Montañés: "I Look Back And It's Incredible"

[herios]

The Spaniard retired this week at the Barcelona event, where he lost in the second round to fellow Lopez.
At the age of 36 now, he has reached a carer high ranked 22, and he won 6 titles on Tour all on clay. A true clay specialist, he had his best years between 28 and 33 when he won his titles, peaking at 30.
That underlines in my opinion, the new state of the men's tour, the majority of the players p[peaking now in their late twenties.
He was rather a low key player among the other players representing Armada, but he had done pretty well for himself.
Some of his titles were obtained by defeating higher accomplished players like Monaco and Monfils.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/montanes-retires-barcelona-2017-wednesday

 

[GameSetAndMath]

He defeated Federer once in Estoril.

 

[El Dude]

One more of Generation Federer leaves the building. Who is left?

Players Borin 1983 or before in top 100:

4. Federer
22. Karlovic
28. Muller
31. Ferrer
34. Verdasco
35. Lorenzi
37. Lopez
39. Kohlschreiber
43. Mahut
50. Mayer
56. Lu
64. Berlocq
88. Youzhny
90. Estrella Burgos
94. Robert

As for your assertion that players are peaking later now, Herios, we've talked about this before and while I hesitantly agree, I don't think it is conclusive yet. For a couple reasons:

1. Notice that list of players. Anyone absent? Almost all of the elites of the generation. By my account, only 3 of the 10 best players born from 1979-83 are still in the top 100 (Federer, Youzhny, Ferrer). Notably absent are Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Robredo, etc. Robredo is still playing, but not in the top 100 anymore (although he may make it back up). But the point is: most of the better players are retired, some even long-retired. The better players of Roger's generation that are still playing - aside from Roger - are all noticeably diminished: Ferrer, Youzhny, Verdasco, Lopez, and Robredo are all past their primes.

2. The weakness of the young guns. There's just no way around this - the generation of players born 1989 to about 1993/94 is just poor, and not just at the top: it is a very "shallow" generation.

Now I personally think both are true: players are peaking a bit later AND the younger generation is so weak that it makes the older generation look even better, and peaking older. I think also we'll need to see how things go in the next couple years, to see how long Andy, Rafa, Novak, and Stan stick around. If they guys are still dominating in 2-3 years, it will be hard to refute "Old Era Theory."

But again, we tend to look for either/or answers, but in most cases it is a mixture - of players maintaining prime age older, of a weak younger generation, and third factor: a particularly strong older generation (84-88).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is amazing as to how many folks that are from Fed's era have already retired, while he is still at the top of his game.

 

[El Dude]

Yup. The only comparable situation I can think of are Jimmy Connors by the late 80s. Rosewall and Laver both played into the late 70s, with Laver fading a bit before "Muscles."

 

[mrzz]

Notably absent are Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Robredo, etc.

One question one could ask is: how many of these guys were forced into retirement not only by Federer, but also by his "sub-products" Nadal and Djokovic (in the sense that both of them often say that they had to raise their levels to compete with him)?

Most of them retired playing reasonably well. All of them somehow got close to the big prizes at some point. Maybe they felt that by hanging on, the best they could do would be only to touch the same glass ceiling again, while the others had still ground to gain.

 

[El Dude]

mrzz, I had that same thought but the record doesn't really bear that view out. Consider that players like Ferrero, Safin, and even Hewitt were done as elite players before Novak and Andy rose, and the first two before even Rafa rose (Ferrero was done as an elite after 2003, and Safin's last Slam and title was just before Rafa stormed the tour in 2005). Hewitt was done as an elite in 2006.

Maybe Roddick and Davydenko were impacted, but they struggled more against their greatest peer, Roger, than the younger generation - at least in terms of total matches lost.

Gonzalez and Robredo were really more third tier types who had a few moments of brilliance - similarly with players like James Blake, Youzhny, and Verdasco.

Nalbandian is his own special case, as his performance was often on his own racket.

