Rome masters was 10 times more important at the time. Sampras could have switched to a bigger stick and re-dedicated himself to the game but would that lead into more slam victories? Remember, young Fed was maturing fast in the next few years and Safin and Hewitt were still hanging around until 2006, he'd have young opposition to stop him.

For a moment if you remove Fedal who exactly from the younger crowd stands out? Is it Dimitrov with his double-faulting woes and mental midgetry in big matches (and let's be honest, no stand-out weapons), Zverev who can't beat a top 50 player in a slam, Kyrgios who barely trains and has a terrible attitude (and no, he doesn't have McEnroe level talent), Thiem who has a point construction of a 15 year old, Nishikori who can't play two tourneys in a row without getting injured and mopes around the court when playing big names, Raonic who has poor athleticism and serve which too often abandons him in big matches etc. You see those guys as multiple slam winners in an earlier era (without the big 3 boogeymen which are rignt now down to 2)? I really don't, they're about Todd Martin level of players to me, at best.

Do you think any of them capable of a Safin 2000 USO F performance? Remember, Sampras lost one set (and that to his nemesis, Krajieck) on his way to the final that year. Or prevailing over Sampras in a 2001 type Wimbledon match, who of them is capable of displaying such consistent serving level and mental focus for 5 sets on grass (and remember, Fed was the flaky one of his peer group at the time). Sampras was past his best already but he was no frail old man in either of those matches, he was still tough to beat when he showed up. Do you see any of them having 1/10th the competitive fire of Hewitt who was already challenging Sampras and Agassi as a 17 year old?

No new equipment shifts, Fedal being amazing players with never-ending dedication locked in a slam race, better injury treatments etc, notwithstanding yonger players should be doing better against them and in general for my money. It wasn't that long that an ATG in genuine prime form was shellacking the beejezus ouf of both of Fedal, very much exposing the diminished aspects of their games. I personally believe a young group with the talent of grit of many secondary era players (Courier, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Safin, Hewitt etc.) would be making their presence known far more than today's young guns (well more like firecrackers and water pistols). Ditto for a guy like Murray who's stuck in-between them and ATGs.

The problem is when you combine secondary talents of different eras, it looks like a big number when it isn't. Between Delpo, Cilic and Wawrinka, the three non Big Four winners have won only 5 slams between them over 9 years from 2009 to date. That's not a lot.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Yep, I think what is lost in all these complex rationalizations and analysis about the modern tennis era (the game is too physical, Fedal are exceptional, no major equpment shifts, etc. etc.) is that at the end of the day you either have the game and grit to back it up or you don't, that holds true for every era regardless of anything else. Delpo has both and managed to display it despite a very limited window of opportunity to do so, was only 20 too (so none of this today's game is too physical, the players peak later mumbo-jumbo).

Am I honestly to believe that Dimitrov and Thiem would have somehow ended up being tennis powerhouses if they grew up in the 90s or 80s without Fedal holding them down? They're era fillers, Piolines and Todd Martins at best (and I'm probably underseling those two in this comparison).

Delpo was also 20 back when USO still played fast. If not as fast as when it was green, at least a good deal faster than in the last couple of years. Not only did extreme homogenisation kill variety but it has done irreparable damage to the game. A whole generation of players have been trained to play an extreme topspin grinding game but they can't grind as well as Nadal while Fed is not bothered by it anyway. So if you did speed up the courts, it would take a long time to create a new generation of fast court specialists all over again. I think Fed was kind of asking that question in his semi drunk rant post Wimbledon. Net skills have suffered so badly that even when conditions favour net play, the young generation can't exploit it to their advantage. Yes, I don't disagree that the likes of Thiem are filler talents at best but we have had transitional eras before. Basically from the mid 90s all the way to the arrival of Fedalovic staggered over a few years. That whole period did not produce any ATGs. You did get slam winners but they were aided by the still diverse conditions.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

I just don't understand why people want a handful of players to rise above everyone else. In the interest of competition, I don't like it when a handful of players win everything.

