Where are the rising young stars?

First topic message reminder :

Hello peeps n homies,



There is a dearth of young superstars in the men's game at the moment.

Of the up and coming stars, I believe there is only one who has the potential to mix it with the top four. The rest may have their time in the sun but only once the inevitable decline sets in with the top four (or perhaps top 3, not sure if Murray quite fits in the same bracket, yet).

Most of these youngsters are in the 19-21 age group. However, I just don't seen anything too special about any of them. The likes of Nadal, Djoker, and Murray at the same age were already firmly established top players. They all clearly had the potential to be top 5 material, and in fact were so. In the early noughties, the likes of Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were already displacing the old guard as mere teenagers. A decade before, the Sampras, Agassi, Courier trio were making their marks on the game at a similar age. Even Federer, who was considered a relatively late bloomer, by age 19 had beaten Sampras at W and reached two slam QF's. By 21, Federer was considered an underachiever for having not won a slam, yet he was already in the top 6 and had won a number of tournaments.

Milos Raonic, I think is the only one of the current crop with a game to threaten the top players. Big serve, big FH - he has weapons. But, unfortunately, like Del-Potro, his big frame may predispose him to recurrent injuries.

Tomic is a Murry-esque player, but he doesn't have the fitness, the movement or the defense of Murray, at the moment. He is also so tall and gangly that I can't really envisage him catching up to Murray in those areas.

Harrison, just average. Indeed a poorer version of Roddick. He's gutsy, feisty, but lacks the all round game to be a serious threat. Neither does he possess the Roddick serve or the booming FH (of the earlier A-Rod)

Dimitrov (how long have we been talking about this one?) - looks elegant, models his game on Federer, but has nowhere near the same degree of precision and incisiveness. His serve isn't as good, and his movement is more laboured. Also lacks the potent Federer FH (basically he STILL looks like a junior version of Federer, except he's now almost a seasoned pro).

So where are all the rising stars? Where is the next superstar? I honestly cannot see anyone (except possibly Raonic) from the current young crop who has the potential to surpass any of the top four whilst they are still playing close to their best.



emancipator

Sportlover said i could verify. Perhaps he thinks i know a few names.

I have taken only the Top 15 (sorry Prostaff85). I will expand as I get more time...

My cutoff for 'young' players is 20 yo or less than 20 yo players, if that is all right. Such players are in bold. (E&OE).

The format is ATP Rank, Name, Age (as of the date mentioned alongside the year).


So here is 1973-1980 (using year-end rankings and Top 15 only)

1973 (14 Dec 1973)

1 Nastase, Ilie (ROU) 27
2 Newcombe, John (AUS) 29
3 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 21
4 Okker, Tom (NED) 29
5 Smith, Stan (USA) 27
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS) 39
7 Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 24
8 Laver, Rod (AUS) 35
9 Kodes, Jan (CZE) 27
10 Ashe, Arthur (USA) 30
11 Gorman, Tom (USA) 27
12 Emerson, Roy (AUS) 37
13 Riessen, Marty (USA) 32
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA) 23
15 Pilic, Nikola (CRO) 34

1974 (20 Dec 1974)

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 22
2 Newcombe, John (AUS) 30
3 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 18
4 Laver, Rod (AUS) 36
5 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 22
6 Okker, Tom (NED) 30
7 Ashe, Arthur (USA) 31
8 Smith, Stan (USA) 28
9 Rosewall, Ken (AUS) 40
10 Nastase, Ilie (ROU) 28
11 Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 25
12 Riessen, Marty (USA) 33
13 Metreveli, Alex (RUS) 30
14 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 23
15 Stockton, Dick (USA) 23

1975 (15 Dec 1975)

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 23
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 23
3 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 19
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA) 32
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 26
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS) 41
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROU) 29
8 Alexander, John (AUS) 24
9 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 24
10 Laver, Rod (AUS) 37
11 Okker, Tom (NED) 31
12 Roche, Tony (AUS) 30
13 Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 22
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA) 25
15 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 21

1976 (12 Dec 1976)

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 24
2 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 20
3 Nastase, Ilie (ROU) 30
4 Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 27
5 Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 23
6 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 24
7 Panatta, Adriano (ITA) 26
8 Solomon, Harold (USA) 24
9 Dibbs, Eddie (USA) 25
10 Gottfried, Brian (USA) 24
11 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 25
12 Ashe, Arthur (USA) 33
13 Rosewall, Ken (AUS) 42
14 Fibak, Wojtek (POL) 24
15 Stockton, Dick (USA) 25

