Reality Check on Thiem

[PeterHo]

Thiem has had good results since the AO, winning a couple of titles and claiming some scalps along the way. It's tempting to think of Thiem as the next ascendant young star. I checked the stats to see if that idea is realistic. It's not. In key areas, Thiem's numbers are up a couple of percentage points against his career. Thiem's first serve percentage has spiked 8 points. Here are the 2016 numbers:

Career Numbers:

That's the good news. Here's the bad news. How does Thiem currently rank against the field in 2016? Out of the top 10 in every significant category.

1st Serve Points Won 39* revised Tuesday to 29
2nd Serve Points Won 18* revised Tuesday to 13
Service Games Won 33* revised Tuesday to 28
1st Serve Return Points Won 16* revised Tuesday to 11
2nd Serve Return Points Won 40* revised Tuesday to 26
Return Games Won 24* revised Tuesday to 17

Maybe Thiem is suffering from a skewed result due to a larger sample size than the field? True, Thiem has played many more matches thus far than most players. Perhaps the field has not regressed to the mean as quickly as Thiem?

One way to correct for that is to project Thiem's current numbers to the end of the season and then compare them to the field in the most recent complete season available -- 2015. How does that look?

1st Serve Points Won 24
2nd Serve Points Won 15
Service Games Won 25
1st Serve Return Points Won 8
2nd Serve Return Points Won 17
Return Games Won 12

Good numbers, right? Except we have to consider that the field is at a much worse disadvantage in this comparison than Thiem's large sample size puts him in 2016. They've had three or four times the number of opportunities to make mistakes. Certainly we can expect Thiem to regress in many of these stats over the course of 2016.

Quick Word about Thiem on Clay

Delimiting the stats to clay improves Thiem's rankings in the key stats, just not to something like dominant levels. Cuevas and Nadal are ahead, just to name two, and most of the field hasn't played the surface yet. Still, Thiem may be more dangerous on clay.

Thiem in the top 10?

Thiem is currently ranked 14. The numbers really don't say he can get much higher than that -- in fact it looks to me like he'll sink down into the 25-35 range at some point this season. The top 10 players typically have a few statistical categories in which they are also ranked in the top 10 -- for instance the incredibly important duo second serve points/return points won. Thiem is not close to the top ten in any key stat this season. Players don't have to be in the top 10 in every key stat -- just a few. Stats reflect why players happen to win matches -- offense, defense, serve, whatever the case may be. On what is Thiem hanging his hat? I hope for Thiem's sake he continues to have a great season, but he may have already peaked.

EDIT: After the ATP updated the stats page on Tuesday, Thiem jumped many spots in all categories -- he didn't stay in place or drop in any of them. Based on the new rankings, Thiem's stats are at least as impressive as the 9th ranked player, Jo-Willy. Although Thiem is still significantly less impressive statistically than Berdych or anyone higher, I think Thiem is definitely a threat to move into the 8-10 range. This would have been my conclusion had the ATP's site been updated as I expected on Monday. I think Thiem is a threat at the big clay tournaments, but does not present a consistent threat to the players currently ranked 1-7, and I would add Raonic and probably Kyrgios to that list. That aspect of my original conclusion remains unchanged at this point.

Raonic is in a different class. He's been playing top 5 tennis this year.

 

[veroniquem]

Even on clay, Thiem's stats are far from impressive:
Service games won, 2016:
1- Isner 100
2- E. Burgos: 95
3- Cuevas: 89
4- Ram: 88.8
5- Pella: 85.3
6- Lajovic: 84.9
7- Almagro: 84.2
8- Lopez: 84
9- Zeballos: 83.3
10- Delbonis: 82.7
11- Monteiro: 82.5
12- Souza: 82.3
13- Tsonga: 81.2
14- Arguello: 80.95
15- Thiem: 80.90

Return games won, 2016:
1- Monaco: 42.8
2- Andujar: 34.3
3- G-Traver: 32
4- Nadal: 30.9
5- Clezar: 30.7
6- Fognini: 30.3
7- Dolgo: 30.2
8- Schwartzman: 30
9- Lorenzi: 29.9
10- Cuevas: 29.49
11- Falla: 29.41
12- C. Busta: 28.8
13- Delbonis: 28.7
14- Jarry: 27.2
15- Giraldo: 26.7
16- Verdasco: 26.6
17- Ferrer: 26.5
18- Bagnis: 26.3
19- Thiem: 25.9

Definitely nothing to write home about!

 

[chjtennis]

I think he is slowly approaching his peak. The next step for him is to get into top 10. Once he gets there, I think his confidence will soar and should see himself as the favorite against most players which will help him win more. He needs some big wins soon. He's beaten past-prime Nadal, but that means much less in 2016. Still, he's shown he is good enough to be inside top 10, so he should get there in a hurry. Then, he should try and break into top 5 which will be a whole lot different level. All in all, I think he is making some good progress and should be able to keep it up. He will become a permanent top 10 player in 2016, I guess, which is not bad in current environment.

 

[NextGeneration]

All I know is that everyone here jumps on the bandwagon of the 'next big thing' way too early.

My bet is that Thiem disappears just like Janowicz has done within the next 9 months, and you will spend the rest of his career hovering around the bottom of the top 100 - top 200, kinda like a Zeballos type guy. He's already 22, you guys are forgetting that - time is most certainly NOT on his side.

