Why has the tour regressed in the last 10 years?

[Kieran]

I think Kieran with his two bad knees and Irish beer belly

My knees are fine and I have a 32" waist and still fit the jeans I wore 20 years ago...

 

[calitennis127]

I also think Kieran should take a look at a player like Raonic's coach, Mr. Ivan Ljubicic.

Ljubicic was a big server, but in his better moments from 2004 to 2007 he could play some serious ball from the baseline. His backhand was often potent and it wasn't easy to hit through him and away from him. Ljubicic's indoor run at the end of 2005 was particularly impressive in this respect.

Raonic, on the other hand, is well behind what his coach ever was from the baseline. But Raonic isn't a new-face 18-year-old ranked #71 with tons of opportunity to get better. Rather, he is 22 and he is in the Top 10.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the pro game has gotten worse in the last 5 to 10 years. There has been a clear decline in the quality of tennis.

 

[calitennis127]

I think Kieran with his two bad knees and Irish beer belly

My knees are fine and I have a 32" waist and still fit the jeans I wore 20 years ago...

I don't doubt it. In that case, maybe you could have taken Milos to the woodshed from the baseline yesterday.

 

[Kieran]

Makes me wonder why you predicted him in the first place...

 

[calitennis127]

Makes me wonder why you predicted him in the first place...

I hadn't watched him much at all the entire week. I was hoping that since he had reached the final he had finally played some decent baseline tennis to go with his serving.

That hope was not fulfilled.

 

[zalvar]

I also think Kieran should take a look at a player like Raonic's coach, Mr. Ivan Ljubicic.

Ljubicic was a big server, but in his better moments from 2004 to 2007 he could play some serious ball from the baseline. His backhand was often potent and it wasn't easy to hit through him and away from him. Ljubicic's indoor run at the end of 2005 was particularly impressive in this respect.

Raonic, on the other hand, is well behind what his coach ever was from the baseline. But Raonic isn't a new-face 18-year-old ranked #71 with tons of opportunity to get better. Rather, he is 22 and he is in the Top 10.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the pro game has gotten worse in the last 5 to 10 years. There has been a clear decline in the quality of tennis.

This post is interesting imo. Although, Raonic is a BAD example of baseline proficiency as Raonic's game isn't based on his groundies. Recently, we've getting a lot of tall guys that rely on serves to pretty much win the match. Basically, the "meta game" is changing a little because of these guys who can serve and win. They hadn't had the need to have really good groundies. So when they're faced with the top 5 guys, who can return their ass off, they get screwed and exposed for the underdeveloped players they are. If you wanna see more baseline skill you'll have to go a little lower on the rankings list but those guys have their own problems lol.

 

[BalaryKar]

I came, I saw, and I wish I did not saw

 

[Fiero425]

I see it as a mental thing; even more so these days! I use the term, "unable to finish" by so many players today! No lead is enough with the 2nd tier of players against the top rung allowing them to come back again and again! Murray went through a period last fall where he had match points or was 2 points away from winning and lost matches, but too often Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are let off the hook! In the old days, guys could serve a match out without much difficulty! That isn't the case, even Djkovic dropping serve at inopportune times! To me a lot of it is mental!

 

[shawnbm]

I saw some posts above about how the tour has regressed and the bottom tier of the top 10 is not up to snuff with what was going on six or seven years ago. I don't know about that. I think it is pretty much the same, although the top thirty of today (or six years ago) is better quality wise than the top thirty of thirty or forty years ago in my view. You have a lot of top athletes playing tennis and working on their skills an awful lot--there is, after all, a ton of money to be made out there, and the tour is more global than ever.

 

[El Dude]

Good discussion. I would only weigh in and say, don't worry cali. While you may very well be right, things come and go in cycles so that we have "talent rich" and "talent poor" phases of the tennis history. Part of this is a group of players coming in with a new style, innovating the game, and everyone else trying to keep up with it. I think Roger Federer was more of a bridge player than an innovator; he was the best of the "old ways" - the tennis innovated by Borg and Connors and McEnroe, and then further developed by Lendl etc, and Sampras later on.

Rafa brought in a new style, a new physicality as you put it. The only players that have been able to come close to him are Novak and Andy, and of course for awhile Roger.

