The reason no younger ATG has broken through?

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
There may well be a very simple reason why no young ATG has broken through to establish themselves. They've had to try and break through three of the greatest players who ever lifted a racquet -who have all been playing at the same time.

Nothing is harder than winning that first slam. The vast majority of ATG's defeated someone who WASN'T an ATG in their first slam title. Very few defeated an ATG on their way to the final. Those who did tended to beat an ATG who was their contemporary. But legends like Connors, Borg and Federer got their first slam without having to face one of the legends of the game, at all. The list is as follows:


FIRST SLAM

CONNORS
F: Phil Dent
Slam wins: 0 Highest Rank: 17
Sf: Alexander

BORG -
F: Manuel Orantes
Slam wins: 1 Highest Rank: 2
Sf: Solomon

McENROE
F: Vitas Gerulaitis
Slam Wins: 1 Highest Rank: 3
Sf:CONNORS

WILANDER
F: Guillermo Vilas
Slam Wins: 4 Highest Rank: 2
Sf: Clerc

LENDL
F: JOHN MCENROE
Slam Wins: 7 Highest Rank: 1
Sf: WILANDER

BECKER
F: Kevin Curren
Slam Wins: 0 Highest Rank: 5
Sf: Jarryd

EDBERG
F: MATS WILANDER
Slam Wins: 7 Highest Rank: 1
Sf: LENDL

SAMPRAS
F: ANDRE AGASSI
Slam Wins: 8 Highest Rank: 1
Sf: MCENROE

AGASSI
F: Goran Ivanisevic
Slam Wins: 1 Highest Rank: 2
Sf: MCENROE

FEDERER
F: Mark Philippoussis
Slam Wins: 0 Highest Rank: 8
Sf: Roddick

NADAL
F: Mariano Puerta
Slam Wins: 0 Highest Rank: 9
Sf: FEDERER

DJOKOVIC
Jo-Willfried Tsonga
Slam Wins: 0 Highest Rank: 5
Sf: FEDERER
 
Last edited:
As you can see from the list, the only ATG to beat the #1 player in the world to win their first slam was Lendl -and McEnroe was his direct contemporary.

It's almost an impossible task.
A rare occurrence indeed, but I'm not sure how much that necessarily ties to difficulty. Presumably the #1 player at times has lost his no.1 ranking prior to losing a slam to a first timer, which pertains more to timing than anything.

Just filing the NextGen's failings this year under the moniker of 'nearly impossible task' because of this data seems to miss a more tennistically relevant causation.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Sounds good on paper @Spencer Gore but in reality this is not how things are, these old zombies are still winning slams or making slams semis/finals in late 2010s and in early 2020s..... This is now how nature is supposed to be.

When a truly great player arrives and first picks up his tennis racquet then he knows what his strengths are, it is that feel of the court which tells him that he is born to win. It is a feeling that cannot be taught to anyone, it just comes from within. Nadal must have felt it when first stepped on Clay, Sampras and Federer must have felt it when they played on Grass, Djokovic must have felt that on Hard Courts.

The Racquet in the hands of the young ATG tells him that the old guy beatable, it is that belief which gets him to beat the ATG the next time they face. Thats how Mcenroe beat Borg the second time, thats how Nadal beat Federer, thats how Djokovic also overcome Federer, that genius youngster is missing. I thought Stefanos TsiTsipas was that guy but I was mistaken, such a guy is not present, maybe the most talented athletes have shifted to football and other sports .......

Or maybe something wrong in coaching that these tall 6 foot 5 guys are all ranked high....... something is wrong with Tennis ..... Tennis is in danger.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
To a certain point that is true. However, around 2016, 2017, there was a chance I think. And there have been chances since 2018 as well. As much as it can be argued that Nole and big 3 friends were strong and were able to keep winning slams, I think they also took advantage of a weak next gen.
 

Jonas78

Legend
The simple answer is that they are not good enough. The "solution" that Big3 are too good is plain and simple BS. Stan & Murray beat Big3 to win 3 slams when Big3 was in their prime. Delpo and Cilic also did.

Why? Good question. I think its a mix.

- Athletic talents choose other sports.
- No competition from the US, Australia and South America
- Social media & playstations takes away the attention to put in the effort needed at a young age
- Bad coaching. Probably too easy living on your height as a junior, which causes impaired movement etc.

