Mens Tennis Forums banner

Which will be the first generation useless big tournament?

  • Miami

    Votes: 5 11.9%
  • Monte Carlo

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Madrid

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • Rome

    Votes: 7 16.7%
  • Roland Garros

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wimbledon

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Toronto/Montreal

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • Cincinnati

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • US Open

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • Shanghai

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Paris

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • They won't win a big tournament this year

    Votes: 13 31.0%

Generation Useless' first big title.

9K views 55 replies 25 participants last post by  zjtennis 
#1 ·
The moment we've all been waiting for. With a final between two 30 year olds, Djokovic's and Murray's inconsistency and soon-to-be joining the club of 30+ year olds.

Just 2 players currently own a masters title and are under 30.

What title will be the first to fall to Generation Useless?
 
#2 ·
The funny thing is that just when Djokovic and Murray drop the ball, Fed and Rafa rise from the ashes.

Gen useless can't get a break, can't they?
 
#9 · (Edited)
I disagree. It's not that Gen Useless can't get a break.
They are just not talented enough/not working hard enough/not having enough drive and ambition/not having enough brain/not having enough discipline.

They still haven't won anything above 500 due to any of combination of the above reasons.

If only Fed had faced the Raonics/Nishikoris/Dimitrovs/Tomics during his peak years instead of Nadal/Nole/Murray, he would have won at least three consecutive CYGS.
 
#4 ·
Murray/Djokovic gone in Miami and Federer might be too old to have the double hardcourt swing in him. Wawrinka too might be tired. Nadal did not look all that great in Indian Wells. Tsonga is also gone, and Berdych is in bad shape.

They can hardly get a better shot than in Miami.

However, I expect some kind of surprise old generation rising; Del Potro should do great with the latino community there.
 
#12 ·
murray/djokovic gone in miami and federer might be too old to have the double hardcourt swing in him. Wawrinka too might be tired. Nadal did not look all that great in indian wells. Tsonga is also gone, and berdych is in bad shape.

They can hardly get a better shot than in miami.

However, i expect some kind of surprise old generation rising; del potro should do great with the latino community there.
 
#6 ·
I have to say I'm enjoying the 'weak era' so far.
 
#7 · (Edited)
The moment we've all been waiting for. With a final between two 30 year olds, Djokovic's and Murray's inconsistency and soon-to-be joining the club of 30+ year olds.

Just 2 players currently own a masters title and are under 30.

...
Just three players, and after Rome i.e. 22.5.2017 possibly just one player (probably holding just one title).

Also, after 22.5 there will be just two under-30 GS champions, zero multiple GS winners under 30 :facepalm: , and zero GS winners under 28.5 y.o. :eek:
 
#14 ·
Miami is certainly the best chance in a long time. Murray and Djokovic are out and conditions are completely unfavourable to Federer. Wawrinka's liable to bad days and hasn't reached an unbeatable level in a long time, while Nadal is simply vulnerable to anyone having a good day. Going to be brave and pick Thiem to win it all.

Obviously on the faster/indoor courts later in the season, Dimitrov and Kyrgios will be much bigger threats.
 
#15 ·
Raonic is just too limited, there will always be someone that can return his serve, and then he's doomed. Nishikori is just the opposite - great game but a weak serve, means he has to spend too much energy through the early rounds. And they're both injury prone, so they likely won't do it.

Goffin, Thiem, Sock, etc. are just not good enough. It's all on Dimitrov.
 
#19 ·
Shouldn't you wait for Thiem to get past 25 without winning a Masters or Slam before calling him Generation Useless? Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were so overpowering, that basically nobody had a chance to break up that dynamic. Since Federer first took Wimbledon 2003, out of the 55 Slams the Big 4 have won 48 - that's 87%! And out of the 76 Masters 1000 since 2009 they have won 68, that's 89 percent!

So let's wait for Thiem to mature a bit more. He's going up against all-time greats (3 of them, anyway) after all.
 
#24 ·
You don't need to check because you are completely WRONG.

Federer's generation (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, etc), have started winning Masters and Slams since they were 20 yos.

Trying to compare Gen Useless and Gen Next to New Balls gen expose your complete lack of tennis knowledge.
 
#33 ·
Couple of points here.

Zverev is not Generation Useless so RG 16 will be their next shot at getting one.

