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

[Sweet Jesus]

The dominance of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is well-documented. Fine, throw in Murray as well if you insist. And the Stanimal.

But this stat still surprises me:

No Grand Slam, Masters 1000 or Olympic tournament has ever been won by somebody born after Jan. 1, 1989. That’s insane. Not like — “oh wow, that’s something I wouldn’t have thought” or “huh, interesting stat!” - but actually unbelievable. Now that the 2016 season is over, we’re looking at no 27-year-old (or younger) player who’s had any win of consequence on the ATP.

You'd have thought someone younger would have broken through for a win at some point, right?

Think about how many articles you've read about some up-and-comer being 'the next big thing' or 'the youngster most likely to challenge' the Big Three or Big Four. None of that has been based on anything.

It reminds me how, for a few years, before every Glam Slam on the women's side tennis writers would inevitably crown Serena Williams the favourite and then talk up Sharapova as her most likely challenger, completely ignoring the fact Sharapova hadn't beaten Williams since 2004.

That's slightly tangential but it's like there's a narrative that people have committed to, regardless of the results.

 

[The City Boyz]

The dominance of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is well-documented. Fine, throw in Murray as well if you insist. And the Stanimal.

But this stat still surprises me:

You'd have thought someone younger would have broken through for a win at some point, right?

Think about how many articles you've read about some up-and-comer being 'the next big thing' or 'the youngster most likely to challenge' the Big Three or Big Four. None of that has been based on anything.

It reminds me how, for a few years, before every Glam Slam on the women's side tennis writers would inevitably crown Serena Williams the favourite and then talk up Sharapova as her most likely challenger, completely ignoring the fact Sharapova hadn't beaten Williams since 2004.

That's slightly tangential but it's like there's a narrative that people have committed to, regardless of the results.

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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

True, but also remember how amazing it is that these guys have been able to keep up their standards at this age.

Nadal and Federer have both dropped off quite a bit.

So it's been tough for the younger guys.

Because they're not much chop.

 

[The City Boyz]

Nadal and Federer have both dropped off quite a bit.

Because they're not much chop.

Yeah, but until this year they have still been very competitive and this year Nole and Murray have hit the form of their lives at differing times, so there was never a window of opportunity.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah, but until this year they have still been very competitive

Competitive, sure. That's a long way from dominant.

and this year Nole and Murray have hit the form of their lives at differing times

Not really.

Cilic was still able to win in Cincinnati. And Wawrinka won the US Open.

The point is that younger guys aren't taking the next step.

so there was never a window of opportunity.

There's always an opportunity if players are good enough. It turns out they haven't been.

Was there a "window of opportunity" when Del Potro and Cilic broke through in New York?

 

[The City Boyz]

Competitive, sure. That's a long way from dominant.

Not really.

Cilic was still able to win in Cincinnati. And Wawrinka won the US Open.

The point is that younger guys aren't taking the next step.

There's always an opportunity if players are good enough. It turns out they haven't been.

Was there a "window of opportunity" when Del Potro and Cilic broke through in New York?

Yes, in fact, there was. The likes of which have not been seen since the 2013 Wimbledon and 2015 US Open.
Don't forget that Kei and Milos have also been in slam finals, so I wouldn't say they are "not much chop."

 

[hamohawk1]

Its a real hard game to break now (mens wise). You really need incredible endurance and big weapons. This sees the older players who have more athletic training excel, while able to refine their weapons year after year.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, in fact, there was. The likes of which have not been seen since the 2013 Wimbledon and 2015 US Open.

I don't know what you mean here.

Del Potro and Cilic broke through at Grand Slams because they played well. Del Potro beat Nadal and Federer to win the title. Cilic also beat Federer to win in New York.

How is that a "window of opportunity"? They won because they were good enough. It's not like they were Stephen Bradbury and everyone else fell over.

Don't forget that Kei and Milos have also been in slam finals, so I wouldn't say they are "not much chop."

But they haven't won anything. That's the point.

You now have the remarkable situation where no player 27 or younger has won a Grand Slam or a Masters title.

You can't simply explain it away by saying: 'Well, it's been impossible'. They haven't taken the next step.

 

[The City Boyz]

I don't know what you mean here.

Del Potro and Cilic broke through at Grand Slams because they played well. Del Potro beat Nadal and Federer to win the title. Cilic also beat Federer to win in New York.

How is that a "window of opportunity"? They won because they were good enough. It's not like they were Stephen Bradbury and everyone else fell over.

But they haven't won anything. That's the point.

You now have the remarkable situation where no player 27 or younger has won a Grand Slam or a Masters title.

