The definition of #NextGen?

[Aabye5]

I've seen a lot of definitions for NextGen on TTW. What yours?

0. All players who were part of the original marketing campaign
1. All players who played in the inaugural NextGen tournament (2017)
2. All players who have played in at least one of the NextGen tournaments
3. All players who are in the same age bracket as the original NextGen players
4. All current players under 21
5. All current players under 25
6. Nadal and Djokovic - *pick this one*, I could use a good laugh
7. Context is important....
8. Other

 

[Lleytonstation]

Those who are not good, but are presented as good. Next Gen Bum Shufflers.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Other: A mug

 

[travlerajm]

Anyone who can be viewed to be up-and-coming, but not yet arrived.

 

[Jonas78]

#DjokodalGen 85-88
#LostGen 89-95
#NextGen 96-99
#BabyGen 00+

Something like that...

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

#DjokodalGen 85-88
#LostGen 89-92
#NextGen 93-96(97/98)
#BabyGen -

Think id add Zverev/Tsitsipas etc to NextGen, while Sinner is obiously babygen

To be followed by #FetusGen and #NonExistentGen.

You'd be forgiven for thinking we'd already reached the latter.

 

[Aabye5]

#DjokodalGen 85-88
#LostGen 89-92
#NextGen 93-96(97/98)
#BabyGen -

Think id add Zverev/Tsitsipas etc to NextGen, while Sinner is obiously babygen

So Shapo is BabyGen? Interesting....

 

[Jonas78]

To be followed by #FetusGen and #NonExistentGen.

You'd be forgiven for thinking we'd already reached the latter.

I changed it a bit... Think LostGen is actually 89-95, with the lone exception of Thiem.

 

[Jonas78]

So Shapo is BabyGen? Interesting....

I changed my mind a bit. Look now?

 

[Russeljones]

Good thread. We need a new name for what is, realistically, the NextNextGen.

 

[Adam Copeland]

Players born in 1980s = Retired/ to be retired soon Generation
Players born in 1990s = Current Gen
Players born in 2000s = Next Gen

You could broadly consider teenagers to be next gen, someone is 20s is not next gen but taking the modern era into consideration under 21 is next gen.

 

[Krish872007]

Goalposts have probably moved now. We've been talking about "Next Gen" since 2014 when you had guys like Thiem, Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori coming up the ranks. As I mentioned before, the whole of the 2014 season was a massive false dawn. Instead of seeing genuine contenders emerge and hoover up big titles, we ended up with more years of Djokovic dominance, followed by Fedal renaissance, then more Djokovic dominance.

By 2016 we had identified Kyrgios, Zverev & co.
And now I guess it would be the Sinner / Alcaraz / Musetti / FAA / Shapo crew who are "Next Gen".

 

[duaneeo]

Players born approximately 1989 - 1992 are the first generation of LostGens, 1992 - 1995 are the 2nd generation of LostGens, and 1995 - 1998 the 3rd generation of LostGens. Those born ~1999 and after are NextGens.

 

[Adam Copeland]

Players born approximately 1989 - 1992 are the first generation of LostGens, 1992 - 1995 are the 2nd generation of LostGens, and 1995 - 1998 the 3rd generation of LostGens. Those born ~1999 and after are NextGens.

3-4 years is not a generation, guys 6 years apart played each other 50 times, only for federer fans generation is limited to 4 years gap or 5 years gap.

In sports around 9-10 years is a generation gap.

Federer and Nadal are from the same generation though slightly different age groups.
Federer won his 1st slam in 03 and Nadal won in 05
Federer turned pro in 98 and Nadal turned pro in 2001
Federer himself won 16 slams after Nadal won his 1st slam, this means after FO 2005 ... Fed won 16 slams and Nadal won 19 slams, this period.

Laughable if they are called different generation

 

[FlamingCheeto]

1998 and above are next gen, this is the correct measurement according to USTAA

 

[I Am Finnish]

Mugs

 

[Aabye5]

3-4 years is not a generation, guys 6 years apart played each other 50 times, only for federer fans generation is limited to 4 years gap or 5 years gap.

