Tennis 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant the mentality part as a requisite for being a top player. The charisma part I actually meant in terms of making me want to support either of them. Personally, there's nothing about the current lot which makes me want to support them in the future. The first time Nadal played Fed and then that Davis Cup match vs Roddick was when I knew I'm going to support this guy once Agassi retires. None of this current new lot really makes you want to root for them and none of them really wows you imo.

Piratesoup said:
Federer was Long thought of as a loser and bottler because until Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 he'd shown lots of promise but made no real impressions at Majors and even in 2002 he fell flat on his nose. Zverev CLEARLY demonstrated that he has the Talent and mentality with 2 Masters under his belt and the Kind of Tennis he has produced over long stretches this year. Time will tell, of course, but him and Shapovalov clearly have everything needed to get to the top.
The kid is 20 years old in an age where Players seem to Peak much later than before given the physical demands of the game today. The result is a huge disappointment, but it's not like Coric is a matchup everybody dreams about in round 2..
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm spoiled by Nadal and Djoko and even JMDP being super competitive even as kids which makes me lot at this new lot unfavorably. Zverev has talent no doubt but his Slam record is atrocious . I think it's 13-14. He's lost more matches than he's won and that's a seriously poor record for a World Number 4. I think he'll win by default once the Top 4 are gone as there's no one else but he's disappointed me with his Slam performances.
 
Starting to suspect Nick Kyrgios and Mario Balotelli are actually the same person
 
wr8_utd said:
Zverev going out isn't even surprising. The guy still hasn't beaten a Top 50 player at any Slam. I just don't see any of the current generation with a good mix of talent, charisma and the mentality and balls to be top players. Zverev had the easiest possible path to a Slam final and cant make it to R3.
Click to expand...

Plenty of young players go out at slams. Its not unusual at all. The broader point is that Zverev and Shapovalov and a few others are the future of the game and will improve immensely over the next few years. You can also forget about Federer, Nadal, and the rest of the usual suspects, as this will almost certainly be their last year where they win slams. Its the new boys who will be taking over shortly.
 
Raoul said:
Plenty of young players go out at slams. Its not unusual at all. The broader point is that Zverev and Shapovalov and a few others are the future of the game and will improve immensely over the next few years. You can also forget about Federer, Nadal, and the rest of the usual suspects, as this will almost certainly be their last year where they win slams. Its the new boys who will be taking over shortly.
Click to expand...

$100 to the charity of your choice with screenshot if one of the old top 4+Stan wins a Slam next year, deal?
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
$100 to the charity of your choice with screenshot if one of the old top 4+Stan wins a Slam next year, deal?
Click to expand...

Note I said almost certainly ;) Of course its possible, but we are now seeing the power structure at the top get challenged at a time when the big players are all into their 30s and a new wave of young players are coming through. They won't be as good as Federer and Nadal, but they will take over at the top. I've seen it happen time and again for the past 35 years. Older players fade, new wave of younger players take over.
 
Raoul said:
Note I said almost certainly ;) Of course its possible, but we are now seeing the power structure at the top get challenged at a time when the big players are all into their 30s and a new wave of young players are coming through. They won't be as good as Federer and Nadal, but they will take over at the top. I've seen it happen time and again for the past 35 years. Older players fade, new wave of younger players take over.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you class as the new wave of player.

Out of 3 Slams so far, only Thiem who can be classed as a young player made the SF once. All the 'next big thing' we've had the last 6,7 years like Tomic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios have either imploded or stagnated. Slams were/are still dominated by the old top4 and Stan.

All this talk is premature. A fit Djokovic and Murray next year and the young 'uns will have to wait their turn yet another year as well. The argument that they may suddenly become godly and displace the oldies doesn't hold much water imo. Fed was a relatively late bloomer. Most tennis greats started winning very early. The transition will most likely be a slow, gradual one rather than a meteoric rise of a young guy or two.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Depends on what you class as the new wave of player.

