Chris Evert clearly implies that a Generation in Tennis is at least 10+ years

[Razer]

At the timestamp 9:00 onward Legend Chris Evert clearly says she played Tennis for 30 years and she has played 3 generations of players


She says she started off facing previous generation of Margaret Court, Billie Jean King , then middle of her career her own generation of Navratilova, Mandilkova, Evonne & then at the end Monica Seles & Steffi Graf who went on to dominate in their generation .....these are explicitly her own words.

This shows why Big 3 believe that they are of the same generation & Sampras considers Becker/Edberg to be of his generation contrary to the popular myths by a few people on Federer being of another generation/era compared to Djokovic/Nadal which is clearly not true.


Proof Link :

 

[helterskelter]

Yawn.

 

[fedfan24]

you can say they mostly played in the same era but can’t ignore the age difference and how it impacted the h2h’s and late career inflation. Fed won 16 slams before djokovic won his 2nd

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Age difference does matter positively for a few years in the beginning of your career and adversely for a few years in the end but there is a lot of period in between when you are evenly matched, that is what these players are implying. It is not about Federer specifically, it is a general rule in Tennis, you cannot brand 4-5 years as next gen, the consensus for all time great players themselves is a benchmark of a decade at least. For people more than 10 years apart they dont forget long rivalries and hence they are difference generations. You are thinking only from a Federer centric approach, think from a Tennis centric approach.

Nice try, if you were discussing this topic under general term, you wouldn’t have mentioned Federer in first place. If you going to create a topic to discredit a certain player, own it.

 

[Razer]

Nice try, if you were discussing this topic under general term, you wouldn’t have mentioned Federer in first place. If you going to create a topic to discredit a certain player, own it.

Of course I created the topic to discuss on whether Nadal & Djokovic are next gens to Federer or not, so I did mention them, shouldn't I have? How did you come to the conclusion that I wanted to discredit Federer ? Federer's achievements are written in bold in history, he will be talked about for decades from now, so there is no discredit involved regardless of he being same gen/diff gen..

 

[ffw2]

Nice try, if you were discussing this topic under general term, you wouldn’t have mentioned Federer in first place. If you going to create a topic to discredit a certain player, own it.

Just low-effort trolling from OP.

Federer helps a bunch of folks out tho. So all good.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Of course I created the topic to discuss on whether Nadal & Djokovic are next gens to Federer or not, so I did mention them, shouldn't I have? However how did you come to the conclusion that I wanted to discredit Federer ? Federer's achievements are written in bold in history, he will be talked about for decades from now, so there is no discredit involved regardless of he being same gen/diff gen..

This conclusion is from many, many, many times this argument being used to discredit Federer ONLY.

 

[Razer]

This conclusion is from many, many, many times this argument being used to discredit Federer ONLY.

Discredit in what way?

I am not even saying that Federer is/is not the best player in his generation and neither am I implying that Djokovic is the best player in the 1980s generation, that is another debate (GOAT debate), but here the discussion is only that Federer and his 2 younger rivals are of the same generation, probably half a generation apart but of the same gen.

Chris Evert is implying that in her statement, so I thought a separate post is needed so that one could debate on that.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Of course I created the topic to discuss on whether Nadal & Djokovic are next gens to Federer or not, so I did mention them, shouldn't I have? However how did you come to the conclusion that I wanted to discredit Federer ? Federer's achievements are written in bold in history, he will be talked about for decades from now, so there is no discredit involved regardless of he being same gen/diff gen..

No, you created the topic to argue that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are from the same generation. That's not the same as opening a discussion.

 

[Razer]

No, you created the topic to argue that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are from the same generation. That's not the same as opening a discussion.

Ok, I've added a poll to the topic.

You can vote NO if you disagree with Me & Evert.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Ok, I've added a poll to the topic.

You can vote NO if you disagree with Me.

Mmm hmm, Connors definitely the same generation as Mac and Lendl. That's sarcasm BTW.

 

[SonnyT]

Connors and McEnroe are separated by 7 years!

 

[Razer]

Mmm hmm, Connors definitely the same generation as Mac and Lendl. That's sarcasm BTW.

