Best teenager ever [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Best teenager ever

Hyman
04-02-2013, 01:41 AM
Who has been the best tennis player ever as a teenager?

BauerAlmeida
04-02-2013, 01:44 AM
Becker maybe. Won 2 Wimbledons as a teenager.

Henry Chinaski
04-02-2013, 01:45 AM
no idea.

Boris Becker won two Wimbledons, Indian Wells, Paris, Cinci, Canada, Queens (x2) and Tokyo in his teens so he's probably up there.

Action Jackson
04-02-2013, 01:47 AM
Björn Borg

Ackms421
04-02-2013, 01:47 AM
no idea.

Boris Becker won two Wimbledons, Indian Wells, Paris, Cinci, Canada, Queens (x2) and Tokyo in his teens so he's probably up there.

I didn't realize he had done all of that before 20. In hindsight he either overachieved pre-20 or seriously underachieved post-20.

BroTree123
04-02-2013, 01:50 AM
Nadal. Those other clowns are from a weak era, so they don't count.

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 01:51 AM
Becker easily.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 02:02 AM
Nadal. Becker played in mug era


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

BauerAlmeida
04-02-2013, 02:05 AM
Nadal. Becker played in mug era


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Mug era with Wilander, Edberg, McEnroe and Lendl.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 02:06 AM
Mug era with Wilander, Edberg, McEnroe and Lendl.

Glad you also see it my way :yeah:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Sombrerero loco
04-02-2013, 02:07 AM
nadal easily

NardDog
04-02-2013, 02:21 AM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/02/04/1226262/708036-bernard-tomic.jpg

DJ Soup
04-02-2013, 02:36 AM
Becker
Borg
Nadal

I reckon that's the order

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
04-02-2013, 02:58 AM
Becker
Borg
Nadal

My personal fave is Agassi because his style of play,

Sampras also won a slam in his teens beating legends on the way

SaFed2005
04-02-2013, 03:29 AM
Becker
Borg
Nadal

I reckon that's the order

x2

ADaddy69
04-02-2013, 03:41 AM
http://legacy.tennis.com/players/images/atp/dyoung.jpg

n8
04-02-2013, 03:58 AM
If Borg was born a mere month later the answer would be obvious (he won Wimbledon at 20 and a few weeks). As it stands, I still give the slightest of edges to Borg over Becker in terms of achievements.

Nadal didn't achieve as much, but in terms of level (relative to the field at the time) he was on par with Borg and Becker in my opinion.

BauerAlmeida
04-02-2013, 04:54 AM
If Borg was born a mere month later the answer would be obvious (he won Wimbledon at 20 and a few weeks). As it stands, I still give the slightest of edges to Borg over Becker in terms of achievements.

Nadal didn't achieve as much, but in terms of level (relative to the field at the time) he was on par with Borg and Becker in my opinion.

Care to explain please.

Puschkin
04-02-2013, 07:17 AM
:haha: at those picking Nadal. Tennis did not start in the 2000s.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 08:22 AM
:haha: at those picking Nadal. Tennis did not start in the 2000s.

:rolleyes: stop being a hater

GSMnadal
04-02-2013, 08:37 AM
Why is no one naming Federer? :confused: As the 'most naturally gifted player' you'd expect him to already be up there in his early days right?

Or was he still playing challengers and junior events when GOATs like Borg, Becker and Nadal were already winning slams and masters?

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 08:39 AM
Why is no one naming Federer? :confused: As the 'most naturally gifted player' you'd expect him to already be up there in his early days right?

Or was he still playing challengers and junior events when GOATs like Borg, Becker and Nadal were already winning slams and masters?

'GOAT' was weak and fragile back then :awww:. I think it's during 2002 Hopman Cup, when Hingis whipped him into winning mentality. He should give half of his slams to her.

n8
04-02-2013, 08:48 AM
Care to explain please.

Nadal was injured for a big slab of his teenage years. Most notably the 2004 European clay court season and the end of 2005/ beginning of 2006. He already had a fearless mentality, demonstrated in his wins over Federer at 17 years old and in the Davis Cup final at 18.

No teenager has ever made it to number one, but Nadal's 2005 season (4 Masters Series and a Grand Slam among other titles) would've been enough to be number one in most years that didn't have one such dominant player (Federer). Nadal was also already virtually unbeatable on a key surface as a teenager (ended his teenage years with a 50+ winning streak on clay).

