No player aged 27 or younger has done anything

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Posts
6,256
Likes
4,238
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
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.
delPo, Wawrinka and Cilic winning 5 slams in 13 years ≠ younger players should now be beating the GOAT's.

In a similar way; Zverev, Dimitrov and Sock winning 5 of the past 12 masters ≠ the younger generation beginning to take over.

When all is said and done, you've still got 3 guys winning most big tournaments (4, until the Murray injury). That has remained a constant. It has been a domination over a long period of time, it doesn't matter which way you want to spin it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bulldog Joe

Premiership Player
Joined
May 23, 2008
Posts
3,379
Likes
943
Location
Tasmania
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
delPo, Wawrinka and Cilic winning 5 slams in 13 years ≠ younger players should now be beating the GOAT's.

In a similar way; Zverev, Dimitrov and Sock winning 5 of the past 12 masters ≠ the younger generation beginning to take over.

When all is said and done, you've still got 3 guys winning most big tournaments (4, until the Murray injury). That has remained a constant. It has been a domination over a long period of time, it doesn't matter which way you want to spin it.
That does not explain why the Millman was the youngest player to make the last 8 at Flushing Meadow.

There is an abundance of younger players on the circuit and they should by now be outperforming the likes of Cilic, DelPotro and Isner, or do you believe that the generation of players born in the 80's are simply better overall. The presence of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is not sufficient explanation to account for other 80's born players still outperforming those born later.
 

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Posts
6,256
Likes
4,238
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
That does not explain why the Millman was the youngest player to make the last 8 at Flushing Meadow.

There is an abundance of younger players on the circuit and they should by now be outperforming the likes of Cilic, DelPotro and Isner, or do you believe that the generation of players born in the 80's are simply better overall. The presence of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is not sufficient explanation to account for other 80's born players still outperforming those born later.
I agree with you in that there are no superstars in the Federer/Nadal mould coming through.

However, they have won 5 of the past 12 masters tournaments.

If Wawrinka/Cilic/delPo's 5 Slams in 13 years supposedly puts a pin in the argument that the big 3 have been too dominant, then Zverev/Dimitrov/Sock's recent success in Masters tournaments puts to bed the notion that young players aren't firing at all, and that this generation is completely useless.

It's the same (flawed) logic.

Selective statistics giving incomplete pictures.
 

Bulldog Joe

Premiership Player
Joined
May 23, 2008
Posts
3,379
Likes
943
Location
Tasmania
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I agree with you in that there are no superstars in the Federer/Nadal mould coming through.

However, they have won 5 of the past 12 masters tournaments.

If Wawrinka/Cilic/delPo's 5 Slams in 13 years supposedly puts a pin in the argument that the big 3 have been too dominant, then Zverev/Dimitrov/Sock's recent success in Masters tournaments puts to bed the notion that young players aren't firing at all, and that this generation is completely useless.

It's the same (flawed) logic.

Selective statistics giving incomplete pictures.
Zverev is clearly the best performed post 1990 birth, with 3 Masters titles and certainly has time to make a mark on the Grand Slams. However, I strongly believe we should have seen more challenge from the age group as a whole. It is incomprehensible that players like Isner and Anderson still rank so highly.

Eventually someone will break through and there are a few with some promise on the circuit.
 

BobbyMorri

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 4, 2009
Posts
6,063
Likes
4,290
Location
Tasmania
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Scunny, Furth

Not a great stat for the men born after 88

For comparison, 10 women under 30 have won sets in a slam final(8 have won one)
 

red+black

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Posts
37,210
Likes
5,047
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool, Storm
Delpo and Cilic turned 30 this week. Of the top 13, only 3 are younger than 27 (Zverev (21), Thiem (25) and Schwartzman (26)), while 15 of the top 32 are.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,295
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #458
Someone needs to explain to that guy that the game has changed and 30-somethings have all the advantages these days.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,295
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #459
I actually shut the guy up. :eek:
Your last post simply required no response. You said "thanks for answering", which is not a substantive response of any kind. It certainly doesn't do anything to undermine the argument I've made throughout this thread. Should I have replied with "you're welcome"? How does any of that make a salient point?

The fact remains: no one under the age of 30 has won a grand slam. I suggest that is some reflection on the quality of that younger generation of players - the guys 22-29 who have traditionally been able to challenge at that age. And they're not. What's your alternative explanation? Nah it's hard to win majors because the best players are good?