Connors and McEnroe are separated by 7 years!

They did play a lot of matches. sure their peaks did not collide a lot but a rivalry as long as 35 matches is no joke, 1979-1984 Connors had advantage, 1985-1992 Lendl whooped him. Connors beat Mcenroe at wimbledon 1982 and even as late as 87-89 he has match wins over Mcenroe, in best of 3 but wins are wins.

My point is these legends often classify their rivals as same generation, among the 32 rivalries which spanned 25+ matches in the open era at least 14-15 of them have an age gap of 4+, the longest gap is 8 years between Lendl and Connors and yet they played so long. So maybe 9-10 years is the cut off for a generation and not 4 or 5 as we often believe. The professionals believe they are of same gen as their rivals.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

They did play a lot of matches. sure their peaks did not collide a lot but a rivalry as long as 35 matches is no joke, 1979-1984 Connors had advantage, 1985-1992 Lendl whooped him. Connors beat Mcenroe at wimbledon 1982 and even as late as 87-89 he has match wins over Mcenroe, in best of 3 but wins are wins.

My point is these legends often classify their rivals as same generation, among the 32 rivalries which spanned 25+ matches in the open era at least 14-15 of them have an age gap of 4+, the longest gap is 8 years between Lendl and Connors and yet they played so long. So maybe 9-10 years is the cut off for a generation and not 4 or 5 as we often believe. The professionals believe they are of same gen as their rivals.

It doesn’t matter you created this discussion to discredit FEDERER. You lose credibility anyway due to fact you and your ilk was triggered that Federer announced a line of sunglasses and discredit the Laver Cup by saying Federer using the event to make money.

PS: There’s live tennis being played right now.

 

[aldeayeah]

5 years-ish works better for melplers to me.

Femplers used to have longer primes so maybe 10 years works for WTA.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Connors and McEnroe are separated by 7 years!

Less than 6.5, actually.

 

[Razer]

5 years-ish works better for melplers to me.

Femplers used to have longer primes so maybe 10 years works for WTA.

Probably the changes in playing conditions + greater depth of talents available that eliminated men from the top quicker in 80s than women, it was not a generation gap of 5 at all IMO. Thats why in the 21st century under homogeneous conditions you will find that Big 3 have enjoyed same longevity as Navratilova/Evert/Serena.

Just like Evert says she played Court, Navratilova & Graf as the 3 generations, Nadal can say he played Agassi, Federer & Medvedev as 3 generations. It is not like Nadal played 6-7 generations.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Probably the changes in playing conditions + greater depth of talents available that eliminated men from the top quicker in 80s than women, it was not a generation gap of 5 at all IMO. Thats why in the 21st century under homogeneous conditions you will find that Big 3 have enjoyed same longevity as Navratilova/Evert/Serena.

Just like Evert says she played Court, Navratilova & Graf as the 3 generations, Nadal can say he played Agassi, Federer & Medvedev as 3 generations. It is not like Nadal played 6-7 generations.

19/3=~6

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

5 years isn’t that big of a gap. 10 years sure as heck is though. Fed gets points knocked off for losing Nadal/Djokovic but his losses at the end of his career to those a decade younger aren’t a hit at all. Just as Nadal/djokovic losing to 19-21 year olds isn’t a hit at all. Just Pete losing to Fed and Hewitt etc at the end of his career isn’t a hit. There’s a decade difference which is huge. You’re supposed to beat guys a decade older than you. If you can’t you suck as a player

 

[nolefam_2024]

5 years isn’t that big of a gap. 10 years sure as heck is though. Fed gets points knocked off for losing Nadal/Djokovic but his losses at the end of his career to those a decade younger aren’t a hit at all. Just as Nadal/djokovic losing to 19-21 year olds isn’t a hit at all. Just Pete losing to Fed and Hewitt etc at the end of his career isn’t a hit. There’s a decade difference which is huge. You’re supposed to be guys a decade older than you. If you can’t you suck as a player

Thank you for saying that. Looks like there is no escape for Federer as he is retired now.

 

[Razer]

Thank you for saying that. Looks like there is no escape for Federer as he is retired now.