In sports around 9-10 years is a generation gap.

Federer and Nadal are from the same generation though slightly different age groups.
Federer won his 1st slam in 03 and Nadal won in 05
Federer turned pro in 98 and Nadal turned pro in 2001
Federer himself won 16 slams after Nadal won his 1st slam, this means after FO 2005 ... Fed won 16 slams and Nadal won 19 slams, this period.

Laughable if they are called different generation

I 100% disagree with you on the generation gap. That is too long.

 

[onefineday]

For me it means players aged 17-21.

 

[Aabye5]

Goalposts have probably moved now. We've been talking about "Next Gen" since 2014 when you had guys like Thiem, Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori coming up the ranks. As I mentioned before, the whole of the 2014 season was a massive false dawn. Instead of seeing genuine contenders emerge and hoover up big titles, we ended up with more years of Djokovic dominance, followed by Fedal renaissance, then more Djokovic dominance.

By 2016 we had identified Kyrgios, Zverev & co.
And now I guess it would be the Sinner / Alcaraz / Musetti / FAA / Shapo crew who are "Next Gen".

Interesting...but to me, Thiem was never #NextGen, although he is the generation after Nadal/Djokovic.

 

[TMF]

NextGen: Weak era

 

[Adam Copeland]

I 100% disagree with you on the generation gap. That is too long.

Generation difference is a difference when primes do no clash.

Federer and Novak's primes have clashed but Federer and Sampras's did not clash, Federer's and Dimitrov's also did not clash.

Gen gap needs 9-10 gap, can you call Novak and Thiem different gen ?

It would make no sense ...

 

[Russeljones]

Generation difference is a difference when primes do no clash.

Federer and Novak's primes have clashed but Federer and Sampras's did not clash, Federer's and Dimitrov's also did not clash.

Gen gap needs 9-10 gap, can you call Novak and Thiem different gen ?

It would make no sense ...

Lol @ primes clashing. The revisionist shyt.

 

[MiamiWeekendWarrior]

Definition of nextgen = current younger players in their respective physical primes who lack the skills and talent to consistently out-perform three (or two, nowadays) old and broken down geriatrics.

 

[Aabye5]

Generation difference is a difference when primes do no clash.

Federer and Novak's primes have clashed but Federer and Sampras's did not clash, Federer's and Dimitrov's also did not clash.

Gen gap needs 9-10 gap, can you call Novak and Thiem different gen ?

It would make no sense ...

I disagree.

There are late bloomers and gifted youngsters, and those players may end up "clashing" more than others between generations.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Other: A mug

..what he said

 

[TimHenmanATG]

People lost interest in the "NextGen" tag once the likes of Zverev, Medvedev, and Rublev started accomplishing things.

 

[MiamiWeekendWarrior]

People lost interest in the "NextGen" tag once the likes of Zverev, Medvedev, and Rublev started accomplishing things.

Accomplishing "things"? What things exactly? They still are not consistently outperforming the GeriatricGen. When they start winning slams consistently it won't be because they're suddenly playing better, it'll be because the GeriatricGen finally got too old (not like they haven't already been too old for 10 years for one, and 5 years for the other two). Embarrassing. The first gen in history that hasn't raised the level of the game above the previous gen.

 

[mike danny]

For modern era standards, anyone under age 25.

 

[Aabye5]

Accomplishing "things"? What things exactly? They still are not consistently outperforming the GeriatricGen. When they start winning slams consistently it won't be because they're suddenly playing better, it'll be because the GeriatricGen finally got too old (not like they haven't already been too old for 10 years for one, and 5 years for the other two). Embarrassing. The first gen in history that hasn't raised the level of the game above the previous gen.

Second gen. Lost Gen, then the NextGen.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Accomplishing "things"? What things exactly? They still are not consistently outperforming the GeriatricGen. When they start winning slams consistently it won't be because they're suddenly playing better, it'll be because the GeriatricGen finally got too old (not like they haven't already been too old for 10 years for one, and 5 years for the other two). Embarrassing. The first gen in history that hasn't raised the level of the game above the previous gen.