Yeah, cutting-edge stuff.

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.
What specifically?

He is talking quite generally about the state of the game. He says the top is strong and it's hard to win big tournaments. Yeah, no shit.

That doesn't make any specific point about why no one under 30 has won a grand slam. Which part of that is meant to spin me around?

In the comments you quoted, he doesn't appear to say anything about age as any kind of factor? So what is your point?

Wawrinka, Murray, Del Potro and Cilic have all won majors. But why has no one under the age 30 managed to win one?

Your killer answer, paraphrasing Federer, is that the top is strong and it's hard to win majors? Yeah, wow, blow my mind.

The reality is that all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been vulnerable at various stages. The picture you paint is of their relentless domination - as per Federer's comments, it would be difficult to get past all three of them in a single tournament when they're all up and about. But the reality is that they've all been off the boil at various stages and younger guys probably haven't actually needed to beat all three in one tournament. That is not actually the standard they've been required to meet. Or, at the very least, they've fallen over well before getting close to that kind of three-match test. If some young upstart like Zverev beat Nadal, then Federer but fell to Djokovic in the final of a major, I'd be quite impressed by that. But that's not really what we're seeing happen. Show me where that standard has come to bear on a young challenger? This imaginary standard of having to beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in one tournament and that being a bridge too far for a young challenger - can you show me where that has occurred in practice?

The are plenty of counter-examples, aren't there?

Look at the 2018 Australian Open. Dimitrov made it to the QF and then got rumbled by unseeded Kyle Edmund. So that's not explained by the greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, is it? That's all about Dimitrov not cutting the mustard. Look at the 2018 French Open. Thiem made it to the final, where he got brushed aside by Nadal. He didn't have to get past Djokovic or Federer en route though. So the standard of having to beat three of them doesn't apply. Look at 2018 Wimbledon. Raonic gets to the QF and then goes down to journeyman John Isner. Again, that's got nothing to do with the greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. That's all about Raonic not cutting the mustard. At the 2018 US Open, the likes of Thiem and Nishikori fell as soon as they ran into Nadal and Djokovic respectively. So what is this myth about having to beat all of them of them in a single tournament? That was not actually required as some magic rule, was it? That is not actually the requirement to win a grand slam. It may simply be a case of beating one of them when it matters.

It brings us back to the simple fact: no one under the age of 30 has managed to win a major. The explanation for that cannot simply be "Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are too good". They have been great - there is no doubt about that. And they remain formidable, to varying degrees. But the fact that no one under 30 has won a grand slam is also a reflection of the quality of those players aged 22-29. The greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic alone does not explain it.

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 the answers to those questions are related i.e. the younger players aren't much chop.

Bulldog Joe puts it quite succinctly: "There is an abundance of younger players on the circuit and they should by now be outperforming the likes of Cilic, DelPotro and Isner, or do you believe that the generation of players born in the 80's are simply better overall. The presence of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is not sufficient explanation to account for other 80's born players still outperforming those born later."

If Wawrinka/Cilic/delPo's 5 Slams in 13 years supposedly puts a pin in the argument that the big 3 have been too dominant, then Zverev/Dimitrov/Sock's recent success in Masters tournaments puts to bed the notion that young players aren't firing at all, and that this generation is completely useless.

It's the same (flawed) logic.
Only if you accept a false equivalence between grand slams and masters titles.
 
Last edited:

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Posts
6,256
Likes
4,238
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
Good to see you're back, was beginning to think you'd decided to give up. Throwing the usual rhetorical questions around and editing posts over an hour later, all the classics.

I'll break your post down into its various parts so that's it's user-friendly for you :)

The fact remains: no one under the age of 30 has won a grand slam. I suggest that is some reflection on the quality of that younger generation of players - the guys 22-29 who have traditionally been able to challenge at that age. And they're not. What's your alternative explanation? Nah it's hard to win majors because the best players are good?

Yeah, cutting-edge stuff.
I have already mentioned about 46 times in this thread how it is a combination of both these factors.

Are your eyes painted on? Did you have an accident as a child which has given you selective attention?

I'm really unsure sure why you are still failing to grasp this pretty basic statement.

A golden generation intertwined with an average next gen. Shock horror - next gen are struggling to win titles :eek::eek:

He is talking quite generally about the state of the game. He says the top is strong and it's hard to win big tournaments. Yeah, no shit.
I find it interesting that you asked me which points I was asking you to address specifically, and then in the very next line you've gone on to address one of the points he made. o_O

Odd.

