How To Challenge The Big 3

[DarthFed]

Firstly, we've already drawn a line of demarcation in the sand: it was drawn before this, and it's referring to Federer's era. Safin and Hewitt were different before Federer came of age, and after. This isn't wholly down to Federer, as you know. We've already addressed this above.

Secondly, what's all this with "moral victories" for Stan? You give moral victories to everybody when you say "Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot." :cover

Thirdly, we agree about Safin, that "he was super talented and didn't make the most of it" but you don't seem to get why this condemns him. Aside from his 2005 victory over Roger, he won a single set in his last 7 matches with Roger. :cover

The 2005 match shows what he could have been, and the others show what a patsy he was.

You know, and I know, the game is more dangerous for top players now than it was. Not just Rafa and Roger, but also for Nole. And Murray is coming back up. We had a US Open final with two total outsiders. That in itself is far more unpredictable than ten years ago, and a sign of better health for the sport...

There's a reason for that. There isn't anyone half as dominant as Roger (Djokovic included). You are comparing guys playing Djokovic and a badly washed up Federer at the USO to the best fast hard court player the game has seen when in his prime. I think even you would admit playing mighty Nadal on grass at this point is a different proposition to playing the guy who won 65 straight matches on the surface. Or is Rosol, Darcis, and Kyrgios way better than the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Ancic, Phillipoussis, etc?

It's apples and oranges. What we do know is Roger in his prime on grass and fast hard courts is way better than anyone on those surfaces today. That's half the GS right there. Easier task = more upsets.

By your logic we can equate Djokovic to everybody else on clay since they've been unable to beat Rafa at RG. Djokovic is as spineless and as much a loser on clay as Puerta and Ferrer right?

 

[Kieran]

Well you see, this is what you believe, and that's no problem to me, that Federer was so sublimely gifted that the sight of him made grown men weep into inactivity and barely win games. An elderly Agassi, just as an example, did better against Federer at Flushing Meadows than he ever did against Pete there, and this when Agassi was in his prime playing Pete. A youthful lusty Rafa jumped the queue to become the only threat to Federer on all surfaces, even though Rafa wasn't a factor on hards at the slams until 2008/2009. No matter: by then he was long stickied at #2 in the world, the rest of the heroes dispersed, or dejected.

That's fine to believe that, though, because it's like arguing the chicken and egg, you know? At the end of the day, it's a matter of which way you look at it. But none of that suggests the opponents of Federer were so much better than the modern players, who are getting similarly good or bad results themselves. None of it at all. And although we'll agree that Federer back then was greater than Nole (up to now), although I'd fancy Nole would like to have no main rival at 3 slams for about three years, even still in this era you have more players capable of winning majors, yes even still including Federer. And upsets in the sport aren't a sign that the field are weaker, any more than utter dominance is a sign that field are actually strong...

 

[DarthFed]

^ What main rival does Nole have at AO, Wimbledon and USO? A whole bunch you say? Well what does that say about him that the likes of Nishikori can upset him at USO or Murray could embarrass him at Wimbledon a couple years ago?

You are comparing a generation of players who accomplished things (though yes it is true that none of Federer's generation featured an all-time great aside from him) to one that has accomplished nothing. You may think the guys today have it tougher but that's debatable because there is 1 big hill (Nole) and 2-3 decent hills (Nadal, Federer, Murray) to climb in today's game vs. one enormous mountain in Federer's time.

 

[Kieran]

You are comparing a generation of players who accomplished things (though yes it is true that none of Federer's generation featured an all-time great aside from him) to one that has accomplished nothing. You may think the guys today have it tougher but that's debatable because there is 1 big hill (Nole) and 2-3 decent hills (Nadal, Federer, Murray) to climb in today's game vs. one enormous mountain in Federer's time.

It still hasn't been made clear to me what anybody accomplished once Federer reached #1, for example, or even won his first Wimbledon, that's so superior to what the field are doing today. And bear in mind that Hewitt and Safin had a head start on Federer. The youngsters today are having to haul down Giants, not just simply distinguish themselves in a transition period of the game...

 

[mrzz]

Kieran, I am sorry but you are making a logical mistake. You can not say that a generation is weak because it was dominated by one player, which in the end is the core of your argument. All you can say is that said player is superior enough to dominate them. If you don't get out of this time span, all you get it is relative strength.

