Tennis is heading into a dark and unforeseen future

AC_AO

New User
I see where you're coming from but what an ageist diatribe! :twisted:

Have you got something against guys playing tennis in their late 20s or something? :confused:

Nothing against guys playing tennis in their late 20s; but when you see that each of the four semi-finalists, without exception, is an aged, old codger (in tennis terms), with tons of mileage on their bodies, you know there is something seriously wrong with the sport.
 

ArcspacE

Legend
... with unparalleled period of uncertainty.

So, the semi-finals of the 2015 FO are lined up, and the guys going to duke it out are all in their late 20s, at a time when the young guns should have smashed them into oblivion.

Tennis is slowly but surely dying a slow and agonizing death.

Are there no young guns out there—with balls of steel—who can bring back tennis from the impending pit of doom it is falling into? What way is tennis heading? Who will save tennis?
Prime PEDs > New PEDs
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
All this fitness and nutrition bs.

It's obvious why tennis is skewing okder, it's the damn courts.

All these slow as molasses courts that you can't hit through which favors physically fit players with consistent mechanics who can hit cc fh all day and who can run and retrieve all day. With thr lone exception of Federer because he is Federer.

Young guys tend to have the advantage in terms of speed and quickness and explosiveness. On a faster court you'd see them advance. But now they have to wait til they physically mature and become grind bots before they get any results.

See Nishikori.

Guys like Berdych, Tsonga and Wawa have really been hurt by the slow court era.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
And it is a weak and bleak era. People call Fed's era weak but at least you had 10 players all capable of beating each other, they just couldn't beat Fed.

Now it's Djoker and Murray and everyone else. You could say , well ok but how is this different than Fedal. Well at least outside of clay and grass other guys had a shot as the hc field is alot deeper and Rafa was inconsistent off clay. aBut with Murray getting his clay game together it's gonna be the Murray Djoker show all year , with maybe the occasional Wawa tocrash. The party
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Also, at least in the Fedal era we had the emergence of Djokwr, Murray, and Delpo and a guy like Soderling. Just bad luck that illness and injury claimed 2 of them.

Who all is really emerging right now???

Raonic and Kei are top ten but aren't lighting the world on fire.

Meanwhile it's the old guard as before at the top.

Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, geriatric Fed at 2 in the world.
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
It is a golden era. Never had so much fun and passion following the game. So many superlatively talented players in the same era. And the field overall has got stronger and more competitive (more consistent) than it used to be.

ETA: also longevity has been vastly improved.
 
Last edited:

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
It is a golden era. Never had so much fun and passion following the game. So many superlatively talented players in the same era. And the field overall has got stronger and more competitive (more consistent) than it used to be.
You have lost your mind.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
It is a golden era. Never had so much fun and passion following the game. So many superlatively talented players in the same era. And the field overall has got stronger and more competitive (more consistent) than it used to be.
The Nadal loss has rattled your gourd if you believe this.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
I don't know if all the gloom and doom is really warranted.

Krygios, Koukanakkis, Thiem, and Sock will all be competing for slams in a couple of years. Raonic will be like the Roddick of this era and may pick up a slam or two. Dimitrov could also find form again and compete for slams. Too early to tell if these young guys will be as dominate as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or even Murray but I think they will be entertaining at the least.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
I don't know if all the gloom and doom is really warranted.

Krygios, Koukanakkis, Thiem, and Sock will all be competing for slams in a couple of years. Raonic will be like the Roddick of this era and may pick up a slam or two. Dimitrov could also find form again and compete for slams. Too early to tell if these young guys will be as dominate as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or even Murray but I think they will be entertaining at the least.
Wake me when they start making the semis and finals and winning masters and majors.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I don't know if all the gloom and doom is really warranted.

Krygios, Koukanakkis, Thiem, and Sock will all be competing for slams in a couple of years. Raonic will be like the Roddick of this era and may pick up a slam or two. Dimitrov could also find form again and compete for slams. Too early to tell if these young guys will be as dominate as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or even Murray but I think they will be entertaining at the least.
Don't forget Coric.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
How old were Murray, Djoker Fed and Nadal when they won their first masters tournament compared to some of these guys. Hell, their first ATP level title?
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
KG had already made 2 (slam) quarters. The others are like 18. Give it a little time.
As I said, wake me.when it happens.

