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

[Flameboy]

Rubbing your nose in the fact you have no argument. That's where I'm at.

You wandered back in and tried to restart an argument you'd already lost. It worked out badly for you. Suck it up, champion.

That would indicate that you understand my argument, despite recently asking me what it is. So which is it?

That makes no point about who is right or wrong.

It says a bit about where you're at.

Damn straight. It's totally predictable when you in fact have no argument. And you know it. That's why you have to pre-empt being called out for it.

No, I'm calling you out on your inability to discuss things without using your three or four go-to lines. You literally rinse and repeat the same language over and over despite being presented with contrary evidence. It's exasperating, sad, and also mildly amusing.

I'd say you're on the spectrum, but I don't know you well enough to make that assumption.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That would indicate that you understand my argument, despite recently asking me what it is. So which is it?

You have no argument. That doesn't change the fact that you wandered back in and ineptly attempted to re-engage.

No, I'm calling you out on your inability to discuss things without using your three or four go-to lines. You literally rinse and repeat the same language over and over despite being presented with contrary evidence.

Confirming that you have no argument. If you had one, you'd be making it, instead of objecting to my "language".

I don't need to chop and change for the sake of it. Because my argument has remained the same for two years. The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through?

It will happen eventually but so far the players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

I don't know what you mean by "contrary evidence". You've presented nothing of the sort. I don't recall you making a single coherent point. Why not just admit you've got nothing substantive to add and be done with it?

 

[Flameboy]

You have no argument. That doesn't change the fact that you wandered back in and ineptly attempted to re-engage.

Confirming that you have no argument. If you had one, you'd be making it, instead of objecting to my "language".

Which, again, would indicate that you understand my argument.

Unless you are responding to me without understanding what I'm saying, which wouldn't surprise me either.

Or you could even be feigning ignorance, which again, wouldn't surprise me.

I don't need to chop and change for the sake of it. Because my argument has remained the same for two years. The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through?

It will happen eventually but FMD they're taking their time. The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

Oh don't worry, anyone reading this thread knows your line of thought has remained the same. A blunt instrument from the outset.

I don't know what you mean by "contrary evidence". You've presented nothing of the sort.

You don't know what a lot of things mean, this is nothing new.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Which, again, would indicate that you understand my argument.

No. It wouldn't. I understand that you have no case worth making.

Unless you are responding to me without understanding what I'm saying, which wouldn't surprise me either.

I am responding to your comments. But they form no coherent argument that challenges mine. You're holding an empty sack.

Why not just admit you've got nothing substantive to add and be done with it? Each post of yours confirms it.

 

[Flameboy]

No. It wouldn't. I understand that you have no case worth making.

I am responding to your comments. But they form no coherent argument that challenges mine. You're holding an empty sack.

Why not just admit you've got nothing substantive to add and be done with it?

My mistake. Thought it was too much to ask that you'd understand something.

My comments form a perfectly coherent argument which does challenge yours.

Why not just admit you've dug a hole for yourself?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My mistake. Thought it was too much to ask that you'd understand something.

My comments form a perfectly coherent argument which does challenge yours.

Why not just admit you've got nothing substantive to add and be done with it? Each post of yours confirms it.

Why not just admit you've dug a hole for yourself?

Why would I do that when you've given up rebutting my argument? Because you've got nothing.

The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through? The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

What is your devastating response to this self-evidently accurate statement? Do you have one?

 

[Flameboy]

Why not just admit you've got nothing substantive to add and be done with it? Each post of yours confirms it.

Why would I do that when you've given up rebutting my argument? Because you've got nothing.

The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through? The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

What is your devastating response to this self-evidently accurate statement? Do you have one?

Why not just admit you've dug a hole for yourself?

Your argument has been well and truly dismantled by a number of people in here. Instead of continually digging you'd be better off accepting that, and moving on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why not just admit you've dug a hole for yourself?

Your argument has been well and truly dismantled by a number of people in here. Instead of continually digging you'd be better off accepting that, and moving on.

