Cortana
Legend
Yeah remember the post match ceremony speeches in most Masters? „I‘m sure you‘ll win many slams in the future“ or Baby Federer and all this crap.I remember the times when Dimitrov,Raonic and Nishi were supposed to take over
90s born male players have only won 2 grand slams
- Thread starter roysid
- Start date
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
So did the 2000s players. They're just lucky that they're playing this super weak era.
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
And of those 8 players, only two were born between 1990-1995 (raonic and Thiem) (or 5 out of 19 finals). And I don’t expect the 1990-1994 cohort to add any more finals.
duaneeo
Legend
If Alcaraz can beat Djokovic at 2023 Wimbledon and Sinner can beat Djokovic at 2024 Australian Open, why couldn't Medvedev beat Djokovic at the slam in-between? That would've at least given 90s-born players 3 whole slams.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Medvedev beat Djokovic at the 2021 US Open.
Alcaraz and Sinner wouldn't win any slams against the prime Big 3.
rUDin 21
Hall of Fame
I remember Nadal winning Madrid when Kei "Mr Glass" Nishikori retired in the deciding set.
Nadal had THAT kind of speech ready for Kei.
Also
duaneeo
Legend
Medvedev lost to Djokovic in straight sets at 2023 US Open.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Sinner lost in straights to Djokovic at Wimbledon.
Alcaraz lost in four to Djokovic at the French.
Sinner and Medvedev have the same number of slams.
Cortana
Legend
Didn't expect a picture of Cortana on this board lol. Oh boy how they massacred her character in Halo 4 and Halo 5. 2004-2011 was peak gaming. How I miss these times.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Recently got MCC as it was on sale for about 2 quid a game on Steam - reliving the great CE and learning some speedrun tricks has been pretty wild.
duaneeo
Legend
You said 2000s-born players were "lucky" to be playing in this super weak era. So where's the luck for Medvedev and other 90s-born players? Why haven't they added to their 2-slam tally since winning 2021 USO?
Fabresque
Legend
Nishikori?
EDIT: Born December ‘89. But he’s honestly so close that id still consider him a 90’s generation. Right around the Raonic and Dimitrov wheelhouse.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Well in terms of generations this list is pretty much worthless. No one considers Raonic and Tsitsipas part of the same gen. So this is just a strict discussion of decades.
Fabresque
Legend
Pretty sad how only Medvedev and Thiem managed to win. And tbh with their talent levels they probably should’ve won like 3-4 minimum for themselves.
Big 3 are sick individuals. Straight up robbed an entire decade of players careers.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, if only these guys grew some Wilanders like Safin, Murray, Stan and Delpo did.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
The 1990s born players are an admittedly very weak group of players. Perhaps of all-time. I see your point.
However, I am not particularly impressed by what I've seen so far with the 2000s born players, either.
One of the reasons that fans originally deemed the time period from 2004-07 as being the "Weak Era" was due to the fact that a 35 year old Andre Agassi was able to reach the finals of a grand slam. He even had Roger Federer on the ropes in the final. If Agassi had won that match, there would still be people bringing it up as proof of how weak Roger's era actually was.
Alcaraz and Sinner have each had one-sided loses to Djokovic in recent months.
I can understand chalking some of this up to Novak being perhaps the greatest player to have ever played the game. However, there is still a 14 and 16 year age difference between him and these two younger players.
In my opinion, if they could be defeated in straight sets by a 36 year old Djokovic. Then a 23-28 year old Novak would probably almost never lose to them.
If you go back to the days when the Big 3 ruled the game. The 2000s born players would be dominated in the same was that the 90s born players were.
However, to your point, I do agree that the 1990s born generation is clearly worse than the 2000s born generation.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, only one. Compare to how many Djokovic and Nadal have reached.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Djokovic was one set away from a CYGS at 36.
Can you imagine what people would have said if Agassi had won every significant tournament except for Wimbledon in 2005?
Nobody would consider Federer or Nadal to be all-time greats.
They would be ridiculed, just like we ridicule the 90s gen.
This is why Sinner and Alcaraz can't be all-time greats. They lose too many matches that they shouldn't lose.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
In his mid 30's he was twice within striking distance of the CYGS.
I mean, there are some people who give Fed crap for losing a set to 35 year old Andre. But it seems to be perfectly fine if players a decade+ younger can't beat mid 30's Djokovic. They are in fact called unlucky.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Exactly.
