Next Gen are horrible in Slams

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Slam win percentage:

Gatekeepers (0 slam titles)

Tsonga 73.33
Berdych 70.53
Ferrer 69.71

Lost Gen (0/1 slam titles)

Del Potro 72.93
Raonic 72.81
Cilic 72.12
Nishikori 71.43

Next Gen

Thiem 69.23
Zverev 64.00
Medvedev 58.60
Tsitsipas 56.50
 

MoralTruth

New User
Slam win percentage:

Gatekeepers (0 slam titles)

Tsonga 73.33
Berdych 70.53
Ferrer 69.71

Lost Gen (0/1 slam titles)

Del Potro 72.93
Raonic 72.81
Cilic 72.12
Nishikori 71.43

Next Gen

Thiem 69.23
Zverev 64.00
Medvedev 58.60
Tsitsipas 56.50
Don’t most people know the LG have not been performing as well as expected or the next gen?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Del Potro and Cilic are both 31 years old. That's not lost gen. They belong in the Nadal/Djokovic gen.
They are only a year apart from Murray and Djokovic, plus they both took active part in the 00s, so they tick both boxes, especially the birth year box.

Plus they had success. Slam success. Three boxes. Hence very much part of SuperGen which is roughly 1985-1988.

LostGen would not be nearly as lost if they had two slam champs.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
LostGen inflation era is upon us.
Homogenization Inflation Era has been upon us for over 15 years...

Once they made the conditions much more equal, it became a completely different ballgame. At least as far as slam tallies and domination are concerned.

Double-digit slam champs were very rare before this era. Suddenly we have three more after just two for 30 years.

Borg, Sampras the only ones in a long period. Then suddenly three more within a decade. Not a coincidence...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas are all entering their primes soon. A final (Medvedev), semi-final (Tsitsipas) is good so far and they will only get better. Zverev will probably do better as well.
In the age of GAS, we need to give the younger players more time.

Zverev's particular problem are bestof5s, but he will manage that too. After all, it's the same laws of physics whether you play bestof3 or bestof5...

He'll do well at slams eventually.
 

davced1

Professional
In the age of GAS, we need to give the younger players more time.

Zverev's particular problem are bestof5s, but he will manage that too. After all, it's the same laws of physics whether you play bestof3 or bestof5...

He'll do well at slams eventually.
GAS is probably real but these guys are so good I expect them to do well and even win slams very soon. Medvedev has been really close already.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I don't care who's lost gen or next gen.

What I meant is that player who won 0/1 slams have a much higher win percentage than the next gen who are supposed to be future ATGs.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
GAS is probably real but these guys are so good I expect them to do well and even win slams very soon. Medvedev has been really close already.
They are slowly entering their mid-20s which is when they should be great, regardless of GAS.

And they will be great.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Cilic and Del Potro are in the generation with Djokodal but I think lost gen get criticized a bit too harshly. They already weren't a generation full of many talented players, they only had about 5 who were really top level, and then they were completely blocked by the Djokodal generation and then Federer from the previous generation helped shut the door almost completely. At least in Sampras' generation every Slam wasn't locked down like that. He was terrible on clay so a non-factor at RG and wasn't as great in Australia. He was very good at USO but not as great and dominant as he was at Wimbledon so you even had chances there like Rafter showed. Agassi was streaky and Courier's peak didn't last long so there were lots of openings for other players like clay specialists and good hardcourt players.

With Djokodal, Nadal completely shut down RG so forget about it, Djokovic almost completely shut down AO with Federer picking up the slack, and the big 4 shut down Wimbledon. The only one left was the USO after Federer's domination ended and even then Djokodal were good enough to win 7/11 of those and only Del Potro, Murray, Cilic and Wawrinka were able to capitalize. So in reality, what else was lost gen supposed to do? They could beat one maybe or get very close to beating them and then there's another waiting in the next round. It really was a lost cause from the jump. If there wasnt such a huge age difference, next gen would suffer the same fate I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:

Legend of Borg

G.O.A.T.
Cilic and Del Potro are in the generation with Djokodal but I think lost gen get criticized a bit too harshly. They already weren't a generation full of many talented players, they only had about 5 who were really top level, and then they were completely blocked by the Djokodal generation and then Federer from the previous generation helped shut the door almost completely. At least in Sampras' generation every Slam wasn't locked down like that. He was terrible on clay so a non-factor at RG and wasn't as great in Australia. He was very good at USO but not as great and dominant as he was at Wimbledon so you even had chances there like Rafter showed. Agassi was streaky and Courier's peak didn't last long so there were lots of openings for other players like clay specialists and good hardcourt players.

