Tennis Frontier

Category: El Dude’s Statistical Fetishism

El Dude Statistical Fetishism Tennis Blog at the Tennis Frontier by Jonathan Northrop.

  • Open Era Generations, Part Fifteen: Gen 13 (1994-98) – A New Hope?

    Open Era Generations, Part Fifteen: Gen 13 (1994-98) – A New Hope?

    Borna Coric Nick Kyrgios Taylor Fritz

    The Young Punks
    As the saying goes, history repeats itself. In this case, we see a kind of harmonic in tennis history between these past few generations and the first few generations of the Open Era. The first generation of Rosewall and Laver was extremely strong, followed by one of the very weakest, with only Arthur Ashe winning multiple Slams, then the third—headlined by John Newcombe and Ilie Nastase—was much stronger but still not quite a generation of greats (aside from Newcombe). And so we see a similar pattern with the last few generations: the 1984-88 was (and still is) one of the greatest generations in tennis history; 1989-93 one of the weakest. The verdict is still out on this new young generation of 1994-98, with players ending 2015 at age 17-21, but there are promising signs, as we shall see, and it certainly looks to be stronger than the 89-93 generation.

    I call them the “Young Punks” for two reasons: One, because of the “punkish” attitude of Nick Kyrgios, so far the most successful of the group, and secondly because they carry a kind of swagger that seems to be lacking from the previous generation—which is a good thing.

    Best Players by Birth Year:
    1994: Lucas Pouille (FRA), Kimmer Coppejans (BEL), Jordan Thompson (AUS), Adam Pavlasek (CZE), Luke Saville (AUS), Mathias Bourgue (FRA)
    1995: Nick Kyrgios (AUS), Yoshihito Nishioka (JPN), Kyle Edmund (UK), Matteo Donati (ITA), Mackenzie MacDonald (USA)
    1996: Borna Coric (CRO), Hyeon Chung (KOR), Thanasi Kokkinakis AUS), Jared Donaldson (USA), Quentin Halys (FRA), Elias Ymer (SWE), Noah Rubin (USA), Christian Garin (CHI), Karen Khachanov (RUS)
    1997: Alexander Zverev (GER), Taylor Harry Fritz (USA), Andrey Rublev (RUS), Tommy Paul (USA), Omar Jasika (AUS)
    1998: Frances Tiafoe (USA), Stefan Kozlov (USA), Duckhee Lee (KOR), Mikael Ymer (SWE), Michael Mmoh (USA)

    No Slams yet, with the operative word being “yet.” With this group it is only a matter of time, and we will almost certainly see several multi-Slam winners, if only because the previous generation is so weak, and Novak, Rafa, Andy, and Stan can’t maintain their hold of dominance forever.

    As of this writing, seven players are in the Top 100: Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev, Chung, Fritz, Edmund, and Pouille, with Kokkinakis dropping out due to inactivity. There are another dozen or so in the No. 101-200 range, with several having a chance of entering the Top 100 this year, so by year’s end we could see 10-15% of the Top 100 being players of this generation, finishing the year 18-22 years old.

    While there’s no player that looks like a surefire future great, at least not yet, there are quite a few that are potential future Slam winners, and several that could be multi-Slam winners. Part of this is bolstered by the weakness of the previous generation, but there are also some young players that are the most exciting young talents since Juan Martin del Potro and Marin Cilic.

    1994 is relatively weak with the highest ranked player being Pouille, No. 87 at the ripe age of 22, but then the generation starts becoming stronger in 1995 with Nick Kyrgios, a player whose antics have made him unpopular. But most believe that he’ll eventually be a Slam winner, if he can remain healthy enough. Still, the floor is probably a Berdych-like player and career, but one who peaks in an era with more opportunity than poor Tomas, so with better results. His ceiling might be something like a Juan Martin del Potro, but hopefully with better health. Nishioka and Edmund look like two players who could be future regulars in the Top 40, maybe Top 20 even, but probably not Top 10.

    The generation gets even stronger in 1996, with standouts Coric and Chung, as well as Kokkinakis, Donaldson, Halys, Elias Ymer, Rubin, Khachanov, and Garin showing various degrees of promise. Again, at this age almost every player shows some degree of promise, so it is hard to see now who will continue to rise and who will find a lower level in the rankings and stay there, that is “do a Berankis.” Coric is the player who has risen the quickest, although the feeling on him is mixed. He has stagnated for almost a year now: he broke into the Top 100 in October of 2014, and then climbed further into the Top 50 by May of 2015, but has fluctuated in the 30s and 40s for almost 10 months now. Still, he’s almost certainly going to rise higher, but he may be more of a future Top 10-20 player rather than the future star some pegged him out to be.

    When we get to 1997, we see the two players who look to be the jewels of the generation: Alexander Zverev and Taylor Harry Fritz. Both Zverev and Fritz are getting a good amount of press, with my article about Fritz here. Zverev turns 19 in April and, in my mind—as with Fritz—isn’t far from a big breakout performance. I expect both of these players to win their first titles this year, and make it to the second week of at least one Slam. I think we’re going to see both of these players start head-hunting Top 20 and even some Top 10 players as soon as this year. Andrey Rublev also shows some promise and is eight days older than Fritz, but has yet to make his run at the Top 100. But he did just win his first Challenger title and could rise quickly.

    1998 also has some promising players with Americans Francis Tiafoe and Stefan Kozlov, as well as the Korean Duckhee Lee and the Swede Mikael Ymer, Elias’s younger brother. Of the two Ymer brothers, Mikael may be the more talented. He’s still only 17, however, and still only ranked No. 590, but his is a name to keep in mind.

    2016 will see this generation turning 18-22, so we should start seeing better indicators as to how good they might be, and maybe see a sprinkling of lesser titles. As I’ve written elsewhere, every single all-time great of the Open Era—which I’m defining as players with 6+ Slam titles—has accomplished three things before American drinking age: won an ATP title, reached the second week (QF or better) in at least one Slam, and finished the year in the Top 20. No player of this generation has accomplished all three, and while Kyrgios accomplished reached the second week of a Slam two years ago in 2014 at age 19, he won his first title this year a couple months before turning 21, but has yet to reach the Top 20. That said, I think we can loosen up a bit on those criteria, given the theory that players are taking a bit longer to mature these days. Perhaps two out of three of these criteria is enough to still be a possible future great.

    It should be noted that this generation saw its first title when Nick Kyrgios won Marseille. Consider that 2016 is the equivalent year as 2011 was for the previous generation and 2006 for the 1984-88 generation. In 2011, the previous—and very weak—1989-93 generation won its second title, but wouldn’t start winning multiple titles until 2012. The 84-88 generation starting winning titles in 2004, and won their first Slam and first Masters in 2005 in the name of one Rafael Nadal. It seems likely that the 94-98 generation will be somewhere between the two, although as of this moment they are even behind the weak 89-93 generation. But look for players like Zverev and Fritz to challenge for titles this year.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    It is too soon to tell. If there are any players I’m at all concerned about being underachievers, it is either Lucas Pouille or Christian Garin. At 22, Pouille should be showing a bit more; at this point he’s looking like yet another good-but-not-great Frenchman.

    As for Garin, a couple years ago he was a highly touted junior, defeating Alexander Zverev in the 2013 Junior French Open. While Garin is still only 19, the luster has started to fade a bit as he’s yet to crack the Top 200. Still, we shouldn’t quite give up on him…yet.

    Did You Know?
    I: Alex Zverev’s father was a tennis player, as is his older brother, Mischa.
    II: Andrey Rublev is the name of an illustrious Russian literary figure, and also the title of a film (Andrei Rublev) by the great Russian filmmaker, Andrei Tarkovsky.

    Current Rankings
    27. Nick Kyrgios
    47. Borna Coric
    58. Alexander Zverev
    64. Hyeon Chung
    80. Taylor Fritz
    82. Kyle Edmund
    87. Lucas Pouille
    119. Thanasi Kokkinakis
    122. Kimmer Coppejans
    123. Jordan Thompson

    Other players in the Top 200: Yoshihito Nishioka (No. 124), Adam Pavlasek (No. 134), Karen Khachanov (No. 146), Elias Ymer (No. 152), Jared Donaldson (No. 158), Andrey Rublev (No. 161), Quentin Halys (No. 175), Francis Tiafoe (No. 177), Matteo Donati (No. 181), Luke Saville (No. 186), Matthias Bourgue (No. 187).

    Kyrgios and Coric have been stagnating, although the former has been playing very well of late and should start rising again. Chung has also stagnated, but Zverev and Fritz are both on the rise and should be in the Top 50 shortly.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation (Predicted)
    Right now the most accomplished player of the generation is clearly Nick Kyrgios, the only player with a title and a second week Slam result (he has made a QF twice). But given that their career accomplishments at this point are minimal, and we can see their current rankings above, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict how this list might look 20 years from now. Of course this is impossible to predict, but why not?

    1. Alexander Zverev
    2. Taylor Harry Fritz
    3. Nick Kyrgios
    4. Andrey Rublev
    5. Mikael Ymer
    6. Francis Tiafoe
    7. Borna Coric
    8. Hyeon Chung
    9. Stefan Kozlov
    10. Jared Donaldson

    Honorable Mentions: Elias Ymer, Yoshihito Nishioka, Thanasi Kokkinakis, Kyle Edmund, and just about everyone else.

    This is wild conjecture at this point, but humor me! The top three are safe picks considering their recent performances. After that, I have a feeling about Mikael Ymer and Andrey Rublev, but could be very wrong about one or both. Coric and Tiafoe are paired in my mind, both being somewhat overhyped but both should still be very good players, but again it is just too soon to tell. Chung snuck into the Top 100 by winning a ton of Challengers and Futures, but has yet to do much at more significant tournaments–he’s only made it past the Round of 16 once, at Shenzhen (ATP 250) last year when he lost to Marin Cilic in the QF; the point being, he’s a good “Berankis candidate,” although like all of these players it is too soon to tell. Kozlov is another young American to look out for. After that, Donaldson is a player that I’ve been expecting a breakthrough from for a while now, but haven’t yet seen it.

