Tennis Frontier

Blog

  • Looking for the Next Great Player – Part One : The Pace of Greatness

    Looking for the Next Great Player – Part One : The Pace of Greatness

    8896678974_e952768060_z

    INTRODUCTION:

    Wake Me When We Get to the Bridge; or, Living Under a Serbian Reign

    When I was a kid living in Vermont we would drive to Long Island, New York, a couple times a year to visit family for holidays, a drive that would take six hours or so—which was a long and tedious affair, especially for kids in the pre-iPad/iPod days. I remember my brother saying to my parents, “Wake me when we get to the bridge;” I’m not sure which bridge it was, but it was when the slog of a drive became interesting for us Vermont boys.

    Anyhow, for all but fans of Novak Djokovic, it seems that men’s tennis is in a bit of a “wake me when we get to the bridge” mode, the bridge in this case being the time when some young player or players are actually able to challenge the great Serb. Don’t get me wrong: Novak is an amazing player and enjoyable to watch, and any fan of the game should appreciate him for that, and for witnessing an all-time great at the peak of his powers, but the problem is that there is just no one to challenge him, not with Roger Federer approaching 35 and Rafael Nadal a couple years from his prime.

    Novak’s dominance over the last year and a half is truly incredible. Consider that from the 2014 Paris Masters through the 2016 Miami Masters, Djokovic has won 15 of 19 big tournaments, including:

    4 of 5 Slams
    2 of 2 World Tour Finals
    9 of 12 Masters

    That is a level of dominance over a similar span that is unparalleled at least going back to Rod Laver in the late 60s. In the years before, from 2008 to late into 2014, we saw a much more varied cast of champions. Certainly the Big Four reigned supreme, especially Nadal and Djokovic, but the big titles were more evenly dispersed and the eventual champion was rarely a foregone conclusion. But now, because of the last year and a half—and the last seven big tournaments, an unmatched streak—the hoisting of the trophy by Djokovic seems an inevitabilty. Again, good times for Novak and his fans, kind of tedious for the rest of us.

    But note that I did not only say that the we’d come to “the bridge” when Novak’s reign ended; the other part of that is when some younger, or players, are good enough to challenge him. Consider that the youngest active Slam winners are 27-year olds Juan Martin del Potro and Marin Cilic, born within five days of each other in September of 1988 (Cilic is younger). That would be a difficult thing to research, but I’m fairly certain that is the oldest an active Slam winner has ever been.

    Very simply, tennis has been in a dry spell of young prospects, with the generation born from 1989-93 being particularly weak (as I discussed here). But there are signs that, if we’re not quite at the bridge, it isn’t as far off as it was a couple years ago.

    Which brings me in a roundabout way to the nature of what will follow: Who will be the next great player(s) and when will he (or they) arrive? To attempt to answer that question I will look at a variety of elements in this two-part series.

    Part One: The Pace of Greatness will first seek to define what a “true great” is, and also look at the factors and benchmarks that all greats have reached, determining a “Pace of Greatness” that all true greats have achieved.

    Part Two: Candidates of Greatness will look at the young players that have a chance of becoming great, as well as those who fulfiled the Pace of Greatness but failed.

    Caveat Emptor 1: As I have said before, I am a fan of tennis but am not an expert on the game itself. So I will not seek to answer this question in terms of scouting reports and knowledge of game play, if only because I am not qualified to do so. As I always do, I will look mainly at historical trends and trajectories, and see what they tell us, although will also try to balance this with eyewitness accounts of various players. I think the best way to look at any “answer” I come up with as less of a conclusive prediction and more in terms of probabilities.

    Caveat Emptor 2: If you read El Dude’s Statistical Fetishism, you obviously know that I’m “brevity challenged.” I’ve tried to reduce this in length, but in the end decided to just let it flow, because really what I’m doing here is going on a journey, and taking you along with me. If you find the details tedious, I’d recommend skipping to the end and reading the conclusion. I’ll try to summarize the gist of the “journey” in as few words as possible, but in the off chance that some of you enjoy the journey as much as I do, dig in…

    PART ONE: THE PACE OF GREATNESS

    Passing (over) the Baton
    Tennis is usually defined by a small group of players, often just two or three, who set the tone and dominate the game. If we look at Open Era history, starting in 1968, we see only a small number of what could be called “true greats”–a term I will attempt to define in a moment. The baton of rulership is passed, from one great to the next.

