Players Under 25

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
This thread is to track down the progress of the younger players who are turning 24 this year or younger(that will be those who were born in 1991 or later).

As of now, the top player from this group is Dimitrov(no. 16, born in '91). Here's how it looks.

16 Dimitrov (1991)
24 Thiem (1993)
25 Tomic (1992)
33 Coric (1996)
35 Sock (1992)
37 Kyrgios (1995)
45 Vesely (1993)
60 Carreno Busta (1991)
66 Schwartzman (1992)
72 Kokkinakis (1996)
78 Chung (1996)
85 Pouille (1994)
90 Basilashvili (1992)
93 Dzumhur (1992)
94 Kudla (1992)
95 Duckworth (1992)
97 Krajinovic (1992)
98 Zverev (1997)
99 Cecchinato (1992)
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Tomic defends his Bogota title. Great work. Mannarino is a quality player and Tomic beat him 6-1 3-6 6-2 in the final. He is nearly at his career high ranking. I think he will continue to rise in rankings. In Umag, Thiem, wins for the second time there, beating Sousa 6-4 6-1. Good wins for the young guys. I hope they continue. How long will it be until we see one of these guys in top 10?
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Tomic defends his Bogota title. Great work. Mannarino is a quality player and Tomic beat him 6-1 3-6 6-2 in the final. He is nearly at his career high ranking. I think he will continue to rise in rankings. In Umag, Thiem, wins for the second time there, beating Sousa 6-4 6-1. Good wins for the young guys. I hope they continue. How long will it be until we see one of these guys in top 10?
It will be very interesting to see how all the changes affect Grigor's tennis in the short term.
 

BGod

Legend
This thread is to track down the progress of the younger players who are turning 24 this year or younger(that will be those who were born in 1991 or later).

As of now, the top player from this group is Dimitrov(no. 16, born in '91). Here's how it looks.

16 Dimitrov (1991)
24 Thiem (1993)
25 Tomic (1992)
33 Coric (1996)
35 Sock (1992)
37 Kyrgios (1995)
45 Vesely (1993)
60 Carreno Busta (1991)
66 Schwartzman (1992)
72 Kokkinakis (1996)
78 Chung (1996)
85 Pouille (1994)
90 Basilashvili (1992)
93 Dzumhur (1992)
94 Kudla (1992)
95 Duckworth (1992)
97 Krajinovic (1992)
98 Zverev (1997)
99 Cecchinato (1992)
As I always say, looks mighty weak. An interesting scenario shaping up with a dry zone after Djokovic begins to falter. Those who are 93 and earlier are pretty much a non-factor going forward as they've not made their push at 22 now. I have argued Kyrgios and Coric are the only hopes to break through in the next 3 years. But I give Zverev and Kokkinakis credit too. The era coming up 2018-2020 is going to be very interesting.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Watch out for Coric in particular. He is progressing fairly quickly.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
The only players from that group who could make a dent in the future are Kokkinakis, Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev and maybe Chung (I haven't seen him in action yet). The rest will probably enjoy a decent career but will stay most (if not all) of their careers outside the top 10. I've given up on Dimitrov like a year ago. The guy is 24 and still hasn't achieved anything significant in regard of the hype that some people put on him (like being the next Federer who at the same age was in the middle of his dominance).
 

Minion

Hall of Fame
I like watching Coric and especially Thiem. Thiem has got some serious firepower. Was a great semi final against LaMonf, he showed his mental strength and confidence has improved alot:)
 

BGod

Legend
I just looked at all the Masters Champions list since 2009:

Djokovic has 20
Nadal has 15
Federer has 9
Murray has 8

Wawrinka, Roddick, Soderling, Ljubičić, Tsonga, Davydenko, Ferrer with 1 a piece.

What a joke for the Dimitrov/Raonic generation. It's done.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I just looked at all the Masters Champions list since 2009:

Djokovic has 20
Nadal has 15
Federer has 9
Murray has 8

Wawrinka, Roddick, Soderling, Ljubičić, Tsonga, Davydenko, Ferrer with 1 a piece.

