One of the holy grails of tennis speculation is being able to differentiate between those young players who will become stars and those who will not. Right now we’re amidst somewhat of a tide of upcoming young players: from highly touted Alexander Zverev and Nick Kyrgios, to the large number of young players in or approaching the top 100. Yet how can we possibly tell who will become an elite player and who will plateau somewhere on the way to the top?
The Pace of Greatness
There is no easy answer. I have put forth a system of benchmarks that every all-time great (6+ Slam winner) of the Open Era has reached; there is a similar set of benchmarks for multi-Slam winners (2-4 Slams), although these were just greatly expanded by Stan Wawrinka, who reminded us that tennis is always changing and boundaries are meant to be surpassed.
The first of the benchmarks is entering the top 100 before one’s 19th birthday. Of the young players currently on tour, only a few have accomplished this so far: Alexander Zverev, Frances Tiafoe, Taylor Fritz, Hyeon Chung, and Borna Coric. Missing the mark already are Dominic Thiem, Nick Kyrgios, Karen Khachanov, Daniil Medvedev, Andrey Rublev, Michael Mmoh, Stefan Kozlov, and many others. Now this is a benchmark that all 6+ Slam winners of the Open Era—or at least going back to accurate ATP rankings, so from Bjorn Borg on—have reached. But that doesn’t mean that all future 6+ winners must. And it is also a rather rarified company to begin with; to begin with, we shouldn’t expect more than several players from any generation—and perhaps not even that—to win 6+ Slams.
Given that the age in which players are peaking may be rising, or at least expanding, and given Stan’s reminder, these benchmarks should probably be considered “probable guidelines” than strict rules. Surely there must be something else we can look for, to try to ascertain who will rise to the top of the sport? I don’t have a clear method, but I did stumble across something that will at least give us something to look for.
Two Breakthroughs
When I was working on my “career skyscrapers” tool, I noticed that it did a nice job of illustrating how players develop in their early years. The skyscrapers only include titles and quarterfinal or better Slam appearances so are, intentionally, a snapshot of when a player was at or near elite level. But when we talk about breakthroughs, there are many small stages in that process, but two that I find to be of utmost importance: One, winning a title. This is the rite of passage that every good tennis player must go through. The second is winning a big tournament; by “big” I don’t only mean Slams, but Masters (or their equivalent) or a World Tour Finals. This is the point that a player generally reaches elite status and has shown they can play with the big boys.
What I noticed was that in almost every case, the true greats went from winning their first title in one year, to their first big tournament within the same year or next. The only exception in the Open Era is Andre Agassi, who won seven minor tournaments over three years (1987-89) before winning his first big tournaments in 1990. But everyone else—from Jimmy Connors to Novak Djokovic—went from winning their first tournament (whether big or small) to a big tournament within a calendar year.
This gives us another benchmark to look for. Again, it doesn’t mean that it has to happen for a player to become a true great, that it probably will, and the probability is quite high: 12 of 13 6+ Slam winners of the Open Era fit this criteria (interestingly, neither Ken Rosewall or Rod Laver did this; it took them a couple years – but they began their careers in a very different context than the Open Era).
I think the real important insight gleaned from this is that the pattern seems quite different for lesser Slam winners. Of the seven players winning 3-4 Slams in the Open Era, only three–Guillermo Vilas, Jan Kodes, and Gustavo Kuerten–went from a small to big title in sequential calendar years; Arthur Ashe, Jim Courier, Stan Wawrinka, and Andy Murray all took longer.
Of the eight two-Slam winners, only three did it: Ilie Nastase, Sergi Bruguera and Marat Safin who, at the time, was considered a probable future great but ended up having a disappointing career. Bruguera was a clay court specialist who played during a time when courts were quite different from each other and specialists–who were otherwise relatively mediocre on other surfaces–could compete for the biggest prizes on their best courts. Nastase was a borderline great player, whose level isn’t adequately expressed by his mere two Slams.
Of the twenty-four single Slam winners of the Open Era, only six did it: Andres Gimeno, who played much of his career in the very different context before the Open Era, so as with Rosewall and Laver, isn’t that relevant; Mark Edmondson, who is the definition of “one-Slam wonder;” Andres Gomez; Michael Stich; Michael Chang; and Juan Martin del Potro. Stich and Del Potro, like Safin, were considered viable candidates for future greatness, but didn’t reach that mark.
To sum up, consider who went from their first title to a big title (Masters or greater) within the span of a calendar year, among players who played the bulk of their careers, or won most or all of their Slams, in the Open Era:
12 of 13 (92%) 6+ Slam winners
6 of 15 (40%) of 2-4 Slam winners
6 of 23 (26%) of 1 Slam winners
As I said above, these numbers start changing if we look before the Open Era, but that was a very different context of play.
For Whom Is The Clock Ticking?
There is no clear year that the proverbial “NextGen” starts, although we can say it definitely includes all of those players who will be eligile for the Milan NextGen Finals later this year, so those who don’t turn 22 until December (so generally born in 1996 and later); but for this, we will also look at slightly older players, who are still considered young on today’s tour.
So who “has to” win a big title in 2017, to reach this benchmark?
Dominic Thiem won his first title in 2015, but although he improved his performance in 2016, did not win a big title – so he missed this benchmark last year. As I have mentioned elsewhere, his career pattern so far fits that of a second tier player more than a true elite.
Then we have a group of players: Lucas Pouille, Nick Kyrgios, Karen Khachanov, and Alexander Zverev. These are the four young players who all won their first titles in 2016, and thus have started their “clock” and must win a big title in 2017 to reach this benchmark.
We should see several other young players win their first ATP titles in 2017, thus “starting the clock” for 2018.
In Conclusion
I will say it again: records—and benchmarks—are continually broken. Just as Stan Wawrinka set new benchmarks for multi-Slam winners, winning his first at age 28, so too might we eventually see a future 6+ winner take a delayed career path. Ivan Lendl was an elite player in his early 20s, winning tons of tournaments and even reaching #1 before winning a Slam, but did not win his first Slam until he was 24. Andy Murray was 25 and is arguably the greatest Open Era player with less than six Slams, and he only has three (so far).
The shape of what is possible is always changing, yet we also have almost five decades of Open Era history to draw upon for trends and trajectories. This study shows that the vast majority (92%) of all-time greats won their first big title (Masters equivalent or greater) within a calendar year of winning their first ATP pro title. It also shows that of 2-4 Slam winners, only 40% accomplished this, and of single Slam winners only about a quarter. This implies that a major defining feature of the truly great is the pace at which they reach their peak. I’ve noted this before, but this study furthers the point: one of the differentiations between the true elites and the second tier, is the rate at which they rise to the top. A group of talented players might show up in the top 100 at similar ages, yet the future elites tend to continue rising quickly, while the future second (top 10ish) and third tier (top 30ish) players tend to stall at various levels, taking longer to climb the ladder to their peak.
Now poor Alexander Zverev didn’t win his first title until late last year, in September, and Khachanov not until October– so for them the one calendar year gap is especially small – only about an actual year – whereas for Nick Kyrgios, who won his first last April, he has (or has had) a year and a half. So continue watching, and we shall see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihcuD-DnAq0
Cover photo by robbiesaurus, courtesy of Creative Commons License
Fact: In the history of Open Era tennis, going back to 1968 through 2016—a span of 49 years and 195 Grand Slam tournaments—there has never been more than two years in a row without a new Slam winner. Of those 49 years, only 15 have been years in which at least one of the Slams wasn’t won by a new winner. To put that another way, in about 70% of the Open Era years, at least one Slam was won by a new Slam champion. The years without a new winner are: 1969, 1973, 1978, 1986, 1993-94, 1999, 2006-07, 2010-11, 2013, and 2015-16.
