So did the new generation suddenly give up social media?

[Cantconvert2MP]

TikTok created a double negative effect. Their attention spans are so short now that it somehow benefits their game.

Total bs, but eh.. Let come up anything.

It's just Federer, Nadal, Djokovic were superior players, nothing more nothing less.

In single players sport, it's not unseen a gap of huge talent between two generation. We see that a lot in boxing.
Social media has never been an issue either for boxers or tennis players.

 

[Silverbullet96]

Lot of blind boomer mentality going on here. Every generation has their luxuries in terms of technology over the previous one, and every new generation gets the "back in my day" treatment.
@UnderratedSlam can you really say that the adults during your childhood didn't criticise your generation for having it too easy, thus being a "weaker/lazier" generation ?

 

[ForehandCross]

The great age shift is real, but not really as effective. There have been several slams in past 5-6 years where big 3 brought their unbeatable level.

The problem is, there were many other slams where they were more than beatable. The only slam were they got comprehensively beat was USO 2021. From 12 winnable slams since 2016-17 winning only one slam by properly beating these guys points to a different problem entirely.

 

[ForehandCross]

The great age shift is real, but not really as effective. There have been several slams in past 5-6 years where big 3 brought their unbeatable level.

The problem is, there were many other slams where they were more than beatable. The only slam were they got comprehensively beat was USO 2021. From 12 winnable slams since 2016-17 winning only one slam by properly beating these guys points to a different problem entirely.

In case anyone's wondering : Winnable slams:

USO 2016( Wawa wasn't outstanding in this one)

AO 2017 ( Federer was decent but could be beaten)

USO 2017 ( Nadal was decent but could be beaten)

AO 2018 (One of Fraud's Worst slam)

USO 2018 (Djokovic was great but could be beaten)

USO 2019 ( Nadal was decent could be beaten)

AO 2020 (Djokovic should have been beaten)

AO 2021 (Final Djokovic was peak level, but no way should he be in the final in the first place)

RG 2021 (Djokovic should have been beaten in the final, was flat for first two sets)


WB 2021 (Djokovic's worst slam win level wise, should have been beaten)

AO 2022 (Nadal should have been beaten + should not have been in the final)


RG 2022( Nadal wasn't good in semis nor finals should have been beaten)


WB 2022 ( Djokovic went down 0-2 down and while better than 2021, still should have been beaten)

 

[SinneGOAT]

TikTok created a double negative effect. Their attention spans are so short now that it somehow benefits their game.

Tik Tok has been around 5 years, better arguments can be made for Instagram or Snapchat in my opinion.

 

[puppybutts]

research has shown that babies shown screens don't hold focus well and don't develop empathy or ability to read facial expressions as well. so if your parents babysat you with a screen, particularly before age 2, your chances of being great at anything are probably out the window.

 

[ForehandCross]

In case anyone's wondering : Winnable slams:

USO 2016( Wawa wasn't outstanding in this one)

AO 2017 ( Federer was decent but could be beaten)

USO 2017 ( Nadal was decent but could be beaten)

AO 2018 (One of Fraud's Worst slam)

USO 2018 (Djokovic was great but could be beaten)

USO 2019 ( Nadal was decent could be beaten)

AO 2020 (Djokovic should have been beaten)

AO 2021 (Final Djokovic was peak level, but no way should he be in the final in the first place)

RG 2021 (Djokovic should have been beaten in the final, was flat for first two sets)


WB 2021 (Djokovic's worst slam win level wise, should have been beaten)

AO 2022 (Nadal should have been beaten + should not have been in the final)


RG 2022( Nadal wasn't good in semis nor finals should have been beaten)


WB 2022 ( Djokovic went down 0-2 down and while better than 2021, still should have been beaten)

That's 13 winnable slams for rest of the tour in last 6 years. It's really does beg the question why Thiem and Medvedev who came to prominence way later in 2019 the only guys really posing actual challenge.


And how lucky the big 3 have been,

Murray who was always their biggest obstacle apart from one another got injured when he had finally become the man he got injured.


Thiem who finally had started beating big 3 both in masters and slams won a slam and then got injured.

Medvedev who could have a chokehold on HC slams was a break point away but failed and then has gone to mental spiral.


