Top 10 best players of each generation (New Balls, Golden Gen, Lost Gen, Next Gen, Baby Gen) ? And how would you rank these generations ?

Tennfan123 said:
Djokovic fans desperate to put Djokovic in Federers generation so it might look like prime Djokovic went up against prime Federer. Please not.
Click to expand...
Honestly, why would Djokovic fans be desperate to argue anything? He has most of the meaningful records in the Open Era.
...
The OP is interesting for what it is, but not really useful for defining generations, not that this is that useful, anyway.

If we go by birth year, and divide every 5 years, you can be in the same Gen as someone 4.5 years younger (or older) and a different one than someone who may be a couple months older or younger. It's silly in that respect.
 
Last edited:
GoatNo1 said:
fed vs "his" generation:
fed vs hewit 18-9 27 matches
fed vs safin 10-2 12 matches
fed vs roddick 21-3 24 matches
fed vs ferrero 10-3 13 matches
fed vs nalbandian 11-8 19 matches
fed vs davydenko 19-2 21 matches
fed vs coria 3-0 3 matches
fed vs ferrer 17-0 17 matches
fed vs gonzalez 12-1 13 matches

fed vs noles generation:
fed vs nole 23-27 50 matches
fed vs rafa 16-24 40 matches
fed vs muzza 14-11 25 matches
fed vs wawa 23-3 26 matches
fed vs del potro 18-7 25 matches
fed vs cilic 10-1 11 matches
fed vs tsonga 12-6 18 matches
fed vs soderling 16-1 17 matches
fed vs berdych 20-6 26 matches

very interesting that fed played much more vs noles (238 matches) than his own generation (149 matches)!
Click to expand...
That’s longevity for ya…
 
Djokodalerer31 said:
Why do some people keep pushing this weird narrative, that Federer is separate gen than Djokovic and Nadal, i mean where does this even come from? Hadn't they been playing like for the vast majority of their respective careers against one another and even their primes overlapped at some point (at least as far as Fedal is concerned...), so why the heck create this fake artificial gen, that Federer supposedly belongs to? LOL This doesn't make any sense and there is only 2 years difference between Federer's first slam title at the Wimbledon and Rafa's first title at RG...Djoko had to wait for 2008 i get it as he started career as a pro a little later and unlike other two played challengers and futures as a teenager for longer period of time before playing his first official ATP event, but all-in-all they are pretty much the same gen...it's Federer, who played gen, that were on the crossroad between Djokodal era and Samprassi era, but Federer himself for the most part belongs to Djokodal gen...
Click to expand...
All 3 of them were in slam-winning form from 2007 to 2019... That's 12 years of overlap.
 
Djokodalerer31 said:
Why do some people keep pushing this weird narrative, that Federer is separate gen than Djokovic and Nadal, i mean where does this even come from? Hadn't they been playing like for the vast majority of their respective careers against one another and even their primes overlapped at some point (at least as far as Fedal is concerned...), so why the heck create this fake artificial gen, that Federer supposedly belongs to? LOL This doesn't make any sense and there is only 2 years difference between Federer's first slam title at the Wimbledon and Rafa's first title at RG...Djoko had to wait for 2008 i get it as he started career as a pro a little later and unlike other two played challengers and futures as a teenager for longer period of time before playing his first official ATP event, but all-in-all they are pretty much the same gen...it's Federer, who played gen, that were on the crossroad between Djokodal era and Samprassi era, but Federer himself for the most part belongs to Djokodal gen...
Click to expand...

Thiem and Novak have the same age separation in years as Novak and Fed.

No one puts Thiem and Novak in the same generation.

Fed only looks like he’s in Novak’s Gen because of their vast match play. Which is mostly just a function of Fed’s longevity/success into mid to late thirties.
 
Last edited:
duaneeo said:
From 2004 - 2009, Federer made 20 slam finals (14 titles) and Djokovic made 2 (1 title).
From 2011 - 2016, Federer made 5 slam finals (1 title) and Djokovic made 18 (11 titles).