    Postscript: Gen 14 (1999-03) – Millennials
    Yes, Gen 14 is beginning to show up on the edge of the radar. Right now just a few players are ranked, but as of the end of 2015 we have:

    1999: Corentin Moutet (FRA), Denis Shapovalov (CAN), Alex De Minaur (AUS), Santiago Fa Rodriguez Taverna (ARG)
    2000: Felix Auger Aliassime (CAN), Rayane Roumane (FRA)

    All of the above are ranked between No. 700 to No. 1,000, which basically means they’ve played in Futures but haven’t gone pro yet. And yes, there are players born in 2000 that have ATP rankings. A scary thought. Aliassime has turned some heads and even reached the QF of a Challenger last July when he was 14 years old, before losing to then No. 145 Yoshihito Nishioka—but not before talking the first set from him. He definitely bears watching, but all of this Generation Next are two to three years away from being a serious prospect.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Marianne Bevis / Carine06 / mirsasha

  • Open Era Generations, Part Fourteen: Gen 12 (1989-93) – The Lost Generation, aka the Donald Young Guns

    Open Era Generations, Part Fourteen: Gen 12 (1989-93) – The Lost Generation, aka the Donald Young Guns

    Donald Young Kei Nishikori Grigor Dimitrov

    Why the Name?
    Donald Young is not among the best players of this generation, but to me he exemplifies it, one of the very first of what is looking to be the weakest generation that the Open Era has seen thus far.

    Aside from the clever-ish title, why Donald Young? Well, his trajectory displays the disappointment and weakness of this generation. A two-time Junior Grand Slam winner, Young finished 2007 ranked No. 100 at the age of 18, looking poised to eventually inherit the mantle of the premier American player from Andy Roddick. But he floated for several years, not reaching the Top 100 again until 2011 when he was 22 years old, no longer a tennis prodigy. And even that wasn’t the first year of a breakout; he dropped again in the rankings, failing to even qualify for the 2013 Australian Open and Wimbledon. He’s played a bit better of late, finishing 2015 at No. 57, largely due to a fourth round appearance in the US Open – his best result since 2011. But Young, no longer young at 26, is a far cry from what he was expected to be some eight years ago and is a cautionary tale of how not all highly-regarded prospects turn out. He isn’t alone among his generation, as we shall see.

    I also call this the “Lost Generation” because it has a chance of being the only five-year generation—in the year spans that I’m using—that will not win a Grand Slam, in all of tennis history. Even if a player of this generation does eventually win one, it will almost certainly be a lower amount than any of the Open Era, with Ashe’s generation being the current lowest total at five.

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1989: Kei Nishikori (JPN), Benoit Paire (FRA), Martin Klizan (SLO), Joao Sousa (POR), Donald Young (USA), Steve Johnson (USA), Aljaz Bedene (UK)
    1990: Milos Raonic (CAN), David Goffin (GER), Vasek Pospisil (CAN), Jerzy Janowicz (POL), Guido Pella (ARG), Andrey Kuznetsov (RUS), Dusan Lajovic (SERB), Evgeny Donskoy (RUS)
    1991: Grigor Dimitrov (BUL), Denis Kudla (USA), Pablo Carreno Busta (ESP)
    1992: Bernard Tomic (AUS), Jack Sock (USA), Diego Schwartzman (ARG), Ryan Harrison (USA), Damir Dzumhur (SERB)
    1993: Dominic Thiem (AUT), Jiri Vesely (CZE)

    Note that my bar for this generation is a lot lower in the list above, both because it is a weaker generation but also because it is contemporary right now, so it’s difficult to say who will end up being the best players by year.

    Consider that we have still not yet seen either a Slam or a Masters title from this generation, and only a handful of ATP 500’s: six from Nishikori, and one each from Klizan, Raonic, Dimitrov, and Thiem.

    Given that this group of players turned 22-26 last year, this is the generation that should be peaking right now. Consider the years that great players turned 22: 2003 for Roger Federer, 2008 for Rafael Nadal, 1993 for Pete Sampras, etc. There really has been no great player in the Open Era who was not an elite by the year they turned 22, and even lesser greats are usually pretty good by this age.

    Here’s a telling statistic: if we go back every five years (2010, 2005, etc), the generation with the No. 1 player was the same age as this one, age 22-26…until 2015, when the No. 1 player was 28-years old and only one player from the 89-93 generation finished in the Top 10, a downturn from 2014 when three players finished No. 11 or better. As great as Novak is, his reign should be challenged by the younger generation and there’s simply no player that is good enough to do so. And even if Novak weren’t around, there are still plenty of players who are.

    Also, consider that 2015 is equivalent age-wise to the previous generation in 2010, or 2005 for Federer’s generation. Compare the number of players in the Top 20 in 2015, compared to the previous two generations in the equivalent year:

    1989-93 Gen in 2015: Nishikori No. 7, No. 14, No. 16, No. 18-20
    1984-88 Gen in 2010: Nadal No. 1, No. 3-6, No. 12-15, No. 18-20
    1979-83 Gen in 2005: Federer No. 1, No. 3-6, No. 8-9, No. 11, No. 13, No. 15-16, No. 18, No. 20

    Part of the problem is that this generation has followed after two strong ones which include three players amassing 42 Slams and counting. This is not unlike the situation that Arthur Ashe’s generation faced after following the great 1934-38 generation that included Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Roy Emerson, and Lew Hoad, not to mention four-Slam winners like Ashley Cooper and Manuel Santana. This is further compounded by the fact that Novak Djokovic is maintaining a peak level into his late 20s, Roger Federer is still formidable in his mid-30s, and Andy Murray still remains better than any player younger than him (except for Novak, of course).

    Yet we’re approaching a point where this generation may have a window of opportunity. While Djokovic and Murray remain strong, it is inevitable that both start to slip a bit at some point in the next couple years. Roger isn’t getting any younger, and even if Rafa bounces back during the upcoming clay season, it is unlikely we’ll see another 2013. The next generation, players born 1994-98, looks much stronger, but they are probably still at least a year or two away from entering their peak years, and several years from dominance.

    So consider this possibility: 2016 could be the last year in which Djokovic’s generation completely dominates. In 2017, Novak and Andy will turn 30, Rafa 31, and Roger 36, not to mention players like Stan Wawrinka, Tomas Berdych, and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga turning 32. Gen 12 will be turning 24-28, still prime years, while Gen 13 will be turning 19-23 – starting to come into their own, but probably not quite peak level. For a couple years, say 2017-18, all titles might be up for grabs and we could see a similar environment as we saw in the late 90s and early 00s. I would guess that we see at least one or two Slams and Masters fall to players like Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, and Thiem, or even a Goffin, Sock, Tomic, Klizan, Paire, or Vesely, if the stars align correctly.

    There are also glimmerings of hope. Consider that so far this year we’ve completed four ATP 500s and thirteen ATP 250s. Here is how those tournaments breakdown by generation in 2016, through the end of February:

    79-83 Gen: 1 ATP 250
    84-88 Gen: 2 ATP 500s, 8 ATP 250s
    89-93 Gen: 2 ATP 500s, 4 ATP 250s
    94-98 Gen: 1 ATP 250

    Not even counting the Australian Open, the 84-88 still holds the crown, but so far this year the 89-93 generation is second, with the other generations quite a bit behind. Compare to last year at this point, when the 89-93 generation had not yet won an ATP 500 and had only won a couple ATP 250s.

    It is also worth noting that the “elder statesmen” 79-83 generation has started much slower, although this is partially due to Federer’s injury and a slower start by Ferrer; that generation is pretty much dependent upon those two (although Estrella Burgos has the only title this year from that generation, repeating his Quito title). But given that generation’s age, turning 33-37 this year, it is only a matter of time before they dwindle away completely. The previous generation, born 1974-78 (e.g. Gustavo Kuerten, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, etc) was at the same point age-wise in 2011 as Federer’s is in 2016, and won only four more titles from 2011 on: an ATP 500 (Radek Stepanek at Washington in 2011) and three ATP 250s (all by Tommy Haas, in 2012 and 2013). Even the great 1969-73 generation which included Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi and was at the equivalent point in 2006, only won two more ATP 250s, both by Fabrice Santoro (Newport 2007 and 2008).

    The point being, the 1979-83—which won 16 titles last year, including a Masters and six ATP 500s—is phasing out and, if nothing else, the 89-93 generation should be able to pick up some of the slack. It is probably already happening.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    Well, all of them, which is why I still have not discussed particular players in any depth – I was saving them all for this section. OK, that’s a bit harsh, but not entirely untrue.

    The player that stands out the most to me is Grigor Dimitrov, because he was the player of this generation with probably the highest upside and most expectations. He’s still only 24, so has half a decade of potentially peak years left, but his chances of being a great player have declined to the point of being nonexistent. Consider, for instance, that his 2015 is the equivalent age-wise with Federer’s 2005 or Djokovic’s 2011. I recently made the observation that “Baby Federer” looks a bit like Roger Federer on the practice court: he is smooth and elegant, but lacks the “teeth” needed to compete on the big stage.

    Grigor is also in danger of being surpassed by younger, hungrier players like Dominic Thiem, Nick Kyrgios, Borna Coric, Alexander Zverev, and Taylor Fritz. He’s got time, but the field isn’t going to get less crowded. While the chances that Dimitrov will become a great player are slim at best, I still hold out hope that we’ll see a Masters title or two, maybe even a Slam. He’s got a complete game and is a good candidate to win some bigger titles once the current elites slip if he develops the necessary mindset.

    Kei Nishikori also seems like an underachiever in that he is capable of truly brilliant tennis but doesn’t seem to have the fortitude to take home a big title. Still, with six ATP 500 titles – by far the most among active players without a Masters – he is the most accomplished player of this generation (so far), and it seems only a matter of time before he wins a Masters.

    Among forgotten players, there are two that come to mind: Ryan Harrison and Cedrik-Marcel Stebe. A few years ago Harrison was one of two players of this generation in the Top 100, along with Bernard Tomic. But he never rose higher than No. 43 and that was almost four years ago. Stebe won several Challengers and Futures in 2009-11 and finished 2011 No. 81 at the age of 21, but then his career was derailed by injury. One more to mention is Ricardas Berankis, who won the 2007 Junior US Open and was the highest ranked player under 21 in 2010, at No. 87. Berankis pretty much stalled out at that level, his ranking never going higher than No. 67. He’s a good reminder that a Top 100 ranking at a relatively young age isn’t an automatic ticket to the Top 20.

