Domination of tennis in the 21st century

[ScentOfDefeat]

I'm going to attempt a theoretical analysis of what's been happening since 2003, the year Federer won his first Slam and Serena Williams won both the Australian Open and the Wimbledon Championships. It's not a very detailed analysis (I don't want to bore you and, moreover, I'm not exactly a keen tennis statistician). It's an attempt to understand why it is that, in an era where competition is fierce and training methods are extremely developed, we've had not an increase in number of winners (what we could call a more heterogenous winner's circle) but an extravagant concentration of limited multiple Slam winners at the top.

I'll try to isolate a specific generation of dominant tennis players which includes Serena Williams, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They were able to win major titles when they were still young (something that had always been part of tennis history until then: most notably with Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Chang, Sampras, etc), taking advantage of a time when it was still possible for players who hadn't matured yet to beat fully mature players (both physically and mentally).

These very same players came about in a transitional period where the game started changing dramatically. In a period of more or less ten years, it became increasingly difficult for young players to compete with older, more established players: tennis had changed into a sport where young challengers had to mature in order to compete with players in the mid to late 20's.

These players who had won major championships when they were young were the last of a dying breed, but they were also the first of the very dominant older players of the second decade of the 21st century. They took full advantage, if you will, 1) of the fact that their premature talent coincided with a field that could be dominated by a younger player (something that doesn't happen now) and 2) of the very recent trend that makes it impossible for a younger player to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with and as a challenger for big titles (something that does happen now). They are Becker and Wawrinka; they are Hingis and Li Na.

This is the reason why I think these champions, while being extraordinary in their own right and unmatchable talents in their time, were able to accumulate an exceptional amount of major titles since the beginning of the 21st century. Their longevity is remarkable, as is their tennis. But they were also at the right place, at the right time.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

"A real man makes his own luck." - Billy Zane, Titanic

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

"A real man makes his own luck." - Billy Zane, Titanic

Sure. I'm not arguing they're not real men or women. I'm just trying to understand. As Spinoza would've put it: "Non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere". [I have taken great care] not to laugh at the actions of human beings, nor to lament them, nor to despise them, but to understand them.

 

[chicagodude]

I'm going to attempt a theoretical analysis of what's been happening since 2003, the year Federer won his first Slam and Serena Williams won both the Australian Open and the Wimbledon Championships. It's not a very detailed analysis (I don't want to bore you and, moreover, I'm not exactly a keen tennis statistician). It's an attempt to understand why it is that, in an era where competition is fierce and training methods are extremely developed, we've had not an increase in number of winners (what we could call a more heterogenous winner's circle) but an extravagant concentration of limited multiple Slam winners at the top.

I'll try to isolate a specific generation of dominant tennis players which includes Serena Williams, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They were able to win major titles when they were still young (something that had always been part of tennis history until then: most notably with Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Chang, Sampras, etc), taking advantage of a time when it was still possible for players who hadn't matured yet to beat fully mature players (both physically and mentally).

These very same players came about in a transitional period where the game started changing dramatically. In a period of more or less ten years, it became increasingly difficult for young players to compete with older, more established players: tennis had changed into a sport where young challengers had to mature in order to compete with players in the mid to late 20's.

These players who had won major championships when they were young were the last of a dying breed, but they were also the first of the very dominant older players of the second decade of the 21st century. They took full advantage, if you will, 1) of the fact that their premature talent coincided with a field that could be dominated by a younger player (something that doesn't happen now) and 2) of the very recent trend that makes it impossible for a younger player to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with and as a challenger for big titles (something that does happen now).

This is the reason why I think these champions, while being extraordinary in their own right and unmatchable talents in their time, were able to accumulate an exceptional amount of major titles since the beginning of the 21st century. Their longevity is remarkable, as is their tennis. But they were also at the right place, at the right time.

Although I don't disagree with your analysis, we should also keep in mind that there are several circumstances that occurred the past decade that make it seem more extreme than it might be.

1. An exceptional clay courter, which makes his slam-count seem inflated
2. Some potential multiple slam winners side-tracked by injury (Delpo)
3. Several players that should've capitalized on some of their finals (Murray and Roddick)
4. One exceptional overall player

If the above had been slightly different (e.g. Murray and Roddick winning more of their finals, Delpo not being injured), we could've had a bunch of players sitting at 4-8 slams, similar to the 80s and 90s, with maybe 1-2 players at 10-14 slams.

As for the youngsters, I don't know, sure it looks like the physical maturation is needed now as opposed to 10-15 years ago, but perhaps it just happens to be a relativey weaker young group. Who knows, maybe in 2 years time we have Kyrgios/Kokk/Coric/Thiem/Zverev winning slams. EIther way, 18-20 yr olds winning slams hasn't regularly happened since the 80s anyway.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Although I don't disagree with your analysis, we should also keep in mind that there are several circumstances that occurred the past decade that make it seem more extreme than it might be.

1. An exceptional clay courter, which makes his slam-count seem inflated
2. Some potential multiple slam winners side-tracked by injury (Delpo)
3. Several players that should've capitalized on some of their finals (Murray and Roddick)
4. One exceptional overall player

If the above had been slightly different (e.g. Murray and Roddick winning more of their finals, Delpo not being injured), we could've had a bunch of players sitting at 4-8 slams.

As fr the youngsters, I don't know, sure it looks like the physical maturation is needed now as opposed to 10-15 years ago, but perhaps it just happens to be a relativey weaker young group. Who knows, maybe in 2 years time we have Kyrgios/Kokk/Coric/Thiem/Zverev winning slams. EIther way, 18-20 yr olds winning slams hasn't regularly happened since the 80s anyway.

Thank you for adding your thoughts. This is all a bit of conjecture on my part, of course. But I wanted to provide an alternative reading of these events, something that might challenge the twin ideas of 1) the exceptionality of the players themselves (sure they're exceptional, but let's not jump into the bandwagon of glorifying the present); 2) the "weak era" argument (sure, some people might perceive a generation as being weaker than another but there's no way to prove it). These two ideas are like a mantra and they have dominated tennis discourse for too long. People use them so much, sometimes in a contradictory fashion, that they've almost become second nature.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Main reason is they are outstanding players with unusual strengths on one surface type that allows them to build up a fortress (credit to them) and weaker following generations. I credit the players for showing good longevity and not convenience. Sampras rested on his laurels. Borg retired early. Lendl and Connors had great longevity as does Federer but they weren't as good.

I see what you're getting at and have considered it before, but basically don't agree that overall they are any more or less fortunate than past great generations.

This era has been very strong at the top and saturated with legendary tennis anomalies and has lacked the typical roster of second tier Wawrinka-esque players who can eat into the dominance. Overall it hasn't been a weak era but the combination of super strong vs super weak eras relatively has created overall a very good and solid era that leads to even further dominance due to the obvious gaping chasm in talent and ability between those generations.

 

[chicagodude]

Thank you for adding your thoughts. This is all a bit of conjecture on my part, of course. But I wanted to provide an alternative reading of these events, something that might challenge the twin ideas of 1) the exceptionality of the players themselves (sure they're exceptional, but let's not jump into the bandwagon of glorifying the present); 2) the "weak era" argument (sure, some people might perceive a generation as being weaker than another but there's no way to prove it).

