Mens Tennis Forums banner

Generation Useless?

36K views 239 replies 75 participants last post by  raysun68 
#1 · (Edited)
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.
 
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: Maestro99
#3 ·
Actually it is 1992-94 that has been dubbed gen (most?) useless, not the earlier group. Sure the 89-91 group have been slow, but at least they have a couple who have made top ten and show signs they might eventually do something.

The 1992-4 group by contrast managed only two teens into the top 100, both of who then proceeded to flop back badly (ie Tomic and Harrison).
 
#5 · (Edited)
Last youngster who made an appearance with a bang on the grand stage was DelPotro in 2009 at age 20/21. Since then no youngster has broken through to the top level of the game, which enabled the old guard to still cling on to the top. Historically great youngsters have always pushed their great predecessors out of the game, now is the first time in recent memory that the young generation failed to do so. With the weak challenge from the youngsters, even Fed's generation managed to hang around past their expiry date and they are only slowly disappearing now.

Nishikori/ Raonic looked hopeful last year, but their game has clear sufficiencies that prevented them from going all the way and to top it off, their development is halted for now because of injury.

There might be hope for the newest young generation, but so far it's only that - hope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grig_shap
#8 · (Edited)
No time was ever good for young players. There were always great older players around that had to be pushed from the game, that's what every young generation did so far.

Sometimes technological development helps the youngsters, but mostly they just found a solution to the problem of the day, i.e. the reigning top players. If they can't do that, it means they are just not good enough, because they couldn't find that solution. Age is with them after all, they will in all likelihood improve faster than the older players, enough talent and basics provided.

They have the additional advantage that they can learn from their examples and what works against them and what not. Djokovic in your example succeeded exactly in that like he himself repeatedly emphasized. (Federer and Nadal made me a better player. So Nadal managed to grind him down earlier - he improved his stamina.)
 
#9 ·
I don't agree because NOW you have 1 GOAT, Nadal - possible the next best after GOAT of all times, Novak the one who has realistic chance to surpass Nadal, and Murray who could be now easily better than Aggassi, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander if there wasn't such harsh competition.
 
#13 · (Edited)
I don't agree because NOW you have 1 GOAT, Nadal - possible the next best after GOAT of all times, Novak the one who has realistic chance to surpass Nadal, and Murray who could be now easily better than Aggassi, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander if there wasn't such harsh competition.
Bold: just shows that youngsters don't step up to the task that Djokovic fans expect him to rack up majors in his late 20s/ early 30s. And not surprising when this year he was only beaten by 36 yo Karlovic, almost 34 year old Federer, 30 yo Wawrinka. :D Where are the young guys who can challenge him?

italic: :haha: sorry, that's not how this works. :D Everybody would achieve more if there is less competition. ;)
 
#10 ·
For whatever reason, the youngest player to win a slam will turn 27 in two months time. The youngest man to win a masters is already 28. This is quite unprecedented.

Whether it is a new trend where average age of winners will now be higher, or just one or two useless generations right after very successful ones, remains to be seen.
 
#57 ·
The figure for Masters is more meaningful than slams IMO. There are more opportunities to win at Masters level, including a wider variety of surfaces. When Murray was almost winning slams, he at least managed to rack up a decent number of those mandatory events. The younger generation aren't even coming close to doing that, with just a couple of runners-up positions between them.

When Murray was being Backray, Federer was creaking, and when Nadal was suffering from whatever it is he's suffering from, it was the older players like Wawrinka and Ferrer who took most advantage.
 
#11 ·
Slam winners almost always enter the top 100 as teens - but from 1990 onwards teens have been scarce on the ground.

Got to hope that the return of the teens we are seeing now (and its not just the current five, there are quite a few looking like they might make the jump sooner rather than later such as Ymer, Rublev etc) will translate into some action in a year or two.
 
#12 ·
With Kyrgios and Kokkinakis losing tamely to Nedovyesov and Kukushkin today, neither of whom are exactly grassGOATs, they could end up being even more useless than the previous generation. If you start developing a reputation as a choker/tanker and you can't raise your game for a home Davis Cup tie, questions have to be asked. :shrug:
 
#17 · (Edited)
It has nothing to do with younger players being useless. The times have changed due to scientific and technological progress and historical patterns are no longer a reliable means to make correct conclusions. The body has a longer expiration date today due to improved medicine and nutrition but also more advanced training regimes. In contrast, the brain is developing at pretty much the same biological rate as before. While player bodies can fully mature between 16-20, their cognitive development ends between 24-26 (parts of neocortex that are responsible for planning, decision making etc.). Add 2 and 2 and it becomes clear that mature players who are fully cognitively developed but still have healthy, well trained bodies will possess a considerable advantage over teenagers. This does not mean young players cannot win slams, it just means that they need a lot greater physical efforts than before as they do not yet possess the mental fortitude and calmness of their mature peers. Look at Kyrgios, yound Fed and Nole - complete brats at 20/21. Novak didn't even mature physically as his voice was still mutating during WTF 2008.:superlol:
 
#18 ·
I would also add that this 'useless' generation was the first to grow up with smartphones and Internet from a very young age. Fed used net at 17, Novak and Rafa at 12-14. Nishi in comparison was 8-9, Kyrgios 6. Kyrgios and Nishi are also in a symbiotic relationship with smartphones and social networks. Nick barely ever takes his earplugs out. Anyway - this generation deals with many more distractions. They are hyperdistracted and it's harder to build focus and be disciplined.
 
