The "youngsters" strike back

[helterskelter]

The last 16 of the men's singles has four men in it aged under 25, and in fact all are under 24. By contrast, the women's only has three under 25, and two of them are more than 24.5. (That said, there are five men aged 30 or more left in).

Here's the full breakdown:

Men:
21 - Kyrgios
22 - Pouille, Vesely
23 - Tomic
25 - Goffin, Raonic
26 - Johnson, Nishikori
27 - Cilic
28 - Querrey
29 - Murray
30 - Gasquet, Berdych
31 - Tsonga
34 - Federer, Mahut

Women:
21 - Keys
24 - Halep, Vandeweghe
25 - Pavlyuchenkova [turned 25 yesterday], Doi
27 - Radwanksa, Cibulkova, Suarez Navarro
28 - Makarova, Kerber, Shvedova
29 - Vesnina, Safarova
31 - Kuznetsova
34 - S. Williams
36 - V. Williams

Vandeweghe and Doi have already lost today, although Pavlyuchenkova won, and Halep and Keys play each other, so only two of the women's quarter-finalists will be 26 or younger.

 

[stringertom]

Let's hope the male group gets younger tomorrow after the continuation concludes!

 

[PeteD]

Let's hope the male group gets younger tomorrow after the continuation concludes!

Taping job on younger's ankle looked serious. Wouldn't surprise me if he can't play tommorrow.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

The only thing the youngsters are striking is their own faces.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

The only thing the youngsters are striking is their own faces.

Youzhny is far from young, but that mashing still seems so fresh.

 

[JohnnyMac Fan!]

Let's hope the male group gets younger tomorrow after the continuation concludes!

I root for the older ones then

 

[ruerooo]

 

[helterskelter]

Yeah, so just one man aged less than 25 in the quarter-finals, once again.

22: Pouille
25: Raonic
27: Cilic
28: Querrey
29: Murray
30: Berdych
31: Tsonga
34: Federer

24: Halep
25: Pavlyuchenkova
27: Cibulkova
28: Shvedova, Kerber
29: Vesnina
34: S. Williams
36: V. Williams

 

[Meles]

Yeah, so just one man aged less than 25 in the quarter-finals, once again.

22: Pouille
25: Raonic
27: Cilic
28: Querrey
29: Murray
30: Berdych
31: Tsonga
34: Federer

24: Halep
25: Pavlyuchenkova
27: Cibulkova
28: Shvedova, Kerber
29: Vesnina
34: S. Williams
36: V. Williams

Most of the best younger players were in the same quarter of the draw, so the most you were going to have in this event was 2 of 8. This tournament looks a lot younger to me with Vesely and Pouille doing amazing things while Zverev and Thiem showed a lot of potential and both made finals on grass this year (Thiem won Stuttgart.) Your metric is a bit off in this one since all of these players were in the same quarter. Pouille is an amazing surprise in this tournament and he will have a great chance to beat Berdych. Thiem with the French SF and Pouille SF here, both at age 22 would be pretty amazing.

 

[Meles]

LOL ruerooo we could be waiting 50 years for a GOAT like Federer. Stop trolling the poor youngsters.

 

[helterskelter]

Most of the best younger players were in the same quarter of the draw, so the most you were going to have in this event was 2 of 8. This tournament looks a lot younger to me with Vesely and Pouille doing amazing things while Zverev and Thiem showed a lot of potential and both made finals on grass this year (Thiem won Stuttgart.) Your metric is a bit off in this one since all of these players were in the same quarter. Pouille is an amazing surprise in this tournament and he will have a great chance to beat Berdych. Thiem with the French SF and Pouille SF here, both at age 22 would be pretty amazing.

The younger players have done a bit better in these last two majors, yes. By historic standards, two 22-year-olds losing semi-finals in back-to-back majors would be nothing to write home about, of course. (Assuming that, even if he beats Berdych, Pouille won't beat Murray. Of course, if Pouille makes the final that would be different).

By the way, one thing I really want to note is the age of the women's draw. Of course, it's partly the result of the Williams sisters. Even so, if Vesnina were to beat Cibulkova, the semi-finalists would be 28, 29, 34, and 36. Even if Cibulkova wins, it's 27, 28, 34, and 36. (Again, assuming that Pavlyuchenkova loses against Serena).

