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

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.

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.

Is this Simple_Analyst or Amritia3ee? and

From the intro to Patrick McEnroe's book, where he summarises today's game

"...where surfaces have been altered, sometimes drastically, to help create a more interesting, athletic game. Where fitness and biomechanics have caught up with technique as critical factors in success"

JuliusHMarx wrote:From the intro to Patrick McEnroe's book, where he summarises today's game

"...where surfaces have been altered, sometimes drastically, to help create a more interesting, athletic game. Where fitness and biomechanics have caught up with technique as critical factors in success"

Is this from his autobiography?? I've just bought it but not got round to reading it yet, any good?

Basically he appears to be saying that you have to have it all to succeed these days, no arguing with that.

From Hardcourt Confidential (from 'Look Inside' on Amazon) - haven't bought it yet.

JuliusHMarx wrote:From Hardcourt Confidential (from 'Look Inside' on Amazon) - haven't bought it yet.

Not seen that one yet, I bought "Serious" in a charity shop a few weeks back but haven't got round to it yet.

That would be John, not Patrick

'Serious' is good. They had to call it 'You Cannot Be Serious' in the States because they didn't think people would understand why it was called 'Serious'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:From the intro to Patrick McEnroe's book, where he summarises today's game

"...where surfaces have been altered, sometimes drastically, to help create a more interesting, athletic game. Where fitness and biomechanics have caught up with technique as critical factors in success"

There you go. Confirms what Laver says too.

Though the physical side of the game has always been important, it has become the main field where progress could be done over the years. Technology has also progressed but thus far to support the physical side of the game. That's why the battle nowadays is essentially on getting fitter, stronger. It is easier than getting better techically and certainly pays more cause the technique and talent are so dependant on the physique to start with. Physique is the base of the game. Without it you cannot do anything. Without much talent you can always pull a slice or a moonball back in the court. It's exactly what we saw at the last USO. The battle was not about how easy they could score points but about how much they had in the tank. And in Djoko's case how much more he could do with a bit less in the tank.

It;s of very little help to be able to pull great but risky shots like Nalbandian or Gasquet if you have to pull 5 or 6 of them to win a point. You might as well slice a soft ball in and wait for the attacking player to make a mistake. Especially knowing that the more the match goes on those risky shots become riskier as the player tires.

Unless they speed the conds up, I cannot see the trend changing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:That would be John, not Patrick

'Serious' is good. They had to call it 'You Cannot Be Serious' in the States because they didn't think people would understand why it was called 'Serious'.

Whoops, should have read the name more closely

Glad that Serious is good though - will definitely have to get round to it soon.

laverfan wrote:

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.

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.

Is this Simple_Analyst or Amritia3ee? and

What are you trying to say???

If you got confused that wasn't exactly my view, I was just summing up what Tenez has been repeatedly saying for the last few years in a nutshell. As Tenez's number 1 defence lawyer and official Director of Education in 606v2, do you have anything against that?

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:From the intro to Patrick McEnroe's book, where he summarises today's game

"...where surfaces have been altered, sometimes drastically, to help create a more interesting, athletic game. Where fitness and biomechanics have caught up with technique as critical factors in success"

There you go. Confirms what Laver says too.

Though the physical side of the game has always been important, it has become the main field where progress could be done over the years. Technology has also progressed but thus far to support the physical side of the game. That's why the battle nowadays is essentially on getting fitter, stronger. It is easier than getting better techically and certainly pays more cause the technique and talent are so dependant on the physique to start with. Physique is the base of the game. Without it you cannot do anything. Without much talent you can always pull a slice or a moonball back in the court. It's exactly what we saw at the last USO. The battle was not about how easy they could score points but about how much they had in the tank. And in Djoko's case how much more he could do with a bit less in the tank.

It;s of very little help to be able to pull great but risky shots like Nalbandian or Gasquet if you have to pull 5 or 6 of them to win a point. You might as well slice a soft ball in and wait for the attacking player to make a mistake. Especially knowing that the more the match goes on those risky shots become riskier as the player tires.

Unless they speed the conds up, I cannot see the trend changing.

I noted he said 'caught up' not 'overtaken' meaning is as important to be fit as it is to be talented but not more so. Lavers' comments are very interesting. It's amazing how times have changed, players are much more pampered these days in terms of easier travel and chairs at change of ends etc. but other pressures have also changed. As he says, tennis is much more popular now and players under microscope. Also they are expected to be athletes as well as extremely talented tennis players. No-one has managed the career slam since him though . I will be sad when someone does TBH.

Tomic already making his mark. Beating Verdasco...the physical way, in 5 sets.

As I said earlier Tomic is amongst the best prospect thus far cause he is physically ahead of the rest....with Raonic.

Glad Murray won cause we want to give the top opponents like Djoko and Nadal a bit more trouble later whereas an exhausted youngster like Harisson woudl not offer much resistance after five 5 stter matches.

However Harrison is exactly the kind of player I am referring to in my earlier threads here. He is with a couple others the kind of players who will be able to shake the best players off once teh confidence, fitness and experience will work in synch.

For now I am a bit annoyed that he 2 most successful youngsters the "Ics" (Tomic and Raonic) are my least favourite amongst those named above. In particular Tomic who will probably be just a better version of Djoko and Murray.

I want young players to take their destinity on a court in their hands. We have had enough of players relying heavily on teh physique and opponents UEs and exhaustion. It's time to have more attacking players back at the top.

Harrison lost today but he showed he has the game to beat the top players and that's what matters! The result shoudl come with time.

Tomic has some improvement yet to make in the hairstyle department.

Did anyone see the Dimitrov match? I haven't seen any of the AO so far and I'm curious how he was looking having beaten Fish recently.

Atleast Tomic promises to improve, and his consistency his getting better, last 4 years he has won the 1st round, thats dating back from 16 yrs of age, not bad.

Dimitrov..another of those young players that showed today he could play as well as a top 10 player!

Again, it's teh lack of physique that prevents them from winning...but looking at the details game for game there is not much difference. When the lungs will be as big, the top players will have it much harder!

Sooner than they think!

6 - 0 in the final set. He must have have gone to pieces.

Physically only.

Nishikori has done well so far AO 2012, even through he is not a teenager, but perhaps in Dolgopolov/Del Potro age group (22+).

Laverfan
Born right at the end of 1989, so just turned 22.
Listed on the ATP site as 5' 10" and 150lbs. so is significantly under-sized compared with most of the current players (only Ferrer is smaller of the current top 25). Only one singles title (Delray Beach) and a couple of losing finals, so reaching the last 8 here and beating Tsonga is clearly the best performance of his career to date.

I stick by my OP; i dont see anything spectacular in these youngsters.