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

Do you agree with Evert's classification of a generation gap?


  • Total voters
    33

Razer

G.O.A.T.
5 of the 9 slams are on clay. Nadal is GOAT on clay plus an early bloomer who got ahead start at winning slam over a late bloomer Djokovic. Djokovic can't win anything in Federer's generation(except mono Fed at the 2008 AO), because every gate was guarded at all 4 slams. It's also worth mention that Federer faced a better version of Nadal on clay than Djokovic did in his own generation.

Nadal early career achievement is an anomaly so you can't paint the same picture for every players on the tour. You cherry pick certain year to suit your argument, but of course leave out many details

Djokodal are in the same generation. Since 2010, both players have won the vast majority of the slams because they are only 1 year apart.

Also comparing Murray to Nadal is a dumb analogy. Of course Nadal will have way more slams than Murray because he's a greater/better player, regardless if they are at the same age or 6 years apart.


I disagree.
Federer was the best player during his peak/prime years and if you put him in any other generation I can see him dominate like he use to. Perhaps even more since Nadal isn't goating on clay in which he owns all surfaces throughout the year. Djokovic had to wait until Federer decline and Nadal wasn't as dominant on clay and got worse on grass.

Both Federer/Nole are late bloomer. Federer's breakout year was starting 2004 and Nole was starting 2011. That's 7 years apart !

Between 2003-2010:
Federer - 16 slams
Nole - 1 slam*

Between 2011 - present:
Federer - 3
Nole - 21

Nole's breakthrough year was 2008, Federer's was 03, they were ranked in top 10 for the first time in 07 and 02 respectively, that is only 5 years apart, Nadal made a breakthough into top 10 in 2005 itself, so these people are in the same range. Novak struggling in 09-10 is his own problem, physical issue, gluten etc etc, that cannot be an excuse to put them in different generations. Roger won same number of non clay slams as Nadal in 2010s decade, he would have actually won more than Nadal if Novak did no exist. Roger was a bit declined but not as declined as you think. He became really declined and bad after 2017. While he certanly was not in his prime (even though he claims in 2015 that he is in his prime) he was not that declined. In 2015 Roger had a higher games dominance ratio in slams than Novak, he just was beaten by novak, otherwise he could have won 2015W, 2015USO and 2016AO, a hattrick of slams was his.
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
Data has been given to you on age gap between rivalries but you dont want to see it, 50% of the rivalries involving 20+ matches have age gaps between the players, the max being 8 years.... but then you dont want to see..... overlap of careers 75-80% of career stats have been given but you dont want to see.

See what Pete Sampras is saying, he is clubbing becker, edberg, stich, courier, agassi as his generation and he is clubbing federer and nadal as 1 generation.

344320723_201456179355364_5605972336501906273_n.jpg

James Blake himself said big 3 are same generation, there must be links online for all this, anyway I have had enough discussion on this with you. If you dont want to believe it then please don't, I will continue to believe what I do, I really won't change my mind on this, you too can continue believing what you do.


You're once again confusing rivalries (determined by overlap in high level play) with generations (determined by age). But even then, the data doesn't support your conclusion. I took a look at the top 20 rivalries in history with minimum 27 matches played, and here are the stats:

mean age gap: 3.05 years
median age gap: 2 years
minimum age gap: 0 years
maximum age gap: 8 years
# of rivalries with 0 to 5 year age gap: 16
# of rivalries with 6 to 10 year age gap: 4
# of rivalries with >10 year age gap: 0

In fact, in this top 20 list, 14 of the rivalries have an age gap of 3 or less. If we go by measuring generations by the number of matches in top rivalries on the premise that top players of the same generation should have more matches, the data actually supports that a generation is only 3 years. The overall averages were brought up by Federer and Connors - two outliers in history who played unusually long careers. If we removed rivalries involving these two, the averages become even more skewed towards lower age gaps.

I'll concede that most pros state a generation is longer than this, but I think a lot of these are knee jerk reactions to answer questions asked by the media. Most personalities state Roger is the same generation as Novak and Rafa because they became collectively known as big 3. Stating otherwise ruins the narrative that the 3 greatest players of all time were part of the same generation. Testimony from former pros, on their own, are not enough to confirm that a generation is 10 years as the data says otherwise.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
You're once again confusing rivalries (determined by overlap in high level play) with generations (determined by age). But even then, the data doesn't support your conclusion. I took a look at the top 20 rivalries in history with minimum 27 matches played, and here are the stats:

mean age gap: 3.05 years
median age gap: 2 years
minimum age gap: 0 years
maximum age gap: 8 years
# of rivalries with 0 to 5 year age gap: 16
# of rivalries with 6 to 10 year age gap: 4
# of rivalries with >10 year age gap: 0

In fact, in this top 20 list, 14 of the rivalries have an age gap of 3 or less. If we go by measuring generations by the number of matches in top rivalries on the premise that top players of the same generation should have more matches, the data actually supports that a generation is only 3 years. The overall averages were brought up by Federer and Connors - two outliers in history who played unusually long careers. If we removed rivalries involving these two, the averages become even more skewed towards lower age gaps.

