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

#52
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.
Take Nadal out of last week's tournament and Federer is probably winning it. Not Thiem.
 
#57
We've seen an unmatched trio of greats in Fed, Ralph, and Noel. Never before have three players of that calibre ruled the sport simultaneously like that. BUT, by now it is impossible to ignore that we're dealing with an entire generation devoid of champion material to a degree that is unprecedented.

Basically all the generation from 1988–1997 and counting. That's ten friggin years of just pure void. (Stare into the abyss, and Milos Raonic stares back at you?) It's ridiculous. This generation has produced top 20 and top 10 talents, sure enough: Nishikori, Raonic, Thiem, Dimitrov, Cilic, Del Potro and so on and so on. But at least someone in that age group should be mixing it up at the very top as we speak. The closest we currently get is Thiem making a second slam final as he's going on 26. Or Delpo and Cilic putting together a couple of big runs per decade. That's the closest we've gotten. It's absurd.
 
#60

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:
Fognini is two days younger than Djokovic (and nine days younger than Murray). He is not lost gen.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
#61
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.
What were the ages of the 4 women semi-finalists at this RG? Hmmm.... perhaps this advancement in SM you talking about is only available to the men and has only been so ‘advanced’ just these last 5 years.
 
#63
I disagree with Becker. It is just that the Big 3 are that good! Younger generation is not able to beat them.
Well thats hard to defend.

Look at games won% which is probably the best stat we have. If you look at the younger guys on for example HC in 2018, Zverev is 54.81%. Khakanov 55.64%. Nishi 53.04%. Thiem is 54.29%

Big3 (4) is one thing, but these numbers are lower than for example Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer in 2011. Or a James Blake in 2006. Or Henman in 2004.

There are good arguments for claiming that the second layer of the former generations are better than the best players of LostGen/NextGen. Thats not good. Not only do we miss ATGs born post 1988, but we miss good second layer players.
 
Last edited:
#64
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.
Players like Ferrer and Soderling at their best were better on clay than Thiem imo.
 
#66
Sure they were. I think you forget how extremely competitive some of this years was. Back 2011-2012 Ferrer won over 60% of games played on clay, thats almost ATG level, seriously. But he was up against peak-Nadal and peak-Nole, and other strong players. The last years Thiem has been around 55%-58% games won on clay vs a weaker field. Still hasnt won a Masters on clay.
 

Peters

Professional
#68
It was/is an astounding, incredible era to be fair. 3 of the best players of all time, plus Murray who, although was a notch below, was still able to annihilate everyone ranked 5 and below. Remember all those endless slams where the semi final line up was almost always Djokovic-Federer-Nadal-Murray? Plus a lurking dangerman in the shape of Wawrinka who developed into a major slam-winning threat.

We're approaching the twilight of that era now, so at some point over the next 2 years or so it'll be all change. Men's tennis will be a weaker product when the remaining greats move on, and will probably remain so for many, many years - but it will reboot the sport. And at some point new greats will appear.
 
#69
I kinda agree, even though I disagree with all the hate being directed at the Next Gen. Tsitsipas and FAA are the only current young players that I would put money behind, and everybody else is lacking in some degree.
 
#72
I find the argument: “Player X would have had Y number more titles if not for Player Z” to be ridiculous.

ex. “Federer would have 30 GS and be the undeniable GOAT forever if not for Nadal or Djokovic”, or any other such variation.

I mean, “I” could be the all time GS leader and GOAT if “every player better than me” did not exist. We should all lament that the only reason I was held back from true greatness was that there were all these other players better than me who happened to play in the same era. It’s truly a shame.
 
#75
Well ofc theres something wrong with the younger players.

We hyped up Chung, a guy with no serve
We hyped up Rublev, a ball bashing, double fault machine
We hyped up Coric, whose a c****y version of Djokovic
We hyped up Kyrgios, a total headcase
We hyped up Gulbis, a mindless ballbasher with no ambition or passion for tennis
We hyped up Dimitrov, who has won a career 8 titles and reached 2 major semifinals

Etc etc.

We're hyping up players who are not good enough. This is nothing to do with sports science, modern medicine etc. None of these guys are major winning material, yet we've been hyping them for years.

P.S. Anderson reached 2 major finals. So the young players really have no excuse if someone as Limited as Anderson can achieve that.
 

Bukowski

Professional
#76
Not sure I understand his comments...
All players under 28 arent good because they havnt reached GS finals... Except 2...And those 2 arent good...
Sortve like he creates a rule out of nothing and it doesnt even apply.

My friends from Germany say Becker is viewed as a disgrace. Somebody who thinks hes significantly more intelligent than he actually is..
 
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
#77
Becker knows better than anyone else that you’re either Roger or on a bunch of expensive vitamins to be winning slams these days.

The man doth protest too much. (It pays to be in the limelight)
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#82
We've seen an unmatched trio of greats in Fed, Ralph, and Noel. Never before have three players of that calibre ruled the sport simultaneously like that. BUT, by now it is impossible to ignore that we're dealing with an entire generation devoid of champion material to a degree that is unprecedented.