Anyhow, my point is that this generation--as a whole--peaked in the first half of the 00s, with only Roger, Ferrer, Roddick, Davydenko, and Nalbandian for a bit, playing at elite level in the second half - at least among the elite. Most of the guys of this generation who peaked later were lesser players (e.g. Feliciano Lopez).

 

[mrzz]

I hear you, but the point is: "are we seeing a change in peak age"? When we see players peaking late, we are not seeing the complete generation doing that, but a fraction of it. So we should not expect the whole "elite" to peak later either.

And regarding Roddick and Davydenko, yes, it was Federer himself who probably pushed them more.

Thing is, we already start from a fraction of players peaking later, and the elite guys had an "extra hurdle" to deal with, so their share is smaller (but non-zero, given that Federer is there at least).

 

[mrzz]

P.S. Oh, and more credit to Montanes: He gave us (yet) another reason to discuss this...

 

[El Dude]

Haha, yes. I love discussing it, but am always left with the following conclusion: Players are PROBABLY peaking a bit later, at least in general, but we're a couple years too soon to really know definitively. Further, there are extenuating questions which muddle the signal: For instance, are players peaking later, or are they merely extending their prime years? (i.e. players traditionally peak around 24-25, then decline at various rates after; it may be that the peak is still the same, but that decline is slower, so it looks like they are peaking later when in fact they might simply be declining later). There's also the problem of the weak younger generation; to what degree is the late peak caused by a historically weak younger generation? Etc.

I have an ongoing research project about this and will, at some point, share my findings. Nothing hugely surprising. But I think it is important to realize that historical norms change. Players were peaking and declining later in the early years of the Open Era; tennis got younger in the late 70s, and was pretty consistent from about 1980 to 2010, and has only gotten older since then. In other words, whatever change has happened has been quite recent, and while it clashes with most of the Open Era, it isn't unusual in the larger trajectory of tennis history.

 

[herios]

My problem is mainly I do not see ANY elite p[layers in the making, and that includes everyone who is in the top 100.
Therefore if only the "non-elite" players are peaking later that the historical range, there will be no enough data to come to a conclusion for many years to come.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, herios, although would differentiate "elite" and "great." An elite player is a regular in the top 5 and a regular contender for, and occasional winner of, big titles. A great is a multi-Slam winner and #1, at least for a time. I see several future elites in Zverev, Kyrgios, maybe a few others. Will any of them be greats? That is more questionable. I suspect that one or two will at least be Murray-esque lesser greats, but it is not clear at this point. It may be that the next true great is outside the top 200 and/or on the junior tour.

And of course some of the young players on tour will win Slams and be #1 simply because someone has to - unless we think that the Big Four will remain at the top in perpetuity, or least for five+ more years. One generation can theoretically be skipped, but not two. I just don't see the Big Five dominating until, say, Felix Auger Aliassime takes over in five years.

 

[herios]

I hear you, herios, although would differentiate "elite" and "great." An elite player is a regular in the top 5 and a regular contender for, and occasional winner of, big titles. A great is a multi-Slam winner and #1, at least for a time. I see several future elites in Zverev, Kyrgios, maybe a few others. Will any of them be greats? That is more questionable. I suspect that one or two will at least be Murray-esque lesser greats, but it is not clear at this point. It may be that the next true great is outside the top 200 and/or on the junior tour.

And of course some of the young players on tour will win Slams and be #1 simply because someone has to - unless we think that the Big Four will remain at the top in perpetuity, or least for five+ more years. One generation can theoretically be skipped, but not two. I just don't see the Big Five dominating until, say, Felix Auger Aliassime takes over in five years.

Ok, then I see no "great" players on the horizons.
And I told before, l am not sold on Zverev as much as everyone else is. He is good, no question, but not as many think he is or will be.
He has not done anything in slams to date, that is my point.

