Federer gen vs current gen

[matterer]

Or perhaps sports science has improved health, and modern video technology have helped the players born in the late 80s and 90s improve their technique and win into their late 30s. That’s why this current generation is becoming stronger than ever.

Djokovic doesn't hire sports scientists to help him with his serve, he hires Becker and Ivanisevic. Video analysis and biomechanics isn't how Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, Murray etc learned their technique. And guys like Shelton and Alcaraz learned from their fathers, who are former professionals who learned in the 70s and 80s. Taylor Dent still holds the record for fastest serve at 2 of the 4 grand slams. His father made the finals of the 1974 AO.

 

[soldat]

But their technique is faltering. There's no reason for Zverev to be unable to find a solution for his second serve woes.

I don’t see anything in particular off about his technique, he seems to let his emotions control him, likely leading to poor second serves during tight points of the match. In all Zverevs pace and serve are quite good, that’s why he’s won atp finals twice. Overall he is a strong player and has a great chance to beat any Fedgen player.

 

[soldat]

Djokovic may hire a nutritionist or doctor who benefits from improvements in science, who then applies it to sports. You called it sports science but it can be whatever term you want. The doctor could also tell Djokovic where the stresses on his arm are and thus give him an idea of how to hit the ball more efficiently. Video replay can let him know where in his swing motion he can improve. He hires the coaches because they help him to think of and implement ways to improve his game, these older players/coaches have all benefited from modern improvements, and thus train the current generation even better.

I believe there is definitely progression, so don’t be too sad that your generation surpassed by future generations. It’s a good thing and it will continue in the next nextgen.

 

[matterer]

Djokovic may hire a nutritionist or doctor who benefits from improvements in science, who then applies it to sports. You called it sports science but it can be whatever term you want. The doctor could also tell Djokovic where the stresses on his arm are and thus give him an idea of how to hit the ball more efficiently. Video replay can let him know where in his swing motion he can improve. He hires the coaches because they help him to think of and implement ways to improve his game, these older players/coaches have all benefited from modern improvements, and thus train the current generation even better.

You just made all that up in your head

 

[soldat]

You just made all that up in your head

How so? He definitely has had a doctor look at his diet, we know that his practice sessions get recorded, all the pro matches are recorded, he can rewatch matches with ease to find aspects of his game to improve. He has had surgery on his elbow, when he had the AO injury he had a doctor fly in.

We know pros now travel with whole teams, coach, physio, even psychologists, trainer. Every one of these individuals enjoys the benefit of improved technology and knowledge. What evidence do you have that past generations are stronger?

 

[Robert F]

I think the game has gone up in a notch of court coverage, speed and pace. So even if the Fed generation had more tennis skills, the guys of today as a group are just physically better athletes.
I think the previous Fed generation as a group were not as fast or able to hit shots from all parts of the court like the guys today do.
But I also think Fed's generation were more consistent, smarter in their court positioning and shot selection.
I wonder if the speed and power of the game has gotten to a level that the craftier/smarter parts of the game are less impactful. Hence the new guys are not masters of those old skills.

Safin could crack the ball but wasn't as fast as many of these guys.
Then you have the rabbits of the Fed generation that were super solid but didn't have the raw power of Alcaraz, Sinner, Rublev, Zverev.

Probably one of the reasons Djoker is so successful is his speed, court coverage and shot selection. He has the best of both worlds, power too.
I also think that is why Fed was so successful having the serve and volley tools of guys from the 90's bought brought in the baseline game of the 2000's.

 

[Hood_Man]

Federer's generation were household names, while every next gen from around 2012 onwards had just been a conveyor belt of players reaching slam finals and then disappearing.

Kind of days it so really.

You couldn't imagine Medvedev or Tsitsipas being invited to appear on the Jonathan Ross show for example.

 

[Jonas78]

safin alcaraz
roddick sinner
hewitt rune
nalbandian zverev
davydenko medvedev
ferrero tsitsipas
soderling thiem
gonzalez shelton
haas kyrgios
blake berrettini
moya rublev
ferrer ruud
coria musetti
baghdatis aliassime
verdasco shapovalov
ljubicic hurckaz
ancic fritz
fish korda
robredo khachanov
gaudio fils

The problem is that for the last 15 years we havent seen a new Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or even Murray or Wawrinka.

These comparisons are useless, you are comparing Federer-gens tier 2 with the tier 1 of the last 15 years of players.

Its not about Medvedev or Davydenko, they are both second tier players, but where is the new Sampras, the new Agassi, the new Federer or the new Nadal?

