How much talent did Andrei Medvedev have?

[buscemi]

When Fonseca won Buenos Aires, various sites posted lists of the youngest players to win ATP titles since 1990. Andrei Medvedev featured prominently, with three titles at age 17 in 1992: (1) Genoa (beating Pérez Roldán in the final); (2) Stuttgart Outdoor (beating Wayne Ferreira in a five set final); and (3) Bordeaux (beating Bruguera in the final).

Then, in 1993, at age 18 (turning 19 on August 31st), Medvedev showed he could be a threat across surfaces, winning Estoril (over Karel Nováček) and Barcelona (again over Bruguera) on clay, making the Halle final on grass (losing to Leconte), winning New Haven on hard courts (over Korda), and making the Bercy final on carpet (losing to Ivanišević). Medvedev was a semifinalist at the French Open (this time losing to eventual champion Bruguera) and also on carpet at WTF (conquering Courier and Chang in the RR stage). At 19 years, 4 months old, he finished #6 in the world.

In 1994, still at age 19, he won both Monte Carlo (again over Bruguera) and Hamburg (over Kafelnikov) to climb to #4 in the world. At the French, he would again lose to Bruguera (this time in the QF), knocking him down to #6. Then, at Wimbledon, he again showed solid grass skills, making the Round of 16 and extending Becker in an infamous five set match before losing, 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-7, 7-5. As some of you might recall, Becker broke the rules by getting a massage during a bathroom break (and was fined), which shows how much the teenager was physically challenging him. With Medvedev's solid performance on the grass, he rose back up to #5.

He wouldn't get close to that ranking for the rest of his career. The rest of 1994 was filled with mediocre results, dropping the Ukranian to year-end #15 at age 20. 1995 was highlighted by another Hamburg title, but not much else as he finished year-end #16. Then, things got pretty dim other than yet another Hamburg title in 1997. He was year-end #35 in 1996. Year-end #27 in 1997. Year-end #62 in 1998.

Finally, in 1999 he showed signs of life at the French Open, straight setting Kuerten (who had won Monte Carlo and Rome) on the way to the final where he dominated Agassi for two sets before a rain delay changed momentum and the match. Medvedev notched a win over Krajicek at the Grand Slam Cup, but didn't do much the rest of the year, finishing year-end #31. He would play a couple more years, but not reach another final anywhere. After his promising results as a teenager on hard, carpet, and grass in 1993-1994, Medvedev wouldn't make another final on any of these surfaces and never came close again to the top 5 status he reached at age 19. With 4 Masters Series titles, Medvedev is behind only Zverev (7) and Rios (5) among players with the most Masters Series titles, but no Majors.

So, what happened? There were no clear injury issues that changed his fortunes. Instead, reports are that he simply lacked motivation, which was evident by his change in physique. When he hit the scene as a teenager, Medvedev was a skinny 6'4", but he started packing on the pounds as he hit 20s, hindering his movement. This added heft helped him in Hamburg, where he was able to hit through the heavy conditions. But it did him no favors elsewhere.

In assessing his game, I recall people at the time saying he was a bigger, stronger version of Kafelnikov, with more juice on his serve and an equally solid two handed backhand. And, indeed, he ended up 6-5 against the Russian, who was his most frequent opponent. But, whereas Yevgeny maximized his game, Andrei left a lot on the table.

But how much? I post this as the Krickstein thread is toward the top of the forum. These were two players who started stacking the titles at age 17 and reached the top 10 (top 5 for Medvedev) as teenagers. In the Krickstein thread, the pretty clear answer to why he didn't achieve more was a series of severe injuries. Was the only thing that held Medvedev back his lack of motivation/training? Or was there something else?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Funny you mention Perez-Roldan - he won 2 titles as a 17 year old. But no one thought he would be some great(young Agassi destroying him at '88 RG showed what real young talent was). Again, the amount of 17/18 year olds on tour was staggering back then(which is why 32 year olds back then were considered geriatric)

But yeah Medvedev was the real deal(unlike Krickstein). His run to 4th round of RG on his debut as a 17 year old got a lot of attention and hype(and world #1 Courier put him in his place). I've probably posted more about Medvedev than anyone here over the years (esp since he gets used as a weak era argument with all the numbers dorks here using ranking as a way of deciding what an easy slam run was - he was ranked 100 at time of '99 RG final etc so that makes him a bum or something)

I predicted him to make the '93 USO final after the many 1st week upsets, but he kind of laid an egg vs Pioline(and the commentators were bummed - there were no "stories" that year, a 19 year old making the final at least was something to talk about). He spent a lot of time at '93 USO talking about how ****ty the food was, how the players lounge sucked, and how the USO just sucked in general. Maybe that attitude gives you an idea of why he may have underachieved.

