Is Tennis in good hands with these young guys?

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

I think there will be a lot great tennis ahead of us.

Thanks to these two in particular.

 

[MM808]

Yes. The passing of the torch to Alcaraz, Sinner, Med, etc. is ideal rather than there being no top players to carry the torch.

 

[Sweater of AV]

They're no prime Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Wendel Clark, Andy Murray or Roger Federer but they're certainly worthy of carrying the torch moving forward.

 

[Gladiator24]

What made federer nadal Djokovic famous with casuals is they had a rivalry. It’s like the Messi/ronaldo thing, it’s big with casuals cause of the rivalry, lebron/MJ etc.

I can see tennis taking a hit for the next few years until new rivalries are created.

 

[Corona]

Alcarez may end up winning a lot of slams if no other young players emerge. He has 6-8 years on zverev and medvedev who are the next closest to him and sinner in age. Rune and Ruud may win some majors too. Hopefully our mans Shelton takes the next step.

 

[ferrisjso]

What made federer nadal Djokovic famous with casuals is they had a rivalry. It’s like the Messi/ronaldo thing, it’s big with casuals cause of the rivalry, lebron/MJ etc.

I can see tennis taking a hit for the next few years until new rivalries are created.

Honestly I think mens tennis suffered with the big 4 era because you had 15+ years where you knew 3 guys were going to win with a 4th guy winning every few years. People could go on and one about how we should appreciate greatness and how entertaining the great matches were but the reality is those legendary finals and semi finals were the results of long 2017 Warriors style tournaments that lacked what really made tennis special.

And I don't think its just "diehards". Tennis was bigger in the cultural space back when there was a diverse cast of contenders. Clay tennis was especially hurt. Tennis used to have a whole subgroup of clay court specialists but Nadal hunted them to extinction.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Honestly I think mens tennis suffered with the big 4 era because you had 15+ years where you knew 3 guys were going to win with a 4th guy winning every few years. People could go on and one about how we should appreciate greatness and how entertaining the great matches were but the reality is those legendary finals and semi finals were the results of long 2017 Warriors style tournaments that lacked what really made tennis special.

And I don't think its just "diehards". Tennis was bigger in the cultural space back when there was a diverse cast of contenders. Clay tennis was especially hurt. Tennis used to have a whole subgroup of clay court specialists but Nadal hunted them to extinction.

The game benefitted from the big 4 in almost every way possible, especially in terms of popularity worldwide. Federer blew the doors open in terms of popularity for the game, especially in places like China, India etc and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray have helped sustain it.

I agree that styles have become more homogeneous, which is a result of different factors, including increased homogeneity of surfaces. Surface specialists don't really exist anymore. If you want to be at the top now then you have to be extremely good on every surface. The main unfortunate consequence of the past 15-20 years for me is the development of net skills has stunted. I'd love to see a great serve and volleyer have some success again but people have become so good at returning, countering and defending. You rarely see chip and charge tactics anymore because you're going to get passed or put yourself in a vulnerable position 9 times out of 10.

That doesn't change how amazing matches have been over the past 15-20 years though. The big four produced the highest quality tennis in history, Nadal-Djokovic is the greatest rivalry and Nadal-Federer is arguably the most popular rivalry. Nadal was the perfect villain for Federer and then Novak was the perfect villain for both. All of it should be appreciated.

The general audience didn't care nearly as much when Johansson won Australia, Costa won the French and Hewitt won Wimbledon. People were mainly just sad that the Sampras-Agassi era was coming to an end. Great rivalries always enhance the game and popularity.

If we really want to try and get more varied styles again though then we have to do things like change court styles/speeds and also change the schedule. For instance, Wimbledon's court speed has been decimated over the past 25 years. There's no way the ATP will change things very much though so this is how it is.

 

[ferrisjso]

The game benefitted from the big 4 in almost every way possible, especially in terms of popularity worldwide. Federer blew the doors open in terms of popularity for the game, especially in places like China, India etc and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray have helped sustain it.

I agree that styles have become more homogeneous, which is a result of different factors, including increased homogeneity of surfaces. Surface specialists don't really exist anymore. If you want to be at the top now then you have to be extremely good on every surface. The main unfortunate consequence of the past 15-20 years for me is the development of net skills has stunted. I'd love to see a great serve and volleyer have some success again but people have become so good at returning, countering and defending. You rarely see chip and charge tactics anymore because you're going to get passed or put yourself in a vulnerable position 9 times out of 10.

That doesn't change how amazing matches have been over the past 15-20 years though. The big four produced the highest quality tennis in history, Nadal-Djokovic is the greatest rivalry and Nadal-Federer is arguably the most popular rivalry. Nadal was the perfect villain for Federer and then Novak was the perfect villain for both. All of it should be appreciated.