If a young player wins 15 Slams in a row out of the blue, sure he deserves a bit of hype, but when he's only won one ATP 500 in his life (and that looks like it'll be his last) it's just laughable to expect him to do pretty well on tour.

Other than the first sentence (which is definitely true) everything here is hilarious.

 

[cc0509]

People need to chill out with respect to Thiem. He's won a couple of titles beating the likes of Querrey,Tomic and Almagro which is a start but until he is able to start beating the top ten players on a regular basis to win titles, I won't get too enthusiastic. Which top ten players has Thiem defeated over his career thus far? A burnt out Nadal and David Ferrer at two Mickey Mouse clay tournaments? The real question is can he beat Wawrinka, Federer, Murray and Djokovic? Or can he beat a guy like Nishikori or Berdych? He sure didn't look like much vs Federer recently in Brisbane. I need to see a lot more evidence that this guy is the real deal and the only way I can believe that is if Thiem starts to beat the top ten players over and over again.

 

[Meles]

But return or serve POINTS won mean very little. What really matters is serve or return GAMES won.
Return games won % for 2016 on hard:
1- Djokovic: 36.8
2- Murray: 32.1
3- Delpo: 31.57
4- Fed: 31.53
5- Dzumhur: 30.9
6- Berankis: 30
7- Goffin: 29.3
8- Kyrgios: 28.57
9- Fabbiano: 28.57 (fewer matches)
10- Klizan: 28
11- Nishikori: 27.8
12- Berdych: 27.6
13- Young: 27.3
14- Brown: 26.9
15- Stepanek: 26.3
16- Nadal: 26.2
17- Monfils: 25.85
18- Wawrinka: 25.82
19- Gasquet: 25.3
20- Becker: 25.2
21- Thiem: 25.1

(Most spectacular drop = Ferrer, from top 5 to off the radar!!)

Service games won % on hard for 2016:
1- Isner: 94
2- Raonic: 93.8
3- Djoko: 90.7
4- Tsonga: 89.2
5- Federer: 89.1
6- Wawrinka: 88.9
7- Kyrgios: 88.8
8- Cilic: 88.6
9- Bedene: 88.1
10- Muller: 88
11- Murray: 87.2
12- Sock: 86.9
13- Karlovic: 86.6
14- Cuevas: 86.5
15- Querrey: 86.2
16- Lopez: 86.1
17- Nishi: 85.9
18- Monfils: 85.4
19- Vanni: 85.18
20- Johnson: 85.12
21- Delpo: 85
22- Simon: 84.9
23- Ferrer: 84.8
24- Berdych: 84.6
25- Fognini: 84.48
26- Agut: 84.46
27- Thiem: 84.43

Karlo out of top 10 wow, Berd sliding down, Rafa completely off the radar and let's be honest: Thiem's stats on hard suck. Kyrgios much more promising.

Agreed to all. Thiem's numbers this weekend against Dimitrov, Querrey, and Tomic were very, very solid so he'll need that to continue at Indian Wells. I'm not sure what got into Thiem with the 22 aces, but I hope it continues.

 

[Meles]

Even on clay, Thiem's stats are far from impressive:
Service games won, 2016:
1- Isner 100
2- E. Burgos: 95
3- Cuevas: 89
4- Ram: 88.8
5- Pella: 85.3
6- Lajovic: 84.9
7- Almagro: 84.2
8- Lopez: 84
9- Zeballos: 83.3
10- Delbonis: 82.7
11- Monteiro: 82.5
12- Souza: 82.3
13- Tsonga: 81.2
14- Arguello: 80.95
15- Thiem: 80.90

Return games won, 2016:
1- Monaco: 42.8
2- Andujar: 34.3
3- G-Traver: 32
4- Nadal: 30.9
5- Clezar: 30.7
6- Fognini: 30.3
7- Dolgo: 30.2
8- Schwartzman: 30
9- Lorenzi: 29.9
10- Cuevas: 29.49
11- Falla: 29.41
12- C. Busta: 28.8
13- Delbonis: 28.7
14- Jarry: 27.2
15- Giraldo: 26.7
16- Verdasco: 26.6
17- Ferrer: 26.5
18- Bagnis: 26.3
19- Thiem: 25.9

Definitely nothing to write home about!

Agreed. Thiem is a clutch player, but that is not going to do him any good if he's outclassed on the court. The original numbers quoted are still valid on serve and return. The lesser numbers on actual games won for both categories indicate Thiem has been screwing up a lot while still winning. I'm not sure what to make of it. I wonder what @falstaff78 and @Gary Duane think about the discrepancy between points won and games won. They do both seem to think Thiem is going into the top ten based on stats.

 

[Gary Duane]

Agreed. Thiem is a clutch player, but that is not going to do him any good if he's outclassed on the court. The original numbers quoted are still valid on serve and return. The lesser numbers on actual games won for both categories indicate Thiem has been screwing up a lot while still winning. I'm not sure what to make of it. I wonder what @falstaff78 and @Gary Duane think about the discrepancy between points won and games won. They do both seem to think Thiem is going into the top ten based on stats.

I think this: normally games won reflect points. In other words, if someone is winning 60% of all games, you expect the points to reflect this. And over a career I believe this is so, even over a season.

But we have all seen people get stuck, not able to convert BPs. That can greatly impact games won. That may be what we are seeing with Thiem right now, winning a lot of points but not yet winning the important points he should win. That makes winning a lot more complicated.

