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

[Demosthenes]

Athletes of different ages have different advantages and weaknesses. The game has changed in a way that enhances the advantages of older athletes and diminishes their weaknesses. This is naturally going to favour them and make things harder for younger guys. It is not complicated.

If you don't want to accept that, that's cool. I assumed you were looking for information rather than an excuse to argue, my mistake.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Athletes of different ages have different advantages and weaknesses. The game has changed in a way that enhances the advantages of older athletes and diminishes their weaknesses. This is naturally going to favour them and make things harder for younger guys.

I don't accept that the "game has changed" to the extent that older players now have an inherent advantage over younger guys.

It certainly hasn't prevented the likes of Raonic getting to No.3 in the world. It's just that he hasn't been able to pull off any big victories.

I've outlined a series of other arguments, which you've ignored.

For example, you mentioned power, endurance and consistency as being crucial to success. But that's clearly not a new phenomenon. There's no reason that makes it a closed shop, as of 2015 or 2016, in favour of guys in their 30s.

It is not complicated.

Indeed, your argument is quite simplistic.

If you don't want to accept that, that's cool. I assumed you were looking for information rather than an excuse to argue, my mistake.

What information?

You just offered a series of bogus conclusions based on the idea that power, endurance and consistency are newly important, when they're not.

Those traits were central to Ivan Lendl's success 30 years ago so in what sense has the game changed? The likes of Djokovic and Murray are not that far removed from Lendl in style so this argument that the sport now rewards an entirely different set of athletic traits just doesn't stand up.

 

[blackbetty14]

can we focus on how poor Sam Stosur is at tennis?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

can we focus on how poor Sam Stosur is at tennis?

The game has changed. That must be why. That explains all results.

 

[Demosthenes]

But that's clearly not a new phenomenon.

I didn't say it's a new phenomenon. I said that the conditions that the sport is played under have changed to the effect of emphasising those traits (which generally favour older players) and deemphasising others.

This is clear to anyone with a modicum of awareness about how the sport has evolved over the last 15 years. If it is not clear to you then you may like to go away and educate yourself. Or not. It makes little difference to me.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I didn't say it's a new phenomenon. I said that the conditions that the sport is played under have changed to the effect of emphasising those traits (which generally favour older players) and deemphasising others.

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

But players with power, endurance and consistency have always been advantaged. When was the era where players without those traits dominated?

So in what sense has the game changed? It's not sufficient to say that power, endurance and consistency are now important. That's always been true.

The reality is that Murray and Djokovic are currently top of the pile while playing a broadly similar style to Lendl 30 years ago. So what is this vast transformation that now supposedly rewards an entirely different set of traits?

And, once again, why has this supposed transformation not prevented the likes of Milos Raonic getting to No.3 in the world? His ranking doesn't seem to suggest an inherent advantage for guys in their 30s. To say nothing of the various obvious advantages enjoyed by a 25-year-old in terms of conditioning and recovery.

It merely suggests younger guys haven't been good enough to crack any big titles. This nebulous idea that "the game has changed" and guys in their 30s now have some inherent advantage is a complete furphy.

This is clear to anyone with a modicum of awareness about how the sport has evolved over the last 15 years. If it is not clear to you then you may like to go away and educate yourself. Or not. It makes little difference to me.

See above.

Your unwillingness to address the obvious flaws in your own argument is jarring.

Insisting that you're indifferent doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

[Demosthenes]

You don't really seem to be able to understand relativity and context.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You don't really seem to be able to understand relativity and context.

Reciting buzzwords is not a substitute for a coherent argument.

Something something relativity. Something something context.

Yeah, that's not convincing at all. You can't just fall back on this bullshit to disguise a bad argument.

 

[Demosthenes]

I'm not making an argument, I'm giving you an explanation. I have nothing to gain from debating the wilfully ignorant.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not making an argument, I'm giving you an explanation. I have nothing to gain from debating the wilfully ignorant.

Feigning disinterest doesn't patch up the gaping holes in your argument (or "explanation" if you prefer).

It doesn't matter what you call it. The shortcomings are what matter.

Equally, calling me "ignorant" doesn't resolve the obvious problems with the case you've made.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Verrry superficial analysis of the subject, Sweet Jesus. Spending your time in this thread repeating that the young'uns haven't won major titles because they aren't good enough isn't impressing anybody. It would be more interesting if you instead focused on why you think they aren't good enough to win major titles.

Maybe you're hinting at a suspicion of widespread developmental deficiency due to outdated yet unchallenged coaching philosophies and techniques, but then why not elaborate upon it if that (or something along those lines) is the case. Even if it's just a coincidence with no deeper meaning that all these players of the same sport belonging to the same age bracket at the same point in time aren't "good enough", I don't think you've clearly expressed that's what you believe either.

Personally I put it down to social media and other hip technology. The under-28s are thinking less about their matchplay, and more about their playlists as they strut onto the court beneath a pair of oversized wireless fluoro headphones designed by someone named "Dre" who may or may not have a degree in medicine.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Verrry superficial analysis of the subject, Sweet Jesus. Spending your time in this thread repeating that the young'uns haven't won major titles because they aren't good enough isn't impressing anybody.

Whether people are impressed is irrelevant. The point is that it's true.

