There is much noise that 89-92 generation is extremely underachieving. Many call it possible the worst generation in Open Era, and there is even (by now infamous) nickname for them due to their perceived hopelesness: "Generation Useless".
Okay, first, lets look at numbers:
0 grand slams won
1 slam final (Nishikori)
0 World Tour Finals
0 Masters Series
0 weeks at #1
0 Olympic medals
Now, those are undoubtedly appalling numbers, especially since even the youngest of them turn 23 this year (ie. entering their prime years).
Of course the most commonly used excuse by their defenders is that no other generation has ever had such a competition from older players, 3 of whom are all-time greats, and who are hogging all of the big titles. Without a doubt, there is much truth to it.
However, lets take a look at one more 4-year spanning generation: 82-85.
3 grand slams (Wawrinka x2; Roddick x1)
12 slam finals (Roddick x4; Soderling x2; Nalbandian, Coria, Baghdatis, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer x1)
16 Masters Series (Roddick x5; Coria, Nalbandian, Tsonga x2; Berdych, Robredo, Soderling, Ferrer, Wawrinka x1)
1 World Tour Finals (Nalbandian)
13 weeks at #1 (Roddick)
0 Olympic medals
Well, certainly much more impressive numbers. However, not quite all that impressive, especially in the most important departments (slams won, WTF, weeks at #1) for an entire generation.
And it is precisely in those already listed most important departments tha the so-called "Generation Useless" can still reach 82-85 generation numners.
Granted, it is unlikely that 89-92 generation can reach 15 slam finals or 16 masters series (especially if members of Big 4 continue to dominate those for the next 2 years, which is very likely), but they still have chance, IMO, to snatch 2-3 slams, have a dozen or so weeks at #1, and get at least 1 WTF.
Consider the most important parameter of them all, grand slams. 2 out of those 3 slams were won when the player in question (Wawrinka) had 28 years and 10 months and 30 years and 2 months, respectively. By that criterion even Nishikori has 4-5 years to win one, let alone the younger players.
So, in conclusion, it is still very much too early to write this generation off as the worst of all time, especially as peak years in tennis seem to have increased by 2-3 years in the last decade.
Okay, first, lets look at numbers:
0 grand slams won
1 slam final (Nishikori)
0 World Tour Finals
0 Masters Series
0 weeks at #1
0 Olympic medals
Now, those are undoubtedly appalling numbers, especially since even the youngest of them turn 23 this year (ie. entering their prime years).
Of course the most commonly used excuse by their defenders is that no other generation has ever had such a competition from older players, 3 of whom are all-time greats, and who are hogging all of the big titles. Without a doubt, there is much truth to it.
However, lets take a look at one more 4-year spanning generation: 82-85.
3 grand slams (Wawrinka x2; Roddick x1)
12 slam finals (Roddick x4; Soderling x2; Nalbandian, Coria, Baghdatis, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer x1)
16 Masters Series (Roddick x5; Coria, Nalbandian, Tsonga x2; Berdych, Robredo, Soderling, Ferrer, Wawrinka x1)
1 World Tour Finals (Nalbandian)
13 weeks at #1 (Roddick)
0 Olympic medals
Well, certainly much more impressive numbers. However, not quite all that impressive, especially in the most important departments (slams won, WTF, weeks at #1) for an entire generation.
And it is precisely in those already listed most important departments tha the so-called "Generation Useless" can still reach 82-85 generation numners.
Granted, it is unlikely that 89-92 generation can reach 15 slam finals or 16 masters series (especially if members of Big 4 continue to dominate those for the next 2 years, which is very likely), but they still have chance, IMO, to snatch 2-3 slams, have a dozen or so weeks at #1, and get at least 1 WTF.
Consider the most important parameter of them all, grand slams. 2 out of those 3 slams were won when the player in question (Wawrinka) had 28 years and 10 months and 30 years and 2 months, respectively. By that criterion even Nishikori has 4-5 years to win one, let alone the younger players.
So, in conclusion, it is still very much too early to write this generation off as the worst of all time, especially as peak years in tennis seem to have increased by 2-3 years in the last decade.