Personally I don't buy the weak young generation argument, just as I don't buy the weak era argument for the 2002-2006 years giving Federer inflated slam count.

I do think that several seemingly minor factors make it seem more skewed. We have Nadal and Fed at 14 and 17, yet had Roddick won 2 of those finals, had Murray won more and Delpo not been injured, that could've easily been 11 and 14.

In the 90's, it seems only Sampras as good enough to reach 14 slams, but AGassi's absence from the tour for quite a while (injury/motivation) likely cost him ending up with >10 slams, as Agassi and Sampras were the dominant players at the time.

 

[chicagodude]

Main reason is they are outstanding players with unusual strengths on one surface type that allows them to build up a fortress (credit to them) and weaker following generations. I credit the players for showing good longevity and not convenience. Sampras rested on his laurels. Borg retired early. Lendl and Connors had great longevity as does Federer but they weren't as good.

I see what you're getting at and have considered it before, but basically don't agree that overall they are any more or less fortunate than past great generations.

This era has been very strong at the top and saturated with legendary tennis anomalies and has lacked the typical roster of second tier Wawrinka-esque players who can eat into the dominance. Overall it hasn't been a weak era but the combination of super strong vs super weak eras relatively has created overall a very good and solid era that leads to even further dominance due to the obvious gaping chasm in talent and ability between those generations.

Yeah I tend to agree.
A big difference to me seems the sustained desire to win of the most talented players now (Fed/Nadal/DJokovic), whereas the most talented players in say 90s (Sampras/Agassi) looked less eager to win everything they could for as long as the possibly could. Call it dedication if you must.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Personally I don't buy the weak young generation argument, just as I don't buy the weak era argument for the 2002-2006 years giving Federer inflated slam count.

I do think that several seemingly minor factors make it seem more skewed. We have Nadal and Fed at 14 and 17, yet had Roddick won 2 of those finals, had Murray won more and Delpo not been injured, that could've easily been 11 and 14.

In the 90's, it seems only Sampras as good enough to reach 14 slams, but AGassi's absence from the tour for quite a while (injury/motivation) likely cost him ending up with >10 slams, as Agassi and Sampras were the dominant players at the time.

Fair enough, that's a good point. I think those "seemingly minor factors" are often overlooked when analyzing tennis history.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Overall it isn't a weak era, just weaker (relatively speaking) following generations offered a regression to the mean or something closer to it. The whole era has still been very noteworthy and in many ways very special. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have earned everything they've got and are that good. Federer is a bit better and greater than Sampras so it stands to reason that he's achieved more. Second best player in Sampras' generation was Agassi who had great longevity but was MIA for too much of career. Borg was involved in a very saturated and top heavy period in men's tennis where many players won many Slams but he inexplicably retired when probably being on the road to 15+ Majors, dare I say upwards of 18 had he been able to maintain himself psychologically. Borg is a strange case in sport, to say the least — not just in tennis but in all of sport. Rosewall won 20+ Majors. Laver won 19-20 Majors and they were still prolific as aged professionals in the Open Era during a period of very strange and nascent Open Era tour dynamics.

 

[reaper]

We're about 18 months away from the myth that young players can't win major tournaments anymore being exploded. Which established tour player is going to hold off Kokkinakis, Coric, Zverev, Donaldson, Tiafoe et al? The last 17 months has had 4 different slam winners, the previous 8 years only had 5 different winners. The whole premise of the thread that winners will be older and more concentrated will be shown to be false over the next few years.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

We're about 18 months away from the myth that young players can't win major tournaments anymore being exploded. Which established tour player is going to hold off Kokkinakis, Coric, Zverev, Donaldson, Tiafoe et al? The last 17 months has had 4 different slam winners, the previous 8 years only had 5 different winners. The whole premise of the thread that winners will be older and more concentrated will be shown to be false over the next few years.

I also agree with this. It's something I've been predicting for a long time here now.. that what we are seeing won't become a trend but is just part of a curious oscillation.

 

[kiki]

Main reason is they are outstanding players with unusual strengths on one surface type that allows them to build up a fortress (credit to them) and weaker following generations. I credit the players for showing good longevity and not convenience. Sampras rested on his laurels. Borg retired early. Lendl and Connors had great longevity as does Federer but they weren't as good.

I see what you're getting at and have considered it before, but basically don't agree that overall they are any more or less fortunate than past great generations.

This era has been very strong at the top and saturated with legendary tennis anomalies and has lacked the typical roster of second tier Wawrinka-esque players who can eat into the dominance. Overall it hasn't been a weak era but the combination of super strong vs super weak eras relatively has created overall a very good and solid era that leads to even further dominance due to the obvious gaping chasm in talent and ability between those generations.

Last time Federer won a major was 2012 right? Wimbledon, at 31

At that age, Connors won the US Open.And he still reached a Wimbledon final at 32.Can´t think " he was not as good as Federer".

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Last time Federer won a major was 2012 right? Wimbledon, at 31

At that age, Connors won the US Open.And he still reached a Wimbledon final at 32.Can´t think " he was not as good as Federer".

I can think that Connors wasn't as good as Federer mainly because he wasn't. I certainly consider Federer to be better/greater/whatever than Connors. No disrespect.

 

[tennisaddict]

We're about 18 months away from the myth that young players can't win major tournaments anymore being exploded. Which established tour player is going to hold off Kokkinakis, Coric, Zverev, Donaldson, Tiafoe et al? The last 17 months has had 4 different slam winners, the previous 8 years only had 5 different winners. The whole premise of the thread that winners will be older and more concentrated will be shown to be false over the next few years.

What do you have to say about the age group that makes up the top 20 / age of the winners of majors ?

The surprise winners are not the young ones (Cilic, Stan) and the ones getting the victory over the top 3 in big tournaments are again the 27+ age group.

The younger ones are having the occasional success ( Kyrgios and Coric specifically) but it is still too early to say that the next few months will be very different.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Yeah I tend to agree.
A big difference to me seems the sustained desire to win of the most talented players now (Fed/Nadal/DJokovic), whereas the most talented players in say 90s (Sampras/Agassi) looked less eager to win everything they could for as long as the possibly could. Call it dedication if you must.

Indeed. I tend to agree with both of you in the sense that we've witnessed a clear increase in professionalism since the 80's and 90's. There was something about the Connors/Borg/McEnroe era which made it "enough" to just have the great rivalries (they were truly entertaining match-ups and they coincided with televised tennis on a greater scale).

It seems like the overall records of the game were secondary to the individual rivalries taking place on the court. The focus on accumulating Slams came slowly: it started with McEnroe and Roland Garros, then Lendl and Wimbledon, and I think that was the first time you could feel a real frustration about failing to achieve a great goal in the sport.