The bottom line is that nevertheless he is winning, so I'm still going to keep an eye on him this year.

 

[Gary Duane]

Even on clay, Thiem's stats are far from impressive:
Service games won, 2016:
1- Isner 100
2- E. Burgos: 95
3- Cuevas: 89
4- Ram: 88.8
5- Pella: 85.3
6- Lajovic: 84.9
7- Almagro: 84.2
8- Lopez: 84
9- Zeballos: 83.3
10- Delbonis: 82.7
11- Monteiro: 82.5
12- Souza: 82.3
13- Tsonga: 81.2
14- Arguello: 80.95
15- Thiem: 80.90

Return games won, 2016:
1- Monaco: 42.8
2- Andujar: 34.3
3- G-Traver: 32
4- Nadal: 30.9
5- Clezar: 30.7
6- Fognini: 30.3
7- Dolgo: 30.2
8- Schwartzman: 30
9- Lorenzi: 29.9
10- Cuevas: 29.49
11- Falla: 29.41
12- C. Busta: 28.8
13- Delbonis: 28.7
14- Jarry: 27.2
15- Giraldo: 26.7
16- Verdasco: 26.6
17- Ferrer: 26.5
18- Bagnis: 26.3
19- Thiem: 25.9

Definitely nothing to write home about!

Hold on. These are only important when you have the same guys on both lists and total them.

For instance, Ferrer is not on your first list. Isner is not on your second list.

Valid: Cuevas: 89/29.49. I'm going by your figures. That's almost 60%, so very good. But he is also a seasoned vet.

Thiem: 80.90/25.9 is around 107, not super high but that's not bad either. You listed Monaco at around 43. That's not much use when he is at 59 on serve, which is horrible. Look for guys who are winning close to 55% of their games. Thiem is just a hair under that on HC so far. He's doing fine.

 

[bjsnider]

Raonic is in a different class. He's been playing top 5 tennis this year.

I don't know who the hell is arguing that point, but it certainly isn't me.

 

[Meles]

Raonic is in a different class. He's been playing top 5 tennis this year.

A shame his injury issues continue (dropped out of Davis cup this week).

 

[sportsfan1]

Thiem has good power and that's promising. However, too soon to anoint him next whatever until more big wins. He's still just baby muster or baby wawrinka.

 

[falstaff78]

@Gary Duane @Meles @Chanwan @veroniquem @bjsnider @tacou

Guys great discussion. Please see the chart below. This is a very rich chart, and I will create a separate thread for people to discuss it in its own right. But for this discussion it has a couple of very clear implications. Which I've put below the table.

• The table shows (%svc games won + %return games won) for every multi-major winner in the open era for which ATP has data since 1991.
• It shows the numbers for the complete calendar season in which the player turned the given age.
• Grey means not a complete season (e.g. Nadal in 2012, or any player in 2016).
• Below the main table I take the averages for guys with 4+ majors and the average for guys with 2-3 majors. (excluding the incomplete seasons)
• I compare these numbers to some of the up and coming stars. For the young guys I start tracking their numbers in the years when they hit 20 ATP matches.

(My wife thinks it was a poor use of 3 hours to put this table together. What does she know )

Implications:

1. Historically, having a few years of 108 is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a 2-3 major winner. That is, all 2-3 major winners have had a few years in the region of 108-110. But that doesn't mean that everyone who has had a few years of 108-110 has won 2-3 majors. I am thinking of the Tsongas, Berdychs and Ferrers of the world.

2. We don't yet know Thiem's ceiling!! Thiem is on a late timetable. He only played 20 ATP matches for the first time at age 21. This was due to injury and military service. But over the last two years he has a similiar trajectory to, for example, Kyrgios.

In other words, Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him.

 

[Chanwan]

@Gary Duane @Meles @Chanwan @veroniquem @bjsnider @tacou

Guys great discussion. Please see the chart below. This is a very rich chart, and I will create a separate thread for people to discuss it in its own right. But for this discussion it has a couple of very clear implications. Which I've put below the table.

• The table shows (%svc games won + %return games won) for every multi-major winner in the open era for which ATP has data since 1991.
• It shows the numbers for the complete calendar season in which the player turned the given age.
• Grey means not a complete season (e.g. Nadal in 2012, or any player in 2016).
• Below the main table I take the averages for guys with 4+ majors and the average for guys with 2-3 majors. (excluding the incomplete seasons)
• I compare these numbers to some of the up and coming stars. For the young guys I start tracking their numbers in the years when they hit 20 ATP matches.

(My wife thinks it was a poor use of 3 hours to put this table together. What does she know )

Implications:

1. Historically, having a few years of 108 is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a 2-3 major winner. That is, all 2-3 major winners have had a few years in the region of 108-110. But that doesn't mean that everyone who has had a few years of 108-110 has won 2-3 majors. I am thinking of the Tsongas, Berdychs and Ferrers of the world.

2. We don't yet know Thiem's ceiling!! Thiem is on a late timetable. He only played 20 ATP matches for the first time at age 21. This was due to injury and military service. But over the last two years he has a similiar trajectory to, for example, Kyrgios.

In other words, Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him.

Excellent stats! Fantastic!