But anyway, he is talking generally about the state the game. Correct. 10 points for you.

The top is strong and it's hard to win tournaments! Oh my god. I'll give you another 10 points.

That doesn't make any specific point about why no one under 30 has won a grand slam. Which part of that is meant to spin me around?
Someone needs to tell Federer that when he says "It’s just very hard, you know, I think for a lot of guys to break through and we have made it difficult" that he's not being clear enough.

Note the 'we have made it difficult' part. What do you think he might be saying there? Do you think he might be talking about a golden generation that have been stratospheres above their peers? That have broken records that have stood for years?

And do you think that might have something to do with why players under the age of 30 haven't won any slams?

Yeah, I'm thinking it might have something to do with that.

In the comments you quoted, he doesn't appear to say anything about age as any kind of factor? So what is your point?
So he doesn't specifically mention anything about age, and suddenly you are questioning what my point is?

How many brain cells have you got floating around in that hairy head of yours? You need to use them.

You need to connect the dots. 'We have made it difficult' = other players have historically struggled to beat us. 20 year olds have struggled to beat us. 24 year olds have struggled to beat us. 28 year olds have struggled to beat us. 32 year olds have struggled to beat us.

Do you understand that? Or is this all too much for you :think:

Wawrinka, Murray, Del Potro and Cilic have all won majors. But why has no one under the age 30 managed to win one?

Your killer answer, paraphrasing Federer, is that the top is strong and it's hard to win majors? Yeah, wow, blow my mind.
Why do you continue to categorise Murray in the same bracket as Wawrinka, delPo and Cilic? You're exposing your desperation in doing that.

Murray is in a league of his own.

Putting him in your argument is extremely desperate. Murray likely would have been dominant in any other era.


The reality is that all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been vulnerable at various stages. The picture you paint is of their relentless domination - as per Federer's comments, it would be difficult to get past all three of them in a single tournament when they're all up and about. But the reality is that they've all been off the boil at various stages and younger guys probably haven't actually needed to beat all three in one tournament. That is not actually the standard they've been required to meet. Or, at the very least, they've fallen over well before getting close to that kind of three-match test. If some young upstart like Zverev beat Nadal, then Federer but fell to Djokovic in the final of a major, I'd be quite impressed by that. But that's not really what we're seeing happen.
Whether you're impressed or not is completely irrelevant.

The reality is that all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have continued to win the majority of big events. Are you attempting to tell me this isn't the case?

Whether younger guys have needed to beat all 3, whether they've needed to beat 1, 2 - does it matter? Why does it matter? This isn't the point. You are, as per usual, missing the meaning of his comments.
Sometimes it will be 3. Sometimes 2. Sometimes 1. It's different every tournament.

They have won what - 12 tournaments between them this year? Including all 4 slams.

The younger guys clearly need to get through them in order to win. Sometimes they will need to get through all three of them.

Show me where that standard has come to bear on a young challenger? This imaginary standard of having to beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in one tournament and that being a bridge too far for a young challenger - can you show me where that has occurred in practice?
You're misunderstand his quote.

The are plenty of counter-examples, aren't there?

Look at the 2018 Australian Open. Dimitrov made it to the QF and then got rumbled by unseeded Kyle Edmund. So that's not explained by the greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, is it?
What point does this make?

Oh, Dimitrov was beaten by Edmund at the 2018 Australian Open = the greatness of the big 3 is non-existent? Really?

Going by that same logic: Dimitrov was beaten by Nadal at the 2017 Australian Open and would have faced Federer in the final had he got there = the greatness of the big 3 exists.

Funny, that.

Picking out a specific player in a specific tournament in a specific year to suit your agenda. Ha ha. Amusing.

Look at the 2018 French Open. Thiem made it to the final, where he got brushed aside by Nadal. He didn't have to get past Djokovic or Federer en route though. So the standard of having to beat three of them doesn't apply.
No, it didn't apply in this situation. He didn't have to beat all three of them. You are correct.

He had to beat Nadal. He couldn't.

Again, what point is this making?

You have made up this situation in your head where you're twisting Federer's comments and thinking he is saying that you have to get past all three guys in order to win anything of significance.

Look at 2018 Wimbledon. Raonic gets to the QF and then goes down to journeyman John Isner. Again, that's got nothing to do with the greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. That's all about Raonic not cutting the mustard.
Yeah let's just ignore that time where he was beaten by Nadal at the 2017 Australian Open.
And that time he lost to Djokovic at the 2014 French Open.
Oh, and that time he lost to Federer at 2014 Wimbledon!