1977 (31 Dec 1977)

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 25
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 25
3 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 21
4 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 23
5 Gottfried, Brian (USA) 25
6 Dibbs, Eddie (USA) 26
7 Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 28
8 Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 24
9 Nastase, Ilie (ROU) 31
10 Stockton, Dick (USA) 26
11 Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 24
12 Rosewall, Ken (AUS) 43
13 Fibak, Wojtek (POL) 25
14 Solomon, Harold (USA) 25
15 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 26


1978 (31 Dec 1978)

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 26
2 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 22
3 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 26
4 McEnroe, John (USA) 19
5 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 24
6 Dibbs, Eddie (USA) 27
7 Gottfried, Brian (USA) 26
8 Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 25
9 Solomon, Harold (USA) 26
10 Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 25
11 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 27
12 Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 29
13 Ashe, Arthur (USA) 35
14 Higueras, Jose (ESP) 25
15 Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG) 20

1979 (26 Dec 1979)

1 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 23
2 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 27
3 McEnroe, John (USA) 20
4 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 25
5 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 28
6 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 27
7 Ashe, Arthur (USA) 36
8 Solomon, Harold (USA) 27
9 Higueras, Jose (ESP) 26
10 Dibbs, Eddie (USA) 28
11 Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) 24
12 Mayer, Gene (USA) 23
13 Fleming, Peter (USA) 24
14 Gildemeister, Hans (CHI) 23
15 Fibak, Wojtek (POL) 27

1980 (22 Dec 1980)

1 Borg, Bjorn (SWE) 24
2 McEnroe, John (USA) 21
3 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 28
4 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 28
5 Mayer, Gene (USA) 24
6 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 20
7 Solomon, Harold (USA) 28
8 Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG) 22
9 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 26
10 Teltscher, Eliot (USA) 21
11 Gottfried, Brian (USA) 28
12 Dibbs, Eddie (USA) 29
13 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 29
14 Sadri, John (USA) 24
15 Fibak, Wojtek (POL) 28


Based on this sample, Borg(1974 - 18), Luis-Clerc (1978 - 20), McEnroe (1978 - 19), Lendl (1980 - 20) are the four (4) players in a eight year time-frame (1973-1980).

Will continue research in the 1981-1990 window.

spuranik

I have to agree with SA, you've come onto this thread and bashed him for bashing Federer and berated him for being off topic, and what have you contributed exactly....nothing to the topic at all.

Not what I would call a good start to your 1st day on V2.

Is there any other reason you joined apart from wanting to have a go at posters you have already formed a dislike for ?

Jubbahey wrote:spuranik

I have to agree with SA, you've come onto this thread and bashed him for bashing Federer and berated him for being off topic, and what have you contributed exactly....nothing to the topic at all.

Not what I would call a good start to your 1st day on V2.

Is there any other reason you joined apart from wanting to have a go at posters you have already formed a dislike for ?

It is also worth mentioning that Federer isn't the only player that posters hijack threads to malign. All very sad but true.

Jubbahey is spot on though. It is better to be known for your tennis debating rather than having a pop at other posters.

Jubbahey wrote:spuranik

I have to agree with SA, you've come onto this thread and bashed him for bashing Federer and berated him for being off topic, and what have you contributed exactly....nothing to the topic at all.

Not what I would call a good start to your 1st day on V2.

Is there any other reason you joined apart from wanting to have a go at posters you have already formed a dislike for ?

Jubba, I wasn't talking to SA in the first place... I was just mentioning the habit of Banbro to drag Federer in every single comment of every thread there is... But I understand your point though...

And sure I will be contributing to threads on Tennis discussions come AO on Monday...

Good to know that Spuranik.
Laverfan, nice stat work. You haven't lost your touch since becoming a moderator.

I just dont get it carrieg4, why ? unless its a previous member with an agenda.

Anyway, back to the plot, I think we have to blame Federer for the dirge of young slam winners. Not his fault, but blame him nonetheless for raising the bar so high, others can not reach it unless they "SuperPower" themselves, both mentally and physically. Only the chosen few who had enough years in front of them to improve sufficiently to contest the Fed effect have prevailed, it takes a seriously talented bloke to beat Federer, if he is in the groove and on song.