Then along came Sampras and the era where the Australian Open gained a lot of ground, and the interest shifted from winning individual Slams to talking about a Grand Slam again (Graf had done it in 1988, and with a healthy Australian Open the four majors seemed to echo Laver's achievements almost 30 years later). Now most players base their will to win on Sampras' extravagant desire to accumulate majors. The bar has been set and the top players are now showing an unprecedented will to beat former records.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

tennisaddict, the stage is going to be set similarly to the early 2000s yet again — where a glut of talented rising players had a fairly blank canvas to start painting castles — when the current 27/28+ players have finally fell off a cliff and have finished virtually shutting out another generation, at which point we're going to see the average age of Slam champions plummet down again. I can't say exactly when this is going to happen, but it will. It just depends when these elite tennis anomalies arrive. When they do, it's lights out.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Yeah I tend to agree.
A big difference to me seems the sustained desire to win of the most talented players now (Fed/Nadal/DJokovic), whereas the most talented players in say 90s (Sampras/Agassi) looked less eager to win everything they could for as long as the possibly could. Call it dedication if you must.

There is no questioning Sampras' dedication. But he was clearly burned out at the end of his career. And overtaken by the younger players, as it had always been the case.

 

[reaper]

What do you have to say about the age group that makes up the top 20 / age of the winners of majors ?

The surprise winners are not the young ones (Cilic, Stan) and the ones getting the victory over the top 3 in big tournaments are again the 27+ age group.

The younger ones are having the occasional success ( Kyrgios and Coric specifically) but it is still too early to say that the next few months will be very different.

The age of the top 20 is what makes me confident that very young players will be winning majors from 2016 or 2017. In the last few years it's been common for there to be no teenagers in the top 100. We now have 4, with a group of 17 year olds behind them tracking nicely. There's no way the current dominant group will be able to keep them at bay....they're too old for the task.

 

[kiki]

Indeed. I tend to agree with both of you in the sense that we've witnessed a clear increase in professionalism since the 80's and 90's. There was something about the Connors/Borg/McEnroe era which made it "enough" to just have the great rivalries (they were truly entertaining match-ups and they coincided with televised tennis on a greater scale).

It seems like the overall records of the game were secondary to the individual rivalries taking place on the court. The focus on accumulating Slams came slowly: it started with McEnroe and Roland Garros, then Lendl and Wimbledon, and I think that was the first time you could feel a real frustration about failing to achieve a great goal in the sport.

Then along came Sampras and the era where the Australian Open gained a lot of ground, and the interest shifted from winning individual Slams to talking about a Grand Slam again (Graf had done it in 1988, and with a healthy Australian Open the four majors seemed to echo Laver's achievements almost 30 years later). Now most players base their will to win on Sampras' extravagant desire to accumulate majors. The bar has been set and the top players are now showing an unprecedented will to beat former records.

In way it i true, just if you talk about the traditional slams.But in the early 70´s Laver ( and Newcombe, and Ashe and Connors) were DESPERATE to win the WCT Finals and Borg, in the late 70´s was also desperate to win the Masters...

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I'm going to attempt a theoretical analysis of what's been happening since 2003, the year Federer won his first Slam and Serena Williams won both the Australian Open and the Wimbledon Championships. It's not a very detailed analysis (I don't want to bore you and, moreover, I'm not exactly a keen tennis statistician). It's an attempt to understand why it is that, in an era where competition is fierce and training methods are extremely developed, we've had not an increase in number of winners (what we could call a more heterogenous winner's circle) but an extravagant concentration of limited multiple Slam winners at the top.

I'll try to isolate a specific generation of dominant tennis players which includes Serena Williams, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They were able to win major titles when they were still young (something that had always been part of tennis history until then: most notably with Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Chang, Sampras, etc), taking advantage of a time when it was still possible for players who hadn't matured yet to beat fully mature players (both physically and mentally).

These very same players came about in a transitional period where the game started changing dramatically. In a period of more or less ten years, it became increasingly difficult for young players to compete with older, more established players: tennis had changed into a sport where young challengers had to mature in order to compete with players in the mid to late 20's.

These players who had won major championships when they were young were the last of a dying breed, but they were also the first of the very dominant older players of the second decade of the 21st century. They took full advantage, if you will, 1) of the fact that their premature talent coincided with a field that could be dominated by a younger player (something that doesn't happen now) and 2) of the very recent trend that makes it impossible for a younger player to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with and as a challenger for big titles (something that does happen now). They are Becker and Wawrinka; they are Hingis and Li Na.

This is the reason why I think these champions, while being extraordinary in their own right and unmatchable talents in their time, were able to accumulate an exceptional amount of major titles since the beginning of the 21st century. Their longevity is remarkable, as is their tennis. But they were also at the right place, at the right time.

I think it's a bit of a mistake to look at the longevity of these players as something which is an anomaly. Another way to look at this matter which I think can be helpful, is also to wonder why, in previous era, young players have been able to breakthrough very early while, at the same time, 27 years old was old.

Something which is striking with Nadal, Federer, Murray, Ferrer and Djokovic is their professionalism. Theses players want to achieve as much as they can, they have records in mind, and they are ready to make all the sacrifices to be as good as they can. While they are big stars, they aren't spending their 20's and early 30's partying and having sex with every one. They are following a strict diet, working hard, controlling their emotion, working hard again.

This wasn't the behaviour of all the former pros. Lendl and Sampras are known for their professionnalism, their "dullness" as some like to say. But others...Agassi, Becker, McEnroe, Safin, they weren't going to work as hard, when they were already rich and could have a lot of fun elsewhere.

Some were hard workers, but eventually they got bored and retired or declined very early. Borg retired at 25 years old. Wilander won 3 slams in 1988 and then wanted to play rock'n'roll, he was 24 years old. Courier had some sort of burn out and wasn't a threat at slams anymore at 25!

So, let's see how this impact resume of tennis players. Borg retire at 25, in 1981. Obviously his total numbers are diminished. At the time, it leaves room for Wilander to win RG at 17! Then you have McEnroe, who lose focus after his 1984 season. He was 25 years old, and the dominant Wimbledon champion. Next year, young Becker win Wimbledon! And so on and so on.

Now imagine how the career of the current "losers" would be if Federer had enough in 2007, and stoped to work so hard? What if Djokovic was guted by losing again and again to Nadal and wanted to have some meth instead?

I think many players who have been denied and denied again by the top players would have been able to win a slam earlier in their careers, gained a lot of confidence, won more slams, and then retire at 25-26.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

We're about 18 months away from the myth that young players can't win major tournaments anymore being exploded. Which established tour player is going to hold off Kokkinakis, Coric, Zverev, Donaldson, Tiafoe et al? The last 17 months has had 4 different slam winners, the previous 8 years only had 5 different winners. The whole premise of the thread that winners will be older and more concentrated will be shown to be false over the next few years.

All I'm trying to say is that this short lapse of time (10 years isn't that long) made it possible for Federers, Serenas and Nadals to exist and flourish. I'm not saying that young players will never be able to win Slams again. I'm saying that under the current conditions (or the conditions we've had in the past few years) there has been a relatively long period of time when the so called "natural order of things" (the young overtaking the old) has been somewhat suspended. I'm not saying it will be suspended forever, that would be absurd.

