The 90's were undoubtedly the WORST generation in tennis history

TMF

TMF

Bionic Poster

In the history of professional tennis, every generation carries its torchbearers. Those players who rise up, snatch slams, inspire millions, and define an era. The 1980s born generation gave us Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Titans, immortals, the big three. They carved up the sport like it was a private buffet, taking 66 of the 80 men's Grand Slam titles between 2003 and 2022. But sandwiched between these icons and the brash new blood of the 2000s is one of the strangest anomalies in the sports modern history...the 1990s born generation. Let's say it flat out. This generation has been a massive letdown. Despite being raised on better coaching with greater access to technology, sports science, and globalized tour that offered more opportunities than ever, the men born in the 1990s flamed out. And not just a few. As a group, they failed to truly take over the sport. They were supposed to be the successors to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Instead, they were the placeholder names on slam draws, always falling just short. In this video, we're diving into the why. Why did the '90s generation produce so many underachievers? Why did they never seize the moment when the big three finally started to falter? And how did the 2000s born generation already eclipse them?

So, the first question we have to ask is who are the '90s kids? So, let's define our generation. For the purpose of this discussion, we're talking about male ATP players born between 1990 and 1999. So some of the biggest names from this group include players like Dominic Thiem, Daniel Medvedev, Alexander Zverev, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Nick Kyrgios, Taylor Fritz, Casper Ruud, Andrey Rublev, and so on and so forth. You can always expand the list, but that only strengthens the argument. Because here's the painful truth. Out of all of them, only two players born in the 1990s have won a grand slam. Dominic Thiem and Daniel Medvedev. And they have exactly one each. That's it. That's the hall. Compared that to the 80s, Federer with 20, Nadal with 22, Djokovic 24. There's also Marin Cilic with one, Stan Wawrinka with three, Andy Murray with three, and even Del Potro with one. Or even to the 2000s born: Alcaraz had three slams by the age of 21. Let that sink in. Carlos Alcaraz, born in 2003, has more slams than every '90s born player combined. So, how did this happen? Well, part of the blame lies in the unfortunate timing. The '90s generation came of age during a period of near total domination by the big three. By the time guys like Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas were entering their prime years, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were still not only active but elite, borderline unstoppable. In 2017, Federer and Nadal split all four slams. In 2018, it was Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Djokovic. In 2019, Djokovic, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic. The door didn't just close on the '90s kids. It was slammed shut. deadbolted and reinforced with concrete. But timing doesn't explain everything. After all, every generation has to face tough competition. The 80s born legends had to take out the 70s stars like Agassi and Sampras. The 2000s born, they went straight at the big three with fire in their eyes. So, what went wrong with the '90s? Well, more than anything, the '90s generation suffered from a belief problem. They didn't believe that they could beat the big three when it mattered. You saw it time and time again. Zverev would get close then crumble. Tsitsipas had Djokovic two sets to love up in the 2021 French Open final and completely folded. Thiem reached multiple slam finals but lost most of them to Djokovic or Nadal. The only time they won was when the big three were either injured or not at their best. Thiem's 2020 US Open title came in a slam with no Nadal, no Federer, and a Djokovic default for hitting a line judge. Medvedev's 2021 US Open win was incredible, but Djokovic was going for the calendar slam and cracked under pressure. It's like the '90s kids needed the big three to not show up, to have a chance. They respected them so much, they were defeated before the match even started. When Novak Djokovic was finally forced to slow down due to injuries, vaccination bans, and aging legs, when Nadal started missing entire seasons, and Federer left the tour for good, the window finally opened. 2023 should have been the '90s renaissance. But what happened instead? Well, I think we all know. Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner took that window. They slammed it shut and threw away the key. Alcaraz has won the 2023 Wimbledon title by beating Djokovic in the final. Sinner has risen to world number one, winning the Australian Open, just winning Wimbledon. Meanwhile, Thiem has already retired from tennis with chronic wrist injuries and burnout. Medvedev has since fallen out of the top 10, struggles with consistency and getting routinely beaten by Alcaraz, Sinner, and even other players that he just shouldn't be losing to. Zverev remains controversial. He lost early at Wimbledon and the French Open this year. Fritz is finally in his career renaissance, but has only made one slam final and is 0 and 5 versus Alcarez. Ruud fell out of the top 10. Fritz has had a career renaissance recently, but can't get over the Alcaraz center hurdle. Ruud fell out of the top 10 and is losing to players outside of the top 50. The '90s kids missed their moment and they're not getting it back. While the '90s born stars flinched at the mountain of Djokovic and Nadal. The 2000s born players saw it as a challenge. Carlos Alcaraz walks on the court like he's playing with the legends, not beneath them. He beat Djokovic in a Grand Slam final. He plays with freedom, audacity, and belief. Sinner, the most professional, cold-blooded player since Novak himself. They didn't wait their turn. They took it. And that might be the biggest difference between these generations. The '90s kids were raised revering Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic as tennis gods. The 2000's kids grew up watching them and planned how to beat them. But let's be clear, the '90s generation isn't untalented. Zverev, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios, Fritz, they can play. Medvedev and Thiem have incredible peaks, but when you stack them up against the surrounding generations, they look like the worst performing group in modern ATP history. No sustained slam dominance, no consistent world number one reigns, no era defining rivalries. They are the generation of almost. Tsitipas two slam finals, zero wins. Zverev three slam finals, zero wins. Rublev zero slam finals. Kyrgios one slam final, zero wins. Fritz, one slam final, zero wins. And the worst part, they might already be past their prime.

