Backhand Smash
Rookie
Some people are quick to declare victory and some people are quick to declare defeat.
Both will be proven wrong, methinks.
Both will be proven wrong, methinks.
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?
Prime PEDs > New PEDs... 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?
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.
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.
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.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.
KG had already made 2 (slam) quarters. The others are like 18. Give it a little time.Wake me when they start making the semis and finals and winning masters and majors.
KG had already made 2 (slam) quarters. The others are like 18. Give it a little time.
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.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?
There has been a change in age. Can't you see it? Players tend to peak later and also break through later.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.
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.
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.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.
Don't forget Coric.
Prime PEDs > New PEDs
There has been a change in age because slow courts have allowed it. Can you not follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion?
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.
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.
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:
What else do you expect from.someone who knows crap all about tennis because they didn't start watching til 2005.
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)
... 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?
True all that.Really weak era in tennis right now.
When Federer was 28, there was Nadal 23, Djokovic, Murray 22.
There is nobody at at 22, 23 for Djokovic.
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.
Transitional era is exciting: surprise winners, young players getting on court actually believing in their chances... Fun ahead!
It's obvious why tennis is skewing okder, it's the damn courts.
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.
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.
I dare ask, why keep feeding the troll?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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