20 is just not enough
- Thread starter ewiewp
- Start date
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
They have to win one first...or do you have Cilic with 25 at 45?
I think a guy like Sinner maybe?
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
True, but one could argue that Med's run at RG this year would not have happened that long ago.
Maybe it is unique that the 3 guys are within 5,6 year time span.
Next dominant player will also reach 20+ rather easily.
This tour condition makes it much more probable.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
I sense a storm brewing....
It is a fact that grass and hard courts are altered to slower since late 90s.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
That’s undeniable yes but there is still a massive difference between grass, clay, and HC. People act like it’s all the same surface.
Plus if they’ve both slowed down, then why wasn’t the 90s “homogenous” as well with fast grass and fast HC?
Sorry, You have to wait about 10 years
.I bet there will be a player who will be approaching or surpass 20 slams.
Last edited:
You are offended by the word "homogeneous"?
Of course there are still quite a difference.
But much less. And it's bounciness? too.
Also current ranking and tournament system favors a few top players.
You are glorifying the posters here as analysts !! LOL
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Only 13% of the time TTW statistics are 1% accurate, but 105% of the time they are made up.
D
Deleted member 783101
Guest
Yea I can see Sinner marauding a Roland Garros title in a desolate draw with injured Tsitsipas and Zverev. This is bound to happen. The only big titles he will win will be scavenged. Hyena gen.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. There’s a homogenization of racket technology, more favorable draws, and increasingly a generation of players raised in academies that don’t teach S&V. Also a huge dearth of non-European players — America, Australia, and South America are all looking at their worst generation of players ever. Additionally recovery methods are better meaning players are more able to compete year-round than ever before (don’t discount the health element)You are offended by the word "homogeneous"?
Of course there are still quite a difference.
But much less. And it's bounciness? too.
Also current ranking and tournament system favors a few top players.
What I think is NOT that large of a factor is “surface homogenization”
the reason I hate this phrase is that I’ve actually played on clay and HC before. To say they play the same or even similarly is ridiculous and makes a mockery of what the game actually is.
I don't know what's the biggest factor.
The polyester arrived similar time.
The ball also gotten heavier and much more regulated tour wide. up until 90s, the variances in balls each tournament was higher.
The ranking system switched from best of 9 to 13 and atp removed bonus points for beating top 10 players.
Slams also increased number of seeds from 16 to 32.
I still think surface, balls and string affected the most.
It's very different sport now, maybe excep clay.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Yes, the tour will want someone to break the record as records seem to be a big thing for fans.
But it won't happen for a looooong time.
But it won't happen for a looooong time.
I'm just guessing a dominant player in next Era or generation.
As early 10 years, 2030 or so, someone will be nearing 20 slams, I'm predicting.
I don't think top 3 guys in next Era will be this close level.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Oh that's earlier than I thought. I'm guessing it'll be a kid whose about 15 now and comes up once all big 3 are gone, say after Paris '24. I think it'll take him a good decade to get the 20, maybe even 12, 14 years, so I'm saying 2038 or thereabouts.
It depends on what I meant by dominant player and an Era.
I basically agree with you on Big 3 and Borg and Sampras but I would also include Lendle.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
Definitely agree, and I hope you understand my overarching point now - the surfaces have all slowed which does make them more “homogenous” in that sense but it’s far from the only factor. players like Kuerten and Muster still did well on those lightning fast courts in the 90s. Kuerten especially showed the value of poly strings when he won the YE #1.
Definitely yes. Homogeneous surface wording was just for convenience.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
True. If you think about it Fed would have had 30 plus I’d Nadal and djoker didn’t come along. Someone could easily come in and win 35-40 slams without any main rivals. A few guys will come along under homogenized conditions and put all these records to Shame
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Had you said any other player I would have probably scoffed, admittedly. However, I really do have good things to say about young Sinner. If I could just get the ear of his team (or Korda's, or Auger-Aliassime's) I could showcase the results of my patented armchair analysis that would have them winning M100s in mere weeks.....