 

[toby55555]

Seldom get as excited but then in the old days I only had access to what the BBC showed namely Wimbledon and Queens so it was more of an event. Now I can watch any day of the year it has to be an exceptional match to catch my attention or Davis Cup ties with their special atmosphere,

 

[tenisdecente]

The young guys suck, there is not a lot of analysis needed to arrive to that conclusion

 

[zagor]

The problem is when you combine secondary talents of different eras, it looks like a big number when it isn't. Between Delpo, Cilic and Wawrinka, the three non Big Four winners have won only 5 slams between them over 9 years from 2009 to date. That's not a lot.

Yeah, I can see that it came off that way but I didn't mean to group them (those are two separate generations, 90s and 2000s minus the heavyweights), was just listing those secondary great players of recent eras which I believe are still a cut above Raonics and Dimitrovs of the world.

My point is that oftentimes people say that you can't expect the generation that follows up the big 3 to live up to the same standards but I don't consider them to be even as good as the Changs and Roddick's of the world (let alone Courier or Murray). That really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Delpo was also 20 back when USO still played fast. If not as fast as when it was green, at least a good deal faster than in the last couple of years. Not only did extreme homogenisation kill variety but it has done irreparable damage to the game. A whole generation of players have been trained to play an extreme topspin grinding game but they can't grind as well as Nadal while Fed is not bothered by it anyway. So if you did speed up the courts, it would take a long time to create a new generation of fast court specialists all over again. I think Fed was kind of asking that question in his semi drunk rant post Wimbledon. Net skills have suffered so badly that even when conditions favour net play, the young generation can't exploit it to their advantage. Yes, I don't disagree that the likes of Thiem are filler talents at best but we have had transitional eras before. Basically from the mid 90s all the way to the arrival of Fedalovic staggered over a few years. That whole period did not produce any ATGs. You did get slam winners but they were aided by the still diverse conditions.

That is a good point, I do think that a lot of the current situation is just the ATP/ITF sleeping in the bed they've made. It's a nasty side effect of slowing down and homogenizing surfaces, no younger player was even interested in building up a complete all-court game or even an aggressive baseline game (look at the guy like Zverev who insists on grinding despite being almost 2 meters tall).

We've had transitional eras before but even the lackluster gen of the late 90s produced a phenomen on clay courts like Guga, we've now had almost two whole generations of pretty hopeless young players.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

The young guys suck, there is not a lot of analysis needed to arrive to that conclusion

They might suck compared to Fed and Rafa and such, but that doesn't mean they're not good to watch.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

They might suck compared to Fed and Rafa and such, but that doesn't mean they're not good to watch.

Shapo is the only one that I enjoy watching.

Maybe it’s just me but the rest are boring.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

Shapo is the only one that I enjoy watching.

Maybe it’s just me but the rest are boring.

Tsitsipas?
Lee Duck-hee?
Kyrgios?
Come on, dude.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Tsitsipas?
Lee Duck-hee?
Kyrgios?
Come on, dude.

Tsistspas is alright, he’s certainly not boring but not exciting imo.
Who?
Kyrgios is magnificent to watch when he’s playing well, on form, and he’s not tanking, which is sadly a rarity.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

Tsistspas is alright, he’s certainly not boring but not exciting imo.
Who?
Kyrgios is magnificent to watch when he’s playing well, on form, and he’s not tanking, which is sadly a rarity.

Lee Duck-hee is a rising South Korean player who is totally deaf. He mostly plays Challengers for now, but I think he'll make his breakthrough into the 250s and 500s soon.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Lee Duck-hee is a rising South Korean player who is totally deaf. He mostly plays Challengers for now, but I think he'll make his breakthrough into the 250s and 500s soon.

Is there a boom for tennis going on in South Korea? Or am I just saying that because I now know two Asian players of the same nationality?

 

[tenisdecente]

They might suck compared to Fed and Rafa and such, but that doesn't mean they're not good to watch.

Dude, most of them not even challenge Federer or Nadal in slams. Nadal lost against Cilic in the Australian Open! They dont even reach semifinals of a Grand Slam LMAO

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I just don't understand why people want a handful of players to rise above everyone else. In the interest of competition, I don't like it when a handful of players win everything.

