Who Are We Kidding About the Next Generation? . . . There Is No Next Generation!

winstonplum

winstonplum

Hall of Fame
Dimitrov, Harrison, Tomic, Young . . . don't make me laugh. Hype, hype, and more hype.

There are three players in the top 20 under 25: Cilic, Delpo, and Raonic. Can you see any of those guys taking a slam in the next four years? Maybe Delpo if he gets a dream draw. Has there ever been a time in tennis like this?

Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, Courier, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic--all of them had won a slam by the time they turned 22, some of them had won multiple slams before they turned 22. Agassi was 22, but it was his third slam final. The only player to buck this trend (late start winning slams but define a generation) was Lendl--24 in 1984. But again, he it was his fifth slam final. The similarities between him and his charge are just ridiculous.

My point is that players that win slams, players that define an era, a generation, make the big push when they're 20, 21, 22. No one is going to be winning slams besides the top four for the next four years. Their numbers are going to get gaudier and more impressive. Tsonga, Delpo, Ferrer, Berdych . . . all of them would need dream draws and lightning in a bottle performances to get a slam, or in Delpo's case, scrounge up another one.

The "next generation" are fifteen and sixteen year olds we've never heard of.
 
winstonplum said:
Dimitrov, Harrison, Tomic, Young . . . don't make me laugh. Hype, hype, and more hype.

There are three players in the top 20 under 25: Cilic, Delpo, and Raonic. Can you see any of those guys taking a slam in the next four years? Maybe Delpo if he gets a dream draw. Has there ever been a time in tennis like this?

Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, Courier, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic--all of them had won a slam by the time they turned 22, some of them had won multiple slams before they turned 22. Agassi was 22, but it was his third slam final. The only player to buck this trend (late start winning slams but define a generation) was Lendl--24 in 1984. But again, he it was his fifth slam final. The similarities between him and his charge are just ridiculous.

My point is that players that win slams, players that define an era, a generation, make the big push when they're 20, 21, 22. No one is going to be winning slams besides the top four for the next four years. Their numbers are going to get gaudier and more impressive. Tsonga, Delpo, Ferrer, Berdych . . . all of them would need dream draws and lightning in a bottle performances to get a slam, or in Delpo's case, scrounge up another one.

The "next generation" are fifteen and sixteen year olds we've never heard of.
Click to expand...

Not every player develops the same, I heard commentary during the Raonic roddick match saying Raonic will DEFINETLEY win a slam in the next few years. If he continues to go forward then he can do it.
 
djokovic2008 said:
Not every player develops the same, I heard commentary during the Raonic roddick match saying Raonic will DEFINETLEY win a slam in the next few years. If he continues to go forward then he can do it.
Click to expand...
Raonic won't be winning a slam, unless he gets a dream draw later in his career when he hasn't got much of a chance at winning one anymore; ala Goran.
 
It's sad that you've (OP) missed all the discussions on this topic. Maybe try the search function and help yourself to the constructive discussion (which has sadly been diluted by a repetition of misinformed representations similar to yours).
 
Russeljones said:
It's sad that you've (OP) missed all the discussions on this topic. Maybe try the search function and help yourself to the constructive discussion (which has sadly been diluted by a repetition of misinformed representations similar to yours).
Click to expand...

Thank you for adding your insipid piece of doggerel. Maybe you should try to add something constructive to this thread, instead of just leaving a snide remark. Please enlighten me, oh master, to the "misinformed representations" (whatever that jumbled nonsense phrase means) that I have made.
 
meh, all youngster suck. someone will show up eventually but it's not Tomic, Dolgo, Harrison etc. Novak will probably dominate the game for next couple of years.

I watched this Serbian kid Krajinovic, but he is too weak . he has some good technique, but that's just too not good enough.
 
As far as I see it, Nadal's absence was really the best chance for anyone from the younger generation to step up and go deep in a slam whilst causing an upset or two.

We all saw Janowicz pull a dream run in Paris this year, but it was the end of the year and most players in the draw were just plain tired (not making excuses, just stating realities). That was the closest we got to a changing of the guard.

Now that Nadal will be back, we have to wait at least another five years.
 
InspectorRacquet said:
As far as I see it, Nadal's absence was really the best chance for anyone from the younger generation to step up and go deep in a slam whilst causing an upset or two.

