The Young Devour The Old

[calitennis127]

To Broken's initial post, I of course agree since he was saying that he agreed with my line of thinking. But I was not just referring to results, as important as they may be in a conversation like this. I am also talking about the substance of the game, actually even more about the actual play on the court than just the results. In this regard, there are two main components missing with the young generation:

1) Talent from the baseline, and
2) Personality

What I mean by #1 is the package of shotmaking, footwork, athleticism, point construction, and versatility that goes into high-level baseline tennis. I just don't see it with the younger generation on the level of what we have seen in the current 27 to 35 age group. For example, I have watched many of Davydenko's matches over the years with great pleasure to see how he constructed his points and attacked opponents in rallies. Who will be the Davydenko of the young generation? Is that even possible?

And what I mean by #2 is that great players - be they underachievers, achievers, or overachievers - must have some personality. When it comes to Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, etc. we may all have our likes and dislikes when it comes to their predilections, but at least we have something to talk about with them because they're interesting. Whether it's Federer chippy remarks to the media, or Djokovic's theatrics on the court, or Nadal's untimely time-outs, or Murray screaming at his coach - at least there is something interesting about these people.

And of course the conversation about who is interesting extends far beyond the Big 4 in the current 27 to 35 generation. Nalbandian of course was fascinating. Fernando Gonzalez had personality. Marat Safin was a very peculiar character. Blake and Roddick had some distinctiveness to them. Davydenko, Ferrer, Tsonga. The list goes on.

What is interesting about Milos Raonic? Who his hairdresser is and how in the world a 22-year-old professional athlete got an endorsement deal with a clothing brand for old people? Perhaps these are interesting topics, just not in a good way.

Maybe someone can write a long article on how Raonic and Ryan Harrison collaborated on their Saved-by-the-Bell hair style.

 

[Federberg]

^Cali I think that personality is revealed by exposure. The more you watch a new young player, the greater the appreciation we'll have for their personality. Whether we find what we seen interesting or not is another matter, but a lot of these guys don't have the exposure yet.

As for the other point you mentioned. I must confess I shuddered that you made the talent comment specific to the baseline. Have we given up so completely? I'll certainly agree with you if you just say... talent, in whatever form it manifests. I don't think that it's quite so terrible right now, I like what I see from Krygios. And when you add Kei, Dimi and Coric that's a decent bunch. There are never more than a handle, perhaps those guys I mentioned will do it, and we won't be complaining in 5 years time!

 

[brokenshoelace]

^Cali I think that personality is revealed by exposure. The more you watch a new young player, the greater the appreciation we'll have for their personality. Whether we find what we seen interesting or not is another matter, but a lot of these guys don't have the exposure yet.

As for the other point you mentioned. I must confessed I shuddered that you made the talent comment specific to the baseline. Have we given up so completely? I'll certainly agree with you if you just say... talent, in whatever form it manifests. I don't think that it's quite so terrible right now, I like what I see from Krygios. And when you add Kei, Dimi and Coric that's a decent bunch. There are never more than a handle, perhaps those guys I mentioned will do it, and we won't be complaining in 5 years time!

Well, in this era, you need to be a great baseliner. No other way around. If Milos Raonic somehow had the best touch of all time and was a volleying machine, he still wouldn't do significant damage (despite his serve) as long as he moves poorly from the baseline and his backhand remained suspect.

As far as Krygios goes: It was literally one match. If that's an indicator of things to come, the guy will be a world beater. I have a feeling it isn't, though.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I also kinda agree many of these players aren't too interesting, though Dimitrov has some sort of personality. Not sure what it is, but he's interesting. I still think there are certain flaws to his game and he's too prone to being overpowered (and, conversely, he never actually overpowers anyone), but if one of these guys is going to turn into a legit great player, I hope it's him. I'm kind of skeptical still, or maybe I'm pessimistic.

 

[Federberg]

^Cali I think that personality is revealed by exposure. The more you watch a new young player, the greater the appreciation we'll have for their personality. Whether we find what we seen interesting or not is another matter, but a lot of these guys don't have the exposure yet.

As for the other point you mentioned. I must confessed I shuddered that you made the talent comment specific to the baseline. Have we given up so completely? I'll certainly agree with you if you just say... talent, in whatever form it manifests. I don't think that it's quite so terrible right now, I like what I see from Krygios. And when you add Kei, Dimi and Coric that's a decent bunch. There are never more than a handle, perhaps those guys I mentioned will do it, and we won't be complaining in 5 years time!

