How To Challenge The Big 3

[Federberg]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

This is a misunderstanding and distortion of what I wrote (assuming you are responding to my post). I didn't say the "competition" was weak, but the younger generation is. Or do you disagree that the generation that includes Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc isn't weak?

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding I don't know.. but you did say "weak generation" I believe. If the current generation is weak doesn't that imply the competition is weak? Either way I'm happy to clarify my comment and use the word generation instead of competition. My point is that we can't have our cake and eat it.. or so it seems to me. Either the Big 3 are really THAT good or they're just playing rubbish competition. I suppose the test is that in the absence of the Big 3 is there a bunch that normally steps up? I would suggest that they typically step up..i.e., the Nishikoris, Dimitrovs and Raonics. Not sure why you added Tomic. So perhaps they're not as weak?

I had exactly the same issue with people claiming Federers competition.. Safins, Nalbys, Roddicks etc were weak competition/era.. or whatever way some folks wanted to label them. To my mind... actually watching the guy... he really WAS that good. And the guy who stepped up to challenge him.. turns out to be ridiculously strong as well. It is my contention that the Big 3 CAN be so good that they make everyone else look weak... even if they are not

 

[Great Hands]

Just got around to reading these repsonses - some interesting stuff - thanks guys!

there seems to be a bit of disagreement on the challnegers' prospets. some people seem to to be saying that at least some of these 2nd tier have the ability but not the belief, others seem to be saying these guys just don't have the ability, even if they had all teh bleif in the world.

my orignal post wass mroe aloign thel ines of: igf oyu were any of these 2ns tier guys coahes, what woudl you suggest they do to try to imorve? what got me thinking about this thr3ead topic wss that there is a liot of talk about what murray shld be doing. everyone seems to have thier opnions on this. on this forum, th general tings that seem to come up are:

1. imporve his fh technique - specifically the postion of his writst.
2. improve his 2nd serve by injecting more pace, particlurt devfeoping his kick serve
3. and, most common of all - improving his mentality - fniding a coach/psycjogyst/oasychitrist who can stop any negative mentaltiy from affecting his perfroance levels.

murray is rotinely critixed ofr not doing these things.

so I thought - what about some kind of 'plan of action' for other players too?

NIshikori, for exmaple. his serve seems ot be ratehr icnsitstent,. sometnimes it can be a great weapon, other times it's all ovet he place. is there a technical reason for this?

are there techinical or tactical reasons why wawinka just can't seem to maintain a good level of coniststency?i know people have metioend that he needs more time to set up on his groundstkes, so if he;s not in position in time, he can be rushed? can he work on impoving this? his game is also lower percantage than the top guys, sin't it? he goes for mroe wiiners? cld he learn to go for higher percentage plays, especially when he's not playing so well, so he at least makes his ooponent beat him, rather than beatin ghimsefl/ he laso can gt down on himself when he's not pplaying well, and not fight as much as he could. how could he resolve this - sports psychopoguist? is he seeign one?

etc etc

i.e. let's not just stop at murray!

cilic's status as teh luckiest grand slam winner of the last 10 years incresaes. no rafa in the tournanent, a lower-ranmked comeback murray gets novak in quareters and loses, nishi beats novak for him, then he plays a (as i thought) tired fed who'd just played a 5 setter, and then gets a tired and inispeirenced kei who's not only never won a slam befopre, but never eveb been in a gs final before, and who'd just played 2 back to back 5 setters agtqisnt milos and stan followed by a tough 4 setter in the heat of the day against novak. and now i find out fed was injured as well? talk about eh stars aligning for cilic!

 

[Fiero425]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

This is a misunderstanding and distortion of what I wrote (assuming you are responding to my post). I didn't say the "competition" was weak, but the younger generation is. Or do you disagree that the generation that includes Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc isn't weak?