It could have been three of eight had Kyrgios beaten Murray. But that was never likely.

 

[helterskelter]

@Meles

Are you tipping Pouille to beat Berdych, by the way? I agree he has a good shot, but I'd probably make Berdych slight favorite, maybe 55-45 or something like that.

 

[Sentinel]

Let's hope the male group gets younger tomorrow after the continuation concludes!

Murray and Tsonga can't both go out tomorrow

 

[stringertom]

Murray and Tsonga can't both go out tomorrow

Posted yesterday (for me) about my hope that Vesely would win.

Jo is an oldie, closest to Grampaparer now in the QFs. Would very much like the final to be an all-30's Breakfast Metamucil affair. Get out the walking canes!

 

[gn]

@Meles

Are you tipping Pouille to beat Berdych, by the way? I agree he has a good shot, but I'd probably make Berdych slight favorite, maybe 55-45 or something like that.

Berdych is to others how Big 4 is to Berdych. I don't see any possible upset. Pouille may take a set and that's it. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[helterskelter]

Berdych is to others how Big 4 is to Berdych. I don't see any possible upset. Pouille may take a set and that's it. Hope I'm wrong though.

There's been a lot of talk of Ferrer and Berdych, as the most consistent "gatekeepers" to the top of the game, declining this year. At 34, I think Ferrer is indeed past his best, and results are suggesting a slow slide. But Berdych has just reached the quarter-finals of the first three Slams of the year for the first time. Perhaps he's not been doing as well in the minor events, but in majors he's more consistent than ever.

 

[Meles]

The younger players have done a bit better in these last two majors, yes. By historic standards, two 22-year-olds losing semi-finals in back-to-back majors would be nothing to write home about, of course. (Assuming that, even if he beats Berdych, Pouille won't beat Murray. Of course, if Pouille makes the final that would be different).

By the way, one thing I really want to note is the age of the women's draw. Of course, it's partly the result of the Williams sisters. Even so, if Vesnina were to beat Cibulkova, the semi-finalists would be 28, 29, 34, and 36. Even if Cibulkova wins, it's 27, 28, 34, and 36. (Again, assuming that Pavlyuchenkova loses against Serena).

It could have been three of eight had Kyrgios beaten Murray. But that was never likely.

I'm beginning to wonder if the issue with the women is they can't physically play the new power game that the courts and rackets demand. By that I mean these long hard baseline struggles. After a year or two belting the ball, the top players seem to cycle back into the pack never to return to the top very often.

Its similar for the Men. The game is much, much more physical. The only young great that might make a dent today would be a young Nadal. Federer at age 21 I doubt wins today (might make SF for sure.) Becker was a great young player, but that style of play unlikely to work these days and the baseline game is much more physical. Djokovic 2008 is not beating Murray, Federer, or the current Djokovic. I think these days 22 years olds in SFs is something to write home about:

Lleyton Hewitt is the last younger Winner at the US Open this century. Djokovic made the final in 2007 at a very young age.
Hewitt again at Wimbledon with Nadal being a young Finalist.
Nadal is the only younger player at the final stages of the French this century
Djokovic won Australia at a young age and Tsonga was 23 in 2008. Baghdatis was an amazing 20 in 2006, but such players would never break through against the likes of Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Djokovic, and even Nadal in Auz these last years.
​

The closest thing we have to a phenom on the horizon is Zverev these days and he won't be going deep at a slam for a while as the stamina and power required in today's game is hard to develop at such a young age. Zverev might crack the final 4 at a major in 2 years at age of 21, but that seems a very optimisitic estimate.

No. I think 22 is pretty good these days.

Courier had made the finals of all the slams by age 22. Sadly, I'm not confident that this peaker Courier would have made the same dent on tour today. Courier, McEnroe, and Wilander are examples of players that were done by age 26. Courier was past peak at age 23 remarkably. You wonder how much of a dent these players would have made in today's game and conditions. Courier might have passed by with a few slam SFs and the same for Wilander. Would McEnroe's physique and style of play translated today?

Murray and Djokovic are having their best years these last few years, so the new late prime maybe 28-29. If Fed had retooled his game as he has done the last few years, his best years might well have been in this that age range. The game is far too physical for teens these days. And even early 20s will be a rarity until these ATGs fade away.

