Age myth dispelled

First topic message reminder :

For some time now we've heard that the reason there are no young players pressurising the top guys is that tennis now demands so much fitness that it is beyond the under 22's.

Now we know that was wrong. In fact, there's just been no good young players and this period has been the weaker for it, with players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc. flattered in recent years by a dearth of quality coming through.

Hopefully young Kyrgios can go on from here, but in beating a fully fit, highly motivated Nadal in a match of great importance he's shown that all it takes is quality, not age.

summerblues wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:You still not addressing the point bro

I think that would be sis.

Ahh thats a clear cut mistake on my side.    lemme   

invisiblecoolers wrote:

summerblues wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:You still not addressing the point bro

I think that would be sis.

Ahh thats a clear cut mistake on my side.    lemme   

Now I am starting to doubt myself.  I was certain I saw a post from falzy stating she was a she, but could not quickly find it now.  So maybe I was just imagining it?

summerblues wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

summerblues wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:You still not addressing the point bro

I think that would be sis.

Ahh thats a clear cut mistake on my side.    lemme   

Now I am starting to doubt myself.  I was certain I saw a post from falzy stating she was a she, but could not quickly find it now.  So maybe I was just imagining it?

Oh come on, now you making a controversy.   

invisiblecoolers wrote:

falzy21 wrote:Soo why cant i tlk about Kyrgios win as an example of, or perhaps not of this age myth?

Kygro win explains quality cannot be stopped , tell me did you ever believed these Dimitrov and Roanic and stuff could be a top 4 in a slam, you were hoping and wishing for but you knew there was really no quality there to actually win one.

Craig on the other thread agreed Dimitrov will win slams once top 4 retires , underlying the fact its about lack of quality.   

Lack of quality? That is a loose term. I will put it this way - not in the same class as the top players around at the moment shall I say. That is not too controversial is it?

CC. I wasn't comparing Murray and Kyrgios on talent. I was comparing the hype. Murray at his first Wimbledon reached the 3rd round and a lot of hype came from his performances. This wasn't challenged or disputed at the time IIRC. Kyrgios has reached the QF's of his first Wimbledon and we are told not to hype him up? I think he deserves it based on his performances.

I think importantly now that after this event, he pushes himself to make the draws of tour events. Just as Murray did himself and just like Djokovic did.

I do somewhat agree with BB's notion that young players if they have the talent can beat the top players. Dimitrov was what 22 when he first recorded his first victory over a top 4 player. Raonic was 21. Nishikori was 24!!

These 'future' stars have been earmarked for far too long. It seems their time will come once the likes of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray call it a day.

Yes but one lone impressive win is not a breakthrough into greatness. That is my point. Sure a talented youngster can beat top players but can they return in their following matches and have the physicality to do it all over again - that would dispel the myth.

No-one is saying it grants him greatness. That is the point.

For me the kid proved that with talent, if you have enough of it you can beat the top players.

Hence why some are excited about this kid.

I just wish there were more like him.

Of course it was a great win but it counts for nothing if it isn't backed up. Sure talent can pull you through to wins against top players heck Raonic and Dimitrov have already managed that before but can they really achieve the Holy grail to dispel the myth by either winning a slam or big titles that is the question here is it not?

This is the thing though. Say he loses first round of the US Open. I can see many saying "oh he is a flash in the pan. The Wimbledon win was a fluke"

Raonic and Dimitrov may have beaten one of the top 4 in a BO3. Let's see them do it at the Slams though because as BB pointed out, age isn't an excuse based on Kyrgios's performance yesterday.

Yes lk but that is why I advocate talent alone in this day and age of court conditions can only take you so far. Kyrgios maybe more talented than Dimitrov and Raonic (time will tell) and jury is out on the other important element - physicality.

Amid the welter of stats coming out following Rafa's demise yesterday, this gem:
"Kyrgios is the first player born in the 1990s to beat Nadal. The Spaniard had won all 22 matches against 90s born players prior to the match. "
Now if this was 2011 or even 2012 that would be interesting. But as we are almost at the middle of this decade it's somewhat remarkable. Presume Rafa is the only one of the big four to have had this record.

McEnroe, Federer had very similar achievements too, CC. I agree with LK, it is exciting to have the first win. This is a stepping stone. Let us wait and see what the future holds. I was excited with Tomic and Dimitrov coming through. I like Thiem too.

