Players that broke through in their late 20s

[El Dude]

I'm still getting used to the sight of Stan Wawrinka in the top five - I think it is good to remind ourselves that Stan had a breakthrough year last year, when he was 28 for most of the season (his birthday in March), and an even better year this year at age 29 (although he won the Australian Open still at age 28).

It will be interesting to see how well Marin Cilic does going forward, and while he has flirted with the top 10 in the past--even reaching #9 for a couple months back 2010 after making it to the AO SF--given the level he displayed in the US Open, it seems quite possible that he has broken through to a new level and could be a fixture in the top 10 for the next few years. Cilic is younger than Wawrinka was, even last year, but at age 25-26 this year he's still technically in the latter half of his 20s, and I think qualifies for "late 20s breakthrough."

Now we all know the current thinking that players are taking longer to reach their peak, but this is still a theory at this point. What we do know is that historically players usually breakthrough to their peak level in their early 20s then start declining sometime in their late 20s, with a sharper decline in their early 30s. In other words, historically speaking it is rare for a player to not reach their peak form until the second half of their 20s.

One player that comes to mind is Thomas Muster. Muster did finish his age 22-23 season (1990) at #7, but then took a step back for a few years and ended up having his best three year span from 1995-97, when he was 27-30, including his lone Grand Slam at age 27.

David Ferrer is another. While it looks like he's showing signs of slipping, he did have his best two years in 2012-13, when he was 29-31.

One player that I don't think qualifies is Goran Ivanisevic. While Goran won his only Slam surprisingly at age 29, his best years were in his early to mid-20s. In other words, I'm not talking about freak Slam wins but overall performance.

Who else?

 

[Kieran]

I think Muster broke his legs in a car smash, did he?

I don't know why players are maturing later, it's difficult to fathom. Grigor, for example, looks typical of the youth today, a feckless waster who thinks the world owes him a living. He could do with quickening up a bit - and who knows, maybe he could have won a major or been a greater player two years ago, if he had the mentality of great champs.

I have hopes that Nick will bust through before he's 21.

But Stan and a few others are late bloomers. This could just be a reflection of how much Fedalovic have dominated, or it could be an indictment of these young men, that they suddenly grow a pair when the adults are getting old, or injured...

 

[El Dude]

I still think Grigor is going to win a few Slams - yeah, I said a few. The first will be hardest, but I'm hoping it will come in 2015, or more likely 2016. But once he gets the one, a couple more will follow. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, though.

Nick is doing great. Unless he falls apart he'll almost certainly finish the year in the top 50, maybe the top 40 - he's #40 in the Race to London, which at this point is more accurate for year-end rankings. If he can finish around #40 this year, I could see him work towards the top 20 next year, with 2016 being his more likely breakthrough into the top 10 - when he's 20-21 years old.

I think you're right that the dominance of Fedalovic is the key factor, which has a huge psychological edge. as Marin Cilic said after he won, hopefully now the second tier guys (he didn't say that) will realize that hard work can pay off.

I think it is too late for Ferrer to win a Slam, but Berdych and Tsonga could make a run of it. While I could imagine the stars aligning for JW, but I don't think Tomas will ever win a Slam. Monfils is a more distant possibility.

Another player who has quietly broken through into relevance this year is 26-year old Roberto Bautista Agut, who is currently #15. I don't see him going much higher than that, but he's done really well.

Other possible future breakouts by mid-to-late 20 year olds to top 20 status: Benoit Paire, Martin Klizan, Jeremy Chardy.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think Grigor will do better once he makes a good coaching change, works on his fitness and becomes single again.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Grigor will do better once he makes a good coaching change, works on his fitness and becomes single again.

Isn't there a woman behind every successful man? May be the current one is not good choice for
him, but he needs one.

 

[Moxie]

I think Grigor will do better once he makes a good coaching change, works on his fitness and becomes single again.

Isn't there a woman behind every successful man? May be the current one is not good choice for
him, but he needs one.