Despite those grass results you mention, he hated grass and fast surfaces in general(and talked about that). He's one of those guys who would have liked the slower conditions of today. Back then it was really hard for a baseliner without a massive serve to consistently contend on faster surfaces. Yeah Medvedev had a big serve but to be a consistent grasscourt threat back then you needed to sort of be a servebot or be a good to very good serve and volleyer. He was talented, but no Agassi(but who was). And ditto with carpet, yeah he had some good results but he kind of looked like Chang when he got manhandled by Goran at '93 Paris and Sampras at '93 YEC, despite being a big guy with power(contrast that to say baseliner Enqvist who could go toe to toe with anyone indoors - and brought his big serve out a lot more than Medvedev)

So really clay was the surface where you expected him to really excell on. His matches with Bruguera at 'RG were highly anticipated but ended up being very disappointing, like Pioline at USO he kind of froze in those big matches. But still at the time of '94 RG, if you asked anyone on tour who was more likely to win '95 RG him or Muster, everyone would say Medvedev. And I certainly couldn't have seen Muster destroying him at '95 RG after the '94 clay season. The Muster rise was very unexpected, so he was a bit unlucky(I would have picked Medvedev over Chang if that was the '95 RG final - weird error on wikipedia - they list Medvedev as a wildcard at '95 RG??). But he liked the nightlife, so I have trouble seeing him training like a Courier or Muster to fully exploit all the natural clay court talent he had. But yeah circa '94, no one could have imagined Kafelnikov would win 2 majors and Medvedev zero(but Kafelnikov was pretty fit)

So I'd say his issues were - lack of dedication, nerves in big matches, and not really taking advantage of his big serve (guess lack of dedication goes into this). Her certainly didn't maximize his talent, unfortunately(he was one of the most quotable players of his time - he would have been a media darling if he was a consistent top 5 guy)

 

[pierceforehands]

To be brutally honest I always thought he was overhyped, and would never achieve nearly as much as people predicted he would. Mind you I did expect him to have a better career than he ultimately did, and expected in the early days he would win atleast 1 slam, which he did not ultimately even manage, and only made 1 slam final, very late in his career past anyone expecting it.

I always predicted Kafelnikov had more talent and would wind up being the better player, which he ultimately did, which is against what most people were predicting at the time. Even though Medvedev, the slightly younger player, was getting better results initially.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I'm slightly too young to have seen much of Vilas' career, so Medvedev's tweener against Courier at Monte Carlo in 1994 was the first that I remember:

 

[buscemi]

But yeah Medvedev was the real deal(unlike Krickstein).

I don't doubt your recollections, but I'm still so confused as to why Krickstein wouldn't have been seen as a Slam contender.

In 1983, 17 year-old Edberg was the talk of the tennis world, completing the junior Grand Slam by taking the title at Flushing Meadows. And yet it was Krickstein, a player 1.5 years his junior, who took him out in five sets in the U.S. Open main draw before another five set epic win over Gerulaitis (replayed during rain delays before it was replaced by Krickstein's own epic five set loss to Connors).

And then, in 1984, while Edberg played well, Krickstein was compiling the better results, becoming the youngest player to win the U.S. Pro Tennis Championship, making the Italian Open final, reaching the top 10, and ending the year with 10 straight wins, including beating Wilander on red clay in Europe.

Then, yeah...Krickstein had his first serious injuries in 1985 while Edberg rose the ranks and won the Australian Open.

But why wouldn't Krickstein have been seen as a Slam contender in the period from the 1983 U.S. Open-the end of the 1984 season? He was setting records left and right as the youngest player to win a singles title and the youngest player to enter the top 10, records that still stand today.

EDIT: Here's a piece by Mitch Albom I found from after Krickstein lost to Becker in the 1989 U.S. Open SF. He notes:

When he first turned pro, seven years ago, as a high school junior, no one could count all the rainbows ahead for Aaron Krickstein. He was the next Connors, the next American hero, the next whatever. But potential in tennis is like rocket fuel, it burns fast. It flew Krickstein to within 20 feet of the mountaintop, then dropped him on a ledge. He has been looking for a foothold since.​

See, that squares with what I was thinking, which is that he was seen as something like the next Connors, which would make sense with Krickstein making his first big splash at the 1983 U.S. Open just as Connors was winning his final Major.

 

[socallefty]

More than Dmitry, less than Daniil.

 

[Bambooman]

He had as much talent as any other almost slam champ. What you say about his physique change is interesting. That's often very overlooked when players seem to plateau or decline.

It's much more common for women to struggle with that but many men are clearly better when they still have that coltish physique and movement.

 

[buscemi]

Funny you mention Perez-Roldan - he won 2 titles as a 17 year old. But no one thought he would be some great(young Agassi destroying him at '88 RG showed what real young talent was). Again, the amount of 17/18 year olds on tour was staggering back then(which is why 32 year olds back then were considered geriatric)

Love this detail on his Wiki page: "At the 1988 US Open, John McEnroe expressed outrage at being seeded lower than Pérez Roldán, who had not yet won a match on hard courts. However, Pérez Roldán silenced critics by progressing further in the tournament than McEnroe."

 

[buscemi]

Tying together Medvedev, Krickstein, and Pérez Roldán, here's a list of the players with the most titles as a teenager:

#1 Borg (17)​

#2 Nadal (16)​

#3 Wilander (13)​

#4 Becker (12)​

#5 Agassi (10)​

#6 Medvedev (8)​

#7 Hewitt (7)​

#8T Edberg & Chang (6)​

#10T Connors, McEnroe, Noah, Arias, Pérez Roldán, Sampras, Roddick, Djokovic (5)​

#18T Krickstein, Carlsson, del Potro (4)​

So, Medvedev is only behind 5 ATGs, all with 6+ Majors.

Pérez Roldán and Arias join Medvedev as the only players with 5+ titles as a teenager who never won a Major.

