Where have all the youngsters gone?

Just posted this on v2, but thought it might be of interest here too:

Whatever happened to the next generation of tennis players? For how long are we supposed to be hearing that Milos Raonic is the real deal just because he wins some dinky dying tournament. We will be all excited if one of the 22-year-olds makes it as far as a SF (or maybe even a QF would be nice?) of a slam this year. Ok, maybe Milos has credentials of a decent future top 10 player, maybe even a bit better than that, but certainly not of a future superstar. There must be youngsters out there who will be winning multiple slams down the road. However, neither Raonic, nor anyone else from his cohort of 22 or so year olds, feel like they have what it takes.

Out of curiosity, I decided to have a look at where the prior greats were at when they turned 22. I looked at all players who won at least four slams in the open era (I ignored Laver, Newcombe and Rosewall, as they were at the tail end of their careers when the open era started). I looked at two things:

1. How many slams the players have won before turning 22, and
2. What was the highest ranking they attained before their 22nd birthday

Here is what the numbers look like:

Player	Career slams	Slams before age 22	High ranking before age 22
Federer	17+	1	3
Sampras	14	2	1
Borg	11	4	1
Nadal	11+	3	2
Agassi	8	0 (3F 4SF)	3
Connors	8	2	1
Lendl	8	0 (1F)	2
McEnroe	7	2	1
Wilander	7	4	2
Becker	6	4	2
Djokovic	6+	1	3
Edberg	6	2	2
Courier	4	3	1
Vilas	4	0 (R16 once)	10

The results only confirm that pretty much all the really great players got close to the very top quite early. With the exception of Vilas, everyone in the table reached top 3 (and many of them #1) before turning 22. In fact, Agassi even had time to be going through one of his slumps by 22 - he was at #16 on his 22nd birthday, having spent significant amount of time in top 5 prior to that.

Pretty much all of them also had early slam success. Again, Vilas is the only real outlier. Lendl and Agassi are the only other players who had not won a slam by 22, but both of them had at least been to the final - Agassi on multiple occasions.

For comparison, here is a similar table with the numbers for the current "promising" players aged around 22:

Player	Career slams	Slams before age 22	High ranking before age 22
Raonic	?	R16 3 times	13
Janowicz	?	3rd Rd	26
Dimitrov	?	2nd Rd	34
Goffin	?	R16 once	42

This just looks dire. The most successful of the youngsters - Raonic - is just about comparable with Vilas, who had by miles the worst numbers in the first table. Dimitrov is not yet 22, but he will turn 22 before the French, so he does not have time to improve his slam record. Nor do I expect him to break into the top 3 before the French.

There are no two ways about it, none of these youngsters look like top drawer material. They look good enough to form a basis for a decent supporting cast, but none of them appears to have what it would normally take to be the leading man. It will be sad if they will in fact end up being the leading men of the future just because everyone older will have retired.

Pretty depressing, though I guess not really surprising.

Why not surprising?

Here is the answer to your question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/23/tour-de-france-winner-list-garin-wiggins

It's nothing to do with talent and surper stars. We all know Murray, Djoko and Nadal are not particularly talented (and I believe even you agree with that) ...it's all to do with fitness. Tennis has become the new cycling. Look how old are the winners when fitness really matters.

Bar the strangely fit youngsters (Cantador, Ulrich, Schleck...), winners are actually 27 and above (24yo minimum -again thanks to strange fitness like Nadal). Indurain was 27 when he started to win teh TDF, Armstrong 28, Evans 34, Wiggins 32 (note how they are getting older as antidoping regs are getting tighter).

Tennis is no different than cycling nowadays and you cannot judge/compare a 22 yo with past ones (good research but a bit useless), it's simply too young now for that physical game tennis has become. 22yo Nadal Murray and Djoko woudl be hammered by their current versions as they put the physical bar even higher in those last 3 years.

