Edited: No player currently 30 or younger has won a major

[Sweet Jesus]

So you don't do requests, but you've got no problem making them!

So what are you talking about if you can't point to parts of my posts that you disagree with?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

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?

Also, this supposed disadvantage didn't stop Cilic winning the 2014 US Open aged 25-26 or winning in Cincinnati last year aged 27.

So who are these dominant 30-somethings that demonstrate this inherent advantage? Who are these 30-somethings hardwired to outlast the likes of Djokovic and Murray?

People talk about this endurance peak while completely ignoring the advantages in conditioning and recovery that a 25-year-old might enjoy over a guy who's 30-plus. I wonder if Nadal would agree that players in their 30s have an inherent advantage. I look forward to him turning out this year, aged 30, in better shape than he was at age 24. What are the odds of that, do you think?

Also, this supposed transformation hasn't prevented the likes of Raonic and Nishikori getting into the top 5. It's just that they can't crack a big title. So this all-encompassing theory about how "the game has changed" - and that's why younger players can't win anything - has its share of problems.

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.

 

[Teen Wolf]

So what are you talking about if you can't point to parts of my posts that you disagree with?

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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

I've made my arguments at length.

If you can't by now say whether you agree or disagree then you're holding an empty sack. The onus is not on me to keep feeding you talking points. I've already posted plenty of material that you can respond to if you choose.

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.

In different ways, they haven't been good enough - that goes for Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov and any of the other players in that age bracket. And any attempts to argue that we simply shouldn't expect players in their mid-20s to win big titles, because the established players are too good or because "the game has changed", is misguided, in my view.

Which part of that do you disagree with? Whatever your response, I'm sure The City Boyz will like it.

 

[pepsi]

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. Nadal changed the game, in terms of supreme defence and being able to turn it into offence and Djokovic kept that trend going. Those 2, along with Murray, have displayed levels of fitness not seen before (being able to play 4+ hour matches back to back in grand slams, without significant drop off in level of play). Now why have they been able to attain such high levels of fitness? Is it the development of professionalism in the sport, is it advance in health, diet and training techniques, better preparation, advances in physio and medico available to them?

But it can't simply be their supreme physical levels, because the 4 of them have dominated Masters level tournament as well, which are only best of 3 sets. As I said at the start, these 3 will be considered legends of the sport and for others who have played in this generation, it is just tough luck. If Hewitt played through this period, I doubt he would have been #1 for 2 years. Nishikori and berdych are fine players and if they were around in the Hewitt era they may have won a slam. Raonic has been very close to winning a slam, Cilic and Del Potro have (funnily enough at the fastest court grand slam) won a GS each, so it has been possible to win a title through this generation. Wawrinka took a while to get his game to his top level, which happened around the age of 27-28. His game relies on power and his body type allows it. It wasn't until his consistency reached a certain level, that he could compete with the top guys. When Stan reached his peak, it also was at a similar time to start of the decline of Fed and Nadal, opening up more of a chance for him.

Tennis players traditionally reach their peak between 24 and 27 and you've seen that with Nishikori. Cilic, Berdych, etc. Unfortunately they had to compete with 3 legends of the game when they hit their peak.

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.

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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

Apart from Wawrinka, who won three grand slams. Is he also an all-time great?

There have been opportunities.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not saying it hasn't, although there's some exaggeration when you consider the similarities between Lendl and Djokovic/Murray.

I'm saying this change doesn't sufficiently explain the inability of players under 28 to win anything of note. Not even a Masters title.

 

[pepsi]

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.

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.

Put Nishikori, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic in another generation and they would have had a better chance to win a slam/win more slams.

Would Juan Carlos Ferrero, Petr Korda, Costa, Gaudio have won a Roland Garros title during Nadal's reign? I highly doubt it. They just happened to hit their peak during a good time.

 

[Belnakor]

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.

you are cherry picking results to suit your argument.

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.

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.

We can expect that someone in the low 20s will break through, it is just simply that they are less likely to with the change in game style, rackets etc.

 

[Teen Wolf]

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.

"Different reasons", howww elucidating. 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.

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.

People are allowed their own expectations, but they may end up disappointed if those expectations aren't rooted in reality.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Wawrinka with 3 slams is nowhere near an all time great, that's a facetious question.

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.

That's one of the arguments being made. The fact Wawrinka has broken through for three majors undermines it.

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.

See above.

It hasn't been "nearly impossible". Wawrinka did it three times.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

you are cherry picking results to suit your argument..

I'm pointing out obvious problems with an explanation that emphasises some factors while ignoring others.