    Did You Know?
    Despite the unprecedented weakness of this generation, there is one strange anomaly by which it outperformed the previous, far greater generation. The first title won by a player of this generation was in 2008 by an 18-year old Kei Nishikori, at Delray Beach. The equivalent year for the previous generation was 2003; it wasn’t until 2004 that the 84-88 generation won titles, when Rafael Nadal, Robin Soderling, and Tomas Berdych all won ATP 250s. But the title did prove to be a bit of an anomaly, as no player of this generation would win another until 2011, when Milos Raonic won San Jose.

    Ten Highest Ranked Players (as of week of 2/29)
    6. Kei Nishikori
    13. Dominic Thiem
    14. Milos Raonic
    17. David Goffin
    20. Bernard Tomic
    22. Benoit Paire
    23. Jack Sock
    26. Grigor Dimitrov
    28. Martin Klizan
    35. Steven Johnson

    The good news is that almost one-third of the Top 30 are players of this generation. The bad news is that they’re mainly clustered in the lower half. Expect this to change over the next year or two; right now, only six 89-93 players are in the Top 20—my prediction is that, by year’s end, 8-10 will be in the Top 20, and 2-3 will be in the Top 10.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation (So far)
    1. Kei Nishikori
    2. Milos Raonic
    3. Grigor Dimitrov
    4. Dominic Thiem
    5. Martin Klizan
    6. Bernard Tomic
    7. David Goffin
    8. Jack Sock
    9. Jiri Vesely
    10. Benoit Paire

    Honorable Mentions: Federico Delbonis, Vasek Pospisil, Pablo Carreno Busta, Jerzy Janowicz.

    This list is mainly based upon accomplishment so far and is always changing, but right now Nishikori has the best career by a good margin. No player has won even a Masters tournament, but Nishikori has made it to a Slam final, has won 11 tournaments in all, including six ATP 500s. No other player has won more than a single ATP 500.

    Milos Raonic remains a dark horse at any fast court, although the limitations of his game makes it seem unlikely that he has what it takes to get past the elites at a big tournament. But if he sticks around his time may come. At least he’ll probably have a career somewhere between Tomas Berdych and John Isner.

    A few years from now this list could look quite different. When I wrote down notes for every generation of this series last fall, I used the word “dark horse” for Dominic Thiem. Now it seems inappropriate as his star is rising fast, with two titles under his belt so far this year. He is on the verge of surpassing Dimitrov, and only needs better success at Slams to be considered the more accomplished player. In fact, Thiem could be first or second on this list by year’s end.

    The rest on the list could be interchangeable. Vesely and Sock are still rising, although the best case scenario looks more like Top 10 players than Top 5, and maybe more likely Top 20 types – as with Goffin and Tomic.

    Grigor Dimitrov remains the dark horse of the generation. He could go the way of an Ernests Gulbis, or he could be a late-bloomer and win a Slam or three in his late 20s. While I have given up my earlier hope that he would be a great, I still find him a fascinating player to watch and think he has the talent to bring home a big trophy someday.

    There is some talent in this generation, but it really is similar to the 1939-43 and 1974-78 generations, both in terms of the reduced talent from prior generations, but also the fact that it is coming at the back-end of a golden age of tennis greats. It is a hard context to play in.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): stevenpisano / angelicalbite / Marianne Bevis

  • Open Era Generations, Part Thirteen: Gen 11 (1984-88) – Reign of Spain, err, Serbia

    Open Era Generations, Part Thirteen: Gen 11 (1984-88) – Reign of Spain, err, Serbia

    Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic

    Generation Nada…kovic?
    Just a little over a year ago we could have safely called this Generation Nadal. After Djokovic’s remarkable 2011—and even more remarkable 2015—he is now vying with Rafa for the best player of their generation.

    Expectations around Novak keep changing. When he won the 2008 Australian Open at the tender age of 20, sneaking a Slam title at the height of Fedal dominance, it looked like the sport had a third superstar. But then the next few years were a disappointment, with Novak unable to win another Slam or break out of his No. 3 role through 2010. Ending that year, it looked like Novak would be an “almost-great,” not unlike his closest contemporary, Andy Murray. But then 2011 happened and Novak stole the mantle of the game’s top player from a peaking Nadal. After Novak plateaued as merely the “first among equals” from 2012-14, expectations settled in as an all-time great, but more akin to Edberg/Becker than Sampras/Nadal. But then he had what is now widely considered the best season in Open Era history in 2015, and looks to continue the trend in 2016, having just won the Australian Open and with a 12-0 match record as of this writing. But the year is early.

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1984: Robin Soderling (SWE), Mario Ancic (CRO), Gilles Simon (FRA), Janko Tipsarevic (SER), Juan Monaco (ARG), Andreas Seppi (ITA)
    1985: Stan Wawrinka (SWZ, 2), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA), Tomas Berdych (CZE), Nicolas Almagro (ESP), John Isner (USA), Marcos Baghdatis (CYP)
    1986: Rafael Nadal (ESP, 14), Gael Monfils (FRA), Richard Gasquet (FRA)
    1987: Novak Djokovic (SER, 11), Andy Murray (UK, 2), Fabio Fognini (ITA)
    1988: Juan Martin del Potro (ARG, 1), Marin Cilic (CRO, 1), Ernest Gulbis (LAT), Roberto Bautista Agut (ESP)

    This is one of the strongest generations in Open Era history. In fact, I think you could make the argument that it is the second strongest after the first, or at least comparable to the great 1969-73 generation. I would also argue that it has the best 1-2 punch of any generation since Laver-Rosewall.

    Much has been written about Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal was, for the better part of a decade, the most fearsome opponent on a specific surface that the game has ever seen. Consider his 70-2 (97%) record at the French Open – he’s lost only two matches in eleven years! Or consider his 346-31 (91.8%) overall record on clay. Compare that to the second best record on a specific surface, Roger Federer’s 142-20 (87.7%) on grass – Rafa’s is over 4% points higher. Rafa dominated clay like no other player has dominated a particular surface, and was pretty good on other surfaces as well.

    Rafa’s 14 Slams are tied with Pete Sampras, and his 27 Masters are an ATP record, although one which Novak will likely break this year. He is also well-known for his utter dominance of Federer, with a 23-11 record in the head-to-head against the player who is still the most popular choice for the GOAT label. His naysayers claim that while he was great on clay, he was merely very good on other surfaces. This isn’t exactly true, considering he won 5 Slams and 8 Masters on other surfaces. The real hole in his resume is probably his lack of a World Tour Finals trophy – he’s been to two finals, but lost both.

    We’ll talk about Novak more in a moment when we look at the generational rankings.

    After Nadal and Djokovic, there’s a strong supporting cast that begins with Murray, then Wawrinka, del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych, and Soderling. It drops steeply after that to “third tier” players like Monfils, Gasquet, Almagro, and Isner, but overall it is a very talented bunch. Murray in particular is on the shortlist of players whose overall career accomplishments have been most impacted by his own peers. Still, as much as people like to criticize Andy for being the weakest of the Big Four, he has had quite a career in his own right: two Slam titles, one Olympic gold medal, eleven Masters, and 35 titles overall – and counting. He is unlikely to enter the inner circle of Open Era players who won six or more Slams, but he could end his career as the best of the rest. How fitting would that be?

    This is also a generation of Slam-less players who might have won Slams if they had been born at a different time. Tsonga, Berdych, and Soderling fit this profile in particular.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    I’d like to first mention two players that aren’t so forgotten: Robin Soderling and Juan Martin del Potro. Soderling was the fifth wheel of the Big Four for a couple years, between Nikolay Davydenko and David Ferrer, and best known for upsetting Nadal in the fourth round of the 2009 French Open. Unfortunately his career was derailed by mononucleosis while in his prime, so we’ll never know if he could have won a Slam.

    In 2009, after defeating Roger Federer in the US Open final, del Potro looked like he was ready to vie with Andy Murray for at least the “best of the rest” category. But injuries have derailed his career and he’s never been the same since.

    Soderling and del Potro aren’t truly forgotten, but I would like to mention one player who probably is: Mario Ancic. A 22-year old Ancic finished 2006 ranked No. 9 on account of two Slam quarterfinals and two ATP 250 titles, and looked to at least be a Top 10 fixture for years to come. But he missed the US Open that year due to a back injury and then contracted mononucleosis early in 2007. He struggled onward for a few years but couldn’t recovery, finally calling it quits in 2011. He’s definitely in the “what could have been” category. Maybe not an elite player, but certainly a regular in the Top 10.

    Several others could be considered disappointments: Richard Gasquet, Gael Monfils, Alexander Dolgopolov, and Ernests Gulbis all come to mind. I’d even mention Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who has the big game to win a Slam but has not managed to do so.

    Did You Know?
    Gael Monfils has played in 18 finals, including 2 Masters, 5 ATP 500s, and 11 ATP 250s. He’s won only 5 of them, all ATP 250s. That’s a 5-13 record in professional finals, and 0-7 in finals higher than an ATP 250. In fact, Monfils wasn’t the only Frenchman of this generation to struggle in finals of big tournaments. While the top four Frenchmen of this generation—Tsonga, Gasquet, Simon, and Monfils—played very well in ATP 250 finals, with a combined 38-21 record, they have not faired well in ATP 500s (2-9), Masters (2-9), World Tour Finals (0-1), and Slams (0-1), for a combined 4-20 record in finals ATP 500 or higher.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Novak Djokovic
    2. Rafael Nadal
    3. Andy Murray
    4. Stan Wawrinka
    5. Juan Martin del Potro
    6. Tomas Berdych
    7. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
    8. Marin Cilic
    9. Robin Soderling
    10. Richard Gasquet

    Honorable Mentions: Gael Monfils, Mario Ancic, Janko Tipsarevic, Gilles Simon, Juan Monaco, Andreas Seppi, Nicolas Almagro, John Isner, Marcos Baghdatis, Kevin Anderson, Fabio Fognini, Ernests Gulbis, Juan Bautista Agut, Alexandr Dolgopolov.

