Exactly, Haelfix.
I have a series of articles on the back-burner that are based upon what I call "generational theory," that A) tennis generations are best viewed as roughly five years in length, and B) while all lines are arbitrary, the most useful demarcation of generations is the last year of the decade, not the first, and C) A generation is best centered on its best player(s). So in other words, Federer's generation of peers are those players born from 1979-83. Roger's birth year is 1981, thus the center point, with a five year span. That also lines up nicely with Nadal's generation being centered on his birth year, 1986, from 1984-88.
I don't want to steal thunder from my blog articles, but the point of bringing this up here is that it is useful to see what is ahead. We have two post-Nadal generations already on tour:
1989-93: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic, Goffin, Janowicz, Schwartzman, Vesely, Thiem, etc
1994-98: Kyrgios, Pouille, Nishioka, Saville, Coric, Kokkinakis, Zverev, Garin, Tiafoe, etc.
It seems clear that the 89-93 generation is the weakest in quite a few generations, at least back until Gustavo Kuerten's (born 1976, spanning 74-78). To find a similarly weak generation you have to go all the way back to Arthur Ashe's, born 1939-43.
Now here's the tricky thing. Ashe was the best player of his generation, but there really were no other standouts. The only other Slam winners were William Bowery and Chuck McKinley, both of whom won only a single Slam and both within the weak amateur era of the 60s when the best players (Laver and Rosewall in particular) were playing professionally. But here's the question: Was "Generation Ashe" particularly weak, or was it simply that the two generations on either side were just so strong? Consider:
1944-48: Newcombe, Nastase, Kodes, Smith, Okker, Roche
1939-43: Ashe, McKinley, Bowery, Drysdale
1934-38: Rosewall, Laver, Hoad, Emerson, Santana, Gimeno, Stolle
The prior generation was one of the very greatest in the game and both Rosewall and Laver remained dominant into their 30s, when the younger generation would have been peaking. By the time Laver faded (and it was quick, after he won all four Slams in 1969 he never won another), Rosewall was still playing strongly, but you had the next generation--in particular Newcombe, Nastase, Kodes, and Smith--coming of age. In other words, it wasn't Ashe's generation that stole the crowns from Rosewall and Laver, it was Newcombe's, with Newcombe, Nastase, Kodes and Smith (and Rosewall) being the dominant players of the early Open Era before Connors, Borg and Vilas took over in the mid-70s.
So in other words, the generation prior to Ashe's was so good that they lasted so long, and Ashe's generation wasn't good enough to compete once the next generation started peaking. So it was a bit of a lost generation.
And the same could be said of Generation Kuerten, although less so. Kuerten's generation included Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, and numerous one-Slam wonders like Moya, Johansson, Guadio, as well as near-elites like Corretja, Enqvist, Medvedev, Philippoussis, and Haas (yes, Tommy is that old - part of Generation Kuerten). This generation won some Slams, but only 8 - compared to 32 in the prior generation that included Sampras, Agassi, and Courier, not to mention Chang, Rafter, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek.
And of course by the time Sampras' generation started slowing down around the turn of the century, when Kuerten's generation should have reigned, you had the next great generation - Generation Federer - rising up, starting with Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, but also Andy Roddick, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and of course Roger Federer.
So I imagine that we're seeing another lost generation, one that is skipped in the passing of the baton from one generation of greats to the next. We don't yet know who among the youngest generation will be a true great, although teenagers Nick Kyrgios, Borna Coric, and Alexander Zverev seem the most likely candidates--all having drawn varying degrees of attention this year--with curious looks in the direction of Garin, Kokkinakis, Tiafoe, and Donaldson. Actually 2014 could be remembered when the next great players all started getting some attention.
So by my reckoning, this will be the third Lost Generation in the last century or so of tennis history because before Ashe's generation, every generation had at least one great player. 1929-33 was pretty weak but had Tony Trabert who was borderline great, but before that you have to go all the way back to 1894-98 in which Bill Johnston was the best player born, and he was pretty damn good.
OK, got to go to bed. All of this will be part of a series of blog articles that looks at different tennis generations, including tennis generations as a whole, the "Lost Generations," and a focus on Generation Federer.
