No 20somethings with slam titles. First time in the history of men's tennis?

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Currently, no player younger than 31 has a slam title.

That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.

Is this the first time EVER that a decade passes without ONE slam being won by a player born two decades earlier?

I.e. in the 90s we had a bunch of slam wins from guys born in the 70s. In fact, the 90s were DOMINATED by players born two decades earlier, just as the 80s were dominated by players born in the 60s, the 70s by players born in the 50s.

What the hell is going on? Is the current generation of young pros the worst ever (and if so, why), or has science enabled pros to extend their careers beyond the 20s? In other words, guys in their 30s had always had their experience as an advantage but by the time they reached that age they'd be much slower on their feet, more prone to tiring. Now, however, 30somethings are as agile and fit as the young kids.

If it IS science, then that means the Big 3 are the lucky profiteers, lucky for being part of the old era (when you could win slams at 20/21) but also part of the new age when 30somethings can easily dominate. Maybe THAT IS the main reason they broke all the records? After all, for example Sampras didn't have the benefits of being part of this age. Just speculating... Obviously all three are exceptional talents.

It's all rather strange, this relatively sudden shift in age. Even teens used to win slams! (Nadal, Sampras, Chang, Wilander, Becker.) Seems like ages ago...

Prime years used to be 20-25 for a very long time, with most players retiring around 30. Now 25 is hilariously treated as "he still has plenty of time", while careers last until 35 or even late 30s.
 
Last edited:
Currently, no player younger than 31 has a slam title.

That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.

Is this the first time EVER that a decade passes without ONE slam being won by a player born two decades earlier?

I.e. in the 90s we had a bunch of slam wins from guys born in the 70s. In fact, the 90s were DOMINATED by players born two decades earlier, just as the 80s were dominated by players born in the 60s.

What the hell is going on? Is the current generation of young pros the worst ever (and if so, why), or has science enabled pros to extend their careers beyond the 20s? In other words, guys in their 30s had always had their experience as an advantage but by the time they reached that age they'd be much slower on their feet, more prone to tiring. Now, however, 30somethings are as agile and fit as the young kids.

It's all rather strange, this relatively sudden shift in age. Prime years used to be 20-25 for a very long time, with most players retiring around 30. Now 25 is hilariously treated as "he still has plenty of time", while careers last until 35 or even late 30s.
Both Delpo and Cilic are 30. But I get what you are saying, it is a sign of something, but I just can't put my tongue on it...:unsure:
 
Currently, no player younger than 31 has a slam title.

That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.

Is this the first time EVER that a decade passes without ONE slam being won by a player born two decades earlier?

I.e. in the 90s we had a bunch of slam wins from guys born in the 70s. In fact, the 90s were DOMINATED by players born two decades earlier, just as the 80s were dominated by players born in the 60s, the 70s by players born in the 50s.

What the hell is going on? Is the current generation of young pros the worst ever (and if so, why), or has science enabled pros to extend their careers beyond the 20s? In other words, guys in their 30s had always had their experience as an advantage but by the time they reached that age they'd be much slower on their feet, more prone to tiring. Now, however, 30somethings are as agile and fit as the young kids.

It's all rather strange, this relatively sudden shift in age. Even teens used to win slams! (Nadal, Sampras, Chang, Wilander, Becker.) Seems like ages ago...

Prime years used to be 20-25 for a very long time, with most players retiring around 30. Now 25 is hilariously treated as "he still has plenty of time", while careers last until 35 or even late 30s.
Yeah, people still talk about how young Thiem is.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Cilic and Delpo will both be 31 very soon, and since the USO most likely will be won by Djokovic or Federer, I felt it was safe to assume that the decade would/will end without any wins from guys born in the 90s.

A first.
 
I still keep thinking Nishikori is young. But the guy is turning 30 at the end of the year. :laughing:
Yeah, that whole Dimi, Rao, Nishi, and Goff group still seem kind of young because we are still waiting for them to reach their primes. In theory they have done all they ever will, but maybe they are just now entering their prime in the next few years.
 

reaper

Legend
Yeah, that whole Dimi, Rao, Nishi, and Goff group still seem kind of young because we are still waiting for them to reach their primes. In theory they have done all they ever will, but maybe they are just now entering their prime in the next few years.
At least 3 of those 4 have gone backwards in the last couple of years. One of them might have a random late career resurgence but their trend as a group is down.
 
