We're living the Career Inflation Era

Wat?


  • Total voters
    42

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#1
We're in an unprecedented era in tennis. We have a World #1 who is actually close to the age that normal people retire. Slam counts of the top players have gone through the roof. Former top players have faded, broken down. Meanwhile, the early 90s generation came and did..... pretty much nothing. Nothing until the 80s players break down by the dozens. There are 4 active players on Tour right now that have played Slam finals that haven't been out with long term injury. The players who were #1 and #2 in the world on the monday after Roland Garros 2005 have aged, slowed down and broken, and yet after almost 13 years they're still gonna be #1 and #2 in the world after RG. They're still dominating respective surfaces, Baldal breaking the record for consecutive sets won on clay and Ancienterer winning Wimbledon without dropping a set.

Yet the players that dominate the Slams have gotten a wee little inconsistent in the smaller tournaments. The Masters 1000s that used to be spread between the Big 4 have seen 4 different winners in 4 tournaments this year, for the first time since 2004(?). It turns out that spreading them between 2 players is a little harder than spreading them between 4 players, especially if you start to reach the age where you start forgetting if you've won a title or not. We've seen 5 new Masters champions emerge in the last 2 years, 4 of which players who couldn't get anything done when the Big 4 were around. And then there's Zverev, who's ridden 4 hilarious draws to 4 finals and 3 titles. And yet their efforts have been as fruitless at Slams as they've ever been. The Tour is a wasteland, and average players reach achievements beyond their wildest dreams because better players are injured, young players aren't as good as they should be and because they get the draw of their dreams.

For the first time, we have a young generation that doesn't take it to previous champions and violently kick them from the top of the hill. Instead, they're just waiting for players they could never beat to retire before they can start winning Slams for themselves. And when it happens, the Tour will look dire.

In previous times we've seen great players brutally beaten into being mere sidenotes in the annals of tennis history. And now that that time is finally at an end, it is time for worse players to achieve vastly more than better players unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong era.

Ladies and gentlemen. This is the Career Inflation Era(TM)*.

Ah yes, chewing jewellery is a big time talent in the Career Inflation Era.
@NatF , thank you for your great wisdom.

*The term "Career Inflation Era is intellectual property of @NatF Genius Inc.
 
Last edited:
#4
Seriously, right now the result of inflation is that we think the big 3 are all way better than Borg/Sampras and that a guy like Stan is way better than Roddick and co. Not stuff I agree with, but not entirely unreasonable.

Just wait until we have Thiem compared to Kuerten and Zverev to Lendl/Agassi by 12 year old Zverev2018 who joins the forum. People can't use context to evaluate totals in a time when totals are most of the time representative of the player's quality, just wait until that completely disappears.
 
#12
Anyone else wish Safin, Hewitt and Roddick got to play in this era? They would own in this era.

There’s gonna be new users on here in 2022 making threads about why Zverev is better than Fed and Nadal, makes me sick.
Yeah, let Tim Henman join in as well. Give him one more match for the chance of finally competing for the Wimbledon heavyweight championshp.
 
#20
Each year is different though. But doing it across eras is potentially even worse.
Sure, it always gets more complex when comparing individual achievements when you take into account the different draws, different players and their forms, different conditions etc. But comparing achievements within an era doesn’t seem totally idiotic as opposed to comparing different eras.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#25
Sure, it always gets more complex when comparing individual achievements when you take into account the different draws, different players and their forms, different conditions etc. But comparing achievements within an era doesn’t seem totally idiotic as opposed to comparing different eras.
To that I can somewhat agree. But honestly, there's a lot of things achievements alone don't take into account such as some of the examples you listed. More are, when are player's peaking? Having injuries? On what surfaces do they excel? Are the competition on differing surfaces the same?
 
#28
2017-2018 era is slightly better than 2015-2016 era.Though the young players needs to step in and finally win Grand Slam tournament.From the young players with best chances for this is Zverev.I know he havent reached QFs but who else.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#30
2017-2018 era is slightly better than 2015-2016 era.Though the young players needs to step in and finally win Grand Slam tournament.From the young players with best chances for this is Zverev.I know he havent reached QFs but who else.
Let's not pretend Djokovic wouldn't dominate the entire tour today if he kept playing the same way he did then.
 
#32
Enough already with the era drivel, we know life can be pretty random; some people were born at the right (i.e. wrong) time and got sent to Normandy Beach or Vietnam or wound up in the WTC or Baghdad or Oleppo at the wrong time, some people born a few years later or earlier didn't. These ruminations about how many slams Vince Spadea would have had if no other player on tour had ever been born or if his mother had just waited until she was 60 to have children are becoming tedious. Pop the tops on a few frosty ones and just sit back and enjoy the matches, grateful that YOU weren't born before the era of large high-def TV screens.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#43
Sure, it always gets more complex when comparing individual achievements when you take into account the different draws, different players and their forms, different conditions etc. But comparing achievements within an era doesn’t seem totally idiotic as opposed to comparing different eras.
It can still be faulty because in the context of the same era, draws come into play.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#44
Why he cant dominate today?He is only 31.One of his main rivals is 6 years older than him and still can win major titles.And injury is not valid excuse anymore especially after he played 6 tournaments this year.
I dont know, he's out of shape and made lifestyle changes which impact his game probably? Point is he'd still dominate the entire tour today if he was still in the same form as back then, so I dont know if you can call 2015-2016 weaker than now.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#45
2017-2018 era is slightly better than 2015-2016 era.Though the young players needs to step in and finally win Grand Slam tournament.From the young players with best chances for this is Zverev.I know he havent reached QFs but who else.
2017 AO-IW-Miami period was still very good. After that it all went down the drains.

2015 was still stronger than what we have now, despite Djokovic dominating, although still not strong.

2016 was the beginning of the end though. And since clay season 2017 it has reached rock bottom.
 
Top