Young Guns Discussion

[El Dude]

We've had threads for general discussion of young players on tour, but I thought I'd start a fresh one. Hopefully we can direct all or most discussion here, unless it is a major topic or focus on a specific player.

Anyhow, to start things off I thought I'd give an update on where some of the younger players on tour are right now. Considering that players seem to be peaking later these days, let's look at the players currently age 24 and younger in the top 100 Live Race to London rankings (that is, 2016 calendar points only):

Live Race to London Rankings - Under 25 (7/20/16)
6. Dominic Thiem (22)
14. Nick Kyrgios (21)
17. Lucas Pouille (22)
22. Bernard Tomic (23)
23. Alexander Zverev (19)
38. Jack Sock (23)
47. Borna Coric (19)
48. Jiri Vesely (23)
53. Kyle Edmund (21)
56. Taylor Fritz (18)
73. Damir Dzumhur (24)
74. Thiago Monteiro (22)
80. Diego Schwartzman (23)
81. Yoshihito Nishioka (20)
82. Renzo Olivo (24)
84. Adam Pavlasek (21)
86. Jordan Thompson (22)
89. Karen Khachanov (20)
90. Bjorn Fratangelo (23)
98. Jozef Kovalik (23)
99. Taro Daniel (23)

Also worth mentioning are some younger (under 21) players in the top 200:
123. Elias Ymer (20)
127. Quentin Halys (19)
128. Frances Tiafoe (18)
131. Stefan Kozlov (18)
142. Daniil Medvedev (20)
164. Duckhee Lee (18)
165. Jared Donaldson (19)
167. Andrey Rublev (18)
169. Hyeon Chung (20)
198. Noah Rubin (20)

And here are the top ranked players under 18 in the top 500:
255. Denis Shapovalov (17)
278. Stefanos Tsitsapas (17)
458. Casper Ruud (17)
494. Louis Wessels (17)

And then of course...
621. Felix Auger Aliassime (15)

I'll write a separate post to share some of my impressions and thoughts.

 

[El Dude]

Some thoughts and analysis...

Stagnant/struggling: Coric and Chung come to mind, and of course Kokkinakis who is currently ranked #446. As many have said, Coric just doesn't have the firepower to be a top player, although I could see him being a regular in the top 20-30 range. He really reminds me of Bernard Tomic.

I personally have been disappointed with Rublev, who I thought would break through this year but has essentially stagnated, despite winning his first Challenger earlier this year. But he's young enough that we can still hope something clicks and he makes a big developmental leap.

Players like Donaldson, Nishioka, Ymer, etc, have shown little advancement, or at least only incrementally. These guys look more like future top 30-50 types than elites.

Big risers/breakthroughs: Thiem and Pouille come to mind. Thiem has jumped from #20 at the beginning of the year to #9 currently, rising as high as #7. Pouille has jumped all the way from #78 to #22 and seems to be about a year behind Thiem, but perhaps on a similar schedule (in other words, look for Pouille to possibly break into the top 10 next year).

Nick Kyrgios has also risen from #30 to his current #18. Maybe not as quickly as some hoped, but one or two deep finishes and/or minor titles and he could be on the cusp of the top 10.

Alex Zverev has had a strong season so far, rising from #83 to as high as #27, currently #31. He could finish the year around #20. In my mind he is the player most likely to become an elite, at least of players in the top 200 or so.

Fritz would be right behind him, although has stagnated a bit in his current range. But he's half a year younger than Zverev, so has plenty of time. He went from #174 to his current live ranking of #61, which is quite a jump. Maybe he can get into the top 50 this year, and then look to break into the top 20 next.

Of the "older" group age 23-24, no real breakouts this year. Tomic seems to have established his level as a ~#20ish player, the same with Sock as top 30-40. Monteiro, age 22, is a possible late-bloomer to watch.

Of the younger players in the top 200, Stefan Kozlov is one to watch. He's at #158 in the live rankings and could come close to the top 100 this year, certainly (hopefully) before his 19th birthday in February.

 

[El Dude]

OK, here's a very interesting anomaly I found. We all know that Borna Coric has been stagnating. He first entered the top 100 on Oct 27, 2014, a couple weeks before his 18th birthday (Nov 14). He hung around in the 90s range for a bit over four months before jumping to #61 on March 2, 2015. He then rose slowly but steadily to #33 on July 27, 2015 - a year ago now - which has turned out to be a career high. For the last year he has bounced around in the 33-54 range. In other words, total stagnation for a year - not a good sign for a teenager.

