Topic: Join the Discussion about tennis generations

[Babblelot]

it's just laughable that fedtards cast out federer from the nadal, nole, murray generation........that is like saying that nadal doesn't belong to the 2009 - present generation........

What's laughable - or sad - is the near-constant string of out-of-touch garbage spewed by those who use the phrase 'fedtard' on a regular basis.  This just in - 5 years is a long time in the tennis world.

C'mon Bird, you're better than that. I want to hear what you got.

Sent from my SPH-D600 using Tapatalk 2

[FreeBird]

OK, here's what I want to add:

The reason the current generation never cultivated a champions mentality is that they play a passive game. In the past, when the game was on the line, when their backs were against the wall, champions attacked. Today, players play passively and wait it out hoping their opponent will error before they do.

Just watch big points today. Who's attacking? Who wants to win the point and not lose it? Who's got the mettle to take the offense? It's this passivity that permeates their game, their mentality. Murray's problem is that of the Top 4, he's the most passive.

Interesting theory.  One of the things that has always bothered me about Fed's play (there aren't too many lol) has been his passive play, especially on big points.  IMO has cost him many times against Rafa.  Seems worth considering - the no -champs who have made noise in majors - Sod, Berd, DP, Tsonga - have done so with aggressive play, most often in the form of big flat groundies.  IMO Murray gets it done by defense but also with an extra dose of court sense - I'm thinking Hingis - which is an offense of sorts.

I've often wondered if the increased athleticism hasn't resulted in less of a mental-toughness focus.  Rafa being an obvious counter example.  But by and large there seems to be less mental tenacity than in earlier generations?

[FreeBird]

it's just laughable that fedtards cast out federer from the nadal, nole, murray generation........that is like saying that nadal doesn't belong to the 2009 - present generation........

What's laughable - or sad - is the near-constant string of out-of-touch garbage spewed by those who use the phrase 'fedtard' on a regular basis.  This just in - 5 years is a long time in the tennis world.

C'mon Bird, you're better than that. I want to hear what you got.

Sent from my SPH-D600 using Tapatalk 2

I got plenty - patience, young Babble-son

[Babblelot]

Dude, I'm like 5 years older than you!   

[FreeBird]

Dude, I'm like 5 years older than you!   

Love it!!!

[FreeBird]

So the comment that intrigued me the most from the initial thread was the 'attitude of a champion' bit - because this is a characteristic that *feels* like it can be compared across generations.  Here are a few I would place in that rarified category, who didn't necessarily have the results:  Chang, Muster, Hewitt, and Roddick.  Chang just didn't have the game to match Sampras.  Similarly, Hewitt didn't have the game to match Fed.  For that matter, neither did Roddick.  I also find a similarity between Safin and young Agassi - incredible potential negated by lack of focus.  If anything, Safin had greater potential.  Another key difference is that while Agassi found himself late in his career, Safin retired.  During their early years, don't think either had the 'mentality of a champion', even though both won majors. 

Roddick is interesting to me, and many will likely disagree, but I see him as Multi-GS winner in other eras.  But his game was seriously deficient against Fed.

Maybe the point of all this is that I don't think the MASH generation is as bad as Babble makes it out to be, with Roddick and Hewitt both possessing the attitude of a champion.  I'd also put Ferrer in that category, somewhat like Chang.  Though he might be in a different generation

One more angle to this - big losses to guys who *do not* have the attitude of a champ.  I'd put Krajicek into that category, as well as Berd. 

[Babblelot]

I agree:

Safin = young Agassi
Roddick = Chang = Ferrer = Delpo
I place Delpo with Roddick because Delpo's game is only predicted on power. When he was new, he could over power the best of them, but now he's just the best's pigeon. Roddick never was able to overcome his deficiencies, all of which stemmed from his BH. And he simply wasn't athletic enough to be anything more than serviceable at net. He really needed that - which he obviously worked hard to develop - because he never could cure the BH. That said, he did develop a very nice slice. Similarly, Delpo's game is rudimentary. TBD if he's able to develop a more well rounded and thoughtful game.