You’ll notice that a high percentage of those years are recent; six out of the fourteen are all within the last eleven years. You’ll also note that three out of the four two-year gaps are also within the last eleven years. Clearly this points to the homogeneity of Slam winners in recent years. We can also look at the fact that starting with Rafael Nadal’s first Slam, the 2005 French Open, just seven players have won 47 Slams: Nadal (14), Roger Federer (13 of his 17), Novak Djokovic (12), Juan Martin del Potro (1), Andy Murray (3), Stan Wawrinka (3), and Marin Cilic (1).
Which brings me to the topic: Going purely on this pattern, there will be a new Slam winner in 2017. Who will it be? Who knows? But if I were to make wagers, here are the players who are most likely, in rough order:
1. Milos Raonic: The blazing server is coming off his best year in which he finished #3—only the second player after David Ferrer in 2013 to finish in the top three in the last ten years, other than the Big Four. He also reached his first Slam final, losing to Andy Murray at Wimbledon. Raonic doesn’t have the well-balanced game to dominate for an extended period of time, but he does have enough weapons to challenge for a Slam title, being particularly dangerous at Wimbledon.
2. Dominic Thiem: With Rafa questionable and Novak shaky, Andy having not yet truly dominated clay and Stan Wawrinka always erratic, Roland Garros is up for grabs this year. Now it probably won’t be Thiem, but it is his best surface and if anyone other than the usual suspects wins the French Open, it will probably be Thiem, who has a good chance of being the best clay court player over the next half decade or so.
3. Nick Kyrgios: If the temperamental Australian starts showing an ounce of composure and maturity, the rest of the tour needs to look out: he can be a very dangerous player, capable of beating anyone on the right day. But he may be two or three years from that level of maturity, if he ever finds it, but with another year of steady rising—and his first three titles—Kyrgios is a player to watch (and watch out for, if you’re a player) in 2017.
4. Kei Nishikori: I haven’t done the research, but I suspect that Kei may be the best player in Open Era history never to win at least a Master tournament. With just a cursory search, other candidates include Raonic, Richard Gasquet, Fernando Gonzalez, Mikhail Youzhny, Todd Martin, Marc Rosset, Aaron Krickstein, Brad Gilbert, Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs, and Alex Metreveli. He’s won 11 tournaments so far, including 6 ATP 500s; he’s reached a Slam final and three Masters finals. It seems inevitable that he’ll win a Masters, although a Slam seems less likely as he hasn’t shown the fortitude that it takes to win seven best-of-five matches in a row. Still, he came very close in 2014 and could conceivably threaten again. If Kei were to reach a final against an exhausted Nadal or Federer, he could pull it off.
5. Alexander Zverev: It isn’t a matter of if, but when. If there is one player on tour that we can be most certain will eventually win at least one Slam, it is Zverev. But 2017 is probably unlikely; he turns 20 years old in April and has yet to even make it to the fourth round of a Slam. If I were to guess, his first Slam will be in 2018 or 2019. Still, he is talented enough that he should be factored into consideration, especially for later in the year.
Less Likely Candidates: I’d love to see Jo-Wilfried Tsonga or Tomas Berdych finally win one, but these guys turn 32 in 2017 and both look to be showing signs of decline. I’d give Tsonga a slightly better chance. I almost can’t bear to type his name, but Gael Monfils is exactly the type of brilliant player who could be a one-Slam wonder. Yeah, right. Monfils might be a more likely candidate if it weren’t for his abyssmal record in ATP title finals: 6-19! Another of his ilk is Grigor Dimitrov, who has the talent but not the mentality; still, you just never know. Lucas Pouille is an unlikely candidate, but at 22 years old and ranked #15 in the world, with two QF Slam appearances in 2016, he’s on the map. I’d like to say that David Goffin has a chance, but he just doesn’t have the upside. Similarly with Jack Sock, who seems to be a similar low-ceiling player as Goffin. One final mention: Karen Khachanov. At 20 years old to start the year and #53 in the world, he’s unlikely in 2017, but he made a big jump up the rankings and is exactly the type of “out-of-nowhere” player that could surprise. But along with every other 21-and-under player not named Zverev and Kyrgios, we have to wait and see before considering him a legit Slam threat.
So there you have it. Statistically speaking, there should be a new Slam winner in 2017. Now this is far from a certainty, and given the composition of the tour in 2016, it is quite conceivable that we will see our first three-year gap of no new Slam winners. But I think those five are the top candidates, with a few others being distantly possible.
If it isn’t 2017, it certainly will be 2018. But I’m guessing we’ll see a new champ in 2017. I certainly hope so!
Addendum: New Slam Winners of the Open Era
I thought some might like to see the whole list, so here goes:
2016:
2015:
2014: Stan Wawrinka, Marin Cilic
2013:
2012: Andy Murray
2011:
2010:
2009: Juan Martin del Potro
2008: Novak Djokovic
2007:
2006:
2005: Rafael Nadal
2004: Gaston Gaudio
2003: Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer
2002: Thomas Johansson, Albert Costa
2001: Goran Ivanisevic, Lleyton Hewitt
2000: Marat Safin
1999:
1998: Petr Korda, Carlos Moya
1997: Gustavo Kuerten, Patrick Rafter
1996: Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek
1995: Thomas Muster
1994:
1993:
1992: Andre Agassi
1991: Jim Courier, Michael Stich
1990: Andres Gomez, Pete Sampras
1989: Michael Chang
1988:
1987: Pat Cash
1986:
1985: Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker
1984: Ivan Lendl
1983: Yannick Noah
1982: Mats Wilander
1981: Johan Kriek
1980: Brian Teacher
1979: John McEnroe
1978:
1977: Roscoe Tanner, Vitas Gerulaitis
1976: Mark Edmondson, Adriano Panatta
1975: Manuel Orantes
1974: Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg
1973:
1972: Andres Gimeno, Ilie Nastase
1971: Stan Smith
1970: Jan Kodes
1969:
1968: Arthur Ashe
Cover image by DanielJCooper from Wikimedia Commons, courtesy of Creative Commons License
In Part One we looked at the players born from 1993 to 1996, with a resulting outlook which was pretty grim. There are several players who should be good players, even possible Slam contenders, but in general they continue a trend of weak talent from the 1989-92 group, with no clear future elite players. Let’s take a look at the players born in 1997 to 2000, the teenagers who turned 16 to 19 in 2016.
