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.

If Kyrgios makes the final it dispels a myth but if he crashes out against Raonic or Roger or whoever with tank on empty it surely shows he lacks the physicality just now - that is my point. To win a slam nowadays you need talent and a big degree of physicality. Today he beat Rafa but tomorrow can he physically recover to beat Raonic? We shall see.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

+1

What is breaking through though? A random win against a top player but no big titles to follow (ie slams)? The holy grail is becoming a slam winner so that is what we must judge these young stars by. Remember winning a slam you have to win best of five matches - that is the test of physicality on slower court conditions nowadays. Kyrgios may or may not go on to win a slam but when will that be? This week or five years down the line? Lets wait and see. I will say if he reaches the final here then it is definitely dispelling a myth but not just now. Lets see if he can pull off a win or two more first here before making a knee-jerk judgment.

Remember as well though that Gasquet came very close to beating Kyrgios and Jiri Veselly also came damned close (closer than Rafa) to beating him.

The point is not what is breaking through but what what is not breaking through is not due to physicality but utter lack of quality. The thread explains it pretty clear, when there is a quality it will shine and when there is not one there are just excuses saying physical conditioning , slow conditions etc,..

That's fine and I agree but it is not the argument that people like the OP have been peddling especially since Djokovic and Murray joined Nadal at the top at a young age. According to them it has all been about slow courts and physical condition. Strange how their view changed in one match.

one bloke does not make a trend, nor does one tournament. Kyrgios is still ranked very low, its all about consistency

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I agree banbrotam.  Let's just sit back and see how far he goes here and thereafter before swearing him as the next multiple slam winner.

Dear me. Does it come naturally to misunderstand points this badly or does it take practise?

The point is that this kid has shown that all it takes is talent and nerve to beat the top guys. You don't have to go through 5/6 seasons of battle hardening, it just requires enough of the real stuff.

He doesn't need to win Wimbledon to prove that, he did it today. His wasn't an allegedly injured Nadal, this is post-big layoff, RG winning Rafa.

He didn't just squeak by, he won very clearly, scored plenty more points, won countless very big points at critical moments. Basically, he did what we're told can't be done until you're in your mid twenties because these top guys grind you down.

Oh, and he did it a few days after an epic 5 setter, so he was probably quite tired.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I agree banbrotam.  Let's just sit back and see how far he goes here and thereafter before swearing him as the next multiple slam winner.

Dear me. Does it come naturally to misunderstand points this badly or does it take practise?

The point is that this kid has shown that all it takes is talent and nerve to beat the top guys. You don't have to go through 5/6 seasons of battle hardening, it just requires enough of the real stuff.

He doesn't need to win Wimbledon to prove that, he did it today. His wasn't an allegedly injured Nadal, this is post-big layoff, RG winning Rafa.

He didn't just squeak by, he won very clearly, scored plenty more points, won countless very big points at critical moments. Basically, he did what we're told can't be done until you're in your mid twenties because these top guys grind you down.

Oh, and he did it a few days after an epic 5 setter, so he was probably quite tired.

The worst part is I have taken efforts to clear the thread by explaining it like how you would do to a kid and yet people find it difficult to understand.   

Odd things happen all the time BB, but his is an isolated case, I mean a 14 year old could beat a 25 year world number 1 too, but its very unlikely. The trend says teenage years make it very hard. Bear in note that Kyrgios used his serve primarily to win this, had he been in longer ralles, you may well have seen the drawbacks of not being at physical prime.

falzy21 wrote:one bloke does not make a trend, nor does one tournament. Kyrgios is still ranked very low, its all about consistency

This thread is completely out of scope of this topic, may be you need to re-read the thread, its not about Kyrgious the next big thing, its about quality vs excuses.   

Calder106 wrote:Think OP has thrown is a curved ball here. Can't remember him having challenged the fitness myth and age before. Then Nadal loses to a 19 year old who played with power, imagination and excellent mental strength and he makes out this is what he has been saying all along.