The only way out of it is to look at the given generation out of this time window, which is what Broken did. But if you again say that they only won because they had "no opposition", you get in a vicious cycle. The only thing that may survive this kind of thinking is a group of players who shared the tittles. If one stands out, it is not because he is good, it is because the others are bad.

It is fair to say that a generation is weak, but on any other argument than that above.

 

[Moxie]

At the risk of losing a limb, I'll jump back in. I think tented is right that in one way, BS and K are arguing past each other. Kieran is making the argument as to the actual competition that Federer faced from his group, and Broken is going for the more theoretical of 'is the generation Fed was in more dangerous/accomplished/talented than the undercards now.' Those are two different questions.

Both make good points, on the parallel arguments. One thing I would say that clouds the whole thing is that no player faces only their generation. They face everyone that's playing at the time, so we can talk about Ferrer, Tsonga, Wawrinka, et al. The competition is myriad, and the reasons for not stepping up can be various.

Where I agree with Kieran about Fed's generation is especially Safin and Nalbandian. It's not enough to say how talented they were. IMO, both failed to be significant competition to Roger, not because he beat them so much as because they were distracted, by injury and lack of commitment. It's not like they even often met in the big moments. Safin beating Federer in the AO SF in '05 was a poignant last reminder of "what might have been." (Safin never won another tournament after that AO...tell me he was good competition.) Hewitt, Safin and Roddick won Majors when the glass ceiling wasn't as unbreakable as it has mostly been for 11 years, beyond that spectacular Marat swan-song.

I know now we don't have a lot of break-throughs, but you really can't have it both ways...as Broken said. If you have a World Class top 4, then the rest will be hoovering up crumbs. It's not like the anomalous wins at Majors have inspired a changing of the guard. (Spare a moment here for Del Potro and his injuries.) Neither Wawrinka nor Cilic are world-beaters.

Is the class of "just under Nadal/Djokovic/Murray" disappointing? Yes. They don't seem to have so much talent, and certainly are lacking in brashness and cojones. Does that mean that Roger faced a better class, in his group? Only theoretically. The best also lacked in consistency, focus, and suffered injuries. It's as if, 10 years down the road, you want to argue that Del Potro was a threat in this era. Yeah, he should have been. But the other point is that the Big 4 have each other to contend with, and I think that is significant.

 

[Riotbeard]

At the risk of losing a limb, I'll jump back in. I think tented is right that in one way, BS and K are arguing past each other. Kieran is making the argument as to the actual competition that Federer faced from his group, and Broken is going for the more theoretical of 'is the generation Fed was in more dangerous/accomplished/talented than the undercards now.' Those are two different questions.

Both make good points, on the parallel arguments. One thing I would say that clouds the whole thing is that no player faces only their generation. They face everyone that's playing at the time, so we can talk about Ferrer, Tsonga, Wawrinka, et al. The competition is myriad, and the reasons for not stepping up can be various.

Where I agree with Kieran about Fed's generation is especially Safin and Nalbandian. It's not enough to say how talented they were. IMO, both failed to be significant competition to Roger, not because he beat them so much as because they were distracted, by injury and lack of commitment. It's not like they even often met in the big moments. Safin beating Federer in the AO SF in '05 was a poignant last reminder of "what might have been." (Safin never won another tournament after that AO...tell me he was good competition.) Hewitt, Safin and Roddick won Majors when the glass ceiling wasn't as unbreakable as it has mostly been for 11 years, beyond that spectacular Marat swan-song.

I know now we don't have a lot of break-throughs, but you really can't have it both ways...as Broken said. If you have a World Class top 4, then the rest will be hoovering up crumbs. It's not like the anomalous wins at Majors have inspired a changing of the guard. (Spare a moment here for Del Potro and his injuries.) Neither Wawrinka nor Cilic are world-beaters.

Is the class of "just under Nadal/Djokovic/Murray" disappointing? Yes. They don't seem to have so much talent, and certainly are lacking in brashness and cojones. Does that mean that Roger faced a better class, in his group? Only theoretically. The best also lacked in consistency, focus, and suffered injuries. It's as if, 10 years down the road, you want to argue that Del Potro was a threat in this era. Yeah, he should have been. But the other point is that the Big 4 have each other to contend with, and I think that is significant.