CLASS OF ’97
24. Alexander Zverev
76. Taylor Fritz
156. Andrey Rublev
204. Reilly Opelka
205. Alexander Bublik
The sun will always rise. Here we see arguably the brightest young player in the game: Alexander Zverev. If I had to put money on any one young player being a future multi-Slam winner, it would be Zverev. He may or may not be a future great, but he should at the least be very, very good. Consider that the last players to finish their age 19 season ranked in the top 25 were Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray in 2006, ranked #16 and #17, respectively. In other words, Zverev is the first teenager to finish in the top 25 in ten years. In fact, the list of teenagers in the Open Era who have finished in the top 25 is a relatively short one:
2016: Alexander Zverev (24)
2006: Novak Djokovic (16), Andy Murray (17)
2005: Rafael Nadal (2), Richard Gasquet (16)
2001: Andy Roddick (14)
2000: Lleyton Hewitt (7), (Roger Federer 29)
1999: Marat Safin (24), Lleyton Hewitt (25)
1995: Marcelo Rios (25)
1993: Andrei Medvedev (6)
1992: Andrei Medvedev (24)
1991: Michael Chang (15)
1990: Pete Sampras (5), Goran Ivanisevic (9), Michael Chang (15)
1989: Michael Chang (5), Andre Agassi (7), Jim Courier (24)
1988: Andre Agassi (3), Guillermo Perez Roldan (18)
1987: Kent Carlsson (12), Guillermo Perez-Roldan (19), Andre Agassi (25)
1986: Boris Becker (2), Kent Carlsson (13)
1985: Stefan Edberg (5), Boris Becker (6)
1984: Pat Cash (10), Aaron Krickstein (12), Stefan Edberg (20)
1983: Mats Wilander (4), Jimmy Arias (6)
1982: Mats Wilander (7), Jimmy Arias (20)
1980-81: Insufficient data
1979: Ivan Lendl (21)
1978: John McEnroe (4)
1977: John McEnroe (21)
1975: Bjorn Borg (3)
1974: Bjorn Borg (3)
1973: Bjorn Borg (18)
That’s 26 individual players in the ATP Era (1973-2016) who have finished a year ranked in the top 25 as a teenager. That may seem like quite a few players, and certainly there are several players on that list who didn’t have exactly stellar careers, but the majority of them were very good, and every applicable 6+ Slam winner—those who were teenagers during the ATP Era—is there, all except one: Roger Federer, who finished 2000—the year he turned 19—ranked #29; so he was close.
Furthermore, consider the aging of the tour: In the last 26 years, a teenager has ranked in the top 25 only 13 times by 11 players; in the previous 28 years (1973-1990) it was done 28 times by 16 players. Zverev is the first player in ten years to accomplish this.
All of this is to point out that Zverev’s accomplishment is quite rare. Secondly, it points to likely future success. Of those 26 players, 20 of the went on to win at least one Slam (77%), 14 won multiple Slams (54%), and 10 won 6+ Slams (38%). The Slamless players are Krickstein, Carlsson, Perez-Roldan, Medvedev, Rios, and Gasquet. Of those six only Krickstein, Perez-Roldan, and Gasquet didn’t win at least a Masters. If we look at only the last 26 years, of the ten players previous to Zverev, only three didn’t win Slams (Medvedev, Rios, Gasquet), five won 1-3 Slams (Chang, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Murray) and two became truly great players (Nadal, Djokovic). Going purely on percentages, that’s a 70% probability of at least one Slam title and a 50% probability of at least two. Of course this isn’t enough data to go on, but it gives us a sense of possible outcomes.
All that said, Zverev had a very good year, going from #83 to #24, and winning his first ATP title in his third final of the year, defeating Stanislas Wawrinka in three sets in St. Petersburg, an ATP 250 event. He didn’t make it past the third round of a Slam, but he had consistent results overall and situated himself to be seeded in Slams going forward.
Among the other players, Taylor Fritz is another exciting young player to watch. After starting the year ranked #174, he surged in early 2016, winning an early Challenger title and then gaining larger attention by a strong run at the ATP 250 Memphis Open, defeating second-seeded Steve Johnson en route (#29) to the final, which he lost to Kei Nishikori. He rose as high as #53 in late August, including a memorable three-set loss to Roger Federer at the Mercedes Cup, but then faded a bit later in the year, finishing at #76.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMzCJ9RkgjQ
The big disappointment for me is Andrey Rublev, who is exactly the same age as Fritz but after winning his first Challenger title in March, stalled out and didn’t progress, going from #185 in 2015 to #156 in 2016. Big server Reilly Opelka shows some promise and could be the next John Isner. He rose from virtually unranked in 2015 (#981) to #204, including his first Challenger title in November.
2017 Outlook: After going from #83 to #24, including his first title, I’d like to say that Zverev—who turns 20 in April—is poised to enter the elite. But I think we’ll be talking that way more likely a year from now. In 2017 I predict stabilization and further modest gains, with an outside chance of sneaking into the top 10 and a World Tour Final berth, but more likely finishing in the 10-15 range. Look for him to be win more low level titles, maybe even compete for a Masters. More importantly, he needs to go deeper into Slams; he still hasn’t made it past the third round, which he made it to at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. While 2018 might be the year he breaks through into the true elite and Slam contention, he is going to be a dangerous opponent in 2017, and not someone the elite will take for granted. I think that at some point this year, there will be a tournament that we look back on as breakthrough. It may be a second week run at a Slam, or a Masters final – but at some point this year, the big boys will take notice of him.
Fritz is exactly half a year younger than Zverev, and is probably more like a year behind him developmentally; expect to see him do in 2017 what Zverev did in 2016. His gains might be a bit more modest, but he should be in the top 40 by the end of the year, if not higher, and is a good candidate to win his first title. Fritz also will start getting more and more attention as he starts to upset top 20 players, and going deeper in tournaments.
I do expect both Rublev and Opelka to reach the top 100 this year; they just seem a year or so behind their two more successful peers. I do still hope that Rublev figures it out; he seems the type that could do it quickly, but his candidacy as a future elite is now greatly reduced. I see him more as a potential tier two or three player, which is still pretty good.
CLASS OF ’98
108. Francis Tiafoe
116. Stefan Kozlov
143. Duck Hee Lee
198. Michael Mmoh
209. Stefanos Tsitsapis
231. Casper Ruud
This is a subtly strong group, with no players that look like future greats but at least six—those listed above—who could be top 40 types. The jury is still out on Tiafoe; he made good strides this year, and some see him as a future star, but others are worried about his erratic serve and play. I don’t have much to say about Lee except that he continues to progress. Kozlov looks promising and between the first and final draft of this piece, moved up thirty ranks on account of winning his first Challenger title, which was the fifth won by an American teenager in 2016, after Fritz, Tiafoe, Opelka, and Mmoh, who is another promising young American. In those five players, the United States has the most talented group of young players since at least 2003, when Andy Roddick, Mardy Fish, Taylor Dent, and Robby Ginepri were all 22 or younger and ranked 33 or better. But more on that in another article.
Tsitsapis, a #1 ITF Junior, made good progress, as did Ruud. Another player to keep an eye on is Mikael Ymer (#492), who missed most of the year to injury but still holds promise.
2017 Outlook: These players are still quite young so expectations should be modest, but we could see several of them enter the top 100 in 2017, maybe even win a title. Of all of the “classes,” this one has perhaps the deepest talent—at least that we can see so far—so bears watching in 2017. Tiafoe, Kozlov, and Lee should all reach the top 100 sooner than later, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mmoh, Tsitsipas, and Ruud all approach the top 100 by year’s end. If Ymer stays healthy, he could rise quickly and be on the cusp of the top 100 as well. So that is at least seven players who bear watching. CLASS OF ’99
250. Denis Shapovalov
354. Alex De Minaur
519. Corentin Moutet
806. Miomir Kecmanovic
926. Yibing Wu
Denis Shapovalov is the big revelation here, with none of the others standing out yet. Shapovalov won his first Junior Slam at Wimbledon, defeating De Minaur, and also won three Futures titles, but it was at the Rogers Cup that he garnered more attention, upsetting Nick Kyrgios in the first round before losing to Grigor Dimitrov in the second.
