The last slam finale of the decade. Will Medvedev save the honour of LostGen and NextGen?

[UnderratedSlam]

If Medvedev fails to win the finale, then an amazing first will have happened: there would be for the first time EVER a whole decade in which NOBODY born two decades earlier wins a slam.

I.e. in the 80s many players born in the 60s won slams, in the 90s many players born in the 70s won slams, in the 00s many players born in the 80s won slams. In fact 20somethings used to win the BULK of the slams. In the 10s, they won zero so far.

So if Nadal wins... NO PLAYER born in the 90s will have won in a decade that should have been theirs.

Yet more proof of GAS, the Great Age Shift. And it's not just the Big 3, the slam finalists and winners outside of the Big 3 were often 80s guys: Wawrinka, Murray, Anderson, Cilic, Delpo.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Most sports journalists haven't even realized this...

 

[Third Serve]

If Medvedev fails to win the finale, then an amazing first will have happened: there would be for the first time EVER a whole decade in which NOBODY born two decades earlier wins a slam.

I.e. in the 80s many players born in the 60s won slams, in the 90s many players born in the 70s won slams, in the 00s many players born in the 80s won slams. In fact 20somethings used to win the BULK of the slams. In the 10s, they won zero so far.

So if Nadal wins... NO PLAYER born in the 90s will have won in a decade that should have been theirs.

Yet more proof of GAS, the Great Age Shift. And it's not just the Big 3, the slam finalists and winners outside of the Big 3 were often 80s guys: Wawrinka, Murray, Anderson, Cilic, Delpo.

None of these players (except for Anderson) were at their best level when they were playing those slam finals. Murray was still in his 20s the last time he won a slam.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

None of these players (except for Anderson) were at their best level when they were playing those slam finals. Murray was still in his 20s the last time he won a slam.

Yeah, he was 29. Murray I mean. Hardly 21.

Who's interested in "best levels"? This is not a debate about weak and strong eras, but about how age has shifted all across the board in men's tennis.

 

[beard]

If Medvedev fails to win the finale, then an amazing first will have happened: there would be for the first time EVER a whole decade in which NOBODY born two decades earlier wins a slam.

I.e. in the 80s many players born in the 60s won slams, in the 90s many players born in the 70s won slams, in the 00s many players born in the 80s won slams. In fact 20somethings used to win the BULK of the slams. In the 10s, they won zero so far.

So if Nadal wins... NO PLAYER born in the 90s will have won in a decade that should have been theirs.

Yet more proof of GAS, the Great Age Shift. And it's not just the Big 3, the slam finalists and winners outside of the Big 3 were often 80s guys: Wawrinka, Murray, Anderson, Cilic, Delpo.

A standard decade in the Gregorian calendar is a period from a year which ends on the digit 1 to the following year which is a multiple of ten: For example, the period from 1961 to 1970 was the 7th decade of the 20th century.

See you next year on this topic...

 

[Lleytonstation]

Most sports journalists haven't even realized this...

This all depends on if we see guys like Goffin, Dimi, Agut, Monfils, Delpo, Nishi, Raonic, Cilic, Paire, and other 28-32 year olds start winning slams. If not, it shows it was a big3 thing.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

A standard decade in the Gregorian calendar is a period from a year which ends on the digit 1 to the following year which is a multiple of ten: For example, the period from 1961 to 1970 was the 7th decade of the 20th century.

See you next year on this topic...

I am not interested in what is standard.

Some people think Santa Claus is a standard visitor in chimneys. Especially Gregorian chimneys.

Every normal person considers 1960 part of the 60s, not 50s.

I decide what's a decade. But you keep talking to the Gregorian crowd... You can all chant later, after you discussed tennis.

 

[Third Serve]

Yeah, he was 29. Murray I mean. Hardly 21.

Who's interested in "best levels"? This is not a debate about weak and strong eras, but about how age has shifted all across the board in men's tennis.

Well, it's not an age shift if players are still peaking at the same times they were back in about 2011 or so. These players you listed just happen to still be good in their 30s, but it's not like they're playing at their best. Besides, for every Wawrinka and Anderson you bring up, there are about 3 more Berdychs, Tsongas, and Gasquets to whom this rule doesn't seem to apply.

 

[tudwell]

No, Medvedev won’t win. No honor for NextGen or LostGen.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Well, it's not an age shift if players are still peaking at the same times they were back in about 2011 or so. These players you listed just happen to still be good in their 30s, but it's not like they're playing at their best. Besides, for every Wawrinka and Anderson you bring up, there are about 3 more Berdychs, Tsongas, and Gasquets to whom this rule doesn't seem to apply.

Can't be bothered to refute your statement, done it here at least 50 times...

"Today's 33 is our 27." - Ivan Lendl explaining the Great Age Shift in tennis.

Go to 26:20 in the clip. I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first. Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[Third Serve]

Can't be bothered to refute your statement, done it here at least 50 times...

"Today's 33 is our 27." - Ivan Lendl explaining the Great Age Shift in tennis.

