How is tennis getting better if these top 20 players have had R1/R2 exits at slams?

4UTRMoutet

4UTRMoutet

Hall of Fame
ROUND 1 EXITS
Auger-Aliassime versus Nuno Borges at Australian Open
Ben Shelton versus Otto Virtanan at Wimbledon
Taylor Fritz versus Nishesh Basavareddy at Roland Garros
Daniil Medvedev versus Adam Walton at Roland Garros
Alexander Bublik versus Jan-Lennard Struff at Roland Garros
Luciano Darderi versus Ethan Quinn at Wimbledon
Jiri Lehecka versus Arthur Gea at Australian Open
Jiri Lehecka versus Pablo Carreno Busta at Roland Garros
Andrey Rublev versus Roman Safiullin at Wimbledon
Casper Ruud versus Hubert Hurkacz at Wimbledon

ROUND 2 EXITS
Jannik Sinner versus Juan Manuel Cerundolo at Roland Garros
Ben Shelton versus Raphael Collignon at Roland Garros
Luciano Darderi versus Francisco Comesana at Roland Garros
Jakub Mensik versus Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon
Learner Tien versus Marton Fucsovics at Wimbledon
Arthur Fils versus Matteo Berrettini at Wimbledon

Note: The latter 3 are all NextGen players ages 22 and lower losing to players above the age of 30

And if you want I can research the R1/R2 exits at Masters as well to show how abysmal tennis is right now lol
 
junkieballer said:
Incredibly deep field, everyone in the top100 is strong now, as Berrettini and Bublik said.

If this gen is bad tell me why in the top39 of the world there is only 1 player, who also happens to be the GOAT, that is over 31 years old.

If this gen was bad it would have allowed many old players to be top39.
Click to expand...
But there do not seem to be many players of Berydich, Ferrer, Tsonga, Davydenko, Nalbandian or Soderling's caliber in the top ten. FAA is more on the level of James Blake and Fritz on the level of a Todd Martin. There is not a strong second tier though I agree the second tier players are not as bad as they appear due to increasing depth in the lower ranks
 
junkieballer said:
Incredibly deep field, everyone in the top100 is strong now, as Berrettini and Bublik said.

If this gen is bad tell me why in the top39 of the world there is only 1 player, who also happens to be the GOAT, that is over 31 years old.

If this gen was bad it would have allowed many old players to be top39.
Click to expand...
Why Top 39 and over 31, why such specific numbers ? Does Novak not look as good if you just said Top 100 & 30 and above ?
 
buscemi said:
Ten years ago, in 2016, Khachanov won Chengdu and notched wins over the likes of RBA, Kohlschreiber, and Lopez. He was miles ahead of Choinski.
Click to expand...
Was he still no 100 when he won Chengdu? I think it is harder for players to break through and upset established players but long time lower-ranked players are better than past long time lower-ranked players.
 
lurker2025 said:
Was he still no 100 when he won Chengdu? I think it is harder for players to break through and upset established players but long time lower-ranked players are better than past long time lower-ranked players.
Click to expand...
Khachanov was ranked #101 when he won Chengdu.
 
Tennis has become tougher and evolved and general level is higher but not necessarily because of the players. That is a big thing people need to realize and when you realize that you will come to terms with it. It doesn't mean for example De minaur is a better player than Tsonga ever was just to put one random example. You are born when you are born.
 
junkieballer said:
Incredibly deep field, everyone in the top100 is strong now, as Berrettini and Bublik said.

If this gen is bad tell me why in the top39 of the world there is only 1 player, who also happens to be the GOAT, that is over 31 years old.

If this gen was bad it would have allowed many old players to be top39.
Click to expand...
If players peak in their 30s now (as Federer famously did), then wouldn’t a younger top 40 be an indication of a weaker field? :unsure:
 
RF-18 said:
Tennis has become tougher and evolved and general level is higher but not necessarily because of the players. That is a big thing people need to realize and when you realize that you will come to terms with it. It doesn't mean for example De minaur is a better player than Tsonga ever was just to put one random example. You are born when you are born.
Click to expand...
Sure the physicality has improved, baselining has been more optimized, but if anything the mental strength has gone down tremendously.
 
junkieballer said:
Incredibly deep field, everyone in the top100 is strong now, as Berrettini and Bublik said.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, if this were true, the top 20 would be constantly shifting with new faces, but it isn't. Clearly the top players are consistent enough to stay there but not consistent enough to hitch a real result.
junkieballer said:
If this gen is bad tell me why in the top39 of the world there is only 1 player, who also happens to be the GOAT, that is over 31 years old.
Click to expand...
The cherrypicking is so awful with you LOL! You had to pick a prime number 39 just to avoid mentioning Mannarino who is 37. Do better. Don't forget you said above the age of 31 so you would have to avoid mentioning Norrie, Rinderknech, Khachanov, and Medvedev! Thus, I must confirm that your point is invalid.
 
buscemi said:
Current world #39 is Corentin Moutet. World #39 twenty years ago was Robin Söderling.