Do you think the '90s generation was unlucky or just mentally weak? And who, if anyone, can still redeem them? In sports, some generations inspire awe. Some push boundaries, others simply hold the line. But the '90s tennis generation, they let history pass them by. They waited for their turn like it was owed to them. But in tennis, you don't wait, you take. They had every advantage, nutrition, recovery, analytics, technology, more prize money than ever. But what they lacked was the thing that matters most, belief. Now, as the 2000s born stars race ahead and the big three bow out, the '90s kids are left in the middle, forgotten, failed, and fading. It wasn't just a weak era, it was the worst generation of tennis.
 
TMF said:

In the history of professional tennis, every generation carries its torchbearers. Those players who rise up, snatch slams, inspire millions, and define an era. The 1980s born generation gave us Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Titans, immortals, the big three. They carved up the sport like it was a private buffet, taking 66 of the 80 men's Grand Slam titles between 2003 and 2022. But sandwiched between these icons and the brash new blood of the 2000s is one of the strangest anomalies in the sports modern history...the 1990s born generation. Let's say it flat out. This generation has been a massive letdown. Despite being raised on better coaching with greater access to technology, sports science, and globalized tour that offered more opportunities than ever, the men born in the 1990s flamed out. And not just a few. As a group, they failed to truly take over the sport. They were supposed to be the successors to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Instead, they were the placeholder names on slam draws, always falling just short. In this video, we're diving into the why. Why did the '90s generation produce so many underachievers? Why did they never seize the moment when the big three finally started to falter? And how did the 2000s born generation already eclipse them?

So, the first question we have to ask is who are the '90s kids? So, let's define our generation. For the purpose of this discussion, we're talking about male ATP players born between 1990 and 1999. So some of the biggest names from this group include players like Dominic Thiem, Daniel Medvedev, Alexander Zverev, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Nick Kyrgios, Taylor Fritz, Casper Ruud, Andrey Rublev, and so on and so forth. You can always expand the list, but that only strengthens the argument. Because here's the painful truth. Out of all of them, only two players born in the 1990s have won a grand slam. Dominic Thiem and Daniel Medvedev. And they have exactly one each. That's it. That's the hall. Compared that to the 80s, Federer with 20, Nadal with 22, Djokovic 24. There's also Marin Cilic with one, Stan Wawrinka with three, Andy Murray with three, and even Del Potro with one. Or even to the 2000s born: Alcaraz had three slams by the age of 21. Let that sink in. Carlos Alcaraz, born in 2003, has more slams than every '90s born player combined. So, how did this happen? Well, part of the blame lies in the unfortunate timing. The '90s generation came of age during a period of near total domination by the big three. By the time guys like Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas were entering their prime years, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were still not only active but elite, borderline unstoppable. In 2017, Federer and Nadal split all four slams. In 2018, it was Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Djokovic. In 2019, Djokovic, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic. The door didn't just close on the '90s kids. It was slammed shut. deadbolted and reinforced with concrete. But timing doesn't explain everything. After all, every generation has to face tough competition. The 80s born legends had to take out the 70s stars like Agassi and Sampras. The 2000s born, they went straight at the big three with fire in their eyes. So, what went wrong with the '90s? Well, more than anything, the '90s generation suffered from a belief problem. They didn't believe that they could beat the big three when it mattered. You saw it time and time again. Zverev would get close then crumble. Tsitsipas had Djokovic two sets to love up in the 2021 French Open final and completely folded. Thiem reached multiple slam finals but lost most of them to Djokovic or Nadal. The only time they won was when the big three were either injured or not at their best. Thiem's 2020 US Open title came in a slam with no Nadal, no Federer, and a Djokovic default for hitting a line judge. Medvedev's 2021 US Open win was incredible, but Djokovic was going for the calendar slam and cracked under pressure. It's like the '90s kids needed the big three to not show up, to have a chance. They respected them so much, they were defeated before the match even started. When Novak Djokovic was finally forced to slow down due to injuries, vaccination bans, and aging legs, when Nadal started missing entire seasons, and Federer left the tour for good, the window finally opened. 2023 should have been the '90s renaissance. But what happened instead? Well, I think we all know. Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner took that window. They slammed it shut and threw away the key. Alcaraz has won the 2023 Wimbledon title by beating Djokovic in the final. Sinner has risen to world number one, winning the Australian Open, just winning Wimbledon. Meanwhile, Thiem has already retired from tennis with chronic wrist injuries and burnout. Medvedev has since fallen out of the top 10, struggles with consistency and getting routinely beaten by Alcaraz, Sinner, and even other players that he just shouldn't be losing to. Zverev remains controversial. He lost early at Wimbledon and the French Open this year. Fritz is finally in his career renaissance, but has only made one slam final and is 0 and 5 versus Alcarez. Ruud fell out of the top 10. Fritz has had a career renaissance recently, but can't get over the Alcaraz center hurdle. Ruud fell out of the top 10 and is losing to players outside of the top 50. The '90s kids missed their moment and they're not getting it back. While the '90s born stars flinched at the mountain of Djokovic and Nadal. The 2000s born players saw it as a challenge. Carlos Alcaraz walks on the court like he's playing with the legends, not beneath them. He beat Djokovic in a Grand Slam final. He plays with freedom, audacity, and belief. Sinner, the most professional, cold-blooded player since Novak himself. They didn't wait their turn. They took it. And that might be the biggest difference between these generations. The '90s kids were raised revering Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic as tennis gods. The 2000's kids grew up watching them and planned how to beat them. But let's be clear, the '90s generation isn't untalented. Zverev, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios, Fritz, they can play. Medvedev and Thiem have incredible peaks, but when you stack them up against the surrounding generations, they look like the worst performing group in modern ATP history. No sustained slam dominance, no consistent world number one reigns, no era defining rivalries. They are the generation of almost. Tsitipas two slam finals, zero wins. Zverev three slam finals, zero wins. Rublev zero slam finals. Kyrgios one slam final, zero wins. Fritz, one slam final, zero wins. And the worst part, they might already be past their prime.