Let's just ignore all that because it doesn't suit your agenda.

At the 2018 US Open, the likes of Thiem and Nishikori fell as soon as they ran into Nadal and Djokovic respectively. So what is this myth about having to beat all of them of them in a single tournament? That was not actually required as some magic rule, was it? That is not actually the requirement to win a grand slam. It may simply be a case of beating one of them when it matters.
If I understand your attempt at asking me a question correctly - you are trying to tell me that Federer was saying the reason younger players are failing to win tournaments is because they have to get through the man himself/Nadal/Djokovic respectively in order to win? That they have to beat all three of them in any given tournament?

Because he wasn't saying that.

He was saying - and I'll repeat myself here, that you will need to beat one, two or three of them in order to win a major. Now - and bear with me here because I know this is the part where you usually fall off the rails - that is not saying that it will happen every time, in every tournament. Do you understand that?

He gave an example... "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"

He doesn't even know if it has happened.

Because his point is not about specifically beating all three of them in any tournament in order to win.

It could be three. It could be two. It could be one...

‘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 brings us back to the simple fact: no one under the age of 30 has managed to win a major. The explanation for that cannot simply be "Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are too good". They have been great - there is no doubt about that. And they remain formidable, to varying degrees. But the fact that no one under 30 has won a grand slam is also a reflection of the quality of those players aged 22-29. The greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic alone does not explain it.
I completely agree with this statement. It is virtually a replica of one of my earlier posts.

A combination of the three best players to have lived plus an average next generation leads to a continual domination by these guys. They are the best for a reason. It would take another Federer/Nadal/Djokovic coming through to dethrone them, and as history has shown, they are very rare.
But the answers to those questions are related i.e. the younger players aren't much chop.
Okay, they're related. That's great.

Bulldog Joe puts it quite succinctly: "There is an abundance of younger players on the circuit and they should by now be outperforming the likes of Cilic, DelPotro and Isner, or do you believe that the generation of players born in the 80's are simply better overall. The presence of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is not sufficient explanation to account for other 80's born players still outperforming those born later."
And as I replied, over the last 12-18 months they have won more than the likes of Cilic and del Potro have.
Only if you accept a false equivalence between grand slams and masters titles.
If they'd won 5 masters over the past 13 years then you'd have a point.

But they have won almost half over the past 18 months.

So, as usual, just another nothing comment.

Bulldog Joe's reply to my original post was a decent summary:
Zverev is clearly the best performed post 1990 birth, with 3 Masters titles and certainly has time to make a mark on the Grand Slams. However, I strongly believe we should have seen more challenge from the age group as a whole. It is incomprehensible that players like Isner and Anderson still rank so highly.

Eventually someone will break through and there are a few with some promise on the circuit.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Posts
12,352
Likes
9,295
Location
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #461
I have already mentioned about 46 times in this thread how it is a combination of both these factors.

Are your eyes painted on? Did you have an accident as a child which has given you selective attention?

I'm really unsure sure why you are still failing to grasp this pretty basic statement.

A golden generation intertwined with an average next gen. Shock horror - next gen are struggling to win titles :eek::eek:
Well, I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is, then?

I don't dispute the overall greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. But if history is any guide, players aged 22-29 should be pressing them harder than they are. And the fact they're not is a reflection on the quality of those younger players. Which part of that do you disagree with?

I've never disputed the greatness of those three players. However, their greatness alone does not explain the lack of success at grand slams for any player under 30. That lack of success is also a reflection on the quality of those players in that bracket. It doesn't sound like you actually disagree. In that case, what is your argument exactly?

I find it interesting that you asked me which points I was asking you to address specifically, and then in the very next line you've gone on to address one of the points he made. o_O

Odd.

But anyway, he is talking generally about the state the game. Correct. 10 points for you.

The top is strong and it's hard to win tournaments! Oh my god. I'll give you another 10 points.
So what is your point?

Someone needs to tell Federer that when he says "It’s just very hard, you know, I think for a lot of guys to break through and we have made it difficult" that he's not being clear enough.

Note the 'we have made it difficult' part. What do you think he might be saying there? Do you think he might be talking about a golden generation that have been stratospheres above their peers? That have broken records that have stood for years?

And do you think that might have something to do with why players under the age of 30 haven't won any slams?