Perhaps as technology advances, older generations will take longer to be displaced, similar to the average life-span, which has increased significantly over multiple generations, as medical science has advanced.

@SFP... will have to check the 1990s record. Does Djokovic not have a something similar? Not sure.

CaledonianCraig wrote:... and jury is out on the other important element - physicality.

When do you expect the Jury to return a verdict?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it was a great win but it counts for nothing if it isn't backed up.  Sure talent can pull you through to wins against top players heck Raonic  and Dimitrov have already managed that before but can they really achieve the Holy grail to dispel the myth by either winning a slam or big titles that is the question here is it not?

You're wrong.

It proves youth is no barrier to disturbing the top guys. Not ruling, just disturbing / beating now and then.

The argument went that guys like Dimitrov couldn't be expected to win Slam matches against the best because age was a barrier.

That myth has now been dispelled. Now we have to recognise their deficiencies of ability.

sirfredperry wrote:Amid the welter of stats coming out following Rafa's demise yesterday, this gem:
"Kyrgios is the first player born in the 1990s to beat Nadal. The Spaniard had won all 22 matches against 90s born players prior to the match. "
  Now if this was 2011 or even 2012 that would be interesting. But as we are almost at the middle of this decade it's somewhat remarkable. Presume Rafa is the only one of the big four to have had this record.

Can't recall Djokovic, Murray or even Fed losing to a kid. He'll, there've BEEN no kids to play!

@CC... look at Serena, if you want to consider physicality, or Federer, or Stepanek.

Maybe CC is saying wait until Krygios' career is over before judging him, we have to see absolutely everything to be sure.

Well it is a physical sport, it definitely helps. Its probably hard to find a mature mind in such a young person as well

When these discussions have come up before, I've always found myself a bit in the middle - yes, conditions have changed a bit to the advantage of older, more experienced and fitter players, but at the same time there has been a lack of really good talent coming through. Looking at the guys between about 21 and 25 years old - can you honestly say there is anyone there who is potentially as good a player as (even) Murray? Del Potro was the great hope and has at least partially fulfilled it even if now curtailed by injuries. The likes of Nishikori (the new Ferrer), Raonic etc simply aren't of a high enough standard, while Dimitrov has taken along time to build up his confidence.

What Kyrgios's results this tournament show is that a really good youngster playing well can make a serious dent in the draw in a major. Whether this is the emergence of the next big thing or just a flash in the pan performance remains to be seen, but it does show that a really good youngster should be able to at least reach a place in the top 8 or 10 players.

As an aside, what I also love is the pace at which he plays. I don't see many time violations in this lads future (then again, Rafa & Novak don't get that many....... ).

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Maybe CC is saying wait until Krygios' career is over before judging him, we have to see absolutely everything to be sure.

Not really. Until we see everyone else finish too we can't be sure of his place.

I say wait until the end of time, then check with the Jury.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Maybe CC is saying wait until Krygios' career is over before judging him, we have to see absolutely everything to be sure.

There are many one-hit wonders like Korda, Edmondson, Johansson, Noah, etc. It is wait and see and perhaps this kid can build on this one win and gain confidence and maturity. He did well at Nottingham-2, IIRC.

Or people could just hype him now and possibly be proven wrong about it later...

If fitness or physique was an issue then he'd have had no chance anyway so to me the myth is dispelled. I've also often been amazed at how low the standards have dropped for young players, it often sounds to me something like "wow he got a game off a top 4 player and he's only 23, plenty of time to improve".

Let's take the 90's crew who are in the top 100 for a second and look at their records against top 10er's.

Thiem P:4 W:1 L:3
Raonic P:38 W:11 L:27
Dimitrov P:34 W:5 L:29
Pospisil P:9 W:2 L:7
Klahn: P:0 W:0 L:0
Busta: P:2 W:0 L:2

Can someone research Sock, Tomic and Lajovic's record against top 10ers? LF

There's the top 10, then there's Nadal.

I think one of the problems some of us have with the game today is that the top 10 has a good few guys who really should have been pushed away by now.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Let's take the 90's crew who are in the top 100 for a second and look at their records against top 10er's.

Thiem P:4 W:1 L:3
Raonic P:38 W:11 L:27
Dimitrov P:34 W:5 L:29
Pospisil P:9 W:2 L:7
Klahn: P:0 W:0 L:0
Busta: P:2 W:0 L:2

Can someone research Sock, Tomic and Lajovic's record against top 10ers? LF

Will research, LK.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Or people could just hype him now and possibly be proven wrong about it later...

