Will the next era be the weakest in history (in the Open Era)?

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Becker won Wimbledon at 17. That was time for players peaking very early. That was also time for changing of racket technology.

I can't believe another 17 year old will win Wimbledon again.

Roger said it correctly, you need faster conditions for young guys to get win. Everything is slower and physically tough guys are winning everything. Young guys need time to get ready physically now.

Rafa won a slam and masters as a teen.
It is possible,
I'm still a believer of some incredible teen can do something big again. Must be a teen that matured early and with a natural build up body, that doesn't need years in the gym to get strong enough.
Talent and a body that suits his game.

Please tennis gods let this magic happen again !

 

[mtommer]

To say that the quality of an era is defined by who wins and who loses is ridiculous. The quality of an "era" is defined by the consistency in quality of tennis played, regardless of the match being played or who is playing. To put it more simply, if the majority of play consists of unforced errors after unforced error after unforced error after would somebody please for the love of god let me on that court to play just so that there can be some decent tennis, this equals "weak era". If you see spectacular shot after spectacular shot after god I wiiissshhhh I could play like that on that level on a consistent basis, this equals "strong era".

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I'll venture to define a strong era:
An era can be called strong when there are two or more great players (5+ career GS titles) playing, all in their GS-winning, prime time (between each player's 1st and last GS title).
Using this definition, in this century, strong years include:
2000-02, Sampras, Agassi
2003, Agassi, Federer
2005-07, Federer, Nadal
2008-12, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (This is the strongest era of this century. It could extend to when Federer wins another GS.)
2013-14, Nadal, Djokovic
2015 is not a strong year unless Fedal win another GS, or Stan or Murray win 3+ more GS.

I disagree, you only look for the presence of famous name without looking for their actual level of play. At the same time you remove players who have won only a few slams, as if because their total of slams isn't 8 or more, their level of play when they actually won these slams can't be higher that all time great players. Guess what. Safin and Hewitt creamed Sampras in the USO final, when they were 20 years old. Del Potro did the same with Nadal and Federer. Wawrinka played obviously at a more than decent level to win the AO and RG.

In my opinion, 2000 was a good year, with Sampras, Kuerten, Agassi and Kafelnikov, and younger players like Hewitt and Safin coming.
2001-2002 were pretty bad, as top players were very up and down with Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, etc.
2003 was better with Roddick, Federer, Ferrero and Agassi, Nalbandian fighting each other.
2004-2005 were great with Federer peaking, Hewitt back, Safin, Roddick still blasting his forehand, Agassi for his last years, Coria, and obviously young Nadal.
2006 is weaker. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Coria, Agassi let a void to be filled with Ljubicic, Blake, Robredo, Davydenko, etc. At least these players were really in form at the time. Baghdatis seemingly was showing great promise and everyone was exited with him. Davydenko was already a very good player, his SF against Nadal in Rome is one of my favorite clay court match.
2007-2009 were great years. Federer and Nadal had some health issue but overall with the rising of Djokovic and Murray, some surge from other players like Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Del Potro, Verdasco, Soderling...
2010 was terrible until the USO, with most players having a slump or injuries. Davydenko and Del Potro got injured just when it seemed they were going to take another dimension. Djokovic and Federer didn't wake up until the fall season.
2011-2012 were great years, with Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray all in good forms. These are the true big 4 years.
2013 was a classic duopoly with Nadal and Djokovic, not much to see outside of them.
2014-2015 are pretty much weaker years. Murray lost Lendl, he injured himself, and while he recovered quiet well, he forgot his forehand. Nadal has been declining a lot during these two years. Federer has surge and is nice to watch but in term of level of play he is far below what he showed in 2011-2012, let alone 10 years ago. Outside these players, Wawrinka is the only one to save the day when he is on. Djokovic is great but he has a red carpet to display his talent, very much like Fed had in 2006 and Nadal had in 2010.

 

[merwy]

To say that the quality of an era is defined by who wins and who loses is ridiculous. The quality of an "era" is defined by the consistency in quality of tennis played, regardless of the match being played or who is playing. To put it more simply, if the majority of play consists of unforced errors after unforced error after unforced error after would somebody please for the love of god let me on that court to play just so that there can be some decent tennis, this equals "weak era". If you see spectacular shot after spectacular shot after god I wiiissshhhh I could play like that on that level on a consistent basis, this equals "strong era".

