Youngsters cannot find a footing.
Posted by tennisplanet on July 12, 2009
Just when Federer appears to taper off, Nadal turns it on and starts winning on ‘other’ surfaces. And just when Nadal seems done with his knee problems, Federer emerges from the dead to seal off any entry for the young guns.
Ever since the dynamic duo has taken hold, just Djokovic has been able to sneak in to win the lone Slam in Australia.
It’s amazing and shameful at the same time how much high above everyone else these two have been for so long. It cannot be just talent. Clearly the two are out working everyone else on the tour too.
It’s hard to imagine that no one can bridge that gap with a right combination of talent and hard work. There just doesn’t seem to be enough discipline, focus and belief to move up a notch just by putting in more time on the practice courts, among other obvious starters.
Roddick is prime example at age 26 on what real motivation (or is it desperation) coupled with hard work under a competent eye can produce.
Maybe Federer and Nadal have been able to rob the field of belief like no other player(s) in the past has ever done stunting the growth of potential great players in their era – fanning the ‘not enough competition’ debate.
It’s a well known fact that Greg Louganis was not only great, he single handedly reduced the ranks of clowns taking up diving as a career in his time, thereby reducing the competition into a joke.
While it may not be as profound with tennis today, it certainly is robbing players of all conviction of proceeding beyond a mark, consequently holding them back from going all out on the practice courts.
Sampras’s claim of having a stronger field in his time may in reality be his admission of being devoid of that intimidating factor – at least of this magnitude. After all, all kinds of Tom, Dick and Harrys were winning Slams in his time.
Ali (here we go again) was the master at taking away that belief even before he stepped in that ring. And that’s when he had giants like Frazier, Norton and Foreman to contend with. Imagine what a dog fight it would have been without that intangible advantage. With Frazier, it was – anyways.
Charles Barkley was explaining to some kid why he didn’t win the championship one year: “Kid, there was someone who just wanted it more”. Who do you think that was? Jordan.
Freaking point is this: All greats hold that card and use it extensively to establish / extend their domination beyond reasonable borders / time frame. That may be more of reason why the youngsters are unable to derail the dual train of tennis today – more than talent and what have you.
Anonymous said
Excellent !
Media always believe Federer did not have competition at all and hence he was able to win 15 slams. Sampras had everyone like Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic and so on. The truth is Federer has dominated the sport in such a way that the whole competition was a standstill. If Federer did not play the way he played, everyone like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, today’s Murray, Djokovic would have had some slams.
Accept that federer is genius and do not blame the competition for his success.
Alex said
Safin ruined himself..
MARIE said
Exactly, if Safin had focused on his game rather than his extracurricular activites he would have won more slams. I know that injury played a part, but he didn’t come close to fulfilling his immense talent.
O said
Sampras was one-person 50% domination considering he won 0 at RG and 2 at AO. Roger/Rafa was two-people shutout domination that nobody is supposed to win a major during their rule. Safin sneaked out one AO when Roger had his ankle wrapped, and Djokovic got one AO when Roger had mono. Now that Nadal’s health may reduce him to less than 100%, there could be new slam winners, but they need to play at a supreme level to win even one.
joao said
Still, TP, i’m getting slightly worried about the fact that, other than Del Potro (and even that is in question), there is no real star on the horizon.
My guess is that we will go into a period similar to the 89/90/91 years, when, after the end of the Lendl/McEnroe/Willander era, it took a while for the Sampras/Agassi generation to get it’s grip on the game, and create a real star system that propelled the game to the it’s current place.
Either way, i think that tennis (as a sport) will have to ride out the low ebb of the wave that Federer and Nadal created. There may be a sharp decline in the popularity of the sport when the Fed Express stops it’s run. That is worrying in itself because the sport is already peripheral to many other sports and is becoming a niche sport.
Jenny said
‘Still, TP, i’m getting slightly worried about the fact that, other than Del Potro (and even that is in question), there is no real star on the horizon.’
I agree, Joao. It hard to know how consistent the young guns will fare over time. At the moment it’s the ‘oldies’ who are still lighting up the courts in crucial matches, eg Federer, Roddick, Haas, Ferrero, Gonzo, Stepanek, all 26+, even Santoro at 36yrs old still reached a final this week. I’m not suggesting for one minute Dr Ivo lights up the courts with his game, but he’s still there at 30yrs old and still poses a threat on a given day. I could be totally off the wall, but I’m still not totally convinced about Del Potro for the long haul, more to do with movement really. Cilic seems to be settling and he is a cool customer. Gulbis, Baghdatis, Gasquet, Nishikori have shown promise in the past but nothing more, and Djokovic hasn’t been consistent. I enjoy Grigor Dimitrov’s game, but only time will tell with him.