Do you think Murray feels challenged by Raonic?

We have heard this line of reasoning about how there are no quality youngsters, how in two or three years all the fans will leave tennis, how the big 4 are not being challenged, and that furthermore there isn't much there after the top guys. Well I don't mean to pick on people but fundamentally I believe that all of these statements are wrong and mistake cause with effect. I believe Raonic at 21 at least 3-4 years away from his prime has a winning head to head against a current big 4 member at his absolute peak. The puncher scored a late round knockout over the counterpuncher winning it 7-6. Frankly, if the Missile wasn't 21 some odd years old the score wouldn't be so close but the result would stay the same. Milos played brilliant attack tennis with quite a few approaches to net.

For his part murray didn't play poorly he made some sparkling shots that did credit to all that talent that oozes from his slightly goofy looking visage. Still he couldn't stem the tide. I am calling my shot right now, BARRING SERIOUS INJURY ISSUES Milos will win more than one slam. As I have been saying people will see that on the modern tour players need more time to gain the proper seasoning for how fit, smart, strong, and consistent they have to be. These things don't favor the youngsters but at the same time it doesn't preclude them from raising up like Raonic is slowly doing when they have the ability. He is still very much a work in progess his returning is way too inconsistent a small but significant improvement in his returning will see him become untouchable by pretty much everyone on a fast court. The modern game is a return dominated game look at the players in the top 5 the best returners in the game. This is one part of the game that takes players a while to adjust to the ATP's big servers. It isn't like you are going to be able to play against the John Isners or Federer type serves in the juniors and futures that often.

I hate to be right this often but it is a curse. The fact remains there is plenty of young talent they just can't bomb their way to the top on big shots alone, eventually some will rise to the top and when they do they will be better all around players for it.

I would wait to judge Raonic until he can pull off these sort of wins in slam matches but he certainly has the ability as he has tested all of the top players he has played in his career. His game is very serve-orientated though and needs to add to his game but he is certainly best-placed of the youngsters to win a slam or two in a few years to come. As for worrying Murray well he will but only if he starts beating him regularly in slams.

Well clearly this is a big win...Raonic is starting to prove he is a big player but needs to show it across the biggest event too. But considering the guy is 21 I think we know who is likely to be the most successful of the under 21s.

I wonder if he has a chance of reaching ATP Tour finals?

I think he takes the threat very seriously. Will wait for more match ups especially masters and above to see if he feels challenged.

Another sunshiner thread based on this? I'm not sure how this contradicts anything about the statistics showing the paucity of young players anywhere near the higher reaches of the game (and by higher reaches I'm not even looking at top 5).

I think the realisation that Raonic is likely to win a Slam in the future emerged quite a long time ago. It's not really a novel concept.

At least consensus is being reached that the state of the game is preventing talent emerging at anything like what has always been appreciated as young.

No

bogbrush wrote:Another sunshiner thread? Based on this?

Wow.

Being fair though BB. Any up and coming players have to be judged against the very best players at the time and Raonic measures up well in that category. He has beaten Murray and ran Federer very close as well as Nadal I seem to remember so it shows he can mix it with the best. True he isn't the finished article but I am sure he will improve with experience and once he gets a top coach.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Another sunshiner thread? Based on this?

Wow.

Being fair though BB. Any up and coming players have to be judged against the very best players at the time and Raonic measures up well in that category. He has beaten Murray and ran Federer very close as well as Nadal I seem to remember so it shows he can mix it with the best. True he isn't the finished article but I am sure he will improve with experience and once he gets a top coach.

No, I rate the guy and have argued he will come good for a while.

What I don't see is how he single-handedly overcomes the overwhelming statistics (previously shown by Lydian to convincing effect) showing there's precious little presence of truly young players anywhere near the top of the game - and I'm thinking here of top 2-400.

If you think of generations though coming in cycles he may be the only one in this cycle. Similar in a way to how Roger Federer was the only one in his cycle circa the early 2000's. The mid-2000's brought three up and coming players - Djoko, Nadal and Murray and now it would seem we only have one up and coming player again.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If you think of generations though coming in cycles he may be the only one in this cycle. Similar in a way to how Roger Federer was the only one in his cycle circa the early 2000's. The mid-2000's brought three up and coming players - Djoko, Nadal and Murray and now it would seem we only have one up and coming player again.

