Tennis Frontier

Tag: juan martin del potro

Looking for the Next Great Player – Part Two: Candidates of Greatness

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

April 20, 2016
Open Era Generations, Part Thirteen: Gen 11 (1984-88) – Reign of Spain, err, Serbia
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
February 20, 2016
National Tennis Careers – Part Six: Summing Up

After surveying Open Era tennis through the five nations with the highest Slam totals, we’re left with a few questions and unexplored areas which I’ll try to tackle in this concluding segment.

[divider]

Click here to discuss National Tennis Careers – Part Six: Summing Up in the discussion forum.

[divider]

Who’s left?
The “big five” tennis nations include many, even most, of the all-time greats of the Open Era. Let’s take a look at the other nations and their players by Slam count:

Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic (12): Ivan Lendl (8), Jan Kodes (3), Petr Korda (1).
Serbia (9): Novak Djokovic (9)
Germany/West Germany (7): Boris Becker (6), Michael Stich (1)
Argentina (6): Guillermo Vilas (4), Gaston Gaudio (1), Juan Martin del Potro (1)
Russia (4): Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2), Marat Safin (2)
Brazil (3): Gustavo Kuerten (3)
Croatia (2): Goran Ivanisevic (1), Marin Cilic (1)
Romania (2): Ilie Nastase (2)
South Africa (2): Johan Kriek (2)
United Kingdom (2): Andy Murray (2)
Austria (1): Thomas Muster (1)
Ecuador (1): Andres Gomez (1)
France (1): Yannick Noah (1)
Italy (1): Adriano Panatta (1)
Netherlands (1): Richard Krajicek (1)

Before Djokovic is through, Serbia’s Slam count should surpass that of the Czechs as a whole.

Slavic Surge?
I almost titled this last part “Slavic Surge!” because it would seem that the tennis from Slavic countries has been on the rise. But it wasn’t quite as extreme as I thought. There are some strong Slavic players currently in their peaks, namely Djokovic, Berdych, Cilic, and Karlovic. There are some younger players with some upside, including Damir Dzumhur (23, No. 100), Grigor Dimitrov (24, No. 16), and Jiri Vesely (22, No. 45). But there is only one player that looks like a potential future star, and that is the 18-year-old Croatian Borna Coric, who is currently ranked No. 37. So while Slavic tennis is strong, it is hardly dominant (Novak aside).

Possible Future Slam Winning Countries
So who might the next Slam winners be? Specifically, which countries have the most possible future Slam winners? Well, that is for a future study that I’m working on. But I will say that as we’ve seen in the previous segments, there isn’t much on the horizon for Spain or Switzerland, and only really the Ymer brothers in Sweden; in the US there are a few prospects, and Australia at least has “K&K”: Kyrgios and Kokkinakis.

All in all there doesn’t seem to be a central location for tennis right now or the foreseeable future. We can sum up the Open Era by looking at early dominance by Australians, namely Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, and John Newcombe, then the rise of Americans in Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, and Sweden in Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and Stefan Edberg. Along with German Boris Becker and Czech Ivan Lendl, Americans and Swedes dominated tennis from the mid-70s into the early 90s, with Sweden dropping off as Edberg retired, but the United States remained dominant into the 21st century, led by Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi. But then the US dropped off precipitously, and Switzerland and Spain took up the rulership of men’s tennis, with Serbia playing its part.

What the future will bring, well, it is a truly global world out there. There’s no sign of any of the five great tennis nations regaining their dominance. There are some glimmerings of improvement in Australia, and a bit in the US, but nothing substantial or worthy of the term “future dominance.” We’re going to see a shared effort, it would seem.

[divider]

Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): kulitat / mirsasha / Kiu Kaffi

July 24, 2015
Second Tier Players
Most tennis fans, whether casual or serious, tend to follow the elites – the best players in the game who are perennial contenders for Grand Slams, ranked in the Top 5, and assemble resumes for the history books. Think Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and, at times, Andy Murray. Serious fans of the game might extend their radar to the Top 100 and even a bit beyond, especially for long-time veterans and up-and-coming players. Your average serious fan – which I’d define as someone who follows the tour on at least a weekly basis and generally knows what tournaments are occurring, at least the bigger ones – probably could scan the Top 100 and recognize the names of most of them (perhaps another criteria for “serious fan”).

