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

Who will be the next 20-something to win a major title?

  • Dominic Thiem

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Daniil Medvedev

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • Alexander Zverev

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Stefanos Tsitsipas

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Finally someone new in the Grand Slam final, and the first player born in the 90s that has reached the Grand Slam final?
Is that true?

Surely that reinforces the point of this thread.

Doesn’t matter, he’s not much chop. Sorry to break that to you.
Collectively, the younger generation haven't been much chop. Do you disagree?

Zverev is the exception. But at 21, he's a member of an even younger generation than the likes of Raonic, Nishikori etc and his success only highlights their shortcomings more starkly. His Masters wins completely undermine the argument that those middle-aged players simply haven't had the opportunities to win anything and that "the game has changed and now players in their 30s have all the advantages".

Thiem now has an opportunity to take the next step and join Zverev by winning something big.
 
Last edited:

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2010
6,341
4,396
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
Is that true?

Surely that reinforces the point of this thread.

Collectively, the younger generation haven't been much chop. Do you disagree?

Zverev is the exception. But at 21, he's a member of an even younger generation than the likes of Raonic, Nishikori etc and his success only highlights their shortcomings more starkly. His Masters wins completely undermine the argument that those middle-aged players simply haven't had the opportunities to win anything and that "the game has changed and now players in their 30s have all the advantages".

Thiem now has an opportunity to take the next step and join Zverev by winning something big.
What do you expect of these players - out of curiosity? Do you think that any half decent player should have 6 slams in the bag by the age of 25?
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
What do you expect of these players - out of curiosity?
It's not about my expectations. It's about the reality. You basically go from Cilic and Del Potro, who are 29, to Zverev, who is 21. The collective achievement of everyone in between isn't much to write home about.

Dimitrov won Cincinnati and the Tour Finals, and Sock broke through too, albeit in a very weak field in Paris last year. Not much else.

Do you think that any half decent player should have 6 slams in the bag by the age of 25?
An absurd overstatement that merely emphasises the weakness of your position.
 
Last edited:

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2010
6,341
4,396
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
It's not about my expectations. It's about the reality. You basically go from Cilic and Del Potro, who are 29, to Zverev, who is 21. The collective achievement of everyone in between isn't much to write home about.

Dimitrov won Cincinnati and the Tour Finals, and Sock broke through too. Not much else.

An absurd overstatement that merely emphasises the weakness of your position.
And the reality is that 4 players have absolutely dominated the tour for 10+ years.
The fact you cite Wawrinka with his 3 slams and Cilic with his 2 masters or whatever the fk he’s won as evidence of ‘opportunity’ is far more absurd than the question I put to you.

David will slay Goliath every now and then. It don’t mean s**t.

Only 5 players have won more than 8 Slams in the Open Era. 5.
The way you talk it’s as if you expect the likes of Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov etc to all be at that level winning multiple Slams? It’s a tough thing to do! Made even more complicated by the fact that 3 of those 5 are currently playing!

Your position is ridiculous, you’ve been laughed out of this thread by all and sundry and yet for some reason you keep coming back to peddle the same crap over and over.

If you acknowledge the greatness of this golden era (which you have) then you should equally acknowledge that it’s going to be tough for everyone else, and temper your expectations accordingly.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
And the reality is that 4 players have absolutely dominated the tour for 10+ years.
The fact you cite Wawrinka with his 3 slams and Cilic with his 2 masters or whatever the fk he’s won as evidence of ‘opportunity’ is far more absurd than the question I put to you.
But it is evidence that there have been opportunities for other players to break through. That's exactly what it is.

David will slay Goliath every now and then. It don’t mean s**t.
This is your argument?

Do we now consider Wawrinka to be a superstar who's dominated the tour? No, we don't. But he's won 3 majors and a Masters title.

Cilic has a major and Masters title. Del Potro and Isner won Masters titles this year. Tsonga has a Masters title.

So the argument that it's been some kind of closed shop for 10 years simply doesn't hold water - not in the more recent past, anyway. We've seen that players other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray if you think he belongs in that class) have been able to break through. But the reality is that guys currently aged between 29 and 21 haven't been doing it. Those are meant to be the prime years for professional sportsmen but on the men's tour it's a desert.

And what is your response to this straightforward empirical statement?

"David will slay Goliath every now and then. It don’t mean s**t."

You may as well just grunt and scratch yourself. It would be no less insightful.

Only 5 players have won more than 8 Slams in the Open Era. 5.
What point do you think this makes?

Has anyone said anything about winning eight majors being the benchmark? That's irrelevant.

