[BLOG] Open Era Generations, Part Nine: Gen 8 (1969-73) - American Supernova

[El Dude]

Here's the next part. Enjoy.

 

[shawnbm]

Great read as always. It was a special time in American tennis. It was nice reading this after perusing articles on the passing of David Bowie. Ashes to ashes, funk to funky ...

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, sad to hear about Bowie.

Looking back at this era, while I agree that it was a special time for American tennis, I choose the word "supernova" as an image that implies a last and dying blast of a previously brilliant star. American tennis was always great, going back to Bill Tilden, with only short lulls. But even during the relatively dry spells like the late 60s and early 70s, there were very good players to carry the baton (e.g. Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith). From the mid-70s until mid-00s, there was always at least one great American: Connors to McEnroe to Courier, Sampras and Agassi. Agassi passed the baton to Roddick, but it was a noticeable decline in greatness, and the Roddick to...John Isner? I like Jack Sock, but it is a sad state of affairs when he's the most exciting American on tour. Still, there's hope on the horizon in Francis Tiafoe, Taylor Fritz, and perhaps Jared Donaldson. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

 

[El Dude]

One more thing. 2015 was the 12th year in a row that was Slamless for American (men). The second longest gap in tennis history - going back to the beginning of the US Open in 1881 - is only FOUR years, 1985-88.

 

[Great Hands]

One more thing. 2015 was the 12th year in a row that was Slamless for American (men). The second longest gap in tennis history - going back to the beginning of the US Open in 1881 - is only FOUR years, 1985-88.

Good stat. Funnily enough, the other day I was just investigating how long the U.S. has ever gone without a slam winner of either gender, because in thinking about it, it always seemed that even if they didn't have a male champ, they had a female champ, and viva versa. i.e. Even now, though no American men are winning, Serena continues to fly the flag.

The stat is as follows: since 1881 (the year of the first U.S. Open – before that Wimbledon was the only slam and it was always won by British players), the U.S. has had at least one Grand Slam champ every year except:

1964, 1965, 1969, 1988, 2004, 2006, 2011.

So the U.S. has had at least one Slam champ for 128 of the last 135 years.

And it has never gone more than two years without a Grand Slam champ! What an extraordinary record!

But with Serena getting into her mid-30s, how long will this stat hold? We will see...

 

[Great Hands]

As regards the generation discussed in this blog, I was always a big fan of Rafter. A lovely serve and volley game, fun to watch. I have great memories of those WD SFs against Agassi - awesome.

 

[El Dude]

Rafter has a rather a-typical career, with an unusual trajectory: while he played in some professional tournaments in 1990-92 (age 18-20), he didn't really get going as a full-time professional until 1993 (21) and then didn't break through as an elite player until 1997 (when he turned 25). He also retired rather abruptly in 2001 (age 29) while still playing at a high level and being a threat at Slams.

Any idea why he took so long to reach elite level, and then retired when he did?

 

[Great Hands]

Rafter has a rather a-typical career, with an unusual trajectory: while he played in some professional tournaments in 1990-92 (age 18-20), he didn't really get going as a full-time professional until 1993 (21) and then didn't break through as an elite player until 1997 (when he turned 25). He also retired rather abruptly in 2001 (age 29) while still playing at a high level and being a threat at Slams.

Any idea why he took so long to reach elite level, and then retired when he did?

I know that he had injury problems - he had shoulder surgery around the turn of the century. I seem to recall him saying in interviews that despite the fact he was still succeeding at the top level, the physical side of the game was becoming harder and harder for him. He did have a very athletic, explosive game that relied upon speed and fast reactions (well, that's always true of tennis, but his serve and volley style particularly. He didn't have a massive serve, either, like Pete or Goran, so with him it was like with Edberg, he had to get into the net as quickly as possible to make that first volley as easy as possible).

As to why he took longer to mature, the physical side may have been a factor there too. Staying in good shape physically enough so he could continue to improve. I remember him being a young, talented player but cramping dramatically at WD, so conditioning may have been a factor too. Others may know better than me about his earlier years though, as I didn't really get into him until he became a top player.

 

[El Dude]

You know, what you say reminds me a bit of Grigor Dimitrov. I wonder if he'll be similar, at least in terms of peaking late.

 

[Great Hands]

You know, what you say reminds me a bit of Grigor Dimitrov. I wonder if he'll be similar, at least in terms of peaking late.

I definitely think Dimitrov will play his best tennis relatively late. I can see him playing his best tennis in his late 20s - so still 3, 4 years from now.

You never know, he could 'do a Wawrinka' - i.e. be a top 20 guy for quite a while and then something clicks - maybe with the help of the right coach - and he becomes an elite, at least for a few years, later in his career. Then again, he could continue to just show flashes of brilliance, without his game ever coming together fully. We will see.

 

[mrzz]

Hey, El Dude, just now I had the time to congratulate you for the "Generations series", it is a great read. I refrain from commenting as I have very little to add.

But wait till the generation of my tennis court mate Kuerten....

 

[El Dude]

Hey, El Dude, just now I had the time to congratulate you for the "Generations series", it is a great read. I refrain from commenting as I have very little to add.

But wait till the generation of my tennis court mate Kuerten....

You used to play with Gustavo?

And thanks!

 

[mrzz]

^In fact, no. I grew up playing in the same courts as he did. But I am a few years older. Probably played other kids who played him, in fact one of my friends played him occasionally, I guess.

 

[shawnbm]

Wow--no idea mrzz was and likely still is a top notch player! Love it! I always like to ask really accomplished players (guys higher than 5.0) their thoughts on what the professionals can do. Mrzz used to play against guys that played against Guga--that means something.

 

[mrzz]

Hey hey hey there, I am still a bit far away from 5.0.

And you know what? I used to own this friend of mine that played, and have beaten, Guga.



The fact that I was 14, my friend 12, and Guga 10 does not change anything. It would have been exactly the same in 1998.

 

[shawnbm]

I hear you. I think it takes folks that have played at a decent level to really appreciate how some players can own others whilst losing to guys the owned players routinely beat. The issue of match-up, that is usually innate to each player, cannot be brushed aside. Add to that pressure and expectation and even truly great players can have difficulty. For the greats, however, there is usually a period wherein they appear to solve all problems and win more often against even those who are most comfortable playing them because of match-ups. It is an interesting dynamic in tennis.

 

[El Dude]

A little joke...

How do you tell the difference between a Federer and Nadal fan?

One buys into match-ups, the other doesn't.

...

OK, it was stupid.