Federer : The new gen isn't strong. Everyone plays the same brand of tennis.

[dh003i]

Furthermore, I don't think that the problem with "NextGen" has much to do with their athleticism and talent. I think their main problem is just that "OldGen" is the platinum generation of players all-time. However, that doesn't completely explain the lack of results; the next big problem is dedication, training, mentality and professionalism, which "OldGen" has taken to probably the highest level ever in tennis.

But keep pining for tennis to get some of the "megatalents" of the NFL and NBA, for all the good that will do. Maybe if you want to see those kinds of athletes you should watch those sports.

 

[dh003i]

Alex Zverev has great potential. He should get his brother to teach him to volley. If Alex can learn to mix in enough forays to the net to close out points, he could be trouble. His movement is good and he is tall with good reach. He should at least get comfortable mixing in S&V too in case opponent starts backing up to back fence to return.

Kyrios is a great talent but injuries and his own head hold him back. He actually has good hands around the net and is a tremendous athlete. He his body holds up and he can put his head on straight, he could win majors.

Theim I think has the mental strength to win big. But, his ground strokes are a bit big and his performance on hard courts and grass might not ever be as good as his clay game. He also has Nadal to deal with on clay. He is comfortable around the net but could improve. Is it possible for him to shorten up the ground strokes?

Outside of those 3, I don't see another youngster read to challenge and all 3 of these guys have things to improve still.

Dimitrov ain't going to do it. He might make a SF or F of a major but I don't see him winning a major. He is like a mini Fed but Fed does everything just a little better including the serve which is huge part of the game.

Yes, there are some players who clearly have the potential, but need to develop or shed the things holding them back, and there are others we haven't yet heard of. Fans are just impatient.

 

[mightyrick]

Furthermore, I don't think that the problem with "NextGen" has much to do with their athleticism and talent. I think their main problem is just that "OldGen" is the platinum generation of players all-time. However, that doesn't completely explain the lack of results; the next big problem is dedication, training, mentality and professionalism, which "OldGen" has taken to probably the highest level ever in tennis.

But keep pining for tennis to get some of the "megatalents" of the NFL and NBA, for all the good that will do. Maybe if you want to see those kinds of athletes you should watch those sports.

Finally, something that I do agree with.

I also don't think the problem with NextGen is athleticism or talent. IMHO, the problem with NextGen is the homogenization of the entire game. The surfaces, the balls, and the equipment. The notion of surface specialization is all but dead. To me, that is the real problem in tennis. While I do think that adding to the talent pool from the NBA, NFL, and MLB would certainly increase the playing level and athleticism, it would *not* solve the problem of the sport's homogenization.

 

[smoledman]

For all the talk about baseball, Federer reminds me most of Greg Maddux(Hall of Famer). He never had the fastest pitches, or imposing build but in his prime he was the most devastating pitcher in baseball. Federer reminds me of that, not the most imposing build or power but most devastating game.

 

[Tshooter]

 

[DRII]

Then what exactly are you trying to say? Players like those three don't come along every generation. NextGen seems like a flop now but Federer seemed just as doubtful a few years before breaking through (not to compare talent-wise, of course).

I'm sorry that you fail to understand and comprehend the entire history of tennis and learn a thing from that history. It is obvious that you don't understand the game and the inherent disadvantages of height--yes, even when paired with extreme athleticism--in tennis. There hasn't been a single particularly tall player who has been an ATG. And there are arguably extremely athletic players right now in tennis who accomplish nothing because of the wrong mindset. Your entire viewpoint is ridiculous and insulting.

who exactly is extremely tall and extremely athletic on the ATP tour?

I can't think of anyone. Monfils is athletic but at 6'4 is not 'that' tall. he also has amongst the poorest racquet head skills of any of the better players and is a headcase at that. and like I said, to disprove your 'DRII trying to be racial thing', the closest to being a mega athlete among the up and comers is Kachanov. he is tall, he is strong - not lanky like A.Z. or lacking muscle like N.K., and he has high athletic potential, and he is Caucasian!

my point simply is, the best athletes especially in North America, do not seek out tennis. and that is for various reasons but mainly due to lack of earnings potential compared to other sports currently. if they did, I am sure they would change the game tremendously ala what the Williams sisters did to the women's game 2 or 3 generations ago (depending on how one defines generation).