I don't know anyone who has not had his 20th birthday yet (Del boy closest at 21), who can take on the top 4 and get a slam, because the technical and mental skills needed are gained from experience on the pro courts and not on the junior circuit.

So, even though I blame Roger for this lack of young guns, I have to thank him for giving us this era in which we can witness some of the greatest tennis I have seen.

A double an edged sword if anything.

spuranik wrote:

Although I rarely comment on any of the threads, I follow a lot of Tennis forums SA. That's why I have mentioned 606 and MTL in my post above.

Well 606 is no longer in existence and I've never seen you on MTL. I completely agree with Jubbahey's comment at 9:52 GMT.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Laverfan, nice stat work. You haven't lost your touch since becoming a moderator.

Thanks, SA. Perhaps I have learned a bit more as a Mod.

Jubbahey wrote:I just dont get it carrieg4, why ? unless its a previous member with an agenda.

No idea Jubba. Sadly some seem to prefer having a pop at other posters with a thin veneer of debate to actually talking about tennis

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez's approach is as follows. And as the guradian of all things great and Federer, they do an excellent job!!

1) You draw a line in the sand (It's a good idea to suggest 2006 or 2007 as this the time that Federer began to get beaten)
2) You then state that after this "line" the game is all about fitness
3) This then protects the 2004/5 legacy of Roger as, since then, he couldn't possibly be expected to cope with the muscle men
4) You talk up the new yongsters citing that they have more talent than the muscle men - they just need more time
5) Once Roger retires and whenever these youngsters take over (as they of course will, as one of them has to eventually) you then state that it's no longer about fitness - it's now about skill and isn't it a shame that Roger's not around in this new great era of 'proper' Tennis players

It's a very good approach, because it means you can excuse the Roger defeats and laugh off the wins of the others

Couldn't agree with you more, there Banb, Tenez has a habit of trying his best to discredit Fed's rivals.

Of course, now people are trying to equate this to me, cos I once said that Fed's challenge in the latter stages of Grand Slams has got harder due to the emergence of Nadal and Djokovic- a fair point which the majority agree with. As expected all Federer fans including the likes of Laverfan attack me and label me as a anti-Fed wum for saying this, and thus go on to justify all of Tenez's BS about Nadal being a 'talentless moonballer' who only ever wins because Fed is still suffering recurring bouts of mono from 2008.

Spur good to have you on board. And thanks for handling those fans while I was playing tennis myself.

What was your pseudo on 606 if it's not indiscreet.

Please, please, please, please can we not turn this into yet another Fedal thread

amritia3ee wrote:including the likes of Laverfan attack me and label me as a anti-Fed wum

Director of Education?

carrieg4 wrote:Please, please, please, please can we not turn this into yet another Fedal thread

I agree. We should discuss up and coming players, not coming and gone players.

Jubbahey

I have already explained why I made that comment so no need for an explanation again. As far as me being a previous poster or having a hidden agenda that is not true.

Amritia

Do you actually know everyone that is there on MTL? As I have already mentioned, I rarely commented in 606 days and I hardly comment on MTL. But I regularly follow the discussions on MTL, 606v2, MTF, T4U etc.

And I go by the name of San on MTL just in case you want to confirm...

Tenez

I followed 606 from Jun 2008 till it was closed. Didn't commented much but I know every poster over there and their preferences.

laverfan wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:including the likes of Laverfan attack me and label me as a anti-Fed wum

Director of Education?

You are the Director Education, are you not?
Do you not read my PMs/rants carefully?

well back on topic then.

From the current bunch of youngsters:

Raonic: big serve, decent FH, don't see anything else special there, needs a lot of improvement to convince me he'll make the very top, though I see him as a consistently top 20 type of player.

Dolgopolov: total maverick, really talented, but needs to find some consistency from somewhere. Also his serve needs a lot of work, yes it's unpredictable, but his percentages are often too low. At the moment can trouble the best, but not consistent enough to do so regularly. Could improve.

Tomic: probably the most talented of the bunch, has excellent variety and a good tennis brain, but to me looks like he lacks the desire at the moment. Needs to put in the hard yards to improve physically too. Potentially a future star if he can get his head screwed on.

Dimitrov: attractive game, but has neither the power nor the touch to make it to the very top IMO. People like him because his game looks a bit like Federer's, but for me he'll struggle to break the top 20.