What a joke for the Dimitrov/Raonic generation. It's done.
It is, we gave them A LOT of time to finally make a dent on the tour. Now that the big 4 is deteriorating you would've thought they'd start winning more. Lol, no chance. This truly is a lost generation - 1989-1994 (make that 1990-1994 if Nishikori does something big which looks doubtful at the moment)

Dimitrov just lost to Gasquet at Wimbledon (I don't care how well Richie was playing) IN STRAIGHT SETS. If that's not the ultimate comfirmation, then I don't know what is.
 

BGod

Legend
It is, we gave them A LOT of time to finally make a dent on the tour. Now that the big 4 is deteriorating you would've thought they'd start winning more. Lol, no chance. This truly is a lost generation - 1989-1994 (make that 1990-1994 if Nishikori does something big which looks doubtful at the moment)

Dimitrov just lost to Gasquet at Wimbledon (I don't care how well Richie was playing) IN STRAIGHT SETS. If that's not the ultimate comfirmation, then I don't know what is.
That's the other thing about the next few years. The guys breaking through are from the Big 4 Generation like Wawrinka/Gasquet/Berdych.

It'd be different if the Big 4 were beating the young guys but they're beating Kevin Anderson and David Ferrer.....

That should speak volumes. And it's not like Coric/Kyrgios/Kokkinakis have all the time in the world. It's one of the reasons Federer is still playing at 34, he knows he can still compete!

So why can't Djokovic and Murray play into their mid 30s? They'll be 33 in 2020.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I'm on the Zverev bandwagon. Got a recent SF of a 250 event. On the right path.
Yup. An interesting prospect. I hope he goes on to be as good as Delpo, at least. I always have a bit of a concern towards tall payers for obvious reasons. Even if he is extremely athletic, the height will pose a lot of limitation to his game. Still, let's hope he does a lot of great things.


It will be very interesting to see how all the changes affect Grigor's tennis in the short term.
Should stimulate Dimitrov's desire to achieve more. The appointment of the new coach will be important. Let's hope he gets the right kind of help.


As I always say, looks mighty weak. An interesting scenario shaping up with a dry zone after Djokovic begins to falter. Those who are 93 and earlier are pretty much a non-factor going forward as they've not made their push at 22 now. I have argued Kyrgios and Coric are the only hopes to break through in the next 3 years. But I give Zverev and Kokkinakis credit too. The era coming up 2018-2020 is going to be very interesting.
Yes, for some reasons, that generation really hasn't delivered. I guess the best we can hope for them would be something like Wawrinka or maybe a bit of Rafter/Kafelnikov type of career, maybe - a couple of slams at 25-27 years of age and a brief stay at the top of the rankings. Putting up resistance to Djokovic's dominance is really the responsibility of this generation which has been an utter failure.


Watch out for Coric in particular. He is progressing fairly quickly.
Yes. He is progressing about the pace of Djokovic and Murray. Maybe he is the only truly great player of his generation. I still think other young guys, especially Kyrgios and Kokkinakis, will push him hard.


The only players from that group who could make a dent in the future are Kokkinakis, Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev and maybe Chung (I haven't seen him in action yet). The rest will probably enjoy a decent career but will stay most (if not all) of their careers outside the top 10. I've given up on Dimitrov like a year ago. The guy is 24 and still hasn't achieved anything significant in regard of the hype that some people put on him (like being the next Federer who at the same age was in the middle of his dominance).
I still doubt Chung. Nothing against Asians, but they don't develop into good adult players for some reason. I hope Chung will be an exception. I agree with you on those 4 guys being the brightest prospects.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Generation suckage. The new blood in the top in recent years has mostly been older guys finding the best form of their life in their later 20's.
 
so much stupid in this thread.

check out the average age of the top 100, now compare it with the same statistic from 10 years ago, then 20..

Now, apply the most rudimentary deductive logic to this set of figures and you will (well, you should) reach a quite obvious conclusion.

It is ridiculous to expect any of these lads to peak before 2017 at the earliest.

(cue some cretin saying 'but Rafa blah blah)
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
The entire list are basically clowns with the exception of Kyrgios, Thiem and Coric. And the only one of them that I see having a chance to win a slam in the next 2 years would be Nick. Solid young players of the past who were ridiculously touted to become #1's were the hapless Donald Young (McEnroe thought he'd "dominate" the game) and Ryan Harrison... both guys basically only win challenger matches these days.

Tomic is still being over-hyped. Anyone can see he's a lazy mess with little work ethic and a boatload of emotional issues. Nick isn't much better in that department.

