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

[The City Boyz]

What about him?

What's his mental temperament like? Would he be able to sustain good performances across two weeks?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What's his mental temperament like? Would he be able to sustain good performances across two weeks?

That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

 

[The City Boyz]

That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

From what we have seen so far?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

From what we have seen so far?

Talented but ultimately unproven.

 

[The City Boyz]

Talented but ultimately unproven.

Thoughts on Kyrgios?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thoughts on Kyrgios?

Big game. Not with it mentally.

 

[The City Boyz]

Big game. Not with it mentally.

This is essentially a two man thread lol.
Agree with you re Kyrgios.

 

[The City Boyz]

Big game. Not with it mentally.

Who is your tip for the AO?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who is your tip for the AO?

Too early to say but all things being equal, a fit Djokovic starts favourite for any tournament he plays.

 

[The City Boyz]

Too early to say but all things being equal, a fit Djokovic starts favourite for any tournament he plays.

Agreed. Any idea on the 'younger younger generation' are like, such as Tsitspras, Ruud and Ymer?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Agreed. Any idea on the 'younger younger generation' are like, such as Tsitspras, Ruud and Ymer?

No. Who cares?

 

[JackNah_8]

How old was agassi when he won his last grand slam

 

[ozgamer]

How old was agassi when he won his last grand slam

32 yrs 9 mths (Oz Open 2003)

 

[Firestarter]

I feel like this topic didn't really do anything but I'm just going off this page.

 

[The City Boyz]

I feel like this topic didn't really do anything but I'm just going off this page.

Yeah we had quite an argument didn't we!

 

[JackNah_8]

Coric and Zverev are probably the ones with the most potential to win a GS within the next few years.

Not sure about Roanic, he did improve this year and came close but injury set him back.

Kyrgios, it all depends on his mental game.

 

[ozgamer]

Coric and Zverev are probably the ones with the most potential to win a GS within the next few years.

Still waiting to see a breakthrough season from Coric though. Is in the Djokovic/Murray mold and bit of a slowburner compared to Zverev who has made bigger strides already.

Not sure about Roanic, he did improve this year and came close but injury set him back.

Raonic can put together some great tennis over 2 weeks but injury will always be a concern with him.

Kyrgios, it all depends on his mental game.

and his physical fitness and whether he just wants it. Nuff said.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Nicks backhand is holding him back a lot more than his mental strength. Put him against a Grand Slam champion and mental strength is the least of his issues.

 

[pepsi]

This thread will become irrelevant soon enough. Zverev is on the right path and can see him holding up a grand slam trophy in the near future. Thiem is made to win a Roland Garros title as well.

 

[Demosthenes]

The game has changed over the last decade and a half. It now favours ball machines - players with power, endurance and consistency.

Men tend to peak for both of the first two characteristics in their 30s. The heavier weight divisions for MMA and boxing are both dominated by guys in their mid 30s. Endurance tends to peak early 30s - road cyclists, for example. Consistency is also helped significantly by the extra time on the tour.

If you look at successful young players of the past, they have tended to make up for their comparative lack of advantages in these areas with things like court speed, either to rush the net or retrieve balls that older and slower players can't. Slower courts and more powerful racquets have blunted these advantages. Beckers, Hewitts and Changs couldn't function in the modern era - to win a slam, they would have to hit too many balls and make too few unforced errors for a teenager.

I imagine that for the foreseeable future we will see players emerge as talents in their early 20s, develop all-round games in their mid-20s, and develop the consistency to win big tournaments in their late 20s and early 30s. Wawrinka is currently seen as a late bloomer but it's not hard to imagine him becoming the norm.

 

[The City Boyz]

The game has changed over the last decade and a half. It now favours ball machines - players with power, endurance and consistency.

Men tend to peak for both of the first two characteristics in their 30s. The heavier weight divisions for MMA and boxing are both dominated by guys in their mid 30s. Road cyclists tend to peak in their early 30s. Consistency is also helped significantly by the extra time on the tour.

If you look at successful young players of the past, they have tended to make up for their comparative lack of advantages in these areas with things like court speed, either to rush the net or retrieve balls that older and slower players can't. Slower courts and more powerful racquets have blunted these advantages. Beckers, Hewitts and Changs couldn't function in the modern era - to win a slam, they would have to hit too many balls and make too few unforced errors for a teenager.

I imagine that for the foreseeable future we will see players emerge as talents in their early 20s, develop all-round games in their mid-20s, and develop the consistency to win big tournaments in their late 20s and early 30s. Wawrinka is currently seen as a late bloomer but it's not hard to imagine him becoming the norm.

This 100x. Great post!

 

[Alesana]

The game has changed over the last decade and a half. It now favours ball machines - players with power, endurance and consistency.

Men tend to peak for both of the first two characteristics in their 30s. The heavier weight divisions for MMA and boxing are both dominated by guys in their mid 30s. Endurance tends to peak early 30s - road cyclists, for example. Consistency is also helped significantly by the extra time on the tour.

If you look at successful young players of the past, they have tended to make up for their comparative lack of advantages in these areas with things like court speed, either to rush the net or retrieve balls that older and slower players can't. Slower courts and more powerful racquets have blunted these advantages. Beckers, Hewitts and Changs couldn't function in the modern era - to win a slam, they would have to hit too many balls and make too few unforced errors for a teenager.

