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

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez. I know you feel that Murray is Scotland's answer to 'The Terminator' and as usual, you sidetrack from the central theme to get your Nadal and / or Murray and / or Nole attack in - but Murray's quickness around the court was observed back in 2004.

What he didn't have then or until around 2008 was the physicality to sustain it - but saying that this physicality is the only thing that makes him the player he is now is wrong

Now let's get back to the subject

It's the fact you don;t understand the dynamics of the game that prevents you from seeing the very obvious point I make.

You are a fan only worried of the reputation of the top players. I am a tennis fan explaining why young players are nowhere to be seen nowadays unless they have gladiators bodies like Nadal or Golliath frames like Delpotro.

I wish you had a bit more expertise in teh game. You want to sound like a connoisseur but clearly you are way too partial towards teh top 4 to really understand what's their strengths and weaknesses.

Are you seriously telling us that the reasons for Nole's dominance last year is his 'gladiator' type body and the reason why someone like Raonic or Tomic or Bullicci are not in the Top 4 is because they haven't got this great asset

After all, if it's as simple as you portray - then why don't they all get themselves super strong and super fit. Murray hardly looked like Mr Universe material in 2004 - but obviously, becoming that was the key!!

These stupid Tennis players not in the Top 4 only missing our because they can't be bothered to train hard, eh??

legendkillar wrote:The thing is part of evolution in sport in general and tennis aside, there will be players that can meet the demands of their sport and even push the boundaries further to another level. That's the science in any sport. Some run faster, some run longer, some hit harder, some do all of it better than everyone else.

Certainly...but that will mean careers will be shorter with a narrower window of success:

The younsgsters will take longer to come out (what we are clearly seeing now) and the decline will be quicker (maybe a subject for another thread).

Wilander or Chang were not more talented than our young generation struggling to make a name for themsleves...so the question is what is preventing youngsters to be more successful nowadays...which I believe is in line with the OP.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
You have quite a bit of Science knowledge, and still refuse to see the bigger picture.

Or is it you refusing to see the difference between the physicality of today's game compared to the Tilden or Laver time?

Anybody can see it, I am sure. It's huge.

You missed my argument. I was referring to the 'differential' physicality between Tilden(1920s), Laver (1960s), Djokovic(20xx), roughly a 40+ year span. By definition, there is a difference, but is it 'huge' as you claim, or is it a natural progression of the game aided by technology.

Remember, there were no iPods in 1960s.

banbrotam wrote:
Are you seriously telling us that the reasons for Nole's dominance last year is his 'gladiator' type body and the reason why someone like Raonic or Tomic or Bullicci are not in the Top 4 is because they haven't got this great asset

Let's turn this question around: Are you seriously telling "us" (I like the way you use "us") Banbro that Nole success last year, especially against Nadal has nothing to do with his physical imporvement from 2010 to 2011?

You cannot be serious!

(besides, Djoko is not a youngster anymore in tennis terms so I am not sure what you are on about).

laverfan wrote:You missed my argument. I was referring to the 'differential' physicality between Tilden(1920s), Laver (1960s), Djokovic(20xx), roughly a 40+ year span. By definition, there is a difference, but is it 'huge' as you claim, or is it a natural progression of the game aided by technology.

Remember, there were no iPods in 1960s.

Try to push your reasoning through! A "natural" progression would still see young players winning slams at 17 like Chang, Becker or Wilander did after Tilden and Laver as youngsters would also benefit from that "natural" progression.

However they don't! Because they have the same genetic as Laver and Tilden they are stuck with 1990s bodies like the rest of the UK players for instance.

Tenez, you keep saying that people on here dont understand the dynamics of the modern game which is both patronising and wrong. Or maybe they dont follow your spin (pardon the pun) on it. Do you even know about stretch shortening cycles for example? Thats part of the modern dynamic of the game but YOU have never brought it up. You tend to focus on technology/courts and not technique in my opinion. We all know about racquet and string technology advancement, its hardly rocket science is it. We also know about slowing conditions. We also know the game gets faster and faster, as all sports do - which is making all sports more physical. But talent still has its place as well, they are not mutually exclusive things.

