- Moderator
- #376
Andy Murray would not approve of this thread title.
Title should be changed to specify ATP.
Title should be changed to specify ATP.
Edited: No player currently 30 or younger has won a major
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #377
No. It's simply that "the game has changed".
You're not allowed to say that players who haven't won majors have failed to win majors because they're not much chop.
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Are you watching the USO tonight?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #379
The smalltalk can wait until you make a single point, champion.
Last edited:
- Jan 15, 2012
- 48,642
- 49,417
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Maybe the younger Millman will challenge Federer tonight
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #381
Then what happened?
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
What?
- Jan 15, 2012
- 48,642
- 49,417
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Today we saw another young female player, Osaka, make a breakthrough and win her first GS.
Maybe next year we'll see one of the next gen ATP players win a GS.
Maybe next year we'll see one of the next gen ATP players win a GS.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #384
Nah. In the men's game, players in their 30s have all the advantages. Because the game has changed.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #385
How did Nadal's tournament end?
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
You’re telling the story
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #387
How did Nadal's tournament end?
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
You’re telling the story
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #389
And I'm asking you a question.
Then what happened, champ?
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Nice
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #391
That's a weak hand badly played. Even by your standards.
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Thank you
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #393
In a few weeks there will be no players younger than 30 to have won a major.
Are the apologists still going to insist this is no reflection on that under-performing generation? Are they still going to insist "the game has changed". Surely it is now evident, as I said at the outset, that these younger players simply aren't very good. The City Boyz Belnakor Alesana Demosthenes form an orderly queue to admit I was right all along.
Are the apologists still going to insist this is no reflection on that under-performing generation? Are they still going to insist "the game has changed". Surely it is now evident, as I said at the outset, that these younger players simply aren't very good. The City Boyz Belnakor Alesana Demosthenes form an orderly queue to admit I was right all along.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #394
This is from 2016. Still waiting?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #396
The continued dominance of those guys doesn't help your argument. Part of the reason for that dominance is the lack of quality among the younger generation. Where are the young challengers?Another year of dominance from the big 3 in majors. But please, keep telling us how they are washed up and no reason for the current state of the younger generation
The greatness of those established players is not in doubt. But Federer is 37 and Nadal's knees are an ongoing concern. Djokovic is 31 and back to playing great tennis. Such is the lack of quality in the younger generation, he could dominate the next 3-4 years. As I said, where are the young challengers? That has nothing to do with the greatness of the established stars and everything to do with the lack of quality underneath. Djokovic won the tournament but look at the QFs and SFs. It's not just Djokovic and Nadal. The younger players are being outdone by the likes of Del Porto and Cilic too.
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
And what's the main reason?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #398
There is no singular reason that applies across the board. You could go through them one by one and outline their specific shortcomings. Collectively, they just haven't been good enough. There is still time for Zverev to get it together. He's 21 so I'm not so critical of him, although you'd hope he starts to fire a shot at majors in 2019. But guys like Raonic and Dimitrov have been very disappointing. Nishikori to an extent too. And who else is there? The list of guys you could even remotely consider as "contenders" is actually pretty short. Then we're into the likes of Goffin and Thiem?
Djokovic must look at the field and fancy his chances. Where does the next threat come from?
Go into these rankings and sort the top 100 by age. Then go down the list. From Del Potro and Cilic down (they're about to turn 30), it's pretty uninspiring.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #400
The reality is that there are different reasons for each player. There is not a singular catch-all explanation that describes the success of all three. There is, however, no young challenger who is really pushing them. That certainly makes life easier for them. And I have to say, I wouldn't consider Federer to be dominant. And even Nadal's output is going to be determined by the state of his knees. Assuming he is relatively injury-free, he remains an unbackable favourite at Roland Garros. But I think a fit and focused Djokovic has his number on grass and hardcourt.