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are household names – they have all been to the top of their sport and are all-time greats. Andy Murray is borderline, but after that it gets dicey. A casual fan of tennis knows the names Juan Martin Del Potro, David Ferrer, Tomas Berdych, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and, after 2014, Stan Wawrinka and Marin Cilic, and depending upon where one lies on the casual-to-serious scale, it starts tapering off after the Top 10. But those names – bonafide Top 10 players, but generally not Slam winners – aren’t all that well known among the general public.

The purpose of this thread is to look at those “second tier” players – players who are not all-time greats, not multi-Slam winners, not No. 1’s, but still very good players. In fact, let’s define a few criteria for what I’m calling a “second tier” player:
- No more than a single, “stray” Slam
- No more than five “big” titles (Slams, Masters, World Tour Finals)
- Never ranked No. 1
What differentiates a second tier player versus a “third tier” and the rest of the pack? Some general guidelines might be:
- Must have ranked in the Top 10 at least for a week, and/or
- Must have won a big tournament
- Must have at least five career titles
- Multiple years finishing in the Top 20
Who fits the bill among active players? Let’s take a look at the players, with a brief overview of their careers.

[divider]

Click here to discuss “Second Tier Players” in the discussion forum.

[divider]

David Ferrer

David Ferrer is an interesting case, because on one hand he’s a bit of a tragic figure – he’s made it to the final of nine big tournaments (one Slam, one WTF, and seven Masters) and won only a single one, perhaps the weakest of the lot—the Paris Masters in 2012, and only then arguably because he didn’t have to face any of the erstwhile Big Four (his opponent in the final was Jerzy Janowicz).

On the other hand, he’s a testament to hard work and thus is perhaps the definition of over-achiever. In other words, Ferrer has made the most of what he has and has come away with an impressive resume. He’s won 21 titles and finished in the Top 10 eight years in a row, the Top 20 ten years in a row, ranking as high as No. 3. He’s had his best two years in 2012-13, at the age of 30-31. In a way he’s as good as you can be without being great. There’s no shame in that.

[divider]

Juan Martin del Potro

Of all the players on this list, del Potro might be the biggest “could have been.” A promising young player he finished 2008, the year he turned 20, at No. 9. Then, in 2009—at a time when the tour was dominated by two players, Federer and Nadal, with everyone else lining up to try to get a piece of the pie—he took the tennis world by storm by defeating Federer in the US Open final. He was not yet 21, and it looked like tennis had a new superstar, or at least someone to complete with Djokovic and Murray for “best of the rest.” After finishing the year No. 5 at the tender age of 21, the sky seemed the limit.

Then, in an exhibition match in January of 2010, disaster struck: del Potro’s wrist began to hurt, and it kept on hurting. He entered the Australian Open with an ailing wrist, eventually losing in the fourth round to Marin Cilic. He then proceeded to miss nine months and only came back for a couple small tournaments late in the year, his ranking dropping to No. 258. He seemed healthy (or healthy-ish) in 2011, but wasn’t the same player. He did win a couple ATP 250 tournaments but could not make it into the second week at any Slam, although still finished the year No. 11. 2012 and 2013 saw further improvement, years in which he finished No. 7 and No. 5, respectively, but he could not quite match his 2009 glory. In early 2014 disaster struck again, and del Potro was out for most of the year, finishing at No. 138. We can only hope that “Delpo” will come back strong in 2015; he is only 26 years old and still in his prime, but he is clearly a brittle player.

[divider]

Tomas Berdych

Berdych is another player with elements of disappointment to his career (see a pattern here?). The Czech rose quickly in 2005, winning his first, and so far only, big tournament – the revolving door that is the Paris Masters. Not to take that away from him, but it is worth noting that neither of the top two players in the game – Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal – played in the 2005 Paris Masters. Anyhow, Berdych finished that year at No. 24 and seemed poised to challenge for a place among the elite. Yet he stagnated, finishing the next four years in the No. 13-20 range, making the quarterfinal of only one Slam.

Yet something seemed to click for Tomas in 2010 and, since then, he’s been one of the more consistent players on tour – finishing either No. 6 or No. 7 in each of the past five years, a span of time in which he’s made it to the second week (quarterfinal or later) in half of all Slams, once making the final – losing to Rafael Nadal in the 2010 Wimbledon, although not before defeating Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic.

