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

  • Daniil Medvedev

  • Alexander Zverev

  • Stefanos Tsitsipas

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,842
12,920
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
But have they really?
Yes. Simply asking the question again demonstrates nothing.

If you asked me in 2012 whether Raonic or Nishi had won any Grand Slams by now, my answer would have been a resounding no. As would have many other people's.
Nor have they won a single Masters title between them. Why did you omit that? Nor has any player 27 or younger. It's not just about Raonic or Nishikori. It is about a whole group of players of a certain age group simply not taking the next step.
 

Alesana

Club Legend
Oct 13, 2011
1,627
1,637
AFL Club
West Coast
Are you really saying players shouldn't be expecting to win anything of note until they're 28 or older? Why?

If they're good enough, age would be no factor.

The game has only shifted in the sense that these older guys are staying dominant longer because the younger guys haven't taken the next step - and that's the point. Wawrinka doesn't have any inherent advantage over a 26-year-old just because he's five years older.

You seem to be suggesting that the lack of success for anyone 27 or younger is systemic. But I don't see how that's the case.
Rafter retired aged 29. Sampras basically stopped aged 31. Safin retired aged 29. Borg retired aged 26. Wilander retired aged 32. Edberg retired aged 30. Becker retired aged 31. Take note of these ages and read below.

Roger Federer is 35. Karlovic is 37. Ferrer is 34. Lopez is 35. Kohlschreiber is 33. Muller is 33. Mahut is 34. Lorenzi is 34. Youzhny is 34. Mayer is 33. Robert is 36. Lu is 33. Verdasco is 33. These guys are ranked in the top 60 and they keep on playing. Do you see what I'm getting at yet? The good players are playing for longer = more older players in grand slams/masters = less spots for youngsters = less chance of a guy <27 yrs to win. It's not that they simply aren't taking the next step. Unless Federer retires now and Djokovic and Murray retire in the next 2 years, then this won't change much
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,842
12,920
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Rafter retired aged 29. Sampras basically stopped aged 31. Safin retired aged 29. Borg retired aged 26. Wilander retired aged 32. Edberg retired aged 30. Becker retired aged 31. Take note of these ages and read below.

Roger Federer is 35. Karlovic is 37. Ferrer is 34. Lopez is 35. Kohlschreiber is 33. Muller is 33. Mahut is 34. Lorenzi is 34. Youzhny is 34. Mayer is 33. Robert is 36. Lu is 33. Verdasco is 33. These guys are ranked in the top 60 and they keep on playing. Do you see what I'm getting at yet?
Not really. You've just cherry-picked some players but it makes no valid point. Every one of these guys is an also-ran apart from Federer, who has dropped off in the past 12 months.

Jonas Bjorkman played until he was 36. Andre Agassi played until he was 36. Fabrice Santoro until he was 37. Jimmy Connors finally retired aged 40. So what?

That aside, even if the current journeymen are now in general playing longer, that doesn't explain the inability of players 27 or younger to break through.

Nicolas Mahut sure as hell isn't stopping the best 25- and 26-year-olds in the world from winning Masters or Grand Slam titles. That goes for pretty much all the guys you've listed.

The good players are playing for longer = more older players in grand slams/masters = less spots for youngsters = less chance of a guy <27 yrs to win.
I don't accept that at all.

Firstly, this has no bearing whatsoever on the chances of guys who are 25-26 and in the top 20. Older blokes making up the numbers is neither here nor there.

Secondly, players who are 25-27 cannot seriously be considered "youngsters". That's insane. These are mature players who should be competing for and occasionally winning the big titles, particularly when you're talking about guys ranked consistently in the top 20.

The fact that there are more older players still in tournaments does absolutely nothing to diminish the chances of Raonic or Nishikori, for example. The fact that Youzhny is still running around aged 34 - or any of those other guys you listed - is a non-factor in their inability to break through.

It's not that they simply aren't taking the next step.
Yeah, it is. You're trying to take something obvious and infer some unnecessarily convoluted explanation for it.

Unless Federer retires now and Djokovic and Murray retire in the next 2 years, then this won't change much
This continued attempt to pretend it's a closed shop simply isn't credible.

The presence of Federer, Djokovic and Murray on tour in 2016 didn't stop Cilic winning Cincinnati or Wawrinka winning the US Open. Federer is a shadow of his former self so I don't know why you'd even bring him up.

The fact that you simply accept that Djokovic and Murray (and Wawrinka presumably) will continue to dominate and basically divvy up every major title between them merely reinforces the point that the next generation haven't taken the next step. Djokovic and Murray (and Wawrinka) should have younger guys breathing down their necks by now.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,842
12,920
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
You don't accept facts and common sense?
Rubbish.

Your "facts" made no salient point. You just listed a bunch of also-rans in their 30s who are still playing. So what? How does that prevent the best 25- or 26-year-old winning a Masters title? It doesn't.

