Young Guns Finally Have Ammunition

[lacatch]

After watching Indian Wells and Miami (so far)--it looks like the ascent of the next generation has begun. Thiem, Zverev, and Kyrgios, among others, are really starting to gain some momentum and getting wins against top players. And as for the "Big Four"? Only Nole seems to be rolling forward as before, still winning even though he hasn't played close to his top level since the Australian Open. Fed was playing well but we'll have to see how he comes back post knee surgery. Andy seems a bit off--not sure if it's the new family or what. And Rafa remains an enigma--playing well one minute and going out early the next--personally I doubt he's going to win even a Masters 500 this year, much less a slam. All in all, I think the transition that has been predicted for years has finally begun, if at a slightly glacial pace. By 2017--I think results will look very different from the status quo.

 

[El Dude]

It is very exciting. We really missed a whole generation of young up-and-comers. Just think that the last young player to not only show elite talent but elite results was Juan Martin del Potro back in 2009, and his career has been greatly damaged by injury.

I think expectations with Thiem should be modest. At 22, 23 later this year, he's already in the age range in which players traditionally are in their prime. He might get a bit better, but it is just very rare that players get considerably better than they are at his age.

Kyrgios is really on the verge, although after watching him implode against Nishikori--or at least unable to adjust and figure him out--I have some doubts about his absolute upside. Still, he's a very dangerous player and I think will win a Slam or three.

Zverev and Fritz are the other two that are on the radar (top 100). Chung too, but I suspect he's more of a top 20 guy than an elite. But we should be clear that Zverev and Fritz are probably still another year or two from doing serious damage on the tour. I think they'll both start winning minor titles and going deeper at Slams, but it probably won't be until next year or even 2018 that we see serious contention for Masters and Slams from those two.

We shouldn't forget Coric. He's been stagnating, and people worry that he's all defense with no clear weaponry, but wasn't Djokovic similar at his age? I don't think Coric will be that good, but he'll be a top 10 player. Maybe similar to Thiem, behind those other three.

And then there are more on their way...Rublev, Tiafoe, etc...

 

[nehmeth]

We shouldn't forget Coric. He's been stagnating, and people worry that he's all defense with no clear weaponry, but wasn't Djokovic similar at his age?

Not at all; actually the opposite. Back in the day, he hit a flatter shot more regularly than he does now. They were great for offense, and prone to more errors. So he added more spin, but can still flatten it out and crush it when the opportunity presents itself.

(and Novak was top 5 before his 20th birthday)

 

[El Dude]

Thanks, nehmeth. I was going to start a question asking people about Novak at this age - I wasn't following tennis too closely back then, so only remember Novak as the guy who managed to sneak a Slam in and was always behind Roger and Rafa.

By the way, I've been charting the young guys relative to the greats and found that Coric actually out-ranked Novak on their 17th, 18th, and 19th birthdays:

Novak: 515, 128, 63
Borna: 396, 89, 45

Now the problem for Borna is that Novak--like all greats--blossomed before his 20th birthday, ranking #6 when he turned 20. That's because he won three ATP 250s and one Masters as a 19-year old, the Masters just before his 20th birthday.

Right now Borna is 19 years and 4 and half months old and ranked #50 in the live rankings. The equivalent time for Novak was October of 2006. Novak had climbed sharply from #81 at the end of January to #22 on October 2, and then would enter the top 20 for good a week later. So clearly Borna is now behind Novak's pace, although not enormously so. But Borna has to start accelerating quickly if he wants to be on the "Pace of Greatness." He really needs to take a step up and start winning minor tournaments.

Anyhow, I don't predict Borna for greatness, more like "very goodness." I think he'll be a latter-half top 10 player, although might still win a Slam or two because the tour will likely be more balanced and competitive starting in 2018 or so.

 

[nehmeth]

I think it is easier to teach an offensive player defense than the other way around. It's the difference between Djokovic and Murray. While Andy can play offense, it's not in his DNA. Coric is the same animal without the same talent as Andy.