Krickstein raced out to four titles from age 16-17.5 before injuries derailed his career, similar to both of the other players who won 4 titles as teens (albeit with their injuries coming when they were a bit older).

 

[pierceforehands]

Tying together Medvedev, Krickstein, and Pérez Roldán, here's a list of the players with the most titles as a teenager:

#1 Borg (17)​

#2 Nadal (16)​

#3 Wilander (13)​

#4 Becker (12)​

#5 Agassi (10)​

#6 Medvedev (8)​

#7 Hewitt (7)​

#8T Edberg & Chang (6)​

#10T Connors, McEnroe, Noah, Arias, Pérez Roldán, Sampras, Roddick, Djokovic (5)​

#18T Krickstein, Carlsson, del Potro (4)​

So, Medvedev is only behind 5 ATGs, all with 6+ Majors.

Pérez Roldán and Arias join Medvedev as the only players with 5+ titles as a teenager who never won a Major.

Krickstein raced out to four titles from age 16-17.5 before injuries derailed his career, similar to both of the other players who won 4 titles as teens (albeit with their injuries coming when they were a bit older).

I think some players just naturally develop faster, it doesn't mean they are the ones with the most talent overall or who were destined to be the best, even with better luck with injuries. Think of Hingis who was the best under 18 player ever, other than maybe Connolly, even over both Graf and Seles, yet we see was never destined to be the GOAT or even one of the GOATs. Think of Capriati the best under 16 player in history, and Chang and Becker, two of the best under 18 players in history by far (although Becker did go on to become a great, Chang less so). Krickstein was incredibly unlucky with injuries, but I think best case scenario is he remains a top 10 player, and is lucky to win a major. I also don't think Medvedev had the potential he looked to have from his early results.

 

[buscemi]

I think some players just naturally develop faster, it doesn't mean they are the ones with the most talent overall or who were destined to be the best, even with better luck with injuries. Think of Hingis who was the best under 18 player ever, other than maybe Connolly, even over both Graf and Seles, yet we see was never destined to be the GOAT or even one of the GOATs. Think of Capriati the best under 16 player in history, and Chang and Becker, two of the best under 18 players in history by far (although Becker did go on to become a great, Chang less so). Krickstein was incredibly unlucky with injuries, but I think best case scenario is he remains a top 10 player, and is lucky to win a major. I also don't think Medvedev had the potential he looked to have from his early results.

That's all fair. Of course, I would say that Chang was on the short side and Hingis was on the slight side, with both eventually getting outgunned by bigger/stronger opponents. I think both Becker and Capriati had the talent to accomplish more, although they still did win 6 and 3 Majors, respectively.

I still can't quite get a bead on Krickstein's potential. There's nothing about his game that stands out to me other than a really good, but not, great forehand and his amazing five set record, even with all the injuries. I feel like there's still something we're all missing that made him probably the best 16 year-old men's player of all time. But I can't put my finger on it. If he stays healthy and his forehand and serve develop some more, maybe he could have had a comparable career to Courier (another Bollettieri product). Maybe that's too generous, but, again, I feel like I must be missing something.

With Medvedev, it just seems like he never had the right mentality (kind of the opposite of Krickstein in that regard). I get the feeling that things came to him really easily at 17-19 for him to reach the top 10 and win Masters Series events. But then, rather than push to try to take his game to the top level, he rested on his laurels and actually regressed.

 

[pierceforehands]

That's all fair. Of course, I would say that Chang was on the short side and Hingis was on the slight side, with both eventually getting outgunned by bigger/stronger opponents. I think both Becker and Capriati had the talent to accomplish more, although they still did win 6 and 3 Majors, respectively.

I still can't quite get a bead on Krickstein's potential. There's nothing about his game that stands out to me other than a really good, but not, great forehand and his amazing five set record, even with all the injuries. I feel like there's still something we're all missing that made him probably the best 16 year-old men's player of all time. But I can't put my finger on it. If he stays healthy and his forehand and serve develop some more, maybe he could have had a comparable career to Courier (another Bollettieri product). Maybe that's too generous, but, again, I feel like I must be missing something.

With Medvedev, it just seems like he never had the right mentality (kind of the opposite of Krickstein in that regard). I get the feeling that things came to him really easily at 17-19 for him to reach the top 10 and win Masters Series events. But then, rather than push to try to take his game to the top level, he rested on his laurels and actually regressed.

I kind of agree with you on Krickstein, but I think having a career at Courier's level is a gigantic stretch for him, and nearly impossible. I can't see his forehand ever developing into the weapon Courier's was, which was the best forehand in the game for a few years, which is what it would have taken for that to even be a possability.

I agree on Medvedev, but I also never saw his potential being as much as others said at the time. I was very young then but already an avid tennis fan, and that is how I always felt.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Tying together Medvedev, Krickstein, and Pérez Roldán, here's a list of the players with the most titles as a teenager:

#1 Borg (17)​

#2 Nadal (16)​

#3 Wilander (13)​

#4 Becker (12)​

#5 Agassi (10)​

#6 Medvedev (8)​

#7 Hewitt (7)​

#8T Edberg & Chang (6)​

#10T Connors, McEnroe, Noah, Arias, Pérez Roldán, Sampras, Roddick, Djokovic (5)​

#18T Krickstein, Carlsson, del Potro (4)​

So, Medvedev is only behind 5 ATGs, all with 6+ Majors.