Do you think the '90s generation was unlucky or just mentally weak? And who, if anyone, can still redeem them? In sports, some generations inspire awe. Some push boundaries, others simply hold the line. But the '90s tennis generation, they let history pass them by. They waited for their turn like it was owed to them. But in tennis, you don't wait, you take. They had every advantage, nutrition, recovery, analytics, technology, more prize money than ever. But what they lacked was the thing that matters most, belief. Now, as the 2000s born stars race ahead and the big three bow out, the '90s kids are left in the middle, forgotten, failed, and fading. It wasn't just a weak era, it was the worst generation of tennis.
Click to expand...
They weren't bad, they were terrible.
They will be forgotten faster than the memories of an Alzheimer's patient.
:notworthy:
 
MichaelNadal said:
They grew up with cell phones, the 80's generation are the last real GOATS in every aspect of life :D
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can remember my childhood. Up to age 9 when we got Sky (i.e. Satellite), we had just 4 TV channels, VHS tapes, no mobile phones, no internet. Computer games on the Sega Megadrive (which I and some kids had) or on the Nintendo (which other kids had) was our thing, or even the Gameboy. Channel 5 came out in 1997, and we had a terrible reception of it in my area. It was a different world in the 1990s.

Even Sky in those days had a few dozen channels at most, not hundreds of channels.

I think there's something about smartphones and social media that damages our brains, especially those who have no off time from it. That technology by itself creates additional pressures that were never there before.
 
DSH said:
They weren't bad, they were terrible.
They will be forgotten faster than the memories of an Alzheimer's patient.
:notworthy:
Click to expand...

The lack of new talents, self-belief, inability to consistently win crucial matches, compounded by the swift emergence of new stars like Sincaraz when the Big 3 finally waned, leaving them in a difficult "sandwich generation"
 
Mustard said:
Yeah, I can remember my childhood. Up to age 9 when we got Sky (i.e. Satellite), we had just 4 TV channels, VHS tapes, no mobile phones, no internet. Computer games on the Sega Megadrive (which I and some kids had) or on the Nintendo (which other kids had) was our thing, or even the Gameboy. Channel 5 came out in 1997, and we had a terrible reception of it in my area. It was a different world in the 1990s.

Even Sky in those days had a few dozen channels at most, not hundreds of channels.

I think there's something about smartphones and social media that damages our brains, especially those who have no off time from it. That technology by itself creates additional pressures that were never there before.
Click to expand...
We used to actually have to live in the moment, go outside, go shopping, watch things when they were on TV or you missed them, etc. Irreplaceable era. Athletes had a lot more time to actually focus on improving without distractions
 
DSH said:
They weren't bad, they were terrible.
They will be forgotten faster than the memories of an Alzheimer's patient.
:notworthy:
Click to expand...