I really don't understand why you think my argument is insulting.

 

[DRII]

Furthermore, I don't think that the problem with "NextGen" has much to do with their athleticism and talent. I think their main problem is just that "OldGen" is the platinum generation of players all-time. However, that doesn't completely explain the lack of results; the next big problem is dedication, training, mentality and professionalism, which "OldGen" has taken to probably the highest level ever in tennis.

But keep pining for tennis to get some of the "megatalents" of the NFL and NBA, for all the good that will do. Maybe if you want to see those kinds of athletes you should watch those sports.

I do watch 'those sports', mainly during playoffs nowadays, and yet I continue to love tennis.

I don't see why you are making this into some kind of competition thing. it comes across very insecure.

 

[mightyrick]

For all the talk about baseball, Federer reminds me most of Greg Maddux(Hall of Famer). He never had the fastest pitches, or imposing build but in his prime he was the most devastating pitcher in baseball. Federer reminds me of that, not the most imposing build or power but most devastating game.

I wouldn't compare Maddux to Federer. Maddux is nowhere near comparable to Federer's level. Although Maddux was certainly amazing in the years of his prime.

On the other hand, Sandy Koufax is definitely a good comparison.

 

[droliver]

also tennis isn't going to change much until the men's game attracts 'mega athletes' to its ranks. kind of how the Williams sisters changed the women's game by upping the level of athleticism and power.

imagine if tennis attracted athletes like LeBron James when he was young, then we would have a new style of tennis.

we have tall players coming up, but they don't rank anywhere close to top professional basketball players or even some football/rugby players in terms of athleticism....

maybe tennis is just a different breed of sport.

This is a misunderstanding of the physical traits you need for Tennis, and also diminishes how elite pro players actually are. We haven't seen dominance of rugby or NBA bodies because as you get taller or heavier you sacrifice movement and are more prone to injury. Court coverage is now mission critical with more balls in play and longer points, which is why you see a clustering of height at 6' +\- 2" as the sweet spot between movement and length.

 

[Get A Grip]

Trollerer won't play clay and comes up with this nonsense. Mischa Zverev is a demon at the net, but ultimately S&V does not work. Hats off to Federer and what he does with this game, but he's the last of the Jedi.

Meanwhile M Zverev looked like a sitting duck at the net against Federer on grass.
He looked the way of the future doing the same thing against Murray on a super fast HC.

Fed said c'mon youngster S & V! but I only saw him rushing the net very selectively, he doesn't S & V himself, and was making a living out of anyone who tried to play this way against him, on grass.

Fed says a lot of stupid things, it seems. (not to take away from his brilliant victory a few days against Mr. BListers a few days ago, really impressive). Wasn't he also one who didn't belelive in Hawkeye?

Anyway, to your point, S & V only works on rare ocassions on the right surface carried out by the right player against the other right player.

This has little to do with why none of the next gens can displace Big 3. It's a question worth asking, but this isn't the answer.

Maybe they aren't eating their wheaties?

 

[Mustard]

i'm not sure if surface homogenization is partially a reason for the lack of players breakthrough. everyone keeps saying we are in a transitional stage but idk if its meant to last this long.

There isn't surface homogenization, apart from the abolition of carpet courts. The big difference is the racquets and the polyester strings, enabling rallies of greater power, depth and authority, yet with a greater margin for error too with greater spin on any given shot compared to gut strings. These conditions have encouraged players to stay back on the baseline more. It's the opposite to the 1960s when it was hard to hit much with power and depth with those wooden racquets and pure gut strings. Those conditions encouraged players to come into the net and hit volleys as a way of controlling points.

 

[DRII]

This is a misunderstanding of the physical traits you need for Tennis, and also diminishes how elite pro players actually are. We haven't seen dominance of rugby or NBA bodies because as you get taller or heavier you sacrifice movement and are more prone to injury. Court coverage is now mission critical with more balls in play and longer points, which is why you see a clustering of height at 6' +\- 2" as the sweet spot between movement and length.

the trend is leading towards taller such as A.Z., N.K., Kachanov etc being at least 6'4".

6'1" was the sweetspot for a longtime (Sampras, Federer, Nadal) and then began to inch up with Djokovic and Murray being 6'2"/6'3"...