Pérez Roldán and Arias join Medvedev as the only players with 5+ titles as a teenager who never won a Major.

Krickstein raced out to four titles from age 16-17.5 before injuries derailed his career, similar to both of the other players who won 4 titles as teens (albeit with their injuries coming when they were a bit older).

Alcaraz had 9, Rune had 4, and Sinner had 3 (excludes Next Gen Finals wins)

 

[buscemi]

Alcaraz had 9, Rune had 4, and Sinner had 3 (excludes Next Gen Finals wins)

Thanks. Yes, looks like the list needs updating. I wonder whether Rune will join the ranks of the top teenage titleists without Majors.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

He had one of the backhands of the 90s. Not much else though. Good first serve at times.

 

[helterskelter]

Tying together Medvedev, Krickstein, and Pérez Roldán, here's a list of the players with the most titles as a teenager:

#1 Borg (17)​

#2 Nadal (16)​

#3 Wilander (13)​

#4 Becker (12)​

#5 Agassi (10)​

#6 Medvedev (8)​

#7 Hewitt (7)​

#8T Edberg & Chang (6)​

#10T Connors, McEnroe, Noah, Arias, Pérez Roldán, Sampras, Roddick, Djokovic (5)​

#18T Krickstein, Carlsson, del Potro (4)​

So, Medvedev is only behind 5 ATGs, all with 6+ Majors.

Pérez Roldán and Arias join Medvedev as the only players with 5+ titles as a teenager who never won a Major.

Krickstein raced out to four titles from age 16-17.5 before injuries derailed his career, similar to both of the other players who won 4 titles as teens (albeit with their injuries coming when they were a bit older).

Why isn't the Calf on this list? He won nine titles as a teenager - Madrid 2023 was his tenth title, two days after he turned 20.

Nice list and very interesting thread!

 

[helterskelter]

That's all fair. Of course, I would say that Chang was on the short side and Hingis was on the slight side, with both eventually getting outgunned by bigger/stronger opponents. I think both Becker and Capriati had the talent to accomplish more, although they still did win 6 and 3 Majors, respectively.

I still can't quite get a bead on Krickstein's potential. There's nothing about his game that stands out to me other than a really good, but not, great forehand and his amazing five set record, even with all the injuries. I feel like there's still something we're all missing that made him probably the best 16 year-old men's player of all time. But I can't put my finger on it. If he stays healthy and his forehand and serve develop some more, maybe he could have had a comparable career to Courier (another Bollettieri product). Maybe that's too generous, but, again, I feel like I must be missing something.

With Medvedev, it just seems like he never had the right mentality (kind of the opposite of Krickstein in that regard). I get the feeling that things came to him really easily at 17-19 for him to reach the top 10 and win Masters Series events. But then, rather than push to try to take his game to the top level, he rested on his laurels and actually regressed.

I think he was suffering from depression in the mid-90s. At the very least, he was bored of tennis. During his run at 99 RG, he kept talking about how his relationship with Anke Huber had reignited his passion for tennis - and the implication seemed to be for life, too.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Love this detail on his Wiki page: "At the 1988 US Open, John McEnroe expressed outrage at being seeded lower than Pérez Roldán, who had not yet won a match on hard courts. However, Pérez Roldán silenced critics by progressing further in the tournament than McEnroe."

Why was McEnroe so bad in 1988?

 

[Mustard]

Tying together Medvedev, Krickstein, and Pérez Roldán, here's a list of the players with the most titles as a teenager:

#1 Borg (17)​

#2 Nadal (16)​

I thought it was 16 for both? That's certainly what they were saying in 2006.

 

[buscemi]

I thought it was 16 for both? That's certainly what they were saying in 2006.

Borg was born on June 6, 1956, so he turned 20 on June 6, 1976.

Wikipedia has Borg winning his 17th title in Dusseldorf in May 1976 by beating Orantes in the final.

Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong.

 

[Mustard]

Borg was born on June 6, 1956, so he turned 20 on June 6, 1976.

Wikipedia has Borg winning his 17th title in Dusseldorf in May 1976 by beating Orantes in the final.

Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong.

Wasn't Dusseldorf the World Team Cup (or Nations Cup originally)? That was a team event.

 

[buscemi]

Wasn't Dusseldorf the World Team Cup (or Nations Cup originally)? That was a team event.

According to Wikipedia, World Team Cup/Nations Cup was not held in 1976, and the title Borg won in Dusseldorf was the 1976 Agfa Colour Cup, with Borg beating Higueras/Orantes in the SF/F.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

It's always amazing to me that Medvedev was so young when he started winning in '92-'93. He always looked much older than he actually was lol. When he won Hamburg for the first time in '94, I would've sworn he was 24-25, not 18-19 LOL

Game-wise, his heavy groundstrokes truly fit the slower surfaces. He was a much better mover at 17-20 than he was when he added more weight to his frame. I don't think he had major injuries or anything, I just don't think he had the consistency after age 20 to contend with the other young clay-courters that were coming up in the mid to late 90s (Kuerten came outta nowhere really, Corretja, Moya, Rios, etc). Then you had players like Rios and Guga who were breaking through by '97...who had terrific movement and a variety of shots that could give Medvedev trouble

Tying together Medvedev, Krickstein, and Pérez Roldán, here's a list of the players with the most titles as a teenager:

#1 Borg (17)​

#2 Nadal (16)​

#3 Wilander (13)​

#4 Becker (12)​

#5 Agassi (10)​

#6 Medvedev (8)​

#7 Hewitt (7)​

#8T Edberg & Chang (6)​

#10T Connors, McEnroe, Noah, Arias, Pérez Roldán, Sampras, Roddick, Djokovic (5)​

#18T Krickstein, Carlsson, del Potro (4)​

So, Medvedev is only behind 5 ATGs, all with 6+ Majors.