Berdych remains an excellent player and a fixture, for the time being, in the Top 10. But he does turn 30 years old in 2015, so the window is closing for him.

[divider]

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

It is easy to pair Berdych and Tsonga, for not only were they born in the same year (1985), but they’ve haunted similar territory in the lower half of the Top 10 for the last half decade or so, and their career accomplishments are quite similar, although with Tsonga’s win at the Canada Masters this year he’s pulled ahead a bit.

Tsonga was a successful junior player, winning the 2003 Junior US Open over Marcos Baghdatis. He suffered through a series of injuries before rising quickly on the tour in 2007 and 2008, finishing that year at No. 6. For the last seven years he’s finished No. 13 or higher, five of those years in the Top 10. Tsonga has been deemed an underachiever; he’s got a big game, but doesn’t seem to have the big match mentality. Like Berdych he turns 30 next year, so the hourglass is about to turn.

[divider]

Stan Wawrinka

The “Stanimal” was born the same year as Berdych and Tsonga and, if you look at his career through 2012, could be viewed as an underachiever and disappointment – yet as of this writing, he’s the only one of the Class of ’85 who has come away with a big prize. He rose to No. 54 in 2005, No. 30 in 2006, and then crept up to No. 13 in 2008, but floundered for a few years – looking more like a third tier and perennial Top 20 player, but only just grazing the Top 10 for a few months in 2008. But something seemed to click in 2013 – his results were more consistent as he regularly went deeper into tournaments, including his first Slam semifinal at the US Open and making it to the final of four tournaments, although winning only one, an ATP 250 (the Portugal Open). Stan finished the year at No. 8 after a not-embarrassing performance at the ATP World Tour Finals where he defeated David Ferrer and Tomas Berdych to make it to the semifinals where he lost to eventual champion Novak Djokovic.

At the beginning of 2014 it seemed that Wawrinka was coming off a career year. He began the year well by winning the Aircel Chennai Open. But it was the Australian Open that proved the shocker: After defeating Novak Djokovic in the quarterfinals, and Tomas Berdych in the semifinals, Stan faced off against No. 1 Rafael Nadal. No one really gave him a chance, but he ended up defeating Rafa in four sets (it is easy to call this a cheap win for Wawrinka as Rafa was injured in the second set, but let us not forget that Stan won the first set and Rafa was well enough to win the third; certainly Rafa’s injury was a major factor, but the focus should be on Stan’s accomplishment). It was easy to consider that a fluke win, but Stan ended up also winning his first Masters, defeating Roger Federer in the Monte Carlo final and improving upon his 2013, finishing No. 4.

What’s next for Stan? It is hard to imagine a quick drop-off, but it is also hard to imagine him repeating his 2013 performance – especially his Slam. But he’s likely going to remain a Top 10 player for at lest another year or two.

[divider]

Marin Cilic

Talk about a surprising player. After a surge into the Top 10 in early 2010, after making it to the semifinals of the Australian Open at the age of 21, Cilic was erratic for the last few years, settling in as a third tier player. Then he was suspended for nine months (which was reduced), which seemed to serve as a wake-up call, or perhaps merely inspiration, as he rose quickly through the rankings in 2014, winning three minor tournaments before his surprising win at the US Open.

Cilic is not the worst player ever to win a Slam, but there are better players in terms of overall career level, and thus is a good example of both how a single Slam does not equate with greatness, but also how tenacity can pay off. But he is a Slam winner and finished his second year in the Top 10, so is now a bonafide second tier player. It will be interesting to see whether he can maintain it.

[divider]

Just Missing the Cut: Richard Gasquet, Nicolas Almagro, Gilles Simon, Tommy Robredo, John Isner, Feliciano Lopez, Gael Monfils.

You might quibble with my choices, but in my mind none of them are true second tier players. Some have vied for a spot in the second tier; for instance, Tommy Robredo finished 2006-07 in the Top 10, but for most of his career he’s been more of a third tier No. 20-30-type player. The same could be said for the others. Gasquet is an interesting one because in some sense he’s been the “gatekeeper” between the second and third tier for the last few years, or at least for 2012-13 when he finished No. 10 and No. 9. Gasquet would consistently beat everyone below him and lose to everyone above; previously other players like Janko Tipsarevic, perhaps Almagro, and before both, Fernando Verdasco, filled this role.