I imagine that for the foreseeable future we will see players emerge as talents in their early 20s, develop all-round games in their mid-20s, and develop the consistency to win big tournaments in their late 20s and early 30s. Wawrinka is currently seen as a late bloomer but it's not hard to imagine him becoming the norm.

Nah, the young players just aren't taking the 'next step'

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This thread will become irrelevant soon enough.

I don't think anyone suggested it would be a permanent state of affairs.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The game has changed over the last decade and a half. It now favours ball machines - players with power, endurance and consistency.

Power, endurance and consistency have always been assets. When was the era of players succeeding without those traits?

Oh yeah, I remember. That awesome player, Jimmy Lettuceleaf, who had no power, was injury-prone, badly conditioned and inconsistent. Remember that guy? No? Fancy that.

So there's no new phenomenon here. Power, endurance and consistency have always counted. It doesn't suddenly, as of 2015 or 2016, confer an inherent advantage on older players.

But, out of interest, was Federer a "ball machine"?

I'd suggest he was something quite distinct from that, relying on variation, accuracy, balance and timing (as well as athleticism and a top-shelf power game, of course). He didn't grind players down by being a "ball machine". At his best, anywhere from 2003-2009, he shredded opponents through the quality of his strokeplay and shot-making.

The definitive take, much quoted but still pretty good, is here.

Currently, Djokovic and Murray are clear at the top of the tree and they're both powerful counter-punchers who've built up their games to incorporate an all-court component and an ability to play aggressively, rather than just remain anchored to the baseline. I guess you could call them "ball machines" but it's that adaptability and versatility that elevated them above someone like Ferrer, for example, on the rungs below. And it makes them not too dissimilar from Ivan Lendl 30 years ago. Djokovic and Murray are probably even more athletic and have more powerful racquets but that's an incremental evolution rather than a case of two distinct species separated by this posited gulf between what the sport was and what it has become.

So, again, there's no new phenomenon here. And it should be no more a closed shop today than it was in Lendl's era, when he was ranked No.1 thanks to - according to your framing - a mix of power, endurance and consistency roughly analogous to the styles of Djokovic and Murray currently.

Men tend to peak for both of the first two characteristics in their 30s. The heavier weight divisions for MMA and boxing are both dominated by guys in their mid 30s. Endurance tends to peak early 30s - road cyclists, for example. Consistency is also helped significantly by the extra time on the tour.

So the younger guys never really had a chance. It's the guys in their early 30s who have all the advantages.

Isn't this just another way of saying the young guys haven't been good enough?

Also, I'm not sure the conditioning for MMA is comparable to the conditioning for tennis.

But if we're trading in cross-sport analogies, I'd suggest the list of sports where 20-somethings outnumber 30-somethings is longer than vice versa. There are plenty of sports where guys find it much tougher once they get to their late 20s. So you have to adopt a pretty skewed view of things to claim guys in their 30s have some inherent advantage over guys in their mid-20s.

If you look at successful young players of the past, they have tended to make up for their comparative lack of advantages in these areas with things like court speed, either to rush the net or retrieve balls that older and slower players can't. Slower courts and more powerful racquets have blunted these advantages. Beckers, Hewitts and Changs couldn't function in the modern era - to win a slam, they would have to hit too many balls and make too few unforced errors for a teenager.

Surely Hewitt and Chang were both "ball machines". Whether they'd be good enough or have the weapons to beat the current top dogs is an open question but, regardless, they're hardly examples of players out of step with the modern conditions you've described above.

As for Becker, would he be at any more of a disadvantage than Cilic or Del Potro? These guys have both managed to win a major. Would he be worse off than Tsonga, who's won two Masters titles?

I imagine that for the foreseeable future we will see players emerge as talents in their early 20s, develop all-round games in their mid-20s, and develop the consistency to win big tournaments in their late 20s and early 30s. Wawrinka is currently seen as a late bloomer but it's not hard to imagine him becoming the norm.

I find it hard to imagine Wawrinka's trajectory becoming the norm.

Wawrinka's success does, however, put a pin in the argument that it's simply too tough at the top, with too many all-time greats still playing, for younger players to break through. Wawrinka is no all-time great but if he's won three grand slams, clearly there are opportunities. In light of that, can you really argue it's become systemically impossible for a younger player to notch a single Masters title?

The reality is that if younger players are good enough, they'll win big titles earlier. But they haven't been.

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic all broke through while relatively young. I don't accept the argument that 'the game has changed' to the extent that this is no longer feasible.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Nah, the young players just aren't taking the 'next step'

They're not. Do you disagree?

It's circular reasoning to look at the state of affairs and infer that because younger players aren't winning anything of note, there must therefore be some inherent advantage for older players to explain that. It can't simply be that the younger players haven't been good enough – there has to be some other external, over-arching reason. I find that entirely unconvincing.

It's also a real cliche in sports analysis to constantly argue the current situation is 'unprecedented' and to marshal that figment as a one-size-fits-all non-explanation for everything.

'OMG, tennis is totally different now than ever before and that's why young players can't win anything.' Yeah, nah. That's not really why they're not winning anything. It's because they haven't been good enough.