 

[reaper]

The average age of men's 1/4 finalists at RG was very close to 30. I suspect it was the oldest total age for Grand Slam 1/4 finals ever. They're ripe for the picking.

 

[reaper]

All I'm trying to say is that this short lapse of time (10 years isn't that long) made it possible for Federers, Serenas and Nadals to exist and flourish. I'm not saying that young players will never be able to win Slams again. I'm saying that under the current conditions (or the conditions we've had in the past few years) there has been a relatively long period of time when the so called "natural order of things" (the young overtaking the old) has been somewhat suspended. I'm not saying it will be suspended forever, that would be absurd.

Obviously the young will take over from the old...but the issue is will the young be as young as the previous generation....ie:Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic and Del Porto who all won slams aged 19-21. I think the rising generation will be winning GS tournaments at that age....so there is no change to the past.

 

[R_Federer]

Dont get the post. Anyone that has only been watching tennis for the last 10 years or so will be in awe of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And how they can be so dominate.

All BS.

If you know tennis, throughout it's history, it has been a sport where it has always been dominated by one or two players in every era.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

All I'm trying to say is that this short lapse of time (10 years isn't that long) made it possible for Federers, Serenas and Nadals to exist and flourish. I'm not saying that young players will never be able to win Slams again. I'm saying that under the current conditions (or the conditions we've had in the past few years) there has been a relatively long period of time when the so called "natural order of things" (the young overtaking the old) has been somewhat suspended. I'm not saying it will be suspended forever, that would be absurd.

This is slightly at odds with what it seemed to me you were orginally inferring.


"In a period of more or less ten years, it became increasingly difficult for young players to compete with older, more established players: tennis had changed into a sport where young challengers had to mature in order to compete with players in the mid to late 20's."

There might be some truth to that but I think this will be an exception or something that will happen in oscillation from now on rather than the norm.

It's more down to the truly incredible quality of the top players from Federer's and Nadal/Djokovic's generation and them being substantially stronger than the generations who followed.. though the gap isn't so severe that the former have had it unduly easy. It's less about age and a shift in the paradigm of the game leading to a supposed increased length of time needed for the maturation process; it's more about the strength of generations. If Nishikori et al were as strong as Nadal they'd already be dominant forces by now. They aren't.

 

[Mustard]

From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, tennis was generally dominated by Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg. The increasing power in tennis from 1985-1986 started changing the dynamics, leading to polarised conditions on different surfaces with different gamestyles thriving in different places.

Kuerten in 1997 was the first prominent player to use poly strings, and by 2004 or so virtually every tennis player had followed suit. Poly strings enables players to hit more topspin with any given shot, meaning that they can keep the number of unforced errors down in rallies, enabling players to dictate rallies with depth and authority. Other factors are 32 seeds in the majors from 2001 Wimbledon onwards, and compulsory tournaments at every level. Therefore, the top players are playing in the same events far more often, the top players are more protected in the earlier rounds because of the increased seedings, and the polarisation in gamestyles have ended which makes it easier to master the sport.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think it's a bit of a mistake to look at the longevity of these players as something which is an anomaly. Another way to look at this matter which I think can be helpful, is also to wonder why, in previous era, young players have been able to breakthrough very early while, at the same time, 27 years old was old.

Something which is striking with Nadal, Federer, Murray, Ferrer and Djokovic is their professionalism. Theses players want to achieve as much as they can, they have records in mind, and they are ready to make all the sacrifices to be as good as they can. While they are big stars, they aren't spending their 20's and early 30's partying and having sex with every one. They are following a strict diet, working hard, controlling their emotion, working hard again.

This wasn't the behaviour of all the former pros. Lendl and Sampras are known for their professionnalism, their "dullness" as some like to say. But others...Agassi, Becker, McEnroe, Safin, they weren't going to work as hard, when they were already rich and could have a lot of fun elsewhere.

Some were hard workers, but eventually they got bored and retired or declined very early. Borg retired at 25 years old. Wilander won 3 slams in 1988 and then wanted to play rock'n'roll, he was 24 years old. Courier had some sort of burn out and wasn't a threat at slams anymore at 25!

So, let's see how this impact resume of tennis players. Borg retire at 25, in 1981. Obviously his total numbers are diminished. At the time, it leaves room for Wilander to win RG at 17! Then you have McEnroe, who lose focus after his 1984 season. He was 25 years old, and the dominant Wimbledon champion. Next year, young Becker win Wimbledon! And so on and so on.

Now imagine how the career of the current "losers" would be if Federer had enough in 2007, and stoped to work so hard? What if Djokovic was guted by losing again and again to Nadal and wanted to have some meth instead?

I think many players who have been denied and denied again by the top players would have been able to win a slam earlier in their careers, gained a lot of confidence, won more slams, and then retire at 25-26.

I guess it's understandable that you would interpret what I said as the description of an anomaly. I'd just like to say it's not an anomaly, in the same sense as very young players winning Slams (as before) is not an anomaly but a characteristic of a certain period.

And I believe that the "professionalism" aspect some of you have mentioned is a good addition to my argument (which can obviously be debated). Only the very professional players, who make tennis their life for 15 years or more, and who dedicate themselves to winning tournaments relentlessly, can be the type of players to completely seize the opportunities they're given (the ones I tried to describe) and break (explode) all kinds of records in the game.

My contention is that the very same professionalism, which will be even more acute in the following generations, will probably not result in three different players with 10+ major counts and another one with 8 and counting within the same era. Which is why I think this was a transitional period in which accumulation of majors (rather than dispersion) was more favorable.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Also anyone who wins a bunch of majors was in the right place at the right time. The '90s was built for Sampras.

 

[tennisaddict]

tennisaddict, the stage is going to be set similarly to the early 2000s yet again — where a glut of talented rising players had a fairly blank canvas to start painting castles — when the current 27/28+ players have finally fell off a cliff and have finished virtually shutting out another generation, at which point we're going to see the average age of Slam champions plummet down again. I can't say exactly when this is going to happen, but it will. It just depends when these elite tennis anomalies arrive. When they do, it's lights out.

Or it could so happen that the Raonic / Dmitrov / Nishikori generation will finally take over.

If you were a betting person would you put money on them or Kyrgios / Kokkinakis / Coric ?

I wouldn't be surprised of you chose the latter but i think several would think Raonic and Nishikori will have their chances.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Also anyone who wins a bunch of majors was in the right place at the right time. The '90s was built for Sampras.

Obviously, yes. I don't have an agenda here, I'm just trying to understand how different eras in tennis function. I'm not interested in who's better or worse. I just feel like the opposed (and complementary) theories of

1) "exceptional players who play at a better level than even the new generations"

2) "weak/strong era"

have no explanatory power. When either is used, conversation stops. And because none of them can be proved and are entirely subjective, all that is left is irritation with the opposite party or insults. I'm just trying to propose an analysis that looks at tennis and how it has changed (and is continually changing), thereby circumventing the more emotional attachments people tend to have for a certain player or era. These emotional attachments are the basis for deifying players, on the one hand, and arguing in favor of a strong era as opposed to a weak era, on the other.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Or it could so happen that the Raonic / Dmitrov / Nishikori generation will finally take over.

