Mens Tennis Forums banner

Is generation change real?

  • No - more Estrella-esq late bloomers will appear

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • No - Fedalovic and friends will rule forever

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • No - Young guns over-hyped + gen useless...

    Votes: 21 50.0%
  • Yes, it's happening

    Votes: 13 31.0%
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
A lot of focus in terms of the young guns/less than young contenders has been on who can wins slams now and in the near future. But there are other indicators that change is underway, and that is in the composition of the top 100 overall.

For ages we've been lamenting (or praising) how many older players were still right up there. And many still are of course. But the long awaited clean out seems to be well underway.

As at today there are actually four teens in the top 100 on live rankings (Coric, Chung, Kokkinakis, Zverev).

But it goes deeper than that. Compare the composition of the top 100 last November to how it stands today (live rankings using Slasher's year based spreadsheets):

Golden Oldies (turning 31+, born 1984 or earlier=) - was (November 14)29; now 24
(Past) Prime (1985-87, turning 28-30 this year) - was 45; now 36
Should be peaking now (1988-90, turning 25-27) - was 16; now 24
Gen useless (1991-94, turning 21-24) - was 9; now 11
Young guns (1995+) - was 2; now 5

Older players numbers are noticeably thinning (though a couple out on injury might yet defy the odds and come back).

The same thing applies the Djokovic/Nadal years and older - numbers starting to decline quite quickly, as the Nishikori/Cilic/Raonic gen are starting to push out their elders (though should note that the 87ers haven't changed in top 100 numbers over the six months, though 101-200 nos have dropped).

Gen useless living up to its name still, while young guns more than doubled (albeit off a very low base!), with a couple of others from their ranks looking poised to make the jump sooner rather than later.

Individuals - particularly those at the top of the game - can of course defy the trend and keep on keeping on. And a couple of older players currently out of the top 100 due to injury may yet make it back in. And it is still relatively early in the year.

But it looks as if things are finally changing, and quite quickly at that.

Are the days of the domination of the top 100 by older players finally over?
 

·
|
Joined
·
15,485 Posts
I think guys like Raonic and Nishikori will win slams in 2016 (Australian Open, Wimbledon, maybe US Open), but Nadal will still be Roland Garros champion in 2016.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
Nope. Sure more and more will occupy te top 10, but none of them look like disloging Djokovic and Murray from the top. Its still significant that it's still Djokovic and Murray who have been needed to beat Nadal recently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
OP, what if i tell you a secret

:secret:Djokovic is still Peaking
You hope!

But seriously, I'm not talking about the top 5-10 guys here, but the bulk of the top 100.

And on average, players peak around 25, and the decline sets in at 27. The really top players of course can and do continue to win slams well past that, but I'm talking about the norm for players who have made it into the top 100 at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
You hope!

But seriously, I'm not talking about the top 5-10 guys here, but the bulk of the top 100.

And on average, players peak around 25, and the decline sets in at 27. The really top players of course can and do continue to win slams well past that, but I'm talking about the norm for players who have made it into the top 100 at some point.
thats to generalized, some peak at 21, 26, 29.. even, 34?! :p it all depends..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
thats to generalized, some peak at 21, 26, 29.. even, 34?! :p it all depends..
Yes there are some outliers. Estrella for example can be explained perhaps by 'tennis years' - lot less competition playing earlier means less wear and tear on the body so can start late and keep going to a later age than normal. And playing style obviously makes a difference (hence Feddy).

The very top players also seem in many cases to get into a zone and stay there - not necessarily their technical peak, but so far above the curve and able to compensate for physical deterioration through greater experience etc.

And not everyone will exactly sit on the average curve anyway, always a bit above or below.

But the norms reflect the pattern for the vast majority of players if you go back and analyse the curve over time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,525 Posts
Their numbers look better, but their form not so much. Last few bigger tournaments still had mostly older generation in the latter stages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,737 Posts
Someone opens this type of thread every year, even every few months.

A young guns beats a big gun > New threads > 'New generation finally happening' etc. etc.

Point is, none of this matters until when some young guns wins a Slam. And Wawrinka and Cilic were not young guns.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,525 Posts
Point is, none of this matters until when some young guns wins a Slam.
Not sure, someone could win a slam like Cilic, and disappear after that like he did. Real "change" would be having the new generation regularly in the late stages and having them regularily as one of the favorites for the tournament, right now they are still not quite there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Someone opens this type of thread every year, even every few months.