At least 3 of those 4 have gone backwards in the last couple of years. One of them might have a random late career resurgence but their trend as a group is down.
But they have not hit 30, that changes everything. From what I read on these boards, the experience and stamina improves after 30...
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
It isn't science. Science isn't some sort of unique entity that enables players of much lower quality to hold advantage over much more talented and younger opponents that are in many aspects better athletes (as pure physical ability) just because it enables less steeper decline. That can be true for the older ATGs, but not for players of incomparable lower quality.

:cool:
 

reaper

Legend
Experience yes, but stamina should definitely slide after 30.
Just how much experience does a player need? Until the last decade inexperienced players routinely won slams. After about 2 years in the top 50 a high level player should have seen enough to handle just about any situation.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It isn't science. Science isn't some sort of unique entity that enables players of much lower quality to hold advantage over much more talented and younger opponents that are in many aspects better athletes (as pure physical ability) just because it enables less steeper decline. That can be true for the older ATGs, but not for players of incomparable lower quality.

:cool:
I meant advancements in nutrition, training, surgical procedures, recovery therapy.

Nor was I suggesting that scientific advancements can turn for example ME into a GOAT. I meant that they might extend careers of great players, not create GOATs out of mediocrities. Tennis isn't cycling.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Actually, stamina increases until 35-36 and in some unique cases even further, but stamina would only make the decline less steep as tennis is not simply a stamina contest.

:cool:
If this were true, then why were nearly all slam wins won - for many decades - by guys in their 20s, and usually by players in their early and mid 20s, until the 00s?

No, I doubt stamina at 34 is bigger than at 25. No chance.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I meant advancements in nutrition, training, surgical procedures, recovery therapy.

Nor was I suggesting that scientific advancements can turn for example ME into a GOAT. I meant that they might extend careers of great players.
Yes, but the point is, if there were not merely great upcoming players, but upcoming younger ATG caliber players, they should be able to overcome the merely great players and lower, regardless of the progress in nutrition, training etc etc. Nothing like that has happened, and even when it did, it was a laborious stuff devoid of the signs of true ATGs in the making. Now we have hope in FAA and Tsitsi, but even if they turn out to be such players they are still far from that happening (just like Federer when he was 18/19 was far from being the ATG that he became later).

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Yes, but the point is, if there were not merely great upcoming players, but upcoming younger ATG caliber players, they should be able to overcome the merely great players and lower, regardless of the progress in nutrition, training etc etc. Nothing like that has happened, and even when it did, it was a laborious stuff devoid of the signs of true ATGs in the making. Now we have hope in FAA and Tsitsi, but even if they turn out to be such players they are still far from that happening (just like Federer when he was 18/19 was far from being the ATG that he became later).

:cool:
So you're saying the explanation is a very weak generation of young(er) players? Not disagreeing, just saying.

What could be the reason for that? 90s babies not getting enough real milk? Surely there has to be a strong reason why a whole generation looks bad compared to the one before them.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
It's a combination of things. The Big 3 have been so strong they have locked out the majority of the competition by still playing high quality tennis in their 30s. The only slam I can think of in recent memory which didn't have at least one of the Big 3 playing top quality tennis was AO 2018. Fed got an easy run to the final and Cilic wasn't good enough to get over the line. But he was beatable. Apart from that, the Big 3 have been very strong since the beginning of 2017.

But there haven't been any other ATGs coming up. Any prime ATG would have won multiple slam even with the Big 3 playing, given they are no longer at their peak. But there have been none so far. LostGen were perhaps the worst generation in the Open era, with Nishikori being the best player. NextGen are more promising, but we haven't seen anything outstanding from them yet. The signs are there but only time will tell if they will develop.

I guess it might be limited earnings for lower ranked players (so most of the best athletes go for team sports). Probably some attitude issues as well. Hopefully, with more experience, that might change.