We have to hold the 90s gen and the 2000s gen to the same standards that we held Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic to when they were young.
Neither group holds up.
Nadal wasn't losing matches to Agassi when they played early on in his career.
Federer stopped losing to Agassi after he turned 22.
He also beat Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rios, and Sampras in nearly all of their meetings on the pro tour.
It didn't take Fed until his mid 20s to start doing this.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
I forgot about that...
"Barely Fed" is probably a more appropriate nickname for Dimitrov.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
3-4 minimum is a stretch. But both clearly had enough talent to win more than 1. And Medvedev still might.
Shangri La
Hall of Fame
The 90s next gen has become lost gen too fast.
roysid
Legend
Yep, the Borg-Mcenroe , Lendl-Becker-Wilander, Sampras-Agassi generations sort of fizzled out in the 30s.
Federer, Nadal and now Djokovic all won slams beyond 35. And they started winning slams at 19-20 so that's the biggest winning span
roysid
Legend
90s born, particularly the first 5 years were barren. We have
90 - Raonic. Big serve but game has several holes
91 - Grigor Dimitrov. The most hyped of them all. 'Baby Fed'. Two semis are the best he could get
93 - Dominic Thiem. 4 slam finals and 1 win. He did better.
Thats all in first half. Now we have
95 - Medvedev
97 - Zverev
98 - Tsitpitas
99 - Ruud
roysid
Legend
Grigor was the prodigy
roysid
Legend
Almost correct. You missed Cilic (born in 88) who won 1 slam.
So total count is 80 and running.
roysid
Legend
After 80s born players count : 80
90s born : 2
2000s born: 3
Lets see 70s born players count
Chang : 1 (First among them : FO 1989)
Sampras: 14
Agassi : 8
Courier: 4
Bruguera : 2
Kafelnikov : 2
Krajicek : 1
Rafter : 2
Kuerten: 3
Moya: 1
Ivanisevic: 1
Johanssen : 1
Albert Costa : 1
Gaudio : 1 (last win: FO 2004)
Total : 42 (above average). This 70s born generation had some serious talent to win 42 slams among them.
The next generation of 80s born of course overtook them very easily. The 80s born generation started winning slam right from the year 2000(Safin), then Hewitt(2001, 2002) and still going going strong now. A staggering range of domination.
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
What does it tell us?
Generally speaking, athletes get stronger and faster with advances in training, coaching, etc. It is true. We certainly see that in the NFL.
We believe that ATP players of today are, on average, better than average ATP players of the 1990s.
So let's be careful not to conclude that the quality of play has declined. It has not.
The average quality of play is always improving. That includes Generation Z.
Poor Generation Z results at Slams is a result of The Big Three dominance at Slams.
Cortana
Legend
I think it has more to do with the Big3 + Murray/Wawrinka than the other players. The 90s tennis players were just unlucky to be born right after the best tennis players we've seen so far. And one of them is still winning slams well into his late 30s.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
In 2011, 18 year old Tomic was the youngest player to reach Wimbledon QF since 1986
He also won a challenger at age 16.
roysid
Legend
Yes and the 90s born, particularly the first 5 year didn't have a great pool.
Raonic-1990 and Grigor-1991 were never slam contenders . Only Thiem-1993 was serious contender from 2018-2020
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
But were these guys prodigies? Thiem only started competing at slams at 21 and first slam second week was at 23. I also don’t see Dimitrov having successes at a young age.
Zverev was a prodigy though
At the age of 17 years and 2 months, he became the youngest player to win a Challenger title since Bernard Tomic in 2009 and the twelfth youngest in history.[27] Zverev followed up this title with a breakthrough at the ATP Tour level. He entered the International German Open having never won an ATP match but managed to reach the semifinals
But you are right that the first 5 years were bad. I think what contributed to that was that Eastern Europe had an extremely low number of births with the economic struggles they had.
Last edited:
rUDin 21
Hall of Fame
I had to lol.Big Halo fan.
She went down the drain especially in H5.
roysid
Legend
Bernard Tomic. Of all the people. The 90s generation was pretty bad it seems.In 2011, 18 year old Tomic was the youngest player to reach Wimbledon QF since 1986
He also won a challenger at age 16.