Olympic Golds and Grand Slam titles.

 

[ibbi]

Players born between 96 and 99.

 

[Jonas78]

Players born between 96 and 99.

Agree.

For me its #Djokodalgen; Nadal, Murray, Djoko, Delpo, Cilic etc

#LostGen; Dimitrov, Nishikori, Goffin, Raonic etc (honorable exception; Thiem)

#NextGen; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Zed etc.

Then its the "Babygen"; FAA, Sinner etc

 

[I Am Finnish]

#DjokodalGen 85-88
#LostGen 89-95
#NextGen 96-99
#BabyGen 00+

Something like that...

Agree

 

[I Am Finnish]

Agree.

For me its #Djokodalgen; Nadal, Murray, Djoko, Delpo, Cilic etc

#LostGen; Dimitrov, Nishikori, Goffin, Raonic etc (honorable exception; Thiem)

#NextGen; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Zed etc.

Then its the "Babygen"; FAA, Sinner, Fedr etc

+1

 

[MiamiWeekendWarrior]

Olympic Golds and Grand Slam titles.

Hardly impressive considering the three geriatrics hold 60 slam titles and have won pretty much every slam with only a couple of exceptions over the last 15 years or so. Like I said, the nextgen should have been consistently outperforming the GrandpaGen for at least the last 5 years now.

 

[Jonas78]

+1

 

[Adam Copeland]

Lol @ primes clashing. The revisionist shyt.

I disagree.

There are late bloomers and gifted youngsters, and those players may end up "clashing" more than others between generations.

Ok lets check for Best players in a 10 years age gap

Gen 1 born 1971 : Sampras, Turned Pro 1988, won 2nd slam 1993
Gen 2 born 1981 : Federer, Turned Pro 1998, won 2nd slam 2004
Gen 3 born 1991 : Dimitrov, Turned Pro 2008, Never won 2nd slam but ideally would have around 2014 if he was an ATG, but his generation were untalented morons.
Gen 4 born 2001 : Sinner, Turned Pro 2018, will win his second slam around 2024, this will happen

So this lost generation you talk about are the guys born from late 80s till late 90s, more like CIlic's birth year till Medvedev's birth year, 1988 till 1996, around 9 years.

Sinner will win slams like Federer/Sampras/Novak before him because he is not lagging behind in age related metrics.

Age when a player entered top 10 :

01. Nadal - 18 years 10 months
02. Sampras - age 19 29 days
03. Novak - 19 years 9 months
04. Sinner - 20 years 1 months
05. Federer - 20 years 9 months

Before Sinner if we go down birth years for top players yearwise from 1989-1998

Felix born in 2000 reached at 21
Stefanos born in 1998 reached at 20
Zverev born in 1997 reached at 20
Medvedev born in 1996 reached at 23 years 5 months
Thiem born in 1993 reached at almost 23
Dimitrov born in 1991 reached at 23
Nishikori never reached top 10

Conclusion : Nature gifted Federer with a sweet spot of no ATGs 10 years before him and 5 years after him with none in his own age group, so to correct this nature produced 2 ATGs 5-6 years later quickly .... this was to balance mistake done for 15 years, but that created further imbalance which made players born in 90s losers .... now from Sinner onwards Nature will correct itself again as natural balance will be restored when new ATGs will come in 2 years time.

Medvedev is like Hewitt, a transitional champ between eras who beat 9-10 years older ATG because of age advantage..... real ATGs will arrive in near future, possible Sinner will be that or someone will mature quickly in next 12-18 months..

 

[Jonas78]

Ok lets check for Best players in a 10 years age gap

Gen 1 born 1971 : Sampras, Turned Pro 1988, won 2nd slam 1993
Gen 2 born 1981 : Federer, Turned Pro 1998, won 2nd slam 2004
Gen 3 born 1991 : Dimitrov, Turned Pro 2008, Never won 2nd slam but ideally would have around 2014 if he was an ATG, but his generation were untalented morons.
Gen 4 born 2001 : Sinner, Turned Pro 2018, will win his second slam around 2024, this will happen

So this lost generation you talk about are the guys born from late 80s till late 90s, more like CIlic's birth year till Medvedev's birth year, 1988 till 1996, around 9 years.

