Edited: No player currently 30 or younger has won a major

[Snarls Barkley]

I’m not sure why there is an argument about this. Young players clearly haven’t stepped up. Raonic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios and the like should’ve taken over the baton by now, but they’re not even close.

Djokovic is a real chance to go passed Federer if he stays fit. Zverev seems the most likely to take over and is still only 21. Maybe he really starts challenging over the next year or two. Thiem at least looks a chance at the French if Nadal gets injured. Not a lot else. The fact that Isner and Anderson are top 10 in the world and are making it deep in grand slams has got to be a cause for concern.

Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are still playing at a high level no doubt but I don’t think they are at the level they were 5-10 years ago.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I’m not sure why there is an argument about this. Young players clearly haven’t stepped up. Raonic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios and the like should’ve taken over the baton by now, but they’re not even close.

Because some people prefer bullshit explanations to what should be obvious. They think saying stupid things like "the game has changed" sounds more insightful.

Djokovic is a real chance to go passed Federer if he stays fit.

I'd say it's now odds-on.

 

[Flameboy]

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.

So what are the different reasons?

Just having a real difficult time answering questions aren't we.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

I was asking you what the main reason is for their dominance, not about the shortcomings of the next gen.

Is the reason for their dominance not that the next generation just aren’t very good?

All three are still playing at a very high level no doubt but Djokovic today wouldn’t beat Djokovic of five years ago. Federer and Nadal today wouldn’t beat the Federer and Nadal of ten years ago.

 

[Flameboy]

Is the reason for their dominance not that the next generation just aren’t very good?

All three are still playing at a very high level no doubt but Djokovic today wouldn’t beat Djokovic of five years ago. Federer and Nadal today wouldn’t beat the Federer and Nadal of ten years ago.

It's part of the reason, not the reason.

 

[Flameboy]

Just not sure why it's so hard to understand that a combination of the three best players to have lived plus an average next generation leads to a continual domination by these guys. They are the best for a reason. It would take another Federer/Nadal/Djokovic coming through to dethrone them, and as history has shown, they are very rare.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So what are the different reasons?

Nadal still relies heavily on his clay dominance. If you look at his big titles since the start of 2014, the 2017 US Open and the 2018 Canadian Open were the only ones not on clay. But to the extent that he can manage his body and his schedule with a view to peaking for the claycourt season, he'll be a force there, because his consistent power-hitting and movement on that surface are still top-shelf. Look at what happened to Thiem this year.

Federer has put together a fitting final act by winning three majors since the start of 2017 but I do wonder if the end is nigh. He's 37 and I can't see him getting past Djokovic again in the second week of a grand slam. He's still got a great all-court game and still has great variety, courtcraft and temperament. It's a marvel that he's still playing so well at that age but I do think it's telling that his Indian summer coincided with Djokovic being at a low ebb.

And that brings us to Djokovic. For mine, he's the most complete player on tour and appears to have recaptured something approaching his best form after hitting a wall at the end of 2016, and then having issues with his elbow early in 2017. He was off the boil for close to two years but on the evidence of the past few months, he's got his mojo back. And, as has been discussed, the lack of an obvious young challenger means he's well-placed to add more majors titles in 2019.

Just having a real difficult time answering questions aren't we.

Not at all. But you seem keen on singular explanations that apply across the board. And that's a stupid approach. If you start asking smarter, more relevant questions, I'll happily answer them. Although I doubt you'll be able to stitch together any coherent responses of your own.

Just not sure why it's so hard to understand that a combination of the three best players to have lived plus an average next generation leads to a continual domination by these guys. They are the best for a reason. It would take another Federer/Nadal/Djokovic coming through to dethrone them, and as history has shown, they are very rare.

You are merely circling back to a discredited argument.

If Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are just too good and that's the explanation for everything, then how did Wawrinka and Murray win three majors apiece? How did Cilic break through? Your argument fails on that basis alone.

There have been openings for other players when they've been good enough. But the younger generation haven't been good enough. And they're not even getting to the pointy end of these major tournaments. Not often enough, anyway. Thiem made a final in Paris. Who else? The likes of Del Potro and Cilic have been more consistent at grand slams than any of the younger brigade. So you can't just sheet everything home to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being dominant. If it was a case of the younger players in that 21-28 bracket getting closer and closer but just falling at the final hurdle to one of the established champions, you might have a point. But that's not what has been happening.

We are two weeks away from not having a single player under 30 with a grand slam title to their name. That is irregular and is a reflection on the quality of those players in their 20s. To claim otherwise ignores the obvious.