Two players of the same generation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What happened to 2010? Anyway, these arguments are so circular, and I don't know what debates or sub-debates they serve.

Just accept that Roger had an amazing career, and was the greatest player through his peak (as commonly defined) but also ran into two players of equal ability and arguably greater tenacity and mental strength (though I also rate Roger highly in that regard) who slightly surpassed him.

We can draw lines however conveniently, but constantly making excuses for a player who was so great and who represented the sport so well seems pointless.
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
That makes no sense bro, how can Djokodal be different gen/era from Hewitt/Roddick but same as Federer ?

Generation gaps are always based on age and they are always 10+ because when you are 30, then a 20 years comes in and that is when a proper generation gap is established, your time ends and someone else's time begins.... 20s and 30s are different generation if age gap is 10 between them.

This is the rule followed by professionals, don't follow what TTW says or Me or what anyone says, just follow what the pros say.

Once Christ Evert explicitly mentioned Court/BJK being gen 1, herself/Navratilova being Gen 2 & Steffi/Monica as generation 3. She said she played 3 generations of players in her career.


I had made a thread on this and posted youtube video as well where she said this..... the video uploader has been removed by youtube on copyright grounds
Click to expand...

The atp and other media have been calling Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic "next gen" as early as 2013/2014 , and these guys were only 4-5 years younger than Djokovic and Nadal. The atp then started calling Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev "next gen" around 2017, who themselves were 4-5 years younger than Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Honestly, why would Djokovic fans be desperate to argue anything? He has most of the meaningful records in the Open Era.
Click to expand...
Quite obvious. Since they resent that most people, even those who call him GOAT today, see many of his late career achievements through the lens of horrible competition, and they hate that. Hence many Djokovic fans with no apparent lives on this site posting 50 times every day trying to brainwash/convince people he really had great competition, is a true same generation as Federer, and whatever other nonsense you can think of (that he is above Borg on clay in a few cases, LOL, you can't make that sh1t up).
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
The atp and other media have been calling Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic "next gen" as early as 2013/2014 , and these guys were only 4-5 years younger than Djokovic and Nadal. The atp then started calling Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev "next gen" around 2017, who themselves were 4-5 years younger than Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic.
Click to expand...
Heck, Nishikori is only 2.5 years younger than Djokovic, yet is considered a different gen
 
martinezownsclay said:
Quite obvious. Since they resent that most people, even those who call him GOAT today, see many of his late career achievements through the lens of horrible competition, and they hate that. Hence many Djokovic fans with no apparent lives on this site posting 50 times every day trying to brainwash/convince people he really had great competition, is a true same generation as Federer, and whatever other nonsense you can think of (that he is above Borg on clay in a few cases, LOL, you can't make that sh1t up).
Click to expand...
There's a lot of glory hunting and irrationality among so many tennis fans here.
Sure, Novak has fans that do this, and Fed still has an army of fans talking about how crappy tennis is now, and demeaning Novak (and sometimes, Rafa's) achievements, and many of Rafa's fan both brag and complain, etc, etc.

I didn't write that as a shot at Novak's fans -- almost the opposite. If your guy has (most of) the records, you don't need to come up with a litany of reasons and excuses to explain things away. You point to the record book. It's similar to a team chirping and talking trash at an opposing player when their team is beating them. The best response is to just point to the scoreboard.
 
Djokodalerer31 said:
Why do some people keep pushing this weird narrative, that Federer is separate gen than Djokovic and Nadal, i mean where does this even come from? Hadn't they been playing like for the vast majority of their respective careers against one another and even their primes overlapped at some point (at least as far as Fedal is concerned...), so why the heck create this fake artificial gen, that Federer supposedly belongs to? LOL This doesn't make any sense and there is only 2 years difference between Federer's first slam title at the Wimbledon and Rafa's first title at RG...Djoko had to wait for 2008 i get it as he started career as a pro a little later and unlike other two played challengers and futures as a teenager for longer period of time before playing his first official ATP event, but all-in-all they are pretty much the same gen...it's Federer, who played gen, that were on the crossroad between Djokodal era and Samprassi era, but Federer himself for the most part belongs to Djokodal gen...
Click to expand...