Among this group, or at least those mentioned, the one who stands out as the “could have been more” (and perhaps still can be) is Gael Monfils. He is a player whose reputation and ability far exceeds his usual ranking, mainly due to seemingly being injury prone and perhaps a non-championship mentality. Monfils is a second tier talent with a third tier career–in a sense, the inverse of David Ferrer—and thus is the type of player who could surprise us and win a big tournament. The 2015 Paris Masters?

[divider]

On the Cusp: Milos Raonic, Kei Nishikori, Grigor Dimitrov, Ernests Gulbis.

Kei in particular might deserve to be a second tier player by virtue of his No. 5 finish this year. He’s won six titles but consider that he has not yet won a big tournament (he made the final of both a Slam and Masters this year), nor has he finished in the Top 10 more than once. But if he finished in the Top 10 a second year in a row and/or wins a big tournament, he’s in.

Similarly with Raonic and Dimitrov. It only seems a matter of time. With Dimitrov there may even be a chance that he becomes a lesser first tier player along the likes of Andy Murray, but the clock is ticking.

[divider]

Addendum: The Question of Andy Murray

It is hard to feel bad for someone with two Grand Slam trophies, 31 titles overall, not to mention an impending marriage to the beautiful Kim Sears. Andy will forever be beloved in the United Kingdom for being the first British player to win a Grand Slam title in the Open Era, and the first since Fred Perry in 1936 to take Wimbledon. But Andy comes off, at least in the press, as disgruntled, surly, and forever unhappy with his standing. Just as Novak Djokovic was the third wheel on the Fedal bicycle for four years in a row, Andy has been the “best of the rest/worst of the best” for just about his entire career. Unlike Novak, Andy didn’t break through the players ahead of him and rise to No. 1. He did win two Grand Slams within one calendar year, being a true member of the Big Four for at least that year, but he couldn’t maintain it.

That said, Andy Murray is no second tier player. He is a truly great player, the third greatest of a generation that has produced what should turn out, when all is said and done, two of the ten or so greatest players of all time in Nadal and Djokovic. If Andy were born ten years earlier and peaked in the weak era of the late 90s to early 00s, he would undoubtedly have many more Slams than two. But every player has a “what if” story, and in the end, Andy’s career is what it is – and not only is it not over yet, it has been a stellar one so far. My opinion is that Andy is the greatest player of the Open Era with less than four Slams – greater than Kuerten, Hewitt, Safin, even Ashe. (What I mean by “greatness,” in this context, is a combination of peak level and career accomplishment).

In some ways Andy is the Guillermo Vilas of the current era. Vilas was born in the same year as Jimmy Connors and peaked alongside Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, and, to a lesser degree, Ivan Lendl. That’s what I’d call a “raw deal.” Yet Vilas still managed to win four Slams and 62 titles and was ranked in the Top 6 for nine years in a row, but—like Andy so far—he never did rank higher than No. 2, despite arguably being the best player in 1977.

Career-wise, despite currently stalling out in his Slam count, Andy is closing in on four-Slam winners Vilas and Jim Courier, who are the gatekeepers to the true elites of the Open Era. I’d say he probably needs at least one more Slam to join them, but still has the possibility of surpassing him. Wouldn’t it be appropriate if Andy finished his career with four or five Slams, and became the historical “best of the rest, worst of the best?”

[Note: At some point I’d like to write a “Part Two – Second Tier Players of the Past,” but there are a few articles on the burner, so stay tuned.]
December 4, 2014
Muguruza Revealed; Del Potro Practices; Mayer on Nadal

The latest from Spanish-language press [divider]

What you didn’t know about Garbiñe Muguruza

Muguruza is getting a lot of attention after her second-round upset over Serena Williams, so it’s a good time to dig a little deeper. Born in Caracas to a Venezuelan mother and Spanish Basque father, she moved to Spain at age six. Garbiñe, which means “Inmaculada” in the Basque language, became the Spanish Junior Champion at twelve. “I’ve spent my whole life training on clay, but my best results have been on faster surfaces because of my style of play. My height [1,82/6’0] helps me be aggressive,” Muguruza said in 2013. “I’ve studied Serena Williams, who has always been my idol.”