One difference though is. All the scraps left by the big 3/4 are being picked up by people in the same generation as nadal/novak/murray (i.e. stan, cillic, del potro, tsonga, and ferrer) not the generation below. So is the competition as stiff or stiffer now? Maybe, but there is no proof that it's because Nishikori is as good as Hewitt. The guys who are occasionally picking up big titles not in the big four are not in the "lost generation" they are in generations of the big 4. So to say Kei is on par with Roddick is absurd and unfair to what he achieved. Same with Hewitt, Safin and even Nalbandian. Nalbandian went on his best run when Nadal and Federer were playing quite well. Not to mention that Novak had just made his first slam final at the 2007 USO. Roddick knocked off Murray at the 2009 Wimblebon in route to a classic final.

Where are the similar results in the generation below? I would certainly say 2008-2012 was a tougher time to breakthrough in than right now and roddick had an impressive wimbledon showing and picked up a masters title.

I think Kei will grab a few titles of value (masters, maybe a slam). I like the guy and am not trying to say he is no good. Roddick though had a slam, multiple finals and multiple masters by Kei's age...

 

[Moxie]

At the risk of losing a limb, I'll jump back in. I think tented is right that in one way, BS and K are arguing past each other. Kieran is making the argument as to the actual competition that Federer faced from his group, and Broken is going for the more theoretical of 'is the generation Fed was in more dangerous/accomplished/talented than the undercards now.' Those are two different questions.

Both make good points, on the parallel arguments. One thing I would say that clouds the whole thing is that no player faces only their generation. They face everyone that's playing at the time, so we can talk about Ferrer, Tsonga, Wawrinka, et al. The competition is myriad, and the reasons for not stepping up can be various.

Where I agree with Kieran about Fed's generation is especially Safin and Nalbandian. It's not enough to say how talented they were. IMO, both failed to be significant competition to Roger, not because he beat them so much as because they were distracted, by injury and lack of commitment. It's not like they even often met in the big moments. Safin beating Federer in the AO SF in '05 was a poignant last reminder of "what might have been." (Safin never won another tournament after that AO...tell me he was good competition.) Hewitt, Safin and Roddick won Majors when the glass ceiling wasn't as unbreakable as it has mostly been for 11 years, beyond that spectacular Marat swan-song.

I know now we don't have a lot of break-throughs, but you really can't have it both ways...as Broken said. If you have a World Class top 4, then the rest will be hoovering up crumbs. It's not like the anomalous wins at Majors have inspired a changing of the guard. (Spare a moment here for Del Potro and his injuries.) Neither Wawrinka nor Cilic are world-beaters.

Is the class of "just under Nadal/Djokovic/Murray" disappointing? Yes. They don't seem to have so much talent, and certainly are lacking in brashness and cojones. Does that mean that Roger faced a better class, in his group? Only theoretically. The best also lacked in consistency, focus, and suffered injuries. It's as if, 10 years down the road, you want to argue that Del Potro was a threat in this era. Yeah, he should have been. But the other point is that the Big 4 have each other to contend with, and I think that is significant.

One difference though is. All the scraps left by the big 3/4 are being picked up by people in the same generation as nadal/novak/murray (i.e. stan, cillic, del potro, tsonga, and ferrer) not the generation below. So is the competition as stiff or stiffer now? Maybe, but there is no proof that it's because Nishikori is as good as Hewitt. The guys who are occasionally picking up big titles not in the big four are not in the "lost generation" they are in generations of the big 4. So to say Kei is on par with Roddick is absurd and unfair to what he achieved. Same with Hewitt, Safin and even Nalbandian. Nalbandian went on his best run when Nadal and Federer were playing quite well. Not to mention that Novak had just made his first slam final at the 2007 USO. Roddick knocked off Murray at the 2009 Wimblebon in route to a classic final.

Where are the similar results in the generation below? I would certainly say 2008-2012 was a tougher time to breakthrough in than right now and roddick had an impressive wimbledon showing and picked up a masters title.

I think Kei will grab a few titles of value (masters, maybe a slam). I like the guy and am not trying to say he is no good. Roddick though had a slam, multiple finals and multiple masters by Kei's age...

The bolded above is part of my point: the next generation is not the only part of the equation. Everyone who is playing now has the potential to make a mark, not just Generation Next. And we seem to be in a time when players are maturing later, making an impression later in their careers. I don't think it matters so much what generation the ones who snatch prizes from the Big 4 are. They are all the competition faced in this time. However, it is a question as to what happens when the Big 4 are no more. That's where we're looking to the generation after for a star or two.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Firstly, we've already drawn a line of demarcation in the sand: it was drawn before this, and it's referring to Federer's era. Safin and Hewitt were different before Federer came of age, and after. This isn't wholly down to Federer, as you know. We've already addressed this above.