Out of 3 Slams so far, only Thiem who can be classed as a young player made the SF once. All the 'next big thing' we've had the last 6,7 years like Tomic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios have either imploded or stagnated. Slams were/are still dominated by the old top4 and Stan.

All this talk is premature. A fit Djokovic and Murray next year and the young 'uns will have to wait their turn yet another year as well. The argument that they may suddenly become godly and displace the oldies doesn't hold much water imo. Fed was a relatively late bloomer. Most tennis greats started winning very early. The transition will most likely be a slow, gradual one rather than a meteoric rise of a young guy or two.
Click to expand...

You're missing the broader point. Players do age and lose their edge. Sometimes, if the conditions are right, a few older players reach the top again (like this year). But that's a one off. Tennis has always been dominated by players in their early to mid twenties and this will be the case again shortly.
 
Raoul said:
You're missing the broader point. Players do age and lose their edge. Sometimes, if the conditions are right, a few older players reach the top again (like this year). But that's a one off. Tennis has always been dominated by players in their early to mid twenties and this will be the case again shortly.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced by that argument tbh. How many times in the history of football the best player in the world is a 34 year old guys? LeBron and Cleveland just a year or two ago. Tom Brady is 40. Athletes nowadays have immense advantage in medication, nutrition and various other aspects of sports science over their past counterparts. Father Time waits on nobody but you can definitely prolong the process.

The homogenisation of the courts also worked against the up and comer as well, the oldies when fit are still having them for breakfast because the new ones' skillset is much more limited compared to them. We think Fed is the exception and probably he is, but what to say Nadal can't win another French next year or the year after? So does Djokovic and Murray. The best players on tours after them are Stan, Cilic, Berdych etc.., all close/over 30. Raonic and Dimitrov 26 and nowhere even close to dominating.

All this chatter imo is just because Djokovic and Murray burned themselves out and had a shit 2017. Once they are back proper the order will reset.
 
Raoul said:
Plenty of young players go out at slams. Its not unusual at all. The broader point is that Zverev and Shapovalov and a few others are the future of the game and will improve immensely over the next few years. You can also forget about Federer, Nadal, and the rest of the usual suspects, as this will almost certainly be their last year where they win slams. Its the new boys who will be taking over shortly.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt they'll be beaten any of Nadal, Fed, Djoko and Murray next season tbh. You don't suddenly go from not being able to go past R1 and R2 to winning Slams in a few months time. I also think Djoko will come back better next saeson.
 
wr8_utd said:
I highly doubt they'll be beaten any of Nadal, Fed, Djoko and Murray next season tbh. You don't suddenly go from not being able to go past R1 and R2 to winning Slams in a few months time. I also think Djoko will come back better next saeson.
Click to expand...

Unless you've just started watching Tennis a couple of years ago, you know this isn't true. There are plenty of examples of players coming out of nowhere to do well in slams. Becker won Wimbledon unseeded at the age of 17. Chang won the French Open unseeded at the age of 17, Wilander won the French in 82 also at 17, Edberg won the 85 Aussie at 19 etc.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'm not convinced by that argument tbh. How many times in the history of football the best player in the world is a 34 year old guys? LeBron and Cleveland just a year or two ago. Tom Brady is 40. Athletes nowadays have immense advantage in medication, nutrition and various other aspects of sports science over their past counterparts. Father Time waits on nobody but you can definitely prolong the process.

The homogenisation of the courts also worked against the up and comer as well, the oldies when fit are still having them for breakfast because the new ones' skillset is much more limited compared to them. We think Fed is the exception and probably he is, but what to say Nadal can't win another French next year or the year after? So does Djokovic and Murray. The best players on tours after them are Stan, Cilic, Berdych etc.., all close/over 30. Raonic and Dimitrov 26 and nowhere even close to dominating.

All this chatter imo is just because Djokovic and Murray burned themselves out and had a shit 2017. Once they are back proper the order will reset.
Click to expand...

