Boris Becker: We should question the quality and attitude everybody under 28

emilyhex

Hall of Fame
#1
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
 
#2
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
#NEXTUNVULNERABLEGEN @Meles ? :unsure:
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
#3
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
They are an Internet generation, combined with the topspin baseline bash gamestyle ground into them from an early age.
 
#5
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
Weak nu-males with low T.
 

hipolymer

Professional
#6
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
It does make sense; has Boris ever been to a past-decade college campus or high school campus?
 

emilyhex

Hall of Fame
#8
He has a point, no one is stepping up, it's painfully obvious. I don't know if quality and attitude are the problems, well maybe quality, but that's kind of a sweeping statement. If quality means not winning the big matches, then yes, guilty.
 
#14
I can see it: Boris may well be a closet Federer fan, buthe's spot on this. Current tennis youngish generations are truly pathetic.
I think Boris is a Federer fan.

I remember when Fed took down Djoko in the Wimby 2012 semifinal and Boris was commentating for the BBC. He said something along the lines of we are not meant to be biased but I guess it’s good that Fed won as he plays the game how it’s meant to be played.
 
#15
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.
 
#16
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.
I think it’s a quality thing actually. Lost count of the amount of times young player x steps up to play Fed or Novak and loses the ability to hit basic rally balls. Depressing.
 
#18
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.
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...
 

WarrenMP

Professional
#19
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.
 
#21
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.
That maybe the truth in North America, specifically in the US, in Europe however it is patently not the case.
 
#22
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.
I don't even...

All of you are seriously drunk off this FO win.
 
#25
It really is ridiculous...Two to three generations behind Nadal and Djokovic have been god awful....Dimitrov Raonic Nishikori Thiem Zverev Kyrgios Shapovalov all have been either injured, not good enough or unmotivated to do anything significant in slams.

Federer at age 37 handles all these jokers....pathetic crop of young players...

Federer on the other hand had to fend off Nadal Djokovic Murray throughout his career.
 
#26
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...
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a fallacy of straw man. I am not comparing them overall, I am comparing Djokovic on grass with Thiem on clay. Thiem already would have won 3 RG titles if not for Nadal (RG 2017, RG 2018, RG 2019). And if Nadal keeps stopping him in the next 3-4 years, Thiem would have won 6 RG or more if not for Nadal. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. The difference is that Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and Federer is the King of grass, so he should have stopped him.
 
Last edited:
#27
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a fallacy of straw man. I am not comparing them overall, I am comparing Djokovic on grass with Thiem on clay. Thiem already would have won 3 RG titles if not for Nadal (RG 2017, RG 2018, RG 2019). And if Nadal keeps stopping him in the next 3-4 years, Thiem would have won 6 RG or more if not for Nadal.
As BeatlesFan pointed out, Djokovic (4 Wimbledon’s) on grass as against Thiem (no actual FO wins, although I see you are happy to allocate several hypothetical wins to him) on clay is not remotely comparable.
 
#31
Becker is right of course. It just doesnt make any sense that the only three players capable of winning slams are born within 6 years. Nadal won at 19, Djoko at 20, Fed at 22. Something is definetly wrong, it just doesnt add up that someone born between 1988 and 1999 isnt able to win slams, its 11 years with potential players.
 
#34
Becker is right of course. It just doesnt make any sense that the only three players capable of winning slams are born within 6 years. Nadal won at 19, Djoko at 20, Fed at 22. Something is definetly wrong, it just doesnt add up that someone born between 1988 and 1999 isnt able to win slams, its 11 years with potential players.
Delpo and Cilic?
 
#35
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
Bunch of herbivores
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
#38
He has a point, no one is stepping up, it's painfully obvious. I don't know if quality and attitude are the problems, well maybe quality, but that's kind of a sweeping statement. If quality means not winning the big matches, then yes, guilty.
I mostly agree with Boris, but it does seem that Roger, Rafa and Novak are exceptional athletes, physically and mentally.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
#39
Diamond age in ruins @Meles I want memes immediately @Federer and Del Potro , the hour required your humble presence.

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.:sneaky:
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
#43
Boris has valid points. You have to question the attitude of Zevrev, Kyrios, Monfis, Sharpovalov, Sock, and others I forget. If each of them can and has beaten a big 3 in masters events here & there, what's the issue with competing better in a slam? It has to be attitude if the talent is there. 20-30 years ago, prize money was a lot lower so there was more motivation to win. Today, players ranked well above 50 can still lose in 2nd round and still somehow earn $1M+/year which is a pretty good living. Am I wrong about the earnings? I think they are content with their lifestyle. let's remove Kyrios from it though as he is lost
 
#44
I Agree that Stefanos seems to have the game to be a slam winner. The more I see him the more I like his game.
He still seems prone to upsets imo. The game is there though. I can't see myself ever being a fan as long as he keeps these dirty tactics up on court. Seems like a good guy off the court. I don't know. Still have hope for Zverev and others. Thiem is the best bet. I didn't mention him earlier. I was thinking more about the younger guys.
 
#49
They are an Internet generation, combined with the topspin baseline bash gamestyle ground into them from an early age.
imo the lack of variety is a big thing and when most players play a similar style and they meet a big 3 player and have no plan b, well guess who is winning? it also doesnt help that the little distinction between surfaces leads to these players not feeling the need to develop beyond a certain point or coaches are only teaching one style
 
Top