2008 & 2009 were the only years in the last decade with no teenager in top 100 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

2008 & 2009 were the only years in the last decade with no teenager in top 100

FSRteam
02-15-2010, 07:03 PM
Does this mean that the level of play is higher than it has ever been and it is hard for the youngsters to break into top 100...

Or

Does this mean that the young guns of 1989-... have failed to the expectations... ?!?

And who do you think will be the next teenager to enter the top 100 and when?

tomic, dimitrov, krajinovic, harrison, bhambri...

SetSampras
02-15-2010, 07:07 PM
Djokovic is proving this current top field (at least top 10) is not what everything would like to envision it would be. Hes gaining further ranking points, distancing himself from the rest and he ISNT EVEN WINNING TOURNAMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




In terms of the top 100. I like Dimitrov and I actually hope its one of these guys who dominate and make a big career for themselves I mean who wants to see Murray dominate tennis? No thanks and that will only hurt the popularity of tennis compared to where it was when Nadal and Fed dominated. Though Del Potro is fun to watch. He may be the next big dog if he can finally stop getting injured. It would be great to see one of these unexpected young players come along and tear it up

lessthanjake
02-15-2010, 08:42 PM
Djokovic is proving this current top field (at least top 10) is not what everything would like to envision it would be. Hes gaining further ranking points, distancing himself from the rest and he ISNT EVEN WINNING TOURNAMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you an idiot?

Do you realize that ranking points and tournament wins are entirely based on how well someone does against their own era of players? You can't say this era sucks because players of this era lose to other players of this era. I would hope it is obvious to you why that is silly.

Yet you persist on making that argument. That is what you are doing here. You are saying that Djokovic is going up in the rankings despite not winning stuff, so this era must suck. No. All that shows is that, for the moment, the players who have been winning some stuff have been players ranked enough below Djokovic that they havent overtaken him. Meanwhile, he has been outplaying those ahead of him in the rankings. All of this is just a result of how the top players are playing RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.

How the players of an era play relative to each other at any given time is really quite irrelevant when talking about how good the era is compared to other eras. What about this cant you grasp?

Trojan Tragedies
02-15-2010, 09:15 PM
The future generations are even greater mugs.

Dini
02-16-2010, 12:39 AM
It's a bit funny that. Apparently the top 100 is getting older and older which is weird considering how the game has got more physical. You'd think that players would retire earlier these days than they did in the 60s/70s because of doing so much more running, but averages recently suggest otherwise. Maybe the likes of Lapentti and Santoro are skewing the results. :p

Everko
02-16-2010, 01:20 AM
Because we have Dimitrov to represent us. That says it all

*bunny*
02-16-2010, 04:09 AM
Does this mean that the level of play is higher than it has ever been and it is hard for the youngsters to break into top 100...

Or

Does this mean that the young guns of 1989-... have failed to the expectations... ?!?

And who do you think will be the next teenager to enter the top 100 and when?

tomic, dimitrov, krajinovic, harrison, bhambri...
You got your facts wrong.
Kei Nishikori (b. Dec. 1989) entered top 100 for five weeks in April/May 2008 and was again a top 100 player from September 2008 to April 2009. His career high ranking so far is #56. He's out injured for almost a year but once he's fit again and if he can stay healthy then he should get back inside top 100 in no time.

SetSampras
02-16-2010, 05:35 AM
Are you an idiot?

Do you realize that ranking points and tournament wins are entirely based on how well someone does against their own era of players? You can't say this era sucks because players of this era lose to other players of this era. I would hope it is obvious to you why that is silly.

Yet you persist on making that argument. That is what you are doing here. You are saying that Djokovic is going up in the rankings despite not winning stuff, so this era must suck. No. All that shows is that, for the moment, the players who have been winning some stuff have been players ranked enough below Djokovic that they havent overtaken him. Meanwhile, he has been outplaying those ahead of him in the rankings. All of this is just a result of how the top players are playing RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.

How the players of an era play relative to each other at any given time is really quite irrelevant when talking about how good the era is compared to other eras. What about this cant you grasp?

Now now.... I never said this era sucks.. Im saying it isnt as strong as people say it is. So again.. I never said ONCE this era sucks ..But people want to say how this is the strongest top 10 in history and I am debating that and alot of the proof is in the pudding here with the Djokester. Not to say he is crappy player which I dont. I think he is a tremendous underachiever but a very talented player. In fact, I think he should have a handful of slams at this point... But he Has been for the better part of two years now. Im not sure how many are going to debate this issue But lets face it.. the guy should not be #2 at this point in time, nor would he be if he was in a seriously stacked top 10 as the say the mid-late 80s or early 90s. No way in hell. Hes been subpar at best and overrall crappy when it has matter most. All of last year and already this year. He went out to some total clowns at the slams.. Guys he should be routining. Lets look at the list of mediocrity. Kohlschreiber, Haas, Tsonga, Roddick.. I mean huh? For the #2 in the world? Please

