Great crisis in tennis !!!

#1
Do you know why young players cant beat over 30 years old guys ? It is not normal. It means that young players were taught bad technique. There must be in so called "modern tennis" something what leads only to average level. "Modern tennis" is based on the spead of the racket. Unfortunately it means less control.
 
#7
You do realize that 99% of the professional tour are millennials, right? Nadal and Djokovic included..


I think the real issue is players have such good training physically and nutritionally that they last so much longer and are able to play at a very high level. Add to that their vast experience and mental strength, it has become so much harder for talented youngsters to take over the game.
Yeah, very true. I think the issue with younger players breaking through is that the older players are more established, they have everything down to a T. They're already built themselves up physically, mentally and developed their games. Today's tennis is probably the most competitive yet, every player is strong with hardly any weaknesses, they have every stroke down, everyone is super fit. Pretty much the days of teenagers winning grand slams are over.
 
#8
I read somewhere that older players have a huge advantage with their experience which more than offsets the edge in speed that youth affords. However, if technique has evolved younger players will gain the advantage. It could be that technique has plateaued for the last 10 to 15 years or so, so the older folks are on par with or better than the youth of today, and the young players will have to gain more experience before displacing the older guys.
 
#9
Technique has to be one of the least important factors in top level tennis. You can't say that all youngsters have no control because of their technique bc Nadal and Federer both use straight arm forehands, which for the vast majority of people brings power at the expense of control.
 
#10
I think the real issue is players have such good training physically and nutritionally that they last so much longer and are able to play at a very high level. Add to that their vast experience and mental strength, it has become so much harder for talented youngsters to take over the game.
If you watched Federer from 2005 and Federer now you would see that he is much slower now. His serves are slower too. It looks as if he moved now in slow motion. From 2010 to 2017 he won only 1 grand slam. He was not in good physical form. And at this age he wins next grand slams. It only means that his opponents are very weak. We cant see in younger generation any player like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal. Lack of control is obvious. Young players throw the racket at the ball. It is a great error.
 
#11
However, if technique has evolved younger players will gain the advantage. It could be that technique has plateaued for the last 10 to 15 years or so, so the older folks are on par with or better than the youth of today, and the young players will have to gain more experience before displacing the older guys.
The technique hasn't plateaued, but it evolved with Federer, not after him. Self-development and evolution proves to build a lot for the player through playing years. One cannot just give an 8 y.o. perfect technique to play all his life. Smart players develop - as did Roger, Rafa and Novak.

Now once TT Complete Consensus Technique Guide is published juniors' coaches will finally be able to give their students best possible basis to be as close to the greatest ones techniques-wise right from the start of career as possible.
 
#12
If you watched Federer from 2005 and Federer now you would see that he is much slower now. His serves are slower too. It looks as if he moved now in slow motion. From 2010 to 2017 he won only 1 grand slam. He was not in good physical form. And at this age he wins next grand slams. It only means that his opponents are very weak. We cant see in younger generation any player like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal. Lack of control is obvious. Young players throw the racket at the ball. It is a great error.
Grand Slam history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_singles_finals

Credibility crisis.
 
#17
That would be 2011-2016 then. Also, still not four years.
Not 4 years so even worse than I said at the beginning. He was not top player and suddenly he can win grand slams when he is weaker and older. His opponents cant play on high level. It is the only explanation. Great crisis in tennis. Federer worse and worse and he wins more grand slams.
 
#20
To win Wimbledon there is no need to play backand and forehand. I remember boring matches of Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Cash, Cilic....and others on Wimbledon. Real tennis is on clay courts. Even on hard courts only on the highest level it resembles tennis.
Funny enough, clay is a surface where those pushy shots you love so much play the worst. Best clay players are ones who can not only get to balls (which is easier on clay), but use the slower bounces to setup on almost all shots and hit full power. While faster surfaces favor different game and allow more compact swings to utilise their pros.
 
#21
Lol, as soon as I finally decide I'm done debating this guy he starts another thread, even saying the "2010 to 2017" Federer only won 1 Grand Slam which I already told him is false. If y'all want to go on an endless debate keep replying to the thread. I know it can be fun for a while. But just know that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about (I hope you figured that part out by now), won't listen to what you say, and will repeat the same poor arguments over and over again, without changing his mind.
 
#22
Funny enough, clay is a surface where those pushy shots you love so much play the worst. Best clay players are ones who can not only get to balls (which is easier on clay), but use the slower bounces to setup on almost all shots and hit full power. While faster surfaces favor different game and allow more compact swings to utilise their pros.
Maybe you are very young and you dont remember why they slowed the surface on Wimbledon and Australian Open. Nobody wanted to watch boring matches. I remember match Sampras- Ivanisevic. The most boring match in the history of tennis. On clay courts you have to hit topspin backhand and forehand. You have to hit it not only once. I dont watch Wimbledon because it is not tennis. Federer and Sampras won Wimbledon many times though their backhands were really weak. We cant be surprised that Sampras, Becker, Edberg never won Roland Garros and Federer did it only once when Nadal was injured. Without backhand you cant win on clay. Since they slowed the surface at US Open Federer havent won it even once.
 
