Wow, Moxie - it is almost like you want to disagree. I offer an olive branch and you say, nope, I'm going to tell you how you're wrong, and even tell that you're not saying what you think you're saying. OK, I guess! I'll go another round
.
Don't give me "hogwash." While you say that you recognize Rafa was an early prodigy, you made the point that he was 12 when Roger turned pro. Yet you don't recognize how close to top level they were, by tennis age and impending accomplishments. You insist that you said "and also," but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Seriously, please explain.
It is hogwash that I'm disagreeing with re: age, and the nuances involved. We have some facts: Roger was born in 1981, Rafa in 1986, Novak in 1987. That isn't meaningless.
And also, Rafa was an early bloomer, who broke into the elite when everyone else was significantly older. That is true, too. Things don't have to be either/or, Moxie; I'm not saying you're wrong, because obviously Rafa was an early bloomer, and obviously every player develops differently. But then you say: "You don't recognize how close to top level they were"...of course I do! I'm not an idiot. Rafa was a top player before he turned 19! His ascendancy was like a comet, from hanging out around #50 for a couple years, to being #2..in just a few months, I believe (clay season, 2005). I'M NOT DENYING THAT.
And also means that I hear what you are saying, but am also saying that the age difference means something. It isn't nothing. And more to the point, it is interesting lens to look through, but that doesn't negate individual differences of players. I
thought you were saying the same, but in reverse. Now I am not so sure, as you just double-down on your bone of contention, again and again.
When did you make a caveat for Nadal's prodigiousness at an early age? You like very much to give us players by birth years, but you're not that interested in the differences between some and others. You have David Ferrer in the before the fold group as to Fed's generation, but he was also a late-bloomer. I don't think he had anything to say in that generation. He was totally of the one that you call after Roger's, IMO. Wouldn't you disagree?
Again, you're making assumptions - thus: hogwash. You're making stuff up to fit your narrative of what you want me to be saying, so you can disagree and continue your crusade for Rafa. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it always comes back to that: looking for another sparring partner so you can continue to defend Rafa. The problem is, you often presume attack when there isn't any, or at least in my case. I don't know how to say it otherwise, but I'll put it bluntly: Not everything I saw--in fact, very little that I say--is some Machiavellian ploy to defend Roger and/or put Rafa down! I know there are some folks that do that--names that shall not be named--but I'm not doing that!
I use birth dates because they're easy, a short-hand to compare players. Because its fun and I enjoy it. I do
not take it to be gospel truth or some absolute system that explains everything. Exceptions are the norm. So yes, Ferrer was a late bloomer, but he's
eight months younger than Roger, so forgive me if it makes more sense to group him in with Roger's generation. Again, a "generation" is related to age, not era. When people use the word "generation," they are speaking of an age range (e.g. Boomer Generation). This doesn't mean that everyone born within a given generation identifies with the general trends of that generation, or can easily be encapsulated within that generation.
I'm not really sure that you coined "Lost Generation," but you may have.
It doesn't matter, but I'm pretty sure that I did, at least on this forum and its ancestors. Maybe it is one of those things where several people thought of it independently and started bandying it around. Regardless, it works for that generation of players (after Cilic/del Potro and before Thiem).
But Thiem is an interesting point, when we talk about falling between generations. There has been a big argument on these forums as to where he falls. In my personal opinion, he's more Next Gen than Lost Gen, because of when he hit the scene. But here you have to admit that some players fall in between the cracks. That "generations" are not easily defined.
Yes, agreed, and I've said as much - that Thiem can either be seen as the youngest of Lost Gen or the first of Next Gen. I tend to prefer the latter, but he could be considered either one or both.
So just a couple of questions: Is Zverev the same generation as Sinner? Or FAA? Or Berrettini? Zverev has been a feature in top level conversations since, 19, at least. These other guys are just hitting the radar in a big way. One thing you can be pretty sure of is that Zverev will have played the top guys of this era a lot more often than the other guys that I mention. So which group does he belong to, when he's played at a top level, against guys from a different "generation", so much more than the guys of his calendar age? Or even older, who came up later, like Berrettini.