    Yes, I did it: I ranked Novak Djokovic over Rafael Nadal. Why? When I first started working on this series several months ago, I would have given Nadal the edge in terms of current (at the time) career accomplishments. But there are two reasons why I now consider Novak as the best player of his generation:

    1. Most importantly, I think his overall career accomplishments are better, right now. In other words, if both retired today, I’d rank Novak higher (although just by a hair). More on that in a moment.
    2. I’m taking the liberty to speculate a bit as this generation is far from through. Even if I focus only on Rafa’s 14 Slams to Novak’s 11, I feel confident predicting that Novak will surpass Rafa before not too long, probably some time in 2017. So given current performance level and even accounting for inevitable decline on Novak’s part, his career numbers will soon surpass Rafa’s – and perhaps even Roger’s.

    And why do I think Novak holds the edge even now, especially considering that Rafa leads in both Slams (14 to 11), Masters (27 to 26), and overall titles (67 to 61)? Well, to start, Novak has four year-end No. 1’s to Rafa’s two, and, barring something unforeseen, will almost certainly get at least one more. Novak also has five World Tour Finals to Rafa’s zero and has been a far more consistent performer at Slams, reaching the QF or later in the last 27, and only two first-week losses going back to his first SF appearance in the 2007 French Open. Furthermore, Novak also already has 45 more weeks at No. 1 and counting, and is the only member of the “Big Four” who has a winning record against the other three.

    Given their current respective levels of play, Novak will surpass Rafa in Slams, Masters, and overall titles within the next year or two. He is the greatest player of his generation, if only by a slight and arguable margin right now, but will almost certainly have surpassed him in every meaningful category.

    After these two, Andy and Stan are the clear #3 and #4. If Wawrinka is able to win another couple Slams and Andy none, then “Stanimal” might surpass him as the third greatest player of the generation, but right now Andy’s overall career is significantly better. In fact, they’re a good comparative case study as to why Slam count alone is not a good indicator of overall greatness.

    Del Potro very well could have been #3 on this list if it hadn’t been for injury. After him, Tsonga and Berdych are closely linked. Tsonga has had brighter moments of brilliance, but Berdych is aging a bit better and is more consistent – so I’m giving Tomas the edge. Then we have Soderling and Cilic, with Gasquet a good bit behind. Soderling was a more brilliant player than Cilic, but the big Croat has his Slam and is far from done – so he gets the edge. Gasquet is the best of the rest of the pack.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Marianne Bevis

  • FRITZMANIA!

    FRITZMANIA!

    Taylor Fritz

    I’m starting to get a bit excited about one Taylor Harry Fritz. Who is Taylor Harry Fritz? He’s an 18-year old American who just lost to Kei Nishikori in the final of the Memphis Open. OK, the Memphis Open is an ATP 250 – small potatoes on the tour. Why am I excited about Fritz? Is it only so I can come up with such a ridiculous term as Fritzmania? (You heard it here first, by the way.) And aren’t I jumping the gun?

    Well, let’s consider a few things. As of Monday, February 15, 2016, here are the dozen highest ranked Americans with their current age:

    11. John Isner (30)
    23. Jack Sock (23)
    31. Steve Johnson (26)
    58. Donald Young (26)
    61. Sam Querrey (28)
    65. Denis Kudla (23)
    89. Rajeev Ram (31)
    102. Taylor Fritz (18)
    103. Austin Krajicek (25)
    129. Tim Smyczek (28)
    130. Ryan Harrison (23)
    147. Bjorn Fratangelo (22)
    148. Dennis Novikov (22)

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss FRITZMANIA! in the Discussion Forum.

    [divider]

    As you can see, Fritz is not only the highest ranked American teenager, but the highest ranked American who is not legal to drink alcohol, or even yet 22-years old. After Fritz, here are the next six highest ranked American teenagers:

    159. Jared Donaldson (19)
    177. Francis Tiafoe (18)
    245. Noah Rubin (19)
    249. Tommy Paul (18)
    334. Ernesto Escobedo (19)
    341. Stefan Kozlov (18)

    Donaldson, Tiafoe, and Rubin have all gotten some buzz, but as of right now Fritz is the only young American who is on the move and within striking distance of a spot within the Top 100. Donaldson is almost exactly a year older,  and has been stagnating for a bit in the 101-200 range, first breaking into the Top 200 a year ago; Tiafoe, on the other hand, is steadily moving up. Kozlov is another who has received some recognition as a prospect, but he’s not playing much. Plus, he (and Tiafoe) only turned 18 just a couple weeks ago, so we can forgive them if they don’t start demanding attention this year.

    Who is Taylor Fritz? Well, he played his first ATP tour at the Aegon Open event in June of 2015 at the tender age of 17, winning his first match against Pablo Carreno Busta before losing to Feliciano Lopez. He officially turned pro in September after winning the Junior US Open against Tommy Paul, and then quickly rose hundreds of positions within the rankings by winning multiple Challenger events, finishing his first year at No. 174 in the world.

    This year he is showing lots of promise. He beat No. 100 Dudi Sela in the Happy Valley Challenger final, then made it through the Australian Open qualification rounds, losing to No. 22 Jack Sock in the first round, although in five sets. Finally, he just made it to the Memphis Open final, although lost to No. 5 Kei Nishikori.

    Understand that this is a kid who is 18 years and 4 months old. Fritz is listed as 6’4”, 185 lbs – a tall kid, although not quite in the range that often entails physical issues (knock on wood). Steve Tignor say of Fritz that he “has an aggressive mindset and his shots have a natural pop,” but also warns that “he doesn’t move or hit as smoothly as [Alexander] Zverev,” comparing him to the German 18-year old prospect.

    In my mind, that “aggressive mindset” is particularly encouraging, a quality lacking not only in recent American players, but young players in general. I can live with him not being fully polished at 18, but we’ve seen a lot of talented and smooth-playing young players over the last few years without the requisite mindset to be a champion – Grigor Dimitrov comes most readily to mind, but consider other and older underachieving talents like Ernest Gulbis, Richard Gasquet, and David Nalbandian.

    The other aspect that excites me is the American factor. We have not seen a Top 5 American player since Andy Roddick, and he couldn’t quite live up to the great Americans of the 90s – namely Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, and Jim Courier. Since the retirement of Agassi, American men’s tennis has been a shadow of its former dominance in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. After Roddick we’ve seen Mardy Fish, John Isner, and disappointments like Sam Querrey, Donald Young, and Ryan Harrison. But no perennial Top 10 players and no Slam winners since Roddick’s 2003 US Open title.

    Fritz is actually now No. 98 in the live rankings and poised to move up with a good showing at the Delray Beach ATP 250. If he wins the tournament he’s on the verge of the Top 50. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves yet.

    Regardless, the point is that Fritz is rising fast. Even if he goes out early at Delray, he’s still situated where he is likely to continue rising quickly. Being in the Top 100 means more than just bragging rights; it also means a player bypasses qualifications and enters the first round of Grand Slam events.

    Let’s assume that Fritz not only makes it into but stays in the Top 100. He would do so at the age of 18, although would end the year at age 19. Here are the American teenagers who have finished the year in the Top 100 during the ATP rankings era (1973-present):

    2011: Ryan Harrison (#79, 19)
    2007: Donald Young (#100, 18)
    2001: Andy Roddick (#14, 19)
    1991: Michael Chang (#15, 19)
    1990: Pete Sampras (#5, 19), Michael Chang (#15, 18)
    1989: Michael Chang (#5, 17), Andre Agassi (#7, 19), Jim Courier (#24, 19), Pete Sampras (#81, 18)
    1988: Andre Agassi (#3, 18), Michael Chang (#30, 16), Jim Courier (#43, 18), Pete Sampras (#97, 17)
    1987: Andre Agassi (#25, 17)
    1986: Aaron Krickstein (#26, 19), Andre Agassi (#91, 16)
    1985: Aaron Krickstein (#29, 18)
    1984: Aaron Krickstein (#12, 17), Jimmy Brown (#100, 19)
    1983: Jimmy Brown (#45, 18), Aaron Krickstein (#94, 16)
    1982: Jimmy Brown (#97, 17)
    1978: John McEnroe (#4, 19), Eliot Teltscher (#42, 19)
    1977: John McEnroe (#21, 18)

    That list covers 43 years of ATP rankings and includes 11 American players who have ranked in the year-end Top 100 as teenagers. As you can see, a promising American teenager wasn’t uncommon from the 70s into the 90s, but after the great 90s generation of Agassi, Sampras, Courier, and Chang, we’ve only seen a few – and only Roddick turned into an elite player.

    Fritz will almost certainly be the 12th American teenager to finish a year in the Top 100, with at least Tiafoe having a good chance of being the 13th.

    Of those 11, we have:

    3 All-time Greats: McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras
    3 Slam winners: Courier, Chang, Roddick
    2 Good Players: Teltscher, Krickstein
    3 Mediocre Players: Brown, Young, Harrison

    So of those 11, most (6) have gone on to win at least one Slam and three won 7 or more; 8 of the 11 were at least good players, with only three being mediocre.

    It should go without saying that we cannot really predict Fritz’s future performance based simply upon his ranking relative to his age. By that logic, he could just as easily be another Ryan Harrison as he could be Pete Sampras, or more likely somewhere in-between. But what we can say is that Fritz is joining a small group of Americans, most of whom went on to be at least good players and more than half of whom won Slams. So just on that there’s room for optimism. And perhaps most of all, Taylor Harry Fritz is – as of this writing – the most promising young American men’s tennis player since Andy Roddick.

    Finally.

    Addendum
    Fritz is one of several young players—including Zverev—who I’m watching and am excited about. After I finish up my Open Era Generation series, look for a blog or two about this new generation, and the quest for the next great men’s tennis player.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): mirsasha

  • Open Era Generations, Part Twelve: Gen 10 (1979-83) – Generation Federer

    Open Era Generations, Part Twelve: Gen 10 (1979-83) – Generation Federer

    Roger Federer

    Why the name?
    What else could it be called? Roger Federer dominated his peers unlike any player since at least Bjorn Borg. Consider that he is the only player born in the fourteen-year span of 1972-85 who has more than three Slam titles; he is probably the number one reason why this is the case. Federer won 17 of his generation’s 23 Slam titles, or 74%, more than Borg’s 69% (11 of 16). “Weak Era Theory” aside, Roger simply owned his peers. More on that in a moment.

