The Young Devour The Old

[brokenshoelace]

...or at least, they usually do. By and large, that's certainly been the case in tennis. So, in order not to derail my other thread too much, we can discuss this here.

Cali pointed out that the tour has "regressed" and as such, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (he didn't mention Federer, but he should have) are sort of allowed to prolong their years at the top. Now, while I think "regressed" isn't necessarily the right word, I totally see his point.

The conversation in that thread turned into whether the tour is better now than it was 10 years ago, but I don't think that's the discussion we should be having. The discussion we should be having is how will the tour be in say, four years. Because right now, yeah, the tour is still great, and will always be as long as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer are playing at a high level. No tour with three all-time greats and another multi-slam winner at the top can be bad.

But the truth is, the younger generation is extremely uninspiring. When Pete Sampras' days at the top started becoming numbered, you could see the younger generation making noise. Safin and Hewitt both famously beat him in major finals, Federer beat him at Wimbledon, Nalbandian reached a major final, Roddick made his mark, etc... (I'm well aware Pete still held his own against them, like any great would. That's not the point of contention here).

Then, fast forward a generation, when Federer's days of total dominance started declining, the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were immediately there to make their mark (and yeah, like Sampras, Federer still held his own, but again, that's not the point).

Cali's initial point -- I think -- was that, we just don't see that now, and with that, I can only agree. If you're Novak Djokovic, are you seriously worried about your spot at the top in a couple of years because Milos Raonic is climbing up the ranks, or hell, even Grigor Dimitrov (the fact that he's the best of the bunch says a lot about what an underwhelming bunch it is)? I very much doubt it. If Nadal stays healthy, who should he worry about really, other than his main rivals (who are just about his age)?

Yes, we saw chinks in the top 4's armor this year, but if Wawrinka (a man who will turn 30 in March) is supposed to make Djokovic or Nadal tremble, then we have a real problem. Nishikori is talented, but no player under 6 feet tall, minus a huge weapon and a history of injuries is going to dominate the tour. So the fading in dominance of the top 4 has much more to do with age (Federer), injuries (Nadal) and whatever the hell Murray is going through, than it does with the rest of the tour catching up. Usually, it's a mixture of the two, but not in this case.

The fact is, this new generation is light years behind the Federer generation, and galaxies behind the Nadal/Murray/Djokovic generation. To put it in perspective, think of how Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were viewed when they first came up (it was pretty much a given that they'll be winning majors in the future), or even Hewitt and Roddick (and that's not even touching on Federer, otherwise this conversation wouldn't be fair)...

As such, while we can debate whether the tour is currently better or worse than it was 10 years ago (it's certainly better at the very top. But not better beyond that), I don't think the future is too bright. However, things can change quickly, and all it takes is a couple of really hot prospects who go on to live up to expectations.

 

[Federberg]

Good thread... I truly believe that this is because this is the first era where we are being forced to adjust to a new reality. Professional mens tennis has become so physically demanding and competitive that it's virtually impossible for young players to make a big splash early in their career. In the old days with faster court speeds and great surface differentiation it seems that it was easier for young guys to make a breakthrough. I'm not sure I'm ready yet to just say it's because they were more talented. It might be that simple... or it could be that because of the greater depth of the tour it's now much much harder to stand out from the crowd. We have to remember that now more than ever before guys who aren't simply from the US, Western Europe or Australia are filling up the ranks. There is a far deeper pool and there are natural consequences because of this.

This is why I think it's really apples and oranges in the era comparison debate. I mean.. really.. who did the likes of Laver have to compete with. It was such a small pool. That's not to say he wasn't immensely talented, but standing out from the crowd in the 50s and 60s is entirely different from doing so now. It's a whole world of difference.

What makes things worse now than ever before is the homogeneity of surfaces. Because of this, you really do have to stand out against the entire field. In the 80s.. a player like Becker only really needed to break out against the other serve and volleyers for example. Now you have to be an all court monster that can take down guys on any surface. Again.. it's a comparitively monumental task now. I feel sorry for the young guns, because even the less talented pros they have to compete with get a 4 or 5 year head start on them playing in uniform conditions. What I'm saying is that in this era, talent is no longer enough to help you with your breakthrough. Not anymore..

 

[Haelfix]

I do think a lot of it has to do with the ball/surface changes. Just watching the old Hewitt vs Baby Rafa ao match and you could see that balls would literally fly off their rackets, and this from two guys not known for hitting flat/penetrating go for broke shots. Nowdays though it seems like a much heavier ball, pretty much from everyone, and to compensate people hit with much more topspin.