Seriously? Fair is fair, in sexism, so why does Dimitrov need a "good woman" behind him? I'm pretty sure that he can play creditable tennis without a woman in his life. And I don't see why the one he has is a detriment, either.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Grigor will do better once he makes a good coaching change, works on his fitness and becomes single again.

Isn't there a woman behind every successful man? May be the current one is not good choice for
him, but he needs one.

Seriously? Fair is fair, in sexism, so why does Dimitrov need a "good woman" behind him? I'm pretty sure that he can play creditable tennis without a woman in his life. And I don't see why the one he has is a detriment, either.

This is not about sexism although if you literally take it, it appears so. It is also true that
there is a man behind every successful man. Generally speaking various studies have shown
that people who are happy and contented in their personal life, tend to do well in professional
life also and people who are not having contented personal life tend to do poorly in their
professional life.

With respect to your second point, I agree that I have no basis to say that it is to his
detriment (and OP does not have basis to say he should become single either).

 

[mrzz]

Again a very interesting topic raised by El Dude. As there are a lot of players out there, it is hard to think that this trend (guys in their late 20's coming up, guys with more than 30 doing well, top 3 around 30, few teenagers well ranked, etc etc) is a coincidence. Rather, it might be an effect of the current state of affairs.

I guess that tennis has developed in a way that you need not only physical strenght and talent (something a teenager may have) and endurance (were I do not see much of an advantage for a teenager), but experience (in a tactical sense) and psychological strenght. A top 10 player surely excels in ALL of the above (compared to the rest of the field). His shortcommings in any of those aspects is generally only exposed by other top player (I mean, I pretty much expect Berdych to implode against Nadal, but not against, say, Pablo Andujar).

Of course this was also true, say, in the 80's, but maybe it is even "more" true now.

In a nutshell, is a men's (or woman's) game. One of the reasons I like it.

 

[Moxie]

I still think Grigor is going to win a few Slams - yeah, I said a few. The first will be hardest, but I'm hoping it will come in 2015, or more likely 2016. But once he gets the one, a couple more will follow. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, though.

Nick is doing great. Unless he falls apart he'll almost certainly finish the year in the top 50, maybe the top 40 - he's #40 in the Race to London, which at this point is more accurate for year-end rankings. If he can finish around #40 this year, I could see him work towards the top 20 next year, with 2016 being his more likely breakthrough into the top 10 - when he's 20-21 years old.

I think you're right that the dominance of Fedalovic is the key factor, which has a huge psychological edge. as Marin Cilic said after he won, hopefully now the second tier guys (he didn't say that) will realize that hard work can pay off.

I think it is too late for Ferrer to win a Slam, but Berdych and Tsonga could make a run of it. While I could imagine the stars aligning for JW, but I don't think Tomas will ever win a Slam. Monfils is a more distant possibility.

Another player who has quietly broken through into relevance this year is 26-year old Roberto Bautista Agut, who is currently #15. I don't see him going much higher than that, but he's done really well.

Other possible future breakouts by mid-to-late 20 year olds to top 20 status: Benoit Paire, Martin Klizan, Jeremy Chardy.

As always, intriguing topic, Dude. I agree with Tsonga being more likely than Berdych for a Slam, and I think some of your also-rans are just that.

I will make this point about Ferrer, just because it's often forgotten. No, I don't think he'll win a Slam. But he's been a factor since he was 25. Which isn't young, and not exactly the "late career" that everyone remembers him for. He reached #8 in Sept. of '07, when he was 25, and #4 in August of '08. When he fell out of the top 10, he was mostly in the teens, and never fell farther than #23, and that only for about 1 week. He re-entered the top 10 in Oct. of 2010, and hasn't left it. But he wasn't "invented" at 27. Now Cilic has made his first foray into the top 10 at 25, which was the age Ferrer did. Where does he go from here? I think he could have a very solid and workman-like career, a la Ferrer and Berdych. He doesn't really look like a super-star, though.