If fitness or physique was an issue then he'd have had no chance anyway so to me the myth is dispelled. I've also often been amazed at how low the standards have dropped for young players, it often sounds to me something like "wow he got a game off a top 4 player and he's only 23, plenty of time to improve".

Beg to differ, BITF. Physicality is not a boolean variable. The standards have been lowered, because there is an inherent desire to see a younger generation provide some infusion, whether it is a single game, or single set, or a single match.

Best to just see it as the French do, let them do their thing and theyll be ready when theyre ready

Your differing seems to be agreeing with what I said.

The assumption has basically been that physicality is indeed a boolean variable with the younger players supposedly being talented but not physically fit enough and therefore unable to win no matter how talented. And you've agreed with me over standards/expectations being lowered for whatever reason.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Your differing seems to be agreeing with what I said.

The assumption has basically been that physicality is indeed a boolean variable with the younger players supposedly being talented but not physically fit enough and therefore unable to win no matter how talented. And you've agreed with me over standards/expectations being lowered for whatever reason.

It is not a boolean, not fit enough is good to get to the QFs/SFs (Janowiczw), but it is not for a slam title. Murray's woes against Dimitrov are a case in point for fitness-of-the-day being not being good enough.

For me, there is no Jury for fitness/physicality. I see it right in front of my nose in Murray v Dimitrov. Dimitrov got fitter. Federer got fitter, to beat Hewitt, Safin, et al.

I've not said physicality was a boolean, just that that was the assumption and the excuse made for younger players not beating the older top players. That's what this thread has been opened to refute. The biggest result from a younger player came from the one who's had the least time to improve his fitness. This suggests that if you have something else, something that's been missing in the other players of that generation then you can still prevail without needing years of extra fitness training.

Kyrgios d Nadal is NOT the biggest result, but Dimitrov d Murray is, IMVHO.

Nadal's dislike for Grass is obvious, and his Rosol and Darcis loses are testament to that. He has been forced to play on Grass because a lack of choice. He admitted to it in his post-match interview last night.

Even Federer has had his fair share of Grass loses to Stakhovsky, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.

Not at all, look at how they both played. Nadal could have won his match, can't say the same about murray.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Not at all, look at how they both played. Nadal could have won his match, can't say the same about murray.

Federer could have won Rome 2006, W 2008 and AO 2009, USO 2009.... The possibilities are endless. As CoolPixel says, what counts is a cold hard win and a trophy in your cabinet.

laverfan wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Not at all, look at how they both played. Nadal could have won his match, can't say the same about murray.

Federer could have won Rome 2006, W 2008 and AO 2009, USO 2009.... The possibilities are endless. As CoolPixel says, what counts is a cold hard win and a trophy in your cabinet.

how did you forget the 2 USO semi-finals vs Djoko, Olympic 2012 vs Murray, 2014 Indian Wells vs Djoko etc,...

laverfan wrote:Kyrgios d Nadal is NOT the biggest result, but Dimitrov d Murray is, IMVHO.

Nadal's dislike for Grass is obvious, and his Rosol and Darcis loses are testament to that. He has been forced to play on Grass because a lack of choice. He admitted to it in his post-match interview last night.

Even Federer has had his fair share of Grass loses to Stakhovsky, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.

Sorry but I disagree. Dimitrov has been beginning to rap on the door at slams in recent months and Murray's season has been littered with erratic, inconsistent form. He looked good in the early rounds yes but inconsistency crops up in your play every so often and by all accounts it cropped up today and Dimitrov (a No.11 seed so certainly no mug) put in a solid enough display and won. No humungous surprise there.

laverfan wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Not at all, look at how they both played. Nadal could have won his match, can't say the same about murray.

Federer could have won Rome 2006, W 2008 and AO 2009, USO 2009.... The possibilities are endless. As CoolPixel says, what counts is a cold hard win and a trophy in your cabinet.

What are you talking about? We were discussing the quality of the each player's respective win and I said that Kyrgios' win over Nadal was better than the win over Murray based mainly on level of play among other things. Nadal clearly played better than Murray ("could have won") hence that win was better. Murray may as well have been injured the way he played. Is a win like that really that awe inspiring, the star of the next generation beating not even close to the best player of the previous generation who's still not playing well by his own standards?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

laverfan wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Not at all, look at how they both played. Nadal could have won his match, can't say the same about murray.