 

[helterskelter]

I agree with most of this - in fact, the point of this post and many others like it is to try to convince those posters who think that players must decline at 28 that, on the contrary, in today's game they are likely to be at their best at that age. That's why I said that 22 wasn't anything to write home about "in historical terms." Today, it's more impressive. There still hasn't been a Slam finalist born in the 1990s - although not only Pouille but also Raonic is in contention to become the first at this tournament.

The only thing I disagree about is the use of the word "physical." Commies (as you call them) often say it too, but I think it's misleading because it's too vague. Certainly, the game requires far more of a particular set of physical attributes than it used to do, most notably strength and stamina. (Even those terms are too vague, but at least they're a bit closer). On the other hand, quick reflexes are far less useful than they were in the past, I think. Younger players will tend to be more "springy" but that seems also not to be something that they can use to their advantage very much these days.

I'm beginning to wonder if the issue with the women is they can't physically play the new power game that the courts and rackets demand. By that I mean these long hard baseline struggles. After a year or two belting the ball, the top players seem to cycle back into the pack never to return to the top very often.

Its similar for the Men. The game is much, much more physical. The only young great that might make a dent today would be a young Nadal. Federer at age 21 I doubt wins today (might make SF for sure.) Becker was a great young player, but that style of play unlikely to work these days and the baseline game is much more physical. Djokovic 2008 is not beating Murray, Federer, or the current Djokovic. I think these days 22 years olds in SFs is something to write home about:

Lleyton Hewitt is the last younger Winner at the US Open this century. Djokovic made the final in 2007 at a very young age.
Hewitt again at Wimbledon with Nadal being a young Finalist.
Nadal is the only younger player at the final stages of the French this century
Djokovic won Australia at a young age and Tsonga was 23 in 2008. Baghdatis was an amazing 20 in 2006, but such players would never break through against the likes of Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Djokovic, and even Nadal in Auz these last years.
​

The closest thing we have to a phenom on the horizon is Zverev these days and he won't be going deep at a slam for a while as the stamina and power required in today's game is hard to develop at such a young age. Zverev might crack the final 4 at a major in 2 years at age of 21, but that seems a very optimisitic estimate.

No. I think 22 is pretty good these days.

Courier had made the finals of all the slams by age 22. Sadly, I'm not confident that this peaker Courier would have made the same dent on tour today. Courier, McEnroe, and Wilander are examples of players that were done by age 26. Courier was past peak at age 23 remarkably. You wonder how much of a dent these players would have made in today's game and conditions. Courier might have passed by with a few slam SFs and the same for Wilander. Would McEnroe's physique and style of play translated today?

Murray and Djokovic are having their best years these last few years, so the new late prime maybe 28-29. If Fed had retooled his game as he has done the last few years, his best years might well have been in this that age range. The game is far too physical for teens these days. And even early 20s will be a rarity until these ATGs fade away.

 

[Meles]

There's been a lot of talk of Ferrer and Berdych, as the most consistent "gatekeepers" to the top of the game, declining this year. At 34, I think Ferrer is indeed past his best, and results are suggesting a slow slide. But Berdych has just reached the quarter-finals of the first three Slams of the year for the first time. Perhaps he's not been doing as well in the minor events, but in majors he's more consistent than ever.

Berdych shed a lot of points on clay this year and that is a natural thing for a player in some kind of decline. He's had no chance to make SF I suppose this year until now due to draw. Its quite possible that he's got many more good years ahead of him, on surfaces other than clay; much like Fed. This early decline (clay) will drop his ranking, but despite a so-so clay season Berdych will be back to 8 in the world temporarily if the makes the SF. I'm not so sure he keeps in the top 8 by US Open as Thiem has little to defend and Goffin is poised to make a strong move.

He's producing some nice tennis, but I'm not sure he'll be able to get past the new gate keepers; Goffin, Raonic, Nishikori, and Thiem who are all ahead of him in the race and as a group will be an absolute beetch for Berdy in R16 ongoing at the majors.

 

[Meles]

I agree with most of this - in fact, the point of this post and many others like it is to try to convince those posters who think that players must decline at 28 that, on the contrary, in today's game they are likely to be at their best at that age. That's why I said that 22 wasn't anything to write home about "in historical terms." Today, it's more impressive. There still hasn't been a Slam finalist born in the 1990s - although not only Pouille but also Raonic is in contention to become the first at this tournament.