#23
Maybe you are very young and you dont remember why they slowed the surface on Wimbledon and Australian Open. Nobody wanted to watch boring matches. I remember match Sampras- Ivanisevic. The most boring match in the history of tennis. On clay courts you have to hit topspin backhand and forehand. You have to hit it not only once. I dont watch Wimbledon because it is not tennis. Federer and Sampras won Wimbledon many times though their backhands were really weak. We cant be surprised that Sampras, Becker, Edberg never won Roland Garros and Federer did it only once when Nadal was injured. Without backhand you cant win on clay. Since they slowed the surface at US Open Federer havent won it even once.
On clay you only need a topspin forehand and backhand; nothing else. You can win on clay with a poor serve, no transition game, and no net game. At Wimbledon, especially in the old days, you need at least one ground stroke, a serve, the slice, volleys, and transition shots. You might prefer topspin groundstrokes, but not everyone does. Others like watching a variety of shots. That doesn't make one automatically more entertaining than the other, it just means they are meant for different people.
 
#24
Lol, as soon as I finally decide I'm done debating this guy he starts another thread, even saying the "2010 to 2017" Federer only won 1 Grand Slam which I already told him is false. If y'all want to go on an endless debate keep replying to the thread. I know it can be fun for a while. But just know that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about (I hope you figured that part out by now), won't listen to what you say, and will repeat the same poor arguments over and over again, without changing his mind.
I began new thread because the last one was blocked. In 2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016 Federer won only 1 grand slam. There were 24 grand slams during that period.
 
#25
On clay you only need a topspin forehand and backhand; nothing else. You can win on clay with a poor serve, no transition game, and no net game. At Wimbledon, especially in the old days, you need at least one ground stroke, a serve, the slice, volleys, and transition shots. You might prefer topspin groundstrokes, but not everyone does. Others like watching a variety of shots. That doesn't make one automatically more entertaining than the other, it just means they are meant for different people.
On hard courts and at Wimbledon Raonic, Cilic, Anderson, Isner can even win though they cant play tennis(I mean backhand and forehand). They have no chance at Roland Garros. Their primitive tennis is not good enough. Good players dont waste energy trying to serve 220 km/h and running to the net because they dont have to.
 
#26
2010-2017 means 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Also, Isner is one of the few who have taken Nadal 5 sets at Roland Garros, so I wouldn't say he has no chance. Maybe not as good of a chance, but definitely not no chance.

Some good players don't waste energy running back and forth along the baseline because they don't have to. Why run 50 meters in a point when you can run 0 with an ace? Or 5 by getting to the net? Some good players don't waste energy on serve. Some don't waste it on running back and forth. There's different ways to play tennis and be good; how hard is that to grasp? Just like in football, some teams are more pass-oriented, some are run-oriented, some are balanced, some use pocket-passing quarterbacks, others use running quarterbacks, some use blitz defense, some use mainly zones, some use man defense. Just because there's different ways to play a game, it doesn't make one better than the other or more skilled than the other; just different.
 
#27
2010-2017 means 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Also, Isner is one of the few who have taken Nadal 5 sets at Roland Garros, so I wouldn't say he has no chance. Maybe not as good of a chance, but definitely not no chance.

Some good players don't waste energy running back and forth along the baseline because they don't have to. Why run 50 meters in a point when you can run 0 with an ace? Or 5 by getting to the net? Some good players don't waste energy on serve. Some don't waste it on running back and forth. There's different ways to play tennis and be good; how hard is that to grasp? Just like in football, some teams are more pass-oriented, some are run-oriented, some are balanced, some use pocket-passing quarterbacks, others use running quarterbacks, some use blitz defense, some use mainly zones, some use man defense. Just because there's different ways to play a game, it doesn't make one better than the other or more skilled than the other; just different.
There is some place for agreement between us. There are two different sports. Tennis and tennis. They have the same name and the same players play in tournaments but in those different sports we use different tools. On clay courts we play backhand and forehand. On fast surfaces serve and volley are enough. Many times even volley is not important. I am a tennis player and not a tennis player.
 
#28
There is some place for agreement between us. There are two different sports. Tennis and tennis. They have the same name and the same players play in tournaments but in those different sports we use different tools. On clay courts we play backhand and forehand. On fast surfaces serve and volley are enough. Many times even volley is not important. I am a tennis player and not a tennis player.
Finally you actually make some sense, except for using "serve and volley are enough" when usually that style requires more shots than just having a topspin forehand and backhand.

