Age myth dispelled

For some time now we've heard that the reason there are no young players pressurising the top guys is that tennis now demands so much fitness that it is beyond the under 22's.

Now we know that was wrong. In fact, there's just been no good young players and this period has been the weaker for it, with players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc. flattered in recent years by a dearth of quality coming through.

Hopefully young Kyrgios can go on from here, but in beating a fully fit, highly motivated Nadal in a match of great importance he's shown that all it takes is quality, not age.

Agree.

Just a few years ago Djokovic, Murray and Del po were coming through and challenging/winning slams.

But we're supposed to believe that the game has become too physical in the space of 6-7 years for top quality youngsters to come through.

I gave my opinion on the current crop of youngsters approx two years ago and so far it's been spot on.

Just not good enough, but sadly will be the ones competing for the slams once the top four are completely done - unless new elite talent comes through.

  

emancipator

When there's a big champs around, there is no age that is too young. kyrgios you made my day!!

 

It's a sad state of affairs if we are just earmarking one player for future slam success

It was a close match and intense.

281 points played in 178 minutes ~ 1.57 points per minute.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/day16/1408ms.html

In comparison, 2009 AO final was

347 points in 259 minutes ~ 1.33 points a minute.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2009&r=7&p=F324

The fitness side gets ignored and you get player like Gasquet. Dimitrov is getting fitter. Age contributes to fitness levels.

The fitness argument has always been flawed.

It failed to explain why even the likes of Gasquet, Tipsarevic, Almagro etc have been able to occupy the top ten.

As pleased as I am that Dimi, Raonic and Nishikori are improving, getting excited about then making a QF at age 23/24 feels a bit desperate to me.

Tipsarevic??

Not sure I would qualify him as talent.

legendkillarV2 wrote:It's a sad state of affairs if we are just earmarking one player for future slam success

You're right, it IS a sad state of affairs. Just maybe slightly less sad if he makes it stick.

Some of us have been saying this for years. Lydian certainly, and emancipator. Others too, hope nobody is offended if not called out. I'm not claiming this for me.  But every time I heard that 'Golden Era' crap I hoped somebody would come along and show what we've been missing - Boris Becker, John McEnroe: kids who come along and make it fun.

And he may have he chance to beat a fully fit highly motivated Fed yet who knows
Vamos Nick  !!!

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:It's a sad state of affairs if we are just earmarking one player for future slam success

You're right, it IS a sad state of affairs. Just maybe slightly less sad if he makes it stick.

Some of us have been saying this for years. Lydian certainly, and emancipator. I'm not claiming this for me.  But every time I heard that 'Golden Era' crap I hoped somebody would come along and show what we've been missing - Boris Becker, John McEnroe: kids who come along and make it fun.

It would be good if fun was part of it, but the single mindedness of today's pro to succeed at top has made those players slightly engaging.

I certainly said yonks ago that there was a lack of young talent coming through.

Changing the conds can only encourage more variation of skill that plays to young talents strengths that the game needs so badly.

I mean fun for us.

Yes, you're on the list and I agree with that last point wholeheartedly.

Haddie-nuff wrote:And he may have he chance to beat a fully fit highly motivated Fed yet who knows
Vamos Nick  !!!

Indeed he might, though that would be a bit more of a Fed / Pete moment given their ages.

By the way, what a wily old fox Roger is, giving young Nick a knock yesterday. Just an early look at his game ahead of a possible meeting eh?

I would like to see grass reward the cavaliers again. Like the Beckers/McEnroes again. It is painful seeing balls just sit up on the grass. It shouldn't happen.

Bring back carpet too!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tipsarevic??

Not sure I would qualify him as talent.

That was part of my point. No big weapons, unremarkable movement and fitness, and yet he was able to get better results than the younger generation.

"wily" thats what you call it eh... ? maybe Rafa will give him a little off court coaching before he plays the old man.... These Spanish are a little artful sometimes !!!

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tipsarevic??

Not sure I would qualify him as talent.

That was part of my point. No big weapons, unremarkable movement and fitness, and yet he was able to get better results than the younger generation.

But I think part of Tipsys improvement was just an increase in fitness.

Fitness has certainly played a part in the consistency of the older players, but young talent I fear will go down the fitness route a la Murray/Dimitrov.

I don't think it dispels any myths until he goes on to take the title. Sure it was mighty impressive that he came through a three-hour battle on top against Nadal but the real test of his physical and mental attributes are about to come. Can he follow it up against Raonic tomorrow then possibly Federer then possibly Djokovic, Dimitrov or Murray? We shall see.

^
Fitness and expansive tennis are not mutually exclusive though.

Being able to hang in rallies does not equate to a desire to extend rallies.