The way you talk it’s as if you expect the likes of Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov etc to all be at that level winning multiple Slams?
"The way you talk about it, it's as if ..."

You do this over and over. You can't deal with my argument so you have to exaggerate it and respond to that exaggeration instead. That's called a strawman. It's a sure sign that you don't have a leg to stand on.

My argument is laid out quite clearly above. There's no need for you to use your imagination to confect some other argument I haven't made. It might make it easier for you, but it's still bullshit.

Your position is ridiculous, you’ve been laughed out of this thread by all and sundry and yet for some reason you keep coming back to peddle the same crap over and over. .
And which part of my argument above is inaccurate?

Which part of it can you even begin to rebut without exaggerating it beyond what I've actually said? Because that's basically all you're good for.

If you acknowledge the greatness of this golden era (which you have) then you should equally acknowledge that it’s going to be tough for everyone else, and temper your expectations accordingly.
Of course I acknowledge the greatness of those three players. But, as has been demonstrated to you repeatedly, there have also been opportunities for other players. The fact remains that guys currently aged 21-29 haven't been good enough to take them. Thiem has a big chance this weekend. Although, as another poster pointed out, the fact that he's the youngest finalist at a major since Nishikori in 2014 reinforces my point that these guys who should be in their prime haven't been doing much at the big tournaments.
 
Last edited:

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2010
6,341
4,396
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
But it is evidence that there have been opportunities for other players to break through. That's exactly what it is.
Yes, evidence of the little opportunity other players have had. That's the point. You're using a guy who has won 1 slam and 1 masters - and another who has won 3 slams and 1 masters to form the basis of your argument 'oh look at these guys, they've won titles!'. 6 major titles between them over a combined 20+ year career. Yeah, I'm convinced.

This is your argument?

Do we now consider Wawrinka to be a superstar who's dominated the tour? No, we don't. But he's won 3 majors and a Masters title.

Cilic has a major and Masters title. Del Potro and Isner won Masters titles this year. Tsonga has a Masters title.

So the argument that it's been some kind of closed shop for 10 years simply doesn't hold water - not in the more recent past, anyway. We've seen that players other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray if you think he belongs in that class) have been able to break through. But the reality is that guys currently aged between 29 and 21 haven't been doing it. Those are meant to be the prime years for professional sportsmen but on the men's tour it's a desert.

And what is your response to this straightforward empirical statement?

"David will slay Goliath every now and then. It don’t mean s**t."

You may as well just grunt and scratch yourself. It would be no less insightful.
You are actually citing examples of players who have won one masters title in their whole career as evidence of the opportunities players have had :D:D:D:'(
That is what you call limited opportunity. Unfortunately you're finding it a little tough to see that.
What point do you think this makes?

Has anyone said anything about winning eight majors being the benchmark? That's irrelevant.
I literally explained the point in my post.

And who said it's a benchmark? Did you? I certainly didn't. Hmm, interesting. You'd almost call that a strawman.

"The way you talk about it, it's as if ..."

You do this over and over. You can't deal with my argument so you have to exaggerate it and respond to that exaggeration instead. That's called a strawman. It's a sure sign that you don't have a leg to stand on.

My argument is laid out quite clearly above. There's no need for you to use your imagination to confect some other argument I haven't made. It might make it easier for you, but it's still bullshit.
First off thanks for re quoting my post. Much appreciated.

And as I've said before the only thing being done over and over is you spewing out meaningless statements.

Your argument is completely nonsensical.

You praise the dominance of the 3 GOAT's on the one hand, and then on the other question why other players haven't broken through.

You pump up Wawrinka's 3 slams as evidence of clear opportunity for other players, and then go on to say that he is no superstar.

You make so many statements that fly in the face of each other, it's genuinely hard to keep track of them all.

And which part of my argument above is inaccurate?
See above.

Which part of it can you even begin to rebut without exaggerating it beyond what I've actually said? Because that's basically all you're good for.
Thanks for the personal digs. Classy.

Of course I acknowledge the greatness of those three players. But, as has been demonstrated to you repeatedly, there have also been opportunities for other players. The fact remains that guys currently aged 21-29 haven't been good enough to take them. Thiem has a big chance this weekend. Although, as another poster pointed out, the fact that he's the youngest finalist at a major since Nishikori in 2014 reinforces my point that these guys who should be in their prime haven't been doing much at the big tournaments.
Haven't been good enough to take them? Well can you start naming some players over the past 50 years who would have been good enough to take them?
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yes, evidence of the little opportunity other players have had. That's the point. You're using a guy who has won 1 slam and 1 masters - and another who has won 3 slams and 1 masters to form the basis of your argument 'oh look at these guys, they've won titles!'. 6 major titles between them over a combined 20+ year career. Yeah, I'm convinced.
Yeah, so there has been opportunity for other players outside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to break through. Not just at Grand Slam level, but also in Masters tournaments, which were cited in the OP. Granted, some younger players have won Masters titles since then (Zverev, Dimitrov, Sock), but it's still jarringly few.