I do think this adversely effects younger players moreso than older ones. And it really does have to do with the power vs strength body type. The latter has become much more important in modern tennis and thus older players are keeping up/ahead of the younger guys.

 

[El Dude]

Good post, Broken. A couple thoughts.

First of all, this isn't the first time that men's tennis has faced a generational gap. Even just 15 years ago, you had a relatively weak generation of player born in the latter half of the 1970s. Look at the players born between Sampras and Federer, or 1972 and 1980. You have: Chang, Rafter, Bjorkman, Rusedski, Kafelnikov, Corretja, Enqvist, Medvedev, Rios, Johansson, Novak, Kuerten, Moya, Philippousis, Schuettler, Norman, Kiefer, Gaudio, Haas, Stepanek, Blake, Ljubicic, Karlovic, Chela, Safin, Ferrero, Gonzalez, and so forth. Some good players, NO all-time greats. Sure, Kuerten and Kafelnikov were close, and Safin is one of the great all-time "what could have beens," but tha's nine years without a truly great player being born.

Rewind a bit and you have 1945-1951. John Newcombe was born in 1944, Jimmy Connors and Guillermo Vilas in 1952. There were some very good players born inbetween--Tony Roche, Jan Kodes, Ilie Nastase, Stan Smith, Manuel Orantes, Adriano Panatta, Eddie Dibbs, Roscoe Tanner--again, some excellent players but no true greats. Go back even further and there are other gaps.

Anyhow, my point is that what we're facing--a gap of all-time greats starting with the year 1988 and extending five years and more--isn't anything new.

That said, I think there's potential in the generation after Raonic/Dimitrov, that is those players born in 1994 and later. Nick Kyrgios (b. 1995), Borna Coric (b. 1996) and Alexander Zverev (b. 1997) stand out most to me. I think these these three may be the future of men's tennis. There might be several Slam titles in the "in-between" generation--which I'd define as those players born beween 1989 (Kei Nishikori) and 1993 (Dominic Thiem, Jiri Vesely) and includes everyone between (Milos Raonic, Jerzy Janowicz, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov, Denis Kudla, Jack Sock, Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison)--but as far as potential greats, you have to look to the youngest generation on tour, which I'd define as those players born from 1994 to 1998 (I see tennis generations in five-year spans, with new generations starting in the fifth and tenth years of a decade).

So don't despair. In my mind, Kyrgios, Coric, and Zverev are legit future stars. Nothing is definite, but these three in particular have what it takes, in my opinion. And there are others in their age range to keep an eye on (Jared Donaldson, Thanasi Kokkinakis, and Francis Tiafoe among others).

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The problem, the way I see it, is that the Milos Raonic, Jerzy Janowicz, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov, Jack Sock, Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison generation is kind of a lost generation...Milos has the very well known limitations that will always stop him from being a great player, JJ , Ryan, Tomic, those guys look like a lost cause all together, and that leaves us with Grigor, whom I still have hope for and I see room for improvement.

So, it looks like we have skipped a generation but maybe the next generation will pick up the slack.

 

[Riotbeard]

The problem, the way I see it, is that the Milos Raonic, Jerzy Janowicz, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov, Jack Sock, Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison generation is kind of a lost generation...Milos has the very well known limitations that will always stop him from being a great player, JJ , Ryan, Tomic, those guys look like a lost cause all together, and that leaves us with Grigor, whom I still have hope for and I see room for improvement.

So, it looks like we have skipped a generation but maybe the next generation will pick up the slack.

Conveniently left out Kei, the best of the lot IMO.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The problem, the way I see it, is that the Milos Raonic, Jerzy Janowicz, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov, Jack Sock, Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison generation is kind of a lost generation...Milos has the very well known limitations that will always stop him from being a great player, JJ , Ryan, Tomic, those guys look like a lost cause all together, and that leaves us with Grigor, whom I still have hope for and I see room for improvement.

So, it looks like we have skipped a generation but maybe the next generation will pick up the slack.

Conveniently left out Kei, the best of the lot IMO.

The fact that he's the best of the lot is a problem in itself. That's nothing against him, he's a good player, but he's not even on Davydenko's level -- a guy who was at best the fifth best player of his generation, if that.

 

[El Dude]

Davydenko's an interesting comp for Nishikori. Consider that both broke through to the top ten and a year-end #5 ranking at around the same age - Davydenko was 24 in 2005 when he finished #5, after finishing #28 the year before, while Kei is turning 25 at the very end of this year, also finishing at #5 but after being #17 last year. That began a five-year streak for Davydenko of finishing in the top 6, including three Masters titles, a WTF, and four Slam semifinals. We'll see how the comparison looks going forward.

