From 2003 to 2023, which years were weak era and strong era?

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

You guys are trying to sell the bill of goods that tennis is the exception to every other sport that unlike every other sport which is clearly measurably better (tennis is too btw) tennis somehow is magically worse than it was 20 years ago despite bigger athlete pool more money/financial incentive and again despite literally every piece of data we have on the sport saying otherwise and I'm the narrative peddler. This is complete clownery.

Both can be true, take NCAA basketball in the US. Because of the 1 and done's heading to the NBA, The past 15 years is objectively the weakest era when it comes to a team's potential talent. A team of lottery picks who stay until their Senior year would never lose in today's landscape. Picture LeBron, even as a Sophomore, playing college ball...

At the same time, despite the potential ceiling being drastically lowered, the three point shot and modern training / spacing etc... would still give the current teams a great chance to beat 1991 UNLV in a "time machine" game. Even though no one would ever say a current team is anywhere near the top 10 of greatest teams ever.

This is a great parallel for people, like me, who think the Great Recession has gravely injured the talent pool of men's tennis.

 

[The Guru]

I don't think this and your second post are really good explanations for why #NextGen are collectively weak. You seem to be saying that percentage baseline tennis has been optimised over the last 15 or so years, almost to the point of being perfected, but now these guys are too one dimensional because they invested all their skill points? Are transition game, touch, volleys etc...so important that the weakness there explains why we've been lacking top talent for so long? Certainly I don't think Med, Zed, Tsits, Rublev etc...are better, are more optimised baseline players than players from 10 years ago, though I suppose Tsits is a serve+1 player? Of course he's clearly inferior that regard compared to say...Roddick a guy what 16 years older than him, even in absolute terms though you'll probably disagree. I guess you think baseline tennis conveniently peaked in 2016

Well 2012 Murray has the advantage of equipment to be fair. On an absolute level Agassi was hitting the ball better than ever in his later career because of the new racket, he was certainly serving better. But I would never say he peaked in his later career. I don't see as much of a change from 2005 to now as from 1995 to say 2012.

Yeah basically. They only developed one way to win one way to construct points to the point where Djokovic might have the most variety in the top 10 rn. He was previously considered one dimensional. You need to have another way to win because opponents can get hot in spurts and the percentages might not fall on your side over the relatively small sample of a match especially if they have a strong service game which is peaking rn in terms of hold percentage.

Honestly regret getting into this I've just had too much time on my hands and am dealing with some **** in my real life and am using this to distract myself. Sorry for going aggro on this and in general I prolly should avoid these threads as I mostly have for the last 18 months. I do stand by what I said though.

 

[The Guru]

Both can be true, take NCAA basketball in the US. Because of the 1 and done's heading to the NBA, The past 15 years is objectively the weakest era when it comes to a team's potential talent. A team of lottery picks who stay until their Senior year would never lose in today's landscape. Picture LeBron, even as a Sophomore, playing college ball...

At the same time, despite the potential ceiling being drastically lowered, the three point shot and modern training / spacing etc... would still give the current teams a great chance to beat 1991 UNLV in a "time machine" game. Even though no one would ever say a current team is anywhere near the top 10 of greatest teams ever.

This is a great parallel for people, like me, who think the Great Recession has gravely injured the talent pool of men's tennis.

Ok but 19/20/21/22 year old basketball players have never been stronger. Where they play is not really relevant.

This point actually completely aligns with what I'm saying. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not but it seems like you are.

Curious why you would say that. Great Recession happened when the biggest icon the game has ever seen was on top of the world. No one has done more for tennis than RF and I can't imagine his influence has done anything but grow the player pool massively. He's Tiger level in terms of growing the game in my eyes.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

2 2 and 2 may have been a bit aggressive but he's not losing a set and there's no TBs even if he is screwing around like he often does nowadays. It has less to do with any of these guys as individuals and more to do with the fact that match was 20 years ago and 20 years is forever in sports.

I think the problem with this argument is that the same guys dominated that entire 20 year stretch, and as they got older the field got worse against them. Not only that, the younger guys spent much of their careers losing to the 2nd and 3rd tier players of the golden Gen.

I think it’s not arguable that several things have changed on average:
- players are taller
- fitness standards have improved
- players hit with more pace and spin on average, though part of this change is due to racquet/string technology as I’ll come to later
- top players embrace a more professional approach, traveling with large teams of support staff

I agree with part of the thrust of your argument - I’ve said often that Federer was the first beneficiary of surface homogenization. He adapted to the new conditions on tour in a way that his contemporaries couldn’t and dominated them as a result. Guys who grew up thinking they were going to be playing in 90s conditions and without an adaptable skillset found themselves ineffective in the early-mid 00s.

Nadal and Djokovic them came in and established the modern baseline game as the standard, different from the era straddling hybrid game that Federer played. The big 3 pushed each other, raised the average standard of play and the Nadal/Djokovic generation followed them by raising their games as we saw from guys like Delpo, Cilic, Stan, Tsonga, etc.

However I don’t agree that we’re in the same position as basketball. The NBA is more lucrative, has more spots that can pay the bills, has a streamlined development system and most importantly is much more popular especially with young people.

The age demographic that watches tennis over the past 20 years aged 20 years on average. That means we’ve effectively not captured young viewers at all. The NBA on the other hand has maintained a young average age of viewership. This correlates to the ability to continue funneling talent into their pipeline. Tennis on the other hand had a 15 year gap between producing Delpo and Alcaraz as athletes that brought something superlative to the table that they could leverage consistently against the field. And unfortunately we didn’t even get to see that potential realized with Delpo due to his injuries.