Sinner will win slams like Federer/Sampras/Novak before him because he is not lagging behind in age related metrics.

Age when a player entered top 10 :

01. Nadal - 18 years 10 months
02. Sampras - age 19 29 days
03. Novak - 19 years 9 months
04. Sinner - 20 years 1 months
05. Federer - 20 years 9 months

Before Sinner if we go down birth years for top players yearwise from 1989-1998

Felix born in 2000 reached at 21
Stefanos born in 1998 reached at 20
Zverev born in 1997 reached at 20
Medvedev born in 1996 reached at 23 years 5 months
Thiem born in 1993 reached at almost 23
Dimitrov born in 1991 reached at 23
Nishikori never reached top 10

Conclusion : Nature gifted Federer with a sweet spot of no ATGs 10 years before him and 5 years after him with none in his own age group, so to correct this nature produced 2 ATGs 5-6 years later quickly .... this was to balance mistake done for 15 years, but that created further imbalance which made players born in 90s losers .... now from Sinner onwards Nature will correct itself again as natural balance will be restored when new ATGs will come in 2 years time.

Medvedev is like Hewitt, a transitional champ between eras who beat 9-10 years older ATG because of age advantage..... real ATGs will arrive in near future, possible Sinner will be that or someone will mature quickly in next 12-18 months..

Meeh, the "Big4 made them weak" doesnt add up.

 

[Adam Copeland]

Meeh, the "Big4 made them weak" doesnt add up.

Big 3 ... not 4

Big 3 made them weak is a valid argument because in the era of enhanced longevity in terms of primes, Federer played too far into 30s and Djokodal also followed him and Federer made the 2 youngsters even stronger, since they were just 5-6 years younger, so the next gen were in awe of them, their own primes clashed with extended primes of Big 3 as they were not young enough to exploit because the gap in talent was too high.

But Jannik Sinner does not have this problem, he will have enough time to win slams and mature on his own, someone 1 year younger to him or same age as him is probably the next ATG .... 2002 born .... he is coming quick .... you will see in 2023 by mid/end someone will arrive and take Tennis forward.

 

[Jonas78]

Big 3 ... not 4

Big 3 made them weak is a valid argument because in the era of enhanced longevity in terms of primes, Federer played too far into 30s and Djokodal also followed him and Federer made the 2 youngsters even stronger, since they were just 5-6 years younger, so the next gen were in awe of them, their own primes clashed with extended primes of Big 3 as they were not young enough to exploit because the gap in talent was too high.

But Jannik Sinner does not have this problem, he will have enough time to win slams and mature on his own, someone 1 year younger to him or same age as him is probably the next ATG .... 2002 born .... he is coming quick .... you will see in 2023 by mid/end someone will arrive and take Tennis forward.

So youre saying Fed had to step down for Djoko to bloom? THAT i can agree to

 

[Adam Copeland]

So youre saying Fed had to step down for Djoko to bloom? THAT i can agree to

On Grass .... Yes.

Not outside it.

Novak peak to peak beats Fed on AO black and blue, at the French also peak Novak wins over Fed as we saw in 2012 which was a revenge for 2011 loss, also Novak has beaten Rafa on clay which puts Novak ahead .... at USO Fed is slightly ahead and on Grass Federer is ahead peak to peak. .... Indoors they are close again.

So they are same overall if you take all surfaces into account but Novak's mental toughness is what puts him ahead, as demonstrated in my poll some weeks back on whom would you choose to play for your life on the line in a slam match on 4 different surfaces, the answer was Novak for majority peak for peak because Federer chokes despite his great talent.

 

[Aabye5]

Does everyone seriously think Med and Zed are lasting until their late 30s?

 

[The Big Foe fan]

I've seen a lot of definitions for NextGen on TTW. What yours?