    Right now we are in a situation that the sport hasn’t experienced since the halcyon days of the Open Era: the dominant generation is older than the generation that should be peaking. We saw this in the late 60s and early 70s, when Ken Rosewall (b. 1934) and Rod Laver (b. 1938) were still dominating the sport, and then the baton was passed over to players half a decade and more younger, like Arthur Ashe (b. 1943), John Newcombe (b. 1944), and Ilie Nastase (b. 1946).

    Similarly, the generation of players born from 1989 to 1993—which historically speaking should be dominating the sport right now—is being passed by; these are players who are turning 23 to 27 in 2016, prime years, yet none yet has won a Slam or even a Masters. Almost certainly, inevitably someone will, but even if we see several Slams and Masters from this group, it will go down as the worst generation since Ashe’s (b. 1939-43), with no great players. It will probably be the third five-year generation of the Open Era, along with 1974-78 and 1939-43, with no players winning 4+ Slams, and could even be the only Slamless generation in tennis history….but I wouldn’t quite bet on that yet. I imagine that eventually someone will win a Slam.

    Regardless, the point is that it seems an almost certainty that the next great player is not to be found in the 89-93 group.

    Defining Greatness
    What is greatness? Certainly it is relative and more a matter of degree than a clear demarcation that separates some arbitrary group from the rest. On the other hand, there is a relatively clear dividing line, a gap that we can use between the true greats of the Open Era and the near-greats (and everyone else). The most important—or at least commonly used and generally agreed upon—marker for greatness is Slam title count. I have gone to great pains elsewhere to point out that Slams aren’t everything, but it would be hard to deny that they are the single most important component of a player’s greatness, and whatever comes next isn’t particularly close.

    In other words, start with Slam count and adjust from there. As I said in my Open Era Generations series, there are players who were better than players with more Slams than them and, in quite a few cases, Slamless-players who had better overall careers than single-Slam players; compare, for instance, David Ferrer and Mark Edmondson. Or does anyone question the idea that David Nalbandian was a far greater player than Gaston Gaudio?

    But when we think of the true greats, we must start with Slam count. You can be a very good player and never win a Slam; you can be an almost-great player and win only a Slam or two; but you cannot be a truly great player without winning many Slams.

    How many Slams is enough to be considered “great”? As I see it, it is actually pretty easy to decide. We are currently in the 49th year of the Open Era; from the French Open in 1968 to the Australian Open in 2016, there have been 192 Slams won by 52 different players. In terms of total Slam count, if we include total Slams before and during the Open Era, 22 won single Slams, 15 won 2-4 Slams, and 15 won 6 or more.

    In my opinion, the best demarcation between true greatness and merely almost-greatness is that gap between 4 and 6 Slams. We have two 4-Slam players, Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier, and two 6-Slam players, Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker. I feel reasonably comfortable saying that one pair is great and one pair is almost-but-not-quite great. In fact, we could use Courier or Vilas as the “gate-keepers” to true greatness. If a player is a greater than both of them, he might be considered a true great. If he is as good or less, he doesn’t make it through.

    That leaves us with 15 true greats that were in peak form or close to it in the Open Era—players that won 6+ Slams and at least one of them in the Open Era, in order of birth year: Ken Rosewall (1934), Rod Laver (1938), John Newcombe (1944), Jimmy Connors (1952), Bjorn Borg (1956), John McEnroe (1959), Ivan Lendl (1960), Mats Wilander (1964), Stefan Edberg (1966), Boris Becker (1967), Andre Agassi (1970), Pete Sampras (1971), Roger Federer (1981), Rafael Nadal (1986), and Novak Djokovic (1987).

    Just missing the cut are multi-Slam winners like Arthur Ashe (1943), Ilie Nastase (1946), Guillermo Vilas (1952), Jim Courier (1970), Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1974), Gustavo Kuerten (1976), Lleyton Hewitt (1981) and Andy Murray (1987), who are probably the best “near-greats” of the Open Era. Multi-Slam winners Jan Kodes (1946), Stan Smith (1946), Johan Kriek (1958), Sergi Bruguera (1971), Patrick Rafter (1972), Marat Safin (1980), and Stan Wawrinka (1985) are all on a slightly lower level.