(that was a response to lk)

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would like to see grass reward the cavaliers again. Like the Beckers/McEnroes again. It is painful seeing balls just sit up on the grass. It shouldn't happen.

Bring back carpet too!

      

A full round of applause for all that!

A full round of applause for the article and Nick Kryigious for stating the article right.   

It was all bulls and nonsense to say this was a golden era, the fact is there weren't any youngster of quality to challenge the top 10 let alone the top dogs.

Ferrer is an example of it, he became a monster of a player in this era who was nothing more than a normal top tenner in his prime, so its not the big 4 alone that has been dominant, its even the likes of Berdych, Ferrer etc,... started to dominate due to lack of talent arising.

HM Murdoch wrote:^
Fitness and expansive tennis are not mutually exclusive though.

Being able to hang in rallies does not equate to a desire to extend rallies.

(that was a response to lk)

Agree, but still we see top players see the success that high levels of fitness can achieve. Do Nadal/Djokovic/Murray want to play percentage tennis all the time? Probably not, but what we have is conditions that play to that suit.

Take Lendl and Agassi who really broke the mould for baseline tennis. It was a rarity. Now the game is just littered with them and no forecourt players.

lk I think you are forgetting that Borg played the biggest part in baseline tennis well before Agassi

Haddie-nuff wrote:lk  I think you are forgetting that Borg played the biggest part in baseline tennis well before Agassi

+1

Haddie-nuff wrote:lk  I think you are forgetting that Borg played the biggest part in baseline tennis well before Agassi

I would have Borg as an all courter than just a baseliner.

I'm not sure one great match from a youngster against a player struggling to find his game on grass against big-hitting journeymen "dispels" any myth at all.

mthierry wrote:I'm not sure one great match from a youngster against a player struggling to find his game on grass against big-hitting journeymen "dispels" any myth at all.

Yes that is what I think as well. Lets wait until he wins Wimbledon this year then that is dispelling a myth.

He was eventually not to begin with he wasn't

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:lk  I think you are forgetting that Borg played the biggest part in baseline tennis well before Agassi

I would have Borg as an all courter than just a baseliner.

Eventually yes, but Borg started as nothing but a base liner which made him unique at the time

CaledonianCraig wrote:

mthierry wrote:I'm not sure one great match from a youngster against a player struggling to find his game on grass against big-hitting journeymen "dispels" any myth at all.

Yes that is what I think as well. Lets wait until he wins Wimbledon this year then that is dispelling a myth.

The myth is that the excuse for the talentless young generation is fitness. He proved that wasn't essential today, just a game.

Thought that the myth was that the slower courts had made the game more fitness based. The slow courts did not seem to hinder Krygios today netiher did his fitness. As said previously if you are good enough you are old enough.

bogbrush wrote:For some time now we've heard that the reason there are no young players pressurising the top guys is that tennis now demands so much fitness that it is beyond the under 22's.

Now we know that was wrong. In fact, there's just been no good young players and this period has been the weaker for it, with players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc. flattered in recent years by a dearth of quality coming through.

Hopefully young Kyrgios can go on from here, but in beating a fully fit, highly motivated Nadal in a match of great importance he's shown that all it takes is quality, not age.

Wonderful grasping of straws BB, but you've got me convinced. I mean the 19 year old, No. 144 ranked Aussie is obviously doing what the 19 year old's of yore did   

I'll concede that you might have a point, if Kygios makes the Top 20 before he's out of his teens. We'll see what he's made of, now that he'll be a target for everyone, starting tomorrow. Methinks he won't make a slam SF until he's at least 21 - simply because that's how the current era is

I won't bow to your constant belittling of the current era, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean to say that it's of poor quality

No the thing I have maintained why the average age of top players is older now is the physicality/physical conditioning needed to win consistently only comes in the early to mid-twenties such are the slow court conditions now. Kyrgios win today just showed he could win a match against Nadal but that is all it has done. He hasn't won a slam or anything so to pluck one random win by a teenager in one random match is not evidence of anything until he goes on to greater things here at Wimbledon this year.

BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

I hold the belief though that talent alone isn't enough now. You also need a strong physicality coupled with great talent. It is like the old Sinatra song Love and Marriage as he sung - you can't have one without the other. Sheer physicality with little talent counts for nothing just as talent without physicality is of little use as you just won't pull through many tough five setters.

invisiblecoolers wrote:A full round of applause for the article and Nick Kryigious for stating the article right.   

It was all bulls and nonsense to say this was a golden era, the fact is there weren't any youngster of quality to challenge the top 10 let alone the top dogs.

Ferrer is an example of it, he became a monster of a player in this era who was nothing more than a normal top tenner in his prime, so its not the big 4 alone that has been dominant, its even the likes of Berdych, Ferrer etc,... started to dominate due to lack of talent arising.

