Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,996 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The 5 year period of 2010-2014 marks the first time since all 4 majors were recognized as majors by the ILTF (1925-) that there has not been a first time major winner under the age of 22 in a 5 year period.

This year's US Open will mark the 6th year since the last under 22 year old winner - Juan Martin Del Potro - if one does not win.

2010-2014: 0
2005-2009: 3, Nadal (19), Djokovic (20), Del Potro (20)
2000-2004: 4, Safin (20), Hewitt (19), Roger Federer (21), Andy Roddick (21)
1995-1999: 2, Kuerten (20), Moya (21)
1990-1994: 2, Sampras (19), Courier (20)
1985-1989: 3, Edberg (19), Becker (17), Chang (17)
1980-1984: 1, Wilander (17)
1975-1979: 2, Edmunson (21), McEnroe (20)
1970-1974: 2, Connors (21), Borg (18)
1965-1969: 1, Roche (21)
1960-1964: 1, Laver (21)
1955-1959: 2, Hoad (21), Cooper (21)
1950-1954: 1, Rosewall (18)
1945-1949: 2, Gonzales (20), Sedgman (21)
1940-1944: 1, Schroeder (21) [WW2 - Only US Open played]
1935-1939: 5, McGrath (20), Henkel (21), Bromwich (20), McNeil (21), Riggs (21)
1930-1934: 3, Doeg (21), Wood (19), Vines (19)
1925-1929: 1, LaCoste (20)

Please let me know if I have made any errors.

For those looking for a bright side, note that if one were to use 10 year periods instead of 5, it doesn't look quite as bad.
The four 10 year periods between 1945-1984 each had a total of 3 major winners under 22, which is the same as 2005-2014.

The youngest 1st time major winners in the past 5+ years are Murray and Cilic at 25+ years.

Now for the money question... :)
Which under 22 year old player do you think has the best chance to break this pattern?

Respectfully,
masterclass
 
  • Like
Reactions: 92738

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Make a list of seven year period for teenagers who won at least one ATP title. We're waiting since Delray Beach '08 for some teen to do that. That would be funny...
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
No surprise really. In 2014, competition is at an all-time low. There is no young slam winner, and even in 2 years there will probably be none. No youngsters at all. The tour is a barren wasteland.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
No surprise really. In 2014, competition is at an all-time low. There is no young slam winner, and even in 2 years there will probably be none. No youngsters at all. The tour is a barren wasteland.
Kyrg would be a GS winner in 2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,328 Posts
The youngest 1st time major winners in the past 5+ years are Murray and Cilic at 25+ years.

Now for the money question... :)
Which under 22 year old player do you think has the best chance to break this pattern?
1. The game has evolved.

2. 25 is the new 22.

The answer to your question is baby Djokovic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry Z.

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
Not shocking, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic will go down as the 3 greatest players of all time. The only ones capable of defeating them on big stage are either themselves or experienced veterans who know how to play them when they are red hot (i.e Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, Murray...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlterBridge

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
Kyrg would be a GS winner in 2004
No he wouldn't Vladdy. Kyrgios has obvious weaknesses in his game to exploit, and his ROS is so terrible it's a joke. On faster hard, on faster grass... His only chance is RG and back in those days - there was clay competition.

Kyrgios is overhyped, and definitely wouldn't live with competition that has some depth beyond top 10... Too many holes in his game. 2004 was too deep, with Roger dominating everybody as well.