Wawrinka was no superstar. Yet he won three Grand Slams. So this argument that it was a closed shop and no one apart from Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had a chance simply doesn't stack up.

Yet you keep rolling it out. And when it's pointed out that Wawrinka won three majors, your response is effectively "yeah but nah it was still hard". No s**t it was hard.

You are actually citing examples of players who have won one masters title in their whole career as evidence of the opportunities players have had :D:D:D:'(
Yes. Because these are other mature players who broke through, at Masters level, further undermining your argument that it was a closed shop, even at Masters level.

Yet there is this whole generation of players, in the age bracket between Zverev (born 1997) and Del Potro (born 1988), who have collectively won SFA despite being in their prime years.

That is what you call limited opportunity. Unfortunately you're finding it a little tough to see that.
You call it "limited opportunity". That's a euphemism for not being good enough.

Are they just waiting for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to fall over and then they'll have an "opportunity"?

I literally explained the point in my post.

And who said it's a benchmark? Did you? I certainly didn't. Hmm, interesting. You'd almost call that a strawman.
It wasn't relevant to the discussion at all. Only five players have won more than eight majors in the Open Era. OK. So what? Why is that benchmark – or that standard – relevant to anything?

And as I've said before the only thing being done over and over is you spewing out meaningless statements.

Your argument is completely nonsensical.

You praise the dominance of the 3 GOAT's on the one hand, and then on the other question why other players haven't broken through.

You pump up Wawrinka's 3 slams as evidence of clear opportunity for other players, and then go on to say that he is no superstar.

You make so many statements that fly in the face of each other, it's genuinely hard to keep track of them all.
Which part of my argument specifically is meaningless or nonsensical. Be specific.

I acknowledge that Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have been dominant but that does not on its own explain why players in that bracket born 1988-97 have won so little. Because, as has been demonstrated to you, players other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have broken through. So it hasn't been a closed shop.

And yes, Wawrinka has been one of those players to break through. His three majors show that it wasn't a closed shop. But no, he's not superstar. How is that a contradiction? Both points are entirely in line with my overall argument.

You are too quick to excuse the younger brigade for their lack of achievement by suggesting Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were simply too good. That's nonsense. And we know it's nonsense because lesser players, like Wawrinka, have managed to take their chances to the tune of winning three majors. So the "closed shop" excuse simply doesn't stack up.

Thanks for the personal digs. Classy.
Pointing out that you cannot mount a single substantive argument and instead resort repeatedly to strawmans is not a personal dig. It's an entirely accurate assessment of your flimsy arguments.

Haven't been good enough to take them? Well can you start naming some players over the past 50 years who would have been good enough to take them?
Good enough to win majors while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were up and about?

Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro. There's three.

I certainly don't put Murray in the same class as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic but he's also managed to rack up three majors.

The question is: why haven't there been any others born 1988-97? That's a huge gulf. Hopefully Thiem gets on the board in Paris because it's a ridiculous situation.
 
Last edited:

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2010
6,341
4,396
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
Yeah, so there has been opportunity for other players outside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to break through. Not just at Grand Slam level, but also in Masters tournaments, which were cited in the OP. Granted, some younger players have won Masters titles since then (Zverev, Dimitrov, Sock), but it's still jarringly few.

Wawrinka was no superstar. Yet he won three Grand Slams. So this argument that it was a closed shop and no one apart from Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had a chance simply doesn't stack up.
Mate it does stack up, they are not going to win absolutely everything. There will be occasions when other players beat them or even just win a masters without having to face one of them.

That doesn't mean that they aren't all time greats.

And that doesn't mean that it will start happening regularly.

Your POV is completely flawed, maybe one day you will see it.

Yet you keep rolling it out. And when it's pointed out that Wawrinka won three majors, your response is effectively "yeah but nah it was still hard". No s**t it was hard.
a) His 3 slams are a complete outlier when you look at the rest of his career
b) His 3 slams are a complete outlier when you look at what the rest of the field has achieved

It was 6 weeks of freak performance from him. That's what it takes to beat these guys.

How many times do you want to go over this same discussion?