Harrison: admittedly haven't seen a huge amount of him, but doesn't strike me as a future star at all. Top 50 maybe, but not much more.

Spuranik clearly has time to follow alot of people. Should i give you my Twitter name to follow me?

I have no clue which of those youngsters is going to dominate but Raonic and Tomic have a head start physically and that is why they are doing better for now. But things might change.

Some others I follow are Gianni Minna, Jack Sock, Jiri Vesley.

jack Sock was impressive last year winning USO mixed doubles... But these US youngsters need to get out of their comfort zone and play in some European Challengers or they will end up just like Donald Young etc.

It would be good to see the US players play some challengers either in Europe or Latin America and get exposed to Clay.

spuranik wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

prostaff85 wrote:Unless my memory is really bad, there used to be many more youngsters in the top 100 'in the good old days'

But worse than the number of youngsters in the top 100, it;s the fact they simply cannot reach the later stages of slams without having that physical superiority. This is what in my view distinguishes the past from now, regardless how talented they are.

Those who believe that we are dealing with an exceptional era with those top 4 will be very surprised in a year or two (max) when those young players named in that OP will beat those 4 (Murray Djoko and Nadal and Fed of course for obvious reasons.

I am happy to take the bets on.

Once again the improved fitness demonstrated by the current top 4 is all part of the natural evolution of the game that several posters including Lydian and LF have alluded to. With advances in nutrition, technology etc. it is obvious that the game is going to progress. I will be surprised if many of the players named in the OP beat the current top 4 on a consistent basis within a couple of years for the simple reason that they do not appear to have as much natural talent as the current ones when they are on their game. Physicality helps a talented player sustain their form over a longer match but no more than that. Barring injury Djokovic and Murray should still be in their prime at 26 (two years hence). Nadal has had a few knee, shoulder issues but there is no reason to believe he will be past it at 27. Federer will be 32 so who knows what his 'normal' form will be then.

If I was a betting person I would take you on Tenez

Tenez's approach is as follows. And as the guradian of all things great and Federer, they do an excellent job!!

1) You draw a line in the sand (It's a good idea to suggest 2006 or 2007 as this the time that Federer began to get beaten)
2) You then state that after this "line" the game is all about fitness
3) This then protects the 2004/5 legacy of Roger as, since then, he couldn't possibly be expected to cope with the muscle men
4) You talk up the new yongsters citing that they have more talent than the muscle men - they just need more time
5) Once Roger retires and whenever these youngsters take over (as they of course will, as one of them has to eventually) you then state that it's no longer about fitness - it's now about skill and isn't it a shame that Roger's not around in this new great era of 'proper' Tennis players

It's a very good approach, because it means you can excuse the Roger defeats and laugh off the wins of the others

Banbro...

Stop obsessing about Federer so much. The guy is probably going to retire in next couple of years...

You have the habit of bringing in Federer in every discussion. This thread is about dearth of youngsters at the top. Tenez made his points, you make yours. This has nothing to do with Fed and his achievements.

This habit of yours has been exposed on 606 and MTL. Probably people here probably haven't noticed.

LaverFan did a bit of googling to find the number of post by Tenez including Nadal + Fitness. He should give it another go with your post including Federer + his arrogance etc.

If you're going to have a pop at someone then at least get the context correct. The above post was a lighthearted reference to Tenez, who actually is the one who hijacks most articles with his obsession about fitness etc. You will note, if you bother to read the earlier part of this article, that an attempt by me, asking Tenez to get back to the subject failed and you will also note that I'm not the only one to notice our friend's peculiar habit of trying to convince us that 2 plus 2 equals 5

Given that;-

1) This is a Tennis forum
2) A poster spends most of his time, disrespecting the Tennis world's No's 1, 2 and 4

Then you're unfotunately going to get a reaction as I will comment until I'm blue in the face (difficult for me ) that we should be praising all the great players we have at the moment and 'smelling the roses' rather than picking endless faults - as this might turn out to have been the best era ever

Trust this clarifies the situation

Jubbahey's point that Federer's Tennis is to blame for our 'shrug of the shoulders' attitude to the new breed is correct

Once you've seen Tennis like the GOAT produced in 2004/5 it's difficult to settle for less

In fairness, when on absolute top form, the other three play good Tennis in their own ways and the biggest compliment you can give them is that they've all got a unique way of playing

However, they too (particularly Nadal) are damned, simply because we've seen the GOAT at his peak and won't settle for anything else

So it's out fault really!!