No chance. If he had to face Nishikori in the SF of the US Open... that's another story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,049 Posts
The game has changed. You will not see many young Grand Slam winners anymore. The speeds of the court require you to be stronger physically and to able to withstand an onslaught for 2 weeks. Survival of the fittest. Thank Nadal and Djokovic for this. A man reaches his physical peak around 25 and you will see more 1st time Slam winners from the ages 23-27 now.
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
Oh, and it's no coincidence that the breakthrough year of Kyrgios was 2014.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Not shocking, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic will go down as the 3 greatest players of all time. The only ones capable of defeating them on big stage are either themselves or experienced veterans who know how to play them when they are red hot (i.e Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, Murray...)
:hatoff: Agree 100%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
I don't think anyone under 22 is gonna win a slam anytime soon at under 22.
However, there are a good few prospects as to who could win slams at an older age...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
The game has changed. You will not see many young Grand Slam winners anymore. The speeds of the court require you to be stronger physically and to able to withstand an onslaught for 2 weeks. Survival of the fittest. Thank Nadal and Djokovic for this. A man reaches his physical peak around 25 and you will see more 1st time Slam winners from the ages 23-27 now.
That's why Kyrgios was the first player since Federer who made two GS quaterfinals as teenager and Coric may be first 18 yo since Nadal with seed in GS? This 89-94 generation is just awful, damn, man, Dimitrov has 4 ATP titles in age of 24 and he's third best player of this generation...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,328 Posts
The game has changed. You will not see many young Grand Slam winners anymore. The speeds of the court require you to be stronger physically and to able to withstand an onslaught for 2 weeks. Survival of the fittest. Thank Nadal and Djokovic for this. A man reaches his physical peak around 25 and you will more 1st time Slam winners from the ages 23-27 now.
Not only physically, but mentally and tactically as well. Plus, you have to be an all-round player, at least for 1 or 2 weeks. You can't win the big titles these days, beating the likes of Djokovic, Murray, Nadal or Federer with one great weapon or two.

So you need to be really good technically (all-around player), very strong physically and smart (tactically). Still you could lose! It's really tough competing with these guys. The game has evolved and become very demanding, thanks to Nadal and Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,097 Posts
It's simply a case of under 22 players since then not being anywhere del Potro's level (in 2009). When another player of such quality comes up, he will win a Slam at a young age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,049 Posts
Not only physically, but mentally and tactically as well. Plus, you have to be an all-round player, at least for 1 or 2 weeks. You can't win the big titles these days, beating the likes of Djokovic, Murray, Nadal or Federer with one great weapon or two.

So you need to be really good technically (all-around player), very strong physically and smart (tactically). Still you could lose! It's really tough competing with these guys. The game has evolved and become very demanding, thanks to Nadal and Djokovic.

Could not agree more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,617 Posts
The 5 year period of 2010-2014 marks the first time since all 4 majors were recognized as majors by the ILTF (1925-) that there has not been a first time major winner under the age of 22 in a 5 year period.
We're one slam away from breaking the record for the oldest youngest slam winner - (Marin Cilic). That was the longest gap, from Stan Smith to Jimmy Connors winning the AO in 1974. Stan Smith had just turned 27.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,697 Posts
Not just grand slams, since the beginning of 2009, only 7 players other than Big 4 - Davydenko, Ferrer, Ljubicic, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga, Wawrinka - had won Masters 1000 events just once, and all these 7 one-time masters winners were over age 22. That's, out of 59 Masters 1000 events [(6x9) + 5(this year) = 59], 52 events were won by Big 4 (don't ask why Murray is included in Big 4). Such is the domination of the Big 4.

The Big 4, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, are too strong and too consistent to lose.

The young guns are too weak and too inconsistent to win.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
53,559 Posts
Not just grand slams, since the beginning of 2009, only 7 players other than Big 4 - Davydenko, Ferrer, Ljubicic, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga, Wawrinka - had won Masters 1000 events just once, and all these 7 one-time masters winners were over age 22. That's, out of 59 Masters 1000 events [(6x9) + 5(this year) = 59], 52 events were won by Big 4 (don't ask why Murray is included in Big 4). Such is the domination of the Big 4.

The Big 4, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, are too strong and too consistent to lose.

The young guns are too weak and too inconsistent to win.
Well to add a point, there are four of them, so you need to generally beat more than one of them to get to the title.
Even Berdych in 2010 beat Federer (QF) and Djokovic (SF) but couldn't master Nadal in the Wimbledon F.
Considering how tense some of the big 4 battles can be, try imagine having to beat more than one of them in a single tournament, and in the case of a GS over potentially 5 long gruelling sets each. Tsonga's Rogers Cup run was remarkable but I don't think he could pull it off if it was BO5 format.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top