His results in those three slams are great, but they don't disprove or undermine anything. As I said before, the big 3 aren't going to win absolutely everything. They will win most of the time, but not all the time. Clear difference between those statements.

Wawrinka winning 3 slams is a man who peaked at the right time at various stages throughout his career, but ultimately couldn't sustain such a high risk level of tennis against three super humans.

Now please, jog on with the Wawrinka stuff.

Yes. Because these are other mature players who broke through, at Masters level, further undermining your argument that it was a closed shop, even at Masters level.

Yet there is this whole generation of players, in the age bracket between Zverev (born 1997) and Del Potro (born 1988), who have collectively won SFA despite being in their prime years.
Well that is ridiculous, and it says a bit about how desperate you are in trying to make your "point". One masters title, lmfao. I suppose he should have gone on to win 3 slams like Wawrinka then?

You call it "limited opportunity". That's a euphemism for not being good enough.

Are they just waiting for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to fall over and then they'll have an "opportunity"?
It's the same thing. There is limited opportunity because a) those three are - and I'll spell this out for you, *majority of the time* too good, and b) by extension the rest of the field are not as good. You seem to view it as a slight on them, I like many others prefer to see it as a golden generation doing their thing - and that very few players in the history of the game would have been able to stop these guys from racking up the titles they have.

It wasn't relevant to the discussion at all. Only five players have won more than eight majors in the Open Era. OK. So what? Why is that benchmark – or that standard – relevant to anything?
Because again, it demonstrates how difficult it is to win a major. You're bagging players for not being able to breakthrough. I give you a statistic that demonstrates the difficulty of winning titles at the top level and you don't understand the point of that statistic? Are you for real? I'm starting to think you are purely a troll account, because surely no one can be that stupid.

Which part of my argument specifically is meaningless or nonsensical. Be specific.
I feel like an echo repeating myself here.

Okay so your position is that players under the age of 27 haven't done much, and it's because they're not much chop. They're s**t and you think they deserve criticism for it. Then you decide to go and big up the achievements Wawrinka, Cilic, del Potro and Tsonga etc etc with the few big titles they have won and question why others haven't done the same. And yet in the very same sentence acknowledge that 3 players (plus Murray) have monopolised the tour making it difficult for everyone else.
Now please, I'm actually begging you here. Please tell me you can see how ridiculous that all is.
I acknowledge that Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have been dominant but that does not on its own explain why players in that bracket born 1988-97 have won so little. Because, as has been demonstrated to you, players other than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have broken through. So it hasn't been a closed shop.
It is 95% of the reason why other players haven't won much.

And yes, Wawrinka has been one of those players to break through. His three majors show that it wasn't a closed shop. But no, he's not superstar. How is that a contradiction? Both points are entirely in line with my overall argument.
And you are making another strawman by making it sound like I'm suggesting the big 3 are so good that they will/should win absolutely everything, when I have never said that. I have never said it's a complete closed shop and I don't think anyone in this thread has.

The argument is that they are probably the three best players of all time, and so it has been incredibly difficult for anyone else to win much. And that is fact, and that is what has happened, very few players have won very few big titles over the past 15 years outside of the big 4. So you can go on arguing about this all you want but at the end of the day that's reality, and that's all I'm trying to bring to the table here. Realistic facts that demonstrate why most players not just under the age of 27, but most players in general haven't won much. You can twist my words all you want but that just makes you look like a pathetic troll.

You are too quick to excuse the younger brigade for their lack of achievement by suggesting Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were simply too good. That's nonsense. And we know it's nonsense because lesser players, like Wawrinka, have managed to take their chances to the tune of winning three majors. So the "closed shop" excuse simply doesn't stack up.
Again, twisting words and talking in hyperbole. You have somehow come to the conclusion that I am saying other players have had zero chance to win anything, and that those three have won everything. Now you can go back through this thread if you want mate but my point the whole time has been that these once in a lifetime players are going to dominate most of the time. Not all the time. There will be opportunities for other players - but they will be limited. And everything that has happened up to this point has proven that.
Pointing out that you cannot mount a single substantive argument and instead resort repeatedly to strawmans is not a personal dig. It's an entirely accurate assessment of your flimsy arguments.
Well you can go ahead and continue to resort to these insults on an Internet forum. Makes you sound like a real classy human, like I said before.
Good enough to win majors while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were up and about?

Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro. There's three.

I certainly don't put Murray in the same class as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic but he's also managed to rack up three majors.