This was prescient, as it was clear that Garbiñe had a game plan against Williams. She also mentioned that she admires Maria Sharapova’s “attitude, on and off the court.” “Immaculate” she surely was against Williams, and consolidated with a win today over Anna Schmiedlova of Slovakia. She’ll face another surprise winner, the French qualifier, Pauline Parmentier, in the next round. [divider]

Del Potro Back on the Practice Courts

After surgery on his left wrist last March, Juan Martin Del Potro is back on the practice court. He says he’s mostly practicing drives and volleys, because he’s still wearing a splint on the left wrist. Here’s a video of his practice session:

[divider]

Leonardo Mayer Hopes that Nadal is “Human” Tomorrow

Mayer spoke to the Argentine press about his chances against eight-time Roland Garros champion Rafael Nadal tomorrow in the third round of the French Open. “I have the technique, but I’m not going to say it because [Nadal] might find out,” he said, laughing. (Mayer is 0-2 in their head-t0-head, and has yet to take as set off Nadal.) “I think it’s going to be difficult, but it can be done. And he’s human, at times.” [divider]

Cover Photo: Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Marianne Bevis

May 31, 2014
Juan Martin Del Potro Sidelined for Rest of Season

Juan Martin Del Potro has been sidelined for the rest of the season, due to surgery on his left wrist, according to a report from Tennis World Magazine.

The Argentine, who is currently ranked No. 8 in the Emirates ATP Rankings, retired after losing the first set of his opening match in Dubai last month, and hasn’t played since. He withdrew first from the Indian Wells Masters 1000, and most recently cited a wrist injury as the reason for withdrawing from the Miami Masters 1000.

According to the report, the surgery will require an 8-10 month recovery period, thus precluding him from playing for the rest of 2014.

In 2010, the former US Open champion had surgery on his right wrist, which took him out of the game for a year. It wasn’t until the end of January, 2012, before he got back into the Top 10.

[divider]

Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): Marianne Bevis

March 22, 2014
Italy Soars in Davis Cup; Argentina Risks Relegation from World Group

In a shock Davis Cup result in Buenos Aires this weekend, Argentina fell 3-1 to Italy and now run the risk of relegation from the World Group only one year after losing a tight semifinal to eventual winners Czech Republic.

Without world No. 4 Juan Martin del Potro and recently-retired David Nalbandian in the lineup, the hosts were forced to depend on world No. 44 Carlos Berlocq and No. 40 Juan Monaco to carry them forward to the quarterfinals for the thirteenth consecutive year.

Berlocq won his opening match against world No. 31 Andreas Seppi in four sets (4-6, 6-0, 6-2, 6-1), but Monaco was soundly defeated by an on-fire Fabio Fognini in the second rubber (7-5, 6-2, 6-2).

Fognini, world No. 15, is fresh off a fourth-round appearance at the Australian Open and showed a newfound level of confidence as he anchored the Italian team. He went on to secure victory with a 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-1, 6-4 triumph over Berlocq after partnering with Simone Bolelli to win the doubles, 6-7(6), 7-6(8), 7-6(3), 6-4, on Saturday.

Italy will now host Great Britain in the quarterfinals held from April 4-6. The nation will be in search of its second ever Davis Cup trophy, after defeating Chile 4-1 to clinch the title in 1976. Italy only returned to the World Group in 2011 following a victory over the same opponent in a playoff.

Argentina has been playing in international tennis’s top tier since 2001, when it defeated Belarus 5-0 in Cordoba. The country then went on a phenomenal run that included finals in 2006, 2008, and 2011, although all three ended in defeats: first to Russia and twice to Spain. The South Americans will now face a playoff against one of the eight Zonal Group 1 qualifiers in September to stay in the World Group.

Perhaps the biggest influence in Argentina’s defeat was the failure to convince 2009 US Open winner del Potro to return to the team following a dispute with team captain Martin Jaite and officials from the Argentine Tennis Association (ATA). His last appearance was in the 2012 semifinal loss to the Czechs, where he won the opening rubber against Radek Stepanek in straight sets.

Del Potro is upset about the initial selection of Jaite as captain in 2011, and a lack of consultation in regards to surfaces and locations by the ATA. The Olympic bronze medalist also spoke in the open letter (see link above) to Jaite and ATA president Arturo Grimaldi about the hypocrisy of the organization for attempting to make him look bad in the public eye while awaiting his response for the Italy tie.

