UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Currently, no player younger than 31 has a slam title.
That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.
Is this the first time EVER that a decade passes without ONE slam being won by a player born two decades earlier?
I.e. in the 90s we had a bunch of slam wins from guys born in the 70s. In fact, the 90s were DOMINATED by players born two decades earlier, just as the 80s were dominated by players born in the 60s, the 70s by players born in the 50s.
What the hell is going on? Is the current generation of young pros the worst ever (and if so, why), or has science enabled pros to extend their careers beyond the 20s? In other words, guys in their 30s had always had their experience as an advantage but by the time they reached that age they'd be much slower on their feet, more prone to tiring. Now, however, 30somethings are as agile and fit as the young kids.
If it IS science, then that means the Big 3 are the lucky profiteers, lucky for being part of the old era (when you could win slams at 20/21) but also part of the new age when 30somethings can easily dominate. Maybe THAT IS the main reason they broke all the records? After all, for example Sampras didn't have the benefits of being part of this age. Just speculating... Obviously all three are exceptional talents.
It's all rather strange, this relatively sudden shift in age. Even teens used to win slams! (Nadal, Sampras, Chang, Wilander, Becker.) Seems like ages ago...
Prime years used to be 20-25 for a very long time, with most players retiring around 30. Now 25 is hilariously treated as "he still has plenty of time", while careers last until 35 or even late 30s.
That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.
Is this the first time EVER that a decade passes without ONE slam being won by a player born two decades earlier?
I.e. in the 90s we had a bunch of slam wins from guys born in the 70s. In fact, the 90s were DOMINATED by players born two decades earlier, just as the 80s were dominated by players born in the 60s, the 70s by players born in the 50s.
What the hell is going on? Is the current generation of young pros the worst ever (and if so, why), or has science enabled pros to extend their careers beyond the 20s? In other words, guys in their 30s had always had their experience as an advantage but by the time they reached that age they'd be much slower on their feet, more prone to tiring. Now, however, 30somethings are as agile and fit as the young kids.
If it IS science, then that means the Big 3 are the lucky profiteers, lucky for being part of the old era (when you could win slams at 20/21) but also part of the new age when 30somethings can easily dominate. Maybe THAT IS the main reason they broke all the records? After all, for example Sampras didn't have the benefits of being part of this age. Just speculating... Obviously all three are exceptional talents.
It's all rather strange, this relatively sudden shift in age. Even teens used to win slams! (Nadal, Sampras, Chang, Wilander, Becker.) Seems like ages ago...
Prime years used to be 20-25 for a very long time, with most players retiring around 30. Now 25 is hilariously treated as "he still has plenty of time", while careers last until 35 or even late 30s.
Last edited: