Barcelona Open 2019, Spain, ATP 500

[Ricardo]

All these posts show el don’t know that no stats can buy you common sense, just look at the crap he posted.....transitional etc etc etc, the guy is the most clueless self-opinionated around. And Thiem just top 5 clay courter? Apart from Nadal who is really overall better as we speak? The way it’s been this year, I am not convinced Nadal has that much edge either.

 

[Ricardo]

It isn't dismissing Thiem to point out his limitations or not see him as a future #1. He is what he is: a very good player and a top 5 clay player. I see him as Tsonga-esque in terms of talent, just not a future #1. In a more favorable context, Tsonga could have won Slams. Thiem will have a more favorable context.

While I respect freedom of speech, this is just bollock.....no explanation required, nobody misunderstood you (again)!

 

[mrzz]

Excellent post. If you'll indulge me for a second, the great artist Chuck Close said this: “Amateurs look for inspiration; the rest of us just get up and go to work.” That's why I get sick of hearing about the players who are "so talented" but consistently underperform. There is some notion of "talent" that's just a fetish and not really useful as a measure of accomplishment.

(thanks for the Chuck Close reference. I guess I had seen something from him before but now I could look for his work in detail. Being a photo/hyperrealist painter his quote becomes quite understandable)

It is not that I don't "believe" in the intuitive notion of talent (the fetish that you mention), quite the contrary. But I believe that reality always put those things to test. Obviously most guys inside the top 100 are "naturals". But how you use your talent and the context in which you are able to use it matters. And, in tennis, the key thing is to be able to consistently use it. That's why highlights can be so misleading, they will show only the occasional winner, not the 56 UFE's. Whatever opinion we might have on talent, I guess we agree that the really talented guy need to hit more than miss. Other than that, it would be just luck and not talent.

And, ok, I understand that there are a lot of different "talents" in tennis (not to mention different abilities). Also, I understand that it is quite possible for a player to be a "wasted talent", or at least a "not fully realized/developed" talent. But still... as you put is easy for the hard workers to be seen as untalented.

One thing which I lately found out very important to define how one perceives is talent is were one "comes from". Being a South American that for a long while simply tought that clay = tennis, I always found it strange reading people saying that a good clay courter is "just a grinder". There are "grinders", for sure, but how to differentiate a talented player from a grinder is the first trick we learn. Conversely, in South America is quite common to find people who think that attacking players are all just serve bots. Back in the day you could find people who would say that Sampras was just a serve bot... it is kind of the cross-race effect in facial recognition. We basically only get the details of what we know.

 

[mrzz]

he's far from the lost gen in my view.

replying also to @Moxie on this:

I guess @El Dude (and others) classified him as Lost Gen merely based on age. He is quite older than all Next Genners.

I guess I understand from where my stats-loving friend is coming from (re: Thiem): His numbers, the age in which he won his firsts tournaments, the rankings curve, the translation of his results to other surfaces, all this points to a rather mediocre player. 99 out of 100 cases this approach would be right, but my opinion is that we have an exception here. Remember, after Wawrinka, the platypus of tennis stats, we are forced to believe in just about anything...

 

[Federberg]

replying also to @Moxie on this:

I guess @El Dude (and others) classified him as Lost Gen merely based on age. He is quite older than all Next Genners.

I guess I understand from where my stats-loving friend is coming from (re: Thiem): His numbers, the age in which he won his firsts tournaments, the rankings curve, the translation of his results to other surfaces, all this points to a rather mediocre player. 99 out of 100 cases this approach would be right, but my opinion is that we have an exception here. Remember, after Wawrinka, the platypus of tennis stats, we are forced to believe in just about anything...

yup... it's the difference between looking at numbers on a sheet and watching actual tennis

 

[herios]

I don't agree that Thiem is Lost Gen. I know he's on the cusp, but he came up a bit late and I put him on the older edge of NextGen. And I'm sure you didn't mean to say it this way, but it's not an "overall" more talented generation that he's in the wake of. It's really just 3 players. You're also making an assumption that the youngsters coming up are more talented. That's a lot to assume, because we have yet to see how they do. While they figure themselves out, Thiem is not just giant-killing in moments, he's on the edge of real break-through. You're calling him "transitional," but serious, to what? You're not going to get another Nadal in the next few years. He may never be a clay god, but he will be a force to be reckoned with on clay going forward, and likely on other surfaces. When Nadal hangs them up, there will be a lot of disputing the clay.