2017 Outlook: Look for Shapovalov to move steadily up the rankings as he focuses on the Challenger tour. Good progress would be for him to reach the #100-150 range by year’s end, winning a Challenger title or two. It is possible that he breaks into the top 100 as soon as this year, although that is probably unlikely.
CLASS OF ’00
601. Felix Auger Aliassime
789. Nicola Kuhn
925. Yshai Oliel
1063. Rudolf Molleker
1066. Alen Avidzba
It is hard not to be excited about Felix Auger Aliassime, who just turned 16 in August shortly before winning the Junior title at the US Open, as well as winning his first Futures title just a couple weeks ago. And how about this: his birthday is August 8, the same day as a certain Swiss great you might have heard of….although Aliassime is 19 years younger than Federer. To put that in context, when Aliassime was born on August 8, 2000, Roger Federer was ranked #38 in the world and rising.
Aliassime is, by all accounts, an immense talent. There is also some room for concern, as it was revealed earlier this year that he has a heart condition that will almost certainly impact his career, although the question is to what degree (for reference, Mardy Fish had a similar condition). Let us cross our fingers and hope.
As for the others on the list, there isn’t a lot to know right now—but they’re the top players born in 2000. But chances are this list will look very different in year, when we should have a better sense who the true prospects of this year are.
2017 Outlook: Given that these players enter 2017 as 16-year olds, there isn’t much to expect and we just don’t know enough about any of them except for Aliassime, so we’ll have to revisit this group in a year or two. But Aliassime does bear watching, both because of his prodigious talent but also his health concerns. Aliassime will focus on the Junior tour and should be dominant; look for him to win a Slam or two, and start playing in more Futures. A year-end ATP ranking in the 200s is not out of the question.
Cover Photo by Steven Pisano from Wikimedia Commons, Courtesy of Creative Commons License
Revisiting the Benchmarks: the Pace of Greatness
To recap the last installment, we have clear benchmarks that all true greats (6+ Slam winners) hold in common:
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
We also found that there are about 70 players in the ATP ranking era (1973-present) who met that first benchmark—a top 100 ranking at age 18. Of those 70, 17 are active today, a list we’ll get to in a moment.
“Failed Greats”
Now just because a player meets all of those criteria does not mean they will become a great player. There are players who met all of those criteria and only won a Slam or two. There are also players who met all of the criteria except for one or both of the “fruition” benchmarks met by age 25, the Slam and number one ranking. These two groups combined are players that we could call “failed greats”–they passed all, or almost all, of the benchmarks, but failed to become true greats.
Here are two lists of players, the first being those who accomplished all benchmarks, the second all but the age 25 criteria, the Slam and number one ranking:
All benchmarks: Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick
All except age 25: Goran Ivanisevic, Andrei Medvedev, Juan Martin del Potro
So these are eight players in the Open Era who were on the “pace of greatness,” including five who actually met all of the benchmarks, but eventually fell short of true greatness. It is a surprisingly small number, and tells us that most players who reach the various benchmarks along the way will become great players. If we go back to those players for whom we have all the data, from Borg to Djokovic, we have 11 all-time greats (6+ Slam winners). That means that 11 of 16 players (69%) who met all of the benchmarks became greats, and 11 of 19 (58%) who met all except the age 25 benchmarks.
The main thing these eight players have in common with the true greats is that they all developed very quickly. Consider the fact that one of the criteria is to reach the top 5 before turning 22 years old. That in itself is a difficult benchmark that erases many other players from contention.
Let’s take a look at each of these players, to get a sense of what “went wrong” in their careers. First we have four players born in the first half of the 1970s:
Jim Courier (b. 1970) was one of the top players on tour for a few years, the first of his generation to become #1, four months before Agassi and more than a year before Sampras. But Courier declined quickly, dropping from a top 3 player in 1993 to #13 in ’94, #8 in 95, and out of the top 20 for the remainder of his career. His mid-20s decline is similar to later number one players like Juan Carlos Ferrero and Lleyton Hewitt. There was always the sense with Courier that he was playing over his head and ability, and was less talented than his peers Sampras and Agassi. Courier’s decline coincided with Sampras’s rise to dominance; un-surprisingly, Courier won only 4 of his 20 matches with Sampras. Still, Courier ended his career with 4 Slams, 23 titles overall, a year-end #1 ranking in 1992 and, along with Guillermo Vilas, is one of the two players who I consider the “Gatekeepers” of true greatness.
Goran Ivanisevic (b. 1971) was one of the better players of the 90s who was unable to get past the dominance of Sampras and Agassi, losing two Wimbledon finals to Sampras and one to Agassi. Yet despite fading in the latter part of the decade, he entered the 2001 Wimbledon ranked #125 and miraculously won it, which was the inspiration behind the film Wimbledon. Known for his tremendous serve, Ivanisevic wasn’t very multi-dimensional, although not nearly as one-dimensional as, say, Ivo Karlovic, and was probably a bit better than Milos Raonic is now.
Michael Chang (b. 1972) was the youngest player of the Open Era to win a Grand Slam: the 1989 French Open at the age of 17 years and 4 months, one of only three players—along with Mats Wilander and Boris Becker—to win a Slam before his 18th birthday (Martina Hingis is the youngest woman, winning her first at 16 and 4 months). Yet Chang had a lower ceiling than other early bloomers. While he had a long and prolific career, including 34 titles and 7 Masters, he never ranked higher than #2 or won another Slam. In a way he was the David Ferrer of his generation (although more successful in big tournaments): never in contention for the best on tour, but always right there behind the top players.
Andrei Medvedev (b. 1974) was an early bloomer who looked destined for greatness after ranking #6 in 1993 at the age of 19, and then winning two Masters the following year. Yet Medvedev floundered and was never able to take that next step up. His best years were 1993-95 when he was 19-21 years old.
And then we come to the trio of Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, and Andy Roddick—the best peers of Roger Federer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7KgXQYF7Ss
Marat Safin (b. 1980) won his first Slam in 2000 at the age of 20 but only won one other and goes down as one of the biggest underachievers in tennis history. He was a very talented player who was capable of an extremely high level and very well could have formed a duo of greats with Federer, but he didn’t have the requisite focus and had the well-earned reputation of being something of a playboy.
Lleyton Hewitt (b. 1981) was the youngest player in the ATP era to reach the number one ranking, which he did in 2001 at the age of 20 years old and 9 months. Hewitt was a very strong player for the first half of the 00s, and was the year-end #1 player in 2001 and 2002, but was more the first among near-equals than truly dominant over the field, and was eclipsed first by Roddick and then Federer in 2003 and never could climb back to the top. He fell out of the top 10 in 2006 and was never to return, playing a long second-half of his career as a non-elite player.
Andy Roddick (b. 1982) is perhaps the player whose career was most damaged by Roger Federer’s greatness. Roddick won the US Open and the year-end #1 ranking in 2003 at 21 years old, and seemed destined for greatness. But Federer became simply better at almost every facet of the game, and Roddick’s relatively one-dimensional game became exploited by others. He was an excellent player and remained a consistent top 10 player throughout the 00s, but never won another Slam, going 1-4 in Slam finals.
