What has happened to young prodigies in tennis?

[Gary Duane]

Born in the 1950s

21 years, 307 days United States Jimmy Connors 1974 Wimbledon 2 September 1952
21 years, 195 days Australia Mark Edmondson 1976 Australian Open 24 June 1954
18 years, 10 days Sweden Björn Borg 1974 French Open 6 June 1956
20 years, 205 days United States John McEnroe 1979 US Open 16 February 1959

Born in the 1960s

17 years, 293 days Sweden Mats Wilander 1982 French Open 22 August 1964
19 years, 324 days Sweden Stefan Edberg 1985 Australian Open 19 January 1966
17 years, 228 days West Germany Boris Becker 1985 Wimbledon 22 November 1967

Born in the 1970s

20 years, 297 days United States Jim Courier 1991 French Open 17 August 1970
19 years, 29 days United States Pete Sampras 1990 US Open 12 August 1971
17 years, 110 days United States Michael Chang 1989 French Open 22 February 1972
21 years, 285 days Spain Carlos Moyá 1998 French Open 27 August 1976
20 years, 272 days Brazil Gustavo Kuerten 1997 French Open 10 September 1976

Born in the 1980s

20 years, 228 days Russia Marat Safin 2000 US Open 27 January 1980
20 years, 198 days Australia Lleyton Hewitt 2001 US Open 24 February 1981
21 years, 333 days Switzerland Roger Federer 2003 Wimbledon 8 August 1981
21 years, 9 days United States Andy Roddick 2003 US Open 30 August 1982
19 years, 3 days Spain Rafael Nadal 2005 French Open 3 June 1986
20 years, 251 days Serbia Novak Djokovic 2008 Australian Open 22 May 1987
20 years, 356 days Argentina Juan Martín del Potro 2009 US Open 23 September 1988

Born in the 1990s

No one.

I don't believe that tennis has changed that much between 2009 and today. So what has changed?

I'm curious what other people think...

 

[Wynter]

Homogenisation and the slowing down of the courts imo.

Wimbledon has seemingly become the breakout area because courts are quick in the first week, so a young player comes out and catches fire and it's difficult for players to adjust.

With slower courts, players have to hit more, and where a younger player normally broke out you tended to notice a massive game where they outfought the player from the baseline. Said Confidence allowed them to keep going on the upwards trend whilst still developing.

Now a player can catch fire and another player is able to gradually wear down the opponent due to constantly retrieving the ball and waiting for the moment the players level drops.

Take Del Potro - Shanghai Last Year, swept Nadal in straights and threatened to do the same to Novak. "All you can do is just wait for his game to drop when he's like that." Was what I think Novak said (Something similar.)

Back then the courts were quicker, which meant points were shorter, which in turn led to waiting a player out becoming increasingly difficult to do.

Now in order to break out you have to have a high power game or be a genuine freak. DelPo has a massive forehand, Novak is a legend of the game.

Only player threatening the Status Quo will be Kyrgios next year, and Coric the year after in my opinion. Coric looks freakish, and Kyrgios has a serve which is already one of the best on the tour backed up with decent movement and good groundstrokes.

Both have room to improve for sure, but the base elements of the game are already there to make them rise quickly in 1-3 years.

Another Area may be medical science, look at Youzhny, Lopez, Federer, Robredo, Ferrer, Haas last year. Players all over the age of 30 who are still sitting in the Top 20. Either medical science is helping these guys play longer or maybe that Era isn't as 'weak' as people try to say it is.

 

[Bartelby]

The pipeline of people who want to risk a lot to make it into professional ranks is running dry of genuine talent.

Starve the roots and the tree will die.

 

[Gary Duane]

Another Area may be medical science, look at Youzhny, Lopez, Federer, Robredo, Ferrer, Haas last year. Players all over the age of 30 who are still sitting in the Top 20. Either medical science is helping these guys play longer or maybe that Era isn't as 'weak' as people try to say it is.

I would say that the dominance of older players is a factor. There are more of them, I think.

But there were 7 young guys that started off with the FO. Borg, Wilander, Chang and Nadal all did it under the age of 20. That's a range in years of 31 years.

I agree about DelPo. Magnificent player with terrible luck because of injuries.

But who believe that all this suddenly changed in the last 5 years?

I have my doubts...