 

[arvind13]

everyone says string technology, but its the court speeds and bigger balls that have made the bigger difference. string technology leveled the playing field. Before that, serve and volleyers had the advantage on fast surfaces. the string technology leveld the playing field. But its the slowing of the surfaces and bigger balls that completely killed off serve and volley and variety in tennis. string technology isn't that big of a factor. because the same string technology should help the volleyer control his volleys better. i think this string technology excuse was started by the tennis authorities and tournament directors who when people complain about slower surfaces, just parade out the excuse that us slowing down the courts have little to do with the state of the game. its mainly because of string technology, which isn't true.

 

[Mustard]

everyone says string technology, but its the court speeds and bigger balls that have made the bigger difference. string technology leveled the playing field. Before that, serve and volleyers had the advantage on fast surfaces. the string technology leveld the playing field. But its the slowing of the surfaces and bigger balls that completely killed off serve and volley and variety in tennis. string technology isn't that big of a factor. because the same string technology should help the volleyer control his volleys better. i think this string technology excuse was started by the tennis authorities and tournament directors who when people complain about slower surfaces, just parade out the excuse that us slowing down the courts have little to do with the state of the game. its mainly because of string technology, which isn't true.

I disagree strongly.

The racquets and strings have made the difference. I've recently been watching some matches from 1969. It was extremely hard for players like Laver and Newcombe to hit with power and depth for long, so coming to the net to volley was the obvious way to control the points. Today's conditions have big power and depth, with greater topspin on any given shot meaning greater margin for error, thus encouraging players to stay back as a way of controlling points.

In the 1990s, we had modern type racquets, but gut strings. Therefore, a lot of polarization in terms of styles of play on different surfaces. On grass back then, big power serving and short points because it was hard to rally for long with power and depth without making errors, yet there was plenty of power because of the racquets.

 

[skip1969]

Imagine the relief for someone like a Federer . . . knowing that (unless you're playing a bonafide volleyer) 95% of the guys you face will never venture to the net. I mean, such a thing would never be imaginable 15, 20 or 30 years ago. Fed has seen monumental changes in how guys play the game.

You expected even hardcore baseliners to take chances and come to net during the grass court season. They were compelled to, even against their will, because the surface demanded it. You had to come to net, if only to keep your opponent honest.

For Fed, he must see the majority of the guys on tour as predictable and one-dimensional. And it must make his 'gameplan' way easier than it was when he first rose to the top. Under those circumstances, it's no wonder he still loves playing. And he keeps winning.

 

[Chadillac]

Fed is just looking out for the best interest of the game. Tennis currently has an entertainment problem. Its very effective tennis but it all looks the same

 

[Mustard]

Fed is just looking out for the best interest of the game. Tennis currently has an entertainment problem. Its very effective tennis but it all looks the same

So you want conditions like the 1990s? That means banning poly strings and increasing the number of indoor/carpet events on the calendar, and watch those conditions return. It won't be as easy to get consistent rivalries to market tennis around, though. If you mean the conditions of the 1970s or 1960s, it means wooden racquets, and that probably wouldn't interest today's audience because the lack of consistent power would see them switch off mentally and switch off their TV sets.

 

[Chadillac]

So you want conditions like the 1990s? That means banning poly strings and increasing the number of indoor/carpet events on the calendar, and watch those conditions return. It won't be as easy to get consistent rivalries to market tennis around, though. If you mean the conditions of the 1970s or 1960s, it means wooden racquets, and that probably wouldn't interest today's audience because the lack of consistent power would see them switch off mentally and switch off their TV sets.

Surface speed is enough. The great thing about the 90's is fast court players werent great on clay, and clay players wouldnt play grass. We watch the same thing over and over, its boring. Murray, djok and nadal all play the same point every time. At least fed mixes it up

No need to change equipment.

 

[thrust]

Roger is going senile. Tennis is getting better and better.

Roger is right! One of the main reasons Roger has been winning so much the past few years is because he comes to the net as much as he does. There are too many long rallies today which takes a toll on players today, which is why the young players are not doing very well.

 

[dje31]

Oddly enough, in recent years, no doubt in part to the ravages of time and its effects on aging flesh and bone, Nadal, of all people on tour, has been closing out points at net more and more.