I gave been saying for ages that the so-called a Golden Era is a load of balls based largely on no talent coming through. For ages I've said it. And plenty others have said it too.

It's guys like Craig claiming they are wonderful but need more fitness. Not me.

See,f we'd had a few Nicks around for the last few years we wouldn't have had so many same 4 semi finals because they'd have got ambushed now and then, there'd be a broader spread of Slams and we'd not hear thus tiresome Golden Era garbage. The kid doesn't need to win it - McEnroe didn't for a few years - to prove the point.

falzy21 wrote:Odd things happen all the time BB, but his is an isolated case, I mean a  14 year old could beat a  25 year world number 1 too, but its very unlikely. The trend says teenage years make it very hard. Bear in note that Kyrgios used his serve primarily to win this, had he been in longer ralles, you may well have seen the drawbacks of not being at physical prime.

Can you describe me when was the last time a kid used serve only to beat a Top dog in a slam? we had Roanic, we had Dimitrov, Anderson, Harrison, Socks etc,...

So stop twisting the thread pls   

Lemme repeat the below statement again.

The point is not what is breaking through but what what is not breaking through is not due to physicality but utter lack of quality. The thread explains it pretty clear, when there is a quality it will shine and when there is not one there are just excuses saying physical conditioning , slow conditions etc,..


--------
So please stop twisting the thread Kygro as a the next big thing, this thread is about Quality vs excuses for lack of quality.  

I do love how arguments change depending on the point people are trying to make. For years, Federer fans have been explaining how Rafa is dominant due to the physicality of his tennis and the fact all the courts now play the same (slow) way.

Today, we saw a youngster play aggressive tennis on a fast court - surely no-one thinks he would have served 30+ aces against Rafa at RG. In fact, what it showed was that there are still huge differences between the surfaces. Physicality is far less important on the grass. Consequently Rafa's two Wimbledon titles should be credited to his incredible ability, rather than due to the fact it was green clay.

Krygios looks a fine prospect and I think he has a chance to reach the very top. However, it will be his ability to replicate this run tournament by tournament which will really tell us where he is at. Tomic reached a QF at Wimbledon at the same age. Dimitrov and Raonic were pushing Rafa/Fed in matches (albeit without ultimately getting over the line) at a similar age.

Its also a straw man argument that anyone has bigged up today's younger generation. Its commonly acknowledged that the likes of Raonic and Dimitrov have flaws that have held them back. Its obvious that talents such as the big 4 would still be top 10 players at a young age.

One, its my first post soo dont accuse me of twisting the thread
Second, if people keep getting it wrong maybe make the title less vague and confusing, you want someone to talk about some specific, then make it clear

Born Slippy wrote:

Krygios looks a fine prospect and I think he has a chance to reach the very top. However,  it will be his ability to replicate this run tournament by tournament which will really tell us where he is at. Tomic reached a QF at Wimbledon at the same age. Dimitrov and Raonic were pushing Rafa/Fed in matches (albeit without ultimately getting over the line) at a similar age. .

Thats the exact point we are talking about, all these Dimitrov, Raonic as quality is plain rubbish, and golden era is bulls.

Dimitrov , Roanic are yet to beat a Top 4 in Slams and thats not due to physicallity, slow conditions , blah blah, its plain they are not good enough to beat the top 4. What we saw today is an exhibition of quality, I am sorry I never saw this on your so called heroes of next generation Dimitrov, Roanic etc,....

falzy21 wrote:One, its my first post soo dont accuse me of twisting the thread
Second, if people keep getting it wrong maybe make the title less vague and confusing, you want someone to talk about some specific, then make it clear

I guess the topic is pretty clear, its just some people's reply confused you.   

You want something clearer than "Age myth dispelled"?

Exactly how?

Hows that relevant to the title? I thought this was a discussion thread of needing to be older to succeed?