Unless there is a change in courts conds the trend is not going to change. It is again the change in technology/fitness that has shorten the careers of past champions..when things were stable for years (pre open era) players had a much longer career at the top.

Feel free to copy and paste this post on v2 to enlighten my old friends!

Physical nature of the game these days make it almost impossible for the young players to stay with the much older opponents. We still call it tennis, but its a entire new game altogether. I'm very certain none of the young players from the above list who made great success so early would still would have been able to do it if they had to face the physical barrier of the modern game.

Its almost impossible to mature physically at such young age. The last young player who shocked me with his power and stamina and lung capacity was Nadal when I first saw him in 2005-06. Back then I believed he was a freak of nature, but not any more.

Tenez wrote:Why not surprising?

By not surprising I only mean that we sort of know it without seeing the table. But it is surprising that it happens to be the case.

I am not convinced by the physicality argument. It is convenient and it sounds plausible but I do not think it really works that well. Maybe it can partly explain what we are seeing, but I doubt it is the main reason.

Four years ago, Nadal, Novak and Andy were all young and all in top 4. The game has not changes so much in those four years that now we should have youngsters struggling to get to top 10 or even top 20.

Also, some of the guys who had a lot of early success were from the physical school of tennis - Nadal for example, but others too.

Where have all the youngsters gone?

Well, the real talent is obviously lost somewhere down the line...Just look at the States, they have been bemoaning the lack of real talent for years now and it's apparently all drained away by other sports there.
The huge continent of Asia never produced any tennis prodigies, so I'm not hoping much from them, either.
Which leaves us with Europe where basically only a few countries have healthy infrastructures to produce and nourish talent.

That element aside, the tour has changed to what it used to be 20, 30 years ago, too. There is a lot more money in it now and it has been commercialised in such a way that it's now beginning to damage the game.

Top names are now protected not only by seeding system, but often very soft draws. Big names bring big money and tournament organisers look after them which does not help the breakthrough of youngsters, either.

In short, none of the players of this crop are basically talented enough, they simply are not prodigies. But they will come one day as they always do.

It's unrealistic to expect them on tap all the time, they are rare and we've got some right now, so let's enjoy them while they are in their prime rather than moan about the lack of young ones.

Still these are only secondary obstacles.

Physicality, yes, players do need to be fitter than ever as the slowed down conditions encourage defending and chasing balls down. Many have cottoned on, and sadly we have now young players working more on their fitness than game (Raonic comes to mind as a perfect example).

Of all the "young" names you mention, maybe Goffin has the cleanest game, but his character lacks grit and perseverance as he seems to be easily discouraged.

JJ is good, but his size is against him long-term, just like Delpo, I can see him win a slam or two in the long-term future, but never dominate.

Perhaps you should'n've been too constrictive with the age parameter here, as you have missed out on Tomic, who, in my opinion has more talent and game than Raonic.
In the right coaching hands, he could got the most promise, but still too many ifs regarding his head which seems to be lacking in all the young players.

The thing that all those young "hopes" miss is footwork, it really is big time behind the top four and that's where they fail most.
Dimitrov is slow, so is Tomic, Raonic just lacks variety, Goffin is lite-weight.
PS
can't get that song Where have all the flowers gone? out of my head all afternoon now!

summerblues wrote:I am not convinced by the physicality argument. It is convenient and it sounds plausible but I do not think it really works that well. Maybe it can partly explain what we are seeing, but I doubt it is the main reason.

I think you are "conveniently" trying to ignore the obvious. There is no other reason....especially since the new generation has more shots than the current roadrunners. What made Nadal succeed so early if not his fitness? What made Murray become a threat if it is not that muscle coat he put on from 2007? What turned Djoker into an unbeatable retriever from 2011? What makes Rao the best youngster if not his big frame allowing him to hit through most of those mature player?

If cyclists were going down after 27 I may have doubts...but they actually start winning big events at 27!!! and no one won the TDF before 24 in the last 20 years! So why should youngsters win GSs in tennis now that it is so physical. It even took Federer a one in a century talent the age of 22 to win in a much less physical era...and it was on fast grass...where physique was no issue.