Big3 were born within 6 years, to think that talents like this wont be born again is the stupidest thing i hear. Its like thinking Usain Bolts record cant be broken, or that we will never see a Messi or Ronaldo again. Its recency bias at its very best.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
The simple answer is that they are not good enough. The "solution" that Big3 are too good is plain and simple BS. Stan & Murray beat Big3 to win 3 slams when Big3 was in their prime. Delpo and Cilic also did.

Why? Good question. I think its a mix.

- Athletic talents choose other sports.
- No competition from the US, Australia and South America
- Social media & playstations takes away the attention to put in the effort needed at a young age
- Bad coaching. Probably too easy living on your height as a junior, which causes impaired movement etc.
Very good points.

You have covered everything beautifully, all these awkward youngsters rising to the top is indeed weird...... Except Felix everyone of these tall dudes move awkwardly....
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
ATG's who defeated 2 ATG's in SF and F
to win first title:
LENDL
SAMPRAS

ATG's who defeated 2 ATG's on the way to first title:
AGASSI

ATG's who defeated 1 ATG to win first title:
MCENROE
NADAL
DJOKOVIC

ATG's who defeated a slam winner to win first title:
BORG
WILANDER

ATG's who won first title without facing an ATG or slam winner:
CONNORS
BECKER
FEDERER
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
Is John Mcenroe the only Person in history to have beaten 3 ATGs to win a grand slam?

1980 US Open

Beat Lendl in 4 sets in Qfs
Beat Connors in 5 sets in the semis
Beat Borg in 5 sets in the finals
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Is John Mcenroe the only Person in history to have beaten 3 ATGs to win a grand slam?

1980 US Open

Beat Lendl in 4 sets in Qfs
Beat Connors in 5 sets in the semis
Beat Borg in 5 sets in the finals
That wasn't his first title. The first title gives a player massive self-belief. It's absolutely vital. If you're a young player facing a Dent or a Phillippousis in a final it is much easier than facing a Djokovic or Nadal.
 

Sunny014

Legend
That wasn't his first title. The first title gives a player massive self-belief. It's absolutely vital. If you're a young player facing a Dent or a Phillippousis in a final it is much easier than facing a Djokovic or Nadal.
Yes it wasn't his first title but I was wondering if anyone has beaten 3 ATGs en route to winning a title.

As far as Phillippousis goes, he was an established great of the 1990s, not an ATG but he was a wicket customer in the early 00s due to his experience, plus early 00s was a transition phase from SNV to Baseline, that was a period when old ATGs were quickly falling and new greats were coming up. It is like racquet change that brought down Mcenroe, sameway everyone from the 90s went down in the 00s except Agassi because his game was suited to the modern era.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
There's a simple reason indeed, they're just not that good. All of them have massive flaws in their games before even accounting for suspect mental toughness (and the two are very closely correlated anyway).

A guy like Zverev isn't winning slams because his 2nd serve sucks and he has no wins over top 10 player in a slam, Tsits has a terrible/servebot level ROS, Med is way too passive and doesn't have a kill shot, Berretini has mediocre movement and a crappy BH etc. None of these guys would be winning slams in any era with such glaring deficiencies and if they improve upon them, they'll win a few in this era too, big 2-3 notwithstanding.

Guys like Murray and Wawrinka especially beat much younger versions of Djokodal in slam finals, and they're basically Courier caliber players, it's far from impossible to do it.
 

Jonas78

Legend
As you can see from the list, the only ATG to beat the #1 player in the world to win their first slam was Lendl -and McEnroe was his direct contemporary.

It's almost an impossible task.
They su1k, dont make it more difficult than it is. NextGen cant even do what David Ferrer did in a much tougher field in 2012, reach at least QF in four consecutive slams. It isnt Novak that makes them weak, they are primarily losing to the field. David Ferrer at his best would probably be world nr2 in this field, in 2012 he only lost to Big4 in slams.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Exactly, with so many flaws in your game it is not possible to be mentally tough.

It is like attending a technical job interview with your basic concepts weak, no matter how much you try to use polished english or philosophy to hide your shortcoming the interviewer can expose you by getting into the depth of the concepts.

Thats what happens with these flawed youngsters who crumble when they meet the skilled Big 3 who can expose their flaws.
 
Last edited:

mwym

Semi-Pro
Stats are always a lot of fun.

Technology is enabling this 'neo-matriarchy', but unlike the original one this is unlimited to a point of harming the children.