#19 ·
It's very difficult to define precisely what a generation or era is, but there's no doubt that there are not many great 22-26 year-olds around at the moment. Raonic, Dimitrov and Nishikori are the best of these, and none of them is anywhere near as good as a 34 year-old Federer. Having said that, they are up against three truly great players, even though Federer and Nadal are in decline, but it says a lot about how disappointing they have been that Wawrinka has become a multiple Slam winner in his early thirties, but none of them seems particularly close to making a major breakthrough.

On the other hand, if the conditions played faster in general, or if Wimbledon or the US Open conditions played the way they did in the past, then Raonic would be a completely different proposition. So would someone like Berdych.
 
#21 ·
I never understood the fetish in sport, and tennis in particular, to call players "useless" and so on simply because they haven't won multiple slams by their early 20's

Yes, in the past, 17 year old Becker and Chang won slams and teenager Nadal did also. But times are a changin. It will be increasingly difficult for teens to break in when guys in their 30's can still play a very high level. We saw today Robredo routine Rublev. 30something def. 17.

Why do we want young champions so badly? Because we think that means they have time to catch Fedalovic in slam counts? A player who peaks before 20 has a higher chance of burnout before 27 than a player who peaks later. Wawrinka for example will be more of the norm. Berdych is 30. Tsonga is 30. Ferrer is over 30. Nadal is 29y3m. Federer is 34. The only player under 28 in the current top 8 to London is Nishikori (25)

The trend will be in this era for players to peak LATER, late 20's, 30's, hell, even 40's. Look at the doubles guys.
 
#27 · (Edited)
Out of people 25 and younger:
Nishikori and Raonic - Gonna group them in the same here. Have shown a lot of promise, could definitely be winning masters and slams soon, if they would stop being injured.
Goffin - solid game, but is it enough to really breakthrough and win slams and masters?
Dimitrov - too entitled and yes, he is a diva. Has the game, needs to get the work ethic.
Tomic - mentality is bad, is a known tanker. Put in more effort, and he could have already been a top player.
Thiem - seems to be stabilizing around his ranking now, probably going to stay a consistent top 20/30 player, might break into the top 10 for a few weeks. Might have a few good runs at slams and masters here and there.
Pospisil - Just had a very good run at Wimbledon. Will be interesting to see if he can back that up and do well at the USO and possibly break into the top 20 finally.
Coric - only 18. Will be interesting to see where he is in a few years, we might still need to give him time and see where he will end up. Seems that he is ready for a good spot, at least top 20 by next year if he keeps a good mentality and work ethic.
Kyrgios - seems that his mentality is starting to get the best of him...great game, though, so if he got rid of that awful mentality and overall clowning on and off court he could be something big
Janowicz - Really been underperforming since Wimbledon a few years ago. Problem is his mentality...
Young - Doesn't have the game to be at the very top. A good player, but I don't ever see him being top 10...
Kokkinakis - Almost the opposite of Kyrgios. He has a great mentality, but his game isn't that big and great. With the right work ethic, though, he could end up being a great player.
Harrison - Ugh...bad mentality, as soon as it seems he's picking up form, he loses it.
Ymer - Will be interesting to see where he ends up. I'm a huge fan of his...so hopefully he ends up being a great player.

I think the problem is with a lot of these Generation Useless/under 25 years is their mentality. The reason why we see Raonic and Nishikori doing well and players like Dimitrov and Tomic and Janowicz not doing as well is because of the mentality.

That's the problem...a lot of these players who seem to be just breezing along in this generation is that their mental game sucks. If their mentality on court was better, they could possibly have been top players by now.
 
#29 ·
American Chris Horner, winner of Vuelta a España in 2013 at almost 42 years old, the oldest ever Grand Tour winner.


:cool:

Respectfully,
masterclass
 
#34 ·
Notice the sudden increase in mean age. 2 years in less than a decade.

 

Attachments

#35 ·
#37 ·
But surely the average age actually starting to fall again this year?

I haven't run the average ages, but composition of top 100 looks to be changing quite fast, with number of 30+ (or at least turn 30 this year 1985ers) down from 67 last November to 58 in June; and currently in live race down even further to 55 (http://lifeunitennis.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/the-tennis-top-100-is-getting-younger.html).

Headphones or not, the younger crowd are starting to cut through.
 
#38 · (Edited)
I never understood the fetish in sport, and tennis in particular, to call players "useless" and so on simply because they haven't won multiple slams by their early 20's
The problem is that the 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 generation is averaging 24. They aren't 'early 20's' anymore and won't be by the end of the year. Oldest debutant at number 1 was Rafter who made his charge up the rankings from a similar place as Kei is now - starting in Montreal. Kei's on the clock already. He has four shots at a slam, and then he will likely see his shot at number 1 go away.