 

[Kieran]

I think for Tsonga to win a major, he needs to face a non-3 player who might be even more awed by the occasion. If he faces a Three, he'd require the Stanislaus Effect, and similarly to Stan, I think he'd struggle to finish off a limping ledge...

 

[El Dude]

Again a very interesting topic raised by El Dude. ....
In a nutshell, is a men's (or woman's) game. One of the reasons I like it.

Thanks. I think you bring up some interesting points and questions - namely, why has the recent shift occurred in terms of peak years, fewer teenagers and more players around 30? I think all of your speculations are good, but that it ultimately remains a mystery. It might simply be a cyclical thing, and we'll start seeing more teenagers again. I mean, back in the 70s and before players were remaining elite later than they were during the 80s-00s. So it isn't that people playing at a high level into their 30s is new. What is new is the late peaking, that the game isn't dominated by 21-25 years like it was for most of the last 40 years. That might simply be a generational thing, and that young guys like Kyrgios, Zverev, Coric, and Garin will change that. Or maybe not.

But the other question is: What makes a player truly great? That's the big question. What separates a Federer from a Nalbandian? I personally think we can't understate the psychological element. Certainly Roger has skills that very few players have, but I think what separates the all-time greats from the nearly greats is not just an edge in skill, but a mentality. Someone like Ferrer has the mentality, but not quite the skill-set. Nalbandian was the other way (combine Nalbandian's skills and Ferrer's mental toughness and you end up with a players similar to Nadal or Federer).

As always, intriguing topic, Dude. I agree with Tsonga being more likely than Berdych for a Slam, and I think some of your also-rans are just that.

I will make this point about Ferrer, just because it's often forgotten. No, I don't think he'll win a Slam. But he's been a factor since he was 25. Which isn't young, and not exactly the "late career" that everyone remembers him for. He reached #8 in Sept. of '07, when he was 25, and #4 in August of '08. When he fell out of the top 10, he was mostly in the teens, and never fell farther than #23, and that only for about 1 week. He re-entered the top 10 in Oct. of 2010, and hasn't left it. But he wasn't "invented" at 27. Now Cilic has made his first foray into the top 10 at 25, which was the age Ferrer did. Where does he go from here? I think he could have a very solid and workman-like career, a la Ferrer and Berdych. He doesn't really look like a super-star, though.

Thanks. Just a nitpick - Cilic actually made the top 10 a few years ago, in 2010 when he was 21. It was only a few months, though, and then he was erratic for a few years before his current surge.

But I think Cilic is a good example for this sort of discussion, because he's a player with a lot of talent (by "a lot" I don't mean Big Four talent, but Tsonga-Berdych-Del Potro-Wawrinka talent) who just had to grow up a bit to put it all together. We could look at his banning as a blessing in disguise; maybe it made him realize that he had to work harder, that more had to come from within?

As for Ferrer, I agree that he wasn't "invented" at 27 - but his best range of play was 29-31, so he's a good example of a breakthough in his late 20s. When I say "breakthrough" I mean playing their best tennis. Most players--the vast majority, historically speaking--breakthrough to their peak level sometime in the 21-24 range; the point here is to look at players that reached their peak later than that, and Ferrer and Cilic are perfect examples - although very different ones.

I think for Tsonga to win a major, he needs to face a non-3 player who might be even more awed by the occasion. If he faces a Three, he'd require the Stanislaus Effect, and similarly to Stan, I think he'd struggle to finish off a limping ledge...

You are probably right in that Tsonga, time and time again, seems to lose the momentum against the top guys and not be able to finish them off - at least Novak and Rafa. But the thing is, he's also able to play truly explosive tennis, and I have a hard time saying that someone like Cilic or even Wawrinka is a better player than Jo-Wilfried. Both Stanislas and Marin have basically proven--as Marin actually said after winning the US Open--that the second tier guys can actually win a Slam, and not only through luck or avoiding top players. Let us not forget that Stan did beat Novak and then Berdych, and then took a set off a healthy Nadal before Nadal became injured. And let us not forget who Cilic beat on his way to winning the US Open; he was playing at an essentially unbeatable level, or a level so high that only the absolute best of Novak, Nadal, or Federer could have beaten. Both proved, "It can be done." And so gone is the era of absolute dominance by the Big Three+.