From all of tennis history? Now, I understand if you just started watching (majority of Djokovic fans), but Fed, Nadal, and Djoko aren’t in the same generation. Federer was growing up learning to serve and volley with the 85. Does that sound like the same generation as Nadal and Djokovic?
 
TsitsiBH said:
I will mostly stick to achievements.

New Balls - 1980 to 1983 :
1 Federer (20 GS)
2 Hewitt (2 GS, 2 YEC)
3 Safin (2 GS)
4 Roddick (1 GS and 4 more finals)
5 Ferrero (1 GS)
6 Nalbandian (1 YEC, 2 Masters and 1 GS final)
7 Davydenko (1 YEC, 3 Masters)
8 Coria (2 Masters, 1 GS final)
9 Ferrer (1 Masters, 1 GS final, 1 YEC final)
10 Gonzalez (1 GS final)

Golden Gen - 1984 to 1988 :
1 Djokovic (24 GS)
2 Nadal (22 GS)
3 Murray (3 GS, 1 YEC, 14 Masters, 2 Olympics Golds)
4 Wawrinka (3 GS, 1 Masters)
5 Del Potro (1 GS, 1 Masters, 1 YEC final)
6 Cilic (1 GS, 1 Masters)
7 Tsonga (2 Masters, 1 GS final, 1 YEC final)
8 Soderling (1 Masters, 2 GS finals)
9 Berdych (1 Masters, 1 GS final)
10 Anderson (2 GS finals)

Lost Gen - 1989 to 1995 :
1 Thiem (1 GS)
2 Nishikori (1 GS final, 4 Masters finals, 2 YEC semis)
3 Raonic (1 GS final, 4 Masters finals, 1 YEC semi)
4 Dimitrov (1 YEC, 1 Masters)
5 Kyrgios (1 GS final)
6 Carreno-Busta (1 Masters, 2 GS semis)
7 Norrie (1 Masters, 1 GS semi)
8 Sock (1 Masters)
9 Goffin (1 YEC final)
10 Schwartzman (1 GS semi, 4 GS quarters)

Next Gen - 1996 to 1999 :
1 Medvedev (1 GS)
2 Zverev (2 YEC)
3 Tsitsipas (1 YEC)
4 Ruud (3 GS finals)
5 Hurkacz (2 Masters)
6 Berrettini (1 GS final)
7 Khachanov (1 Masters, 2 Slam QFs)
8 Rublev (1 Masters, 8 Slam QFs)
9 Fritz (1 Masters, 2 Slam QFs)
10 Coric (1 Masters, 1 Slam QF)

Baby Gen - 2000 to 2003 :
1 Alcaraz (2 GS)
2 Sinner (1 Masters, 1 GS semi)
3 Rune (1 Masters)
4 Auger-Aliassime (1 GS semi, 2 GS quarters)
5 Shelton (1 GS semi, 1 GS quarter)
6-10 Not enough memorable results

My ranking of those generations is :
1 Golden Gen
2 New Balls
3 Next Gen
4 Lost Gen
(Too early to rank Baby Gen)

I think the only debatable choice in my ranking is between Next Gen and Lost Gen. I admit it is pretty close.
Click to expand...
Kyrgios is considered to be Next Gen.

Next Gen is 1995 and afterwards.
 
This is a fair assessment of generations.

Obviously, generations overlap and you have players playing in different generations and players that can be argued to which generation they belonged to. That's logical since you have to draw the line at some point.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Honestly, why would Djokovic fans be desperate to argue anything? He has most of the meaningful records in the Open Era.
...
Click to expand...