Moxie, again, "generations" are flexible - the way I use them is as a scaffolding and not meant to be taken as absolute. That's the whole point of abstract systems: they give you guidelines, frameworks, but people err when they either hold too rigidly to them (which you think I'm doing, but I'm not), or on the side of seeing their potential rigidity and thus invalidating them (which you seem to be doing, I think).
Its like playing with astrology or the enneagram or Meyers-Briggs. People often take them as too rigid, like they're absolute truth. On the other hand, there are people of a more relativistic mindset that think that because they cannot be absolute truth, they must be useless. It is an old philosophical debate, one that I try to take a dialectic approach to: both/neither. There's a synthesis possible, which is, "use the systems for fun and understanding, but don't hold onto them too rigidly."
To respond to your questions, in the shorthand I like to use, where generations are roughly five-year cohorts of players, no, I'd say that Zverev and Sinner are different generations, if only because they're far enough apart in age (four years) to make the context in which they started playing rather different. And of course, Zverev has been at a ranking and level for several yars that Sinner hasn't quite reached yet (although is on the cusp of, I'd say).
But again, and I might have to keep on saying this: Generations aren't absolute truths. They aren't rigid; they're scaffolding or lenses of perception, like tinted glasses that you can take on and off. You can make them any age-range you want, and divide them up in any way that you like. The reason I use five years is that seems a good average for how long it takes for players to move through a major developmental phase. From 17-21, a player goes from being semi-pro to prime; 22-26 is the median age for a player's prime; and 27-31 is the decline/plateau phase. As a general rule, two players five years apart are in a different developmental phase. But...
EVERY PLAYER IS DIFFERENT and EVERY ERA HAS DIFFERENT NORMS. Tennis players aren't robots or simulations. Each has their own story, their unique developmental arc, that varies from the "era norm" by different degrees. Similarly with eras. For instance, players now seem to be reaching their prime a bit later than in the past, more in the 22-25 range, and extending it into their early 30s. Or to put it another way, 25 may be the new 22 - the age when players usually ripen into their full powers (or thereabouts) and 32 may be the new 28, the age when they start showing signs of wear.
Again, every player, generation, and era is different. As you know, I think, in the pro/amateur era, (1920s to late 60s), players would often around deep into their 40s. I think some guys played into their 50s, earlier on. Bill Tilden won the US Pro Slam at age 42 and was playing that tournament into his 50s. Ken Rosewall was still on tour in his early 40s, and still very good in his late 30s back in the early 1970s. This all started to change in the mid-70s, when the game change and became younger. I think the "youth movement" peaked in the 80s and 90s, but continued into the 00s, when you had guys like Rios and Kuerten and Safin basically done as elite players by their late 20s, if not earlier (sometimes due to injury).
This is changing again - not just with Roger, Rafa, and Novak, but other members of their generations, although far less so than those three. I find this interesting, although it may mostly be because of how great they are. But we've also seen guys like Isner and Fognini win their first Masters in their 30s.
To some extent, all the variances makes such terms and frameworks relatively meaningless, or at least overly simplistic. But only if they're mean to be taken as either true or false, rather than how I use them: as a lens of perception (the tinted glasses analogy). Again, they're just frameworks that I use to talk about tennis, and to understand its history.
It's complicated. Certainly a player's actual age means something, but we can see that "tennis age" is something else. And maybe if you play well enough across a "generation," as you might have it, you don't actually just belong to that one.
Sure. But it really depends upon what you mean by "generation." Roger is also part of the generation who came of age when Pete Sampras was still hanging around, when guys like Kuerten and Moya and Rios were at or near the top of their games, and when Agassi was having his late (second?) peak. That was the context Roger grew up in, and his generation took over the mantle and dominated in the 2000-04 years when they were in their early 20s, a time when Rafa was not yet in his prime, and only showing up in the last couple years of that span.