For now:
Berdych = Tsonga
Big wins over top players then barely show up the next round. I'm interested to see what kind of effort Berdych puts forth against Murray.

You start at Sampras. I'd start the two generations before them: McEnroe and call it Edberg. Then came Sampras. These generations didn't jump on the bull and try to ride it out. These generations took the bull by the horns.

[Lugburz]

Safin = young Agassi  check
Berdych = Tsonga check

Roddick = Chang = Ferrer = Delpo    I'm confused by this tbh. Especially how those colored blue can be compared with those in pink?

Chang = Ferrer = Monaco = Simon check

I might me a bit younger to mention Chang, but what I've been hearing from my dad and what I've been watching on yt, wasn't Chang like the ultimate pusher?

[Babblelot]

Roddick = Delpo
Early in their careers their power was new and they blasted everyone off the court. Once the top players neutralized their power they found the soft underbelly of their games. Delpo looks pretty stubborn and lacks variety and imagination = Roddick pre-2007 (Connors). Delpo still has time to develop his game, Roddick ran out of time.

[Lugburz]

Roddick = Delpo
Early in their careers their power was new and they blasted everyone off the court. Once the top players neutralized their power they found the soft underbelly of their games. Delpo looks pretty stubborn and lacks variety and imagination = Roddick pre-2007 (Connors). Delpo still has time to develop his game, Roddick ran out of time.

Yep, I got that comparison, but where do Chang and Ferrer fit there?

[Babblelot]

I'd say the main difference is that Chang was faster and Ferrer severs better. Otherwise, identical. Chang may have been the original backboard.

[Babblelot]

Oh, I see, go back and read why FreeBird put Roddick with Chang and Ferrer. He was saying the mentality was there but the game wasn't.

I should have broken Roddick and Delpo off for my argument. 

[Lugburz]

I think you didn't understand me, this is your quote I was confused by:

 ''Roddick = Chang = Ferrer = Delpo''

Now I understand similarities between Chang and Ferrer, and Delpo-Roddick..  But can't see how Delp+Roddick have got anything to do with Chang+Ferrer..

[Lugburz]

Oh, I see, go back and read why FreeBird put Roddick with Chang and Ferrer. He was saying the mentality was there but the game wasn't.

I should have broken Roddick and Delpo off for my argument. 

rgr     our case, closed. 

[Jamesdster]

Dude, I'm like 5 years older than you!   

Love it!!!

KIDS! 

[monstertruck]

So the comment that intrigued me the most from the initial thread was the 'attitude of a champion' bit - because this is a characteristic that *feels* like it can be compared across generations.  Here are a few I would place in that rarified category, who didn't necessarily have the results:  Chang, Muster, Hewitt, and Roddick.  Chang just didn't have the game to match Sampras.  Similarly, Hewitt didn't have the game to match Fed.  For that matter, neither did Roddick.  I also find a similarity between Safin and young Agassi - incredible potential negated by lack of focus.  If anything, Safin had greater potential.  Another key difference is that while Agassi found himself late in his career, Safin retired.  During their early years, don't think either had the 'mentality of a champion', even though both won majors. 

Roddick is interesting to me, and many will likely disagree, but I see him as Multi-GS winner in other eras.  But his game was seriously deficient against Fed.

Maybe the point of all this is that I don't think the MASH generation is as bad as Babble makes it out to be, with Roddick and Hewitt both possessing the attitude of a champion.  I'd also put Ferrer in that category, somewhat like Chang.  Though he might be in a different generation

One more angle to this - big losses to guys who *do not* have the attitude of a champ.  I'd put Krajicek into that category, as well as Berd.

What an interesting post!
Highlighting players who possess(ed) the 'attitude of a champion' but lacked a complete game necessary to win multiple slams and also identifying others who possessed the physical skills but lacked the focus.
Certainly traits that can be compared across generations!

One question, in which specific generation do you think Andy (not Murray) could have won multiple slams?  I couldn't find one, as much as I would have liked to.

What interests me most about these discussions is what can be learned about/from other players and applied directly to one's own game. 
Great topic!
Great discussion!