I think Federer distorted the impact of his contemporaries, as we've seen this year by topping the rankings at 31. There's no way Feds generation only brought him to the game, a few others were very talented indeed.

I like Raonic and I see potential from him, unlike Tomic who I think is a complete bore.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If you think of generations though coming in cycles he may be the only one in this cycle. Similar in a way to how Roger Federer was the only one in his cycle circa the early 2000's. The mid-2000's brought three up and coming players - Djoko, Nadal and Murray and now it would seem we only have one up and coming player again.

I think Federer distorted the impact of his contemporaries, as we've seen this year by topping the rankings at 31. There's no way Feds generation only brought him to the game, a few others were very talented indeed.

I like Raonic and I see potential from him, unlike Tomic who I think is a complete bore.

Well what happened to the others in Federer's cycle then? I mean we never really saw them challenge consistently at slams whereas the next cycle of up and coming players dis - Djoko, Nadal and Murray. I can't think who those players were. In this cycle Raonic stands out but still a bit rough around the edges. I can't see Tomic making any big strides into being a slam winner etc so I wouldn't worry there BB.

There were some top players, guys who could compete at the top today if at the right age and with less unbalanced conditions.

Hewitt - blighted by injury but even today and in a mess of a state can show glimpses of what was there.

Safin - mentally wrecked by being surpassed by Federer but an enormous game.

Roddick - had the game taken from him as it was slowed down; would have easily won 4-6 Slams in the 90's. retired this year while still much better than almost all the younger players of today.

Haas - another blighted by injury but showing in another comeback at 35 that he was a real player.


I suspect that if Federer or some of his contemporaries were 22/3 now, coming through with Murray, Djokovic & Nadal established and in THEIR sights they'd find it extremely hard work. Always far easier to follow on and target the champ than to stay ahead.

Yes forgot about Hewitt (always feel he has been around longer than he had) and Roddick. Safin was a brief star but couldn't/wouldn't apply himself for the long haul and Haas well injury has disrupted him but prior to his injuries he wasn't consistently challenging in the slams either so wouldn't put his failings down purely to injuries. If you take the next cycle ie Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and throw in Del Potro well they have been much more of a force. Conversely, this cycle now looks like producing perhaps only Raonic unless Tomic, Harrison and Dmitrov make big strides as well. However, should Nadal, Djoko and Murray remain at the top of the game for another five years then we will be looking at a new cycle of youngsters that may or may not be in the pipeline.

Raonic has the weapons for sure, and played really well against Murray - who was not too shabby himself by the way.

Best of the young players? Without a doubt. He has played really well against Murray a couple of times now, and did the same against Roger too. He is the most likely to change the names in the top 4 in my opinion.

This was a fairly fast court though, which is very good for his game. Certainly faster than any of the slams. And it was a 3 setter in a small tournament. This should take nothing away from his achievement, just adding that to repeat this in a slam quarter final against one of the top 4 is something he is some distance away from proving, particularly on slower courts where the top 4's movement blows away the rest.

He is the man knocking on the door though. Murray? I don't think this changes a single thing for him. His level was pretty good and he looks in decent shape. I think he'll go close to winning 1 of the remaining masters and the WTF.

Personally, if Murray drew Raonic in Melbourne I'd be pretty confident of a Murray victory.... Unless they change the surface speed!

Turning away from the precise personalities, it's aways been easier to emerge behind a great and ambush him; your game gets influenced by what he does to move the game forward, he can't really learn from you so easily.

If you imagine how McEnroe would have coped with a young Borg, for instance, I think it shows how much easier it is for the young guy.

That's what I think is so flat now; there is so little sign of young players coming into the game and ripping into the top guys, apart just from Raonic.

I don't think he's complacent against players like Raonic (though losing his serve to love in the first game suggests he wasn't quite focussed from the start). So yes, he feels challenged.

Murray normally has a good record against taller players with big serves though. Not sure why it should be different against Raonic. He really should have won today and turned the H2H around.