    So when we ask the question, who will be the next true great, we have to consider a player that will eventually extend that first list (of 6+ Slam winners) to sixteen, and we also have to be able to differentiate them from the second group (of 2-4 Slam winners), which isn’t always easy—at least early on in a player’s career. While it might seem impossible that any player today will join that illustrious group, remember that it is only a matter of time. History rolls on, and we will see another great men’s tennis player. But who will it be? I’m going to do my best to, at the very least, create a list of possible candidates.

    Characteristics of Greatness
    Aside from the distinct accomplishments of great players, we can see that in every case of those who have won 6+ Slams, there are various factors and characteristics that align: To start, they are all immensely talented tennis players, although some more than others. But talent is not enough, otherwise players like Vitas Gerulaitis, Cedric Pioline, Henri Leconte, Miroslav Mecir, Michael Stich, Marat Safin, and David Nalbandian would all probably be all-time greats. There are other factors required: a strong degree of consistency and health, a winning mind-set and mental fortitude, and a context in which greatness is possible.

    That last factor is of note. It has often been remarked that Roger Federer was so good from 2004-07 partially because of relatively weak competition, what has been called Weak Era Theory and led to endless squabbling on the internet. This same argument has also been used to (partially) explain Novak Djokovic’s current dominance. But even if there is truth to this—an argument which I will leave for a forthcoming study—the capacity to capitalize on weak competition is itself a quality of greatness. For instance, the field was relatively weak from about 1998 to 2003, but no player really took advantage of it and utterly dominated. The closest was Andre Agassi, who had his best years at the advanced age of 29-33 during that span of time. The point being, rather than say that Andre padded his Slam count by winning most of them in a weak era, we could instead say that it speaks to his greatness that he could take advantage of that “wild west” period, winning while largely playing against younger players.

    But again, the main point is that it takes a variety of characteristics to be great. It starts with monumental talent, which many players have, but then it requires a certain mental attitude which fewer have, consistency and health, and it also requires the ability to maximize one’s talents within the context of the game one plays within. The true greats combine all of these factors to varying degrees, and it is what separates them from everyone else.

    Frequency of Greats
    If we go back to our “Fabulous Fifteen,” the first thing to note is the differentials in birth years. Most are 1-6, two are 8 or more years, with the longest being 10 years (between Sampras and Federer).

    This pattern can be extended well before the Open Era; if you go back to at least Bill Tilden (born 1893), the gap between Sampras and Federer among 5+ Slam winners (counting amateur, pro, and Open Era Slams) is the largest. We can call this the “Interval of Greatness”: how many years between the births of sequential great players.

    So think about that: for over a hundred years of tennis history, there has never been a longer interval of greatness than 10 years, the interval between the birth of Sampras (1971) and Federer (1981). Chances are the next interval won’t be more than that (technically the interval is nine years without a great player being born, but you get the idea).

    This Interval of Greatness gives us a span to look within. We know that the youngest true great is Djokovic, born in 1987. If we add 10 years to that we come to 1997. If we want to be flexible and acknowledge the unusual circumstances of the game today—with a particularly weak generation and players seemingly coming to their peaks a bit later—we can cushion that with one more year; which means that the next great was most likely born 1998 or earlier. That gives us two generations, in my Generation Theory model, to look at: 1989-93 and 1994-98. In other words, players who are turning 18 to 27 in 2016.

    What this also means is that, unless we’re in an era that completely defies over a century of tennis, the next great player is almost certainly already on tour, or will be on tour this year, and may even be a player whose name you already know. If I had written this a year or two ago it would have been harder to believe than it is now, with the emergence of several promising young players. But we’ll come to that later on.

    Benchmarks of Greatness
    While it might seem like a daunting task to not only sort through every active player born in 1989 or later, there are ways we can narrow the list—specifically, by looking at what all great players have in common in terms of benchmarks. Consider that every 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era—for whom we have the relevant data—has accomplished the following:

    Before their 19th birthday: Ranked in the top 100
    Before their 20th birthday: Ranked in the top 50
    Before their 21st birthday: Ranked in the top 10; won a title; made it to a Slam QF
    Before their 22nd birthday: Ranked in the top 5
    Before their 25th birthday: Ranked number 1, won a Slam

    Among the 15 players who have six or more Slams, and won at least one of them in the Open Era, every single one has met those criteria, with the caveat that in the cases of the older players we don’t have available data (there were no computerized rankings before 1973, so we don’t have complete data for the rankings of Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, and Connors, and it is unclear when Newcombe won his first title).