Well, a handful rising above the rest is what makes the competition intense. If anybody in say the top 50 could beat each other on a given day, it gets too random. But if the guy ranked 25 has to play out of his skin to beat a top 10 guy, it creates excitement BECAUSE you don't expect the former to beat the latter.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

We've had transitional eras before but even the lackluster gen of the late 90s produced a phenomen on clay courts like Guga, we've now had almost two whole generations of pretty hopeless young players.

Well, we did have Wawrinka who would probably have won more than just the one RG without Nadal to contend with. I still think the bar has overall been set high. Somebody like Berasatagui could reach an RG final with just a forehand (albeit what a forehand!). That sort of thing cannot happen anymore. The ATP requires players to be too complete even to get to the final of a GS and all this has happened even as the new ones have prioritised baseline grinding above everything else. The only exception in recent times was Raonic and he would have lost in the semis had Fed not been struggling with injury. I have hopes from Chung on clay but even he will have to wait for Nadal to decline quite dramatically on clay and it feels unfair because it wasn't so tough before for a new player to break through on clay.

 

[sportmac]

Well, we did have Wawrinka who would probably have won more than just the one RG without Nadal to contend with. I still think the bar has overall been set high. Somebody like Berasatagui could reach an RG final with just a forehand (albeit what a forehand!). That sort of thing cannot happen anymore. The ATP requires players to be too complete even to get to the final of a GS and all this has happened even as the new ones have prioritised baseline grinding above everything else. The only exception in recent times was Raonic and he would have lost in the semis had Fed not been struggling with injury. I have hopes from Chung on clay but even he will have to wait for Nadal to decline quite dramatically on clay and it feels unfair because it wasn't so tough before for a new player to break through on clay.

I forgot all about Berasatagui. What a forehand indeed. That was back when there were dirt ball specialists who mostly avoided anything else.

 

[Ray Mercer]

I just don't understand why people want a handful of players to rise above everyone else. In the interest of competition, I don't like it when a handful of players win everything.

I understand this but you should always want upcoming all time great talents. There are currently no all time great upcoming players. Djokovic and Nadal were the last upcoming all time great players. Federer would have damn near 40 slams without these two.

 

[Steve0904]

Tennis is star power driven. It never works for long if you have a bunch of different, average players winning everything. Or I should say, tennis is the type of sport that's better off having at least one star than none at all.

You could say the same for all sports, yes, but tennis is also a singular sport so it relies on star power more I'd say.

 

[mike danny]

So after all these years on TT, you've never heard of Tier-1, Tier-2 etc? At the end of 201, Fedalovic already had 17, 14 and 12 slams respectively. You will have to explain to me how that is not significantly better than Lendl/Connors/McEnroe/Becker/Edberg/Wilander/Agassi. Only Borg is in the ballpark of Nadalovic and Sampras in the ballpark of Fedal. Borg ran away way early from tennis so it's not at all clear he had already won the last slam he possibly could have. As for Sampras, he already had the slam record and had been running on fumes for quite a while so he had lost the motivation to keep playing. Had he taken care of his body and also had somebody chasing him rather than Agassi chasing crystal meth, maybe Sampras would have played longer and added more slams too. Lastly, from McEnroe to Becker was a big transition from wood to graphite which badly affected McEnroe and likewise from gut to poly during Sampras to Safin-Hewitt-Fed. There has also been no comparable shift in equipment that benefits the younger players. So it's not at all surprising that they can't break through. What exactly did Fedal do to aging players by the way? There were only two real ATGs in the 90s - Sampras and Agassi. Agassi was already 33 when Fed began beating him and Sampras played Fed once and lost in 5 sets before retiring. Neither of Fedal actually pushed ATGs into retirement. If this were true, Agassi wouldn't have hung around till 2006 when his back finally forced him to retire.

True.

However, at least Agassi had a young ATG to compete against. Fedal have no one right now.

And Sampras at least was beaten in GS finals by young players when he was just 29-30. Do you see any of the current young players beat Fedal in a slam final?