Pérez Roldán and Arias join Medvedev as the only players with 5+ titles as a teenager who never won a Major.

Krickstein raced out to four titles from age 16-17.5 before injuries derailed his career, similar to both of the other players who won 4 titles as teens (albeit with their injuries coming when they were a bit older).

Nadal's record as a teenager is, for me, the best for the men in the Open Era. I still marvel at his 2005 season--11 titles (4 M1000s and was 2-3 points from a 5th one in Miami vs Fed), 79 match wins, two epic M1000 Finals vs Coria in Rome and Ljubicic in Madrid, a personally memorable match for me vs Agassi in the Canada finals, and his first Slam at Roland Garros. When Carlitos' 2022 season was being brought up as "the best sesason for a teen in ATP history" by the talking heads and casuals...they needed to look at Rafa's 2005 season. Looking at the list, Borg's 1974 season was also terrific, as he beat Nastase to win Rome, Okker to win the US Pro in Boston, won his first Slam, and played a big role in Sweden winning the Davis Cup. There used to be so many teens and teen phenoms in men's tennis when I was growing up (late 80s and early 90s)

 

[Gizo]

I rated Medvedev extremely highly when he broke through and achieved all that success as a teenager. I personally predicted that he'd end up with more RG titles than either Bruguera or Muster.

I really liked his groundstrokes with his compact swing, and his ball-striking in general. He could consistently hit deep and with pace. I thought that he had a strong 1st serve, volleyed well and moved well for his height. His 2nd serve was a notable weakness though, as was his general lack of desire / hunger and the fact that he liked to enjoy himself as much as possible away from the court, partying and gambling.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Why was McEnroe so bad in 1988?

A lot of the other guys were peaking.

 

[medieval_remnant]

A lot of the other guys were peaking.

Do you think McEnroe was fortunate in the early 1980s? Borg retiring. Lendl and Wilander not quite mature. I think burnout was overrated; Mac came on very strong in the fall of 1986 after losing to a tremendous Annacone in the US Open first round

 

[buscemi]

A lot of the other guys were peaking.

But was that not the case when McEnroe got back to #4 in 1989 and won the WCT Finals after beating Lendl in a BO5 semifinal?

Wilander was better in 1988 than 1989, but McEnroe and Wilander didn't play in 1988.

Lendl was better in 1989 than 1988 after overcoming some serious injury issues.

Becker was definitely better in 1989 than 1988.

Edberg was about equal in 1988 and 1989, but McEnroe actually won their 1988 match before losing to Stefan twice in 1989.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

But was that not the case when McEnroe got back to #4 in 1989 and won the WCT Finals after beating Lendl in a BO5 semifinal?

Wilander was better in 1988 than 1989, but McEnroe and Wilander didn't play in 1988.

Lendl was better in 1989 than 1988 after overcoming some serious injury issues.

Becker was definitely better in 1989 than 1988.

Edberg was about equal in 1988 and 1989, but McEnroe actually won their 1988 match before losing to Stefan twice in 1989.

I guess Mac stepped up a bit in 1989, because he had to. Can’t remember if he got a new coach or something.

 

[bigbadboaz]

I still can't quite get a bead on Krickstein's potential. There's nothing about his game that stands out to me other than a really good, but not, great forehand and his amazing five set record, even with all the injuries. I feel like there's still something we're all missing that made him probably the best 16 year-old men's player of all time.

Might simply come down to how far a lot of people still have to develop from when they're 16. As you point out, Krickstein really didn't have any weapons. His game was enough to win out over other 16-year-olds. But as those peers continued to develop - and once stepping up to play professional MEN on the tour - it no longer was. And having youthful ranking/title milestones isn't (necessarily) the same as having what it takes to break out in a Slam - completely different levels there. Let's say Krickstein hovers around #10 for a few years.. wouldn't mean he was ever seriously favored to win one of the very big ones.

Junior prominence hasn't been all that consistent of an indicator for the pros. Maturation and mental qualities play a huge part in the professional transition.

 

[Mustard]

Do you think McEnroe was fortunate in the early 1980s? Borg retiring. Lendl and Wilander not quite mature. I think burnout was overrated; Mac came on very strong in the fall of 1986 after losing to a tremendous Annacone in the US Open first round

Lendl owned McEnroe badly from 1981 to January 1983. Lendl won all 7 matches played, and 19 out of 20 sets played. That included Lendl going 6-0 in sets against McEnroe at Flushing Meadows when McEnroe was the multiple reigning US Open champion.

I wish people would remember that rather than talking about Borg "running away from McEnroe".

 

[buscemi]

Might simply come down to how far a lot of people still have to develop from when they're 16. As you point out, Krickstein really didn't have any weapons. His game was enough to win out over other 16-year-olds. But as those peers continued to develop - and once stepping up to play professional MEN on the tour - it no longer was. And having youthful ranking/title milestones isn't (necessarily) the same as having what it takes to break out in a Slam - completely different levels there. Let's say Krickstein hovers around #10 for a few years.. wouldn't mean he was ever seriously favored to win one of the very big ones.