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1979:  Ivan Ljubicic (CRO), James Blake (USA), Juan Ignacio Chela (ARG), Ivo Karlovic (CRO), Nicolas Massu (CHI), Michael Llodra (FRA), Albert Montanes (ESP)
    1980: Marat Safin (RUS, 2), Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP, 1), Fernando Gonzalez (CHI), Xavier Malisse (BEL)
    1981: Roger Federer (SWZ, 17), Lleyton Hewitt (AUS, 2), Nikolay Davydenko (RUS), Feliciano Lopez (ESP), Mardy Fish (USA), Jarkko Nieminen (FIN), Julien Benneteau (FRA)
    1982: Andy Roddick (USA, 1), David Ferrer (ESP), David Nalbandian (ARG), Tommy Robredo (ESP), Mikhail Youzhny (RUS), Guillermo Coria (ARG)
    1983: Fernando Verdasco (ESP), Phillip Kohlschreiber (GER), Dmitry Tursunov (RUS), Alejandro Falla (COL)

    I’ve been a bit more liberal with the names included, as this is a generation still active, or at least fresh in memory. Birth years 1980-82 is the heart of the generation, with 1979 and ’83 being far weaker.

    Imagine being Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick: 2003 ends and you’re playing well, both with a Slam and year-end No. 1 or 2 under your belt while still in your early 20s. Then this soft-spoken Swiss guy rises up and utterly dominates tennis, while you toil away, year after year, never able to get past him and win another Slam. This scenario is particularly telling for Andy Roddick, who lost four Slam finals to Federer and won only 3 matches out of 24. Despite that fact, Roddick had an excellent career, finishing every year from 2002-10 in the Top 10, with 32 titles to his name including one Slam and five Masters. Andy retired relatively young by today’s standards, just after turning 30 in 2012, but he saw the writing on the wall–falling from No. 8 in 2010 to No. 14 in 2011 and No. 39 in 2012.

    In 2001, at the age of 20, Lleyton Hewitt was the youngest player to reach the No. 1 ranking since the ATP computerized rankings began in 1973. He was No. 1 for 80 weeks — more than Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, Gustavo Kuerten, Ilie Nastase, Mats Wilander, and Boris Becker. After two year-end No. 1 rankings in 2001 and 2002, Hewitt entered 2003 on top of the world. Yet it soon became clear that a couple of his peers were surpassing him: Andy Roddick and Roger Federer. He remained a top player for a few more years, but by 2006 he had slipped out of the elite, unable to compete with the newer, bigger, more powerful generation that was coming up. As of this writing, Hewitt just played his last Grand Slam, going out in the second round of the Australian Open. Though he hasn’t been in the Top 20 for seven years, he will be missed.

    As for the Swiss Maestro himself, it is difficult to say anything that hasn’t already been said. But to return to the topic of his dominance over his generation, consider his head-to-head against peers (born 1979-83) who were Top 10 players: 195-36, or 84.4% – which is better than his overall winning percentage against all players. Of all players in Federer’s generation, the only two who were able to win more than three matches against him were Lleyton Hewitt (9-18) and David Nalbandian (8-11).

    Federer’s fans occasionally bemoan the fact that he’s no longer the player he was during his absolute peak, from 2004-07. While this is undoubtedly true, we should not lose sight of the player he is now, still ranked No. 3 halfway between his 34th and 35th birthdays. The vast majority of all-time greats were either long retired or fading out at Roger’s age.

    Maybe Roger will buck the trend and remain an elite player into his late 30s, but it seems unlikely. While he is showing no signs of further decline—yet—any setbacks, such as his current knee injury, could damage his momentum. Regardless, we should appreciate the great player while he’s around.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    David Nalbandian and Marat Safin come most readily to mind. These two challenged Federer in terms of talent, but neither had the mentality and focus to be a perennial champion. Nalbandian is on the short list of most talented player never to win a Slam in the Open Era, and Safin is often mentioned as an almost-great who should have been an all-time great.

    Nalbandian was the most competitive peer of Federer’s, winning 8 of 19 matches (42.1%) and their first five matches. After those five, Roger seemed to figure out Nalbandian, with an 11-3 record from the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup onward. The only players with a better percentage against Federer in 10 or more matches are Tim Henman (46.2%), Rafael Nadal (67.6%), Novak Djokovic (51.1%), and Andy Murray (44%), all either significantly older or younger. Regardless of his level of disappointment, Nalbandian had a solid career, the highlight of which was his victory over Roger Federer in the 2005 World Tour Finals, as well as his two Masters in 2007.

    Safin was the No. 2 player in the sport at the age of 21 in 2000, a year in which he spent nine weeks as the No. 1 player in the world, defeated Pete Sampras in straight sets to take the US Open title, and won two Masters. It looked like tennis finally had a new, young elite player to join the aging Agassi and Sampras. Yet he was to finish only two other years in the Top 5, 2002 and 2004, and he won only one more Slam and three more Masters. A fine career, but not an all-time great.

    Another to consider is Guillermo Coria, who was ranked in the Top 8 from 2003-05, then saw his career collapse in 2006 – for a variety of reasons, including service issues, marital problems, and injury.

    Lesser-known Joachim Johansson deserves mention as someone who looked like at least a second-tier player but saw his career destroyed by injury. At the end of 2004, it looked like Sweden would have have an heir to Thomas Enqvist and Thomas Johansson in the “If not quite Borg/Wilander/Edberg, then at least Nystrom/Jarryd” category. Joachim finished the year No. 11, at age 22, including a Slam semifinal appearance and an ATP 500 title, but couldn’t recover from a variety of injuries.

    Did You Know?
    Roger Federer’s 2006 was widely considered the best season of the Open Era since Rod Laver’s great 1969, only recently surpassed by Novak Djokovic’s 2015. He won three Slams, was the finalist in the fourth, won the World Tour Finals, four Masters, 12 titles overall, and a ridiculous 91-5 record. Four of those five losses were to his nemesis, Rafael Nadal, and the other to Andy Murray. But here is what is interesting: in all but one of those matches, Nadal was still 19-years old, as was Andy Murray, who was ranked No. 21 when he beat Federer at the Cincinnati Masters. When Nadal defeated Federer in the French Open final, he had just turned 20; it was his fourth and last win over the No. 1 player that year (Roger would beat him at Wimbledon and the World Tour Masters).

    So think about that for a moment: The best player in the sport, and one of the best all time, lost four times to two teenagers during his best season, and a fifth time to one of them a few days after he turned 20. In his best season. Other than that, Roger was 91-0.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Roger Federer
    2. Lleyton Hewitt
    3. Andy Roddick
    4. Marat Safin
    5. Juan Carlos Ferrero
    6. David Ferrer
    7. David Nalbandian
    8. Nikolay Davydenko
    9. Tommy Robredo
    10. Mikhail Youzhny

    Honorable Mentions: Fernando Gonzalez, Guillermo Coria, Fernando Verdasco, Ivan Ljubicic, James Blake, Feliciano Lopez, Mardy Fish, Jurgen Melzer, Ivo Karlovic, Juan Ignacio Chela, Philipp Kohlschreiber.

    Number one is easy, as Federer was (and is) to his generation what Borg was to his. I also feel reasonably confident with my No. 2-4 rankings, although Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin could be arranged in a variety of ways. While Safin was the most talented of the three, and Roddick the most consistent over a long period of time, I give Hewitt the edge because he’s the only one who had a sustained period of time as No. 1, even if it was in the “soft spot” of 2001-02 when men’s tennis was seeing a regime change.

    After that, it gets tricky. If you changed Ferrero’s Slam win to a runner up, he would probably rank behind Ferrer, Davydenko, and Nalbandian, all of whom had better overall careers aside from one match. The “Mosquito” wasn’t the worst player to win a Slam, and was an elite player for several years but like many of his peers, he saw his career drop off in his mid-20s. He slipped out of the Top 10 in 2004 and never returned, with a later career similar to Hewitt’s. But he did win a Slam and attain the No. 1 ranking for a short period of time, things that Ferrer, Davydenko, and Nalbandian never did.

    David Ferrer has had an unusual career path, peaking in his late 20s and early 30s. Other than Federer, he is the most consistent player of his generation and will go down as one of the greatest players never to win a Slam, along with his contemporary Nikolay Davydenko, who filled a similar role before Ferrer’s peak. Ferrer has the reputation of a player who maximized his modest talents – was not a great player, but a consistently very good one. While he has winning records against similarly ranked players like Tomas Berdych (8-5) and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (3-1), unlike those two there is a sense that it would have been (and is) impossible for him to win a Slam because Ferrer’s “A game” simply cannot touch the “B games” of Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer.

    There’s a steep drop-off after Davydenko, with Robredo and Youzhny earning their way into the Top 10 through longevity. Guillermo Coria, Fernando Gonzalez, Ivan Ljubicic, and James Blake were all better peak players, but none had the overall career accomplishments of Robredo and Youzhny.

    Addendum: Twelve Highest Ranked Players of Gen 10 (as of 2/8/16)
    3. Roger Federer
    6. David Ferrer
    25. Feliciano Lopez
    26. Ivo Karlovic
    32. Philipp Kohlschreiber
    34. Guillermo Garcia Lopez
    39. Tommy Robredo
    40. Gilles Muller
    52. Paolo Lorenzi
    54. Nicolas Mahut
    56. Victor Estrella Burgos
    57. Fernando Verdasco

    As you can see, this generation still has quite a few players around, although only two in the Top 10. Considering that this generation will turn 33 to 37 in 2016, expect almost all to be gone within another year or two, with maybe a few hold-outs playing into their late 30s.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Marianne Bevis

  • Open Era Generations, Part Eleven: Gen 9 (1974-78) – A Transitional Era

    Open Era Generations, Part Eleven: Gen 9 (1974-78) – A Transitional Era

    Gustavo Kuerten Yevgeny Kafelnikov Carlos Moya

    While one of the weakest generations of the Open Era — by my account, third after Gen 2 (1939-43) and Gen 12 (1989-93) — I personally find this one of the most interesting. I’m not exactly sure why, but I think it has to do with the fact that it is hard to define, with no clear stars. It is the generation that was at its peak in the late 90s and early 00s, between the dominance of Sampras-Agassi and Federer.  The generation has an interesting balance of players – no real standouts or all-time greats, but several excellent players.