I think there are many reasons why the younger generations have failed but some of them follow:

- decreased popularity leading to weaker talent pipeline
- modified technique due to growing up with lighter rackets and poly, which is not talked about enough. What ATG caliber weapons exist among the younger gens? The Kyrgios serve and what else?
- reduced repertoire of shots and tactical adaptability for many players due to growing up on homogenized surfaces
- reduced opportunities for high pressure 5 set match experience (no B05 masters finals or DC)
- increased money in the game leading to more comfortable lifestyles in top 10-20 range
- increased money in the game reducing incentive for previous gens to retire
- increased money in the game meaning previous greats had a massive resource advantage over young guys coming up when it comes to training, nutrition, recovery (better and bigger teams and analytics, to think of extreme situations like shipping the recovery egg to slams)
- high cost of entry combined with fragmented multinational development system that selects for rich/crazy tennis parents over the most talented athletes
- stabilization of racket, string tech and surface types meaning that young players don’t have the assist of rapid change in these variables ousting former gens before their time
- etc

 

[RelentlessAttack]

You guys are trying to sell the bill of goods that tennis is the exception to every other sport that unlike every other sport which is clearly measurably better (tennis is too btw) tennis somehow is magically worse than it was 20 years ago despite bigger athlete pool more money/financial incentive and again despite literally every piece of data we have on the sport saying otherwise and I'm the narrative peddler. This is complete clownery.

Hockey was in a dark age in the mid 10s and is having a renaissance over the past few years in young talent. A lot of that has to do with rule and equipment changes. I make a lot of cross sport analogies as well but they are not on all analogous for the same reasons at the same time. Hockey’s rule enforcement changes and embrace of analytics have led to an emphasis on speed and skill allowing young players to break through. That’s more analogous to previous generations of tennis facing surface, racket, string changes, while tennis has seen those things stabilize over the last 20 years

 

[Kralingen]

I don’t even know where to begin with the past 3 pages of this stuff. Ultimately you play the opponents in the time you lived in, with your training methods and your technology. Comparing forwards or backwards is always going to be unfavorable, because just like Nadal, Djokovic and Thiem didn’t train to play with wooden racquets, Borg and McEnroe didn’t train to play with a 95 sq inch Babolat and poly strings.

But one thing I will say that JUMPS off the screen, I mean absolutely changes the way the game of tennis is played, is sliding into shots rather than running past them and having to take extra steps.

You cannot look at pre 2000 tennis and 2000s tennis the same way once you notice it.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the players are better but it is undeniable to me that the game has visibly changed in that respect.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I don’t even know where to begin with the past 3 pages of this stuff. Ultimately you play the opponents in the time you lived in, with your training methods and your technology. Comparing forwards or backwards is always going to be unfavorable, because just like Nadal, Djokovic and Thiem didn’t train to play with wooden racquets, Borg and McEnroe didn’t train to play with a 95 sq inch Babolat and poly strings.

But one thing I will say that JUMPS off the screen, I mean absolutely changes the way the game of tennis is played, is sliding into shots rather than running past them and having to take extra steps.

You cannot look at pre 2000 tennis and 2000s tennis the same way once you notice it.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the players are better but it is undeniable to me that the game has visibly changed in that respect.

The other thing that I believe will become a fixture in the future is going big on the second serve, essentially having 2 first serves because the percentages make sense. We’ve seen Djokovic beef up his 2nd serve, we’ve seen Kyrgios play around with it, and when playing well we’ve seen Medvedev and Zverev use it. It’s going to be like volume 3 point shooting in the NBA, it’s going to be hard to dominate without it. This is one of the reasons I’m not as bullish on Alcaraz as others, because his height likely won’t allow him to employ this strategy as effectively.

 

[fundrazer]

The other thing that I believe will become a fixture in the future is going big on the second serve, essentially having 2 first serves because the percentages make sense. We’ve seen Djokovic beef up his 2nd serve, we’ve seen Kyrgios play around with it, and when playing well we’ve seen Medvedev and Zverev use it. It’s going to be like volume 3 point shooting in the NBA, it’s going to be hard to dominate without it. This is one of the reasons I’m not as bullish on Alcaraz as others, because his height likely won’t allow him to employ this strategy as effectively.

Interesting thought. Think it makes more sense for the guys who are capable of averaging a high % like Zed and Kyrgios while dominating on those first serve points. Think for anybody else who's probably sub 70% on first serves in that it starts getting a bit iffy.

Kinda had to lol a bit when you mention Novak beefing up the serve, because the story of a lot of his last few grand slam finals is the fact that he can play super passive with it and never gets punished.

Like it blows my mind when he's literally hitting second serves anywhere from like 75 to 85 mph and then Berrettini/Ruud/Tsitisipas either do nothing or put the ball into the net.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Interesting thought. Think it makes more sense for the guys who are capable of averaging a high % like Zed and Kyrgios while dominating on those first serve points. Think for anybody else who's probably sub 70% on first serves in that it starts getting a bit iffy.

Kinda had to lol a bit when you mention Novak beefing up the serve, because the story of a lot of his last few grand slam finals is the fact that he can play super passive with it and never gets punished.

Like it blows my mind when he's literally hitting second serves anywhere from like 75 to 85 mph and then Berrettini/Ruud/Tsitisipas either do nothing or put the ball into the net.

Agreed on the %ages

someone posted the stats in the past. In a couple of his big years he had beefed up both serves

 

[Kralingen]

The other thing that I believe will become a fixture in the future is going big on the second serve, essentially having 2 first serves because the percentages make sense. We’ve seen Djokovic beef up his 2nd serve, we’ve seen Kyrgios play around with it, and when playing well we’ve seen Medvedev and Zverev use it. It’s going to be like volume 3 point shooting in the NBA, it’s going to be hard to dominate without it. This is one of the reasons I’m not as bullish on Alcaraz as others, because his height likely won’t allow him to employ this strategy as effectively.