I am sure Nadal deserves to be considered one of the very best teenage tennis players of all time.

janko05
04-02-2013, 08:57 AM
Glad you also see it my way :yeah:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Here. Glad to be of assistance! ;)

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-yog9meODBHzGQnVuktPGCLhPFxWQew6O4noqoAUtxPTXTP7qag

Time Violation
04-02-2013, 09:36 AM
If there were a great teenager now, I wonder would that been an argument for strong era (teenagers doing well) or weak era (peak players can't beat teenagers)? :p

n8
04-02-2013, 09:50 AM
^The latter. It would be an argument for a strong era to come soon.

feuselino
04-02-2013, 09:54 AM
Fed didn't had the success of Nadal, Borg or Becker as a teenager, but he did progress quite nicely through the rankings, though. For example, in 1999 as a 17-year old he did beat Carlos Moya, who was nr.5 in the rankings at that time. Just stalled in the top20 for a year or two before his real breakthrough to the very top of the game.

Time Violation
04-02-2013, 10:03 AM
Federer's game was too complex and sophisticated to be a complete product that early. Therefore he needed lot more extra time. /Fedtardmodeoff :p

leng jai
04-02-2013, 10:05 AM
Why is no one naming Federer? :confused: As the 'most naturally gifted player' you'd expect him to already be up there in his early days right?

Or was he still playing challengers and junior events when GOATs like Borg, Becker and Nadal were already winning slams and masters?

What a random pathetic attempt to belittle Federer even by your standards.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 10:06 AM
Federer's game was too complex and sophisticated to be a complete product that early. Therefore he needed lot more extra time. /Fedtardmodeoff :p

It took a long time to master the hair flicking techniques and picking up the right pink shirt and man bag for every occasion :yeah::rocker2:

Litotes
04-02-2013, 10:13 AM
Borg, Wilander and Becker are the only ones to win two slams as a teen. Noone managed to reach #1, but Borg and Becker was seeded #1 in a slam and both ranked #2. Wilander "only" managed #3.

Borg won RG for the loss of only one set. Becker won W for the loss ot two sets.

Becker had two slam SFs and two QFs in addition to his two titles. Borg had two slam QFs and one SF. Wilander is the only one to reach three finals. Also one SF and one QF. But the AO was less prestigious at the time so Wilander's merits there must be seen in that light.

Becker and Borg both reached two YEC finals (lost both).

Borg won 16 titles, Wilander 13, Becker 12.

I'll have to give the nod to Borg, marginally ahead of Becker. Then Wilander. Nadal fourth. Compared to the three ahead he suffers for lack of slam merits (one title and no additional Fs, SFs or QFs) but did very well outside of slams.

n8
04-02-2013, 10:20 AM
I'll have to give the nod to Borg, marginally ahead of Becker. Then Wilander. Nadal fourth. Compared to the three ahead he suffers for lack of slam merits (one title and no additional Fs, SFs or QFs) but did very well outside of slams.

Achievement wise, I agree. I see Rosewall also won two (amateur) Slams before 20 but that was pre Open Era.

Litotes
04-02-2013, 10:21 AM
Achievement wise, I agree. I see Rosewall also won two Slams before 20 but let's not complicate things further by considering pre Open Era.

Yes, I only considered Open Era myself, I should have specified that.

ProdigyEng
04-02-2013, 10:22 AM
Donald Young :)

Time Violation
04-02-2013, 10:22 AM
^^Both Borg and Wilander burned out rather quickly, do you think those two are likely to be correlated?

janko05
04-02-2013, 10:31 AM
^^Both Borg and Wilander burned out rather quickly, do you think those two are likely to be correlated?

I don't think anything until I see some pictures. Anyone?

Action Jackson
04-02-2013, 10:45 AM
^^Both Borg and Wilander burned out rather quickly, do you think those two are likely to be correlated?

Depends on what are you actually trying to say. Apart from being Swedish and winning Slams as teens, then no.

Time Violation
04-02-2013, 10:57 AM
Depends on what are you actually trying to say. Apart from being Swedish and winning Slams as teens, then no.

I mean, does very early success means more likely to wrap it up sooner or whatever you want to call it, or is just coincidence in their case? Or just a Swedish thing? :p

thegreendestiny
04-02-2013, 11:11 AM
Michael Chang, RG champion and barely 17. :shrug:

n8
04-02-2013, 11:16 AM
I mean, does very early success means more likely to wrap it up sooner or whatever you want to call it, or is just coincidence in their case? Or just a Swedish thing? :p

Yes, in general this is true. Jim Courier refers to it as 'mileage'. These players wouldn't have necessarily played more matches (just at tour level instead of Challenger or lower), but there are other pressures of being a top player that can ware a person down.