Finally we come to Juan Martin del Potro (b. 1988), who through 2009 had met all of the benchmarks of greatness: he was 21, had won a Slam, and was ranked in the top 5. And then injury struck and he hasn’t been the same since. While still a dangerous player when healthy, we’ll never know what a fully healthy del Potro would have looked like. My guess is that he would have vied with Andy Murray for the title of third greatest player of his generation, perhaps even surpassed him. But “Delpo” turns 28 later this year and is unlikely to ever reach his full potential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fwVz7dTI9E
In all eight of these we see players who developed early and to a high level, but for various reasons were unable to take that next step, whether due to talent, mentality, or injury. Again, we can return to our “characteristics of greatness,” which all greats have had, and the failed greats have lacked one or more of.
It is also interesting to note that these are all players born 1970 or later; 18 years old in 1973 is the starting point of these criteria because that is the beginning of the computerized rankings. This means that, for whatever reason, for the first 15 years there were no failed greats. Every player that met all of the criteria up to age 25 became greats, including Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, and Boris Becker—a 100% “conversion rate.” Since 1970 we’ve had the eight failed greats along with Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic—so 5 of 13, or a 38% rate. Why exactly this is, I don’t know, although it could simply be that, as we saw in Part One, there were many more 18-year olds in the top 100 in the late 80s and early 90s than any other period of the Open Era.
I would also add one more possibility. Note that the first four players—Courier, Ivanisevic, Chang, and Medvedev—were all peers of Sampras, while the next three—Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick—were peers of Federer. It could be that part of the reason these players “failed” in becoming true greats was because they were eclipsed by an even greater player in Sampras and and Federer (del Potro was close to Nadal and Djokovic, although his failure to achieve greatness has been blocked by injuries. We simply cannot know what a healthy del Potro would have looked like).
Current Players: Off the Pace of Greatness
So of active players, who was initially on the pace but has since fallen off? We’ll start with the oldest and work our way forward.
Mikhail Youzhny (b. 1982) met the first criteria, and also won his first title at age 20, but slowed in his development. He has had a solid career, been a top 10 player and won 10 titles, but is far from great; I ranked him as the tenth greatest player of his generation (b. 1979-83), behind Tommy Robredo and ahead of Fernando Gonzalez and Guillermo Coria, although the latter two were better players and possibly deserved to rank higher than Youzhny, although Mikhail’s longevity was better.
Tomas Berdych (b. 1985) met the first several benchmarks, ranking in the top 100 at age 18, the top 50 at age 19, winning his first title at 19 and even reaching the top 20 as a 20-year old. But he didn’t reach the top 10 or a Slam QF until a year later, at 21, and only made the top 5 at age 27. Berdych won the Paris Masters in 2005 at 20 years old, but has not won a Masters since. He is what could be called an “aborted great:” he had the early signs, but never blossomed beyond the level of a very good player, which he remains today.
Richard Gasquet (b. 1986) reached the top 100 at 17 years old, the top 50 and his first title at 18, and the top 20 as a 19 year old. But like Berdych, he didn’t reach a Slam QF or the top 10 until he was 21 and approaching 30-years old in June has never ranked in the top 5 or even won a title above an ATP 250. He is often cited as one of the more disappointing players of his generation, although I think in hind-sight it now looks like he simply had a lower ceiling of talent than his teenager career promised.
Gael Monfils (b. 1986) showed immense promise at a young age, winning three Junior Slams in 2004. Monfils ranked in the top 50 at age 18 but took another four years to reach the top 10. He remains an enigmatic player on tour, extremely talented but the classic “head-case.”
Andy Murray (b. 1987) was on the pace until his 21st birthday. He met all of the ranking benchmarks, won his first title, but failed to win a Slam QF until just after his 21st birthday. He also didn’t win his first Slam until 25 and has yet to rank number one. As we all know, Andy is known for his temper and penchant for falling apart in tight matches, as illustrated in his 2-7 record in Slam finals. While he could still win another Slam or two, especially as Federer and Nadal fade away, he turns 29 in a couple months and seems on the wrong side of his peak.
Juan Martin del Potro (b. 1988) is in the “failed great” category and accomplished all of the benchmarks except the number one ranking, so he was even closer than Murray. He is 27, so it hard to imagine him winning 5+ more Slams to become a true great.
Ernests Gulbis (b. 1988) is another of the same type as Gasquet and Monfils: very talented, but considered an underachiever. Gulbis reached the first two ranking benchmarks and also won his first title at age 19, but stalled out in his early 20s, not reaching the top 10 until 25, and then only briefly.
Donald Young (b. 1989), as I have said elsewhere, represents both the failure of his generation and American men’s tennis. He made the top 100 at 18 but has floundered since, still as yet not winning a title, reaching a Slam QF, or ranking higher than #38. According to my research, he has the dubious honor of being one of the half a dozen or so worst players in the ATP era to reach the top 100 as an 18-year old.
Kei Nishikori (b. 1989) won his first title at age 18, but slowed until his early 20s. He has met all of the criteria of 2-4 Slam winners, although at age 26 has yet to win a Slam. Kei has 11 titles so far, including 6 ATP 500s, and is the only player on tour with more than two ATP 500 titles and no Masters or Slams. While he’s a good candidate to eventually win a Masters, if he fails to do so he could end up being one of the greatest players ever not to win a Masters tournament or higher.
Bernard Tomic (b. 1992) reached the top 50 and a Slam QF at age 18, and won his first title at age 20, but then floundered around #50 for a couple years and is now well off the pace of greatness. He is still just 23-years old, although looks more like a top 20 type than a future Slam winner.
Nick Kyrgios (b. 1995) technically already missed one of the benchmarks, as he did not reaching the top 100 until he was 19 years and three months. But I do not think that three months should disqualify him. He did reach the top 50 before turning 20, win his first title and reach his first QF before 21, and he has a shot at reaching the top 20 by age 21, but probably not the top 10 (he turns 21 on April 27). So it could be that Kyrgios turns 21 with three of the first five benchmarks (not including a Slam title), which is pretty good. We’ll need to see a quick rise over 2016 and into the top 10 and, to get back on the pace, he would need to rank in the top 5 by his birthday in 2017. A tall order, but we’ve seen some positive signs of late, a high level of play that, if he can access on a regular basis, could make him a truly great player.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y96KGPHIdoI
Active Players: On the Pace (So Far)
There are currently only four players who have both reached the first benchmark, the top 100 at age 18, and not yet failed one: Hyeon Chung, Borna Coric, Alexander Zverev, and Taylor Harry Fritz.
Hyeon Chung (b. 5/19/1996) reached the top 100 at 18 but has not yet broken into the 50, which is the benchmark that he must meet before his 20th birthday, on May 19 of this year. That said, he did reach as high as #51, so maybe we can give him some slack. He’s currently ranked #71 so has been stagnating for awhile now; hopefully we see a step forward this year.
Borna Coric (b. 11/14/1996) is 19 years old, turning 20 in November. He is the only player who has reached two benchmarks and is still on the pace: he was in the top 100 at age 18 and top 50 at age 19. Actually, Coric has accomplished one remarkable feat: he has out-paced Novak Djokovic in rankings on their17-19th birthdays; compare:
Djokovic: 515, 128, 63
Coric: 396, 89, 45
Just looking at those numbers point to potential great things for Coric. But beyond that, there are worrying signs. First of all, at 19 years and 4 months, Coric has yet to win a title; at the same age, Djokovic was about to win his second (both ATP 250s) and was about half a year away from his first Masters title and a little over a year from his first Slam.
