A New Negative Record: 5 Years Without A First-Time Slam Champ (2015-2019)

[UnderratedSlam]

Well, not a new record as such. This record was already broken in 2017 or 2018. 2019 merely extends it to an even longer and more absurd time-span.

Nobody has won a maiden slam title since 2014 when Cilic won the USO.

That's 20 SLAMS won in a row by veteran slam champs. A record that far exceeds the old one.

A List of All Debut Slam Winners since 1972 (and the players' age):

1972 Gimeno 34 Nastase 26

1973 ---

1974 Connors 21 Borg 18

1975 Orantes 26

1976 Panatta 25

1977 Villas 24

1978 ---

1979 McEnroe 20

1980 ---

1981 ---

1982 Wilander 17

1983 Noah 23

1984 Lendl 24

1985 Edberg 19 Becker 17

1986 ---

1987 Cash 22

1988 ---

1989 Chang 17

1990 Gomez 30

1991 Courier 20 Stich 22

1992 Agassi 22

1993 Bruguera 22

1994 ---

1995 Muster 27

1996 Kafelnikov 22 Krajicek 24

1997 Rafter 24 Kuerten 20

1998 Korda 30 Moya 21

1999 ---

2000 Safin 20

2001 Hewitt 20 Ivanisevic 29

2002 Johansson 26 A.Costa 26

2003 Roddick 21 Ferrero 23 Federer 22

2004 Gaudio 26

2005 Nadal 19

2006 ---

2007 ---

2008 Djokovic 20

2009 Delpo 21

2010 ---

2011 ---

2012 Murray 25

2013 ---

2014 Wawrinka 28 Cilic 26

2015 ---

2016 ---

2017 ---

2018 ---

2019 ---

(I omitted Aussie Opens pre-85 because it wasn't a "worthy" slam pre-late/mid-80s, since it was routinely skipped by most major players).

The list is useful as it shows how unique this era is, and also because it shows how much younger (1st-time) slam champs used to be on average. The numbers prove that GAS has taken place - The Great Age Shift. (There is a lot more evidence of this, but this thread isn't just about age.)

In the 70s, 80s and 90s the question wasn't WHETHER there will be a new slam champ, it was WHO it was going to be and at which slam. Perhaps a tough concept to grasp for millennials unaware of tennis history.

From 80/81 to 2006 there were only isolated single seasons with no new slam winners. No double years i.e. no two years in a row. However, after Delpo won (and barely, I might add) in 2009, there has been a total reversal: since 2009 there are a lot more no-debut years than debut-win years.

This can't possibly go on for another season, or? Will a NextGenner break this fascinating negative streak in 2020? Will one of the younger players finally grow some ***** and be the first maiden champ in over half a decade? Or will the Big 3 continue this record.

Slams With the Most Debut Winners 1972-2019:

1. FO - 19

2. USO - 11

3. Wimby - 7

4. AO - 5 (only since 1985)

The French Open was traditionally THE slam with the most surprise winners, until Nadal turned it into a one-man show.

 

[gjm127]

Interesting. Crazy how the trend is more flagrant in the mid 2000s.

 

[Bobby Jr]

In the same 5 year period there's been approx 10 first time major winners on the female side of tennis.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Well, it is obvious now, can't deny it.

 

[tudwell]

Not that it makes a huge difference to the point of the OP, but you got some of the ages wrong. Cilic was only 25 when he won the US Open. Delpo was 20. Fed was 21 when he won his first slam.

Whenever the Big 3, as a collective, finally fall off, we'll see tons of new slam winners. I wouldn't think that would happen next year, but it could be 2021. Or it could be quite a bit longer.

 

[James P]

It's really sad how that Sampras cat never won a slam.

 

[Lew II]

Amazing era, this means that only champions win. A testament of quality.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Amazing era, this means that only champions win. A testament of quality.

That is the point. There are only 3 and no champions under 31...

 

[Lew II]

That is the point. There are only 3 and no champions under 31...

"Only" 3 GOAT contenders?

When was it possible to see an era with 3 GOAT contenders battling each other?

Plus 2015-16 also featured multiple slam champs Murray and Wawrinka at the top.

 

[Lleytonstation]

"Only" 3 GOAT contenders?

When was it possible to see an era with 3 GOAT contenders battling each other?

Plus 2015-17 also featured multiple slam champs Murray and Wawrinka at the top.

15 and 16, not 17.

 

[Spencer Gore]

The 5 year period with the most maiden slam winners was 2000-2004

2000 Safin 20

2001 Hewitt 20 Ivanisevic 29

2002 Johansson 26 A.Costa 26

2003 Roddick 21 Ferrero 23 Federer 22

2004 Gaudio 26

In what way is having such a disparate group of mainly one slam wonders better for the game?

Having 3 all-time greats battle it out for the slam record is vastly superior sporting entertainment.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Good post, OP.

This is another statistic similar to the "no male slam champs under 30" and "no man born in the 90s winning a slam title in the 2010s".

Shows the complete failure of a generation to step up to the plate and challenge previous greats.