Whoulda thunk it? Certainly not me.

Which inspires JMac to call him the best volleyer around these days.

 

[dje31]

So you want conditions like the 1990s? That means banning poly strings and increasing the number of indoor/carpet events on the calendar, and watch those conditions return.

I, for one, would welcome the return of indoor carpet on the pro tour. I'm sure someone clever can adjust its speed as desired.

Still think the year end tourney should be on indoor carpet, if only because it's gone the way of the dodo. That, in and of itself, makes it a true litmus test.

 

[CentreCourt]

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of what he actually says.

Here's the full interview:

He says that strength in depth nowadays is as strong as ever. Says the ranking system is bias towards big players like himself, saying it's virtually impossible to get a head of steam as a young player nowadays.

He does say he finds it odd that nobody plays serve and volley nowadays and he's glad for it. He's right on all counts, too.

 

[CentreCourt]

Meanwhile M Zverev looked like a sitting duck at the net against Federer on grass.
He looked the way of the future doing the same thing against Murray on a super fast HC.

Fed said c'mon youngster S & V! but I only saw him rushing the net very selectively, he doesn't S & V himself, and was making a living out of anyone who tried to play this way against him, on grass.

Fed says a lot of stupid things, it seems. (not to take away from his brilliant victory a few days against Mr. BListers a few days ago, really impressive). Wasn't he also one who didn't belelive in Hawkeye?

Anyway, to your point, S & V only works on rare ocassions on the right surface carried out by the right player against the other right player.

This has little to do with why none of the next gens can displace Big 3. It's a question worth asking, but this isn't the answer.

Maybe they aren't eating their wheaties?

Don't think he's suggesting players should serve and volley at all times, but to just play baseline tennis with no variety and expect to win tournaments when Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are playing? As Roger said "good luck". Even the aforementioned three know when to throw in a serve and volley to keep things fresh.

 

[smoledman]

Exactly Federer said that players should come in more than 2%. Every single guy outside of Mischa was a strict baseliner. Good for Roger, but bad for the game.

 

[Mustard]

Surface speed is enough. The great thing about the 90's is fast court players werent great on clay, and clay players wouldnt play grass. We watch the same thing over and over, its boring. Murray, djok and nadal all play the same point every time. At least fed mixes it up

No need to change equipment.

There is a need, if you want 1990s conditions back. It means gut strings only, and carpet events. There must also be a way for players to play predominantly on clay for most of the year if they choose.

The poly strings are what have made the big, huge difference since the 1990s. Andre Agassi talked about it in 2002, how he was able to win the Italian Open because of the amazing new string that Darren Cahill gave him, which considerably reduced Agassi's unforced error count.

 

[Mustard]

Exactly Federer said that players should come in more than 2%. Every single guy outside of Mischa was a strict baseliner. Good for Roger, but bad for the game.

Exactly. Also, grass has always rewarded aggressive play and risk taking, and that includes today's era. Why don't more players adapt to this? On clay, it's the opposite, where patient point construction is rewarded and risk taking is punished.

 

[smoledman]

That's because coaches and players are lazy? I see no excuse why 'normal' size player like Dimitrov isn't coming to net more.

 

[dje31]

I'm not interested in bringing back a serve-ace fest that brought us to where we are now. I'm sure some clever engineer in the textile industry can formulate a carpet that's neither lightning quick nor mud slow.

Then we don't need to worry about dumbing down technological or fitness advances since they killed off the indoor carpet season.

 

[smoledman]

Once Federer becomes ATP Commissioner in 2024 he will institute the following changes:

1. He will re-balance the points distribution to be more fair to QF/SF finishers.
2. Players will start with the ability to skip any 2 MS-1000 events every year. 1 more additional with every 100 matches completed until they eventually can skip all 9.
3. Bring back best of 5 finals to several of the ATP MS-1000 events.
4. Convert Halle to a MS-1000 event.
5. Create an ATP 'Masterclass' where young players can come to be trained up on net skills by Roger, Stefan Edberg and Petros.

 

[reaper]

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of what he actually says.

Here's the full interview:

He says that strength in depth nowadays is as strong as ever. Says the ranking system is bias towards big players like himself, saying it's virtually impossible to get a head of steam as a young player nowadays.