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

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:Think OP has thrown is a curved ball here. Can't remember him having challenged the fitness myth and age before. Then Nadal loses to a 19 year old who played with power, imagination and excellent mental strength and he makes out this is what he has been saying all along.

I gave been saying for ages that the so-called a Golden Era is a load of balls based largely on no talent coming through. For ages I've said it. And plenty others have said it too.

It's guys like Craig claiming they are wonderful but need more fitness. Not me.

Don't agree, the argument has been about slow courts and physicality stopping the younger players coming through. Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray seemingly had it easy as they appeared in some transitional era which then got locked in and didn't allow these younger players to  progress. So I agree it was a myth that a young talented player could not get to the top  of the game I never saw you challenging that myth before today.

Perhaps, just perhaps that we should credit how consistenly good the top guys ar to keep these guys down hmm?

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.   

First of all none of this is fact, its all what you guys reckon... Moreover, Raonic and Dimitrov havent retired yet, in fact theyre not even out of this tournament yet, theyre quality but theyre going up against legends everytime, that aint easy, all they can do is keep trying. Did you expect Stan to win a slam? Or was he another rubbish guy with no quality

falzy21 wrote:Perhaps, just perhaps that we should credit how consistenly good the top guys ar to keep these guys down hmm?

lets extend and say how consistently top 5 [including Ferrer] oh wait lets increase it to top 6 including Berdych, oh should I also add Tsonga , Wawrinka etc,...

Come on Falzy, its not just the top 4 are consistent many other players are consistent too these days and the worst part is they where no where near as good as the stats suggests on their prime. Rafa is finding to win slams easy these years compared to his prime.

Every generation in the past thrown some exceptional young kids coming and taking the top dogs, be if Fed/Hewitt on Sampras time, be it Nadal/Djoko/Murray on Fed's time, but what do we have now? Dimitrov Roanic etc,.. do you seriously believe Dimitrov would have been a Grand slam champ had he had the stamina of say Ferrer? if you say that I am quitting this thread with no more replies, coz that would be utter vague to argue after that.

Thats a good idea Ic you seem to be getting flustered, best to come back after a nights rest. The point is its not fair to call these guys that have been labelled by us as amazing, crap because they dont meet our lofty expectations. Dimitrov has looked much more dangerous after bulking up a load, but fact is we dont know if he would win a slam

If this is what you guys gonna sell to me , i.e "Dimitrov , Roanic and co " would have beaten Top 4 consistently had they had the stamina of say Ferrer, I guess there is something fundamentally wrong with your tennis knowledge.   

So you think Dimitrov is less talented than Ferrer?

falzy21 wrote:Thats a good idea Ic you seem to be getting flustered, best to come back after a nights rest. The point is its not fair to call these guys that have been labelled by us as amazing, crap because they dont meet our lofty expectations. Dimitrov has looked much more dangerous after bulking up a load, but fact is we dont know if he would win a slam

You still not addressing the point bro, and making me smile at you , between its only evening here, why would I need to go for a sleep, unless its a practice for you to go for a sleep at 7.00 PM then I got no comments.

So you trying to sell me that Roanic , Dimitrov and co would have been a slam champ had they had the stamina of say Ferrer   

Now you not joking right, if yes lemme know I will try to laugh along with you.   

Soo youre saying that the younger guys arent winning multiple slams lik the olden days, not cause theyre not physically strong enough, but because theyre crap. Well id tell you to wait and see and not decide on a very complex subject on one match.

Also dont storm off if someone doesnt agree with you, this a forum after all, its not just for you to say things its for you to listen to others too

Born Slippy wrote:So you think Dimitrov is less talented than Ferrer?

good point, could be more talented but mental midget, if talent alone could win slams we would have seen Gasquet win multiple slams.   

I havent said anything of the sorts IC, calm down and think, and dont laugh at others opinions as though theyre beneath yours

falzy21 wrote:I havent said anything of the sorts IC, calm down and think, and dont laugh at others opinions as though theyre beneath yours

So you still wanna divert the argument rather than accepting the point.   Ok fair enough I agree with you Dimitrov and Raonic would have been a multiple slam champs and would have cleaned all 4 slams last few years had they had the stamina level of Ferrer.  

