Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
10 Jun 18 16:05
Date Joined: 23 Jan 06
| Topic/replies: 20,780 | Blogger: sixtwosix's blog
Federer and Nadal have these 20 somethings on toast there no frustration , anger at their inability to win grand slams  .......they seem no closer to these legends
Pause Switch to Standard View Are the under 30 male players just...
Show More
Report caramba June 10, 2018 5:21 PM BST
It's more that Roger and Rafa are by far the two greatest players of all time. And they are still relatively close to their peak, even at age 32 and 36.
Report Journeyman June 10, 2018 5:52 PM BST
I'm don't enjoy watching the way Halep plays tennis. But... what I was thinking yesterday was, this is a person who absolutely refuses to entertain the idea of not succeeding. She simply kept propelling herself towards winning a slam like a bottle full of air propelling itself up through the water.

With Murray, Novak and Stan out of the picture the stage was set for a player on the mens to rocket through with that same refusal to be denied. But it hasn't happened. Too much comfort. Not enough intensity.
Report nofx June 10, 2018 6:59 PM BST
the french open really isn't a good example but, they just get paid too much

have talent and get in a couple of half arsed results in atp master and you're in the top 20, major endorsements, and set for life. if you weren't entitled to begin with

look at at muggers like dimitrov and kyrgios. haven't a achieved a fecking thing, just have to show up. world renowned athletes
Report The Bhoys June 10, 2018 7:03 PM BST
Id agree with that its money, look at tomic, in saying that its hard to imagine 3 better players than federer, nadal a,md djockovic ever
Report mesmerised June 10, 2018 8:29 PM BST
It's not so much a case of the under 30's being rubbish, it's more to do with Federer and Nadal being too good for them, the same way that Federer and Nadal were too good for the under and over 30's when they themselves were in their mid 20's. Bar Djokovic.

To be able to beat these two consistently or in the slams where it really matters you need to be able to be as dynamic a tennis player as they are, and the rest of them just aren't. Not even close.

Federer has the most unreadable serve in the game, he probably waits the longest out of all players on tour before looking at the ball he's just t0ssed up in the air as he's still lingering down the other side of the court to sense any movement in any direction the opposition player is edging towards to return, he then goes the other way at the very last second and has placement/consistent accuracy so high it's very difficult for anyone to break him, he virtually has two forehands with his one handed backhand meaning there's no weakness on either flank (exp v Nadal on clay), he specialises in quick fire tennis, keeping points as short as possible which is why he prefers faster courts and why he struggles on the dust v Rafa, at least one of the reasons. Every forehand has a purpose and is hit with such that highlights the fact he has zero intent to rally for any period of time, in his own mind his aim is to build point construction that last no longer than 2-3 strokes if he can help it but if it does last longer, his nimble, fleet footedness on court is like watching a Gazelle gliding through the wide open African plains, outrunning and outmanoeuvring it's predators whilst looking like it's legs are barely in motion. Maximum efficiency, minimum stress on the body.

Although his game has changed as he's got older, the fact that Nadal has negated the reduced aggressivity in this own style by improving in every other aspect to help build point construction when needed, in itself highlights how dynamic a player he is. Very few players are as fit as he is, meaning trying to better him a baseline battle is futile, if he does find himself in a gruelling exchange I can liken it to a Dimitry Tursunov quote on Murray "he drags you into a swamp and drowns you in unforced errors". If you do match his fitness and levels of aggression (which are still reasonably high) you will have to find a way to handle a topspin forehand shot that has more rpm than you will ever be able to generate or combat with interest for any length of time, your one handed backhand (Federer/Wawrinka/Thiem/Dimirov/Gaasquet) is reduced to rubble if you try to win a cross court bh to fh battle as Federer has virtually conceded by not bothering to show up on clay, serve goes against the grain of most players intentions in which their primary goal is to ace opponents, his reflects his general high percentage game by perfecting the art of 1-2 shot points by serving as wide to righty's (majority of opps.) before using his speed to come to the net to finish it off, the high bounce and kick on clay in particular makes it too difficult to return effectively, his dh bh is sufficient enough not to be a weakness, his net game is reminiscent of any Golden Oldie in the serve and volley days on yesteryear (won 16/18 net points v Thiem today), speed is not an issue, nobody is quicker at running around their bh to hit a fh shot and very few of his rivals have an inside out (banana shot) money shot that can get them out of hole when they need to from the acutest of angles.