Moving up a spot, current world #38 is Mariano Navone. World #38 twenty years ago was Tomas Berdych.
Click to expand...
As I have said there is less mobility in the ranks but long time lower-ranked players are better than long time lower-ranked players in the past
 
buscemi said:
Current world #39 is Corentin Moutet. World #39 twenty years ago was Robin Söderling.

Moving up a spot, current world #38 is Mariano Navone. World #38 twenty years ago was Tomas Berdych.
Click to expand...
This is one of the sickest burns I've ever seen, LOL.

lurker2025 said:
As I have said there is less mobility in the ranks but long time lower-ranked players are better than long time lower-ranked players in the past
Click to expand...
Just how much lower are we talking about, though? The vast majority of times a 100th-ranked journeyman ain't beating an Alcaraz/Sinner/Djokovic at the latter's pet Slams.
 
helterskelter said:
Neither upsets nor their absence says anything about the strength of the field on their own. You have to assume a lot to think that they do.
Click to expand...
Not even 1st round upsets on an unprecedented scale? At the biggest tournaments in a BO5 format that would in any ordinary scenario favor the top players?
 
buscemi said:
Current world #39 is Corentin Moutet. World #39 twenty years ago was Robin Söderling.

Moving up a spot, current world #38 is Mariano Navone. World #38 twenty years ago was Tomas Berdych.
Click to expand...
Current world #87 is Stefanos Tsitsipas. World #87 twenty years ago was Bjorn Phau. Like what are we trying to accomplish here?
 
heavyD said:
Current world #87 is Stefanos Tsitsipas. World #87 twenty years ago was Bjorn Phau. Like what are we trying to accomplish here?
Click to expand...
Stef is a shadow of who he was. And besides Stef26 and Phau06 have very comparable slam results anyways lol.
 
129
lurker2025 said:
As I have said there is less mobility in the ranks but long time lower-ranked players are better than long time lower-ranked players in the past
Click to expand...
Let's test that. Vilius Gaubas is current world #130, which is what Rajeev Ram was ranked toward the end of 2016, 10 years ago. Ram was seen as a (very) poor man's Sampras, and grass is where he found his best results, winning two titles in Newport. He also made a hard court final in Delray. In no way do I think that Gaubas is better than Ram.
 
heavyD said:
Current world #87 is Stefanos Tsitsipas. World #87 twenty years ago was Bjorn Phau. Like what are we trying to accomplish here?
Click to expand...
Tsitsipas has clearly lost the plot.

In 2006, Berdych was the reigning Bercy champion and had previously beaten Federer at the Olympics.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
ROUND 1 EXITS
Auger-Aliassime versus Nuno Borges at Australian Open
Ben Shelton versus Otto Virtanan at Wimbledon
Taylor Fritz versus Nishesh Basavareddy at Roland Garros
Daniil Medvedev versus Adam Walton at Roland Garros
Alexander Bublik versus Jan-Lennard Struff at Roland Garros
Luciano Darderi versus Ethan Quinn at Wimbledon
Jiri Lehecka versus Arthur Gea at Australian Open
Jiri Lehecka versus Pablo Carreno Busta at Roland Garros
Andrey Rublev versus Roman Safiullin at Wimbledon
Casper Ruud versus Hubert Hurkacz at Wimbledon

ROUND 2 EXITS
Jannik Sinner versus Juan Manuel Cerundolo at Roland Garros
Ben Shelton versus Raphael Collignon at Roland Garros
Luciano Darderi versus Francisco Comesana at Roland Garros
Jakub Mensik versus Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon
Learner Tien versus Marton Fucsovics at Wimbledon
Arthur Fils versus Matteo Berrettini at Wimbledon

Note: The latter 3 are all NextGen players ages 22 and lower losing to players above the age of 30

And if you want I can research the R1/R2 exits at Masters as well to show how abysmal tennis is right now lolr
Click to expand...
But the important ones remain, all three of them.
 
buscemi said:
Current world #39 is Corentin Moutet. World #39 twenty years ago was Robin Söderling.

Moving up a spot, current world #38 is Mariano Navone. World #38 twenty years ago was Tomas Berdych.
Click to expand...
Cherrypicking.