Simply put - a kid who does not have instilled the urge to grow up before puberty starts pretty much cannot avoid being mentally underdeveloped.

They are just kids in adult bodies who are ONLY about love and being happy while seeing nothing wrong about it. Cause that is the current top priority goal of our 'neo-matriarchy' civilazation. Maximizes profit, you know.

Dead sure they can only get ltheir faces slapped back into reality by adult 'fathers' who do not comply with this self-BSing idiocy.

Kids cannot win a Slam. Slams will be handed to them once 'fathers' retire. As already confirmed by 'father' Djokovic.
 

Sunny014

Legend
A great! Phillippousis!!!
:-D:-D:-D
Every player is an a product of his/her own era, if Philippoussis and his generation suffered due to the change in courts from SNV to Baseline and also due to change in racquets then that is a problem they faced, we have no right to make fun of them by saying ohh they were not great.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Stats are always a lot of fun.

Technology is enabling this 'neo-matriarchy', but unlike the original one this is unlimited to a point of harming the children.

Simply put - a kid who does not have instilled the urge to grow up before puberty starts pretty much cannot avoid being mentally underdeveloped.

They are just kids in adult bodies who are ONLY about love and being happy while seeing nothing wrong about it. Cause that is the current top priority goal of our 'neo-matriarchy' civilazation. Maximizes profit, you know.

Dead sure they can only get ltheir faces slapped back into reality by adult 'fathers' who do not comply with this self-BSing idiocy.

Kids cannot win a Slam. Slams will be handed to them once 'fathers' retire. As already confirmed by 'father' Djokovic.
You are 100% right.
Someone like Sampras was very mature in 1990 when he won his 1st slam as a Teenager.

However Federer was quite immature in his early years, on the contrast Nadal had a very stable head on his shoulders, he was so mature in 2004-05 when he arrived, compared to that the Federer of the 99-00 years was laughable. I don't know if this has something to do with coaching or upbringing or what.....

Djokovic also seemed very stable in 2006 when he arrived, he did not have the game back then but in his mind he was firm, he was ridiculed by Nadal in the post match press conference of the FO when he said Nadal is beatable, however years later Djokovic's steely belief proved himself right.....
 

Jonas78

Legend
Stats are always a lot of fun.

Technology is enabling this 'neo-matriarchy', but unlike the original one this is unlimited to a point of harming the children.

Simply put - a kid who does not have instilled the urge to grow up before puberty starts pretty much cannot avoid being mentally underdeveloped.

They are just kids in adult bodies who are ONLY about love and being happy while seeing nothing wrong about it. Cause that is the current top priority goal of our 'neo-matriarchy' civilazation. Maximizes profit, you know.

Dead sure they can only get ltheir faces slapped back into reality by adult 'fathers' who do not comply with this self-BSing idiocy.

Kids cannot win a Slam. Slams will be handed to them when 'fathers' retire. As already confirmed by 'father' Djokovic.
Yeah the way thing seem, tennis is going into a chronic declined state. The reason it doesnt happen in a lot of other sport is probably that a lot of sports are still your way out of poverty. If you grow up in a wealthy family in todays society, why should you make such a big offer to become the worlds greatest tennis player?
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Every player is an a product of his/her own era, if Philippoussis and his generation suffered due to the change in courts from SNV to Baseline and also due to change in racquets then that is a problem they faced, we have no right to make fun of them by saying ohh they were not great.
It's not making fun of a player who never won a slam (and failed to even get past the 4th round in two of the slams) to not call him a great.

If anything, I thought you were making fun of him by sarcastically calling him a great when he so clearly wasn't. But then, I realised you were actually being serious.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Nadal is from one of the wealthiest families in Mallorca, His father is a businessman, owner of an insurance company, glass and window company Vidres Mallorca, and later also bought a restaurant, Sa Punta. His 1 uncle is a retired footballer, another uncle was his coach.

How come Nadal was so grounded and focussed on Tennis? If I meet Nadal someday I will definetly ask thim.
For a rich guy he is so strong mentally and not a spoilt brat.
 