Federer could have won Rome 2006, W 2008 and AO 2009, USO 2009.... The possibilities are endless. As CoolPixel says, what counts is a cold hard win and a trophy in your cabinet.

What are you talking about? We were discussing the quality of the each player's respective win and I said that Kyrgios' win over Nadal was better than the win over Murray based mainly on level of play among other things. Nadal clearly played better than Murray ("could have won") hence that win was better. Murray may as well have been injured the way he played. Is a win like that really that awe inspiring, the star of the next generation beating not even close to the best player of the previous generation who's still not playing well by his own standards?

I can't judge too much as I was spared today's embarrassment but I get the gist of what you are saying break_in_the fifth. By all accounts Murray produced much dross today whilst Rafa (in losing did not). In Rafa's own words he didn't play too badly now I'd be surprised if Murray feels the same way about his showing today.

Murray had the second set for the asking. It could have changed the tune of the match, similar to the second set of Federer v Wawrinka. The score lines do not really indicate the difference between two opponents. Murray's own evaluation was that he played badly.

Calder106 (and CC to some extent) was a bit annoyed at me for pointing out that Murray did not have enough tough matches and I was told BA at #23 (with a recent Grass title) was good battle exercise. The signs for Murray being undercooked were there at Queens, even before Dimitrov won that title.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Dimitrov has been beginning to rap on the door at slams in recent months

You were talking about physicality. Can you see the difference between Dimitrov (under Rasheed) and say 18 months ago?

Dimitrov Slam record in last 18+ months.

AO 2013 - R128 l. Benneteau
RG 2013 - R32 l. Djokovic
W 2013 - R64 l. Zemlja
USO 2013 - R128 l. Sousa

AO 2014 - QF l. Nadal
RG 2014 - R128 l. Karlovic
W 2014 - SF ?

PS: I am   at Murray losing to Dimitrov, for the record.

you are mad at murray for losing to dimitrov? then how am I supposed to be for the kyrgios thing?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it was a great win but it counts for nothing if it isn't backed up.  Sure talent can pull you through to wins against top players

I think the discussion is not quite black-and-white but there are shades in between.  In one extreme, one could take the view that physicality is so critical that youngsters just have no hope of winning a match against any of the top players.  At the other end, one could take the view that physicality plays a much smaller role and while youngsters can surely beat even top players here and there, it is harder for them to become consistent enough to be high in the rankings.

What I think Kyrgios's win showed is that the former extreme is probably not correct.  You yourself seem to have changed your position slightly (and nimbly ) to make it look more tenable.  Now you are saying that it was never about a single match but only about overall consistency ("sure talent can pull you through...").

Before the match you seemed to be taking a bit more extreme view:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Kyrgios is 19-years-old and new to the circuit and certainly not physically-conditioned (yet) to be able to compete with Nadal over potentially five sets.

naxroy wrote:you are mad at murray for losing to dimitrov? then how am I supposed to be for the kyrgios thing?

As BITF points out, the score line is probably an emollient, but no joy in either case, your or mine.

At least in Nadal's case, he will not be changing coaches, unlike Murray, who might contemplate doing so.

Nadal has shown perseverance and the ability to bounce back. Murray also will. It is just short-term frustration.

I was talking to a die-hard Nadal fan parent, and he was totally abject today. His child and he, both needed help in different ways.

Lydian has not posted for a bit now, but I am sure he feels a little pang of regret as well. As Nadal said in his post match interview, he is at the beach, relaxing. Hopefully H-n lives close enough to go watch Nadal when he is in Canada. She can give him a hug.

I was also disappointed for the way Wawrinka was scheduled, and it may have cost him dearly.

Hey SB... your boy Dimi did well today, congrats!

laverfan wrote:Hey SB... your boy Dimi did well today, congrats!

Indeed he did.  "My" old man survived too .  Would love to see them meet in the final where, I have to admit, I would still end up rooting for Roger.  But I would not be too heartbroken if it is Grigor beating Roger in the final.