 

[Flameboy]

Nadal still relies heavily on his clay dominance. If you look at his big titles since the start of 2014, the 2017 US Open and the 2018 Canadian were the only ones not on clay. But to the extent that he can manage his body and his schedule with a view to peaking for the claycourt season, he'll be a force there, because his consistent power-hitting and movement on that surface are still top-shelf.

Federer has put together a fitting final act by winning three majors since the start of 2017 but I do wonder if the end is nigh. He's 37 and I can't see him getting past Djokovic again in the second week of a grand slam. He's still got a great all-court game and still has great variety and temperament. It's a marvel that he's still playing so well at that age but I do think it's telling that his Indian summer coincided with Djokovic being at a low ebb.

And that brings us to Djokovic. For mine, he's the most complete player on tour and appears to have recaptured something approaching his best form after hitting a wall at the end of 2016, and then having issues with his elbow early in 2017. He was off the boil for close to two years but on the evidence of the past few months, he's got his mojo back. And, as has been discussed, the lack of an obvious young challenger means he's well-placed to add more majors titles in 2019.

Not at all. You seem keen on singular explanations that apply across the board. And that's a stupid approach. If you start asking smarter, more relevant questions, I'll happily answer them. Although I doubt you'll be able to stitch together any coherent responses of your own.

You are merely circling back to a discredited argument.

If Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are just too good and that's the explanation for everything, then how did Wawrinka win three majors?

There have been openings for other players when they've been good enough. But the younger generation simply haven't been good enough.

Alright so you've established why they are all so dominant in their own ways. I guess that's something.

The problem for most other players on tour is that they have obviously had to find a way to get past two or all three of them (often in the one week) to actually win something. Together as a triumvirate they are close to unbeatable. 47 of the last 55 Slams says it all.

It's slim pickings for everyone else.

You are still citing Wawrinka and that's just embarrassing for you. And I've already answered that question, as you know. So you can go back through this thread and dig that up if you like.

And they're not even getting to the pointy end of these major tournaments. Not often enough, anyway. The likes of Del Potro and Cilic have been more consistent at grand slams than any of the younger brigade. So you can't just sheet everything home to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being dominant. If it was a case of the younger players in that 21-28 bracket getting closer and closer but just falling at the final hurdle to one of the established champions, you might have a point. But that's not what has been happening.

Thiem, Khachanov, Kyrgios, Nishioka, Basilashvili and Fucsovics were all knocked out of this year's USO by one of the big 3. All players 26yo or younger. It happens in almost every major tournament. de Minaur, Vesely, Edmund and again Khachanov at Wimbledon.

Whether they're at the pointy end or not isn't relevant to what I've been saying? I haven't been saying the next gen specifically is being beaten by the big 3? I've been saying all players, in general?

Do you actually read my posts?

Oh, that's right. You're obsessed with spouting out the same old rhetoric. Over. And over.

Carry on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Alright so you've established why they are all so dominant in their own ways. I guess that's something.

It's hardly big news. But I guess you're coming from a low-information base.

The problem for most other players on tour is that they have obviously had to find a way to get past two or all three of them (often in the one week) to actually win something. Together as a triumvirate they are close to unbeatable. 47 of the last 55 Slams says it all.

Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone else.

Federer went four-and-a-half years without winning a major. Djokovic went two years. Away from Paris, Nadal has won one major since the end of 2013.

That's close to unbeatable? I don't think so.

You are still citing Wawrinka and that's just embarrassing for you. And I've already answered that question, as you know. So you can go back through this thread and dig that up if you like.

It's an example of someone breaking through and winning three majors despite not being anywhere near the quality of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. It demonstrates that there have been openings for other players, blowing your argument out of the water. You insist Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have simply been too dominant. That is demonstrably untrue. Wawrinka, Murray and Cilic. But sure, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are unbeatable.

Thiem, Khachanov, Kyrgios, Nishioka, Basilashvili and Fucsovics were all knocked out of this year's USO by one of the big 3. All players 26yo or younger. It happens in almost every major tournament. de Minaur, Vesely, Edmund and again Khachanov at Wimbledon.

So we just have to wait for a grand slam where none of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are in it, and then someone else will come along and win one?

The point is that other guys aged 22-28 should be stepping up by now, even if that means beating these established guys.

Whether they're at the pointy end or not isn't relevant to what I've been saying? I haven't been saying the next gen specifically is being beaten by the big 3? I've been saying all players, in general?

Do you actually read my posts?.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

Oh, that's right. You're obsessed with spouting out the same old rhetoric. Over. And over.

If it's repetitive, it's because people like you seem determined to ignore the obvious while making a series of shitty arguments.

 

[Flameboy]

It's hardly big news. But I guess you're coming from a low-information base.