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding I don't know.. but you did say "weak generation" I believe. If the current generation is weak doesn't that imply the competition is weak? Either way I'm happy to clarify my comment and use the word generation instead of competition. My point is that we can't have our cake and eat it.. or so it seems to me. Either the Big 3 are really THAT good or they're just playing rubbish competition. I suppose the test is that in the absence of the Big 3 is there a bunch that normally steps up? I would suggest that they typically step up..i.e., the Nishikoris, Dimitrovs and Raonics. Not sure why you added Tomic. So perhaps they're not as weak?

I had exactly the same issue with people claiming Federers competition.. Safins, Nalbys, Roddicks etc were weak competition/era.. or whatever way some folks wanted to label them. To my mind... actually watching the guy... he really WAS that good. And the guy who stepped up to challenge him.. turns out to be ridiculously strong as well. It is my contention that the Big 3 CAN be so good that they make everyone else look weak... even if they are not

Well I guess I should put in my 2 cents since I've commented on both sides of the issue! Fed, Rafa, & Nole are that good while the rest of the field is lacking something in comparison! Strong words since I believe many have the ability to take out any of the "Big 3," but it rarely happened until recently! Going back to Borg, Connors, and McEnroe era, any of them were vulnerable and it often happened and was expected! With this current 3 we expect them to get through and we're right to think so! There's something that keeps that 2nd tier from getting across the finish line to take out certain players and I see both sides where it's frustrating, but at the same time gratifying seeing a "great" overcome defeat! How many times are Nole, Rafa, and Roger down a MP only to come back and win? Happens too often IMO! Today's rackets help a lot! Miss-hits back "in the day" might roll to the net! Now they're saving players! uzzled :nono :angel: I'm still amazed at the record books where these 3 guys own it all with only scraps going to the rest of the tour! It's dominance not seen in my lifetime for such a long period of time! :clap

 

[Moxie]

So many good points that I won't quote, but I have a mild side-point to make, vis-a-vis the "interim" generation of Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, et. al, and looking at the youngsters who seem to be coming up more fearlessly against the Big 3/4 and the field: while that group just behind Fed/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray may actually be weaker, and lacking in weapons, (or cojones,) they might just also have come to maturation in a time when they felt like breaking through wasn't possible, given the dominance of the all-time greats just above them. Perhaps the younger ones, like Kyrgios, Thiem, Coric, etc. see that the Big 4 can't last forever, and they are young and brash enough to begin to feel their oats. They also know that, when they are really getting to peak, in the next couple of years, that the Big 4 will have one foot out the door. I'm saying they may feel free to swing for the fences in a way that that "post Big-4 generation" did not. Of course, it still doesn't excuse that a talent like Dimitrov or Tomic didn't have the brass ones to push into the conversation. And Nishikori may yet hold up the standard for his era, this year, or next. But, in sum, isn't it possible that the skip-generation is in a better position because they haven't spent their careers fearing the Big 4?

 

[Fiero425]

So many good points that I won't quote, but I have a mild side-point to make, vis-a-vis the "interim" generation of Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, et. al, and looking at the youngsters who seem to be coming up more fearlessly against the Big 3/4 and the field: while that group just behind Fed/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray may actually be weaker, and lacking in weapons, (or cojones,) they might just also have come to maturation in a time when they felt like breaking through wasn't possible, given the dominance of the all-time greats just above them. Perhaps the younger ones, like Kyrgios, Thiem, Coric, etc. see that the Big 4 can't last forever, and they are young and brash enough to begin to feel their oats. They also know that, when they are really getting to peak, in the next couple of years, that the Big 4 will have one foot out the door. I'm saying they may feel free to swing for the fences in a way that that "post Big-4 generation" did not. Of course, it still doesn't excuse that a talent like Dimitrov or Tomic didn't have the brass ones to push into the conversation. And Nishikori may yet hold up the standard for his era, this year, or next. But, in sum, isn't it possible that the skip-generation is in a better position because they haven't spent their careers fearing the Big 4?

Well done! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[brokenshoelace]

You wait for them to decline.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

Their competition throughout the years has been really good. From the Roger generation to guys like Murray, Del Potro, Soderling and co. Their competition at the moment however, Is pretty mediocre and there's no way to sugarcoat it.