I agree with this. Realistically, you can't determine the strength of an era based on measurable results. You cannot base it on criteria like # of GS titles, dominance over the field, consistency of the top 4 players. All of these concepts are ridiculous when you think about it.

Q: What do we want to know when we ask ourselves how strong an era is?
A: We want to know how good the players in that era are. Period. That is all.

We don't want to know how good the top of the field is compared to the rest of the field. We want to know the absolute strength of the field, not the relative strength. As I've said earlier, this is very difficult to define and we have to do this mostly by simply judging the game of tennis in front of us with our eyes and our tennis knowledge. If we see the 2020 world #1 Tomic play against #2 Dimitrov, we have to be able to see with our eyes that peak Federer and peak Nadal would've beaten these guys if they would've been there right now (assuming Tomic and Dimitrov don't suddenly have a MASSIVE improvement in their game). Admittedly, this is very hard to do and all very arbitrary. But IMHO it's the best we've got. Luckily, we don't have to publish our results to any journal like NEJM, so it's all good. I know @Inanimate_object doesn't agree with my view, but this is just how I see it. Call me an idiot all you want.

 

[merwy]

double post

 

[PeterHo]

The OP seems to think a small handful of dominant players means a strong era. I don't. I think the level of play you see from guys in the top 50 or 100 is greater than it's ever been, more speed, power and accuracy than we've ever seen in this game. You don't judge the culinary quality of a great city by 2 or 3 restaurants, the literary appeal of a particular period by a handful of books, and it's silly to judge these so-called tennis eras by a couple of dominant players.

Thats not what steong and weak eras really mean.

Of course, play is improving due to technology, nutrition,

I agree with this. Realistically, you can't determine the strength of an era based on measurable results. You cannot base it on criteria like # of GS titles, dominance over the field, consistency of the top 4 players. All of these concepts are ridiculous when you think about it.

Q: What do we want to know when we ask ourselves how strong an era is?
A: We want to know how good the players in that era are. Period. That is all.

We don't want to know how good the top of the field is compared to the rest of the field. We want to know the absolute strength of the field, not the relative strength. As I've said earlier, this is very difficult to define and we have to do this mostly by simply judging the game of tennis in front of us with our eyes and our tennis knowledge. If we see the 2020 world #1 Tomic play against #2 Dimitrov, we have to be able to see with our eyes that peak Federer and peak Nadal would've beaten these guys if they would've been there right now (assuming Tomic and Dimitrov don't suddenly have a MASSIVE improvement in their game). Admittedly, this is very hard to do and all very arbitrary. But IMHO it's the best we've got. Luckily, we don't have to publish our results to any journal like NEJM, so it's all good. I know @Inanimate_object doesn't agree with my view, but this is just how I see it. Call me an idiot all you want.

The problem with absolute strength is, later generations will almost always be better than the previous greats.

You can't compare say a Djokovic with a Rosewall in terms of absolute strength. I guarantee Djokovic today beats Rosewall 10 out of 10 times, using today's racquets.

Everything is better now. Players are taller, fitter and more powerful. Theres really no comparision here.

Its like comparing 100m runners in the 50s and now. You would be the best runner if you are under 10s back then. Now everybody is better than That. Whos greater?

The great players dominate their competition. How dominant they are against their competition determines how great they are. Players with records that stand the test of time are greatest.

 

[merwy]

Thats not what steong and weak eras really mean.

Of course, play is improving due to technology, nutrition,

The problem with absolute strength is, later generations will almost always be better than the previous greats.

You can't compare say a Djokovic with a Rosewall in terms of absolute strength. I guarantee Djokovic today beats Rosewall 10 out of 10 times, using today's racquets.

Everything is better now. Players are taller, fitter and more powerful. Theres really no comparision here.

Its like comparing 100m runners in the 50s and now. You would be the best runner if you are under 10s back then. Now everybody is better than That. Whos greater?