Four years ago, Nadal, Novak and Andy were all young and all in top 4. The game has not changes so much in those four years that now we should have youngsters struggling to get to top 10 or even top 20.

It has dramatically changed. I am surprised you did not even notice. Berdych got huge legs, Djoko got so much fitter, Murray doubled his muscle weight, Tsip got himself frogs legs and so has the rest of teh ATP. Add to that court conds have slowed down further all over to make it more difficult for any talented player to win. Haven't you noticed that besides Federer, it's the fittest player which has won the slam since 2008? Delpo was another player who did well young cause he had a huge frame to hit through those roadrunners...though he was in a way lucky to have to face a diminished Nadal in that USO09 semi. Berdych was no-where at 23, Tsonga was also lost down the ranking despite some obvious talent, where was Tsip at 23? Almagro? Gasquet? Ferrer? All those other top 10 are there now cause they have simply improved physically too. They is no way around that unfortunately.

Also, some of the guys who had a lot of early success were from the physical school of tennis - Nadal for example, but others too.

Not sure what you mean by that. But anyway you will see in a couple of years....Those youngsters will beat convincingly teh Murray and Djokos. And that will simply prove the point.

I can't see anybody from the present youngsters to take a tennis reign (I mean get in top2) for good 2-3 years unless surfaces and balls are changed.

Stay tuned. You won't have to wait too long.

27 young Stan is already catching up on the top 5! ...He was close to kick the number one in the last AO.

Tenez wrote:Stay tuned. You won't have to wait too long.

27 young Stan is already catching up on the top 5! ...He was close to kick the number one in the last AO.

Although I wish Stan to get to get on 8, his chance is minimal, on 5 it is hopeless. His match at AO helped Nole a lot of to get a proper rhytm there.
When the new youth appear on the very top, we will have celebrated a good couple of great Nole's wins here

noleisthebest wrote:Well, the real talent is obviously lost somewhere down the line.............Dimitrov is slow, so is Tomic, Raonic just lacks variety, Goffin is lite-weight.

I think your post is very close to how I think about it. Not one single factor - a combo of multiple ones, pretty much the way you describe it is my guess too.

Also agree that Tomic is another one who might break through. I did not think very highly of his game until the match against Fed at this year's AO, but he convinced me there he can be good. Let's just hope that he focuses on tennis.

Similar to other youngsters, he has not done that much yet either but at 20 (hopefully he is indeed 20) that is more forgivable.

noleisthebest wrote:can't get that song Where have all the flowers gone? out of my head all afternoon now!

Tenez wrote:I think you are "conveniently" trying to ignore the obvious. There is no other reason....

I just do not see nearly enough evidence to be convinced - in fact there are enough factors that make the belief that it is all due to physicality rather suspect.

Tenez wrote:What made Nadal succeed so early if not his fitness?

But that is neither here nor there. Or, rather, that is an argument against your viewpoint. Nadal did succeed early - earlier than say Roger - yet he succeeded exactly because of his fitness. If anything it suggests it is very possible to succeed at a young age through fitness.

summerblues wrote:If anything it suggests it is very possible to succeed at a young age through fitness.

It's science. Even science goes through plateau. Nadal was the first to have the latest "kit". And now 3 of them have it.....plus they have the crucial years of experience and added fitness age brings and then you have a one in a century genius. This is the barrier for the youngsters. It's hard cause the more mature players I have listed are doing their best to catch up with those 4 guys.

This cyclist chart above again proves you were wrong about the discussion we had about players peaking at 27. I always said that what made tennis players win less slams after 27 is the simple fact that a new more competitive generation (simply by higher numbers of youngsters playing pro) comes with new gear (bigger frames, then better strings, better fitness suplements etc...) push the peak players down the ranking sooner than they shoudl (Fed and Pete said that too). Problem is that nowadays competition is so stiff that you cannot achieve anything at 20 like you could then. SHow me a 20yo winning the TDF and then I'll admit I am wrong...(unless that youngster has access to drugs no-one has which is always a possibility).