Nevertheless, what most "weak competition" arguments short-sightedly don't take into account is the fact that these guys are each other's main competition. It's easy to look beyond Fed, Nadal, Novak and Murray when they all dominated and think the competition is underwhelming, but that doesn't take into account that they're playing each other routinely. In other words, you can't treat the big 3/big 4 as one player. That's stupid. They are 4 players and as such, each one has 3 main competitors that are almost unlike anything we've ever seen in terms of talent and consistency. So how bad could the competition have been when it involved the following: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. When you often have to beat at least two of those names to win a major, that's some serious competition.

But, at the moment, with two of these guys in serious decline (the best two, historically), the Roger generation being gone, Delpo, Soderling being chronically hurt/gone, competition has grown more thin. I mean Raonic, Nishikori and Dimitrov? Yeah, no.

 

[britbox]

Well, the answer is part of the question... what do they consistently have to do? Becoming more consistent is the answer. From the current crop, I don't see a breakout player who is suddenly going to start imposing himself on the Top 3 or 4 on a week to week basis. I think it will be more of an incremental process... We'll see odd wins building belief and then a secondary process of trying to bridge the gap. Even a great player like Novak had to go through that process.

But... slice it or dice it whichever way you want... there is no Novak amongst the following peer group. I don't think there is a Murray for that matter.

Nishikori probably has the strongest mindset/ethic and hunger to improve but has physical limitations... Dimitrov is talented but doesn't have the mindset, Raonic doesn't have the all round game.

As Broken said, the top dogs will need to decline on a week to week basis and the younger group will need to pass them on the way down.

I'd be looking at the next generation to be honest. Bottom line is we have 3 all time greats who raised the bar so high it will take time.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I agree with Brit and BS, but I have to add something regarding the generations. I really think Roger got the short end of the stick there...When Roger started his career, the older generation of players like Rafter, Kafelnikov kept beating up on him. Then he had to deal with Agassi generation, which was not too shabby. Then came his own generation of Nalby and Hewitt, which kept beating up on him until he managed to turn the tables on them and right when he thought it was smooth sailing, the Rafa/Nole/Murray generation came along that pushed him like no other and he managed to fend them off for years. So much so that people think Roger part of that generation. But he is not. In tennis, every 4-5 years is a generation in my opinion.

My point is, the Rafa/Murray/Nole generation , one of the best generation tennis produced, has no up and coming generation that is remotely as strong as themselves that they had to fend off, like Roger had to fend off Rafa/Murray/Nole. Broken is correct in saying that their fight among themselves is tough enough and I agree, but not having anybody up and coming pushing you to your limits until you get to those guys is still an advantage in my opinion.

 

[britbox]

^ Agreed - there are no young pups snapping at their heels. The odd nibble maybe, but nothing consistently.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree with Brit and BS, but I have to add something regarding the generations. I really think Roger got the short end of the stick there...When Roger started his career, the older generation of players like Rafter, Kafelnikov kept beating up on him. Then he had to deal with Agassi generation, which was not too shabby. Then came his own generation of Nalby and Hewitt, which kept beating up on him until he managed to turn the tables on them and right when he thought it was smooth sailing, the Rafa/Nole/Murray generation came along that pushed him like no other and he managed to fend them off for years. So much so that people think Roger part of that generation. But he is not. In tennis, every 4-5 years is a generation in my opinion.

My point is, the Rafa/Murray/Nole generation , one of the best generation tennis produced, has no up and coming generation that is remotely as strong as themselves that they had to fend off, like Roger had to fend off Rafa/Murray/Nole. Broken is correct in saying that their fight among themselves is tough enough and I agree, but not having anybody up and coming pushing you to your limits until you get to those guys is still an advantage in my opinion.

Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko were a SERIOUS generation. The ATP would kill to have anything similar up and coming, even if you exclude a new Federer.