Go to 26:20 in the clip. I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first. Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That doesn't necessarily prove that players are going to be expected to peak in their 30s. It just means that players can now more easily sustain a high level as they age. Most of the players who do "peak" at those ages were mostly massive underachievers in their prime years (Wawrinka, Anderson) or their game is the type that can be played without having to worry too much about movement (of which servebots like Isner are perfect examples).

 

[Sport]

Why didn't you create this thread at Wimbledon 2019?

Oh, I guess you forgot about the "honour of Next Gen" when Federer or Djokovic can win a Slam. Unsurprisingly, you only remember the "honour of Next Gen" when Nadal has chances to win a Slam.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Will Medvedev save the honour of LostGen and NextGen?

Err...

What if they have none to save to begin with ?...

 

[Phoenix1983]

Why didn't you create this thread at Wimbledon 2019?

Oh, I guess you forgot about the "honour of Next Gen" when Federer or Djokovic can win a Slam. Unsurprisingly, you only remember the "honour of Next Gen" when Nadal has chances to win a Slam.

Er - it’s because nobody had a chance to keep up the honour of the Next Gen in the 2019 W final.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I am not interested in what is standard.

Some people think Santa Claus is a standard visitor in chimneys. Especially Gregorian chimneys.

Every normal person considers 1960 part of the 60s, not 50s.

I decide what's a decade. But you keep talking to the Gregorian crowd... You can all chant later, after you discussed tennis.

Agree with you, except for the “I decide what’s a decade” quote. Some of your posts have a distinct Messiah complex about them.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

That doesn't necessarily prove that players are going to be expected to peak in their 30s. It just means that players can now more easily sustain a high level as they age. Most of the players who do "peak" at those ages were mostly massive underachievers in their prime years (Wawrinka, Anderson) or their game is the type that can be played without having to worry too much about movement (of which servebots like Isner are perfect examples).

Bingo!

The penny's dropped.

Now you are ready to accept the FACT (not opinion) that the average age of the top 10, top 50 and top 100 has gone up. A lot.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Err...

What if they have none to save to begin with ?...

If he loses the finale then you have a point.

Anyway... it was just an expression. Obviously Medvedev only plays for his own honour...

 

[clout]

If Medvedev fails to win the finale, then an amazing first will have happened: there would be for the first time EVER a whole decade in which NOBODY born two decades earlier wins a slam.

I.e. in the 80s many players born in the 60s won slams, in the 90s many players born in the 70s won slams, in the 00s many players born in the 80s won slams. In fact 20somethings used to win the BULK of the slams. In the 10s, they won zero so far.

So if Nadal wins... NO PLAYER born in the 90s will have won in a decade that should have been theirs.

Yet more proof of GAS, the Great Age Shift. And it's not just the Big 3, the slam finalists and winners outside of the Big 3 were often 80s guys: Wawrinka, Murray, Anderson, Cilic, Delpo.

Well the best players from the 2010s such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic were all in their 20s for the majority of this decade and only turned 30 the last couple years. The only top player of the 2010s that has been 30+ for the majority of its duration is Federer

 

[tudwell]

Er - it’s because nobody had a chance to keep up the honour of the Next Gen in the 2019 W final.

Nor in the semifinals. Nor in the quarterfinals. Man, that was an awful tournament for players under 29.

 

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

Er - it’s because nobody had a chance to keep up the honour of the Next Gen in the 2019 W final.

Leave Sport alone. He just got back from his month long "vacation".

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Well the best players from the 2010s such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic were in their 20s for the majority of this decade and only turned 30 the last couple years. The only top player of the 2010s that has been 30+ for the majority of its duration is Federer

They were all born in the eighties, not 90s.

I thought I made it simple enough in the intro. How can you POSSIBLY argue against numbers?

Re-read the intro.

 

[Third Serve]

Bingo!

The penny's dropped.

Now you are ready to accept the FACT (not opinion) that the average age of the top 10, top 50 and top 100 has gone up. A lot.

It has. Nowadays, players in their 30s are still worse than in their 20s, but the difference is smaller than it was ten years ago.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

It has. Nowadays, players in their 30s are still worse than in their 20s, but the difference is smaller than it was ten years ago.

That is the case with some players, not with others. The number of those who peak later or extend the prime to their 30s has risen drastically.

 

[Red Rick]

None of these players (except for Anderson) were at their best level when they were playing those slam finals. Murray was still in his 20s the last time he won a slam.

You wanna know the funny thing?

Anderson's stats didn't even go up. He just got hilarious draws and a gift from the Old Buck

 

[Third Serve]

You wanna know the funny thing?

Anderson's stats didn't even go up. He just got hilarious draws and a gift from the Old Buck

I feel like it was easier for him to stay consistent because his game doesn't really require him to be fast and agile, so his declined movement didn't hurt him too much.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Medvedev has had a nice draw for the most part. I think he will get straightsetted. Hope i am wrong.