The only thing I disagree about is the use of the word "physical." Commies (as you call them) often say it too, but I think it's misleading because it's too vague. Certainly, the game requires far more of a particular set of physical attributes than it used to do, most notably strength and stamina. (Even those terms are too vague, but at least they're a bit closer). On the other hand, quick reflexes are far less useful than they were in the past, I think. Younger players will tend to be more "springy" but that seems also not to be something that they can use to their advantage very much these days.

I still think speed kills its just that we've been spoiled by Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, and even Murray. I would have called Thiem a notch done in speed last year, but he's getting very close to the Big 4. Goffin is there, but does not have the serve and offense to crack into the elite. He is making an impressive run and I'm eager to watch a bit of his match with Raonic yesterday where David almost took down Goliath.

The game does require power, so larger players are favored a bit more and it is hard to have super agility even at 6' 2" let alone greater heights. Nishikori and Goffin are two nice smaller fast players. Their speed kills, but reach and power favor the taller players.

You'll have to explain with examples of quick reflex players of the past. Taylor Fritz has stalled, but has great hands to counteract his slow speed. A player like Herbert is an impressive volleyer and speedy at the net (even Nadal is a net predator in doubles.)

I"ve not seen any young players in the speed class of the big 4. Thiem might be getting there as he is a mighty worker and rapidly becoming a beast. I'd say speed is still very important and one might argue that we have 4 ATG speed merchants on tour right now (Murray at 6' 3" easily ATG agility great when you factor in his size.)

 

[helterskelter]

Berdych shed a lot of points on clay this year and that is a natural thing for a player in some kind of decline. He's had no chance to make SF I suppose this year until now due to draw. Its quite possible that he's got many more good years ahead of him, on surfaces other than clay; much like Fed. This early decline (clay) will drop his ranking, but despite a so-so clay season Berdych will be back to 8 in the world temporarily if the makes the SF. I'm not so sure he keeps in the top 8 by US Open as Thiem has little to defend and Goffin is poised to make a strong move.

He's producing some nice tennis, but I'm not sure he'll be able to get past the new gate keepers; Goffin, Raonic, Nishikori, and Thiem who are all ahead of him in the race and as a group will be an absolute beetch for Berdy in R16 ongoing at the majors.

Those points were in mid-level events, though, and it's also a natural thing for a very experienced player to first lose motivation in those events and only a year or two later decline in major ones. As the most obvious recent examples of this phenomenon, I note the following two:

1. I firmly believe that Federer's early losses against Murray were the result of them playing a lot of matches in 1000s at a time when Federer just couldn't get himself as motivated for those events as Murray could, because Murray still had to prove himself, whereas Federer didn't feel he needed to in such events. Federer always dominated Murray in Slams in that period, and only began to have trouble with him a little later.
2. Nadal's overall form in early 2014 was pretty poor and clearly presaged the decline that hit when he returned from injury in late 2014 and then in 2015. But he still did pretty well in the first two Slams of that year. Although neither final was that impressive for him, he played extremely good tennis in both the Australian Open and the Roland Garros semi-finals in 2014. They were by far his best matches of the year.

On another note, I think that declining first on clay is natural for most older players but not all. More broadly, I would say that most players will decline first on their weakest surface and only later on on their preferred surface. In Djokovic's case, despite his record at Wimbledon and at Roland Garros, I would expect him to decline first on grass, then on clay, and only last on hard courts. One tournament is not enough evidence on which to judge this hypothesis, but perhaps this year was the start of that grass-court decline.

 

[Meles]

Berdych is to others how Big 4 is to Berdych. I don't see any possible upset. Pouille may take a set and that's it. Hope I'm wrong though.

It will depend on how effective the Pouille serve is against Berdy goating on return. If Pouille remains hard to break then he'll have a big advantage as their is little doubt he will break Berdych at least once a set in my mind. Pouille is an incredibly clutch player while Berdy will certainly be dubious under the kind of pressure Pouille will bring at crtical junctures. Pouille had a false injury fear in the 2nd set and had is ankle over taped. He easily could have come through that much in 3 or 4 sets. Tomic played an epic match, but Pouille was too strong and solid. Pouille is putting it all together in this tournament. He'll even be more rested than Berdych with a less rigorous 5 set match which finished on Sunday. No signs of wear at the end of the match with Tomic. I like Pouille's chances a lot based on what I'm seeing on the court. Pouille may be able to bring enough pressure with his offense to expose Berdy's subtle decline.