Spin was becoming important in the 60s...hence Laver and his use of BH topspin. And so its increased since there...Borg could play with very high spin from wooden racquets, tight tension and gut strings - because of technique, not just technology, because of talent. Nadal/Murray/Nole are just an evolution of the game just as Laver, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Federer were. You might not like where tennis is going based on your own preferences but its evolution nonetheless - the game never stands still. And in moving forwards we will see new players emerge over the next 5 years that move the goalposts on again...but because the game is highly physical and demands huge requirements on execution of talent too - hitting a tennis ball well will always concern talent - its getting harder for young stars to break through as quickly as before. But stop patronising 606v2 members they dont understand the game, or the game as you see it rather.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Are you seriously telling us that the reasons for Nole's dominance last year is his 'gladiator' type body and the reason why someone like Raonic or Tomic or Bullicci are not in the Top 4 is because they haven't got this great asset

Let's turn this question around: Are you seriously telling "us" (I like the way you use "us") Banbro that Nole success last year, especially against Nadal has nothing to do with his physical imporvement from 2010 to 2011?

You cannot be serious!

(besides, Djoko is not a youngster anymore in tennis terms so I am not sure what you are on about).

Nole's improvement had to do with a more consistent serve and a better forehand which then enabed him to use less energy and appear to be physically more fitter. There was little physical improvement from 2010 - there was from 2009 when he had physical issues

You misunderstand us all (and I do mean a fair few of "us!!) - nobody is denying that physicality is important. However, it's your stance that this is only the difference with your refusal to acknowledge that Fed's three rivals are the three of the four best players in the world with key skills, that's nonsense

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:You missed my argument. I was referring to the 'differential' physicality between Tilden(1920s), Laver (1960s), Djokovic(20xx), roughly a 40+ year span. By definition, there is a difference, but is it 'huge' as you claim, or is it a natural progression of the game aided by technology.

Remember, there were no iPods in 1960s.

Try to push your reasoning through! A "natural" progression would still see young players winning slams at 17 like Chang, Becker or Wilander did after Tilden and Laver as youngsters would also benefit from that "natural" progression.

However they don't! Because they have the same genetic as Laver and Tilden they are stuck with 1990s bodies like the rest of the UK players for instance.

Boom! And he shoots himself right in the foot. You do realise two of the players mentioned above won the slams on very slow clay. I thought the debate here was how faster conditions will help young players win slams? You are not making sense as usual.

The 90s had a very diverse pace in conditions with Wimbledon, FO, USO and AO all with different pace but guess what, throughout the whole decade there was not a single slam winner under 20 except Pete Sampras at age 19 years and 28 days. Was the 90s not a natural progression ?
Infact the 2000s all produced younger winners in Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic etc. Using the age of lack of slam winners down to conditions is a laughable notion which ever way you look at it.

lydian wrote:Tenez, you keep saying that people on here dont understand the dynamics of the modern game which is both patronising and wrong. Or maybe they dont follow your spin (pardon the pun) on it. Do you even know about stretch shortening cycles for example? Thats part of the modern dynamic of the game but YOU have never brought it up. We all know about racquet and string technology advancement, its hardly rocket science is it. We also know about slowing conditions. We also know the game gets faster and faster, as all sports do - which is making all sports more physical. But talent still has its place as well, they are not mutually exclusive things..

You throw a bit of everything in this paragraph, saying everything and nothing and taking us further from the OP.

Spin was becoming important in the 60s...hence Laver and his use of BH topspin. And so its increased since there...Borg could play with very high spin from wooden racquets, tight tension and gut strings - because of technique, not just technology, because of talent. Nadal/Murray/Nole are just an evolution of the game just as Laver, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Federer were. You might not like where tennis is going based on your own preferences but its evolution nonetheless - the game never stands still. And in moving forwards we will see new players emerge over the next 5 years that move the goalposts on again...but because the game is highly physical and demands huge requirements on execution of talent too - hitting a tennis ball well will always concern talent - its getting harder for young stars to break through as quickly as before. But stop patronising 606v2 members they dont understand the game, or the game as you see it rather.

Same thing! throwing general observations which don't harm or help without stressing on the specificities of why youngsters, despite being more numerous than ever and working as hard as ever simply can't get through before they are 24.