The great players dominate their competition. How dominant they are against their competition determines how great they are. Players with records that stand the test of time are greatest.

That is why you have to compensate for the things like technology and nutrition. Again, it's so arbitrary. I know, but it's the only way. But this is why I think comparisons shouldn't be made between eras that are too far apart. How are we going to put up Rosewall against Djokovic? You can't. You can't compensate for the difference in material and nutrition. But you can sort of compare Sampras to Djokovic, can't you? Sampras played against Federer, Federer played against Djokovic.
With eras that follow each other up seamlessly, like the Djoko era and the "Lost era", technology etc. don't play a part, fortunately.

 

[PeterHo]

That is why you have to compensate for the things like technology and nutrition. Again, it's so arbitrary. I know, but it's the only way. But this is why I think comparisons shouldn't be made between eras that are too far apart. How are we going to put up Rosewall against Djokovic? You can't. You can't compensate for the difference in material and nutrition. But you can sort of compare Sampras to Djokovic, can't you? Sampras played against Federer, Federer played against Djokovic.
With eras that follow each other up seamlessly, like the Djoko era and the "Lost era", technology etc. don't play a part, fortunately.

For eras that are close, we can define which was stronger and which was weaker. So for example

00~03<04~06<07~10<11~13>14~15

So we know 11~13 is stronger than 00~10, but we don't know whether 14~15 is stronger/weaker than any era during 00~10. We can compare them in relative to the field term but not in absolute terms.

 

[morten]

Thats not what steong and weak eras really mean.

Of course, play is improving due to technology, nutrition,

The problem with absolute strength is, later generations will almost always be better than the previous greats.

You can't compare say a Djokovic with a Rosewall in terms of absolute strength. I guarantee Djokovic today beats Rosewall 10 out of 10 times, using today's racquets.

Everything is better now. Players are taller, fitter and more powerful. Theres really no comparision here.

Its like comparing 100m runners in the 50s and now. You would be the best runner if you are under 10s back then. Now everybody is better than That. Whos greater?

The great players dominate their competition. How dominant they are against their competition determines how great they are. Players with records that stand the test of time are greatest.

But for athletics a lot of records were better and still stands from 30+ years ago. And fitness for kids under say 20 is far worse in general now than before... So it is not automatically better now, people are not born better. Now and the last 20 years kids move less and dont run around climb trees etc, because of computer games and so on...

 

[PeterHo]

But for athletics a lot of records were better and still stands from 30+ years ago. And fitness for kids under say 20 is far worse in general now than before... So it is not automatically better now, people are not born better. Now and the last 20 years kids move less and dont run around climb trees etc, because of computer games and so on...

People are born better now due to economic development and nutrition, that is the best answer. Maybe in advanced countries the difference is minimal, and as you said kids play video games, but just in the past two decades, hundreds of millions of people are much better off in the developing world.

Over the past few decades we have seen many countries being developed. Average height in developing countries have continued to increase. Some countries in east asia for example, have increased by some 10cm on average. Tennis has developed from being a sport of some countries to a truly international sport. The increased competition only makes players better.

I guess up to a certain point, humans will stop developing. But we have not reached that point yet, most of the world is still poor and thus there is huge potential.

 

[ibbi]

I don't think 2011 was particularly weak. I think 2014-15 things have just turned truly awful. Guys like Berdych and Tsonga and Ferrer were very, very, very rarely going to beat the top guys, but they were always good enough to make it to the second weak. You had Del Potro there too 2012-13 making things interesting. 2009-11 Soderling was also a potential danger.

Anyway, back to your point... I'm not sure we'll get a chance to find out any time soon considering it doesn't look like the once mighty big 4 are going anywhere any time soon, but I am really, really, really excited to see what happens once Roger, Rafa, Novak, and Andy to a lesser extent, are lifted out of the picture, because someone is going to have to step up. Last years US Open final looked like it might be the watershed moment. 2014 in general looked very promising with the great rises of Grigor, and Milos, and Kei, and to a lesser degree Goffin and Kyrgios too, but things just went backwards in 2015, which comfortably makes this as disappointing a year as I think the mens game has ever seen. The future definitely does not look bright. Fingers crossed for Rublev, Zverev, and Coric. Here to save us all?