I know what is bothering you and others. Putting the label "lost" on the generation @El Dude put Them in.
It was due mainly because he carved them on strictly equal 5 years blocks.
Those born 1989-1993 belonged to such a block. And everybody but Thiem really fit the label for one reason or another.
I am fine with Thiem being an exception, being the best of all of them, but please do not put Thiem into the Next generation either.
He is 25y old, turning 26.
If "lost" is inappropriate, so is "next".
He is very much "current" as far as I am concerned.

 

[Moxie]

"Wawrinka, the platypus of tennis stats." That is excellent, mrzz. :lulz2:

 

[mrzz]

Damn wo nt be able to watch

Enviado de meu MotoE2(4G-LTE) usando o Tapatalk

 

[herios]

Medvedev with the early break. Thiem had a few too many unforced errors of his BH slice.

 

[El Dude]

yup... it's the difference between looking at numbers on a sheet and watching actual tennis

Thankfully those two aren't mutually exclusive. We can both watch actual tennis AND look at numbers. Imagine that!

 

[El Dude]

I coined the phrase "LostGen" to refer to the cohort of players younger than the Nadal-Djokovic group born in the mid-to-late 80s who are "lost" in that they haven't, even to this day, won many significant titles. There is no technical or official timespan involved, although I like to think of generations in rougly five-year spans, and have used birth years 1989-93 to denote LostGen. Thiem was born in September of 1993, so would fit in towards the end of that span. But again, this is just a short-hand and casual term. I have also described him as the transitional player between Lost and Next Gens. He is the same age as, and came up around the same time as, Jiri Vesely.

I can't remember when the ATP started using the "NextGen" moniker--maybe 2015 or 2016?--but I don't think they included Thiem in their ranks. It was probably several years ago now and referred to players age 21 and younger and was basically a marketing thing, so should also be taken casually. And I suppose it really shouldn't be viewed as a static thing, so what was Next Gen in 2015 (say, players born 1994 or later) is now quite different - players born 1998 or later.

 

[Fiero425]

Medvedev with the early break. Thiem had a few too many unforced errors of his BH slice.

This reminds me of Serena trying to play @ IW when not really able! Medvedev races to a lead, gets up 3-0, then loses game after game! She WD after dropping 7 in a row to Muguruza! Will Medvedev panic and start doing things outside his comfort level? He's lost the 1st set and now's down 0-2 in the 2nd! :whistle:

 

[El Dude]

Thiem about to close this out. He's looked formidable but Medvedev has been playing hurt. Too bad for him.

I like Thiem's form going forward in clay season. It is hard to seed him ahead of Rafa and Novak, but he's a close third at worst.

 

[El Dude]

A bit more on generation definitions. Another way to approach the matter is to look at what is definitely Lost Gen vs. what is definitely Next Gen, and then try to figure out what the best line between the two is.

I think we can safely say that those players born 1996 (or later) are definitely NextGen. The class of 1996 includes players like Coric, Khachanov, Medvedev, Berretini, Garin, Donaldson, Kokkinakis, Chung, etc. Why definitely? Because those players were eligible for the first Next Gen Finals in 2017.

On the other hand, I would call 1992 definitely Lost Gen. Players born in 1992 include Bernard Tomic, Jack Sock, Diego Schwartzman, Ryan Harrison, Marco Cecchinato, Marton Fucsovics, Denis Kudla, etc. Harrison and Tomic are two of the most infamous LostGen types, so I think 1992 is clearly a Lost Gen year.

So that leaves us with 1993-95. Here are players born in those years:

1993: Thiem, Vesely, Daniel, Caballes Baena, Novikov
1994: Pouille, Thompson, Coppejans, Pavlasek
1995: Kyrgios, Edmund, Djere, Nishioka, Norrie

That's a pretty weak three year cohort. Ultimately it is a subjective judgement call and just a matter of semantics. Maybe we could call these guys the "Tweeners?"