In summary: decent, though not peak, Big 3, garbage Lost Generation and probable late blooming NextGen. The 'prime age' has probably become older but is certainly not in the 30s
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It's a combination of things. The Big 3 have been so strong they have locked out the majority of the competition by still playing high quality tennis in their 30s. The only slam I can think of in recent memory which didn't have at least one of the Big 3 playing top quality tennis was AO 2018. Fed got an easy run to the final and Cilic wasn't good enough to get over the line. But he was beatable. Apart from that, the Big 3 have been very strong since the beginning of 2017.
The Big 3 dominance isn't the whole story at all. Why? Because Wawrinka, Murray, Cilic and Delpo all managed to sneak in slam wins during the Big 3 era, and none of them were born in the 90s. That's 8 slams overall.

In other words, not only can LostGen and NextGen not keep up with the Big 3, their greatest failure is they can't even keep up with the next-best players from the 80s-born generation, the Ferrers, the Berdychs, Tsongas, Wawrinkas and others. It's not as if Goffin and Nishikori lose only to the Big 3, they lose plenty of matches to much lesser players. They lack consistency to even be clear-cut no 4 or 5 players over longer periods.
 

er4claw

Rookie
Listen I get it, I'm angry at lost gen and next gen too for not doing a better job of protecting Federers records. But if every single gen (which seems to be as short as 3 years for some one here) needs to have ATGs and needs to have people competing in the slam race or people start melting down. wont that diminish Federer and his two inferior sidekicks in the long run. I means thats a lot of gens, actually give me more lost gens as soon as some people retire.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
No, I doubt stamina at 34 is bigger than at 25. No chance.
It depends upon which sport. Marathon runners often peak in their mid 30's and have increased stamina. But tennis is an entirely different activity, based on explosive speed, and oftentimes stamina isn't even a factor in matches.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Currently, no player younger than 31 has a slam title.

That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.
Not really shocking. The past 2+ generations of male players are the worst and least talented in the sport's history. An obvious lack of the mix of strategy, heart and unique abilities (yes, that is important) has gutted men's tennis to the point where its on life support hooked up to three players. Meanwhile, the current, aging "next generation--the Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al) collect checks after showing up to trip and roll over for three players. Its shameful, but should put a sense of dread into the minds of event organizers, sponsors, media providers, etc, as the men's tour being filled with the opposite of dynamic, talented or even focused players, it will be business as usual: random clay pigeons in a state of stagnation, while the "Big Three" will likely still be around to beat them into the ground.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
20 years ago Nishikori would have been considered ready for retirement.
Now he is as well. In every single match he enters. :p

Seriously, if he stays in somewhat decent form, he could still win a Slam in 5 years or so when the Big 3 are REALLY near the end. But he won’t.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Big-3 happened! That's what happened! It's not something, that happens in many other eras/decades...they give inspiration for other players of their age group to stick around longer as well and play on high levels well beyond 30! Big-3 is the motivating force for other tour veterans! As for the youngsters they just can't keep up and that's it...don't look much further into it...
 
Big-3 happened! That's what happened! It's not something, that happens in many other eras/decades...they give inspiration for other players of their age group to stick around longer as well and play on high levels well beyond 30! Big-3 is the motivating force for other tour veterans! As for the youngsters they just can't keep up and that's it...don't look much further into it...
It’s not just the big 3 though. Look at the round at which all the youngsters lost at Wimbledon - far before facing those titans.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Now he is as well. In every single match he enters. :p

Seriously, if he stays in somewhat decent form, he could still win a Slam in 5 years or so when the Big 3 are REALLY near the end. But he won’t.
I concur. He has an awesome game, great talent, but he is 0-4 in M1000 finales and lost his only slam finale to.............. friggin' Cilic. It was a choker finale, and by all logic there shouldn't have been a winner that day, they should both have been finalists.

So yes, he has no chance of winning a slam. Not because he's 29 (a spring chicken in today's tennis), but because he doesn't have what it takes to snatch the big ones.