However, I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion:
"In other words, Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him."
Due to the 108 this year?
Surely, 2 months of play is too small of a sample size no? It can easily go widely up and down for the rest of the season depending on his results.
If not, then the 104 last year? Surely, that's fairly standard for a top-10-20 player turning 22, no? (the late start is different, but still).

If you base it on the 108 this year, what should we make of Kyrgios' 118 this season while turning 21? That's smack in the middle between Rafa and Novak and well above Fed, Sampras and anyone else turning 21.

 

[Meles]

@Gary Duane @Meles @Chanwan @veroniquem @bjsnider @tacou

Guys great discussion. Please see the chart below. This is a very rich chart, and I will create a separate thread for people to discuss it in its own right. But for this discussion it has a couple of very clear implications. Which I've put below the table.

• The table shows (%svc games won + %return games won) for every multi-major winner in the open era for which ATP has data since 1991.
• It shows the numbers for the complete calendar season in which the player turned the given age.
• Grey means not a complete season (e.g. Nadal in 2012, or any player in 2016).
• Below the main table I take the averages for guys with 4+ majors and the average for guys with 2-3 majors. (excluding the incomplete seasons)
• I compare these numbers to some of the up and coming stars. For the young guys I start tracking their numbers in the years when they hit 20 ATP matches.

(My wife thinks it was a poor use of 3 hours to put this table together. What does she know )

Implications:

1. Historically, having a few years of 108 is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a 2-3 major winner. That is, all 2-3 major winners have had a few years in the region of 108-110. But that doesn't mean that everyone who has had a few years of 108-110 has won 2-3 majors. I am thinking of the Tsongas, Berdychs and Ferrers of the world.

2. We don't yet know Thiem's ceiling!! Thiem is on a late timetable. He only played 20 ATP matches for the first time at age 21. This was due to injury and military service. But over the last two years he has a similiar trajectory to, for example, Kyrgios.

In other words, Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him.

Amazing table.

The shocker for me is Murray. Very Agassi like numbers and I'm sure @Mainad would be proud. Hewitt is another player that was close and then Federer happened. Wow. Safin has to be the most over rated player of all time (especially his own rating of himself.)

It almost looks like the barrier is lower for clay, but I doubt that will be the case for a couple years as we seem to have a very strong group of clay courters on tour even without Nadal performing.

I"d like to see the oldster numbers with Fed and Agassi.

Chung had a crazy number last year which is why I thought highly of him. Chung is horrible so far this year. Coric is nothing to write home about. Zverev is heading in the right direction, but his big wins lately haven't resulted in much statistically by any measure.

 

[Gary Duane]

@Gary Duane @Meles @Chanwan @veroniquem @bjsnider @tacou

Guys great discussion. Please see the chart below. This is a very rich chart, and I will create a separate thread for people to discuss it in its own right. But for this discussion it has a couple of very clear implications. Which I've put below the table.

Here is what should happen: The highest % of points will be for Agassi, Fed, Nadal and Novak. Fed will be a little lower than Novak (peak) because defensive players have to win more points to dominate. Lower will be Sampras, who also won a lower % of games. But highly aggressive players coast more, so it is misleading. There is not an absolute correspondence between games won and points won, but there is a great deal of correlation.

We all know that WHEN points are won is more important than how many. Fed when only around 23 was more dominant in points but probably not as good as later at winning the most important points.

Nadal looks good on all surfaces (average) but was actually a bit weaker than Agassi, Fed and Novak on fast surfaces but absolutely off the chart on clay. Check the % of points won on clay by Nadal in 2008. It is probably his career peak.

 

[Meles]

Excellent stats! Fantastic!

However, I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion:
"In other words, Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him."
Due to the 108 this year?
Surely, 2 months of play is too small of a sample size no? It can easily go widely up and down for the rest of the season depending on his results.
If not, then the 104 last year? Surely, that's fairly standard for a top-10-20 player turning 22, no? (the late start is different, but still).

If you base it on the 108 this year, what should we make of Kyrgios' 118 this season while turning 21? That's smack in the middle between Rafa and Novak and well above Fed, Sampras and anyone else turning 21.

Thiem had military service late in 2014. That is why his beginning to 2015 was pretty rocky. That is throwing the numbers, but also gives Thiem less points to defend. Statistics are a tool to be used with other facts. (Thiem won 3 events last year during short period and has already won 2 this year.)

 

[Chanwan]

People need to chill out with respect to Thiem. He's won a couple of titles beating the likes of Querrey,Tomic and Almagro which is a start but until he is able to start beating the top ten players on a regular basis to win titles, I won't get too enthusiastic. Which top ten players has Thiem defeated over his career thus far? A burnt out Nadal and David Ferrer at two Mickey Mouse clay tournaments? The real question is can he beat Wawrinka, Federer, Murray and Djokovic? Or can he beat a guy like Nishikori or Berdych? He sure didn't look like much vs Federer recently in Brisbane. I need to see a lot more evidence that this guy is the real deal and the only way I can believe that is if Thiem starts to beat the top ten players over and over again.

Good post, I agree.
I withhold judgment on Thiem until I've seen him play and beat quality players. I didn't see the Ferrer match, but I saw most the of the Rafa-match (and many players could have beaten Rafa in that match). Given Ferrer's recent results, I'm not flabbergasted by that win either.
Contrast
Thiem's record vs. top-10 (3-10 (23 %), 1-9 prior to 2016 and the relative easy pickings with out of form Rafa and Ferrer) with
- Kyrgios' 7-12 (37 %)
and you see a player, who at this young age is posting
- Delpo like numbers (34 - 58 = 37 %).
Birdman is smack in the middle with just below 30 %, Ferrer is at 32,5 %, Tsonga at 34,5 % and the Sod at 36 %.

