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

[Yoda_]

Sorry yoda, please don't lump djokovic with Murray. It is Federer, Nadal and djokovic who are 3 of the all time greats.

Murray has been great, but with 3 slams, has not prevented up and comers from winning slams.

in hindsight you are right. Just seduced by that time when he was threatening to upsurp those three aforementioned guys.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Without reading any of this thread, it's hard to compete with arguably the two greatest men's players we've seen (federer & Nadal) and a guy or two who would be just as dominant in any other era (Djokovic &/or Murray).

Wawrinka won three majors.

But sure, it's hard to win grand slams. I think people know that.

This new guard just hasn't taken that quantum leap yet.

By "new guard", you mean anyone under 30? So some members of this "new guard" have been on tour for a decade and more.

 

[pepsi]

Hopefully tsitsipas, thiem or Medvedev can win a slam this year so we can shut this thread. Medvedev was very close at the us.

 

[iluvparis]

Without reading any of this thread, it's hard to compete with arguably the two greatest men's players we've seen (federer & Nadal) and a guy or two who would be just as dominant in any other era (Djokovic &/or Murray).

This new guard just hasn't taken that quantum leap yet. The prospect looks good, including some Aussies. It's going to be a hell of a ride to see if these middle/older guys can snatch a Slam or two post Nadal/Federer/Djoker/Murray era. Once this new era takes over, we could very well see a similar domination with Di Minaur, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Thiem all right in the running.

I lol'd the chances of Di Minaur dominating anything outside the Challlenger circuit are slim.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Without reading any of this thread, it's hard to compete with arguably the two greatest men's players we've seen (federer & Nadal) and a guy or two who would be just as dominant in any other era (Djokovic &/or Murray).

This new guard just hasn't taken that quantum leap yet. The prospect looks good, including some Aussies. It's going to be a hell of a ride to see if these middle/older guys can snatch a Slam or two post Nadal/Federer/Djoker/Murray era. Once this new era takes over, we could very well see a similar domination with Di Minaur, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Thiem all right in the running.

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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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?

 

[The Speaker]

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.

 

[Anja_Nees]

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.

It’s pretty funny reading some comments early in this thread about Nadal and Federer being past it four years ago.

 

[The Speaker]

From what I can gather you believe it's everywhere. Cycling, Swimming & Athletics are a given but you're also throwing Tennis, Soccer, Baseball, the NBA & NFL into it as well. My follow up question to that would be - do you place any value on sporting achievements? Ronaldo is about to become just the second player to pass 100 International goals, Messi potentially another Ballon d'Or, LeBron having another crazily good season/potential ring - are these things that should be given any credit, or must we simply dismiss abnormalities? These guys actually aren't that good?

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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The 2016 US Open was the last time one of the big three didn't win.

And that was Wawrinka, aged 31, winning his third major.

But no one outside the big 3 has "had a chance".

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It’s pretty funny reading some comments early in this thread about Nadal and Federer being past it four years ago.

It says a lot about the younger generation that they're still two of the top three at every major. That's the point.

True, but also remember how amazing it is that these guys have been able to keep up their standards at this age. So it's been tough for the younger guys.

Winning majors has been "tough". Who could have guessed it would have been "tough"? I thought it would have been easy.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thiem time?

 

[The Speaker]

Thiem time?

In any other era this would be his time. He is at what should be a tennis player's peak.

 

[pepsi]

3 slam finals. Regardless of Thiem winning or not tomorrow, I'd say he has achieved a lot.

 

[The Speaker]

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?

 

[pepsi]

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.

 

[The Speaker]

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.

 

[pepsi]

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.

 

[The Speaker]

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)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Traditionally male tennis players peak from 24-28

The point of this thread is that players in that peak bracket haven't been breaking through and winning majors.

 

[pepsi]

The point of this thread is that players in that peak bracket haven't been winning majors.

And I'm saying that having reached 3 slam finals is achieving something significant.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And I'm saying that having reached 3 slam finals is achieving something significant.

It's not winning.

 

[pepsi]

It's not winning.

Well I believe it is an achievement in this era.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well I believe it is an achievement in this era.

Winning any match is an "achievement". We're talking about winning grand slam titles.

 

[pepsi]

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.