That being said, he was unlucky in his first M1000 finale against Nadal, with that injury, should have won that.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It’s not just the big 3 though. Look at the round at which all the youngsters lost at Wimbledon - far before facing those titans.
Precisely. People get the wrong impression that the Big 3 are always the hurdle. If that were so, then we'd have dozens of matches per H2H between Goffin/Raonic/Nishikori and the Big 3, but most H2Hs don't have that many matches, because they don't meet nearly as often. Because the LostGen and NextGen lose usually before they even could get a chance at playing the Big 3.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Currently, no player younger than 31 has a slam title.

That means none of the pros in their 20s hold even one slam title between the lot of them. Nothing short of shocking.

Is this the first time EVER that a decade passes without ONE slam being won by a player born two decades earlier?

I.e. in the 90s we had a bunch of slam wins from guys born in the 70s. In fact, the 90s were DOMINATED by players born two decades earlier, just as the 80s were dominated by players born in the 60s, the 70s by players born in the 50s.

What the hell is going on? Is the current generation of young pros the worst ever (and if so, why), or has science enabled pros to extend their careers beyond the 20s? In other words, guys in their 30s had always had their experience as an advantage but by the time they reached that age they'd be much slower on their feet, more prone to tiring. Now, however, 30somethings are as agile and fit as the young kids.

If it IS science, then that means the Big 3 are the lucky profiteers, lucky for being part of the old era (when you could win slams at 20/21) but also part of the new age when 30somethings can easily dominate. Maybe THAT IS the main reason they broke all the records? After all, for example Sampras didn't have the benefits of being part of this age. Just speculating... Obviously all three are exceptional talents.

It's all rather strange, this relatively sudden shift in age. Even teens used to win slams! (Nadal, Sampras, Chang, Wilander, Becker.) Seems like ages ago...

Prime years used to be 20-25 for a very long time, with most players retiring around 30. Now 25 is hilariously treated as "he still has plenty of time", while careers last until 35 or even late 30s.


Simple....


 

King No1e

Legend
One Slam left for the 90's generation to prove themselves.

Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, I don't care who. It's time for this generation to take the sport back.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Big-3 happened! That's what happened! It's not something, that happens in many other eras/decades...they give inspiration for other players of their age group to stick around longer as well and play on high levels well beyond 30! Big-3 is the motivating force for other tour veterans! As for the youngsters they just can't keep up and that's it...don't look much further into it...
Well, 20somethings won slams when Big3 were better than they are now...
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Fedalovic are just too good. Laughable that people think next gen is the problem, lot of it has to do with these 3. Nuff said.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Well, 20somethings won slams when Big3 were better than they are now...
Exactly.

Wawrinka and Delpo beat the Big 3 in slam matches, and I mean slam finales. If they could do do it, why can't NextGen and LoserGen?

If loser Cilic managed to win a slam in 2014, why didn't a LostGen player do it instead?

Clearly, the Big 3 are NOT the main reason why the 90s-born kids are useless. There's much more to it than that. But what?

Is it a millennial thing? Are millennials less motivated, less professional?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Fedalovic are just too good. Laughable that people think next gen is the problem, lot of it has to do with these 3. Nuff said.
You need to read all the comments in the thread to realize that this is not true at all. It's not the Big 3 that are the hurdle but the entire 80s-born echelon that's been ruling tennis for over a decade.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I concur. He has an awesome game, great talent, but he is 0-4 in M1000 finales and lost his only slam finale to.............. friggin' Cilic. It was a choker finale, and by all logic there shouldn't have been a winner that day, they should both have been finalists.

So yes, he has no chance of winning a slam. Not because he's 29 (a spring chicken in today's tennis), but because he doesn't have what it takes to snatch the big ones.

That being said, he was unlucky in his first M1000 finale against Nadal, with that injury, should have won that.
To be fair, Cilic really played a great tournament at the 2014 US Open. It wasn’t what a loss to Cilic usually looks like.

Also Nishikori’s serve is just too bad to win a Slam. He needs too many breaks in a era which is very serve-dependent. It’s a bit like Ferrer or Davydenko (or even Chang, who could have won much more than 1 RG with a better serve).
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
To be fair, Cilic really played a great tournament at the 2014 US Open. It wasn’t what a loss to Cilic usually looks like.