Junior prominence hasn't been all that consistent of an indicator for the pros. Maturation and mental qualities play a huge part in the professional transition.

That's fair, but he was also beating the big boys from 1983-1984.

His big breakthrough win at the 1983 U.S. Open was coming from 2 sets down to beat the veteran Gerulaitis. Then, on his way to the Tel Aviv title, he was beating Sundstrom pretty badly before the Swede retired.

In 1984, he again won against Gerulaitis, this time at Forest Hills. At the Italian Open, he beat both Teltscher and Nystrom before losing the final to Gomez. Later, Krickstein took the Boston title on clay, beating Arias and then the veteran Clerc in the final. Then, as noted, he closed the year by winning Tel Aviv and Geneva back-to-back, with wins over the likes of Hlasek, Sundstrom, and Wilander (on red clay, no less).

 

[Mustard]

That's fair, but he was also beating the big boys from 1983-1984.

His big breakthrough win at the 1983 U.S. Open was coming from 2 sets down to beat the veteran Gerulaitis. Then, on his way to the Tel Aviv title, he was beating Sundstrom pretty badly before the Swede retired.

In 1984, he again won against Gerulaitis, this time at Forest Hills. At the Italian Open, he beat both Teltscher and Nystrom before losing the final to Gomez. Later, Krickstein took the Boston title on clay, beating Arias and then the veteran Clerc in the final. Then, as noted, he closed the year by winning Tel Aviv and Geneva back-to-back, with wins over the likes of Hlasek, Sundstrom, and Wilander (on red clay, no less).

Stefan Edberg won the Junior Grand Slam in 1983 at the age of 17, but he lost in the first round of the men's singles at the 1983 US Open to a player 18 months younger than him, i.e. Aaron Krickstein, in a fifth set tiebreak.

Krickstein later beat reigning Wimbledon champion Edberg at the 1988 US Open in 5 sets, and came from 2 sets down to beat Edberg at the 1995 Australian Open.

 

[RSJfan]

He spent a lot of time at '93 USO talking about how ****ty the food was, how the players lounge sucked, and how the USO just sucked in general…

I remember that.

 

[buscemi]

He spent a lot of time at '93 USO talking about how ****ty the food was, how the players lounge sucked, and how the USO just sucked in general.

Wasn't there another player who said he was distracted by the smell of burgers at the U.S. Open. Possibly Ivanišević?

 

[RSJfan]

---

Wasn't there another player who said he was distracted by the smell of burgers at the U.S. Open. Possibly Ivanišević?

It’s certainly possible some player(s) complained. When they had the original site setup with the field court (#3) in front of old LA if the wind was blowing east fumes from the burger grill would waft over the court. Those burgers were very good though.

Nowadays some players complain about the smell of marajuina over Ct 17 which supposedly sometimes comes from the adjoining park if the wind is blowing toward the west. I think it’s rare as I’ve never noticed it or know anyone who has.

 

[Mustard]

Wasn't there another player who said he was distracted by the smell of burgers at the U.S. Open. Possibly Ivanišević?

Bjorn Borg.

 

[buscemi]

Bjorn Borg.

Sounds like maybe both:

With thousands of fans milling around the plaza, the place was cooking. The scent of grilling hamburgers wafted over outer court No. 5 -- many years ago, Goran Ivanisevic joked that he never liked to play there because the smell made him hungry.​

 

[Mustard]

Sounds like maybe both:

With thousands of fans milling around the plaza, the place was cooking. The scent of grilling hamburgers wafted over outer court No. 5 -- many years ago, Goran Ivanisevic joked that he never liked to play there because the smell made him hungry.​

Borg was asked once about why he never won the US Open. He mentioned three things, bad luck, night play, and the smell of burgers. Borg also said that the 1976 US Open final loss to Connors was the angriest that he had ever been after losing a tennis match. The latter was from a Sports Illustrated interview, if I remember right.

 

[RSJfan]

Sounds like maybe both:

…Goran Ivanisevic joked that he never liked to play there because the smell made him hungry.​

2003 was a totally different site setup in terms of both the size of the site and the structures and their placement than the period I was referring to way back in the early years. I don’t know from what Goran was complaining about in 2003.

 

[Mustard]

2003 was a totally different site setup in terms of both the size of the site and the structures and their placement than the period I was referring to way back in the early years. I don’t know from what Goran was complaining about in 2003.

Goran was talking about his playing days at the US Open, mostly in the 1990s. The 1990s was far closer to the 1970s, culture wise, than it is to today.

 

[droliver]

I still can't quite get a bead on Krickstein's potential. There's nothing about his game that stands out to me other than a really good, but not, great forehand

Maybe you’re too young to remember, but Krickstein (and Jimmy Arias) were in the vanguard of what became the ‘modern forehand’ technique and they were considered to have maybe the biggest forehands on tour at the time. It was a really big weapon at a time when most pros had come up on wooden (or maybe aluminum) raquets with more classic strokes.

 

[mattennis]

Andrei Medvedev was thought to be a multi-GS winner by many (included myself) since he was very young.

When he was 17 he made R16 at Roland Garros (lost to, then nº1, Jim Courier).

