[Blog] From Small to Big (Titles): When Young Players Breakthrough
- Thread starter El Dude
- Start date
Carol
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reactions
- 1,833
- Points
- 113
It's difficult to think who of the young ones will be the first one to win a bit tittle. Zverev at least has his feet on the ground saying that he knows he needs to improve a lot more to win a big one. Dimitrov is 25 already, he is playing very well but time flies and I hope he won´t continue the Berdych's legacy
Thiem? a lime and sand, maybe he should plan better his schedule or he will get burnt out before time
Thiem? a lime and sand, maybe he should plan better his schedule or he will get burnt out before time
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reactions
- 5,043
- Points
- 113
I think any of those three could win a Masters this year - Thiem at one of the clay tournaments, Dimi as soon as IW or Miami. I don't see Zverev being quite ready, but maybe later this year, after Wimbledon.
That said, my article was focused on how to differentiate future greats, or at least elites, from future second tier players. Who becomes Rafa and who becomes Gasquet? The one commonality among the greats that I found is the short gap of time - within a calendar year - between first title and big title (by "within a calendar year" this could be in January of one year, and November of the next). As said, the only exception to this among 6+ Slam winners in the Open Era was Agassi.
But Dimitrov and Thiem already "failed" this benchmark, as Dimitrov won his first title in 2014, Thiem in 2015, and neither followed up with a big title in the next year. In terms of historical precedents, their best-case scenario are becoming multi-Slam winners, but not true greats.
That said, my article was focused on how to differentiate future greats, or at least elites, from future second tier players. Who becomes Rafa and who becomes Gasquet? The one commonality among the greats that I found is the short gap of time - within a calendar year - between first title and big title (by "within a calendar year" this could be in January of one year, and November of the next). As said, the only exception to this among 6+ Slam winners in the Open Era was Agassi.
But Dimitrov and Thiem already "failed" this benchmark, as Dimitrov won his first title in 2014, Thiem in 2015, and neither followed up with a big title in the next year. In terms of historical precedents, their best-case scenario are becoming multi-Slam winners, but not true greats.
I've only just noticed this & would like to say it's very interesting & well-written & can tell that you put a lot of work into it. I only noticed 1 spelling mistake which is brilliant. I normally read books & newspapers & notice spelling mistakes & grammatical errors or typographical errors that much that everyone who knows me says I should be a proof-reader. It's left me with a few questions though. Would you mind if I asked?
O.K. Just out of interest, where did you get your information from in order to compile your thoughts? (Not that I want to check up because I know you know what you're doing & talking about like I said I just wondered). Is your method of doing things the official way or do you think about all different ways of doing things & come up with your own techniques? (I just like to know how people work because I'm fascinated by all different ways of doing things & the fact that there are many right & wrong ways of doing the same thing & we all come up with our own ways). I'd also like to say you did a good job there.
Haha! I'd lend you my spectacles if I didn't need them. Lol. There's no need to apologise as you're not making personal remarks about anyone & I can take a joke. Lol.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reactions
- 5,043
- Points
- 113
I vaguely remember you asking this before. I glean the raw info from various statistic websites, especially Tennis Abstract, Ultimate Tennis Statistics, the ATP site, Wikipedia, and one or two others. The "skyscrapers" and different tools I use are just made up...all for fun. I see using statistics not as a way to definitively categorize players, but as one lens to look at them through.
I didn't ask this exact question before but 1 very similar & thinking about it you gave me a very similar answer. I'm very sorry for bothering you. Thank you very much for your information. I just wondered. That sounds interesting. I agree with you there. You'd have to look at all factors to be able to categorise players totally. You're just looking at things through 1 perspective because it would be way too complex & time-consuming to look at them through all possible perspectives & you appear to enjoy looking at & interpreting quantitative evidence or working out the figures if you prefer. Mind you, some of the questions you ask & answer are about extents & for those kinds of questions & answers you need figures & statistics to change them from being just matters of opinion.
Last edited:
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 42,533
- Reactions
- 13,736
- Points
- 113
One does wonder if the paradigm will hold, given that Rafa and Roger are still hogging up #1 and #2 and the Majors. Obviously, we're in a flux period. But there are at least 3 ATGreats playing now, and there's precious little room for others to come up. A little bit more agitation in the MS 1000 and last year at WTF. But I wonder how the younger players are expected to hit landmarks when Rafa and Roger won't stop being dominant. And then if Djokovic comes back. Maybe we'll have players more like Wawrinka who hit a stride really later. Clearly, that's not a formula for winning many Majors, but it could still be a HOF career. I wonder how many of the NextGen's will "peak late," because it's really the only option.