 

[Rosstour]

Being fit does not preclude variety. Federer’s gen is simply weaker than now, due to all of the above factors, and the game is still as varied as ever.

I would say it’s even more varied now because of the increased consistency of technique across the board.
You used to see players unable to return serve more and error more, now everyone is strong. All players now have to be all court / full coverage now

I think it goes Present > Djokovic/Nadal > Nadal/Federer era > Sampras/Agassi Era

"Federer's Gen" ended in 2005 when Rafa showed up.

And that weak era? Yeah, that helped PETE too, the greatest dominator the game has supposedly ever seen

 

[Benf15harp]

Older gen - murder
New gen - bloodbath

 

[Jonas78]

"Federer's Gen" ended in 2005 when Rafa showed up.

And that weak era? Yeah, that helped PETE too, the greatest dominator the game has supposedly ever seen

He doesnt highlight the real problem, that current gen doesnt have a Rafa or Federer. There are only second tier players in current gen.

You have to name it Federer gen or Medvedev gen to see the problem, but thats obviously too dufficult.

 

[Jonas78]

safin alcaraz
roddick sinner
hewitt rune
nalbandian zverev
davydenko medvedev
ferrero tsitsipas
soderling thiem
gonzalez shelton
haas kyrgios
blake berrettini
moya rublev
ferrer ruud
coria musetti
baghdatis aliassime
verdasco shapovalov
ljubicic hurckaz
ancic fritz
fish korda
robredo khachanov
gaudio fils

I just watched Nadal-Coria Rome 2005, and must say the Coria-Musetti comparison is an insult of astronomical proportions. Coria is playing insane level tennis here, and pushes a peak COK to five sets.

 

[Aabye5]

I don’t see anything in particular off about his technique, he seems to let his emotions control him, likely leading to poor second serves during tight points of the match. In all Zverevs pace and serve are quite good, that’s why he’s won atp finals twice. Overall he is a strong player and has a great chance to beat any Fedgen player.

His toss is too high. Yes, he's tall, but it just allows for too much time and he seems to lose control over it far too often.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Sinner is the only guy better than Feds gen. Carlos is basically Hewitt level. Just better on clay and worse on everything else. Feds gen was 20x better than this mess of players. Much deeper talent wise

Heck these players aren’t even better than leftover 34-35 year old Pete’s gen Agassi

This gen isn’t impressive at all outside the two guys sinner and Carlos.

 

[CHillTennis]

Sinner is the only guy better than Feds gen. Carlos is basically Hewitt level. Just better on clay and worse on everything else. Feds gen was 20x better than this mess of players. Much deeper talent wise

Heck these players aren’t even better than leftover 34-35 year old Pete’s gen Agassi

This gen isn’t impressive at all outside the two guys sinner and Carlos.

Sinner is not better than Safin. No way. And I would argue that peak Hewitt was better than both Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Sinner is not better than Safin. No way. And I would argue that peak Hewitt was better than both Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner.

Pure talent wise maybe not but he will have 10x the career no doubt. Safin was just a wreck loose. And he has already almost surpassed safin at just 22. I mean as much talent as safin had he doesn’t have much to show for it

 

[jackson vile]

The problem with the Federer Gen is not whether it was GOOD or BAD, but rather its short duration.

Safin was easily the most talented, bagged 2 Slams within a 5 year period and has injuries and quite a few first round losses marring his career.

Hewitt was a dogged competitor and champion, but much like his protege, Alex de Minaur, benefitted greatly when the best were not up to snuff. Once Federer and some others started to be more consistent, he was still a fierce competitor, but the matches started to go less and less in his favor.

Roddick is probably the fourth or even fifth most talented player from this era. Players like Haas and Nalbandian were expected to play bigger roles, but at that time too many players were caught up in the party lifestyle and not focused on their careers.

JC Ferrero, Carlos Alcaraz's coach, is another player that had his career unexpectedly shortened.

Very well ssid

Roddick already told us this generation is better

 

[CHillTennis]

Pure talent wise maybe not but he will have 10x the career no doubt. Safin was just a wreck loose. And he has already almost surpassed safin at just 22. I mean as much talent as safin had he doesn’t have much to show for it

Safin beat Sampras when he was still in his prime at the US Open. He also beat peak Roger Federer (and Hewitt) at the 2005 Australian Open.

Sinner beat a 36 year old Novak Djokovic.

He's playing the worst field, that the game has seen, since 1973.

There's no comparing the two. Safin is the clear winner.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

If we exclude Sinner, then Federer gen without a doubt.
But if we include Sinner, then that only makes the current gen miles stronger!