As someone said above, the gap between the former-Big Four (now Big Three) and everyone else has been well-discussed, but there's another huge gap - just as big - between the "Next Four" (Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Ferrer) and everyone else. We've got to see someone enter that group before worrying about the next elite player, and the only current young players that have come close at all are Janowicz, Raonic, and Nishikori, and all may be maxing out in the #9-12 range. But its also a bit early to tell; Janowicz seems to have the combination of talent and drive to break into the top 5 at some point, maybe even win a Slam when the Big Three start showing noticeable signs of decline in another year or two.

Anyhow, while I agree that the current talent beyond the top 8 players is relatively weak, things do come in cycles. It may be that the players currently age 17-19 will start seriously challenging the top ten in another 2-3 years, once they hit that important 21-22 range when greatness, if it will ever truly emerge, is starting to be actualized. As I've written about before, you don't find any truly great players in tennis history that weren't already very good by the time they were 21-22 - meaning, top 10 or close to it, going into the second week at Slams, maybe winning an ATP 1000 tournament.

This is not to say that a player currently 22 (say, Raonic or Janowicz, both of whom will be 23 later this yeaer) won't be better at 24-25, but that you can get a sense of how good they'll be by the time they're 21 or 22. As Kieran said, this might have been pushed back a bit so that the peak starts around 24 now, but even so at 21-22 they should be at a very high level (which is why many of us are so disappointed in Dimitrov, who looks like he's going to max out more like a Nishikori/Simon/Monaco type, a top 10-20 player).

 

[calitennis127]

As someone said above, the gap between the former-Big Four (now Big Three) and everyone else has been well-discussed, but there's another huge gap - just as big - between the "Next Four" (Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Ferrer) and everyone else.

That is the really sad part. Berdych and Ferrer were considered third-tier players in the 2003-2008 era. Delpo has the forehand weapon but in rallies he would have been out-done by the Nalbandian-Safin generation most of the time. Delpo has to work much harder to win points than those guys did. Tsonga has power, but his baseline game is sloppy and pretty weak compared to what the Nalbandian-Safin generation showed. Davydenko 2006-2009, for instance, would have taught Tsonga some lessons from the baseline.

We've got to see someone enter that group before worrying about the next elite player, and the only current young players that have come close at all are Janowicz, Raonic, and Nishikori, and all may be maxing out in the #9-12 range. But its also a bit early to tell; Janowicz seems to have the combination of talent and drive to break into the top 5 at some point, maybe even win a Slam when the Big Three start showing noticeable signs of decline in another year or two.

Please do not put Janowicz in the same class as Raonic and Nishikori. I know you are going strictly by results here, but the talent isn't comparable. Raonic is a joke and Nishikori is too diminutive physically to be a threat at the bigger events.

Anyhow, while I agree that the current talent beyond the top 8 players is relatively weak, things do come in cycles. It may be that the players currently age 17-19 will start seriously challenging the top ten in another 2-3 years, once they hit that important 21-22 range when greatness, if it will ever truly emerge, is starting to be actualized.

I fully understand that. But what I am saying has more to do with the game itself. I am asserting that the men's game has declined considerably in the last 5 years. The quality of matches simply is not as good. The average match doesn't have as many good rallies or as much good shotmaking.

Dimitrov, who looks like he's going to max out more like a Nishikori/Simon/Monaco type, a top 10-20 player).

Again, I know that you are going strictly by results, but putting Dimitrov in that group is really an insult to his talent. He is far more capable than any of those three.

 

[El Dude]

That is the really sad part. Berdych and Ferrer were considered third-tier players in the 2003-2008 era. Delpo has the forehand weapon but in rallies he would have been out-done by the Nalbandian-Safin generation most of the time. Delpo has to work much harder to win points than those guys did. Tsonga has power, but his baseline game is sloppy and pretty weak compared to what the Nalbandian-Safin generation showed. Davydenko 2006-2009, for instance, would have taught Tsonga some lessons from the baseline.

To be fair, during that span of time Ferrer was 21-26 and Berdych was 17-23, so it may be that they simply rose to a higher level after that era, but this supports the idea of players peaking later now, which I don't fully buy into.

Berdych's an interesting case in point because he's a player who had his single best win - the Paris Masters in 2005 - at the tender age of 20, and thus looked like an arriving elite player. But he was never able to get beyond that level. He's been more consistent over the last few years, but that supports your view - because it is from 2010 on that Generation Federer has been in marked decline. So it may be that he's been more consistent simply because of the decline of players like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick.

Please do not put Janowicz in the same class as Raonic and Nishikori. I know you are going strictly by results here, but the talent isn't comparable. Raonic is a joke and Nishikori is too diminutive physically to be a threat at the bigger events.