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1974: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS, 2), Alex Corretja (ESP), Thomas Enqvist (SWE), Andrei Medvedev (UKR), Tim Henman (UK)
    1975: Marcelo Rios (CHIL), Thomas Johansson (SWE, 1), Jiri Novak (CZE), Albert Costa (ESP, 1)
    1976: Gustavo Kuerten (BRA, 3), Carlos Moya (ESP, 1), Mark Philippoussis (AUS), Rainer Schüttler (GER), Magnus Norman (SWE)
    1977: Nicolas Kiefer (GER), Guillermo Canas (ARG)
    1978: Gaston Gaudio (ARG, 1), Tommy Haas (GER), Radek Stepanek (CZE), Sébastien Grosjean (FRA), Michael Russell (USA)

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss “Open Era Generations, Part Eleven: Gen 9 (1974-78) – A Transitional Era” in the Discussion Forum.

    [divider]

    This generation is responsible for only 9 Slams, the lowest since the 1939-43 generation (4). There are no all-time greats, merely a couple almost-greats, and a handful of very good players.

    The two best players of the generation were Gustavo Kuerten and Yevgeny Kafelnikov, who accounted for five of the nine Slams. Kuerten was a clay-court specialist who won the French Open three times, as well as four clay Masters. But he also won the 2000 Tennis Masters Cup, defeating Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi – the only player to defeat both in the same tournament –  and the hard-court Cincinnati Masters, so could play well off clay.  “Guga” was only a Top 5 player for three years (1999-2001), and only finished in the Top 40 for eight years (1997-2004); his “near-greatness” was largely due to his lack of longevity, which was largely because of injuries starting in 2002. The second half of his career is one of the great What-If stories of the last couple decades.

    Kafelnikov was less brilliant at his best, but had a longer peak than Guga, ranking No. 11 or better from 1994 to 2001. The third most accomplished player of the generation, Carlos Moya, ranked No. 61 or higher for fourteen straight years, from 1995 to 2008, including thirteen years No. 43 or better, and five years No. 7 or better – a consistently very good player.

    Single-Slam winners Thomas Johansson, Albert Costa, and Gaston Gaudio are the definition of one-Slam wonders. Johansson had a long career, including eleven years in the Top 100, but he never finished a year in the Top 10; imagine if someone like Nicolas Almagro won a Slam and you get a sense of Johansson’s feat. Costa was a clay-court specialist, probably similar in talent to someone like Feliciano Lopez, but happened to play between the reins of Kuerten and Rafael Nadal, and thus able to win a French Open (in 2002). Gaudio could be the worst player in the Open Era ever to win a Slam, the 2004 French Open against Guillermo Canas. He finished No. 10 in 2004 and 2005, but never finished another year in the Top 20.

    This is the oldest generation to still have players on tour, but it won’t be much longer. After a resurgence in 2012-13, 37-year-old Tommy Haas has slipped the last couple years and seems like he’s winding down. Haas started on the ATP tour in 1996, losing his first Slam match to Sergi Bruguera at the US Open in the first round. 2015 makes it 20 years on tour. Haas has been around so long that his first year was the last year Boris Becker won a Slam (although he never played Becker).

    Radek Stepanek is also ranked around No. 200, which would be the first year on tour that he hasn’t finished No. 68 or higher – going back to 2002. Michael Russell, also from that 1978 birth year, just retired.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    There’s a reason I didn’t mention Marcelo Rios above, as I was saving him for this category. In 1998 he looked like the heir apparent to Pete Sampras as the premier player in the game, taking the No. 1 ranking in late March and winning three Masters that year, as well as the Grand Slam Cup. Yet Rios’s relatively mediocre second half of the year led to a loss of the No. 1 ranking to Sampras, and while he remained a Top 10 player in 1999, he slipped and stumbled in 2000 and never regained his elite status, largely due to injuries.

    Another player who had a disappointing career is Andrei Medvedev, who was the first of the generation to rank in the year-end Top 10, finishing 1993 ranked No. 6 at age 19. While he would go on to win four Masters, he would never rank in the Top 10 again and made a Slam final only once.

    There are several other players who fit the category of “close, but no cigar” as far as Slams go – Alex Corretja was 0-2 at French Open Slam finals, Thomas Enqvist was meant to revive Swedish tennis but–along with Johansson–instead ended up being a kind of dead-cat bounce after the great 1970s-80s era, and Tim Henman goes down as one of the greatest grass court players never to win Wimbledon. And boy did he try – eight out of nine years from 1996-2004 making the quarterfinals or later, including four semifinals but never a final. Mark Philippoussis also comes to mind in this category.

    Did You Know?
    I first came across Roberto Carretero’s name when looking at Masters winners of the 90s. Carretero has quite a story: he won the Hamburg Masters in 1996 as a virtual unknown, ranked No. 143 and defeating Yevgeny Kafelnikov en route to a final win against rising young Spanish star, Alex Corretja. He never ranked higher than No. 58 and never made it past the second round in a Slam, retiring in 2001. But he does have that Hamburg Masters title.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Gustavo Kuerten
    2. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
    3. Carlos Moya
    4. Marcelo Rios
    5. Alex Corretja
    6. Tim Henman
    7. Tommy Haas
    8. Albert Costa
    9. Thomas Enqvist
    10. Andrei Medvedev

    Honorable Mentions: Mark Philippoussis, Thomas Johansson, Sebastian Grosjean, Magnus Norman, Gaston Gaudio, Radek Stepanek.

    This is actually a hard generation to rank. I feel confident about the top four, although think Moya and Rios could be swapped, and I went back and forth on Kuerten and Kafelnikov, but in the end prefer Kuerten’s higher peak to Kafelnikov’s greater longevity. After the “biggish four,” Corretja is probably the best of the rest, with Henman, Haas, Costa, and Enqvist not far behind, but that tenth spot could go to any of Medvedev, Philippoussis, Johansson, or Grosjean.

  • Open Era Generations, Part Ten: Gen 8 (1969-73) – American Supernova

    Open Era Generations, Part Ten: Gen 8 (1969-73) – American Supernova

    Andre Agassi Pete Sampras Jim Courier

    Last of the Great Americans
    The United States has always been central to men’s tennis, from early greats like Richard Sears, William Larned, and Bill Tilden to the “golden age” of the 30s to 50s, with stars like Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, Bobby Riggs, Jack Kramer, and the great Pancho Gonzales. American men’s tennis dipped in the 60s and then resurged with Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe being the harbingers of the first Open Era superstar, Jimmy Connors. Jimmy passed the baton to John McEnroe, who in turn passed it to Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, the twin stars of Gen 8.

    This was the last great—and probably greatest—generation of American men’s tennis. This generation included two (Sampras and Agassi) of the four greatest Open Era Americans (along with Connors and McEnroe), as well as a strong supporting duo in Jim Courier and Michael Chang.

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss “Open Era Generations, Part Ten” in the discussion forum.

    [divider]

    Players by Birth Year
    1969: Cedric Pioline (FRA), MaliVai Washington (USA), Alberto Mancini (ARG), David Wheaton (USA)
    1970: Andre Agassi (USA, 8), Jim Courier (USA, 4), Todd Martin (USA), Marc Rosset (SWI), Magnus Larsson (SWE)
    1971: Pete Sampras (USA, 14), Goran Ivanisevic (CRO, 1), Sergi Bruguera (ESP, 2), Richard Krajicek (NED, 1), Wayne Ferreira (SAF)
    1972: Michael Chang (USA, 1), Patrick Rafter (AUS, 2), Jonas Bjorkman (SWE)
    1973: Greg Rusedski (CAN/UK), Alberto Berasategui (ESP), Albert Portas (ESP)

    Discussion
    This was a very talented generation, with 33 Slams distributed among eight players, including two who could be considered all-time greats and three other multi-Slam winners.

    It is easy to forget how good Courier was for a few years, as he was historically well overshadowed by Sampras and Agassi. He was a player who wasn’t as naturally gifted as his contemporaries, but played his heart out to the tune of four Slam titles, all within 1991-93. He finished 1992 as the year-end No. 1, then 1993 as year-end No. 3, and then finished in the Top 10 only once more, in 1995, despite playing through the decade.

    Pete Sampras was to the 90s what Roger Federer was to the 00s: the premier player by a good margin. He was never able to win the French Open — not even coming close, really — but he dominated Wimbledon with seven titles and the US Open with five. While some might look at his Slam performance record and think that it doesn’t compare to those of the recent three greats because of Sampras never winning more than two Slams in a year, and with plenty of first week losses even in his prime, it must be understood that the tennis of the 90s was a more diverse game in terms of the courts, before the surface homogenization that has taken place over the last decade or so.

    Sampras was also considered by many to be the best player of the Open Era until Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic came along. He was such a dangerous player; one of his most notable skills was his incredible second serve, known to deliver many an ace. The lone match between Sampras and Federer is must-watch tennis:

    Andre Agassi was no less memorable than Sampras, although more for his storied career than his play – although he was a great player, just not on the level of Sampras. Andre essentially had two careers: the first being a fiery and troubled youth who finished in the Top 100 at age 16 in 1986, although did not win his first Slam until six years later in 1992. Andre’s career unraveled in 1997 when he played only 13 tournaments and dropped to No. 110. He came back slowly at first in 1998, but then had his best year in 1999, winning two Slams and earning the year-end No. 1 ranking. He was the elder statesman of the game in the early 00s, for a few years after Sampras had retired, becoming the oldest player to be ranked No. 1 in 2003 at the geriatric age of 33, remaining in the Top 10 past the page of 35.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    There is no clear player in this generation that I’d call an underachiever, although many players who have glimmerings of it. Agassi was an underachiever in his youth, but made up for it later on. I cannot remember the source, but I believe it was an interview on NPR in which Andre stated that he hated tennis and resented his family for pushing him into it – at least early on. Michael Chang could also be considered an underachiever in that he won his only Slam at the tender age of 17, but his overall skill set was more comparable to the better Slam-less players and overall he had an excellent career.

    Jim Courier is an interesting case in that he could be considered both an under- and overachiever. He is an underachiever if you look at his career through 1993 when he turned 23, which included four Slams and a year-end No. 1 in ’92, and compare it to 1994 onward – when he never won a Slam or even made it to another final. But he could be considered an overachiever in that for those few years in 1991-93 he maximized his modest talent and was one of the best players in the game.

    Two other players that come to mind, who probably fit the term better: Goran Ivanisevic, who had the skill-set to be a dominant grass and fast-court player but only won a single Wimbledon; and Richard Krajicek, an almost great but flawed player who was the only peer of Sampras to have a winning record against the generation’s greatest player, but only a single Slam winner.