Secondly, what's all this with "moral victories" for Stan? You give moral victories to everybody when you say "Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot." :cover

Thirdly, we agree about Safin, that "he was super talented and didn't make the most of it" but you don't seem to get why this condemns him. Aside from his 2005 victory over Roger, he won a single set in his last 7 matches with Roger. :cover

The 2005 match shows what he could have been, and the others show what a patsy he was.

You know, and I know, the game is more dangerous for top players now than it was. Not just Rafa and Roger, but also for Nole. And Murray is coming back up. We had a US Open final with two total outsiders. That in itself is far more unpredictable than ten years ago, and a sign of better health for the sport...

I feel like we've gone back and forth a dozen times yet you're still not answering one key question:

Are Roddick, Hewitt and Safin not more accomplished and better players than today's generation?

Amazingly, the above question is STILL unanswered, 5 pages later.

 

[Fiero425]

Firstly, we've already drawn a line of demarcation in the sand: it was drawn before this, and it's referring to Federer's era. Safin and Hewitt were different before Federer came of age, and after. This isn't wholly down to Federer, as you know. We've already addressed this above.

Secondly, what's all this with "moral victories" for Stan? You give moral victories to everybody when you say "Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot." :cover

Thirdly, we agree about Safin, that "he was super talented and didn't make the most of it" but you don't seem to get why this condemns him. Aside from his 2005 victory over Roger, he won a single set in his last 7 matches with Roger. :cover

The 2005 match shows what he could have been, and the others show what a patsy he was.

You know, and I know, the game is more dangerous for top players now than it was. Not just Rafa and Roger, but also for Nole. And Murray is coming back up. We had a US Open final with two total outsiders. That in itself is far more unpredictable than ten years ago, and a sign of better health for the sport...

I feel like we've gone back and forth a dozen times yet you're still not answering one key question:

Are Roddick, Hewitt and Safin not more accomplished and better players than today's generation?

Amazingly, the above question is STILL unanswered, 5 pages later.

I didn't pay that much attention to those years; more into the WTA with Henin! But for obvious reasons Rod, Hew, and Saf are 10 times more accomplished than the 2nd tier of stars today! They each held the #1 ranking, won a major or 2; 2 maxing their potential, while Safin a terrible underachiever! Without a doubt he was the most gifted player who had every shot! He could take the cover off the ball with full blooded strokes, painting lines, and in the next instance play the most delicate of drops with touch! He's embarrassed Sampras and Federer in a major who we think of as succeeding GOAT's! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

Firstly, we've already drawn a line of demarcation in the sand: it was drawn before this, and it's referring to Federer's era. Safin and Hewitt were different before Federer came of age, and after. This isn't wholly down to Federer, as you know. We've already addressed this above.

Secondly, what's all this with "moral victories" for Stan? You give moral victories to everybody when you say "Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot." :cover

Thirdly, we agree about Safin, that "he was super talented and didn't make the most of it" but you don't seem to get why this condemns him. Aside from his 2005 victory over Roger, he won a single set in his last 7 matches with Roger. :cover

The 2005 match shows what he could have been, and the others show what a patsy he was.

You know, and I know, the game is more dangerous for top players now than it was. Not just Rafa and Roger, but also for Nole. And Murray is coming back up. We had a US Open final with two total outsiders. That in itself is far more unpredictable than ten years ago, and a sign of better health for the sport...

I feel like we've gone back and forth a dozen times yet you're still not answering one key question:

Are Roddick, Hewitt and Safin not more accomplished and better players than today's generation?

Amazingly, the above question is STILL unanswered, 5 pages later.

Amazing that you're still sticking with this one, but I'll take it we agree on my post you quoted.

Murray is not "Big 3" and he has 10 MS titles and two slams, and more slam final losses than you can shake a stick at. Now, I'm certainly not giving him moral victories anywhere, but alone, he's won as much, or more, than your three champions won, once Roger came of age.

Now, you might say, ugh, Murray reached the U.S. Open final as a sapling in 2008, he's not of the same generation as Nick, and he obviously isn't, but not is he of the generation of players you mentioned.