I think to completely rule an era you need to be better than everyone who is inside the +10 to -10 range because in this range your main rivals will always be..

Sampras better than everyone who was born between 1961-1980, sameway Federer can say that he is better than everyone born after Sampras which is also 10 years, but in the below 10 category Nadal and Djokovic are present, that made it tricky for Roger. In Novak's case he is still fighting for top spot in his +10 range (1978-1987) while he already is proven to be better than everyone 10 years below him (1987-1996).

 

[Razer]

So if Alcaraz can dominate everyone born between 1993 & 2013 then he will break Djokovic/Nadal's slams record
+10 to -10 range
Djokovic & Nadal cannot harm Alcaraz/Rune's resume but somebody born in 1999 or in 2008/09 can, because this is not next gen, they are close to him to cause face him a lot and beat him in his prime.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Wow, this thread went from 0 to -0 creditability.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I think it's arbitrary.
Perhaps, 7-8 years if I had to define it, but it depends on a player's longevity.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, I'm sure Thiem and Novak are part of the same generation...

 

[MeatTornado]

It's a semantic argument with no clear definitions. It's not worth arguing about.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It's funny that Federer "haters" are the ones saying this when the argument used to be the opposite to discredit Federer back then.

That he didn't have strong rivals in his generation and that Nadal was actually NOT from his generation (let alone Djokovic).

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Please provide data instead of anecdotes. If Federer belongs to the same generation as Djokovic and Nadal, as you say, why were Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Davydenko and Hewitt, all Federer’s peers, all retired by 2016? Most of them retired earlier than that.

 

[Razer]

That he didn't have strong rivals in his generation and that Nadal was actually NOT from his generation (let alone Djokovic).

My view is Federer's immediate peers (+/- of 1 or 2 years) were Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian who were weak players by atg standards while Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro & Murray are half a generation apart, out of these 2 men are as good as Federer. Normally a full generation has at least 2 ATG to forge rivalries, here 1990 gen is rare exception where nobody is great. You can say Federer's peer group was weak but not his generation. Players of your peer group all mature with you but not all in your generation, some gap can be there. Do we not have 6-9 years age gap in real life between our siblings? Are they next gen to us? Obviously not.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer and Djokovic are beyond one generation. Their base game is so good that it's hard to define what generation they belong to. Especially for Federer we see he became number 1 in 2018 June as well. But most likely Djokovic will be number 1 in 2024 as well and we will not know when his peak ended and what generation he belonged to.

It's just impossible to predict when we are talking about the GOATs. And Federer and Djokovic have longetivity written all over their career.

 

[RS]

They played through large parts of each others careers. Who cares if it's the same generation or not.

 

[RaulRamirez]

As I wrote, it's too hard to pinpoint, but it seems like 7-8 years may work if I had to pin it down.
To me, none of this sh&t, er, stuff, matters to me in terms of Goat chatter, but as regards The Big 3, it's hard to say, as they each had so much longevity at the top.
But it isw hard to "prove" separate generations, as the three Big 3 matchups are the most played in the OE.

The only reason this is even brought up is to imply that at some point, the older player ia at an advantage, and then it becomes a disadvantage.
But even if it were possible to determine at what age that happens scientifically (note: it's not) what exactly would that prove?
(To me, next to nothing, as I don't care that much about H2H records.)

 

[Nadal - GOAT]

Age difference does matter positively for a few years in the beginning of your career and adversely for a few years in the end but there is a lot of period in between when you are evenly matched, that is what these players are implying. It is not about Federer specifically, it is a general rule in Tennis, you cannot brand 4-5 years as next gen, the consensus for all time great players themselves is a benchmark of a decade at least. For people more than 10 years apart they dont forge long rivalries and hence they are difference generations. You are thinking only from a Federer centric approach, think from a Tennis centric approach.

Totally agree..

Regarding Fed, he is a different gen excuse is lame. He lost to Novak at AO 08, Rafa at Wimb 08; AO 09 when he was in the age range of 26.5-27.5. Now this is prime age and he can't have being older as an excuse for these losses.

I love Fed btw and he did exceptionally well to adapt and counter Rafa and Novak later in his career. Though one has to accept that he will go down as the 3rd best among the 3.