PETE approved. And fittingly, Goran finally won his Wimbledon by throwing caution to the wind and hitting solely first serves vs Rafter once he got to MP (despite the double fault)

I don’t know if I love the idea as being a modern transformation though, Cressy tries it and it hasn’t gotten him anywhere. Plus poly inherently increases spin and margin which decreases the need to take risks… I mean a guy like Isner or Roddick’s second is so good that it can get players easily off balance with high margin.

I do think you’re onto something with like a 1st serve and a 1.5 serve. Maybe you go 95% on the first one, but on the second you dial it up to 85% rather than the normal 70-75% high margin second serve.

What is on your side is the fact that the only 90s born player to win a Slam, Daniil Medvedev, did this exact strategy to win his final, and has been unable to replicate the strategy or success since.

Actually, come to think of it, every Slam finalist since Zverev in USO 20 has a strong second serve - Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Berrettini, Nadal, Djokovic, Kyrgios, Ruud/Alcaraz all have high 2nd serve% win stats and the eye test backing up their second serve strength (with the exception of Nick who is lazy and tanks second serve points, but he arguably has the best second serve of all of them when he tries).

 

[The Guru]

I think the problem with this argument is that the same guys dominated that entire 20 year stretch, and as they got older the field got worse against them. Not only that, the younger guys spent much of their careers losing to the 2nd and 3rd tier players of the golden Gen.

I think it’s not arguable that several things have changed on average:
- players are taller
- fitness standards have improved
- players hit with more pace and spin on average, though part of this change is due to racquet/string technology as I’ll come to later
- top players embrace a more professional approach, traveling with large teams of support staff

I agree with part of the thrust of your argument - I’ve said often that Federer was the first beneficiary of surface homogenization. He adapted to the new conditions on tour in a way that his contemporaries couldn’t and dominated them as a result. Guys who grew up thinking they were going to be playing in 90s conditions and without an adaptable skillset found themselves ineffective in the early-mid 00s.

Nadal and Djokovic them came in and established the modern baseline game as the standard, different from the era straddling hybrid game that Federer played. The big 3 pushed each other, raised the average standard of play and the Nadal/Djokovic generation followed them by raising their games as we saw from guys like Delpo, Cilic, Stan, Tsonga, etc.

However I don’t agree that we’re in the same position as basketball. The NBA is more lucrative, has more spots that can pay the bills, has a streamlined development system and most importantly is much more popular especially with young people.

The age demographic that watches tennis over the past 20 years aged 20 years on average. That means we’ve effectively not captured young viewers at all. The NBA on the other hand has maintained a young average age of viewership. This correlates to the ability to continue funneling talent into their pipeline. Tennis on the other hand had a 15 year gap between producing Delpo and Alcaraz as athletes that brought something superlative to the table that they could leverage consistently against the field. And unfortunately we didn’t even get to see that potential realized with Delpo due to his injuries.

I think there are many reasons why the younger generations have failed but some of them follow:

- decreased popularity leading to weaker talent pipeline
- modified technique due to growing up with lighter rackets and poly, which is not talked about enough. What ATG caliber weapons exist among the younger gens? The Kyrgios serve and what else?
- reduced repertoire of shots and tactical adaptability for many players due to growing up on homogenized surfaces
- reduced opportunities for high pressure 5 set match experience (no B05 masters finals or DC)
- increased money in the game leading to more comfortable lifestyles in top 10-20 range
- increased money in the game reducing incentive for previous gens to retire
- increased money in the game meaning previous greats had a massive resource advantage over young guys coming up when it comes to training, nutrition, recovery (better and bigger teams and analytics, to think of extreme situations like shipping the recovery egg to slams)
- high cost of entry combined with fragmented multinational development system that selects for rich/crazy tennis parents over the most talented athletes
- stabilization of racket, string tech and surface types meaning that young players don’t have the assist of rapid change in these variables ousting former gens before their time
- etc

Great post and you bring up some solid counter arguments.

I agree tennis is not in the same position as the NBA but that was also true 20 years ago. Of course I would never say that the player base for the NBA is the same as ATP but I think both have clearly expanded from 20 years ago and have expanded continuously throughout time. Some of that's basic economics of the demand for plaeyers being higher (more financial compensation) so supply will go up but also millions more people are exposed to it than before. A lot of that is a credit to the Big 3 and Federer especially as they grew the game to its highest level of international popularity. Roger was a Tiger Woods esque figure for tennis and I think a comparison between the two makes sense here. Golf is also a fringe sport with an old viewer demographic but Tiger's enormous popularity grew the game and led to the talent pool now being stronger than ever and in golf we can know this with no doubt because it's completely measurable. So I don't agree that popularity has decreased. The rate of increase in popularity may be slowing now but there are more tennis fans than ever.

I agree with most of your bullets though the only other one I think is kinda suspect is the more money leading to people becoming complacent once they reach a certain ranking. First of all if that were true other people who were willing to sacrifice more would take those spots and second I just don't think that's the psychology of top performance athletes. To make it there you gotta be ultra competitive (unless ur just completely off the charts talented) and I don't think there's many top tennis pros who aren't training all the time. Probably training more than they ever have certainly more than they did 30 years ago (and more effectively too).