As you know, Rafa's first ATP level tournament was Mallorca in April of 2002, but he didn't really join the tour until a year later at Monte Carlo, playing 11 tournaments that year. So 2004 was actually his first full season, which is also the year he won his first title at Sopot, in August of 2004. He finished that year at #48.
So in 2003, Rafa's first half-year, the top players were a mix of Roger's peers, with Hewitt #1, Safin #3, Ferrero #4, Roger #6, and Roddick #10, intermixed with guys from the previous age cohort (Kuerten, Moya, Costa, Novak), and old Mr Agassi. Some of Roger's peers had been in the top 10 or 20 for two or three years already. Roger himself, who was actually slightly on the side of late-blooming for that time, reached the top 20 in early 2001 and the top 10 in mid-2002, about three years before Rafa. Meaning, Roger was a tad late-blooming, and Rafa very early-blooming, so their prime years overlap more than usual for players of their age difference. Novak was also a bit earlier to bloom, but didn't reach the top 20 until late in 2006 and the top 10 until early-2007, a year that still saw Roger's generation dominating the rankings, with only Rafa (#2) and Mario Ancic (#10) finishing the year in the top 10, among players born 1984 or later. By the time Rafa reached #1 and Novak won his first Slam, both in 2008, most of Roger's better peers were in decline.
So while there are fluctuations and players are different, there are general age-related groupings that travel together to a large extent, in "generational packs" or cohorts.
I mention this in such conversations, because Roger is the lone survivor of his generational cohort, at least among the top 10. Roger finished 2020 at #5; the next highest ranked player who was born in 1983 or earlier was Feliciano Lopez (born the same year as Roger) at #64. To find another born 1979-83 (+/-- 2 years from Roger's 1981) finishing in the top 20, you have to go all the way back to 2016, when good old Dr Ivo finished at #20 at age 37 (he was born in 1979, two years before Roger). To find a second one in the top 10, would be David Ferrer at #7 in 2015; to find someone other than Roger in the year-end top 5, you have to go all the way back to 2013, when Ferrer finished #3.
Another interesting bit: here are the Slam winners from Roger's cohort (1979-83): Roger 20, Safin and Hewitt 2 each, Ferrero and Roddick 1 each. To find any of these guys--all of whom reached #1 and won a Slam before Roger, except for Roddick, who reached #1 before Roger, but won his first Slam, the 2003 US Open, after Roger's first at Wimbledon that year--in the YE top 10, you have to go back to 2010, when Roddick finished #8; to find any in the top 5, you have to go all the way back to 2005, when Roddick and Hewitt were still there.
What does any of this mean? Beats me. But it is interesting. Roger is outlasting his age cohort in a rather astonishing way, and it seems that Rafa and Novak are doing the same. Of their age cohort (let's say 1984-88), the last guy in the top 5 was del Potro in 2018. Murray and Wawrinka were in the top 5 in 2016. Meaning, their cohort has faded as well - and as has even the
next generation, the guys born in 1989-93, with the exception of Thiem, who may be better considered "The First Next Genner." A large part of that is obviously because it was/is a very weak group, with only Dimitrov, Raonic, and Nishikori (twice) every finishing in the top 5.
And yes, I think a good part of this anomaly--the longevity of the Holy Trinity--is because they're all just so damn good. Roger was so much better than his peers, and Rafa and Novak are also so much better than their peers. Roger's peers faded quicker, though, while some of Novak and Rafa's peers hung around for a bit (and a few are still around, although almost all have faded).
I find all of this stuff interesting, a fun way to look at tennis trends and history. Despite what you think, I do not use it as a way to rigidly define players or generations. It is a lens, a modality, and yields interesting things to think and talk about.
What it is
not is a way for me to try to put Roger in a shinier light. He can do that all on his own. I think your unfortunate tendency to misunderstand me is partially--if not totally--due to your nature as a Rafa Warrior, where you're seemingly always looking for signs of "Rafa offense," and unfortunately sometimes seeing it when it isn't there, at least in my case (I know there are some who are always going after him).
Hey, you do you - but please try to understand where I'm coming from, and more so, where I'm
not coming from.
