A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.
Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.
Yeah just that Delpo hasnt won in 10 years and Cilic in 5. Dont know if i would call them slam contenders anymore.Delpo and Cilic?
Fognini is just the guy of Murdalovic gen who decided to just sit there to be prettyLostGen can’t claim Fognini - he’s 32.
Please inform of a fine slam result for Fognini.LostGen can’t claim Fognini - he’s 32.
Same here. When it was just Djoker fans on ignore, the board was still busy... now I'm ignoring Nadal fans in droves. Hopefully this foolishness subsides.
(Stare into the abyss, and Milos Raonic stares back at you?
Diamond Age is Big 3 plus the newcomers; all going according to script.
ATP RACE
1. Nadal R. 5505
2. Djokovic N. 4725
3. Federer R. 3360
4. Thiem D. 3305
5. Tsitsipas S. 2940
6. Nishikori K. 1710
7. Medvedev D. 1585
8. Fognini F. 1550
9. Zverev A. 1490
Nishi and Fog powering LostGen atm.
Advances in conditioning and sports medicine have allowed the old guard to hang on because they are as fit as the younger guys are but much more experienced. It's happening in every sport, not just tennis. Becker showing he has about 1.5 brain cells as per usual.
Well thats hard to defend.I disagree with Becker. It is just that the Big 3 are that good! Younger generation is not able to beat them.
Players like Ferrer and Soderling at their best were better on clay than Thiem imo.A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.
Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.
Players like Ferrer and Soderling at their best were better on clay than Thiem imo.
Sure they were. I think you forget how extremely competitive some of this years was. Back 2011-2012 Ferrer won over 60% of games played on clay, thats almost ATG level, seriously. But he was up against peak-Nadal and peak-Nole, and other strong players. The last years Thiem has been around 55%-58% games won on clay vs a weaker field. Still hasnt won a Masters on clay.No way.
Delpo and Cilic?
Because Roanic is 28 and reached a final. And I think Kei for the 29 year olds?Surely Boris means anyone under 30? How do the 28 and 29 yo's get off scot free.
Boris Becker spreading Career Inflation Era gospel @NatFAs the wise man Fognio Fabini once said:
"They have to run, win matches, and eat more pasta." @Red Rick @BeatlesFan
Thiem is pretty much the only 90's player I'd rate at a similar level to some of the pre Fedalovic era Slam champs, but being a clay specialist in the Nadal era, he doesn't have a Slam to show for it.We've seen an unmatched trio of greats in Fed, Ralph, and Noel. Never before have three players of that calibre ruled the sport simultaneously like that. BUT, by now it is impossible to ignore that we're dealing with an entire generation devoid of champion material to a degree that is unprecedented.
Basically all the generation from 1988–1997 and counting. That's ten friggin years of just pure void. (Stare into the abyss, and Milos Raonic stares back at you?) It's ridiculous. This generation has produced top 20 and top 10 talents, sure enough: Nishikori, Raonic, Thiem, Dimitrov, Cilic, Del Potro and so on and so on. But at least someone in that age group should be mixing it up at the very top as we speak. The closest we currently get is Thiem making a second slam final as he's going on 26. Or Delpo and Cilic putting together a couple of big runs per decade. That's the closest we've gotten. It's absurd.
AbsolutelyAbsolutely spot on.... There shouldn't be any sport where athletes well beyond their physical prime should be dominating. It's all in the head for the mentally weak lost gen and new gen
A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.
Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.
LOL at associating the word 'sport' with DartsAbsolutely
100% true.I will tell you why. Tennis has drawn in the great athletes. They have went to other sports. You mostly have players who parents could afford for them to play. Tennis associations across the world has failed in providing programs and financial aid for young tennis player. You have a limited pool of talent. The players that would have dethroned the top 3 are playing other sports. That is the unspoken truth about the Tennis.
Are you seriously comparing prime Djokovic with Dominic Thiem?
That, ladies and gents, is how easy it is to get hopelessly lost in your own argument...
Until it becomes profitable or at least affordable for good young athletes to pick up the game, the talent pool will continue to shrink. It's not rocket surgery.
As Becker observed: “I was just reading a stat that no active player outside the big three under 28, apart from Thiem [and Milos Raonic in 2016], has been in a grand slam final. That is not good. That is not a compliment for anybody under 28. And don’t give me that the others are too good. We should question the quality and the attitude of everybody under 28. It just doesn’t make sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...r-mens-under-28s-wimbledon-big-three-over-30s
Most of the men playing only seem to be there because they do not know how to do anything else, and the one thing they call their profession...that fail at miserably. Its why as of this date, the ATP's hyped The Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), continue to prove they is the most talentless generation 1/2 in tennis history, and bynature, aging players do not suddenly turn into majors dominators when they never exhibited the traits to win in their early years.
There can be some exceptions:
Exactly. I wonder if someone is waiting for Nishikori, Raonic and Dimitrov to start winning slams at 32-33 when Big3 retire.Most of the men playing only seem to be there because they do not know how to do anything else, and the one thing they call their profession...that fail at miserably. Its why as of this date, the ATP's hyped The Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), continue to prove they are the most talentless generation 1/2 in tennis history, and by nature, aging, talentless players do not suddenly turn into majors dominators when they never exhibited the traits to win in their early years.
All I know is a 38 year old dude who has played two clay tournaments the last two years made the semi-final at the French. I don't understand WTF is going on with almost anyone under 30 on the ATP tour.
Perhaps he did play well. Or perhaps literally no one under 30 can really compete in a freaking slam. I mean we are at the point where if there is a darkhorse run we expect it from Stan or some other older guy. Heck if Murray comes back we will think hey yea he's had 32 surgeries but maybe he can give these dudes a match. I mean seriously. These last 12 years or whatever have been something to see. Its incredible. Most of these people are beat on most days in slams before they even walk out on the courts.Perhaps he played well. He's old for an athlete but that doesn't absolutely exclude a strong performance.
As Rafa said after the Tsitsipas win in Australia:You’re proving my point, it’s much easier for the really younger to make headway rather than the guys just younger than them, who have been bashed over the head a thousand times.
Raonic and Dimitrov know they are going to lose before the match starts. Tsitsipas hasn’t been crushed enough and so still has the self belief.