He does. So it is stupid to argue Federer belongs to a generation with players 5/6 years younger than the ones one or two years apart for the sake of an agenda. Let's say Federer is part of Golden Gen, are Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, etc part of it too? It would be stupid to say players younger than Federer like Roddick aren't in that case. And if players 5/6 years apart are from the same generation does Thiem belong there too? Thiem and Hewitt would be in the same generation too. And Hewitt played many matches against Sampras, let's include those players too, etc. At some point you have to draw lines and define eras, if not you can say player A played with player B, B with C, C with D and so on and there are just no eras at all.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
He does. So it is stupid to argue Federer belongs to a generation with players 5/6 years younger than the ones one or two years apart for the sake of an agenda. Let's say Federer is part of Golden Gen, are Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, etc part of it too? It would be stupid to say players younger than Federer like Roddick aren't in that case. And if players 5/6 years apart are from the same generation does Thiem belong there too? Thiem and Hewitt would be in the same generation too. And Hewitt played many matches against Sampras, let's include those players too, etc. At some point you have to draw lines and define eras, if not you can say player A played with player B, B with C, C with D and so on and there are just no eras at all.
Click to expand...
Here's what I was replying to: "Djokovic fans desperate to put Djokovic in Federers generation so it might look like prime Djokovic went up against prime Federer. Please not."

First of all, I don't know why any fan would be desperate to argue anything about tennis, especially something so convoluted. But again, if your player owns the records (a significant portion of them, anyway) why go out of your way to make an argument that's not even needed? Who cares what arbitrarily assigned era people place them in, and whether or not it was the same one? They played each other 50 times, many of them great matches. In this case, it's Roger's fans who go out of their way to find reasons why Fed can be considered greater despite four less slams, 11 less M1000s, and 85 fewer weeks at #1.
 
RaulRamirez said:
What happened to 2010? Anyway, these arguments are so circular, and I don't know what debates or sub-debates they serve.

Just accept that Roger had an amazing career, and was the greatest player through his peak (as commonly defined) but also ran into two players of equal ability and arguably greater tenacity and mental strength (though I also rate Roger highly in that regard) who slightly surpassed him.

We can draw lines however conveniently, but constantly making excuses for a player who was so great and who represented the sport so well seems pointless.
Click to expand...
Federer paved the way for Nadal and Djokovic by setting a new benchmark for them to aim for. That is why it is difficult to compare players from different generations in terms of achievements.
 
Silentchimera said:
A generation is a subjective term that in my opinion makes sense to be a group of players born within a 5 year period of time. 10 years is too long of a span of time for me.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I think a player’s generation should “generally” be considered a prime or maybe peak phase - the several years in which that player is at their greatest physiological best plateau. (Peak would be the “mountain top” instead of plateau - and maybe fewer years.)

NIH studies say that’s the mid twenties for a tennis player - so 22-27 - roughly - or so - is a players prime. W the peak a smaller subset of those years.

I feel like a giant nerd after writing that and I’m embarrassed.
 
Silentchimera said:
Federer paved the way for Nadal and Djokovic by setting a new benchmark for them to aim for. That is why it is difficult to compare players from different generations in terms of achievements.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first sentence, and also Rafa and Novak inspired (forced?) Fed to keep trying to improve facets of his game. His longevity of great play was inspiring.

You're never going to equalize all the variables, but I think it's valid, on the whole, to compare their achievements. Comparing any of the Big 3 to, say, Borg...and even Sampras...is much trickier (but when each of their set of accomplishments is significantly greater, it becomes a little easier).
 
I consider Alcaraz to be of Djokovic’s generation since he’s played 100% of his matches during the late Djokovic era
 
1980s Gen is somehow lucky gen. They are at the crossover of traditional & modern methodologies. They came out from traditional hard methods, and their careers prolonged/helped by the advancement of the technologies.
Top athletes like Roger, Novak, Rafa, Serena Williams, CR7, Messi, Ma long, Lin Dan, Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay, Lewis Hamilton, Seb. Vettel, Fernando Alonso etc. they're 80s babies.

Meanwhile, I'd struggled to name one top athlete who is 90s baby. Is there any? By right, they're already passed their prime by now.
 
If you mean generation in a sports way, then you could argue Nadal is from Federer's generation but Djokovic isn't. You can't say 2 players are from the same gen if their primes never overlapped.
 