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.

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.

By the time a player is in his 30s, he's done a ton of extra miles, compared to a player in his mid-20s. That takes a toll. But this argument about the endurance peak coming in a player's 30s completely ignores that.

Again, who are these dominant 30-somethings who demonstrate this inherent advantage?

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.

Yeah, those extra miles have taken their toll, haven't they?

That's my point.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

"Different reasons", howww elucidating..

Do you disagree?

The reality is that there are different reasons for different players. Nishikori's failure to win anything requires a different explanation to Raonic's failure to win anything. Their shortcomings are different. There is not one single reason that explains both equally. Surely that goes without saying. So you requesting a one-size-fits-all explanation makes no sense.

Or is that too much nuance for you?

I'd be happy to offer a view about why Raonic hasn't broken through or why Nishikori hasn't broken through. But those explanations would necessarily be different.

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.

Those explanations don't bear examination.

You still haven't been able to explain which parts of my posts you disagree with. I can only assume you don't actually disagree. That's fine.

 

[Belnakor]

I'm pointing out obvious problems with an explanation that emphasises some factors while ignoring others.

So your cherry picking...

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.

What other advantages - its a base line game now, endurance is a huge determinate on who wins. thats the whole point. The age of about 28-29 which is the sweet spot between lack of injury and endurance improvements.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So your cherry picking...

You can't just dismiss anything that doesn't suit your argument as "cherry-picking".

Cherry-picking is when you take a one-off, atypical example and dishonestly claim it suggests a trend.

But if the argument is that younger players haven't won anything because guys in their 30s now have an inherent advantage, it is perfectly reasonable to counter that by pointing to Djokovic dominating at age 24. Or, frankly, Federer dominating in his 20s. Or Nadal dominating in his 20s. Or Murray breaking through in his 20s. Throw in Del Potro at the 2009 US Open as well if you like. Or Cilic in 2014. There's no shortage of examples of guys in their early/mid-20s winning big titles - at least, before the current crop who haven't managed to win anything.

Equally, if the argument is that older players have an edge in endurance and that's why no younger players can win anything, it's perfectly reasonable to counter that by pointing out that Djokovic was an absolute machine aged 24 and certainly didn't suffer by comparison to any older players in the endurance stakes. The same was true for Federer, Nadal and Murray at various stages of their early/mid-20s. I certainly don't recall any 30-something having an inherent "endurance edge" over Federer or Nadal in their heyday.

It's not "cherry-picking" to present those examples. It's simply what the record shows about how and when top-line players have had success.

Who are these dominant 30-somethings that demonstrate the opposite? Who are these dominant 30-somethings that demonstrate this inherent advantage? You can't accuse me of cherry-picking if, to the contrary, there are no examples to demonstrate that this trend actually exists.

How many grand slams do you reckon have been won by players in their 30s in the past 10 years? Off the top of my head, I'd say three - that's one for Federer and two for Wawrinka. Several people in this thread seem to uniformly accept that guys in their early-30s now have some inherent advantage. But the actual results don't support that.

What other advantages - its a base line game now, endurance is a huge determinate on who wins. thats the whole point..

I outlined this already.

By the time a player is in his 30s, he's done a ton of extra miles, compared to a player in his mid-20s. That takes a toll. Nadal is a perfect example. But this argument about the endurance peak coming in a player's 30s completely ignores that.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Contrast with the four 1989 French Open singles ladies semi-finalists:

Sanchez-Vicario and Frenandez were both 17. Seles was 15. Steffi Graf was the old woman of the field and she was 19.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Bye bye Djokovic.

The bottom half of the draw was already softer. This leaves it wide open for a newbie to waltz through to the final.

The City Boyz Does this constitute "a window of opportunity"?

Raonic must surely fancy his chances, Nadal notwithstanding.

 

[The City Boyz]

It most certainly does!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It most certainly does!

Do you like it?

 

[Pedantic]

 

[Sweet Jesus]

View attachment 328701

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.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

View attachment 328701

TennisPlayerAndy

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well, if someone doesn't break through with Djokovic and Murray gone, it's going to be pretty hard to argue that it was because "the all-time greats are too dominant".

Out 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?

 

[Brad Goodman]

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.

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.

 

[Pedantic]

Out 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?

2004 French Open

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

You could go into any thread on this site and ask the same question. Why does anyone spend any time discussing anything?

The answer is that it's not "so important". It is, however, a talking point and a source of conjecture. Do you object to this?

Why would you keep reading a thread that evidently bores you?