 

[Meles]

Those points were in mid-level events, though, and it's also a natural thing for a very experienced player to first lose motivation in those events and only a year or two later decline in major ones. As the most obvious recent examples of this phenomenon, I note the following two:

1. I firmly believe that Federer's early losses against Murray were the result of them playing a lot of matches in 1000s at a time when Federer just couldn't get himself as motivated for those events as Murray could, because Murray still had to prove himself, whereas Federer didn't feel he needed to in such events. Federer always dominated Murray in Slams in that period, and only began to have trouble with him a little later.
2. Nadal's overall form in early 2014 was pretty poor and clearly presaged the decline that hit when he returned from injury in late 2014 and then in 2015. But he still did pretty well in the first two Slams of that year. Although neither final was that impressive for him, he played extremely good tennis in both the Australian Open and the Roland Garros semi-finals in 2014. They were by far his best matches of the year.

On another note, I think that declining first on clay is natural for most older players but not all. More broadly, I would say that most players will decline first on their weakest surface and only later on on their preferred surface. In Djokovic's case, despite his record at Wimbledon and at Roland Garros, I would expect him to decline first on grass, then on clay, and only last on hard courts. One tournament is not enough evidence on which to judge this hypothesis, but perhaps this year was the start of that grass-court decline.

I'm not sure why these older players decline on clay. Is it a stamina issue? My passing thought is that speed matters on clay, yet at the same time I feel players with lesser movement (Soderling and Wawa) are less exposed on clay. Why has Federer's return game eroded so much? This is what I look for on clay as signs of decline (diminished clay return stats), but really I don't know the physical reason for this performance drop. Scratching my head Helter?

 

[helterskelter]

It will depend on how effective the Pouille serve is against Berdy goating on return. If Pouille remains hard to break then he'll have a big advantage as their is little doubt he will break Berdych at least once a set in my mind. Pouille is an incredibly clutch player while Berdy will certainly be dubious under the kind of pressure Pouille will bring at crtical junctures. Pouille had a false injury fear in the 2nd set and had is ankle over taped. He easily could have come through that much in 3 or 4 sets. Tomic played an epic match, but Pouille was too strong and solid. Pouille is putting it all together in this tournament. He'll even be more rested than Berdych with a less rigorous 5 set match which finished on Sunday. No signs of wear at the end of the match with Tomic. I like Pouille's chances a lot based on what I'm seeing on the court. Pouille may be able to bring enough pressure with his offense to expose Berdy's subtle decline.

Stan James have Berdych 1/4 and Pouille 3/1, so you should think about whether you want to put some money on that match!

 

[helterskelter]

I'm not sure why these older players decline on clay. Is it a stamina issue? My passing thought is that speed matters on clay, yet at the same time I feel players with lesser movement (Soderling and Wawa) are less exposed on clay. Why has Federer's return game eroded so much? This is what I look for on clay as signs of decline (diminished clay return stats), but really I don't know the physical reason for this performance drop. Scratching my head Helter?

I don't think it's return of serve per se. That's actually less important on clay than on grass, in my view. Players with weak returns never do as well on grass as one might expect, because they're forced to the lottery of a tiebreak far too often. (See Isner, John, for example).

I suspect that two things are going on:

1. Few of the top players of recent times have liked clay, so there's the "decline first on one's weakest surface" effect that I mentioned before.

2. Clay is the most "physical" surface, in that players who lack firepower from the back of the court will struggle to finish points on it. In Federer's case, remember that David Foster Wallace once described him as revolutionizing the modern game from within, so that he was a "kick ass power baseliner" but also this creative genius. But in recent years, he has only been the creative genius, and not the "kick ass power baseliner." I think that that has rendered his game somewhat ineffective on clay, as he can get hit off the court by the likes of Soderling and Wawrinka in ways that they wouldn't be able to manage on other surfaces.