Where Djokovic went from #63 on his 19th birthday to #6 on his 20th birthday, Coric has been stagnating for about a year now. That said, he doesn’t need to keep pace with Djokovic to be a future great. In order to remain on the pace, he needs to reach the top 10, win a title, and reach a Slam QF all before November of 2017. So he’s got plenty of time to develop his game further. That said, it seems more likely that he becomes closer to Richard Gasquet than Djokovic.
Alexander Zverev (b. 4/20/1997) turns 19 on April 20, and has already reached his first benchmark. In fact, he will turn 19 ranked #50, which is the next benchmark that he needs to reach—but not until April of 2017, so he’s a year ahead of schedule. After that, Zverev would need to reach the next round of benchmarks—top 10, a title, and Slam QF—all before April of 2018, which is two years away. He seems to have a good chance of all of that. So it is quite early for Zverev, which is a good sign. His recent three-set loss to Rafael Nadal at Indian Wells shows us both his potential and that he still needs a lot of work. But signs are encouraging.
Taylor Fritz (b. 10/28/97) is in a similar situation as Zverev. He’ll be 19 later this year, about a year younger than Coric. Fritz is in the top 100 and doesn’t need to reach his next benchmark, the top 50, for a year and a half; he’s currently ranked #68, so is close already. His game is still raw, but he shows a lot of promise and the fact that he’s risen so quickly is a very good sign.
Active Players: On the Cusp
Those are only players who have reached at least one or more benchmark, but there are several others that are “due” for that first benchmark and look to have a solid chance to reach it.
Andrey Rublev (b. 10/20/97) is about a week older than Fritz and currently ranked #154. He needs to squeeze into the top 100 by his birthday to be on pace, which seems very possible. He seems like a player that is ripe to start a quickened pace of development, so bears watching this year.
Frances Tiafoe (b. 1/20/98) just turned 18 a few months ago, so has a lot of time to reach the top 100. He shows a lot of promise, including a three-set loss to David Goffin that showed some of his potential. He is currently the youngest player ranked in the top 200, at #182.
Tommy Paul (5/17/97) and Omar Jasika (5/18/97) turn 19 in May, and are distant possibilities, but need to move very quickly, ranked #192 and #313 respectively.
Duckhee Lee (5/29/98) is quite young and looks to have a good shot. At #206, he is the highest ranked 17-year old on tour, and the only one to be ranked in the top 400.
Stefan Kozlov (2/1/98), ranked #224, and Michael Mmoh (1/10/98) ranked #322, are two young foreign-born Americans that bear watching. Kovlov made a big jump recently, losing in a Challenger final. He is a good candidate to at least come close to the top 100 by year’s end.
Beyond them you have 17-year olds Stefanos Tsitsipas (8/12/98) and Mikael Ymer (9/9/98) and even younger players for him it is just too soon to tell—like Denis Shapovolov (4/15/99) Felix Auger Aliassime (8/8/2000) and Rayane Roumane (9/11/2000), the only ranked players that were born in 2000. Again, it is way too soon for these kids, but theirs are names to remember.
Missing the Cut
There are also quite a few young players who show promise, but did not make that first benchmark. I will mention their names, though, given the possibility that this newer generation simply might be peaking later. Still, I think all of them are far less worthy candidates for the next great player, but could be names we see in the top 50 within the next new several years.
Jared Donaldson, Elias Ymer, Karen Khachanov, Yoshihito Nishioka, Kyle Edmund, Quentin Halys, Thanasi Kokkinakis, Noah Rubin.
Kokkinakis met the first benchmark and ranked as high as #69 last June, but has struggled since and is ranked #143 just after turning 20.
“Stanislas Potential”
There is one final player that I’d like to mention, who is far off the pace of greatness but has drawn attention of late: Dominic Thiem (b. 9/3/93). While I think it very unlikely that he becomes a 6+ Slam winner as he is so far off the pace, Thiem—at 22—has reached the various benchmarks of the near-greats, the 2-4 Slam winners. He reached the top 100 and then top 50 as a 20-year old, then won his first title and the top 20 as a 21-year old, and is currently on the verge of the top 10 and has a good chance to reach it, and play in his first Slam QF, before his 23rd birthday in September.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BsIdpfyyrA
And then there’s our old friend, Grigor Dimitrov (b. 5/14/91), who at almost 25 is no longer a prospect. We might have to accept Grigor for who he is and will never be. That said, while Grigor did not fulfill any of the criteria for greatness, he has fulfilled almost all of the criteria for near-greatness: reaching the top 100 at 19, the top 50 at 21, the top 20 at 22, and the top 10 at 23. He also made his first Slam QF at 22, although did not win his first title until 22: all multi-Slam winners won their first title at age 21 or younger. So while Grigor will not be a 6+ Slam winner, he is a darkhorse candidate, albeit a fading one, to expand the horizons of near-greats.
Ranking the Candidates
So when all is said and done, where does that leave us? As of right now, I would categorize the candidates the following groups:
Best Candidates for Greatness: Alexander Zverev, Taylor Fritz
Borderline/Outside Chance: Nick Kyrgios, Borna Coric, Hyeon Chung
The Stanislas Darkhorse: Dominic Thiem
Too Soon to Tell, but Promising: Andrey Rublev, Francis Tiafoe, Stefan Kozlov
On the Edge of the Radar: Duckhee Lee, Mikael Ymer, etc
Very Unlikely: Everyone else
Finally, there are the kids—players of the next generation, 1999-2003, for whom it is just far too soon, but we are at least starting to see some names pop up in Futures tournaments.
Which of these players will become true greats? Your guess is as good as mine, but chances are at least one of them will. If in 5 or 10 years we look back and the next 6+ Slam winner wasn’t mentioned in this article, I’ll have to eat my words, but I think there’s a very good chance that won’t be the case.
Cover photo from Wikimedia Commons, By Tomas-ko0 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45898208
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.
While researching Part Five in my Open Era Generations series (coming later this week), I ran across an interesting little tidbit that I wanted to share (and in so doing decided to start a new segment for this blog, with random statistical bits or “smash shots” that provide angles on tennis today and in the past). Using my Generation Theory, in most years anywhere from two to four generations inhabit the Top 10, with three being the most common; but in 1974 and 1975 fully five different generations were represented in the Top 10 – the only time this has happened in the Open Era.
Take a look at the 1974 year-end Top 10 with their birth years:
Jimmy Connors (1952)
John Newcombe (1944)
Bjorn Borg (1956)
Rod Laver (1938)
Guillermo Vilas (1952)
Tom Okker (1944)
Arthur Ashe (1943)
Ken Rosewall (1934)
Stan Smith (1946)
Ilie Nastase (1946)
What are we looking at here? On first glance it looks like a bunch of all-time greats. But notice a couple things. First, as an aside to the point of this article, notice the sheer talent. If we include Pro, Amateur, and Open Era Slams, the above Top 10 includes a whopping 79 major titles. OK, that amazing fact aside, the main point is to look at the wide range of players – the youngest being Bjorn Borg, the oldest Ken Rosewall. The difference? 22 years.