And you prove my point. Tennis historically has seen champions emerge as teenagers, men and women. But in this slow court era, then men have to wait til 25 to do anything.

15 years ago we'd expect a rising young gun to have won something of significance by 18,19, 20. Now it's , eh they are only 18, give it time.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
How old were Murray, Djoker Fed and Nadal when they won their first masters tournament compared to some of these guys. Hell, their first ATP level title?
You cannot ask every generation to have geniuses in them at the level of the big 3. Won't happen. That was quite exceptional. But there is quite a huge margin between that and "dark and gloomy and hopeless". You can already see some exciting players starting to appear on the scene.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
As I said, wake me.when it happens.

And you prove my point. Tennis historically has seen champions emerge as teenagers, men and women. But in this slow court era, then men have to wait til 25 to do anything.

15 years ago we'd expect a rising young gun to have won something of significance by 18,19, 20. Now it's , eh they are only 18, give it time.
There has been a change in age. Can't you see it? Players tend to peak later and also break through later.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
You cannot ask every generation to have geniuses in them at the level of the big 3. Won't happen. That was quite exceptional. But there is quite a huge margin between that and "dark and gloomy and hopeless". You can already see some exciting players starting to appear on the scene.
Get the heck out.

This isn't about one particular generation this is about tennis historicslly. Every generation of tennis except the last couple has seen talent emerge as teenagers. Murray and Djoker are the last two player to be significant at late teens early 20s. And by be significant I mean serious results like make the top ten, go deep in a major, win a master's event.

Fed's generation had Safin and Hewitt, and Fed himself, he best Sampras at Wimbledon at 19!

Sampras won USO at 19. Chang won FO at 18.

Becker won Wimbledon at 17.

So whst is the difderence between then and now?

Slow slow courts.
 
Last edited:

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
There has been a change in age because slow courts have allowed it. Can you not follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion?
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Get the heck out.

This isn't about one particular generation this is about tennis historicslly. Every generation of tennis except the last couple has seen talent emerge as teenagers. Murray and Djoker are the last two player to significant at late teens early 20s.

Fed's generation had Safin and Hewitt, and Fed himself, he best Sampras at Wimbledon at 19!

Sampras won USO at 19. Chang won FO at 18.

Becker won Wimbledon at 17.

So whst is the difderence between then and now?

Slow slow courts.
Safin and Hewitt were flash in the pans. Safin: massive talent, no discipline, a complete waste in terms of results: did not last, never maximized his potential. Hewitt: broke through too early, career destroyed by injuries. Under-performed massively in masters.
Current top 10 is way more consistent, more professional and more reliable than those guys (why not Nalby while you're at it, ha ha, ultimate flake)

ETA: the days of winning slams at 17 are done and dusted and probably for the better as those ultra precocious players tended to burn out early.
ETA2: there is a reason for it. Tennis today requires more strength and athleticism and that's something you peak at at an older age
 
Last edited:

TennisCJC

Legend
There has been a change in age because slow courts have allowed it. Can you not follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion?
I think there is some truth to this too. I think explosive young players have a better shot at finding peak form and upsetting established players on faster courts. Slow surfaces tend to reward consistency and stamina. Consistency can actually be better at 28 than 23 and stamina in older athletes of 27-32 can be as good as athletes in early 20s.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Safin and Hewitt were flash in the pans. Safin: massive talent, no discipline, a complete waste in terms of results: did not last, never maximized his potential. Hewitt: broke through too early, career destroyed by injuries. Under-performed massively in masters.
Current top 10 is way more consistent, more professional and more reliable than those guys (why not Nalby while you're at it, ha ha, ultimate flake)

ETA: the days of winning slams at 17 are done and dusted and probably for the better as those ultra precocious players tended to burn out early.
There is no use debating with anyone who calls two former world number ones and multiple slam champions flash in the pans.