Haas has relatively low mileage due to a succession of injuries. That may be one of the reasons he's still going strong now.

Litotes
04-02-2013, 11:18 AM
Michael Chang, RG champion and barely 17. :shrug:

He won one slam, had two additional QFs, and a total of 10 titles as a teen.

He is a good candidate for 5th behind the four I already mentioned.

TennisOnWood
04-02-2013, 11:30 AM
Borg, Becker, Nadal and Wilander are 4 best teens in Open era. Not sure in which order but Nadal must be ahead of Mats

Action Jackson
04-02-2013, 11:37 AM
Borg, Becker, Nadal and Wilander are 4 best teens in Open era. Not sure in which order but Nadal must be ahead of Mats

Why must Nadal be ahead of Wilander? Wilander won 2 Slams as a teen, did Nadal do that? No, TMS events don't count as they weren't compulsory to be played in that time.

TennisOnWood
04-02-2013, 11:58 AM
Why must Nadal be ahead of Wilander? Wilander won 2 Slams as a teen, did Nadal do that? No, TMS events don't count as they weren't compulsory to be played in that time.

2-1 is not that big difference (Rafa won 2nd Roland Garros few days after turnirn 20), and that 1983. Australian Open final was probably worst of all Grass Majors in Open era, maybe ever on that surface too (I know good players were there). We can not count them but must find equivalent tournaments Wilander won, and its not Rafa's fault that there was no Masters 1000 series before 1990.

Litotes
04-02-2013, 12:12 PM
2-1 is not that big difference (Rafa won 2nd Roland Garros few days after turnirn 20), and that 1983. Australian Open final was probably worst of all Grass Majors in Open era, maybe ever on that surface too (I know good players were there). We can not count them but must find equivalent tournaments Wilander won, and its not Rafa's fault that there was no Masters 1000 series before 1990.

2-1 is perhaps not that big, but what about 5-1? That's the amount of slam QFs reached. And he reached at least QF in three different slams.

Nadal has 16 titles to Wilanders 13. Don't feel that entirely makes up for relative lack of slam merits.

And I'm not talking potential, only achieved results.

TennisOnWood
04-02-2013, 12:22 PM
2-1 is perhaps not that big, but what about 5-1? That's the amount of slam QFs reached. And he reached at least QF in three different slams.

Nadal has 16 titles to Wilanders 13. Don't feel that entirely makes up for relative lack of slam merits.

And I'm not talking potential, only achieved results.

Sure, 16-13 is not that big difference but I still think Masters 1000 events turning things into Rafa's favor. He won 4 matches before 17th birthday, and 4 consecutive finals at 18/19. He won 6 titles before 20th birthday, and the list with players which won that much in career isn't too big

I'm not saying Rafa played in better era, but phisical level of game just can't be compared. In fact, no one will ever repeat what Nadal done, and his achievements will grow as the time goes by

Maybe we need to talk about doubles too, with 2 ATP titles for Rafa at the age of 17 and US Open 1/2 at the age of 18

n8
04-02-2013, 12:29 PM
Nadal and Moron were formidable in Umag.

Newcomer
04-02-2013, 12:36 PM
Nadal. Becker played in mug era


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

2003-2007 is mug hard court era = FACT - And Nadal had not played in Mug ERA as a teenager? :haha:

Action Jackson
04-02-2013, 12:38 PM
2-1 is not that big difference (Rafa won 2nd Roland Garros few days after turnirn 20), and that 1983. Australian Open final was probably worst of all Grass Majors in Open era, maybe ever on that surface too (I know good players were there). We can not count them but must find equivalent tournaments Wilander won, and its not Rafa's fault that there was no Masters 1000 series before 1990.

It's what happened in their particular times as teenagers. Wilander won a 3rd Slam as a 20 year old, we can keep doing this if you want.

You don't want to count the AO, it's still a Slam no this was not the 70s when Wilander played at the Aus Open. Wilander played when the surfaces were clearly different and his game at that time not suited to other stuff off clay. Nadal not so and you want to count TMS events when they weren't compulsory in Wilander's time.

You want to count doubles, yet won't count a Slam. I see what you did there, it's called spin.

TennisOnWood
04-02-2013, 12:46 PM
It's what happened in their particular times as teenagers. Wilander won a 3rd Slam as a 20 year old, we can keep doing this if you want.