If Milos Raonic is so severely encumbered by the continued presence of Nicolas Mahut then I doubt he'll win anything of note any time soon.
 

Hamingja

Brownlow Medallist
May 20, 2014
14,010
17,042
AFL Club
Geelong
Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov etc haven't been up to it.

I expect Thiem, Kyrgios, Pouille or Zverev to break this next year.
 

TheMainMan83

Debutant
Jan 4, 2015
65
41
AFL Club
Collingwood
Raonic blew a hatful of chances to win a big match against Murray this year, he was the favourite at one point in 3 of 4 big matches.

It's not just talent it's also experience and big match belief, Raonic could of easily won quite a few of those matches but he got tight and these other players ALWAYS lose the big point, he had MP against Murray last week at WTF and was in a rally, he could of taken a swing with the forehand but tried to rally.

Australian Open SF - was up 2 sets to 1 - lost
Queens Final - was up a set and a break - lost
Wimbledon Final - was pretty easily beaten to be honest in straights - lost
World Tour Finals SF - was up a set and a break even had a MP in 3rd set breaker - lost

That's just in 2016, the longer these type of streaks go on the bigger the mental barrier will get.
 

The City Boyz

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2016
2,932
1,877
Albert Park
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
South Melbourne Hellas
Apparently they had no window of opportunity. Because guys like Mahut and Youzhny are still playing.
Look, I agree they should have one something, but it's not until now that their time has really come. Even if this statistic was still true in a year's time I would agree with you. But at the end of the day, now is their chance to take the next step.
 

Tigersfan35

I WANNA BE A RICHO MAN
Sep 7, 2015
1,557
3,475
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
SMFC
The dominance of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is well-documented. Fine, throw in Murray as well if you insist. And the Stanimal.

But this stat still surprises me:

You'd have thought someone younger would have broken through for a win at some point, right?

Think about how many articles you've read about some up-and-comer being 'the next big thing' or 'the youngster most likely to challenge' the Big Three or Big Four. None of that has been based on anything.

It reminds me how, for a few years, before every Glam Slam on the women's side tennis writers would inevitably crown Serena Williams the favourite and then talk up Sharapova as her most likely challenger, completely ignoring the fact Sharapova hadn't beaten Williams since 2004.

That's slightly tangential but it's like there's a narrative that people have committed to, regardless of the results.
So making the Wimbledon quarters at age 19 is "nothing" is it?
 

iluvparis

Hall of Famer
Apr 1, 2005
33,344
25,706
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
100% in Sweet Jesus' camp here. Truly astonishing stat and part of the reason Men's tennis has become so boring/predictable over the last decade.

No way you can defend the youngsters for lack of opportunity - they just aren't up to it - which is why so many of the old guard are happy to hang around on tour cashing pay checks.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,842
12,920
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Look, I agree they should have one something, but it's not until now that their time has really come.
What does that even mean?

It's not like there's some orderly queue and players just have to wait patiently before winning something.

When Cilic won the US Open, was that because "his time had come" or because he played well enough to win?

But at the end of the day, now is their chance to take the next step.
As though they haven't had that chance previously?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The City Boyz

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2016
2,932
1,877
Albert Park
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
South Melbourne Hellas
What does that even mean?

It's not like there's some orderly queue and players just have to wait patiently before winning something.

When Cilic won the US Open, was that because "his time had come" or because he played well enough to win?

As though they haven't had that chance previously?
They have had their chances, but their best one is in the next couple of years.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,842
12,920
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
They have had their chances, but their best one is in the next couple of years.
OK, well I look forward to that. Maybe you can start a thread about how many hypothetical titles they're all going to win.

In the meantime, no player aged 27 or younger has done anything.

Making a Wimbledon final at 19 is hardly 'not much chop'!
Who are you talking about?

Pretty sure I addressed this line of questioning already.
 

The City Boyz

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2016
2,932
1,877
Albert Park
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
South Melbourne Hellas
OK, well I look forward to that. Maybe you can start a thread about how many hypothetical titles they're all going to win.

In the meantime, no player aged 27 or younger has done anything.

Who are you talking about?

Pretty sure I addressed this line of questioning already.
Sorry, meant QF.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
15,842
12,920
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I love how you are sitting here blasting players for being 'not much chop', when I'm fairly sure you couldn't be doing anything better.
I'm glad you love it.

But it's merely an observation about the state of men's tennis. The fact that I am not myself a Masters or Grand Slam winner makes it no less valid an observation.

Sorry, meant QF.
And I addressed that.
 

The City Boyz

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2016
2,932
1,877
Albert Park
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
South Melbourne Hellas
I'm glad you love it.

But it's merely an observation about the state of men's tennis. The fact that I am not myself a Masters or Grand Slam winner makes it no less valid an observation.

And I addressed that.
Who do you think will be the first Grand Slam winner that's under 27?
 

Top Bottom