He does say he finds it odd that nobody plays serve and volley nowadays and he's glad for it. He's right on all counts, too.

It's probably never been easier for a young player to get a head of steam. Two of the big 4 are effectively out of action and the second tier (Ferrer, Berdytch, Gasquet, Tsonga, Wawrinka etc) are all either in decline or heading that way. There's nothing to stop a talented and determined 20yo.

 

[smoledman]

Alex Zverev seems to be that guy. I wouldn't be shocked if he wins the Canadian Masters.

 

[reaper]

Alex Zverev seems to be that guy. I wouldn't be shocked if he wins the Canadian Masters.

He should have a strong North American hard court swing. Still, he's a bit hard to place in terms of level. How do you take Raonic to a 5th then lose it 6-1?

 

[CentreCourt]

It's probably never been easier for a young player to get a head of steam. Two of the big 4 are effectively out of action and the second tier (Ferrer, Berdytch, Gasquet, Tsonga, Wawrinka etc) are all either in decline or heading that way. There's nothing to stop a talented and determined 20yo.

You're missing the point being made ie the rankings being bias towards the top players. Federer talks about how he used to get bonus points for beating a player ranked 2-5 in the world. How it takes 8 wins at a 250 event to make up for a slam etc. As for your assessment that there's never been a better time, I'd disagree with that too.

When Federer and Nadal were out in the last 6 months of last year, you still had Murray at the top of his form. The 6 months before, you had Djokovic. There's always going to be at least one of the 4 on the ball at any given time and without winning slams and Masters 1000 events, you can't really make any headway.

 

[reaper]

You're missing the point being made ie the rankings being bias towards the top players. Federer talks about how he used to get bonus points for beating a player ranked 2-5 in the world. How it takes 8 wins at a 250 event to make up for a slam etc. As for your assessment that there's never been a better time, I'd disagree with that too.

When Federer and Nadal were out in the last 6 months of last year, you still had Murray at the top of his form. The 6 months before, you had Djokovic. There's always going to be at least one of the 4 on the ball at any given time and without winning slams and Masters 1000 events, you can't really make any headway.

There's nothing systemic to stop young players coming through. Nadal (2008), Federer (2004) and Djokovic (2011) had all established their peak level at 23 years of age. The most common reason not to have made it at that age is that you never will make it, either through lack of ability or work ethic. The work ethic can be fixed, the deficit in natural ability probably can't. Of the current "young" players Kyrgios might improve by fixing his attitude (which means playing through pain) and Thiem might improve with an intelligent schedule. For the likes of Nishikori and Raonic the boat has probably sailed.

 

[arvind13]

I disagree strongly.

The racquets and strings have made the difference. I've recently been watching some matches from 1969. It was extremely hard for players like Laver and Newcombe to hit with power and depth for long, so coming to the net to volley was the obvious way to control the points. Today's conditions have big power and depth, with greater topspin on any given shot meaning greater margin for error, thus encouraging players to stay back as a way of controlling points.

In the 1990s, we had modern type racquets, but gut strings. Therefore, a lot of polarization in terms of styles of play on different surfaces. On grass back then, big power serving and short points because it was hard to rally for long with power and depth without making errors, yet there was plenty of power because of the racquets.

the string technology merely evened the playing field on faster surfaces between serve and volley players and baseliners. Therefore lot of players chose baseline style of play because it is less risky and easier than serve and volley. however, that doesn't mean you can't serve and volley well with modern string technology. If anything, the strings should help you hit better, more well placed volleys with more control. given enough time, a new generation of serve and volley players could have arisen. but the slowing down of surfaces and bigger balls has almost killed off serve and volleying. ths string technology ******** excuse has gone on long enough. while that definitely played a role, the main problem is the slowing down of courts and bigger balls, hands down

 

[arvind13]

There is a need, if you want 1990s conditions back. It means gut strings only, and carpet events. There must also be a way for players to play predominantly on clay for most of the year if they choose.