I'd rather see players with a more subtle game like Goffin come through and be the future slam winners than Raonic. But at the moment, it seems he could well be winning a few once the current top 4 start to fade.

bogbrush wrote:Turning away from the precise personalities, it's aways been easier to emerge behind a great and ambush him; your game gets influenced by what he does to move the game forward, he can't really learn from you so easily.

If you imagine how McEnroe would have coped with a young Borg, for instance, I think it shows how much easier it is for the young guy.

That's what I think is so flat now; there is so little sign of young players coming into the game and ripping into the top guys, apart just from Raonic.

I cant help but agree with your last comment.. which is what promoted me to ask when everyone thought Federer would retire, with Nadal´s absence, which hopefully wont be for much longer, it is more than obvious that there is not much left after Murray and Djokovic... Raonic is without doubt promising but whether he will be able to fill those enormous shoes that the top four wear so well Im not too sure. I think the game is desperate for a new boy (s) on the block and I cant see much on the horizon.

CaledonianCraig wrote:....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........Conversely, this cycle now looks like producing perhaps only Raonic unless Tomic, Harrison and Dmitrov make big strides as well. However, should Nadal, Djoko and Murray remain at the top of the game for another five years then we will be looking at a new cycle of youngsters that may or may not be in the pipeline.

Wow CC, "another five years"....?? You're being a bit optimistic there in terms of longevity, if I may say so

I'm inclined to think that Rafa may have another 2 or 2.5 years max of top flight tennis in him, given his unhappy injury history and general wear & tear. Time is precious so the sooner he's back to match fitness the better. Especially with no sign of any fresh blood coming through....!!

Novak and Andy are a full year younger of course, so 3 or 4 years max perhaps

Looking back over many decades in the sport, the vast majority of past Slam wins have come below the age of 28 - although Andy's coach certainly enjoyed some 'late' success of course

(Yes, we currently have a 31 year old World No. 1 and Slam holder but ..... his playing style has by general consensus been far more 'economical' than most others throughout his career, not to mention an almost freakish injury-free record)

My opinion of yesterday's match, and specifically Murray's play, is rather bad.

Even if you are losing a match, breaking a racquet is a no-no in my book. I see the ugly Murray personality surface and Lendl's training go to pot. He was annoyed that he missed a potential break being up 0-30, but Raonic was playing very well. I stopped watching at that point. The writing was on the wall. In the end the scoreline was respectable, in part due to Raonic, who could have finished it in straight sets.

When I contrast this to the match at USO against Raonic, there is a stark difference in strategy and the game plan being executed to perfection.

Yesterday was utterly inexcusable, IMVHO.

Regarding youngsters, I did not see Nishikori being mentioned who took out Berdych.

Tomic is too rough at this point, yet to be seen how he matures, for lack of a better word.

laverfan wrote:My opinion of yesterday's match, and specifically Murray's play, is rather bad.

Even if you are losing a match, breaking a racquet is a no-no in my book. I see the ugly Murray personality surface and Lendl's training go to pot. He was annoyed that he missed a potential break being up 0-30, but Raonic was playing very well. I stopped watching at that point. The writing was on the wall. In the end the scoreline was respectable, in part due to Raonic, who could have finished it in straight sets.

When I contrast this to the match at USO against Raonic, there is a stark difference in strategy and the game plan being executed to perfection.

Yesterday was utterly inexcusable, IMVHO.

Regarding youngsters, I did not see Nishikori being mentioned who took out Berdych.

Tomic is too rough at this point, yet to be seen how he matures, for lack of a better word.

Haven't seen the match yet but have to agree re racquet breaking - I never like to see it. Hopefully he is not slipping back into bad habits, I have been enjoying new, positive on court Murray. I guess we will find out at Shanghai.

The racquet breaking was uncalled for. And really surprising that he should get so agitated in a match which is - lets be honest - probably the least important semi final he has played this year.

I can only think that he has set a goal to reach number 1 early next year, and was desperate to retain the points. But even so, the masters and WTF coming up are going to be far more important in terms of achieving that goal.

