Mens Tennis Forums banner

Which one is the worst?

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,618 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
(Taking live rankings as reference)

1990
Biggest Stars: Milos Raonic (6°), David Goffin (21°), Jerzy Janowicz (48°).
Generation top 10: Vasek Pospisil (58°), Jan-Lennard Struff (71°), Federico Delbonis (79°), Ricardas Berankis (80°), Dusan Lajovic (82°), Facundo Bagnis (90°), Blaz Rola (112°).
Players in top 200: 19 (9 in top 100; 3 in top 50)

1991:
Biggest Stars: Grigor Dimitrov (11°), Pablo Carreño-Busta (63°), Andrey Kuznetsov (95°).
Generation top 10: Pierre-Hugues Herbert (144°), Chase Buchanan (162°), Mirza Basic (188°), Guido Andreozzi (200°), Christian Lindell (242°), Jules Marie (250°), Juan Carlos Sáez (255°).
Players in top 200: 7 (3 in top 100; 1 in top 50)

1992:
Biggest Stars: Bernard Tomic (26°), Jack Sock (35°), Diego Schwartzman (61°).
Generation top 10: Damir Dzumhur (87°), James Duckworth (92°), Filip Krajinovic (102°), Ryan Harrison (126°), Nikoloz Basilashvili (135°), Denis Kudla (139°), Marco Cecchinato (150°).
Players in top 200: 14 (5 in top 100; 2 in top 50)

1993:
Biggest Stars: Dominic Thiem (43°), Jiri Vesely (46°), Jason Kubler (152°).
Generation top 10: Mate Delic (159°), Bjorn Fratangelo (165°), Aslan Karatsev (166°), Alex Bolt (173°), Dennis Novikov (190°), Taro Daniel (202°), Tristan Lamasine (203°).
Players in top 200: 8 (2 in top 100; 2 in top 50)

1994:
Biggest Stars: Lucas Pouille (98°), Kimmer Coppejans (125°), Liam Broady (177°).
Generation top 10: Luke Saville (194°), Jordan Thompson (208°), Laurent Lokoli (210°), Mathias Bourgue (216°), Ramkumar Ramanathan (226°), Adam Pavlasek (261°), Julien Cagnina (291°).
Players in top 200: 4 (1 in top 100; 0 in top 50)

-----------------------------

For me the worst should be between '91 and '94, but as '91 members are 3-4 years older they get the prize IMO. Impressive that the fourth best ranked player is 144° for a generation whose members are turning (or turned) 24 this year. Even '93, which only has 2 players in the top 50, has more players into the top 200.

IMO Taking a general view, and considering the age gaps: '90 > '92 > '93 > '94 > '91. But the first place is still very debatable.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
Hurts my eyes to look at so many mugs at once :facepalm: All are the worst, and there's a very obvious structural reason why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Net Cord

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,429 Posts
Definitely 1991. Insanely weak given their age.

It's a bit silly to compare players with 4 years between them though. Those born in 1990 should be in their prime, whereas clearly, the likes of Pouille are still developing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,618 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Definitely 1991. Insanely weak given their age.

It's a bit silly to compare players with 4 years between them though. Those born in 1990 should be in their prime, whereas clearly, the likes of Pouille are still developing.
Agree, I expect Coppejans to reach Carreño's level in less than three years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,291 Posts
1990 - young guns
1991 - young young guns
1992 - young young young guns
1993 - young young young young gungs
1994 - young young young young young guns

btw Are the ATP shitting themselves yet?

Hurts my eyes to look at so many mugs at once :facepalm:
The
Code:
Jan-Lennard Struff (71°), Federico Delbonis (79°), Ricardas Berankis (80°),
part is the most depressing.
 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Why do you people care soooo much about young guns all of a sudden??? Where was this debate during Federer's or Nadal's reign???
Wait did I say Nadal's reign?



Oh god now I forgot what I was about to type... Nadal always makes me laugh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,838 Posts
'91 probably. But '91 to '93 all crazy weak. '94 might end up challenging too but I'd say some of them aren't really yet in their prime.
 

·
Mostly unbiased analyst
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
The 94 generation is still young and developing. The 91 generation should be at the peak of their abilities and winning everything.

But instead they let a married guy, who has children, win everything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,617 Posts
Glad that my birth year 1990 is repping better than the disastrous 1991
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
All of them. No one born 1990-1994 will ever win a slam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,633 Posts
Why do you people care soooo much about young guns all of a sudden??? Where was this debate during Federer's or Nadal's reign???
Wait did I say Nadal's reign?
.
Perhaps because the young guns during Federer's reign were the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, etc? :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
1991. At least with my year there's still time left. And at least 1995 onwards looks good so far.
 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Perhaps because the young guns during Federer's reign were the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, etc? :wavey:
I'm so happy to see one Croatian poster who didnt put me on ignore list.

You are absolutely right JarkaBish, splendid argument to convince me that I was wrong.

You are an amazing Croatian poster.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top