 

[lulzprime]

I don't think 2011 was particularly weak. I think 2014-15 things have just turned truly awful. Guys like Berdych and Tsonga and Ferrer were very, very, very rarely going to beat the top guys, but they were always good enough to make it to the second weak. You had Del Potro there too 2012-13 making things interesting. 2009-11 Soderling was also a potential danger.

Anyway, back to your point... I'm not sure we'll get a chance to find out any time soon considering it doesn't look like the once mighty big 4 are going anywhere any time soon, but I am really, really, really excited to see what happens once Roger, Rafa, Novak, and Andy to a lesser extent, are lifted out of the picture, because someone is going to have to step up. Last years US Open final looked like it might be the watershed moment. 2014 in general looked very promising with the great rises of Grigor, and Milos, and Kei, and to a lesser degree Goffin and Kyrgios too, but things just went backwards in 2015, which comfortably makes this as disappointing a year as I think the mens game has ever seen. The future definitely does not look bright. Fingers crossed for Rublev, Zverev, and Coric. Here to save us all?

Save us all?
Wait what? Tennis is now suddenly a messiah?

 

[ibbi]

Save us all?
Wait what? Tennis is now suddenly a messiah?

Suddenly?

 

[mattosgrant]

Bottom line is I think the "next era" will start sometime in 2018 and 2019 and will comprise of guys born in 1996 or later. So no I dont think it will be the weakest era. It wont be an era of the hapless 1989-1992 crop who will be passed over completely. Kygrios and Theim types (born in 93-95) could still make a decent, but had better start moving soon.

 

[morten]

Until they make surfaces faster and bring back diversity and more player types tennis will be bad. Now kids will do other sports....

 

[okdude1992]

But the big question is this: will young players continue to break into the top 10 by age 20?

If they can't now, does it mean they are really less talented? Or is the playing level of older players maintaining a very high level longer?

Fed seems to be showing the latter. Wawrinka also. The verdict is not in on Nadal yet. If he can't win a single slam next year, if he can't stay very near the top, that will change things.

The early emergence of teen players moving to #1 in the world was always possible because older players faded not far after their mid 20s. The bottom line is that in the past players started to "age" very quickly. The aging process for the whole human race is literally slowing down. Look at what people used to eat and drink just 20 or 30 years ago, then compare it to nutrition now.

These older players are not just old. They are FAST, and they are healthy. They know how to heal from injuries, and nagging injuries can be fixed quickly with minor surgery.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's just mainly a lack of talent and not anything else. Even before he became the dominant force he is now, Djokovic brought an extremely high level by age 19/20. At 20 he was in a slam final, had a masters title, and was #3 in the world. Murray also broke through around the same time. Not to mention Nadal

There is nobody like that in the game right now! An extremely talented and also disciplined youngster. Kyrgios is the closest, but he didn't show any progress this year, and has a long way to go to contend for slams/masters.
Tomic seemed to be the guy in 2011 but fell off with injuries and the personal dramas.
Dimitrov seemed to be on the correct path after Wimbledon last year, blooming slightly later... Or even Kei at the USO last year. but neither guy maintained momentum.
Hence: "The Lost Generation"

 

[Gary Duane]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's just mainly a lack of talent and not anything else. Even before he became the dominant force he is now, Djokovic brought an extremely high level by age 19/20. At 20 he was in a slam final, had a masters title, and was #3 in the world. Murray also broke through around the same time. Not to mention Nadal

There is nobody like that in the game right now! An extremely talented and also disciplined youngster. Kyrgios is the closest, but he didn't show any progress this year, and has a long way to go to contend for slams/masters.
Tomic seemed to be the guy in 2011 but fell off with injuries and the personal dramas.
Dimitrov seemed to be on the correct path after Wimbledon last year, blooming slightly later... Or even Kei at the USO last year. but neither guy maintained momentum.
Hence: "The Lost Generation"

But the lost generation is still getting beat up by people like Stan, now age 30, and he does not look like a past prime player who is slowing down or is in any way declining.

I've never seen such a group of players around 30 who are playing out of their minds.