Well, in this era, you need to be a great baseliner. No other way around. If Milos Raonic somehow had the best touch of all time and was a volleying machine, he still wouldn't do significant damage (despite his serve) as long as he moves poorly from the baseline and his backhand remained suspect.

As far as Krygios goes: It was literally one match. If that's an indicator of things to come, the guy will be a world beater. I have a feeling it isn't, though.

I do agree that one match doesn't a career make. But it does reveal potential, and I thought that was what we were talking about. We've also seen other signs as well. Wasn't it against Robredo? First set? Even Pete and Roger were streaky to start off with. Rafa was more of an anomaly, rising Athena like from the ranks full grown..

Re: baseline play. I'm not sure I agree. What I mean is... if you go back to the Mac/Lendl era, it's not clear to me that anyone would have said that Becker was the answer to that era. He'd actually played at Wimbledon the year before and certainly didn't make a splash. But then the next year, when he beat Curran, it was clear that men's tennis had changed forever. Sometimes you just don't know what it will take to upset the apple cart. I'm just saying.. hence my despair when talent is so narrowly defined by baseline play. I think we need to keep an open mind. I mean... if we're sitting here waiting for someone to come along and out-Novak Novak, or do better than Roger and Rafa, we might be sitting here a while. It might be revolution not evolution a la Boom Boom...

 

[brokenshoelace]

^Cali I think that personality is revealed by exposure. The more you watch a new young player, the greater the appreciation we'll have for their personality. Whether we find what we seen interesting or not is another matter, but a lot of these guys don't have the exposure yet.

As for the other point you mentioned. I must confessed I shuddered that you made the talent comment specific to the baseline. Have we given up so completely? I'll certainly agree with you if you just say... talent, in whatever form it manifests. I don't think that it's quite so terrible right now, I like what I see from Krygios. And when you add Kei, Dimi and Coric that's a decent bunch. There are never more than a handle, perhaps those guys I mentioned will do it, and we won't be complaining in 5 years time!

Well, in this era, you need to be a great baseliner. No other way around. If Milos Raonic somehow had the best touch of all time and was a volleying machine, he still wouldn't do significant damage (despite his serve) as long as he moves poorly from the baseline and his backhand remained suspect.

As far as Krygios goes: It was literally one match. If that's an indicator of things to come, the guy will be a world beater. I have a feeling it isn't, though.

I do agree that one match doesn't a career make. But it does reveal potential, and I thought that was what we were talking about. We've also seen other signs as well. Wasn't it against Robredo? First set? Even Pete and Roger were streaky to start off with. Rafa was more of an anomaly, rising Athena like from the ranks full grown..

Re: baseline play. I'm not sure I agree. What I mean is... if you go back to the Mac/Lendl era, it's not clear to me that anyone would have said that Becker was the answer to that era. He'd actually played at Wimbledon the year before and certainly didn't make a splash. But then the next year, when he beat Curran, it was clear that men's tennis had changed forever. Sometimes you just don't know what it will take to upset the apple cart. I'm just saying.. hence my despair when talent is so narrowly defined by baseline play. I think we need to keep an open mind. I mean... if we're sitting here waiting for someone to come along and out-Novak Novak, or do better than Roger and Rafa, we might be sitting here a while. It might be revolution not evolution a la Boom Boom...

Things have really changed since those days. Racket technologies, heavier balls, slower surfaces, increased physicality and players who can return and hit obscenely well on the run. Baseline tennis is here to stay for a while, unless we see some changes in the game soon (unlikely).

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. That's my point really. We don't know what's going to come around the corner. I remember in the early to mid 80s. Mac looked like he could win Wimbledon at a canter. And then Boris and power based tennis with new racquet technologies came along and he looked liked an also ran. Obviously we can base our speculations on the future purely on things staying the same, then I agree... it all looks quite depressing. I don't see anyone coming along who's going to out Big 3, the Big 3..

But you just never know. There might be a revolution happening right now, and we aren't seeing it, because our glasses are tinted the wrong way Maybe we don't really understand why last year was the way it was yet

 

[El Dude]

Here's something to consider. It is too small a sample size, but if we look at the "Big Three" from their generation here is how they stack up against each other:

Nishikori
vs. Dimitrov 2-0
vs. Raonic 4-1
6-1

Dimitrov
vs. Nishikori 0-2
vs. Raonic 2-1
2-3

Raonic
vs. Nishikori 1-4
vs. Dimitrov 2-3
3-7

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not surprised. I think Kei has a little something extra than the other 2. When I consider each of them at their very best the one that stands out is Kei