 

[metsman]

But the fact that Delpo with all his talent (or Wawrinka for that matter) has lost the vast majority of his matches against Fedalovic show also that the bar has been raised. If it's tough even for these two or Cilic, where does that leave other players?

so we can't hope for a single young player in 10 years even close to Delpo, or even worse, Cilic? Which other period in tennis history has not had a young player better than Delpo?

 

[Simon_the_furry]

Well, a handful rising above the rest is what makes the competition intense. If anybody in say the top 50 could beat each other on a given day, it gets too random. But if the guy ranked 25 has to play out of his skin to beat a top 10 guy, it creates excitement BECAUSE you don't expect the former to beat the latter.

That's true, I had not considered that.

 

[Sudacafan]

Seriously, it's becoming uninteresting to watch now. I've barely watched any matches this year. I cannot be the only one who feels this way, players are either always injured or getting old.
Even this week I knew Rafa would walk MC; lo-and-behold, he did. The next few months are pretty predictable- Rafa to eat up all the clay titles and Roger the grass titles.
And don't get me started on the NextGen players man, they're all pathetic. What happened to Shapovalov? - He was supposed to be the next big thing after Montreal next year and now I have barely heard his name mentioned since. Zverev-LOL, this guy can't even get to the second week of a slam, can't get past Nishikori (after being a set up ffs,) plays some of the most robotic and uninspiring tennis I have ever seen and he is somehow #4 in the world.
Andy and Novak are already finito so it's all downhill after Fed and Rafa move on, folks. Enjoy them while you can.

And you forgot to mention Isner...

 

[Charleneriva]

Tennis in general has been in a dire state for quite a while, not just right now. I'm surely happy for Fedal but a part of me has been feeling rather flat and bored just like any of you. The other, bigger part however doesn't want to complain too much. It does something instead.

It's simple. I follow the youngsters (many thanks to @stringertom and @Meles) and watch a modest - decent amount of their play, as well as eagerly welcome any comeback player. I was very pleased with Nishikori reaching the Monte-Carlo final since I watched him closely and though it was a bit time consuming, it was worth it.

I now even anticipate Novak's matches just as much as, if not a tad more, Fedal matches - and that's really something. When Stan and especially Murray are back, I'm sure I'll try my best to watch them as much as I can. Just my humble way of supporting them and tennis as well as showing my gratitude for how much great tennis they have entertained and moved me over the years. It's not just about winning or losing or who your favourite is, which game style excites you the most etc. for me.

As for the youngsters, many of you may not like them or most of them (despite not even watching them ), but they are still undeniably the future of tennis. There's no way of getting around it. I'd rather try to be patient and prepare myself than complain about and judge them at every chance I've got.

Better for me to spend time watching them and reading the news for real to know what they're up to - so when the changing of guard really happens, I'll have a decent idea about the current state of tennis and won't feel "empty" and most of all "mourn" for the departure of my favourites. I'll surely miss them A LOT but as great as they are and no matter how big a part of the game they have been, they are NOT the game.

For now, I think it's more about how the tour is being organised and how they've been teaching the game to the kids than why the current crop and LostGen haven't been able to dethrone the "geriatrics" - pretty special geriatrics those are - yet.

 

[stringertom]

Cheer up everybody! It seems we will have this guy around for a long while to entertain the mA.S.Ses:

 

[Meles]

Seriously, it's becoming uninteresting to watch now. I've barely watched any matches this year. I cannot be the only one who feels this way, players are either always injured or getting old.
Even this week I knew Rafa would walk MC; lo-and-behold, he did. The next few months are pretty predictable- Rafa to eat up all the clay titles and Roger the grass titles.
And don't get me started on the NextGen players man, they're all pathetic. What happened to Shapovalov? - He was supposed to be the next big thing after Montreal next year and now I have barely heard his name mentioned since. Zverev-LOL, this guy can't even get to the second week of a slam, can't get past Nishikori (after being a set up ffs,) plays some of the most robotic and uninspiring tennis I have ever seen and he is somehow #4 in the world.
Andy and Novak are already finito so it's all downhill after Fed and Rafa move on, folks. Enjoy them while you can.