 

[Shaolin]

5 to 7 years is about right I think.

 

[TMF]

Lol, another failed attempt of ******** fans trying to pretend the Federer age difference doesn't matter

LOL, let him cry all they want.

Embarrassing attempt use Chris Evert as his savior. Reeks of desperation

 

[Razer]

Federer and Djokovic are beyond one generation. Their base game is so good that it's hard to define what generation they belong to. Especially for Federer we see he became number 1 in 2018 June as well. But most likely Djokovic will be number 1 in 2024 as well and we will not know when his peak ended and what generation he belonged to.

It's just impossible to predict when we are talking about the GOATs. And Federer and Djokovic have longetivity written all over their career.

But it isw hard to "prove" separate generations, as the three Big 3 matchups are the most played in the OE.

The only reason this is even brought up is to imply that at some point, the older player ia at an advantage, and then it becomes a disadvantage.

One interesting thing which Evert said in the video in the OP is same thing which Federer said about himself in 2014-2015.

Evert says she was ranked 1 for long in 1970s and in 80s she retired rank 4 behind Graf, Navratilova, Seles but she says she is a more complete player and better player than she was in 70s when ranked 1, she mentions it twice.
So these players value their longevity a lot, but here we undermine them easily by calling them old and geriatic.

 

[TMF]

you can say they mostly played in the same era but can’t ignore the age difference and how it impacted the h2h’s and late career inflation. Fed won 16 slams before djokovic won his 2nd

16 >>>> 2 is very telling !

Another important fact is the gap between Federer and Djokovic when they first ranked #1 in the world is over 7 years apart

 

[canta_Brian]

Well I guess that settles it then. Unless a pro says something the OP disagrees with in which case all bets are off

 

[Razer]

Another important fact is the gap between Federer and Djokovic when they first ranked #1 in the world is over 7 years apart

Nadal and Murray have 8 years apart in their first rank 1, does it mean they are different generation ?

Rafa also had 11 slams before Murray won his first slam

 

[canta_Brian]

Nadal and Murray have 8 years apart in their first rank 1, does it mean they are different generation ?

Rafa also had 11 slams before Murray won his first slam

No. It means the generation under them didn’t perform. How many people have to explain this to you?

 

[TMF]

Nadal and Murray have 8 years apart in their first rank 1, does it mean they are different generation ?

Rafa also had 11 slams before Murray won his first slam

Murray isn't as great player as Nadal. If he's as good as Nadal, I'm sure they both would have shared the similar slam count and ranking since they are 1 year apart.

 

[Razer]

Murray isn't as great player as Nadal. If he's as good as Nadal, I'm sure they both would have shared the similar slam count and ranking since they are 1 year apart.

Then how come Nadal had 9 slams while Novak had only 1 at the end of 2010 ? Thats an entire career of Agassi + Novak's, aren't they similar caliber players separated by 11 months ? Then why so much gap ?

Point is your cannot pinpoint generation based on who has how many slams by what point of their careers, if Novak had only 1-2 slams when Fed had 16 then it means Federer got too many slams quickly before his rivals matured and it is a minus point for Novak that he matured late compared to Nadal. In Nadal's case it is a minus point that he matured early and yet he is not ahead of Novak in slam count. End of the day they are all same generation, different maturity points but their rivalries all started in 04-06 and lasted till 2020s period, Novak was already chasing Federer and Nadal from 05-06 itself, he took time to mature, so what ? End of the day their rivaly span is around 15 years which is a big span and this means they are same generation.

 

[PBODY99]

As I play age group tennis, ten years is the grouping I grew to accept once I became a Jr Vet
{ 35's 45's ....}.
During my time the change from wood to composite, standard to larger head sizes & the move to co-poly all change the way the game was played & players were developed.

 

[abmk]

Totally agree..

Regarding Fed, he is a different gen excuse is lame. He lost to Novak at AO 08, Rafa at Wimb 08; AO 09 when he was in the age range of 26.5-27.5. Now this is prime age and he can't have being older as an excuse for these losses.

I love Fed btw and he did exceptionally well to adapt and counter Rafa and Novak later in his career. Though one has to accept that he will go down as the 3rd best among the 3.