Only once has a generation been 'skipped' where another generation started winning before they did, and that depends on how you define a tennis 'generation'. Connors won the AO being the youngest man since Stan Smith won a title, followed up by Borg. If you split them you have the tail end of the Connors generation winning a slam, then the Borg Generation winning another.

If you combine them, they 'skipped' the current 'weakest generation' of 5 years withough a slam winner. That generation (with Orantes), would win a slam later the same year that Connors and Borg broke through, the 1975 US Open. Orantes would be followed up by two more slam winners in the following three years for a total of 3 slams won.

This remains the fewest slams won by a five-year span of players in the Open Era.

If you compare the 1947/1948/1949/1950/1951 with the current 1989/1990/1991/1992/1993, a couple of patterns emerged.

Orantes was the highest ranked player at 2. Currently the peak of Generation Useless was Milos Raonic reaching world number 3.

If we assume that Tennis players peak from 24-28, then Generation Useless will peak from 2013 to 2021. That's about 8 years. The absolute peak of Generation useless would be from 2016-2019.

Generation Useless is already a year and a half into their absolute peak. However, there are a few caveats.

They are not the slowest generation to win a slam. They have until the USO 2017 to match the current slowest generation.

They have not seen all of their players peak. Theim has not peaked yet.

They have 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 to have reasonable chances to reach number one. Still way too early to write them off.

Theim is not even the oldest player with more than 5 slams to win a slam. That would be Lendl who was older than Theim is now when he first won. So it's even still possible for Generation useless to have an all-time great.

Finally, Generation useless hasn't been supplanted in the rankings by Generation next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David T Hume
#38 ·
Couple of points here.

Zverev is not Generation Useless so RG 16 will be their next shot at getting one.

Only once has a generation been 'skipped' where another generation started winning before they did, and that depends on how you define a tennis 'generation'. Connors won the AO being the youngest man since Stan Smith won a title, followed up by Borg. If you split them you have the tail end of the Connors generation winning a slam, then the Borg Generation winning another.

If you combine them, they 'skipped' the current 'weakest generation' of 5 years withough a slam winner. That generation (with Orantes), would win a slam later the same year that Connors and Borg broke through, the 1975 US Open. Orantes would be followed up by two more slam winners in the following three years for a total of 3 slams won.

This remains the fewest slams won by a five-year span of players in the Open Era.

If you compare the 1947/1948/1949/1950/1951 with the current 1989/1990/1991/1992/1993, a couple of patterns emerged.

Orantes was the highest ranked player at 2. Currently the peak of Generation Useless was Milos Raonic reaching world number 3.

If we assume that Tennis players peak from 24-28, then Generation Useless will peak from 2013 to 2021. That's about 8 years. The absolute peak of Generation useless would be from 2016-2019.

Generation Useless is already a year and a half into their absolute peak. However, there are a few caveats.

They are not the slowest generation to win a slam. They have until the USO 2017 to match the current slowest generation.

They have not seen all of their players peak. Theim has not peaked yet.

They have 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 to have reasonable chances to reach number one. Still way too early to write them off.

Theim is not even the oldest player with more than 5 slams to win a slam. That would be Lendl who was older than Theim is now when he first won. So it's even still possible for Generation useless to have an all-time great.

Finally, Generation useless hasn't been supplanted in the rankings by Generation next.

RG '16 was won by Novak Djokovic.
And look at the poll, absolutely no takers for RG this year!
USO series is the most likely scenario on the fast hard courts, and even that is not a given.
 
#34 ·
Yeah I did follow tennis then and well before. The pre Fed reign was a time of transition from the Sampras + era, allowing less talented players like the ones you mentioned to burgle some titles. Once Fed, and later Nadal, Novak came along, they won squat. I am beginning to worry re the semiotic linguistic capacity of some posters outside NZ. I did not bring up ANYONE but Fed in my initial reference. My point was, nah, I'm no bothering. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

Should Thiem win a GS this year he will be a year and a smidgen older than Fed was. Should he win a Masters this year ditto. The age of maturation of tennis players has been stretching out since the seventies. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest the new breakthrough age may now be closer to mid rather than pre or early twenties. Players like Kyrgios-age wise-are rarer nowadays than they were ion Borg-Jimbo-Mac et al days. Rest assured I will gloat when Theim does break through...
 
