The travails of Borna Coric

[helterskelter]

After a good start to the year, making the final in Chennai (and beating Bautista Agut en route, which as we've seen since is no easy feat), the only teenager in the top 50 has lost four straight matches in straight sets:

1. Chennai final, lost to Stanislas Wawrinka, 6-3 7-5. No shame or surprise here.
2. Sydney round 1, lost to Gilles Muller, 6-1 6-4. Muller was ranked two spots higher at the time, so certainly a 50-50 match. Coric was probably tired after the flight from India, though.
3. Australian Open round 1, lost to Albert Ramos-Vinolas, 6-2 6-2 6-3. Poor result against a player ranked 21 spots lower than him. Of course, ARV beat Federer in Shanghai, so he's no mug. Since that Federer win, though, his match record is won 1, lost 7 (including qualifying rounds).
4. Montpellier round 1, lost to Michael Berrer, 7-6 6-2. Coric was ranked 83 places higher than Berrer. I'm tempted to say that, these days, he at least had the age disadvantage, but even that might not be true, given that Berrer's 35. Of course, in men's tennis today it's far easier to be 31 than it is to be 19, but 35 versus 19 is probably a wash, even today.

So, what's up with Borna? Overrated? Too young? Sophomore slump? Inexplicable loss of form? Will he be able to maintain his ranking and finish in the top 50 in 2016, or is he in for a torrid year, or will he shrug these results off and maintain his charge towards the top?

 

[KingKyrgios]

Djokovic clone

 

[Meles]

Physically Coric just not moving up to the big time game. Players with power game usually can dominate Coric pretty well. He and Chung have not progressed over off-season. Zverev looked amazing against Cilic today and appears to be making big strides physically in the power and speed department.

 

[Red Rick]

Coric is hyped because he was good for his age. He has a very limited game and maxed out his potential very early. Average serve, ok backhand, no forehand, good foot speed and that's it. And that forehand is gonna be incredible hard to fix, because the mechanics. Zverev has way more potential I think

 

[Adv. Edberg]

He should've stuck with Johansson as coach probably. Not sure what happened though but Djoko was top 10 at this age and had won tourneys etc

 

[helterskelter]

He should've stuck with Johansson as coach probably. Not sure what happened though but Djoko was top 10 at this age and had won tourneys etc

Yeah, but not being as good as Djokovic doesn't mean not being good.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Yeah, but not being as good as Djokovic doesn't mean not being good.

For somebody who's meant to be the next slam winner you kind of should be. Djoko isn't the best nr1 we've had so.

 

[joekapa]

Doing well at juniors doesn't guarantee anything.

 

[Gytha]

Of the teens I have to admit I don't see Coric as a slam winner.... More of a Ferrer? Though my predictions are usually ****e.

 

[helterskelter]

For somebody who's meant to be the next slam winner you kind of should be. Djoko isn't the best nr1 we've had so.

No, you shouldn't be. By no means every Slam champion becomes a #1. Djokovic is already one of only seven men ever to win 11+ Slams. Being as good as one of the seven most winning Slam champions in history is far from easy. You expect far, far too much.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

No, you shouldn't be. By no means every Slam champion becomes a #1. Djokovic is already one of only seven men ever to win 11+ Slams. Being as good as one of the seven most winning Slam champions in history is far from easy. You expect far, far too much.

Djokovic is maybe top 15-20 of all time. It's not expecting that much I think. I'm not expecting another Sampras, Lendl or Borg anytime soon.

 

[helterskelter]

Djokovic is maybe top 15-20 of all time. It's not expecting that much I think. I'm not expecting another Sampras, Lendl or Borg anytime soon.

Expecting an unproven teenager to be one of the top 20 of all time is setting your sights VERY high. Djokovic is the third-greatest player born in the last 44 years without any doubt at all (and is definitely in with a chance of becoming the second greatest in that time period). Such players don't grow on trees.

Even expecting Coric to be as good as Murray would be setting your sights high.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Expecting an unproven teenager to be one of the top 20 of all time is setting your sights VERY high. Djokovic is the third-greatest player born in the last 45 years without any doubt at all (and is definitely in with a chance of becoming the second greatest in that time period). Such players don't grow on trees.

