Top players of the CIE are being exposed by next gen
- Thread starter Sputnik Bulgorov
- Start date
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Did Tsitsipas actually say recently that he was playing his best tennis? Or was that just a joke about Fed's comment?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I don’t think he is over-hyped. Alcaraz said yesterday on a Tennis Channel interview that the first time he practiced with Joao, he was getting ‘killed’ in FH-FH rallies and he had to stop and ask his coach what‘s going on with this kid. He also said that he thought Rublev could get upset before the match when he saw the draw since Rublev likes FH rallies and Alcaraz thought the kid would love that.
He also looks like a teen with a man’s body which is exactly how Nadal and Alcaraz looked as teens - put a rocket FH that can dominate elite players with a man’s body on a teen and that is the profile of a teen who can win Slams.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
You're still attacking a strawman because I never argued otherwise or questioned the validity of his records. I’m also on record calling him the GOAT, so I'm not coping nor does it make me feel better or worse that Djokovic won the slam race. I do find it entertaining though that some will bury their heads in the sand and just blurt out his GOAT statistics that everyone already knows whenever a legitimate argument providing context for his later achievements pops up. My argument is concise and targeted - CIE exists and Djokovic’s main competition for his slam wins in 2021-2023 were overall weak. I get that it's annoying for a fan to hear, but this statement is not actually in conflict with anything you just said. There's a difference between saying Djokovic's main competition for his slam wins overall is weak and Djokovic's main competition for his slam wins in 2021-2023 is weak. You are rebutting the former, but not the latter.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
The point is they all 3 had weak Slam wins and weaker competition at times but I don't see you opening threads about that. Or do they exist and I just missed them? You also didn't bother to touch on the fact that tennisabstract says he has the most hard Slam wins. His average difficulty score is higher than Nadal's and of course Federer's. So do you agree with that or no? If so, what's the point of this thread, other than to crap on his competition which has been done on here what seems like hundreds of times since he killed the Slam race?
Incognito
Legend
Sad the likes of Fonseca, Mensik, Alcaraz, and Sinner werent at their peak in say 2014. History would have been so different.
I think it in their mentality.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
All 3 have weaker slam wins - True
Has most hard slam wins according to tennis abstract - didn't know, but I'll accept that as true
higher average difficulty - True
The problem is I'm not debating any of those, and they do not conflict with my argument. All I'm saying is the competition in his slams won from 2021-2023 are weak, likely the weakest among all the weak periods the big 3 experienced. According to UTS they're even weaker on average than Federer's slam wins from 2003-2006 - and this includes some horribly weak ones like AO 2006 and Wimb 2003. You keep bringing bits and pieces that are beside the point so you can avoid confronting my main argument. Yes, I haven't opened threads about Nadal and Federer's weak competition, but both are retired and Novak's is the most relevant since he's the slam leader for the 2020's. I'll leave it to the other fanbases to open equivalent threads trashing their rival's competition. If I see you open one, I'll be happy to chime in. The point of this thread is simply free choice as I've always found CIE gen suspect. There was a time when we didn't know CIE gen's true competitiveness because not enough time has passed, but with each slam that goes by it becomes clearer and clearer that they truly were weak. Maybe Zverev and Medvedev can take one home for the team this year.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
I'm glad you're very secure about this, and there's honestly no reason not to be. Novak has the perfect resume, and the most anyone can legitimately criticize is his competition during his later years. But I find the variety of reactions amusing.
I suspect most of these posters know this, but will just not point it out openly. I get it - any fan will have an incentive to downplay their favorite's rival's competition while staying quiet on the shortcomings their favorite's competition. Tbh, I think most Federer fans just like to rub it in, tit for tat, since they've been hearing the same for 20 years.
ghostofMecir
Legend
Looking forward to this one. There’s a lot of things going against the learner here, but Medvedev has not played well, so you never know. A lot of money coming on Medvedev and I would not be surprised no matter happens, e.g., Medvedev beat down, Tien making it interesting, etc. One thing about learner is that he can get in a lot better shape than he is right now – when you look at him and there’s a lot of baby fat stuff on him and he can physically train himself to somewhat me for the fact that he’s never going to have a great serve.
In the end, i guess what we are asking is: "Was the Big3 dominance in their thirties a new norm, or just a huge historical anomaly?"
Well i think its unlikely that Alcaraz and Sinner will dominate in their thirties, but not impossible. Because peak age obviously is below 30, you will need a period with a weak crop of players for the older players to dominate. It has happened before though, both between Sampras and Federer, and between Djokovic and Sinner. I expect Sincaraz to win their slams at the same age players historically have won most of their slams.
There are few teens in top100, but also only 3 players older than 30 in the top30 (in 2019 there were 5 players older than 30 in the top10!!). And even late bloomer Stan couldnt win slams after he turned 31.
YE 2019 there were 9 players older than 30 in the top20, now there are 2. The so-called great age shift is definetly cancelled.
Last edited:
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
This is why "Weak Era" was such an unpleasant concept for some Nadal and Djokovic fans to invent.
The very notion that any player should be criticised for the one thing they can't influence - the person who confronts them on the other side of the net - is wrong. I know that you yourself aren't implying any personal criticism of Djokovic in your use of that phrase but it very often felt that way when "weak era" was used to attack Federer, as if he should have refused to play when the opponents weren't "good enough".
Of course we should all be bigger than that but we wouldn't be human if we didn't have a wry smile at the moment.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
When it was more of a defensive sport, the older guys with their experience and greater consistency along with better decision making had an edge. Now the new kids with their lighter racquets and 130+ serves are making it a much more offensive sport - older players are toast except for the ageless one who struck a deal with aliens.
