Athletes in Every Sport are Better

[Golfingdad]

Thought of this thread yesterday while watching the end of the Wimbledon Men's final.  It also had me thinking of the Jack Tiger thread and the strength of field Jack Tiger thread.

I agree with the premise that the athletes are better today, no question, but I saw a stat yesterday that I couldn't quite reconcile.  It was the list of most career majors won and it now looks like this:

Roger Federer: 20, Rafael Nadal: 17, Pete Sampras: 14, Novak Djokovic: 13.   Three of those four have careers that overlapped considerably, almost entirely.  We say in the Tiger Jack threads that part of why Tiger has fewer majors than Jack and why 14 is possibly equal to or perhaps even more impressive than 18 is because of the stronger fields.  How do we reconcile this argument with what's going on in tennis?  I don't know.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Thought of this thread yesterday while watching the end of the Wimbledon Men's final.  It also had me thinking of the Jack Tiger thread and the strength of field Jack Tiger thread.

I agree with the premise that the athletes are better today, no question, but I saw a stat yesterday that I couldn't quite reconcile.  It was the list of most career majors won and it now looks like this:

Roger Federer: 20, Rafael Nadal: 17, Pete Sampras: 14, Novak Djokovic: 13.   Three of those four have careers that overlapped considerably, almost entirely.  We say in the Tiger Jack threads that part of why Tiger has fewer majors than Jack and why 14 is possibly equal to or perhaps even more impressive than 18 is because of the stronger fields.  How do we reconcile this argument with what's going on in tennis?  I don't know.

Tennis is played one on one. HUGE difference in results.

It’s also not as random as 18 holes. They play many many many shots.

[nevets88]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Thought of this thread yesterday while watching the end of the Wimbledon Men's final.  It also had me thinking of the Jack Tiger thread and the strength of field Jack Tiger thread.

I agree with the premise that the athletes are better today, no question, but I saw a stat yesterday that I couldn't quite reconcile.  It was the list of most career majors won and it now looks like this:

Roger Federer: 20, Rafael Nadal: 17, Pete Sampras: 14, Novak Djokovic: 13.   Three of those four have careers that overlapped considerably, almost entirely.  We say in the Tiger Jack threads that part of why Tiger has fewer majors than Jack and why 14 is possibly equal to or perhaps even more impressive than 18 is because of the stronger fields.  How do we reconcile this argument with what's going on in tennis?  I don't know.

I was thinking the same. Found this, which has some interesting bits I didn't know, like better strings, kind of like better shafts and head design.

https://www.quora.com/Are-tennis-players-much-better-nowadays-than-they-used-to-be-and-why

Quote

Andre Agassi, a player at the top of the game through the 90's, admits that what the guys today are doing is just a whole different level: "These guys over the last 10, 12 years have redefined the rules of engagement on a tennis court. This is really the golden age of tennis.”

I would guess anecdotally, take a 1st or 2nd round match between players ranked below 75, find it on YouTube and try and compare a match between similarly ranked players today? 

I watched a lot of live tennis in the 90s and not much, but some today, and the players today hit the ball harder, at sharper angles with insane amounts of spin and move quicker. Leaner and taller too.

The Joker is 6'2" and Anderson is 6'8", Isner is what, taller than Anderson?

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Tennis is played one on one. HUGE difference in results.

It’s also not as random as 18 holes. They play many many many shots.

But just relative to each other - like the "parity" that's achieved in so many other sports as the competition continues to get better and better, how is it that these three guys seem to win almost everything?  It's fascinating.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But just relative to each other - like the "parity" that's achieved in so many other sports as the competition continues to get better and better, how is it that these three guys seem to win almost everything?  It's fascinating.

Because tennis is one on one. They aren’t playing against the field. The field eliminates the vast majority. They only have to beat a few players to win.

[DeadMan]

The court types in tennis have recently, in the past 20 or so years, become more alike. They all tend to favor a similar type of tennis player. You don't have as many clay or grass court specialists anymore. It was a lot harder to rack up major wins every year with such different court conditions. And if you basically throwing one or two grand slam a year away every year because they don't fit your style, you won't be able win as many majors. This is why nobody won the career grand slam between 1964 and 1999.

The courts now are all slower and allow for longer rallies. The common thread between Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal is that they all are great baseline players, which fits the courts now perfectly.

Article about this: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/clay-grass-hard-court-for-tenniss-top-players-it-doesnt-matter-anymore/257556/

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Because tennis is one on one. They aren’t playing against the field. The field eliminates the vast majority. They only have to beat a few players to win.

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

[nevets88]

11 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

The court types in tennis have recently, in the past 20 or so years, become more alike. They all tend to favor a similar type of tennis player. You don't have as many clay or grass court specialists anymore. It was a lot harder to rack up major wins every year with such different court conditions. And if you basically throwing one or two grand slam a year away every year because they don't fit your style, you won't be able win as many majors. This is why nobody won the career grand slam between 1964 and 1999.

The courts now are all slower and allow for longer rallies. The common thread between Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal is that they all are great baseline players, which fits the courts now perfectly.

Article about this: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/clay-grass-hard-court-for-tenniss-top-players-it-doesnt-matter-anymore/257556/

Haven't read that piece, but from what I've read, and now only a casual watcher, the Wimbledon surface is a lot slower now and doesn't bounce fast and low as it used to.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

No. Did you read the rest of my first post? Golf is also more volatile.

But also if Tiger had to beat only a few players a week… also yes.

[nevets88]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

I think 3 out of 5 sets imho gives more chances for the better player to prevail vs one 18 hole match.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-number-of-points-per-set-in-professional-tennis

60 points a set anywhere from 180 to 300 points to determine who's the better player that day. 

In golf, you're facing like the best 4 days of a 100 players, I think that's tougher to go through than 5-6 random guys any of whom might not be having a good day and less likely to get that one guy who has a great day.

[brocks]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

Besides being one on one, you have offense and defense in tennis.  If you're playing against Tiger, and he drives a ball 180 mph, it goes a little farther, but it doesn't affect your play (unless you let it).  But if Federer hits a serve at 130 mph with vicious spin, you bet it affects your play.  Similarly, if you hit a good drive, there's nothing Tiger can do about it.  If you hit a good serve, Federer might make an even better return, and you still lose the point.

[Golfingdad]

4 hours ago, brocks said:

Besides being one on one, you have offense and defense in tennis.  If you're playing against Tiger, and he drives a ball 180 mph, it goes a little farther, but it doesn't affect your play (unless you let it).  But if Federer hits a serve at 130 mph with vicious spin, you bet it affects your play.  Similarly, if you hit a good drive, there's nothing Tiger can do about it.  If you hit a good serve, Federer might make an even better return, and you still lose the point.

Right, but none of those things are variables in this equation.  Every one of those points has been true about tennis forever.  The things that have changed are that athletes in every sport are better, and I think it’s also true that the strength and depth of field in tennis is stronger.  With those two things in mind, it seems to me that having so many major titles concentrated amongst so few players is a bit of an anomaly.

[iacas]

Not sure what you’re asking anymore Drew. Sampras was awhile ago. I think we took it as players are still able to dominate now like back in the day.

Tennis and golf are ultimately very different in that sense.