 

[BlueB]

If Medvedev fails to win the finale, then an amazing first will have happened: there would be for the first time EVER a whole decade in which NOBODY born two decades earlier wins a slam.

I.e. in the 80s many players born in the 60s won slams, in the 90s many players born in the 70s won slams, in the 00s many players born in the 80s won slams. In fact 20somethings used to win the BULK of the slams. In the 10s, they won zero so far.

So if Nadal wins... NO PLAYER born in the 90s will have won in a decade that should have been theirs.

Yet more proof of GAS, the Great Age Shift. And it's not just the Big 3, the slam finalists and winners outside of the Big 3 were often 80s guys: Wawrinka, Murray, Anderson, Cilic, Delpo.

Except that the last slam of the decade will be the next year's USO... Let the fireworks begin [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[DSH]

He can play way better than Murray in 2008, I believe.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Except that the last slam of the decade will be the next year's USO... Let the fireworks begin [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

2020 is the start of the next decade though, right?

 

[clout]

They were all born in the eighties, not 90s.

I thought I made it simple enough in the intro. How can you POSSIBLY argue against numbers?

Re-read the intro.

I fully understand what you’re saying and I never denied anything you said but I was just trying to explain that a lot of the elite players from 2010 till now are players born in the second half of the 80’s, hence they were in their 20’s for the majority of this decade.

 

[BlueB]

2020 is the start of the next decade though, right?

Wrong.
What year was the start of the first decade of AD?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[terribleIVAN]

Obviously Medvedev only plays for his own honour...

Honour is alright.

But first, they all do it for the M-O-N-E-Y.

Lots of it.

 

[Phoenix1983]

By the way, Medvedev winning this tournament would hardly save a generation’s honour. Men born in the 1990s should have won a slam way before now.

 

[Sport]

Er - it’s because nobody had a chance to keep up the honour of the Next Gen in the 2019 W final.

So? He could have created a thread like this before the Federer-Berretini match for example. Or before the tournament started with something like "Next Gen needs to save its honour by winning Wimbledon". This particular forum member is a Djokovic and Federer fan who depreciates Nadal. The only reason why he talked about "the honour of the Next Gen" at the USO 2019 but not at WB 2019 is because Nadal can win the USO. He did not complain at Wimbledon 2019 because Federer and Djokovic could win the title.

 

[Phoenix1983]

So? He could have created a thread like this before the Federer-Berretini match for example. Or before the tournament started with something like "Next Gen needs to save its honour by winning Wimbledon". This particular forum member is a Djokovic and Federer fan who depreciates Nadal. The only reason why he talked about "the honour of the Next Gen" at the USO 2019 but not at WB 2019 is because Nadal can win the USO. He did not complain at Wimbledon 2019 because Federer and Djokovic could win the title.

I'm not a fan of the OP, but I think you're wrong in your assumption. He's basically just pointing out that an entire generation is one match away from making a complete hash of an entire decade of competing.

 

[Sport]

I'm not a fan of the OP, but I think you're wrong in your assumption. He's basically just pointing out that an entire generation is one match away from making a complete hash of an entire decade of competing.

Oh I see. I misundertood his point. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Honour is alright.

But first, they all do it for the M-O-N-E-Y.

Lots of it.

You can't only play for money, that alone doesn't motivate multi-millionaires. At least not in many cases.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I fully understand what you’re saying and I never denied anything you said but I was just trying to explain that a lot of the elite players from 2010 till now are players born in the second half of the 80’s, hence they were in their 20’s for the majority of this decade.

That changes absolutely nothing. Nada. Nix. Zip. The numbers are still the same.

Most slam champs and finalists were in their mid-20s, late 20s and early and mid-30s. Extremely few were younger than 25. A few Novak/Nadal finales in 2010/11, and that's pretty much it. Out of 80 champs and finalists this decade.

I wish I had an age chart for you for the 10s. And one for the 90s. You'd be amazed how drastic the difference is. Like different sports stats.

 

[James5000]

80's gen have clean sheeted the 2010's.....
62 consecutive slams and counting, last non 80's slam winner Gaudio (French Open 2004)

 

[UnderratedSlam]

80's gen have clean sheeted the 2010's.....
62 consecutive slams and counting, last non 80's slam winner Gaudio (French Open 2004)

Absolutely amazing numbers. This kind of record will not be repeated.

Worst generation ever, the LostGen and most of NextGen.

Funny you should mention Gaudio, who stems from a weak generation himself. Only one player born 1977-1979 won a slam, and that's him.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

The last slam finale of the decade.

The last Slam of 201x decade - yes.
But proper calendar decade is 2011-2020, it's the 2nd decade of 21st century which started in 2001.

Four more Slams to go in this decade.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The last Slam of 201x decade - yes.
But proper calendar decade is 2011-2020, it's the 2nd decade of 21st century which started in 2001.

Four more Slams to go in this decade.

Oh no not another number "purist"...

Ask any normal person whether 1960 is the 60s or the 50s.

This was the last slam of the decade. Get used to it... Gregorianer.