The poly strings are what have made the big, huge difference since the 1990s. Andre Agassi talked about it in 2002, how he was able to win the Italian Open because of the amazing new string that Darren Cahill gave him, which considerably reduced Agassi's unforced error count.

the same poly strings should help the serve and volleyer hit better and more controlled volleys. so no, i call BS. the string technology made it much easier to hit passing shots against serve and volleys. but a great serve and volleyer can handle that, use the strings to hit better volleys. but you combine strings with slow as molasses court speeds and bigger balls, and you basically kill off serve and volley. just look at australian open. they sped up the surfaces this year, and an average serve and volley player like zverev beat murray using modern string technology.

 

[arvind13]

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/sampras-i-would-still-serve-and-volley-todays-game/50398/

“Why wouldn't I?” asked Sampras, who is attending the Australian Open to celebrate the 20th anniversary of his 1994 title. “Serve and volley on both serves. That's the only way I know how to play. People say it's harder to do it, the technology. But I think technology would have helped me out. If I used these racquets that Rafa is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could serve harder, longer. It would have been easier. So it all evens out. But I think serve-and-volley tennis, it would have been just fine today." It would have been just fine today, IF they had fast courts like they did in the 90s and smaller balls.

 

[accidental]

Because the players you are talking about are not NBA-caliber athletes. If they were, they'd be in the NBA. The closest the ATP has gotten to NBA-caliber athletes is Gael Monfils. Venus Williams could easily have been a player in the WNBA.

Specious reasoning. From your logic I suppose there’s no also decent athletes playing tennis from Spain, because they’re all playing soccer. Or from Switzerland because they’re all training for the winter Olympics, or from Canada because they’re all playing ice hockey.

Your whole argument is that African Americans are inherently genetically superior and if they played tennis, their genetic gifts would allow them to dominate. Yet there are African American pros right now who are all mediocre at best, and you’re saying it’s because they aren’t actually decent athletes at all.

If LeBron James were suddenly imbued with Monfils tennis talent and he tried to go out and make a living on the tour, he’d be a slower, more injury prone version of Monfils with even less endurance and he'd have even less success.

If Monfils is the ‘closest thing to NBA calibre’ then he’s just living proof that the athletic requirements of the NBA don’t transfer to professional tennis very well.

Here’s some facts for you:

There has been a reasonably large contingent of African American players in the ranks for the last 20 years. Right now there are at least 5 in the top 400. Compared to the total number of Americans ranked in the top 400 (33), that means 15% of American top 400 players are African Americans, which is quite representative of the African American population compared to the general population of the USA overall.

No African American player has won a slam since 1975

The average height of players in the NBA is 6’7.

Only 2 slams in all of tennis history have been won by players 6’5 or over.



The demands of the NBA rewards height far more than tennis does. There’s no need to reach up for a basket every 10 seconds in tennis or to have to make physical contact with another man and have to be larger than them, and in the NBA players can’t make each other reach down to take balls at knee level. Tennis players have to have the same full set of skills as small men, and the ability to play their best for 3-4 hours at a time.

 

[Checkmate]

I agree that Dimitrov should reinvent himself as a Serve and Volley beast.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yes in part.. but im not sure its the most importnat factor. Can you prove your point maybe..
Who in the juniors nowadays plays like Fed then in your findings ..?

Hold on: you want me to "prove my point"???

Use your eyes: at the moment, how many of the young players look more like Djokovic, how many look like Federer?

In 2011 it looked like Novak had rewritten the rules about how to win. Just be fast, limber, don't miss. Make sure you can hit one more ball than all your opponents.

From that year until this year Federer started looking like a player from the past. He was still beautiful to watch, but he didn't win.

His 2012 Wimbeldon almost looked like a nostalgic trip down memory lane. His last major final was more than a year before. He didn't make another final until two years later.

Surely you know how it was in this forum for those years, with people predicting about 30 majors for Novak.

Ask yourself who most of the younger players look more like, Federer or Djokovic? Think of A. Zverev, Coric, others. Dimi is the only guy I can think of who resembled Federer. Thiem to me looks like a blend of Nadal and something else, and he even stands way back like Nadal (and loses on fast surfaces as a result.)

Going back to Evert's era, Austin was a direct result of Chris, similar style, and you can bet that most people were copying Chris, not Martina.

Because who was Martina up to around 1981? Answer: the person who used to lose to Evert most of the time.

Up to that same year it was Borg who was setting the world on fire, not McEnroe.