N.B. I should say for accuracy's sake that it's not really "decline first on one's weakest surface." Rather, it is "decline first becomes noticeable on one's weakest surface." Again, take Federer as an example. At his heyday, he had a far greater cushion separating him from the pack on grass/hard than he did on clay. Decline can't really be quantified but for the sake of argument, assuming that he declined 10% on all three surfaces, he could still win despite the decline against most players on grass/hard, but that same decline would bring him into many more player's orbit on clay.

Make sense?

 

[tennisaddict]

The fact that Vesely had no legs in the 5th set and Tomic saying he is too tired for the 4th round has me concerned.

Plus players like Thiem who plays a zillion matches and flames out in 2R.

Kyrgios - so much talk before , yet went out softly.

I now have huge respect for Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga

 

[3fees]

Berdych v Pouille H2H is 0-0, have not played each other,,age is 30 vs 22.

ATP Ranked No. 9 Tomas Berdych vs ATP No. 30 Lucas Pouille. On grass In 2016, Tomas Berdych's W/L record on this surface is 4/1, while Lucas Pouille's W/L record on this surface is 4/2.

Odds on Berdych is 1.25 to 1
Odds on Pouille is 4.55 to 1

Cheers
3Fees

 

[Meles]

I don't think it's return of serve per se. That's actually less important on clay than on grass, in my view. Players with weak returns never do as well on grass as one might expect, because they're forced to the lottery of a tiebreak far too often. (See Isner, John, for example).

I suspect that two things are going on:

1. Few of the top players of recent times have liked clay, so there's the "decline first on one's weakest surface" effect that I mentioned before.

2. Clay is the most "physical" surface, in that players who lack firepower from the back of the court will struggle to finish points on it. In Federer's case, remember that David Foster Wallace once described him as revolutionizing the modern game from within, so that he was a "kick ass power baseliner" but also this creative genius. But in recent years, he has only been the creative genius, and not the "kick ass power baseliner." I think that that has rendered his game somewhat ineffective on clay, as he can get hit off the court by the likes of Soderling and Wawrinka in ways that they wouldn't be able to manage on other surfaces.

N.B. I should say for accuracy's sake that it's not really "decline first on one's weakest surface." Rather, it is "decline first becomes noticeable on one's weakest surface." Again, take Federer as an example. At his heyday, he had a far greater cushion separating him from the pack on grass/hard than he did on clay. Decline can't really be quantified but for the sake of argument, assuming that he declined 10% on all three surfaces, he could still win despite the decline against most players on grass/hard, but that same decline would bring him into many more player's orbit on clay.

Make sense?

Fed is no longer a power baseliner. That type of player has taken on an all new kind of dimension with Soderling/Wawrinka (Magnus Norman) and Thiem standing out. Fed's forehand looks very interesting at Wimby this year (a lot of whip and power.) Your point on Fed's game being passed by on clay is a good one. I'd say the newer style of play just brings a more offensive shot from the server off of return. Plenty of time for the big hitters to tee it up on clay.

I'm not sure about your top players not liking clay. 4 of the top 5 have French Open titles and Murray just had a final and its probably already become his best surface with grass also a strong Murray surface. Raonic is now back in the top ten and does not like clay. I'd also say Goffin favors hard courts over clay, but does well enough on clay. The old guard of Berdcyh and Ferrer seemed to flourish on clay. Even Nishikori has done very, very well. Federer no longer loves the surface, but he was great on clay.

I buy decline on weakest surface as general guideline. Nadal on grass started his decline. Djokovic following now quite possibly. Murray may fade on hard courts first where his starts are marginal for winning slams (not the case on grass or clay recently)

 

[albatros_forehand]

Would McEnroe's physique and style of play translated today?

Absolutely not! Just watch Agassi - McEnroe 1992 Wimby SF. Poor Mac got demolished and it was on a fast court. Imagine today.

 

[albatros_forehand]

The fact that Vesely had no legs in the 5th set and Tomic saying he is too tired for the 4th round has me concerned.

Plus players like Thiem who plays a zillion matches and flames out in 2R.

Kyrgios - so much talk before , yet went out softly.