Even expecting Coric to be as good as Murray would be setting your sights high.

No way. Top 20 players of all time. All time means about 45 years. So statistically a top 20 all time player comes around every 2-3 years. We haven't seen one since Djoko..

 

[helterskelter]

No way. Top 20 players of all time. All time means about 45 years. So statistically a top 20 all time player comes around every 2-3 years. We haven't seen one since Djoko..

Oh, I think it's obvious that Djokovic is at best the 15th best player of the last 45 years. It's equally obvious that none of the twenty best players of all time played more than 45 years ago. Until 1970, there was a perpetual weak era. I talk about it all the time at dinner parties.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Oh, I think it's obvious that Djokovic is at best the 15th best player of the last 45 years. It's equally obvious that none of the twenty best players of all time played more than 45 years ago. Until 1970, there was a perpetual weak era. I talk about it all the time at dinner parties.

Yeah, I also only count the open era, which properly started around 71-72. And yeah I think Djoko is around 15 of atg. Still, we shouldn't have to wait 10 years for the next top 20 atg. We should have at least 2 of them since Djoko became top 10.

 

[helterskelter]

Yeah, I also only count the open era, which properly started around 71-72. And yeah I think Djoko is around 15 of atg. Still, we shouldn't have to wait 10 years for the next top 20 atg. We should have at least 2 of them since Djoko became top 10.

Djokovic is at the very least the #9 player in that time period. The only eight players who might rank higher than him since 1971/2 are Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, Borg, and McEnroe. And several of them have pretty weak claims.

I'm an Edberg fan, too, but there's no way he, Becker, or Wilander rank above Djokovic. I'm sure you use the "weak era" claim to argue that they do, but, as I'm sure others have told you, the weak era argument is just not provable.

 

[randomtoss]

The speed of thread derailing is amazing on this site! I open the last poast of this thread supposedly about Coric, just to have people's opinion on Coric's current situation, and all I find is another discussion on Novack's greatness/mugness...

 

[helterskelter]

The speed of thread derailing is amazing on this site! I open the last poast of this thread supposedly about Coric, just to have people's opinion on Coric's current situation, and all I find is another discussion on Novack's greatness/mugness...

Right, so let's get it back on track. A Coric discussion is much more interesting than another "goat" one, I agree. How do you think Coric will do in 2016? Maintain? Improve? Backslide?

 

[Meles]

Oh, I think it's obvious that Djokovic is at best the 15th best player of the last 45 years. It's equally obvious that none of the twenty best players of all time played more than 45 years ago. Until 1970, there was a perpetual weak era. I talk about it all the time at dinner parties.

Certainly the slam winners of the amateur era generally should not count much post world war 2. Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Kramer and Tilden should be top 20 of all time.

The idea that the current era is weak is absolute nonsense. Yes Nadal and Federer are not at their peak (Fed not bad though). But their is great depth at the top. Gasquet for example at age 15 got a wild card into 2002 Monte Carlo qualifiers, made the main draw and won his first match. At French Open took a set off eventual champ Coria in the first round, still at age 15. The French have had a solid group of players and the big 4 or 5 have definitely been special. Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have made it impossible for anyone else to win slams.

By the most conservative standards Djokovic might be ninth in open era (I'd rate him above Agassi for sure.) With those 5 vintage players of all time, he's at least 14th all time. Djokovic's weeks at number and slam portfolio really rate at least sixth in open era, so 11th of all time objectivley. Djokovic may have it easy in 2017 and 2018 and really amass quite the portfolio, but it will be hard not to then rate him above Nadal and Federer if he's got the career slam and the count.

Coric is not of much interest until his game/physicality show further improvement. Young players like Sock, Thiem, and Zverev look poised to make a statement in 2016 based on early form. (Can't wait for South American swing the next few weeks where Sock and Thiem will be in the draw with King Rafa.) Zverev's upside is looking very good at the moment given what he just showed against Cilic.

