Is the Big 3 success connected to Gen Z being mentally fragile?

[leodevlin]

I know this topic may be controversial a bit but I am starting to think that the longevity of the Big 3's success maybe related how soft and mentally fragile the new Gen Z player generation has become.

There is no secret that this generation in general has become "snowflaky" and entitled and it seems that this is reflected in professional tennis as well. I don't ever recall players of Gen Y and older routinely taking bathroom bathroom brakes , medical timeouts, melting down due to being heckled , not wanting to do interviews, taking big break during their "prime time" to look after their mental health etc etc.

Now I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of mental health, but there is a fine line of having to deal with pressure and stress and having serious mental issues. Yes competitive sports has a hug mental component and part of becoming a successful Pro athlete is to be able to manage that and it could even be more important than athleticism.

What obviously all of the Big 3 players have in common is mental strength and fighting through adversity and it is no wonder that when they are faced with the younger mentally weaker generation , that they come out victorious as they have the tools to dig deep , grind and get the victory.

Anyway I know what I am saying is not scientific , it's just an observation and gut feel but would love to hear what others have to say about this.

 

[Aabye5]

No. This is a myth promoted by Big 3 revisionist, and is particularly popular among fans who support Roger Federer.

 

[mike danny]

No. This is a myth promoted by Big 3 revisionist, and is particularly popular among fans who support Roger Federer.

The Big 3 does owe its success to the 90's born guys not being up to par.

 

[Kralingen]

We could move on to the mentality once they display technical and tactical competency. So far, there are glaring holes in each NextGen player’s game…

 

[Aabye5]

The Big 3 does owe its success to the 90's born guys not being up to par.

No more than Federer owes his success to getting to play 5 finals against Roddick. I don't think Federer is less of a GS champ because of this.

 

[mike danny]

No more than Federer owes his success to getting to play 5 finals against Roddick.

That's such a ridiculous statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The 2004 and 2009 Wimb finals were much better efforts from Roddick against a better Fed than Djokodal these last few years. So there's no way having Next Gen is equal to having Roddick.

Unless you're trying to imply that beating 34/35 year old Djok odal is just as hard as beating 23/28 year old Federer.

 

[big ted]

yes thats why i think alcaraz can do some good things he seems to be pretty driven
for the right reasons, not $, social media,, highlight reels, tantrums, etc..

 

[Aabye5]

That's such a ridiculous statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The 2004 and 2009 Wimb finals were much better efforts from Roddick against a better Fed than Djokodal these last few years. So there's no way having Next Gen is equal to having Roddick.

Unless you're trying to imply that beating 34/35 year old Djok odal is just as hard as beating 23/28 year old Federer.

Roddick is one time Slam champ, and Medvedev is a one time Slam champ (so far). And while Medvedev is not as good as Roddick, he's not that much worse either.

 

[leodevlin]

No. This is a myth promoted by Big 3 revisionist, and is particularly popular among fans who support Roger Federer.

what part of it is a myth?

 

[mike danny]

Roddick is one time Slam champ, and Medvedev is a one time Slam champ (so far). And while Medvedev is not as good as Roddick, he's not that much worse either.

But you were equating facing Roddick with facing Medvedev or other Next Genners. I'm sorry, but these 2 challenges are not the same.

Roddick was pushing a prime Roger Federer in slam finals, while Medvedev is struggling against the 34/35 year old versions of Djokodal.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No. This is a myth promoted by Big 3 revisionist, and is particularly popular among fans who support Roger Federer.

Isn't it being a myth itself a myth promoted by Big 3 apologists, particularly fans of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That's such a ridiculous statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The 2004 and 2009 Wimb finals were much better efforts from Roddick against a better Fed than Djokodal these last few years. So there's no way having Next Gen is equal to having Roddick.

Unless you're trying to imply that beating 34/35 year old Djok odal is just as hard as beating 23/28 year old Federer.

This guy thinks Berdych was a considerably better mover than Roddick - quite a hopeless case.

 

[TheNachoMan]

My generation is very soft, yes. It can be a bit of a meme by conservative boomers but it’s mostly true.

 

[mike danny]

This guy thinks Berdych was a considerably better mover than Roddick - quite a hopeless case.

