Shocking age-related statistic

Lew II

Hall of Fame
The women's game has a slam champion born in the 2000s.

The men's game still does not have one born in the 1990s.

Disgust.
In 1989 either.

IMO that's mainly because men's tennis has already reached its peak of competition, while in women's tennis there's still a lot that youngsters can add to the game.
 
Last edited:
In 1989 either.

IMO that's mainly because men's tennis has already reached its peak of competition, while in women's tennis there's still a lot that youngsters can add to the game.
It's true that there have been three supreme champions playing simultaneously. However, the fact that not a single man under the age of 31 now holds a slam is disturbing. Medvedev was the first to even come close.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The women's game has a slam champion born in the 2000s.

The men's game still does not have one born in the 1990s.

Disgust.
Yup, I've posted threads on this. An ENTIRE DECADE has gone by without a single male player born two decades earlier winning a slam.

First time ever in the history of tennis.

Medvedev was very close to deleting this embarrassment from his generation, but now they're stuck with it. A negative record for the ages.
 

MS_07

Rookie
In 1989 either.

IMO that's mainly because men's tennis has already reached its peak of competition, while in women's tennis there's still a lot that youngsters can add to the game.

there's a reason we call post 2011 weak era . no up and coming slam winners . mugs everywhere . and an old guy whose tactics are well known by now and his speeds / shots declining . basically 3 almost same age guys to vulture everything . one of them is an almost always injured fella .
 

ReeceSachs

Professional
there's a reason we call post 2011 weak era . no up and coming slam winners . mugs everywhere . and an old guy whose tactics are well known by now and his speeds / shots declining . basically 3 almost same age guys to vulture everything . one of them is an almost always injured fella .
Hardly anybody calls 2012 a weak year it is considered to be the 1st or 2nd best year by most people on this forum.
2013 is also considered very strong as well.
It is 2014 to now that gets slated by most people.....
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Hardly anybody calls 2012 a weak year it is considered to be the 1st or 2nd best year by most people on this forum.
2013 is also considered very strong as well.
It is 2014 to now that gets slated by most people.....
The vacuum started roughly around 2015.

NextGen still haven't done much and LostGen are officially the worst generation ever. So it is a somewhat weak era.
 

ReeceSachs

Professional
The vacuum started roughly around 2015.
2015 was not bad IMO. The big drop started in 2016 IMO. With smaller drops covered by the top competition as early as the 2nd half of 2013.
NextGen still haven't done much and LostGen are officially the worst generation ever. So it is a somewhat weak era.
2 slam finals this year is progress.
What do you consider a strong period anyways?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
There are also now 16 active women players who have won a Slam the latest of whom is still a teenager. On the men's side there are just 7 active Slam winners (last new one was 5 years ago) and all are over the age of 30.
 

GabeT

Legend
there's a reason we call post 2011 weak era . no up and coming slam winners . mugs everywhere . and an old guy whose tactics are well known by now and his speeds / shots declining . basically 3 almost same age guys to vulture everything . one of them is an almost always injured fella .
Only in TTW does anyone talk of post 2011 as a weak era. It takes a particular type of tennis ignorance and fanaticism to reach this conclusion. No wonder TTW produced such wonders as “no one can win more than 5 slams after 27” or “Nadal and Djokovic have a style of play that will lead to early retirements”. Fun times.

In the real world people understand we have witnessed one of the greatest eras of men’s tennis ever.





 

TimHenmanATG

Professional
How many ATP players born in the 1990s have even reached a Grand Slam final?

Thiem, Raonic, and now Medvedev? That's pathetic.

Even when three out of the Big 4 have failed to reach a GS final in the last 5 years, then it's still usually been a guy born in the 1980s (Wawrinka, Cilic, Anderson, Nishikori) who has filled that vacant spot.
 

MS_07

Rookie
Only in TTW does anyone talk of post 2011 as a weak era. It takes a particular type of tennis ignorance and fanaticism to reach this conclusion. No wonder TTW produced such wonders as “no one can win more than 5 slams after 27” or “Nadal and Djokovic have a style of play that will lead to early retirements”. Fun times.

In the real world people understand we have witnessed one of the greatest eras of men’s tennis ever.






paid media reports .

also I think you make your opinion based on what ppl around you are talking about . that's what new millennials thing is . everyone jumps on viral train . no body has their own opinion and dares to think different .

post 2011 is a super weak era , no up and coming champs . everybody plays almost same grinding game and two good grinders are their heroes . meh . end of story .
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
It's true that there have been three supreme champions playing simultaneously. However, the fact that not a single man under the age of 31 now holds a slam is disturbing. Medvedev was the first to even come close.
I agree. I think the next evolution you will see is actually the same game from someone taller, and that is the big change I am seeing right now. We have these really tall guys who move very well. The moment you have a guy the height of Zod and Med who can defend that well who also has the right mechanics on serve to do what other tall players in the past have done you will see a player we've never seen before. I think there is a 50/50 chance it will happen. Med is so far the closest I've seen, but he doesn't have the kind of serve Ivanisevic had. A guy with a Roddick kind of serve but 6'6" without injuries and with great defensive skills is going to change things. I think it can happen.
 