Tennis fans in Argentina are split over the stance of their top player, with a number of those inside the stadium during the Berlocq loss that clinched the Italian victory singing, “This is for you, del Potro, watching on TV.” Others displayed signs saying, “Volvé del Potro” — “Come back del Potro”.

Grimaldi was quick to hit the damage control button and released a statement saying that he would do anything within reason to get del Potro back on the team for the crucial playoff. He was followed by Berlocq, who also spoke about how vital his compatriot is to every tie and how much more potent Argentina is with him in the team.

Thus far, there has been no response from the world No. 4, who is currently undergoing treatment for an injury to his left wrist. But with the risk of sinking out of the World Group so soon after becoming the most dominant South American team in recent memory, all will be hoping that somehow del Potro and the AFA figure out a solution sooner rather than later.

February 4, 2014
2014 – Out With The Old, In With The New (But Some Things Don’t Change)

2013 is clearly behind us, but it’s worth taking a glance back at some of the successes and some surprises at the top of the tennis world. Just when it looked like Mr. Novak Djokovic and Mr. Andy Murray had ascended as the two top players in the sport, dethroning Mr. Rafael Nadal and Mr. Roger Federer, with a one-two finish at the 2013 Australian Open, Mr. Nadal defied the odds and came back after a seven month respite, and rather amazingly achieved top form quicker than anyone had a right to expect. He not only achieved it, he maintained it, and continued it for the rest of the slam season and was the year end No. 1 player on the ATP tour, winning two out of three of the Grand Slam events he played, including his record eighth title on the red clay of Roland Garros and his second US Open victory. In doing so, he removed Novak Djokovic from his pedestal, defeating him at the Roland Garros semifinal and the US Open final.

It was not only in majors where Rafael Nadal had success. He won 10 titles and was a finalist in two others out of 13 events from February to September, his only misstep being a first time first round exit in a major at the Wimbledon Championships to Steve Darcis, No. 135 in the world. That shock loss, after the previous year’s second round shock loss to Lukas Rosol, had many people wondering if Rafa had again suffered some injury. But he quickly recovered from the slippery turf, and returned with a vengeance, recovering his form on the hard courts of North America and captured the rare triple in the Canada and Cincinnati Masters series and the US Open trophy. He finished the year very respectably, albeit without a title, making two semifinals, and two finals including the season ending tournament at the World Tour Finals in London where he lost to a resurgent Novak Djokovic.

Though the Return of Rafa was undoubtedly the story of the year, the highlight was probably Andy Murray’s Wimbledon Championships triumph, the first one by a gentleman from Great Britain’s soil in 77 years when Fred Perry won the event. After winning, Mr. Andy Murray also received the rank as an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE). Andy defeated a game Novak Djokovic in the final who had just endured a titanic struggle with the Tower of Tandil, Mr. Juan Martin del Potro from Argentina. With this win, Andy basically said he had achieved his ultimate dream. Unfortunately for him, later in the year, after being unable to defend his 2012 US Open title, losing to an improved and confident Stanislas Wawrinka, Mr. Murray, OBE, left the tour for back surgery.

Novak Djokovic started 2013 in fine form, winning the Australian Open for the third consecutive, and fourth time in all, over Andy Murray. Though he would not win another major, Novak was very consistent the whole year. He won six other titles including three of the Masters 1000 series in Monte Carlo, Shanghai, and Paris, and continued his run at the final event of the year at the World Tour Finals in London. He made two other Grand Slam finals at Wimbledon and the US Open, and lost a close match in the semifinals at Roland Garros to Rafael Nadal. It was an excellent year by anyone’s standards, even if somewhat disappointing to his fans.