By the way Soderling 20 years ago was a journeyman, and Berdych was baby
 
The margins are much slimmer now as the gap between 100 and 1 is smaller than it's ever been. It's not really that difficult and it's something that's going to continue with evolving technologies, diets, training, etc.
 
buscemi said:
129

Let's test that. Vilius Gaubas is current world #130, which is what Rajeev Ram was ranked toward the end of 2016, 10 years ago. Ram was seen as a (very) poor man's Sampras, and grass is where he found his best results, winning two titles in Newport. He also made a hard court final in Delray. In no way do I think that Gaubas is better than Ram.
Click to expand...
Gaubas still has a whole career ahead of him though, let's see what he will accomplish
 
junkieballer said:
Level ≠ accomplishments

Bill Tilden won 10 Slams but would be destroyed by Navone
Click to expand...
Of course, different times different games, anyone of any opinion understands that they did not have the same physicality back then. But just like adjusting for inflation if Bill Tilden grew up in this generation with the same access to medicine and technology he would steamroll everyone except Sincaraz and maybe Oldkovic. Navone doesn't have a scrap of Tilden's mental strength and strategy.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
Of course, different times different games, anyone of any opinion understands that they did not have the same physicality back then. But just like adjusting for inflation if Bill Tilden grew up in this generation with the same access to medicine and technology he would steamroll everyone except Sincaraz and maybe Oldkovic. Navone doesn't have a scrap of Tilden's mental strength and strategy.
Click to expand...
I think Navone is more talented than Tilden.

The current talent pool is at least 100 times bigger than 100 years ago, many more people play tennis
 
junkieballer said:
I think Navone is more talented than Tilden.

The current talent pool is at least 100 times bigger than 100 years ago, many more people play tennis
Click to expand...
Of course, talent is not the same as skill. Is Federer more talented than Djokovic, obviously. Is he a better player than Djokovic, obviously not.
 
junkieballer said:
I think Navone is more talented than Tilden.
Click to expand...
One of your most delusional statements which is saying something.

The current talent pool is at least 100 times bigger than 100 years ago, many more people play tennis
Click to expand...
Prove it. A bigger world population isn't enough when there are dozens of new sports that also draw from the talent pool, not to mention hundreds of other new professions!

lurker2025 said:
Gaubas still has a whole career ahead of him though, let's see what he will accomplish
Click to expand...
But what happens in the rest of his career isn't germane at all to this discussion. We're talking current rankings so we can compare what these guys were capable of at these particular points in time.
 
NonP said:
Prove it. A bigger world population isn't enough when there are dozens of new sports that also draw from the talent pool, not to mention hundreds of other new professions!
Click to expand...
Can you prove otherwise?

100 years ago people had more important things to do than playing with a ball, like finding something to eat to avoid starvation for example
 
junkieballer said:
Can you prove otherwise?

100 years ago people had more important things to do than playing with a ball, like finding something to eat to avoid starvation for example
Click to expand...
Um, you're the one making an unsubstantiated claim here. And we're not talking about some average Joe but Bill friggin' Tilden who's at worst one of the 10 greatest male players in our sport's history. It's beyond hysterical to think a journeyman from any era is more talented than him!

buscemi said:
I'm using the #39 ranking that you used in your post.

Söderling had two titles and three other finals.

Berdych had a Masters Series title, another title, two other finals, and a win over Federer at the Olympics.
Click to expand...
Yes. The current-era partisans would have a point if either of 'em had been on a steep career downturn like Tsits today, but they still had lots of world-class tennis in 'em!
 
buscemi said:
I'm using the #39 ranking that you used in your post.

Söderling had two titles and three other finals.

Berdych had a Masters Series title, another title, two other finals, and a win over Federer at the Olympics.
Click to expand...
NonP said:
One of your most delusional statements which is saying something.


Prove it. A bigger world population isn't enough when there are dozens of new sports that also draw from the talent pool, not to mention hundreds of other new professions!


But what happens in the rest of his career isn't germane at all to this discussion. We're talking current rankings so we can compare what these guys were capable of at these particular points in time.
Click to expand...
But Gaubas is still very young, the other player was older. I think it was easier in the past for lower-ranked players to break through and to win titles because there was more surface disparity and less access to technologies and advanced training so not everyone played the same way and some lower-ranked players could exploit the holes of higher-ranked players enough to win more titles and to rise up the rankings. Now everyone plays the same way which makes sustained accomplishments for a lower-ranked player more difficult but increased access to technologies, training, diets and better fitness allows lower-ranked players to be dangerous for an isolated upset.
 
NonP said:
Um, you're the one making an unsubstantiated claim here. And we're not talking about some average Joe but Bill friggin' Tilden who's at worst one of the 10 greatest male players in our sport's history. It's beyond hysterical to think a journeyman from any era is more talented than him!