Don't know who said it was big news. Strawman.

Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone else.

Federer went four-and-a-half years without winning a major. Djokovic went two years.

At least one has featured in 23 of those 25 finals.

3 of those slams have gone to Murray who is a bona fide champion, whose only real glitch on his career is his record in finals of majors.

Try again.

Away from Paris, Nadal has won one major since the end of 2013.

That's close to unbeatable? I don't think so.

This is the worst line of argument. "Away from Paris"... why not just deal with the facts as they are?

It's an example of someone breaking through and winning three majors despite not being anywhere near the quality of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. It demonstrates that there have been openings for other players, blowing your argument out of the water. You insist Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have simply been too dominant. That is demonstrably untrue.

Well, I don't accept your argument. I don't accept that Wawrinka's three slams demonstrate anything other than a player who had fortune on his side once (2014 AO, Nadal injury) and played out of his skin twice. The only thing demonstrated here is that you have to a reach an extreme upper level and sustain it in order to actually win something. It takes something extraordinary.

So we just have to wait for a grand slam where none of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are in it, and then someone else will come along and win one?

It will significantly increase the chances of other players winning.

The point is that other guys aged 22-28 should be stepping up by now, even if that means beating these established guys.

Based on what?

I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

You do struggle with comprehension at times, so this isn't surprising.

If it's repetitive, it's because people like you seem determined to ignore the obvious while making a series of shitty arguments.

No. It's repetitive because you've dug a hole for yourself which you now can't get out of.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Don't know who said it was big news.

Apparently it was something that needed to be "established". Like it needed to be explained to you. That's your low-information base on display.

At least one has featured in 23 of those 25 finals.

So what?

Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone else. So don't give me this bullshit line about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being too good, meaning there is no reasonable opportunity for anyone else. It's not a closed shop. There is opportunity for those who play well enough.

3 of those slams have gone to Murray who is a bona fide champion, whose only real glitch on his career is his record in finals of majors.

So now we have to include Murray in the unbeatable category as well?

This is the worst line of argument. "Away from Paris"... why not just deal with the facts as they are?

I am dealing with the facts. Away from Paris, Nadal has won one major since the end of 2013. Which part of that is not factual? He remains dominant on clay but hasn't been as formidable on other surfaces. Again, which part of that is not factual?

Well, I don't accept your argument.

What you accept or don't accept is irrelevant. The facts are as they are and cannot be disputed. Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. So the claim that there is no reasonable expectation of someone other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic winning majors is a total non-starter.

I don't accept that Wawrinka's three slams demonstrate anything other than a player who had fortune on his side once (2014 AO, Nadal injury) and played out of his skin twice. The only thing demonstrated here is that you have to a reach an extreme upper level and sustain it in order to actually win something. It takes something extraordinary.

Yeah, you have to play really well to win a grand slam. No s**t.

The real takeaway is that you cannot simply point to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and just assume no one else has a chance because those established guys are simply too good. That doesn't stack up. Wawrinka was good enough. Murray was good enough. Del Potro was good enough. Cilic was good enough. Younger players should at least be mounting a sustained challenge by now. They aren't.

Based on what?

Historically, 22-28 is the age bracket when good players start winning big titles. The fact we don't have that reflects poorly on the current players in that bracket.

No. It's repetitive because you've dug a hole for yourself which you now can't get out of.

There's no hole. My argument has remained consistent all the way through (young players not good enough) and is now being further underlined and further confirmed by the fact we won't have a single player under 30 with a major title to his name.

You continue to grope around in the dark for an alternative explanation, while insisting on ignoring the most obvious one.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But I mean if you listen to our resident expert in this thread, Nadal is just a 32 year old with busted knees...

Are you high? Nadal is an absolute champion and the greatest claycourter of all time. He is also a 32-year-old with busted knees.

Then what happened?

Why don't you try answering some questions?

Just having a real difficult time answering questions, aren't we?

 

[Flameboy]

Apparently it was something that needed to be "established". Like it needed to be explained to you. That's your low-information base on display.

I wanted you to explain their dominance. That doesn't mean it's big news. Stop clutching, strawman.

So what?

Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone else. So don't give me this bullshit line about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being too good, meaning there is no reasonable opportunity for anyone else. It's not a closed shop. There is opportunity for those who play well enough.

Not sure what point you're making here.

So now we have to include Murray in the unbeatable category as well?

Who said anyone is unbeatable?

I am dealing with the facts. Away from Paris, Nadal has won one major since the end of 2013. Which part of that is not factual? He remains dominant on clay but hasn't been as formidable on other surfaces. Again, which part of that is not factual?