The question is: why haven't there been any others born 1988-97? That's a huge gulf. Hopefully Thiem gets on the board in Paris because it's a ridiculous situation.
Yeah so 3 players in the last 15 years who have been good enough to win 1, 1 and 3 slams respectively. Oh, the opportunity! I'm so overwhelmed right now. Are you going to add Safin to that list too? What have the rest of them been doing! Jeez! They are all just shithouse.
Let's just ignore that 4 players have won 95% of all Slams/Masters/Tour Finals tournaments - what does that matter? That 5% of tournaments won by 'others' flips the whole argument on it's head!
It would genuinely be mildly humorous if it wasn't so patronisingly gratuitous. :cool:
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Mate it does stack up, they are not going to win absolutely everything. There will be occasions when other players beat them or even just win a masters without having to face one of them.
So my question is: why have there been so few players born 1989-97 to have broken through. Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good? Because that explanation doesn't cut it.

If you were to ignore everything else I've written, at least answer those questions concisely. Because that's the nub of it. There is this glaring lack of achievement in players in that age bracket and it's no longer adequate to simply point to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and claim they're too good.

That doesn't mean that they aren't all time greats.
I never said they weren't. Clearly Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all-time greats.

My question remains: why have there been so few players born 1989-97 to have broken through? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good? Because that explanation doesn't cut it.

a) His 3 slams are a complete outlier when you look at the rest of his career
b) His 3 slams are a complete outlier when you look at what the rest of the field has achieved

It was 6 weeks of freak performance from him. That's what it takes to beat these guys.

How many times do you want to go over this same discussion?

His results in those three slams are great, but they don't disprove or undermine anything. As I said before, the big 3 aren't going to win absolutely everything. They will win most of the time, but not all the time. Clear difference between those statements.

Wawrinka winning 3 slams is a man who peaked at the right time at various stages throughout his career, but ultimately couldn't sustain such a high risk level of tennis against three super humans.

Now please, jog on with the Wawrinka stuff.
You are reinforcing one of the central points of my argument. You are right, Wawrinka won three majors by peaking at the right time at various stages. As I said to you repeatedly, this shows that it was not a closed shop. Lesser players were able to win big titles.

With that in mind, why have there been so few players born 1989-97 to have broken through? Was Wawrinka the only player with a magic wand that allowed him to peak at the right time?

Well that is ridiculous, and it says a bit about how desperate you are in trying to make your "point". One masters title, lmfao. I suppose he should have gone on to win 3 slams like Wawrinka then?
This makes no sense. Pointing to players who have won one Masters title further emphasises that it was not a closed shop at that level. Lesser players won Masters titles.

Again, my question, given it has not been a closed shop: why have there been so few players born 1989-97 to have broken through?

It's the same thing. There is limited opportunity because a) those three are - and I'll spell this out for you, *majority of the time* too good, and b) by extension the rest of the field are not as good. You seem to view it as a slight on them, I like many others prefer to see it as a golden generation doing their thing - and that very few players in the history of the game would have been able to stop these guys from racking up the titles they have.

Because again, it demonstrates how difficult it is to win a major. You're bagging players for not being able to breakthrough. I give you a statistic that demonstrates the difficulty of winning titles at the top level and you don't understand the point of that statistic? Are you for real? I'm starting to think you are purely a troll account, because surely no one can be that stupid.
Yes, it is a slight on these younger players. Because they're in the peak of their careers but haven't been good enough to win much of note. Despite it not being a closed shop, as we've seen through the various examples presented to you.

Okay so your position is that players under the age of 27 haven't done much, and it's because they're not much chop. They're s**t and you think they deserve criticism for it. Then you decide to go and big up the achievements Wawrinka, Cilic, del Potro and Tsonga etc etc with the few big titles they have won and question why others haven't done the same. And yet in the very same sentence acknowledge that 3 players (plus Murray) have monopolised the tour making it difficult for everyone else.

Now please, I'm actually begging you here. Please tell me you can see how ridiculous that all is.
I'm not "bigging up" the achievements of Wawrinka, Cilic, Del Potro and Tsonga. You misunderstand my point if you think that's why I bring them up. Rather, I am presenting them as examples to demonstrate that it has not been a closed shop. These guys were able to break through to win major titles or Masters titles while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were up and running.

In light of that, why have there been so few players born 1989-97 able to do the same?

And you are making another strawman by making it sound like I'm suggesting the big 3 are so good that they will/should win absolutely everything, when I have never said that. I have never said it's a complete closed shop and I don't think anyone in this thread has.
Well, every time I ask you why younger players haven't had more success, you simply point to the dominance of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. You offer no other explanation. So I don't see how it's a strawman to point out that this is your only argument.

If you now acknowledge it is not a closed shop, why have there been so few players born 1989-97 able to win anything of note? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good? Because that argument doesn't cut it.