    Did You Know?
    One of my favorite stories from this generation is the tale of Goran Ivanisevic – one of the greatest servers in the history of the game, and one of the ten or so best players of the 90s. Imagine Ivanisevic in 2000: he ended the year 29 years old, had seen his ranking fall each year from No. 4 in 1996 to No. 129 in 2000. The big Croat had lost the three Slam finals he had played in, all at Wimbledon – one to Agassi, two to Sampras. 2001 looked to be no different. He went out in the first round of qualifications at the Australian Open, didn’t play in the French Open, and entered Wimbledon ranked No. 125.  He then proceeded to plow his way through the rounds, defeating everyone from Carlos Moya to an 18-year old Andy Roddick, Greg Rusedski, Marat Safin, Tim Henman, and then finally facing–and defeating–third seed Patrick Rafter in the final in five sets, becoming the first wildcard ever to win Wimbledon. I guess it is never too late; Ivanisevic should remain an inspirational story for Slam-less players in the twilights of their careers.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Pete Sampras
    2. Andre Agassi
    3. Jim Courier
    4. Michael Chang
    5. Patrick Rafter
    6. Goran Ivanisevic
    7. Sergi Bruguera
    8. Richard Krajicek
    9. Todd Martin
    10. Wayne Ferreira

    Honorable Mentions: Cedric Pioline, Greg Rusedski, Jonas Bjorkman.

    The top three are very easy to rank. After that you could make an argument for different orders of numbers 4-7, although I like Chang’s longevity better than the other three. Chang was, in a way, the 90s version of David Ferrer, but if Ferrer had managed to sneak a Slam in. Rafter won two Slams, but had a relatively short career. Sergi Bruguera was the definition of a clay-court specialist. He won two French Opens, made the final of another and the semifinal of a fourth, yet never made it past the 4th round at any other Slam.

    Richard Krajicek is an interesting player in that he is one of the few to own a winning record against Pete Sampras, including beating him in the quarterfinal of the 1996 Wimbledon en route to his lone Slam title. It was Sampras’ only loss at Wimbledon between 1993 and 2000. After Krajicek, I ranked Martin and Ferreira in the top 10, but the honorable mentions are all close.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Chris Josefy / James Marvin Phelps / shinyasuzuki

  • Open Era Generations, Part Nine: Gen 7 (1964-68) – Mats, Stefan, and Boris

    Open Era Generations, Part Nine: Gen 7 (1964-68) – Mats, Stefan, and Boris

    Stefan Edberg Mats Wilander Boris Becker

    Where the last generation had two all-time greats, this generation had three: Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, and Boris Becker, each with very different careers – as we will discuss in a moment. This is the generation that rose in the early 80s and peaked from the mid-80s through the early 90s, although there was only a short gap of years between the reigns of McEnroe/Lendl and Sampras in which they were the dominant generation in the sport.

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss “Open Era Generations, Part Nine: Gen 7 (1964-68) – Mats, Stefan, and Boris” in the discussion forum.

    [divider]

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1964: Mats Wilander (SWE, 7), Jimmy Arias (USA), Miroslav Mecir (CZE/SLO), Henrik Sundstrom (SWE), Jakob Hlasek (SUI)
    1965: Pat Cash (AUS, 1), Guy Forget (FRA), Karel Novacek (CZE), Emilio Sanchez (ESP)
    1966: Stefan Edberg (SWE, 6), Jay Berger (USA), Andrei Chesnokov (USSR/RUS)
    1967: Boris Becker (GER, 6), Thomas Muster (GER, 1), Aaron Krickstein (USA)
    1968: Michael Stich (GER, 1), Petr Korda (CZE, 1), Kent Carlsson (SWE)

    As you can see, seven different players won 23 Slams in all – the most in both categories since the 1934-38 generation.

    Mats Wilander followed in Bjorn Borg’s footsteps, with Sweden winning at least one Slam in every year from 1974 to 1985, and all but two years until 1992 – the end of the Swedish reign and co-dominance with the United States. Wilander was a tender 17-years old at the 1982 French Open and clearly benefited from the absence of Borg. His early rise was quick and fierce; while he only finished No. 1 once, his three-Slam 1988, he was ranked No. 7 or higher from 1982-88, and No. 4 or higher in all but 1982. Wilander’s 1988 was a swan song after which he declined quickly, never even making another Slam final or ranking in the Top 10 until he retired after 1996 – one of the worst declines of any great tennis player.

    Edberg and Becker will likely be forever linked. They are players of very similar career accomplishments, as we will discuss more in a moment when we look at the best players of the era.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    Miroslav Mecir is probably one of the most talented players in Open Era history never to win a Slam. His career was short and bright; if it had been longer, he really could have added a Slam trophy. He played only eight years on tour, from 1983-90, made it to two Slam finals–losing to Ivan Lendl in both–won three Grand Prix (Masters) tournaments and the 1988 Olympics. Perhaps the highlight of his career was winning the WCT Finals in 1987 against John McEnroe.

    Aaron Krickstein was a promising young player who never fulfilled his early success. In 1984 he finished No. 12 at the age of 17. But his career stalled out for several years, until he reached his highest ranking of No. 6 in February of 1990. Krickstein would go on to win six titles but never better than a semifinal result at a Slam. If we look at all players in the Open Era, Krickstein’s career could be the most disappointing relative to his ranking as a 16-17 year old, as we will see in a moment…

    Did You Know?
    Aaron Krickstein was the youngest player to win an ATP title at the age of 16 years and 2 months when he won Tel Aviv in 1983, a record that remains to this day. He is also one of only three players in the ATP Era (1973-present) to finish in the top 100 as 16-year olds, along with Andre Agassi and Michael Chang, and one of only four to finish in the Top 20 as 17-year olds along with Agassi, Chang, and Borg.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Boris Becker
    2. Stefan Edberg
    3. Mats Wilander
    4. Thomas Muster
    5. Michael Stich
    6. Petr Korda
    7. Pat Cash
    8. Miroslav Mecir
    9. Guy Forget
    10. Aaron Krickstein

    Honorable Mentions: Emilio Sanchez, Andrei Chesnokov, Karol Novacek, Jakob Hlasek, Jimmy Arias

    Ranking the top three is difficult, with valid arguments for any of them to be at the top. Wilander had the best year in 1988, and won one more Slam than the other two, but declined very young. Becker had the longest range of Slam titles but was less consistent year in and year out than Edberg, and never finished the year as the No. 1 player. Their match-up is “Fedalian” in terms of how lopsided it was (Becker led it 25-10), but Edberg held the edge in Slams (3-1) and ATP finals (1-0) and of course had two year-end No. 1 rankings.

    Really it is 1a, 1b, and 1c, or perhaps 1a, 1b and 3, with Wilander a step behind the others. These three players peaked during one of the most competitive eras in men’s tennis, when Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl were still elite players, and Sampras, Agassi, and Courier were rising to the top. When I started writing this series I gave Edberg the edge, but have since given it to Becker because, if you look below the surface, Becker has the edge in a number of ways. While both won six Slams, Boris had two more years in the Top 10 than Stefan, and also won two more ATP finals and five more Grand Prix/Super 9 (Masters equivalent) tournaments, with a superior overall record in title finals: 49-28 compared to Edberg’s 42-38. Becker was also a much better player against Top 10 opponents, with a career 65.1% vs. Edberg’s 45.7%.

    To put the comparison of the three graphically, I used one of my various statistic systems called “Title Shares,” which imagines that the big tournaments–all four Slams, the tour finals, and the Masters–equal 100 total shares for a given year, or 14 for each Slam, 8 for the ATP year-end championships, and 4 for each Masters. This system then adds 1 point per other title (ATP 250 and 500), and in the case of the WCT year-end championships, 5 extra points; consider these all to be “extra credit.” Now this system makes more sense in recent years, as the ATP structure has been more consistent, but it gives you an idea of the different trajectories of the three players and their relative dominance:

    20151229052337

    As you can see, Wilander was more dominant overall through 1988, which turned out to be a final supernova after which his career sputtered and faded. Edberg was a force from 1985 on, with his best phase in the early 90s. Becker was also relatively strong from 1985 on, but where Edberg faded in 1993, Boris had a resurgence from 1994-96 that strengthened his overall legacy.

    After the Big Three, there’s a steep drop-off to Thomas Muster, but he’s a solid No. 4. Muster is best known for being both a great clay-court player but also an incredible competitor in finals. He has an overall 44-10 record in ATP finals, or 81.5% – far ahead of anyone else. Nikolay Davydenko is number two with a 21-7 (75%) record in ATP finals; Borg has the best among all-time greats, with a 64-24 (72.7%) record.

    Michael Stich was a very good player for, unfortunately, a rather short length of time. He is best known for upsetting Boris Becker in the 1991 Wimbledon final. A comparable recent player would be Juan Martin del Potro. Pat Cash is solidly No. 6, and then Korda and Mecir are harder to rank. Korda has the one Slam but Mecir was probably a better player. He was, in some ways, the Robin Soderling of his generation – very good for a too-short period of time, his career ended prematurely by injury. The last two spots go to Forget and Krickstein, with Emilio Sanchez and Andrei Chesnokov just missing the cut.

  • Open Era Generations, Part Eight: Gen 6 (1959-63) – “You Cannot Be Serious!”

    Open Era Generations, Part Eight: Gen 6 (1959-63) – “You Cannot Be Serious!”

    John McEnroe Ivan Lendl

    Into the 80s

    While the tennis of the 1970s was already quite different than the decade before it, both because of the Open Era but also a shift in the way the game was played, the 1980s saw even further change: namely through the transition to metal racquets as well as the rise of the Australian Open. By 1987 the competition at the AO was, if not quite on par with the other three Slams, very close. A few years later it would be equal.

    While the last three generations each had a singular dominant player, the 1959-63 generation is the first since the 1934-38 generation that saw two players vying for the top spot. In some ways John McEnroe, nicknamed “Superbrat” by the British press, seems more part of Borg’s generation, yet he is much closer in age to Ivan “the Terrible” Lendl. Their respective peaks are a bit different, only overlapping for a year or two; McEnroe was at his best from the late 70s until 1985, Lendl not peaking until well into the 80s and remaining an elite player into the 90s. They are, clearly, the twin crown princes of the generation and the two best players born between Bjorn Borg (1956) and Pete Sampras (1971).