We all saw Janowicz pull a dream run in Paris this year, but it was the end of the year and most players in the draw were just plain tired (not making excuses, just stating realities). That was the closest we got to a changing of the guard.

Now that Nadal will be back, we have to wait at least another five years.
Click to expand...

I think it's too much, we will probably have at least two new top 10 members in 2014, I have high expectations for JJ.
 
Gonzo_style said:
I think it's too much, we will probably have at least two new top 10 members in 2014, I have high expectations for JJ.
Click to expand...
Let him defend his Paris final at the end of 2013 before talking about 2014.
 
I don't think any of these kids will do amazing things, but don't get too caught up in the moment. You realize how different the tour will look 3 years from now? Djokovic and Murray will still be playing slam finals but they are not going to win as often as Nadal/Fed did. A couple of the young guys will get a slam or 2 around 2015-2016
 
Sabratha said:
Raonic won't be winning a slam, unless he gets a dream draw later in his career when he hasn't got much of a chance at winning one anymore; ala Goran.
Click to expand...
Dream draw, ala Goran?

Goran had to go through Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman and Rafter to win Wimbledon.
 
Andres said:
Dream draw, ala Goran?

Goran had to go through Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman and Rafter to win Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

So you are saying he beat two decent grass court players? Unless of course you think that 18 year old Andy Roddick was a grass court giant. Certainly you can't imply that Rusedski was good on grass given that he only reached Wimbledon Q once in his life and lost to Pioline. Moya never made it past 2nd round at that point. We know how much Safin hates playing on grass so that basically leaves Henman and Rafter as the only two good grass court players.
 
Last edited:
Rock Strongo said:
Wow. That draw is sheer brutality on any level.
Click to expand...
Similar to what Gaudio had to endure on his 2004 French Open
Cañas, Novak, Enqvist, Andreev, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Coria.
Perhaps not such a blockbuster draw in terms of big names, but on clay, that's almost as hard as you can get.
 
dudeski said:
So you are saying he beat two decent grass court players? Unless of course you think that 18 year old Andy Roddick was a grass court giant. Certainly you can't imply that Rusedski was good on grass given that he only reached Wimbledon Q once in his life and lost to Pioline. Moya never made it past 2nd round at that point. We know how much Safin hates playing on grass so that basically leaves Henman and Rafter as the only two good grass court players.
Click to expand...
And Henman never made the final, so he's flakey too.
 
What I find quite funny (even more so that I am Canadian) is that currently Canada has better future potential then the US. Raonic is doing great so far and is establishing himself nicely, Peliwo is tearing up the junior ITF circuit and with Bouchard popping up on everyones radar she could be up there as well especially with her looks.

I remember whenever I went down to the states to play tennis as a junior, like in California for example, people thought we played indoors 80% of the year so this is sweet revenge.
 
who are we kidding yes , ofcourse they will win the slams after fed,novak,rafa and murray retire from tennis. Only difference there will be no other generation like the BIG 3 for sure.
 
Gorecki said:
actually i was refering to the dismissal of Goran but thanks for showing that you are free from any reasoning skills!!!
Click to expand...
Goran did have an easy draw that year. You're saying that getting through a bunch of hard court and clay specialists is "incredibly hard"?
 
The next generation are the one we havent seen yet. The current new balls are basically non existant as factors.
 
as for Goran, he was the biggest headcase like ever. huge chocker, bad nerves, just wasn't able to control his emotions at all. based on his skills he should have won at least 3 more times at Wimbledon in that era.

as for youngsters, just forget it. they are all clueless.

some young guy who is now 14/15 yo will show up and become a champ. by that time Fed will be retired, Nole and Rafa slowing down (if Rafa even stays healthy to play next few years).
 
Sabratha said:
Goran did have an easy draw that year. You're saying that getting through a bunch of hard court and clay specialists is "incredibly hard"?
Click to expand...

easy draw ?? :shock: hellooooo..time to wake up :confused: wakey waaakaaayyyyyyyy :neutral:

qf safin, sf henman, f rafter, the last two being s&v blokes and both the semi and final were 5 sets each, and all top 8 seeds.

as well as pre peak roddick..(who wants to face that serve)..i wont mention he also beat the mighty greg rusedski though.
 
The OP sees nobody "next" who can win a slam in the next three years. Things don't work that way. In 2000 Roger Federer made it to his first tour final (and lost). Three years later he was Wimbledon champion. Lots can happen in a few years and it's myopic to think nobody can come out of the pack and become a great player.
 