As for Dimi, give me a break. For 7 years now we've heard he's "going to make a breakthrough." Well, he's 24 and the only two significant wins I can remember him having are beating Nole on clay once and getting to the semis of Wimbledon in 2014. What has he done since? We're not talking some kid here anymore, he's 24 years old. Baby Fed has grown up and basically revealed himself to be about 1/100th the player Roger was at the same age.
 

Pagoo

G.O.A.T.
Coric appears to have the best mentality of the lot. I'm beginning to think he was right when he said he was the best of his generation. Krygios is looking more and more like a clown. It's tough to predict who will break through.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
so much stupid in this thread.

check out the average age of the top 100, now compare it with the same statistic from 10 years ago, then 20..

Now, apply the most rudimentary deductive logic to this set of figures and you will (well, you should) reach a quite obvious conclusion.

It is ridiculous to expect any of these lads to peak before 2017 at the earliest.

(cue some cretin saying 'but Rafa blah blah)
But Nadal won a slam as a teenager...

It's not harder for teens today to win slams as teenagers than it was for Nadal/Edberg/Becker/Wilander/Chang/Sampras etc etc.
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
Have you watched vision of the standard back then? Objectivity issues? (hint, no, that's not slow motion, that's how they played...)

And Pat Rafter himself said (at the Brisbane Tournament last year) that he wouldn't even be in the top ten these days, 'the game has moved on'. (his exact words)

This generation will be fine, the tour is playing at a level never seen before. Have you been to an actual ATP Tournament and watched these guys from court level?

You MUST, or nothing you say means anything...
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
Have you watched vision of the standard back then? Objectivity issues? (hint, no, that's not slow motion, that's how they played...)

And Pat Rafter himself said (at the Brisbane Tournament last year) that he wouldn't even be in the top ten these days, 'the game has moved on'. (his exact words)

This generation will be fine, the tour is playing at a level never seen before. Have you been to an actual ATP Tournament and watched these guys from court level?

You MUST, or nothing you say means anything...
It's you who's not being obejective here bud.

Are you even aware that they used wooden rackets back in 1973-1978? Surely you must be aware that equipment has a huge impact playing style and strokes. Surely you wouldnt be trying to make the point that just because any 5.0 player these days can blast a 200kph serve in his sleep with a modern day rocket launcher/tennis racket doesnt make them more skilled as a player or athlete than someone playing as a pro at wimbledon back in 1974...

I said Borg won in a period where the average age of players was over 27. Right now the average age is over 28.

My point is that age is not a factor in how good a player is in terms of pure skill, relative to the rest of the field.

Saying "but everyone is better" doesnt mean anything when we're talking about outliers.

Teenage champions have always been outliers.

The game hasnt changed much since 2004-2006 when Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were all winning titles as teenagers and doing better than this current field. Or do you actually think it has in only 9 years?
 

Slice'n'dice

Hall of Fame
sigh

you're an idiot.

end of discussion

and I guarantee you get your tennis from the television, lol
No need to insult people who disagree with you. It's a very reasonable case to suggest that this generation is weaker. It's from watching Television that you hear the claims that it's the best tennis ever, because that's what they love, every five setter is one of the greatest matches of all time etc. they always overstate the current players, across all sports really. The classic hype machine getting fired up. And as was said, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were all winning titles from a young age and of course some players are late bloomers, so maybe some of this generation will turn out to be pretty accomplished players. But it's clearly not a strong generation. You can't really believe that?

Of course the likes of sports science (both the dark side and the light side of it) are likely have more of an affect and probably partially responsible for the later success but it doesn't account for this generation's lack of success on it's own, far from it.
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
sigh

you're an idiot.

end of discussion

and I guarantee you get your tennis from the television, lol
Why are you so upset? There's really no need to be childish.
This is a tennis forum my friend. It may be time for you to step back and take a good hard look at yourself and your life if an annonymous person with a different opinion gets you so riled up
 

Masayoshi

Semi-Pro
It's kinda silly to write off a generation of guys under 24 when someone like Stanimal didn't make his breakthrough until he was nearly 29. Everyone progresses at a different rate; perhaps the game right now is conducive to more experience/training. Or perhaps it's sheer chance. Or perhaps Fedalovic happen to be a truly oppressive group of all-time greats.
 