The issue I took was with the players Federer routinely dispatched with the loss of bare sets being described as "a serious generation" when many of them plainly reneged after a certain point, but the current players being described as being "mediocre." Actually, they're at least comparable to Federer's opposition from 2003-2007. We make an honourable exception for Rafa, who always found Federer a delight to face, and hopefully still will, tomorrow.

As I said above, "upsets in the sport aren't a sign that the field are weaker, any more than utter dominance is a sign that the field are strong..."

 

[brokenshoelace]

...and the question still doesn't get addressed while Murray is brought up, even though he's part of the Nadal/Novak generation, which everyone agrees is amazing. This is ludicrous. There was a clear statement made by you that Nishikori, Dimi, Raonic and co are "no worse" than Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, etc.. So logic dictates that we should compare their accomplishments, skills, etc... to determine whether this is in fact accurate. You don't need to go to law school to figure that out, and dare I say, it would be "literally stupid" not to. The fact that you're still dodging this speaks volumes.

 

[Kieran]

You're finally showing a lawyers gift, if only for evasiveness, if not for erudition and calm.

Nobody compared players like for like, except you, buddy. We're comparing how the field succeed or fail and obviously today's field succeed or fail equally effectively as the players Fedal faced between 2003-2007.

And the clue about Murray is in the title, bro. Big 3....

 

[Mile]

You're finally showing a lawyers gift, if only for evasiveness, if not for erudition and calm.

Nobody compared players like for like, except you, buddy. We're comparing how the field succeed or fail and obviously today's field succeed or fail equally effectively as the players Fedal faced between 2003-2007.

And the clue about Murray is in the title, bro. Big 3....

Yes, good question, who are now "Big 3" ?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Uh no. When you say a "generation is no worse" than another, that includes everything, and not how they fared against one player.

Nevertheless, the most ridiculous part of all of this is you're equating beating an injured Nadal and a washed up Federer to beating Federer at the height of his power. Hate to break it to you but he was kinda ridiculously good.

 

[Kieran]

Uh no. When you say a "generation is no worse" than another, that includes everything, and not how they fared against one player.

Nevertheless, the most ridiculous part of all of this is you're equating beating an injured Nadal and a washed up Federer to beating Federer at the height of his power. Hate to break it to you but he was kinda ridiculously good.

They all only ever beat an injured Nadal, brother.

Mile, that's worth a thread of its own, I'll get on it later when I'm home. We need to do some stocktaking on the current value of the Big 3, see who's selling shares, and who is buying...

 

[britbox]

You might be right Kieran... after Wimbledon 2003, a bunch of former #1 and grand slam winners may have all sat down together and thrown in the towel... alternatively Federer may actually have even been pretty damn good.

Dominant players earn that level dominance... it's never given. Otherwise we'd have people saying Nadal only dominated the clay season for a decade because nobody in the entire field had the balls to challenge him...Does that argument sound familiar?

 

[Federberg]

You might be right Kieran... after Wimbledon 2003, a bunch of former #1 and grand slam winners may have all sat down together and thrown in the towel... alternatively Federer may actually have even been pretty damn good.

Dominant players earn that level dominance... it's never given. Otherwise we'd have people saying Nadal only dominated the clay season for a decade because nobody in the entire field had the balls to challenge him...Does that argument sound familiar?

Totally agree! A non argument really :cover

 

[Riotbeard]

At the risk of losing a limb, I'll jump back in. I think tented is right that in one way, BS and K are arguing past each other. Kieran is making the argument as to the actual competition that Federer faced from his group, and Broken is going for the more theoretical of 'is the generation Fed was in more dangerous/accomplished/talented than the undercards now.' Those are two different questions.

Both make good points, on the parallel arguments. One thing I would say that clouds the whole thing is that no player faces only their generation. They face everyone that's playing at the time, so we can talk about Ferrer, Tsonga, Wawrinka, et al. The competition is myriad, and the reasons for not stepping up can be various.

Where I agree with Kieran about Fed's generation is especially Safin and Nalbandian. It's not enough to say how talented they were. IMO, both failed to be significant competition to Roger, not because he beat them so much as because they were distracted, by injury and lack of commitment. It's not like they even often met in the big moments. Safin beating Federer in the AO SF in '05 was a poignant last reminder of "what might have been." (Safin never won another tournament after that AO...tell me he was good competition.) Hewitt, Safin and Roddick won Majors when the glass ceiling wasn't as unbreakable as it has mostly been for 11 years, beyond that spectacular Marat swan-song.