They haven't won any major titles. Because they haven't been good enough. Which part of that do you disagree with?

It would be more interesting if you instead focused on why you think they aren't good enough to win major titles.

Feel free to focus on whatever you like. I don't do requests.

Maybe you're hinting at a suspicion of widespread developmental deficiency due to outdated yet unchallenged coaching philosophies and techniques, but then why not elaborate upon it if that (or something along those lines) is the case. Even if it's just a coincidence with no deeper meaning that all these players of the same sport belonging to the same age bracket at the same point in time aren't "good enough", I don't think you've clearly expressed that's what you believe either.

I haven't said anything to this effect so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Personally I put it down to social media and other hip technology. The under-28s are thinking less about their matchplay, and more about their playlists as they strut onto the court beneath a pair of oversized wireless fluoro headphones designed by someone named "Dre" who may or may not have a degree in medicine.

Yeah, that must be it.

What were you saying earlier about "superficial analysis"?

 

[Teen Wolf]

The players haven't won anything because they aren't good enough. And the players aren't good enough because they haven't won anything.

In other news: Today is hot because the temperature is 30 degrees. And today's temperature is 30 degrees because it's hot outside.

Stand and applaud, everybody.

 

[Firestarter]

As insufferable as it is my first post is still on the money.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The players haven't won anything because they aren't good enough. And the players aren't good enough because they haven't won anything.

Just the first statement will suffice. Not sure where you got the second part from. Is that your view?

There's no need to pretend it's some kind of circular argument when it isn't.

In other news: Today is hot because the temperature is 30 degrees. And today's temperature is 30 degrees because it's hot outside.

Stand and applaud, everybody.

Tell that to those who disagree with the statement you consider to be self-evidently true.

Which part of my previous comments do you actually disagree with? Any of them?

You seem to be affecting the appearance of dissent without any substance to go with it.

 

[Belnakor]

I don't accept that the "game has changed" to the extent that older players now have an inherent advantage over younger guys.

Those traits were central to Ivan Lendl's success 30 years ago so in what sense has the game changed? The likes of Djokovic and Murray are not that far removed from Lendl in style so this argument that the sport now rewards an entirely different set of athletic traits just doesn't stand up.

+ more powerful rackets
+ more consistency and wider area on the racket as the "hitting area"
= impossible to play a serve and volley game any more

which means the only real way to play is from the base line and occasionally go into the net. Rallies are statistically longer than they used to be (aside from the french open which is dominated by base liners any way.. surprise surprise)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

+ more powerful rackets
+ more consistency and wider area on the racket as the "hitting area"
= impossible to play a serve and volley game any more

which means the only real way to play is from the base line and occasionally go into the net. Rallies are statistically longer than they used to be (aside from the french open which is dominated by base liners any way.. surprise surprise)

Agreed, we have seen the decline of serve-volleyers. But how does that translate to an inherent advantage for guys in their 30s over guys in their mid-20s?

How does this explain no one under the age of 28 winning anything of note?

 

[Teen Wolf]

ITT: People theorising why players aged under 28 haven't been good enough to win grand slams, and one guy insightfully contributing "IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH" ad nauseam.

 

[The City Boyz]

ITT: People theorising why players aged under 28 haven't been good enough to win grand slams, and one guy insightfully contributing "IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH" ad nauseam.

Who do you agree with?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Who do you agree with?

Oh I definitely agree with this statement:

True, but also remember how amazing it is that these guys have been able to keep up their standards at this age. So it's been tough for the younger guys.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

ITT: People theorising why players aged under 28 haven't been good enough to win grand slams, and one guy insightfully contributing "IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH" ad nauseam.

Except that doesn't accurately describe the conversation.

The facts insist that younger players haven't been good enough to win anything of note. I'd suggest that is self-evidently true and you don't appear to disagree. Yet other posters have attempted to argue it's now unreasonable to expect these younger players to have won anything by their mid-20s, either because the established players are simply too good, or because "the game has changed" and guys in their 30s now have an inherent advantage. Both bogus arguments, in my view.

But please clarify, which of my previous comments do you disagree with? Or should we assume you don't actually disagree and just wanted to be involved?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who do you agree with?

You liked all his posts without knowing what his view is?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh I definitely agree with this statement: "True, but also remember how amazing it is that these guys have been able to keep up their standards at this age. So it's been tough for the younger guys."

That doesn't clarify anything.

Yes, everyone appreciates that that Djokovic and Murray (and Federer until recently) have maintained high standards. But that does not sufficiently explain why no player under 28 has won so much as a Masters title.

You've got Wawrinka racking up three grand slam titles, so clearly there are opportunities for players outside that upper echelon. Or is Wawrinka now also deemed unbeatable? And you had Cilic winning in 2016 in Cincinnati - or is Cilic also so awesome that no younger player had a chance?

This idea that it's somehow a closed shop, because all-time greats are still hoovering up all the titles, doesn't bear the merest examination. It's simply not true.

 

[Teen Wolf]

But please clarify, which of my previous comments do you disagree with? Or should we assume you don't actually disagree and just wanted to be involved?

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

 

[Belnakor]

Agreed, we have seen the decline of serve-volleyers. But how does that translate to an inherent advantage for guys in their 30s over guys in their mid-20s?

How does this explain no one under the age of 28 winning anything of note?

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.