The argument is that they are probably the three best players of all time, and so it has been incredibly difficult for anyone else to win much. And that is fact, and that is what has happened, very few players have won very few big titles over the past 15 years outside of the big 4. So you can go on arguing about this all you want but at the end of the day that's reality, and that's all I'm trying to bring to the table here. Realistic facts that demonstrate why most players not just under the age of 27, but most players in general haven't won much. You can twist my words all you want but that just makes you look like a pathetic troll.
Yes, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all-time greats. No one disputes that. But Federer is 36 turning 37. Nadal is 32 with busted knees. Djokovic is 31 and has been in indifferent form for almost two years. So it is inadequate to simply say these guys are too good. Older champions get picked off by younger challengers. That's the way of the sport.

But you've got all these younger players born 1989-97 and they've won very little of note. It's inadequate to just keep pointing to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, when these guys have actually been vulnerable at different stages in recent years. And we've seen that vulnerability, because the likes of Wawrinka were able to break through and win three majors.

In light of that, why have there been so few players born 1989-97 able to win anything of note? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good?

Again, twisting words and talking in hyperbole. You have somehow come to the conclusion that I am saying other players have had zero chance to win anything, and that those three have won everything. Now you can go back through this thread if you want mate but my point the whole time has been that these once in a lifetime players are going to dominate most of the time. Not all the time. There will be opportunities for other players - but they will be limited. And everything that has happened up to this point has proven that.
I'm neither twisting your words nor speaking in hyperbole. You have repeatedly explained the younger brigade's lack of achievement by suggesting Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have simply been too good. That is your only argument. But it's inadequate.

If you now acknowledge that there have been opportunities for other players, as we know there have been, why have there been so few players born 1989-97 able to win anything of note? That is a huge chunk of the men's tour in their prime years and they've not won much at all.

Well you can go ahead and continue to resort to these insults on an Internet forum. Makes you sound like a real classy human, like I said before.
Your arguments are flimsy. If you're insulted by that, so be it.

Yeah so 3 players in the last 15 years who have been good enough to win 1, 1 and 3 slams respectively. Oh, the opportunity! I'm so overwhelmed right now. Are you going to add Safin to that list too? What have the rest of them been doing! Jeez! They are all just shithouse.
Let's just ignore that 4 players have won 95% of all Slams/Masters/Tour Finals tournaments - what does that matter? That 5% of tournaments won by 'others' flips the whole argument on it's head!
It would genuinely be mildly humorous if it wasn't so patronisingly gratuitous. :cool:
This makes no sense.

You asked me to name some players who would have been good enough to win big titles while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were up and running. I have done that. Wawrinka, Cilic, Del Potro and Murray were good enough. I omitted Safin because he won his last major pre-Djokovic. What possible objection could you have to this straightforward empirical statement?

My question remains, why have there been so few players born 1989-97 able to win anything of note? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good? Because that explanation doesn't cut it.

The reality is that this situation has persisted long after Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were at their peaks.
 
Last edited:

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2010
6,341
4,396
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
Well it's become laughable now, there is no way that is a serious post. Is it? You've managed to avoid basically every point I made and literally regurgitate the same line about 5 times. You are sounding more and more like a trolling robotic account as each post goes by. Your argument that more players should have broken through in this era on the basis that Wawrinka won 3 slams and Tsonga won 1 masters doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it.

That line of thought doesn't cut it.

Federer and Nadal have played as well as they ever have over the past 18 months.

Your argument that they're no longer at their peaks and other players should be stepping up also doesn't cut it.

You are throwing stones in glass houses.

Maybe you need to step away from the PC for a sec and take a few deep breaths.

If you are unable to understand why so few players have won anything of note over the past 15 years, after being offered explanations ad nauseam in this thread, then that is your problem my friend. You are living in your own quizzical little world. Population: 1. Which incidentally is the same number of Slams Cilic and del Potro have won. Illuminati confirmed?

You continue to ramble on about it being a closed shop after I repeatedly said it has not been. And that there have been fleeting opportunities. Your refusal to accept this is more bewildering than it is bemusing.

The longer this goes on the more foolish you're looking. You've had poster after poster come in here and drill you on the exact same points and yet you continue to just rinse and repeat the same flawed logic, over and over again. No my opinion is right and yours is wrong! You are wrong and I am right!

You are just making a huge rod for your own back here because there will be a day when Nadal and Federer are retired, and players in the 20's will start regularly grabbing slams. The fairytale story of Baghdatis might actually happen. Roddick will win Wimbledon a couple of times. David Ferrer - the great journeyman, will win a French.