A young guns beats a big gun > New threads > 'New generation finally happening' etc. etc.

Point is, none of this matters until when some young guns wins a Slam. And Wawrinka and Cilic were not young guns.
Big difference though, between one off wins and a substantive change in the composition of the top 100. One off wins can just be an artifact of a particular player rather than a generation and can be flukes. Major shift in make up of top group though arguably signals that while the change hasn't yet percolated up all the way to the top (though Raonic at 4 is significant surely), the groundwork is being laid.

Last time there were officially so many teens in the top group was 2006...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,800 Posts
It's too early to say for the youngsters coming up. They just brake top 100 and everyone's going crazy. The time when it will actually be a generation change is when they actually start winning slams, I'd imagine in the next 2-4 years. As for Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic I doubt they'll ever be at the top. I reckon Nishikori and Raonic could probably become 1 slam wonders but their peaking right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
They havent charged into the top 10, which is a very important step.

Raonic did it and Dimitrov did it, but Dimitrov has not evolved and has taken a step back.

There is no one else born 90+ even close to that level.

We'll see in Wimbledon were frankly the "youngsters" have a better shot, maybe someone like Tomic might even reawaken?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
A lot has been made about the current set of players from 21 to 25 being rubbish. Worst generation ever etc.
Equally people who are used to the era of the big three/four say pre 2007/8 was rubbish, or maybe for others it is the pre Fed era that was rubbish.

Maybe a fairer way of looking at it is that the current younger generation is normal. The generations before were normal. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have just been freakishly good. Off the charts good. Maybe its fitting that tennis will be a bit of a wilderness without them. Maybe we shouldn't desperately hype up every young player good enough to make the top 100 only to turn on them when it becomes clear they are not Fedalovic standard.

Genuine question: How many tennis players have been as good as Fed, Nadal and Djokovic in the last 50 years. I would argue its a handful. Maybe we shouldn't expect too many more in our lifetimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,531 Posts
If generation change would be true, Federer wouldn't be world #2 at 34 years old or Feliciano Lopez wouldn't be world #12 at 34 (career high).
Big4 seems to be weaker and weaker, yet they are still a factor. More or less.
Problem with new generations is that they are compared to big4, while they have similar results to old guys like Feliciano or Ferrer.

Generation change will happen for real, when big4 will be finally done and dusted.
 

·
|
Joined
·
15,485 Posts
OP, what if i tell you a secret

:secret:Djokovic is still Peaking
Wow, so that means Djokovic's peak hasn't been good enough to beat Nadal in 2012, 2013, 2014 (and soon to be 2015) Roland Garros.
While Nadal's peak Roland Garros was 2008 :lol:
Talk about ownership :yeah:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Wow, so that means Djokovic's peak hasn't been good enough to beat Nadal in 2012, 2013, 2014 (and soon to be 2015) Roland Garros.
While Nadal's peak Roland Garros was 2008 :lol:
Talk about ownership :yeah:

Ofcourse Djokovic was not, clear for anyone with eyes to see.

I am not sure Djokovic is still in his peak, or just slightly, slightly down. I think he was too outplayed even in AO by Wawrinka and Murray before his physical and mental superiority came into play, I mean would Djokovic 2011 even lose a set in those matches?

Not to mention losing in straights to 2015 Federer in Dubai, 2011 Djokovic had no problem with Federer in Dubai.

But if everyone is declining faster than Djokovic, how can we tell if Djokovic is not also declining? What are we to compare against?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
If generation change would be true, Federer wouldn't be world #2 at 34 years old or Feliciano Lopez wouldn't be world #12 at 34 (career high).
Big4 seems to be weaker and weaker, yet they are still a factor. More or less.
Problem with new generations is that they are compared to big4, while they have similar results to old guys like Feliciano or Ferrer.

Generation change will happen for real, when big4 will be finally done and dusted.
You're confusing the outliers for the trend. The vast majority of matches are not played by just four people, even when they dominate the later rounds of big events, which they are doing less and less...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,946 Posts
Genuine question: How many tennis players have been as good as Fed, Nadal and Djokovic in the last 50 years. I would argue its a handful. Maybe we shouldn't expect too many more in our lifetimes.
If it weren't for surface homogenisation they wouldn't be able to dominate as they have on every surface. This is the reason why they appear to be greater than previous generations. Just imagine how dominant Nadal would be if every tournament was played on clay or Djokovic if all courts were plexicushion.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top