Also Nishikori’s serve is just too bad to win a Slam. He needs too many breaks in a era which is very serve-dependent. It’s a bit like Ferrer or Davydenko (or even Chang, who could have won much more than 1 RG with a better serve).
Unfortunately, the serve is still the dominant shot in tennis. And there are fans of a certain player who would like that dominance to increase even more by speeding up courts and balls... until tennis courts become as fast as ice rinks.

Cilic played several great USOs, like the one in 2009 when Delpo barely beat him (then went on to win it). But the point is Cilic is half-scared in every big match, he trembles visibly. Game-wise he is great, obviously. But a champ he ain't. His only slam win is against a similar frightened type of player in a finale. Beating RF in the semis was quite a feat, but RF of 2014 was much weaker than the RF of 2015 onwards.
 

Mitcj

New User
Meanwhile, on the ladies' side, you have a group of head cases who, once they win a slam or two, are all but helpless. Ostapenko, Sloane, Osaka. Wozniacki finally won one (a tribute to perseverance, I give her credit), but she may as well retire for all the additional slams she'll win. Kerber wins three (again - good for her) but why does she play so poorly otherwise? Two-time winner Kvitova appears numbstruck against tough competition. Simona's a brawler but her limits will likely prevent her from winning another. No wonder Serena's still out there trying, even as her body betrays her time and time again. She understands the shakiness of the competition. So the ladies' side has its own puzzling issues.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Exactly.

Wawrinka and Delpo beat the Big 3 in slam matches, and I mean slam finales. If they could do do it, why can't NextGen and LoserGen?

If loser Cilic managed to win a slam in 2014, why didn't a LostGen player do it instead?

Clearly, the Big 3 are NOT the main reason why the 90s-born kids are useless. There's much more to it than that. But what?

Is it a millennial thing? Are millennials less motivated, less professional?
Good post. I believe today's "good enough is good enough" attitude begs for mediocracy - but perhaps more general "self-content". But it deprives us the potential #1s. The 20somethings are a product of their time. "Equality" has become a mantra. I see kids who lose on purpose because they feel sorry for those who aren't as good as them... They have become too emotionally aware when they should only compete.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Good post. I believe today's "good enough is good enough" attitude begs for mediocracy - but perhaps more general "self-content". But it deprives us the potential #1s. The 20somethings are a product of their time. "Equality" has become a mantra. I see kids who lose on purpose because they feel sorry for those who aren't as good as them... They have become too emotionally aware when they should only compete.
I really hope you're wrong, because if you are right, we are all going down, not just the tennis tour, but society in general. If young people are so placid, soft and content with achieving nothing or little then we've devolved significantly.

But there is definitely something of that. Tomic and Kyrgios are great examples of this spoiled-rottedness, this almost nihilistic attitude. Kyrgios believes his snarky and lazy attitude makes him superior to anyone who tries. He is the poster boy for a generation completely lost in false morals and degenerative philosophies. Perhaps that's why Russian players seem more eager, because they hadn't grown up (entirely) in the West, or if they had they still have some of that eastern mentality of competing rather than folding over like a despondent delta male.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
I really hope you're wrong, because if you are right, we are all going down, not just the tennis tour, but society in general. If young people are so placid, soft and content with achieving nothing or little then we've devolved significantly.

But there is definitely something of that. Tomic and Kyrgios are great examples of this spoiled-rottedness, this almost nihilistic attitude. Kyrgios believes his snarky and lazy attitude makes him superior to anyone who tries. He is the poster boy for a generation completely lost in false morals and degenerative philosophies. Perhaps that's why Russian players seem more eager, because they hadn't grown up (entirely) in the West, or if they had they still have some of that eastern mentality of competing rather than folding over like a despondent delta male.
I hear teachers and adults telling children "you can be whatever you want to be" - like it's their right... I think it's dangerous to saw these seeds in children, they need to act on the world and taste the actual response more than being told that they can become a doctor simply because they want to. There's a little more to it...