No wonder the big 3 have continued to rack up slams well past their best. There's never been a weaker collection of young men in the game.

 

[chicagodude]

The 5 year period with the most maiden slam winners was 2000-2004

2000 Safin 20

2001 Hewitt 20 Ivanisevic 29

2002 Johansson 26 A.Costa 26

2003 Roddick 21 Ferrero 23 Federer 22

2004 Gaudio 26

In what way is having such a disparate group of mainly one slam wonders better for the game?

Having 3 all-time greats battle it out for the slam record is vastly superior sporting entertainment.

That's a very subjective assessment though.

You may enjoy 3-4 superior players constantly battling for each major prize, and that's fine. I prefer less predictability and like upsets and surprise winners, as long as the matches are good. There is no real argument that one situation or the other is 'better' for entertainment.

For this reason I find the WTA currently much more interesting than the ATP, because I am tired of the predictability on the ATP especially in majors.

 

[accidental]

Wawrinka and Cilic winning in 2014 really seemed like the beginning of a big change at the time. Like younger players were finally going to break through and the big 3 would finally start to decline. Pretty sure Cilic was actually only 26 at the time and Nishikori was 25 in that US Open final.

Amazing that it just turned out to be an anomaly of a year and the next 5 years have seen even less change than ever

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Well, not a new record as such. This record was already broken in 2017 or 2018. 2019 merely extends it to an even longer and more absurd time-span.

Nobody has won a maiden slam title since 2014 when Cilic won the USO.

That's 20 SLAMS won in a row by veteran slam champs. A record that far exceeds the old one.

A List of All Debut Slam Winners since 1972 (and the players' age):

1972 Gimeno 34 Nastase 26

1973 ---

1974 Connors 21 Borg 18

1975 Orantes 26

1976 Panatta 25

1977 Villas 24

1978 ---

1979 McEnroe 20

1980 ---

1981 ---

1982 Wilander 17

1983 Noah 23

1984 Lendl 24

1985 Edberg 19 Becker 17

1986 ---

1987 Cash 22

1988 ---

1989 Chang 17

1990 Gomez 30

1991 Courier 20 Stich 22

1992 Agassi 22

1993 Bruguera 22

1994 ---

1995 Muster 27

1996 Kafelnikov 22 Krajicek 24

1997 Rafter 24 Kuerten 20

1998 Korda 30 Moya 21

1999 ---

2000 Safin 20

2001 Hewitt 20 Ivanisevic 29

2002 Johansson 26 A.Costa 26

2003 Roddick 21 Ferrero 23 Federer 22

2004 Gaudio 26

2005 Nadal 19

2006 ---

2007 ---

2008 Djokovic 20

2009 Delpo 21

2010 ---

2011 ---

2012 Murray 25

2013 ---

2014 Wawrinka 28 Cilic 27

2015 ---

2016 ---

2017 ---

2018 ---

2019 ---

(I omitted Aussie Opens pre-85 because it wasn't a "worthy" slam pre-late/mid-80s, since it was routinely skipped by most major players).

The list is useful as it shows how unique this era is, and also because it shows how much younger (1st-time) slam champs used to be on average. The numbers prove that GAS has taken place - The Great Age Shift. (There is a lot more evidence of this, but this thread isn't just about age.)

In the 70s, 80s and 90s the question wasn't WHETHER there will be a new slam champ, it was WHO it was going to be and at which slam. Perhaps a tough concept to grasp for millennials unaware of tennis history.

From 80/81 to 2006 there were only isolated single seasons with no new slam winners. No double years i.e. no two years in a row. However, after Delpo won (and barely, I might add) in 2009, there has been a total reversal: since 2009 there are a lot more no-debut years than debut-win years.

This can't possibly go on for another season, or? Will a NextGenner break this fascinating negative streak in 2020? Will one of the younger players finally grow some ***** and be the first maiden champ in over half a decade? Or will the Big 3 continue this record.

Slams With the Most Debut Winners 1972-2019:

1. FO - 19

2. USO - 11

3. Wimby - 7

4. AO - 5 (only since 1985)

The French Open was traditionally THE slam with the most surprise winners, until Nadal turned it into a one-man show.

#NoGen

 

[chicagodude]

Plus I may as well point out that of the 2000-2004 first-time winners, among those were incredibly entertaining tourneys and/or finals, such as WO 2001, FO 2004, and FO 2003

 

[ibbi]

The other funny/sad thing is the guys born in the second half of the 90s (and correct me if I'm missing something) have already won more titles of note than the guys born in the first half.

Lost Gen
Cincinnati 2017, WTF 2017
Indian Wells 2019
Paris Bercy 2017

Next Gen
Rome 2017, Canada 2017, Madrid 2018, WTF 2018
Paris Bercy 2018
Cincinnati 2019

Those 90-94 dudes still have a 3-1 edge in slam finals over the 95-99 bunch, but how long will that last?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

In the same 5 year period there's been approx 10 first time major winners on the female side of tennis.

Yes, men's and women's tennis have experienced a total role reversal.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Not that it makes a huge difference to the point of the OP, but you got some of the ages wrong. Cilic was only 25 when he won the US Open. Delpo was 20. Fed was 21 when he won his first slam.