Yeah, literally very few if any use age an excuse for those matches.
Fed also beat Djoko in AO 07, USO 07, USO 08, USO 09.
and Nadal in Wim 06, Wim 07.
So what's your point?

The problem is for post 2010 matches where Nadal and Djoko benefitted immensly from fed being older. (RG 11, USO 11, AO 12, Wim 14-AO 16- the 4 djoko matches, Wim 19 etc.)

just because Nadal/Djoko got horrendous fail generations after them and weren't exposed post prime by any really good player at even Hewitt/Murray level doesn't mean age doesn't play a significant factor. I mean nadal was getting pummeled by 35.5 yo old fed in 17. Imagine him facing a prime ATG instead. So much worse. definitely loses USO 17/19 and atleast one of RG 18-20 and loses RG 22, obviously loses AO 22 as well. so he's at like 17 slams now, not 22. (fed lost to prime nadal once and prime djoko 4 times in 14-early 16. 5 times)

Fed's better prime to prime than both Nadal and Djoko at 3/4 slams and the YEC. One has to be seriously biased to think any one has to accept that he's 3rd best.
Djokovic and Nadal vulturing immensely in inflation and asterisk eras doesn't change the prime to prime part.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Don’t really get why it is so important how many years apart in age two players have to be to be from different eras, generations or whatever, if it is way more important, how many matches two rivals play against each other. Players peak at different times, so even if some years apart, they can still have tough rivalries and should be seen as from the same generation. Djokovic and Nadal have played more than any other pair in the OE, Nadal won his first slam at 19, Novak won one at 20, but only took off at 24. Assume Novak was 5 years older, their peaks would almost completely overlap and they would likely even have more meetings. Would we say they are not from the same generation? Borg and Connors are 4 years apart in age, I would definitely see them from the same generation.
Ten years is of course in most cases too many, as discounting for some incredible early bloomers, two such players will not have many matches against each others anyways other than if the older player sticks around way after 30, in which case he would have the age disadvantage for too long to make it valid.

 

[mike danny]

Totally agree..

Regarding Fed, he is a different gen excuse is lame. He lost to Novak at AO 08, Rafa at Wimb 08; AO 09 when he was in the age range of 26.5-27.5. Now this is prime age and he can't have being older as an excuse for these losses.

I love Fed btw and he did exceptionally well to adapt and counter Rafa and Novak later in his career. Though one has to accept that he will go down as the 3rd best among the 3.

Novak didn't play Fed in 2004-2006, but sure, same gen...

 

[mike danny]

Don’t really get why it is so important how many years apart in age two players have to be to be from different eras, generations or whatever, if it is way more important, how many matches two rivals play against each other. Players peak at different times, so even if some years apart, they can still have tough rivalries and should be seen as from the same generation. Djokovic and Nadal have played more than any other pair in the OE, Nadal won his first slam at 19, Novak won one at 20, but only took off at 24. Assume Novak was 5 years older, their peaks would almost completely overlap and they would likely even have more meetings. Would we say they are not from the same generation? Borg and Connors are 4 years apart in age, I would definitely see them from the same generation.
Ten years is of course in most cases too many, as discounting for some incredible early bloomers, two such players will not have many matches against each others anyways other than if the older player sticks around way after 30, in which case he would have the age disadvantage for too long to make it valid.

Novak didn't even play Fed in 3 of the latter's best years, so they can't be same generation.

 

[Bartelby]

I think matters move more quickly these days, so I'd put it at 5-7 years. 10 plus is absurdly long.

 

[Razer]

Novak didn't even play Fed in 3 of the latter's best years, so they can't be same generation.

Novak played Federer 2 times in 2006.

Their rivalry started in 2006 and went on till 2020, that is 14-15 years.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Novak played Federer 2 times in 2006.

Their rivalry started in 2006 and went on till 2020, that is 14-15 years.

Sure, and at that point, Roger had been pro for 8 years already. That’s a third of Roger’s pro career passing before meeting Djokovic for the first time. For the average atp pro, that would likely be half their career or more. Do you know why? Because they’re not from a the same generation.