That is the question. And don;t tell me it's because they have less talent as you clearly suggest!

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Boom! And he shoots himself right in the foot. You do realise two of the players mentioned above won the slams on very slow clay. I thought the debate here was how faster conditions will help young players win slams? You are not making sense as usual.

You have been waiting for that moment for years haven't you SA!

BUt sorry, you will have to wait a bit longer or articulate where I got it wrong a bit better. Slow courts is currently not on the topic.

You are the one who keep shooting yourself in the foot as pointed so many times.

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Boom! And he shoots himself right in the foot. You do realise two of the players mentioned above won the slams on very slow clay. I thought the debate here was how faster conditions will help young players win slams? You are not making sense as usual.

You have been waiting for that moment for years haven't you SA!

BUt sorry, you will have to wait a bit longer or articulate where I got it wrong a bit better. Slow courts is currently not on the topic.

You are the one who keep shooting yourself in the foot as pointed so many times.

Moment? Lol, I guess you havent read my "Conditions Theories" thread which once again made mockery of your "court length per what ever time taken thread"?

Some of us are too intelligent to unfortunately involve ourselves in pointless debates. Once in a while, i keep you in check. I've made enough mockery of your opinions to bother everytime

Honestly, I just don't see the young guys as being anything like as good as the current crop was when they were their age. If they were, they'd be beating the best occasionally, especially in BO3 formats. When you see how Murray dismantled Tomic in Brisbane - and for me Tomic is probably the most promising of the bunch, game-wise - you understand that the young generation just aren't good enough.

banbrotam wrote:You misunderstand us all (and I do mean a fair few of "us!!) - nobody is denying that physicality is important. However, it's your stance that this is only the difference with your refusal to acknowledge that Fed's three rivals are the three of the four best players in the world with key skills, that's nonsense

The "only" bit is your stance not mine. You keep trying to make me say things that I don't.

Yet you have no way to explain why Nadal kicks Murray's bum in 3 slam yet gets bagelled a few weeks later by Murray running out of gas in a 3 setter.

Almost like a goldfish...you understand but after a loop in the bowl you forget it all and come back with the same question.

No wonder keep saying the same thing.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:You misunderstand us all (and I do mean a fair few of "us!!) - nobody is denying that physicality is important. However, it's your stance that this is only the difference with your refusal to acknowledge that Fed's three rivals are the three of the four best players in the world with key skills, that's nonsense

The "only" bit is your stance not mine. You keep trying to make me say things that I don't.

Yet you have no way to explain why Nadal kicks Murray's bum in 3 slam yet gets bagelled a few weeks later by Murray running out of gas in a 3 setter.

Almost like a goldfish...you understand but after a loop in the bowl you forget it all and come back with the same question.

No wonder keep saying the same thing.

Murray gets tight at the business end of slams (the only time he's produced his best in a slam semi/final is US 08) whereas Nadal gets better and better as the rounds go by. Murray doesn't have the same problem in BO3 tournaments, and played his best tennis in Tokyo. Nadal didn't.

Tenez - you clearly didnt read what I said. It was leading to the OP. You think that 16/17 year olds have mastered application of SSC approaches? It takes years to learn, acquire and hone the right technique to compete at the top now. Technique has never been under such hard scrutiny in matches - and todays game is very technique based as well as physical. Do you not think it strange that the game is dominated by Spanish players who all learn excellent technique from an early age...its part of the reason why Murray went to Barcelona Academy for a start.

So I said that todays young players find it hard to break through due to the game having evolved to the level where it takes them years to acquire the necessary skills to compete at the top all year round (not just look good in one match). This requires honing of technique, in a tennis world that has highly evolved technique now, to be able to last long matches, physical conditioning to last long matches and maturing of approach to be able to handle the modern tour. Thats very much on OP.