 

[RelentlessAttack]

The other comment I have to make about this discussion is that the average level of play going up doesn’t mean that the peak level of play went up signficantly. We see this in the NHL - 3rd and 4th line players and 3rd pairing defensemen are better than they’re ever been. However, Connor Mcdavid drafted in 2015 is the first player to come close to the peak of Mario Lemieux, drafted in 1984. We have generational continuity to show us that Lemieux coming out of retirement, post cancer treatment and back problems was dominant against the next generation even in what we now refer to as the dead puck era of low scoring and high physicality. Those DPE stars he dominated were elite against the next generation’s depth, and that next generation (the Crosby/Ovechkin generation) continues to perform well despite age and decline against the current generation’s depth

 

[The Guru]

I don’t even know where to begin with the past 3 pages of this stuff. Ultimately you play the opponents in the time you lived in, with your training methods and your technology. Comparing forwards or backwards is always going to be unfavorable, because just like Nadal, Djokovic and Thiem didn’t train to play with wooden racquets, Borg and McEnroe didn’t train to play with a 95 sq inch Babolat and poly strings.

But one thing I will say that JUMPS off the screen, I mean absolutely changes the way the game of tennis is played, is sliding into shots rather than running past them and having to take extra steps.

You cannot look at pre 2000 tennis and 2000s tennis the same way once you notice it.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the players are better but it is undeniable to me that the game has visibly changed in that respect.

Yes it does. What else would it mean?

Maybe it doesn't mean they're more talented or better relative to their era but someone who slides effectively vs someone who can't is a way better player all else equal. It makes a HUGE difference.

 

[Kralingen]

Yes it does. What else would it mean?

Maybe it doesn't mean they're more talented or better relative to their era but someone who slides effectively vs someone who can't is a way better player all else equal. It makes a HUGE difference.

I agree with that, whenever I get too high and mighty calling these nextgen players mugs I think back to the Women’s quallies I saw up close at the US Open where 6’1” Rebeka Masarova was serving like 115mph and sliding full tilt to hit ridiculous, heavy DTL FHs in a match that she lost 6-2 6-2 last year. I realized that the game is much faster than it looks on TV.

But on the other hand these players specifically train to slide and play on surfaces and with shoes deliberately engineered for that exact purpose. And we saw old guys like Hewitt in 2013 upset prime “evolved” Del Potro in Flushing using this new movement principle even if it wasn’t a staple of his 00-05 movement. It’s like Jason Kidd learning to become an elite 3 point shooter at the end of his career. Not going to ding guys for not emphasizing things that were either not possible or not practiced when they played.

 

[The Guru]

The other comment I have to make about this discussion is that the average level of play going up doesn’t mean that the peak level of play went up signficantly. We see this in the NHL - 3rd and 4th line players and 3rd pairing defensemen are better than they’re ever been. However, Connor Mcdavid drafted in 2015 is the first player to come close to the peak of Mario Lemieux, drafted in 1984. We have generational continuity to show us that Lemieux coming out of retirement, post cancer treatment and back problems was dominant against the next generation even in what we now refer to as the dead puck era of low scoring and high physicality. Those DPE stars he dominated were elite against the next generation’s depth, and that next generation (the Crosby/Ovechkin generation) continues to perform well despite age and decline against the current generation’s depth

I don't know hockey well enough to say but do you think Elway is anywhere near as good as Allen? Or LT anywhere near as good as Donald? Or Randy Johnson as good as Alcantara? Griffey as good as Judge? Shaq as good as Jokic? Kobe as good as Curry? Tiger as good as Koepka? Liddell as good as Prochazka? The answer to all of those questions to me is quite obviously no even though the older player is greater in every case.

 

[The Guru]

I agree with that, whenever I get too high and mighty calling these nextgen players mugs I think back to the Women’s quallies I saw up close at the US Open where 6’1” Rebeka Masarova was serving like 115mph and sliding full tilt to hit ridiculous, heavy DTL FHs in a match that she lost 6-2 6-2 last year. I realized that the game is much faster than it looks on TV.

But on the other hand these players specifically train to slide and play on surfaces and with shoes deliberately engineered for that exact purpose. And we saw old guys like Hewitt in 2013 upset prime “evolved” Del Potro in Flushing using this new movement principle even if it wasn’t a staple of his 00-05 movement. It’s like Jason Kidd learning to become an elite 3 point shooter at the end of his career. Not going to ding guys for not emphasizing things that were either not possible or not practiced when they played.

Fair or not history will remember Curry as better than Nash even if Nash probably could've done more or less exactly what Curry did if he was put in that position. But he didn't do it so he wasn't as good. It's that simple.

I'm not saying the human race has evolved in the last twenty years. I'm saying the sport has and a lot of that is technique, strategy, equipment, training, nutrition etc. MJ was the best player in the world before he even started lifting weights. Every high schooler in the country is lifting multiple times a week now. I sure as **** did and I wasn't even good enough to go D3. It's a different world and acknowledging that isn't disrespectful of the past it's just the truth.

 

[Kralingen]

Fair or not history will remember Curry as better than Nash even if Nash probably could've done more or less exactly what Curry did if he was put in that position. But he didn't do it so he wasn't as good. It's that simple.

I'm not saying the human race has evolved in the last twenty years. I'm saying the sport has and a lot of that is technique, strategy, equipment, training, nutrition etc. MJ was the best player in the world before he even started lifting weights. Every high schooler in the country is lifting multiple times a week now. I sure as **** did and I wasn't even good enough to go D3. It's a different world and acknowledging that isn't disrespectful of the past it's just the truth.

Well the training has certainly gotten more scientific and intensified but then you’re implicitly saying stuff like 2013 Hewitt > 05 Hewitt which, even on an absolute level, seems downright absurd.

I mean by saying this it’s not just Curry who’s better than Nash, it’s Trae Young and Tyrese Maxey and Darius Garland and even getting down into the Jordan Clarkson and Immanuel Quickley’s of the world.