I'm not putting them in the same class except so far as, to quote my post, they're the "only current young players to come close" to an elite level, at least in terms of rankings. All three have ranked in the top 15, while no other player - as far as I can remember - under the age of 23 has ranked in the top 20. If Dimitrov has a strong finish, he should make it, but I've lost all expectations with that guy.

I fully understand that. But what I am saying has more to do with the game itself. I am asserting that the men's game has declined considerably in the last 5 years. The quality of matches simply is not as good. The average match doesn't have as many good rallies or as much good shotmaking.

So how about this theory: Rafael Nadal ruined men's tennis. OK, I'm being facetious, but there might be a grain of truth to it. Rafa burst onto he scene and was the only player who could consistently beat the dominant player of the day, and even as a teenager. He played a game that wasn't as much about shot-making as it was about endurance and athleticism. He had rare, once-a-generation gifts in that regard, coupled with strong (if not Federer-esque) finer skills.

Let's say that the current young generation (let's say born 1988 or later) that is showing the remarkable lack of talent you're complaining about, grew up with Pete Sampras and then Roger Federer as the primary role models. All is well and good. But then, all of a sudden, in 2005 a young pup named Rafael Nadal comes on the scene and starts beating Federer. These same young players become confused. Do I continue trying to be like Roger or do I try to be like Rafa? Confusion ensues and we end up with a "Lost Generation" of talent - born 1988-1993ish - who modeled themselves after a style of play that is no longer the dominant force in the game (as exemplified by Rafa, Novak, and Andy), and doesn't match up well against it. We won't see the next elite players until a group of players - perhaps born mid-90s - either learns to beat the Big Three at their own game, or finds a way to "counter" their physical style with even greater finesse.

What do you think?

Again, I know that you are going strictly by results, but putting Dimitrov in that group is really an insult to his talent. He is far more capable than any of those three.

I had high hopes for Dimitrov but he just continues to disappoint. Someone posited the idea that his game has so many moving parts and because of this, like Federer he'll be a bit of a late bloomer. Couple that with the idea that players are peaking later and it may be that everything clicks for Dimitrov at age 23 or 24. I certainly hope so.

 

[the AntiPusher]

That is the really sad part. Berdych and Ferrer were considered third-tier players in the 2003-2008 era. Delpo has the forehand weapon but in rallies he would have been out-done by the Nalbandian-Safin generation most of the time. Delpo has to work much harder to win points than those guys did. Tsonga has power, but his baseline game is sloppy and pretty weak compared to what the Nalbandian-Safin generation showed. Davydenko 2006-2009, for instance, would have taught Tsonga some lessons from the baseline.

To be fair, during that span of time Ferrer was 21-26 and Berdych was 17-23, so it may be that they simply rose to a higher level after that era, but this supports the idea of players peaking later now, which I don't fully buy into.

Berdych's an interesting case in point because he's a player who had his single best win - the Paris Masters in 2005 - at the tender age of 20, and thus looked like an arriving elite player. But he was never able to get beyond that level. He's been more consistent over the last few years, but that supports your view - because it is from 2010 on that Generation Federer has been in marked decline. So it may be that he's been more consistent simply because of the decline of players like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick.

Please do not put Janowicz in the same class as Raonic and Nishikori. I know you are going strictly by results here, but the talent isn't comparable. Raonic is a joke and Nishikori is too diminutive physically to be a threat at the bigger events.

I'm not putting them in the same class except so far as, to quote my post, they're the "only current young players to come close" to an elite level, at least in terms of rankings. All three have ranked in the top 15, while no other player - as far as I can remember - under the age of 23 has ranked in the top 20. If Dimitrov has a strong finish, he should make it, but I've lost all expectations with that guy.

I fully understand that. But what I am saying has more to do with the game itself. I am asserting that the men's game has declined considerably in the last 5 years. The quality of matches simply is not as good. The average match doesn't have as many good rallies or as much good shotmaking.

So how about this theory: Rafael Nadal ruined men's tennis. OK, I'm being facetious, but there might be a grain of truth to it. Rafa burst onto he scene and was the only player who could consistently beat the dominant player of the day, and even as a teenager. He played a game that wasn't as much about shot-making as it was about endurance and athleticism. He had rare, once-a-generation gifts in that regard, coupled with strong (if not Federer-esque) finer skills.