The general audience didn't care nearly as much when Johansson won Australia, Costa won the French and Hewitt won Wimbledon. People were mainly just sad that the Sampras-Agassi era was coming to an end. Great rivalries always enhance the game and popularity.

If we really want to try and get more varied styles again though then we have to do things like change court styles/speeds and also change the schedule. For instance, Wimbledon's court speed has been decimated over the past 25 years. There's no way the ATP will change things very much though so this is how it is.

Its not that they cared about Johansson(they absolutley cared about Hewitt). I'm not talking cinderellas winning I'm talking parity. There is a difference. Theres NFL style parity where you excitedly ponder the outcome between many possible contenders. And theres MLB style parity where someone who clearly isn't close to the best won cause their side of the draw fell apart. But its the journey that matters not who holds the trophy. At least in terms of the sports popularity.


I understand theres a library of classic finals and semi finals from 2007 to 2020. And also after awhile people stop caring about the classic matches because its the same people and the stakes are lower and lower. After 2012 I was done with that shit. It'd been 5 years, Fed was 30+ Nadals knees were supposed to be mush I wanted to see Djokovic v Cilic, Roanic and Isner. Tennis people had an anticipation careers petered out in their late 20s and people were basically shooing Federer and Nadal out the door by 2010 looking forward to the next era. But they just never left and by the time they did leave many of the people waiting were long gone.

I'm not a rivalry person(unless its a college or something). If I had my way I would kick the Lakers and Celtics out of the NBA and the Yankees and Red Sox out of MLB and have them compete for their own trophy against each other. That is clearly what their fans want everyone else should give them their privacy.

Yeah I don't like the baseliners but I realize thats my personal taste. I find long rallys where both guys wait for someone to fuck up both frustrating and exhausting like watching someone on a high wire(playing I get the appeal i'm talking watching). I like serve and volley. If we take the volley out of it the power servers have survived better than the clay people have cause being a power server isn't a zero sum game like being a clay court specialist often was. But Federers really the only power server whose game wasn't built around the power serve.

I believe tennis would have dramatically increased in popularity in those places regardless of the faces of the sport.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Its not that they cared about Johansson(they absolutley cared about Hewitt). I'm not talking cinderellas winning I'm talking parity. There is a difference. Theres NFL style parity where you excitedly ponder the outcome between many possible contenders. And theres MLB style parity where someone who clearly isn't close to the best won cause their side of the draw fell apart. But its the journey that matters not who holds the trophy. At least in terms of the sports popularity.


I understand theres a library of classic finals and semi finals from 2007 to 2020. And also after awhile people stop caring about the classic matches because its the same people and the stakes are lower and lower. After 2012 I was done with that shit. It'd been 5 years, Fed was 30+ Nadals knees were supposed to be mush I wanted to see Djokovic v Cilic, Roanic and Isner. Tennis people had an anticipation careers petered out in their late 20s and people were basically shooing Federer and Nadal out the door by 2010 looking forward to the next era. But they just never left and by the time they did leave many of the people waiting were long gone.

I'm not a rivalry person(unless its a college or something). If I had my way I would kick the Lakers and Celtics out of the NBA and the Yankees and Red Sox out of MLB and have them compete for their own trophy against each other. That is clearly what their fans want everyone else should give them their privacy.

Yeah I don't like the baseliners but I realize thats my personal taste. I find long rallys where both guys wait for someone to fuck up both frustrating and exhausting like watching someone on a high wire(playing I get the appeal i'm talking watching). I like serve and volley. If we take the volley out of it the power servers have survived better than the clay people have cause being a power server isn't a zero sum game like being a clay court specialist often was. But Federers really the only power server whose game wasn't built around the power serve.

I believe tennis would have dramatically increased in popularity in those places regardless of the faces of the sport.

Hewitt had some popularity but casual fans weren't really tuning in just to watch him. Who holds the trophy matters greatly in terms of the sport's popularity. If someone is popular then them winning keeps attention on the sport. The journey is important for fans more interested in the details but they are few and far between.

Basically no one wanted Federer and Nadal out the door in 2010. That's a ridiculous statement.

Lakers, Celtics, Yankees and Red Sox are a completely different topic of discussion. They exist independent of who's playing and I agree they get tiresome. Tennis players exist only as long as they're relevant and deserve as much recognition as they can get.

I also prefer net play but I appreciate what these guys are capable of. I wouldn't strictly characterize Roger as a power server, those are guys like Ivanisevic, Isner, Raonic, Karlovic, Krajicek etc. Roger definitely has one of the greatest serves ever.

There's no way tennis would be anywhere near as popular today if it weren't for these four, especially Roger.

 

[StonedLemur]

Alcarez is a monster, and there's plenty of others, so tennis will still be tennis.

I think there will be a lot great tennis ahead of us.

Thanks to these two in particular.