In the 80s also, players like Tsonga, Monfils, Gasquet though talented could not go at GS win level
The analysis is quite correct. All those players have limitations. At least Med and Zed have a somewhat consistent career. Zed is talented as anyone today,, is big, not slow, has the most weapons (serve, forehand, backhand swings) of imo all top players, including Djokovic, Alcaraz and Sinner, but somehow he cannot pace himself well, loses too many sets early on in majors or Masters, and cannot finish his top matches when leading, despite his big serve. He should be more self-critical, is saturated too soon,, and he also needs a good coach, and a break from his family. Med is resilient and consistent on all surfaces, but lacks the killer instinct, or the power punch, to really break through. He lost major finals with Djokovic and Sinner, he could well have won, whenever he had his chances, and openings to power through.
I thought, Thiem would be a factor, but he overplayed and his rising career was cut short by the injury. Dimiitrov is well rounded technically, but lacks power and will to win. Hurkacz has the big serve, but is mentally weak, and falters and lets his serve going down, when he gets to the tiebreakers. Fritz is limited in his game. Others like Shapo or Felix never made it, despite being talented. Tsitsipas shows signs of decline already. Ruud is a better journeyman, to his credit, has made more of his career, than he has tools.. I thought Tiafoe could be more dangerous, because his style is unorthodox.
The new generation of Alcaraz and Sinner bring somewhat fresh aspects into the game. At least they can hold their nerves and can win tough matches in the clutch. They also have good coaches and people on their side. Rune is very inconstent, only good on indoor courts. I hope that Shelton can be a factor soon, he has an interesting lefty game and plays attractive tennis.
I thought, Thiem would be a factor, but he overplayed and his rising career was cut short by the injury. Dimiitrov is well rounded technically, but lacks power and will to win. Hurkacz has the big serve, but is mentally weak, and falters and lets his serve going down, when he gets to the tiebreakers. Fritz is limited in his game. Others like Shapo or Felix never made it, despite being talented. Tsitsipas shows signs of decline already. Ruud is a better journeyman, to his credit, has made more of his career, than he has tools.. I thought Tiafoe could be more dangerous, because his style is unorthodox.
The new generation of Alcaraz and Sinner bring somewhat fresh aspects into the game. At least they can hold their nerves and can win tough matches in the clutch. They also have good coaches and people on their side. Rune is very inconstent, only good on indoor courts. I hope that Shelton can be a factor soon, he has an interesting lefty game and plays attractive tennis.
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
If guys like Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner etc. hold them off for another 2-3 years so that their numbers don't increase that's gonna be one of the most mind blowing things I've ever seen.
Cortana
Legend
I even stopped Infinite after playing it for 3-4 hours. The franchise died for me. But the first 10 years were awesome, never forget.
What are you talking about? Djokovic won 3 slams in 2023 and was in the final in another one, won YEC. He's still in his prime. I still consider him the main favorite for the next slams.
rUDin 21
Hall of Fame
Yeah, from CE to Reach was Halo's prime, although H2 is my favourite.
Good times..
Not only Djokovic, Federer and Nadal but also Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer.... were clearly better than anyone born in 90-94 (with the sole exception of "head-case" Thiem).
Then Medveded, Zverez, Tsitsipas, Ruud...fared just a bit better than 90-94 players (but I would say still clearly worse than Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer... even if playing against a worse and older version of The Big Three and these other players born in 80s).
Alcaraz and Sinner are only 20 and 22 and they have a barren field ahead of them (with the only exception of Djokovic, who is soon to be 37), so by necessity they will win more Grand Slam titles, but I'm not convinced that they are much better players than Del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer.... it is just that they don't have great players in front of them (just one, who is almost 37).
Then Medveded, Zverez, Tsitsipas, Ruud...fared just a bit better than 90-94 players (but I would say still clearly worse than Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer... even if playing against a worse and older version of The Big Three and these other players born in 80s).
Alcaraz and Sinner are only 20 and 22 and they have a barren field ahead of them (with the only exception of Djokovic, who is soon to be 37), so by necessity they will win more Grand Slam titles, but I'm not convinced that they are much better players than Del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer.... it is just that they don't have great players in front of them (just one, who is almost 37).
Last edited:
Adriano Panatta
Rookie
I don’ t think Thiem win vs Nole in US Open final…Medvedev is the only real slam winner of this generation and thanks a terrible draw.Sad for tennis fan, but fortunatly gen 2000 is better.
I read that players born between 1989-1995 inclusive (admittedly a pretty conveniently cherry picked date range given that Del Potro and Cilic were born in 1988 and Medvedev plus other grand slam finalists or masters series winners such as Berrettini, Khachanov and Coric were born in 1996), reached a total of 7 grand slam finals between them (4 of them by Thiem), and won a total of 7 titles at masters series level or above between them (3 of them during the 2nd half of 2017).