That’s the problem I have. The cascade effect, the quiet part. Tennis is inherently a reactive game, if 2020s Djokovic is such an amazing mover and would embarrass 03 Roddick/El Aynaoui, then a guy who can match him ball for ball should also be able to do the same, no?

So then we end up with stuff like “Davidovich Fokina would spank Kuerten and Ferrero back to back at RG”, which even if it could be true in absolute vacuum, is a point that is too flawed to be stand up to intellectual rigor imo.

 

[The Guru]

Well the training has certainly gotten more scientific and intensified but then you’re implicitly saying stuff like 2013 Hewitt > 05 Hewitt which, even on an absolute level, seems downright absurd.

I mean by saying this it’s not just Curry who’s better than Nash, it’s Trae Young and Tyrese Maxey and Darius Garland and even getting down into the Jordan Clarkson and Immanuel Quickley’s of the world.

That’s the problem I have. The cascade effect, the quiet part. Tennis is inherently a reactive game, if 2020s Djokovic is such an amazing mover and would embarrass 03 Roddick/El Aynaoui, then a guy who can match him ball for ball should also be able to do the same, no?

So then we end up with stuff like “Davidovich Fokina would spank Kuerten and Ferrero back to back at RG”, which even if it could be true in absolute vacuum, is a point that is too flawed to be stand up to intellectual rigor imo.

The rate of improvement doesn't have to be so fast that best players in the world from 15-20 years ago are worse than average guys now. I don't think it is. Btw Garland/Young>Nash not implausible to me but it's not to the level that Nash was worse than Clarkson lol.

Yeah. I think Thiem smokes them too if that's what you're going for. I think Roddick's greater than Thiem and I'd rank him higher on my all time list but again I'm not gonna pretend that means he'd actually beat him.

I struggle with this last part. If it's true why does it not stand up to intellectual rigor? If it's true it's true (idk that it is but for the sake of argument). It's only fans of this sport that have trouble admitting this. Tee Higgins is a better wide receiver than Jerry Rice ever was. So what? Who cares? That's not what matters because Jerry was far and away the best in his time. I bet a lot of players themselves would have no issue admitting this. It doesn't seem like Roddick does. He knows what I know and what is obvious to anyone who watches. Athletes are just better now plain and simple.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I don't know hockey well enough to say but do you think Elway is anywhere near as good as Allen? Or LT anywhere near as good as Donald? Or Randy Johnson as good as Alcantara? Griffey as good as Judge? Shaq as good as Jokic? Kobe as good as Curry? Tiger as good as Koepka? Liddell as good as Prochazka? The answer to all of those questions to me is quite obviously no even though the older player is greater in every case.

I’m mostly a hockey guy, that’s what I played growing up and that’s what I know. Most hockey fans would agree that only very recently have we seen young stars (Mcdavid, Makar) posting seasons that matched some of the greats drafted in the mid-late 80s and early 90s (Lemieux, Jagr, Lidstrom, Pronger), etc. As I said, generational continuity showed us that these particular types of elite players never became obsolete.

 

[The Guru]

I’m mostly a hockey guy, that’s what I played growing up and that’s what I know. Most hockey fans would agree that only very recently have we seen young stars (Mcdavid, Makar) posting seasons that matched some of the greats drafted in the mid-late 80s and early 90s (Lemieux, Jagr, Lidstrom, Pronger), etc. As I said, generational continuity showed us that these particular types of elite players never became obsolete.

But they do eventually though. In 100 years assuming tennis continues on the Big 3 teleported to 2123 prolly are challenger level players or worse. It's hard to imagine how it gets that much better but it does. It would've been impossible to imagine a player moving at anywhere near the level of a mid 30s Djokovic just 20 years ago. People used to think a 4 minute mile was impossible. A woman will probably run one in our lifetimes. People are pretty incredible especially when you give them unbelievable money and fame as an incentive.

 

[abmk]

I think the level of the winners has to be factored in.

The top 2 in 05 AO is clearly better than the top 2 in 09 and 12 plus depth is better so it's pretty clear cut.

The depth of 09 Wimbledon is better sure, but 05 Federer is a clear cut above 09 Federer so that makes it stronger. Unless it's a situation like 07 AO or 11 AO where depth is very lacking, then level of the winner matters quite a bit. 05 Hewitt and Roddick would have looked significantly better against the 09 field and probably against 09 Federer.

its clear cut that AO 05 is better for sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to say AO 09/12 don't hold a candle.
AO 09 did have the 3rd Dasco playing great and 2 all time matches
AO 12 did have fed+murray+berdych playing well.

05 hewitt/roddick obviously would've looked better vs 09 Wim fed. Roddick would've probably grabbed a set. hewitt would've made it a tight 4-setter or even pushed it 5 sets (but definitely not as deep as Roddick did)
But not sure why you are saying they would've looked significantly better against 09 field (i.e others)

level of winner does matter of course, but I'm not sure I'd put it as highly as you do. Anyways that's different subjective perspectives.

 

[RS]

I agree with that, whenever I get too high and mighty calling these nextgen players mugs I think back to the Women’s quallies I saw up close at the US Open where 6’1” Rebeka Masarova was serving like 115mph and sliding full tilt to hit ridiculous, heavy DTL FHs in a match that she lost 6-2 6-2 last year. I realized that the game is much faster than it looks on TV.

But on the other hand these players specifically train to slide and play on surfaces and with shoes deliberately engineered for that exact purpose. And we saw old guys like Hewitt in 2013 upset prime “evolved” Del Potro in Flushing using this new movement principle even if it wasn’t a staple of his 00-05 movement. It’s like Jason Kidd learning to become an elite 3 point shooter at the end of his career. Not going to ding guys for not emphasizing things that were either not possible or not practiced when they played.