With Djokodal, Nadal completely shut down RG so forget about it, Djokovic almost completely shut down AO with Federer picking up the slack, and the big 4 shut down Wimbledon. The only one left was the USO after Federer's domination ended and even then Djokodal were good enough to win 7/11 of those and only Del Potro, Cilic and Wawrinka were able to capitalize. So in reality, what else was lost gen supposed to do? They could beat one maybe or get very close to beating them and then there's another waiting in the next round. It really was a lost cause from the jump. If there wasnt such a huge age difference, next gen would suffer the same fate I'm afraid.
exactly

Sisipas and Meddy would be getting rekt if they were up and coming 10 years ago
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Cilic and Del Potro are in the generation with Djokodal but I think lost gen get criticized a bit too harshly. They already weren't a generation full of many talented players, they only had about 5 who were really top level, and then they were completely blocked by the Djokodal generation and then Federer from the previous generation helped shut the door almost completely. At least in Sampras' generation every Slam wasn't locked down like that. He was terrible on clay so a non-factor at RG and wasn't as great in Australia. He was very good at USO but not as great and dominant as he was at Wimbledon so you even had chances there like Rafter showed. Agassi was streaky and Courier's peak didn't last long so there were lots of openings for other players like clay specialists and good hardcourt players.

With Djokodal, Nadal completely shut down RG so forget about it, Djokovic almost completely shut down AO with Federer picking up the slack, and the big 4 shut down Wimbledon. The only one left was the USO after Federer's domination ended and even then Djokodal were good enough to win 7/11 of those and only Del Potro, Cilic and Wawrinka were able to capitalize. So in reality, what else was lost gen supposed to do? They could beat one maybe or get very close to beating them and then there's another waiting in the next round. It really was a lost cause from the jump. If there wasnt such a huge age difference, next gen would suffer the same fate I'm afraid.
I agree with you to an extent. The first paragraph is pretty much correct.

Yet despite attempting to defend LostGen, you have just proven just how bad LostGen are. In the second paragraph.

Sports is about beating your opponents. If a whole generation can't do that, then they are a very weak generation. Really quite simple. They faced humans, not gods. The rules were/are the same for everyone. Nadal and RF don't get 5 games bonus nor do they get a 3rd serve. They are more talented? Well, that's why LostGen sucks. Because a Gen is only as good as it can beat other gens.

As to WHY that generation is so weak, that is a mystery. Pollution in the water in the years when they were fetuses? Who knows. But it is unusual to have a whole generation encompassing 5 years that offers so little both in terms of raw talent and in terms of success.

Did we have Goffin and Raonic continually reaching slam semis when there was an "opening"? No. They'd often lose to non-Big 3 way before even having a chance to lose to the Big 3.

But, as I mentioned, the Big 3 are just three more players to beat. The fact they're tough to beat means they are superior which automatically means that LostGen are inferior. It's all about comparisons and relativity.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
There are actually incredibly good it's just that tennis always evolves so the field is better than ever. Don't be surprised when Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev lose to guys like Lacko, Bolelli or Fratangelo at the AO.
 

davced1

Professional
There are actually incredibly good it's just that tennis always evolves so the field is better than ever. Don't be surprised when Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev lose to guys like Lacko, Bolelli or Fratangelo at the AO.
This is a joke right? Because tennis evolves as you say Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev will set the new standard.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I agree with you to an extent. The first paragraph is pretty much correct.

Yet despite attempting to defend LostGen, you have just proven just how bad LostGen are. In the second paragraph.

Sports is about beating your opponents. If a whole generation can't do that, then they are a very weak generation. Really quite simple. They faced humans, not gods. The rules were/are the same for everyone. Nadal and RF don't get 5 games bonus nor do they get a 3rd serve. They are more talented? Well, that's why LostGen sucks. Because a Gen is only as good as it can beat other gens.

As to WHY that generation is so weak, that is a mystery. Pollution in the water in the years when they were fetuses? Who knows. But it is unusual to have a whole generation encompassing 5 years that offers so little both in terms of raw talent and in terms of success.

Did we have Goffin and Raonic continually reaching slam semis when there was an "opening"? No. They'd often lose to non-Big 3 way before even having a chance to lose to the Big 3.