That's one thing, but to somehow try and say he was a better HC player than Roddick is even more ridiculous.

 

[leodevlin]

My generation is very soft, yes. It can be a bit of a meme by conservative boomers but it’s mostly true.

It's ok man , I am Gen X and my dad always thought that my generation is soft .

 

[mike danny]

For those who don't think Djokodal have benefitted from their mental weaklings, we've just seen mid 30's Djokodal win double career grand slams, something they could never do before.

 

[spottishwood]

For those who don't think Djokodal have benefitted from their mental weaklings, we've just seen mid 30's Djokodal win double career grand slams, something they could never do before.

They're playing better than ever, no? Remember, You gEt bEtTeR with experience.

 

[Jokervich]

yes thats why i think alcaraz can do some good things he seems to be pretty driven
for the right reasons, not $, social media,, highlight reels, tantrums, etc..

Even Alcaraz looked mentally all over the place against Norrie. If Norrie had a slightly better serve, he would have won that match.

 

[TheNachoMan]

For those who don't think Djokodal have benefitted from their mental weaklings, we've just seen mid 30's Djokodal win double career grand slams, something they could never do before.

Federer won a bunch of slams against mentally broken Roddick so it all balances out. I guess.

 

[Aabye5]

what part of it is a myth?

First, I've posted this before, and I will post again. Tennis has always seemed to draw divas. Whether it is shrugging off an interview (looking at you JIM COURIER), or asking to keep a car as a gift (going out on a limb, but it would probably be Hingis or Capriati based on the date).

https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/05/...y-what-can-be-done-to-save-this-sinking-sport


Second, a big ego is not a great look, imo, but far worse people have won titles. Just look at the entitled people in other sports. It could be talent, it could be experience, it could even be the dreaded, but unspeakable 'D' word, but it's none of this entitled busines.

 

[bluetrain4]

The Big 3's own generation was just as fragile save for a few players here and there - namely Murray and Wawrinka.

The craziest thing about the Big 3 is that they've now spanned essentially three tennis generations.

 

[Aabye5]

Isn't it being a myth itself a myth promoted by Big 3 apologists, particularly fans of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic?

You're entitled to your opinion, but being entitled does not make it true. (The same for my opinion, btw)

 

[Aabye5]

The Big 3's own generation was just as fragile save for a few players here and there - namely Murray and Wawrinka.

The craziest thing about the Big 3 is that they've now spanned essentially three tennis generations.

Exactly, their competition was fierce - but only amongst themselves. Their longevity is still impressive.

 

[big ted]

Even Alcaraz looked mentally all over the place against Norrie. If Norrie had a slightly better serve, he would have won that match.

ok ive mostly only seen highlights of alcaraz and i assume they just show the best parts lol..
i do see an intensity in him tho thats different.... kinda reminds me of rafa..
i dont really see him getting down on himself too much, trying to stay positive, as opposed to alot of others

 

[TheNachoMan]

Exactly, their competition was fierce - but only amongst themselves. Their longevity is still impressive.

Even the supporting cast of the big 3 era is superior to today’s players.
Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Soderling, etc.

 

[mike danny]

Federer won a bunch of slams against mentally broken Roddick so it all balances out. I guess.

It doesn't. Roddick was legit dangerous, these guys aren't.

 

[Aabye5]

Even the supporting cast of the big 3 era is superior to today’s players.
Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Soderling, etc.

We can't just group them together like this. Now, Delpo is a world beater without injuries. He did beat two out of the big 3 in a big tournament. That's a fact.

It's my opinion, that he had the talent to be the next ATG. We'll never know because of the litany of injuries he faced. (Even with the injuries, he had great runs)


Murray and Wawarinka had varying degrees of success against the Big 3 in important tournaments, and we can throw in Soderling. The rest of those players are questionable at best, and none of them proved to be true world-beaters.

Even Medvedev is better than Cilic.

 

[ibbi]

I mean... Only if you think there's something soft about people who get into tennis? Every other sport is doing fine.

 

[mike danny]

The Big 3's own generation was just as fragile save for a few players here and there - namely Murray and Wawrinka.

The craziest thing about the Big 3 is that they've now spanned essentially three tennis generations.