I now have huge respect for Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga

Could we say that explosiveness / quickness in tennis nowadays gave way to strenght and endurance because of courts uniformal slowness ? The old guard benefited hugely and there is no way they would have kept their ranking "in the old days". New generations has had a hard time, not solely their mistake there´s so few of them in top 50.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

I'm not sure why these older players decline on clay. Is it a stamina issue? My passing thought is that speed matters on clay, yet at the same time I feel players with lesser movement (Soderling and Wawa) are less exposed on clay. Why has Federer's return game eroded so much? This is what I look for on clay as signs of decline (diminished clay return stats), but really I don't know the physical reason for this performance drop. Scratching my head Helter?

decline on clay is very mental... staying that focused for those long points... especially when the body is saying "oh not this again"

Absolutely not! Just watch Agassi - McEnroe 1992 Wimby SF. Poor Mac got demolished and it was on a fast court. Imagine today.

yeah, itwas a fine run but the ball simply bounces too high and is too topspin oriented for a netrusher like him. That low dip that poly strings produce make GOAT volleys necessary to be effective. Even JMac needed some easy points and patterns. With poly those returns are less frequently just chipped back and Mac wouldnt get his easy bread and butter variety volleys.

Sad though, JMac's game ... that was the closest tennis got to Art.

 

[Meles]

decline on clay is very mental... staying that focused for those long points... especially when the body is saying "oh not this again"


yeah, itwas a fine run but the ball simply bounces too high and is too topspin oriented for a netrusher like him. That low dip that poly strings produce make GOAT volleys necessary to be effective. Even JMac needed some easy points and patterns. With poly those retuens are less fewquently just chipped back and Mac wouldnt get his easy bread and butter variety volleys.

Sad though, JMac's game ... that was the closest tennis got to Art.

1984 was a GOAT year. Put it up against Laver or anyone else. LOL won the first two sets against Lendl at the French. Utterly dominated. Austalia was last event of year and not sure how that ultimately would have turned out if Mac had a slam in his sights.

I certainly mean no disrespect to these GOATs, but we are trying to put the task facing the current young player into perspective.

As part of my investigation into examining the affects of long matches I've latched onto the IBM slam stat of meters moved by the player. Tsonga for instance in 5 sets vs Isner that was really 7 sets given the score in the 5th, moved less meters than Goffin and Thiem in their French QF the day before the SF. Thiem has been getting tired because he often puts in 900 meters per set (and the opponent more, ex. Goffin at FO QF). If Thiem gets a bit stronger he's going to be a Nadal junior for sure where he is wearing out his opponents match after match. He's progressing in this department, but not sure he gets there. Goffin probably puts in a lot of steps; eager to see replay of his match with Raonic.

All of these young players need to get stronger and tougher to compete. We've suddenly got a real nice crop with Vesely, Zverev, and Pouille surging up the rankings with some great play. Even Tomic and Kyrgios look to have some more life in them. LOL Vesely will be in Hamburg with Thiem, Pouille, and Zverev, ouch. Vesely will have a shot at Umag the next week. Next gen.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

1984 was a GOAT year. Put it up against Laver or anyone else. LOL won the first two sets against Lendl at the French. Utterly dominated. Austalia was last event of year and not sure how that ultimately would have turned out if Mac had a slam in his sights.

I certainly mean no disrespect to these GOATs, but we are trying to put the task facing the current young player into perspective.

As part of my investigation into examining the affects of long matches I've latched onto the IBM slam stat of meters moved by the player. Tsonga for instance in 5 sets vs Isner that was really 7 sets given the score in the 5th, moved less meters than Goffin and Thiem in their French QF the day before the SF. Thiem has been getting tired because he often puts in 900 meters per set (and the opponent more, ex. Goffin at FO QF). If Thiem gets a bit stronger he's going to be a Nadal junior for sure where he is wearing out his opponents match after match. He's progressing in this department, but not sure he gets there. Goffin probably puts in a lot of steps; eager to see replay of his match with Raonic.

All of these young players need to get stronger and tougher to compete. We've suddenly got a real nice crop with Vesely, Zverev, and Pouille surging up the rankings with some great play. Even Tomic and Kyrgios look to have some more life in them. LOL Vesely will be in Hamburg with Thiem, Pouille, and Zverev, ouch. Vesely will have a shot at Umag the next week. Next gen.

Yeah Im pumped about this new generation, waiting to see how it plays out. I remember watching Sampras come up... he's a year younger than I am, Agassi is 6 months older than I am and they both had all this "expectation" upon them that initially seemed to be just hype I dont think a player is a failure if they only win 1-3 slams at all... this expectation that they must win at least 14 is just silly. Id like to see an era where there are several 1-3 slam players (maybe some 5-8 ers too) lurking in any draw at Quarterfinals time.