Yeah, I'm thinking it might have something to do with that.
So yeah, the top is strong and it's hard to win majors. Is that some big revelation? Again, what is your point?

I'm not puzzled by Federer's comments. I'm puzzled by the fact you think he's made some killer point that clinches your argument.

So he doesn't specifically mention anything about age, and suddenly you are questioning what my point is?

How many brain cells have you got floating around in that hairy head of yours? You need to use them.

You need to connect the dots. 'We have made it difficult' = other players have historically struggled to beat us. 20 year olds have struggled to beat us. 24 year olds have struggled to beat us. 28 year olds have struggled to beat us. 32 year olds have struggled to beat us.

Do you understand that? Or is this all too much for you :think:
So yeah, the top is strong and it's hard to win majors. Is that it?

You're now mapping a point about age onto Federer's comments when he didn't say anything to that effect.

The fact remains: no one under the age of 30 has won a grand slam. That is a reflection on the quality of those players aged 22-29. The greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic alone does not explain it.

Why do you continue to categorise Murray in the same bracket as Wawrinka, delPo and Cilic? You're exposing your desperation in doing that.

Murray is in a league of his own.

Putting him in your argument is extremely desperate. Murray likely would have been dominant in any other era.
Because Murray is another 30-something to have won majors despite not being at the level of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He was up there for a period of a few years but not over the journey.

Whether you're impressed or not is completely irrelevant.

The reality is that all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have continued to win the majority of big events. Are you attempting to tell me this isn't the case?
That is absolutely the case when we're talking about the majors. The question is why there aren't guys aged 22-29 who are better equipped to challenge them.

Whether younger guys have needed to beat all 3, whether they've needed to beat 1, 2 - does it matter? Why does it matter? This isn't the point.
Because beating all three is the imaginary standard advanced by Federer's comments. But in reality, it doesn't apply. I thought this was what you wanted me to respond to. If not, why did you cite his comments? Simply to say the top is strong and it's hard to win majors. Is that it?

He said: "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."

But that's not actually required for these younger guys to win majors. Or, in any case, they've fallen over well before testing it.

Look at Dimitrov again. He ended 2017 in fine form and started 2018 ranked 6th in the world. But at the grand slams, he lost to Edmund, Verdasco and then to Wawrinka in the first round at both Wimbledon and the US Open. The greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had absolutely nothing to do with him not making an impact at the majors this year.

Look at Raonic. A couple of years ago, I thought he was cherry ripe to break through and win a major. But in 2018, he got beaten by Lacko (who?) in the first round in Melbourne, missed the French Open and then lost to Isner at Wimbledon and the US Open. So the greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had absolutely nothing to do with him not making an impact at the majors this year.

Look at Zverev. In order, he lost to Chung, Thiem, Gulbis and Kohlschreiber. So the greatness of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had absolutely nothing to do with him not making an impact at the majors this year. Zverev is still only 21 but the point is that he's not getting beaten at the majors by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Thiem, in his defence, at least lost to Nadal twice, including in the final in Paris. But those other guys aren't even getting through to face Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

The younger guys clearly need to get through them in order to win. Sometimes they will need to get through all three of them.
Give me an example of someone needing to get through all three of them. Look at the examples I gave you from 2018. These younger guys struggle to get through even one of them. That's what is holding them back. They're not being asked to beat all three. Beating one would have got Thiem a major. And frankly, the likes of Dimitrov, Zverev and Raonic are falling to far inferior players. So the standard of having to beat all three of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in one major doesn't really apply. That's not the explanation for younger guys not winning grand slams.

What point does this make?

Oh, Dimitrov was beaten by Edmund at the 2018 Australian Open = the greatness of the big 3 is non-existent? Really?

Going by that same logic: Dimitrov was beaten by Nadal at the 2017 Australian Open and would have faced Federer in the final had he got there = the greatness of the big 3 exists.

Funny, that.

Picking out a specific player in a specific tournament in a specific year to suit your agenda. Ha ha. Amusing.
It makes the point that Dimitrov falling short in Melbourne in 2018 had nothing to do with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Same goes for Dimitrov at every major in 2018. The greatness of those players does not explain Dimitrov not cutting the mustard this year.

No, it didn't apply in this situation. He didn't have to beat all three of them. You are correct.

He had to beat Nadal. He couldn't.