Let's say that the current young generation (let's say born 1988 or later) that is showing the remarkable lack of talent you're complaining about, grew up with Pete Sampras and then Roger Federer as the primary role models. All is well and good. But then, all of a sudden, in 2005 a young pup named Rafael Nadal comes on the scene and starts beating Federer. These same young players become confused. Do I continue trying to be like Roger or do I try to be like Rafa? Confusion ensues and we end up with a "Lost Generation" of talent - born 1988-1993ish - who modeled themselves after a style of play that is no longer the dominant force in the game (as exemplified by Rafa, Novak, and Andy), and doesn't match up well against it. We won't see the next elite players until a group of players - perhaps born mid-90s - either learns to beat the Big Three at their own game, or finds a way to "counter" their physical style with even greater finesse.

What do you think?

Again, I know that you are going strictly by results, but putting Dimitrov in that group is really an insult to his talent. He is far more capable than any of those three.

I had high hopes for Dimitrov but he just continues to disappoint. Someone posited the idea that his game has so many moving parts and because of this, like Federer he'll be a bit of a late bloomer. Couple that with the idea that players are peaking later and it may be that everything clicks for Dimitrov at age 23 or 24. I certainly hope so.

But he was never able to get beyond that levelTB made it to the 2010 SW19 final against Rafa..meaning that he has had his moments but he suffers from the same disease that JowillieTS suffers from when he plays against the top ten in tournament especially a grand slam, never can put together 3-4 wins in a row to hold the big title. Only JMDP has been able to accomplish this outside of the big 4.

I don't think the game has regressed but rather we are in a very special era of currently the best big 4 that the game has ever seen playing at the same time(probably the last few great years of Fed, Rafa, Djoker and Murray in their prime.) This big four may all be in the top ten of all time(Fed, Rafa and surely Djoker will but Murray has time also).

 

[El Dude]

This big four may all be in the top ten of all time(Fed, Rafa and surely Djoker will but Murray has time also).

Fed and Rafa are already there, and barring a catastrophic collapse Djokovic will be as well. But Murray? He's got a long way to go and it may be too little too late.

Not to "thread-jack," but if we say that Grand Slam totals are the baseline for greatness--among other stats--then Andy has a lot of players to pass. Looking at all of tennis history, there are 29 men with 5+ Slams, only seven of whom have 10+ Slams. I think all seven except for Roy Emerson deserve to be considered top 10, so you've got six spots--Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Laver and Tilden--that are likely safe as Andy Murray is unlikely to get 8 more Slams. But then you have a log-jam of 20 players with 6-8 Slams, and then add Emerson in the mix, not to mention Pancho Gonzales, who only won two Grand Slams but won 15 Pro Slams and was probably the greatest player of the 50s.

If we look only at the Open Era, which is much easier and cleaner, Andy's chances of being top 10 are much greater. Ahead of him in Slam count are Federer, Nadal, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Newcombe, Rosewall, Laver, Edberg, Becker, Djokovic, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Kodes and Kuertan - 18 players in all. If we assume that Andy has at least three more Slams, he passes Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Kodes, and Kuerten - but is still outside the top 10.

My point being, Andy is going to have to win at least 6 Slams, possibly 7 or 8, to be a top 10 player - even just of the Open Era. That 6-8 range is really key, and separates the very best ("inner circle greats") from the next tier ("outer circle greats"). Novak is already in the latter group and is likely to join the former group, while Andy still has to work his way into the latter group. We'll be watching.

 

[Fiero425]

This big four may all be in the top ten of all time(Fed, Rafa and surely Djoker will but Murray has time also).

Fed and Rafa are already there, and barring a catastrophic collapse Djokovic will be as well. But Murray? He's got a long way to go and it may be too little too late.

Not to "thread-jack," but if we say that Grand Slam totals are the baseline for greatness--among other stats--then Andy has a lot of players to pass. Looking at all of tennis history, there are 29 men with 5+ Slams, only seven of whom have 10+ Slams. I think all seven except for Roy Emerson deserve to be considered top 10, so you've got six spots--Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Laver and Tilden--that are likely safe as Andy Murray is unlikely to get 8 more Slams. But then you have a log-jam of 20 players with 6-8 Slams, and then add Emerson in the mix, not to mention Pancho Gonzales, who only won two Grand Slams but won 15 Pro Slams and was probably the greatest player of the 50s.