Yes. The current-era partisans would have a point if either of 'em had been on a steep career downturn like Tsits today, but they still had lots of world-class tennis in 'em!
Click to expand...
Tilden is 100% and ATG but that does not mean that he would not be destroyed by current journeymen.

In Tilden's times there were like 100,000 tennis players in the world, now they are 100,000,000.

If now there are 1000 times more players it means the current #1000 is equal to the #1 of that time
 
4UTRMoutet said:
Not even 1st round upsets on an unprecedented scale? At the biggest tournaments in a BO5 format that would in any ordinary scenario favor the top players?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. No set of results says anything about the quality of the field unless you make some assumptions that might not be warranted. You're assuming that a good field is a top-heavy one, but there is no good reason to believe that.

Side note: this number of upsets is not unprecedented. It's low compared to some periods, such as the late 1990s.
 
lurker2025 said:
But Gaubas is still very young, the other player was older. I think it was easier in the past for lower-ranked players to break through and to win titles because there was more surface disparity and less access to technologies and advanced training so not everyone played the same way and some lower-ranked players could exploit the holes of higher-ranked players enough to win more titles and to rise up the rankings. Now everyone plays the same way which makes sustained accomplishments for a lower-ranked player more difficult but increased access to technologies, training, diets and better fitness allows lower-ranked players to be dangerous for an isolated upset.
Click to expand...
Again, what happens after this point in time is irrelevant. What your side is arguing is that a Gaubas or similarly ranked player right now is a better player than 2006 Soderling or Berdych. Nobody who knows a lick about tennis would find that a plausible assessment.

junkieballer said:
Tilden is 100% and ATG but that does not mean that he would not be destroyed by current journeymen.

In Tilden's times there were like 100,000 tennis players in the world, now they are 100,000,000.

If now there are 1000 times more players it means the current #1000 is equal to the #1 of that time
Click to expand...
Dude, there's actually zero chance a legend of Tilden's caliber gets destroyed by any journeyman (the Eastern/Western grips for one thing date all the way back to Bill's heyday, in case you don't know), but even if that were true it'd still be irrelevant because you were comparing their talent. Give Tilden or any other top player from a century ago a few weeks to adjust and he'd be cleaning almost everyone's clock today!

And FYI 100 million is more than 1% of the world's entire population, and almost 10 times FIFA's own estimate of active football/soccer players on this planet. And I doubt there's ANY sport in the world with that many prospective professional players so you're pulling that number out of your @$$. At least try to be serious here.
 
buscemi said:
Fine. Year-end #130 twenty years ago was 19 year-old Sam Querrey. If you want another older player, year-end #129 was Jiri Novak.
Click to expand...
Both Querrey and Novak were accomplished players. Still I think the current tennis is different and weaker in quality at the very top but not necessarily of such a terrible quality as some say
 
SonnyT said:
But the important ones remain, all three of them.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Like in '14-15, only two names mattered, Djokovic and Federer! If those two met, the best would come out!

We're lucky not back in '21-22, when only one name mattered!

Now, only three names matter: Sinner, Zverev and Djokovic. Get well soon, Carlos!
 
NonP said:
And FYI 100 million is more than 1% of the world's entire population, and almost 10 times FIFA's own estimate of active football/soccer players on this planet. And I doubt there's ANY sport in the world with that many prospective professional players so you're pulling that number out of your @$$. At least try to be serious here.
Click to expand...
Slight correction: the FIFA report actually said there were 13 million "girls and women" who were playing organized football in 2019. This notion that we've got 100M people playing tennis worldwide is still a complete joke, but just to be fair.

lurker2025 said:
Both Querrey and Novak were accomplished players. Still I think the current tennis is different and weaker in quality at the very top but not necessarily of such a terrible quality as some say
Click to expand...
I can get on board with this, but some people go further. That's when the whole thing becomes a farce!
 
NonP said:
Again, what happens after this point in time is irrelevant. What your side is arguing is that a Gaubas or similarly ranked player right now is a better player than 2006 Soderling or Berdych. Nobody who knows a lick about tennis would find that a plausible assessment.


Dude, there's actually zero chance a legend of Tilden's caliber gets destroyed by any journeyman (the Eastern/Western grips for one thing date all the way back to Bill's heyday, in case you don't know), but even if that were true it'd still be irrelevant because you were comparing their talent. Give Tilden or any other top player from a century ago a few weeks to adjust and he'd be cleaning almost everyone's clock today!

And FYI 100 million is more than 1% of the world's entire population, and almost 10 times FIFA's own estimate of active football/soccer players on this planet. And I doubt there's ANY sport in the world with that many prospective professional players so you're pulling that number out of your @$$. At least try to be serious here.
Click to expand...
IMG-20260709-220803.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top