 

[helterskelter]

I'm going to leave the goat debate to you and @Adv. Edberg, as you both seem to be more interested in it than I am. The only things I'll add are that I agree with you, @Meles, that "goat" doesn't mean "greatest of the open era" and so must include pre-open era players. The comparison is hard, but that's one of the burdens you take on if you enter into the goat debate. A good reason not to do so, methinks. I also agree with you, @Meles, that Djokovic is no lower than #9 in the period since 1971/2 and is probably quite a bit higher than #9. But parsing those higher distinctions doesn't interest me. Nor does talk of weak or strong eras.

Anyway, as for Coric: I agree that he needs to improve if he's to make further progress. Even maintaining his position in the lower reaches of the top 50 might be tough without improvement, because he'll no longer have the surprise factor and other players will be able to handle what he already has. To some extent, that's probably already happening. However, Coric has plenty of time in which to make that improvement. As for the comparisons with Sock and Thiem, note that they are much older than him. Coric only turned 19 in November. Thiem turned 22 in September, while Sock is 23. Even if Coric is ultimately slightly better than them, they should be much better than him at this age. They have an enormous age advantage over him. Only in the last year or so have they begun to make their marks. Zverev is six months younger than Coric, and does indeed seem to have more upside. His height might be a disadvantage in the long term, though. Also, he's got the surprise factor that Coric had a year ago but has probably now lost.

I think it'll be a year of consolidation for Coric and that we won't really see him moving towards the top until 2017 or 2018.

Certainly the slam winners of the amateur era generally should not count much post world war 2. Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Kramer and Tilden should be top 20 of all time.

The idea that the current era is weak is absolute nonsense. Yes Nadal and Federer are not at their peak (Fed not bad though). But their is great depth at the top. Gasquet for example at age 15 got a wild card into 2002 Monte Carlo qualifiers, made the main draw and won his first match. At French Open took a set off eventual champ Coria in the first round, still at age 15. The French have had a solid group of players and the big 4 or 5 have definitely been special. Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have made it impossible for anyone else to win slams.

By the most conservative standards Djokovic might be ninth in open era (I'd rate him above Agassi for sure.) With those 4 vintage players of all time, he's at least 14th all time. Djokovic's weeks at number and slam portfolio really rate at least sixth in open era, so 11th of all time objectivley. Djokovic may have it easy in 2017 and 2018 and really amass quite the portfolio, but it will be hard not to then rate him above Nadal and Federer if he's got the career slam and the count.

Coric is not of much interest until his game/physicality show further improvement. Young players like Sock, Thiem, and Zverev look poised to make a statement in 2016 based on early form. (Can't wait for South American swing the next few weeks where Sock and Thiem will be in the draw with King Rafa.) Zverev's upside is looking very good at the moment given what he just showed against Cilic.

 

[LinePainter]

Can everyone just slow down for one second, everyone has their bad stretches. He's 19 years old and we've all seen that in this age of tennis, players don't peak until they're 26-28 years old. Why did this turn into another thread about Djokovic, it's like Coric is the Dimitrov to Federer now.

I wish he didn't switch coaches though, Maclagan is a very tactical coach and I think he needs someone that specializes more in stroke/serve development.

 

[Roddick85]

I don't get the hype with Coric. Seems like a nice kid and all, but it's been maybe 2 years or so since he's been built as "the next big thing" yet he hasn't really shown much improvement. I saw 2 of his matches and I just don't see what separates him from any other young up and coming player? He's another good baseliner with an average serve, nothing that really separates him from the rest.

 

[Mainad]

Like most of the young and up-and-coming players, he lacks consistency, fitness and focus. He probably needs a good coach to sort out his head and training routine that is, if he is willing to knuckle down and put in the hard work which is admittedly something which, in contrast to the current top players at his age, many of today's youngsters just don't seem to be willing or able to do!

 

[jm1980]

He should've stuck with Johansson as coach probably. Not sure what happened though but Djoko was top 10 at this age and had won tourneys etc

Djokovic (at Coric's current age) vs Coric:

Ranking: #23 v #40 (peak: #33)
W/L Record: 42-27 vs 37-40
Best Slam result: QF vs 3R
Best result: Amersfoot W vs Chennai F

As you can see there is not much distance between the two

 

[jm1980]

I don't get the hype with Coric. Seems like a nice kid and all, but it's been maybe 2 years or so since he's been built as "the next big thing" yet he hasn't really shown much improvement. I saw 2 of his matches and I just don't see what separates him from any other young up and coming player? He's another good baseliner with an average serve, nothing that really separates him from the rest.