Whenever the Big 3, as a collective, finally fall off, we'll see tons of new slam winners. I wouldn't think that would happen next year, but it could be 2021. Or it could be quite a bit longer.

I decided to round off ages where the player was days or weeks away from their birthday. Seems practical. But ultimately irrelevant.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The 5 year period with the most maiden slam winners was 2000-2004

2000 Safin 20

2001 Hewitt 20 Ivanisevic 29

2002 Johansson 26 A.Costa 26

2003 Roddick 21 Ferrero 23 Federer 22

2004 Gaudio 26

In what way is having such a disparate group of mainly one slam wonders better for the game?

Having 3 all-time greats battle it out for the slam record is vastly superior sporting entertainment.

That's a matter of opinion. I enjoyed the chaos of that era, then got extremely bored when RF started going almost unchallenged. I'd rather not know who'll win a slam than know.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Good post, OP.

This is another statistic similar to the "no male slam champs under 30" and "no man born in the 90s winning a slam title in the 2010s".

Shows the complete failure of a generation to step up to the plate and challenge previous greats.

No wonder the big 3 have continued to rack up slams well past their best. There's never been a weaker collection of young men in the game.

This era is a strange kind of mix of Weak and Strong era. It has both, just depends how you choose to analyze it.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Wawrinka and Cilic winning in 2014 really seemed like the beginning of a big change at the time. Like younger players were finally going to break through and the big 3 would finally start to decline. Pretty sure Cilic was actually only 26 at the time and Nishikori was 25 in that US Open final.

Amazing that it just turned out to be an anomaly of a year and the next 5 years have seen even less change than ever

It was an anomaly mainly because RF wasn't very good, and Rafa also had a very weak second half plus AO injury gave Stan a nice gift.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The other funny/sad thing is the guys born in the second half of the 90s (and correct me if I'm missing something) have already won more titles of note than the guys born in the first half.

Lost Gen
Cincinnati 2017, WTF 2017
Indian Wells 2019
Paris Bercy 2017

Next Gen
Rome 2017, Canada 2017, Madrid 2018, WTF 2018
Paris Bercy 2018
Cincinnati 2019

Those 90-94 dudes still have a 3-1 edge in slam finals over the 95-99 bunch, but how long will that last?

Absolutely LostGen will be far behind NextGen in 5 years. That's why we call them LostGen.

I can't imagine LostGen players winning slams, even if we were to retire the Big 3 - except Thiem of course who will perhaps be the only one from the 1989-1994 gen to win one.

 

[clout]

Absolutely LostGen will be far behind NextGen in 5 years. That's why we call them LostGen.

I can't imagine LostGen players winning slams, even if we were to retire the Big 3 - except Thiem of course who will perhaps be the only one from the 1989-1994 gen to win one.

I’d throw 1995 in that mix as well. 95’s best player is Kyrgios.....

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I’d throw 1995 in that mix as well. 95’s best player is Kyrgios.....

He might pull an Ivanisevic and win his only slam after many years on the tour...

 

[arvind13]

Amazing era, this means that only champions win. A testament of quality.

exact opposite. shows there's something horribly wrong with tennis. and the ****ty quality of the next gen players

 

[arvind13]

only idiots think that this is a good thing

 

[UnderratedSlam]

exact opposite. shows there's something horribly wrong with tennis. and the ****ty quality of the next gen players

Actually, it's a bit of both. A huge gap between three exceptional players and a weak generation.

 

[MaxTennis]

It's really sad how that Sampras cat never won a slam.

Who is that?

 

[clout]

The other funny/sad thing is the guys born in the second half of the 90s (and correct me if I'm missing something) have already won more titles of note than the guys born in the first half.

Lost Gen
Cincinnati 2017, WTF 2017
Indian Wells 2019
Paris Bercy 2017

Next Gen
Rome 2017, Canada 2017, Madrid 2018, WTF 2018
Paris Bercy 2018
Cincinnati 2019

Those 90-94 dudes still have a 3-1 edge in slam finals over the 95-99 bunch, but how long will that last?

Med also won Shanghai and Stefanos won the WTF so there's two more "big titles" for the new gen. Thiem did make another finals although he's not a peak lost-gen'er

 

[Lew II]

In the same 5 year period there's been approx 10 first time major winners on the female side of tennis.

Well but so it's because of surface right? WTA plays slams on different surfaces

 

[Bobby Jr]

Well but so it's because of surface right? WTA plays slams on different surfaces

No, because their much lower mobility and less powerful strokes compared to males sees the characteristics of the surface have less influence on the end result. The differences have the effect of making it much easier to hit winners, while also having a typically higher error rate.

 

[lulo]

2003 was a wild year

 

[zagor]

It's because Djokodal are playing better than ever and keeping them at bay, Fedr too when he can actually get past Millkman.

Zeverevev, Thiemeles, Medved, Nick The Tank, Tomic the GOAT and the Greek vlogger would have been multiple slam champions in any other era in the history of tennis, they represent the pinnacle of tennis evolution.