Other sports have nothing to do with the unique nuances of being a Tennis player. If you look back at the history of Tennis, a vast majority of player success has been accrued by players who were at their peaks during their 20s. That includes, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, the list is endless. We now have the conditions where it is about to happen again.
 
wr8_utd said:
I highly doubt they'll be beaten any of Nadal, Fed, Djoko and Murray next season tbh. You don't suddenly go from not being able to go past R1 and R2 to winning Slams in a few months time. I also think Djoko will come back better next saeson.
Click to expand...

Zverev has beaten Federer only a few weeks ago (and thrice overall) and he beat Djokovic in the Rome final. Shapovalov just beat Nadal. There's no reason why they shouldn't be competitive against them next year, you're really downplaying the young guys talents and achievements.

Also, as I said: Federer DID go from winning almost nothing to winning almost everything at slams in just 2 years. His record in 2002: AO and USO fourth round, Wimby and RG 1st (!) round. In 2003: 4th AO and USO again, 1st round RG, won Wimbledon. Says absolutely nothing at this stage of a modern tennis player's career.
You gotta keep in mind that at his young age, Zverev has the hopes of a big country on his back that hasn't seen a real male tennis superstar since Becker. That's a lot of pressure.
 
Raoul said:
Other sports have nothing to do with the unique nuances of being a Tennis player. If you look back at the history of Tennis, a vast majority of player success has been accrued by players who were at their peaks during their 20s. That includes, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, the list is endless. We now have the conditions where it is about to happen again.
Click to expand...

What is this supposed to mean? The point couldn't be clearer, we've seen an increase in longevity of athletes across the board. Do you think tennis players are exempt from physics?

Of course the vast majority of players accrued their success in their mid-20s. That's also true for almost any sports, that's your physical peak, but they accrued those honors in the first place because they are one step above the pack. Do you think Sascha or Denis at the moment can be classed as such? We are seeing older top players still playing and dominating at ages in years past that they should have already retired because they are reaping the benefits from breakthrough in medicine and technology.

Saying this will most likely be the last year the oldies dominate is frankly a bold claim, to say the least.
 
Raoul said:
Unless you've just started watching Tennis a couple of years ago, you know this isn't true. There are plenty of examples of players coming out of nowhere to do well in slams. Becker won Wimbledon unseeded at the age of 17. Chang won the French Open unseeded at the age of 17, Wilander won the French in 82 also at 17, Edberg won the 85 Aussie at 19 etc.
Click to expand...

When the competition still involves Fed (yes he's old), Nadal, Djoko and Murray? I just don't see it happening.

Piratesoup said:
Zverev has beaten Federer only a few weeks ago (and thrice overall) and he beat Djokovic in the Rome final. Shapovalov just beat Nadal. There's no reason why they shouldn't be competitive against them next year, you're really downplaying the young guys talents and achievements.

Also, as I said: Federer DID go from winning almost nothing to winning almost everything at slams in just 2 years. His record in 2002: AO and USO fourth round, Wimby and RG 1st (!) round. In 2003: 4th AO and USO again, 1st round RG, won Wimbledon. Says absolutely nothing at this stage of a modern tennis player's career.
You gotta keep in mind that at his young age, Zverev has the hopes of a big country on his back that hasn't seen a real male tennis superstar since Becker. That's a lot of pressure.
Click to expand...

Only happening in best of 3 set matches though. All the kids that we've seen come and go over the last 5-7 years have been disappointing. I'm sure they'll eventually win Slams once the Big 4 are completley gone but I still can't see them beating even the over 30s right now.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
What is this supposed to mean? The point couldn't be clearer, we've seen an increase in longevity of athletes across the board. Do you think tennis players are exempt from physics?

Of course the vast majority of players accrued their success in their mid-20s. That's also true for almost any sports, that's your physical peak, but they accrued those honors in the first place because they are one step above the pack. Do you think Sascha or Denis at the moment can be classed as such? We are seeing older top players still playing and dominating at ages in years past that they should have already retired because they are reaping the benefits from breakthrough in medicine and technology.