Big 3

 

[tennis_pro]

Like women just want to have a million dudes "matched" because it tells them they're attractive or something?

I dont know, but it feels like it.

 

[Gary Duane]

I have always been someone of the view that it is not the social media that had softened players we had seen up until now after the big 3. Distractions in society have always been around and social media was another one, albeit more addictive than others. The fact that the crop of players under 23 is more committed to the game is self evident at this point (we had plenty more evidence of that on the WTA). Social media has not magically gone away. It exists and the kids still find it in themselves to be hungry just like we see committed kids in all fields from science to music.

TLDR - It was never the social media - it was the personality of the players and the way they were coached/groomed.

Discuss/Disgust.

I agree.

 

[optic yellow]

I dont know, but it feels like it.

I would believe this. It's like something whenever they feel a pang of self-doubt they can look up and be like "I have value" at a very fundamentally reassuring level. It's not too much different than having a lot of friends on FB or followers on IG etc.

 

[abmk]

In case anyone's wondering : Winnable slams:

USO 2016( Wawa wasn't outstanding in this one)

AO 2017 ( Federer was decent but could be beaten)

USO 2017 ( Nadal was decent but could be beaten)

AO 2018 (One of Fraud's Worst slam)

USO 2018 (Djokovic was great but could be beaten)

USO 2019 ( Nadal was decent could be beaten)

AO 2020 (Djokovic should have been beaten)

AO 2021 (Final Djokovic was peak level, but no way should he be in the final in the first place)

RG 2021 (Djokovic should have been beaten in the final, was flat for first two sets)


WB 2021 (Djokovic's worst slam win level wise, should have been beaten)

AO 2022 (Nadal should have been beaten + should not have been in the final)


RG 2022( Nadal wasn't good in semis nor finals should have been beaten)


WB 2022 ( Djokovic went down 0-2 down and while better than 2021, still should have been beaten)

1. you missed Wim 19.
2. Also Nadal should've been beaten in atleast one RG 18/19/20 if CC field was good enough.
3. AO 21 final djokovic wasn't peak level. He played well, but Med made him look clearly better than he was and didn't test him at all. I mean fed Wim 15 vs Murray wasn't peak level either.

 

[Hoi Polloi]

Lot of blind boomer mentality going on here. Every generation has their luxuries in terms of technology over the previous one, and every new generation gets the "back in my day" treatment.
@UnderratedSlam can you really say that the adults during your childhood didn't criticise your generation for having it too easy, thus being a "weaker/lazier" generation ?

Boomers rule!
Later generations are mostly useless tools.

 

[Clay lover]

I don't know about the extent of influence of smartphones but I can say with certainty that the mindset has changed - both for the parents and for the kids.

With this emphasis on education and availability of information leading to more informed choices parents would rather invest their money and resources in pathways that guarantee the most stability and incur the lowest risks and tennis is very low on the list.

Also with survival and livelihood no longer being a concern kids have been more content with just getting a paycheck and investing their time and attention into anything other than work.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Well - eventually someone has to be the best of the InstaGen.

It wasnt exactly 2005/2006 Fed, 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal we watched yesterday.

Fed was also 24/25; Novak 24 and Rafa 27. Carlos was/is 19.

(I'm not saying that Carlos will be as good or better than any of them, but he showed more talent, polish and presence than any of them at 19, with the possible exception of Rafa.)

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Not sure it's necessarily as black/white as this. It's possible it could have had an overall degenerative effect, whilst some/many players have been relatively unaffected. Alternatively it could indeed be either extreme of it having no impact or being a death knell to focus and discipline where the best NextGen turds naturally float to the top. Either way, Nadal is a cheat.

 

[RaulRamirez]

My 2 (to 4) cents:

I agree that it's player-dependent.
I've never bought into many of the theories espoused here as if they're gospel, the social media distracting one being one of them.
To generalize, a Kyrgios or a Tomic would have found distractions in any era, and the best of the best (okay, Big 3, but many others as well) would have succeeded in any era.