Ask yourself how come there is no young talent despite more youngsters taking the game than ever, better trained and so on....Do you think like socal it's down to a weak era? Problem with socal is a player is as good as his name sounds. He throws names like Becker, Edberg and so on but does not realise that Llodra is actually much better than them. This is the strange reality of today's tennis.

I think what we called young (20-22) should be now 22-24. At 20-22 we can only have a glimpse of their potential. What I see is that teh current 20-22 have more potential and are even better than Nadal, Djoko and Murray at the same age...and in a way it's normal cause they are exposed to fitter players at a younger age. Didn't Harrison took a set of Murray? Tomic of Nadal and Djoko...even beating the latter recently? Rao will do it too given enough opportunities.

In fact it's exactly like the Sampras generation saying there is no 17/19 youngsters anymore...they are crap. Cause back then you had guys like Borg, Becker and Wilander winning at 17/18...even up to Chang time (also thanks to some weird fitness btw). Did the player at Pete's time said there was no great player amongst the youngsters? What did Federer achieve before 22? losing at every first round of GS....And that despite a much easier era physically. Yet the greatest ever player came out of nowhere. I don;t think many will reproduce the kind of achievement of Federer but certainly many will do better than Murray and some as well as Djoko I think...we are not too sure yet of who will.

Do people realise that the average age of the TDF winner the last 20 years is ..30 (3 months short to be precise)!!! I repeat...the average!

Funnily the average age for the TDF history (going back to 1900s) is 27.5...so it means that as it gets tougher, more competitive, the winners get older.

And in tennis we are seeing exactly that. How can we expect a 20 or 22 to do anything now that everybody got fitter?

You do make a good and quite an interesting point by drawing a parallel between tennis and cycling.
It is clear to see that modern medicine whether legal or illegal ( or both) has affected the sport.
Naturally, it pentated the most physical ones first (athletics, cycling), and is now very obvious in tennis, as well.
When I look at all top players the first thing that comes to mind is: yes, they are all fantastic athletes, not neccessarily tennis players per se. If you stripped that element, what would you be left with, that is a big question?
On the other hand, when I think of McEnroe or Santoro allI see is a tennis player, never "an athlete".
So medicine has changed tennis in terms of enhancing the element of endurance, which, let's all be honest none of us watch tennis for.
Hand to eye coordination as the formerly central skill is slowly being sidelined.
That cannot be good whichever way you look at it.
Can somebody be a great athlete at 22? I say yes...so it's clear that we just don't have any extraordinary,prodigous players in this "young" batch...

noleisthebest wrote:... If you stripped that element, what would you be left with, that is a big question?
Hand to eye coordination as the formerly central skill is slowly being sidelined.

Exactly....though I would not say "slowing being sidelined"....just completely sidelined. Talented players make a great show but they safely and surely lose over 5 sets. This is best expressed by Djoko in that first match he plays versus Nadal. Despite being beaten and retiring he is saying in his post match press conf that Nadal is not difficult to beat (which made everybody laugh)...and I guess what he meant by that is "if you can stay physically with him" and didn't he prove it in 2011.

Can somebody be a great athlete at 22? I say yes...so it's clear that we just don't have any extraordinary,prodigous players in this "young" batch.

Acually no, we cannot have 22yo great athletes anymore on those slow conds. That is my main point. We don;t have them in cycling and in any other very physical sport. In golf for instance you can still have prodigious youngsters/talent but that's because the physical side is still much less important.

That's interesting. Why not? Is it because men's natural physical peak is/starts at 25? Do you think medicine can alter that and how?

We can always have "potential" great athlete at 22...but no-one will peak at 22 now that it's physically tougher out there. It looks like we peak physically at 29/30....this is probably true for most sports.