 

[Man of steel]

Other sports as well probably impact the talent pool as well. If you look at other sports the don't even cost 1/10 of what tennis does so that means more people(especially poor and underprivileged people) play. More people play=harder it is to get to the top= more likely the top players are the the most talented and hardest workers. The hunger to make it big is generally more in underprivileged kids and teenagers than in kids in higher income families.

 

[Gary Duane]

The pipeline of people who want to risk a lot to make it into professional ranks is running dry of genuine talent.

Starve the roots and the tree will die.

It could all change next year. Things go in cycles. But until it does change, I tend to agree with you.

 

[Gary Duane]

Other sports as well probably impact the talent pool as well. If you look at other sports the don't even cost 1/10 of what tennis does so that means more people(especially poor and underprivileged people) play. More people play=harder it is to get to the top= more likely the top players are the the most talented and hardest workers. The hunger to make it big is generally more in underprivileged kids and teenagers than in kids in higher income families.

I'm not sure how much of that is different. Tennis has never been a sport for people without advantages, but there have always been outliers. Just think of Pancho Gonzales.

That said, Pancho might not have a chance today, with all his talent.

 

[dlk]

A rarity...a decent thread. I'm fascinated by the decline in younger champions. At my earliest intro to tennis, youth was the norm - Austin & Jaeger seemed normal.

I do agree that power & wiley vets have decreased that number, I wonder if natural athletes choose other more marketable sports, or does economy affect age & leisure of this sport? How many 10 year-olds with the talent of LeBron James wants to play tennis vs. BB, Futbol, football, etc...

 

[Man of steel]

I'm not sure how much of that is different. Tennis has never been a sport for people without advantages, but there have always been outliers. Just think of Pancho Gonzales.

That said, Pancho might not have a chance today, with all his talent.

There have been outliers but thats just it. For example Football is the most popular sport in the world. It has the most pro players around the world with over 100,000 professional players. The fact that it is so easy to play football in terms of ease of access especially in poor countries. In tennis you need a court a tennis racket, a ball and a host of other equipment to practice. In football(soccer-for you american heads) all you need to have is the ball and you can practise your skills and you can play literally anywhere anytime. In footballto get started it is all about your skill level and how hard you work. In tennis to get started you probably need to have that financial support in the background if you want to turn pro.

 

[Bartelby]

Tennis used to be a whole lot cheaper, comparatively speaking, with plenty of cheap clubs, cheap or free tennis courts, and cheap coaching.

Plus the commiitment to university and/or career could be delayed without any detriment to one's future prospects.

So the less well off are now blocked by cost and the better off by access to better opportunities.

 

[Gary Duane]

There have been outliers but thats just it. For example Football is the most popular sport in the world. It has the most pro players around the world with over 100,000 professional players. The fact that it is so easy to play football in terms of ease of access especially in poor countries. In tennis you need a court a tennis racket, a ball and a host of other equipment to practice.

That may be true for pros, but in the late 60s someone like me could play for almost nothing, with almost nothing.

There were HCs here that you could play on any night. Just put in a quarter for 1/2 hour. Shoes? We just wore regular shoes. A racket was not every expensive.

During the day, public courts. Then just any pair of shorts, any shirt.

Before my time tennis was a sport for rich people.

Maybe it has become much more of the same thing.

You can argue that even the Aussies were privileged, but when you read about guys like Laver and co. all going out for beers after matches, it does seem like a different universe.

I wonder if the time when tennis started to get really popular, regular "people" started playing it, perhaps the sky-rocketing money made it more an more impossible for the average joe to succeed in the sport on a high level.

In football(soccer-for you american heads) all you need to have is the ball and you can practise your skills and you can play literally anywhere anytime. In footballto get started it is all about your skill level and how hard you work. In tennis to get started you probably need to have that financial support in the background if you want to turn pro.

Here you can talk about baseball. All you need is a ball and a mit. That's all it takes to play in for fun. But to make it to the top?

I wonder...

 

[furryballs]

if youre talented enough to reach top 20 or even top 50 you can make a lot of money without seriously busting your onions..for some that's enough.look at Tomic....the guy isnt 22 yet but he's set for life.

 

[gregor.b]

if youre talented enough to reach top 20 or even top 50 you can make a lot of money without seriously busting your onions..for some that's enough.look at Tomic....the guy isnt 22 yet but he's set for life.

IF... he can stay out of jail and make his old boy take a back seat.