Thiem is a prospect, sure. But to me, he's still needs to prove he can compete with and beat (some of) the top guys on a regular basis.

 

[Sysyphus]

Wow. Safin has to be the most over rated player of all time (especially his own rating of himself.)

Let's be fair here, Safin has never been known to be a solid-stats-throughout-entire-seasons guy. That's not the origin of his mythos

 

[Chanwan]

Thiem had military service late in 2014. That is why his beginning to 2015 was pretty rocky. That is throwing the numbers, but also gives Thiem less points to defend. Statistics are a tool to be used with other facts. (Thiem won 3 events last year during short period and has already won 2 this year.)

Not sure what you mean?
Good points on stats needing to be used in context. Didn't and don't know exactly when Thiem did military service. I seem to recall noticing him in the summer of 2014, could that be right?

 

[thomasferrett]

Thiem is a prospect, sure. But to me, he's still needs to prove he can compete with and beat (some of) the top guys on a regular basis.

Thiem is, at best, the next Zeballos - a guy whose claim to fame will be beating Nadal once on clay.

 

[Sysyphus]

Thiem is, at best, the next Zeballos - a guy whose claim to fame will be beating Nadal once on clay.

Famous last words,

and new sig, thank you

 

[Chanwan]

Thiem had military service late in 2014. That is why his beginning to 2015 was pretty rocky. That is throwing the numbers, but also gives Thiem less points to defend. Statistics are a tool to be used with other facts. (Thiem won 3 events last year during short period and has already won 2 this year.)

Also, I think where I'm coming from is this: Thiem has shown he can beat the second best guys (guys outside top-15) on a fairly regular basis and that he's extremely clutch when he can see the finish line (5-0 so far in finals (!!), who's ever done that in their first 5 finals? @Mustard ).

But he's not yet shown me that he can compete with and beat the top-10, let alone top-5. Sure he beat Rafa and Ferrer, but both of them are losing left and right right now.
Promise? Yes.
Likely to be top-5 at the end of the year (as I believe you put it somewhere?): Not quite yet imo. Top-10 is more than doable though.

 

[Meles]

Here is what should happen: The highest % of points will be for Agassi, Fed, Nadal and Novak. Fed will be a little lower than Novak (peak) because defensive players have to win more points to dominate. Lower will be Sampras, who also won a lower % of games. But highly aggressive players coast more, so it is misleading. There is not an absolute correspondence between games won and points won, but there is a great deal of correlation.

We all know that WHEN points are won is more important than how many. Fed when only around 23 was more dominant in points but probably not as good as later at winning the most important points.

Nadal looks good on all surfaces (average) but was actually a bit weaker than Agassi, Fed and Novak on fast surfaces but absolutely off the chart on clay. Check the % of points won on clay by Nadal in 2008. It is probably his career peak.

@falstaff likes the games and you like the points stats. So do you think Federer's raw game peaked at age 25?

Is there an efficient way to gather the raw data from the ATP site? (I certainly can scrape it off a given screen.)

 

[Meles]

Famous last words,

and new sig, thank you

 

[Chanwan]

Thiem is, at best, the next Zeballos - a guy whose claim to fame will be beating Nadal once on clay.

Let's not go all crazy here. Thiem's career is already better than the 30 year old Zeballos, who never saw the inside of top-30 and won fewer (3 all in all) titles than Thiem.

 

[Chanwan]

There's stuff for @Sabratha and @Mainad here. Hewitt posting numbers extremely close to Murray's, while both are posting numbers very similar to Courier's peak and Sampras's peak and prime.
@Meles - Safin and Wawrinka were never gonna do great in these stats. They show up and they blow every one away on their day. But they don't win as many matches with their B-game as a more defensive oriented player like Djoko, Muzz and Rafa (before I'm being attacked - yes, all three have offensive as well, but they have a defense, they can fall back on when needed).

 

[Meles]

Also, I think where I'm coming from is this: Thiem has shown he can beat the second best guys (guys outside top-15) on a fairly regular basis and that he's extremely clutch when he can see the finish line (5-0 so far in finals (!!), who's ever done that in their first 5 finals? @Mustard ).

But he's not yet shown me that he can compete with and beat the top-10, let alone top-5. Sure he beat Rafa and Ferrer, but both of them are losing left and right right now.
Promise? Yes.
Likely to be top-5 at the end of the year (as I believe you put it somewhere?): Not quite yet imo. Top-10 is more than doable though.

Its trajectory. I just don't see any of the usual suspects making a move on clay between Thiem (live ranking 13) and the top 8. Gasquet is coming off back surgury so grueling clay probably not his cup of tea. Tsonga has been so so and is getting old. Isner and Cilic are unlikely to make as big a move on clay as Thiem will with 4 tournament wins in the last 9 months on clay. 9 seems very certain by the French with only 500 points to go for Thiem. Ferrer is statistically terrible this year on clay (Nadal too). Ferrer seems highly likely to shed a lot of points so that is why I say 8 by the French. Thiem is 11th in the hard court dominance stats and has no points to defend from US Hard court season onwards. Nadal's dive bomb in the clay court stats is worse than Ferrer so he probably won't defend much of his October success if he's still even playing (stats really, really down on clay so far.) That is where 5 comes from. Berdych is getting old (but still pretty good) and has a lot of points to defend on clay with worse clay court stats than Thiem so he may be in the rear view mirror quickly too. Nishikori will be harder to get I suspect, but if Kei has an injury issue during clay court season or under performs from a stellar 2015. Very much in range. Both very much in range by WTF (unfortunately 4 doesn't look to be in the cards at all.)