You don't want to count the AO, it's still a Slam no this was not the 70s when Wilander played at the Aus Open. Wilander played when the surfaces were clearly different and his game at that time not suited to other stuff off clay. Nadal not so and you want to count TMS events when they weren't compulsory in Wilander's time.

You want to count doubles, yet won't count a Slam. I see what you did there, it's called spin.

Never said Australia was not Major in 1983., just that Wilander and Lendl played like it was on clay, with rallyes longer than 30 shots.

O.k, advantage for Wilander in Majors but everything else is going on Nadal's favor

Litotes
04-02-2013, 12:49 PM
Sure, 16-13 is not that big difference but I still think Masters 1000 events turning things into Rafa's favor. He won 4 matches before 17th birthday, and 4 consecutive finals at 18/19. He won 6 titles before 20th birthday, and the list with players which won that much in career isn't too big

I'm not saying Rafa played in better era, but phisical level of game just can't be compared. In fact, no one will ever repeat what Nadal done, and his achievements will grow as the time goes by

Maybe we need to talk about doubles too, with 2 ATP titles for Rafa at the age of 17 and US Open 1/2 at the age of 18

You appear to put quite a deal of weight at Masters triumphs. You're right in that Wilander only had two equivalents. So if you rate four Masters titles above a slam W, F, SF and QF - always considering the first one is from the then not-so-prestigious AO - then you have a point.

Doubles merits I have not thought about checking.

Much of the changes in physicality is caused by changes in equipment and playing conditions. They could of course change again, so to state no one will repeat what Nadal has done is premature. I have seen countless sporting achievements being hailed as impossible to repeat, let alone better. The assertion seldom survives the next 15 years.

Sophocles
04-02-2013, 12:51 PM
Borg, Becker, Wilander & Nadal =3rd.

TennisOnWood
04-02-2013, 12:53 PM
You appear to put quite a deal of weight at Masters triumphs. You're right in that Wilander only had two equivalents. So if you rate four Masters titles above a slam W, F, SF and QF - always considering the first one is from the then not-so-prestigious AO - then you have a point.

Doubles merits I have not thought about checking.

Much of the changes in physicality is caused by changes in equipment and playing conditions. They could of course change again, so to state no one will repeat what Nadal has done is premature. I have seen countless sporting achievements being hailed as impossible to repeat, let alone better. The assertion seldom survives the next 15 years.

For half of a decade players can barely win few ATP matches before 20th birhtday, and that will not improve cause they are worse and worse with every new generation

You are free to quote me again next time some teen achieve 5% of what Rafa done ;)

StevieMardenboro
04-02-2013, 12:57 PM
Nadal. Becker played in mug era


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)


Nadal was a teenager on the tour from 2003 to 2006. Glad to see you think this was a strong era of tennis. Real achievement to win slams in this field?

Litotes
04-02-2013, 01:09 PM
For half of a decade players can barely win few ATP matches before 20th birhtday, and that will not improve cause they are worse and worse with every new generation

You are free to quote me again next time some teen achieve 5% of what Rafa done ;)

There could come a good generation eventually, and they might find it easy to break through when the previous ones are not too dominating.

Why would I quote you? I have seen so many people be wrong before in these sort of debates you'll just be one of a really large amount. Take Sampras' 14 slams, for instance. It was asserted this feat would never be equalled. It didn't even take 10 years....In short, you won't stick out in the crowd. And I'm talking about serious people here, not trolls.

If you should be right that would be something else, but of course - since you used "ever" than will never be proven, just an ongoing hypothesis.

Litotes
04-02-2013, 01:11 PM
Nadal was a teenager on the tour from 2003 to 2006. Glad to see you think this was a strong era of tennis. Real achievement to win slams in this field?

TSD champions the thought that 2003-07 was a ridiculously weak era, the only good thing to say about it is that is was stronger than all previous ones.

Sort of like Churchill's view of democracy.

Orka_n
04-02-2013, 01:31 PM
Always hilarious to see the Nadaltards contradicting themselves yet again.

"2004-07 was a weak era because Federer dominated it"
followed by
"When Nadal was a teen he had produced less results than Becker but that can be excused because Rafa played in such a tough era"

"Nadal was a helpless baby in 04-07 so it doesn't count if Fed won against him back then"
followed by
"teenage Nadal was the best ever"

Classic stuff

Timot
04-02-2013, 02:57 PM
Borg a bit ahead of Becker.
Both have quite similar results but IMO Borg played in a tougher era.

Sri
04-02-2013, 03:11 PM
Always hilarious to see the Nadaltards contradicting themselves yet again.