I actually think that Tomic and possibly Harrison will turn out to be the best players to watch in terms of an all round game. I like Tomic's style of play - but do think he's got an attitude. To say that the Brisbane tournament was wide ope, even if it was in context (i.e. Murray's then poor form) was like a red rag to a bull - as you can imagine the mercurial Scot thinking 'so he thinks he's as good as me - does he!!!!!' So has Tomic got the necessary drive or will he be another Ernests Gulbis?

banbrotam wrote:
[1) This is a Tennis forum
2) A poster spends most of his time, disrespecting the Tennis world's No's 1, 2 and 4

Then you're unfotunately going to get a reaction as I will comment until I'm blue in the face (difficult for me ) that we should be praising all the great players we have at the moment and 'smelling the roses' rather than picking endless faults - as this might turn out to have been the best era ever

Trust this clarifies the situation

It's unfortunately your complete lack of knowledge and fanboyism that turns a good thread in your little war zone. Saying the physicality of the game, in particular from the top 4 is preventing the youngsters from succeeding early has nothing to do with disrespecting those top 4. It's simply because you, as a fanboy, want to see amazing talent where it's essentially a physical battle that you think I am disrespecting those players. Just shows once again how ignorant you are and leaves me with little choice but sound arrogant because I have to lesson you constantly goldfish.

One thing for sure is that before you and your friends arrived this was a very decent website. And there were a lot of very decent posters engaging in a very social manner.

Grow up.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
[1) This is a Tennis forum
2) A poster spends most of his time, disrespecting the Tennis world's No's 1, 2 and 4

Then you're unfotunately going to get a reaction as I will comment until I'm blue in the face (difficult for me ) that we should be praising all the great players we have at the moment and 'smelling the roses' rather than picking endless faults - as this might turn out to have been the best era ever

Trust this clarifies the situation

It's unfortunately your complete lack of knowledge and fanboyism that turns a good thread in your little war zone. Saying the physicality of the game, in particular from the top 4 is preventing the youngsters from succeeding early has nothing to do with disrespecting those top 4. It's simply because you, as a fanboy, want to see amazing talent where it's essentially a physical battle that you think I am disrespecting those players. Just shows once again how ignorant you are and leaves me with little choice but sound arrogant because I have to lesson you constantly goldfish.

One thing for sure is that before you and your friends arrived this was a very decent website. And there were a lot of very decent posters engaging in a very social manner.

Grow up.

Is this post an example of a social manner??

It's just a response to an anti-social post...and you know that! So why didn't you pick up on his earlier post?

Just pointing out that you are not exactly leading by example.

As you know, I don't agree with your stance either. Unless I have misinterpreted your stance.

I have always said that we should be praising all the great players. Not making any great claims about the era - history will sort that one.

carrieg4 wrote:
As you know, I don't agree with your stance either. Unless I have misinterpreted your stance.

I have always said that we should be praising all the great players.

It's funny you disagree with my stance cause teh top 4 players share my views actually. Fed, Murray and Djoko (and maybe Nadal) say that the physicality of the game prevents the youngsters from pulling through.

Secondly, I do not have the feel to praise all "great" players. And finally if you want to praise them it might be helpful to know what to praise them for.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:
As you know, I don't agree with your stance either. Unless I have misinterpreted your stance.

I have always said that we should be praising all the great players.

It's funny you disagree with my stance cause teh top 4 players share my views actually. Fed, Murray and Djoko (and maybe Nadal) say that the physicality of the game prevents the youngsters from pulling through.

Secondly, I do not have the feel to praise all "great" players. And finally if you want to praise them it might be helpful to know what to praise them for.

As i stated in an earlier post physicality is an important factor but, without talent, it is useless. Clearly the younger ones will not break through the top 4 without the strength to sustain their talent over a long match as the top 4 are extremely talented AND fit. This includes Federer, no way do you stay as injury free as he has without some serious fitness. This much is obvious but does not take away from talent required to reach the top.

Praise them, don't praise them (not bothered either way) but don't patronise those that do - i.e. me

I know what I am praising them for thank you.

carrieg4 wrote:
As i stated in an earlier post physicality is an important factor but, without talent, it is useless.

You are almost correct. The fact is nowadays on the tour talent without physique is useless.