Back to the O.P.

Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori - the talent and the ammunition is there. It's a matter of other variables with each one and it will be the same for these new guys.

Zverev and Kyrgios - I'm not sure how well they will do in the pressure situations.
Thiem - Is solid mentally and relentless physically, but his onehanded backhand is a liability that can be exploited.
Coric - too defensively oriented.

The one thing this group has going for them that their immediate predecessors did not: that there is a whole crop of old timers in the top 20 that are hitting their sell by date.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, so you are saying Borna is a "poor man's Andy Murray." Brutal

Interesting thing about those three you mention is that I think the order of talent is Dimitrov, Nishikori, and then Raonic, but in terms of the chances of one of them scoring a big upset and winning a Slam, I think the order is reversed. Dimitrov just doesn't have the mentality to win big, at least not right now - and he'll be 25 in a month. If Borna is the poor man's Andy Murray, then Grigor might be the poor man's David Nalbandian: buckets of talent, but the "mental bucket" is empty.

Raonic is like a better version of Ivo Karlovic. Ivo is probably the best server in the Open Era, but if he had an average serve he'd struggle to be in the top 200. Milos's serve is not quite as good but still excellent, and if he is able to get hot I could see him winning at Wimbledon or the US Open, certainly a Masters or two. In a way he's not far from a Goran Ivanisevic.

As for Nishi, I do think he'll win a Masters--or at least he really should--but he doesn't seem to have the overall talent to win a Slam, unless the stars align. They almost did at the US Open in 2014, but he met an on-fire Cilic, who was playing like what I imagine Kyrgios could be like if he ever grows up. Nishi will be that guy over the next five years who could win if the best players fall short. I don't say this simply because he's Asian, but he kind of is like a poor man's Michael Chang in that regard.

I really liked what I saw from Zverev against Rafa. He just showed how young he was, that's all. I don't think it will crush him - hopefully inspire him.

As for your last sentence, I do think this crop is more talented - it isn't just opportunity. But combining opportunity and more talent, and they should be fine.

 

[nehmeth]

I like brutal. :snicker

I agree with you about those three - Dimitrov was a huge disappointment to me.

Zverev I have two concerns - one is how he will fare in the pressure situations, the other is staying injury free - I mentioned before I think - his brother's career has been hampered by injury and I am hoping that isn't something genetic.

 

[El Dude]

Let's cross our fingers, then.

I have a three-part blog about "looking for the next great" in the works. I'll probably post part one early next week.

 

[nehmeth]

Let's cross our fingers, then.

I have a three-part blog about "looking for the next great" in the works. I'll probably post part one early next week.

Fingers have been crossed for a while now with regard to young Zverev. He's got such a good way about him. With Nole getting older, I'm hoping this young fella will step up.

Looking forward to your next blog!

 

[herios]

Fingers have been crossed for a while now with regard to young Zverev. He's got such a good way about him. With Nole getting older, I'm hoping this young fella will step up.

As far as I remember, you do not like tall tennis players. Zverev is 6'6"...
Are you changing your mind?

 

[herios]

Thanks, nehmeth. I was going to start a question asking people about Novak at this age - I wasn't following tennis too closely back then, so only remember Novak as the guy who managed to sneak a Slam in and was always behind Roger and Rafa.

By the way, I've been charting the young guys relative to the greats and found that Coric actually out-ranked Novak on their 17th, 18th, and 19th birthdays:

Novak: 515, 128, 63
Borna: 396, 89, 45

Now the problem for Borna is that Novak--like all greats--blossomed before his 20th birthday, ranking #6 when he turned 20. That's because he won three ATP 250s and one Masters as a 19-year old, the Masters just before his 20th birthday.