No one was looking to a young player to dethrone Connors, Evert and Borg while these guys were dominating. It was all about two-handed backhands and baseline play. Wilander modeled his game to a large extent after Borg, and even Lendl, with a 1HBH, was more a baseliner. JMac was an outsider in terms of guys winning majors until Becker and Edberg reset things, followed by Sampras.

What changed this year? Old Man Fed has won two majors, and now, suddenly, the whole world is saying: "Maybe his way IS better, if he can still win majors at the age of nearly 36."

So don't be surprised if you see more young players now copying the styles of people like Fed, Sampras and so on, as much as possible. But we won't see that for a few more years, because all the very young, top guys grew up seeing Novak have more success.

(Kyrigos is an outsider, but can he win big matches?)

 

[hipolymer]

I see Federer's arrogance is at an all-time high

 

[accidental]

who exactly is extremely tall and extremely athletic on the ATP tour?

I can't think of anyone. Monfils is athletic but at 6'4 is not 'that' tall. he also has amongst the poorest racquet head skills of any of the better players and is a headcase at that. and like I said, to disprove your 'DRII trying to be racial thing', the closest to being a mega athlete among the up and comers is Kachanov. he is tall, he is strong - not lanky like A.Z. or lacking muscle like N.K., and he has high athletic potential, and he is Caucasian!

my point simply is, the best athletes especially in North America, do not seek out tennis. and that is for various reasons but mainly due to lack of earnings potential compared to other sports currently. if they did, I am sure they would change the game tremendously ala what the Williams sisters did to the women's game 2 or 3 generations ago (depending on how one defines generation).

I really don't understand why you think my argument is insulting.

I'm curious, what similarities do you think there are between the NBA, NFL and tennis?

And about the Williams sisters, women's tennis is the richest women's sport in the world.

So what's the reason why there aren't an army of Venus' and Serena's coming through? They both turned pro more than 20 years ago now.

 

[Thundergod]

Hold on: you want me to "prove my point"???

Use your eyes: at the moment, how many of the young players look more like Djokovic, how many look like Federer?

In 2011 it looked like Novak had rewritten the rules about how to win. Just be fast, limber, don't miss. Make sure you can hit one more ball than all your opponents.

From that year until this year Federer started looking like a player from the past. He was still beautiful to watch, but he didn't win.

His 2012 Wimbeldon almost looked like a nostalgic trip down memory lane. His last major final was more than a year before. He didn't make another final until two years later.

Surely you know how it was in this forum for those years, with people predicting about 30 majors for Novak.

Ask yourself who most of the younger players look more like, Federer or Djokovic? Think of A. Zverev, Coric, others. Dimi is the only guy I can think of who resembled Federer. Thiem to me looks like a blend of Nadal and something else, and he even stands way back like Nadal (and loses on fast surfaces as a result.)

Going back to Evert's era, Austin was a direct result of Chris, similar style, and you can bet that most people were copying Chris, not Martina.

Because who was Martina up to around 1981? Answer: the person who used to lose to Evert most of the time.

Up to that same year it was Borg who was setting the world on fire, not McEnroe.

No one was looking to a young player to dethrone Connors, Evert and Borg while these guys were dominating. It was all about two-handed backhands and baseline play. Wilander modeled his game to a large extent after Borg, and even Lendl, with a 1HBH, was more a baseliner. JMac was an outsider in terms of guys winning majors until Becker and Edberg reset things, followed by Sampras.

What changed this year? Old Man Fed has won two majors, and now, suddenly, the whole world is saying: "Maybe his way IS better, if he can still win majors at the age of nearly 36."

So don't be surprised if you see more young players now copying the styles of people like Fed, Sampras and so on, as much as possible. But we won't see that for a few more years, because all the very young, top guys grew up seeing Novak have more success.

(Kyrigos is an outsider, but can he win big matches?)

It is only better if you are extremely talented, which is pretty much none of them. I never got why people said Fed's style is outdated though. It has a higher ceiling than a defensive one like Djokovic/Murray imo.

The young guys can take bits and pieces from Fed, but not try to be a clone of him.

 

[Gary Duane]

It is only better if you are extremely talented, which is pretty much none of them. I never got why people said Fed's style is outdated though. It has a higher ceiling than a defensive one like Djokovic/Murray imo.