I see some of this in some young players´ reactions; they get angry irrationally - like when the other players plays well and wins a point. You get the feeling that they are angry simply because they didn't win the point, and they WANTED to win the point. It was their RIGHT.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I hear teachers and adults telling children "you can be whatever you want to be" - like it's their right... I think it's dangerous to saw these seeds in children, they need to act on the world and taste the actual response more than being told that they can become a doctor simply because they want to. There's a little more to it...

I see some of this in some young players´ reactions; they get angry irrationally - like when the other players plays well and wins a point. You get the feeling that they are angry simply because they didn't win the point, and they WANTED to win the point. It was their RIGHT.
I don't want to get political here, but we all know who started this whole wave of "everyone deserves the same, everyone can be god in their chosen field"... It's the same political orientation that's been selling fairy-tales to the world since the mid 19th century.

Growing up in the terrible delusion that the world owes you a magnificent life has ruined an entire generation. It isn't really their fault. Had they grown up 50 years or 100 years earlier they would have been without these character flaws.

Imagine what the NextNextGen might be like? They will be even worse. We will have slam finales with two whiny children...

... or the Big 3 will still be dominating in their early 50s.
 

Pantera

Banned
In fairness though, the past 11 years has had the two greatest sportsmen of all time in Nadal and Djokovic dominating and that is a hard glass ceiling to break through.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
In fairness though, the past 11 years has had the two greatest sportsmen of all time in Nadal and Djokovic dominating and that is a hard glass ceiling to break through.
It isn't about matching the Big 3, it's about winning SOMETHING. Several have won M1000s, but no slams yet. The Big 3 aren't the ones stopping them, not always.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Dimitrov - 1 M1000, 1 Masters
Zverev - 3 M1000, 1 Masters
Thiem - 1 M1000
Khachanov - 1 M1000
Sock (!!!) - 1 M1000

Tally:

2 Masters, 7 M1000s, zero slams. Rather little for an entire generation.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
And another thing that is telling:

Many maiden M1000 wins recently were won by 80s-born guys. Isner, Delpo, Fognini, Cilic. The NextGen and LostGen are allowing even these guys to sneak in a few M1000 wins. Isner at the age of 33 wins his maiden M1000, yet Kyrgios and Raonic can't?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Meanwhile, on the ladies' side, you have a group of head cases who, once they win a slam or two, are all but helpless. Ostapenko, Sloane, Osaka. Wozniacki finally won one (a tribute to perseverance, I give her credit), but she may as well retire for all the additional slams she'll win. Kerber wins three (again - good for her) but why does she play so poorly otherwise? Two-time winner Kvitova appears numbstruck against tough competition. Simona's a brawler but her limits will likely prevent her from winning another. No wonder Serena's still out there trying, even as her body betrays her time and time again. She understands the shakiness of the competition. So the ladies' side has its own puzzling issues.
I disagree about Halep, precisely her scrambling tough competitive non-whiny nature will ensure her more slams. Not many, but at least one more. If she can easily beat Serena at Wimbledon, she can win any slam against anyone.

Regarding Kerber, she reached her peak at 28, so it was clear she wasn't going to sustain it for very long. And she did win that 3rd slam 2 years later aged 30, so she's definitely not a head case as the others are.

Kvitova had that assault thing happen to her so all things considered she is doing great. If that had happened to an American player, she would have retired, written a book about it, sold the rights to Hollywood for two movies (a biopic and a thriller) and gone on to talk at universities about it to head-case millennials.

Women's tennis is in disarray, has been for years, but that's what makes it interesting. It's fun not being able to predict ANY slam. The complete opposite of the ATP where most of us can easily predict the winner before the 1st round... The men's tennis has been reduced to fans counting slam tallies and arguing who will be GOAT. That to me isn't a brilliant situation either.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
One Slam left for the 90's generation to prove themselves.

Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, I don't care who. It's time for this generation to take the sport back.
That collection of losers never had the sport to begin with, so there's no "taking back" anything as of this date--so late into their ever-aging "nex generation."
 
Top