I'm also not ready to call Nishikori the best of that generation (born 1989-93). Best so far, sure, but Raonic is over a year younger and Dimitrov a year and a half, and both are close to Kei. Compare:

Titles:
Nishikori: 7 total, 4 ATP 500, 3 ATP 250
Dimitrov: 4 total, 1 ATP 500, 3 ATP 250
Raonic: 6 total, 1 ATP 500, 5 ATP 250

Slam Results (second week):
Nishikori: 1 Final
Dimitrov: 1 SF, 1 QF
Raonic: 1 SF, 1 QF

Rankings:
Nishikori: 281, 63, 421, 100, 25, 19, 17, 5
Dimitrov: 493, 288, 106, 76, 48, 23, 11
Raonic: 373, 156, 31, 13, 11, 8

Win Pct:
Nishikori: 64.29% (79% in 2014)
Dimitrov: 59.13% (74% in 2014)
Raonic: 66.67% (71% in 2014)

Just looking at their stats, it looks like Nishikori and Dimitrov are both still rising, while Raonic's ascent has levelled off somewhat. Consider their winning percentages over the last three years:

Nishikori: 67%, 65%, 79%
Dimitrov: 56%, 62%, 74%
Raonic: 69%, 68%, 71%

Actually, Dimitrov's results have improved solidly in just about every way in every year of his career. Raonic seems to have found a level, although with incremental gains. Nishikori jumped to a new level in 2014; hopefully he can maintain that.

Anyhow, all things tolled I'd give Nishikori the slight edge - but only slight. I think Dimitrov remains the player with the most upside.

 

[El Dude]

But again, compare the five best players of the last few generations (some speculative):

Born 1994-98: Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, Kokkinakis?,Garin?
Born 1989-93: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin?, Janowicz? (maybe Thiem and Vesely)
Born 1984-88: Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Wawrinka (also: Cilic, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, etc)
Born 1979-83: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero (also: Ferrer, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Coria, etc)
Born 1974-78: Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Corretja, etc
Born 1969-73: Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, etc
Born 1964-68: Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Muster, Stich, etc
Born 1959-63: Lendl, McEnroe, Noah, Gilbert, Leconte, etc
Born 1954-58: Borg, Gerulaitis, Kriek, Teacher, Clerc, etc
Born 1949-53: Connors, Vilas, Orantes, Tanner, Ramirez, etc
Born 1944-48: Newcombe, Nastase, Kodes, Smith, Okker, etc
Born 1939-43: Ashe, McKinley, Drysdale, Mulligan, Buchholz, etc
Born 1934-38: Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Emerson, Gimeno, etc
Born 1929-33: Trabert, Fraser, Nielsen, McGregor, Hartwig, etc
Born 1924-28: Gonzales, Sedgman, Patty, Savitt, Falkenburg, etc
Born 1919-23: Kramer, Segura, Seixas, Drobny, Schroeder, etc
Born 1914-18: Budge, Riggs, Parker, Petra, etc
Born 1909-13: Vines, Perry, Nusslein, von Cramm, etc
Born 1904-08: Lacoste, Crawford, Austin, etc
Born 1899-03: Cochet, etc
Born 1894-98: Johnston, etc
Born 1889-93: Tilden, etc

Etc. Just looking at that, Nishikori's generation looks like one of the very weakest - along with Kuerten's and Ashe's.

As mentioned, I'm going to do a series of blogs on examining tennis generations - starting with Roger's, so stay tuned.

EDIT: Added some players and generations. I also put in bold players that could be considered "all-time greats" - roughly 5+ Slams and/or best player for a period of time. No real criteria other than eye-balling it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The problem, the way I see it, is that the Milos Raonic, Jerzy Janowicz, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov, Jack Sock, Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison generation is kind of a lost generation...Milos has the very well known limitations that will always stop him from being a great player, JJ , Ryan, Tomic, those guys look like a lost cause all together, and that leaves us with Grigor, whom I still have hope for and I see room for improvement.

So, it looks like we have skipped a generation but maybe the next generation will pick up the slack.

Conveniently left out Kei, the best of the lot IMO.

Honestly I cannot believe how I forgot him ! He is probably one of my favorites with Grigor for this specific generation. My bad.

Point remains though. Only two players that MIGHT win a slam or two for this generation.

 

[Riotbeard]

The problem, the way I see it, is that the Milos Raonic, Jerzy Janowicz, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov, Jack Sock, Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison generation is kind of a lost generation...Milos has the very well known limitations that will always stop him from being a great player, JJ , Ryan, Tomic, those guys look like a lost cause all together, and that leaves us with Grigor, whom I still have hope for and I see room for improvement.