If you were a betting person would you put money on them or Kyrgios / Kokkinakis / Coric ?

I wouldn't be surprised of you chose the latter but i think several would think Raonic and Nishikori will have their chances.

Yes, it could happen. I'd bet money on the next lot (Kyrgios etc.) at least gaining parity and having the time to do so as the great great older generations continue to be suitably strong for relative dominance over the next 2 years.

Obviously, yes. I don't have an agenda here, I'm just trying to understand how different eras in tennis function. I'm not interested in who's better or worse. I just feel like the opposed (and complementary) theories of

1) "exceptional players who play at a better level than even the new generations"

2) "weak/strong era"

have no explanatory power. When either is used, conversation stops. And because none of them can be proved and are entirely subjective, all that is left is irritation with the opposite party or insults. I'm just trying to propose an analysis that looks at tennis and how it has changed (and is continually changing), thereby circumventing the more emotional attachments people tend to have for a certain player or era. These emotional attachments are the basis for deifying players, on the one hand, and arguing in favor of a strong era as opposed to a weak era, on the other.

I think results provide reasonable proof for at least some things. Many generations of players will come and go over the course of what we tend to view here as an era. There simply are difference in strength between some generations. There's no question in my mind that the collective of Nadal-Djokovic-Murray is simply way better than Nishikori-Dimitrov-Raonic. Nothing is black and white so as always there are a multitude of reasons for things transpiring as they do, but I don't the balance of factors produce an unusually favourable environment for Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. I think they've won as much as they should have and don't actually have "inflated" figures. The increased professionalism overall is definitely a thing and past generations weren't record hunters nor quite as professional overall, but it's the same for everybody else that's around those players at the respective times. The equal opportunity is there. Now will there be a lag effect where eventually future young generations accept that they must be far more professional from a far earlier age as standard to break through? Maybe. But I think the true main decider in all of this noise is simply when the special talents happen to come along. It just so happened that two genuinely possible all-time talents (not just great but all-time) happened to hit their primes within about 3 years of each other, as more or less happened with Laver-Rosewall. Djokovic followed, who is a great talent. Since then, there are no obvious anomalies among the Nishikori generation and the jury is out over the players who are currently around about 18-21. Relative to any set conditions of a period, the anomalies will always rise to the top in dramatic fashion. With the way things are going, if a couple more special talents turn up in 5 years time by the time the current 27+ generations have packed it in, the scene would likely be ripe for those talents to achieve similar numbers to Federer and Nadal, providing they are as good as Federer and Nadal.

Results are enough for me to be confident that the idea of stronger and weaker generations have plenty of power to explain. I'm not calling the era weak but suggesting that a glut of special talents came along in quick succession and we've been waiting a long time for the next anomalies. They haven't arrived yet (or made it known). When they do arrive, you will see the typical domination that we saw from Federer, Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, Lendl, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, McEnroe, Sampras, Connors, etc. and overall they aren't going to have it substantially easier or harder or more convenient in the long run than any of those guys to win the biggest titles.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

We obviously already know the names of some of the players who will win Slams once the big four start declining (some have already started declining, others are on their way). My point is that it is peculiar to these times that these younger players aren't already challenging for the big titles and are still so outclassed by the greater veterans.

If I recall the 90's well, there was no "waiting period" where the top players were getting older, season by season, until finally some rookie came along and took their place almost by default. These younger players were already there challenging the greats in their mid-twenties. This waiting game was unknown to tennis fans in the 80's and 90's. It is now that the question "who will be the next great player?" arises because we have time to ask it - they're not already there winning and challenging the veterans.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

An ok generation lacked the quality to breakthrough all-time generations due to a consistent gaping chasm in quality between the generations. Many think this is proof that tennis has changed and players now need many years to mature and be ready to win big titles - so Nishikori et al are plenty good enough but tennis has changed and they need much longer to break through now. I think this additional thing is a theory that needs to be put on hold for a couple of years until we can see what Kyrgios, Kokkinakis and Coric can do early doors.

If they can keep pace with Djokovic, Federer or Murray that will be impressive in terms of capturing their first big titles, it will suggest something else.

Indeed there was no waiting game, which does open up a window for the likes of a late blooming Wawrinka or Djokovic and Nadal to continue to win Slams. Federer seems past it, though. Seems that 33 is still very old in tennis for expecting someone to actually win Majors at any pace, or at all. It seems they could thrive earlier and last longer in what was less of a power game and more of a touch, skills and finesse game. Also the pure pace of the game is higher now.

The "prime time window" seems about the same now as it's ever been. Perhaps the window was greater when the game was less physical in the wooden racket era as a general rule. The reflex threshold gets exposed earlier now because serves are literally much faster, for example. If Federer only had to return first serves that were hit at an average of 105 mph then his return wouldn't seem as if it has declined so much.

 

[el sergento]

Tennis isn't as much a skill sport now as it is a physical, athletic contest. Obviously both skillsets are required to be at the very top, but nevertheless, I consider physical ability, meaning stamina and speed, to be the most important aspects of a tennis player now a days, and it has been for close to a decade.

I call this the cross-fit-ification of the sport.

See Nadal's decline as an example. If he can't chase everything down, and hit crazy defensive passing shots over the course of 60+ shot rallies, he's toast, at least by his standards.

As a result, very young, physically maturing players can't compete with the guys that have been hitting the gym for years, and that have access to world class trainers, nutritionists, physios, hyperbaric chambers etc. It took Wawrinka a very long time to maximize both this physicality and his skill set.

It's a natural by product of the slowing down of the courts. When defense and percentage play are the winning strategies, you'll encourage the physical specimens to rise to the top, it's just natural selection really. And, unless you're insanely physically gifted like a young Nadal was, it takes time to develop the kind of stamina required to win the big titles.

Minus Federer, who happens to be both a phenomenal athlete and a highly skilled player, the players that have been winning the lions share of big tournaments have done so by grinding, hustling and outlasting the opposition. I'm thinking primarily of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer etc.

Even Dimitrov, a highly skilled player, has been conditioned to grind, and run, and play much more passively than his skill set could allow him to.

The very top guys are athletes first, tennis players second. I know many will disagree here, but that's how I see it, especially following the aggressive shot making we routinely saw in the 90's, early 2000's.

Clay really used to be it's own season, and it marked a real change in pace and strategy. Thus we had real claycourt specialists. Dogged, physically gifted players that could play 5 hours under the sun. Guys with no serve, no net skills, but who were extremely consistent and willing to chase everything down.

Again, the top guys on that surface could do it all, or almost: Guga, Bruguera, Rios, Muster etc. But for the most part, the Mantillas of the world would only ever see success on clay and would literally disappear during the hard and grass seasons. Most would skip Wimbledon all together.

I'm not really pining for a return to the 90's, but some variety would do this game wonders.

It's hard to get people exited about the young guns, that are going to inspire the up and coming fans of the sport, if they never win anything.