When you watch a real tennis match in person it's looks a lot faster then TV. Can't imagine how fast it actually is on the court with the top players hitting big.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

uh huh uh huh

 

[NatF]

Yeah basically. They only developed one way to win one way to construct points to the point where Djokovic might have the most variety in the top 10 rn. He was previously considered one dimensional. You need to have another way to win because opponents can get hot in spurts and the percentages might not fall on your side over the relatively small sample of a match especially if they have a strong service game which is peaking rn in terms of hold percentage.

Honestly regret getting into this I've just had too much time on my hands and am dealing with some **** in my real life and am using this to distract myself. Sorry for going aggro on this and in general I prolly should avoid these threads as I mostly have for the last 18 months. I do stand by what I said though.

I just don't see these guys as percentage tennis BOAT's so don't think you assessment is accurate - maybe Medvedev you could say embodies this but not really the rest.

Plus like I said the logical inference from your position is that guys like Thiem and Medvedev would be dominating even peak Fed, because I don't think even 2005 or 2007 Fed beats 2003 Arod 2,2,2.

I accept your apology. I still don't think the game has moved on nearly as much as you say at the top, as per my previous examples, but I don't deny that the average level of the tour as a whole is higher now.

Yes it does. What else would it mean?

Maybe it doesn't mean they're more talented or better relative to their era but someone who slides effectively vs someone who can't is a way better player all else equal. It makes a HUGE difference.

If sliding was that huge the new gens would be better no? A guy like Murray who I assume you'll agree is clearly better than them, in relative and abolute terms, never really slides on HC. Of course not all else is equal but it rarely is. I guess I could buy that #NextGen is technically inferior per shot compared to previous gens but it's their ability to slide that covers that ground (pardon the pun)...

Still in many cases these guys are lacking offensive footwork and the movement required for a good transition game and netplay, so it's not a straight upgrade.

 

[RS]

Does all this render hypothetical matches even more useless or is it still important?

 

[abmk]

evolution means change, not necessarily everything getting better. While say top 100 now is better than say 70s/80s, no question that top 10/20 - which is most important is the worst in open era by far (equalizing for equipment/technological changes)

the 3 biggest changes in open era -
1. 1H BH to 2H BH (Connors/Borg) with topspin (Borg/Vilas etc)
2. switch from wood to graphite
3. switch to poly resulting in more baseline oriented game and severe decline of SnV (along with coaching/instant gratification issues)

but these are technology/equipment related paradigm shifts.

There's no question tennis has regressed big time after 2015 and we are in its darkest era (on the men's side).
If you dropped in 12 Murray straight into now, he'd thrash the tour, no question. Like if you dropped him into 22, he'd win 3 slams - AO, Wim, USO.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Who performed greater

Useless Hypotheticals vs Irrelevant Hypotheticals /10 ?

 

[RS]

Who performed greater

Useless Hypotheticals vs Irrelevant Hypotheticals /10 ?

95-5 2008 players
95-5 2023 players
95-5 1990 players

 

[MichaelNadal]

Don't you all get tired of the same points over and over?

So much EFFORT too lol there's no way

 

[RS]

Seems people largely agree with Guru anyway. Just a few disagreements in some places from some posters.

 

[RS]

Probably goes five with any post 2018 Djokovic.

That's not interesting enough for my hypotheicals.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

That's not interesting enough for my hypotheicals.

Maybe time to change tactics.

 

[RS]

Maybe time to change tactics.

Only spicy takes and era comparisons

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Well the training has certainly gotten more scientific and intensified but then you’re implicitly saying stuff like 2013 Hewitt > 05 Hewitt which, even on an absolute level, seems downright absurd.

I mean by saying this it’s not just Curry who’s better than Nash, it’s Trae Young and Tyrese Maxey and Darius Garland and even getting down into the Jordan Clarkson and Immanuel Quickley’s of the world.

That’s the problem I have. The cascade effect, the quiet part. Tennis is inherently a reactive game, if 2020s Djokovic is such an amazing mover and would embarrass 03 Roddick/El Aynaoui, then a guy who can match him ball for ball should also be able to do the same, no?

So then we end up with stuff like “Davidovich Fokina would spank Kuerten and Ferrero back to back at RG”, which even if it could be true in absolute vacuum, is a point that is too flawed to be stand up to intellectual rigor imo.

There's a bit of "don't believe your lying eyes" when making a case for tennis having evolved too far for players of the past. We all saw gen useless and nextgen losing to RBA and Feliciano and Fognini before all the old guys just eventually ran out of steam. We all saw the lack of quality of the Thiem vs. Zverev USO final. Etc.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

There's a bit of "don't believe your lying eyes" when making a case for tennis having evolved too far for players of the past. We all saw gen useless and nextgen losing to RBA and Feliciano and Fognini before all the old guys just eventually ran out of steam. We all saw the lack of quality of the Thiem vs. Zverev USO final. Etc.

OFC some fans can be extreme about the past but the idea it was always better but that the last few gens have 2 slams combined against player who turned pro in 2004 is still dominating nearly 20 years and looks like he has a lot more left shows that it the tennis evolution is questionable in this case.

 

[NatF]

There's a bit of "don't believe your lying eyes" when making a case for tennis having evolved too far for players of the past. We all saw gen useless and nextgen losing to RBA and Feliciano and Fognini before all the old guys just eventually ran out of steam. We all saw the lack of quality of the Thiem vs. Zverev USO final. Etc.

