Which means there is something very wrong with this era.
WSW
3 v MVC
4 FT
ADE
0 v BRI
2 FT
LAL
123 v IND
109 FT
CHI
28 v DET
13 FT
SF
28 v SEA
16 FT
DAL
33 v PHI
13 FT
MEL
103 v BNE
68 FT
ATL
25 v TB
29 FT
CIN
34 v IND
14 FT
NO
28 v CAR
6 FT
KC
17 v BUF
20 FT
SYD
94 v SEM
104 FT
BAL
37 v LA
31 FT
CLE
31 v JAX
27 FT
NYJ
30 v HOU
6 FT
LV
0 v MIN
3 FT
LA
7 v DEN
24 FT
Edited: No player currently 30 or younger has won a major
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Which means there is something very wrong with this era.
- Thread starter
- #552
That's great. We're talking about winning majors, not making finals.
Maybe tomorrow is Thiem time.
The thread title does not state winning a slam as the only way to have achieved something in the sport.
- Thread starter
- #554
The thread title doesn't state... give me a spell.
The thread was created when no player under 27 had even won a Masters title. That has changed. The anomaly that persists, however, is that no player currently aged 30 or younger has won a major. That's what we're talking about. For you to say "well making a final is a thing" is neither here nor there.
As I said, thiem is the only player 30 or under to have made 3 slam finals. It clearly is "a thing."
- Thread starter
- #556
In the meantime, no player currently 30 or younger has won a slam. That is anomalous. Your data point is unrelated.
Nice moving of the goal posts in the middle of a debate
- Thread starter
- #558
What's the debate?Nice moving of the goal posts in the middle of a debate
I'm simply stating a fact and your response is unrelated to that fact.
I've edited the thread title to reflect that the previous one no longer applies.
"no player under 27 has achieved anything"
That was the thread title. My point argued that statement and firm in my belief of what thiem has achieved. Happy to agree to disagree though.
- Thread starter
- #560
And it was true at the time but young players have since won Masters titles. Read the OP. Zverev has won three.
The anomaly now is that no one 30 or younger has won a major.
I'm not sure what your argument is with that purely empirical statement.
Thiem time is cancelled, 32 yo wins another Grand Slam.
- Thread starter
- #562
Thiem isn't far off.
- Thread starter
- #563
The game has changed!
Just give him a few more years, he's really getting so close.
- Thread starter
- #565
There's been no window of opportunity.
- Jun 7, 2012
- 9,650
- 11,942
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- San Antonio, West Ham, Renegades
Only three behind now
- Thread starter
- #567
Now with poll!
Is there an option for selecting a current player once they turn 30?
- Moderator
- #569
- Thread starter
- #570
No. Because that won't end the anomaly. They have to be in their 20s when they win.
Here's a semi-interesting stat: in history, there have been 13 Grand Slam titles won by players aged 32 or older. Of those, 7 have been won since the start of 2017.
Think about that. In tennis history until just over 3 years ago, there had been only 6 majors won by guys aged 32 or older. Ken Rosewall had 4 of them in the 60s and 70s. Andres Gimeno, who I've never heard of, won the 1972 French at 34 and Andre Agassi won his last Australian Open at 32 in 2003. Not many over the course of 40-odd years. But in the 3+ years since, there's been 7. And the 6 other majors won in that time frame were by guys 30/31.
The Big 3 have shared 13 slams in a row. They did 18 between 2005-09 but they're basically just as dominant 10 years later despite all being well over 30.
Last edited:
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Another tournament, another example of a younger player getting through one member of the big 3 but falling to the next one.
They are close to indestructible.
Make that 13 slams in a row.
They are close to indestructible.
Make that 13 slams in a row.
- Moderator
- #572
I am still waiting, Pliskova.
Crazy how much has changed in 2 years in the WTA. No Serena has opened it up to even younger players. Ostapenko, Osaka, Barty, Kenin.
Or we could have a winner from the 2000's in Andreescu
- Moderator
- #573
I don't think even many of the big 3 have won a slam by beating the other 2. I think only Novak has done it.
- Thread starter
- #574
Wawrinka beat 2 of them en route to winning a major. He did it twice.
Is that too high a bar for all the guys in their 20s trying to win a major? Wawrinka did it twice but it's still impossible for everyone else?
Last edited:
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Nadal did it 3 years in a row at the French (many moons ago).
But I mean that is the point, it’s a huge task to penetrate through all of them.
Similar threads
