2019 Next 'Next Gen' Talk

[Horsa]

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.

Other than being professional tennis players they do have something in common. To misquote Cliff Richard in not such a melodious way, "They're the young ones." Lol.

 

[El Dude]

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.

You might be right, although I hope not. I do agree about the age factor, but also think that Next is solidly more talented than lost, even if not very talented. As I said, it might be comparable to the 1974-78 generation, when you had six players win Slams, but none more than three (your countryman).

Thiem is late 1993, which puts him at the very end of LostGen. I kind of consider him the "bridge player" between Lost and Next.

One other thing to consider is that if NextGen is 1994-98, it doesn't really start getting flush with talent until 1996. The best player born in 1994 is Lucas Pouille, after that you have guys like Jordan Thompson and pretty much no one else worth mentioning. 1995 is a bit more talented with Nick Kyrgios, Kyle Edmund, Yoshihito Nishioka, Laslo Djere. 1996 is even more flush with talent: Coric, Khachanov, Medvedev, Berretini, Garin, Chung; 1997 is similar with Zverev, Fritz, Rublev, Opelka, Munar, Hurkacz, and 1998 also pretty talented with Tsitsipas, Tiafoe, Humbert, Ruud, etc.

The point being, the generation is weighted towards the middle and end: players turning 21-23 this year. If we re-calibrate aging patterns, these are pretty young players just starting to come into their own. Give them another year or two and we'll have a better sense of how good they are.

 

[mrzz]

I was sure Pouille was LostGen... (that's one of the reasons I stated LostGen fared better at majors). Anyway, we are kind of in the same page. There is just this huge cloud of led in front of everything called Fedalovic. And is not only the talent part, but the confidence. The edge they have after winning so much, after being there so many times... any other player must simply be head and shoulders above in order to beat them at the business end of majors (that is why I give so much credit to Thiem, and that is also why I think their decline will be sharp. But, hell, they have proved me completely wrong in 2019).

But my point was, when Fedalovic are finally gone, we will see those guys really battling it out among themselves. Not sure what to expect them.

In fact, I do know: Wawrinka will get them all!

 

[El Dude]

Alright, here's some fun stuff. Here are the current top five ranked players by birth year, from 1989 to 2003 - or three generations. I've also included the average rank of the top five in parentheses after the year, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Lost Gen
1989 (40): 7 Nishikori, 32 Paire, 40 Albot, 56 Klizan, 64 Millman
1990 (27): 17 Raonic, 23 Goffin, 26 Pella, 33 Struff, 36 Lajovic
1991 (67): 39 Herbert, 49 Dimitrov, 50 Busta, 94 Sandgren, 102 Travaglia
1992 (37): 16 Basilashvili, 24 Schwartzman, 41 Cecchinato, 51 Fucsovics, 52 Krajinovic
1993 (65): 4 Thiem, 60 Londero, 74 Baena, 83 Dellien, 104 Novak

Next Gen
1994 (86): 25 Pouille, 44 Thompson, 113 Monteiro, 116 Barrere, 130 Koepfer
1995 (41): 30 Edmund, 35 Djere, 43 Kyrgios, 46 Sonego, 53 Jarry
1996 (18): 9 Khachanov, 13 Medvedev, 14 Coric, 20 Berretini, 34 Garin
1997 (45): 5 Zverev, 31 Fritz, 48 Hurkacz, 63 Opelka, 79 Rublev
1998 (59): 6 Tsitsipas, 38 Tiafoe, 62 Ruud, 66 Humbert, 122 M Ymer

"Millenial Gen"
1999 (62): 27 Shapovalov, 29 De Minaur, 67 Kecmanovic, 84 Moutet, 101 Popyrin
2000 (279): 21 Auger-Aliassime, 147 Molleker, 383 Korda, 419 Chauvinc, 427 Gaston
2001 (405): 209 Sinner, 401 Zeppieri, 433 Tseng, 472 Lehecka, 510 Draper
2002 (490*): 375 Musetti, 604 Nabiev
2003 (560*): 520 Garfia, 600 Rune

*Only two players ranked.

Lost Gen is still overall a bit stronger, although Next Gen has the strongest year: 1996. The average of the two generations is quite close: 47 for Lost Gen, 50 for Next Gen.

1999 seems particularly promising, with five players in or close to the top 100...and another promising player, Alejandro Davidovich Fokina, ranked #131.

Remember also that Lost Gen is turning 26-30 this year, meaning they're very much in their prime years, while Lost Gen is turning 21-25, mostly still developing.

 

[herios]

@El Dude You know that every time you make such a list, I am coming behind you with an audit

1995 you missed Kygios
1996 Garin's ranking is clearly wrong
1998 you missed Humbert

These are just based on my memory, even without checking anything.

 

[El Dude]

@El Dude You know that every time you make such a list, I am coming behind you with an audit

1995 you missed Kygios
1996 Garin's ranking is clearly wrong
1998 you missed Humbert

These are just based on my memory, even without checking anything.

Whoops, nice catches - and thanks! By the time I finish doing these little research projects I tend to be pooped and don't double-check. If it was professional, I'd double-check or, better yet, hire you

I made those fixes...let me know if you notice anything else.

 

[Moxie]

Great way of pulling together the stats, once again, @El Dude, and hats off to @mrzz, for being the wing man. I thought it pulled out a few interesting things:

That 1990 produced some at least competitive players: Nishikori, Raonic...but also Pella, who has really just started coming into his own.

That 1991 (Dimitrov's year,) and 1994 didn't give us much.

That 1996 is a stand-out.

And I'm not sure how important the birth year is. Here are some guys listed in "Lost Gen" that have really made waves after: Thiem (obviously a perennial fence-sitter,) Cecchinato, Londero and Schwartzman.

Anyway, thanks for the perspective.