Good day Madam.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
I think there is some truth to this too. I think explosive young players have a better shot at finding peak form and upsetting established players on faster courts. Slow surfaces tend to reward consistency and stamina. Consistency can actually be better at 28 than 23 and stamina in older athletes of 27-32 can be as good as athletes in early 20s.
Precisely. This is partially why a geriatric Fed is 2 in the world comfortably. Aside from his once in a lifetime talent, the slower courts help even him. Off course too slow and he has no chance to hit thru the court . Best surface for him nowadays is medium fsst.
 

Boom-Boom

Legend
Safin and Hewitt were flash in the pans. Safin: massive talent, no discipline, a complete waste in terms of results: did not last, never maximized his potential. Hewitt: broke through too early, career destroyed by injuries. Under-performed massively in masters.
Current top 10 is way more consistent, more professional and more reliable than those guys (why not Nalby while you're at it, ha ha, ultimate flake)

ETA: the days of winning slams at 17 are done and dusted and probably for the better as those ultra precocious players tended to burn out early.
This post is a total misunderstanding of tennis history :neutral:

Safin won 2 GS which is way more than all members of current top 10 except Big 4.

Hewitt dominated tennis with two YE#1.

Becker, Agassi, Sampras haven't exactly burnt out early :shock:
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
This post is a total misunderstanding of tennis history :neutral:

Safin won 2 GS which is way more than all members of current top 10 except Big 4.

Hewitt dominated tennis with two YE#1.

Becker, Agassi, Sampras haven't exactly burnt out early :shock:
What else do you expect from.someone who knows crap all about tennis because they didn't start watching til 2005.
 

Boom-Boom

Legend
What else do you expect from.someone who knows crap all about tennis because they didn't start watching til 2005.
I know

it's beyond my understanding how such people who know nothing about tennis can spend so much time posting nonsense on a tennis forum ??? :confused:
 

ArcspacE

Legend
Safin and Hewitt were flash in the pans. Safin: massive talent, no discipline, a complete waste in terms of results: did not last, never maximized his potential. Hewitt: broke through too early, career destroyed by injuries. Under-performed massively in masters.
Current top 10 is way more consistent, more professional and more reliable than those guys (why not Nalby while you're at it, ha ha, ultimate flake)
So much fail - goodness me
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
... with unparalleled period of uncertainty.

So, the semi-finals of the 2015 FO are lined up, and the guys going to duke it out are all in their late 20s, at a time when the young guns should have smashed them into oblivion.

Tennis is slowly but surely dying a slow and agonizing death.

Are there no young guns out there—with balls of steel—who can bring back tennis from the impending pit of doom it is falling into? What way is tennis heading? Who will save tennis?
The sky is falling . . .
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
It's happening in other sports, too.

For example, look at snooker (hardly a major world-wide sport, but there you go). Almost all the players are 30+ now. It might seem that that's predictable, as it's a less athletic game and so experience would matter. However, the top player of the 1980s and the top player of the 1990s both fell from the top spot at around the age of 30. Ronnie O'Sullivan is still the perennial favorite even though he plays part time and is nearly 40.

Snooker?? You're talking about snooker??


 

randomtoss

Semi-Pro
Transitional era is exciting: surprise winners, young players getting on court actually believing in their chances... Fun ahead!
 

reds17

Rookie
Transitional era is exciting: surprise winners, young players getting on court actually believing in their chances... Fun ahead!
You'd like to think so but unfortunately here are the facts:

FO QFs this year: Federer - 33, Wawrinka - 30, Tsonga - 30, Nishikori - 25, Djokovich - 28, Nadal - 29, Murray - 28, Ferrer - 33.

Nishikori is mid 20s, so he's not even really considered a young gun anymore. I believe you would see the same trend in other more previous Grand Slams.
 
Last edited:

OrangePower

Legend
It's obvious why tennis is skewing okder, it's the damn courts.
That's part of it, but I fear that tennis is just not drawing as many talented athletes like it used to. Not to say that the top young players are not talented, but that talented athletes who in past years might have ended up as tennis players are now choosing other sports instead. So the pool is not as rich as it would have been in years past.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
Tennis has a big problem once Rafa and Roger depart the game.

Djokovic dominating is just not appealing enough to mainstream fans. Murray is a personality and charisma vaccuum.

The next crop of players are just not good enough.
 

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
Tennis has a big problem once Rafa and Roger depart the game.