That said, I do think that the (former) Big Four will win most of the Slams in 2015-16, but even if they win 5-6 of the next 8, that's 60-75% vs. the ridiculous 93% that those four won from 2014-13. 93% seemed insurmountable, while the 50% of 2014 seems like the mental barrier has broken.

 

[El Dude]

Just a bit more. The difference between tennis in the 2004-13 "Big Four Hegemony" era and most eras, is that very few second tier talents snuck out a Slam win. As I said, only 3 of the 40 in that era - that's the 93% number. All eras have their greats, but this era that we might be ending was so locked up by a few players, in a way that I don't think we've seen previously. During the 90s there were always players like Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Rafter, etc winning Slams. During the 80s it was relatively locked up, but by more players, and you still had a few lesser talents like Cash, Kriek and Noah sneaking in. The Connors-Borg-Vilas era was pretty narrowly dominated, but it was comparatively short.

I think also we see cycles of dominance among a few players, then "in-between phases" like the early 70s, then the late 90s/early 00s when more second tier players win Slams. But sometimes there is a smoother transition, like from the mid-70s through the mid-90s you had almost seamless "regime changes." Connors-Borg-Vilas transitioned into Connors-McEnroe-Wilander-Lendl, Lendl-Edberg-Becker, then Sampras-Agassi. There were fewer gaps. But then you had the open late 90s and early 00s, before Federer-Nadal, and then the Big Four (although really Nadal-Djokovic). Now it seems like we might be entering an open zone, with no clear new regime on the horizon.

It should be an interesting next few years as we start to see the next great generation rise up. Kyrgios seems the most likely probable, but it remains to be seen which of the current teenagers will become dominant. Zverev? Coric? Garin? Tiafoe? Maybe none of the above?

 

[DarthFed]

I think Grigor will do better once he makes a good coaching change, works on his fitness and becomes single again.

Isn't there a woman behind every successful man? May be the current one is not good choice for
him, but he needs one.

Seriously? Fair is fair, in sexism, so why does Dimitrov need a "good woman" behind him? I'm pretty sure that he can play creditable tennis without a woman in his life. And I don't see why the one he has is a detriment, either.

This is not about sexism although if you literally take it, it appears so. It is also true that
there is a man behind every successful man. Generally speaking various studies have shown
that people who are happy and contented in their personal life, tend to do well in professional
life also and people who are not having contented personal life tend to do poorly in their
professional life.

With respect to your second point, I agree that I have no basis to say that it is to his
detriment (and OP does not have basis to say he should become single either).

I'd be interested in seeing those studies and if they relate to certain professions. Feeling content is the most dangerous feeling an athlete can have because then the losses don't hurt as much. And if the losses don't hurt I guarantee they aren't playing as well as they can.

Tough to know if that's the case for Grigor. I just think he is still a bit hyped and people got perhaps overly excited to see him become semi-relevant this year. He still has a ways to go and maybe Maria is part of the problem. Look what's happened with the Woz since Rory dumped her, suddenly she is playing decent again.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Grigor will do better once he makes a good coaching change, works on his fitness and becomes single again.

Isn't there a woman behind every successful man? May be the current one is not good choice for
him, but he needs one.

Seriously? Fair is fair, in sexism, so why does Dimitrov need a "good woman" behind him? I'm pretty sure that he can play creditable tennis without a woman in his life. And I don't see why the one he has is a detriment, either.

This is not about sexism although if you literally take it, it appears so. It is also true that
there is a man behind every successful man. Generally speaking various studies have shown
that people who are happy and contented in their personal life, tend to do well in professional
life also and people who are not having contented personal life tend to do poorly in their
professional life.

With respect to your second point, I agree that I have no basis to say that it is to his
detriment (and OP does not have basis to say he should become single either).