This thread gets better and better as it gets more hilarious by the minute

That is unless I've lost track time and Krygios has actually won Wimbledon   

What's amuses the most are posters not to realise that it was pretty unnatural for teenagers to be winning slams and perfectly natural, given the greater knowledge of sports science, for players to get better later. For me it actually said a lot about how poor Tennis was before the teenage Mac burst and how soon the 25 year old's lack of tough knocks proved devastating by the time he was 25 - which then meant another group of teenagers exploited that 1985 void

Instead we get the belittling of current players as though everything was magic when teenagers or early 20 somethings dominated the world

For instance Berdych, who I admittedly don't have much time for, is certainly no worse than that one dimensional German who won Wimby 1991, basically because he served like a demon all tournament

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

I hold the belief though that talent alone isn't enough now. You also need a strong physicality coupled with great talent. It is like the old Sinatra song Love and Marriage as he sung - you can't have one without the other. Sheer physicality with little talent counts for nothing just as talent without physicality is of little use as you just won't pull through many tough five setters.

But didn't people single Murray out for success based on his showing at Wimbledon 2005? That was just on his talent alone.

The same is being said for Kyrgios and yet it seems he has to win Wimbledon to justify that tag.

A tad high wouldn't you think?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

I hold the belief though that talent alone isn't enough now. You also need a strong physicality coupled with great talent. It is like the old Sinatra song Love and Marriage as he sung - you can't have one without the other. Sheer physicality with little On talent counts for nothing just as talent without physicality is of little use as you just won't pull through many tough five setters.

I agree with you again CC but what this youngster has demonstrated is the mental strength of Rafa.. Rafa has in past overcome his opponents because he is without doubt the most mentally strong player on tour... as I have said Rafa was facing the younger version of himself across that net.. love him as I do !!!!Rafa bullies his opponents ... this boy would have none of it... for someone so young and inexperienced he showed enormous mental fortitude... I was waiting for him to cave in after Rafa pulled a set back but he didn't ... not something Rafa is used to. On top of which Rafa himself was showing himself to be a bit fragile in that department. Despite his injuries Rafa has always had incredible physical stamina.. along with the mental side of his game.  Physically Rafa could have played the youngster for all of the five sets .. no problem.. but he was mentally broken

No but people noted his talent but noted his lack of fitness. He went away and worked hard to rectify it and he benefited from it but had to wait some time before becoming a slam winner. That may be the sort of stage Kyrgios is at now and so his slam success may still be a few years off. We shall see.

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

But Krygios hasn't 'broken through'. We can't be fooled by BB, who's been waiting for a moment like this for around five years, when it's based on one performance!!

If Kygios qualifies for the Masters and reaches the quarters at Cincy / Canada and then gets to the last 16 at the US Open, then that's the time to write this article

Yes I agree banbrotam. Let's just sit back and see how far he goes here and thereafter before swearing him as the next multiple slam winner.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

I hold the belief though that talent alone isn't enough now. You also need a strong physicality coupled with great talent. It is like the old Sinatra song Love and Marriage as he sung - you can't have one without the other. Sheer physicality with little talent counts for nothing just as talent without physicality is of little use as you just won't pull through many tough five setters.

But didn't people single Murray out for success based on his showing at Wimbledon 2005? That was just on his talent alone.

The same is being said for Kyrgios and yet it seems he has to win Wimbledon to justify that tag.

A tad high wouldn't you think?

Murray was ranked 44 at the same age. In order to better this (and justify this fuss) to get to that, I'd wager that Krugios would actually have to win Wimbledon. So it's not actually unreasonable

CaledonianCraig wrote:No but people noted his talent but noted his lack of fitness. He went away and worked hard to rectify it and he benefited from it but had to wait some time before becoming a slam winner. That may be the sort of stage Kyrgios is at now and so his slam success may still be a few years off. We shall see.

The hype for Murray then is the same as it is now for Kyrgios, if not more because he just dispatched the world number 1.

I think it holds some argument that talent can breakthrough even without the required fitness.

Murray beat Federer in 2006 without the levels of fitness he shows now.

It took Dimitrov years to beat the World Number 1. The argument is if Dimitrov that talented wouldn't he have beaten the top guys years ago?

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

I hold the belief though that talent alone isn't enough now. You also need a strong physicality coupled with great talent. It is like the old Sinatra song Love and Marriage as he sung - you can't have one without the other. Sheer physicality with little talent counts for nothing just as talent without physicality is of little use as you just won't pull through many tough five setters.

But didn't people single Murray out for success based on his showing at Wimbledon 2005? That was just on his talent alone.

The same is being said for Kyrgios and yet it seems he has to win Wimbledon to justify that tag.

