Are the next gen really better than the lost gen or the 2nd/3rd tier players from golden gen?

[clout]

I know the next gen have won Masters and WTFs but in reality, it's because the big 3 are no longer fully invested in winning tourneys at all levels, as they'll pick and choose when to play their best and that's at majors (where these youngsters have gone awol at).

If we look at tier 2/3 players from the big 3/4 era who never won a major (guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer, Nalbandian, etc.), I strongly believe those folks in their primes would still beat the current next gen.

Then if we look at the lost gen, Raonic, Dimitrov and Kei were the "nextgen" in the early 2010s when the big 3 were in their primes owning the tour. Even beyond the big 3, the lost gen also had to deal with Murray, Del Potro, Wawrinka, and all the guys I mentioned above (compeition that the current next gen don't have to deal with). There was never much of an opportunity for the lost gen to break through as they are too old to wait out the golden gen, while also holding off the young gen. All the current next gen have to deal with right now is an early 30's Djokodal and late 30's Fedr.

It's hard to say, but I'm skeptical that players like Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapo or even Thiem and Kyrgios are better than all the folks I mentioned above, and that they'll only go onto achieve more due to the era they'll be playing in

I mean imagine what '09 AO Verdasco or '07 Fall Nalbandian or '08 AO Tsonga or '10 WI Berdych would do to these youngings.

Discuss

 

[Gazelle]

Don't know about lostgen, but Tsonga/Berdych etc. were all superior to nextgen. At least they knew how to hit a forehand. And they were doing as well (or even better) against Big 3, despite Big 3 being closer to their primes back then.

 

[Standaa]

prime Nalbandian/Davydenko/Tsonga/Berdych/Soderling would wipe the floor with these kids.

 

[zagor]

"Are next really better than..." - No, they're not.

 

[The Guru]

I voted yes because we haven't seen them at their primes yet but as of now the answer is no. Peak Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer/Nalbandian is better than anything we've seen from Next Gen so far but I doubt that will continue to be the case.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I firmly believe that they are better than Gen useless. Gen useless standard bearers were Kei, Milos, Dimi, Nishikori, Goffin, Sock, etc.

They were mostly deeply flawed players.
Nishikori aside from being made of glass was too small and didn’t have a serious weapon to rely on, and he’s probably the best of the bunch.
Milos, weak movement, BH, return.
Dimi is the closest to having a full set of physical tools but never had the brains.
Goffin, too small, no elite weapon, mental midget.
Sock, out of shape, all forehand.
Etc

Just by pure subjective evaluation, Z, Stef, Med, Felix, Sinner, etc have a more complete set of tools.
Then they’ve got their own analogues to the gen useless bunch, Shapovalov like Dimi has great tools but horrible tactics and consistency. Rublev and Berretini as one dimensional forehands, Nick as mentally fragile servebot, etc

Where you classify Thiem makes a difference, whichever Gen he’s part of looks better.

Tsonga, Berdych, et al are much better than either Gen until proven otherwise, on the basis of consistency. I do think they had their own limitations though - Tsonga BH and return, Berdych mind, Ferrer size and weapons, Nalby work ethic etc. A guy like Z has the potential to be better, huge serve and groundies, good movement and return, but until one of them delivers on their potential it’s all meaningless.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I mean imagine what '09 AO Verdasco or '07 Fall Nalbandian or '08 AO Tsonga or '10 WI Berdych would do to these youngings.
I'm skeptical that players like Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapo or even Thiem and Kyrgios are better than all the folks I mentioned above

Totally agree. Nalby would beat the pants off any of the under 30 crowd on any surface. Peak Berdych or Tsonga would hand out bagels to Thiem, Shapo or Med on grass (probably multiple bagels). The only under 30 player who would beat most of the players you listed would be Thiem, but only on clay. And Nick would beat Verdasco or Berdych on grass.

 

[Cashman]

The last fifteen years has been a bit unsettled, because the mature players are guys who mostly developed their games before the copoly revolution had fully occurred (or was fully understood). Some of them got lucky by coincidentally having techniques that suited new tech really well, and a couple saw which way the wind was blowing easy enough in their development to make changes. That gave them a huge advantage over the rest of their generation.

The new guys coming through now are the first generation to grow up with copoly, and as a result I think they will be much more competitive. However I would expect we will still see a small number of players dominate for long periods, as a lot of the things about the modern game favour this model.

 

[SonnyT]

I firmly believe that they are better than Gen useless. Gen useless standard bearers were Kei, Milos, Dimi, Nishikori, Goffin, Sock, etc.

They were mostly deeply flawed players.
Nishikori aside from being made of glass was too small and didn’t have a serious weapon to rely on, and he’s probably the best of the bunch.
Milos, weak movement, BH, return.
Dimi is the closest to having a full set of physical tools but never had the brains.
Goffin, too small, no elite weapon, mental midget.
Sock, out of shape, all forehand.
Etc

Just by pure subjective evaluation, Z, Stef, Med, Felix, Sinner, etc have a more complete set of tools.
Then they’ve got their own analogues to the gen useless bunch, Shapovalov like Dimi has great tools but horrible tactics and consistency. Rublev and Berretini as one dimensional forehands, Nick as mentally fragile servebot, etc

Where you classify Thiem makes a difference, whichever Gen he’s part of looks better.

Tsonga, Berdych, et al are much better than either Gen until proven otherwise, on the basis of consistency. I do think they had their own limitations though - Tsonga BH and return, Berdych mind, Ferrer size and weapons, Nalby work ethic etc. A guy like Z has the potential to be better, huge serve and groundies, good movement and return, but until one of them delivers on their potential it’s all meaningless.

I agree. Gen Useless, every member has a terminal flaw. Kei is too small; I mean, the guy is Rosewall sized! Milos is too awkward.

Dimitrov is much more interested in girls than tennis. He's dating a supermodel now; the only guy who ever dated both Serena and Maria! If he only had Andy Murray's work ethic!

 

[metsman]

Greg played better in 17 AO SF and Nishikori played better at 14 USO SF than lost gen ever has outside of Thiem on clay (even that is debatable). They may be on par with Raomug though, we'll see.

In general they are on par with the 4th tier of previous gens.

 

[chjtennis]

Very good question, and I think Big 4 being older made the NextGen look better than the LostGen in terms of achievements.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Tsonga is easily better than anyone born in the 90s.