Tennis is a spectator sport. As much as I admire the physical abilities of some of the top guys, I just don't find their brand of tennis entertaining or inspiring.

just like I admire what the top cross-fit athletes in the world can do, I'd never in a million years pay to watch the Cross-Fit games.

Any way, enough rambling, but all this to say that I agree quite a bit with the OP.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Yes, it could happen. I'd bet money on the next lot (Kyrgios etc.) at least gaining parity and having the time to do so as the great great older generations continue to be suitably strong for relative dominance over the next 2 years.



I think results provide reasonable proof for at least some things. Many generations of players will come and go over the course of what we tend to view here as an era. There simply are difference in strength between some generations. There's no question in my mind that the collective of Nadal-Djokovic-Murray is simply way better than Nishikori-Dimitrov-Raonic. Nothing is black and white so as always there are a multitude of reasons for things transpiring as they do, but I don't the balance of factors produce an unusually favourable environment for Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. I think they've won as much as they should have and don't actually have "inflated" figures. The increased professionalism overall is definitely a thing and past generations weren't record hunters nor quite as professional overall, but it's the same for everybody else that's around those players at the respective times. The equal opportunity is there. Now will there be a lag effect where eventually future young generations accept that they must be far more professional from a far earlier age as standard to break through? Maybe. But I think the true main decider in all of this noise is simply when the special talents happen to come along. It just so happened that two genuinely possible all-time talents (not just great but all-time) happened to hit their primes within about 3 years of each other, as more or less happened with Laver-Rosewall. Djokovic followed, who is a great talent. Since then, there are no obvious anomalies among the Nishikori generation and the jury is out over the players who are currently around about 18-21. Relative to any set conditions of a period, the anomalies will always rise to the top in dramatic fashion. With the way things are going, if a couple more special talents turn up in 5 years time by the time the current 27+ generations have packed it in, the scene would likely be ripe for those talents to achieve similar numbers to Federer and Nadal, providing they are as good as Federer and Nadal.

Results are enough for me to be confident that the idea of stronger and weaker generations have plenty of power to explain. I'm not calling the era weak but suggesting that a glut of special talents came along in quick succession and we've been waiting a long time for the next anomalies. They haven't arrived yet (or made it known). When they do arrive, you will see the typical domination that we saw from Federer, Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, Lendl, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, McEnroe, Sampras, Connors, etc. and overall they aren't going to have it substantially easier or harder or more convenient in the long run than any of those guys to win the biggest titles.

Yes, you defend your point very well and I commend you for it.

I'd just like to discuss something else closely related to this. I sort of take the view that each era has its own peculiarities and must therefore be analyzed according to them. Consequently, I believe that it's not very advisable to compare across eras. I might be wrong, obviously, it's just a point of view that is certainly related to the fact that I'm a historian by profession. But if I were to abandon my point of view, my professional bias (so to speak), I'd have to espouse the "progressive" theory. I'd then be interested in the fact that the game is in a process of linear advancement; that previous generations couldn't possibly compete with contemporary players, etc. More athleticism, better equipment, improved training, better nutrition, etc. It seems like an infallible argument: one can't possibly imagine that Laver could beat Sampras, or that McEnroe could beat Nadal.

But presentism is such that, against the evidence of history from the progressive viewpoint, one is made to believe that this pattern stops in the present. Federer and Nadal and Djokovic play at higher level than the Lavers, the Borgs and the Sampras. But the ones that follow them don't. It's the only exception. The players whose decline we are witnessing now have played the best possible brand of tennis, the most elevated quality of the game tennis has ever seen. Tennis declines after them. Nobody's overtaking them as they play (perhaps Nadal, but he's still being overrun by his peers, not exactly by newcomers), they need to retire (or become wheelchair bound) in order for others to take over the game.

This makes no sense to me. How can anyone postulate that tennis is progressive while at the same time witnessing its regression?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

An ok generation lacked the quality to breakthrough all-time generations due to a consistent gaping chasm in quality between the generations. Many think this is proof that tennis has changed and players now need many years to mature and be ready to win big titles - so Nishikori et al are plenty good enough but tennis has changed and they need much longer to break through now. I think this additional thing is a theory that needs to be put on hold for a couple of years until we can see what Kyrgios, Kokkinakis and Coric can do early doors.

If they can keep pace with Djokovic, Federer or Murray that will be impressive in terms of capturing their first big titles, it will suggest something else.

Indeed there was no waiting game, which does open up a window for the likes of a late blooming Wawrinka or Djokovic and Nadal to continue to win Slams. Federer seems past it, though. Seems that 33 is still very old in tennis for expecting someone to actually win Majors at any pace, or at all. It seems they could thrive earlier and last longer in what was less of a power game and more of a touch, skills and finesse game. Also the pure pace of the game is higher now.

The "prime time window" seems about the same now as it's ever been. Perhaps the window was greater when the game was less physical in the wooden racket era as a general rule. The reflex threshold gets exposed earlier now because serves are literally much faster, for example. If Federer only had to return first serves that were hit at an average of 105 mph then his return wouldn't seem as if it has declined so much.

Good points. Thank you. I'm really enjoying this thread.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Tennis isn't as much a skill sport now as it is a physical, athletic contest. Obviously both skillsets are required to be at the very top, but nevertheless, I consider physical ability, meaning stamina and speed, to be the most important aspects of a tennis player now a days, and it has been for close to a decade.

I call this the cross-fit-ification of the sport.

See Nadal's decline as an example. If he can't chase everything down, and hit crazy defensive passing shots over the course of 60+ shot rallies, he's toast, at least by his standards.

As a result, very young, physically maturing players can't compete with the guys that have been hitting the gym for years, and that have access to world class trainers, nutritionists, physios, hyperbaric chambers etc. It took Wawrinka a very long time to maximize both this physicality and his skill set.

It's a natural by product of the slowing down of the courts. When defense and percentage play are the winning strategies, you'll encourage the physical specimens to rise to the top, it's just natural selection really. And, unless you're insanely physically gifted like a young Nadal was, it takes time to develop the kind of stamina required to win the big titles.

Minus Federer, who happens to be both a phenomenal athlete and a highly skilled player, the players that have been winning the lions share of big tournaments have done so by grinding, hustling and outlasting the opposition. I'm thinking primarily of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer etc.

Even Dimitrov, a highly skilled player, has been conditioned to grind, and run, and play much more passively than his skill set could allow him to.

The very top guys are athletes first, tennis players second. I know many will disagree here, but that's how I see it, especially following the aggressive shot making we routinely saw in the 90's, early 2000's.

Clay really used to be it's own season, and it marked a real change in pace and strategy. Thus we had real claycourt specialists. Dogged, physically gifted players that could play 5 hours under the sun. Guys with no serve, no net skills, but who were extremely consistent and willing to chase everything down.

Again, the top guys on that surface could do it all, or almost: Guga, Bruguera, Rios, Muster etc. But for the most part, the Mantillas of the world would only ever see success on clay and would literally disappear during the hard and grass seasons. Most would skip Wimbledon all together.

I'm not really pining for a return to the 90's, but some variety would do this game wonders.