And Thiem does not need to worry about defending Nice points dropping off for the French of course since the FO draw and seeds are done before the official change in the rankings. I think you were the one who thought those 250 points would be gone before the French.

 

[Chanwan]

Its trajectory. I just don't see any of the usual suspects making a move on clay between Thiem (live ranking 13) and the top 8. Gasquet is coming off back surgury so grueling clay probably not his cup of tea. Tsonga has been so so and is getting old. Isner and Cilic are unlikely to make as big a move on clay as Thiem will with 4 tournament wins in the last 9 months on clay. 9 seems very certain by the French with only 500 points to go for Thiem. Ferrer is statistically terrible this year on clay (Nadal too). Ferrer seems highly likely to shed a lot of points so that is why I say 8 by the French. Thiem is 11th in the hard court dominance stats and has no points to defend from US Hard court season onwards. Nadal's dive bomb in the clay court stats is worse than Ferrer so he probably won't defend much of his October success if he's still even playing (stats really, really down on clay so far.) That is where 5 comes from. Berdych is getting old (but still pretty good) and has a lot of points to defend on clay with worse clay court stats than Thiem so he may be in the rear view mirror quickly too. Nishikori will be harder to get I suspect, but if Kei has an injury issue during clay court season or under performs from a stellar 2015. Very much in range. Both very much in range by WTF (unfortunately 4 doesn't look to be in the cards at all.)

And Thiem does not need to worry about defending Nice points dropping off for the French of course since the FO draw and seeds are done before the official change in the rankings. I think you were the one who thought those 250 points would be gone before the French.

I was indeed the one ;-)
Still, Ferrer doesn't have many points to defend for his standard, so unless he's current level is his true level, I find it highly unlikely for Thiem to top him before the FO. And I think both Gasquet and Tsonga has a chance to keep him behind as well. Unless of course Thiem really is the second clay goat and gets to semis, finals and wins on a semi regular basis.

There are a lot of if's for the rest of the year at this stage. Also - don't forget Kyrgios - who's making some waves of his own and a healthy Delpo (big if).
If Delpo is healthy and plays a full season, he's a natural top-8 or better.
Birdman/Ferrer could def. both be dropping this year and so could Rafa for that matter (still not quite ready to say the fat lady has sung though).

We shall see - at any rate, top-8 and WTF participance would be a great achievement.

 

[Meles]

There's stuff for @Sabratha and @Mainad here. Hewitt posting numbers extremely close to Murray's, while both are posting numbers very similar to Courier's peak and Sampras's peak and prime.
@Meles - Safin and Wawrinka were never gonna do great in these stats. They show up and they blow every one away on their day. But they don't win as many matches with their B-game as a more defensive oriented player like Djoko, Muzz and Rafa (before I'm being attacked - yes, all three have offensive as well, but they have a defense, they can fall back on when needed).

Thiem looks to be part stanimal in the matches I've seen lately and the match stats show it. We'll see. He really looks to be a moving target and the Acapulco win was completely unexpected on my part. His trajectory looks very, very good at the moment. I think his stats for the Dimitrov, Querrey, and Tomic matches would be off the chart. Who hits 22 aces, 1 DF, and serves 79% first serves? (other than Thiem in a final.) Thiem won 45% of first serve points against Dimitrov. 42% against Querrey and the first serve return is his weakness and these are big, big servers!

My prognostication is mainly clay based. If Thiem plays top 30 hard court tennis he can make the 5 or 6 ranking prediction with good clay results. If the trajectory from Acapulco continues on hard then Thiem could make a bigger move. Remember Djoko is sucking up all the points so 2, 3, and 4 have very low totals.

 

[Chanwan]

Thiem looks to be part stanimal in the matches I've seen lately and the match stats show it. We'll see. He really looks to be a moving target and the Acapulco win was completely unexpected on my part. His trajectory looks very, very good at the moment. I think his stats for the Dimitrov, Querrey, and Tomic matches would be off the chart. Who hits 22 aces, 1 DF, and serves 79% first serves? (other than Thiem in a final.) Thiem won 45% of first serve points against Dimitrov. 42% against Querrey and the first serve return is his weakness and these are big, big servers!

My prognostication is mainly clay based. If Thiem plays top 30 hard court tennis he can make the 5 or 6 ranking prediction with good clay results. If the trajectory from Acapulco continues on hard then Thiem could make a bigger move. Remember Djoko is sucking up all the points so 2, 3, and 4 have very low totals.

Djoko sucks up the clay points as well. Unless Thiem is a consistent no. 2-3 on clay, "good" clay results and top-30 hard court results ain't gonna cut it to top 5.
Anyhow, I think you've seen more of Thiem's matches than I have lately. I've only seen a 2, perhaps 3, this year + some highlights. Which could be why I'm less on the wagon.
Also, those are some impressing numbers (but serving against Tomic does help your serve stats).

