So I think it is obvious that his racquet head speed and lack of spin on both wings is reminiscent of past generations - and to be fair, he may even hit with less than 80's/90's players.
We have seen him (when playing well) give the top players fits. Does this do away with the "generational" advantage that we attribute to the continuous improvement in the physicality and technique with modern tennis? By looking at Bernard, could one not argue that a prime, say, Lendl could walk onto the court and be top 10 right now? Top 5? Even Laver?
Not a joke, just being serious. At the very least, maybe it should be a hypothesis that previous generations would NOT be more successful or AS successful if they adopted a modern playstyle.
What do you think? Is recency bias a factor in what we believe to be truth or fact?
We have seen him (when playing well) give the top players fits. Does this do away with the "generational" advantage that we attribute to the continuous improvement in the physicality and technique with modern tennis? By looking at Bernard, could one not argue that a prime, say, Lendl could walk onto the court and be top 10 right now? Top 5? Even Laver?
Not a joke, just being serious. At the very least, maybe it should be a hypothesis that previous generations would NOT be more successful or AS successful if they adopted a modern playstyle.
What do you think? Is recency bias a factor in what we believe to be truth or fact?