Roger Federer perhaps had the most surprising and disappointing year of the “Big Four”. After his outstanding run in late 2011 to the summer of 2012 where he won nine titles, including Wimbledon and extended his weeks at No. 1 to 302, Federer only captured the Halle title in 2013, was ousted in the second round at Wimbledon by Stakhovsky, and to Robredo in the fourth round of the US Open, and only made one semifinal early at the Australian Open. But in retrospect, should we have been surprised? Federer clearly said 2013 was going to be a transitional year at the start. Not many bothered to ask what that meant, but it was evident that he was going to ease up somewhat from the year before. Also, he suffered a back injury rather early in the season at Indian Wells, which he said bothered him until around Hamburg, just before the US Open, preventing him from playing well and perhaps more importantly, training properly. But for his fans, and fans of tennis around the world, he did not leave the tour. He was still playing events, drawing crowds and audiences on television, perhaps realizing just how important he is to the tennis world. So one has to credit him for sticking in there, even when the going was tough and while taking a lot of criticism. By the end of the year, Roger had slipped from No. 2 to No. 6, and many people were saying he was in full decline and were even calling for him to retire, again. But Federer said he was happy playing, enjoying the tennis life, his health was better, and that he expected 2014 to be a much better year. This writer, for one, will never count Mr. Federer out as long as he plays. He’s simply a magician on the court, and at his best, can still beat any player in the world. Those moments may not come as often as they once did, but one believes his remaining time on tour should be cherished like the last bottles of vintage wine from the cellar, to be sipped slowly, filled with memories of past glory, savoring each of his remaining better performances until the end of his career.

Other notable player performances of 2013 have to include those of Mr. Juan Martin del Potro who challenged the very best during the year and won four titles and was a semifinalist at Wimbledon losing gamely in a close five set match with Novak Djokovic, which may have been the second best match of the year. The best match of the year was likely the fourth round of the Australian Open between Mr. Stanislas Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic, where the Swiss No. 2 had the best performance of his career, and was so close to winning, but was finally beaten 12-10 in the fifth and deciding set by the No. 1 player in the world. Wawrinka would later make the semifinals at the US Open after beating Andy Murray in the quarterfinals, but was again beaten by Djokovic in a hard fought five sets. Stan only won one title, but obviously played consistently throughout the year to earn his placing in the World Tour Finals in London among the best eight in the world, where he made it to the semifinals, losing again to the eventual winner, Novak Djokovic.

The 23-and-under players finally made an impact, with Canadian Milos Raonic finishing at No. 11. The future also appears bright for Jerzy Janowicz from Poland, who finished at No. 21 and made it to his first major semifinal, at the Wimbledon Championships, finally losing to Andy Murray in four sets. Bulgarian rising star Grigor Dimitrov was close behind him at No. 23 in the world as he became more consistent, going deeper into tournaments, losing in competitive battles to the very best players. Vasek Pospisil, also from Canada, finished the year at No. 32 after starting at No. 125. Pablo Carreno-Busta of Spain finished at No. 64 after starting the year at No. 654. One would likely expect to see more from these players in the next two to four years.

[divider]

Now it’s a new year of high expectations and hopes. Many players would like to pick up from where they left off last year, while many want to throw out last year and start anew. We have new tennis coaches for some of the top players, highly successful players from the old days, as players have probably been influenced by the Ivan Lendl effect on Andy Murray. They are Boris Becker for Djokovic, Stefan Edberg for Federer, Michael Chang for Kei Nishikori. Not surprisingly, world No. 1 Nadal has not changed, keeping his trusted coach and family member, Toni Nadal. From what we’ve seen so far, it seems that we are in for an interesting year in men’s tennis.

The story of the Australian Open for the men so far has been the scintillating success of Stan Wawrinka, who has continued his fine play from 2013 and defeated no less than No. 2 Novak Djokovic in the quarterfinal, and No. 7 Tomas Berdych in the semifinal to make his first Grand Slam final. The popular Swiss player finally overcame Djokovic in the fifth set 9-7, after losing two tough battles in the Australian Open and US Open in 2013. He has his first chance to win it all on the major stage. One wishes him the best. Some may say that Novak Djokovic may have had too easy a draw up to Stan and was undercooked, but others would say that it was just Stan’s moment.

In the other half of the draw it seems that some things never change. Once again, we have a match between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, this time in the semifinal. Federer, who had been dismissed by many as a fading force after his admittedly weak 2013 results (for him), appears to have had a resurgence and is in his best form in at least a year or more. In arguably one of the tougher draws in the tournament, he has emerged from the problematic path relatively unscathed and hardened, dropping only one set. Along the way, he has steadily improved his play, beating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, with whom he had played a tough five-set match last year, in a relatively easy three sets, and Andy Murray, to whom he had lost in the semifinal last year, in a slightly more difficult four sets. His serve has been excellent, only being broken twice along the entire way with a key high percentage of second serves won. He is definitely more aggressive, coming to net 41 times in the Tsonga match with 84% success, and 66 times in the Murray match with 74% success. One has to believe that his additional part-time coach, Stefan Edberg, has been a positive and effective influence so far.

