Lost Gen versus NextGen notes

[James P]

I decided to try to gather data mostly to see how NextGen is doing compared to Lost Gen along a timeline out of curiosity. I'm not really sure if I draw any conclusions from the data given the extra 5 years of wear and tear on the Big 3 (and their generation). But it is interesting to note just how far ahead they are comparatively along a similar timeline.

For purposes of this data, I'm considering "Lost Gen" those born from 1990 to 1994, inclusive (meaning 01 January 1990 to 31 December 1994) and "NextGen" those born from 1995 to 1999. Kei Nishikori, a commonly cited Lost Gen'er, won't be represented on here, nor will Felix Auger-Aliassime on the other end. I will be making comparisons across 5 year spans at similar points along the generation's timelines (eg 2011 Lost Gen = 2016 Next Gen).

Titles Won
____________________________________________
2011 Lost Gen 1 (1 250)
2016 NextGen 5 (4 250, 1 500)
____________________________________________
2012 Lost Gen 2 (2 250)
2017 NextGen 7 (4 250, 1 500, 2 Masters)
____________________________________________
2013 Lost Gen 4 (4 250)
2018 NextGen 16 (10 250, 3 500, 2 Masters, 1 Tour Final)
____________________________________________
2014 Lost Gen 8 (6 250, 2 500)
2019 NextGen 24 (19 250, 3 500, 2 Masters)
____________________________________________
2015 Lost Gen 7 (7 250)
2016 Lost Gen 10 (9 250, 1 500)
2017 Lost Gen 16 (11 250, 3 500, 1 Masters, 1 Tour Final)
2018 Lost Gen 15 (12 250, 3 500)
2019 Lost Gen 13 (8 250, 4, 500, 1 Masters)

Total titles to date: Lost Gen 76, NextGen 52
Best seasons to date: 2019 NextGen 24, 2017 Lost Gen 16, 2018 NextGen 16, 2018 Lost Gen 15, 2019 Lost Gen 13
Masters titles to date: NextGen 6 (Zverev 3, Medvedev 2, Khachanov 1), Lost Gen 2 (Thiem 1, Sock 1)

Slam QF or Better
_____________________________________________
2009 Lost Gen 0
2014 NextGen 1 (1 QF)
_____________________________________________
2010 Lost Gen 0
2014 NextGen 1 (1 QF)
_____________________________________________
2011 Lost Gen 1 (1 QF)
2016 NextGen 0
_____________________________________________
2012 Lost Gen 0
2017 NextGen 1 (1 QF)
_____________________________________________
2013 Lost Gen 1 (1 SF)
2018 NextGen 3 (2 SF, 1 QF)
_____________________________________________
2014 Lost Gen 4 (2 SF, 2 QF)
2019 NextGen 6 (1 F, 2 SF, 3 QF)
_____________________________________________
2015 Lost Gen 2 (2 QF)
2016 Lost Gen 6 (1 F, 2 SF, 3 QF)
2017 Lost Gen 8 (3 SF, 5QF)
2018 Lost Gen 7 (1 F, 1 SF, 5 QF)
2019 Lost Gen 7 (1 F, 2 SF, 4 QF)


Total QFs or Better to Date: Lost Gen 36, NextGen 12
Best Seasons to Date: 2017 Lost Gen 8, 2018 Lost Gen 7, 2019 Lost Gen 7, 2019 NextGen 6, 2016 Lost Gen 6
Slam Finals to Date: Lost Gen 3 (Thiem 2, Raonic 1), NextGen 1 (Medvedev 1)

 

[clout]

Didn’t Dimitrov win a masters at some point as well?

 

[Third Serve]

Didn’t Dimitrov win a masters at some point as well?

Cincy 2017, you’re correct.

 

[James P]

Didn’t Dimitrov win a masters at some point as well?

Cincy 2017, you’re correct.

I will correct this egregious error. I thought Cincinnati was a Slam, though!

 

[swordtennis]

Thanks for the stats. I always felt the big 4 clubbed the lost gen. Broke their mental strength and bodies. Tragic in a way.