Saying this will most likely be the last year the oldies dominate is frankly a bold claim, to say the least.
Click to expand...

It means exactly what it suggests. Its pretty myopic to attempt to compare a Tennis player with other sports that have nothing to do with Tennis. And comparing them to the NFL ? FFS
 
wr8_utd said:
When the competition still involves Fed (yes he's old), Nadal, Djoko and Murray? I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Federer and Nadal are not likely to continue playing like this, and as we've seen Djokovic and Murray seem to have faded recently.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
What is this supposed to mean? The point couldn't be clearer, we've seen an increase in longevity of athletes across the board. Do you think tennis players are exempt from physics?

Of course the vast majority of players accrued their success in their mid-20s. That's also true for almost any sports, that's your physical peak, but they accrued those honors in the first place because they are one step above the pack. Do you think Sascha or Denis at the moment can be classed as such? We are seeing older top players still playing and dominating at ages in years past that they should have already retired because they are reaping the benefits from breakthrough in medicine and technology.

Saying this will most likely be the last year the oldies dominate is frankly a bold claim, to say the least.
Click to expand...


Yep. I've genuinely seen nothing to suggest anything to the contrary. This year had the worst Djoko and Murray in years, Stan and others missing for large chunks and yet the next gen had no impact at all on the Slams. I don't see why the oldies won't continue to win next season.
 
Raoul said:
Federer and Nadal are not likely to continue playing like this, and as we've seen Djokovic and Murray seem to have faded recently.
Click to expand...
If Federer keeps his schedule light and smart, he's still good enough to beat all these kids in 5 setters. His form won't suddenly fall off a cliff because the year ends. Nadal will continue to dominate clay atleast. Djokovic and Murray could quite possibly come back refreshed and do as well as Fed and Nadal have.
 
Raoul said:
It means exactly what it suggests. Its pretty myopic to attempt to compare a Tennis player with other sports that have nothing to do with Tennis. And comparing them to the NFL ? FFS
Click to expand...

He does have a point, though. Athletes age better these days, and this development has been clear in tennis as well. I see no way past that observation. One reason for that, methinks, is that top players today are required to have such outstanding physical strength and fitness that teenagers, no matter how gifted, need time for their body to catch up.

wr8_utd said:
If Federer keeps his schedule light and smart, he's still good enough to beat all these kids in 5 setters. His form won't suddenly fall off a cliff because the year ends. Nadal will continue to dominate clay atleast. Djokovic and Murray could quite possibly come back refreshed and do as well as Fed and Nadal have.
Click to expand...

Only a year ago, everyone said that Nadal's knees are shot and that Federer is way over the hill. Nadal could get an injury next week, Federer's back could give out while he hoovers the floor.Things change way too quickly to make any predictions for next year.

Isn't it kinda awesome? Tennis has finally become unpredictable again!
 
wr8_utd said:
If Federer keeps his schedule light and smart, he's still good enough to beat all these kids in 5 setters. His form won't suddenly fall off a cliff because the year ends. Nadal will continue to dominate clay atleast. Djokovic and Murray could quite possibly come back refreshed and do as well as Fed and Nadal have.
Click to expand...

You're making big assumptions with no historical precedent. He's 36 going on 37 and trust me, when the aging process kicks in, it really kicks in fast. A 37 player, however great, can't be expected to dominate the tennis world like he could at 25. And when you combine this with the fact that there are some very good young players coming up, you have the ripe conditions for a changing of the guard in the next 12-18 months. Don't forget that all of the young players will improve immensely between the ages of 18-20 to 22-25.
 
Raoul said:
It means exactly what it suggests. Its pretty myopic to attempt to compare a Tennis player with other sports that have nothing to do with Tennis. And comparing them to the NFL ? FFS
Click to expand...