The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through? The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

You have no response.

 

[Flameboy]

The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through? The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

You have no response.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My argument is there for you to engage. Let me know when you fancy another go at rebutting it.

Everything else you post is merely a deflection from the fact you've got nothing.

 

[Flameboy]

I've made my point. I have better things to do than continually make it over and over again to a stranger on an Internet forum who refuses to listen.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I've made my point. I have better things to do than continually make it over and over again to a stranger on an Internet forum who refuses to listen.

You've made no coherent point at all.

The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through? The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

You have no response. Even The City Boyz made a better fist of it than you.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

This seems a very circular discussion with no purpose.

The point of the thread is that no male player born since 1988 has won a Grand Slam.

This remains the case with Cilic the youngest of those to have been successful.

The OP is suggesting that the age group below is simply not good enough, while a counter argument is that it has been an unprecedented period of supreme player at the top.

However, the quality at the top has not prevented Del Potro, Cilic, Wawrinka and Murray from winning at the top.

Is it just possible that the post '88 born players just do not have the will to push themselves to the ultimate.

I don't believe there has ever previously been a period where realistic challengers have not emerged.

My expectation is that excellence at the top should in fact increase the playing level of the challengers as they strive to overcome and reach the ultimate. It should not leave those top few as untouchables.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This seems a very circular discussion with no purpose.

It's not circular. My argument has remained the same throughout.

The point of the thread is that no male player born since 1988 has won a Grand Slam.

This remains the case with Cilic the youngest of those to have been successful.

The OP is suggesting that the age group below is simply not good enough, while a counter argument is that it has been an unprecedented period of supreme player at the top.

However, the quality at the top has not prevented Del Potro, Cilic, Wawrinka and Murray from winning at the top.

Is it just possible that the post '88 born players just do not have the will to push themselves to the ultimate.

I don't believe there has ever previously been a period where realistic challengers have not emerged.

My expectation is that excellence at the top should in fact increase the playing level of the challengers as they strive to overcome and reach the ultimate. It should not leave those top few as untouchables.

So you agree with me?

 

[Bulldog Joe]

It's not circular. My argument has remained the same throughout.

So you agree with me?

I have never disagreed with you on this issue.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I have never disagreed with you on this issue.

Wise words.

 

[Flameboy]

You've made no coherent point at all.

The players currently aged 22-28 aren't very good. Exhibit A is the fact the youngest players to have won a grand slam are about to turn 30. Who among the younger brigade is even threatening to break through? The players in that age group have simply failed to challenge consistently at the highest level. They are not good enough.

You have no response. Even The City Boyz made a better fist of it than you.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The kind of response that is still available to someone with no argument.

 

[Flameboy]

The kind of response that is still available to someone with no argument.

I can hear your echoes in the distance. How deep is it down there?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thanks for confirming.

 

[Flameboy]

Thanks for confirming.

Thanks for answering.

 

[Flameboy]

I actually shut the guy up.

Anyway, more importantly; Federer's been speaking about this very topic recently:

Roger Federer admits the dominance of tennis’ top three has made it difficult for other players to compete in Grand Slams – though has outlined the traits needed to usurp the trio. Of the last 55 Grand Slam titles, 50 (or 91%) have been won by either Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal or Andy Murray, though the latter is currently 311th in the world after a long-term injury. Stan Wawrinka, Marin Cilic and Juan Martin del Potro are the only players to break that stranglehold, and Federer believes any player looking to replicate their heroics needs to have the complete package. ‘Obviously the top is strong… pick me, Rafa, Novak, I just look at how we play. We play very different,’ said Federer, who has been in Chicago for the Laver Cup. ‘So for anybody to come through all three guys in one tournament and end up winning the tournament, I don’t know if it’s ever happened. And obviously the draw also maybe doesn’t allow it to happen, but it’s just very hard, you know.