MatchFederer
02-16-2010, 05:46 AM
It's a bit funny that. Apparently the top 100 is getting older and older which is weird considering how the game has got more physical. You'd think that players would retire earlier these days than they did in the 60s/70s because of doing so much more running, but averages recently suggest otherwise. Maybe the likes of Lapentti and Santoro are skewing the results. :p

Eh. How is it funny? With some exceptions, it is quite normal that aspiring tennis pros don't mature and develop fully physically as a player until around about 20 years old or later. I think the game has got more physical, so it will prove even harder than usual for teenagers to make their mark.

On the other hand it could just a blip and normal historical service could be resumed at some point over the next few years, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this become far more of a normal occurrence over the next 10 or so years. Eventually younger players and their teams will probably decide that they should aim to achieve a physical prime earlier, but we'll see.

HKz
02-16-2010, 06:00 AM
It's a bit funny that. Apparently the top 100 is getting older and older which is weird considering how the game has got more physical. You'd think that players would retire earlier these days than they did in the 60s/70s because of doing so much more running, but averages recently suggest otherwise. Maybe the likes of Lapentti and Santoro are skewing the results. :p

I think it is tougher for very young players to compete with the best because they are not fully physically developed till later on. It isn't like the past where you could win matches and tournaments without being the strongest or whatever. I mean Nadal was the last person to win a slam as a teen, and he was 19, nothing like Chang/Becker at 17, 20 years prior.

But at the same time, it is difficult for players who are getting old as well because then their own physical abilities diminish.

Nidhogg
02-16-2010, 06:51 AM
Djokovic is proving this current top field (at least top 10) is not what everything would like to envision it would be. Hes gaining further ranking points, distancing himself from the rest and he ISNT EVEN WINNING TOURNAMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. How odd that Djokovic leapfrogged Nadal in the rankings as Djok defended his points at the AO from last year, while Nadal lost 1640 points. Truly mindboggling.

davis
02-16-2010, 08:10 AM
You got your facts wrong.


Indeed. Marin Cilic was a teenager in 2008 - and ranked within the top 50 at the time. And Del Potro was 19 when he cracked the Top 20 in August 2008.

Sophocles
02-16-2010, 11:18 AM
Lets look at the list of mediocrity. Kohlschreiber, Haas, Tsonga, Roddick.. I mean huh? For the #2 in the world? Please

Kohlschreiber I will give you, though he is dangerous. Haas is a former World No. 2 & 4-time slam semi-finalist. Tsonga is a Top-Ten player and slam finalist. Roddick is a former World No. 1 & slam winner. It would be too predictable to rehash the list of mediocrities who beat Sampras & Agassi in slams.

Orysbestos
02-16-2010, 11:49 AM
Players are getting worse.

R.Federer
02-16-2010, 11:59 AM
Ironic. Physical conditioning has become so important, and most teens are still bulking up. Look at Murray and Djokovic a couple years ago and how much they needed to improve their stamina and bulk to compete better, by when they were out of their teens. Players are also looking after themselves better now probably, so can play on longer and this probably is part of why there are so many 25+ year olds in the Top 10.

Very interesting facts. Thanks for posting

oranges
02-16-2010, 12:09 PM
SetSampras gets so carried away in his desire to shit all over anyone today that he conveniently forgets one of those oh so unworthy opponents to lose to has 3 wins over Sampras. What an epic clown

lessthanjake
02-16-2010, 12:41 PM
Now now.... I never said this era sucks.. Im saying it isnt as strong as people say it is. So again.. I never said ONCE this era sucks ..But people want to say how this is the strongest top 10 in history and I am debating that and alot of the proof is in the pudding here with the Djokester. Not to say he is crappy player which I dont. I think he is a tremendous underachiever but a very talented player. In fact, I think he should have a handful of slams at this point... But he Has been for the better part of two years now. Im not sure how many are going to debate this issue But lets face it.. the guy should not be #2 at this point in time, nor would he be if he was in a seriously stacked top 10 as the say the mid-late 80s or early 90s. No way in hell. Hes been subpar at best and overrall crappy when it has matter most. All of last year and already this year. He went out to some total clowns at the slams.. Guys he should be routining. Lets look at the list of mediocrity. Kohlschreiber, Haas, Tsonga, Roddick.. I mean huh? For the #2 in the world? Please

But again, Djokovic is at #2 for a reason. That reason is based entirely on how the top players are playing relative to each other. More specifically, with the exception of Federer, the top players have all played very evenly in the past year. When you have one player taking 3 of 4 slams in the past year, and a bunch of other top players who are all playing each other to a standstill, then the #2 is player is never going to have had a really really good past year. Its statistically impossible. That is the case with Djokovic. But this is all more a judgment of how evenly the top players are playing each other, than a judgement on how deep or not deep this era is. In fact, the fact that the top players ARE playing each other evenly would imply that there IS a lot of depth.