 

[Meles]

I was indeed the one ;-)
Still, Ferrer doesn't have many points to defend for his standard, so unless he's current level is his true level, I find it highly unlikely for Thiem to top him before the FO. And I think both Gasquet and Tsonga has a chance to keep him behind as well. Unless of course Thiem really is the second clay goat and gets to semis, finals and wins on a semi regular basis.

There are a lot of if's for the rest of the year at this stage. Also - don't forget Kyrgios - who's making some waves of his own and a healthy Delpo (big if).
If Delpo is healthy and plays a full season, he's a natural top-8 or better.
Birdman/Ferrer could def. both be dropping this year and so could Rafa for that matter (still not quite ready to say the fat lady has sung though).

We shall see - at any rate, top-8 and WTF participance would be a great achievement.

Looking to upgrade my signature and you're just not cooperating! Kyrgios could make a nice move even on clay and should out do Thiem the rest of the year so Nick could pass Thiem up (never looked that close at Kyrgios and points to defend, etc. Kyrgios is 1000 points behind Thiem, but should make a bigger move than Thiem this year if he remains healthy. (Kyrgios winning 57% of 2nd serve return points now, which is 3% better than the career leaders, Murray and McEnroe on hard court).

 

[falstaff78]

Excellent stats! Fantastic!

However, I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion:
"In other words, Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him."
Due to the 108 this year?
Surely, 2 months of play is too small of a sample size no? It can easily go widely up and down for the rest of the season depending on his results.
If not, then the 104 last year? Surely, that's fairly standard for a top-10-20 player turning 22, no? (the late start is different, but still).

If you base it on the 108 this year, what should we make of Kyrgios' 118 this season while turning 21? That's smack in the middle between Rafa and Novak and well above Fed, Sampras and anyone else turning 21.

Thanks!

my point precisely is that the sample sizes for this year are too small to be able to concretely predict future success based on the 108. however, in going 18-2 on clay since last july and winning 3 titles, and in winning a 500 on hard, and in going 18-4 this year, thiem has done enough for us not to RULE OUT 2-3 majors and a decent future.

 

[falstaff78]

Amazing table.

thanks!

I"d like to see the oldster numbers with Fed and Agassi

here's all the data available for 30+ yr olds. Fed > Agassi at 30, 31. Agassi > Fed at 32 and 33. but then fed's turnaround at 34, likely 35. just brilliant. that alone is such a strong argument for him to be goat....

Lendl was great in his 30s. Stan holding up well too.

Hewitt really gave new meaning to the word "battler" - chugging along all those years winning only 50% of his games....

 

[BeatlesFan]

Unbelievable and hysterical hyperbole on this thread. Theim has done absolutely nothing in his career in terms of ascending to the throne of greatness. I like this kid and would love to see an Austrian #1 like Muster. But Dominix is 22 years old and has done diddly in majors. Contrast that to the records of past greats at a similar age.

 

[falstaff78]

Unbelievable and hysterical hyperbole on this thread

example please?

 

[cc0509]

example please?

Why don't we just wait and see if Thiem can beat top ten players regularly? Beating a washed up Nadal and an old Ferrer at meaningless clay events and beating guys like Querrey,Tomic and Almagro doesn't really tell us that much IMO. It's like all of the hype over Dimitrov throughout the years. How many top ten players has Dimitrov defeated and how many meaningful tournaments has Dimitrov won or how has Dimitrov done at the slams?

Let's wait and see if Thiem can compete consistently with the big boys when it matters most before we lose our sh*t about him.

 

[falstaff78]

before we lose our sh*t about him.

Example of losing sh*t please

Or is it possible you misunderstood what was being said

 

[veroniquem]

Hold on. These are only important when you have the same guys on both lists and total them.

For instance, Ferrer is not on your first list. Isner is not on your second list.

Yeah because I didn't continue the list below Thiem. My point was to show Thiem doesn't rank in top 10 in either serve or return. My point was not to comment on the other players in the list. But you're right, he's # 11 on combined list, not bad. Looking at the list, KG should start kicking serious -ss on hard this season
Best players when adding return and serve game stats on hard for 2016:

1- Djokovic: 127.5 (90.7 + 36.8)
2- Federer: 120.6 (89.1 + 31.5)
3- Murray: 119.3 (87.2 + 32.1)
4- Kyrgios: 117.3 (88.8 + 28.5)
5- Del Potro: 116.5 (85 + 31.5)
6- Wawrinka: 114.7 (88.9 + 25.8)
7- Nishikori: 113.7 (85.9 + 27.8)
8- Berdych: 112.2 (84.6 + 27.6)
9- Monfils: 111.2 (85.4 + 25.8)
10- Raonic: 110.7 (93.8 + 16.9)
11- Thiem: 109.5 (84.4 + 25.1)

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I haven't had this feeling of a future tennis superstar since Rafa entered the scene. To me Thiem seems like a player who raises his game when he plays better players, which is a typical champion thing to do. Hopefully soon we will see how he plays being tested from the big guns.

 

[Chanwan]

Looking to upgrade my signature and you're just not cooperating! Kyrgios could make a nice move even on clay and should out do Thiem the rest of the year so Nick could pass Thiem up (never looked that close at Kyrgios and points to defend, etc. Kyrgios is 1000 points behind Thiem, but should make a bigger move than Thiem this year if he remains healthy. (Kyrgios winning 57% of 2nd serve return points now, which is 3% better than the career leaders, Murray and McEnroe on hard court).