Look at Gebrselassie's best long distance performance? all after 30!!! The shorter distances are before 30. Carl Lewis and many other top 100m performers have their best time at 29/30.

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/ethiopia/haile-gebrselassie

It simply shows that we are indeed peaking at about that age. As competition gets fierce there is less room for talent prodigy doing well early. And the trend is not new as I sais.

Becker won his first slam at 17, Wilander at 17 too if I remember Pete at 20....but Federer only at 22...Nadal of course succeeded early cause his strength was that physique....but we know now that what looked to be a freak of nature was probably helped. Now that more players have joined him...it's going to make it harder for the youngsters to impose themselves physically....of course there is always teh possibility of youngsters coming built like Rao with Nadal mobilty and better drug recipe but I think sceince would really need to make considerable progress to allow for that. Genetic doping can certainly built those kinds of titans.

We have not had a 17yo slam winner since Chang in 89...that's 24 years ago. Nadal was 19 but again...he made it more difficult for every other youngsters following on his path. We saw that Djoko was clearly a better player...yet Djoko only won slams regularly from late 23 and not 19 like Nadal...It took more time Murray even. But what is interesting is that those 3 are clearly saying they have made it much tougher physically over the last 3/4 years.

The first break through in tennis are simply happening later nowadays. And I think I even heard Federer say the reason was down to physicality of tennis nowadays....and others have said it...so I am not sure what SB in on about here!

Anyway those current 20-22 youngsters will start to pierce through in a year or 2. And then people will start to jump on their bandwagons. The idea that the next big kid is probably 15 is ridiculous.

I remember Dolgopolov saying before his match with Nole at USO 2011, he knew he couldn't physically beat him in the best of 5, and that he'd try to give a good show for a few sets while he coud last. So they did play one good set with that half an hour long tie-break and that was all the show Dolgo could muster for the day ( I can't remember now whether it was a particularly hot day but I think it could've been).
I know Dolgo has health issues and his fitness levels are limited because of it (some blood disorder), so that was a bit sad.
But in the pre-physical era, he would have probably been fine.

Yes...the thing is they know themselves they are not fit enough to run the distance. This is why also choking takes a different dimension than that pre-physical era cause they know it's now or never....though it has always been more or less physical....now it's just ridiculous. This is what the older (and younger) players rightly say. "It's mind boggling what those player can do nowadays" McEnroe.

I would say "are allowed to do these days".
Both legally and illegally.

I would like to believe that people are beginning to become aware of the consequences, especially in tennis which is losing its original beauty now.

I don't think tennis will ever be good to watch again if young players countinue to emerge as giants as they seem to be at the moment. It will just be brute force instead of baseline monotony.
So something really needs to change in order to return tennis to its roots.
And I think it's doable there much more than in pure physical sports like cycling.
A bit of speeding surfaces up etc, and it could pull the rug from the feet of those who prosper with exclusive fitness, couldn't it?
And make it a bit easier for the young ones.

Yes but it was pointed correctly a couple of years ago by the good old Barrystar that there is a benefit for TDs in having the big seeds going consistently far down the draw. Talent ususally does allow for upsets while physical strength allows for consistent results at the top (borg, Wilander, Hewitt (while he had that physical edge), Nadal, Djoko, Murray). And that means it creates a star system of players who simply physically arrive at the business end of draws and that is what TDs want cause that is what fans want first of all. Socal calls that "the golden age". It is physically the "golden age"....talent wise it's anything but!

Tenez wrote:Yes but it was pointed correctly a couple of years ago by the good old Barrystar that there is a benefit for TDs in having the big seeds going consistently far down the draw. Talent ususally does allow for upsets while physical strength allows for consistent results at the top (borg, Wilander, Hewitt (while he had that physical edge), Nadal, Djoko, Murray). And that means it creates a star system of players who simply physically arrive at the business end of draws and that is what TDs want cause that is what fans want first of all. Socal calls that "the golden age". It is physically the "golden age"....talent wise it's anything but!