You are a tennis player and not a tennis player. I am a tennis player and a tennis player, I just prefer to play tennis over tennis.
 
#29
Finally you actually make some sense, except for using "serve and volley are enough" when usually that style requires more shots than just having a topspin forehand and backhand.

You are a tennis player and not a tennis player. I am a tennis player and a tennis player, I just prefer to play tennis over tennis.
In Poland the indoor seasons begins now. Nobody treats it the same as clay court season. We usually play on fast surfaces only waiting for spring when we can return on clay courts. There are not too many tournaments in indoor season. I try to change my technique during winter. If I play in some tournaments during winter it is only to test new technique. You cant be surprised that for me Federer is not a great player. You can be surprised that Nadal also is not. Nadal backhand is weak too. Whoever would like to copy it couldnt win anything without great physical strength. Nadal and Federer were successful because they had forehands. In tennis you dont have to have good technique. Sometimes one good weapon is enough. If I try to remember best players Corea, Djokovic, Kuerten, Agassi, Wawrinka, Murray might be good examples.
 
#30
Do you know why young players cant beat over 30 years old guys ? It is not normal. It means that young players were taught bad technique. There must be in so called "modern tennis" something what leads only to average level. "Modern tennis" is based on the spead of the racket. Unfortunately it means less control.

All technical analysis between top players show almost the same technique with very little variation. That has been the same through out tennis history, with only small, incremental tweaks happening over time. It is certainly nothing to do with that.
 
#32
Do you know why young players cant beat over 30 years old guys ? It is not normal. It means that young players were taught bad technique. There must be in so called "modern tennis" something what leads only to average level. "Modern tennis" is based on the spead of the racket. Unfortunately it means less control.
I think that’s a bit of an over generalization. I used to play practice sets all the time against guys 20 or 30 years older than myself. I play modern tennis with not just bad technique, but possibly some of the worst in history. And even with my horrific technique and absolutely average tennis skills, I somehow managed to beat these technically superior gentlemen. I guess I was always playing them when they were having a bad day.
 
#33
I think that’s a bit of an over generalization. I used to play practice sets all the time against guys 20 or 30 years older than myself. I play modern tennis with not just bad technique, but possibly some of the worst in history. And even with my horrific technique and absolutely average tennis skills, I somehow managed to beat these technically superior gentlemen. I guess I was always playing them when they were having a bad day.

If you're 70 years old, just show up at the courts and you already win against those guys by default.
 
#34
I think lots of young players have very good technique. For top pros tennis is much more about mentality than technique. For young players coming up in the past decade the problem has been the buzzsaw of some of the greatest players that ever played. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. If you can get past one of those guys that's amazing. Of course once you do that then you have a handful of players that are just slightly below their level you may have to contend with as well. Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Murray have all been stellar at times.

So I kind of look at this not as a crisis of young players, but a wealth of great ones.
 
#36
I think lots of young players have very good technique. For top pros tennis is much more about mentality than technique. For young players coming up in the past decade the problem has been the buzzsaw of some of the greatest players that ever played. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. If you can get past one of those guys that's amazing. Of course once you do that then you have a handful of players that are just slightly below their level you may have to contend with as well. Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Murray have all been stellar at times.

So I kind of look at this not as a crisis of young players, but a wealth of great ones.
Dynamics and strength of 25 years old and over 32 years old players cant be even compared. We cant be surprised that in all sports most players over 32 end their professional career. They are just physically too weak. Nowadays in tennis old guys beat young players because young players cant play the ball several times in the same direction and place. They use lag and snap technique and also exaggerate with turn of the body around vertical axis. It is all to achieve greater speed of the racket but it also means loss of control. Older players just have to wait for inevitable errors. Old guys are not tired because younger ones cant hit several balls in a row. The difference in physical strength is neutralized.
 
Last edited:
#37
I think that’s a bit of an over generalization. I used to play practice sets all the time against guys 20 or 30 years older than myself. I play modern tennis with not just bad technique, but possibly some of the worst in history. And even with my horrific technique and absolutely average tennis skills, I somehow managed to beat these technically superior gentlemen. I guess I was always playing them when they were having a bad day.
I try to compare Nadal, Djokovic and Federer and younger players.
 
#39
I don't see much difference between the swings of Fed 2000, Nadal 2005, Djok 2008 and the current generation.
Fed and Djok have also adapted their swings over the years.
Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are old and it is normal that they are physically weaker then 5-8 years ago. They win because their younger opponents cant play tennis on high level because of bad technique. It is obvious. The only question is which parts of so called "modern technique" are just great errors. Split step, lag and snap, exaggerated turn of body, loose wrist, straight arm, too great speed of the racket,.....
 