I'll concede that most pros state a generation is longer than this, but I think a lot of these are knee jerk reactions to answer questions asked by the media. Most personalities state Roger is the same generation as Novak and Rafa because they became collectively known as big 3. Stating otherwise ruins the narrative that the 3 greatest players of all time were part of the same generation. Testimony from former pros, on their own, are not enough to confirm that a generation is 10 years as the data says otherwise.

A generation is always a broad term. Take a real life example for this and see :

Lets say today you are 20 years old, joined university while your neighbor's daughter is 11 years old and in 6th grade, then at that point of time she looks like next gen to you, you are an adult and she is a kid, but 15 years later when you are 35 and she is 26 then you might be dating her and probably might marry as well, that time nobody will consider your and your wife as next gens. Then another 25 years of happy marriage life later, when you are 60 and she is 51, that time when you look back at your life, will you be next gens ??? .....

This is the same case with Federer & Nadal/Djokovic, when Fed was 19 that time these fellows were 14 and 13, so Fed was looking like a next gen to them, but over the course of their careers they are so interconnected that it is no longer a next gen, these long rivalries define which generation you are in. Any rivalry with 20+ matches is same generation.

This is the simplest and most practical example that I can give you, if you still don't agree then it is impossible to convince you.
 
Last edited:

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
His playing level in that 1/3rd was lower than the remaining 2/3rd of his career, so who cares about that 1/3rd ? Federer made only 7 out of his 31 GS finals in that 1/3d, that means 77% of his career at the highest level was after he met Novak for the first time. So that 1/3rd does not matter. 23% does not matter when 77% of the career of Roger at the highest level is left..... Surely reaching a GS Final is considered a high point in Tennis, isn't it ?

When has Federer ever had the advantage over his better rivals ? That man was at a disadvantage physically vs Nadal right since 2005 when Nadal arrived with all that speed and power, then he has been at a disadvantage from 2011 vs Novak according to you ? Why even defend him if he is so weak ?

No amount of Mind Gymnastics will cut it, Federer is of the same 1980s generation as his 2 main rivals, that is how it is and shall always be for the world. You can feel free to think otherwise, that is fine but the majority of professionals believe what I do.
fed clearly had the advantage over djokovic pre 2010/2011 and off clay vs Nadal before 2008. 08/09 nadal gained a very slight edge over him, narrowly winning 2 slam finals in 5th set.
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
A generation is always a broad term. Take a real life example for this and see :

Lets say today you are 20 years old, joined university while your neighbor's daughter is 11 years old and in 6th grade, then at that point of time she looks like next gen to you, you are an adult and she is a kid, but 15 years later when you are 35 and she is 26 then you might be dating her and probably might marry as well, that time nobody will consider your and your wife as next gens. Then another 25 years of happy marriage life later, when you are 60 and she is 51, that time when you look back at your life, will you be next gens ??? .....

This is the same case with Federer & Nadal/Djokovic, when Fed was 19 that time these fellows were 14 and 13, so Fed was looking like a next gen to them, but over the course of their careers they are so interconnected that it is no longer a next gen, these long rivalries define which generation you are in. Any rivalry with 20+ matches is same generation.

This is the simplest and most practical example that I can give you, if you still don't agree then it is impossible to convince you.

I understand what you're trying to say, and while I agree with the relativity of an age gap in the broader context of life, it holds less weight in an average tennis career of 15 years, and in sports when the window for peak performance is very narrow.

Let's agree to disagree, Rick. I'm sorry if I got you riled up and got riled up myself. Have a nice day :).
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I understand what you're trying to say, and while I agree with the relativity of an age gap in the broader context of life, it holds less weight in an average tennis career of 15 years, and in sports when the window for peak performance is very narrow.

Let's agree to disagree, Rick. I'm sorry if I got you riled up and got riled up myself. Have a nice day :).

Actually Sports is no different from real life, they both run in parallel.

If a woman's window to have a kid is lets say from 15-16 to early 40 then a sportswoman's life is also the same, thats why Serena was forced to embrace motherhood despite her body still being in a position to win slams in 2018-2019, had she not embraced it at that then today she might have had risks and issues. So I would say a generation is very same to real life. It is not divided into many segments

It could be divided into 20s and 30s, thats it. ... Maybe 20-29 is 1 segment and then 30-39 is another segment. I dont think it is more complicated to divide into 3 years gaps and say that Nadal played 8 generations of Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Kyrgios, shapovalov and then alcaraz, this doesn't make sense at all..... no sportsman looks at sports in this way.

A sportsman knows that at 21 he has to battle the 28 year olds and at 28 he has to battle the 21 year olds, there is no other way to see it, he can only imagine that they are evenly matched. Once a person is in 30s they start to feel old, they start being told that they are old... that way the years start to look numbered.

Thats why Evert counts Court, Navratilova and Graf as the 3 generations, or Nadal counts Agassi, Djokovic, Alcaraz as 3 generations...
 