A tad high wouldn't you think?

Murray was ranked 44 at the same age. In order to better this (and justify this fuss) to get to that, I'd wager that Krugios would actually have to win Wimbledon. So it's not actually unreasonable

Eh?

This is a breakthrough tournament for a talented youngster.

I don't see that he has to win Wimbledon to justify the hype. That's lunacy!

Kyrgios has beaten Raga in the 4th Round at Wimbledon let's see what else he does in the coming months before comparing him to say Murray. And yes he beat Federer but not at a slam until much later. Remember as well that Rafa has vulnerability on grass in recent times so it kind of makes this win less of a surprise when you recall what Rosol and Darcis did to him on grass.

Think OP has thrown is a curved ball here. Can't remember him having challenged the fitness myth and age before. Then Nadal loses to a 19 year old who played with power, imagination and excellent mental strength and he makes out this is what he has been saying all along.

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

+1

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:A full round of applause for the article and Nick Kryigious for stating the article right.   

It was all bulls and nonsense to say this was a golden era, the fact is there weren't any youngster of quality to challenge the top 10 let alone the top dogs.

Ferrer is an example of it, he became a monster of a player in this era who was nothing more than a normal top tenner in his prime, so its not the big 4 alone that has been dominant, its even the likes of Berdych, Ferrer etc,... started to dominate due to lack of talent arising.

This thread gets better and better as it gets more hilarious by the minute

That is unless I've lost track time and Krygios has actually won Wimbledon   

What's amuses the most are posters not to realise that it was pretty unnatural for teenagers to be winning slams and perfectly natural, given the greater knowledge of sports science, for players to get better later. For me it actually said a lot about how poor Tennis was before the teenage Mac burst and how soon the 25 year old's lack of tough knocks proved devastating by the time he was 25 - which then meant another group of teenagers exploited that 1985 void

Instead we get the belittling of current players as though everything was magic when teenagers or early 20 somethings dominated the world

For instance Berdych, who I admittedly don't have much time for, is certainly no worse than that one dimensional German who won Wimby 1991, basically because he served like a demon all tournament

The point is your adamaent nature not to accept there is dearth lack of quality at teenage and around it, and thats one of the reason the top dogs are doing it easy year after year. Ferrer example was stated as a perfect example of how much he has achieved in this last few years compared to his prime, if you find it funny its pretty clear your laughing at yourself, coz its that simple to understand what I stated.   

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

But Krygios hasn't 'broken through'. We can't be fooled by BB, who's been waiting for a moment like this for around five years, when it's based on one performance!!

If Kygios qualifies for the Masters and reaches the quarters at Cincy / Canada and then  gets to the last 16 at the US Open, then that's the time to write this article

Stop being silly, its not about one performance, its about quality to beat a top dog, if there would have been more than 1 Nick say like 4-5 of that caliber and each take a top dog out we would be seeing a new champ for easy, but unfortunately Dimitrov , Raonic and co are not losing coz of physicality but coz of quality , its even a shame to call these guys are the leaders of their respective generation [I am just comparing the quality not the rest with past years] .

invisiblecoolers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

+1

What is breaking through though? A random win against a top player but no big titles to follow (ie slams)? The holy grail is becoming a slam winner so that is what we must judge these young stars by. Remember winning a slam you have to win best of five matches - that is the test of physicality on slower court conditions nowadays. Kyrgios may or may not go on to win a slam but when will that be? This week or five years down the line? Lets wait and see. I will say if he reaches the final here then it is definitely dispelling a myth but not just now. Lets see if he can pull off a win or two more first here before making a knee-jerk judgment.

Remember as well though that Gasquet came very close to beating Kyrgios and Jiri Veselly also came damned close (closer than Rafa) to beating him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BB's point as I understand is that if the talent is there at a young age, regardless of fitness it will breakthrough even against the top players.

I think it's a fair point.

+1

What is breaking through though? A random win against a top player but no big titles to follow (ie slams)? The holy grail is becoming a slam winner so that is what we must judge these young stars by. Remember winning a slam you have to win best of five matches - that is the test of physicality on slower court conditions nowadays. Kyrgios may or may not go on to win a slam but when will that be? This week or five years down the line? Lets wait and see. I will say if he reaches the final here then it is definitely dispelling a myth but not just now. Lets see if he can pull off a win or two more first here before making a knee-jerk judgment.

Remember as well though that Gasquet came very close to beating Kyrgios and Jiri Veselly also came damned close (closer than Rafa) to beating him.

The point is not what is breaking through but what what is not breaking through is not due to physicality but utter lack of quality. The thread explains it pretty clear, when there is a quality it will shine and when there is not one there are just excuses saying physical conditioning , slow conditions etc,..