Now here’s the fun part. Let’s translate that to today. Let’s place players of a similar age differential in the above list into a hypothetical Top 10 for 2015. Jimmy Connors was 22 in 1974, so we need someone born in 1993 for the number one spot. Swapping age-appropriate players, we get something like this:
“Fantasy 2015”
Dominic Thiem (1993)
Stan Wawrinka (1985)
Alexander Zverev (1997)
James Blake (1979)
Jiri Vesely (1993)
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (1985)
Robin Soderling (1984)
Marcelo Rios (1975)
Novak Djokovic (1987)
Andy Murray (1987)
Look at that range – A 40-year old Marcelo Rios still in the Top 10, with 18-year old Alexander Zverev No. 3 in the world — two players 22 years apart!
We really haven’t seen anything like this in some time. The closest thing in recent years, and the last time there were four generations in a year-end Top 10, was 2005 – when Federer’s generation (b. 1979-83) ruled the rankings, with a young teenage upstart named Rafael Nadal (b. 1986) finishing No. 2, and 35-year-old Andre Agassi (b. 1970) making his last appearance in the Top 10. Before that you have to go all the way back to the 80s when it was relatively common for four generations to be represented, although this was mainly due to the anomaly that was Jimmy Connors.
It would require a longer study to look further into historical trends, and when we get to more recent generations in the Open Era Generations Theory we will look at how things look now compared to in the past. But for now I think it is clear that there is much greater “generational homogeneity” at the top of the men’s game, with seven of the Top 10 being in the generation born 1984-88, with only Roger Federer and David Ferrer from the older generation (b. 1979-83), and only Kei Nishikori from the younger generation (b. 1989-93). As I will discuss later, this is likely to change relatively soon.
As the first tournaments of 2015 wrap up, it is almost shocking to think that the Australian Open is just around the corner on January 19. As always, we’ll all be watching the top players with the usual questions: How healthy will Rafael Nadal be and will it be enough to supplant Novak Djokovic at the top of the rankings? Can Novak maintain his focus? Will Father Time catch up with Roger Federer, who turns 34 later this year? Can Andy Murray find his 2012-13 form again? Will Juan Martin del Potro be healthy enough to rise again? And so on.
But what about the rest of the pack? We focus so much on the “Big Four” and a few dark-horse candidates, while there are a lot of interesting stories and players beyond the big name elite. Let’s take a look at these other players, in particular those who bear watching in 2015 for whatever reason – but mainly as players poised to rise in the rankings. Some may be knocking at the door of the elite, while others may simply be establishing themselves as players to know, while others yet might be potential future stars.
There are, of course, many other players worth watching – but I wanted to highlight these fifteen as particularly interesting, for a variety of reasons. Let’s take a look.
THE ALMOST BIG THREE
Grigor Dimitrov
Let’s start with Grigor Dimitrov, who may have been so overrated in the past in terms of expectations that he’s now being underrated (although his recent Brisbane demolishing at the hands of Federer is not exactly encouraging). Let us not forget that Grigor has improved in each year he’s been on tour; consider his year-end rankings since 2008: 493, 288, 106, 76, 48, 23, 11. Notice the trend? If Grigor keeps it up in 2015 he will possibly make it as high as the edge of the Top 5. But of course at some point he’s going to even out, and it is hard to imagine him supplanting Novak, Rafa, or even Roger. But it seems that he can beat anyone else, or at least remain competitive among the rest of the near-elites of the game. The problem with Grigor seems to be that, while he’s very good at almost every facet of the game, he doesn’t have any truly killer weapons – and seemingly lacks a killer instinct altogether.
Prediction: The book is still open for Grigor. He needs something else — a killer shot and perhaps more of a killer instinct — to fully actualize his potential, otherwise he’ll remain more of a pretty player to watch, but not a true elite. In 2015 I think we’ll see continued incremental gains as Grigor creeps into the Top 10. He’ll continue to go deeper in Slams, being relevant at Masters tournaments, with a chance of winning one late in the year (Paris?), eventually earning his way to the World Tour Finals next November.
Kei Nishikori
On one hand, we may have seen the best of Kei in 2014. On the other, he seems to keep getting better and better, and of the rest of the field seems like he has what it takes to upset one of the Big Three. Kei is now a legit candidate to win a Masters and a dark horse at the Slams. Whether he has the stamina to make it through remains to be seen; despite his strong year, it should be remembered that he still only made it to the second week once.
Prediction: Kei settles in within the second half of the Top 10. For some reason Nikolay Davydenko comes to mind – a player that never really challenged at Slams, but won a couple Masters and was always around. Perhaps Kei will have a similar peak.
Milos Raonic
At first I excluded Mighty Milos from this list but then I decided that it would be unfair. The big Yugo-Canadian is, quite frankly, a bit underrated at this point. Like Dimitrov it is hard to imagine him beating any of the Top 3 when it really counts, but he did just that versus Roger Federer at the Paris Masters. Milos continues to make small gains, as evidenced by his year-end rankings: 373, 156, 31, 13, 11, 8. If the pattern holds he’ll finish 2015 in the No. 5-6 range. At the least, though, I think Milos is a fixture to hand out in the latter half of the Top 10 for years to come, playing a similar role in the next half decade as Tsonga and Berdych have for the last half decade.
Prediction: Something good for Milos in 2015. Will it be a Masters? A Slam even? Hard to imagine, but he’s knocking at the door. I think he wins several titles in 2015, maybe even a Masters. He feels close.
DON’T FORGET ABOUT THE OTHER TWO
Jiri Vesely & Dominic Thiem
For some reason I pair these two players. Well, the reasons are pretty clear: they’re of a similar age, on the younger side of “Generation Raoshitrov”; Vesely’s advancement was steady but perhaps a bit disappointing, going from No. 85 to No. 66, while Thiem jumped 100 ranks from No. 139 to No. 39.
Prediction: I expect continued steady progress from both. Both, I think, will fully establish themselves in the Top 40, and Thiem might even challenge for the Top 20. I think we’re still a couple years away from their peaks, but both should eventually be fixtures in the Top 20 and may even challenge for the Top 10 as players like Ferrer, Berdych, Wawrinka, and Tsonga age themselves out of it. But that’s probably a couple years away.
THE BOYS ARE GROWING UP
Nick Kyrgios
The first of two up-and-comers to beat Rafael Nadal in 2014. Nick Kyrgios is a big kid (6’4”) with a big game and a big serve (14.8 ace %, good for No. 6 among the Top 50); I can’t help but think of Juan Martin del Potro when I see him out there. Ironically enough, the last time a teenager upset the world No. 1 at a Grand Slam was Rafa over Roger Federer at the 2005 French Open. Anyhow, great things are ahead for the Australian – he finished the year at No. 52 up from No. 182 in 2013, so he made quite a jump. He turns 20 years old in April, so still has some room to grow.
Prediction: Nick makes steady progress but doesn’t quite jump into the elite. That said, he fights for, and at least comes close to, a year-end Top 20 ranking. While he may play the spoiler in 2015 again, he probably won’t be in the mix for big titles until 2016.
Borna Coric
No young player has me quite as excited as Borna Coric. I just see him having the highest upside of any player currently on the radar (that is, in the Top 300 or so). We all know him for taking out Rafael Nadal at Basel, but let’s not forget that he also beat Ernests Gulbis in that tournament and lost to red-hot David Goffin in three sets. Coric is for real and his advancement should be steady from here on, although at this point we should remain patient – he did just turn 18 a couple months ago, after all.