It's hard to get people exited about the young guns, that are going to inspire the up and coming fans of the sport, if they never win anything.

Tennis is a spectator sport. As much as I admire the physical abilities of some of the top guys, I just don't find their brand of tennis entertaining or inspiring.

just like I admire what the top cross-fit athletes in the world can do, I'd never in a million years pay to watch the Cross-Fit games.

Any way, enough rambling, but all this to say that I agree quite a bit with the OP.

Thank you, excellent post. A very good analysis of what has changed in the game since the early 2000's and I agree with your view on clay court tennis in the 90's.

 

[Mustard]

I firmly believe that the business minds behind tennis wanted conditions in tennis like they are today. They wanted rivalries that they could constantly market, and the tennis conditions of the 1990s made that tough as gut strings and power led to polarised conditions and gamestyles on different surfaces. 16 seeds in the majors made the top players more vulnerable, and those in the 17-32 region even more vulnerable still.

Poly strings, 32 seeds in the majors, and compulsory tournaments at every level, has enabled an era of the most consistent rivalries since the 1980s. It has also made it harder for up and comers to break into the elite.

 

[el sergento]

I firmly believe that the business minds behind tennis wanted conditions in tennis like they are today. They wanted rivalries that they could constantly market, and the tennis conditions of the 1990s made that tough as gut strings and power led to polarised conditions and gamestyles on different surfaces. 16 seeds in the majors made the top players more vulnerable, and those in the 17-32 region even more vulnerable still.

Poly strings, 32 seeds in the majors, and compulsory tournaments at every level, has enabled an era of the most consistent rivalries since the 1980s.

Don't forget also, longer matches = more ad revenue.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes, you defend your point very well and I commend you for it.

I'd just like to discuss something else closely related to this. I sort of take the view that each era has its own peculiarities and must therefore be analyzed according to the same peculiarities. Consequently, I believe that it's not very advisable to compare across eras. I might be wrong, obviously, it's just a point of view that is certainly related to the fact that I'm a historian by profession. But if I were to abandon my point of view, my professional bias (so to speak), I'd have to espouse the "progressive" theory. I'd then be interested in the fact that the game is in a process of linear advancement; that previous generations couldn't possibly compete with contemporary players, etc. More athleticism, better equipment, improved training, better nutrition, etc. It seems like an infallible argument: one can't possibly imagine that Laver could beat Sampras, or that McEnroe could beat Nadal.

But presentism is such that, against the evidence of history from the progressive viewpoint, one is made to believe that this pattern stops in the present. Federer and Nadal and Djokovic play at higher level than the Lavers, the Borgs and the Sampras. But the ones that follow them don't. It's the only exception. The players whose decline we are witnessing now have played the best possible brand of tennis, the most elevated quality of the game tennis has ever seen. Tennis declines after them. Nobody's overtaking them, they need to retire (or become wheelchair bound) in order for others to take over the game.

This makes no sense to me. How can anyone postulate that tennis is progressive while at the same time witnessing its regression?

OK. I'll highlight some points and respond.

bold 1:
I agree to a point, though comparison is useful for demonstrating some of those very peculiarities. That's why I spoke of the physiological limits of reaction time being more heavily punished in this era than in many past eras, as a small demonstration that we can point to peculiarities from any era and present them as various proofs that one era had it easier or harder over another in a very particular aspect - that point suggests that not only do players get going later now but theoretically speaking, assuming maximum professionalism and dedication, they might also decline sooner due to such thresholds. My point is that if we place all these peculiarities on some imaginary scale of convenience and inconvenience, that generally they are going to balance each other out even across eras, and that what will happen through different time periods is that different peculiarities will have the light cast upon them for heavier than usual scrutiny.

bold 2:
It's also the same for everybody involved in the time period. Generally, tennis has got better over time but all these players had it approximately equally difficult because they are all trying to improve at the very same time as their peers. Sometimes we might see quantum leaps in evolution and the game thrown into a sudden state of flux that allows for radical and jarring change at the top, whether that be down to technology or a fairly quick and decisive change in tour conditions over a period of a few years, or in some cases the sudden change of surface at a Slam event.

bold 3:
Now this of course is the crux of your thesis in which you suggest that this highly unusual and probably unprecedented scenario has allowed for more fertile grounds for the very top players in the game - a sort of extended prime window due to the timing of a certain phenomenon that allows these players to keep the gap over the chasing pack for an unusually long period of time. I've already presented my general thoughts on this as a counter, though not to completely undermine your idea but only to further encourage discussion and debate. Now if I am to force myself to align more with your idea than mine to the extent where the arrival of more tennis elites wouldn't immediately more or less put a lot of these notions to bed, what points could I use to corroborate the thesis? Firstly, I don't think you're entirely wrong, in that there is somewhat of a coincidence between the suitable platform that existed for Federer and others to rise, and then there being an evolution in the physicality of the game which coincided with the general slowing down of the game, which happened to fit in line with the already dominant players of the time who had a head start over anyone who followed them and were also among the very best athletes on the tour. Secondly, I have wondered in the past if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic benefited from bridging the gap between modern rackets and string and earlier generation graphite rackets without poly strings while growing up, understanding fully the possibilities of both configurations which led to a greater understanding than those who are now only rising up using poly strings at least partially and who have grown up being allergic to the next given the coaching that now happens at ground level. Some would argue that the next generations should have an advantage by solely mastering the newer set of conditions but I'm not sure this is the case. Thirdly, indeed why would the progression that we've been so used to seeing not be continuing right now? Why has it appeared to have stalled and why have the latest generations even regressed compared to the new highest standards. One can argue that the recent stability in tennis regarding technology and conditions have made it easier for the players who grew up built for those very conditions to maintain their stranglehold of the tour - so they've hit a sweet spot they haven't had to relinquish due to tour stability, which infers further arguments about the positive benefits for eventually dominant players of tour homogeneity. Are the Trifecta a product of being the one generation that was fortunate to land itself before a stalling of of a typically progressive sport or is the sport less progressive than we think, where most improvements were more a consequence of volatile tour conditions shaking up the establishment. The tour is stable but if some crazy new racket tech. came out that was game changing, the establishment would certainly see some sudden and drastic changes and offer a new landscape for dominance to be built from. Finally, this extends to a further implication of diminishing returns, given how far tennis has already come, where it's becoming increasingly hard to find obvious gains and niches that can be exploited to find dominance in tennis. You can even see it in matches between top players that tennis feels virtually figured out and predictable in the way that players constantly predict the responses of their opponents at the top level. I predicted some years ago that big hitters would find a way to pass the threshold of this brick wall tennis because it was the only meaningful way to counter the current prevailing paradigm at the top of tennis, but that also the prevailing paradigm is predicated on the nature of the tennis anomalies who happen to pass through, and that it isn't always in accordance with what the tour conditions infer would be the most successful method (look at the styles of Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic and compare it to the perceived notion of current tour conditions). Recently, I suggested that a logical step for tennis players in the general evolution of tennis is to make sure that opponents cannot respond to what they can't see — disguise. The above points are possible contentions for the argument of tennis convenience for the Trifecta but that's only one side of the story.