You can't simply explain it away by saying: 'Well, it's been impossible'. They haven't taken the next step.

Look, both of us have points here. And yes, the younger generation haven't really burst onto the scene. However, I think we should wait for a couple of years before completely writing this off as 'generation useless'.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Look, both of us have points here.

Well, I don't accept yours.

I don't see how you can argue that Del Potro and Cilic had a "window of opportunity" while insisting younger players haven't had a chance.

Wawrinka just won the US Open. Is he now some unbeatable juggernaut that younger players simply can't be expected to defeat?

Everyone is in the same boat. Everyone has the opportunity if they're good enough. The younger players simply haven't taken the next step.

And yes, the younger generation haven't really burst onto the scene. However, I think we should wait for a couple of years before completely writing this off as 'generation useless'.

Why not give them another decade just to be on the safe side?

 

[The City Boyz]

Well, I don't accept yours.

I don't see how you can argue that Del Potro and Cilic had a "window of opportunity" while insisting younger players haven't had a chance.

Wawrinka won the US Open. Is he now some unbeatable juggernaut that younger players simply can't be expected to defeat?

Everyone is in the same boat. Everyone has the opportunity if they're good enough. The younger players simply haven't taken the next step.

Why not give them another decade just to be on the safe side?

But that's the point! 'the younger generation!' They are young. You are kidding yourself if you think that Kei, Milos, Nick, Zverev and Thiem have hit their peaks yet. If you created this thread is 1.5 years time, and recited the same statistic, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but not yet.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But that's the point! 'the younger generation!' They are young.

27 years old or younger? That's not that young.

You are kidding yourself if you think that Kei, Milos, Nick, Zverev and Thiem have hit their peaks yet.

Raonic is 25. Nishikori is 26. Historically, top-shelf players are winning major titles by that age.

 

[The City Boyz]

27 years old or younger? That's not that young.

Raonic is 25. Nishikori is 26. Historically, top-shelf players are winning major titles by that age.

Yeah, but not until now have there have been much better players.

 

[The City Boyz]

27 years old or younger? That's not that young.

Raonic is 25. Nishikori is 26. Historically, top-shelf players are winning major titles by that age.

Also, I reckon Thiem, Zverev and Nick have much more talent than both of them and could win a combined total of 20+ slams.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah, but not until now have there have been much better players.

Huh?

Also, I reckon Thiem, Zverev and Nick have much more talent than both of them and could win a combined total of 20+ slams.

If you say so.

Will we have to wait until every established player retires so there's a "window of opportunity" for them?

 

[The City Boyz]

Huh?

If you say so.

Will we have to wait until every established player retires so there's a "window of opportunity" for them?

Sorry about the first post, I sent it halfway through.
Regarding the second post, I don't think you realise what a special generation of players we have just witnessed. Will these guys be as good as the Big 4? Probably not, but I'm sick of people like you complaining that we are in a "useless generation", when the one we have just seen was one of the best of all time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Regarding the second post, I don't think you realise what a special generation of players we have just witnessed.

Spare me. Don't give me this 'I don't think you realise' rubbish as though I've overlooked something elementary. Everyone knows the trio of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal represents a rare concentration of greatness. Do you really think you're pointing out something new there?

That said, it does not on its own explain why no one 27 or younger has managed to win anything of note. Not even a Masters title.

Tsonga won a Masters title in 2014, Cilic won one in 2016. Wawrinka has emerged as a late bloomer and racked up three Grand Slam wins. What are these if not "windows of opportunity"?

So this argument that the best players - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray - have simply been too dominant for any younger player to have a chance just doesn't hold water. Wawrinka just won the US Open. Is he unbeatable now as well?

The reality is that Nadal and Federer have dropped off big time and Djokovic looked very beatable for much of the second half of 2016. The opportunity was there for any younger player who was good enough. They weren't. The argument about a 'special generation' isn't a magic wand that just neatly explains this away, particularly when Federer and Nadal are no longer dominant.

Will these guys be as good as the Big 4? Probably not, but I'm sick of people like you complaining that we are in a "useless generation", when the one we have just seen was one of the best of all time.

You can be sick of it if you like. But the reality is that no one 27 or younger has won anything of note.

The trio of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic is certainly one of the best of all time. But we now have Wawrinka and Murray winning Grand Slams. I don't think they are in the category of being so unassailably good that the younger players simply don't have a shot.

The likes of Raonic and Nishikori have underachieved to date when you consider their ages.

 

[The City Boyz]

Spare me. Don't give me this 'I don't think you realise' rubbish as though I've overlooked something elementary. Everyone knows the trio of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal represents a rare concentration of greatness. Do you really think you're pointing out something new there?