Kyrgios' has got some insane numbers this year (118 combined), but again - very small sample size and the guy is so far very prone to injury. His potential is greater than Thiem's imo though, but I don't quite see him as the next Murray in terms of ROS. Less will do though.

 

[Fedinkum]

Kyrgios' has got some insane numbers this year (118 combined), but again - very small sample size and the guy is so far very prone to injury. His potential is greater than Thiem's imo though, but I don't quite see him as the next Murray in terms of ROS. Less will do though.

I disagree. I see no discipline in Kyrios (on or off court). He won't go far. Thiem is making steady progress and have the right attitude. My bet is Thiem's achievements will be greater than Mr HeadKase.

 

[cc0509]

Example of losing sh*t please

Or is it possible you misunderstood what was being said

I mean several people on this forum seem to be going overboard and predicting Thiem will do this or do that based on a couple of solid wins he has had over the past few weeks or months and that is fine. This is something that goes on constantly on this forum whenever a player does something positive. However, IMO when somebody takes merely a statistical approach and looks at whether a player's first serve percentage has increased .02% or 10% or whatever other stats you want to look at in isolation and uses those stats to predict big things for a player it is a little shortsighted. For me what matters more is whether or not the promising player can beat the top ten players on a regular basis on the big stage. That has always been the superior guide IMO. If and when I see Thiem able to do that, I will believe he is the real deal, not until then.

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

Agreed to all. Thiem's numbers this weekend against Dimitrov, Querrey, and Tomic were very, very solid so he'll need that to continue at Indian Wells. I'm not sure what got into Thiem with the 22 aces, but I hope it continues.

Thiem is getting stronger and more confident every week, especially his court coverage following a good kick 2nd serve is almost second to none. That allows him to take more chances on 1st serve, et voila, the results are coming in, as you might be expecting at his age and stage of development.

Tennis NEEDS new blood, so go Dominic!

Btw - Borg's physique at age 20-22 is so impressive, his torso and lung capacity perhaps to this day unequalled, whereas young players from this generation need a few more years to max those potentials, physically, and then also mentally, because of the exponential increase in Media Pressure.

 

[falstaff78]

looks at whether a player's first serve percentage has increased .02% or 10% or whatever other stats you want to look at in isolation and uses those stats to predict big things for a player it is a little shortsighted

I see you did completely misunderstand what was being said. See difference between "predicting" and "not ruling out" success

In my responses in this thread I have been trying to undermine the case that "Thiem's 2016 is a fluke or an outlier". this is very different from the case that "Thiem is a lock to be a top player"

Historically, having a few years of 108 is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a 2-3 major winner. That is, all 2-3 major winners have had a few years in the region of 108-110. But that doesn't mean that everyone who has had a few years of 108-110 has won 2-3 majors. I am thinking of the Tsongas, Berdychs and Ferrers of the world.

Thiem has done enough to suggest 2-3 majors in the future is plausible. But he has not yet done enough to suggest it is certain or even likely. Essentially he's done enough to suggest a long stay in the top ten is imminent and to warrant keeping a close eye on him.

my point precisely is that the sample sizes for this year are too small to be able to concretely predict future success based on the 108. however, in going 18-2 on clay since last july and winning 3 titles, and in winning a 500 on hard, and in going 18-4 this year, thiem has done enough for us not to RULE OUT 2-3 majors and a decent future

 

[Meles]

Not sure what you mean?
Good points on stats needing to be used in context. Didn't and don't know exactly when Thiem did military service. I seem to recall noticing him in the summer of 2014, could that be right?

Completely over April 21, 2015. Started early November 2014. One month intensive training first month with limited tennis.

Chung just did a month and his numbers have fallen off a cliff with no recovery in site. Ugh!

 

[cc0509]

I haven't had this feeling of a future tennis superstar since Rafa entered the scene. To me Thiem seems like a player who raises his game when he plays better players, which is a typical champion thing to do. Hopefully soon we will see how he plays being tested from the big guns.

Which "better" players are we talking about? Querrey and Almagro? Did you see the Brisbane match earlier this year when Thiem played old man Federer?

 

[cc0509]

I see you did completely misunderstand what was being said. See difference between "predicting" and "not ruling out" success

Whether it's "predicting" or "not ruling" out, matters little. As I have stated, the best predictor of a player's success is whether or not said player can beat the other best players over and over again in big stage moments, not having tunnel vision focusing on various stats. I'm not saying you are necessarily predicting big things for Thiem based on his recent wins but many people are which is normal on this forum. I don't get too impressed with any player until that player can accumulate big wins vs the very best players.

 

[Meles]

I disagree. I see no discipline in Kyrios (on or off court). He won't go far. Thiem is making steady progress and have the right attitude. My bet is Thiem's achievements will be greater than Mr HeadKase.

I think Kyrgios is working hard now and the numbers show it in his return game which is off the chart good this year instead of a weakness.

 

[falstaff78]

not having tunnel vision focusing on various stats

Dude the least you can do is read what's written before forming egregiously incorrect opinions about what's written.

This is how it should be. Stats exist for the sake of sport and not the other way around.

this is very different from the case that "Thiem is a lock to be a top player"

for the latter case it's probably better to rely on gut feel and instinct I think this is where Meles, and a lot of the other posters are coming from