 

[El Dude]

Anyhow, congrats to Thiem on his 13th title and first Barcelona. He joins a rather small group of active players who have won the tournament in the Nadal era (other than Nadal): Nishikori (2014-15), Verdasco (2010), Robredo (2004).

13 titles also ties him with Almagro and Berdych.

Active Players 10+ Titles
101 Federer
80 Nadal
73 Djokovic
45 Murray
27 Ferrer
22 Del Potro
18 Cilic
17 Tsonga
16 Wawrinka
15 Gasquet
14 Isner, Simon
13 Almagro, Berdych, Thiem
12 Nishikori, Robredo
10 Youzhny, Zverev, Querrey

 

[Federberg]

^or perhaps we stop trying to group players and focus on them as individuals. The simple fact is that increased longevity means we really have no way of knowing the total haul of any of these so called groups. For all we know they might not even end up lost when others depart

 

[Fiero425]

A bit more on generation definitions. Another way to approach the matter is to look at what is definitely Lost Gen vs. what is definitely Next Gen, and then try to figure out what the best line between the two is.

I think we can safely say that those players born 1996 or later are definitely NextGen, players like Coric, Khachanov, Medvedev, Berretini, Garin, Donaldson, Kokkinakis, Chung, etc. Why definitely? Because those players were eligible for the first Next Gen Finals in 2017.

On the other hand, I would call 1992 definitely Lost Gen. Players born in 1992 include Bernard Tomic, Jack Sock, Diego Schwartzman, Ryan Harrison, Marco Cecchinato, Marton Fucsovics, Denis Kudla, etc. Harrison and Tomic are two of the most infamous LostGen types, so I think 1992 is clearly a Lost Gen year.

So that leaves us with 1993-95. Here are players born in those years:

1993: Thiem, Vesely, Daniel, Caballes Baena, Novikov
1994: Pouille, Thompson, Coppejans, Pavlasek
1995: Kyrgios, Edmund, Djere, Nishioka, Norrie

That's a pretty weak three year cohort. Ultimately it is a subjective judgement call and just a matter of semantics.

I've never made that big a deal about the so called "lost generation," but as you're listing them here, I don't think they were that good to begin with if you compare him to the "Next Gens!" Collectively they have no real weapons, didn't upset that many top players, and appear to be just taking up space in a draw! I loved players like Harrison, but I knew from the start he was going nowhere! The "NG's" have done more than impress with a big win here and there over elites, but have also collected titles! Sock is the only one I can think of that had a least 1 good stretch and actually accomplished something outside of his doubles prowess! :whistle:

 

[El Dude]

Ultimately I agree that we should first and foremost focus on players as individuals, and as Yogi Berra used to say, "it ain't over until its over." But again, that doesn't mean we can't have a bit of fun and look at trends and trajectories and such.

 

[El Dude]

I've never made that big a deal about the so called "lost generation," but as you're listing them here, I don't think they were that good to begin with if you compare him to the "Next Gens!" Collectively they have no real weapons, didn't upset that many top players, and appear to be just taking up space in a draw! I loved players like Harrison, but I knew from the start he was going nowhere! The "NG's" have done more than impress with a big win here and there over elites, but have also collected titles! Sock is the only one I can think of that had a least 1 good stretch and actually accomplished something outside of his doubles prowess! :whistle:

Well I only listed 1992. 1991 had Dimitrov, Carreno Busta, Kuznetsov; 1990 had Raonic, Goffin, Delbonis, Pospisil; 1989 had Nishikori, Young, Klizan, Paire, Johnson.

When we get to 1988 we get to Cilic and del Potro, as well as Gulbis, Bautista Agut, and Dolgopolov. These guys fit more with the older generation, I would think, even if Gulbis "feels" a bit LostGennish.

So for me LostGen starts in 1989. Donald Young, born in July of 1989, is a quintessential Lost Genner...he set the tone by showing a bit of early promise, reaching #100 at age 18 in 2007, but never really developing much.

 

[tented]

Just finished watching it. Congrats to Thiem! I’m thrilled he won. I’ve always liked him, regardless of his multiple wins over Rafa. Medvedev looked a bit haggard in the 2nd, but Thiem was going to win regardless, IMO.