People kill Tsitsipas for his social media posts, but how long does it take to make a post? People here presumably hold down jobs and post here (seemingly 24/7. People...even elite tennis players...have always had some free time; it's just easier now to do it in the public eye -- or harder to escape it now. Again, how long does it take to post something on social media? Should that player, instead, be living, eating and breathing tennis 24/7? That's ludicrous.

"We" take little bits of Info, and apply it without proportionality.
Although he's somewhat private, we know that Rafa owns a huge yacht, loves to fish, and hang out with his longtime friends and play video games. If he had gone into a slump, is that the reason? Or, because he shot...I don't know...an underwear commercial?

There were players in the 80s who somewhat notoriously hung out at clubs like Studio 54. Wasn't that a whole lot more distracting than making Instagram posts?

It gets beyond silly. Other than tennis, I mostly follow American team sports. Take the NFL. Let's say Aaron Rodgers is having a bad game (I'm a fan, and he just had one), and seemingly, every commercial break, you see him on his State Farm (insurance) commercials. People act like he's shooting those commercials live during the games. "Damn, if he weren't so busy shooting those ___-in' commercials, the Packers would be winning."

I tend to think that players (in general) are just as committed to the game as they always have been, but they do have free time and, you know, lives as well.

 

[optic yellow]

My 2 (to 4) cents:

I agree that it's player-dependent.
I've never bought into many of the theories espoused here as if they're gospel, the social media distracting one being one of them.
To generalize, a Kyrgios or a Tomic would have found distractions in any era, and the best of the best (okay, Big 3, but many others as well) would have succeeded in any era.

People kill Tsitsipas for his social media posts, but how long does it take to make a post? People here presumably hold down jobs and post here (seemingly 24/7. People...even elite tennis players...have always had some free time; it's just easier now to do it in the public eye -- or harder to escape it now. Again, how long does it take to post something on social media? Should that player, instead, be living, eating and breathing tennis 24/7? That's ludicrous.

"We" take little bits of Info, and apply it without proportionality.
Although he's somewhat private, we know that Rafa owns a huge yacht, loves to fish, and hang out with his longtime friends and play video games. If he had gone into a slump, is that the reason? Or, because he shot...I don't know...an underwear commercial?

There were players in the 80s who somewhat notoriously hung out at clubs like Studio 54. Wasn't that a whole lot more distracting than making Instagram posts?

It gets beyond silly. Other than tennis, I mostly follow American team sports. Take the NFL. Let's say Aaron Rodgers is having a bad game (I'm a fan, and he just had one), and seemingly, every commercial break, you see him on his State Farm (insurance) commercials. People act like he's shooting those commercials live during the games. "Damn, if he weren't so busy shooting those ___-in' commercials, the Packers would be winning."

I tend to think that players (in general) are just as committed to the game as they always have been, but they do have free time and, you know, lives as well.

Tsitsipas' primary issue is the false prophecy of Mouratoglou.

 

[Cantconvert2MP]

My 2 (to 4) cents:

I agree that it's player-dependent.
I've never bought into many of the theories espoused here as if they're gospel, the social media distracting one being one of them.
To generalize, a Kyrgios or a Tomic would have found distractions in any era, and the best of the best (okay, Big 3, but many others as well) would have succeeded in any era.

People kill Tsitsipas for his social media posts, but how long does it take to make a post? People here presumably hold down jobs and post here (seemingly 24/7. People...even elite tennis players...have always had some free time; it's just easier now to do it in the public eye -- or harder to escape it now. Again, how long does it take to post something on social media? Should that player, instead, be living, eating and breathing tennis 24/7? That's ludicrous.

"We" take little bits of Info, and apply it without proportionality.
Although he's somewhat private, we know that Rafa owns a huge yacht, loves to fish, and hang out with his longtime friends and play video games. If he had gone into a slump, is that the reason? Or, because he shot...I don't know...an underwear commercial?

There were players in the 80s who somewhat notoriously hung out at clubs like Studio 54. Wasn't that a whole lot more distracting than making Instagram posts?

It gets beyond silly. Other than tennis, I mostly follow American team sports. Take the NFL. Let's say Aaron Rodgers is having a bad game (I'm a fan, and he just had one), and seemingly, every commercial break, you see him on his State Farm (insurance) commercials. People act like he's shooting those commercials live during the games. "Damn, if he weren't so busy shooting those ___-in' commercials, the Packers would be winning."