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Some of us are too intelligent to unfortunately involve ourselves in pointless debates. Once in a while, i keep you in check. I've made enough mockery of your opinions to bother everytime

Right

Who woud like to be included this "us" with SA:

Please put your name below if so:

I also agree with that MforC...that there may be just a large gap at present versus the class of Nadal/Murray/Nole...but that aside I think its much harder for young players to break through at the top (e.g. Top10) for the reasons given.

lydian wrote:Tenez - you clearly didnt read what I said. It was leading to the OP. You think that 16/17 year olds have mastered application of SSC approaches? It takes years to learn, acquire and hone the right technique to compete at the top now. Technique has never been under such hard scrutiny in matches - and todays game is very technique based as well as physical. Do you not think it strange that the game is dominated by Spanish players who all learn excellent technique from an early age...its part of the reason why Murray went to Barcelona Academy for a start.

Oh no! Are you serious? Did I miss something while watching Nadal , Ferrer and Robredo in their technique that others don;t have? If anything they have the poorest technique which can;t save them when they are not "slam" fit!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:You misunderstand us all (and I do mean a fair few of "us!!) - nobody is denying that physicality is important. However, it's your stance that this is only the difference with your refusal to acknowledge that Fed's three rivals are the three of the four best players in the world with key skills, that's nonsense

The "only" bit is your stance not mine. You keep trying to make me say things that I don't.

Yet you have no way to explain why Nadal kicks Murray's bum in 3 slam yet gets bagelled a few weeks later by Murray running out of gas in a 3 setter.

Almost like a goldfish...you understand but after a loop in the bowl you forget it all and come back with the same question.

No wonder keep saying the same thing.

Murray gets tight at the business end of slams (the only time he's produced his best in a slam semi/final is US 08) whereas Nadal gets better and better as the rounds go by. Murray doesn't have the same problem in BO3 tournaments, and played his best tennis in Tokyo. Nadal didn't.

Yep, that's the explanation. Obvious really.

lydian wrote:...but that aside I think its much harder for young players to break through at the top (e.g. Top10) for the reasons given.

That is a fact. Just go the ATP website and browse through the top 100 of the rankings. BTW would be good a have some age filters in addition to the country filters.

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

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Some of us are too intelligent to unfortunately involve ourselves in pointless debates. Once in a while, i keep you in check. I've made enough mockery of your opinions to bother everytime

Right

Who woud like to be included this "us" with SA:

Please put your name below if so:

Infact it's rather "Some of us are too intelligent and not physical enough like Nadal and Djokovic to have the energy for pointless debates"

Now ask the question again.

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Some of us are too intelligent to unfortunately involve ourselves in pointless debates. Once in a while, i keep you in check. I've made enough mockery of your opinions to bother everytime

Right

Who woud like to be included in this "us" with SA:

Please put your name below if so:

C'mom someone....help him. Amri maybe?

prostaff85 wrote:

lydian wrote:...but that aside I think its much harder for young players to break through at the top (e.g. Top10) for the reasons given.

That is a fact. Just go the ATP website and browse through the top 100 of the rankings. BTW would be good a have some age filters in addition to the country filters.

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

I will have to dig up one of my old posts, where I restricted myself to the OE and did the Top 10 (not 100) and ages of each player. Let me try and find it.

Lydian, Banbro, MFC etc. have made some excellent points on this thread

Many of them are yet to be answered...................

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.

carrieg4 wrote:Lydian, Banbro, MFC etc. have made some excellent points on this thread

Many of them are yet to be answered...................

You forgot S_A.

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

carrieg4 wrote:
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.

Depends on what you mean progress. The progression of teh game in more in the hands of the egg chamber scientist than in the hands of a player.

Agassi, Pete, Becker and so on had talent that could be seen and could make the difference even amongst the the old players. Today this youth has as much if not more talent but because talent doesn;t play as much a part in teh success of a player, they are not going to be noticed before they build themselves a proper titanic body.

The last 7 slams were won by the fittest player. end of!

Lol Tenez you are still mad? Did my first post rattled you that much? I just gave you little kick

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.

So the next age group below Murray and Djokovic (Delgo, Cillic, even Del Boy) can't get a fig leaf on them, but Raonic and his crew are suddenly going to usurp them within the next two years

I take it you saw the Murray v Tomic clash. Very promising, for the first 6 games that is!! - as Tomic looked good without being too flash as though he actually has the temperament to think his way around a court. Then Murray went up a notch or maybe Tomic had spent already too much time getting the runaround and tired and suddenly the match was over

I think you forget that Murray at times put so much disguise on his winners, gesturing to make a forehand pass - but then just dinks it with the opposing player looking stupid, that these talents won't be just taken away when the youngsters get fit.

