Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,732 Posts
Nishikori
Thiem
Dimitrov
Raonic

They're all talented and show perfectly how that isn't enough to succeed. Nishikori was very unlucky in his career, lacks a serve, and is injury prone. Thiem has a tendency to bash himself off the court but he still has a chance to win slams (partially because the competition is worse than in, say, 2014 - Kei's peak). Dimitrov lacks tactics and proper mentality. Raonic has a great serve+FH combo, but that isn't enough to win big.

Goffin should probably be added. I'd put him between Dimitrov and Raonic. Again, bad mentality is an issue here.
 

·
Moderator | PreviewBot
Joined
·
13,105 Posts
Overall
Nishikori
Thiem
Raonic
DImitrov

Talent
Thiem
Dimitrov
Raonic
Nishikori
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
I am genuinely curious. Why is Thiem always bundled with the LostGen group?

He is 2 years 4 months younger than the youngest LostGen member (Dimitrov).

He is about the same (2 years 5 months) older than the oldest of the NextGen (Medvedev).

One can easily argue that he should be considered part of the NextGen, especially since he hit his prime later in his career. He'll be the one battling it out for titles with NextGen players in the next 5-6 years, not Dimitrov, Raonic or Nishikori (who will all probably retire soon anyway).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
I am genuinely curious. Why is Thiem always bundled with the LostGen group?

He is 2 years 4 months younger than the youngest LostGen member (Dimitrov).

He is about the same (2 years 5 months) older than the oldest of the NextGen (Medvedev).

One can easily argue that he should be considered part of the NextGen, especially since he hit his prime later in his career. He'll be the one battling it out for titles with NextGen players in the next 5-6 years, not Dimitrov, Raonic or Nishikori (who will all probably retire soon anyway).
LostGen should be 1989-1992 while Thiem is somewhere between LostGen and NextGen (1993-1995 could be called ThiemGen). However, if Thiem doesn't win a slam soon then many will argue that LostGen should be a huge group of players from 1989-1995.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enlightenedth

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
Talent is pretty subjective and if a player dont work hard the talent will never be fulfilled.
Honestly, the whole generations thing is BS. How can you calculate a generation anyway? It can be interpreted differently.
Thiem will be the most successful most likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guitarra and Monsi

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
I am genuinely curious. Why is Thiem always bundled with the LostGen group?

He is 2 years 4 months younger than the youngest LostGen member (Dimitrov).

He is about the same (2 years 5 months) older than the oldest of the NextGen (Medvedev).

One can easily argue that he should be considered part of the NextGen, especially since he hit his prime later in his career. He'll be the one battling it out for titles with NextGen players in the next 5-6 years, not Dimitrov, Raonic or Nishikori (who will all probably retire soon anyway).
So it bothers you that Thiem is 2 years younger than Dimitrov, but does't bother you that he is 5 years older than Tsitsipas to be named nexgen. I see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
One generation is 5 years, not 3.
Who said this? Why not 6 or 4? So how do you classify 1994-1995? (if NextGen is usually said to be from 1996 and LostGen to 1993 according to you). It shouldn't be fixed in size at all, it makes no sense. LostGen (useless gen) is a group of players with little success on the biggest stage - that's their feature, not particular fixed-size time period (and it's clear that 1989-1992 will fit perfectly if Thiem starts winning slams).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
That's how the previous generations formed.
I just edited my previous post. Again, if Thiem wins a slam (especially multiple) it makes ZERO sense to classify him (and 1993) to LostGen, 1989-1992 will fit perfectly. The Previous golden Gen (usually stated here to be 1985-1988) was recognised by success on slam level, not by 5-year period time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
I just edited my previous post. Again, if Thiem wins a slam (especially multiple) it makes ZERO sense to classify him (and 1993) to LostGen, 1989-1992 will fit perfectly. The Previous golden Gen (usually stated here to be 1985-1988) was recognised by success on slam level, not by 5-year period time.
If Raonic win a slam will he be out of this generation? You are really confused about this gen thing. There are 2 generations in one decade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
1. Dimitrov is the most talented. People have no idea what the talent is. lol
2. Thiem
3. Nishi samurai
4. Raonic wtf??
 
  • Like
Reactions: dDreamer

·
justice for all
Joined
·
18,022 Posts
These kind of threads always make me confused.
My question is: how do you measure talent?
It's 100% subjective so it's kinda useless to discuss it because there's no measurable criteria to compare it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Who said this? Why not 6 or 4? So how do you classify 1994-1995? (if NextGen is usually said to be from 1996 and LostGen to 1993 according to you). It shouldn't be fixed in size at all, it makes no sense. LostGen (useless gen) is a group of players with little success on the biggest stage - that's their feature, not particular fixed-size time period (and it's clear that 1989-1992 will fit perfectly if Thiem starts winning slams).
What?? So if Dimitrov starts winning Slams after turning 29 like Wawrinka, he doesn't belong to LostGen anymore?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
These kind of threads always make me confused.
My question is: how do you measure talent?
It's 100% subjective so it's kinda useless to discuss it because there's no measurable criteria to compare it.
Ok guitarra, rank them based on what they achieved on their careers so far and try not to be biased.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top