2019 Next 'Next Gen' Talk

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger did play Ruud in 3rd round of this RG

Short memory. Sorry.

 

[DarthFed]

Short memory. Sorry.

No worries, the only reason I remember Ruud is due to that amazing Kyrgios exchange in Rome.

 

[don_fabio]

LOL...you made me curious, so I went to the live rankings. Maybe you mean Miomir Kecmanović? I do wonder what his friends call him.

It's actually easy to pronounce that name for us Slavs, the letter ć or č in the name is pronounced as [tʃ], so it's ke[tʃ]manovi[tʃ], but we do have a big problem with polish names. Those can be really tricky.

 

[Horsa]

It's actually easy to pronounce that name for us Slavs, the letter ć or č in the name is pronounced as [tʃ], so it's ke[tʃ]manovi[tʃ], but we do have a big problem with polish names. Those can be really tricky.

I'm very sorry for interrupting your conversation but I really wanted to thank you for the information on pronunciation. I agree with what you have to say about Polish words. I don't even attempt to pronounce them as they look very hard except Wielkopolski which is a horse breed. The hardest word I've ever tried to pronounce is Przewalski, the Russian who discovered Przewalski's horse. Anyway that's enough about pronunciation & horses. I'll let everyone get back to talking about tennis.

 

[don_fabio]

I'm very sorry for interrupting your conversation but I really wanted to thank you for the information on pronunciation. I agree with what you have to say about Polish words. I don't even attempt to pronounce them as they look very hard except Wielkopolski which is a horse breed. The hardest word I've ever tried to pronounce is Przewalski, the Russian who discovered Przewalski's horse. Anyway that's enough about pronunciation & horses. I'll let everyone get back to talking about tennis.

I found a few more if you are willing to break the tongue.
https://culture.pl/en/article/the-9-most-unpronounceable-words-in-polish

I hope we can afford to go a little bit off topic

Now back to the next genners, Ruud played a very good 3rd set against Fed in RG and if I remember he dispatched Berrettini which most saw as a surprise. We will probably see him more in the future.

 

[Horsa]

I found a few more if you are willing to break the tongue.
https://culture.pl/en/article/the-9-most-unpronounceable-words-in-polish

I hope we can afford to go a little bit off topic

Now back to the next genners, Ruud played a very good 3rd set against Fed in RG and if I remember he dispatched Berrettini which most saw as a surprise. We will probably see him more in the future.

Thank you very much. I'll take a look.

Me too. :0)

 

[herios]

Review of the young players performance thus far:
By the R 1/16 , only 2 were left in the running:
23y old Matteo Berrettini and
21 y old Ugo Humbert.
Good for this two, BUT
this is a poor performance in block by the players aged 25 or younger ( born 1994 or after).

In comparison, at the AO by this stage were still 6 in the running and at RG were 3.

One plus is how the teenagers did:
Felix Auger-Aliassime reached R3 and both Kecmanovic and Popyrin reached R2, their best showing in slams.

 

[tented]

What youth movement? The Big Three still dominate at Wimbledon

 

[El Dude]

It is worth remembering that Federer didn't reach his first Slam SF until Wimbledon 2003, at age 21 (almost 22), which of course he won and began his reign of dominance. Rafa reached peak elite form just before turning 19 and Novak won his first Slam at age 20, but those ages don't necessarily apply in today's game. Let's add two years, and say that age 21 today is age 19 fifteen years ago. If all-time greats traditionally reach elite form at age 19-22 (which spans Nadal, Novak, and Roger), then we can say that would be more like 21-24 today.

But not only are players taking longer to reach their primes, but more and more players are having late breakthroughs and peaks (very best years), and also extending their careers longer. This is complicated, however, by the extended dominance of the three greatest players of the Open Era. So you have a few factors:

1. Advancements in training regimes, nutrition, medicine, maybe homogenization of courts that allows for extended prime years.

2. The three greatest players of the Open Era, all still focused and determined to keep performing at a high level, and perhaps competitively inspiring each other.

3. A historically weak cohort of players born 1989-94ish.

4. A stronger, but still young, follow-up group born 1995 and later.


All of those factors align to create the context we see today, the three most dominant players being age 32, 33, and 37 (38 next month). Take away or change any of those four factors and we'd have a different situation. For instance, even swapping "Lost Gen" and "Next Gen" and I think you see mid-20s versions of players like Tsitsipas, Auger-Aliassime, and even Zverev and Shapo be more of a challenge to the Big Three.