Players can be 'priming' at different stage/age, even if they're from same age group.
Hewitt peak at 01-03 (age 20-22)
Roger peak at '04-06 (age 23-25)
Rafa peak at '08-10 (age 22-24), another peak at '13 (aged 27),
Novak around '11-16 (age 24-29),
Murray peak at '16 (age 29)
Stan peak at '14-16 (age 29-31)
Del potro performed at highest level around '08-09 (age 20-21)
Thiem peak at '18-20 (age 25-27)

Hewitt n Roger is the same age, but peak at different years
Rafa and Stan only differs 1 year, but they're 'peak'ing at very distinct age
 
NatF said:
You can't be from multiple generations.
Click to expand...
some people here would place twin bros in different generations if that fits their agenda... :unsure:

07d586a1-fbb4-4bc1-bc34-28a0784e810b_text.gif
 
Djokodalerer31 said:
Why do some people keep pushing this weird narrative, that Federer is separate gen than Djokovic and Nadal, i mean where does this even come from? Hadn't they been playing like for the vast majority of their respective careers against one another and even their primes overlapped at some point (at least as far as Fedal is concerned...), so why the heck create this fake artificial gen, that Federer supposedly belongs to? LOL This doesn't make any sense and there is only 2 years difference between Federer's first slam title at the Wimbledon and Rafa's first title at RG...Djoko had to wait for 2008 i get it as he started career as a pro a little later and unlike other two played challengers and futures as a teenager for longer period of time before playing his first official ATP event, but all-in-all they are pretty much the same gen...it's Federer, who played gen, that were on the crossroad between Djokodal era and Samprassi era, but Federer himself for the most part belongs to Djokodal gen...
Click to expand...
To define random begin and end points of generations is just wrong, it always leads to such errors, no matter which points you choose. Two thirds or three quarters of their careers spent together on tour means same generation.

A player born 1990 is the same generation as a player born 1994.
A player born 1998 is the same generation as a player born 1994.
But a player born 1998 is not the same generation as a player born 1990.
So how should we put them in correct generation???
 
anarosevoli said:
To define random begin and end points of generations is just wrong, it always leads to such errors, no matter which points you choose. Two thirds or three quarters of their careers spent together on tour means same generation.

A player born 1990 is the same generation as a player born 1994.
A player born 1998 is the same generation as a player born 1994.
But a player born 1998 is not the same generation as a player born 1990.
So how should we put them in correct generation???
Click to expand...
That depends.
 
anarosevoli said:
Only if you make the error to define generations by random start and end points.
Click to expand...
At the same time, Two thirds or three quarters of their careers spent together on tour could just mean one guy had insane longevity that kept him relevant for very long, not same generation.
 
mike danny said:
At the same time, Two thirds or three quarters of their careers spent together on tour could just mean one guy had insane longevity that kept him relevant for very long, not same generation.
Click to expand...
Yes, I wanted to make the joke "if Djokovic retires before 50" in my initial post but I thought it was too stupid. I was wrong.
 
Razer said:
A generation is 10+ years

not 3-4 years
Click to expand...
For tennis I feel like it's gotta be shorter. Are Pat Rafter and Roger Federer really the same gen? Are McEnroe and Edberg? Eras usually aren't that long, unless you're the Big 3.

FWIW, yes I do think Federer doesn't belong in the same generation as Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. His peers were Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin, and he wiped them off the map before struggling against the younger gens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N01E
Active Big Titles Champions Ranked
Replies
10
Views
757
Mainad
Mainad
N01E
Big 3 Seasons Ranked
Replies
14
Views
995
N01E
N01E
clout
  • Poll Poll
Which gen is stronger?
Replies
14
Views
653
clout
clout
James P
Lost Gen versus NextGen notes
Replies
12
Views
1K
duaneeo
duaneeo
RF-18
  • Poll Poll
Who's career would you choose right now?
2
Replies
95
Views
2K
vanioMan
vanioMan
Back
Top