I think things are getting more competitive right now, and it's in that age bracket.

To me the level that Novak is playing at right now is a lot like what Nadal did when he was just so much better than everyone else on clay.

 

[PeterHo]

But the lost generation is still getting beat up by people like Stan, now age 30, and he does not look like a past prime player who is slowing down or is in any way declining.

I've never seen such a group of players around 30 who are playing out of their minds.

I think things are getting more competitive right now, and it's in that age bracket.

To me the level that Novak is playing at right now is a lot like what Nadal did when he was just so much better than everyone else on clay.

the older guys are not slowing down.

Novak has plenty of open road ahead of him!

 

[Gary Duane]

the older guys are not slowing down.

Novak has plenty of open road ahead of him!

I agree, but the flip side is that any of the other players may now start to peak as THEY get close to 30.

I totally disagreed with this idea until this year, but I don't think we can deny it any more. Tennis is changing. It is becoming and older sport.

 

[okdude1992]

But the lost generation is still getting beat up by people like Stan, now age 30, and he does not look like a past prime player who is slowing down or is in any way declining.

I've never seen such a group of players around 30 who are playing out of their minds.

I think things are getting more competitive right now, and it's in that age bracket.

To me the level that Novak is playing at right now is a lot like what Nadal did when he was just so much better than everyone else on clay.

Stan is a late bloomer. But he must be an exception. There have been outliers like him before. Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Gasquet etc sure aren't any better than they've been in the past!

As for the bolded I think that tells it all. The Lost Generation will have to wait for the current crop to decline in order to have any chance at the big titles. Nadal didn't wait to start challenging Fed. He beat him at 17yo. Djokovic and Murray didn't wait to start challenging Fedal. Even look at what a guy like JMDP did as a youngster. The way he burst onto the tour...

We just have not seen any young players do that since: have a big win, and follow it up by rising to the top of the game themselves. Maybe Kyrgios will be the one. Next year will be telling. If not him, surely one of the many promising teens will have to rise up: Coric, Chung, Kokkinakis, Zverev, Rublev, Fritz...

 

[okdude1992]

I agree, but the flip side is that any of the other players may now start to peak as THEY get close to 30.

I totally disagreed with this idea until this year, but I don't think we can deny it any more. Tennis is changing. It is becoming and older sport.

I just don't understand this argument Mr Duane. I've heard many people say it but...
Lots of guys right now are playing pretty well in their 30's. But who can we honestly say, of the "old guys" is playing their best ever tennis. Wawrinka. Feli Lopez arguably. That's all I can think of.

 

[Gary Duane]

Stan is a late bloomer. But he must be an exception. There have been outliers like him before. Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Gasquet etc sure aren't any better than they've been in the past!

But these guys are all very dangerous at an age when most players are well "over the hill".

It is not about being better than they were in the past. The problem is that they are not declining, or if they are, the are declining so slowly that it is mostly inviisble.

As for the bolded I think that tells it all. The Lost Generation will have to wait for the current crop to decline in order to have any chance at the big titles. Nadal didn't wait to start challenging Fed. He beat him at 17yo. Djokovic and Murray didn't wait to start challenging Fedal. Even look at what a guy like JMDP did as a youngster. The way he burst onto the tour...

I would love to see young guys win again. But in the past it was about one skinny guy beating another skinny guy, both barely beyond pimples.

Look at Murray from 10 years ago, and look at him now.

The older players are "muscling up" in a way we never saw before.

They have teams. The yhave one guy to train them, another guy to work on their bodies after matches. The better they get and the more money they make, the more people they have on their "team".

Everything is stacked against young players now. Will that change?

No. If anything, it will get worse.

We just have not seen any young players do that since: have a big win, and follow it up by rising to the top of the game themselves. Maybe Kyrgios will be the one. Next year will be telling. If not him, surely one of the many promising teens will have to rise up: Coric, Chung, Kokkinakis, Zverev, Rublev, Fritz...[/QUOTE]

 

[mistik]

I really think older guys slowing down but young guns arent good enough to take advantage of it. Even Djoko not playing as well as 2011.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

it doesn't look very good...

(from tennis28.com)
Nb: cilic is the last one, in 2008...