 

[duaneeo]

The problem with the Federer Gen is not whether it was GOOD or BAD, but rather its short duration.

Safin was easily the most talented, bagged 2 Slams within a 5 year period and has injuries and quite a few first round losses marring his career.

Hewitt was a dogged competitor and champion, but much like his protege, Alex de Minaur, benefitted greatly when the best were not up to snuff. Once Federer and some others started to be more consistent, he was still a fierce competitor, but the matches started to go less and less in his favor.

Roddick is probably the fourth or even fifth most talented player from this era. Players like Haas and Nalbandian were expected to play bigger roles, but at that time too many players were caught up in the party lifestyle and not focused on their careers.

JC Ferrero, Carlos Alcaraz's coach, is another player that had his career unexpectedly shortened.

Your post became null and void the second you compared Hewitt with de Minaur.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Safin beat Sampras when he was still in his prime at the US Open. He also beat peak Roger Federer (and Hewitt) at the 2005 Australian Open.

Sinner beat a 36 year old Novak Djokovic.

He's playing the worst field, that the game has seen, since 1973.

There's no comparing the two. Safin is the clear winner.

36 is the new 26

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Prime Sinner >>> any version of Fakeovic, Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, etc.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Tsitsipas and Ruud are also miles better than any version of Djokovic on clay ever

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Safin beat Sampras when he was still in his prime at the US Open. He also beat peak Roger Federer (and Hewitt) at the 2005 Australian Open.

Sinner beat a 36 year old Novak Djokovic.

He's playing the worst field, that the game has seen, since 1973.

There's no comparing the two. Safin is the clear winner.

How much are you willing to accept to do me a favour and post a video on your YouTube channel about Sinner being the undisputed GOAT of tennis?
I assure you, that kind of video will become VERY famous in no time!

P.S. Oh, and don't forget to emphasise that Djokovic is still at the absolute peak of his powers (you know, to hype up Sinner's competition)

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Safin beat Sampras when he was still in his prime at the US Open. He also beat peak Roger Federer (and Hewitt) at the 2005 Australian Open.

Sinner beat a 36 year old Novak Djokovic.

He's playing the worst field, that the game has seen, since 1973.

There's no comparing the two. Safin is the clear winner.

Problem is that’s all Safin ever did. Yes peaking wise there are few better than safin in history but you can’t really hang your hat on peaking for 2 slams your whole career. What about the other 50 slams safin didn’t do anything in?
sinner has begun his rise and will be a force to be reckoned with at every slam

 

[CHillTennis]

How much are you willing to accept to do me a favour and post a video on your YouTube channel about Sinner being the undisputed GOAT of tennis?
I assure you, that kind of video will become VERY famous in no time!

P.S. Oh, and don't forget to emphasise that Djokovic is still at the absolute peak of his powers (you know, to hype up Sinner's competition)

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I don't care about YT fame (I don't know why anyone would) and I'm definitely not a sell-out.

 

[CHillTennis]

Problem is that’s all Safin ever did. Yes peaking wise there are few better than safin in history but you can’t really hang your hat on peaking for 2 slams your whole career. What about the other 50 slams safin didn’t do anything in?
sinner has begun his rise and will be a force to be reckoned with at every slam

Sinner is a big fish in a very small pond. Safin was a big fish in an ocean.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I don't care about YT fame (I don't know why anyone would) and I'm definitely not a sell-out.

I respect that! Your act of prioritizing your morals and principles over fame and money is admirable!
Now, with that being said, which tennis player do you consider to be the GOAT?

 

[CHillTennis]

I respect that! Your act of prioritizing your morals and principles over fame and money is admirable!
Now, with that being said, which tennis player do you consider to be the GOAT?

Laughs. Thank you. I appreciate that.

The greatest of all time question gets floated around a lot. To be honest, I really don't know who the GOAT is.

I've seen Roger Federer when he was at his best in the mid 2000s. That was pretty good. So was Nadal in the early 2010s and Djokovic in the early to mid 2010s.

I really can't say. However, I would not make an assessment based purely on the slam count. You also have to look the field and when it was at it's best.

For instance, 1975-81 was a great time in the men's game. But the time preceding it was not very good at all.

 

[Aabye5]

Your post became null and void the second you compared Hewitt with de Minaur.

It's a likely comparison in terms of style. It's just that De Minaur is unlikely to win a Slam.

 

[mike danny]

The Next Gen are worse by default since they've failed against worse opponents.