El Diablo said:
The OP sees nobody "next" who can win a slam in the next three years. Things don't work that way. In 2000 Roger Federer made it to his first tour final (and lost). Three years later he was Wimbledon champion. Lots can happen in a few years and it's myopic to think nobody can come out of the pack and become a great player.
Click to expand...
nope. using Fed as an example here is silly. all current youngsters in their early 20s just suck. who's gonna win a major out of these youngsters in next 3years? Tomic who serves like a girl (plus, can't win even some MM tournaments), serve bot Raonic who moves like an elephant, chubby Harrison, Dorkopolov (who is like what 23/24yo) ... whatever, so disappointed with all of them.
 
El Diablo said:
The OP sees nobody "next" who can win a slam in the next three years. Things don't work that way. In 2000 Roger Federer made it to his first tour final (and lost). Three years later he was Wimbledon champion. Lots can happen in a few years and it's myopic to think nobody can come out of the pack and become a great player.
Click to expand...

My entire point is that nobody comes "out of the pack" when they're 25 of 26 to become an era-defining slam-winning player (with the exception of Lendl, and now maybe Murray). You proved my point. Fed was 21 when he took the 2003 Wimby.
 
winstonplum said:
My entire point is that nobody comes "out of the pack" when they're 25 of 26 to become an era-defining slam-winning player (with the exception of Lendl, and now maybe Murray). You proved my point. Fed was 21 when he took the 2003 Wimby.
Click to expand...

well, both lendl and murray have reached finals in majors many years before they actually won one. both of them were 21 by their first final appearance (murray 08, lendl 81)
 
El Diablo said:
The OP sees nobody "next" who can win a slam in the next three years. Things don't work that way. In 2000 Roger Federer made it to his first tour final (and lost). Three years later he was Wimbledon champion. Lots can happen in a few years and it's myopic to think nobody can come out of the pack and become a great player.
Click to expand...

federer was 19 in 2000. dimitrov is 21 and his highest ranking is 48. harrison and the other young guys are even worse.
 
True fact: Djokovic is not as good a volleyer as Peter Doohan.

Just watch Doohan's match vs. Becker and ask yourself if Djokovic could volley that well if he had to.
 
winstonplum said:
Dimitrov, Harrison, Tomic, Young . . . don't make me laugh. Hype, hype, and more hype.

There are three players in the top 20 under 25: Cilic, Delpo, and Raonic. Can you see any of those guys taking a slam in the next four years? Maybe Delpo if he gets a dream draw. Has there ever been a time in tennis like this?

Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, Courier, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic--all of them had won a slam by the time they turned 22, some of them had won multiple slams before they turned 22. Agassi was 22, but it was his third slam final. The only player to buck this trend (late start winning slams but define a generation) was Lendl--24 in 1984. But again, he it was his fifth slam final. The similarities between him and his charge are just ridiculous.

My point is that players that win slams, players that define an era, a generation, make the big push when they're 20, 21, 22. No one is going to be winning slams besides the top four for the next four years. Their numbers are going to get gaudier and more impressive. Tsonga, Delpo, Ferrer, Berdych . . . all of them would need dream draws and lightning in a bottle performances to get a slam, or in Delpo's case, scrounge up another one.

The "next generation" are fifteen and sixteen year olds we've never heard of.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I was thinking almost the same thing.

As you said, almost all great players had there big push when they were 19 - 20. If they didn't win a grand slam, then they played couple of finals, won some masters titles maybe... Younger players nowadays are barely in top 20.

I think after big four leaves, we're going to have situation like we have in WTA at the moment. For instance No1 player with no grand slams titles, or No1 one year, out of top 10 next or something like that.

I don't see anyone out of today young players that can dominate mens tennis (or be consistent) like Novak, Nadal, Fed or even Andy did.
 
bjk said:
True fact: Djokovic is not as good a volleyer as Peter Doohan.

Just watch Doohan's match vs. Becker and ask yourself if Djokovic could volley that well if he had to.
Click to expand...
Peter Doohan, who? before you post something stupid try to think. first of all, this thread is about youngsters, not Djokovic. and Djokovic btw, is a pretty good at everything he does, volleying included. watch his last match against Murray. he went to the net like freaking 30 times or so, won all points. He improved dramatically. he has no weaknesses. period. there is a good reason why he is the best player in the world.

so, you have no clue what you are talking about. sorry.
 