That summer, he was still 17, he won his first two ATP tournaments, on clay. One of them the very important (then) Stuttgart Outdoor clay tournament (it was like a Masters-Series back then, in points and money) where he defeated (among others) Emilio Sanchez, nº2 in the rankings Stefan Edberg, Thomas Muster and Wayne Ferreira.

Everybody was talking about that huge kid ( he was 6' 4'' ) with those amazing groundstrokes. He had very short backswings, both in the forehand and backhand, so he could unload huge flat potent shots off both wings in any moment, and he was great hitting early and from up to down (because he was so tall).

He won yet another clay tournament that summer beating great clay court players (Carlos Costa, Andrei Cherkasov, Sergi Bruguera, by the way, in this tournament he also defeated Bjorn Borg, yes, Bjorn Borg, 2 and 2, in the first round; it surely was great and weird, for a 17 years old kid, to take on legend 35 years old Bjorn Borg).

In 1993, being 18 years old, he won Estoril and Barcelona clay tournaments back to back defeating great clay courters (Novacek twice, Bruguera twice, Emilio Sanchez, Ivan Lendl, Thomas Muster).

I must confess at that exact point in time I thought this kid was the real deal. He was defeating all the great clay courters of that era, he was still only 17/18 years old, and mostly it was the way he played tennis, the way he hammered the ball and made baseline winners (from way inside the baseline) both with the forehand and backhand shots.

He got to the SF at Roland Garros and was facing Sergi Bruguera there. I thought (before the match) that Medvedev was the favourite (he had defeated Bruguera the three times they faced the previous months, though always in very close matches). But that time Bruguera played, possibly, one of the best and finest matches of his career and won 6-0 6-4 6-2.

In that match, Bruguera played the perfect match against someone like Medveded. Sergi did not do unforced errors, he hit deep super-heavy shots all the time, keeping Medvedev behind the baseline, and only when he had an opening, he went for a winner shot. Most of the time, Medvedev lost patience during the baseline exchanges and tried one or another very risky winner shot from behind the baseline, failing once and again.

Of course as everybody could see later, Bruguera also was indeed the real deal, when he defeated Courier in that marvelous five sets Roland Garros final two days later.

Surprisingly Medvedev made the final in Halle, grass, two weeks later, losing to Leconte. But in Wimbledon he lost in the second round to Pioline in a very close four setter.

During the summer he won his first tournament on hard courts (he was still only 18 years old) in New Haven, beating Agassi and Korda in SF and final and so he was nº8 in the rankings.

In the US OPEN he got to the QF ( beating top-10 Krajicek in R16 ) but lost to Pioline again (Pioline was one of the most talented and complete players from that era, even if he was quite a mentally weak player).

Medvedev, now 19 years old, made the final at the Paris-Bercy M-1000 tournament that year, on indoor carpet, beating very good indoor carpet players, but losing in the final to Goran Ivanisevic.

So this kid was not only winning on clay, he now was playing great also on outdoor hardcourts and also on indoor carpet.

As I said, many people saw Medvedev, at that point, as a future multi-GS-winner (at least 5-8 GS titles) given his great tennis level at such a young age.

In the Masters (WTF) he lost to Stich (RR) but defeated both Courier and Chang (also in the RR). I must emphasize how mature he was as a tennis player, being 19, and still being able to defeat such great players and warriors like Chang and Courier in a Masters-Cup (WTF) tournament.

He got to the SF, but there he faced Sampras and, quite like Sergi Bruguera did in Roland Garros, Sampras played the perfect match. Medvedev did nothing wrong, but Sampras that day was having "one of those days" when he was untouchable, more so on an indoor carpet, and Pete won 6-0 6-3 (IIRC).

Medvedev, at 19, ended the year as nº6 in the rankings, the youngest in the top-10 that year.


In 1994 he won Monte Carlo (defeating Courier in an absolutely great match in the QF, and defeating Bruguera in the final in straight sets) and also won M-1000 (then) Hamburg, and was one of the favourites (along with Sampras, Courier and Bruguera) to win Roland Garros that year.

Curiosly enough, the big four favourites to win Roland Garros (Medvedev, Sampras, Bruguera and Courier) were all in the same half of the draw, so they had to face each other in the QF (Sampras-Courier and Medvedev-Bruguera).

Both matches were played at the same time, and both were great matches. Sampras was on a 29-consecutive-matches-won-streak (included his title in M-1000 Rome on clay) and had won the previous three GS tournaments ( 1993 Wimbledon, 1993 US OPEN and 1994 Australian Open ) so really he was seen as one of the favourites. On the other hand, Medvedev-Bruguera had been the SF the previous year (THAT perfect match of Sergi) but everybody thought Medvedev had learnt from that tough loss.

But Bruguera, again, played a very, very intelligent match, not giving anything to Medvedev, no unforced errors, great defence, great attack in the correct moments. Bruguera played again the perfect match against Medvedev, who did not know what to do to break that baseline wall. After Bruguera won the first two sets 6-3 and 6-2, Medvedev decided to attack the net as soon as possible (yes, even some serve-and-volley), given that he could not penetrate Bruguera's defense from the baseline. And Medvedev was quite successful at the net in that third set, got to 5-5, but endep up losing 7-5.