These players who have been denied time and time again will actually start winning stuff, and you are just going to look about as stupid as your avatar.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Well it's become laughable now, there is no way that is a serious post. Is it? You've managed to avoid basically every point I made and literally regurgitate the same line about 5 times. You are sounding more and more like a trolling robotic account as each post goes by. Your argument that more players should have broken through in this era on the basis that Wawrinka won 3 slams and Tsonga won 1 masters doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it.

That line of thought doesn't cut it.
I have addressed your "points" one by one. You have avoided my central question.

Why have so few players born 1989-97 broken through? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good?

You've got Cilic and Del Potro as guys born in 1988, turning 30 this year, who've at least won majors, and then a big gap to a rising star like Zverev, who's 21. Not much in between.

Federer and Nadal have played as well as they ever have over the past 18 months.

Your argument that they're no longer at their peaks and other players should be stepping up also doesn't cut it.
That's nonsense. Neither of these guys are playing as well as they did at their best. It's just that the younger brigade haven't yet displayed the chops to come and knock them over.

The fact you argue "Federer and Nadal have played as well as they ever have over the past 18 months" suggests you have NFI.

You are throwing stones in glass houses.
How so? By methodically making my case and dismantling yours?

If you are unable to understand why so few players have won anything of note over the past 15 years, after being offered explanations ad nauseam in this thread, then that is your problem my friend. You are living in your own quizzical little world. Population: 1. Which incidentally is the same number of Slams Cilic and del Potro have won. Illuminati confirmed?
So my question is: Why have so few players born 1989-97 broken through? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good?

You have no coherent response. Every utterance of yours confirms this.

You continue to ramble on about it being a closed shop after I repeatedly said it has not been. And that there have been fleeting opportunities. Your refusal to accept this is more bewildering than it is bemusing.
OK, so if it hasn't been a closed shop, why have so few players born 1989-97 broken through?

What is your explanation? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good? You don't.

The longer this goes on the more foolish you're looking. You've had poster after poster come in here and drill you on the exact same points and yet you continue to just rinse and repeat the same flawed logic, over and over again. No my opinion is right and yours is wrong! You are wrong and I am right!
This is just hollow blethering designed to disguise the fact you have no leg to stand on. You have no coherent response. That is jarringly clear.

Why have so few players born 1989-97 broken through? Do you have an explanation other than saying Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been too good? No. You don't.

You are just making a huge rod for your own back here because there will be a day when Nadal and Federer are retired, and players in the 20's will start regularly grabbing slams. The fairytale story of Baghdatis might actually happen. Roddick will win Wimbledon a couple of times. David Ferrer - the great journeyman, will win a French.
How would this be a rod for my back? Do you think I am saying no 20-something will ever win a major again? Are you high? Of course they will.

You think if some 21-year-old wins Wimbledon in 2025, that will be some hammer blow to the argument I've made here? You've lost your marbles, champion.

I don't know what Ferrer has to do with it. As you say, he was "a great journeyman", not some young buck.

These players who have been denied time and time again will actually start winning stuff, and you are just going to look about as stupid as your avatar.
You've been given so many opportunities to offer a coherent response but you've been reduced to insulting my avatar. That says it all.

Do you even understand my argument? I'm saying that guys in their mid-20s who should be peaking and winning majors – or at least challenging – haven't cut the mustard to date. Thiem has a chance to change that against Nadal in Paris. I hope he does.

But if you're bringing up players who have been "denied time and time again" – who are you talking about? Because that calls to mind experienced guys like Berdych and/or Cilic. If they starting racking up grand slam titles, that would reinforce my point. Because you'd have these 30-somethings winning majors, not the guys in their mid-20s who should be stepping up. That scenario wouldn't undermine anything I've said.

You really struggle to connect the dots.
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Let's consider this: if no younger player breaks through at Wimbledon or the US Open, by October there will no player under 30 with a Grand Slam title to their name. Cilic and Del Potro are the youngest champions currently, and they will both turn 30 in September.

So, barring a breakthrough win in London or New York – and I'm not ruling it out for someone like Zverev – we'll have no one under 30 with a major title under their belt. That would be an extraordinary situation.

Now, if you ask me, that is to some degree a reflection on those players in that age younger bracket who have collectively failed to win any major titles. Yes, the established champions remain champions. No one disputes that. But all those players in their 20s, presumably in their prime – they haven't found a way win on the big stage. And that would suggest a collective failure of a new generation that I don't think we've seen before. No players under 30 with a grand slam suggests those players under 30 haven't been good enough. Right? That would be an uncontroversial conclusion to draw.