But, as I mentioned, the Big 3 are just three more players to beat. The fact they're tough to beat means they are superior which automatically means that LostGen are inferior. It's all about comparisons and relativity.
There already weren't many good players in that generation and they weren't as talented. What generation was as talented Nadal and Djokovic anyway? You would be hard pressed to find one player as good as either ever never mind two. Then you have to factor in Murray and Del Potro, who are both excellent players, and then a midway gen player like Wawrinka, and Federer, who maintained a very high level in late age, when players from previous generations were long retired.

The criticism of Goffin is correct but not Raonic who has made the SF or better 3 times and beat Wawrinka and Federer in Slams only to be stopped by Murray twice and very narrowly in AO. So he and Nishikori were good but not good enough to handle the daunting task in front of them, and didn't have many other players their age who could even play at their level.
 
Last edited:

DSH

Hall of Fame
Homogenization Inflation Era has been upon us for over 15 years...

Once they made the conditions much more equal, it became a completely different ballgame. At least as far as slam tallies and domination are concerned.

Double-digit slam champs were very rare before this era. Suddenly we have three more after just two for 30 years.

Borg, Sampras the only ones in a long period. Then suddenly three more within a decade. Not a coincidence...

You have to think deeply why was so "rare" and found the reasons why Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, they could not do something that Borg did and time later Sampras could also achieve.
Think carefully about each case without exception and you will see what prevented more winners of double-digit Slams.
:sneaky:
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
So as we're obviously not getting a follow up on this from Lew who wants to compare guys at the end of their careers to guys at the start of them I am going to take the liberty...

So, Tsitsipas is 21, Lew tells us his slam winning percentage is 56.50% from 10 slams played. In the years the following players turned 21 their slam winning percentages...
Tsonga - 0% (1 slam played)
Berdych - 60.61% (13 played)
Ferrer - 33.33% (4 played)
Del Potro - 68.29 (14 played)
Raonic - 50% (4 played)
Cilic - 65.63% (11 played)
Nishikori - 50% (6 played)

Zverev, is 22, Lew tells us his slam winning percentage is 64%, that's from 18 slams played. In the years the following turned 22
Tsonga - 55.56 (4 slams played)
Berdych - 63.83% (17 played)
Ferrer - 38.46 (8 played)
Del Potro - 68.69% (15 played)
Raonic - 60% (8 played)
Cilic - 66.67% (15 played)
Nishikori - 47.37 (10 played)

Medvedev is 23, Lew tells us his slam winning percentage is 58.60%, that's from 12 slams played. In the years the following turned 23
Tsonga - 68.42% (6 slams played)
Berdych - 63.16% (21 played)
Ferrer - 47.83% (12 played)
Del Potro - 68.42% (19 played)
Raonic - 63.64% (12 played)
Cilic - 64.81 (19 played)
Nishikori - 56.67 (13 played)

So, the only one who is seriously behind the pace compared to these guys is Medvedev, and after the US Open he just played anyone that wants to moan about where he's currently at needs to get a clue.
 

James P

Hall of Fame
So as we're obviously not getting a follow up on this from Lew who wants to compare guys at the end of their careers to guys at the start of them I am going to take the liberty...

So, Tsitsipas is 21, Lew tells us his slam winning percentage is 56.50% from 10 slams played. In the years the following players turned 21 their slam winning percentages...
Tsonga - 0% (1 slam played)
Berdych - 60.61% (13 played)
Ferrer - 33.33% (4 played)
Del Potro - 68.29 (14 played)
Raonic - 50% (4 played)
Cilic - 65.63% (11 played)
Nishikori - 50% (6 played)

Zverev, is 22, Lew tells us his slam winning percentage is 64%, that's from 18 slams played. In the years the following turned 22
Tsonga - 55.56 (4 slams played)
Berdych - 63.83% (17 played)
Ferrer - 38.46 (8 played)
Del Potro - 68.69% (15 played)
Raonic - 60% (8 played)
Cilic - 66.67% (15 played)
Nishikori - 47.37 (10 played)

Medvedev is 23, Lew tells us his slam winning percentage is 58.60%, that's from 12 slams played. In the years the following turned 23
Tsonga - 68.42% (6 slams played)
Berdych - 63.16% (21 played)
Ferrer - 47.83% (12 played)
Del Potro - 68.42% (19 played)
Raonic - 63.64% (12 played)
Cilic - 64.81 (19 played)
Nishikori - 56.67 (13 played)

So, the only one who is seriously behind the pace compared to these guys is Medvedev, and after the US Open he just played anyone that wants to moan about where he's currently at needs to get a clue.
As usual, Next Gen getting s*** on for the crimes of deserved punching bag, Lost Gen.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Homogenization Inflation Era has been upon us for over 15 years...