So yes, it's very confusing. He's won the last 2 big tournaments he's played and achieved a couple of lifetime ambitions, so why get so upset? In one sense it's pleasing to see that there is no lull in terms of desire following New York, but when you're playing well and riding the crest of a wave, no need to get down on yourself.

I'm not as concerned as laver. I honestly think this match means very little as far as Murray is concerned, but it is a concern to see that negativity creeping in.

Raonic has no chance over these players in bo5's.

Sorry OP but you need to put away the drink.

JM - you don't think he'll EVER have it to beat the top 4 at slams?

That's a good point from JM; he's made no impact at all in a bo5.

Then again, we have these new definitions of "young" now so he has a good 5/6 years before he gets "seasoned" (wtf lol) and we can finally know if he's any good.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If you think of generations though coming in cycles he may be the only one in this cycle. Similar in a way to how Roger Federer was the only one in his cycle circa the early 2000's. The mid-2000's brought three up and coming players - Djoko, Nadal and Murray and now it would seem we only have one up and coming player again.

I think Federer distorted the impact of his contemporaries, as we've seen this year by topping the rankings at 31. There's no way Feds generation only brought him to the game, a few others were very talented indeed.

I like Raonic and I see potential from him, unlike Tomic who I think is a complete bore.

Really federer single handedly caused Safin and Hewitt to plummet out of the top 10 and 20, or forced Nalbandian to eat all those empenadas. No one says that the fed generation wasn't talented but it isn't like every slam final Roger was playing Safin and Hewitt. Hewitt, Ferrerro, Roddick, and those guys are simply not as good as the top guys today and weren't as good as the top guys like Sampras, Agassi, and Becker who came before them. If they were better they would have won more, and despite your party line revision of history the tour chased these guys out of the top ten along with injury, one player no matter how great can't keep a legend ranked 23 in the world during what is his physical prime.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Raonic has no chance over these players in bo5's.

Sorry OP but you need to put away the drink.

Yes, seems to be a certain Andy Murray who didn't have the best record in 5 set matches against Fedal either in his youth or even up till the just recently. This argument that there are no young players argument is the last supposed piece of evidence for how there are massive problems in the game that need drastic changes to federize all the conditions.

Before we heard that fans hate the brand of tennis and the ratings would crumble. Then we heard slow conditions causes career threatening injuries but then when everyone and their mother is playing longer and longer that thesis was exposed as well. Now we get the idea that somehow the modern game has choked off the future talent. I think the weight of facts has already shown all of this thinking to be wrong. And the passage of time will show how wrong this thinking is.

You hear the arguments you want to.

Nobody has toured through those arguments in the manner you suggest, implying a succession of attempts to achieve an ulterior motive. The most compelling and factual arguments made in opposition to the trend of the game comes from Lydian, a Nadal fan par excellence; hardly someone with an agenda to 'federize' conditions.

I recently took another poster to task for arguing for more clay and less hardcourt because of injuries.

And you keep being told that it is the future that's at risk, not today.

As for 'weight of evidence', well how many under 20's are there in the top 100? Never mind winning Slams.

laverfan wrote:My opinion of yesterday's match, and specifically Murray's play, is rather bad.

Even if you are losing a match, breaking a racquet is a no-no in my book. I see the ugly Murray personality surface and Lendl's training go to pot. He was annoyed that he missed a potential break being up 0-30, but Raonic was playing very well. I stopped watching at that point. The writing was on the wall. In the end the scoreline was respectable, in part due to Raonic, who could have finished it in straight sets.

When I contrast this to the match at USO against Raonic, there is a stark difference in strategy and the game plan being executed to perfection.

Yesterday was utterly inexcusable, IMVHO.

Regarding youngsters, I did not see Nishikori being mentioned who took out Berdych.

Tomic is too rough at this point, yet to be seen how he matures, for lack of a better word.

Laverfan I thought murray played a very good match Raonic took it away from him and you are right in the second set Raonic had break point after break point while murray didn't make much of a dent in milos serve at all and then somehow Andy played a great breaker and push it to the decider. I think Andy was upset because he seemingly came back from death's door to win the second set and be up a break in the 3rd.