I've already stated many counters or rather "counter balances" to these potential arguments but those are ways in which I can also look at the situation when arriving to some conclusions. As things stand my current conclusion is "balance in all things" — tied in with the prediction that what we are seeing now is an exception and won't become a trend. Even though some aspects may partially become a trend (later maturing age, no more 17-year-old winners of Wimbledon) the most important determining factors are when elite tennis anomalies show up and what their essence is. Are the Trifecta lucky for having to wait so long for the next greats to arrive? Well ultimately, they all also had to deal with each other and alone they provide exceptionally fierce competition. I'd simply hesitate to conclude that they are any more fortunate than any other top generation on average, unless we want to concede that having a less professional attitude is a product of fortune, and things like that. As such, I expect similarly excellent numbers in the future, even within the next 20 years. If they aren't quite as impressive as Federer-Nadal-Djokovic would that prove the sentiments of your thesis? Some might argue yes but an equally valid argument would be that it's unreasonable to expect a trio to be quite as good as they were for at least quite some time. Gonzales-Rosewall-Laver certainly had their measure, though there is a bigger age gap there.

el sergento and Mustard, as well as yourself, have also cogently provided possible reasons why one should consider that perhaps the balance does lead to one of superior convenience even relatively to other eras. So it's not an unreasonable viewpoint, though it's one that should be pending.

 

[donquijote]

Older players outperforming the younger ones might have a link to the advancement in chemical industry?? There's been lots of talk about racquet and string technology improvements but I am not sure about that.

 

[bjsnider]

I'm going to attempt a theoretical analysis of what's been happening since 2003, the year Federer won his first Slam and Serena Williams won both the Australian Open and the Wimbledon Championships. It's not a very detailed analysis (I don't want to bore you and, moreover, I'm not exactly a keen tennis statistician). It's an attempt to understand why it is that, in an era where competition is fierce and training methods are extremely developed, we've had not an increase in number of winners (what we could call a more heterogenous winner's circle) but an extravagant concentration of limited multiple Slam winners at the top.

I'll try to isolate a specific generation of dominant tennis players which includes Serena Williams, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They were able to win major titles when they were still young (something that had always been part of tennis history until then: most notably with Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Chang, Sampras, etc), taking advantage of a time when it was still possible for players who hadn't matured yet to beat fully mature players (both physically and mentally).

These very same players came about in a transitional period where the game started changing dramatically. In a period of more or less ten years, it became increasingly difficult for young players to compete with older, more established players: tennis had changed into a sport where young challengers had to mature in order to compete with players in the mid to late 20's.

These players who had won major championships when they were young were the last of a dying breed, but they were also the first of the very dominant older players of the second decade of the 21st century. They took full advantage, if you will, 1) of the fact that their premature talent coincided with a field that could be dominated by a younger player (something that doesn't happen now) and 2) of the very recent trend that makes it impossible for a younger player to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with and as a challenger for big titles (something that does happen now). They are Becker and Wawrinka; they are Hingis and Li Na.

This is the reason why I think these champions, while being extraordinary in their own right and unmatchable talents in their time, were able to accumulate an exceptional amount of major titles since the beginning of the 21st century. Their longevity is remarkable, as is their tennis. But they were also at the right place, at the right time.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds circular. They can't because they don't, and they don't because they can't.

The only thing I know is, there are no young players who can knock off the established, ageing stars right now. I don't know why. Do you know why? If so, please explain without saying it doesn't happen, because I know it's not happening now.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds circular. They can't because they don't, and they don't because they can't.

The only thing I know is, there are no young players who can knock off the established, ageing stars right now. I don't know why. Do you know why? If so, please explain without saying it doesn't happen, because I know it's not happening now.

I was just trying to describe a state of things, the reasons remain quite nebulous to me. Reading Nathaniel_Near's, as well as other posters' contributions to this thread, might give you provisional answers. But as he himself says, the discussion is pending because we don't yet know what the next dominant period will look like.

 

[ultradr]

This is the reason why I think these champions, while being extraordinary in their own right and unmatchable talents in their time, were able to accumulate an exceptional amount of major titles since the beginning of the 21st century. Their longevity is remarkable, as is their tennis. But they were also at the right place, at the right time.

Exactly. Particularly the rise of Federer around 2003-2004 when Wimbledon and US Open
slowed their surfaces.

Homogeneous surface conditions created bunch of Open era records: # of slams, # of weeks at #1, # of consecutive slam quarters and slams.
Guys like Ferrer tops all time greats from 70s-90s on some of these records.

But still YE#1 records not broken. How long you dominate tour. It still matters.

 

[heninfan99]

Very good thread idea but I would have to write a book. But tennis is prone to domination.

 

[ultradr]

Also anyone who wins a bunch of majors was in the right place at the right time. The '90s was built for Sampras.

Exactly. Young tennis fans do not know this. All dominant players are perfect game on given era.

That's why we still use YE#1 to compare different eras.

Having said that, I would say Sampras is built for pre-Open era where 3 slams were on classic low bouncing grass courts.
I think Sampras could dominate even longer than 6 years and won 20+ slams/majors.

 

[Mustard]

And the picture is never clear while it is happening. For example, when Hewitt was world number 1, it didn't feel like any "transitional era". In hindsight, it looks just like a transitional era from Sampras to Federer.

With hindsight, the 1990s looks like a transitional period, in that unlike the 1974-1989 and 2004-present periods, the 1990s was an era with a load of different players getting bites of the cherry, including players focusing predominantly on certain surfaces. The 1990s had power that tennis had never had before, and that was a decisive factor in making tennis less consistent in terms of which players were the most successful throughout the 1990s, and on different surfaces. Sampras was the most successful, but he didn't have too much success on clay and had few consistent rivals. The 1990s and early 2000s had very few marketable rivalries on a consistent basis. Even Sampras vs. Agassi was only really on fire in 1995, and perhaps 1999 and early 2000. The 2004-present era has returned to the 1970s and 1980s in the sense that the big rivalries are back.

Perhaps the recent period, where Wawrinka and Cilic have won majors after a long period of big 4 domination, is another such transitional period, away from the big 4 to something else. We won't know for sure until years from now.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Exactly. Young tennis fans do not know this. All dominant players are perfect game on given era.

That's why we still use YE#1 to compare different eras.

Having said that, I would say Sampras is built for pre-Open era where 3 slams were on classic low bouncing grass courts.
I think Sampras could dominate even longer than 6 years and won 20+ slams/majors.

I think the super greats would definitely be able to find success outside of their own era. To my mind, if one is in the 99.999th percentile in their field in one era then they would likely still be in the same ballpark in another era as well — potentially more applicable to some than others, such as knowing that not only was Sampras a brilliant tennis player but also a super athlete. Sampras to me represents a sort of indomitable game that when on song could produce results in any era, including right now.

No way you look at it though, this is still merely supposition.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Very good thread idea but I would have to write a book. But tennis is prone to domination.

Well, maybe you could just post the abstract you would've written for that particular book?