Oh and don't feel patronised. It;s not good for your health.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:
As i stated in an earlier post physicality is an important factor but, without talent, it is useless.

You are almost correct. The fact is nowadays on the tour talent without physique is useless.

Oh and don't feel patronised. It;s not good for your health.

On the contrary, I think you'll find I am absolutely correct

"physicality is an important factor but, without talent, it is useless"
"talent without physique is useless"

Thw 2 statements are not mutually exclusive.
They're both correct.

(But I'm tempted to say they're both incorrect, just to see what happens.)

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:
As i stated in an earlier post physicality is an important factor but, without talent, it is useless.

You are almost correct. The fact is nowadays on the tour talent without physique is useless.

Oh and don't feel patronised. It;s not good for your health.

Since you consider yourself an excellent observer of the game, can you list apart from physicality and talent, are there any other factors that we can discuss, which are not related in anyway to the current Top 4?

laverfan wrote:Since you consider yourself an excellent observer of the game, can you list apart from physicality and talent, are there any other factors that we can discuss, which are not related in anyway to the current Top 4?

Where did you read this Ms Moderator? Isn't your role about appeasing and not teasing?

There are other factors but like talent they hardly play a role nowadays at the top of the game.

There is no point being very strong mentally and very talented when jumping on the ring v Mike Tyson. You need to something more essential.

All three are required to be a tennis player who competes at the very top level. That is talent, physical and mental.

Calder106 wrote:All three are required to be a tennis player who competes at the very top level. That is talent, physical and mental.

pretty much spot on.

Tenez wrote: but like talent they hardly play a role nowadays at the top of the game.

POTD

Calder106 wrote:All three are required to be a tennis player who competes at the very top level. That is talent, physical and mental.

Don't forget that they also need a tennis racquet with strings, shoes and clothing preferably.

tbh I think Tenez is right. In 2007 you needed to talent to win Wimby, US and Aus (not FO), in 2008 you needed talent to win the US Open but not the other 3, in 2009 you needed talent to win FO and Wimby (but not US and Aus), in 2010 you needed to win Aus Open to be talented and if you won anything (Grand Slam wise) in 2011 you are not talented.

Anything else to add Tenez? Maybe we can now all blame any losses he has suffered from the mono in 2008 Jan.
Pre mono-bouts (every-time he lost)= 2005-2007
Mono- Jan 2008
Recurring post mono bouts (every-time he has lost)= 2008 Feb- end of time.

Tomic and Raonic will be regular's in the top 10 with injuries permitting, other than those 2 I can't see many others right now.

amritia3ee wrote:tbh I think Tenez is right. In 2007 you needed to talent to win Wimby, US and Aus (not FO), in 2008 you needed talent to win the US Open but not the other 3, in 2009 you needed talent to win FO and Wimby (but not US and Aus), in 2010 you needed to win Aus Open to be talented and if you won anything (Grand Slam wise) in 2011 you are not talented.

What Tenez doesn't seem to realise is that it's his discussion about the three rivals to Fed, where he makes them out to be some kind of automatons, that's the issue. If they included Fed, they'd be no discussion

Anyway, the physicality has been done to death by Tenez

Enough

JuliusHMarx wrote:"physicality is an important factor but, without talent, it is useless"
"talent without physique is useless"

Thw 2 statements are not mutually exclusive.
They're both correct.

(But I'm tempted to say they're both incorrect, just to see what happens.)

banbrotam wrote:Anyway, the physicality has been done to death by Tenez

It's not my fault if everytime Murray loses he says he needs to get stronger. He knows I am talking sense.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Calder106 wrote:All three are required to be a tennis player who competes at the very top level. That is talent, physical and mental.

pretty much spot on.

I fully agree

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Anyway, the physicality has been done to death by Tenez

It's not my fault if everytime Murray loses he says he needs to get stronger. He knows I am talking sense.

He already has the talent factor covered very well - just needs to get mentally stronger. Physical strength and stamina give him confidence.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Tomic and Raonic will be regular's in the top 10 with injuries permitting, other than those 2 I can't see many others right now.

I agree.

"He told Deuce magazine: “Today’s game is much more physical than when we played. The ball is hit so much harder, the players generate so much speed and spin. I’d have to play differently if I was out there today.”

http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/2012/01/rod-laver-australian-open-feature/

Interesting comments from Rod Laver.