Apologies if there's already a thread on this, but it's off season and at least it's not another EPIC or Zverev thread. The lost gen is players born in from around 1989 to whenever you consider the NextGen to start. Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, etc. They've been comprehensively owned by the Big 4 and overall haven't accomplished much. But the question is, is it a uniquely weak group, or were they just unlucky enough to be at the same time as the Big 4? The Big 4 aren't only unique for their accomplishments, but also their longevity. Rafa and Roger still at the top, and Djokovic & Murray were at peak at 28-29, when generally players begin to decline in their later 20s, allowing the next crop to shine. There also was a consistency to the big 4, with only a few exceptions they blanket almost all masters, Majors, even finals and SFs for a decade. Is it the fault of the Lost Gen that they came right after these ATG? (Side note: I know that Murray dossn't belong in the same category as the other 3 ATGs, but in terms of the utter dominance, he was a big part of that, always a step behind the others.) Before the rise of the Big 4 there was a whole generation of Federer's contemporaries who started winning, then got mostly blocked out. Asides from this unique quartet, was the generation of players born in the early, mid, and late 80s that much better than those born in the early 90s? For example, Sascha Zverev gets a lot of hype, and he's won 3 masters by 21, but I think we all know that if he was just a few years older and faced the big 4 in pre-dotage he wouldn't have won those. So what do you think? Chime in, rant about #weakera, have at it!