To me that was the most impressive part of Raonic's win, he actually returned murray really well and broke him 3 times in this match. But most impressive of all down a break in the 3rd to a slam champion RAonic who had been the superior player the whole match had to lose a lot of belief. However that didn't come to pass and he picked himself off the canvas and broke back. He strikes me as a very smart, mature, and poised young man ready to make the next big move.

Yes and nishikori is now in the top 20 and has also beaten Berdych, he certainly is another promising one I think he beats Novak in a foot race that is for sure he is one quick player.

bogbrush wrote:You hear the arguments you want to.

Nobody has toured through those arguments in the manner you suggest, implying a succession of attempts to achieve an ulterior motive. The most compelling and factual arguments made in opposition to the trend of the game comes from Lydian, a Nadal fan par excellence; hardly someone with an agenda to 'federize' conditions.

I recently took another poster to task for arguing for more clay and less hardcourt because of injuries.

And you keep being told that it is the future that's at risk, not today.

These are arguments I have heard on this site by many people, so no I didn't make it up. The part about federize the conditions is basically my take on your suggestions. Lets see heavier, smaller faced racquets, lighter faster balls, banning strings that help the returners. I love how fed fan accuses Nadal and his fans of wanting changes to the game that favor Nadal like in scheduling or more clay courts. These changes being pushed MAINLY but not solely by fed fans basically want the whole tour to play on conditions that would suit Roger's game perfectly and punish the other members of the big 4. And wait these changes need to be made now and they need to be made immediately preferrably before Roger gets any older.

Nishikori isn't a young player. He's 23 in two months.

I mean, if we're going to redefine young to mid 20's then all will be great for the sunshiners.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You hear the arguments you want to.

Nobody has toured through those arguments in the manner you suggest, implying a succession of attempts to achieve an ulterior motive. The most compelling and factual arguments made in opposition to the trend of the game comes from Lydian, a Nadal fan par excellence; hardly someone with an agenda to 'federize' conditions.

I recently took another poster to task for arguing for more clay and less hardcourt because of injuries.

And you keep being told that it is the future that's at risk, not today.

These are arguments I have heard on this site by many people, so no I didn't make it up. The part about federize the conditions is basically my take on your suggestions. Lets see heavier, smaller faced racquets, lighter faster balls, banning strings that help the returners. I love how fed fan accuses Nadal and his fans of wanting changes to the game that favor Nadal like in scheduling or more clay courts. These changes being pushed MAINLY but not solely by fed fans basically want the whole tour to play on conditions that would suit Roger's game perfectly and punish the other members of the big 4. And wait these changes need to be made now and they need to be made immediately preferrably before Roger gets any older.

What you make up is the suggestion they are made in succession by individuals, scrolling through a list. It's a misrepresentation.

And Lydian?

As for Federer, that's an even dafter idea; Federer is all but at the end of his career now so it hardly matter. Even though he's currently the Worlds best.

Oh Ok so now 23 is old, just like 24 is old for Del Potro, and 25 year olds Murray and Djokovic they are just geezers right? If David Ferrer can play effectively till his early 30s what makes you think that a few of these guys won't do the same thing. Nishikiori is 22 years old and would have been much better but suffered some injury problems I believe he won his first ATP tour tite at 19 if I am not mistake.

The futures so bright I got to wear shades my friend.

So if I state Nishikori isn't young because he's two months from 23 I have to accept I'm saying he's old?

Isn't there a middle bit, where he can be neither? Is mischaracterising arguments something you got into the habit of as a shyster?

BB you do realize that Roger wouldn't have had a snowball's chance of being number 1 if both his main younger rivals didn't suffer serious injuries within the 52 week period that Roger attained the ranking. Good on him, he is the goat and it is still a great accomplishment. Lets not forget the rather fortunate torn back muscle for Novak that diminished him in the indoors last season and allowed Roger to get a big head start. That anomaly will shortly be corrected and the real number the year end number 1, Novak Djokovic will reassert himself. Good luck defending what 3000 points between now and the end of the year.

bogbrush wrote:So if I state Nishikori isn't young because he's two months from 23 I have to accept I'm saying he's old?

Isn't there a middle bit, where he can be neither? Is mischaracterising arguments something you got into the habit of as a shyster?