 

[reaper]

Wait 3 years and you'll find nothing has changed. There'll almost certainly be a grand slam champion aged 20 or younger within 3 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Kyrgios won one next year

 

[Gary Duane]

Tennis used to be a whole lot cheaper, comparatively speaking, with plenty of cheap clubs, cheap or free tennis courts, and cheap coaching.

What country are you in? Here, in my region, what you say is exactly right.

Plus the commiitment to university and/or career could be delayed without any detriment to one's future prospects.

So the less well off are now blocked by cost and the better off by access to better opportunities.

From my POV that means that there was a time when more and more people were interested in tennis, and the average person could play it more easily. There may be no link between the average person and what we see at the highest level, and yet I wonder...

I played tennis, my brother played tennis, my dad tried to learn to play (and was aware of the sport), and my parents watched tennis on TV with passion.

My wife has no interest in tennis, and I don't know anyone else who has any interest in it (other than here). We now have things like Tennis Channel, hi-def, but I don't know anyone else who ever watches the channel.

I almost feel like tennis is in between golf (a sport for people who HAVE money) and things like American football or soccer, which have a broad appeal.

Those of us who love the sport can easily forget that in 2014 it could soon be as unimportant to most people now as it was decades ago.

 

[furryballs]

IF... he can stay out of jail and make his old boy take a back seat.

the jail(or gaol as it is in english)thing is a bit far off for Tomic.he got caught speeding a few times and it got blown out of proportion.i think Mallise knows what he's getting into and will handle the old boy.i hope so anyway.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Wait 3 years and you'll find nothing has changed. There'll almost certainly be a grand slam champion aged 20 or younger within 3 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Kyrgios won one next year

I hope you are right, but I don't think it's certain. Interesting factoids from the list:

Nobody from the 90s yes, but anyone born 93 or after isn't 22 yet. So basically the decade is still very young in terms of it's Slam-producing potential. Also, there was a six-year gap from Courier(91) to Kuerten(97) ... and if somebody wins one in the next year or two that'll be the same gap again.

As I mentioned in another thread, I think it's an interesting time in tennis, and I am concerned, but it's too early to say the sky is falling IMO. Three or four years from now if the situation is unchanged, I'd think differently.

 

[Gary Duane]

Wait 3 years and you'll find nothing has changed. There'll almost certainly be a grand slam champion aged 20 or younger within 3 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Kyrgios won one next year

NOTHING would please me more to see that you are right.

But I believe the longest "drought" in the past for under 22 was from 1985 Wimbledon (Becker) to 1989 French Open (Chang) - less than 4 years by a couple months.

If a Young Gun wins next year, it will be a gap from 2009 to 2015, longest ever in open tennis.

 

[Gary Duane]

Also, there was a six-year gap from Courier(91) to Kuerten(97) ... and if somebody wins one in the next year or two that'll be the same gap again.

Great catch!

I was so locked into decades that I missed that gap.

But if we do not have a young winner in 20015, we will have a record drought.

That would make things more reasonable with the present dominance of over 30s players and the amazing dominance of Fed/Nadal/Novak and so on...

 

[MrFlip]

I dont think it has ALL to do with the slowing down of courts. I think it's the lack of work ethic in young tennis players these days.

Remember when Murray was young and skinny, then he beefed up and got the strength to keep up with the likes of Nadal and Fed, players who were more physically gifted.

Take Dimitrov - definitely needs more leg strength, chicken legs
Tomic - stick
Dolgopolov - looks like he spends more time watching movies than in a gym

By the time Fed was the age Dimitrov is now, he had a good fitness regime and looked to have a decent body for tennis.

 

[MrFlip]

Look at all the 18-23 year olds. Goofy, awkward foot work in rallies compared to the vets. Even the vets back in their younger days had a lot better footwork.

It's a total mystery to me what happened to the physical side of the younger players today. Too tall or too weak to compete.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Very complete and good post. Medical science definitely the factor that has changed the most. When you see banned players like Cilic or Troicki or Odesnik back in the game as if nothing happened, and 30 something players running faster and longer than 20 something (not even mentioning jokes like players matching while having appendicitis :mrgreen: or coming back playing better than ever after 7-months hiatus off-tour :mrgreen: you know something big is going on with medical science, like in cycling in the 90's when the guys were basically faster in mountains than descent!!! :-?

 

[furryballs]

IF... he can stay out of jail and make his old boy take a back seat.