Anyways, I agree Sinner's ceiling is high. Will he go higher is the question? I'd like to see him start mixing with the little 4 more often. He already has a few wins over each of them. Dai su, forza!
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
The 90’s also had slow HC (Indian Wells, Miami, and even the AO wasn’t that fast) and the entire clay season in addition to fast hard courts and grass.
InsideOut900
Legend
I would simplify it by saying homogenous means the speeds range is reduced.
Slower doesn't make it more homogenous if it's an across the board speed downshifting.
Peak homogenity was probably reached in 2018-2019, when AO, USO, Canada, Wimbledon and YEC were all medium-paced.
The current trend is to make everything fast again, as the majority of big HC tournaments are medium fast right now, all except IW/Miami and Paris Masters.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Is Canada that fast these days? I never got that impression. Always thought it was more of a medium-paced hard court.
Tennisfan339
Professional
We'll see.
Everyone thought Sampras' record was untouchable and yet 15 years after he retired, not 1, not 2 but 3 players erased most of his records from the tennis books.
Now we feel the same about the new records. The bar is higher and there are some records that seem realistically untouchable. Nadal's 13 RG and his 80+ consecutive wins on clay... Federer's 237 consecutive weeks and his number of consecutive Semifinals in and finals in slams. Djokovic winning every Masters and slams twice, his 17,000 ATP points... possibly winning the 4 slams in a row twice. Never say never, but these records will be tough to beat.
On the other hand, imagine the career Federer, Nadal or Djokovic would have if the other 2 didn't exist. They would have 30-35 slams, 50-60 Masters and 600-700 weeks at #1.
If ONE player can come close to Djokovic's level but doesn't have 2 other goats to stop him, yes. 20 slams doesn't seem far-fetched.
The record of Masters (currently 36, Djokovic will probably win around 40 in the end) could come down even faster.
None of the CURRENT active players are going to win 21 slams though.
Medvedev will be 26, still has ZERO and he isn't winning RG or Wimbledon anytime soon.
Thiem can win maybe 2 or 3 more be with all the injures it doesn't look good for him.
Tsitsipas isn't winning Wimbledon and Medvedev/Zverev/Djokovic are all superior on hard courts. RG is his best shot for now.
Zverev is more multi surface but isn't it already too late for him? Will turn 25 and still has ZERO. Still fragile mentally in BO5.
Plus no one knows how long these 4 will peak. Will they be as good as Fedederer/Nadal/Djokovic when they're 35? Chances are higher they'll be done winning slams at 30-31...
The other guys aren't in the running for even one slam, for now.
The new trio (Medvedev, Zverev Tsitsipas) will rack up most slams for a while, but it's not like they have 20 years ahread of them. I think one of these 3 could win maybe 8-10 slams but no more.
When you see a new guy beating top players, multisurface and winning his 1st slams at 18-19, maybe the slam record will be in danger. The only current active player under 20 who MAY win a slam is maybe Alcaraz in RG, but his serve is so poor he'll never perform on fast surfaces. No one else in the horizon.
Everyone thought Sampras' record was untouchable and yet 15 years after he retired, not 1, not 2 but 3 players erased most of his records from the tennis books.
Now we feel the same about the new records. The bar is higher and there are some records that seem realistically untouchable. Nadal's 13 RG and his 80+ consecutive wins on clay... Federer's 237 consecutive weeks and his number of consecutive Semifinals in and finals in slams. Djokovic winning every Masters and slams twice, his 17,000 ATP points... possibly winning the 4 slams in a row twice. Never say never, but these records will be tough to beat.
On the other hand, imagine the career Federer, Nadal or Djokovic would have if the other 2 didn't exist. They would have 30-35 slams, 50-60 Masters and 600-700 weeks at #1.
If ONE player can come close to Djokovic's level but doesn't have 2 other goats to stop him, yes. 20 slams doesn't seem far-fetched.
The record of Masters (currently 36, Djokovic will probably win around 40 in the end) could come down even faster.