    This would imply that every single future 6+ Slam winner will meet those same criteria. Or maybe not?

    What Stan Wawrinka Has Taught Us
    Stan Wawrinka is not—and at 31 years old and 2 Slams almost certainly won’t become—a true great in the definition that I’m using, a player with 6+ Slams. But he does have two Slams to his name, and he set a couple of precedents in terms of being the oldest multi-Slam winner of the Open Era to do two things: play in his first Slam QF at age 25, and won his first Slam at age 28. Consider that he won his first Slam at an age older than the last Slam win of players such as Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, and Edberg.

    Now there are no real outliers among 6+ Slam winners in terms of age; the closest one is Ivan Lendl, who won his first Slam at the relatively advanced age of 24, two years older than the next oldest first-time Slam winning great, Andre Agassi who, despite being in the top 100 at age 16, didn’t win a Slam until he was 22. Barring the collapse of civilization, it seems possible—even probable—that someday a 6+ Slam winner will do what Stan did for 2-4 Slam winners and, say, play in their first QF at 21+, and win their first Slam at 25+ (or something like that). But for now, we have some clear criteria.

    In other words, Stan reminds us that there is always room for new precedents, but the weight of history still deserves respect.

    Criteria of Near-Greatness and Very Goodness
    There are also criteria for 2-4 Slam winners, but they are quite a bit broader, and with Wawrinka’s new precendents, I think we can be more flexible about probability. This is even more the case of single Slam winners, with players like Andre Gimeno winning his lone Slam at age 34, some not ranking in the top 20 until age 27, and some never making the top 10. In other words, there are no clear criteria for single Slam winners.

    The one criteria to consider for 2-4 Slam winners is that every one of them was in the top 100 by their 21st birthday, and every one in the top 10 by their 25th birthday. So if you’re looking for players who will win at least two or more Slams in their career, all 22 for whom we have the data fulfilled those two criteria. But clearly they are much broader benchmarks, but it reminds us that even if a player doesn’t keep the Pace of Greatness, they still have a chance of near-greatness.

    Here are the benchmarks that every 2-4 Slam winner of the Open Era has accomplished:
    Before their 21st birthday: Ranked in the top 100
    Before their 22nd birthday: Ranked in the top 50; won a title
    Before their 24th birthday: Ranked in the top 20
    Before their 26th birthday: Made it to a Slam QF
    Before their 29th birthday: Won a Slam

    Note the lack of top 10, top 5, and #1 rankings. Of the 15 players who won 2-4 Slams during the Open Era, nine went on to be #1s and six not, the six being: Jan Kodes, Guillermo Vilas, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera, Stan Wawrinka, and Andy Murray. Kriek is the only multi-Slam winner to not reach the top 5. He has the dubious honor of being almost certainly the worst multi-Slam winner of the Open Era, and a lesser player than many single or non-Slam winning players. On the other hand, you could also view this as him being the player who most optimized the talent he had in terms of turning it into Slam trophies, although it is worth noting that while rankings from the early 80s are sparse, it looks like he didn’t defeat a single top 10 player on route to either of his Australian Open titles in 1981 or 1982. In many years of the AO during that era, the competition was closer to what an ATP 500 is now than even a Masters.

    One final note about the “near-greats.” While we don’t have adequate information on the early players—Ashe, Kodes, Smith, and Nastase—every one of the other eleven had at least one of the benchmarks of greatness, except for one: Stan Wawrinka. Stan was late on every benchmark for true greatness, and as already mentioned he actually set new precedents for several benchmarks among 2-4 Slam winners: oldest to reach the top 20 (23), top 5 (28), reach his first Slam QF (25), and win his first Slam (28).