Basically all the generation from 1988–1997 and counting. That's ten friggin years of just pure void. (Stare into the abyss, and Milos Raonic stares back at you?) It's ridiculous. This generation has produced top 20 and top 10 talents, sure enough: Nishikori, Raonic, Thiem, Dimitrov, Cilic, Del Potro and so on and so on. But at least someone in that age group should be mixing it up at the very top as we speak. The closest we currently get is Thiem making a second slam final as he's going on 26. Or Delpo and Cilic putting together a couple of big runs per decade. That's the closest we've gotten. It's absurd.
Thiem is pretty much the only 90's player I'd rate at a similar level to some of the pre Fedalovic era Slam champs, but being a clay specialist in the Nadal era, he doesn't have a Slam to show for it.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
#84
The two Canadians and the Greek Freak will soon change this situation.
In a couple of years more, the final relay will be given and we will say goodbye to the Old Big 3 to welcome the Young Big3 and a new hornade of fans of the world will be amazed with the new talents of tennis that like every new generation, they will take to the next level, leading to a success in all aspects for the sport of the racket.
 
#85
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 want to start by noting that I think there is some truth to what you are saying; however, it is a bit simplistic. The argument that you're trying to criticize doesn't say that Federer is clearly better than Djokovic. It says that Federer is better than Djokovic. So, it's not incompatible with your position. You and your opponents might come to a compromise agreement: if you are a lot better than your opponent, you should be able to beat him at age 33 (when he is younger); however, if you are only a bit better than your opponent, then he will be able to beat you if you are 33 and he is younger. Now, it's possible to reject this compromise, too, but what you say in your post doesn't address the compromise. Also, you can only read so much into two results, especially as one of them was very close - Federer almost did beat Djokovic in 2014.

By the way, Federer was not 33 at the time of the Wimbledon 2014 final. One of the annoying things about some Federer fans on this site is that they try to exaggerate his disadvantage by "rounding up" his age when he is within six months of another birthday. That's not how age works. Federer was 32 at the time of the Wimbledon 2014 final. He was still 32 on 7th August 2014. He only turned 33 on 8th August 2014. He is 37 now, not 38. Please don't encourage them by repeating their mistake.
 
Last edited:

Otacon

Hall of Fame
#87
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.
100% true.

In France for instance, the overwhelming majority of promising young athletes choose football/soccer. If French tennis was able to attract some of these young talents, there's no doubt they'd have multiple Grand Slam winners by now.
 
#92
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
Most of the men playing only seem to be there because they do not know how to do anything else, and the one thing they call their profession...that fail at miserably. Its why as of this date, the ATP's hyped The Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), continue to prove they are the most talentless generation 1/2 in tennis history, and by nature, aging, talentless players do not suddenly turn into majors dominators when they never exhibited the traits to win in their early years.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#93
Most of the men playing only seem to be there because they do not know how to do anything else, and the one thing they call their profession...that fail at miserably. Its why as of this date, the ATP's hyped The Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), continue to prove they is the most talentless generation 1/2 in tennis history, and bynature, aging players do not suddenly turn into majors dominators when they never exhibited the traits to win in their early years.
There can be some exceptions:

 
#94
if Becker was playing in the past decade he'd be lucky to get a slam or two

the 3 ATGs are just insane, everyone else is "below average" compared to their godlike standards

nothing to do with smartphone generation, useless millennials meme, lazy generation etc.

old schoolers would get put in the trash just as much against a zoning Fedalovic in slams

it's easy to sit back and talk smack
 
#95
There can be some exceptions:



He's an extreme outlier. The rest of that Legion are just there--and just as removed from being a majors winner as they were when they turned pro. At this point, 66-year old Jimmy Connors could come back and win a few extra majors before anyone in their right mind would bet on the Can't Win A Major Legion.
 
#96
Most of the men playing only seem to be there because they do not know how to do anything else, and the one thing they call their profession...that fail at miserably. Its why as of this date, the ATP's hyped The Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), continue to prove they are the most talentless generation 1/2 in tennis history, and by nature, aging, talentless players do not suddenly turn into majors dominators when they never exhibited the traits to win in their early years.
Exactly. I wonder if someone is waiting for Nishikori, Raonic and Dimitrov to start winning slams at 32-33 when Big3 retire:-D.

The fact that it is soon no slam winner younger than 31y cant possibly be seen as anything else than a very weak field of younger players. Thiem on clay is the closest you get, but i think he gets way too much attention, probably because he is the only one apart from Big3 at the moment. Imo players like Ferrer and Soderling at their best was better on clay than current Thiem.
 
#99
Perhaps he played well. He's old for an athlete but that doesn't absolutely exclude a strong performance.
Perhaps he did play well. Or perhaps literally no one under 30 can really compete in a freaking slam. I mean we are at the point where if there is a darkhorse run we expect it from Stan or some other older guy. Heck if Murray comes back we will think hey yea he's had 32 surgeries but maybe he can give these dudes a match. I mean seriously. These last 12 years or whatever have been something to see. Its incredible. Most of these people are beat on most days in slams before they even walk out on the courts.
 
You’re proving my point, it’s much easier for the really younger to make headway rather than the guys just younger than them, who have been bashed over the head a thousand times.

Raonic and Dimitrov know they are going to lose before the match starts. Tsitsipas hasn’t been crushed enough and so still has the self belief.
As Rafa said after the Tsitsipas win in Australia:

"He don't have been destroyed enough times to know that that can happen on a tennis court."

Ignorance is bliss. And the Lost Gen ain't ignorant anymore. They've seen the same story over and over again.
 
Top