Open Era Generations, Part Four: Arthur Ashe and...Who?

[El Dude]

Here's Part Four of the blog series, from the greatest to worst generation in Open Era history...so far, at least.

 

[Kirijax]

Great job, El Dude! :clap Maybe the most difficult generation to wrap up and write about, seeing how little they were able to accomplish. Makes Arthur Ashe stand out even more.

 

[El Dude]

Great job, El Dude! :clap Maybe the most difficult generation to wrap up and write about, seeing how little they were able to accomplish. Makes Arthur Ashe stand out even more.

Well to be honest it is certainly one of the least interesting. Aside from Ashe there are no stand-out players. McKinley is interesting, if only because he was pretty good for a short period of time. But let's just say I'm more excited about researching what is to come!

 

[dante1976]

Well done El Dude
Always a pleasure to read

 

[Riotbeard]

Really interesting El Dude. There also seem like great parallels between this generation and the dimitrov/Nishkori era, where a slam is still yet to be won...

 

[El Dude]

Really interesting El Dude. There also seem like great parallels between this generation and the dimitrov/Nishkori era, where a slam is still yet to be won...

Yes, I see that too. I think I might have mentioned in this article, but I see a correlation between the following:

The Laver/Rosewall generation (1934-38) -> The Ashe generation (1939-43)

The Nadal/Djokovic generation (1984-88) -> The Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic generation (1989-93)

The 1944-48 generation was much better than the Ashe generation, with players like John Newcombe, Ilie Nastase, Jan Kodes, and Stan Smith, although not one of the best of the Open Era. But I'm guessing that the 1994-98 generation will be significantly better than 89-93, with players like Nick Kyrgios, Borna Coric, Alex Zverev, Hyeon Chung, etc.

 

[El Dude]

By the way, right now the youngest player to win a Slam is Marin Cilic, born in late 1988 - so almost 27 years old. We know that a generation has never been skipped in terms of Slams, either in the Open Era or I believe before - so it seems that eventually we'll see one of that generation win. But who knows, maybe it won't be the predicted suspects of Dimitrov, Nishikori, or Raonic? Maybe it will be Dominic Thiem or Jiri Vesely, both born in 1993? Or maybe even Jack Sock (b. 1992)?

 

[Kirijax]

Wait, wait, back up. The youngest Slam winner right now is Cilic? Never thought of it from that angle before.

Dayum. :cover

 

[El Dude]

Wait, wait, back up. The youngest Slam winner right now is Cilic? Never thought of it from that angle before.

Dayum. :cover

Yeah, it just shows you what a week group the younger generations are (so far), but also how dominant Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have been.

I made a chart earlier this year that showed the top ten from each year of the Open Era, color coded by generation. 2014 was the first year that the 89-93 generation showed up in the top ten with Nishikori and Raonic. It is the latest a generation has made the top 10 in Open Era history.

 

[Mile]

Wait, wait, back up. The youngest Slam winner right now is Cilic? Never thought of it from that angle before.

Dayum. :cover

Yeah, it just shows you what a week group the younger generations are (so far), but also how dominant Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have been.

And Marat Safin just said in interview how much stiff was competition in his days, more than this today. Awkward.

 

[El Dude]

And Marat Safin just said in interview how much stiff was competition in his days, more than this today. Awkward.

Of course he would say that. I'd rather hear what some of the players who played back Marat's day and now, like Roger or Ferrer or Robredo - see what they say.

I did a study earlier this year comparing Federer's generation, players born 1979-83, and Nadal/Djokovic's generation, born 1984-88, and created a ranking system based upon all Slam results, all title wins, and year-end rankings. Here is how the combined list looks, with Federer's generation in bold, the Novak/Rafa generation in normal.

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
5. Hewitt
6. Roddick
7. Safin
8. Ferrer
9. Ferrero
10. Davydenko
11. Wawrinka
12. Berdych
13. Nalbandian
14. del Potro
15. Tsonga
16. Robredo
17. Cilic
18. Youzhny
19. Gasquet
20. Gonzalez
21. Soderling
22. Ljubicic
23. Coria
24. Almagro
25. Simon
26. Blake
27. Monfils
28. Lopez
29. Fish
30. Baghdatis


As you can see, a lot more bold-faced (older generation) players. But understand that this was a cumulative system, so many of the younger players will move up.

But two things stand out. The "top tier" talent in the younger generation is simply better. After Federer, the #2-4 players are all from the younger generation. But the "second tier" talent is a bit stronger in the older generation.

I'll probably update and expand upon this in my generation series.

 

[Riotbeard]

And Marat Safin just said in interview how much stiff was competition in his days, more than this today. Awkward.

Of course he would say that. I'd rather hear what some of the players who played back Marat's day and now, like Roger or Ferrer or Robredo - see what they say.

I did a study earlier this year comparing Federer's generation, players born 1979-83, and Nadal/Djokovic's generation, born 1984-88, and created a ranking system based upon all Slam results, all title wins, and year-end rankings. Here is how the combined list looks, with Federer's generation in bold, the Novak/Rafa generation in normal.

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
5. Hewitt
6. Roddick
7. Safin
8. Ferrer
9. Ferrero
10. Davydenko
11. Wawrinka
12. Berdych
13. Nalbandian
14. del Potro
15. Tsonga
16. Robredo
17. Cilic
18. Youzhny
19. Gasquet
20. Gonzalez
21. Soderling
22. Ljubicic
23. Coria
24. Almagro
25. Simon
26. Blake
27. Monfils
28. Lopez
29. Fish
30. Baghdatis


As you can see, a lot more bold-faced (older generation) players. But understand that this was a cumulative system, so many of the younger players will move up.

But two things stand out. The "top tier" talent in the younger generation is simply better. After Federer, the #2-4 players are all from the younger generation. But the "second tier" talent is a bit stronger in the older generation.

I'll probably update and expand upon this in my generation series.

One Caveat to your analysis, some of the people in Federer's generation (most notably Ferrer) have been at their best, during the peak years for the younger guys. If Delpo didn't have such injury problems...

 

[El Dude]

One Caveat to your analysis, some of the people in Federer's generation (most notably Ferrer) have been at their best, during the peak years for the younger guys. If Delpo didn't have such injury problems...

Yes, I get that but am not sure what the implication is?

And yeah, bummer about Delpo - and Soderling. My guess is that if Delpo had been healthier he'd be in Roddick-Safin territory. If Soderling hadn't gotten mono I think he'd be in Berdych-Nalbandian territory.