 

[Meles]

Seriously, it's becoming uninteresting to watch now. I've barely watched any matches this year. I cannot be the only one who feels this way, players are either always injured or getting old.
Even this week I knew Rafa would walk MC; lo-and-behold, he did. The next few months are pretty predictable- Rafa to eat up all the clay titles and Roger the grass titles.
And don't get me started on the NextGen players man, they're all pathetic. What happened to Shapovalov? - He was supposed to be the next big thing after Montreal next year and now I have barely heard his name mentioned since. Zverev-LOL, this guy can't even get to the second week of a slam, can't get past Nishikori (after being a set up ffs,) plays some of the most robotic and uninspiring tennis I have ever seen and he is somehow #4 in the world.
Andy and Novak are already finito so it's all downhill after Fed and Rafa move on, folks. Enjoy them while you can.

The prospects are pretty drool worthy right now. What you are experiencing is the pathetic LostGen players who are a 0.0 on clay save Goffin. Your expectations are quite unrealistic. The talent pipeline is extremely solid right now:
1. Auger Alliasime - still just 17
2. Shapovalov - just turned 19
3. De Minaur - just turned 19 (Goffin 2.0)
3. Tstitsipas - still just 19 (Amazing talent on clay)
4. Tiafoe - just turned 20 and won ATP 250
4. Rublev - 20 (won ATP event)
5. Fritz - 20
6. Zverev - 21
7. Chung - 21
8. Coric - 21
9. Special K's - 22&23 (injury riddled)
10. Pouille - 24
11. Thiem -24

The problem right now for NextGen is most are not Euro clay courters, so FAA, Shaps, De Minaur, Tiafoe, Rublev, Fritz, Chung, and special K's are just not going to take to clay quickly. Rublev won on clay so there is hope for him. On clay you have Thiem, Pouille, Coric, Zverev, and Tsitsipas who are a very promising group. Coric and Rublev hit Thiem and Djoko first match in Monte Carlo so they've failed to launch so far on clay. Summer will be good again for most of the NextGen. Draws are a bit messed up right now as rankings in transition.

 

[Ruark]

I like the ladies game.

Actually, I do find myself watching the top women players more and more now.

 

[insideguy]

Actually, I do find myself watching the top women players more and more now.

Its really nothing against Nadal. Clay was always kinda boring to me. But with the ladies at least its not nearly as predictable. Well the ladies game in general isn't. I just can't watch Nadal just waltz through these people day after day. I don't find that interesting at all.

 

[metsman]

The prospects are pretty drool worthy right now. What you are experiencing is the pathetic LostGen players who are a 0.0 on clay save Goffin. Your expectations are quite unrealistic. The talent pipeline is extremely solid right now:
1. Auger Alliasime - still just 17
2. Shapovalov - just turned 19
3. De Minaur - just turned 19 (Goffin 2.0)
3. Tstitsipas - still just 19 (Amazing talent on clay)
4. Tiafoe - just turned 20 and won ATP 250
4. Rublev - 20 (won ATP event)
5. Fritz - 20
6. Zverev - 21
7. Chung - 21
8. Coric - 21
9. Special K's - 22&23 (injury riddled)
10. Pouille - 24
11. Thiem -24

The problem right now for NextGen is most are not Euro clay courters, so FAA, Shaps, De Minaur, Tiafoe, Rublev, Fritz, Chung, and special K's are just not going to take to clay quickly. Rublev won on clay so there is hope for him. On clay you have Thiem, Pouille, Coric, Zverev, and Tsitsipas who are a very promising group. Coric and Rublev hit Thiem and Djoko first match in Monte Carlo so they've failed to launch so far on clay. Summer will be good again for most of the NextGen. Draws are a bit messed up right now as rankings in transition.

Goffin 2.0 is one of the most promising youngsters? With Poullie, Zverev, and Thiem showing zero improvement in the past year? And then the two Americans struggling to break the top 50? What a golden age of tennis we're about to enter

 

[Meles]

Goffin 2.0 is one of the most promising youngsters? With Poullie, Zverev, and Thiem showing zero improvement in the past year? And then the two Americans struggling to break the top 50? What a golden age of tennis we're about to enter

Pouille is ranked 10th, but agree he's not lighting things up and not much more upside. Zedrot with a final and SF in last two masters is set to vacuum up the points the rest of the year despite some pretty sorry serving (he'll be #2 seed at Madrid). Thiem has shown a lot of improvement, but the recent injury has clouded his immediate future. Fritz isn't struggling and finally has come out of his marital funk. We'll see what Mighty Foe does the rest of the year, but knocking off Delpo this year is a quality win. De Minaur had some injury issues, but made a quality run at the Alicante challenger and the loss to Andujar not looking so bad in hindsight.