The part where I disagree with is the "advantage" part in that regard. Realistically, you can't have it all. You can't have a generation that contains a Nadal, Murray, Djokovic AND a Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc (or the equivalent of those names)... There are only so many tournaments and Nadal and Djokovic are who they are because they won so much. Murray is who he is because he's deep in more or less every tournament, and has done his fair share of winning. So if you have these three, you won't have the equivalent of Andy Roddick and Hewitt because when we think of Roddick we think of a guy who's won a major, was world number 1, was constantly a top 3/top 5 player, and went deep in every tournament. Well, only 4 guys are going to reach the semis. Something's gotta give. 4 guys being so dominant means others won't. No generation is realistically going to be so good as to have 3 players that good AND the rest of the top 10 being so damn talented/good/dangerous/consisted of so many slam winners... That'd be the greatest field in history.

 

[Kieran]

This period is very similar to what Roger faced, except now you actually have non-3 players winning things. Two of the last 5 slams (with one completely non-four slam final), some MS events, Rafa being knocked off here, Roger being knocked off there, Waw and Nishi beating Nole on hards at a major. Other than this, it's similar to Roger's early easy-peasy slams. Or it's as hard as, whichever way you want to spin it. We can't measure Roger as a GOAT based upon a slam count, but at the same time say Nalbandian et al are great, based upon them winning feck all... :nono

 

[Fiero425]

Not much different from what I've been saying about the "state of affairs" on the ATP tour and it's hierarchy! Things are getting "mixed up" just a bit with Kei, Milos, Andy, & Tomas, but at the same time Nole's separating himself from the rest like Fed did for a few years "way back when!" To some of us this has been a "Golden Age" where the record-books are being obliterated by these 3 top players of this generation; surpassing our previous era where Sampras looked to go down in history as "The GOAT!" There's no more talk of that with Federer already well past him with Nadal and Nole already proclaimed as being better than what we considered our finest; Sampras, Agassi, Courier, McEnroe, Connors, etc.! I'm looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out in the next few years!

 

[brokenshoelace]

This period is very similar to what Roger faced, except now you actually have non-3 players winning things. Two of the last 5 slams (with one completely non-four slam final), some MS events, Rafa being knocked off here, Roger being knocked off there, Waw and Nishi beating Nole on hards at a major. Other than this, it's similar to Roger's early easy-peasy slams. Or it's as hard as, whichever way you want to spin it. We can't measure Roger as a GOAT based upon a slam count, but at the same time say Nalbandian et al are great, based upon them winning feck all... :nono

You see Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks and Nalbandians in this generation? And by the way, other than Nalbandian the first three won a decent amount.

 

[Fiero425]

This period is very similar to what Roger faced, except now you actually have non-3 players winning things. Two of the last 5 slams (with one completely non-four slam final), some MS events, Rafa being knocked off here, Roger being knocked off there, Waw and Nishi beating Nole on hards at a major. Other than this, it's similar to Roger's early easy-peasy slams. Or it's as hard as, whichever way you want to spin it. We can't measure Roger as a GOAT based upon a slam count, but at the same time say Nalbandian et al are great, based upon them winning feck all... :nono

You see Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks and Nalbandians in this generation? And by the way, other than Nalbandian the first three won a decent amount.

I wouldn't put Nalbandian in that group, but I think of Murray in there even though he's been underachieving in a lot of ways! Being aggressive got him wins in 2 majors and an Olympic Gold, but he doesn't seem to keep it up, falling back into that defensive, counter-punching mode! In Madrid he played the way I always thought he could and have been railing about for years! I'm no fan, so he can continue underachieving if he likes, but don't whine about it later blaming it on his team, injury, or exhaustion! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

This period is very similar to what Roger faced, except now you actually have non-3 players winning things. Two of the last 5 slams (with one completely non-four slam final), some MS events, Rafa being knocked off here, Roger being knocked off there, Waw and Nishi beating Nole on hards at a major. Other than this, it's similar to Roger's early easy-peasy slams. Or it's as hard as, whichever way you want to spin it. We can't measure Roger as a GOAT based upon a slam count, but at the same time say Nalbandian et al are great, based upon them winning feck all... :nono

You see Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks and Nalbandians in this generation? And by the way, other than Nalbandian the first three won a decent amount.