This is pretty much what they said about Djokovic as well

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Djokovic (at Coric's current age) vs Coric:

Ranking: #23 v #40 (peak: #33)
W/L Record: 42-27 vs 37-40
Best Slam result: QF vs 3R
Best result: Amersfoot W vs Chennai F

As you can see there is not much distance between the two

When Djoko turned 20 he was already in top 10 and had been in IW final etc. Can Coric make the top 10 in 9 months?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

When Djoko turned 20 he was already in top 10 and had been in IW final etc. Can Coric make the top 10 in 9 months?

Also, Coric should've won 2 titles last year to be on par with Djoko and be too 20 now.

 

[Roddick85]

This is pretty much what they said about Djokovic as well

Sure but at 20 years old, Djokovic was already in the top 10, made the final of the USO and even beat the world number 1 in Montreal, then won his first slam not even 6 months later.
Somehow, I doubt Coric will even win a title this year. They may share similar play style, but that's where the comparison ends.

 

[jm1980]

Sure but at 20 years old, Djokovic was already in the top 10, made the final of the USO and even beat the world number 1 in Montreal, then won his first slam not even 6 months later.
Somehow, I doubt Coric will even win a title this year. They may share similar play style, but that's where the comparison ends.

Yeah but Coric doesn't turn 20 until November 2016

We will have to see... He was progressing faster than Djokovic up until now

 

[helterskelter]

Yeah but Coric doesn't turn 20 until November 2016

So, he has seven Slams and about 21 months to:

1) Win a Slam
2) Make another Slam final
3) Complete the set of Slam semi-finals
4) Become a fixture in the world's top 3

None of this seems likely. But that's not really a knock on him. At best, it suggests that he's not as good as a dominant #1. But it doesn't even really suggest that. Rather, it suggests that it's more difficult to break through at a young age now than it was even eight or nine years ago. He probably isn't as good as Djokovic, but the reason for that is that almost no one is, not that his results are likely to be much worse on their 21st birthdays.

 

[Meles]

I'm going to leave the goat debate to you and @Adv. Edberg, as you both seem to be more interested in it than I am. The only things I'll add are that I agree with you, @Meles, that "goat" doesn't mean "greatest of the open era" and so must include pre-open era players. The comparison is hard, but that's one of the burdens you take on if you enter into the goat debate. A good reason not to do so, methinks. I also agree with you, @Meles, that Djokovic is no lower than #9 in the period since 1971/2 and is probably quite a bit higher than #9. But parsing those higher distinctions doesn't interest me. Nor does talk of weak or strong eras.

Anyway, as for Coric: I agree that he needs to improve if he's to make further progress. Even maintaining his position in the lower reaches of the top 50 might be tough without improvement, because he'll no longer have the surprise factor and other players will be able to handle what he already has. To some extent, that's probably already happening. However, Coric has plenty of time in which to make that improvement. As for the comparisons with Sock and Thiem, note that they are much older than him. Coric only turned 19 in November. Thiem turned 22 in September, while Sock is 23. Even if Coric is ultimately slightly better than them, they should be much better than him at this age. They have an enormous age advantage over him. Only in the last year or so have they begun to make their marks. Zverev is six months younger than Coric, and does indeed seem to have more upside. His height might be a disadvantage in the long term, though. Also, he's got the surprise factor that Coric had a year ago but has probably now lost.

I think it'll be a year of consolidation for Coric and that we won't really see him moving towards the top until 2017 or 2018.

Skelter we think alike. I agreed with you 100% on Zverev until watching him play Cilic this week. I may be wrong, but he seems to be overcoming our size objections.