Federer’s play against Murray in the first two sets and nine games was impeccable. Murray didn’t reach a break point on the Federer serve and looked lost as to what to do to turn things around. However, Roger suffered a little hiccup in the tenth game where his first service percentage dipped a bit, Murray stepped up to take full advantage, and Federer failed to serve for the match at 5-4, and failed to convert two match points in the tiebreak to lose the third set. However, it was also encouraging for him to recover from that setback to come back and win the fourth. He changed tactics, and made the match more of a physical effort, extending Murray’s service games, one of them to 10 deuce points, and it paid off as Murray visibly tired as the set wore on. In Murray’s defense, he came into the Australian Open with only two tour matches since he left the tour for back surgery just after the 2013 US Open. He had a very easy first four rounds, facing nobody in the Top 25, and was simply not ready for as tough and determined an opponent as Federer.

Rafael Nadal has come through, albeit not quite as smoothly. Though his initial draw looked tough, it opened up a bit. Bernard Tomic suffered an injury early in their first round match and retired after one set. Then the next top seed in Nadal’s quarter, Juan Martin del Potro, lost to Roberto Bautista Agut in the second round. Nadal’s third round opponent, No. 25, Gael Monfils, didn’t play well at all. Nadal’s fourth round and quarterfinal were rather tight affairs, with Nishikori losing in two tiebreaks and 7-5. In the quarterfinal, Nadal was hampered by a bandage for a blister on his palm, but he played just well enough to win in four sets, winning two tiebreaks, and was fortunate to win the one in the third set where Dimitrov sailed a easy set point long. Dimitrov couldn’t recover after that. Nadal did not look comfortable in the match, hitting many balls short, and was errant with his usually dependable forehand.

One looks forward to their 33rd meeting on Friday. Roger will need to continue to play at the excellent level he displayed in the Tsonga and Murray matches to have a good chance. Has he left his old 2013 form totally behind and brought in a new outlook via his new coach, Stefan Edberg? Rafa will have to improve his level from his last match and when he meets Roger, he usually does. Will he be able to contend with the new, more aggressive Roger? Weather may be a factor as Friday’s forecast calls for relatively cool and rainy conditions during the day, though the rain may be over by the time they play. In any case, the tennis world awaits the latest chapter in their long history. Some things don’t change. But whomever wins will have to face a new player in the final in this new year. One hopes that more new and exciting results await in 2014. May the best players win.

[divider]

Discuss this article with fellow tennis fans in the tennis forums

[divider]

January 23, 2014
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 6 – Schedule of Play and Results

Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 6: Schedule of Play (Scores added as known)

CENTER COURT — Start 12:00

[3] Ivan Dodig (CRO) / Marcelo Melo (BRA) d [5] Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) / Jean-Julien Rojer (NED) — 7-5, 3-6 [11-9]

Not Before 14:00

[6] Roger Federer (SUI) d [4] Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) — 4-6, 7-6(2), 7-5

Not Before 17:45

[1] Bob Bryan (USA) / Mike Bryan (USA) d [8] Mariusz Fyrstenberg (POL) / Marcin Matkowski (POL) — 4-6, 6-3 [10-5]

Not Before 19:45

[2] Novak Djokovic (SRB) d [8] Richard Gasquet (FRA) — 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-3

November 8, 2013
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 4 – Schedule of Play and Results

Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – Day 4: Schedule of Play (Scores added as known)

CENTER COURT — Start 12:00 P.M.

[3] Ivan Dodig (CRO) / Marcelo Melo (BRA) d [8] Mariusz Fyrstenberg (POL) / Marcin Matkowski (POL) — 6-3, 3-6 [10-2]

Not Before 14:00

[6] Roger Federer (SUI) d [8] Richard Gasquet (FRA) — 6-4, 6-3

Not Before 18:00

[1] Bob Bryan (USA) / Mike Bryan (USA) d [5] Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) / Jean-Julien Rojer (NED) — 7-6(3), 1-6 [14-12]

Not Before 20:00

[2] Novak Djokovic (SRB) d [4] Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) — 6-3, 3-6, 6-3

November 6, 2013