Yes, that definitely was the case during the Fedal Era, when all this "star treatment" reached its peak so much so it led to rigging draws to help Nadal reach non-clay slam finals.
Look at what Nike made out of them: Classy, classic Rog vs the Humble rebel/warrior Bull, makes you sick....(it certainly did me, as a Nole fan during 2007-11), funny when you remember how they both looked when they started their careers.
I doubt TDs are going to be desperate for Djokovic-Murray finals. I don't think anybody enjoys those much.

noleisthebest wrote:I doubt TDs are going to be desperate for Djokovic-Murray finals. I don't think anybody enjoys those much.

And that is why they started to implement the 25s rule, sped up a bit courts there and then. They can adjust both ways. They certainly do not want servers dominating again. I think they are scared of that and as the margins are so thin, it's a really tough job for them. We saw how harder balls on clay made Isner a good match for Nadal so imagine same balls on grass...Anybody woudl be a Rosol for Nadal with faster balls!

I do not know what the future holds really...the only thing I know is that when those better youngsters will get fitter they will simply balst off the court the current top players...and that won't take as long as some might think. To me it's already pretty close between Tomic/Rao and the top 4....even short Berankis is not that far either. Give them a tiny bit more fitness, confidence and exposure...and that will be it.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more of Berankis!

I just checked what happened to him since the AO and he has just played a DC match against unknown Cypriots which he bagelled and since nothing...not even trying to qualify....that's weird...isnt it?

That is strange...I can understand if he couldn't afford travelling to (Latin) America and have to play qualies, but should've been able to play any of these indoor tournaments in France.

He probably needs a bit of a breakthrough moment like JJ had in Bercy last year, just to get him started financially.

I hope he is not injured and that we see him soon.

yes....I think a few woudl be ready to invest in him and he made $75k this year alone so surely that pays for a few flight tickets and hotel room.

But having said that it is tough out there for those guys.

He,he! Just checked and he is playing a qualifying match in Delray as I'm typing this, 3 all in the first set against B. Reyndols, go Berankis!!!!

A quali on Monday? Poor guy. Reynolds is not a bad player...it's tough out there.

An if he wins he's facing one of these: Harrison, Lu, Anderson or Blake. Tough, indeed.
But he had to play 4 rounds of qualifying in AO, anyway....I'm glad he won two matches in the main draw, basically played 7 matches as if he won the tournament.
I didn't realise he lives in California. Not bad for a taxi-driver's son, must have been a real gem of a talent to be funded the costs of Boletierri's Academy by someone....

Just goes to show how hard it is to make it to the top. They are worth every penny they earn. Feel sorry for the talented ones that get injured and sidelined.

Yes...it's so tough out there that doping is not even a choice for a player who sacrified his youth to succeed...especially knowing that your opponent is at 99.99% on something himself.

I do not want to make the apology of doping after having fought against it for so long but look at your job....woudl you refuse a great job a friend of you offered you? Woudl you say no I want to take the normal seletion procedure so it's fair for all? Not many would, would we...We would just be too hapy to take the job.

I don't know about the job scenario...I once had to interview a few people and it's not easy to make the right decision based on an hour spent talking to someone, so of course, I'd give it to someone who is a known quantity any time! At least you'd know they wouldn't turn up 5 hours late on the first day (that's what actually happened!). I even had someone who never turned up at all, nor even bothered to let me know....

Sure but of the job is about earning lots in the city the situation is a bit different and you won't have people coming late there.

Tenez wrote:Sure but of the job is about earning lots in the city the situation is a bit different and you won't have people coming late there.

Probably not. The principle is the same, though....Even I got a job thorugh being a known quantity twice

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Sure but of the job is about earning lots in the city the situation is a bit different and you won't have people coming late there.

Probably not. The principle is the same, though....Even I got a job thorugh being a known quantity twice

You doper!