I tend to think in complete oppostion to @Adv. Edberg ( a favorite poster) on the whole weakera nonsense and actually find the term highly offensive applied to any period of tennis, but I'm adapting. In my book any one who claims a weak era must define a strong era (and they never seem to do that because they know it will be called a weak era in response!) Right now in my book is the strongest era of all time by a large margin based on average age of top players and the time it now takes to develop a game good enough to compete with the upper echelon. Sock, Raonic, Zverev, and Thiem look like they are making great strides in 2016 so perhaps we'll finally have a younger player start making real threats at the majors. Raonic is a prime example of the time and effort it takes to develop a slam competitive game in this "weak era".

 

[Bartelby]

And yet posts disappear for being 'off topic' - only half of the posts should survive by that criterion.

The speed of thread derailing is amazing on this site! I open the last poast of this thread supposedly about Coric, just to have people's opinion on Coric's current situation, and all I find is another discussion on Novack's greatness/mugness...

 

[randomtoss]

And yet posts disappear for being 'off topic' - only half of the posts should survive by that criterion.

You'll notice that my poast itself made this thread derail a bit

 

[randomtoss]

Coric is still young, this is an age where a lot of things are still getting defined in a youth's personality, and tenniswise also obviously... A pause in his progression, even a small regression, is nothing to worry about IMO.

 

[dominikk1985]

He should've stuck with Johansson as coach probably. Not sure what happened though but Djoko was top 10 at this age and had won tourneys etc

Wasn't Coric ranked higher at Age 18 than djokovic? of course Novak made a big stride at Age 19 but maybe Coric can make that jump too. he might be in a slump currently but that can Change quickly.

I still think he will be better than zverev. zverev has more weapons but it is not easy for a 6"6 Player to be consistent and healthy. zverev probably will be able to beat anyone at a good day but I think Coric will be more consistent day to day.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Skelter we think alike. I agreed with you 100% on Zverev until watching him play Cilic this week. I may be wrong, but he seems to be overcoming our size objections.

I tend to think in complete oppostion to @Adv. Edberg ( a favorite poster) on the whole weakera nonsense and actually find the term highly offensive applied to any period of tennis, but I'm adapting. In my book any one who claims a weak era must define a strong era (and they never seem to do that because they know it will be called a weak era in response!) Right now in my book is the strongest era of all time by a large margin based on average age of top players and the time it now takes to develop a game good enough to compete with the upper echelon. Sock, Raonic, Zverev, and Thiem look like they are making great strides in 2016 so perhaps we'll finally have a younger player start making real threats at the majors. Raonic is a prime example of the time and effort it takes to develop a slam competitive game in this "weak era".

The Golden Era is the strongest one. I've always said this. 85-95. 75 to 85 was really strong too.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Wasn't Coric ranked higher at Age 18 than djokovic? of course Novak made a big stride at Age 19 but maybe Coric can make that jump too. he might be in a slump currently but that can Change quickly.

I still think he will be better than zverev. zverev has more weapons but it is not easy for a 6"6 Player to be consistent and healthy. zverev probably will be able to beat anyone at a good day but I think Coric will be more consistent day to day.

Yep, it's possible. But he seems satisfied with his current ranking and the money he's gained. Djoko wanted more apparently.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Yep, it's possible. But he seems satisfied with his current ranking and the money he's gained. Djoko wanted more apparently.

I thought Coric had a Babalot racquet that he is personally endorsing? I thought I saw him pictured on the racquet's center insert.

 

[helterskelter]

Wasn't Coric ranked higher at Age 18 than djokovic? of course Novak made a big stride at Age 19 but maybe Coric can make that jump too. he might be in a slump currently but that can Change quickly.

I still think he will be better than zverev. zverev has more weapons but it is not easy for a 6"6 Player to be consistent and healthy. zverev probably will be able to beat anyone at a good day but I think Coric will be more consistent day to day.

No doubt Coric will be more consistent than Zverev. But assuming that neither of them is good enough to become a dominant #1 - an assumption that may turn out false but is nonetheless the right assumption to make about every single teenager, because the odds on any one of them becoming a dominant #1 are very slim indeed - then the one with the better high level may achieve more great moments than the one with the better consistent level. (Think for example of a comparison between Del Potro and Ferrer).