    The First Benchmark on the Pace of Greatness: Top 100 at 18
    The first benchmark, by its very nature, is the easiest to fulfill: a top 100 ranking before one’s 19th birthday. Since the beginning of computerized rankings in 1973, there have been approximately 70 players who have accomplished that feat. I say “approximately” because due to poor statistical accounting there is a margin of error, which is exacerbated by the lack of accurate rankings in the early 1980s. I found 69 players who ranked in the top 100 in the ATP era (1973-present) sometime before their 19th birthday, from Buster Mottram (born 1955) to Taylor Harry Fritz (b. 1997).

    Of those 69 players, 67 are eligible for the next criteria: top 50 before age 20. Of those 67, 55 (82%) accomplished the feat. The next benchmark is top 10 before age 21; 65 players are applicable and only 27 (42%) were successful. So we see a big drop for that criteria.

    Here is how the 65 players who ranked in the top 100 as 18-year olds, and are currently at least 20 years old, break down:

    11 All-time Greats (6+ Slams): Bjorn Borg (born 1956), John McEnroe (59), Ivan Lendl (60), Mats Wilander (64), Stefan Edberg (66), Boris Becker (67), Andre Agassi (70), Pete Sampras (71), Roger Federer (81), Rafael Nadal (86), Novak Djokovic (87).

    13 Near-Greats/Slam winners (1-4 Slams): Yannick Noah (60), Pat Cash (65), Thomas Muster (67), Jim Courier (70), Sergi Bruguera (71), Goran Ivanisevic (71), Michael Chang (72), Albert Costa (75), Marat Safin (80), Lleyton Hewitt (81), Andy Roddick (82), Andy Murray (87), Juan Martin del Potro (88).

    7 Very Good Players (0 Slams, but top 5 ranking and/or 10+ titles): Guy Forget (65), Andrei Medvedev (74), Thomas Enqvist (74), Alex Corretja (74), Guillermo Coria (82),  Tomas Berdych (85), Kei Nishikori (89).

    14 Good Players (top 10 and/or 5+ titles): Henrik Sundstrom (64), Jimmy Arias (64), Aaron Krickstein (67), Kent Carlsson (68), , Marc Rosset (70), Sjeng Schalken (76), Mark Philippoussis (76), Dominik Hrbaty (78), Mikhail Youzhny (81), Mario Ancic (84), Gael Monfils (86), Richard Gasquet (86), Ernests Gulbis (88), Bernard Tomic (92).

    10 Solid Players (top 20 and/or 2+ titles): Buster Mottram (55), Jaime Yzaga (67), Horst Skoff (68), Alberto Mancini (69), Guillermo Perez-Roldan (69), Andrei Cherkasov (70), Jason Stoltenberg (70), Franco Davin (70), Fabrice Santoro (72), Jose Acasuso (82).

    10 Mediocre Players and/or Busts (never top 20, 0-1 titles): Billy Martin (56), Jimmy Brown (65), Horacio de la Pena (66), Bruno Oresar (67), Leonardo Lavalle (67), Diego Nargiso (70), Aki Rahunen (71), Andreas Vinciguerra (81), Evgeny Korolev (88), Donald Young (89).

    Total Players: 65
    Greats: 11 (17%)
    Near-Greats/Slam winners: 13 (20%)
    Very Good players: 7 (11%)
    Good Players: 14 (22%)
    Solid Players: 10 (15%)
    Busts: 10 (15%)

    Good or Better: 45 (70%)
    Very Good or Better: 31 (48%)
    Slam winner: 24 (37%)

    It is important to point out that these are only players who fulfilled the criteria of top 100 at age 18 and currently 20 years old or older. You will see some players in that list whose careers are far from over—like Gulbis, Tomic, or Nishikori—and still could move up. But I placed them where they currently belong.

    One other point to remember: there are many Slam-winners and very good players not on the above lists. Again, these are only players who fulfill the first criteria of true greatness: top 100 at age 18.

    There are currently four young players who have already reached that benchmark, another who came very close, and several who have a good chance of fulfilling it this year or the next. We’ll meet those players—our candidates for greatness—in the next part.

    Summary of Part One
    There are clear criteria for greatness, benchmarks that all true greats—which we are defining as 6+ Slams (although if we include pre-Open Era players, we might have alter that, but that’s another discussion) fufill at various stages of their career, which I am calling the Pace of Greatness. New precedents can and will be set, but we’ll use these criteria as guidelines as we look at possible candidates for the next great player in Part Two.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Yann Caradec

  • Preview: Indian Wells Men’s Final

    Preview: Indian Wells Men’s Final

    Milos Raonic Novak Djokovic

    There can be little doubt that Novak Djokovic goes into today’s title match against Milos Raonic as the clear favourite.