‘You have to have so many different qualities in your game. You need to be able to serve well, return well. You have to have a transition game. You need to be able to finish at the net. You need to be physically strong, mentally strong. ‘And I think our three playing styles challenge all those things. And that may be over a weekend, over a week, whatever it may be. It’s just very hard, you know, I think for a lot of guys to break through and we have made it difficult.

Sorry Roger, but I'm just going to pull you up on that last bit. Stan Wawrinka's 3 slams demonstrate that it in fact has not been hard at all. I'll also add John Isner's solitary Masters title as firm proof that your grip on the game is not as strong as you think it is!

But jokes aside, his comments about the requirements to regularly beat these three guys are spot on. You need to have it all. Or have most of it, and be at the absolute top of your game for a week. It is, as he says, very difficult.

But of course our resident primate ITT will have you believe differently.

What are your thoughts on his comments SJ?

I want you to specifically address each point he makes, because it looks to me that most (if not all) of what he is saying is in complete contradiction to your bullshit.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

I actually shut the guy up.

Anyway, more importantly; Federer's been speaking about this very topic recently:



Sorry Roger, but I'm just going to pull you up on that last bit. Stan Wawrinka's 3 slams demonstrate that it in fact has not been hard at all. I'll also add John Isner's solitary Masters title as firm proof that your grip on the game is not as strong as you think it is!

But jokes aside, his comments about the requirements to regularly beat these three guys are spot on. You need to have it all. Or have most of it, and be at the absolute top of your game for a week. It is, as he says, very difficult.

But of course our resident primate ITT will have you believe differently.

What are your thoughts on his comments SJ?

I want you to specifically address each point he makes, because it looks to me that most (if not all) of what he is saying is in complete contradiction to your bullshit.

I know you are having your personal war with the OP, but this still does not address why Cilic, Del Potro and Wawrinka have won Grand Slams but nobody born since 1988 has been able to achieve that.

Why did John Millman (born in 1989) get through to the last 8 when the young guns that should be taking over cannot. Thiem had a great chance to bring down Nadal, but failed.

We know that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and have been magnificent players and unprecedented in their domination and longevity as a triumvirate, but why is the top 10 still containing so few from the post 1990 birth.

Only Zverev (born 1997) Thiem (1993) and Dimitrov (1991) are in the top 10. The remainder are all 1988 or earlier born.

The post 1990 born players should absolutely be pushing Anderson, Isner etc out of the top 10.

I wonder if the post 1990 generation have the drive to succeed.

 

[Flameboy]

I know you are having your personal war with the OP, but this still does not address why Cilic, Del Potro and Wawrinka have won Grand Slams but nobody born since 1988 has been able to achieve that.

Why did John Millman (born in 1989) get through to the last 8 when the young guns that should be taking over cannot. Thiem had a great chance to bring down Nadal, but failed.

We know that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and have been magnificent players and unprecedented in their domination and longevity as a triumvirate, but why is the top 10 still containing so few from the post 1990 birth.

Only Zverev (born 1997) Thiem (1993) and Dimitrov (1991) are in the top 10. The remainder are all 1988 or earlier born.

The post 1990 born players should absolutely be pushing Anderson, Isner etc out of the top 10.

I wonder if the post 1990 generation have the drive to succeed.

I’m not attempting to explain why the current generation of players aren’t taking over the likes of Isner and Anderson in the rankings.

I’m simply explaining (with pretty clear cut evidence) why - along with every other player on tour - they have struggled to win much of note, as per the original question of this thread.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

I’m not attempting to explain why the current generation of players aren’t taking over the likes of Isner and Anderson in the rankings.

I’m simply explaining (with pretty clear cut evidence) why - along with every other player on tour - they have struggled to win much of note, as per the original question of this thread.

But if the likes of Del Potro, Wawrinka and Cilic could take a Grand Slam when the 3 are about, why cannot the current younger players.

Note Del Potro was just 21 when he defeated Federer in the final after overcoming Nadal in the semi final.