But is it? There is one other player who had a similar period of time, although at a slightly younger age: Rafael Nadal. The timetable is very similar, but just a year earlier. Take a look:

Rafa first entered the top 100 on April 21, 2003 - a month and a half shy of his 17th birthday. He rose steadily for a few months until he broke into the top 50 on August 4 of that year, but then ranked in the 40s for over seven months, until March 8 of 2004 when he pushed up to #36. Rafa then fell back as high as #71 in August, before jumping back into the top 50, but then stagnated until February of 2005 when he saw his ranking rise very quickly, from #48 on Feb 14 to #31 two weeks later, then a huge jump from #31 on March 21 to #17 on April 4, then up to #11 on April 18 then #7 on April 25, #5 on May 9, and #3 on June 6.

If you know Rafa's history than you know what was going on: 2005 was his breakout year. While he did win one ATP 250 title in the summer of 2004, the titles started flowing in starting in February of 2005 when he won an ATP 250 and an ATP 500. But then the breakout happened for real in April. First he lost in the final of Miami to #1 Roger Federer, then beat then-clay court master Guillermo Coria at Monte-Carlo, winning his first Masters. He also beat Juan Carlos Ferrero in an ATP 500, Coria again in Rome (thereby damaging Coria's confidence and leading to his downfall, at least according to one source), and then finally won his first Slam at Roland Garros - completely his full breakthrough to elite status.

But the point is this: Rafa was pretty stagnant from April of 2003 to February of 2005. Yes, he won a title in 2004, but his overall level--as represented by ranking--showed relative stagnation. And this period of time--22 months--is eerily similar to Borna Coric's period of stagnation.

Now I am NOT saying that this similarily means that Borna Coric will, all of a sudden, figure things out and become a great like Rafa. But it is interesting to see this similarity, and also dispells the notion that a long period of stagnation--at least in the rankings--at a young age doesn't preclude future greatness.

Borna's rise was actually relatively consistently until a year ago, when he peaked out at #33. Then...well, not much. He's been a consistent player in the 30s-50s for an entire year, which is rather rare for an 18-19 year old. Borna turns 20 in November, so is still quite young, but clearly he's got something to figure out. But a player of his age, and one who entered the top 100 before his 18th birthday--something that Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, and Andy Murray did not do--still bears watching. What if he figures something out in his game, like Rafa presumably figured out back in early 2005? And, for that matter, what was the difference between Rafa in late 2004--when he was still stagnating--and the player that took the clay season by storm starting in February of 2005?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa had to deal with injuries in 2004 and so your analogy is totally off. Borna is no Nadal.

Rafa was already considered a contender for 2004 RG, but unfortunately did not get to play there due to injuries. Also, it affected him for a considerable portion of 2004 and his stagnation was due to that and not due to pure performance issues like Borna.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, even though I clearly stated that Borna was no Rafa, I knew someone would take issue with this.

Yes, I realize this. But my point was simply:

1) There is an interesting similarity in their developmental patterns, as represented by the rankings.

2) Just because a player stagnates for a long period of time in his teens doesn't mean he can't take a big jump forward.

That is all. No Borna = Rafa.

 

[herios]

For some reasons, there are some cases of early developed players when teenagers, who will be not able to develop further at the same pace and being caught and passed by their peers.
The well known in that category are Young and Harrison.
I am not saying that Borna will follow that path, but he is not developing right now as expected by many 1-2 years ago.

It is just a reminder that not all of these guys will be reaching the very top.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Haha, even though I clearly stated that Borna was no Rafa, I knew someone would take issue with this.

Yes, I realize this. But my point was simply:

1) There is an interesting similarity in their developmental patterns, as represented by the rankings.

2) Just because a player stagnates for a long period of time in his teens doesn't mean he can't take a big jump forward.

That is all. No Borna = Rafa.

Even if you are willing to admit that Borna is not equal to Rafa, your claim that both of them are analogously stagnating for a long period of time in rankings is just not true. It may be literally true that Rafa was stagnated in the rankings. But, almost everyone who are familiar with Rafa's career trajectory know that Rafa was sidelined with Ankly injury in 2004. 2004 was the year in which Rafa beat Federer in Miami and was already well recognized as a player with heavy potential. He was even considered a favorite by many for 2004 RG (No, I am not saying this in retrospect with our current knowledge of Rafa's performance at RG). But, he missed a substantial portion of clay circuit and RG.

On the other hand Borna had no serious injury for the last couple of years (probably not ever so far). So, to say the Borna's stagnation is similar to Rafa's stagnation is totally far fetched.

 

[El Dude]

This is a silly argument. You yourself said the similarity was there in the rankings, that it is "literally true," which is all I said. Done.

 

[El Dude]

For some reasons, there are some cases of early developed players when teenagers, who will be not able to develop further at the same pace and being caught and passed by their peers.
The well known in that category are Young and Harrison.
I am not saying that Borna will follow that path, but he is not developing right now as expected by many 1-2 years ago.

It is just a reminder that not all of these guys will be reaching the very top.