    The World Number One is a two time defending champion at the event, and remains unbeaten on slow, grittier hard court surfaces the event takes place on of late. Raonic is a great hard court player, the booming server enjoying a title run in slow conditions in Brisbane this year, before stretching Andy Murray to five sets in the Australian semifinals a few weeks later. Both men enjoy their best results on hard courts, but their head-to-head stats make for grim reading for Milos.

    The Canadian has gone down in all his five meetings against Novak, taking just one of the fourteen sets they’ve contested. More crucial still, his last two losses, late 2014 in the Paris Masters, and last year in the Australian Open quarters, Raonic was beaten in straight sets on hard courts of comparable speed to those in Indian Wells.

    It is a bad matchup for the Canadian. Although he has improved other facets of his game in recent years, his entire game is predicated on his gargantuan serve. When this has been on song, Raonic has been able to dictate and attack against Federer, Nadal, and Murray, enjoying wins against each of these hall of famers. Djokovic, though, widely regarded as the best returner in the game, is able to nullify this shot, and thus dictate the rallies himself. This is the worst possible thing that can happen to Raonic. Although fitter, and possessing a better ground game than when he relied purely on his serve, at six foot five inches he is not going to be able to chase down shot after shot against Novak. The Serb is inevitably going to try to put his man on the defensive wherever possible.

    All is not lost for Milos. He is arguably playing the tennis of his life, backing up his big serve with choice attacks at the net, and ripping the backhand where once this was a passive rallying shot. He is a markedly improved player in the year and two months since their last meeting. Furthermore, his opponent has not looked entirely convincing this week, losing a set in a sluggish opening match, before almost losing a set to Nadal in yesterday’s semifinal.

    I back Djokovic to win today. He is good at bringing his best to bear in finals, even after less than convincing results en route to them. The slower variant of hard courts is where he is at his best, and his style is the closest thing to a roadblock the Canadian will face on the tour. I do not write Raonic off, though. He has looked mostly sharp this week, is in a rich vein of form of late, and if he serves and attacks well, stretching the Serb to tiebreaks, it is anyone’s match.

    Djokovic to win in three sets.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): sirobi / Christian Mesiano

  • 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

  • Indian Wells-Miami Double. The Fifth Grand Slam?

    Indian Wells-Miami Double. The Fifth Grand Slam?

    Indian Wells Masters

    In recent years the Indian Wells tournament in California, the first Masters event of the tennis season, has been regarded in some circles as the fifth Grand Slam.

    The tournament boasts state of the art facilities, a giant stadium and has recently been voted by male players as their favourite Masters event out of the nine they play, no small part of this being down to billionaire investor Larry Ellison’s investment. Further still, the tournament is dual gender and boasts a draw of 96 in each field, second along with Miami which follows after to the 128 player fields at the Slams and extending the tournament to eleven days. All this has contributed towards Indian Wells being the premier event just below the Slams.

    It was not so very long ago however that Indian Wells’ aforementioned cousin, Miami, was considered the fifth Grand Slam. Andy Murray hailed it as such after winning the event in 2009 against Djokovic. The reason for this turnaround is down to several factors. Firstly, Indian Wells has better facilities as a result of more investment. One just has to look at the different stadiums and show courts to see that Indian Wells trumps Miami; the latter looking dated and cramped. Secondly, pros prioritise the event for the most part, either after a deep run at the event pulling out of Miami, which follows immediately after, or skipping altogether due to factors such as age and avoiding fatigue, like Federer last year aged 33. Finally, and this is more gut feeling, Miami is awkwardly placed on the calendar, barely finishing before many minds are focused on the fast approaching clay court season, sticking out like a sore thumb, another week and a half slog on slow hard courts in an event that mirrors its more prestigious Indian Wells cousin.

    I am not trying to dump on Miami. I love the event, which has boasted some of the matches I am more emotionally tied to. Federer’s win in a best of five hard court against Nadal win in 2005, Djokovic’s final set triumph against Nadal in 2011, having bested him previously the fortnight before in Indian Wells, Roddick’s third and final win against Federer in 2012, the year of his retirement. The fact remains that they are not held in equal regard by many players.