Yes but you will still have the last dying Djokovic fanatics from their nursing homes who will try and build them up as one of the most talented groups of players ever. We all know why. :-D :-D And when you ask them how they were constantly put down by not only Djokovic but 40 year old Federer and roughly 35/36 year old Nadal in a 90 year old body by that point, and then by the much younger Sinner and Alcaraz many years before their primes even began, you will only get either crying or crickets or "hater" complaints.
 
TMF said:
So, the first question we have to ask is who are the '90s kids? So, let's define our generation. For the purpose of this discussion, we're talking about male ATP players born between 1990 and 1999. So some of the biggest names from this group include players like Dominic Thiem, Daniel Medvedev, Alexander Zverev, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Nick Kyrgios, Taylor Fritz, Casper Ruud, Andrey Rublev, and so on and so forth. You can always expand the list, but that only strengthens the argument. Because here's the painful truth. Out of all of them, only two players born in the 1990s have won a grand slam. Dominic Thiem and Daniel Medvedev. And they have exactly one each. That's it. That's the hall. Compared that to the 80s, Federer with 20, Nadal with 22, Djokovic 24. There's also Marin Cilic with one, Stan Wawrinka with three, Andy Murray with three, and even Del Potro with one. Or even to the 2000s born: Alcaraz had three slams by the age of 21. Let that sink in. Carlos Alcaraz, born in 2003, has more slams than every '90s born player combined. So, how did this happen? Well, part of the blame lies in the unfortunate timing. The '90s generation came of age during a period of near total domination by the big three. By the time guys like Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas were entering their prime years, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were still not only active but elite, borderline unstoppable. In 2017, Federer and Nadal split all four slams. In 2018, it was Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Djokovic. In 2019, Djokovic, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic. The door didn't just close on the '90s kids. It was slammed shut. deadbolted and reinforced with concrete. But timing doesn't explain everything. After all, every generation has to face tough competition. The 80s born legends had to take out the 70s stars like Agassi and Sampras. The 2000s born, they went straight at the big three with fire in their eyes. So, what went wrong with the '90s? Well, more than anything, the '90s generation suffered from a belief problem. They didn't believe that they could beat the big three when it mattered. You saw it time and time again. Zverev would get close then crumble. Tsitsipas had Djokovic two sets to love up in the 2021 French Open final and completely folded. Thiem reached multiple slam finals but lost most of them to Djokovic or Nadal. The only time they won was when the big three were either injured or not at their best. Thiem's 2020 US Open title came in a slam with no Nadal, no Federer, and a Djokovic default for hitting a line judge. Medvedev's 2021 US Open win was incredible, but Djokovic was going for the calendar slam and cracked under pressure. It's like the '90s kids needed the big three to not show up, to have a chance. They respected them so much, they were defeated before the match even started. When Novak Djokovic was finally forced to slow down due to injuries, vaccination bans, and aging legs, when Nadal started missing entire seasons, and Federer left the tour for good, the window finally opened. 2023 should have been the '90s renaissance. But what happened instead? Well, I think we all know. Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner took that window. They slammed it shut and threw away the key. Alcaraz has won the 2023 Wimbledon title by beating Djokovic in the final. Sinner has risen to world number one, winning the Australian Open, just winning Wimbledon. Meanwhile, Thiem has already retired from tennis with chronic wrist injuries and burnout. Medvedev has since fallen out of the top 10, struggles with consistency and getting routinely beaten by Alcaraz, Sinner, and even other players that he just shouldn't be losing to. Zverev remains controversial. He lost early at Wimbledon and the French Open this year. Fritz is finally in his career renaissance, but has only made one slam final and is 0 and 5 versus Alcarez. Ruud fell out of the top 10. Fritz has had a career renaissance recently, but can't get over the Alcaraz center hurdle. Ruud fell out of the top 10 and is losing to players outside of the top 50. The '90s kids missed their moment and they're not getting it back. While the '90s born stars flinched at the mountain of Djokovic and Nadal. The 2000s born players saw it as a challenge. Carlos Alcaraz walks on the court like he's playing with the legends, not beneath them. He beat Djokovic in a Grand Slam final. He plays with freedom, audacity, and belief. Sinner, the most professional, cold-blooded player since Novak himself. They didn't wait their turn. They took it. And that might be the biggest difference between these generations. The '90s kids were raised revering Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic as tennis gods. The 2000's kids grew up watching them and planned how to beat them. But let's be clear, the '90s generation isn't untalented. Zverev, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios, Fritz, they can play. Medvedev and Thiem have incredible peaks, but when you stack them up against the surrounding generations, they look like the worst performing group in modern ATP history. No sustained slam dominance, no consistent world number one reigns, no era defining rivalries. They are the generation of almost. Tsitipas two slam finals, zero wins. Zverev three slam finals, zero wins. Rublev zero slam finals. Kyrgios one slam final, zero wins. Fritz, one slam final, zero wins. And the worst part, they might already be past their prime.
Click to expand...