After all Del Potro is now fit and where is he exactly? Where his talent dictates he should be i.e. in and out of the Top 10

Tenez wrote..." it;s the fact they simply cannot reach the later stages of slams without having that physical superiority"

Are you including Federer in your thesis, as he managed to get to over 22 semi finals at slams, so he must be an extremely physical player to do this, even more so than Nadal, if your theory is correct of course.

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

There's only about 5 players who are 22 and under in the top 50 and only 1 who is 20 or under (Tomic).

I can't help but think a really talented teenager/20 year old wouldn't need to wait until their body 'develops' to get into the top 20/15, maybe even top 10, and be able to take on the older players.
The entire top 25 aren't all ultra-fit or ultra-talented.

I thought it was the "Tenez Trench" Bambro, the second deepest hole next to the "Mariana Trench", where theories fly and can't escape their own gravity.

In the not too distant future, we may all cash in on that bet, as for me, Murray, Djokvic and even Nadal are going to get even better, so the likes of Tomic et al are going to find it very hard to break through.

the only guy right now who looks like doing some decent damage in two years time is Dolgopolov. And thats about it.

Start talking 3/4 yrs, then maybe I'll get nervous backing the top 3 to dominate the sport.

Jubbahey wrote:Tenez wrote..." it;s the fact they simply cannot reach the later stages of slams without having that physical superiority"

Are you including Federer in your thesis, as he managed to get to over 22 semi finals at slams, so he must be an extremely physical player to do this, even more so than Nadal, if your theory is correct of course.

Now you're just being plain silly . We all know that Roger's prowess has nothing to do with fitnees. He is so talented that he doesn't need to be fit at all, but cannot possibly expected to compete with the evil 'pumping iron' trio

Mind you. I did notice that he had a moderate (by his standards) 2008/9 hard court season - of course this had nothing to do with his self declared back problems did it?? Nah! Things like that don't affect Roger as he doesn't rely on any fitness of any description. He's just simply bril

Jubbahey wrote:I thought it was the "Tenez Trench" Bambro, the second deepest hole next to the "Mariana Trench", where theories fly and can't escape their own gravity.

In the not too distant future, we may all cash in on that bet, as for me, Murray, Djokvic and even Nadal are going to get even better, so the likes of Tomic et al are going to find it very hard to break through.

the only guy right now who looks like doing some decent damage in two years time is Dolgopolov. And thats about it.

Start talking 3/4 yrs, then maybe I'll get nervous backing the top 3 to dominate the sport.

Agreed. Mix Delgo's game with Murray's way of thinking his way around a court and you will have a Top 4 player and a Slam winner. I hope so, I like him - he reminds me of Mecir, the way he just calmly strikes the ball

Its that transition from confident wannabee, to confident match player.

Murray sums up the pit falls of going through the barrier from hopeful to composed. He had his fair share of injuries trying to get fit to play the tour and went through the coaching net to try to improve his game and has ended up a slam contender through sheer determination and ne'er say die attitude.

Dolgopolov will have the same pitfalls to overcome, if he wants to bask in the same light as the top 4, but its not unreasonable to see that he looks quite the part for such things.

Tomic for me is not taking it seriously enough, he may change his attitude, he certainly has got the game to go far with improvement, but I reckon this year he will troll along as last year and not really go anywhere special.

Troiki is also one I look at as a player who promises a lot, but is foreshadowed by his compatriot, if he can shake off Djoko's cloud, then he may be a surprise this year and next. But at 25, hasn't got long to achieve.

Dimitrov, Harrison, Nishikori, all I can remember atm, they have promising talents, but its getting through the barrier that counts and you can't rely on physical strength alone to achieve that.

Dolgo is also a late bloomer. AO 2011 was fantastic for Dolgo. He can produce his own pace so wonderfully. Fantastic player to watch.

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.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:
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.

Depends on what you mean progress. The progression of teh game in more in the hands of the egg chamber scientist than in the hands of a player.