billboard

Rookie
It's kinda silly to write off a generation of guys under 24 when someone like Stanimal didn't make his breakthrough until he was nearly 29. Everyone progresses at a different rate; perhaps the game right now is conducive to more experience/training. Or perhaps it's sheer chance. Or perhaps Fedalovic happen to be a truly oppressive group of all-time greats.
Stan's one of the greats. His main reason to play was to shut up the fedal romancers who believed he was a loser because he didn't kiss up to angelic fed and his evil significant other. He actually said "you mention fed when talking about winning the first French open, but this post match press's about my match". Unlike the 2002-3 #1s, Stan could play on at least 2 surfaces (hardcourt, clay).
Fed fans are embarrassed that the so-called top 5 players of 2005 became 2 times worse than Stan and ferrer. Every other fan group's sickened by those "opponents", for sure.
 

Slice'n'dice

Hall of Fame
It's kinda silly to write off a generation of guys under 24 when someone like Stanimal didn't make his breakthrough until he was nearly 29. Everyone progresses at a different rate; perhaps the game right now is conducive to more experience/training. Or perhaps it's sheer chance. Or perhaps Fedalovic happen to be a truly oppressive group of all-time greats.
While that may be the case in part. The fact that none of them have made any real progress (with the possible exception of Nishikori, but even he is far away from previous generations at is age) seems to suggest it isn't the strongest generation at least. They, probably will have their successes eventually or some of them, but it's pretty unique, not sure if there's been many generations that have made as little progress as this one by this time,

Stan's one of the greats. His main reason to play was to shut up the fedal romancers who believed he was a loser because he didn't kiss up to angelic fed and his evil significant other. He actually said "you mention fed when talking about winning the first French open, but this post match press's about my match". Unlike the 2002-3 #1s, Stan could play on at least 2 surfaces (hardcourt, clay).
Fed fans are embarrassed that the so-called top 5 players of 2005 became 2 times worse than Stan and ferrer. Every other fan group's sickened by those "opponents", for sure.
Not really true. I think he plays because he likes tennis and wants to have a good career, get success and earn money. Doesn't seem like he has any problem with Fed at all, think you just plucked that out of the air.

Unlike 2002-3 number one's like Roddick who was good on both Grass and Hard, or Hewitt who also was? What a load of nonsense that is, I'm sorry.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I saw Hyeon Chung's match live for the first time at Citi Open (v Cilic) and I was quite impressed. He created some unexpected angles with his FH cross court and stood and traded toe-to-toe with Cilic, a top 10 player and defending USO champion. Also came to the net a few times and seemed capable of producing technically sound volleys. All in all, I think his future looks bright. Found a few flaws in his game, though. His form in general seemed somewhat awkward. I guess maybe that's because he wants to generate more power with his shots, but to me, that needs to be fixed to avoid injuries and prolong his career. He also stands too far back during the rallies and returning the serves. He needs some tactical training in those regards and maybe a top coach is just what he needs right now to maximize on his potential. If his coach has let him play with those flaws, especially the form, I don't think he can improve Chung's game much more. I think Chung needs a top coach to solidly build him from fundamental level. Probably this is the most his current coach can take Chung to, and now is the time for Chung to make that transition to the next level with a new coach. Let's be honest, Korea doesn't have much of a tradition in tennis so it's only natural for him to work with someone who has been there, done that. What I saw today is a good raw material that can be made into a good weapon or can be wasted into nothing.
 
Last edited:
Watched him play quite a bit up close at our local challenger, lots to like

He was beaten hollow in the final by Bjorn Fratangelo, which just serves to highlight how small the margins are at the top level
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
It's kinda silly to write off a generation of guys under 24 when someone like Stanimal didn't make his breakthrough until he was nearly 29. Everyone progresses at a different rate; perhaps the game right now is conducive to more experience/training. Or perhaps it's sheer chance. Or perhaps Fedalovic happen to be a truly oppressive group of all-time greats.
How many more Wawrinka's are there? None. While at the same time there's an entire generation suck. Statistically it's like 100x more possible that they will never succed than they will in their late 20's/early 30's, especially given the fact that the next generation looks to have way more potential.

We'll see but I wouldn't count on it.
 
Top