Last edited:
winstonplum said:
Has there ever been a time in tennis like this?
Click to expand...

Short version: no, in the Open Era.

There are various ways of measuring this, e.g. the average age on tour has skyrocketed in the last 5-6 years. For elite multi-slammers, emergence on tour can be tracked earlier than the first slam final - they reach lower level finals first. Even Wilander, Becker and Chang - the youngest slam winners - reached tour finals before their first slam wins. And elite players normally, to quote Nuke LaLoosh, announce their presence with authority by attaining multiple tour finals before turning 20.

Putting aside players born before 1952 and winners of depleted 70s AO, the *only* slam winners who did not have at least one tour final as a teenager:

Rafter (2W/4F)
Guga (3W/3F)
Stich (1W/3F)
Korda (1W/2F)
Gaudio (1W/1F)
Johansson (1W/1F)

Now to our present situation. The first teenage tour finalist in OE was John Alexander at 1970 Kitzbuhel. Since then the longest gap between teenage finalists was about one year, in 1977 and 2003. was. Because the last teenage tour finalist was Marin Cilic @ New Haven, Aug-08. That was over four years ago ... and counting.
 
Players are breaking through a bit later now. Instead of 19-20, it's 22-23. Look at Kei Nishokori and Alex Dolgopolov.
 
There are a few headcases who have the game to do well, Dolgopolov being the most notable. He really has all the shots, if he can get an element of consistency in his game, he could be a real threat.

What about David Goffin and Martin Klizan?
 
firepanda said:
There are a few headcases who have the game to do well, Dolgopolov being the most notable. He really has all the shots, if he can get an element of consistency in his game, he could be a real threat.

What about David Goffin and Martin Klizan?
Click to expand...

2013 is going to be very interesting. You have all these 20-23 year olds knocking on the door to the top 10. It's time they dislodged the old guys!
 
Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?
 
Hops said:
Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?
Click to expand...

I think it's a talent issue. There is nobody coming up who has the weapons of the top 4.
 
Hops said:
Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?
Click to expand...

There simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the last 4-5 years. Murray and Djokovic were born seven days apart and Nadal is only 11 1/2 months older. That's an awful lot of era-defining slam-winning talent born under the same moon. Throwing a consistently healthy Federer into the mix who might play until he's 35, you have a perfect storm for top end traffic. Nobody, I repeat, nobody currently in the top 20 will win a slam unless they get a dream draw of just zone beyond comprehension for one two-week period.
 
We have already discussed this to death (poor old dead horse and all that). Slower courts = more physical tennis = longer time needed for players to grow into their prime. One young player to buck the trend? JMP and guess what he is a beast of a man! Look for people like Dimitrov to really turn it on at 24-25 when he has the physical strength to dictate play for the full duration of a match (currently he often flickers out after a strong first set).
 
It's not about tennis players getting older. It's about not having elite talent like Sampras, Nadal, Federer, etc. These true talent can win slams in their teens. Right now we just don't have any of those sort anymore.
 
helloworld said:
It's not about tennis players getting older. It's about not having elite talent like Sampras, Nadal, Federer, etc. These true talent can win slams in their teens. Right now we just don't have any of those sort anymore.
Click to expand...

Federer won his first slam at age 22.
 
Hops said:
Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?
Click to expand...
Before 2007/2008, the 3rd spot on the rankings was generally shared between Davydenko, Roddick and Nalbandian. The second spot was occupied after Nadal pushed himself to the top of the rankings. He was so consistently good he, himself, as #2, had enough points to lead the rest of the tour as a dominant #1 in a different era.

Then in 2007, Djokovic came along and claimed the 3rd spot, once again having enough points to be a dominant #1 in a different era. Then Murray comes along with also enough points to be a dominant #1 in another era.

What's happened is that there are four DOMINANT #1 players. They would all be #1 in another era and they're all talented enough to be all time greats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Where are the Next Generation?
Replies
0
Views
2K
Laurie
L
zvelf
The next generation is here
Replies
12
Views
683
I Am Finnish
I Am Finnish
pirateofthecarribean
Meet the next generation of male tennis players....
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
NatF
NatF
Amen786
Djokovic versus Next generation of Players since 2019
Replies
8
Views
380
ForehandCross
ForehandCross
ScentOfDefeat
No such thing as a best "generation"
Replies
14
Views
1K
JMR
J
Back
Top