But it is what it is. I think Novak was right in saying that let's put off conversation about when the young guys will take the reins - right now it is the Big Three. At some point this will change, maybe soonish, maybe not for a few more years. We're already seeing tiny cracks in Masters and the rankings; Ferrer was the last of Roger's generation to be an elite player, and now even Nadalovic peers are aging out (Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet, etc).

 

[mrzz]

#NextLostGen

 

[Moxie]

#NextLostGen

No, that really would be too depressing.

 

[tented]

No, that really would be too depressing.

“Human kind cannot bear very much reality” — T.S. Eliot


But I’m afraid we might have to with the #NextLostGen

 

[Moxie]

“Human kind cannot bear very much reality” — T.S. Eliot


But I’m afraid we might have to with the #NextLostGen

Nice quote, but I simply don't believe we'll have another Lost Generation. While the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic don't come along every generation, they do age, and the youngsters do have some ambition. In the article you posted, Tsitsipas is completely bereft at his performance, and inability to step up. FAA seems to have the desire. I do think there are a few coming up not just with talent, but with "brass balls," if you don't mind the expression. I do think they'll break the glass ceiling, and not just when the Big 3 age-out.

 

[El Dude]

^Yep. Next Gen isn't necessarily a historically great one, but it should be significantly better than LostGen, which is the worst tennis has seen since the group between Rosewall/Emerson/Laver (born 1934-38) and Ashe/Newcombe/Nastase/Smith (1943-48).

Maybe it will be more like the Kuerten/Kafelnikov/Moya/Rios group (b. 1974-78), which was on the weaker side that was between two strong generations--Sampras/Agassi/Courier on one side, Federer/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick on the other--which made for the competitive environment of the late 90s-early 00s when there were a bunch of Slam winners and #1s.

 

[mrzz]

FAA seems to have the desire.

FAA is NextNextGen, right?

@El Dude , I see your points, but that is precisely it: the point of being "lost" is exactly fail to meet the reasonable expectations.

 

[don_fabio]

Next gen really underperformed here. I didn't think they will do some major upsets, but to go out early all of them that I find surprising.

I believe they will do better in USO.

 

[herios]

Next gen really underperformed here. I didn't think they will do some major upsets, but to go out early all of them that I find surprising.

I believe they will do better in USO.

Once again, not all of them. Reaching R4 is not "early elimination" for Humbert and Berrettini. The problem was how poorly the others did.

 

[don_fabio]

Once again, not all of them. Reaching R4 is not "early elimination" for Humbert and Berrettini. The problem was how poorly the others did.

You are right, those 2 guys did well and others did not.

 

[El Dude]

FAA is NextNextGen, right?

@El Dude , I see your points, but that is precisely it: the point of being "lost" is exactly fail to meet the reasonable expectations.

Not sure what you're getting at. NextGen is just entering their prime years, has already accomplished more than LostGen, and should only get better...so at this point at least they haven't failed to reach "reasonable expectations." LostGen, however, has been a total failure.

As for FAA, using my five-year cohorts he would technically be NNG...but those are arbitrary delineations. But yeah, Shapo, de Minaur, and FAA--as well as Kecmanovic, Popyrin, and Moutet--were all born in 1999 or later.

 

[mrzz]

Not sure what you're getting at. NextGen is just entering their prime years, has already accomplished more than LostGen, and should only get better...so at this point at least they haven't failed to reach "reasonable expectations." LostGen, however, has been a total failure.

As for FAA, using my five-year cohorts he would technically be NNG...but those are arbitrary delineations. But yeah, Shapo, de Minaur, and FAA--as well as Kecmanovic, Popyrin, and Moutet--were all born in 1999 or later.

I agree that NextGen is leading LostGen, but not by that much honestly. Two years ago it surely seemed they would completely dust LostGen, but now I am not sure if they have much more than the fact that they are younger backing them up. Putting Thiem aside (which is on the frontier, I don`t even remember where he is using your five-year cohorts which I actually like and basically think in terms of them), LostGen has two major finals against zero from NextGen, them both have a WTF win and probably NextGen is slightly ahead on MS count (one, I think). And -- and this is important -- take Zverev out, what NextGen has accomplished so far? Not that much.

While I think that there are great players in the NextGen, and agree that they reached some early marks earlier than LostGen, I am starting to think that they greatest asset is the age factor -- they are the ones who will be around 25 when Fedalovic are finally done. It could be argued that their better performance against the big three is basically due to the fact that they played them older. If you look at this' year majors, LostGen is doing better.

I am not saying that LostGen > NextGen. My point is that the difference may be much smaller than it looks.