But no. Steady on. What this actually means is that those players under 30 simply haven't had an "opportunity". They've had no chance. Because 36-year-old Federer and Nadal with his wonky knees and Djokovic who's been very ordinary for two years. Because those guys. They're unbeatable. So no one under 30 has had an "opportunity". That's what it means. At least, that's what the obscurantists will tell you.
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,211
8,194
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
Let's consider this: if no younger player breaks through at Wimbledon or the US Open, by October there will no player under 30 with a Grand Slam title to their name. Cilic and Del Potro are the youngest champions currently, and they will both turn 30 in September.

So, barring a breakthrough win in London or New York – and I'm not ruling it out for someone like Zverev – we'll have no one under 30 with a major title under their belt. That would be an extraordinary situation.

Now, if you ask me, that is to some degree a reflection on those players in that age younger bracket who have collectively failed to win any major titles. Yes, the established champions remain champions. No one disputes that. But all those players in their 20s, presumably in their prime – they haven't found a way win on the big stage. And that would suggest a collective failure of a new generation that I don't think we've seen before. No players under 30 with a grand slam suggests those players under 30 haven't been good enough. Right? That would be an uncontroversial conclusion to draw.

But no. Steady on. What this actually means is that those players under 30 simply haven't had an "opportunity". They've had no chance. Because 36-year-old Federer and Nadal with his wonky knees and Djokovic who's been very ordinary for two years. Because those guys. They're unbeatable. So no one under 30 has had an "opportunity". That's what it means. At least, that's what the obscurantists will tell you.

It is quickly approaching something extraordinary. No slam winners under 30 would be something to behold. If the 90s born players fail to win a slam in the 2010s (only 6 of them left), then that would also be incredible.

I'm not either/or on this, the young players are clearly good and the older champions are clearly among the finest the sport has produced. We don't need to damn a generation, or pretend they won't eventually pick up some slams. However it is intriguing that Raonic and Thiem, the only 90s born finalists to date, and worthy challengers, have both failed to win a set. Even Nishikori didn't win a set against Cilic in 2014. With the rise of Zverev and co, the 89-94 generation is certainly a slamless risk. You could easily have Cilic and Del Potro cleaning up a few until the late 90s kids take over.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
It is quickly approaching something extraordinary. No slam winners under 30 would be something to behold. If the 90s born players fail to win a slam in the 2010s (only 6 of them left), then that would also be incredible.

I'm not either/or on this, the young players are clearly good and the older champions are clearly among the finest the sport has produced. We don't need to damn a generation, or pretend they won't eventually pick up some slams. However it is intriguing that Raonic and Thiem, the only 90s born finalists to date, and worthy challengers, have both failed to win a set. Even Nishikori didn't win a set against Cilic in 2014. With the rise of Zverev and co, the 89-94 generation is certainly a slamless risk. You could easily have Cilic and Del Potro cleaning up a few until the late 90s kids take over.
At some point it has to be a reflection on the 20-something crop currently in their prime. Zverev is fine – he's 21 and has already won three Masters titles. But then you skip all the way to Del Potro and Cilic, who are 29 turning 30 in September. What have the guys in between done? That's a huge gap and all the guys in that bracket are supposedly in their prime.

I remember when Sampras was 29-30. Obviously a great champion with 13 major titles under his belt. But he showed up to the US Open in 2000 and 2001 and got absolutely blitzed in the final by Safin and then Hewitt, who were both 20 at the time they won. And while Hewitt and Safin were fine players, it's not like this was a young Djokovic or a young Nadal announcing themselves at the start of a glittering career. Hewitt and Safin won two majors each for their whole careers but they were good enough and hungry enough at 20 to smash Sampras on the big stage. That's unimaginable in the current landscape.
 
Last edited:

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
13,241
15,192
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Is this an indictment on the sport in general? Are the numbers of players coming through the system lower overall? Are the advancements in technology and fitness training methods/recovery helping the older generation stay at the top of the game? Is it that we've had 3 of the all time greats play at the same time that has prevented younger players from reaching the top? I'm not sure of the answer.
 

red+black

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Jul 12, 2001
37,627
5,478
Melbourne
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Current Slam or ATP Finals winners < 30:
2018-05-16 - Dimitrov turned 27
2018-09-23 - del Potro turns 30
2018-09-28 - Cilic turns 30

Current Slam or ATP Finals runners-up < 30:
2018-09-03 - Thiem turns 25
2018-12-07 - Goffin turns 28
2018-12-27 - Raonic turns 28
2018-12-29 - Nishikori turns 29
 
Back