Mike Sams

Legend
I agree. I think the next evolution you will see is actually the same game from someone taller, and that is the big change I am seeing right now. We have these really tall guys who move very well. The moment you have a guy the height of Zod and Med who can defend that well who also has the right mechanics on serve to do what other tall players in the past have done you will see a player we've never seen before. I think there is a 50/50 chance it will happen. Med is so far the closest I've seen, but he doesn't have the kind of serve Ivanisevic had. A guy with a Roddick kind of serve but 6'6" without injuries and with great defensive skills is going to change things. I think it can happen.
I'm not sure if it's about players getting taller or moving better. We've had great talents through the years including Marat Safin in 1999 who emerged. But most players don't have the ambition or drive to succeed and instead choose a life of partying rather than trying to build a legacy. Difference between Safin and Djokovic isn't much. One guy was driven to be great while the other didn't care much about the sport and just enjoyed the limelight and having lots of girlfriends.
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure if it's about players getting taller or moving better. We've had great talents through the years including Marat Safin in 1999 who emerged. But most players don't have the ambition or drive to succeed and instead choose a life of partying rather than trying to build a legacy. Difference between Safin and Djokovic isn't much. One guy was driven to be great while the other didn't care much about the sport and just enjoyed the limelight and having lots of girlfriends.
how many years has Fed been a father?this changes the game too because tennis isnt the biggest thing anymore
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Nothing shocking about it. It just shows 2 things:

1) Players can stay in good physical conditions for longer now.
2) Even with a bit of physical decline better skills will prevail over smaller physical advantages combined with lesser skills.

Not shocking, but rather encouraging. It’s nice to see great players or even idols longer in the game, and they are rolemodels for others to try the same.
 
Nothing shocking about it. It just shows 2 things:

1) Players can stay in good physical conditions for longer now.
2) Even with a bit of physical decline better skills will prevail over smaller physical advantages combined with lesser skills.

Not shocking, but rather encouraging. It’s nice to see great players or even idols longer in the game, and they are rolemodels for others to try the same.
Couldn't disagree more.

You don't think it's shocking that no man under 31 has yet won a slam (I believe the record prior to this era was 27, at the end of 1973, before Connors/Borg came onto the scene) - and, indeed, other than Medvedev, no man has really come close.

Also, the fact that the women have a slam champ born in the 2000s, while the men still can't muster one born in the 1990s - sorry, that is a ridiculous stat. Andreescu is 12 years younger than Delpo and Cilic. An absurd disparity between the genders.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Couldn't disagree more.

You don't think it's shocking that no man under 31 has yet won a slam (I believe the record prior to this era was 27, at the end of 1973, before Connors/Borg came onto the scene) - and, indeed, other than Medvedev, no man has really come close.

Also, the fact that the women have a slam champ born in the 2000s, while the men still can't muster one born in the 1990s - sorry, that is a ridiculous stat. Andreescu is 12 years younger than Delpo and Cilic. An absurd disparity between the genders.
It’s not shocking because the reason is obvious. It’s just Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being the 3 greatest players since a long time or maybe forever. And it’s nice that in our days such guys have the opportunities to stay in the game for that long.

Remove them (or let’s say remove 2 of them to have an equivalent to Serena in the WTA), and the situation will be similar.

And even if not, what’s the problem? Skills matter, not age. And as long as the Big 3 stay in shape, it is not that likely that a young player will be just better than them. Because after 3 of those guys arrived almost together, it is not unlikely that such a player won’t emerge again for even a few decades.
 
It’s not shocking because the reason is obvious. It’s just Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being the 3 greatest players since a long time or maybe forever. And it’s nice that in our days such guys have the opportunities to stay in the game for that long.

Remove them (or let’s say remove 2 of them to have an equivalent to Serena in the WTA), and the situation will be similar.

And even if not, what’s the problem? Skills matter, not age. And as long as the Big 3 stay in shape, it is not that likely that a young player will be just better than them. Because after 3 of those guys arrived almost together, it is not unlikely that such a player won’t emerge again for even a few decades.
It's not just about the big 3, though, is it? Remove them, and you still wouldn't have got a younger champ except maybe Thiem before this year. It was guys like Anderson and Cilic who reached the latter stages instead.

Basically the generation born in the early 1990s are complete mugs. Time will tell if the late 1990s born generation are any better.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
It's not just about the big 3, though, is it? Remove them, and you still wouldn't have got a younger champ except maybe Thiem before this year. It was guys like Anderson and Cilic who reached the latter stages instead.

Basically the generation born in the early 1990s are complete mugs. Time will tell if the late 1990s born generation are any better.
Okay, then you would have a point, certainly. I mean, if those guys seemingly need to be over 30 to win their FIRST Slam some day. Because that would certainly show how weak the young players are (excluding anomalies like Wawrinka).

Or if even Thiem has to wait until all of the Big 3 are REALLY out with around 40 and then would start to dominate with well over 30 despite playing worse than before.

That would be shocking for the youngsters, but not if the Big 3 just stay in shape and win because of that. Shocking is what comes after them.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The women's game has a slam champion born in the 2000s.

The men's game still does not have one born in the 1990s.

Disgust.
It could be a generational thing. Younger generations of boys i.e. young men are growing up in an emasculated culture. Nerds are growing in numbers, real men are considered un-PC or mocked, any kind of uber-displays of machismo are considered in poor taste or whatever, hence a whole generation of "softer men" that can't challenge the "real men" (or less emasculated men) of the previous generations. Perhaps men's tennis will be far worse in 15 years and we'll be regarding NextGen as a Golden Generation?

Whatever it is, we can definitely call it devolution.
 
Top