Indeed, Djokovic is still number one now, Nadal won two slams last year, Fed made the 4R & QF of the FO & Wimbledon and #3 in 2019 at 38. I would argue these guys are all clearly past their best, Federer and Nadal especially - Djokovic less so but still there is decline there. Despite this their results against the field haven't declined that much when they've been healthy. We saw something similar with Agassi in the mid 00's, the main thing holding his ranking back was his lack of tournaments and play on natural surfaces. You can go back further and see Connors giving a young Agassi a tough fight at the USO in 1989 and so on. The level at the top of the game improvemes incrementally without a big shift in technology IMO. At the lower levels I think it's a bit different, as the top players of each era are bound to be ahead of the curve on many fronts - those incremenetal improvements make them trend setters for the rest of the tour and the junior players as they come up.

 

[tennis_pro]

I know this is a controversial take since it's almost unanimously agreed that the Weak Era was from 2003-2007, but I am actually going to argue that it was from 2003-2010. Yes, 2008 was a great year for the sport when Rafa started to come into his own off of clay, and yes, 2009 gave us a great match between Fedal in Australia, but the underlying dynamics of the Tour had not changed. Once Nadal was out on injury, Roger was gobbing up the slams again, finally squeaking his way to a RG and 15th slam title at Wimbledon, both of which could have been denied to him had his competition held strong. Roger capped off his part of the Weak Era by thrashing Murray in Australia in 2010, leaving the rest of the spoils to Nadal who waltzed his way to 3 majors without anyone capable of challenging him. It wasn't until Novak broke through Roger in New York in 2010 that the underlying dynamics of just 1 great player having a realistic shot at the majority of the titles changed to 3 great players actually competing in great tussles for the titles and the big 3 era began.

TLDR; 2003-2010 was entirely weak aside from 2008, therefore the whole period should be considered the Weak Era with an asterisk by 2008, rather than cutting off the Weak Era at 2007.

If you think a season like 2009 is weak, then it's time to wake up.

 

[Kralingen]

The rate of improvement doesn't have to be so fast that best players in the world from 15-20 years ago are worse than average guys now. I don't think it is. Btw Garland/Young>Nash not implausible to me but it's not to the level that Nash was worse than Clarkson lol.

Yeah. I think Thiem smokes them too if that's what you're going for. I think Roddick's greater than Thiem and I'd rank him higher on my all time list but again I'm not gonna pretend that means he'd actually beat him.

I struggle with this last part. If it's true why does it not stand up to intellectual rigor? If it's true it's true (idk that it is but for the sake of argument). It's only fans of this sport that have trouble admitting this. Tee Higgins is a better wide receiver than Jerry Rice ever was. So what? Who cares? That's not what matters because Jerry was far and away the best in his time. I bet a lot of players themselves would have no issue admitting this. It doesn't seem like Roddick does. He knows what I know and what is obvious to anyone who watches. Athletes are just better now plain and simple.

Coz that’s silly, that’s my entire point.

Any hypothesis that ends with the conclusion that Cam Norrie > John McEnroe or that Harry Maguire > Paolo Maldini is an inherently flawed one, even if it may be possibly true, it’s incredibly silly to argue that point.

There's a bit of "don't believe your lying eyes" when making a case for tennis having evolved too far for players of the past. We all saw gen useless and nextgen losing to RBA and Feliciano and Fognini before all the old guys just eventually ran out of steam. We all saw the lack of quality of the Thiem vs. Zverev USO final. Etc.

Tennis is a reactive sport. It is the most intimate non-combat sport, behind maybe squash badminton or ping pong which takes place in a smaller space.

What I mean by that is, you play to beat your opponent, you react to the shot he’s playing, you calibrate your shots to his defense, you think through his strategy etc.

Yes, maybe in a vacuum 1995 Agassi/Sampras would be confused playing 2020s tennis for a few matches but give them a few months to adjust and they’d easily easily be winning Slams. Because it’s reactive and you adjust to what you’re going up against.

 

[RS]

Harry Maguire really is underrated.

 

[The Guru]

I just don't see these guys as percentage tennis BOAT's so don't think you assessment is accurate - maybe Medvedev you could say embodies this but not really the rest.

Plus like I said the logical inference from your position is that guys like Thiem and Medvedev would be dominating even peak Fed, because I don't think even 2005 or 2007 Fed beats 2003 Arod 2,2,2.

I accept your apology. I still don't think the game has moved on nearly as much as you say at the top, as per my previous examples, but I don't deny that the average level of the tour as a whole is higher now.


If sliding was that huge the new gens would be better no? A guy like Murray who I assume you'll agree is clearly better than them, in relative and abolute terms, never really slides on HC. Of course not all else is equal but it rarely is. I guess I could buy that #NextGen is technically inferior per shot compared to previous gens but it's their ability to slide that covers that ground (pardon the pun)...

Still in many cases these guys are lacking offensive footwork and the movement required for a good transition game and netplay, so it's not a straight upgrade.

Certainly you agree that strategically there's been a massive shift whether you think it's BOAT or not we can disagree on. You may think Agassi or Hewitt's style isn't replicated because of talent but to me it's clear that it's because it's not plausible to pull off at a top level against the pace shape and weight the guys hit with today. Not even Djokovic attempts to stand on or inside of the baseline to redirect against shots like the Rublev FH.

Hmm don't know about that. Federer basically beat Roddick that badly himself multiple times at the AO and I was admittedly exaggerating and referring to Aynaoui (who is less capable of botting games) not Roddick anyway.

Well sure it hasn't as much at the top because we haven't had a top talent. But we will soon and that'll move too. Everywhere else has moved though including in the 2nd/3rd tier level talents.

Murray slid plenty? You almost never saw him running through shots like the guys in the 03 match. His stops were more jolting that fluid (prolly why his hip gave out) but he certainly slid.