This ghastly wall of text looks like it could be dropped on a person and squash them dead.
 
TMF said:
The lack of new talents, self-belief, inability to consistently win crucial matches, compounded by the swift emergence of new stars like Sincaraz when the Big 3 finally waned, leaving them in a difficult "sandwich generation"
Click to expand...

They were the sandwich that never even got finished being made with even the basic mayonaise and a bit of lettuce put on. Thank a smushed tuna sandwich on the sidewalk that got lost, that the seagulls just slowly finished off over a couple weeks.
 
insideoutforehanders said:
Easily the worst generation/decade of athletes in any sport. I can't think of one that comes even close, and I follow virtually every sport.
Click to expand...
Racquet_smash said:
For sure one of the worst generations in any sport
Click to expand...
TMF said:
The lack of new talents, self-belief, inability to consistently win crucial matches, compounded by the swift emergence of new stars like Sincaraz when the Big 3 finally waned, leaving them in a difficult "sandwich generation"
Click to expand...

Historic Trends in ATP among the Grand Slam Winners

1974-1983 -------> 35 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1950s
1984-1993 -------> 23 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1960s
1994-2003 -------> 32 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1970s
2004-2013 -------> 39 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1980s
2014-2023 -------> 35 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1980s

2024-present -------> all the 8 out of 8 Slam winners in 2024-2025 period were born in 2000s, thus skipping the 1990s gen who missed the bus in the previous decade because no one from the 1990s gen can win slams now, the doors are shut and the remaining 8 years of 2026-2033 (32 slams) will also have 2000s borns as the winners.

2014-2023 was that Slice of the pie which was meant for the 1990s generation was eaten by Nole, Bull, Roger and even Stan-Andy ate this, lol.. what a shame.
 
i liked the Sampras -Agassi era, and there was more good players beside them than after the millenials beside Federer - Nadal than beside Nadal-Djokovic or even today beside Alcaraz-Sinner,
overall i find in the 1990 years there was more good match to watch than after it
Just my opinion
 
TMF said:

In the history of professional tennis, every generation carries its torchbearers. Those players who rise up, snatch slams, inspire millions, and define an era. The 1980s born generation gave us Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Titans, immortals, the big three. They carved up the sport like it was a private buffet, taking 66 of the 80 men's Grand Slam titles between 2003 and 2022. But sandwiched between these icons and the brash new blood of the 2000s is one of the strangest anomalies in the sports modern history...the 1990s born generation. Let's say it flat out. This generation has been a massive letdown. Despite being raised on better coaching with greater access to technology, sports science, and globalized tour that offered more opportunities than ever, the men born in the 1990s flamed out. And not just a few. As a group, they failed to truly take over the sport. They were supposed to be the successors to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Instead, they were the placeholder names on slam draws, always falling just short. In this video, we're diving into the why. Why did the '90s generation produce so many underachievers? Why did they never seize the moment when the big three finally started to falter? And how did the 2000s born generation already eclipse them?