Right now Borna is 19 years and 4 and half months old and ranked #50 in the live rankings. The equivalent time for Novak was October of 2006. Novak had climbed sharply from #81 at the end of January to #22 on October 2, and then would enter the top 20 for good a week later. So clearly Borna is now behind Novak's pace, although not enormously so. But Borna has to start accelerating quickly if he wants to be on the "Pace of Greatness." He really needs to take a step up and start winning minor tournaments.

Anyhow, I don't predict Borna for greatness, more like "very goodness." I think he'll be a latter-half top 10 player, although might still win a Slam or two because the tour will likely be more balanced and competitive starting in 2018 or so.

Although I have less expectations for Coric than many posters, he still is ahead in development than Zverev, who I see now everybody is bandwagoning.
Coric broke into the top 50 at 18y 6 months, Zverev has yet to make it into the top 50 and he turns 19 in two weeks.
I would be more conservative with all the projections, until proven otherwise.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, although the main problem with Borna is that he's been stagnating for about a year now, fluctuating in #30s-50s range since March of 2015 - seemingly unable to take that next step up into the top 20. I expect he will, maybe (hopefully) this year, but that year of stagnation is worrisome for his overall development. One of the qualities that most great players share is that they don't stagnate, they continue steady and often quick development, especially at Borna's age. They ones who start strong and then stagnate turn into Richard Gasquet or Tomas Berdych.

That said, Borna's got time - he's still very young, not turning 20 until November. It is worth noting that every since 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era was in the top 20 before they turned 20 years old, except for Ivan Lendl, who went pro a bit later than most. But Lendl was just outside the top 20, #22 when he turned 20 and reaching #20 a couple weeks after his 20th birthday. At Borna's age a lot can change in seven months, but I'd really like to see a big step forward before his birthday.

 

[herios]

I hear you, although the main problem with Borna is that he's been stagnating for about a year now, fluctuating in #30s-50s range since March of 2015 - seemingly unable to take that next step up into the top 20. I expect he will, maybe (hopefully) this year, but that year of stagnation is worrisome for his overall development. One of the qualities that most great players share is that they don't stagnate, they continue steady and often quick development, especially at Borna's age. They ones who start strong and then stagnate turn into Richard Gasquet or Tomas Berdych.

That said, Borna's got time - he's still very young, not turning 20 until November. It is worth noting that every since 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era was in the top 20 before they turned 20 years old, except for Ivan Lendl, who went pro a bit later than most. But Lendl was just outside the top 20, #22 when he turned 20 and reaching #20 a couple weeks after his 20th birthday. At Borna's age a lot can change in seven months, but I'd really like to see a big step forward before his birthday.

Actually, the point I wanted to make is that Zverev might also stagnate once he gets into the 30-50 range, just like Coric is now.

 

[Fiero425]

I hear you, although the main problem with Borna is that he's been stagnating for about a year now, fluctuating in #30s-50s range since March of 2015 - seemingly unable to take that next step up into the top 20. I expect he will, maybe (hopefully) this year, but that year of stagnation is worrisome for his overall development. One of the qualities that most great players share is that they don't stagnate, they continue steady and often quick development, especially at Borna's age. They ones who start strong and then stagnate turn into Richard Gasquet or Tomas Berdych.

That said, Borna's got time - he's still very young, not turning 20 until November. It is worth noting that every since 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era was in the top 20 before they turned 20 years old, except for Ivan Lendl, who went pro a bit later than most. But Lendl was just outside the top 20, #22 when he turned 20 and reaching #20 a couple weeks after his 20th birthday. At Borna's age a lot can change in seven months, but I'd really like to see a big step forward before his birthday.

Actually, the point I wanted to make is that Zverev might also stagnate once he gets into the 30-50 range, just like Coric is now.