Silverbullet96

Hall of Fame
Do we not have 6-9 years age gap in real life between our siblings? Are they next gen to us? Obviously not.
One of my father's siblings is around 20 years older than him. If they played sports would they be of the same generation ? o_O
You're comparing 2 very different things, it's a poor argument.
This is an argument based on subjective feelings to some extent. But I'd say 5-6 years is definitely a significant age difference which plays a factor, even if they might not be a full generation apart. It's like half a generation apart, maybe.
And you're reaching a little with that quote from Evert, it's not like she's talking about how many years generations need to be apart, she's talking about her rivalries with other ATGs.
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
One of my father's siblings is around 20 years older than him. If they played sports would they be of the same generation ? o_O
You're comparing 2 very different things, it's a poor argument.
This is an argument based on subjective feelings to some extent. But I'd say 5-6 years is definitely a significant age difference which plays a factor, even if they might not be a full generation apart. It's like half a generation apart, maybe.
And you're reaching a little with that quote from Evert, it's not like she's talking about how many years generations need to be apart, she's talking about her rivalries with other ATGs.

Yes even a half gen of 5-6 is significant but IMO it works both ways to balance it out, until we are 28 we have an advantage over those younger to us, from 28 to 31/maybe even 32 in some cases it is a level playing field. 33 onwards we are at a bit of a disadvantage, not a lot but it could be significant, 35 onwards the disadvantage is a bit more and we have to work harder to be in shape since our reflexes & testosterone levels all decline quite a lot.

By the way, your father's 20 years older sibling is definitely different generation but I guess that is an exceptional case.
 
Last edited:

Nadal - GOAT

Hall of Fame
Yes even a half gen of 5-6 is significant but IMO it works both ways to balance it out, until we are 28 we have an advantage over those younger to us, from 28 to 31/maybe even 32 in some cases it is a level playing field. 33 onwards we are at a bit of a disadvantage, not a lot but it could be significant, 35 onwards the disadvantage is a bit more and we have to work harder to be in shape since our reflexes & testosterone levels all decline quite a lot.

By the way, your father's 20 years older sibling is definitely different generation but I guess that is an exceptional case.
I think this just sums it up.

5-6 years is about half a gen and the older player will have the advantage and disadvantage period.

Specifically to Fed, I think he was a bit unlucky that Rafa was an early bloomer and Novak a late one.

2005-09 period, Fed was mostly beating Novak but Rafa cost Fed 5-6 slams. And 2011 onwards Novak had the advantage against Fed.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I think this just sums it up.

5-6 years is about half a gen and the older player will have the advantage and disadvantage period.

Specifically to Fed, I think he was a bit unlucky that Rafa was an early bloomer and Novak a late one.

2005-09 period, Fed was mostly beating Novak but Rafa cost Fed 5-6 slams. And 2011 onwards Novak had the advantage against Fed.
Novak did not have significant age advantage over Federer in 2011 or even in 2012, 24 vs 30 or 25 vs 31 is somewhat a level playing field. You can say Novak is at his peak and Fed isn't at his absolute peak and only in his prime level form, but then If you are better than your opponent then you will win at this age baring injuries because you also have the advantage of experience and the 23-24 yr old is still not as experienced as he should be. Once a person reaches 32 a decline is evident. Novak was extremely good even in wimbledon 2018, uso18, ao19, he was 31 years old in all these slams. Federer was damn good in fo11, uso11, wimbledon 2012, he was 30-31 in these slams.

Advantage started in 2013 onwards

In case of Rafa, there is no excuse for Roger, he was losing in his peak. Plus he won over Rafa in the last years, so that proved he could have done more in his peak, the blame goes to him for picking a wrong racquet in his early years.

In Fed's and Novak;'s case they have declined slowly, so the talks of sudden way past prime are unfair all the more.
 

Nadal - GOAT

Hall of Fame
Novak did not have significant age advantage over Federer in 2011 or even in 2012, 24 vs 30 or 25 vs 31 is somewhat a level playing field. You can say Novak is at his peak and Fed isn't at his absolute peak and only in his prime level form, but then If you are better than your opponent then you will win at this age baring injuries because you also have the advantage of experience and the 23-24 yr old is still not as experienced as he should be. Once a person reaches 32 a decline is evident. Novak was extremely good even in wimbledon 2018, uso18, ao19, he was 31 years old in all these slams. Federer was damn good in fo11, uso11, wimbledon 2012, he was 30-31 in these slams.

Advantage started in 2013 onwards

In case of Rafa, there is no excuse for Roger, he was losing in his peak. Plus he won over Rafa in the last years, so that proved he could have done more in his peak, the blame goes to him for picking a wrong racquet in his early years.

In Fed's and Novak;'s case they have declined slowly, so the talks of sudden way past prime are unfair all the more.
Agree regarding 2011-12 being about even between Fed and Novak and that is reflected in their results. Fed beat Novak in FO 11 and Wimb 12. He was also a point away from winning the USO 11 SF.

Regarding Rafa and Fed, I think he had major matchup issues against prime Rafa. An important reason for he winning a lot 2017 onwards is Rafa's decline and subsequent change in Rafa's playing style.

2017 onwards Rafa started playing much faster brand of tennis trying to end points quickly and this played into Feds hands. Yes he could have done more against Rafa in his prime as well. But then, in hindsight vision is always 6/6.
 
Last edited:
Top