Its just the physical conditioning of Dimitrov and Roanic stopped winning slams .   

Take a bow Falzy.   

Oh for gods sake, stop acting like a child! How old are you? I did not say that, i simply said its hard to tell... f*cks sake..

I accept your point, and i offered a counter, I must say i expected an adult response, my mistake

falzy21 wrote:Oh for gods sake, stop acting like a child! How old are you? I did not say that, i simply said its hard to tell... f*cks sake..

Come on, either accept the argument or counter it, don't beg here to stop, I just raised some points to counter your argument, between if I am just 3 year old you would be more ashamed that 3 year old proved your arugment as utter bulls, so for your Gods sake I am not 3 year old.   

falzy21 wrote:I accept your point, and i offered a counter, I must say i expected an adult response, my mistake

You get an adult response if your point made some sense, when your kidding and your points were of very kiddish and struggled to answer the counter yea yea its will look kiddish for you.

Btw when you lose an argument completely you start to abuse people right, good motto, keep it up.   

No Ic, i dont think they would win slams with ferrers stamina, still i think theyd do much better. I also dont think theyre crap. I know youre buddy Socals gone, but I wont take your wind up stuff like he did, Ive already talked to lf, soo I suggest you end it here

falzy21 wrote:No Ic, i dont think they would win slams with ferrers stamina, still i think theyd do much better. I also dont think theyre crap. I know youre buddy Socals gone, but I wont take your wind up stuff like he did, Ive already talked to lf, soo I suggest you end it here

How am I winding you up here, you even agreed my point, BB raised a fair point and it made sense to me and I backed with my reason.

It took this long for you to understand what we actually tried to convey, that doesn't mean I am winding up.

If you have a counter argument you can very well put in and I will try to counter, if you don't have one then wait till you find one. Somebody posted a good question "did that mean Dimitrov lacked talent in comparison to Ferrer", you need to counter like that, not sake Gods sake, f sake etc,.. there is clearly no need of abuse.

Btw I know you have nothing personal on me, nor me on you, so lets leave the topic where it is, and when you get real counter come back and post it, mean while leave the thread as it is than spoiling the thread with personal discussion.   

Can the pair of you pack it in before the naughty step beckons.

Try being less condescending, you always were the WUM between you and socal, but we lost him and kept you sadly. Good time to go I think, stay classy

I do believe it's an indictment on Dimitrov that at 23 he's still to discomfort a top guy at a Slam. It's a terrible blot on him, enough for me to feel dismissive of him.

Krygios just showed it can be done, if you have the talent and mental strength.

Let's not forget that youth usually comes through because it does things differently; McEnroe volleyed like nobody before him, Nadal brought new levels of intensity and discipline. Some recent 'young' players are just pale imitations.
I was struck how Nick basically bullied Rafa; once he got hold of a rally Nadal knew he had to attack quickly or Krygious was going to take it to him hard & flat (off the backhand) and he knows he can't handle that. He coughed up a lot of u/es because of it.

falzy21 wrote:Try being less condescending, you always were the WUM between you and socal, but we lost him and kept you sadly. Good time to go I think, stay classy

OK lemme explain the thread to you again coz you fail to understand.

BB and I state its lack of quality among youngsters to stop top 4 and not just physcial conditioning etc,..

Now can you can clarify how you differ from this without resorting to personal insults?   

falzy21 wrote:Try being less condescending, you always were the WUM between you and socal, but we lost him and kept you sadly. Good time to go I think, stay classy

I don't even wanna comment on Socal, its not my business, he didn't get banned coz of me, unless you agree again his arguments with Jahu was right.   

Hero wrote:Can the pair of you pack it in before the naughty step beckons.

Sir, I respect your concern, I have always aired my views in a very civilized non abusive way, if posting an argument is considered as crime then banning would be same as not posting anything.