So, the first question we have to ask is who are the '90s kids? So, let's define our generation. For the purpose of this discussion, we're talking about male ATP players born between 1990 and 1999. So some of the biggest names from this group include players like Dominic Thiem, Daniel Medvedev, Alexander Zverev, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Nick Kyrgios, Taylor Fritz, Casper Ruud, Andrey Rublev, and so on and so forth. You can always expand the list, but that only strengthens the argument. Because here's the painful truth. Out of all of them, only two players born in the 1990s have won a grand slam. Dominic Thiem and Daniel Medvedev. And they have exactly one each. That's it. That's the hall. Compared that to the 80s, Federer with 20, Nadal with 22, Djokovic 24. There's also Marin Cilic with one, Stan Wawrinka with three, Andy Murray with three, and even Del Potro with one. Or even to the 2000s born: Alcaraz had three slams by the age of 21. Let that sink in. Carlos Alcaraz, born in 2003, has more slams than every '90s born player combined. So, how did this happen? Well, part of the blame lies in the unfortunate timing. The '90s generation came of age during a period of near total domination by the big three. By the time guys like Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas were entering their prime years, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were still not only active but elite, borderline unstoppable. In 2017, Federer and Nadal split all four slams. In 2018, it was Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Djokovic. In 2019, Djokovic, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic. The door didn't just close on the '90s kids. It was slammed shut. deadbolted and reinforced with concrete. But timing doesn't explain everything. After all, every generation has to face tough competition. The 80s born legends had to take out the 70s stars like Agassi and Sampras. The 2000s born, they went straight at the big three with fire in their eyes. So, what went wrong with the '90s? Well, more than anything, the '90s generation suffered from a belief problem. They didn't believe that they could beat the big three when it mattered. You saw it time and time again. Zverev would get close then crumble. Tsitsipas had Djokovic two sets to love up in the 2021 French Open final and completely folded. Thiem reached multiple slam finals but lost most of them to Djokovic or Nadal. The only time they won was when the big three were either injured or not at their best. Thiem's 2020 US Open title came in a slam with no Nadal, no Federer, and a Djokovic default for hitting a line judge. Medvedev's 2021 US Open win was incredible, but Djokovic was going for the calendar slam and cracked under pressure. It's like the '90s kids needed the big three to not show up, to have a chance. They respected them so much, they were defeated before the match even started. When Novak Djokovic was finally forced to slow down due to injuries, vaccination bans, and aging legs, when Nadal started missing entire seasons, and Federer left the tour for good, the window finally opened. 2023 should have been the '90s renaissance. But what happened instead? Well, I think we all know. Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner took that window. They slammed it shut and threw away the key. Alcaraz has won the 2023 Wimbledon title by beating Djokovic in the final. Sinner has risen to world number one, winning the Australian Open, just winning Wimbledon. Meanwhile, Thiem has already retired from tennis with chronic wrist injuries and burnout. Medvedev has since fallen out of the top 10, struggles with consistency and getting routinely beaten by Alcaraz, Sinner, and even other players that he just shouldn't be losing to. Zverev remains controversial. He lost early at Wimbledon and the French Open this year. Fritz is finally in his career renaissance, but has only made one slam final and is 0 and 5 versus Alcarez. Ruud fell out of the top 10. Fritz has had a career renaissance recently, but can't get over the Alcaraz center hurdle. Ruud fell out of the top 10 and is losing to players outside of the top 50. The '90s kids missed their moment and they're not getting it back. While the '90s born stars flinched at the mountain of Djokovic and Nadal. The 2000s born players saw it as a challenge. Carlos Alcaraz walks on the court like he's playing with the legends, not beneath them. He beat Djokovic in a Grand Slam final. He plays with freedom, audacity, and belief. Sinner, the most professional, cold-blooded player since Novak himself. They didn't wait their turn. They took it. And that might be the biggest difference between these generations. The '90s kids were raised revering Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic as tennis gods. The 2000's kids grew up watching them and planned how to beat them. But let's be clear, the '90s generation isn't untalented. Zverev, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios, Fritz, they can play. Medvedev and Thiem have incredible peaks, but when you stack them up against the surrounding generations, they look like the worst performing group in modern ATP history. No sustained slam dominance, no consistent world number one reigns, no era defining rivalries. They are the generation of almost. Tsitipas two slam finals, zero wins. Zverev three slam finals, zero wins. Rublev zero slam finals. Kyrgios one slam final, zero wins. Fritz, one slam final, zero wins. And the worst part, they might already be past their prime.

Do you think the '90s generation was unlucky or just mentally weak? And who, if anyone, can still redeem them? In sports, some generations inspire awe. Some push boundaries, others simply hold the line. But the '90s tennis generation, they let history pass them by. They waited for their turn like it was owed to them. But in tennis, you don't wait, you take. They had every advantage, nutrition, recovery, analytics, technology, more prize money than ever. But what they lacked was the thing that matters most, belief. Now, as the 2000s born stars race ahead and the big three bow out, the '90s kids are left in the middle, forgotten, failed, and fading. It wasn't just a weak era, it was the worst generation of tennis.
Click to expand...
And thats why big 3 records are fake.
 
I just think it’s inherently weird and kinda misleading to separate generations by decades, which we as a species kind of just made up. Ruud and Shapo for example are much more Sincaraz generation than they are Dimitrov or Raonic. The other 2000s guys like Shelton, Musetti, Felix. Draper etc are getting a lot of cover as not being from a failed generation because of what Sincaraz are doing, because none of them have proven to be any better than the 90s guys so far. And people like Stef, Meddy and Zverev were actually achieving much more already at similar respective ages.

The late 90s generation is actually pretty good imo in the amount of good players it produced, it’s the early 90s that gave us almost nothing. But in neither batch was there an ATG. Just some very good Tier 2 players. There was just a 16 year gap between freak of nature players being born, Djokovic to Alcaraz. I don’t think it’s anything much larger than that tbh.
 
toth said:
i liked the Sampras -Agassi era, and there was more good players beside them than after the millenials beside Federer - Nadal than beside Nadal-Djokovic or even today beside Alcaraz-Sinner,
overall i find in the 1990 years there was more good match to watch than after it
Just my opinion
Click to expand...
In the 1990s, the conditions were at their most polarized. Excelling on different surfaces usually meant different gamestyles.
 