I tend to think that players (in general) are just as committed to the game as they always have been, but they do have free time and, you know, lives as well.

Pretty much.

People here acting like there have been a shortage of entertainment and distraction for famous people (even for normal people) back then in the west.. Specialy since WWII end.
As if sportmen like Georges Best never existed, and they were all monk living only for the sport.

Stuff is beyond nonsense reading some people here.

 

[optic yellow]

Pretty much.

People here acting like there have been a shortage of entertainment and distraction for famous people (even for normal people) back then in the west.. Specialy since WWII end.
As if sportmen like Georges Best never existed, and they were all monk living only for the sport.

Stuff is beyond nonsense reading some people here.

If this does not define sexiness for 1976 I truly have no sense for the world.

 

[Azure]

I don't know about the extent of influence of smartphones but I can say with certainty that the mindset has changed - both for the parents and for the kids.

With this emphasis on education and availability of information leading to more informed choices parents would rather invest their money and resources in pathways that guarantee the most stability and incur the lowest risks and tennis is very low on the list.

Also with survival and livelihood no longer being a concern kids have been more content with just getting a paycheck and investing their time and attention to anything other than work.

I see your point. Sure, largely, desire is generated in the hungry but tennis has always been a rich man's sport. Anyway the correlation between wealth and success is different from the influence of social media.

 

[Clay lover]

I see your point. Sure, largely, desire is generated in the hungry but tennis has always been a rich man's sport. Anyway the correlation between wealth and success is different from the influence of social media.

I guess my point was more that even well-off parents won't be choosing tennis for their kids because education or other more lucrative sports make much more sense, making talent even more limited

When talking about the kids' jobs I was referring to the job as a tennis player as well...work ethic has declined because the current gen's mindset basically is to be "good enough" to make a living, attain work-life balance, but never to reach the pinnacle of any profession. But you may be right that their work ethic might be a result of being more well off instead of something indicative of an entire generation's mindset.

I guess... I'm trying to say that these has had much more of an impact on the ability of the current gen than smartphones?

 

[Azure]

I guess my point was more that even well-off parents won't be choosing tennis for their kids because education or other more lucrative sports make much more sense, making talent even more limited

When talking about the kids' jobs I was referring to the job as a tennis player as well...work ethic has declined because the current gen's mindset basically is to be "good enough" to make a living, attain work-life balance, but never to reach the pinnacle of any profession. But you may be right that their work ethic might be a result of being more well off instead of something indicative of an entire generation's mindset.

I guess... I'm trying to say that these has had much more of an impact on the ability of the current gen than smartphones?

Possible - this is a strong argument too. Where there is a guaranteed success, there is little point in taking a risk and opt for the road less travelled.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Lendl did and stated it publicly. When he took over the coaching of Murray, Andy was on video games 7 hours a day. Lendl told him before they signed their contract that would cease and it did. Andy started up his addiction again once Ivan exited the stage.

Zverev and Lendl's partnership ended very quickly because Lendl demanded he put his phone away during practice, at least according to Ivan. Zverev claimed it was because Ivan only talked to him on court about "golf and his dogs."

Well, Lendl retired with 8 slams and 94 tournaments. When Zverev leaves the games he'll have about .01% of those accomplishments, so I know who I believe.

Great post.

I didn't know about this nonsense.

Murray always was a clown...

As for Zverev, well, he is a child.

 

[Jonas78]

Carlo

Fed was also 24/25; Novak 24 and Rafa 27. Carlos was/is 19.

(I'm not saying that Carlos will be as good or better than any of them, but he showed more talent, polish and presence than any of them at 19, with the possible exception of Rafa.)

Carlo didnt have to break through playing prime Big4. Carlo was born at a perfect time, lucky there . Big4 is soon history and Carlo can feast on a inconsistent field with no ATGs.

I dont know if im glad or sad my predictions were right. But some of the Djokodal fans was really off, claiming things like "tennis has become too physical, you will never see a young slam winner again", and "35 is the new 25" etc.

Carlo was the last nail in the coffin; the career inflation era was real.