That said, it is important to note that most truly elite players were ranked somewhere in the second half of the Top 100 or so at Coric’s age, and most jumped into the Top 20 the year after. Compare the year-end rankings for recent all-time greats at age 18 and 19:
(Prior greats – starting with Agassi, but including Becker, Edberg, Wilander, etc., tended to have their break-out a year earlier, with age 17 being the first in the Top 100 and age 18 the big jump; one could speculate that perhaps we’re going ahead another year, with Nick Kyrgios’ trajectory being closer to the norm for elite players – first year in the Top 100 at age 19, big jump at age 20).
Now compare the next tier down:
Del Potro: 92, 44
Murray: 65, 17
Roddick: 156, 14
Hewitt: 25, 7
Kuerten: NA, 188
Kafelnikov: 275, 102
Courier: 43, 24
As you can see, the next tier tends to rise a bit later, or at least more slowly.
The point here is that if Coric is going to be great—as in an all-time great—then he needs to rise fast. Given the fact that players seem to be taking longer to develop these days with later peaks, I think we can go a bit easier on him and not expect a Rafa-like or Pete-like rise, but for me the benchmark would be a Top 40 or 50 ranking by year’s end. If he makes it into the upper half of the Top 100, then I think it is a sign that he has a chance to be special, even a truly great player. If he sticks around No. 100 or slips out of the Top 100, then we might need to temper our expectations a bit.
Prediction: Borna will continue to rise, with some bumps in the road, but his overall trajectory will be clear. He finishes somewhere in the No. 40-50 range, although I would be surprised if he wins anything more than maybe an ATP 250.
Alexander Zverev
The second youngest player on this list, 17-year-old Zverev finished the year ranked No. 136. That might not sound all that impressive, but consider that of the active players who have ranked in the Top 10, only Tomas Berdych (No. 103), Lleyton Hewitt (No. 100), and Rafael Nadal (No. 49) ranked higher at the end of the year they turned 17. Novak was No. 186, Roger No. 301, and many players weren’t even on tour yet. While we should be moderate in our expectations at this point, it is hard not to get excited about this kid. If Nick Kyrgios and Borna Coric are the top two candidates to be the next elite players, then Zverev is No. 3 and not far behind.
Prediction: Baby steps. Zverev doesn’t turn 18 until April, so has a lot of room to grow – both as a human body and as a player. I think he has a good shot at the Top 100 this year, but I wouldn’t expect much more than a year-end No. 80-100 ranking.
OTHERS TO KEEP AN EYE ON
Ernests Gulbis: Long viewed as an underachiever, Ernests (named after Hemingway) had his best year, challenging at one point for the Top 10. But questions remain: After an erratic career, can he maintain his current level? Can he take it a step higher? Or is he in the vein of up-and-down perennial underachievers like Alexandr Dolgopolov and Richard Gasquet? Who knows with Ernests. I suspect he’ll have more upsets like the fourth round French Open victory over Roger Federer, but not be consistent enough to break into the elite. That said, I think he’ll flirt with the Top 10 and maybe dip into it briefly, but then fall back and finish somewhere in the latter half of the Top 20. I’d prefer not to be so specific in my predictions, but for some reason No. 15-18 sounds about right.
Jack Sock: While it is hard to become too excited about a 22-year old ranked No. 42 and with no titles to his name, consider that Sock is now the fourth highest ranked American and only one of five in the Top 100. Not only that, he’s the youngest American ranked in the Top 200, just a month younger than No. 121 Denis Kudla, and a few months younger than No. 190 Ryan Harrison. But here is where there is some hope: Sock’s rise has been strong and steady – consider his year-end rankings from 2010 to the present: 878, 381, 150, 102, 42. We probably can’t expect Sock to be the next Andy Roddick, but he could be the next John Isner or Mardy Fish.
Stefan Kozlov: Stefan who? Well, a year or two from now he could be front and center in our minds. Who is Stefan Kozlov, you ask? He’s the youngest player to finish in the Top 500 this year at No. 468. No. 468?! Who cares? Well, I care – because Stefan Kozlov was born in 1998. Yes, 1998. Kozlov is 16-years old, turns 17 in February. He hasn’t done much yet, but he did play in the qualification rounds of the US Open, defeating his first round opponent, Mitchell Frank, before losing in three sets to “old man” Borna Coric. Kozlov is a long way away, but I wanted to introduce him as he’s a player worth keeping an eye on. Oh yeah, and best of all, while he’s Macedonia-born, he’s technically American (I know, it feels like cheating – but tell that to the Canadians re: Milos).
Yoshihito Nishioka: In the shadow of similarly named (at least to a Westerner) top-ranked and fellow Japanese player, Kei Nishikori, Nishioka is 19 years old and ranked No. 156, and could be a real sleeper to break into the Top 100 next year and a player to watch.
Thanasi Kokkinakis: Another member of the “Class of ’96,” which is turning out to have some talent. Kokkinakis is the third highest ranking teenager at No. 150, behind only Coric and Zverev. Another Australian to watch.
Jared Donaldson: Ranked all the way down at No. 261, 18-year-old Jared Donaldson is worth mentioning not as much because he’s the sixth highest ranking teenager, but mainly because he’s the highest ranking American teenager; actually, he’s the highest ranking American age 21 or younger, which makes him arguably America’s Great Hope to return to relevance. But let’s check in next year to see where he is.
Hyeon Chung: Korean-born, the fourth member of the Class of ’96 on this list (along with Coric, Kokkinakis, and Donaldson). I don’t know what his upside is but at No. 173 he’s the highest ranked Korean by a good margin, and well-situated on the career trajectory towards a strong career.
ADDENDUM: Another 15 to the Mix
I’d like to add a few more names to keep an eye on. Again, remember that the above list is not meant to be comprehensive, but a the same time I’d be remiss not to give at least an honorable mention to a few others.
Roberto Bautista Agut: A surprising rise from No. 58 to No. 15 in 2014, can he maintain a top 20 ranking for a few years? David Goffin: After a disappointing 2013, Goffin had a tremendous rise in 2014, going from No. 110 to No. 22. Jerzy Janowicz: Let’s not forget about Jerzy, but’s he fast becoming a cautionary tale, a least for those of us that got excited a year or two ago. He’s still young enough to turn it around. Pablo Carreno Busta: It seemed that he was a cult favorite to be excited about a year ago, but after only a moderate rise in 2014–to a solid No. 49–I think expectations have cooled. Still, he’s a name to get used to as he could be a regular in the top 40 for years to come. Dusan Lajovic: Best known for making it the 4R at Roland Garros where he lost to Rafa, but not before beating Delbonis and Sock to get there. I think he’s a sleeper to be a solid player. Bernard Tomic: Oh Bernie, it is hard to root for you. You’re like a playboy superstar that isn’t a star. Time to grow up if you want a decent career. Victor Estrella Burgos: In contrast to Tomic, how can we not cheer for this guy? Starting on the ATP tour at age 33-34, and he made it as high as No. 65! Who knows what’s ahead but I’m cheering him on. Lucas Pouille: Another sleeper – seems talented. Luke Saville: Ditto. These guys aren’t future elites, but they are probably future top 50 players. Diego Schwartzman: At 5’7″ you’ve got our attention. Seems like another sleeper. Elias Ymer, Christian Garin, Roman Safiullin, Andrey Rublev, Gianluigi Quinzi: More young ‘uns to keep an eye on, all born in 1996-97.
OK, that’s it. The problem with trying to be semi-comprehensive with this second list is that there is no way to draw the line. No Vasek Pospisil? Federico Delbonis? Well, I had to draw the line somewhere and it is “15 + another 15.”