Well, Hewitt won his majors before Roger got going, and barely took a set off him after. Roddick won a few events, and Safin is the great humongous under-achiever of the last 20 years. But still, these things are how you measure them. There once was only Roger and a one-dimensional greenhorn called Rafa who won things, and nobody else won barely anything - and now we have a Big 3+1, and yet 2 of the last five majors have gone elsewhere.

This generation is as bad - or as good - as the one wot Roger faced...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, Hewitt won his majors before Roger got going, and barely took a set off him after.

That's not what I asked. I asked, do you see a Hewitt (and others) in this generation? You keep focusing on what he did and didn't do against Roger, for obvious reasons, yet that's not my point of contention. Is there anyone in the current generation that you think is as good as Hewitt?

Roddick won a few events, and Safin is the great humongous under-achiever of the last 20 years. But still, these things are how you measure them. There once was only Roger and a one-dimensional greenhorn called Rafa who won things, and nobody else won barely anything - and now we have a Big 3+1, and yet 2 of the last five majors have gone elsewhere.

That's not what I asked. I asked, do you see a Roddick or Safin in this generation? Is there someone as good?

This generation is as bad - or as good - as the one wot Roger faced...

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen.

Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic are as good (or as BAD!) as Roddick, Hewitt and Marat Safin.

Quality stuff.

 

[Moxie]

I agree with Brit and BS, but I have to add something regarding the generations. I really think Roger got the short end of the stick there...When Roger started his career, the older generation of players like Rafter, Kafelnikov kept beating up on him. Then he had to deal with Agassi generation, which was not too shabby. Then came his own generation of Nalby and Hewitt, which kept beating up on him until he managed to turn the tables on them and right when he thought it was smooth sailing, the Rafa/Nole/Murray generation came along that pushed him like no other and he managed to fend them off for years. So much so that people think Roger part of that generation. But he is not. In tennis, every 4-5 years is a generation in my opinion.

My point is, the Rafa/Murray/Nole generation , one of the best generation tennis produced, has no up and coming generation that is remotely as strong as themselves that they had to fend off, like Roger had to fend off Rafa/Murray/Nole. Broken is correct in saying that their fight among themselves is tough enough and I agree, but not having anybody up and coming pushing you to your limits until you get to those guys is still an advantage in my opinion.

Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko were a SERIOUS generation. The ATP would kill to have anything similar up and coming, even if you exclude a new Federer.

The part where I disagree with is the "advantage" part in that regard. Realistically, you can't have it all. You can't have a generation that contains a Nadal, Murray, Djokovic AND a Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc (or the equivalent of those names)... There are only so many tournaments and Nadal and Djokovic are who they are because they won so much. Murray is who he is because he's deep in more or less every tournament, and has done his fair share of winning. So if you have these three, you won't have the equivalent of Andy Roddick and Hewitt because when we think of Roddick we think of a guy who's won a major, was world number 1, was constantly a top 3/top 5 player, and went deep in every tournament. Well, only 4 guys are going to reach the semis. Something's gotta give. 4 guys being so dominant means others won't. No generation is realistically going to be so good as to have 3 players that good AND the rest of the top 10 being so damn talented/good/dangerous/consisted of so many slam winners... That'd be the greatest field in history.

You make a very good point about not being able to have both: a dominant 4, and the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. They were competitive workhorses who made the most of their talents when there was still a window. There is no room for someone who is like Hewitt or Roddick. (There stopped being room for Roddick and Hewitt themselves rather a long time ago.) Look at Ferrer...born 10 years earlier, he might have won a Slam. Is there a Nalbandian in the group? Not exactly, but is Dimitrov gunning for talented underachiever? Maybe. There have been some flakey underachievers in the last decade, with Tsonga and Monfils being the prime contenders. Safin? Del Potro was the most likely to inherit that mantle.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with Brit and BS, but I have to add something regarding the generations. I really think Roger got the short end of the stick there...When Roger started his career, the older generation of players like Rafter, Kafelnikov kept beating up on him. Then he had to deal with Agassi generation, which was not too shabby. Then came his own generation of Nalby and Hewitt, which kept beating up on him until he managed to turn the tables on them and right when he thought it was smooth sailing, the Rafa/Nole/Murray generation came along that pushed him like no other and he managed to fend them off for years. So much so that people think Roger part of that generation. But he is not. In tennis, every 4-5 years is a generation in my opinion.