Djokovic dominating is just not appealing enough to mainstream fans. Murray is a personality and charisma vaccuum.

The next crop of players are just not good enough.
The next crop of players are only around the 18-19 range, give them time. It's still too early to count them out, they seem more promising than the Dimi/Raonic gen.
 

Elektra

Professional
Tennis has a big problem once Rafa and Roger depart the game.

Djokovic dominating is just not appealing enough to mainstream fans. Murray is a personality and charisma vaccuum.

The next crop of players are just not good enough.
That's because mainstream media never warmed up to Novak, they tolerated him but now that he a dominant force, they have to find ways to make him cross-over and be more appealing.

For you not to feel that way, they need someone who can give Novak trouble. Rafa has not found his confidence and needs to reprogram a few aspects of his game.

Nishikori has beaten Novak but he does not have Nova's stamina and conditioning.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
That's part of it, but I fear that tennis is just not drawing as many talented athletes like it used to. Not to say that the top young players are not talented, but that talented athletes who in past years might have ended up as tennis players are now choosing other sports instead. So the pool is not as rich as it would have been in years past.
That could be it, but 8m dealing with a factor we know to be true.

Think of how the courts slowing delayed Fed's ascension. He comes up in the late 90s as a serve volley guy then hey presto , courts and racquets change and he has to rebuild a néw game. Maybe he still woukdnt have broken through til 21, but who knows?
 

gopokes

Rookie
Why does it need to be considered mediocrity?
Such a comment is only due to the fact our expectations of the norm have been significantly raised due to the brilliance of Federer and Nadal, 2 players who in 100 years from now people will still consider legends of the game.

The players you listed were in no way mediocre, they were all exceptionally talented tennis players who whilst maybe not at the level of some other we've been lucky enough to experience are all still deserved champions.

I've said it previously, as Fed and Nadal's dominance subsides we will likley see Djokovic and Murray be near certainties for reaching at least the SF of Slams for next 2-3 years and that will allow others to rise and have their opportunity. Now whether anyone is able to seize such opportunity on a consistent basis is yet to be seen but overall we should relax and enjoy what I'm sure will be an exciting and competitive era in tennis.

The key word is "relative" - I don't see any 4.5s making the finals of a major in the near or distant future. :)
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I think there is some truth to this too. I think explosive young players have a better shot at finding peak form and upsetting established players on faster courts. Slow surfaces tend to reward consistency and stamina. Consistency can actually be better at 28 than 23 and stamina in older athletes of 27-32 can be as good as athletes in early 20s.

Faster surfaces require you to have faster reflexes/faster foot speed. You don't necessarily actually have to be fast to succeed on today's surfaces, especially if you have a big ground game like a Wawrinka and can control the center of the court. Berdych even at his older age is still outgunning most guys because despite his limited mobility, the surfaces allow him to stand back and whail. Newer players don't have the strength of stamina to succeed on the slower surfaces of today, thus why you rarely see any new guys competing for top spots unless they are a physical freak of nature like a Nadal.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
the average age of this years RG semi lineup is the oldest at RG since the very first Open Era RG - 1968!

the average age of the Tsonga-Wawrinka semi is 30. That is the oldest average age in a RG semi since 1972(Gimeno-Metreveli). and the oldest at any major since 2003 AO(Agassi-Ferreira)

would be interesting if Tsonga or Wawrinka won, on the 25th anniversary of 30 year old Gomez's RG win. I know the game has changed in recent years, but its really remarkable how common this sort of thing could become (Berdych will be 30 soon, the world #2 is 33, Djokovic & Murray are only 2 years away from being 30)

I remember that 1990 final, the media acted like Gomez was so old at 30, he may of well have been 50, they way they harped on it. and 20 year old Agassi was a massive favorite. Now it would be almost a miracle to see a 20 year old in a major in a major semi. just looked up the other RG favorite that year - Thomas Muster was just 22. but no one acted like he was particularly young back then, just a top player in his prime. doesn't seem likely for a 22 year old to make a major semi this year either, eh?