As for your list of players that Djokovic lost to, it is silly. Kohlschreiber isn't too great, but hes not terrible. Certainly, Sampras and Agassi both lost to multiple people who were far worse at slams. Haas is a former world #2 who was in very good form when Djokovic lost to him. Should Djokovic have beaten him? Probably, but it was on Djokovic's worst surface and Haas is very far from "mediocre." Tsonga is a slam finalist (and not a fluke one either), and Roddick is a slam winner with a whole bunch of slam finals as well. I am shocked that you would make a list of "mediocre" players that included a former world #2, a slam finalist, and a slam winner.

fangirl
02-16-2010, 02:59 PM
Indeed. Marin Cilic was a teenager in 2008 - and ranked within the top 50 at the time. And Del Potro was 19 when he cracked the Top 20 in August 2008.

If they mean end of year, Cilic and Del Potro were not teenagers are they both turned 20 in September 2008.

*bunny*
02-16-2010, 03:38 PM
If they mean end of year, Cilic and Del Potro were not teenagers are they both turned 20 in September 2008.
But, as you know, Nishikori was a teenager, as I wrote in my post on the previous page.

I wish the OP changes the thread title because it's inaccurate and misleading.

SetSampras
02-16-2010, 05:05 PM
Kohlschreiber I will give you, though he is dangerous. Haas is a former World No. 2 & 4-time slam semi-finalist. Tsonga is a Top-Ten player and slam finalist. Roddick is a former World No. 1 & slam winner. It would be too predictable to rehash the list of mediocrities who beat Sampras & Agassi in slams.

The point is Djoker should be at or close to his best and absolute zenith as a tennis player. Before he took this downward spiral he would be not be losing to Roddick and a this point should not be slamless for the better part of 2 years and should be reaching slam finals. I shouldnt lump Roddick in with the likes of Haas or Kohlschrieber. Roddick isnt a clown but he is also a player Djoker at this point in his career should not be going out to. In fact, Djokovic should be taking over the reigns with Fed getting older and his level dropping, with Murray slamless and not being able to get the job done, with Nadal out injured, with Del Potro out injured. The fact of the matter is he isnt getting it done. How could be a more deadlier player at 19-20 then in his early 20s. These should be the big time seasons of his career.

paseo
02-16-2010, 05:35 PM
The point is Djoker should be at or close to his best and absolute zenith as a tennis player. Before he took this downward spiral he would be not be losing to Roddick and a this point should not be slamless for the better part of 2 years and should be reaching slam finals. I shouldnt lump Roddick in with the likes of Haas or Kohlschrieber. Roddick isnt a clown but he is also a player Djoker at this point in his career should not be going out to. In fact, Djokovic should be taking over the reigns with Fed getting older and his level dropping, with Murray slamless and not being able to get the job done, with Nadal out injured, with Del Potro out injured. The fact of the matter is he isnt getting it done. How could be a more deadlier player at 19-20 then in his early 20s. These should be the big time seasons of his career.

Why? People underestimate Roddick too much. Roddick on a good day is very tough to beat. Cause when he's on, you'll not gonna break his serve and his consistent baseline game teases you to go for too much on your own service games. It's tough, especially when you know that he's also a tie-break monster.

Sophocles
02-16-2010, 05:36 PM
It's fair to say it's disappointing Djokovic has failed to reach a slam final since winning the A.O., but this is no reason to disparage everybody he's lost to.

Michael Bluth
02-16-2010, 06:01 PM
08 had Nishikori, Young, DelPo and Cilic all in the top 100 as teenagers.

09 had Nishikori at the start of the year.

feuselino
02-16-2010, 06:14 PM
Does someone have a list with the five youngest top100/top200 players at the end of each year? Might be interesting to see if there has been a real change... thanks!

FSRteam
02-16-2010, 08:26 PM
Indeed. Marin Cilic was a teenager in 2008 - and ranked within the top 50 at the time. And Del Potro was 19 when he cracked the Top 20 in August 2008.

I meant by the end of year rankings for 2008 and 2009... My bad for nishikori...

Anyway, we have had very few teenagers in the last two years compared to the rest of that decade and I am not sure we will se one before the end of the year... (maybe tomic)...

philosophicalarf
02-16-2010, 08:45 PM
Kohlschreiber isn't too great, but hes not terrible.


Kohl's best is easily top10 class imo - Djokovic was simply unlucky to run into a redhot opponent. Kohl has done that before too, to Roddick in the AO 2008.