My point is, the Rafa/Murray/Nole generation , one of the best generation tennis produced, has no up and coming generation that is remotely as strong as themselves that they had to fend off, like Roger had to fend off Rafa/Murray/Nole. Broken is correct in saying that their fight among themselves is tough enough and I agree, but not having anybody up and coming pushing you to your limits until you get to those guys is still an advantage in my opinion.

Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko were a SERIOUS generation. The ATP would kill to have anything similar up and coming, even if you exclude a new Federer.

The part where I disagree with is the "advantage" part in that regard. Realistically, you can't have it all. You can't have a generation that contains a Nadal, Murray, Djokovic AND a Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc (or the equivalent of those names)... There are only so many tournaments and Nadal and Djokovic are who they are because they won so much. Murray is who he is because he's deep in more or less every tournament, and has done his fair share of winning. So if you have these three, you won't have the equivalent of Andy Roddick and Hewitt because when we think of Roddick we think of a guy who's won a major, was world number 1, was constantly a top 3/top 5 player, and went deep in every tournament. Well, only 4 guys are going to reach the semis. Something's gotta give. 4 guys being so dominant means others won't. No generation is realistically going to be so good as to have 3 players that good AND the rest of the top 10 being so damn talented/good/dangerous/consisted of so many slam winners... That'd be the greatest field in history.

You make a very good point about not being able to have both: a dominant 4, and the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. They were competitive workhorses who made the most of their talents when there was still a window. There is no room for someone who is like Hewitt or Roddick. (There stopped being room for Roddick and Hewitt themselves rather a long time ago.) Look at Ferrer...born 10 years earlier, he might have won a Slam. Is there a Nalbandian in the group? Not exactly, but is Dimitrov gunning for talented underachiever? Maybe. There have been some flakey underachievers in the last decade, with Tsonga and Monfils being the prime contenders. Safin? Del Potro was the most likely to inherit that mantle.

Years ago I promoted Safin the best talent since Ilie Nastase, but a head full of cotton balls so they're both considered underachievers!

 

[Kieran]

Well, Hewitt won his majors before Roger got going, and barely took a set off him after.

That's not what I asked. I asked, do you see a Hewitt (and others) in this generation? You keep focusing on what he did and didn't do against Roger, for obvious reasons, yet that's not my point of contention. Is there anyone in the current generation that you think is as good as Hewitt?

Roddick won a few events, and Safin is the great humongous under-achiever of the last 20 years. But still, these things are how you measure them. There once was only Roger and a one-dimensional greenhorn called Rafa who won things, and nobody else won barely anything - and now we have a Big 3+1, and yet 2 of the last five majors have gone elsewhere.

That's not what I asked. I asked, do you see a Roddick or Safin in this generation? Is there someone as good?

This generation is as bad - or as good - as the one wot Roger faced...

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen.

Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic are as good (or as BAD!) as Roddick, Hewitt and Marat Safin.

Quality stuff.

Murray is as good as Hewitt. The topic is "Big 3", right?

As for Safin and Roddick, I love the love Roddick gets around here, partly because I like the guy, but also because he actually highlights how deficient Rogers opposition was. So deficient that an unfinished teenager became his "only" challenger, and that "only" in Paris first, then Wimbledon, then everywhere. Until Rafa got up to speed, we had your champs as his opposition.

And they won feck all.

Quality stuff indeed. :cover

Rogers generation all developed before he became a known factor. The modern kids are growing up in the face of Fedal, not during a vacuum at the top, like Hewitt, or Nalbandian. And yet, they've taken two of the last five majors, and they're not afraid to bump of the greats, even Nole on hards twice last year, and Nole is still considered peak/prime.

Sorry, the boys of a decade ago just weren't doing that. They were gurning at the net and accepting tickles under the chin. The modern boys may not be better, but there's no measure on earth that says they're worse...