I'd be interested in seeing those studies and if they relate to certain professions. Feeling content is the most dangerous feeling an athlete can have because then the losses don't hurt as much. And if the losses don't hurt I guarantee they aren't playing as well as they can.

Tough to know if that's the case for Grigor. I just think he is still a bit hyped and people got perhaps overly excited to see him become semi-relevant this year. He still has a ways to go and maybe Maria is part of the problem. Look what's happened with the Woz since Rory dumped her, suddenly she is playing decent again.

The "contentment" mentioned here is in personal life and does not refer to being content
with the current state of affairs with respect to results. The point being when your personal
life is in order and you are content with it, you will be able to focus more clearly achievements
in your profession and on court.

 

[DarthFed]

Isn't there a woman behind every successful man? May be the current one is not good choice for
him, but he needs one.

Seriously? Fair is fair, in sexism, so why does Dimitrov need a "good woman" behind him? I'm pretty sure that he can play creditable tennis without a woman in his life. And I don't see why the one he has is a detriment, either.

This is not about sexism although if you literally take it, it appears so. It is also true that
there is a man behind every successful man. Generally speaking various studies have shown
that people who are happy and contented in their personal life, tend to do well in professional
life also and people who are not having contented personal life tend to do poorly in their
professional life.

With respect to your second point, I agree that I have no basis to say that it is to his
detriment (and OP does not have basis to say he should become single either).

I'd be interested in seeing those studies and if they relate to certain professions. Feeling content is the most dangerous feeling an athlete can have because then the losses don't hurt as much. And if the losses don't hurt I guarantee they aren't playing as well as they can.

Tough to know if that's the case for Grigor. I just think he is still a bit hyped and people got perhaps overly excited to see him become semi-relevant this year. He still has a ways to go and maybe Maria is part of the problem. Look what's happened with the Woz since Rory dumped her, suddenly she is playing decent again.

The "contentment" mentioned here is in personal life and does not refer to being content
with the current state of affairs with respect to results. The point being when your personal
life is in order and you are content with it, you will be able to focus more clearly achievements
in your profession and on court.

I understand the distinction but to some level it is hard to separate them (personal and professional life and the feeling of being content).

Think of the difference between Roger losing the 2005 semi at AO to this recent Wimbledon final. The 2005 version is the 23 year old who still has Mirka at his side but is not married and doesn't have kids yet. That was a young player still trying to build up his resume and there were no distractions. Generally speaking tennis was likely pretty much everything and the losses probably ate at him a lot more than they do now. After the final this year Roger went home to his wife and 4 kids and probably got over it pretty quick...it is no longer life and death.

 

[El Dude]

I understand the distinction but to some level it is hard to separate them (personal and professional life and the feeling of being content).

Think of the difference between Roger losing the 2005 semi at AO to this recent Wimbledon final. The 2005 version is the 23 year old who still has Mirka at his side but is not married and doesn't have kids yet. That was a young player still trying to build up his resume and there were no distractions. Generally speaking tennis was likely pretty much everything and the losses probably ate at him a lot more than they do now. After the final this year Roger went home to his wife and 4 kids and probably got over it pretty quick...it is no longer life and death.

This is a tricky thing. There's an argument that the reduced stress of "not having to win" actually could improve performance by better facilitating focus on the court. Part of Roger's greatness is his ability to remain calm and in the moment, not to get ahead of himself. Contrast to an Andy Murray, for instance, who has been the "worst of the best/best of the rest" for most of his career, and was so desperate to win a Slam. He finally did, but his overall attitude of needing to prove himself hasn't exactly stabilized him.

But I do agree that once you become a father then there's less of a need to prove oneself. Perhaps this could translate to taking it easier practicing. On the other hand, it could also make practice--and thus taking a break from the kids!--all the more appealing.

Anyhow, I think it all evens out. In the end, we're left with the only clear determinant factors being the more obvious ones: age, injury, and wear-and-tear. But motivation is far more complex and subtle.