"2004-07 was a weak era because Federer dominated it"
followed by
"When Nadal was a teen he had produced less results than Becker but that can be excused because Rafa played in such a tough era"

"Nadal was a helpless baby in 04-07 so it doesn't count if Fed won against him back then"
followed by
"teenage Nadal was the best ever"

Classic stuff
What do you expect the average intelligence of a Rafatard to be?

TigerTim
04-02-2013, 04:38 PM
Borg
Becker
Nadal
Wilander

Sri
04-02-2013, 04:39 PM
To be honest I have not closely followed any of them and not even watched many of them.

But going by record books, it has to be between Borg and Nadal.

Everko
04-02-2013, 05:25 PM
Rafa Nadal and Michael Chang

bounccer
04-02-2013, 05:33 PM
Nadal fans :facepalm: It's only Nadal Nadal Nadal.Unfuckingbelievable.

I think it's Borg.

Gris
04-02-2013, 05:42 PM
Becker,Borg,Nadal

Dulltards are really annoying these days.

Honestly
04-02-2013, 05:46 PM
Ivan Lendl.

HumbleTennisFan
04-02-2013, 06:06 PM
Ivan Lendl.

Lendl was a teenager?

Honestly
04-02-2013, 06:10 PM
Lendl was a teenager?

Are you saying Lendl didn't exist between the ages of 10-20?

Everko
04-02-2013, 06:16 PM
Lendl wasn't good until he was 24

TigerTim
04-02-2013, 06:22 PM
he had to deal with Borg, McEnroe and Connors when younger, hardly a easy trio

BroTree456
04-02-2013, 06:23 PM
Always hilarious to see the Nadaltards contradicting themselves yet again.

"2004-07 was a weak era because Federer dominated it"
followed by
"When Nadal was a teen he had produced less results than Becker but that can be excused because Rafa played in such a tough era"

"Nadal was a helpless baby in 04-07 so it doesn't count if Fed won against him back then"
followed by
"teenage Nadal was the best ever"

Classic stuff

Well said, Thank You

Everko
04-02-2013, 06:24 PM
Well said, Thank You

It's actually a terrible post. Welcome to club thickskull

HumbleTennisFan
04-02-2013, 06:28 PM
Are you saying Lendl didn't exist between the ages of 10-20?

I am saying that judging by the looks,you could swear he never was a teenager:o

born_on_clay
04-02-2013, 07:06 PM
This one is easy. Rafa :rocker2:

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 07:46 PM
Always hilarious to see the Nadaltards contradicting themselves yet again.

"2004-07 was a weak era because Federer dominated it"
followed by
"When Nadal was a teen he had produced less results than Becker but that can be excused because Rafa played in such a tough era"

"Nadal was a helpless baby in 04-07 so it doesn't count if Fed won against him back then"
followed by
"teenage Nadal was the best ever"

Classic stuff

That is amazing logic....

Tag
04-02-2013, 08:07 PM
becker

back to back wimbledons at such a young age

star
04-02-2013, 08:10 PM
Borg was fabulous as a teen.

redshift36188
04-03-2013, 01:37 AM
Why is no one naming Federer? :confused: As the 'most naturally gifted player' you'd expect him to already be up there in his early days right?

Or was he still playing challengers and junior events when GOATs like Borg, Becker and Nadal were already winning slams and masters?
GOAT tennis requires more time to mature.

Mountaindewslave
04-03-2013, 01:41 AM
Why is no one naming Federer? :confused: As the 'most naturally gifted player' you'd expect him to already be up there in his early days right?

Or was he still playing challengers and junior events when GOATs like Borg, Becker and Nadal were already winning slams and masters?

Federer did not really begin to preform that well until 20 or 21 but his rise to the top was meteoric
surely you are not such a short term fan not to be aware of Rogers history? :facepalm: :facepalm:

Mountaindewslave
04-03-2013, 01:44 AM
Why must Nadal be ahead of Wilander? Wilander won 2 Slams as a teen, did Nadal do that? No, TMS events don't count as they weren't compulsory to be played in that time.

regardless of if Masters events were 'required' at the time, we can just look at who Nadal beat in his teenage big titles, including Masters, and based on that give him credit for being one of the best teenagers

the list repeated is good so far
Becker, Borg, Nadal/Wilander - the two of them being fairly close if you ask me

Mountaindewslave
04-03-2013, 01:48 AM
You appear to put quite a deal of weight at Masters triumphs. You're right in that Wilander only had two equivalents. So if you rate four Masters titles above a slam W, F, SF and QF - always considering the first one is from the then not-so-prestigious AO - then you have a point.