So age shift definitely cancelled then, ill call Lendl and tell him
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Fuh sure!So age shift definitely cancelled then, ill call Lendl and tell him
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
That is the question you are asking! It is not one that interests me much. I hate goat debates!
I am asking whether the general age conditions on your have changed and I still conclude that they clearly have done so.
I think top players will continue to win slams in their early 30s. Mid 30s will be harder.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Fonseca was just exposed by a player older than Rublev!
Not my intention to start a GOAT debate
My point is that number of players older than 30y in the top20 has gone from 9 to 2 from 2019 to now. So clearly there isnt a great age shift.
Slams are won by players in the top20, so thats the interesting metric. It doesnt matter if you have a bunch of declined older players in the top1000 that doesnt win big tournaments, that doesnt define peak age.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Not my intention to start a GOAT debate
My point is that number of players older than 30y in the top20 has gone from 9 to 2 from 2019 to now. So clearly there isnt a great age shift.
Slams are won by players in the top20, so thats the interesting metric. It doesnt matter if you have a bunch of declined older players in the top1000 that doesnt win tournaments, that doesnt define peak age.
The number of teens has gone down drastically since the 1980s and this is a long-term trend.
Let’s see on players in their early 30s. The players now in their early 30s weren’t good to begin with (as you agree!) so we need to wait and see how the (better) players currently in their 20s hold up into their 30s.
Monfils still doing pretty well for his standards at 38, by the way. (I remembered this when I just posted in my pet age thread). Alas, his chances against Fritz are slim. Fritz also a relatively late bloomer, in that he made his first slam semi shortly before he turned 27 and is at a career high ranking at 27. I wish he loses against Monfils but I suspect he will win. Fritz v Meddy could be an interesting QF.
I’m not saying changing age is all there is to it, nor that five years ago it wasn’t exaggerated, just that there really is some change, and this can be seen in both men’s and women’s tennis and in other sports.
Agreed on your second paragraph, we have to see how competetive the next gens of ATGs are in their 30s before we conclude.
Still, i think we see signs that the late Big3-era was an anomaly. As I said, players in their 30s in top20 has gone from 9 to 2 from 2019, which is considerable.
Slams are won by the top20, most by top5. I dont think its that relevant if Stan and/or Monfils can stay inside top1000 until they are 45, that doesnt say anything about peak age. And even late bloomer Stan won his last slam at "just" 31. Djokovic can provably decline considerably, but still be top100 for years.
ChrisJR3264
Hall of Fame
Casper is limited on these courts in Australia.
He hasn’t ever faired well here or at Wimbledon. It’s also shocking he’s not performed well at Indian wells either.
He hasn’t ever faired well here or at Wimbledon. It’s also shocking he’s not performed well at Indian wells either.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
You post silly stuff like this and then people wonder why a few Fed fans are kicking back?Exactly. Federer was exposed by Djokovic.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
It really is coming clear that the past 5-7 years has been a very weak pool of tennis players. But we all knew this already, no one thought Ruud, Tsits, Med, Berr, and the lot were actually any good.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
I think Djoker is being exposed as taking advantage of an elderly man. Not very sporting.Exactly. Federer was exposed by Djokovic.
Yeah shame on Federer taking the opportunity to beat old men like Sampras and Agassi.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
It was a pretty bad move on his part, but he only did it a couple times, Djoker is a repeat offender.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Djokodal should have been banned for destoying so many poor hopeful NextGens
Edit: Oh sorry, i see i was out of context. Anyway - Djoker should be banned, both for taking on an elderly man, AND taking the hope away from young players.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
I dont count any of his slams past 2020. He was playing Top Spin make-a-players.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
Berrettini has fallen to Rune and Medvedev has fallen to Tien. ALL of Novaks slam final opponents in his winning runs in 2021-2023 are out by r2.
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
That’s actually insane. And I don’t see a lot of those players losing to their peers. It’s even younger players who are taking it away from them.
Insane it is.
Tsits, Berry, Tiafoe, Meddy, Rublev, Shapovalov, Ruud.
All out before R3, is NextGen actually worse than LostGen?
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure if I’d go that far but they are 100% the two worst generations of the Open Era. The only other contender is the group that came between Sampras and Federer, but even they produced players like Kuerten who were significantly better than Medvedev, Thiem, etc.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Wouldn't say nothing, but it was a bit overblown. Players peaking in their 30's was even more ridiculous.But also remember how many took the success of multiple 30-somethings as proof that there was a weak era but the success of one teenager as proof that nothing had changed!
Yes, Med and Zeddy are above him. And his generation is these 2.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, to be fair, they are old now. Like way out of their prime.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
If peak Tsitsipas was 2021, then he was never super good.
albatros_forehand
Professional
They have all become LostGen at this point. There was only Big4gen and then the NEW GEN.
If someone new doesnt arrive, Sincaraz will have a good time in the years to come lol.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Fritz doing well now, but he was not when Djoker was winning.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Most players start to decline in return statistics after very close to age 25 and sometimes before that. That has not changed. Nadal peaked in clay in 2008. Djokovic peaked on hard court in 2011. Federer peaked around 2005 or 2006. Returning favors the young. Older players compensate by getting better on offense and mastering better strategies. The demise of aging players happens much faster when they don't have a great serve.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Yes, that makes sense intuitively, and this holds true for Rublev, but not Tsitsipas.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Even these are debatable to be honest and it's not something numbers can measure.
Similar threads