What? How did you get the comparing part? I brought up 4 different sports where an 'oldie' has dominated in very recent past as example of longevity for top athletes improving due to better conditining. It's not a hard point to grasp. The two AO finalists this year at 31 and 35 years of age played 3 five setters each and were both running in the fifth. How often did that happen?
 
saivet said:
I actually think this season has been one of the worst on the men's side for a while actually.
Click to expand...

Was talking more about next year. 2017 has the prospect to be an exciting and unpredictable season, not one dominated by the same four guys that have dominated for 13 years.
 
Piratesoup said:
Was talking more about next year. 2017 has the prospect to be an exciting and unpredictable season, not one dominated by the same four guys that have dominated for 13 years.
Click to expand...
I see. That is definitely true. I'm with @wr8_utd on this one though, if I was to make a prediction we'll just see Murray and Djokovic return to form with Federer/Nadal being competitive if fit.

Really and truly this year was perfect for one of the new guys and so far they've disappointed. Some good moments, but not at any of the slams. I hope you're right, but not sure they'll make a big impact on the tour next year.
 
saivet said:
Really and truly this year was perfect for one of the new guys and so far they've disappointed. Some good moments, but not at any of the slams. I hope you're right, but not sure they'll make a big impact on the tour next year.
Click to expand...

Zverev definitely did disappoint at slams apart from the AO. A strong Nadal won because he physically outlasted Zverev. And lets not forget that at least he bowed out to another 20year old, not some 27year old journeyman.
Shapovalov on the other hand already impressed at this USO, Tiafoe looked great, Coric, Fritz, Rublev and a couple others are still in there as well. It's not like this tournament is over.
I think we've become accustomed to Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic being nigh unbeatable by anyone but themselves all the time, making the semis all the time and splitting all the tournaments. Our threshold of being impressed as gotten really high. We need to try and appreciate what some of the young guys climbing the top 100 have been doing and there is definitely more promise than in the "lost generation" before.
 
Raoul said:
Note I said almost certainly ;) Of course its possible, but we are now seeing the power structure at the top get challenged at a time when the big players are all into their 30s and a new wave of young players are coming through. They won't be as good as Federer and Nadal, but they will take over at the top. I've seen it happen time and again for the past 35 years. Older players fade, new wave of younger players take over.
Click to expand...

So you seen someone who is 36 like Federer win slams and challenge in every tournament he is in the last 35 years? No you haven't.

Even someone the same age as Nadal would be on the downhill slope. Yet he had one of his most dominant French open victories this year. I'd say 2008 was just better because he topped it up with Wimbledon after.

When Fed and Nadal do retire. I think the players like Nishikori, Dimitrov and Raonic will probably benefit more. They'd be in their late twenties or early thirties but won't have any of the big four to stop them.

Roddick retired at 30 because 5 years ago that was the normal thing. I bet he slightly regrets it now.
 
Raoul said:
You're making big assumptions with no historical precedent. He's 36 going on 37 and trust me, when the aging process kicks in, it really kicks in fast. A 37 player, however great, can't be expected to dominate the tennis world like he could at 25. And when you combine this with the fact that there are some very good young players coming up, you have the ripe conditions for a changing of the guard in the next 12-18 months. Don't forget that all of the young players will improve immensely between the ages of 18-20 to 22-25.
Click to expand...
Things change mate. Tennis became a physical sport and nutrition allows players to have longer peaks and also be close to their best in given tournament even deep into their 30's.

Nowadays is more of a mental thing in slams rather than physical and endurance test, like in the past. You can't compare directly with past era's where you have different surfaces, conditions and also technology, nutrition, trainers etc.

Even in the past you had Connors reaching USO SF at the age of 39 and players like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic are perfectly capable of hitting their stride deep in the 30's. The problem will be niggling injuries and consistency, which of course will inevitably drop with age and all the mileage they already have on tour.

It's not that the old guard will dominate the tour, but they still are shoe in for GS and I just can't see even the Raonic/Dimitrov generation beating them there, let alone the Kyrgios/Zverev/Shapovalov.