Except their generation was destroyed by the Big 3 in their primes. Next Gen don't have that excuse.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

90s gens' technique is not secure hence more likely to fail under pressure, aiding to the mental burden. It's all a combination of the technical, the mental and the physical.

 

[onefineday]

I remember Berdych saying how tough it was to be a player in the Big 3 era and hearing about the Big 3 constantly from the media. It knocks the other guys' confidence.
I think with nextgen there are other factors at play, too. They are well, well remunerated without having to win slams. They have all the nonsense of growing up around social media. They don't have a culture of rising up and usurping the elite. In fact, they are in a culture where that does not happen. Safin, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Hewitt all had each other and spurred each other on.

 

[Aabye5]

But you were equating facing Roddick with facing Medvedev or other Next Genners. I'm sorry, but these 2 challenges are not the same.

Roddick was pushing a prime Roger Federer in slam finals, while Medvedev is struggling against the 34/35 year old versions of Djokodal.

Like I said, not that much worse either. There are also matchup issues.

 

[Sport]

But you were equating facing Roddick with facing Medvedev or other Next Genners. I'm sorry, but these 2 challenges are not the same.

Roddick was pushing a prime Roger Federer in slam finals, while Medvedev is struggling against the 34/35 year old versions of Djokodal.

Medvedev actually beat Djokovic in a Slam final, Roddick won ZERO Slam finals against the Big 3.

And Roddick retired aged merely 30, when he saw the field was too.much for him. Not the same having Federer as your only rival than having to face the Big 4 + Ferrer (Ferrer owns Roddick in the H2H despite being of the same age).

Medvedev is undoubtedly a superior and more complete tennis player than the one-dimensional servebot Roddick. Posterity will laugh at the simple thought of comparing Roddick with Medvedev, for the latter will widely surpass the American's achievements.

 

[Mediterranean Might]

Hmm not that long ago boomers were calling millennials the snowflake, entitled generation (which they raised, btw).

Last I checked, Djokodal were older millennials

Oh and these guys were crushing the tour, both their peers and elders, well before this current crop of gen z players started

 

[Silverbullet96]

The present generation is always called snowflaky since the beginning of time, so I don't know what to answer here.

 

[hoodjem]

Medvedev actually beat Djokovic in a Slam final, Roddick won ZERO Slam finals against the Big 3.

And Roddick retired aged merely 30, when he saw the field was too.much for him. Not the same having Federer as your only rival than having to face the Big 4 + Ferrer (Ferrer owns Roddick in the H2H despite being of the same age).

Medvedev is undoubtedly a superior and more complete tennis player than the one-dimensional servebot Roddick. Posterity will laugh at the sinple thought of comparing Roddick with Medvedev, for the latter will widely surpass the American's achievents.

I remember there was a documentary video (probably made in 2003 sometime) posted on YouTube, long since deleted.

It was hyped by something to the effect of "I have seen the future of tennis, and it is named Andy Roddick."

 

[mike danny]

Like I said, not that much worse either. There are also matchup issues.

Yeah, Fed was a nightmare match-up for Roddick and Roddick still did admirably in several instances.

 

[mike danny]

Medvedev actually beat Djokovic in a Slam final, Roddick won ZERO Slam finals against the Big 3.

And Roddick retired aged merely 30, when he saw the field was too.much for him. Not the same having Federer as your only rival than having to face the Big 4 + Ferrer (Ferrer owns Roddick in the H2H despite being of the same age).

Medvedev is undoubtedly a superior and more complete tennis player than the one-dimensional servebot Roddick. Posterity will laugh at the simple thought of comparing Roddick with Medvedev, for the latter will widely surpass the American's achievements.

If only Roddick got to face a Federer as bad as 2021 USO Djokovic...

And you do realize Medvedev is one-dimensional too, right? It's why he's the pigeon of mid 30's Djokodal in slam finals.

 

[NeutralFan]

That's such a ridiculous statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The 2004 and 2009 Wimb finals were much better efforts from Roddick against a better Fed than Djokodal these last few years. So there's no way having Next Gen is equal to having Roddick.

Unless you're trying to imply that beating 34/35 year old Djok odal is just as hard as beating 23/28 year old Federer.

Doesn't change the fact that he still didn't have a bh and had a wallrus like movement. 2009 is down to Fed not playing that well rather than Roddick pushing him to limits.