BananaFH said:
I just think it’s inherently weird and kinda misleading to separate generations by decades, which we as a species kind of just made up. Ruud and Shapo for example are much more Sincaraz generation than they are Dimitrov or Raonic.
Click to expand...
I mean I agree, but does this part really matter, atleast specifically to the players you refer to. Ruud, Shapopolav, Dimitrov, Raonic are all roughly at the same level of suckage and total fail, I guess Shap. a notch worse than the other 3, but you are basically seperating small change.
 
I mean yes because if the arbitrary 10 year period we’re using here were somehow from 1993-2003, suddenly Shapo and Ruud (and Tsitsipas, Zverev, Meddy, Rublev, Fritz, Demon) are in the same decade as Sincaraz and nobody says that decade is weak or whatever. Those guys would just be tier 2 players. Which I don’t think inherently means someone “sucks.” I don’t think you have to be Big 4 or Sincaraz to be a respectable player lol. The 2000s guys aren’t any better so far as a whole, just Jannik and Carlos are.
 
Mustard said:
Yeah, I can remember my childhood. Up to age 9 when we got Sky (i.e. Satellite), we had just 4 TV channels, VHS tapes, no mobile phones, no internet. Computer games on the Sega Megadrive (which I and some kids had) or on the Nintendo (which other kids had) was our thing, or even the Gameboy. Channel 5 came out in 1997, and we had a terrible reception of it in my area. It was a different world in the 1990s.

Even Sky in those days had a few dozen channels at most, not hundreds of channels.

I think there's something about smartphones and social media that damages our brains, especially those who have no off time from it. That technology by itself creates additional pressures that were never there before.
Click to expand...
You haven't really lived until you rewind a videotape. Yes, this speaks to me; there are many similarities.
 
BananaFH said:
I mean yes because if the arbitrary 10 year period we’re using here were somehow from 1993-2003, suddenly Shapo and Ruud (and Tsitsipas, Zverev, Meddy, Rublev, Fritz, Demon) are in the same decade as Sincaraz and nobody says that decade is weak or whatever. Those guys would just be tier 2 players. Which I don’t think inherently means someone “sucks.” I don’t think you have to be Big 4 or Sincaraz to be a respectable player lol.
Click to expand...

Well one difference is Raonic you could legitimately argue to be one of the top few players of his "generation", regardless if you are defining generation by those born in the 90s, or a rough 89-93 period or something, which is just embarassing. I am Canadian and I like Raonic and all but lets get real here, LOL! Ruud by contrast is just a tiny bit relevant player of his generation, again regardless what you define his generation as this would still apply to.

FWIW though I don't think anyone is projecting the Sinncaraz generation to be anything great, and they are likely only be saved from suckage nearly as bad as the previous ones by Sinncaraz themselves who are indeed outliers over an otherwise mostly talentless group of more rubbish. In the future IF (and it is still a huge if) they even attain the numbers to be up with the GOATs of the sport, their largely poor competition, unless things change, is likely to come up with them too. The sport starting with players born around 1990 is producing a total dearth of talented new emerging players in comparision to what they had produced for like over a 100 years plus, and there is no sign that is even getting much better even now. The real question is why this is happening, and hopefully it is solved soon, or the sport is in serious, serious trouble. Womens tennis is not in the best state ever, but light years better than the mens (atleast outside of Sinner and Alcaraz), the womens game certainly does not have the depth and quality of overall talent emerging somehow being worse than over a century again for their gender, something unheard of in any sport except for currently mens tennis.

How we know that generation of players are the worst ever by far though is you could put them in any era in history and be confident in saying it is 95% likely they combine for 0-1 slams total (they have 1 in the current reality via Medvedev). There is no other generation in history you can say that of. Maybe you could the Sinncaraz one if they didn't exist, too early to tell on that, but the fact is they do exist, so it already does not apply.
 
I disagree. I don’t think variance in the end result of the WTA inherently makes it in a better state. And I first got into tennis in 1999 and until about 2006 FAR preferred the women’s game. Venus, Serena, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Seles, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Pierce, Sharapova, even some of Graf, ASV and Conchita in there. So many contrasting games and personalities and rivalries in that late 90s to mid 2000s era. Now I watch the women’s game and it’s just brainless flat ballbashing even amongst the best players and like 80% of rallies end in unforced errors it feels like. Iga (when not having a wildly off day) and Sabalenka are like the only exceptions. Whereas with the men’s game I can get entirely intrigued and invested in a round 1 USO match between Sonego and Schoolkate who are both pulling off incredible shots and point after point includes a variety of spins, angles, pace and net play.