 

[The Guru]

Coz that’s silly, that’s my entire point.

Any hypothesis that ends with the conclusion that Cam Norrie > John McEnroe or that Harry Maguire > Paolo Maldini is an inherently flawed one, even if it may be possibly true, it’s incredibly silly to argue that point.

Tennis is a reactive sport. It is the most intimate non-combat sport, behind maybe squash badminton or ping pong which takes place in a smaller space.

What I mean by that is, you play to beat your opponent, you react to the shot he’s playing, you calibrate your shots to his defense, you think through his strategy etc.

Yes, maybe in a vacuum 1995 Agassi/Sampras would be confused playing 2020s tennis for a few matches but give them a few months to adjust and they’d easily easily be winning Slams. Because it’s reactive and you adjust to what you’re going up against.

But Cam Norrie would absolutely smoke McEnroe. Sure tech makes up tons of ground there but it's still true. We should shape our views in light of the truth not dismiss truths we deem "silly" irrelevant and expunge them from the record.

This is possible (I seriously doubt it) but so what? They weren't playing at that level and you would think if they could the motivation to beat eachother would drive them there. Again in tennis tech muddies this more than most sports but the principle is the same.

 

[NatF]

Certainly you agree that strategically there's been a massive shift whether you think it's BOAT or not we can disagree on. You may think Agassi or Hewitt's style isn't replicated because of talent but to me it's clear that it's because it's not plausible to pull off at a top level against the pace shape and weight the guys hit with today. Not even Djokovic attempts to stand on or inside of the baseline to redirect against shots like the Rublev FH.

Hmm don't know about that. Federer basically beat Roddick that badly himself multiple times at the AO and I was admittedly exaggerating and referring to Aynaoui (who is less capable of botting games) not Roddick anyway.

Well sure it hasn't as much at the top because we haven't had a top talent. But we will soon and that'll move too. Everywhere else has moved though including in the 2nd/3rd tier level talents.

Murray slid plenty? You almost never saw him running through shots like the guys in the 03 match. His stops were more jolting that fluid (prolly why his hip gave out) but he certainly slid.

Massive shift? There have been percentage baseline players for decades. Is it more prevalent now? Sure. But I don't think calling it a massive shift is really accurate. The way you talk it's asif no one played baseline tennis until the 00's lol. Well Federer was able to do it against Nadal right? Hewitt did on clay against Nadal as well in 2006/2007.

In 2007 it was a thrashing but that was Roddick playing a poor match, especially tactically, in 2009 after the first set it was 7-5 7-5 which is respectable enough. I guess you think 2020 Thiem is at least as good as 2007/2009 Fed?

I think we just need to agree to disagree. Speed aside, Murray's movement is closer to Roddick's than Djokovic's in execution. I thought you were talking about the more pronounced sliding that Djokovic and even Nadal and Federer have done, the kind of sliding that Murray does on HC, Roddick was doing in 2003...

Try telling me there's a substantial difference in their recovery out of that shot...

Here's them sliding out of the shot on the backhand side...

 

[RS]

Guru is trying to say the Big 3 are exceptions to the rule as of now for the most part but this soon won't be the case when Alcaraz peaks and others come at some point in the future. That's what's confusing this a bit.

 

[Start da Game]

2003 - 2007 weakest of all time with mostly bald talentless players floating between 3-10 ranks ruling the graveyards of yesteryear greats
2008 - 2014 one of the strongest 6 year spans in open era with multiple atg's pitted against one another in titanic baseline battles
2015 - 2016 weak as **** almost as weak as the original weak era the trademark 2003-2007
2017 - 2020 average era with big-3 making a feast of flop gen players
2021 - 2023 weak as **** but still not as weak as 2015 - 2016 and stronger in comparison to 2003 - 2007

 

[RS]

2003 - 2007 weakest of all time with mostly bald talentless players floating between 3-10 ranks ruling the graveyards of yesteryear greats
2008 - 2014 one of the strongest 6 year spans in open era with multiple atg's pitted against one another in titanic baseline battles
2015 - 2016 weak as **** almost as weak as the original weak era the trademark 2003-2007
2017 - 2020 average era with big-3 making a feast of flop gen players
2021 - 2023 weak as **** but still not as weak as 2015 - 2016 and stronger in comparison to 2003 - 2007

 

[mike danny]

Guru is trying to say the Big 3 are exceptions to the rule as of now for the most part but this soon won't be the case when Alcaraz peaks and others come at some point in the future. That's what's confusing this a bit.

He's right in that tennis players as a whole are probably better athletes and hit harder than those from 20 years ago. In terms of top 100 and stuff like that.

But the very elite tennis players are so weak that this kind of evolution doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[NatF]

Guru is trying to say the Big 3 are exceptions to the rule as of now for the most part but this soon won't be the case when Alcaraz peaks and others come at some point in the future. That's what's confusing this a bit.

We're talking about the now though.

 

[RS]

We're talking about the now though.

Another thing that might be a confusing because this thread has had a fair few conversations which didn't just stick to 2003 vs 2023 which have got a bit muddled with each other.

 

[RS]

Who performed greater

Useless Hypotheticals vs Irrelevant Hypotheticals /10 ?

Well to be fair I mostly stick to players from similar era's

Agassi is a bit a anomaly in but he still played till 2006

 

[NatF]

Another thing that might be a confusing because this thread has had a fair few conversations which didn't just stick to 2003 vs 2023 which have got a bit muddled with each other.

That's fine, but to say those guys back then couldn't or didn't slide is false if we're using a guy like Murray as a benchmark. Ofcourse as we move towards the more extreme end of the spectrum he'd be right.