A lot in this forum really fall for recency bias as if the last match alone is by far the greatest predictor instead of just being a single data point. Yes, Djokovic easily beat Medvedev, but he also lost to him in November. Tsitsipas also just beat Nadal, but no Next Gen is probably going to beat Nadal at the French. In hindsight, expecting them to up-end Djokovic at his all-time best major isn’t the fairest evaluation of them.
Yes, none of the Next Gen are equal to or better than arguably the three best tennis players who have ever lived at the same ages, but that’s setting the bar ridiculously high, isn’t it? Anyway, in truth, they have already caught up with Federer and now beat him more than he beats them (
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-head-comparison-big-3-thiem-next-gen.691734/), granted Federer is ancient.
There are several things people may not be considering when trashing Next Gen against the Big Three though. Athletes in all sports now have greater longevity and able to maintain performance in their late careers. There are multiple reasons for this: advances in sports medicine, diet and nutrition, racquet technology, and technology in general (for example,
https://www.workinsports.com/blog/4-ways-technology-is-changing-athletic-training/).
With tennis players being paid more than they ever (at least pre-pandemic) and with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic being by far the most financially successful tennis players ever, they can afford all kinds of help that poorer players cannot. The Big Three have all made more than $120 million (Murray is 4th on the list with “just” $61.8 million). If you adjust Sampras’ career tennis earnings for inflation, they would still be less than half of what Djokovic has made in tennis alone. That doesn’t even count endorsements, which recently are 65% of Nadal’s earnings, 72% of Djokovic’s earnings, and 95% of Federer’s (
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...ros-still-earned-340-million/?sh=35e6f20c280b).
The Big Three can afford much larger teams to cater to every aspect of sustaining their performance on and off the court. For example, how many young players are paying for deep statistical analysis of their play, their opponents’ play, impacts on play by surface, etc. (
https://www.braingametennis.com/moneyball-in-tennis/), not like a one-time consultant but all the time?
My point isn’t that Next Gen is really good, just that there are other reasons that can explain why the Big Three have maintained their dominance. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, and Rublev probably aren’t ATGs, certainly some of them are not, but I think a couple of them will wind up AT LEAST Kafelnikov/Rafter level. I also think going forward, they will beat the Big Three about as often as they lose, not necessarily at majors, but in general. The YEC already showed that.