Anyways, yeah I just disagree with the whole premise and think the sport is always evolving and people have a ton of nostalgia bias. There’s more money in the sport than ever, the sport is more globalized than ever, there’s millions of kids training day in and day out at the best academies from the best coaches with modern nutrition, fitness, injury prevention, and recovery practices, etc. This is not all happening and then somehow nobody who comes from this system is good. There just wasn’t any freak of nature athlete and tennis player between Novak/Murray (being generous but still) and Sinners birth. And the Big 3 being so good still late until their 30s also hindered some of these best late 90s players careers because they were good they just weren’t THAT good.
 
GabeT said:
Just can’t get over 24>22>20
Click to expand...
I would have bought it up to some extent if Fed defeated Fedal tier players in his prime to win his slams like Novak did but who did he dominate?? all non ATG lol. They have literally no argument from slams to competition lol
 
TennisGrandpA said:
His new argument for his mythical goat is having more money
Click to expand...

6D8841DD338B597210BB54E6491382141574B478
 
Hitman said:
Yes, and I think Sinner is having a three slam season.

This will be his absolute peak year IMO. Alcaraz gets his later.
Click to expand...
This year i am keeping my expectation low after Sinner failing to capitalise on great start of season and choking at FO, Carlos form at USO was scary good and I was wondering what if he bring his UsO form and intensity at all 4 slams ? Sinner needs to find answers against him and up his level, especially should serve much better against him.
 
TennisGrandpA said:
This year i am keeping my expectation low after Sinner failing to capitalise on great start of season and choking at FO, Carlos form at USO was scary good and I was wondering what if he bring his UsO form and intensity at all 4 slams ? Sinner needs to find answers against him.
Click to expand...

So what do you see, how do you see the slams going?
 
Hitman said:
So what do you see, how do you see the slams going?
Click to expand...
Tbh this depends on two things

1- can Carlos keep his focus and intensity like USO ? If he can then God knows what that boy can do

2- Can Sinner serve more than 60% against Carlos and win easy points especially in pressure situations?

I see either having a 3 slam season , don’t see a split but I don’t know who will sweep it, it can be either , Sinner will be better prepared for him and quality of tennis is only going to get better between these two.
 
TennisGrandpA said:
Tbh this depends on two things

1- can Carlos keep his focus and intensity like USO ? If he can then God knows what that boy can do

2- Can Sinner serve more than 60% against Carlos and win easy points especially in pressure situations?

I see either having a 3 slam season , don’t see a split but I don’t know who will sweep it, it can be either , Sinner will be better prepared for him and quality of tennis is only going to get better between these two.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm going with Sinner because I feel Alcaraz will get his time in about another season or so. But I don't see a two slam split for a third season in a row between them either.

I can't see anyone but these two winning slams this year, it will take a crazy level for someone to upset them and take a slam.
 
TennisGrandpA said:
I would have bought it up to some extent if Fed defeated Fedal tier players in his prime to win his slams like Novak did but who did he dominate?? all non ATG lol. They have literally no argument from slams to competition lol
Click to expand...
Back when the Fed was winning slams against such luminaries as Roddick and Philippoussis, many here talked of a weak era. Back then, OP had a very different view of weak era claims.

TMF said:
The weak era excuse is getting tiresome, because it proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh, how times change when your fave player loses the slam race ;)
 
Razer said:
Historic Trends in ATP among the Grand Slam Winners

1974-1983 -------> 35 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1950s
1984-1993 -------> 23 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1960s
1994-2003 -------> 32 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1970s
2004-2013 -------> 39 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1980s
2014-2023 -------> 35 Slam winners in the ATP were born in 1980s

2024-present -------> all the 8 out of 8 Slam winners in 2024-2025 period were born in 2000s, thus skipping the 1990s gen who missed the bus in the previous decade because no one from the 1990s gen can win slams now, the doors are shut and the remaining 8 years of 2026-2033 (32 slams) will also have 2000s borns as the winners.

2014-2023 was that Slice of the pie which was meant for the 1990s generation was eaten by Nole, Bull, Roger and even Stan-Andy ate this, lol.. what a shame.
Click to expand...

A total of 74 slams won by the 1980s born.
A total of 2 slams won by the 1990s born.

SHOCKING !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
Grand Slam titles per generation
Replies
47
Views
5K
DSH
DSH
H
The players born in the 1990s might end up with 2 slam wins
Replies
14
Views
861
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
G
The Lost Decade of ATP
Replies
4
Views
975
SneederFeeder
SneederFeeder
M
Is 1989-1992 worst generation in tennis history
Replies
48
Views
4K
NatF
NatF
H
Zverev becomes the third player born in the 90s to win a slam
Replies
8
Views
293
NachoGPT
N
Back
Top