Lol acting like Djokovic is remotely unbeatable. Only peak Rafael Nadal on clay had such an era. No version of Djokovic (or even Federer to an extent) ever had such an unbeatable aura in any slam, period. Wawrinka showed Djokovic's true level in his first three slam wins. Andy Murray also showed Djokovic's limit on grass when he won his first Olympic gold medal and Wimbledon. No version of Djokovic would have stood a chance against 2012 Murray Olympics. Juan Martin Del Potro also beat peak Federer in his first slam at US open. But no clown today is there to stop Djokovic from making history, not because he is THAT great, but because his opposition are borderline pathetic.

Federer and Djokovic would have broken many records too earlier on if not for better plays than today's despicable NEW-GEN LMFAO. 6 US Opens in a row was on the cards. Calender year grand-slam was on the cards in 2015 too. No trash-can has so far stepped up because they are content on being trash-cans who can't even match the level of journeymen.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Lol acting like Djokovic is remotely unbeatable. Only peak Rafael Nadal on clay had such an era. No version of Djokovic (or even Federer to an extent) ever had such an unbeatable aura in any slam, period. Wawrinka showed Djokovic's true level in his first three slam wins. Andy Murray also showed Djokovic's limit on grass when he won his first Olympic gold medal and Wimbledon. No version of Djokovic would have stood a chance against 2012 Murray Olympics. Juan Martin Del Potro also beat peak Federer in his first slam at US open. But no clown today is there to stop Djokovic from making history, not because he is THAT great, but because his opposition are borderline pathetic.

Federer and Djokovic would have broken many records too earlier on if not for better plays than today's despicable NEW-GEN LMFAO. 6 US Opens in a row was on the cards. Calender year grand-slam was on the cards in 2015 too. No trash-can has so far stepped up because they are content on being trash-cans who can't even match the level of journeymen.
One thing's for sure. Give one of the best younger players a Philippousis, a Dent or a Curren in the final or semis, instead of a Djokovic or a Nadal, and they too will win their first slam that will send them on their way.

That's the history of tennis. No amount of wailing about the youth of today (which we've heard since the 50s) is going to change that.
 

MadariKatu

Professional
You are 100% right.
Someone like Sampras was very mature in 1990 when he won his 1st slam as a Teenager.

However Federer was quite immature in his early years, on the contrast Nadal had a very stable head on his shoulders, he was so mature in 2004-05 when he arrived, compared to that the Federer of the 99-00 years was laughable. I don't know if this has something to do with coaching or upbringing or what.....

Djokovic also seemed very stable in 2006 when he arrived, he did not have the game back then but in his mind he was firm, he was ridiculed by Nadal in the post match press conference of the FO when he said Nadal is beatable, however years later Djokovic's steely belief proved himself right.....
He was ridiculed in the press conference, not becausehe said Nadal wasbeatable; that has been said by Nadal himself over and over (have to play my best to have chances, no?). It was because he said he felt in control of that one particular match
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
One thing's for sure. Give one of the best younger players a Philippousis, a Dent or a Curren in the final or semis, instead of a Djokovic or a Nadal, and they too will win their first slam that will send them on their way.

That's the history of tennis. No amount of wailing about the youth of today (which we've heard since the 50s) is going to change that.
Not so sure about that - the likes of Medvedev or Berrettini wouldn't necessarily beat Philippoussis or Curren in slam finals.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
There is undeniably a drought in talent at the moment. As mentioned by someone earlier, I think other more lucrative team sports are attracting young athletes. Most current young players are from well to do families or just aspiring athletes who are not good enough to play other competitive sports. It’s just the state of affairs at the moment. Nothing will change in the foreseeable future.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Yes it wasn't his first title but I was wondering if anyone has beaten 3 ATGs en route to winning a title.

As far as Phillippousis goes, he was an established great of the 1990s, not an ATG but he was a wicket customer in the early 00s due to his experience, plus early 00s was a transition phase from SNV to Baseline, that was a period when old ATGs were quickly falling and new greats were coming up. It is like racquet change that brought down Mcenroe, sameway everyone from the 90s went down in the 00s except Agassi because his game was suited to the modern era.
Wouldn't bet on any young guns today against an in-form Scud on grass and 2003-2004 Roddick would have pummeled them at Wimbledon.

Some of the other supposed weak finalists were also on a great run actually and beat several great players on the way, like Kevin Curren whom Becker beat or Ivanisevic in '92 Wimbledon (Agassi's first slam).
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Not so sure about that - the likes of Medvedev or Berrettini wouldn't necessarily beat Philippoussis or Curren in slam finals.
It's very doubtful that they would actually. Curren beat Edberg, Connors and McEnroe and still gave Becker a tough match in the final, young guns today would crap their pants playing a guy as intense and competitive as young Becker was (he was Nadal like in that regard actually).