0. All players who were part of the original marketing campaign
1. All players who played in the inaugural NextGen tournament (2017)
2. All players who have played in at least one of the NextGen tournaments
3. All players who are in the same age bracket as the original NextGen players
4. All current players under 21
5. All current players under 25
6. Nadal and Djokovic - *pick this one*, I could use a good laugh
7. Context is important....
8. Other

Under 21

 

[The Big Foe fan]

Does everyone seriously think Med and Zed are lasting until their late 30s?

Maybe zed if he fixed up his mental side.
Med nope no way, he relies way too much on movement.

 

[Jonas78]

On Grass .... Yes.

Not outside it.

Novak peak to peak beats Fed on AO black and blue, at the French also peak Novak wins over Fed as we saw in 2012 which was a revenge for 2011 loss, also Novak has beaten Rafa on clay which puts Novak ahead .... at USO Fed is slightly ahead and on Grass Federer is ahead peak to peak. .... Indoors they are close again.

So they are same overall if you take all surfaces into account but Novak's mental toughness is what puts him ahead, as demonstrated in my poll some weeks back on whom would you choose to play for your life on the line in a slam match on 4 different surfaces, the answer was Novak for majority peak for peak because Federer chokes despite his great talent.

Then i dont follow... If youre saying it was impossible to break through for the players born in the early 90s because of ATGs around, it should also have been impossible for Djokovic to break through with peak Nadal and Federer around?

 

[Aabye5]

Then i dont follow... If youre saying it was impossible to break through for the players born in the early 90s because of ATGs around, it should also have been impossible for Djokovic to break through with peak Nadal and Federer around?

If you are an ATG yourself you could break through. But it's hard to say whether the players born in the 90s were ATGs, even without the big 3, with the exception of Delpo, perhaps.

 

[Adam Copeland]

Then i dont follow... If youre saying it was impossible to break through for the players born in the early 90s because of ATGs around, it should also have been impossible for Djokovic to break through with peak Nadal and Federer around?

Not impossible, but their talent levels are not enough. ...and maybe their athleticism was also not enough .... early 90s born guys should have won from 2016-2017 onwards as they would be 24-25 and Novak started to dip as his physical peak was over, but then thats how things are.

Talent is always distributed to 2 ATGs in 10 years span, after Pete-Agassi next 15 years only Federer came, for that remaining 1 with another 1 came soon within 5-6 years.

Nature designed it that way, maybe thats why nobody was that talented after them .... I think so.

These things don't have a scientific explanation, it is just subjective....

 

[Jonas78]

If you are an ATG yourself you could break through. But it's hard to say whether the players born in the 90s were ATGs, even without the big 3, with the exception of Delpo, perhaps.

Exactly! Of course players born in the early 90s could break through if they were good enough. They just wasnt.

 

[Jonas78]

Not impossible, but their talent levels are not enough. ...and maybe their athleticism was also not enough .... early 90s born guys should have won from 2016-2017 onwards as they would be 24-25 and Novak started to dip as his physical peak was over, but then thats how things are.

Talent is always distributed to 2 ATGs in 10 years span, after Pete-Agassi next 15 years only Federer came, for that remaining 1 with another 1 came soon within 5-6 years.

Nature designed it that way, maybe thats nobody was that talented after them .... I think so.

These things don't have a scientific explanation, it is just subjective....

I like the theory, kind of like the siths, always 2 . Dont think i agree though, the amount of slams won in their 30s is unprecedented. At least from 2017 it should have been a change of guard, but i can see you at least partly agree to that.

 

[Adam Copeland]

I like the theory, kind of like the siths, always 2 . Dont think i agree though, the amount of slams won in their 30s is unprecedented. At least from 2017 it should have been a change of guard, but i can see you at least partly agree to that.

Change of Guard could not happen because of Big 3.

Federer dipped after 2017.
Nadal dipped after 2019.
Novak is yet to take a dip, though his dip will also come in 1-2 years.

All blame on people born from 1988 till 1996 but then Thiem-DImitrov could not step up as their age difference was too close to Djokodal, Federer also was a beast in his own way till his late 30s.

These 3 guys are the greatest of all time for a reason.