#36 · (Edited)
Yeah I did follow tennis then and well before. The pre Fed reign was a time of transition from the Sampras + era, allowing less talented players like the ones you mentioned to burgle some titles. Once Fed, and later Nadal, Novak came along, they won squat. I am beginning to worry re the semiotic linguistic capacity of some posters outside NZ. I did not bring up ANYONE but Fed in my initial reference. My point was, nah, I'm no bothering. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.
The more you wrote, the more you exposed yourself.
You said once Fed came along, the rest of New Balls generation won squat.

Federer won Wimbledon in 2003. And since then, Andy Roddick and Marat Safin won slams (as well as Gaudio, who was not exactly a New Ball generation).

About not bringing up anyone else in your initial post, you did compare Thiem to Federer.

Read this slowly, everyone:
Rohemomona literally compared Thiem to Federer.

And by the way, new balls generation had already won slams when Sampras and Agassi were actually younger than Nadal is now. And Sampras was even younger than Djokovic/Murray now. If 2000-2003 were transition era, what kind of era 2015-2017 would you call?

Should Thiem win a GS this year he will be a year and a smidgen older than Fed was. Should he win a Masters this year ditto. The age of maturation of tennis players has been stretching out since the seventies. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest the new breakthrough age may now be closer to mid rather than pre or early twenties. Players like Kyrgios-age wise-are rarer nowadays than they were ion Borg-Jimbo-Mac et al days. Rest assured I will gloat when Theim does break through...
Thiem was just destroyed by Djokovic.

In September, Thiem will turn 24, the age at which Federer had won 5 slams, ranked #1 for a year, a handful of masters, and two WTF.

Well, of course Thiem will breakthrough. Even Wawrinka and Cilic broke through.

The problem is - read slowly - you were comparing Thiem to Federer.

In 2000-2001 (when Federer was 19-20 yo), a number of people who actually knew a thing or two about tennis had already predicted Federer for greatness. Even people who were not really expert in tennis could already see that Federer had real talent and je ne sais quoi necessary for greatness when he defeated the defending Champion and greatest grass player in Wimbledon when he was only 19 yo. Many experts had already seen his talent even before he destroyed Sampras.

The magnitude of Federer beating Sampras would be like had Thiem defeated Nadal in RG in 2013.

As for age of maturation of tennis players that has been stretching out since the 70s, that is not accurate to say the least. It's not linear. Chang was the youngest ever to win a slam, younger than any other player before him, Hewitt became the youngest ever #1, and Nadal's breakthrough was younger still. Even within the same generation, the age of breakthrough are not similar at all

Fact is, people see that Generation Useless are not that talented nor have they
je ne sais quoi for greatness.

Thiem is likely to win slam one day, but this is like saying that Zverev and Kyrgios will win a slam one day.

Thiem will win slam when the immediate previous generation have all entered 30 yo, which will happen in a few weeks.

Actually, comparing Zverev and Kyrgios to Federer is more apt than comparing Thiem to Federer.

One more thing, you claimed that Thiem will be only one year older and a smidgen than Federer was if he win his first master.

Wrong.

Federer won his first master in 2002, Hamburg, when he was still 20 yo.

The earliest Thiem can win a master is in Cincy and Rogers Cup when he will still be 23 yo, and if he fail that, by the time Shanghai rolls, he will be 24 yo.

23 or 24 yo is definitely NOT a year and smidgen older than 20 yo.

Federer won his first slam at 21 yo. Thiem is already 23. Even if Thiem win RG this year, it would make him two years older than Federer when winning first slam.



Math education seems to be clearly lacking in New Zealand.
 
#39 ·
Generation useless - Raonic, Nishikori, Divatrov, Goffin, Tomic :)lol:) and few others.

That's a special group of players :superlol:

I'd be extremely surprised if they won ANYTHING significant from here on.
 
#42 ·
USO series is the most likely scenario on the fast hard courts, and even that is not a given.
Even Orantes won one against Connors/Borg before McEnroe and Lendl hit the scene. It would be totally unprecedented for a five year span to win zero slams.
 
#43 ·
RG '16 was won by Novak Djokovic.
An unfortunate typo. Thanks for catching it!
 
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