- May 6, 2007
- 38,565
- 22,405
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspurs, Melbourne Vixen
in hindsight you are right. Just seduced by that time when he was threatening to upsurp those three aforementioned guys.
WSW
0 v MVC
0 PM
ADE
0 v BRI
0 PM
LAL
0 v IND
0 PM
MEL
0 v BNE
0 PM
SYD
0 v SEM
0 PM
PAL
9.8
62 v WAN
11.14
80 FT
STM
8.10
58 v NCL
11.9
75 FT
WAR
13.8
86 v SD
14.11
95 FT
SYD
0 v MAC
2 FT
ORL
123 v DET
91 FT
SA
112 v CHI
121 FT
PHI
125 v ATL
114 FT
PHX
106 v SAC
114 FT
CHA
119 v TOR
116 FT
ADE
101 v CNS
116 FT
OKC
138 v GS
136 FT
MIA
99 v CLE
111 FT
DEN
106 v HOU
114 FT
UTH
103 v LAC
117 FT
POR
112 v DAL
125 FT
WEL
0 v NEW
3 FT
BRO
124 v WSH
97 FT
BOS
133 v NY
123 FT
MEM
103 v MIN
127 FT
Edited: No player currently 30 or younger has won a major
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #527
Wawrinka won three majors.
But sure, it's hard to win grand slams. I think people know that.
By "new guard", you mean anyone under 30? So some members of this "new guard" have been on tour for a decade and more.
Hopefully tsitsipas, thiem or Medvedev can win a slam this year so we can shut this thread. Medvedev was very close at the us.
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,650
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
I lol'd the chances of Di Minaur dominating anything outside the Challlenger circuit are slim.
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,727
- 4,138
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Djokovic dominant in any other era? He's dominant in this era. in the last 10 years the Serb has won 14 slams, Nadal 11 (mostly french) and Fed 5.
- Thread starter
- #531
So we're all hoping that one of the kids under 25 breaks through in 2020.
But let's examine again those guys born 1989-1994, now aged 25 to 31, ostensibly their peak years. It was just a matter of time. They hadn't yet had a chance. With the potential exception of Dominic Thiem, what do we say about them now?
But let's examine again those guys born 1989-1994, now aged 25 to 31, ostensibly their peak years. It was just a matter of time. They hadn't yet had a chance. With the potential exception of Dominic Thiem, what do we say about them now?
The good news: one man under 27 will make it to the AO final.
The bad news: they will probably have to face Djokovic at his favourite tournament in peak form. The 2016 US Open was the last time one of the big three didn't win.
The bad news: they will probably have to face Djokovic at his favourite tournament in peak form. The 2016 US Open was the last time one of the big three didn't win.
It’s pretty funny reading some comments early in this thread about Nadal and Federer being past it four years ago.
Depends on their opponents, doesn't it? Not that awards like the Ballon d'Or mean anything, they are part of the media circuit that enriches itself on enriching a select few.
- Thread starter
- #535
And that was Wawrinka, aged 31, winning his third major.
But no one outside the big 3 has "had a chance".
- Thread starter
- #536
It says a lot about the younger generation that they're still two of the top three at every major. That's the point.
Winning majors has been "tough". Who could have guessed it would have been "tough"? I thought it would have been easy.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #537
Thiem time?
In any other era this would be his time. He is at what should be a tennis player's peak.
3 slam finals. Regardless of Thiem winning or not tomorrow, I'd say he has achieved a lot.
And if he doesn't win a Grand Slam?
16 titles, 3 slam finals, WTF final, career high ranking of 4. I'd say he's achieved a lot regardless of the result tomorrow.
But he's better than that, isn't he? His record does not yet reflect how good he is, and that's because three players who should be well past their prime just keep winning. Look at the 1990s - players normally won their first GS in their early 20s. Agassi was the only one to do that and also win one at 30+. One of the only one who won their first (and only) GS when pushing 30 was Petr Korda, who was banned for doping the year after. Going on how the 90s looked, Thiem should have won at least one GS by now.
Traditionally male tennis players peak from 24-28 and I think thiem has followed that trajectory. He's been the 2nd best clay court player for the past 2 years and over the last 9 months he's starting to play his best on hard courts as well. He's smack in the middle of that normal peak for tennis players and his results are showing it.
Compare the kind of players in these categories, from Sampras' first GS win to Federer's first. Many of these only won one or two.
Sampras (19), Courier (21), Stich (22), Agassi (22), Bruguera (22), Kafelnikov (22), Kuerten (21), Rafter (22), Moya (21), Safin (20), Hewitt (20), Ferrero (23), Roddick (21)
Muster (27), Krajicek (24), Johansson (26), Costa (26), Gaudio (27)
Korda (30), Ivanisevic (29)
- Thread starter
- #545
The point of this thread is that players in that peak bracket haven't been breaking through and winning majors.
And I'm saying that having reached 3 slam finals is achieving something significant.
- Thread starter
- #547
It's not winning.
Well I believe it is an achievement in this era.
- Thread starter
- #549
Winning any match is an "achievement". We're talking about winning grand slam titles.
3 slam finals, on different surfaces, is more of an achievement than about 5 current tennis players.
Actually thiem is the only player 30 or under who has reached 3 slam finals.
Last edited:
Similar threads