IMG has been paying Tomic 1000000 bucks a year since he was about 15.i think he has some loot.as for Kyrios im not convinced.

 

[reaper]

There are a few indicators that the guys aged 21-26 are a weak bunch of players rather than that it's impossible for young players to come through. There were a few years in recent times when there were no teenagers in the top 100. We now have two 17 YO's and an 18YO in the top 150...all of whom are likely to be top 100 within months. Tomic, who doesn't appear destined for greatness, was in the top 30 as a 19YO. Why there was such a poor bunch of players aged from 21-26 I don't know..but that's more likely to be the cause than you can't make it young anymore.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think Nadal made it into the top 100 right before he turned 17.
Nadal: 28 (June 3.1986)

Novak made it into the top 100 July 2005 87, so when he turned 18.

Obviously the people who won slams very early also broke into the top 100 early.

So at least it's a good sign that now we have some really young players who are doing that. Maybe the drought is about to be over. It would nice.

 

[wangs78]

Poly strings have significantly increased the physicality of the sport. Whereas in the past touch, instinct and luck/momentum could swing the pendulum on who could win a big match, now experience and strength/fitness are the key factors. Poly strings have had the most profound impact on tennis over the last 15 years.

 

[Netspirit]

Poly strings and slow courts have made this sport a pharmaceutical competition. To win slams you now need to outrun Djokovic on [whatever he is taking] - good luck with that.

Add the incredible median income inequality between top 10 and top 100, and tennis career just stops making sense for young athletes.

 

[Gary Duane]

Poly strings and slow courts have made this sport a pharmaceutical competition. To win slams you now need to outrun Djokovic on [whatever he is taking] - good luck with that.

Add the incredible median income inequality between top 10 and top 100, and tennis career just stops making sense for young athletes.

How has that inequality changed in the last 10 years or so? I ask because I have no idea.

 

[Gary Duane]

Poly strings have significantly increased the physicality of the sport. Whereas in the past touch, instinct and luck/momentum could swing the pendulum on who could win a big match, now experience and strength/fitness are the key factors. Poly strings have had the most profound impact on tennis over the last 15 years.

Does this explain why Del Potro won at such a young age, only 5 years ago? Do you think there has been that much change in the last 5 years?

 

[tennisaddict]

if youre talented enough to reach top 20 or even top 50 you can make a lot of money without seriously busting your onions..for some that's enough.look at Tomic....the guy isnt 22 yet but he's set for life.

This is one guy who I think if he gets his act together for one tournament he can win it all.

I have hope on him still.

 

[Netspirit]

Does this explain why Del Potro won at such a young age, only 5 years ago? Do you think there has been that much change in the last 5 years?

It was a fluke, much like this year's USO. Del Potro has not won anything significant ever since.

 

[Netspirit]

How has that inequality changed in the last 10 years or so? I ask because I have no idea.

I have no idea if it has changed. But before tennis got as physical as it is today, it was possible to defeat the odds, big money and big pharma, and break through on sheer talent alone.

Right now winning a slam is like outrunning Usain Bolt.

 

[Gary Duane]

It was a fluke, much like this year's USO. Del Potro has not won anything significant ever since.

I think you are being a little hard on the big guy. He was #5 in the world in April of 2009 and finished at #5. Then he turned 21 in September of that year.

But then came all he injuries. This may turn out to be a fluke year for Nishi too, same reason. His body is betraying him.

With all the accusations of PEDs going on, I have to wonder why some players aren't getting any help from them.

 

[Netspirit]

With all the accusations of PEDs going on, I have to wonder why some players aren't getting any help from them.

They are, but it is an arms race. The top players are making millions and can afford personal physiotherapists, masseurs, best nutrients, supplements and "funny pills" that the industry is yet to discover and ban, best training facilities, top coaches, best flights, etc. "Federer", "Nadal", "Djokovic" are huge AAA-level media enterprises.

The ones below top 50 are barely breaking even. So why would anyone expect an influx of young talent into this sport? I expect that if nothing happens to the speed of the game or prize money distribution, the ATP level will remain low for a few years until young Chinese players take it over. They are running a whole different model.

 

[Chico]

The only think that is happening is that we have one extremely talented generation (1980-1987), followed by an extremely untalented generation (1988-1995). We will see some new prodigies when talented kids from the next generation (1995+) start to compete at highest level.