I know now we don't have a lot of break-throughs, but you really can't have it both ways...as Broken said. If you have a World Class top 4, then the rest will be hoovering up crumbs. It's not like the anomalous wins at Majors have inspired a changing of the guard. (Spare a moment here for Del Potro and his injuries.) Neither Wawrinka nor Cilic are world-beaters.

Is the class of "just under Nadal/Djokovic/Murray" disappointing? Yes. They don't seem to have so much talent, and certainly are lacking in brashness and cojones. Does that mean that Roger faced a better class, in his group? Only theoretically. The best also lacked in consistency, focus, and suffered injuries. It's as if, 10 years down the road, you want to argue that Del Potro was a threat in this era. Yeah, he should have been. But the other point is that the Big 4 have each other to contend with, and I think that is significant.

One difference though is. All the scraps left by the big 3/4 are being picked up by people in the same generation as nadal/novak/murray (i.e. stan, cillic, del potro, tsonga, and ferrer) not the generation below. So is the competition as stiff or stiffer now? Maybe, but there is no proof that it's because Nishikori is as good as Hewitt. The guys who are occasionally picking up big titles not in the big four are not in the "lost generation" they are in generations of the big 4. So to say Kei is on par with Roddick is absurd and unfair to what he achieved. Same with Hewitt, Safin and even Nalbandian. Nalbandian went on his best run when Nadal and Federer were playing quite well. Not to mention that Novak had just made his first slam final at the 2007 USO. Roddick knocked off Murray at the 2009 Wimblebon in route to a classic final.

Where are the similar results in the generation below? I would certainly say 2008-2012 was a tougher time to breakthrough in than right now and roddick had an impressive wimbledon showing and picked up a masters title.

I think Kei will grab a few titles of value (masters, maybe a slam). I like the guy and am not trying to say he is no good. Roddick though had a slam, multiple finals and multiple masters by Kei's age...

The bolded above is part of my point: the next generation is not the only part of the equation. Everyone who is playing now has the potential to make a mark, not just Generation Next. And we seem to be in a time when players are maturing later, making an impression later in their careers. I don't think it matters so much what generation the ones who snatch prizes from the Big 4 are. They are all the competition faced in this time. However, it is a question as to what happens when the Big 4 are no more. That's where we're looking to the generation after for a star or two.

I agree with that (as I say or hint in the part just below the bolded). I think Broken would at least generally. I think we (mostly Broken) were debating Kieran saying Nishikori is as good as Roddick or Hewitt.

 

[Kieran]

One difference though is. All the scraps left by the big 3/4 are being picked up by people in the same generation as nadal/novak/murray (i.e. stan, cillic, del potro, tsonga, and ferrer) not the generation below. So is the competition as stiff or stiffer now? Maybe, but there is no proof that it's because Nishikori is as good as Hewitt. The guys who are occasionally picking up big titles not in the big four are not in the "lost generation" they are in generations of the big 4. So to say Kei is on par with Roddick is absurd and unfair to what he achieved. Same with Hewitt, Safin and even Nalbandian. Nalbandian went on his best run when Nadal and Federer were playing quite well. Not to mention that Novak had just made his first slam final at the 2007 USO. Roddick knocked off Murray at the 2009 Wimblebon in route to a classic final.

Where are the similar results in the generation below? I would certainly say 2008-2012 was a tougher time to breakthrough in than right now and roddick had an impressive wimbledon showing and picked up a masters title.

I think Kei will grab a few titles of value (masters, maybe a slam). I like the guy and am not trying to say he is no good. Roddick though had a slam, multiple finals and multiple masters by Kei's age...

The bolded above is part of my point: the next generation is not the only part of the equation. Everyone who is playing now has the potential to make a mark, not just Generation Next. And we seem to be in a time when players are maturing later, making an impression later in their careers. I don't think it matters so much what generation the ones who snatch prizes from the Big 4 are. They are all the competition faced in this time. However, it is a question as to what happens when the Big 4 are no more. That's where we're looking to the generation after for a star or two.

I agree with that (as I say or hint in the part just below the bolded). I think Broken would at least generally. I think we (mostly Broken) were debating Kieran saying Nishikori is as good as Roddick or Hewitt.

Which I didn't say, so it's all good...