Again, what point is this making?
So the imaginary standard of having to beat all three of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to win a slam doesn't apply. Beating just one of them would have done the trick for Thiem at the 2018 French Open.

Yeah let's just ignore that time where he was beaten by Nadal at the 2017 Australian Open.
And that time he lost to Djokovic at the 2014 French Open.
Oh, and that time he lost to Federer at 2014 Wimbledon!

Let's just ignore all that because it doesn't suit your agenda.
But those were at different tournaments. Those losses had nothing to do with Raonic's failures at 2018 Wimbledon - or at any of the majors in 2018. So yes, in analysing why he didn't win that tournament, or any other major in 2018, we should ignore them.

I'm not sure what you think my "agenda" is, beyond pointing out that there is a younger generation of players who are repeatedly failing to win - and only rarely challenging - at the majors. Is that an "agenda"? Or a straightforward point that is empirically true?

If I understand your attempt at asking me a question correctly - you are trying to tell me that Federer was saying the reason younger players are failing to win tournaments is because they have to get through the man himself/Nadal/Djokovic respectively in order to win? That they have to beat all three of them in any given tournament?

Because he wasn't saying that.

He was saying - and I'll repeat myself here, that you will need to beat one, two or three of them in order to win a major. Now - and bear with me here because I know this is the part where you usually fall off the rails - that is not saying that it will happen every time, in every tournament. Do you understand that?

He gave an example... "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"

He doesn't even know if it has happened.

Because his point is not about specifically beating all three of them in any tournament in order to win.

It could be three. It could be two. It could be one...

‘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.

I completely agree with this statement. It is virtually a replica of one of my earlier posts.
He said: "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."

I have responded to that imaginary standard, and demonstrated that it doesn't apply. You are now claiming he never said anything of the sort. It's a bit strange.

You asked me to respond to Federer's comments. You were quite insistent. What exactly did you want me to respond to? I'm really not sure why you seized on them as making some killer point in your favour.

Did you really need to invoke Federer to make that case that the top is strong and it's hard to win majors. Is that it?

And as I replied, over the last 12-18 months they have won more than the likes of Cilic and del Potro have.

If they'd won 5 masters over the past 13 years then you'd have a point.

But they have won almost half over the past 18 months.

So, as usual, just another nothing comment.
But have they seriously challenged at majors? That's what we're talking about, isn't it? Thiem in Paris in 2018 is the standout.

Bulldog Joe's reply to my original post was a decent summary:
He agrees with me completely. So I'm not sure what your argument is.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bulldog Joe

Premiership Player
Joined
May 23, 2008
Posts
3,379
Likes
943
Location
Tasmania
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
So in summary, we are in violent agreement, that players born after 1988 have been an inferior generation to the earlier born players.
 

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Posts
6,256
Likes
4,238
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
So in summary, we are in violent agreement, that players born after 1988 have been an inferior generation to the earlier born players.
We are in violent disagreement as to why this is the case, though.

My POV is that players born after 1988 (and before, too) were always going to find it tough to crack through the golden generation.

And therefore they can be excused for their perceived failure on the tour.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Posts
14,600
Likes
17,638
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
Zverev has a big future. Thiem should win one before 27.
Interestingly Kyrgious could have/will? with his level of talent.
 

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,676
Likes
22,188
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
I reckon it'll be Khachanov who breaks through and defeats the big 3 this year (if Nadal is not injured). Zverev need to improve his 5-set endurance, because so far he's been a big disappointment in GS tourneys.
 

adammania9

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Posts
8,699
Likes
16,799
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
University
I reckon Kyle Edmund, newly 24 years old, looks a potential GS champion, and I still reckon Dimitrov can win one though born in 1991, he isn't exactly part of the next generation.
 

Roobs321

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
6,768
Likes
4,083
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Sydney Swans GWS CBR United
I've liked Cameron Norrie's progress these past weeks, hope he can reach the same heights as Edmund (and De Minaur) is currently. Would have been awesome if Norrie won Auckland as an arguable Kiwi. Kiwi males haven't been all that flash since Chris Lewis. But Sandgren was defending those AO QF points from last year so extra motivated undoubtedly.

On the young guys, I'm confident that Khachanov, Medvedev and Coric will be in slam contention by this time next year. All three are building their career in the right fashion. Winning 7 BO5 matches might be a tough ask yet, but I like their mentality. Hopefully Tsitsipas as well, could be the next champion of the game, although I feel the other three have a more assuring solid foundation for the time being.
 
Top Bottom