 

[Meles]

Tennis in general has been in a dire state for quite a while, not just right now. I'm surely happy for Fedal but a part of me has been feeling rather flat and bored just like any of you. The other, bigger part however doesn't want to complain too much. It does something instead.

It's simple. I follow the youngsters (many thanks to @stringertom and @Meles) and watch a modest - decent amount of their play, as well as eagerly welcome any comeback player. I was very pleased with Nishikori reaching the Monte-Carlo final since I watched him closely and though it was a bit time consuming, it was worth it.

I now even anticipate Novak's matches just as much as, if not a tad more, Fedal matches - and that's really something. When Stan and especially Murray are back, I'm sure I'll try my best to watch them as much as I can. Just my humble way of supporting them and tennis as well as showing my gratitude for how much great tennis they have entertained and moved me over the years. It's not just about winning or losing or who your favourite is, which game style excites you the most etc. for me.

As for the youngsters, many of you may not like them or most of them (despite not even watching them ), but they are still undeniably the future of tennis. There's no way of getting around it. I'd rather try to be patient and prepare myself than complain about and judge them at every chance I've got.

Better for me to spend time watching them and reading the news for real to know what they're up to - so when the changing of guard really happens, I'll have a decent idea about the current state of tennis and won't feel "empty" and most of all "mourn" for the departure of my favourites. I'll surely miss them A LOT but as great as they are and no matter how big a part of the game they have been, they are NOT the game.

For now, I think it's more about how the tour is being organised and how they've been teaching the game to the kids than why the current crop and LostGen haven't been able to dethrone the "geriatrics" - pretty special geriatrics those are - yet.

Exactly their is plenty to watch and frankly its ridiculous to complain about the amazing resurgence of Federer and Nadal while the rest of the geriatrics drop like a rock.

Due to the vagaries of the draws Federer has not faced a lot of this new talent and had a lot of trouble with Coric and of course Kokk recently. Nadal has had his losses as well and to be realistic ball bashing is the only way to trouble Nadal on clay and that is a forte of many of the younger players.

Favorite matches this year:
-Chung vs Djoko and Zedrot Auz Open
-Tsitsipas over Gasquet in Doha plus his match with Thiem
-Rublev's run to Doha final
-De Minaur's run in Sydney including incredible final with Medvedev
-RBA vs Delpo in Auckland final
-Tiafoe's run in Delray over Delpo, Chung, and Shapovalov in succession.
-Coric's IW run over Anderson and nearly Fed.
-Tiafoe's triumph over Bendy in Miami
-Tsitsipas run in Barcelona which is still going with Thiem in a few short hours

Probably missing a few matches, but if a viewer stays away from has been pigeon tennis there is plenty to see and enjoy as these new players vie for future bragging rights. Just can't recall when this much young talent has been on the rise since the late 80's, early 90's and those players were aided by new technology. As soon as the geriatric pigeons drop from the seedings we'll start to have some good tournaments. Barcelona is pretty stacked with Nadal being the remaining geriatric. Its really a rather impressive group overall in the QFs in Barcelona this week.

 

[SLD76]

I just don't understand why people want a handful of players to rise above everyone else. In the interest of competition, I don't like it when a handful of players win everything.

because that's how the game previously has functioned


each generation saw a handful of two of players emerge and push the previous generation out and establish themselves


fed generation pushed out the Sampras /Rafter/Kafelnikov generation

nadal/murray/djoker generation challenged fed generation with only fed surviving to go toe to toe with those guys in their prime


Since then we have had 2 generations and counting who cant even push out the djokdalrry generation and still letting ancient fed dominate


I've been watching tennis since the mid 80s and never seen this on the ATP