will we see another teenage slam winner?

[dominikk1985]

Teenage winners were always the minority but they did happen occasionally (chang, becker, borg).

the last one was nadal at the FO in 05.

but in these days we are considering 21-23 yo guys outside the top20 as prospects. will be ever see a teenage slam winner anytime soon?

[Moose Malloy]

the 'young' talents born in the late 80s/early 90s (Tomic, Dmitrov, etc) just aren't that good compared to the younger players of past generations.

I'm sure that won't last forever, there will be great young players again.

Djokovic was 20 when he won his 1st slam(2008 AO) & Del Potro was 20 when he won the USO, which wasn't that long ago. Not teenagers, but still pretty young. they were just much better players back then than the 19-22 year olds of today(and I really doubt the game has gotten that much more physical since 2008, since that seems to be the frequent excuse why young players today aren't elite players)

[EndLy]

I think only in the fast courts ie Wimbledon and the us open would we possible teenage winners because they haven't developed the overall consistency to grind out wins at the AO and FO. Those courts are just so hard to catch fire and blast winners all day.

Maybe in a few years when the top 4 are 29/30 someone could sneak one in, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's just too hard to stay hot for 2 weeks. Even Del Porto and Djokovic, both who won at 20, were hot yet established in my opinion.

The players are so consistent now and the futher you go, the more consistent they get. Even big hitters aren't as erratic as the previous generation of players. I don't blame the crop of young talent but rather the overwhelming quality of the guys at the top.

[3fees]

Its possible,not likely-

"Unlike a decade ago, most tennis pros now typically won’t reach their peak until they are in their 20s, driving up expenses for parents and tennis associations. Teenage Grand Slam champions have become a rare sight as the game has grown in depth and players have become physically stronger. "

"It may cost up to $150,000 in total to prepare a junior player for the pro circuit, according to Patrick McEnroe, general manager of player development at the U.S. Tennis Association. That includes travel, coaching, conditioning and food. The British Lawn Tennis Association estimated it costs around 250,000 pounds ($400,000) to develop a winning player from age 5 to 18. The International Tennis Federation said it may cost at least $35,500 annually for a 17-year-old male junior player on the international circuit to compete and train for 20 weeks a year."

Theres more on this here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...disappear.html

3fees

[dominikk1985]

yes but why does being expensive make it harder to succeed for young players?

are less juniors trying compared to 10 or 15 years ago?

[No1e]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

yes but why does being expensive make it harder to succeed for young players?

are less juniors trying compared to 10 or 15 years ago?

I'd like to know this as well. Is tennis becoming less popular for aspiring athletes?

[ATP100]

Easy Answer: No

Not until courts/balls speed back up again.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by ATP100

Easy Answer: No

Not until courts/balls speed back up again.

nadal, borg and chang were grinders and won on clay yet they still all managed to win a slam before their 20th birthday. in fact grinders seem to peak earlier then offensive players (many are done at 25-26 like wilander, hewitt or courier):

[ATP100]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

nadal, borg and chang were grinders and won on clay yet they still all managed to win a slam before their 20th birthday. in fact grinders seem to peak earlier then offensive players (many are done at 25-26 like wilander, hewitt or courier):

I don't usually respond, but, your argument is the exact reason there won't be another one until courts speed up...

Everyone is a grinder now...think about it.....

[Russeljones]

This matter has been sort of chewed to ehh.. anyhow, it all comes down to the slowing of the surfaces and the physicality in the game today. It takes years for players to gain the stamina and strength necessary to compete at the very top. This is why young players with technique and versatility lose to quite ordinary older players.

[tHotGates]

Pete was 19 winning his first slam. I thought Rafa was 19 when he won his first FO? Safin almost makes the list @ twenty years old. Anybody else from the men's side over the last few decades?

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

This matter has been sort of chewed to ehh.. anyhow, it all comes down to the slowing of the surfaces and the physicality in the game today. It takes years for players to gain the stamina and strength necessary to compete at the very top. This is why young players with technique and versatility lose to quite ordinary older players.

you mean versatile players like chang?

I do agree that the style of grinding has changed though. back then you could grind by just running fast (running speed is highest when you are very young). now we see a generation of "power grinders". they bring everything back but at the same time hit every ball as hard as they can. just running won't get you anywhere you need the power too.

so to hit every ball with full power for 4 hours you might need another kind of endurance and power as runners like chang had.

still theoretically I thinkk the slower surfaces should benefit the younger guys. almost all teenage winners won on slow surfaces first. running speed and endurance are typically young players skills.

[tennisaddict]

Fillip Peliwo for the major...Wishing him the best.