Because you have to include Paris. You are attempting to downplay his dominance.

He has won 3 slams in the last 18 months. He is still firing.

What you accept or don't accept is irrelevant. The facts are as they are and cannot be disputed. Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. So the claim that there is no reasonable expectation of someone other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic winning majors is a total non-starter.

No one said that.

Yeah, you have to play really well to win a grand slam. No s**t.

The real takeaway is that you cannot simply point to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and just assume no one else has a chance because those established guys are simply too good. That doesn't stack up. Wawrinka was good enough. Murray was good enough. Cilic was good enough. Younger players should at least be mounting a sustained challenge by now. They aren't.

Based on what?

Historically, 22-28 is the age bracket when good players start winning big titles. The fact we don't have that reflects poorly on the current players in that bracket.

No s**t.

There's no hole. My argument has remained consistent all the way through (young players not good enough) and is now being further underlined and further confirmed by the fact we won't have a single player under 30 with a major title to his name.

You continue to grope around in the dark for an alternative explanation, while insisting on ignoring the most obvious one.

No one has really disputed that the next gen aren't setting the world on fire. Your refusal, however, to accept any other reason for their demise is nonsensical. The hole deepens.

 

[Flameboy]

Then what happened?

Why don't you try answering some questions?

Just having a real difficult time answering questions, aren't we?

He was a 20 year old with busted knees. You have no point.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I wanted you to explain their dominance. That doesn't mean it's big news. Stop clutching, strawman.

And now it's been "established"?

You struggle.

Not sure what point you're making here.

Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone else. So don't give me this bullshit line about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being too good, meaning there is no reasonable opportunity for anyone else. It's not a closed shop.

Which part confuses you?

Who said anyone is unbeatable?

I point to Murray's three majors and you disregard them because he is also "a champion".

Because you have to include Paris. You are attempting to downplay his dominance.

He has won 3 slams in the last 18 months. He is still firing.

I have said repeatedly that Nadal remains dominant on clay. I am also making the entirely reasonable point that he is less formidable on other surfaces, as evidenced by his record in grand slams since the end of 2013.

Which part of that are you struggling with?

No one said that.

You are explaining away the underachievement of younger players by pointing to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and concluding they are still too good, too dominant. But 7 of the past 25 majors have been won by other players.

Based on what?

No s**t.

Well, it can't be both. Either you understand the rationale or you don't.

Historically, 22-28 is the age bracket when good players start winning big titles. The fact we don't have that reflects poorly on the current players in that bracket.

No one has really disputed that the next gen aren't setting the world on fire. Your refusal, however, to accept any other reason for their demise is nonsensical. The hole deepens.

My reason is that they're not very good. And apparently you object to that?

Let me know when you have an argument worth making. Until then I'll just keep wiping the floor with you.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He was a 20 year old with busted knees. You have no point.

Just having a real difficult time answering questions, aren't we?

But I mean if you listen to our resident expert in this thread, Nadal is just a 32 year old with busted knees...

Are you high? Nadal is an absolute champion and the greatest claycourter of all time. He is also a 32-year-old with busted knees.

What happened next?

 

[The Speaker]

I’m not sure why there is an argument about this. Young players clearly haven’t stepped up. Raonic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios and the like should’ve taken over the baton by now, but they’re not even close.

Djokovic is a real chance to go passed Federer if he stays fit. Zverev seems the most likely to take over and is still only 21. Maybe he really starts challenging over the next year or two. Thiem at least looks a chance at the French if Nadal gets injured. Not a lot else. The fact that Isner and Anderson are top 10 in the world and are making it deep in grand slams has got to be a cause for concern.

Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are still playing at a high level no doubt but I don’t think they are at the level they were 5-10 years ago.

The question is not 'what', the question is 'why'.

And the answer is drugs.

 

[Roobs321]

At least I can now safely turn 30 in the knowledge that I am younger than any male slam winner. Cheers 80s gen!

 

[Flameboy]

And now it's been "established"?

You struggle.

Yes, you managed to answer a question. Do you want a medal?

Seven of the past 25 majors have been won by someone else. So don't give me this bullshit line about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being too good, meaning there is no reasonable opportunity for anyone else. It's not a closed shop.

Which part confuses you?

Can you please type up something new? Just for once.

I point to Murray's three majors and you disregard them because he is also "a champion".

Yes, he is a champion. Who said he's unbeatable?

I have said repeatedly that Nadal remains dominant on clay. I am also making the entirely reasonable point that he is less formidable on other surfaces, as evidenced by his record in grand slams since the end of 2013.

Which part of that are you struggling with?

No s**t.