Then they're are the intangibles for both, mental strength, attitude and infatuation with the game and in Federer's case, his place in history, they win so many points, games, sets, matches and tournaments because of what's between their ears. That and dynamacy are the two single most important reasons why they are able to sustain success through age and the ages itself.

The young players like Thiem / Zverev / Pouille all have their qualities but are no where near as far-reaching and diverse enough in their natural abilities to ever be as good, Shapovalov is probably the most eye catching and Kyrgios most naturally talented but the biggest head case. When it comes to the NextGen, don't believe the hype, they will take over eventually but only because nature would have taken it's course and the Golden generation of the top 4 are no more, they are not as good and I can't see any dominating. Personally I think Chung is a dark horse to be top dog in the next 10 years but who really knows. K sera sera.

Kind Regards.
Report n88uk June 10, 2018 8:58 PM BST
The thing with mentioning money is the absolute best champions wouldn't have this affect them. Nadal is the perfect example of this. He just wants to win, the money isn't going to influence his will to win.

I mean there's certainly truth that the younger generation just isn't as good as the generation in the 30s, but the generation in its 30s is a 1 off, you won't see another generation as strong as that for a long time.

The physicality those players have taken the game to has sort of killed players coming through in their teens now which means players are coming through much later, but at same time I don't think we've had any huge champion come through in a while.
Report lurka June 11, 2018 8:02 AM BST
Really puts Murray's achievements into perspective, having had these 3 to contend with his entire career. Stan as well, to a much lesser extent, despite the same number of slams. Murray lost 8 slam finals, 5 to djokovic, 3 to Federer. History won't record just how good a player he was.
Report HonkyJoe June 11, 2018 7:14 PM BST
The thing with mentioning money is the absolute best champions wouldn't have this affect them. Nadal is the perfect example of this. He just wants to win, the money isn't going to influence his will to win.

Money wouldn't affect a Nadal or a Murray, but there's no doubt that it's a factor for some of the good-but-not-great players. A Kyrgios or a Tomic knows that he can take a pretty relaxed attitude towards his training and results, and still make millions in the space of a few years. If you could only make the big money by reaching the latter stages of grand-slam tournaments, a Kyrgios-type might feel the need to actually pick up his racket and get out there and reach his potential..

In an ideal world, all of the players with ability would be pushing themselves to try and become the very best they can be. But the amount of money going to the top 20 will inevitably lead to a lack of motivation amongst some.   (Personally, I couldn't give a monkey if Kyrgios doesn't want to give himself a chance at being great, but I can see it's an issue.  To be honest, there are other sports where I think the money is much more of a problem. British Athletics has been largely destroyed by the sizeable sums they pay to competitors just for 'making the team'. Every World Championships and Olympics now, we get a parade of athletes who blow out in the first or second round, and then tell us that they're 'completely gutted' (while, in truth, looking no more than slightly miffed). A few minutes later they're happily tweeting about the fun experience they're having, before going back to their comfortable lifestyles. For some people (particularly, if we're being honest, those from poorer backgrounds) money *is* a big motivation. And once they start getting paid big sums, their desire to train as hard as possible and push themselves right to the edge starts to diminish.)

Oh, and nice write-up Mes!
Report mafeking June 13, 2018 8:24 PM BST
are federer and nadal really that close to their peak still ? their absolute peak periods were 10 years and more ago now - federer around 2004 to 2006 although i admit the opposition was weak with him pretty much having it all his own on hard courts and grass, nadal i'd say 2008 when he absolutely demolished fed at roland garros and then won that epic wimbledon final

not absolutely certain but think murray is still the last first time grand slam winner 25 and under which is a desperate statistic for the tour really. can't help thinking a 21 year old murray from 2008 would be mopping up everything at the moment certainly away from the clay courts
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539