Doubles merits I have not thought about checking.

Much of the changes in physicality is caused by changes in equipment and playing conditions. They could of course change again, so to state no one will repeat what Nadal has done is premature. I have seen countless sporting achievements being hailed as impossible to repeat, let alone better. The assertion seldom survives the next 15 years.

the fact is Nadal won a bunch of tournaments of relative size, masters, where he beat many formidable opponents. Nadal in his teens probably beat a higher # of top ranked players than Wilander did and this sort of stat should not be ignored

MalwareDie
04-03-2013, 01:53 AM
The real king of clay, Björn Borg.

Topspindoctor
04-03-2013, 04:24 AM
The real king of clay, Björn Borg.

7>6 :bigwave:

Ashlar77
04-03-2013, 04:35 AM
Becker.

Litotes
04-03-2013, 08:41 AM
the fact is Nadal won a bunch of tournaments of relative size, masters, where he beat many formidable opponents. Nadal in his teens probably beat a higher # of top ranked players than Wilander did and this sort of stat should not be ignored

Well, looking at Wilanders resumé as a teen, he beat:
Ivan Lendl 4 times
John McEnroe 3 times
Guillermo Vilas 6 times

...all of them beaten in slam SFs or Fs.

So he wasn't half bad.

erickmartins
04-03-2013, 10:15 AM
Are you saying Lendl didn't exist between the ages of 10-20?

That's my general impression. It's impossible to imagine a teen Lendl.

On topic, it's between Becker and Borg, of course.

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 02:20 PM
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/503e8bd56bb3f7bb65000000-590/czech-born-ivan-lendl-52-won-eight-grand-slam-singles-titles-1978-1994-after-he-retired-at-34-lendl-became-an-avid-golfer-and-even-won-the-celebrity-tour-lendl-started-coaching-british-tennis-player-andy-murray-in-2012.jpg

hewitt2002
04-03-2013, 08:42 PM
No mention of Hewitt so far!!

Youngest ever to be ranked number 1
Youngest ever to finish the year number 1
3rd youngest ever winner of an atp tournament
Qualified for the Australian Open at the age of 15 - youngest ever
First teenager in ATP history to qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup
Youngest male (at 19 years, 6 months) to win a Grand Slam doubles crown in the open era

Hewitt defiantly deserves to have a mention as greatest teenager along with the likes of Borg/Nadal/Becker/Wilander/CHang

Litotes
04-03-2013, 08:53 PM
No mention of Hewitt so far!!

Youngest ever to be ranked number 1
Youngest ever to finish the year number 1
3rd youngest ever winner of an atp tournament
Qualified for the Australian Open at the age of 15 - youngest ever
First teenager in ATP history to qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup
Youngest male (at 19 years, 6 months) to win a Grand Slam doubles crown in the open era

Hewitt defiantly deserves to have a mention as greatest teenager along with the likes of Borg/Nadal/Becker/Wilander/CHang

Youngest ever to be ranked #1, yes, but he was 20 then, not a teen. Several others reached #2 in their teens, Hewitt didn't. His best as a teen was #6. As for titles, he "only" managed seven, and none of those were slams or masters. So he's really not in the running here.

As for "first teenager to qualify for masters cup" - Nadal was most certainly qualified in 2005. And Becker qualified three times!

hewitt2002
04-03-2013, 09:06 PM
Youngest ever to be ranked #1, yes, but he was 20 then, not a teen. Several others reached #2 in their teens, Hewitt didn't. His best as a teen was #6. As for titles, he "only" managed seven, and none of those were slams or masters. So he's really not in the running here.

As for "first teenager to qualify for masters cup" - Nadal was most certainly qualified in 2005. And Becker qualified three times!

Fair point. But he was still 1 hell of a teenager, especially against great players like Sampras, Rafter, Agassi etc... Also he won the davis cup in 1999 at the age of 18, and played a big part in getting Australia to the final. After watching tennis for over 20 years he is just behind Nadal in most impressive young player in my opinion

Litotes
04-03-2013, 09:59 PM
Fair point. But he was still 1 hell of a teenager, especially against great players like Sampras, Rafter, Agassi etc... Also he won the davis cup in 1999 at the age of 18, and played a big part in getting Australia to the final. After watching tennis for over 20 years he is just behind Nadal in most impressive young player in my opinion

I agree he is second only to Nadal in the last 20 years.