In Gomez's case(and Ferreira's) they were just veterans having one last great run. Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych etc are almost just as much veterans, yet they are treated by media & fans as players just entering their primes. If that truly is the case, I guess they will be still be contending for majors when they are 33(only 3 years from now)

one other thing - the Nadal-Ferrer final in 2013 was the oldest RG final since 1973. We are guaranteed having a repeat of that age average in this year's final (Novak and Andy are 28

so just how much older can the game get? Personally I think its nonsense to blame this on slower surfaces(and guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Wawrinka don''t play particularly long points anyway) just look at 2008, weren't surfaces just as slow then? look at how young the average age of the semifinalists were at AO, RG, and USO that year - 22! just like it was circa 1990.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
the average age of this years RG semi lineup is the oldest at RG since the very first Open Era RG - 1968!

the average age of the Tsonga-Wawrinka semi is 30. That is the oldest average age in a RG semi since 1972(Gimeno-Metreveli). and the oldest at any major since 2003 AO(Agassi-Ferreira)

would be interesting if Tsonga or Wawrinka won, on the 25th anniversary of 30 year old Gomez's RG win. I know the game has changed in recent years, but its really remarkable how common this sort of thing could become (Berdych will be 30 soon, the world #2 is 33, Djokovic & Murray are only 2 years away from being 30)

I remember that 1990 final, the media acted like Gomez was so old at 30, he may of well have been 50, they way they harped on it. and 20 year old Agassi was a massive favorite. Now it would be almost a miracle to see a 20 year old in a major in a major semi. just looked up the other RG favorite that year - Thomas Muster was just 22. but no one acted like he was particularly young back then, just a top player in his prime. doesn't seem likely for a 22 year old to make a major semi this year either, eh?

In Gomez's case(and Ferreira's) they were just veterans having one last great run. Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych etc are almost just as much veterans, yet they are treated by media & fans as players just entering their primes. If that truly is the case, I guess they will be still be contending for majors when they are 33(only 3 years from now)

one other thing - the Nadal-Ferrer final in 2013 was the oldest RG final since 1973. We are guaranteed having a repeat of that age average in this year's final (Novak and Andy are 28

so just how much older can the game get? Personally I think its nonsense to blame this on slower surfaces(and guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Wawrinka don''t play particularly long points anyway) just look at 2008, weren't surfaces just as slow then? look at how young the average age of the semifinalists were at AO, RG, and USO that year - 22! just like it was circa 1990.
It's more due to increasing technology which makes it easier for top players to stay on top, or if they're a late bloomer to attain a top spot.

(Not saying PEDs by the way).
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
You'd like to think so but unfortunately here are the facts:

FO QFs this year: Federer - 33, Wawrinka - 30, Tsonga - 30, Nishikori - 25, Djokovich - 28, Nadal - 29, Murray - 28, Ferrer - 33.

Nishikori is mid 20s, so he's not even really considered a young gun anymore. I believe you would see the same trend in other more previous Grand Slams.
Nadals steep drop is definately due to age.
 

joekapa

Legend
You guys make me laugh. The weak period in tennis was without a doubt during Federer's prime. 2002-2009. It was the most boring period EVER in tennis. That was until Nadal, Djokovic, Murray started maturing as players.

Tennis was absolutely BORING to watch.

It will be a great day in tennis history when Federer retires in my book. The guy is simply along for the ride now. Doing nothing much, and not deserving much either.

Whoever thinks he has another grand slam in him, is simply folling themselves.
 

joekapa

Legend
Safin and Hewitt were flash in the pans. Safin: massive talent, no discipline, a complete waste in terms of results: did not last, never maximized his potential. Hewitt: broke through too early, career destroyed by injuries. Under-performed massively in masters.
Current top 10 is way more consistent, more professional and more reliable than those guys (why not Nalby while you're at it, ha ha, ultimate flake)

ETA: the days of winning slams at 17 are done and dusted and probably for the better as those ultra precocious players tended to burn out early.
ETA2: there is a reason for it. Tennis today requires more strength and athleticism and that's something you peak at at an older age
Agree totally ! Federers early years were a piece of cake in tennis terms. He had no real rival to speak of.

Compared to now, it was a walk in the park.

Fed fan's will never admit this. Too bad Becker, Mcenroe, Stich are still around to remind them of this.
 
Top