    I myself however do hold them in equal measure, and I think winning both events back to back is the fifth hardest achievement in tennis after the Slams. Slow hard court events in hot conditions, played one after another. A top player who receives a bye in the first rounds who goes on to win both will still have to play twelve matches in three weeks against the best players in the world. Such is the toughness of this only seven players in the men’s game have achieved it, including retired all time greats Sampras and Agassi, and active ones Federer and Djokovic, both of whom have achieved the feat twice.

    For me then neither of the two events in isolation, with a 96 player draw and best of three set matches can be viewed as a fifth Slam. Winning both in the same year however for me ranks as a de facto fifth Slam; such are the requirements of physical and mental application and skill to achieve this rare feat.

    All of this is of course ultimately academic. One can argue endlessly if neither, one, or both qualify as a fifth Major or not. The most important thing about the tournaments of Indian Wells and Miami is that they gather most of the best players in the world in the same places, alleviating the dullness of mid March to early April for the dedicated tennis fan.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): askbal

  • 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

  • Passing of the Torch? Brief Musings on Thiem’s Win Against Nadal

    Passing of the Torch? Brief Musings on Thiem’s Win Against Nadal

    Dominic Thiem

    I have been touting the prospects of Dominic Thiem for some time. Standing at 6’1″, well built, and possessing heavy and penetrating groundstrokes and a serve to match, I believe he is the best prospect of the current crop of players in their late teens to early twenties.

    He first caught my attention in 2014 when he recorded an impressive win over Wawrinka, then a recent Grand Slam and Masters Champion, in Madrid. He went on to continue his fine clay pedigree, falling to Goffin in his first final at just age twenty, before backing it up last year with three titles on the red stuff.

    [divider]

    Click here to discuss Thiem’s win over Nadal in the Discussion Forum.

    [divider]

    His win in the semifinals in Argentina against Nadal, indisputably the greatest clay court player in history, was no flash in the pan. Yes, the Spaniard is perhaps past his best, lacking a step and some of the zip of old on his forehand, but he is competitive. Fifth ranked in the world, a recent finalist in Qatar, and semifinalist in the World Tour Finals, it took Thiem a deciding set tiebreak after facing down a match point against him to win through to the final.

    Thiem represents a style of play that is one of two that can and increasingly do from the baseline. Wawrinka, Almagro, Soderling have on days of inspiration literally been able to bully Nadal on a clay court. Consistently heavy shots with big serves to set them up have left Nadal listless. The other, applied by Djokovic with regularity since 2011, and more recently by Ferrer and Murray, is to hang back with Nadal and rely on speed and defence, Rafa’s own hallmarks, and attack a short ball or draw the error. Thiem is needless to say a practitioner of the former style and crept over the line with it against Nadal.

    In the Austrian’s fearless display he maintained the offence throughout. He hit over ten aces, and enough serves that were not outright winners that produced a short return he could in turn pummel away for a winner or force the error. Nadal in turn played some great defence, but unlike in years prior he was unable to do so consistently and lacked a killer instinct. When Thiem went down whilst serving to stay in the match at 5-6 in the third my thought was ‘curtains’. Too many times in the past have I seen a younger and inspired player push Nadal to the brink only to let inexperience tell and fall at the final hurdle. Thiem kept admirably cool headed, not least in saving a match point that game with aggressive consistency. In the tiebreak that ensued it was Nadal who looked the younger and inexperienced one, double faulting and playing tentatively, whilst Thiem recorded aces and blistering groundstrokes to build up what proved to be an insurmountable lead.

    Does this represent a passing of the torch? Not just yet. The Austrian needs to record these kinds of wins regularly and at larger, more prestigious events. The forehand broke down at times, his signature backhand, rightly lauded, was shanked at times and looked vulnerable when he was rushed, as is inevitable with a long take-back. I believe that these creases will be ironed out with experience, and that we shall see Thiem become one of the preeminent clay court players on the tour come his mid to late twenties, challenging for and winning the biggest events on the surface, as well as on the increasingly slower hard courts that make up large sections of the calendar. With such huge hitting I wouldn’t bet against him.

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Carine06

  • 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.