At present only Kei and Milos are relevant. Jimmy Connors was ranked at 9 entering the 1973 US Open, so the Kei generation is still ahead of the 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 generation, given the gap of 6 years from the start of the generation to the first slam win.

But, that's really not something to write home about.
 
#41 ·
Mostly agree, but there are a few things:

1. There have been many more useless generations before, and to use a 4 year span is quite small
2. These players have lots of time still. 23-26 is not really 'prime', with the modern physical aspect it is more around 28-31. The example you provide, is boosted largely to Wawrinka and Roddick. Look at Wawrinkas whole career, you wouldn't have thought he would have this success at 24 years old. In fact, just a few years before his breakthrough season (2013) he was lingering around the 50 mark.
 
#42 ·
Don't agree.

1. Four years is actually quite long given that normal span of top 100 is about 15 years.
2. Actually if you look at Wawrinka, the question is why he failed to fire much earlier. He made it into the top 100 as a teen, made the top 50 about six months later and top ten three years later (in May 08). Would have expected him to be close to the breakthrough at that point. Looked promising a couple of times - back to back slam slam QFs (USO/AO) in 2010 - but went backwards until Norman fixed his mentality issues.
 
#45 ·
I agree 92-94 is the worst. Also, 1995-98 is the best gen since the current crop (85-88).

On a smaller scale, I can see the top 100 age declining a little (as shown in new to top100 thread, just look at their ages) although I don't think it will ever go below 25/26 again...
 
#46 ·
I agree 92-94 is the worst.
Actually, the worst is the Muglos/Kei generation, but they are still slightly ahead of the Connors generation if you run it from 1947.

Also, can we get the top ten on January 1st 1970 and compare it with the top 10 as of today?

Right now the only seeded relevant youngsters aside from Kei and Muglos are Goffin (14), Divatrov (16), Tomic (25), Theim (28), and Pospisil (29).

Coric is 37 and just 100 points away from seeding. The list of the 5 above, including Theim who is probably the best of the lot.

That's it, and Pospisil only became relevant after his solid Wimbledon run.
 
#49 ·
You can find the old top 10s (and more) in the Advanced Discussions, The Ranking Thread: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=29EC224593D363F0!954&app=Excel

How about comparing Wimbledon's though since we've just had one.

Top 5 on the day Wimbledon started in 1970 (22 June): Laver (31), Roche (24), Rosewall (35), Gonzales (41), Okker (25).

So not that different a mix to today!

If they had been seeded on basis of top 32 as now, would have been 11 seeds aged 25 or under compared to 8 this year (Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Kyrgios, Tomic, Sock, Thiem).

Final was actually a wider age disparity than this year: Newcombe, then aged 25 and ranked 7, df Rosewall, aged 35 (vs 28-33 this year).

Just for entertainment doubles was all Australian too, 'youngsters' Newcombe/Roche df 'oldsters' Rosewall (35)/Stolle (31).

Will we ever see a slam winner pulling off doubles and singles in the same year again?!
 
#51 · (Edited)
So your trying to tell me that 1992-94 (Tomic, Sock, Thiem, Vesely and Harrison) are/will be better than Nishikori, Raonic and Dimitrov?
Theim? Yes, I'm going to make the bold prediction that Theim will be better. But, it's a generation of midgets.

Just as we were in 2012, we are free to speculate about these things, and all I'm saying is that the generation under this spotlight have more potential. Things change, and I was only replying to his claim that 'Muglos'(a top 10 player with slam semi and 2x masters finals) and Kei (world number 5 with grand slam and masters final) were the worst
I argue that Kei and Muglos are a part of the same generation as Theim, and, if you put Connors in with the 1947-1952 generation that it's the worst in the history of tennis.

If you don't then you're making an argument between Manuel Orantes vs Kei Nishikori.

2 GS SFs, 1 GS F, 1 GS Win and 5 GS QFs.

Orantes at 25 had a slam Final, 2 slam SFs, and a slam QF.

Kei has 3 slam QFs and a slam F.

Orantes would go on to win the USO in his 26th year, which would give Kei about a year.
 
#52 ·
The January 1st 1970 numbers for the top 10 average 29.5. So, we're in an old era but not as old as back in the early 70s.
 
#56 · (Edited)
Reasons why they played on back then I think have to do with the creation of the open era - Laver and friends presumably wanted those slam wins they'd been excluded from.

Interesting though that so many of them back then were obviously still competitive against the rising gen even when things started getting much younger with Connors, Borg etc, with Rosewall still in finals in 1974. Shape of things to come?!

To me attests to the value of increase in tennis IQ (mental strength, tactics etc) that can come with experience over purely physical aspects of game (though the physical obviously more important now than then).

But if you look at the 1989-1994 group, you'd have to say all too many of them not the sharpest tools on the block (Pospisil), and not the most mentally stable either (Janowicz, Tomic).

There are some possible exceptions (Raonic, Thiem for example), and one or two who might yet grow up though I'm not holding my breath. I can't see this lot lasting the distance to make inroads though - will be overrun by the last half of the 90s boys.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top