You are explaining away the underachievement of younger players by pointing to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and concluding they are still too good, too dominant. But 7 of the past 25 majors have been won by other players.

No one said that it's impossible for any other players to win slams.

Well, it can't be both. Either you understand the rationale or you don't.

Historically, 22-28 is the age bracket when good players start winning big titles. The fact we don't have that reflects poorly on the current players in that bracket.

You're great at making obvious statements. I'll give you that.

My reason is that they're not very good. And apparently you object to that?

Let me know when you have an argument worth making. Until then I'll just keep wiping the floor with you.

When did I object to that?

Haha, you're good for a lol champ - I'll give you that too. Keep "wiping the floor" with me, if you want. I'm enjoying watching you dig that hole.

 

[Flameboy]

Just having a real difficult time answering questions, aren't we?


What happened next?

He was a 20 year old with busted knees. You have no point.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He was a 20 year old with busted knees. You have no point.

Just having a real difficult time answering questions, aren't we?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, you managed to answer a question. Do you want a medal?

No. But I will laugh at you for suggesting this has now been "established".

Can you please type up something new? Just for once.

I prefer accurate and coherent to new.

Yes, he is a champion. Who said he's unbeatable?

So don't attempt to discount Murray's majors from the 7 of the past 25 won by someone other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

That's 7 of the past 25. So don't tell me it's been a closed shop. Don't tell me that they've simply been so dominant that no one else has had a shot.

No one said that it's impossible for any other players to win slams.

So don't tell me it's been a closed shop.

You're great at making obvious statements. I'll give you that.

Well, what is your argument then?

Mine is simply that, historically, 22-28 is the age bracket when good players start winning big titles. The fact we don't have that reflects poorly on the current players in that bracket. It suggests they're not good enough.

If you now consider that to be an obvious statement, what is the basis for your disagreement?

When did I object to that?

So what is your argument?

 

[Thrawn]

Djokovic is a real chance to go passed Federer if he stays fit.

Hahahaha, ahh, no.

 

[Flameboy]

No. But I will laugh at you for suggesting this has now been "established".

I prefer accurate and coherent to new.

So don't attempt to discount Murray's majors from the 7 of the past 25 won by someone other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

That's 7 of the past 25. So don't tell me it's been a closed shop. Don't tell me that they've simply been so dominant that no one else has had a shot.

So don't tell me it's been a closed shop.

Well, what is your argument then?

Mine is simply that, historically, 22-28 is the age bracket when good players start winning big titles. The fact we don't have that reflects poorly on the current players in that bracket. It suggests they're not good enough.

If you now consider that to be an obvious statement, what is the basis for your disagreement?

So what is your argument?

I'm not going to go into specifics anymore, it's been done to death. The fact you are still questioning what my argument is after pages of discussing it says a bit about where you're at.

And don't take it from me, take it from the majority of people who have posted in this thread.

You don't really seem to be able to understand relativity and context.

Put Nishikori, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic in another generation and they would have had a better chance to win a slam/win more slams.

Would Juan Carlos Ferrero, Petr Korda, Costa, Gaudio have won a Roland Garros title during Nadal's reign? I highly doubt it. They just happened to hit their peak during a good time.

"Different reasons", howww elucidating. I'm sorry, that does not sufficiently explain the inability of players under 28 to win anything of note. Several other posters, including two on this page alone, have done a far better job of it. Learn from them.

The bigger question is why it is so important to have spent however many hours that you have discussing it, especially when you already have the answer and did from the start.

I'm saying its down to a combination of having to compete against 3 of the greatest tennis players of all time and clearly not being good enough, as the opportunities have been there as seen by the success of Del Potro & Wawrinka.

If you don't understand the correlation between the age of this population and the likelihood of winning a slam then there is no point going any further. You think that because this guy won a slam at this age the next guy should too. This like arguing that God doesn't exist, you can't disprove something that isn't there (your perceived failure of the next wave of players)

You keep going on about the same thing that I've completely forgotten what your argument or point is in the first place!

geech, glad is wasnt just me then.

Take some notes.

NB: Cue the predictable response of 'you don't have an argument' etc

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not going to go into specifics anymore, it's been done to death. The fact you are still questioning what my argument is after pages of discussing it says a bit about where you're at.

Rubbing your nose in the fact you have no argument. That's where I'm at.

You wandered back in and tried to restart an argument you'd already lost. It worked out badly for you. Suck it up, champion.

And don't take it from me, take it from the majority of people who have posted in this thread.

That makes no point about who is right or wrong.

NB: Cue the predictable response of 'you don't have an argument' etc

Damn straight. It's totally predictable when you in fact have no argument. And you know it. That's why you have to pre-empt being called out for it.