Now there are some caveats, such as Nishikori being unlucky during the 2014 Madrid final against Nadal, the persistent wrist injury troubles of Thiem, plus the fact that him not winning a masters series title on clay feels 'wrong' to me (then again someone like Ferrer not winning a big clay court title also felt 'wrong' to me) etc. But still it is pretty stark.
Make of this what you will, but below is a breakdown of the presence of players born within that 1989-1995 date range, in the top 10 / 20 of the ATP year end rankings from the past 10 completed seasons:
2014 - 2 in the top 10 (the highest being Nishikori at no. 5) and 3 in the top 20.
2015 - 1 in the top 10 (Nishikori at no. 8) and 6 in the top 20.
2016 - 3 in the top 10 (the highest being Raonic at no. 4) and 7 in the top 20.
2017 - 5 in the top 10 (the highest being Thiem at no. 4) and 6 in the top 20.
2018 - 2 in the top 10 (the highest being Thiem at no. 8) and 7 in the top 20.
2019 - 1 in the top 10 (Thiem at no. 5) and 5 in the top 20.
2020 - 2 in the top 10 (the highest being Thiem at no. 3), and 6 in the top 20.
2021 - 0 in the top 10 and 5 in the top 20 (the highest being Norrie at no. 11).
2022 - 0 in the top 10 and 2 in the top 20 (the highest being Carreño Busta at no. 13).
2023 - 0 in the top 10 and 3 in the top 20 (the highest being Dmitrov at no. 14).
Now there are some caveats, such as Nishikori being unlucky during the 2014 Madrid final against Nadal, the persistent wrist injury troubles of Thiem, plus the fact that him not winning a masters series title on clay feels 'wrong' to me (then again someone like Ferrer not winning a big clay court title also felt 'wrong' to me) etc. But still it is pretty stark.
Make of this what you will, but below is a breakdown of the presence of players born within that 1989-1995 date range, in the top 10 / 20 of the ATP year end rankings from the past 10 completed seasons:
2014 - 2 in the top 10 (the highest being Nishikori at no. 5) and 3 in the top 20.
2015 - 1 in the top 10 (Nishikori at no. 8) and 6 in the top 20.
2016 - 3 in the top 10 (the highest being Raonic at no. 4) and 7 in the top 20.
2017 - 5 in the top 10 (the highest being Thiem at no. 4) and 6 in the top 20.
2018 - 2 in the top 10 (the highest being Thiem at no. 8) and 7 in the top 20.
2019 - 1 in the top 10 (Thiem at no. 5) and 5 in the top 20.
2020 - 2 in the top 10 (the highest being Thiem at no. 3), and 6 in the top 20.
2021 - 0 in the top 10 and 5 in the top 20 (the highest being Norrie at no. 11).
2022 - 0 in the top 10 and 2 in the top 20 (the highest being Carreño Busta at no. 13).
2023 - 0 in the top 10 and 3 in the top 20 (the highest being Dmitrov at no. 14).
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
We are giving the 2000's kids too much credit here, tbf they had to deal with even worse versions of the big three and when they finally win slams, two of them were already gone. If the 2000's kids had to deal with a younger Djokovic on top of a healthy Nadal and a strong Federer they would win exactly as little as the 90's kids.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, but more often than not the 90's kids also only had to deal with one Big 3 at a time instead of multiple of them and they still didn't have to contend with Federer.
Thiem is the exception since in a couple of his high level runs he was stopped by the combo of Nadal and Djokovic (FO 2019, AO 2020), but Med, Tsitsipas and Zverev only had to beat one Big 3 and they failed at the first hurdle 99% of the time.
There was only Djokovic to worry about in 2021. Only Nadal to worry about for half of 2022, while Djokovic was banned for most of the year and only Djokovic to deal with since the end of 2022.
2000 born players have it easy. Imagine how draining it must be for a early/mod 90sborn player to know that you might have to beat the whole big 3 at their peak to win a major.
Ruud was one match from being world number one... Djokovic is dominating the circuit with an iron fist at retirement age. Stats will tell you that they are better but it's just the career inflation era in full force.
Ruud was one match from being world number one... Djokovic is dominating the circuit with an iron fist at retirement age. Stats will tell you that they are better but it's just the career inflation era in full force.
Similar threads
- Poll