In the other great QF match, Courier defeated Sampras 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-4. This match ended when the Bruguera-Medvedev was still in the third set, in the middle of a change-over, and they showed it, and Medvedev, who was really a funny guy, even if he was losing badly to Bruguera, looked at Sergi (during the change-over) and said something like "Sampras has lost finally, no GS to him" (meaning no-four-consecutive GS to him). Bruguera smiled a bit, but he was so focus on the match at stake.

Bruguera defeated Courier in four sets in the SF, and then won the tournament against Alberto "the forehand" Berasategui.

In Wimbledon, Medvedev reached R16 and played an amazing match against grass legend Boris Becker. Becker won 6-7 7-5 7-6 6-7 7-5.


I gotta go now. Latter on more memories of mine about this great guy Medvedev.

 

[mattennis]

The thing is that those two tough losses to Bruguera in Roland Garros possibly hurt Medvedev, hurt his confidence.

Medvedev was still only 19 years old, but after those two tough losses to Bruguera and also the very tough loss to Becker in that great match at Wimbledon, his super-promising career started to fade away, slowly but constantly.

That summer he only reached one final (on clay) and lost to Sergi Bruguera again in an easy match ( 6-3 6-4 ). He played quite a bad match at the US OPEN losing 3,3,2 to Novacek in the second round. The rest of the season was very bad for him, going from nº4 in the rankings before Roland Garros to nº15 at the end of the year.

He played much better again at the Australian Open in 1995, reaching the QF, but lost to Chang ( 7-6 7-5 6-3 ). But then again he was not making finals, not even on clay this year.

He played great only in Hamburg (that was a M-1000 back then), which he won defeating Sampras in the SF and Ivanisevic in the final.

In Roland Garros he had to fight five sets to defeat Malivai Washington in the second round, and then he had an extremely difficult rival in the third round, Alberto "the forehand" Berasategui (runner-up the previous year). Medvedev won in another gruelling five setter, only to take on Thomas "the beast" Muster in the next round ( R16 ). A great Muster killed an already tired Medvedev 6-3 6-3 6-0.

The rest of the season was really bad for him, losing in the first or second round in many tournaments and hardly making any QF or SF here or there. He was nº16 in the YE rankings.

I think Medvedev was really struggling at this point, with lack of motivation, enjoying other things in life, and kind of dissapointed for not being able to fulfill his huge potential in tennis.

He started to look quite a bit fat, out of shape, and 1996 was a really bad year for him, tenniswise. His ranking went down to nº40 in the world.


I think Medvedev was quite an intelligent and complex man, he liked tennis, but not to the point of living only for tennis. Once he had money, fast cars (he loved them) and once he proved the night life, I think he liked it and tennis became more of a hobbye than a professional career for him. He was young, he had money, he was facing motivational problems...his tennis suffered a lot.

In a certain sense, he was kind of like Michael Stich. Stich had huge talent, he won Wimbledon defeating both Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker back to back in the SF and final in a time when nobody could dream of doing such a thing. Stich had great performances several times, winning very important titles here and there, defeating the best ones, on any surface, but he could not give his all, all the time, day after day, week after week, year after year. He was not like that. He loved life outside tennis too much. Stich was also a complex person.

Both Stich and Medvedev had very irregular careers, both came back big at some tournament, but faded away again very soon after that.

Medvedev first came back strong in the 1997 Hamburg tournament, which he won for the third time, defeating Krajicek, Bruguera, Kafelnikov and Mantilla all in straight sets.

It meant he still had the game to beat the best ones, at least on clay, when he was focused and in good physical shape. But he had such a poor string of results before Hamburg that even after winning a M-1000 he was unseeded for Roland Garros (he was ranked nº20 prior to Roland Garros).

So in RG he had to face very tough Alberto Berasategui (again) this time in the first round, but Andrei won in five sets. That very good win gave him confidence and he sailed on to R16 where he met unseeded (and then almost unknown) Brazilian Gustavo Kuerten.

That was an amazing match. Kuerten had beaten not other than Thomas Muster in the previous round in a great five setter.

This time, against Medvedev, Kuerten showed again he had no fear of facing great rivals in such a GS tournament, the match was a classic, Kuerten defeating Medvedev 7-5 in the fifth set.

This tough loss hurt him again. After those very bad last two years, Medvedev felt he had very good chances to win this RG after Muster lost in R32, or at least very good chances to have reached the final and played Bruguera once again, this time for the title.

Instead of getting good motivation feeling that he was able to play at such a great level again, he went back to the early losses in almost every tournament, with very bad body language and very bad performances. He ended the year ranked nº28.

1998 was the beginning of the end for Medvedev. He was still only 23 years old, but he had a 1-6 record on clay this year (losing 5 times in the first round, and once in the second round, in the six clay tournament he played) and soon after his ranking plummeted to nº100.

It was amazing, such a great talent, so young still, and totally wasted.

His results did not improve during the first months of 1999. Medvedev was already seriously thinking about retirement. He had not won two straight matches in many months and he was out of the top-100 in the rankings.

That is when he spoke to Agassi, telling him he was seriously thinking about retirement. Agassi told him that he had huge talent and that he was still so young (amazingly Medvedev was only 24, but he started to win so young that everybody thought he was much older) and if he tried hard again, results would come.

This must have been one of the weirdest things in tennis history, that these same two players (one of them, Medvedev, almost retired from tennis and out of the top-100, the other one, legend Agassi, that had been ranked nº141 seventeen months before but was pushing hard to win GS tournaments again), after that famous chat, would face each other in the final of Roland Garros.