If we look only at the Open Era, which is much easier and cleaner, Andy's chances of being top 10 are much greater. Ahead of him in Slam count are Federer, Nadal, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Newcombe, Rosewall, Laver, Edberg, Becker, Djokovic, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Kodes and Kuertan - 18 players in all. If we assume that Andy has at least three more Slams, he passes Ashe, Vilas, Courier, Kodes, and Kuerten - but is still outside the top 10.

My point being, Andy is going to have to win at least 6 Slams, possibly 7 or 8, to be a top 10 player - even just of the Open Era. That 6-8 range is really key, and separates the very best ("inner circle greats") from the next tier ("outer circle greats"). Novak is already in the latter group and is likely to join the former group, while Andy still has to work his way into the latter group. We'll be watching.

Just proved what I've been saying, we may have more skilled players with superior conditioning, but way back when, the winners of majors were more diverse and plentiful! Federer, Nadal, & Djokovic have been quite selfish allowing outsiders to take just 1 or 2 while most can't even make a final to have it contested! Even Sampras had quite a few scrubs to at least try and take a final! These days it's the same 4 or 5 players not even giving others an opportunity! If not for Del Po and Murray, it would look even worse! This is really how the game looked for a few years with Navratilova and Evert with Mandlikova the only one of a few that could challenge them with any consistancy in the early to mid 80s!

 

[El Dude]

Fiero425, one of the most talent-rich eras--in terms of all-time greats being at or near their peak--that doesn't get talked about as much as the late 70s or the last few years, is the late 80s and early 90s - when you had Edberg, Becker, Wilander, and Lendl all in their primes, Connors and McEnroe were still around and playing well, and Sampras, Agassi, Courier and their group was just getting started. What an amazing wealth and diversity of talent.

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero425, one of the most talent-rich eras--in terms of all-time greats being at or near their peak--that doesn't get talked about as much as the late 70s or the last few years, is the late 80s and early 90s - when you had Edberg, Becker, Wilander, and Lendl all in their primes, Connors and McEnroe were still around and playing well, and Sampras, Agassi, Courier and their group was just getting started. What an amazing wealth and diversity of talent.

I posted a while back that at any given time you might have 12 different men with majors around that time; late 80s to early 90s! It was an embarrassment of riches that may not happen again any time soon! I can see a bunch of different winners after Nadal and Federer have retired, but the quality of play won't be there! It'll be like Marion Bartoli winning Wimbledon and Sam Stosur taking the USO! :nono Lendl heralded this era of the super baseliner with a lot of these characters rarely venturing to the net besides to shake hands and accept a check! Right now Djokovic is the best at it with Nadal on his last legs! :angel:

 

[lindseywagners]

People often talk about history as if it is just a constant progression with things getting better and better. The reality is that there are stretches of progress AND regress.

Yeah, people who think life is all progress, progress, progress are ego-maniacs and can't see the facts. History is cyclical. In fact, each person's life is very, very cyclical as well (if you care to really analyze it for what it is instead of just boasting with ego).

 

[calitennis127]

People often talk about history as if it is just a constant progression with things getting better and better. The reality is that there are stretches of progress AND regress.

Yeah, people who think life is all progress, progress, progress are ego-maniacs and can't see the facts. History is cyclical. In fact, each person's life is very, very cyclical as well (if you care to really analyze it for what it is instead of just boasting with ego).

I don't think it is a matter of ego as much as it is stupidity. Anyone who thinks things always get better and never stop getting better is simply an idiot.

 

[Fiero425]

People often talk about history as if it is just a constant progression with things getting better and better. The reality is that there are stretches of progress AND regress.

Yeah, people who think life is all progress, progress, progress are ego-maniacs and can't see the facts. History is cyclical. In fact, each person's life is very, very cyclical as well (if you care to really analyze it for what it is instead of just boasting with ego).

I don't think it is a matter of ego as much as it is stupidity. Anyone who thinks things always get better and never stop getting better is simply an idiot.

Well I'm not going to call them idiots, maybe misguided or narrow-minded! As stated, both women and men go through cycles and right now the men are limited while the women have more diversity with players who win majors! It had to happen sooner or later! I think it'll be wide open after Roger, Nadal, and Nole leave the game! Heaven knows Murray won't be able to dominiate as they have; even in a calender year, much less multiple years in a row! Like Rafa, I think he works too hard to beat players I don't even know! He should make short work of them if not in the top 20, maybe attack the net to get the practice, but both tend to keep backing up and working points the hard way; now that's stupid! :laydownlaughing