No I don't need to mischaracterize anything you tried to pawn off 22 year old player as not being a young player, it is a typically stupid comment by you and I exposed it as such.

And please you are the king of mischaracterizing positions see fogninni, everyone thinks that i said novak would have beat Roger if not for Foggy. Why because like the online Goebbels you are you repeated your big lie long enough and loudly enough.

YvonneT wrote:I don't think he's complacent against players like Raonic (though losing his serve to love in the first game suggests he wasn't quite focussed from the start). So yes, he feels challenged.

Murray normally has a good record against taller players with big serves though. Not sure why it should be different against Raonic. He really should have won today and turned the H2H around.

I'd rather see players with a more subtle game like Goffin come through and be the future slam winners than Raonic. But at the moment, it seems he could well be winning a few once the current top 4 start to fade.

Good post Yvonne the reason I put the word challenged is because numerous people on this site one of them being Time please stated that none of the youngsters are even challenging the top 4. I didn't mean to pick on her, I just don't think that statement is true. And she isn't the only one sayin those type of things.

My own opinion on the fact that the 18-22 year olds are underwhelming has more to do with the fact that the modern game takes a little more seasoning and experience because you can't just blast your way to the top anymore. The modern style favors fitness, durability, point construction, and big returning. These are things that players need a few years on tour to work out.

socal1976 wrote:BB you do realize that Roger wouldn't have had a snowball's chance of being number 1 if both his main younger rivals didn't suffer serious injuries within the 52 week period that Roger attained the ranking. Good on him, he is the goat and it is still a great accomplishment. Lets not forget the rather fortunate torn back muscle for Novak that diminished him in the indoors last season and allowed Roger to get a big head start. That anomaly will shortly be corrected and the real number the year end number 1, Novak Djokovic will reassert himself. Good luck defending what 3000 points between now and the end of the year.

Ha there's always an excuse for Novak isn't there? "Oh, somebody messed his serve up", " oh he got a bye", "ooh he had an injury" (like people don't get injuries and illnesses don't they, I mean Novak was said to have owed his first Slam to mono wasn't he?).

I mean, if Djokovic can't be #1 while all he has up against him is a 31 year old, a single slammer and an injured guy, well........

Poor, poor Novak. Always so unlucky......

As for Rafa, his injury hasn't played a part in Feds ranking. After all, it only featured at Wimbledon.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So if I state Nishikori isn't young because he's two months from 23 I have to accept I'm saying he's old?

Isn't there a middle bit, where he can be neither? Is mischaracterising arguments something you got into the habit of as a shyster?

No I don't need to mischaracterize anything you tried to pawn off 22 year old player as not being a young player, it is a typically stupid comment by you and I exposed it as such.

Actually you said I called him old. There's a difference isn't there?

And a man two months from 23 isn't young in this sport. That you think you've scored on that one rather exposes your lack of knowledge of this game.

Well he is 22, and when players like Ferrer and Federer having success into their 30s or fish having a breakthrough last year I would consider 22 or 23 to be young in the sport. I think you are the one who still caught in your S and V nostalgia and can't grasp a changing landscape where the start age and end age for a player's prime has been slowly getting older. By the way the last teenage slam champion was Nadal you don't seem to give him much respect when he accomplished that feat.

Thanks for mentioning Nadal, who showed how foolish it is to suggest that youth has to be deferred by 5 years in the contemporary game.

You might have mentioned Djokovic too.

Both players who show that a guy near to 23 and doing nothing much is hardly a young prospect.

Becker, Wilander, Chang winning Slams aged 17 ..... or Borg when just a few days past his 18th ..... now that's what I call young...!!

lags72 wrote:Becker, Wilander, Chang winning Slams aged 17 ..... or Borg when just a few days past his 18th ..... now that's what I call young...!!

Indeed. And Nadal. And the latter doing it in the modern game when we're supposed to believe players can't be evaluated until their mid 20's

lags72 wrote:Becker, Wilander, Chang winning Slams aged 17 ..... or Borg when just a few days past his 18th ..... now that's what I call young...!!