 

[kishnabe]

Absolutely not! Just watch Agassi - McEnroe 1992 Wimby SF. Poor Mac got demolished and it was on a fast court. Imagine today.

Gramperoe was not in his prime or peak like Gramperer right now.

McEnroe back then, did not fully focus himself and train hard enough. He relied too much on his talent and instincts. Agassi win over McEnroe means nothing just like Djokovic wins over Federer in 2013-16.

 

[Meles]

Gramperoe was not in his prime or peak like Gramperer right now.

McEnroe back then, did not fully focus himself and train hard enough. He relied too much on his talent and instincts. Agassi win over McEnroe means nothing just like Djokovic wins over Federer in 2013-16.

McEnroe took 7 months off after the 1984 season. You just can't do that. He was never able to get back in top form. Lendl is kind of a bridge between Connors, Borg, and McEnroe with their games that were based on older racket technology. I don't really know Lendl well enough to say how much his level upped after McEnroe and try to compare games back and forth and it may be a pointless excercise.

Old Agassi was kind of a bridge to the new string technology.
Agassi quoted here https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...ow-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis
"People talk about the game changing, about players growing more powerful, and rackets getting bigger, but the most dramatic change in recent years is the strings. The advent of a new elastic polyester string, which creates vicious topspin, has turned average players into greats, and greats into legends. [Coach Darren Cahill] puts the string on one of my rackets... In a practice session I don't miss a ball for two hours. Then I don't miss a ball for the rest of the tournament. I've never won the Italian Open before, but I win it now, because of Darren and his miracle string."

More:
{Peralta is one of the few players still playing professionally who made the switch mid-career. I asked him what the biggest difference was now that the string is ubiquitous. "The contact point [on forehands and backhands] is much higher now," he said. Instead of hitting most groundstrokes at waist level, he said, the ball was now "up around my shoulders."

This matters. A lot. All tennis players struggle hitting high balls. Just ask Roger Federer when hitting a backhand off a Nadal crosscourt forehand. However, the higher contact point is particularly challenging for teenagers. In addition to not being fully grown, teens lack the developed shoulder and back muscles needed to get the racket through the elevated hitting zone with enough force to counteract the upward bouncing ball—especially a Luxilon-spun ball that many players describe as "heavy."}

Looks like the definition of youngster has effectively changed.

 

[Sentinel]

Posted yesterday (for me) about my hope that Vesely would win.

ok, same here. Sad to see Vesely go out. Anyone, lets hope this Pooey chap takes care of him.

 

[helterskelter]

@Meles

Sorry about Pouille. Went rather tamely in sets 2 & 3. Was he tired?

 

[AceSalvo]

The fact that Vesely had no legs in the 5th set and Tomic saying he is too tired for the 4th round has me concerned.

Plus players like Thiem who plays a zillion matches and flames out in 2R.

Kyrgios - so much talk before , yet went out softly.

I now have huge respect for Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga

Kids these days!!

 

[stringertom]

Kids these days!!

They need to walk 5 or more miles through snow and rain everyday to get to school!

 

[Meles]

@Meles

Sorry about Pouille. Went rather tamely in sets 2 & 3. Was he tired?

He looked a touch off. I'd say the best of 5 format caught up with him even though the he had the easier 5 setter and a full days rest. The commentators complained that Berdych was off, but from what I'm see he is hitting on all cylinders particularly return. His ground game and coverage was enough to repel Pouille's attacks in a lot of rallies. I'm not sure that Pouille on his best day beats this Berdych. Amazing that Berdych was double bagelled by Goffin less than two months ago. Something has improved for him with the departure of coach V.

 

[Meles]

Its a Youthquake in Hamburg:
Dominic Thiem
AU
Roberto Bautista Agut
ESP
Philipp Kohlschreiber
GER
Pablo Cuevas
URU
Lucas Pouille
FRA
Fabio Fognini
ITA
Alexander Zverev
GER
Juan Monaco
ARG
Guido Pella
ARG
Nicolas Almagro
ESP
Jiri Vesely
CZE

4 of the prospects from Wimbledon return plus Pella with a mix of wiley clay court veterans.