Kohl's worst however......

oranges
02-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Get off the Tomic bandwagon already, it has DY written all over it

Springer89
09-07-2010, 10:53 PM
Climbing ATP rankings turns tougher for teen players
By Douglas Robson, Special for USA TODAY

In decades past it was not unusual to find some peach fuzz intermingling with tennis ball fuzz on the men's professional tour. Boris Becker blasted his way to the 1985 Wimbledon title behind his booming serve at 17, the same age Michael Chang scampered to the French Open crown in 1989. Nineteen-year-old Pete Sampras won the first of his 14 majors at the 1990 U.S. Open.

These days, breakthrough performances by men under 20 are increasingly rare. So rare, in fact, that not a single teenager ranks in the top 100 on the ATP Tour. That trend has held true at this year's U.S. Open. Of the three teenagers in the 128-man draw, just one, 18-year-old Ryan Harrison of the USA, reached the second round.

What's causing this blockade?

Players, coaches and agents cite physical maturity as the chief factor.

"Harrison can beat a player here or a player there, but he's got to grow into his body," Mardy Fish said Monday after losing to third-seeded Novak Djokovic in the fourth round. "It's a really physical game now. And by that, I mean it's a long year, year after year after year, and the young guys … they're just fragile."

Fragile enough, it seems, that the average age of the top 100 men, now at 26.2, is a year older than it was a decade ago.

But there are other wrinkles that might be contributing as well.

Todd Martin, a 1999 U.S. Open finalist, says bigger, faster, more complete players, coupled with equipment technology, have made the game easier from a "shot production standpoint." The result is a skewing of advantage toward experience.

"If you even the playing field ball-striking wise, then it boils down to how good of an athlete you are and how good a match thinker you are," says Martin, who coached Djokovic earlier this year. "Then the skill leans toward older players in both regards."

The USA's Rajeev Ram, 26, believes surface uniformity has made it harder for a player with particular talents to break out.

"Becker at 17 today would have to play on a slow grass court against Rafael Nadal, whereas before he could get away with it because he had that skill set," says 155th-ranked Ram. "You have to develop entirely to make it in those big tournaments."

Others disregard such notions.

Patrick Mouratoglou, who runs a well-regarded academy outside of Paris, believes under 20s can compete at the top level but says the men's tour is in a teenage talent lull.

He notes that Spain's Nadal won the first of his five Roland Garros titles as a teenager — on physically demanding clay, no less.

Mouratoglou says players born in 1989 and 1990 weren't a stellar crop, whereas the group emerging now — players such as Harrison, 17-year-old Bernard Tomic of Australia, 18-year-old Filip Krajinovic of Serbia and 19-year-old Grigor Dimitrov, who trains at his academy — are more promising.

"It's just a question of generation," Mouratoglou says. "I don't think it's any special thing."

Still, there has been a swing.

Some point to the ATP ranking system for inhibiting young players from building enough points to crack the upper echelons by awarding a larger percentage of points in the later rounds of big tournaments, a kind of "downgrading" of smaller events. The ATP altered its system in 2009.

"The tier system has definitely become top heavy," says Justin Gimelstob, a TV commentator and member of the ATP board of directors. "It's something we're looking at."

But like many in the game, Gimelstob says that's not the main reason.

"It's not so much the points as it is that the game is more demanding," says Gimelstob, a former pro. "There are so many points out there you can't just pop through and have one big tournament and move far up the rankings like you could in the past."

Whatever the main explanation, youth is scarce. At No. 150, Frederico del Bonis of Argentina is the top-ranked teen, but he won't own that distinction much longer. He turns 20 next month. Overall, there are only three teens in the top 200, and the USA's Harrison is expected to join them at around No. 170 when the new rankings are released next week.

That's no surprise to Olivier van Lindonk, an agent with management company IMG. Van Lindonk, whose clients include Japanese talent Kei Nishikori and Krajinovic, says the days of gaming the system by traveling to obscure places in Asia and South America to pick up points at weaker ATP feeder tournaments are gone.

"Any Challenger these days is a battle against grown men," he says, referring to tournaments a tier below the ATP. "There are more jobs, more players and it's more physical."

Van Lindonk calls it a "huge change in tennis" and says it has trickled down to the famed IMG owned academy in Florida founded by Nick Bollettieri.

"Nick used to talk to all the young players about forehand and backhands," he says. "Now they talk about how to be professional at a young age."

No wonder, considering that some teens who have cracked the top 100, such as 2009 U.S. Open champion Juan Martin del Potro, 21, and Nishikori, who reached the fourth round in New York two years ago at 18, have been sidelined with major injuries, demonstrating the wear-and-tear on young bodies.

Van Lindonk isn't ready to rule out another Sampras or Chang with the tools to outmaneuver their elders.

"I won't say it's done," he says, "but I think it'll be very tough."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2010-09-06-us-open-atp-rankings_N.htm