 

[El Dude]

I kinda agree with you on Zverev, or at least I have questions and don't see him as a surefire great player. He seems somewhat limited and doesn't seem to have the explosive weaponry of, say, Nick Kyrgios. I'm also worried about his height. But do I see Slam titles in his future? Probably. #1? Maybe. Also, I would be very surprised if he didn't start going deeper at Slams, at least once or twice this year. Remember that Roger didn't make it past the QFs until he was almost 22 years old.

I've said before that I see us in the early stages of a period similar to the early 70s or late 90s-early 00s, when there is an interesting mixture of aging greats, a weak generation peaking, and a talented younger generation with no clear best player - all leading to a context in which anything can happen, and there was a bit of chaos as the baton was passed. Now in both those eras, someone did eventually emerge as the best - in the early 70s it was Connors and then Borg, and then in the early 00s it was Roger then Rafa. But in both cases, there were a few years where it was unclear who that next great would be - just a bunch of candidates.

I see Zverev as one of the top candidates, but not a lock. It may be that he's one of the better players of a generation that sees no clearly dominant player, or even any players in the magical 6+ Slam club, just a bunch with 1-2, and maybe one or two with 3-5. Among players born in the 90s, I don't see a better candidate to win 3+ Slams than Zverev.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I kinda agree with you on Zverev, or at least I have questions and don't see him as a surefire great player. He seems somewhat limited and doesn't seem to have the explosive weaponry of, say, Nick Kyrgios. I'm also worried about his height. But do I see Slam titles in his future? Probably. #1? Maybe. Also, I would be very surprised if he didn't start going deeper at Slams, at least once or twice this year. Remember that Roger didn't make it past the QFs until he was almost 22 years old.

I've said before that I see us in the early stages of a period similar to the early 70s or late 90s-early 00s, when there is an interesting mixture of aging greats, a weak generation peaking, and a talented younger generation with no clear best player - all leading to a context in which anything can happen, and there was a bit of chaos as the baton was passed. Now in both those eras, someone did eventually emerge as the best - in the early 70s it was Connors and then Borg, and then in the early 00s it was Roger then Rafa. But in both cases, there were a few years where it was unclear who that next great would be - just a bunch of candidates.

I see Zverev as one of the top candidates, but not a lock. It may be that he's one of the better players of a generation that sees no clearly dominant player, or even any players in the magical 6+ Slam club, just a bunch with 1-2, and maybe one or two with 3-5. Among players born in the 90s, I don't see a better candidate to win 3+ Slams than Zverev.

Trust me you and herios would've been sold on Sasha Zverev if he had converted that match point vs Rafa..IMO

 

[Carol]

The eternal promises? :huh:

 

[the AntiPusher]

One more of Generation Federer leaves the building. Who is left?

Players Borin 1983 or before in top 100:

4. Federer
22. Karlovic
28. Muller
31. Ferrer
34. Verdasco
35. Lorenzi
37. Lopez
39. Kohlschreiber
43. Mahut
50. Mayer
56. Lu
64. Berlocq
88. Youzhny
90. Estrella Burgos
94. Robert

As for your assertion that players are peaking later now, Herios, we've talked about this before and while I hesitantly agree, I don't think it is conclusive yet. For a couple reasons:

1. Notice that list of players. Anyone absent? Almost all of the elites of the generation. By my account, only 3 of the 10 best players born from 1979-83 are still in the top 100 (Federer, Youzhny, Ferrer). Notably absent are Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Robredo, etc. Robredo is still playing, but not in the top 100 anymore (although he may make it back up). But the point is: most of the better players are retired, some even long-retired. The better players of Roger's generation that are still playing - aside from Roger - are all noticeably diminished: Ferrer, Youzhny, Verdasco, Lopez, and Robredo are all past their primes.

2. The weakness of the young guns. There's just no way around this - the generation of players born 1989 to about 1993/94 is just poor, and not just at the top: it is a very "shallow" generation.

Now I personally think both are true: players are peaking a bit later AND the younger generation is so weak that it makes the older generation look even better, and peaking older. I think also we'll need to see how things go in the next couple years, to see how long Andy, Rafa, Novak, and Stan stick around. If they guys are still dominating in 2-3 years, it will be hard to refute "Old Era Theory."