Feeling sorry for Stan though.  He clearly came to Wimbledon ready to play and who knows how he would have done had he been well.  Also, he ended up with horrible scheduling.

laverfan wrote:Murray had the second set for the asking. It could have changed the tune of the match, similar to the second set of Federer v Wawrinka. The score lines do not really indicate the difference between two opponents. Murray's own evaluation was that he played badly.

Calder106 (and CC to some extent) was a bit annoyed at me for pointing out that Murray did not have enough tough matches and I was told BA at #23 (with a recent Grass title) was good battle exercise. The signs for Murray being undercooked were there at Queens, even before Dimitrov won that title.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Dimitrov has been beginning to rap on the door at slams in recent months

You were talking about physicality. Can you see the difference between Dimitrov (under Rasheed) and say 18 months ago?

Dimitrov Slam record in last 18+ months.

AO 2013 - R128 l. Benneteau
RG 2013 - R32 l. Djokovic
W 2013 - R64 l. Zemlja
USO 2013 - R128 l. Sousa

AO 2014 - QF l. Nadal
RG 2014 - R128 l. Karlovic
W 2014 - SF ?

PS: I am   at Murray losing to Dimitrov, for the record.

Sorry I still don't buy the undercooked argument laverfan. He was NOT undercooked at RG and we got the same insipid performance in the semi as we got here in the quarters. That says there is a deeper-rooted problem - part consistenc, part psycholigical and part tactical.

summerblues wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it was a great win but it counts for nothing if it isn't backed up.  Sure talent can pull you through to wins against top players

I think the discussion is not quite black-and-white but there are shades in between.  In one extreme, one could take the view that physicality is so critical that youngsters just have no hope of winning a match against any of the top players.  At the other end, one could take the view that physicality plays a much smaller role and while youngsters can surely beat even top players here and there, it is harder for them to become consistent enough to be high in the rankings.

What I think Kyrgios's win showed is that the former extreme is probably not correct.  You yourself seem to have changed your position slightly (and nimbly ) to make it look more tenable.  Now you are saying that it was never about a single match but only about overall consistency ("sure talent can pull you through...").

Before the match you seemed to be taking a bit more extreme view:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Kyrgios is 19-years-old and new to the circuit and certainly not physically-conditioned (yet) to be able to compete with Nadal over potentially five sets.

It is purely my opinion and I am not saying I am correct here but I just feel the way court conditions have become that in tennis to succeed at the very top you need talent and lots of it and also need physicality and lots of that as well. Physicality is not just physical ability to pull you through one match (that never went to five against Rafa) but to recover in a short space of time and bring your best to the table again and again at the same tournament. Was it this physicality that deprived Kyrgios? I am not sure but caught the very end of the match and pundits said Raonic played great. Was this the same all-serve, too one-dimensional Raonic beating up on the new star? If so he needs to up his talent levels. If not he needsa to work on physicality.

I said those way too easy early rounds would nip Murray in the backside. His game looks really mechanical to me these days, he's been playing too much an unnatural game...it really is time to start playing the Mecir cat like way with a modern power twist that he always should have. His movement looks poor, his FH has lots of technical issues and his tactics seem muddled too...is he losing motivation to push himself as hard as he needed to sustain his previous approach and realises its time to change? We'll see.

Kyrgios is a major talent but I don't think he's in the Nadal/Federer mould of 10+ slams. Maybe more Safin like. His lack of conditioning cost him yesterday though in addition to being a victim of the scheduling,

lydian wrote:I said those way too easy early rounds would nip him in the backside.

Absolutely nothing to do with the defeat and its jaw-droppingly bad manner. He was challenged at RG and come the semi we got a similar sterile performance against Rafa bringing one of his heaviest defeats in his slam career and followed it up in similar fashion here against Dimitrov. That is worrying.

Yes but his slipping technique wasn't pushed early on, he wasn't forced to make adjustments and smooth out his strokes under pressure.

Losing heavily to Nadal at RG isn't as relevant to his loss yesterday...anyone can lose to Nadal like that when Rafa is on form on clay...however, his technique is starting to be found wanting against guys who take time away from him..,Stepanek included

Sorry lydian but look at last two slams closely. They ended in defeats most unlike Andy. Devoid of going down fighting. He lost pretty heavily in straight sets in both without a real spark. That is not the Andy I know and many here will agree with me. Heck he got closer to beating Rafa in previous semi at RG despite not looking and playing so well that year. It is inconsistency and mentally he has lost the plot. If he can bring those back in line he'll get back on track.