By the way, Zverev just made his first tour semi-final a few minutes ago. He only beat Berrer 7-5 in the final set, but a win's a win. Next up: Millman or Mathieu. So he has a good shot of making his first tour final tomorrow.

 

[dpg]

No doubt Coric will be more consistent than Zverev. But assuming that neither of them is good enough to become a dominant #1 - an assumption that may turn out false but is nonetheless the right assumption to make about every single teenager, because the odds on any one of them becoming a dominant #1 are very slim indeed - then the one with the better high level may achieve more great moments than the one with the better consistent level. (Think for example of a comparison between Del Potro and Ferrer).

By the way, Zverev just made his first tour semi-final a few minutes ago. He only beat Berrer 7-5 in the final set, but a win's a win. Next up: Millman or Mathieu. So he has a good shot of making his first tour final tomorrow.

Zverev barely won the 35 yrs old Germany who beat Coric 7:6, 6:2 because he is young and not yet mentally mature. He broke early in first set and had break point in 5:2 but didn't break and had couple of line judge argument with referee. He couldn't settle himself down and lost quickly the next game. Berrer got momentum since then and Zverev started playing mindlessly and made many UEs. He didn't play well today, and struggled until late 3rd set, but he still managed to win it. To him it is already much better than the match I watched he played last couple years. Coric doesn't have his mental weakness problem, but his problem is his skill set is not enough to get him in deep round in most of the ATP tours he participates. I don't know which one is easier to overcome, but I have already seen Zverev is making progress in his part, but still waiting for Coric to improve his.

 

[Meles]

The Golden Era is the strongest one. I've always said this. 85-95. 75 to 85 was really strong too.

Bjorg, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl I can see. Certainly the early 90s were strong with the veterans running into a host of young Americans. But, I mean Wilander winning three slams in 1988 and Chang getting the French at such a young age in 1989 does not show tremendous strength.

Quite a few slam winners of quality; Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Courier. But the fact that Chang and Courier won on clay (a non native surface shows that none of these players were dominate on clay, like Borg or Nadal.) I don't see how that group is comparable with just one great player (Sampras) and one near great (Lendl). Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal seem a step above. With Fed and Nadal waning, the very top of the tour might be overall weaker right now, but Murray and Djokovic seem to be in near peak form.

It amazes me how Wilander peaked at age 25 that year and now 25 is young. Love the Wilander win over Lendl in 1988 US Open (just watched replay in last month). It seems the tour is deeper now and the game is a much more physical ball bashing game where stamina is a must to compete with the top players. Even Wawrinka will have some fairly long matches with rallies. The kids don't seem to have a chance in this enviroment (strings probably huge factor.) Coric looks very solid, but just does not quite have a big enough game and he seems to be done physically maturing and is pursuing heavy training. (Hopefully, I'm wrong because Coric does have admirable mental toughness.)

 

[Meles]

Zverev barely won the 35 yrs old Germany who beat Coric 7:6, 6:2 because he is young and not yet mentally mature. He broke early in first set and had break point in 5:2 but didn't break and had couple of line judge argument with referee. He couldn't settle himself down and lost quickly the next game. Berrer got momentum since then and Zverev started playing mindlessly and made many UEs. He didn't play well today, and struggled until late 3rd set, but he still managed to win it. To him it is already much better than the match I watched he played last couple years. Coric doesn't have his mental weakness problem, but his problem is his skill set is not enough to get him in deep round in most of the ATP tours he participates. I don't know which one is easier to overcome, but I have already seen Zverev is making progress in his part, but still waiting for Coric to improve his.

Didn't watch, but I've seen Zverev play poorly and he does have some looser sets than Coric. Does this mean by the Berrer test that Zverev is ahead of Coric?

Zverev does have extreme mental toughness and tenacity when he wants it. With maturity, I'm sure he'll minimize his bad patches of play. In best of 3 you can get away with these mistakes, but in the more grueling slams, set donation is a big problem. He'll be the equal of Coric in this department before too long (or close enough).

 

[dpg]

Didn't watch, but I've seen Zverev play poorly and he does have some looser sets than Coric. Does this mean by the Berrer test that Zverev is ahead of Coric?