Once they made the conditions much more equal, it became a completely different ballgame. At least as far as slam tallies and domination are concerned.

Double-digit slam champs were very rare before this era. Suddenly we have three more after just two for 30 years.

Borg, Sampras the only ones in a long period. Then suddenly three more within a decade. Not a coincidence...
Well, that's a different kettle of cheese.

Still interesting that 3 would still be head and shoulders above the rest. Such an extreme cutoff in what is still an acute minority with regards to performance is interesting in light of a conditional change that affected the whole tour.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Slam win percentage in their best year:

Del Potro 85
Ferrer 82.61
Cilic 82.35
Berdych 81.25
Tsonga 80
Nisihikori 80
Raonic 78.95
Thiem 77.78
Medvedev 73.33
Zverev 71.43
Tsitsipas 66.67


What I'm saying is they're yet to reach the level of players who won 0/1 slams.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
...I think lost gen get criticized a bit too harshly. They already weren't a generation full of many talented players, they only had about 5 who were really top level, and then they were completely blocked by the Djokodal generation and then Federer from the previous generation helped shut the door almost completely.
"Only" five? That's not a bad number of top level players, and them being completely blocked is why they're so harshly criticized. If Wawrinka can win multiple slams, and Murray can win a slam and end the year #1 with one hip, surely the opportunity was there for the lost generation.
 
Gen useless sucked not because they couldn’t beat the big 3/4/5 but because they couldn’t consistently reach them. They couldn’t even beat the Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer gatekeeper tier with regularity and often lost to worse players than that.

Truly generation useless. Next gen players started making more of a dent literally as soon as they came on tour.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Well, that's a different kettle of cheese.

Still interesting that 3 would still be head and shoulders above the rest. Such an extreme cutoff in what is still an acute minority with regards to performance is interesting in light of a conditional change that affected the whole tour.
I'm not saying homogenization explains everything. The utter failure of LostGen is a different issue, and it has affected their dominance too.

But I really cannot listen anymore to this nonsense about the Big 3 being the best 3 players of all time. It is rubbish. They are the greatest of their era, but to claim more than that is just foolish.
 

Robert Baratheon

Professional
Slam win percentage in their best year:

Del Potro 85
Ferrer 82.61
Cilic 82.35
Berdych 81.25
Tsonga 80
Nisihikori 80
Raonic 78.95
Thiem 77.78
Medvedev 73.33
Zverev 71.43
Tsitsipas 66.67


What I'm saying is they're yet to reach the level of players who won 0/1 slams.
You can't possibly compare player A after having played 10-12 slems and player B after having played 40-50 slems by their slem winning percentage and hoap to reach a reasonable conclusion about their level of play.

Think I will have to use Djokovic as an example for little Lordling here.
Go and check Djokovic's slem winning percentage at the end of 2011 with Federer's slem winning percentage at the end of 2011.
Do the numbers have any relation to Djokovic's level in 2011?
I assume you think that in 2011 Djokovic's level of play was better than any level of play ever before that year?
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
You can't possibly compare player A after having played 10-12 slems and player B after having played 40-50 slems by their slem winning percentage and hoap to reach a reasonable conclusion about their level of play.

Think I will have to use Djokovic as an example for little Lordling here.
Go and check Djokovic's slem winning percentage at the end of 2011 with Federer's slem winning percentage at the end of 2011.
Do the numbers have any relation to Djokovic's level in 2011?
I assume you think that in 2011 Djokovic's level of play was better than any level of play ever before that year?
I'm saying that Next Gen are yet to reach the level of Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga.

Maybe they will get to a level even higher than Big3's, but it's not around the corner.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
I'm saying that Next Gen are yet to reach the level of Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga.

Maybe they will get to a level even higher than Big3's, but it's not around the corner.
Yes they haven't yet reached that level... But they have ample time on their side. Will be very surprised at least 3-4 of them don't end up as multiple slam winners
 

Robert Baratheon

Professional
I'm saying that Next Gen are yet to reach the level of Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga.
You can't say it with these wretched numbers, that's the point.
It is but obvious to me or anyone with a brain that lost gen at their peak were better than next gen in their cradles.
But these numbers are not an indicator of that at all.
 
Top