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1959: John McEnroe (USA, 7), Eliot Teltscher (USA)
    1960: Ivan Lendl (CZE, 8), Yannick Noah (FRA, 1), Andres Gomez (ECU, 1), Tim Mayotte (USA)
    1961: Brad Gilbert (USA), Anders Jarryd (SWE)
    1962: Juan Aguilera (ESP)
    1963: Henri Leconte (FRA), Joakim Nystrom (SWE), Mikael Pernfors (SWE)

    Discussion
    Ivan Lendl is the only player of the Open Era with 6+ Slams who has a losing record in finals (8-11), but that speaks more to the strength of the era he played in than any lack of effort on his part. First of all, we should consider that he has played in more Slam finals than anyone in the Open Era other than Sampras, Federer, and Nadal (although Novak will almost certainly surpass him in 2016 – he’s just one behind). Consider also that Lendl’s career overlapped with the peaks of Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi, and Sampras; there is really no other great player of the Open Era who faced such a multi-generational array of all-time greats, with the exception of Jimmy Connors and possibly Andre Agassi. The main tarnish on Lendl’s record, and his unfulfilled White Whale, was his inability to win the grandaddy of all tournaments: Wimbledon.

    Johnny Mac is the most memorable player of the generation, and one of the most infamous players in tennis history, both because of his legendary temper tantrums, one of which made the title of the article famous, but also because of his intuitively brilliant play. He also has the honor of being the only player that could consistently beat Bjorn Borg. While their perhaps unparalleled rivalry yielded a 7-7 record (plus 4-4 in invitational matches), McEnroe held the edge over Borg the last couple years and had a 3-1 record in Grand Slams. The two provide us with an example of an interesting dynamic in discussing tennis greats: While Borg is generally ranked higher on all-time lists, by the time he retired McEnroe was a better player and McEnroe’s overall career accomplishments—aside from Slam titles—are better. This points to the ongoing developmental nature of the game. Regardless, the two are much closer than their Slam title totals (11 and 7) would imply.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    This generation was so dominated by Lendl and McEnroe that it is hard to accuse any player of being an underachiever. I suppose Yannick Noah, who is probably more well-known than his career would entail, could have accomplished more. Noah is well-known not only for being the only French Slam winner of the Open Era, but the second black player to win a Slam, and also for his leadership in the Davis Cup.

    Did You Know?
    Yannick Noah has so many different angles on fame. Aside from his tennis accomplishments, he is also the father of NBA player Joakim Noah, and had a relatively successful music career.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Ivan Lendl
    2. John McEnroe
    3. Yannick Noah
    4. Andres Gomez
    5. Henri Leconte
    6. Brad Gilbert
    7. Tim Mayotte
    8. Anders Jarryd
    9. Eliot Teltscher
    10. Joakim Nystrom

    Honorable Mention: Juan Aguilera

    Some might take issue with my ranking Lendl over McEnroe, but Lendl’s record is just better. While McEnroe had a higher peak and was probably a more brilliant tennis player, with a level of dominance and a brilliance of play unmatched by the Czech, Lendl’s peak wasn’t that much lower and he sustained an elite level far longer than McEnroe.

    Noah and Gomez—the only others to win Slams—are pretty easy to rank at No. 3 and No. 4, and then the rest taper off. Gomez is an interesting player in that he won his only Slam in 1990 at the age of 30, against a young Andre Agassi. Gomez—born the same year as Lendl and a year after McEnroe—won his lone Slam just after Lendl’s last and six years after McEnroe’s last, in 1984. He’s a good reminder for players like Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Tomas Berdych that there’s always hope.

  • Open Era Generations, Part Seven: Gen 5 (1954-58) – Borg and Some Other Guys

    Open Era Generations, Part Seven: Gen 5 (1954-58) – Borg and Some Other Guys

    Johan Kriek Bjorn Borg Vitas Gerulaitis

    The Greatest Swede
    If you take this generation’s best player out of the mix, it would be one of the weakest. In fact, we could say that more than any other generation with a premier talent in it, this generation is the weakest with only five Slams to players other than Bjorn Borg. But of course the generation does include Borg, who is still considered one of the best players in tennis history, and is a candidate for the best young player in the history of the game, with 11 Slams before his 25th birthday. Borg was also the first and greatest of three great Swedish players, followed by Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg in the golden era of Swedish tennis that was the late 70s into the early 90s.

    Best Players by Birth Year
    1954: Vitas Gerulaitis (USA, 1), Brian Teacher (USA, 1), Mark Edmondson (AUS, 1), John Lloyd (UK)
    1955: Victor Pecci (PAR), Peter McNamara (AUS)
    1956: Bjorn Borg (SWE, 11), Gene Mayer (USA), John Sadri (USA), Steve Denton (USA)
    1957: Chris Lewis (NZ)
    1958: Johan Kriek (SFA, 2), Jose Luis Clerc (ARG), Kevin Curren (SAF)

    Discussion
    As you can see, there are no true standouts after Borg. In some ways this era echoes Ashe’s, although Borg was a much greater player than Ashe, and there is a bit more talent beyond its premier player; but it is a similar one-man show. The only other multi-Slam winner, Johan Kriek, won this two Slams at the Australian Open, a few years before it became as competitive as the other Slams.

    As for Borg, what to say? He was an amazing talent, the premier player in the game during the late 70s, and was the overall best player during that decade, winning almost twice as many Slams (8) than runners-up John Newcombe and Jimmy Connors (5 each). He reached a high level at a very young age in an era when tennis was still dominated by men in their late 20s. Consider that when Borg finished 1974 as the No. 3 player in the world, at the tender age of 18, the only other members of the Top 10 who were younger than 27 were Jimmy Connors and Guillermo Vilas, both 22. With those two Borg took the tennis world by storm in the mid-70s and changed the game.

    Borg was a superstar in the full sense of the word. With his long-haired good looks and cool demeanor he was a welcome counterpoint to the fiery brashness of the other great star during the mid-70s, Jimmy Connors. Though Borg didn’t finish as the No. 1 player until 1979, it is clear that he had surpassed Connors at least a year prior and was deserving of the No. 1 ranking in 1978. But his reign at the very top was short-lived compared to his talent; an even brasher young American by the name of John McEnroe appeared on the tour in the late 70s giving Borg troubles, in what is undoubtedly the most storied and competitive rivalry in tennis history. By 1981 McEnroe had supplanted Borg as the premier player; it was Borg’s last year to play a Slam, after losing the Wimbledon and US Open finals to McEnroe. A contemporary comparison would have been if Rafael Nadal had retired after Novak Djokovic stole the No. 1 ranking from him in 2011; Nadal was the same age as Borg, 25. Borg didn’t play another Slam although didn’t announce his retirement until a year later, in January of 1983. He retired from the game for a variety of reasons, most especially being tired of various squabbles with the tour organizers, and losing the drive required to compete at the highest level. Regardless, he retired too soon for tennis fans and tennis history.

    As an aside, there is an interesting harmonic between this era and more recent years. Just as Connors dominated the mid-70s with the rising young baseliner Borg in his rearview mirror, so too did Roger Federer dominate the mid-00s with a rising young Rafael Nadal behind him. Borg finally overtook Connors in 1979, just as Nadal overtook Federer in 2008. But just as Borg only held the No. 1 ranking for a couple years before being surpassed by McEnroe, Rafa’s reign was marred by injury and then the rise of Novak Djokovic in 2011. (Even the fourth wheel, Ivan Lendl, later became the coach to the fourth of the Big Four, Andy Murray). Borg’s retirement after 1981 would have been echoed in recent years if Rafa had retired after 2011, but as you know Rafa rose again.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    Vitas Gerulaitis was a notorious partier, called the “ultimate tennis playboy.” He was a very talented player, and for about six years—1977-1982—was a Top 10 player, and probably overall the sixth best player in the sport during that span after Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, and Vilas. His most comparable recent player is probably David Nalbandian, if the latter had won a Slam. Both players could have been more than they were in terms of their raw ability, but didn’t have the focus and mentality required to be true greats.

    If you look at it in a certain way, Borg could also be considered an underachiever. As said before, he won 11 Slams before his 25th birthday – that’s more than Nadal (10), Federer (8), and Sampras (7). One of the biggest “What If?” questions in tennis history is “What if Borg hadn’t retired at such a young age?” The question is unanswerable, especially considering the fact that when he retired he had just been surpassed by John McEnroe as the best player in the game, and was seemingly losing interest in the relentless grind of the tour and tennis politics. But if Borg had somehow managed to rediscover his passion for the game, it seems a certainty that he would have finished his career with 15+ Slams and be mentioned in the same breath as Laver and Federer. But, in the end, his career is what it was.

    Did You Know?
    Bjorn Borg made several failed comeback attempts in 1991, ’92, and ’93. He did not win a match out of twelve played, and only won a set in each of the three matches played in 1993.

    Top Ten Players of the Generation

    1. Bjorn Borg
    2. Vitas Gerulaitis
    3. Johan Kriek
    4. Jose Luis Clerc
    5. Mark Edmondson
    6. Brian Teacher
    7. Kevin Curren
    8. Gene Mayer
    9. Victor Pecci
    10. Peter McNamara

    Honorable Mentions: John Lloyd, John Sadri, Chris Lewis, Steve Denton.

    Yet another generation with a clear No. 1 (this will change shortly). Kriek is an interesting player to rank. On one hand it is hard to argue with two Slams. On the other, those two Slams were the 1981 and 1982 Australian Opens against Steve Denton, who never won a title. Despite winning half as many Slams, Gerulaitis was a far more prolific and successful player. For instance, Kriek never ranked higher than No. 7, and never finished in the year-end Top 10, while Gerulaitis ranked as high as No. 3, and finished six straight years in the Top 10. Gerulaitis was clearly the better player.

    After that it falls sharply. Teacher and Edmondson both won Slams, but we run into the same problem: taking complete careers into account, Cleric was probably better than Edmondson, and Curren better than Teacher. But Nos. 4-8 are very close and somewhat interchangeable.

    Pecci is best known for being by far the best Paraguayan player ever, but also for defeating Guillermo Vilas and Jimmy Connors en route to losing to Bjorn Borg in the 1979 French Open.