Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Finally someone new in the Grand Slam final, and the first player born in the 90s that has reached the Grand Slam final?
Go Thiem!
Doesn’t matter, he’s not much chop. Sorry to break that to you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Finally someone new in the Grand Slam final, and the first player born in the 90s that has reached the Grand Slam final?
Go Thiem!
Is that true?Finally someone new in the Grand Slam final, and the first player born in the 90s that has reached the Grand Slam final?
Collectively, the younger generation haven't been much chop. Do you disagree?Doesn’t matter, he’s not much chop. Sorry to break that to you.
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?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.
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.What do you expect of these players - out of curiosity?
An absurd overstatement that merely emphasises the weakness of your position.Do you think that any half decent player should have 6 slams in the bag by the age of 25?
And the reality is that 4 players have absolutely dominated the tour for 10+ years.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.
But it is evidence that there have been opportunities for other players to break through. That's exactly what it is.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.
This is your argument?David will slay Goliath every now and then. It don’t mean s**t.
What point do you think this makes?Only 5 players have won more than 8 Slams in the Open Era. 5.
"The way you talk about it, it's as if ..."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?
And which part of my argument above is inaccurate?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. .
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.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.
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.But it is evidence that there have been opportunities for other players to break through. That's exactly what it is.
You are actually citing examples of players who have won one masters title in their whole career as evidence of the opportunities players have hadThis 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.
I literally explained the point in my post.What point do you think this makes?
Has anyone said anything about winning eight majors being the benchmark? That's irrelevant.
First off thanks for re quoting my post. Much appreciated."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.
See above.And which part of my argument above is inaccurate?
Thanks for the personal digs. Classy.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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
You call it "limited opportunity". That's a euphemism for not being good enough.That is what you call limited opportunity. Unfortunately you're finding it a little tough to see that.
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?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.
Which part of my argument specifically is meaningless or nonsensical. Be specific.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.
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.Thanks for the personal digs. Classy.
Good enough to win majors while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were up and about?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?
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.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.
a) His 3 slams are a complete outlier when you look at the rest of his careerYet 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.
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?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.
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.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"?
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.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?
I feel like an echo repeating myself here.Which part of my argument specifically is meaningless or nonsensical. Be specific.
It is 95% of the reason why other players haven't won much.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I never said they weren't. Clearly Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all-time greats.That doesn't mean that they aren't all time greats.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Your arguments are flimsy. If you're insulted by that, so be it.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.
This makes no sense.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.
I have addressed your "points" one by one. You have avoided my central question.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.
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.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.
How so? By methodically making my case and dismantling yours?You are throwing stones in glass houses.
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?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?
OK, so if it hasn't been a closed shop, why have so few players born 1989-97 broken through?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.
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.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!
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Yet somehow Wawrinka managed to win three majors.Perfect storm of a generally shallow talent generation preceded by three of the best 8 players of all time.