The problem with the young guns is also that you have the best players at each slam playing at the same time. Nadal even in his 30's is perfectly capable of taking any of the young guns at the French and winning the whole thing. Same with Federer at Wimbey and at the USO. Djokovic at the AO, etc..

The aging process with Federer has kicked in 10 years ago mate. He's not the peak Federer anymore, but has adapted - great players do and has proven this year that age is just a number.
 
Piratesoup said:
Zverev definitely did disappoint at slams apart from the AO. A strong Nadal won because he physically outlasted Zverev. And lets not forget that at least he bowed out to another 20year old, not some 27year old journeyman.
Shapovalov on the other hand already impressed at this USO, Tiafoe looked great, Coric, Fritz, Rublev and a couple others are still in there as well. It's not like this tournament is over.
I think we've become accustomed to Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic being nigh unbeatable by anyone but themselves all the time, making the semis all the time and splitting all the tournaments. Our threshold of being impressed as gotten really high. We need to try and appreciate what some of the young guys climbing the top 100 have been doing and there is definitely more promise than in the "lost generation" before.
Click to expand...
Maybe is mental I don't know, but Zverev shouldn't be losing in early rounds in slams. Unfortunately I can't see any extraordinary talent that can take the mantle off the big 4. Things look really bleak once Federer/Djoko/Nadal call it a day.

Kyrgios was/is my hope, but mentally he's not there...
 
Dolgopolov nearly blew the tie break from 6-2. Hilarious to watch both in a good and bad way.

Berdych seems injured, already took a medical and now trailing 1-2 in set. That's Nadal's draw getting easier.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Things change mate. Tennis became a physical sport and nutrition allows players to have longer peaks and also be close to their best in given tournament even deep into their 30's.

Nowadays is more of a mental thing in slams rather than physical and endurance test, like in the past. You can't compare directly with past era's where you have different surfaces, conditions and also technology, nutrition, trainers etc.

Even in the past you had Connors reaching USO SF at the age of 39 and players like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic are perfectly capable of hitting their stride deep in the 30's. The problem will be niggling injuries and consistency, which of course will inevitably drop with age and all the mileage they already have on tour.

It's not that the old guard will dominate the tour, but they still are shoe in for GS and I just can't see even the Raonic/Dimitrov generation beating them there, let alone the Kyrgios/Zverev/Shapovalov.

The problem with the young guns is also that you have the best players at each slam playing at the same time. Nadal even in his 30's is perfectly capable of taking any of the young guns at the French and winning the whole thing. Same with Federer at Wimbey and at the USO. Djokovic at the AO, etc..

The aging process with Federer has kicked in 10 years ago mate. He's not the peak Federer anymore, but has adapted - great players do and has proven this year that age is just a number.
Click to expand...

The only reason these players are still relevant today is because there has been a lack of top talent coming through. Once that happens, it will change in a hurry.
 
Raoul said:
The only reason these players are still relevant today is because there has been a lack of top talent coming through. Once that happens, it will change in a hurry.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of talent coming through, but it's not easy to beat some of the best players in the game, even the older versions of them.
 
Berdych out and I'm not happy about that. Would have been a far easier match than Dolgo. It's just the kind of match Nadal would lose. Dimitrov lost the first set as well.
 
wr8_utd said:
Berdych out and I'm not happy about that. Would have been a far easier match than Dolgo. It's just the kind of match Nadal would lose. Dimitrov lost the first set as well.
Click to expand...
Nadal would have Dolgopolov for breakfast and wouldnt belch once.

The guy plays fun tennis but he has no restraint. Blew easy points left right and center. A fit Berdych would have beaten him today, the actual injured one almost took the tie break in set 3 being down 2-6.
 
Enigma_87 said:
There is a lot of talent coming through, but it's not easy to beat some of the best players in the game, even the older versions of them.
Click to expand...

The talent hasn't been good enough and it has come during the past 7 years when Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have still been in various parts of their dominant eras. That will change very soon.
 
Dimitrov 2 sets down. Another wonder boy who's tragically rubbish in Slams.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.