So, it looks like we have skipped a generation but maybe the next generation will pick up the slack.

Conveniently left out Kei, the best of the lot IMO.

Honestly I cannot believe how I forgot him ! He is probably one of my favorites with Grigor for this specific generation. My bad.

Point remains though. Only two players that MIGHT win a slam or two for this generation.

I agree with that. Barring Raonic's serve, though Kei ball striking is far more potent than Grigor's, hence why he had a big over Novak and was 2 games from winning Madrid against Rafa before being injured. Having Kei as the best of the generation is not a huge compliment, although I think it's a bit early to say he won't have a Davydenko or better caliber career.

 

[Front242]

^ Davydenko's career went south quickly due to a wrist injury and so far Kei's main hurdle has also been trying to remain healthy. He's making progress in that department which Chang is happy about and he too is aware that this is Kei's main problem right now.

 

[Federberg]

^I think folks are a bit harsh on Kei. Name me one other guy who looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4. He's already been a slam finalist, and his progression would have been even quicker if it wasn't for injuries. On top of that, I love watching him play!

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I think folks are a bit harsh on Kei. Name me one other guy who looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4. He's already been a slam finalist, and his progression would have been even quicker if it wasn't for injuries. On top of that, I love watching him play!

The problem is I don't think he looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4.

 

[TsarMatt]

Born 1994-98: Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, Kokkinakis?,Garin?
Born 1989-93: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin?, Janowicz? (maybe Thiem and Vesely)

 

[Federberg]

^I think folks are a bit harsh on Kei. Name me one other guy who looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4. He's already been a slam finalist, and his progression would have been even quicker if it wasn't for injuries. On top of that, I love watching him play!

The problem is I don't think he looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4.

but he has done hasn't he? He's beaten Roger, Novak, I think he's beaten Murray (although I confess I don't pay as much attention there). He was schooling Rafa in Madrid before injury laid him low. I'm not sure Grigor has looked as convincing against the top dogs. In actual fact, the thing that makes me most bullish about him is the way he handles Ferrer. Normally David takes care of all the guys outside the top 4 quite convincingly, but Kei seems to have his number

 

[El Dude]

Born 1994-98: Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, Kokkinakis?,Garin?
Born 1989-93: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin?, Janowicz? (maybe Thiem and Vesely)

Of course, the Great Bernie - in the tradition of Laver and Rosewall.

The 2011 Wimbledon QF seems so long ago. Boy has this kid stagnated: year-end rankings from 2011 to 2014: 42, 52, 51, 56.

No improvement, nothing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I think folks are a bit harsh on Kei. Name me one other guy who looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4. He's already been a slam finalist, and his progression would have been even quicker if it wasn't for injuries. On top of that, I love watching him play!

The problem is I don't think he looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4.

but he has done hasn't he? He's beaten Roger, Novak, I think he's beaten Murray (although I confess I don't pay as much attention there). He was schooling Rafa in Madrid before injury laid him low. I'm not sure Grigor has looked as convincing against the top dogs. In actual fact, the thing that makes me most bullish about him is the way he handles Ferrer. Normally David takes care of all the guys outside the top 4 quite convincingly, but Kei seems to have his number

I meant consistently, of course. Kei is good enough to cause the occasional upset but I'd be surprised if it's anything beyond that.

 

[Front242]

Born 1994-98: Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, Kokkinakis?,Garin?
Born 1989-93: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin?, Janowicz? (maybe Thiem and Vesely)

Of course, the Great Bernie - in the tradition of Laver and Rosewall.

The 2011 Wimbledon QF seems so long ago. Boy has this kid stagnated: year-end rankings from 2011 to 2014: 42, 52, 51, 56.

No improvement, nothing.

No excusing his 2012 or 2013 but in his defense he had bilateral hip surgery this year. That's pretty rough at such a young age. He's been on the mend most of the year. Kuerten's career was over once his hip was fubar.

 

[Federberg]

The problem is I don't think he looks like he can take down anyone of the big 4.

but he has done hasn't he? He's beaten Roger, Novak, I think he's beaten Murray (although I confess I don't pay as much attention there). He was schooling Rafa in Madrid before injury laid him low. I'm not sure Grigor has looked as convincing against the top dogs. In actual fact, the thing that makes me most bullish about him is the way he handles Ferrer. Normally David takes care of all the guys outside the top 4 quite convincingly, but Kei seems to have his number

I meant consistently, of course. Kei is good enough to cause the occasional upset but I'd be surprised if it's anything beyond that.

But only the future can tell us that. At this point I think it's reasonable to give Kei more credit for his future than Grigor