Please ban me if you find one reason of me breaking the house rules, I will agree with your decision.  

Raonic at RG 2014...

v Kyrgios - 27 Aces / 30 Games
v Veseley - 20 Aces / 29 Games
v Simon - 19 Aces / 47 Games
v Granollers - 6 Aces / 27 Games
v Djokovic - 21 Aces / 34 Games

83 Aces / 167 Games ~ 0.49 Aces / Game

at W 2014

v Ebden - 30 Aces / 28 Games
v Sock - 13 Aces / 29 Games
v Kubot - 30 Aces / 34 Games
v Nishikori - 35 Aces / 39 Games

108 Aces / 130 Games ~ 0.83 Aces/Game

To serve aces requires physical strength, on Clay even more.

Rafter in W 2001

v Vacek - 9 Aces / 29 Games
v Dosedel - 4 Aces / 39 Games
v Arazi - 10 Aces / 34 Games
v Youzhny - 8 Aces / 37 Games
v Enqvist - 15 Aces / 28 Games
v Agassi - 30 Aces / 48 Games
v Ivanisevic - 13 Aces / 51 Games

89 Aces / 266 Games ~ 0.33 Aces/Game


So RG 2014 for Raonic (0.49) v W 2001 for Rafter (0.33) implies RG in 2014 is faster than W 2001?

(I hope I have not made any errors. Please check BS).

Born Slippy wrote:Physicality is far less important on the grass. Consequently Rafa's two Wimbledon titles should be credited to his incredible ability, rather than due to the fact it was green clay.

Nadal deserves enormous credit for his W wins. As he said in his post match interview "This Surface" is tricky.

The reason Dimitrov hired Rashid and Bresnik is Gulbis and Thiem's coach is because they consider Tennis now akin to war.

Rasheed himself has admitted that his coaching regimen is not easy for players who shirk physical aspects of it.

Javier Piles (Ferrer's old coach) used to push Ferrer quite a bit to perhaps compensate for lack of his big FH or a big BH.

iC's favorite Del Potro can pelt the fuzz of the little yellow ball prior to his wrist issues.

Physicality can compensate for deficiencies in other areas.

This is true LF. This is why it was so refreshing to see a player triumph who so obviously wasn't trained like a Tour De France rider, but who did it with weapons and belief.

It is good for Tennis and it's longevity to have infusion of young talent and blood. Whether it is 50% Talent/50% Physicality, or otherwise, that is the beauty of the sport we love. Unlike Football, there are no draws in Tennis, as TMF has said. And tomorrow will bring some more Tennis.

invisiblecoolers wrote:You still not addressing the point bro

I think that would be sis.

I tend to agree with the main premise of the article.  I suspect the view that young tennis players are not succeeding only because conditions changed is too simplistic.  I suspect changing conditions contributed to it, but they are not the only reason - after all Rafa succeeded very young playing exactly the style of tennis he has been playing ever since.

laverfan wrote:
Physicality can compensate for deficiencies in other areas.

+1

Agreed, and that what I was advocating but in a slightly different way, i.e they are not as good as they were portrayed so to compensate and to improve the quality of results they started to focus on physicality, nothing wrong in it, Ferrer already set a bench mark for it.

In comparison this young kid proved he got the quality to beat a top level opponent indeed the World no.1 even without it, and if he gonna improve his physical conditioning too then we are seeing a future Slam champ, if he doesn't we could easily see Tomic 2.   

But like many this kid looks real deal and could inspire other players of his generation to do something special, who know Cilic and Dimitrov could be inspired by this win, they might believe their chances tomorrow.   

summerblues wrote:I tend to agree with the main premise of the article.  I suspect the view that young tennis players are not succeeding only because conditions changed is too simplistic.  I suspect changing conditions contributed to it, but they are not the only reason - after all Rafa succeeded very young playing exactly the style of tennis he has been playing ever since.

+1