Zverev does have extreme mental toughness and tenacity when he wants it. With maturity, I'm sure he'll minimize his bad patches of play. In best of 3 you can get away with these mistakes, but in the more grueling slams, set donation is a big problem. He'll be the equal of Coric in this department before too long (or close enough).

I have seen Zverev lost some 5:1/5:2 lead set before, not due to technique issue. He need to learn how to control his focus during match. He played well in early first set and seems he would quite be in control. He served well and pressed each of opponent's serve games, although only broke once, until he couldn't break opponent in 5:2. If he played at that point as same as previous his serve games, he should have got the first set at 6:3, but instead he got broken too easily and started play badly, hardly holding his own serves and giving opponent easy serve games. Then he lost tiebreaker 2:7.

The second set was not much better, but he struggled and managed to save 4 break point until 2:2. He converted 2 or 4 opponent's break point and finished 6:2, though the score does not show how close the game was.

The third set he was almost broken the first game but mange to hold. He got broken the 3rd game, but luckily broke back immediately. in those two games he served, he gave out 11 bps, although saved 10 of them, but it was not the level he should have played. He played better after that, I think due to the opponent loss momentum (was broke back right after broke Zverev's) and running out of gas. At 6:5, he got first match point and did not waste.

 

[Meles]

I have seen Zverev lost some 5:1/5:2 lead set before, not due to technique issue. He need to learn how to control his focus during match. He played well in early first set and seems he would quite in control. He served well and pressed each of opponent's serve game, although only broke once, until he couldn't break opponent in 5:2. If he played at that point as same as previous his serve games, he should have get the first set at 6:3, but instead he got broken easily and started play badly, hardly holding his own serve and give opponent easy serve game. Then he lost tiebreaker 2:7.

The second set was not much better, but he struggled and managed to save 4 break point until 2:2. He converted 2 or 4 opponent's break point and finished 6:2, though the score does not show how close the game was.

The third set he was almost broken the first game but mange to hold. He got broken the 3rd game, but luckily broke back immediately. in those two games he served, he gave out 11 bps, although saved 10 of them, but it was not the level he should have played. He played better after that, I think due to the opponent loss momentum (was broke back right after broke Zverev's) and running out of gas. At 6:5, he got first match point and did not waste.

Wonderful summary! I can't watch every match so saving my Zverev active watching for a later match. Mathieu looked tough against Millman so Zverev will have to play very well to make the final. This Zverev talk is off thread, but somehow on topic as both are competing to be the top young talent. Zverev is starting to look like he's ready to make pass poor Borna all too soon.

 

[dominikk1985]

A concern I have with coric is that he was worked out extremely hard as a teenager ( there are videos of him lifting big weights at age 17) so he is physically very mature for his age. That is good but it could also mean that he has less room to grow than other players of his age.

Zverev on the other hand looks like he has a lot of room to grow physically ( at his height he needs to make sure to not add to much Muscle mass though).

 

[gn]

If Isner can stay injury free, then why not Zverev?

 

[Meles]

If Isner can stay injury free, then why not Zverev?

Hope this is true about the imminent Croat, Raonic.

 

[gn]

Hope this is true about the imminent Croat, Raonic.

Some bodies will break down regardless of height - Nishikori.
Tall people can still do well - Karlovic, Isner.

 

[dpg]

It seems to me the best height for last two generations(1980-1989, I define one generation is 5 years) of top tennis players(current top 10) ranges from 185-190cm (6'1 to 6'3)

Djokovic: 188cm
Murray: 191cm
Federer: 185cm
Nadal: 185cm
Warranka: 183cm
Tsonga: 188cm
Gasquet:185cm

While Ferrere: 175cm and Berdych: 196cm are outliers. (Nishikori was born 1989-12-30, I normally treat him as current generation (1990-1994), and new generation is from 1995)

I feel for current and new generation (1990-1999) the best height for tennis might be 190cm-200cm. 50% of post 90 in top 50 are taller than 190cm and 5 of first 8 post 95 men tennis players are taller than 190cm.

 

[Nostradamus]

What is up with Borna Coric ?? he lost to a journeyman Berrer in the 1st round.. if he keeps that up, he won't be top 50 much longer..