But again, we tend to look for either/or answers, but in most cases it is a mixture - of players maintaining prime age older, of a weak younger generation, and third factor: a particularly strong older generation (84-88).

Shouldn't Haas be on your list? he was a carry over from the end of Sampra/Agassi (I think Haas was recovering from injuries the last few years of Agassi but Roger had became the Mighty Fed by then)

 

[herios]

One more of Generation Federer leaves the building. Who is left?

Players Borin 1983 or before in top 100:

4. Federer
22. Karlovic
28. Muller
31. Ferrer
34. Verdasco
35. Lorenzi
37. Lopez
39. Kohlschreiber
43. Mahut
50. Mayer
56. Lu
64. Berlocq
88. Youzhny
90. Estrella Burgos
94. Robert

As for your assertion that players are peaking later now, Herios, we've talked about this before and while I hesitantly agree, I don't think it is conclusive yet. For a couple reasons:

1. Notice that list of players. Anyone absent? Almost all of the elites of the generation. By my account, only 3 of the 10 best players born from 1979-83 are still in the top 100 (Federer, Youzhny, Ferrer). Notably absent are Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Robredo, etc. Robredo is still playing, but not in the top 100 anymore (although he may make it back up). But the point is: most of the better players are retired, some even long-retired. The better players of Roger's generation that are still playing - aside from Roger - are all noticeably diminished: Ferrer, Youzhny, Verdasco, Lopez, and Robredo are all past their primes.

2. The weakness of the young guns. There's just no way around this - the generation of players born 1989 to about 1993/94 is just poor, and not just at the top: it is a very "shallow" generation.

Now I personally think both are true: players are peaking a bit later AND the younger generation is so weak that it makes the older generation look even better, and peaking older. I think also we'll need to see how things go in the next couple years, to see how long Andy, Rafa, Novak, and Stan stick around. If they guys are still dominating in 2-3 years, it will be hard to refute "Old Era Theory."

But again, we tend to look for either/or answers, but in most cases it is a mixture - of players maintaining prime age older, of a weak younger generation, and third factor: a particularly strong older generation (84-88).

Shouldn't Haas be on your list? he was a carry over from the end of Sampra/Agassi (I think Haas was recovering from injuries the last few years of Agassi but Roger had became the Mighty Fed by then)

There are only top 100 ranked players included. There are still a few active players from that generation, who are ranked outside

 

[El Dude]

And Radek Stepanek, who is just outside the top 100...can't believe he's still around, but he hangs on.

As for your comment above, AP, maybe. But those moments of greatness are what puts players on the map - and Zverev is relatively short on them. He hasn't yet had a truly big win - against a big opponent, on the big stage.

Don't get me wrong: I think he'll get there. I think he'll be #1 and win multiple Slams. I'm just not sure about greatness.

Actually, this is largely why I started that thread about when people realized Roger was going to be great. With Rafa, it was obvious: he was a teenager utterly dominating the clay season, and then won the French Open after just turning 19 years old. It was clear, then, that he would be great. But Roger? He was one of many, perhaps until he had his three-Slam 2004, and even then if you fastforward until RG in 2005, it may have been that he would ahve that one great year, but things would balance out and players like Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, and Hewitt would win more Slams. But that wasn't the case, and Roger reigned.

Right now we have no idea who will emerge as the best of "Gen Next," and we may not know for two or even three more years. But Zverev is clearly one of the top candidates.

 

[mrzz]

For instance, are players peaking later, or are they merely extending their prime years?

That's a good distinction. It could well be that both are occurring right now.

You have a good point about looking at tennis history as a whole. I guess we tend to focus on more recent times for a lot of reasons -- which are good ones. For example, I do not think that in, say, 1955 you would have a 200 guys traveling all the world and playing basically week in, week out.

Anyway, if the big 5 find away to stay on top for more two years, you would have a group of 30+ players dominating -- and this I would guess probably have not happened for a while.