There are plenty of guys with physical ability and have all the shots; most of the problem is inside their own heads! They need someone to build up their confidence; someone they respect like Murray had for Lendl! That's the problem, most can't or won't see it as a weakness with their own confidence or lack thereof! They're obviously topflight or they wouldn't be ranked in the elite 100! It's not like they're going to lose to a scrub no matter how poorly they play, but to take that next step, they need to be fearless! When Zverev didn't finish off Rafa a couple weeks ago, it was a crisis of confidence and nothing else! Rafa didn't beat him, Zverev beat himself! uzzled :nono :angel: :cover

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, although the main problem with Borna is that he's been stagnating for about a year now, fluctuating in #30s-50s range since March of 2015 - seemingly unable to take that next step up into the top 20. I expect he will, maybe (hopefully) this year, but that year of stagnation is worrisome for his overall development. One of the qualities that most great players share is that they don't stagnate, they continue steady and often quick development, especially at Borna's age. They ones who start strong and then stagnate turn into Richard Gasquet or Tomas Berdych.

That said, Borna's got time - he's still very young, not turning 20 until November. It is worth noting that every since 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era was in the top 20 before they turned 20 years old, except for Ivan Lendl, who went pro a bit later than most. But Lendl was just outside the top 20, #22 when he turned 20 and reaching #20 a couple weeks after his 20th birthday. At Borna's age a lot can change in seven months, but I'd really like to see a big step forward before his birthday.

Actually, the point I wanted to make is that Zverev might also stagnate once he gets into the 30-50 range, just like Coric is now.

Yes, I know - I was just riffing off that to talk about Borna.

As for Zverev, it remains to be seen. I haven't seen anything that makes me think he'll stagnate over the next year, but you never know.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am not into Borna band wagon. You have better chances of finding WMD with Dalai Lama than in Borna's arsenal

 

[Front242]

Plus he's another loud grunter :nono

 

[mrzz]

Even if I like Thiem and Zverev, I do have one question in my mind... are these "young guns" really showing something, or it is just a coincidence given the fact that 3 of the big four are simply -- one way or another -- not showing up, and even the second tier players are below their usual level?

 

[Fiero425]

Even if I like Thiem and Zverev, I do have one question in my mind... are these "young guns" really showing something, or it is just a coincidence given the fact that 3 of the big four are simply -- one way or another -- not showing up, and even the second tier players are below their usual level?

Probably a wish and hope; sorta like with Grigor, Kei, and Raonic! Sooner or later someone's got to come along and challenge Nole, Roger, and Andy! I don't even count Rafa who has little standing and is lucky to be in the top 10 with his dismal record! :cover :nono

 

[El Dude]

Even if I like Thiem and Zverev, I do have one question in my mind... are these "young guns" really showing something, or it is just a coincidence given the fact that 3 of the big four are simply -- one way or another -- not showing up, and even the second tier players are below their usual level?

This one is easy. The answer is "not at all." The rise of these young players has nothing to do with the top 10, as they've barely played them.

Understand that we've been in a really dry spell for years now, in terms of promising youngsters.

Or let me offer some actual numbers. Here are the teenagers in the year-end top 100 going back to 2005:

2015: Coric (44), Chung (51), Kokkinakis (78), Zverev (81)
2014: Kyrgios (52), Coric (93)
2013: None
2012: None
2011: Tomic (42), Harrison (79)
2010: None (Dimitrov was 106)
2009: None
2008: Nishikori (63)
2007: Del Potro (44), Gulbis (61), Cilic (71), Korolev (80), Young (100)
2006: Djokovic (16), Murray (17), del Potro (92)
2005: Nadal (2), Gasquet (16), Monfils (30), Murray (64), Djokovic (78)

OK, as you can see, there was a cluster of teenagers in the top 100 in 2005-07, then it dwindled as those players graduated and the next generation was much weaker. But now we're seeing a much stronger young group now. In 2016, while Chung and Coric will be 20 at year's end, Zverev and Fritz will almost certainly be in the year-end top 100, and may be joined by several others - maybe Rublev, Tiafoe, and/or Paul.