Last edited:
#40
By the way tennis is not the only discipline where sportsmen peak later when other features than raw power and strength are dominant. Even if we put aside techniques, experience and mental toughness, stamina is usually better towards 30. So we got multiple marathon runners, long distance skiers and biathlonists, as well as all kinds of fighters who won all kinds of competition.
 
#41
Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are old and it is normal that they are physically weaker then 5-8 years ago. They win because their younger opponents cant play tennis on high level because of bad technique. It is obvious. The only question is which parts of so called "modern technique" are just great errors. Split step, lag and snap, exaggerated turn of body, loose wrist, straight arm, too great speed of the racket,.....
How would you know that (bolded part)?

I'm noticeably stronger than I was 10 years ago. 10 years ago I didn't workout, play tennis and I ate alot of crappy fast foods. Do you understand that much logic?
 
#43
How would you know that (bolded part)?

I'm noticeably stronger than I was 10 years ago. 10 years ago I didn't workout, play tennis and I ate alot of crappy fast foods. Do you understand that much logic?
In tennis dynamics is the most important factor and at the age of 25 it is much greater than when you are 30 years old. Try to watch match between Federer and Agassi at Australian open 2005. You can see how fast Federer moved then. Now he moves as if it was slow motion video. Young players just cant play tennis. They throw the racket at the ball. That is what they were taught. Loss of control is obvious. I ask you all. Lets start real discussion about reasons of this crisis. Dont repeat this absurd explanation that after 30 you are stronger and faster. If it was true as far as Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are concerned they would have to take drugs.
 
#44
Yes but you’re using arguably 3 of the best players of all time as an example. It’s sort of like saying young basketball players can’t play basketball because LeBron James is still dominating. It doesn’t have much to do with the fact that they’re younger or weren’t taught properly, LeBron is just better. Just like how Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are more talented than most of the younger players.
 
#45
Lets start real discussion about reasons of this crisis.
A discussion focuses on different ideas and takes all of them seriously. You don't do that. You focus on just one or two ideas and repeat the same things over and over again regardless of what anyone else says. That is not a "real discussion." These guys are making great points telling you why you are observing what you are, but you refuse to listen.
 
#46
In tennis dynamics is the most important factor and at the age of 25 it is much greater than when you are 30 years old.
Name a male player that is more dynamic than Djokovic. Name a player that moves more efficiently than Federer. Name a player that runs more than Nadal will.

I really think your argument is simple dogmatism to your theory. While it's true that there may be younger players that are more "dynamic" at their best than those three all time greats, I don't think you will find many players that can maintain such a high level as well as those 3.

Also dynamics is not the most important factor. And further, it's not necessarily true that people decline at age 30. Nutrition science is advancing all the time. We know a lot more now compared to 20yrs ago, so I think it's totally conceivable that the decline in the 30s is much less than it used to be. Many people these days are stronger and faster at 30. Maybe not world class athletes, but tennis is not like weightlifting or track at the olympics. It's not clear at all what people push themselves to in match play and whether or not they are peaking in matches. I would guess that experience and confidence are key to peaking in matches and that even though younger players may have higher peak potential, putting it together in matches favors winners. Federer himself has said on multiple occasions that he gets bested in practice by some younger players but they lose in tournaments.

Anyway, I'm sure my arguments are very unconvincing to you, but I like to present alternative points of view for all those weekend warriors who take on the "youngins" out there.
 
#47
A discussion focuses on different ideas and takes all of them seriously. You don't do that. You focus on just one or two ideas and repeat the same things over and over again regardless of what anyone else says. That is not a "real discussion." These guys are making great points telling you why you are observing what you are, but you refuse to listen.
I cant see any ideas in your comment. I dont know if you agree with me or you dont.
 
#49
Yes but you’re using arguably 3 of the best players of all time as an example. It’s sort of like saying young basketball players can’t play basketball because LeBron James is still dominating. It doesn’t have much to do with the fact that they’re younger or weren’t taught properly, LeBron is just better. Just like how Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are more talented than most of the younger players.
Federer is 37 years old !!! He is very old for a tennis player. He should play in +35 category but he can beat almost all younger players. Federer is much worse than he was in 2005 or 2007. Watch videos form that period. Then he served a lot of aces. His forehand was like a lightning. Now it is only a shadow of that player but after several years without any great win he won 2 grand slams. Great crisis in tennis is obvious.
 
#50
We discussed plenty in your last thread, you know my views on most of what you have said.
We talked about two handed forehand and this thread is not about it. I hope that you dont want to say that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are now stronger and faster than they were 5 years ago. It wouldnt be wise. It is difficult to argue with peolpe who say such absurd things. Young players are faster and stronger but they lose so their technique must be bad. It is an irresistible logic.
 
Top