That said, it does not on its own explain why no one 27 or younger has managed to win anything of note. Not even a Masters title.

Tsonga won a Masters title in 2014, Cilic won one in 2016. Wawrinka has emerged as late bloomer and racked up three Grand Slam wins. What are these if not "windows of opportunity"?

So this argument that the best players - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray - have simply been too dominant for any younger player to have a chance just doesn't hold water. Wawrinka just won the US Open. Is he unbeatable now as well?

The reality is that Nadal and Federer have dropped off big time and Djokovic looked very beatable for much of the second half of 2016. The opportunity was there for any younger player who was good enough. They weren't. The argument about a 'special generation' isn't a magic wand that just neatly explains this away, particularly when Federer and Nadal are no longer dominant.

You can be sick of it if you like. But the reality is that no one 27 or younger has won anything of note.

The trio of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic is certainly one of the best of all time. But we now have Wawrinka and Murray winning Grand Slams. I don't think they are in the category of being so unassailably good that the younger players simply don't have a shot.

The likes of Raonic and Nishikori have underachieved to date when you consider their ages.

Look, I'm not saying that these guys are going to be the GOAT, but both of them will (barring disaster) end up winning Grand Slams, which is contrary to your theory that these guys are 'not much chop'.
You definetely have some valid points, but all I'm trying to say is that these guys aren't as useless as you say they are.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Look, I'm not saying that these guys are going to be the GOAT, but both of them will (barring disaster) end up winning Grand Slams, which is contrary to your theory that these guys are 'not much chop'.

I've said they've underachieved to date, as neither have won so much as a Masters title. So yeah, based on their results, they're not much chop.

You definetely have some valid points, but all I'm trying to say is that these guys aren't as useless as you say they are.

Despite neither having won anything of note.

Spare me the banalities.

 

[Alesana]

The dominance of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is well-documented. Fine, throw in Murray as well if you insist. And the Stanimal.

But this stat still surprises me:

You'd have thought someone younger would have broken through for a win at some point, right?

Think about how many articles you've read about some up-and-comer being 'the next big thing' or 'the youngster most likely to challenge' the Big Three or Big Four. None of that has been based on anything.

It reminds me how, for a few years, before every Glam Slam on the women's side tennis writers would inevitably crown Serena Williams the favourite and then talk up Sharapova as her most likely challenger, completely ignoring the fact Sharapova hadn't beaten Williams since 2004.

That's slightly tangential but it's like there's a narrative that people have committed to, regardless of the results.

How is it "unbelievable" when the average age of the mens top 100 is currently 28 years and 4 months? The game has shifted, the age to expect significant results has risen, not stayed the same like you seem to think.

 

[The City Boyz]

I've said they've underachieved to date, as neither have won so much as a Masters title. So yeah, based on their results, they're not much chop.

Despite neither having won anything of note.

Spare me the banalities.

As Alesana said, the game has changed. Give them time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

How is it "unbelievable" when the average age of the mens top 100 is currently 28 years and 4 months? The game has shifted, the age to expect significant results has risen, not stayed the same like you seem to think.

Are you really saying players shouldn't be expecting to win anything of note until they're 28 or older? Why?

If they're good enough, age would be no factor.

The game has only shifted in the sense that these older guys are staying dominant longer because the younger guys haven't taken the next step - and that's the point. Wawrinka doesn't have any inherent advantage over a 26-year-old just because he's five years older.

You seem to be suggesting that the lack of success for anyone 27 or younger is systemic. But I don't see how that's the case.

As Alesana said, the game has changed. Give them time.

How many banalities can you fit in one sentence? Why not top it off by saying 'at the end of the day, all's well that ends well'?

The game hasn't changed to the point that only guys 28 and older should be winning big tournaments, particularly when two of that older dominant set have dropped off.

What is this new magic rule that says only Wawrinka, Djokovic and Murray can win tournaments and anyone 27 or younger is inevitably out of their depth? When did that become a given?

FMD, 27 isn't that young. That's guys who've been on tour for 9 or 10 years.

 

[The City Boyz]

Are you really saying players shouldn't be expecting to win anything of note until they're 28 or older?

No, but you can't judge someone's success as a career on what they do before they turn 28!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, but you can't judge someone's success as a career on what they do before they turn 28!

You can make the judgement that they've underachieved to date.

 

[The City Boyz]

You can make the judgement that they've underachieved to date.

But have they really?
If you asked me in 2012 whether Raonic or Nishi had won any Grand Slams by now, my answer would have been a resounding no. As would have many other people's.