It is an interesting question - why do some early developers go on to be stars and others stagnate and don't rise as high? We can look at Rafa vs Gasquet, or perhaps eventually Zverev vs Coric.

I think the key is in asking WHY they rose quickly and if it is backed up by "substance." A good example is Hyeon Chung, who rose to around #50 at a very young age then fell back and is now outside the top 100. His early rise was largely fueled by success on the Challenger circuit, the "minor leagues" of tennis. When he started playing ATP pro tour events he couldn't hold his points.

A player like Zverev, on the other hand, seems to gradually build. All those 2R and 3R results might not look sexy on paper but they add up and give a player better and better seeding, giving a stronger platform for a breakthrough performance (whether a minor title or a second week run at a Slam).

If I ever get a chance I'd like to study players who reached the top 100 as teenagers and what they did after. I've noted that all 6+ Slam winners made the top 100 before their 19th birthday, and that a large percent of 18 year old top 100 players go on to be great, but 19 year olds in the top 100 is a much larger group.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is a silly argument. You yourself said the similarity was there in the rankings, that it is "literally true," which is all I said. Done.

No, it is not a silly argument. You were projecting as though the stagnations of Rafa and Borna were comparable. But, they simply are not. Perhaps, you were not aware of Rafa's ankle injury of 2004 and the consequent wash out of several tourneys including RG for him.

 

[El Dude]

You are being silly because I'm not arguing what you think I'm arguing, as I clearly said in the OP.

 

[mrzz]

Brazilian Thiago Monteiro moves up a few spots in the list El Dude presented above and gets quite close to a top 100 spot thanks to a win over #2 seed and world #30 Giles Simon.

That´s his third quality scalp, adding to Tsonga and Almagro.

It is only his fourth ATP level event, and he has a 6x3 record up to now in this level, and curiously all his losses came against the same player, Pablo Cuevas. There is no Cuevas around this time, but his next opponent, Robin Haase, beat him in Challenger tour a few months ago.

 

[El Dude]

Shapovalov is looking very promising. Wins three Futures, the boys Wimbledon title, and a top 20 opponent all at age 16-17. He could be a fast-riser. By my "criteria of greatness," the first benchmark is making the top 100 before turning 19...which he won't do until April, 2018.

Right now he's #290 in the live rankings, or #214 in the Race rankings. If he manages to beat Grigor Dimitrov in the next round of Rogers Cup, he'll be up to around #250/#180. A top 200 ranking at age 17 is very good.

 

[El Dude]

Alas, Shapo loses to Grigor. I've seen enough to be very, very impressed with this 17-year old.

Here's some comparison. Shapo is 17 years, 3 months. At a similar age, look at the rankings:

Shapovalov: 290
Federer: 679
Nadal: 45
Djokovic: 343
Murray: 569

It is early enough to not be all that meaningful because most players haven't even really started yet. Still, impressive.

 

[herios]

Not a good week for the leaders of the group: Thiem, Zverev, Kyrgios, Coric.
A surprising result by Donaldson, but I would not put too much on it, until he back it up.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Alas, Shapo loses to Grigor. I've seen enough to be very, very impressed with this 17-year old.

Here's some comparison. Shapo is 17 years, 3 months. At a similar age, look at the rankings:

Shapovalov: 290
Federer: 679
Nadal: 45
Djokovic: 343
Murray: 569

It is early enough to not be all that meaningful because most players haven't even really started yet. Still, impressive.

Shapovalov: 290
Federer: 679
Nadal: 45
Djokovic: 343
Murray: 569
May be one day there will be a tread regarding how great of a Super Teenager Rafa was..

 

[Carol]

Alas, Shapo loses to Grigor. I've seen enough to be very, very impressed with this 17-year old.

Here's some comparison. Shapo is 17 years, 3 months. At a similar age, look at the rankings:

Shapovalov: 290
Federer: 679
Nadal: 45
Djokovic: 343
Murray: 569

It is early enough to not be all that meaningful because most players haven't even really started yet. Still, impressive.

Shapovalov: 290

Federer: 679
Nadal: 45
Djokovic: 343
Murray: 569
May be one day there will be a tread regarding how great of a Super Teenager Rafa was..

Well, you won't see that from some Federer's fans but I'v already read a lot about it. The real problems is that never will be a Super Teenager like him :nono

 

[Front242]

Boris Becker was even more impressive.

 

[El Dude]

Rafa came into his own at a very young age - more akin to top players of the 80s and 90s. You don't see that anymore.

Lleyton Hewitt was also very good as a teenager, although not as good. He was ranked in the 150s around the same age and made it to the top 100 just before turning 18.

 

[El Dude]

I like how Carol made an annoying and unnecessary jab at Federer's fans, but then Front right away gave an example of what she was complaining about.