In the entire 40 year history of the open era there have been exactly 7 teenage first time slam winners on the mens side. So the main evidence of those pushing for radical changes to the game is that we don't have one now and the entire game has to be changed? Sorry lags this fails as an argument. Teenage slam winners are anomalies that is why they create such a buzz when they happen. We had one 6 or 7 years ago that is about the average for the tour's history.

It is just interesting how all these fed fans seem to think that we need to drastically change all the conditions to favor his style of play and punnish the other top 4 players. Not only do they want fed to have an edge it seems they want to make sure that murray, nadal, and Djoko can't win into the future so that Roger doesn't have to worry about any of his records being threatened by Nadal. Sorry lags nostalgia for a style of tennis that began dying 30 years ago isn't the way to run the game.

What does "Federize" conditions mean anyway? Federer is an all court player who's reached the final of every slam at least twice. He was brought up on clay. My arguments are not about helping Federer, they're about helping young players, and the direction of future coaching. Why?

1. Slower conditions since 2003 are leading to reduced variety of play
2. More uniform conditions allow the same 4 players to dominate across ATP tour
3. Slower conditions in general put emphasis on stamina and ralleys - older players can maintain fitness better than reflexes, explosive speed of youth is negated
4. Young players under 19 have learnt their game in the slower 2000s...and on the pro tour experience slow conditions
5. More 1 dimensional play -> more 1D coaching -> reduced skill players
6. Points 3 & 5 mean young players can't break through like they used to

Conclusion: the conditions are killing the future of the game. The young players coming through, by and large, can't cut it against the wily old - and fit - players who also have broader skill based games. Racquet tech is also helping the older players.

Evidence: no young player, ie. under age of 19, has a ranking above 400. This is unheard of in Open Era. Something has radically changed in the game. Point 1 above, IMO, is the fundamental and causal reason.

Oh dear, more misrepresentation socal. Bit of a habit isn't it?

Lydian, the anti-Nadal Fed fan I suppose.

What I say might be seen as antiNadal but guys like Nadal and Murray learnt their game in different conditions - they have a broader skill set as a base compare to younger guys coming through. However, they have also succeeded in slower conditions, so talent is arguably talent. However, why can't new talent break through now like Nadal, Djokovic or Murray did?

1. Fundamental lack of talent in the game? Perhaps but the fact no-one is breaking into top 400 is a huge concern...it's not all about the top 4.
2. There are no "transitional" (faster to slower) players to overcome anymore? Nadal, et al, broke through against Agassi, Blake, Loober, Hewitt, etc...guys who couldn't succeed post-slowdown. The breed we have now are much harder to break down for up and comers. They are suited to slow conditions but have a broader skill base too.

lydian wrote:What I say might be seen as antiNadal .....

Not at all, just pointing out that this vision of the game isn't restricted to a particular set.

I oppose lydian's suggestions and have consistently. As I have explained over and over again when you choose to ban technology that favors the server and attacker at every tournament that isn't variety that is just favoring one style of play over another. Banning technology doesn't make the clay courts play slower and the grass courts play faster, the socalled variety arguement. It just gives the attacker a structural advantage on all tournaments.

Most of the people who support this notion that the game is in trouble and terrible and everything needs to be sped up are fed fans. And it is self serving. Lydian is the anomaly like the teenage slam champion.

And by the way if Novak and Del Po won their maiden slams just a few months earlier we would have had a 2 more teenage champs in his era. But please tell us how Del Po who turns 24 in a few weeks isn't young enough to be young.

Yes, 24 isn't young.

Perhaps Lydian isn't an anomaly at all, because you've utterly misread the situation; instead of superimposing your own fan-based motives onto everyone else, those concerned for the future belong to a group with a shared knowledge and vision, not a fan club.

It's a fact that young players can't come through like they used to. And considering how relatively few players have won on the biggest stages at the other end of their career, the window of opportunity for Slam contention is perhaps smaller than ever.

History tells us that by your mid-twenties you're getting on a bit in tennis terms - certainly as far as Slam wins are concerned.

The harsh reality is that you really need to get them under your belt by the age of 27. Once you hit 28, the prospects diminish dramatically : it's only happened 18 times over the last 120 Slams, so statistically just a 15% chance ......