Agassi, Pete, Becker and so on had talent that could be seen and could make the difference even amongst the the old players. Today this youth has as much if not more talent but because talent doesn;t play as much a part in teh success of a player, they are not going to be noticed before they build themselves a proper titanic body.

The last 7 slams were won by the fittest player. end of!

The new young players do have enough talent to make a difference among the old players - just not the ones at the very top! The statement about the new generation having more talent than the last one is totally ridiculous and doesn't even merit a response. In the modern game you have to be supremely talented AND fit - the days of players smoking and drinking are over. That is progress. The new crop will find their level but none are showing the level of talent and commitment to fitness (ie maximising their talent) to shoot to the top in the very near future. The last 7 slams were won by the player who didnt lose 7 singles matches in a row during the slam.

As you say. End of!

"

spuranik wrote:
He should give it another go with your post including Federer + his arrogance etc.

Welcome to 606v2, SPuranik.

Wow what an exciting debut by Spuranik! To register onto a forum and immediately summarize the personality of one poster is impressive. Did you follow Banbrotam here? Do you realise though that Federer is mentioned in the posts because Tenez's grudge against Murray, Nadal and Djokovic is they consistently beat Federer and 2 of them have a positive head to head against him? Of course Federer will be mentioned. Do you have a problem with that?

laverfan wrote:

spuranik wrote:
He should give it another go with your post including Federer + his arrogance etc.

Welcome to 606v2, SPuranik.

Thanks LF.

And are you googling already??

Simple_Analyst wrote:Wow what an exciting debut by Spuranik! To register onto a forum and immediately summarize the personality of one poster is impressive. Did you follow Banbrotam here? Do you realise though that Federer is mentioned in the posts because Tenez's grudge against Murray, Nadal and Djokovic is they consistently beat Federer and 2 of them have a positive head to head against him? Of course Federer will be mentioned. Do you have a problem with that?

lol - As far as "Federer bashing" Spuranik, Banbotram is very much a lightweight compared to some posters.

SA I am sure could verify this

Simple_Analyst wrote:Wow what an exciting debut by Spuranik! To register onto a forum and immediately summarize the personality of one poster is impressive. Did you follow Banbrotam here?

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. And I don't follow Banbro or you. You are nothing but following the glorious tradition of AIR, Impartial_Lion, Stephanerational, Cocteau_twin, Tennis_Ghandi etc.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Do you realise though that Federer is mentioned in the posts because Tenez's grudge against Murray, Nadal and Djokovic is they consistently beat Federer and 2 of them have a positive head to head against him? Of course Federer will be mentioned. Do you have a problem with that?

Mention Federer as much as you want. You do that everyday on every thread. You're spamming the Cryptic Clue thread with Swiss Shanker comments... But this thread is about youngsters and Fed or any of the top four hardly need a mention. And even mentioning is not a problem unless its a broken record that Banbro have...

Well i don't know what exactly you saying above Mr Spuranik or Mrs? but i find it a little amusing when new posters first few posts are talking about others instead of tennis, the reason they joined. Infact one other Mr Khalefa or some name like that joined here in June last year and the 5 of the 7 posts he made for the year 2011 were about me. Seems strange. Perhaps your profiling skills will serve the board better if you debate tennis?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well i don't know what exactly you saying above Mr Spuranik or Mrs? but i find it a little amusing when new posters first few posts are talking about others instead of tennis, the reason they joined. Infact one other Mr Khalefa or some name like that joined here in June last year and the 5 of the 7 posts he made for the year 2011 were about me. Seems strange. Perhaps your profiling skills will serve the board better if you debate tennis?

The way you debate? Name calling and constantly bashing a single player just for the sake of it? It's hardly debating is it?

spuranik wrote:

Thanks LF.

And are you googling already??

The ATP site works much better, but will partake of the suggestion once I have something to show for my [partial] analysis so far.

Name calling? Where did i do that? Bashing a single player? Fair tennis analysis of players, yes. Not aware of bashing any particular player.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Name calling? Where did i do that? Bashing a single player? Fair tennis analysis of players, yes. Not aware of bashing any particular player.

LOL... see above post by sportslover.