The young guys can take bits and pieces from Fed, but not try to be a clone of him.

I'm not suggesting that young players should ever try to copy an ATG.

I'm only saying that WHICH ATG they look to as the best example of how to win, which will not only affect them but also the way their coaches train them, depends on who is at the top.

My point was that when Evert was on top of the world most young girls dreamed of playing like "Chrissy". But before Chris it was BJK, and it is fair to say that things switched from BJK to Evert, then flipped back a good deal when Navratilova dominated. There is a 13 year gap between BJK and Martina.

In the same way, everyone wanted to play like Connors and Borg until JMac started winning big, and there is a 7-8 year gap between him and Edberg/Becker. For quite a few years it looked like playing like Lendl was the way to win, or Wilander, who won the AO on grass. So who players model themselves after changes the way styles in clothes change.

 

[smalahove]

And about the Williams sisters, women's tennis is the richest women's sport in the world.

Are you sure about that (just asking)?
My guess would be that, just as in men's tennis, the overall majority of money the players are seeing is primarily distributed among Fed, Rafa and Novak, and the rest among the top 10-20. So perhaps tennis has a high average income among ATP/WTA players, but the median income is way, way, way lower. My guess is that median income in f.inst. golf is much higher than in tennis, for both men and women.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

He should have a strong North American hard court swing. Still, he's a bit hard to place in terms of level. How do you take Raonic to a 5th then lose it 6-1?

Inexperience. Fed had breaks on Henman in 2 of the 3 sets he lost in his 2001 loss at Wimbledon. Also served for the match IIRC and still lost against Agassi at Miami. Zverev is the goods. But I think more like good for half a dozen slams at best than anything in double digits.

 

[accidental]

Are you sure about that (just asking)?
My guess would be that, just as in men's tennis, the overall majority of money the players are seeing is primarily distributed among Fed, Rafa and Novak, and the rest among the top 10-20. So perhaps tennis has a high average income among ATP/WTA players, but the median income is way, way, way lower. My guess is that median income in f.inst. golf is much higher than in tennis, for both men and women.

You might be right about golf, but tennis certainly pays far higher than women's basketball or soccer. Apparently the highest paid basketball players get about 100k

 

[racquetreligion]

You're absolutely right this time.

Other sports get the best athletes because they pay better. Tennis has too top heavy a pay structure. The split between tournaments and players isn't right.
It takes a ton of money to develop a pro tennis player, an the incentives for doing so aren't really great unless you make it to the absolute top.

Then all the top guys invest a huge amount of their money into having these giant entourages complete with physio, super coach and advisors... The lower ranked guys can't afford any of that. It's basically a rich get richer type of scenario...

Tomic got paid fine had an entourage bigger than Madonna as still is a woosie clown at tennis
$$$$ dont mean a thing when kids are not hungry they wont hang for long with just a selfie culture

 

[mightyrick]

Specious reasoning. From your logic I suppose there’s no also decent athletes playing tennis from Spain, because they’re all playing soccer. Or from Switzerland because they’re all training for the winter Olympics, or from Canada because they’re all playing ice hockey.

Christopher Hitchens used to say that in any debate, the moment someone went to non-sequitur, faulty reasoning, or strawmans... you instantly knew that you were onto something. With regards to your entire post, all I can say is that it is a complete strawman. I'm not going to spend an entire post deconstructing what you said in order to simply restate several of the points that I said. It's a waste of time.

You could have saved us all time and just said, "I disagree". Perfectly fine and valid response.

 

[mightyrick]

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/sampras-i-would-still-serve-and-volley-todays-game/50398/

“Why wouldn't I?” asked Sampras, who is attending the Australian Open to celebrate the 20th anniversary of his 1994 title. “Serve and volley on both serves. That's the only way I know how to play. People say it's harder to do it, the technology. But I think technology would have helped me out. If I used these racquets that Rafa is using, it's easier to serve, easier to volley. I could serve harder, longer. It would have been easier. So it all evens out. But I think serve-and-volley tennis, it would have been just fine today." It would have been just fine today, IF they had fast courts like they did in the 90s and smaller balls.

Exactly. Sampras was an incredible player... but my response to his entire statement is...

"Where is your French Open to substantiate all of that awesome serve-and-volleying on slow courts?" *crickets*