 

[Frylock]

The lost gen is so disappointing

 

[clout]

I will correct this egregious error. I thought Cincinnati was a Slam, though!

I think it's still safe to say to the nextgen have already out-produced the lostgen despite being on tour for far less time. Great post btw

 

[helterskelter]

It amazes me that none of the posters who love to note how old the tour is have jumped in to note that it was easier for the Next Gen to break through because there weren't as many older players in their peak and prime. I mean, even I think that that is part of the story here, as the previous generations have finally got so old that significant numbers of them are falling away, which leaves a vacuum for the Next Gen that wasn't there a few years ago.

 

[ADuck]

What is the nextgen vs lostgen h2h? That might actually be more applicable in determining who is better than no. of titles per year, because the Lost Gen faced tougher opposition for their titles than the Next Gen.

 

[duaneeo]

It amazes me that none of the posters who love to note how old the tour is have jumped in to note that it was easier for the Next Gen to break through because there weren't as many older players in their peak and prime. I mean, even I think that that is part of the story here, as the previous generations have finally got so old that significant numbers of them are falling away, which leaves a vacuum for the Next Gen that wasn't there a few years ago.

Many LostGens are still at what should be peak/prime-tennis age. Nothing is preventing them from taking advantage of the current vacuum. Since they failed to win the big titles as NextGens, they should've done so once they became CurrentGens and the top players were getting older and weaker.

2016. The LostGens were aged 22 - 26, Nadal and Federer were absent most of the year, and Djokovic went on a mental hiatus after winning RG. Talk about a vacuum. This was the perfect opportunity for the LostGens to take over the tour (or at least win a slam). But Murray (with a broken-down body) won Wimbledon and the fall season, and Wawrinka won the USO. The next year, with Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka all off their games, it was Fedal who dominated.

 

[Sport]

Many LostGens are still at what should be peak/prime-tennis age. Nothing is preventing them from taking advantage of the current vacuum. Since they failed to win the big titles as NextGens, they should've done so once they became CurrentGens and the top players were getting older and weaker.

2016. The LostGens were aged 22 - 26, Nadal and Federer were absent most of the year, and Djokovic went on a mental hiatus after winning RG. Talk about a vacuum. This was the perfect opportunity for the LostGens to take over the tour (or at least win a slam). But Murray (with a broken-down body) won Wimbledon and the fall season, and Wawrinka won the USO. The next year, with Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka all off their games, it was Fedal who dominated.

It's not like Wawrinka and Murray would have done much in 2017 anyway. In fact, Wawrinka was in good form the first half of 2017 reaching the AO 2017 SF and the RG 2017 F, he just lost to the superior players Federer and Nadal. Only Djokovic had a matchup issue with Wawrinka.

 

[helterskelter]

Many LostGens are still at what should be peak/prime-tennis age. Nothing is preventing them from taking advantage of the current vacuum. Since they failed to win the big titles as NextGens, they should've done so once they became CurrentGens and the top players were getting older and weaker.

2016. The LostGens were aged 22 - 26, Nadal and Federer were absent most of the year, and Djokovic went on a mental hiatus after winning RG. Talk about a vacuum. This was the perfect opportunity for the LostGens to take over the tour (or at least win a slam). But Murray (with a broken-down body) won Wimbledon and the fall season, and Wawrinka won the USO. The next year, with Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka all off their games, it was Fedal who dominated.

Murray and Wawrinka are hardly slouches, and it's important to note that Raonic and Nishikori did do very well that year. They didn't win but they did well. I don't think any of the Next Gen has yet put in a performance at Wimbledon that would have got it done against Murray in 2016 or even come close. Maybe Medvedev at US Open 2019 versus Wawrinka at US Open 2016, but I doubt it. In any case, none of the next gen has yet won a Slam, either.

Where the Next Gen have done better is so far mostly at minor events, not at majors. And that's because the supporting cast of older players is dropping off more than it was and those who remain have to pick their battles these days.

 

[duaneeo]

Murray and Wawrinka are hardly slouches, and it's important to note that Raonic and Nishikori did do very well that year.

Many posters often say the LostGens aren't winning slams because the Big-3 are simply 'that good'. No such excuse can be given for that year.