- Thread starter
- Banned
- #101
So what are you talking about if you can't point to parts of my posts that you disagree with?So you don't do requests, but you've got no problem making them!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what are you talking about if you can't point to parts of my posts that you disagree with?So you don't do requests, but you've got no problem making them!
But Djokovic was dominating well before that age and is still in his 20s. He was probably the fittest player on tour in 2011 when he was 24. Was he at a disadvantage in the endurance stakes the year he won three grand slams?because the intensity of points has gone up and the rallies are longer which means you need more endurance. Endurance doesn't peak for men until your early 30s.
Tell us why you think younger players haven't been good enough to win major titles and I will tell you if I agree or disagree.So what are you talking about if you can't point to parts of my posts that you disagree with?
I've made my arguments at length.Tell us why you think younger players haven't been good enough to win major titles and I will tell you if I agree or disagree.
Apart from Wawrinka, who won three grand slams. Is he also an all-time great?Federer, then Nadal, then Djokovic are some of the all time greats of the game. They have each dominated for 4-5 years, making it nearly impossible for others to claim the big titles.
Well, yeah. No one is saying it's a permanent state of affairs. There are still going to be four grand slams a year and someone has to win them.Now Zverev, Kyrgios, Fritz, Coric, etc wont have to compete with Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Warinka, when they are in their peaks and they will win slams.
I'm not saying it hasn't, although there's some exaggeration when you consider the similarities between Lendl and Djokovic/Murray.But Sweet Jesus I do feel the game has changed. Look at racket technology, court surfaces and game styles becoming more homogenised, length of rallies and distance covered increasing.
Wawrinka with 3 slams is nowhere near an all time great, that's a facetious question. Fed leading GS title winner, Nadal 2nd on the all time list, Djokovic 4th. There have been very limited opportunities over the past 10 years for players outside of Fed/Rafa/Novak to win slams. When you have 3 at that level playing at the same time, it has been nearly impossible for others to win the big titles.Apart from Wawrinka, who won three grand slams. Is he also an all-time great?
There have been opportunities.
I'm not saying it hasn't.
I'm saying it doesn't sufficiently explain the inability of players under 28 to win anything of note.
But Djokovic was dominating well before that age and is still in his 20s. He was probably the fittest player on tour in 2011 when he was 24. Was he at a disadvantage in the endurance stakes the year he won three grand slams?
Again, it's one thing to make the empirical point that rallies are longer and the serve-volley game has receded. But there's still a long way to go to extrapolate that into an inherent advantage for guys in their 30s, to the point that we simply shouldn't expect guys to win anything of note in their mid-20s.
That said, there are different reasons for different players, clearly. Raonic's inability to win anything requires a different explanation from Nishikori's inability to win anything. There isn't a one-size-fits-all diagnosis that will hold true for every player. Surely that goes without saying.
And any attempts to argue that we simply shouldn't expect players in their mid-20s to win big titles is misguided, in my view.
I agree he's not an all-time great. But it shows there have been opportunities for other players and that it's not merely a case of all-time greats hoovering up all the titles.Wawrinka with 3 slams is nowhere near an all time great, that's a facetious question.
See above.Fed leading GS title winner, Nadal 2nd on the all time list, Djokovic 4th. There have been very limited opportunities over the past 10 years for players outside of Fed/Rafa/Novak to win slams. When you have 3 at that level playing at the same time, it has been nearly impossible for others to win the big titles.
I'm pointing out obvious problems with an explanation that emphasises some factors while ignoring others.you are cherry picking results to suit your argument..
There may be an endurance peak in the early 30s, but you can't just focus on that while simply ignoring all the advantages younger players have.It is medical fact people hit their endurance peak in their 30s. You can point to a freak like Djokovic but on average the people above 27 are going to have an advantage in the endurance stakes. Theres a reason the top endurance events (marathon, tour de france) are rarely won by young people.
Yeah, those extra miles have taken their toll, haven't they?Nadal has damaged his body too much to play at the level he did previously. His endurance quite possibly higher than it was in his 20s he just can't utilize it.
Do you disagree?"Different reasons", howww elucidating..
Those explanations don't bear examination.I'm sorry, that does not sufficiently explain the inability of players under 28 to win anything of note. Several other posters, including two on this page alone, have done a far better job of it. Learn from them.
I'm pointing out obvious problems with an explanation that emphasises some factors while ignoring others.
There may be an endurance peak in the early 30s, but you can't just focus on that while simply ignoring all the advantages younger players have.
You can't just dismiss anything that doesn't suit your argument as "cherry-picking".So your cherry picking...
I outlined this already.What other advantages - its a base line game now, endurance is a huge determinate on who wins. thats the whole point..
Do you like it?It most certainly does!
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
Although it does little to explain why the best players in their mid-20s haven't won anything, not so much as a Masters title.
The explanation that "there aren't enough of them" is a macro answer to a micro question.
2004 French OpenOut of interest, I wonder when was the last men's Grand Slam where neither the first or second seed made it to the last eight?
You could go into any thread on this site and ask the same question. Why does anyone spend any time discussing anything?The bigger question is why it is so important to have spent however many hours that you have discussing it, especially when you already have the answer and did from the start.