 

[NedStark]

He's playing the worst field, that the game has seen, since 1973.

I don’t know, the early 1970s had a strong grass/carpet player lineup. I think outside of clay and especially on grass 1970-1975 had a better field (with 4-6 HOF/ATG caliber players) than 1976-1979 (only Borg and Connors).

1973 was asterisked due to that year’s empty Wimbledon, though.

The weakest years outside of the post-Covid years were 1997 and 2002.

 

[RS]

Sinner and Alcaraz will smash through Fed gen apart from Fed himself eventually though.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Sinner and Alcaraz will smash through Fed gen apart from Fed himself eventually though.

Alcaraz? No. I mean, he would certainly be good enough to overcome Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and non-2005 Safin, but 2004-2007 Federer himself? No way.
Sinner, on the other hand, yes definitely!

 

[CHillTennis]

I don’t know, the early 1970s had a strong grass/carpet player lineup. I think outside of clay and especially on grass 1970-1975 had a better field (with 4-6 HOF/ATG caliber players) than 1976-1979 (only Borg and Connors).

1973 was asterisked due to that year’s empty Wimbledon, though.

The weakest years outside of the post-Covid years were 1997 and 2002.

The field of 1970-73 actually has some resemblance to what we have today. At least in the following senses:

1. We have a 35+ year old player winning multiple grand slam titles (Rosewall: 1970 US Open, 1971 Australian Open, 1972 Australian Open.)

2. We have another 30+ year old player (Rod Laver) who had been dominating the tour in recent years.

3. We have a series of younger players (Nastase, Ashe, Smith, and Newcombe) who are able to step in and start winning grand slam titles. However, these players are not entirely up to the task of pushing out the older guard of Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver.

Ken Rosewall made two grand slam finals in 1974 at the age of 39. This is the only time period, besides the last few years, where a player over the age of 35 has been able to routinely make the finals of grand slams.

Also, I do agree that 1997-2002 was a weak time in the game.

 

[SonnyT]

Federer's career were defined by two players not on that list.

 

[NedStark]

3. We have a series of younger players (Nastase, Ashe, Smith, and Newcombe) who are able to step in and start winning grand slam titles. However, these players are not entirely up to the task of pushing out the older guard of Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver

The difference is that these younger players won most of the Slams in that period (with the remaining three were taken by Rosewall). Also, Nastase dominated the Masters.

In the current era, all but 4 Slams were won by Djokodal, mostly Djokovic.

We have a 35+ year old player winning multiple grand slam titles (Rosewall: 1970 US Open, 1971 Australian Open, 1972 Australian Open.)

Other than 1970, Rosewall did not dominate like Djokovic & Federer, though.

Ken Rosewall made two grand slam finals in 1974 at the age of 39. This is the only time period, besides the last few years, where a player over the age of 35 has been able to routinely make the finals of grand slams.

Yes, and his runs were huge and unexpected upsets, especially after Newk sent him packing with ease in USO 1973. He did not win a single title in 1974, though.

2. We have another 30+ year old player (Rod Laver) who had been dominating the tour in recent years

Laver immediately lost his grip in Slams after 1969. His dominance in the WCT circuit extended to 1971 and arguably mid-1972, though.

 

[CHillTennis]

The difference is that these younger players won most of the Slams in that period (with the remaining three were taken by Rosewall). Also, Nastase dominated the Masters.

In the current era, all but 4 Slams were won by Djokodal, mostly Djokovic.


Other than 1970, Rosewall did not dominate like Djokovic & Federer, though.


Yes, and his runs were huge and unexpected upsets, especially after Newk sent him packing with ease in USO 1973. He did not win a single title in 1974, though.


Laver immediately lost his grip in Slams after 1969. His dominance in the WCT circuit extended to 1971 and arguably mid-1972, though.

I agree with everything that you say. Although, I feel that it is worth mentioning that Rosewall turned 36 years old in 1970. The same age that Djokovic is right now.

Despite being in his early 30s, Rod Laver was arguably the best player of 1970.

Unlike in 1969, he chose to pursue prize money at the expense of winning grand slam titles. And given what the players made back in those days, one can hardly blame him for doing that.

I do feel that the field from 1968-73 was considerably stronger than let's say 2018-2024. There were younger players that were consistently winning grand slam titles. It wasn't a complete two man show.

However, the younger players still did not fair particularly well against Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall. Even despite their massive age advantage.

If you look at the succeeding generation of Connors, Borg, and McEnroe they were clearly a much stronger group.

Borg was dominant against Laver and Connors was dominant against Rosewall.