None of the CURRENT active players are going to win 21 slams though.
Medvedev will be 26, still has ZERO and he isn't winning RG or Wimbledon anytime soon.
Thiem can win maybe 2 or 3 more be with all the injures it doesn't look good for him.
Tsitsipas isn't winning Wimbledon and Medvedev/Zverev/Djokovic are all superior on hard courts. RG is his best shot for now.
Zverev is more multi surface but isn't it already too late for him? Will turn 25 and still has ZERO. Still fragile mentally in BO5.
Plus no one knows how long these 4 will peak. Will they be as good as Fedederer/Nadal/Djokovic when they're 35? Chances are higher they'll be done winning slams at 30-31...
The other guys aren't in the running for even one slam, for now.
The new trio (Medvedev, Zverev Tsitsipas) will rack up most slams for a while, but it's not like they have 20 years ahread of them. I think one of these 3 could win maybe 8-10 slams but no more.
When you see a new guy beating top players, multisurface and winning his 1st slams at 18-19, maybe the slam record will be in danger. The only current active player under 20 who MAY win a slam is maybe Alcaraz in RG, but his serve is so poor he'll never perform on fast surfaces. No one else in the horizon.
I don't know. US open claimed unchaned since 2004 DecoTurf (?) switch and Wimbledon claimed unchanged since 2001 grass change and 2003 irrigation related change underneath grass layer.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah that’s true. I was making a specious argument on purpose to illustrate that “speed” is far from the only factor to worry about on different surfaces. Bounce and movement differences with sliding favor certain shots: I.e. drop shots on clay, slices and volleys on grass, etc.
A grass court with the exact same CPI as a carpet court is not all that similar at least in my eyes.
I’m all for faster courts though. 2018 US Open was one of the most painful tournaments I’ve ever watched in terms of slowness.
SteffiGoat
Professional
Sinner won't win any slams.
I only see Sinner as potential for next dominant player of an Era type of player among next generation.
Plus his timing is good assuming big3 career end soon.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, and the likes were consistent on every surface too.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Perché no?
SinneGOAT
Hall of Fame
Sinner won’t win more than 10. I give him around 3-5.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
When David Ferrer reached something like 10 consecutive slam final 8, that put him in top 5 of all time list in that record.
Players of last 20 years are crowded in the top of that list.
Something serious inflationary happened last 20 years in tennis.
InsideOut900
Legend
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1artEsVLOOjwSEafl4RfMnLhfEUnsQKa7aQNIyaPVnLI/htmlview#
There is a spreadsheet I see cited a lot on multiple sites. It seems to collect only official data from the ATP, which is why not all tournaments have a speed rating.
Apparently I was mistaken. 2019 had most of it's HC tournaments rated as medium-fast at least between Canada and YEC. No data on AO and USO.
Ferrer on grass? Berdych on clay? Are we talking the same players
David Ferrer reached 10 consecutive slam quarter finals, (last time I checked. So aybe more non consecutive)
Definitely yes for entire 70s-90s basically.
AO was very slow and problem was the surface property changed depending on temperature.
Plus atp had indoor season with carpeted courts which changed to hard courts late 90s.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
He reached two Wimbledon QFs, in his entire career.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Ferrer was still making Wimbledon QFs. Berdych did fairly well on clay too.Ferrer on grass? Berdych on clay? Are we talking the same players
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Sampras had more success at RG, than Ferrer had at Wimbledon. And no one is calling Sampras a consistent performer on clay.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Berdych did reach a semifinal at RG and a couple of quarters, but he also had 6 first round losses.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
If Sampras had Ferrer-tier results on other surfaces, that would be fairly consistent. Of course, Pete was just in a different league.
I don't know if it's "homogenization" or if it's just new racquet/string tech making surfaces differences less relevant.
Rafa was such an anomaly on clay. Imagine what could have happened by now if we had just bruguera or kuerten level clay dominator.
P.s. then again what would have happened if rafa was not born with problem foot condition?
Similar threads