 

[Aabye5]

This guy thinks Berdych was a considerably better mover than Roddick - quite a hopeless case.

Only on clay, and maybe on hard. Be specific.

 

[Aabye5]

Yeah, Fed was a nightmare match-up for Roddick and Roddick still did admirably in several instances.

You mean, he came less close to losing? Sure, I'll give you that.

 

[duaneeo]

The Big 3 does owe its success to the 90's born guys not being up to par.

This has nothing to do with Federer's success. He earned his records by dominating his contemporaries, and winning against the rising and eventual dominating next-generation consisting of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka.

No more than Federer owes his success to getting to play 5 finals against Roddick.

LOL! Each time Nadal/Djokovic's weak NextGens are mentioned, you all mention Federer's contemporaries.

The dominating reigns of PreviousGens are ended by NextGens. This has happened to all generations...that is, except the generation that followed Federer's. This is why 35 year old Nadal/Djokovic are more dominant at the slams now than they ever were. So even if Federer had a 4-year 'unfair advantage' of facing weak contemporaries, Nadal and Djokovic have had a 13 year (and counting) unfair advantage of facing weak NextGens.

 

[Aabye5]

This has nothing to do with Federer's success. He earned his records by dominating his contemporaries, and winning against the rising and eventual dominating next-generation consisting of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka.



LOL! Each time Nadal/Djokovic's weak NextGens are mentioned, you all mention Federer's contemporaries.

The dominating reigns of PreviousGens are ended by NextGens. This has happened to all generations...that is, except the generation that followed Federer's. This is why 35 year old Nadal/Djokovic are more dominant at the slams now than they ever were. So even if Federer had a 4-year 'unfair advantage' of facing weak contemporaries, Nadal and Djokovic have had a 13 year (and counting) unfair advantage of facing weak NextGens.

Even Fed's generation faded away due to injury or some other mishap, or at least the better ones did.

 

[DSH]

Yeah, Fed was a nightmare match-up for Roddick and Roddick still did admirably in several instances.

And that is a valid justification?
Both he and Davydenko could and should have won at least ONE of their Grand Slam matches against him and both failed miserably, leading Federer to inflate his number of Major titles as they lacked the confidence to beat the Swiss player, who was not always "unbeatable" as his die-hard fans have tried to explain for so long to justify his greatness and success.

 

[leodevlin]

They're playing better than ever, no? Remember, You gEt bEtTeR with experience.

with your logic 40 year olds should dominate tennis.

 

[SinneGOAT]

My generation is very soft, yes. It can be a bit of a meme by conservative boomers but it’s mostly true.

A bit is an understatement

 

[SinneGOAT]

What being old does to the brain

 

[leodevlin]

The present generation is always called snowflaky since the beginning of time, so I don't know what to answer here.

it's hard to believe that any generation can become flakier than the current one but I won't bet the farm on it .

 

[leodevlin]

First, I've posted this before, and I will post again. Tennis has always seemed to draw divas. Whether it is shrugging off an interview (looking at you JIM COURIER), or asking to keep a car as a gift (going out on a limb, but it would probably be Hingis or Capriati based on the date).

https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/05/...y-what-can-be-done-to-save-this-sinking-sport


Second, a big ego is not a great look, imo, but far worse people have won titles. Just look at the entitled people in other sports. It could be talent, it could be experience, it could even be the dreaded, but unspeakable 'D' word, but it's none of this entitled busines.

Divas, yes, but they were still mentally tough. You are not seriously calling Jimmy Connors, one of the mentally strongest players known to fight until the last breath flaky , are you?

 

[Aabye5]

Divas, yes, but they were still mentally tough. You are not seriously calling Jimmy Connors, one of the mentally strongest players known to fight until the last breath flaky , are you?

You devoted a whole paragraph to entitlement, which could be applied to the bulk of professional athletes.

Your second point about mental toughness is more interesting. Jimmy Connors is well known for his mental toughness, and I am curious whether you'd put the big 3 are in that category. Still, their Slam counts are a lot higher.

When it comes to lacking mental toughness, we have Zverev and Korda. These are two young players who have a huge gap in that department. They have the talent to win big, but they have collapsed at key moments.

Medvedev is no Jimmy Connors, but he's not in this category.