They'd have a shot against Scud (though less than people think) but pair it with 2003 Roddick in SF? Yeah, I kinda doubt it.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
It's very doubtful that they would actually. Curren beat Edberg, Connors and McEnroe and still gave Becker a tough match in the final
Curren played poorly in the final. The destructive power he showed against McEnroe and Connors had deserted him.
 

Sunny014

Legend
None of the youngsters today are getting past Roddick of 2003 wimbledon and Scud wasn't lifting the title either if Roddick had reached the final.

Roddick is a legit grass court great of the 2000s who did not get the Goran type fairtytale wimbledon win for his troubles at the hands of Federer.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
None of the youngsters today are getting past Roddick of 2003 wimbledon and Scud wasn't lifting the title either if Roddick had reached the final.

Roddick is a legit grass court great of the 2000s who did not get the Goran type fairtytale wimbledon win for his troubles at the hands of Federer.
Roddick's a very good example actually. He only won a slam when he went through the entire draw without facing an ATG. Every time he faced an ATG he lost.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
You won't be able to judge that till a decade has passed.
Poor reasoning. Of course someone has to win slams over the next decade, but it's a poor showing when the youngsters of today can't even match non-ATGs like Hewitt, Safin, Del Potro, Wawrinka and Murray by beating proven champions to win slams. Waiting for the big 3 to decline and retire before winning slams proves nothing.
 

Jonas78

Legend
You won't be able to judge that till a decade has passed.
Everything points that way. Their match stats are far from ATG level, and they are less consistent than former second tier players. As i said earlier, David Ferrer managed to reach 10 consecutive QFs+ in slams. In 2012 he only lost to Big4 and still reached at least QF in all slams. There really are no other excuses for LostGen/NextGen than that they simply arent good enough.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Roddick's a very good example actually. He only won a slam when he went through the entire draw without facing an ATG. Every time he faced an ATG he lost.
Is it Roddick's fault that Peter Sampras ran away in 03 ?
Is it it Roddick's fault that Agassi was beaten by ferrero in the semis ? You think Agassi would not have been crushed by Roddick if he faced Roddick?

There was a big difference in power of Roddick in 02 USO and in the 03 USO, that sort of power only Federer could have countered, no one else.

Since Rodgy was taken out by Nalbandian and Roddick took over Nablandian, so Roddick indeed did beat 2 guys (Nalbandian and Rodgy) who were both better than the resident ATG in the draw and the ATG ( 5 time champ peter) who had announced his retirement.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Poor reasoning. Of course someone has to win slams over the next decade, but it's a poor showing when the youngsters of today can't even match non-ATGs like Hewitt, Safin, Del Potro, Wawrinka and Murray by beating proven champions to win slams. Waiting for the big 3 to decline and retire before winning slams proves nothing.
If one of the young guys around today goes on to win 6 or 7 slams you're not going to call them an ATG?
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Poor reasoning. Of course someone has to win slams over the next decade, but it's a poor showing when the youngsters of today can't even match non-ATGs like Hewitt, Safin, Del Potro, Wawrinka and Murray by beating proven champions to win slams. Waiting for the big 3 to decline and retire before winning slams proves nothing.
That's what it took for Federer to start winning.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Guys like Nishikori, Dimitrov and Raonic aren't just good enough to win Slams. Big 3 or not - they weren't going to win it Any era. You can make case for Thiem, Medvedev and Sisipas - as they've came short against Big 3. But even in that case they don't have many Slam worthy many runs. They also lose to lesser players more often than they lose to Big players. So lack of potential and weak mentality are two main reasons for their failure IMO. Let's say someone like Nadal comes along - who will gonna stop him? Imagine old Big 3 against young Nadal kind player - outcome is just obvious. He will smoke old Big 3s and send them to happy retirement.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Nadal made his breakthrough against peak Federer. Djokovic made his breakthrough battling against peak Nadal and prime Federer. Even Murray and Wawrinka had their breakthroughs against much younger and better Big 3s. So next gen shouldn't have any excuse of tough opposition as competition they're facing is way weaker compared let's say in 2011-12 period. If you can't beat 34 yo ATG - you don't have it what it takes.
 
Top