What makes a breakthrough?

[El Dude]

I want to tap into the wealth of tennis knowledge on this forum to hopefully get an answer to a question that has been brewing in my mind as I've been watching Felix Auger-Aliassime breakthrough this year.

Before getting to the question, I will note that it is my observation that the top 100-200 zone acts as a kind of "waiting room" or vestibute for the top 100, what I have called "Qualie Hell" - players have to deal with qualifications at Slams, and mostly play on the Challenger circuit. So the first real breakthrough is getting out of "Qualie Hell" and entering main draws of Slams, as well as the ATP tour proper (I suppose you could say there's an earlier breakthrough into the top 200, and from Futures to Challengers, but that's not as relevant to this discussion).

This is what we just saw with FAA, who now will receive main entry into Slams and presumably focus on ATP events rather than Challengers. His task this year should be first consolidating his top 100 ranking by winning some ATP matches, and then inching up the rankings to get to the second breakthrough: the top 30 and becoming seeded at Slams. This will require going deep into tournaments and even winning a title or two.

A third breakthrough might be reaching peak form, whether that is elite or sub-elite.

So we can say that there are at least three breakthroughs:
1. Getting out of "Qualie Hell" and entering the top 100 and the ATP tour rather than Challenger.
2. Consolidating ranking and becoming seeded at Slams, top 30.
3. Reaching peak form.

So my question for those who know the game well: What makes a breakthrough? If we use FAA as an example, what is the difference between him now and where he was at six months ago? And what will be required for those second and third breakthroughs?

Or we could look at someone like Denis Shapovalov, who had his first breakthorugh a year and a half ago back in August of 2017, when broke into the top 100. But he's been on the cusp of the second breakthrough since then, teetering on seeding. He hasn't yet had that third breakthrough. With Shapo, we can see a talented but erratic player, that for him to breakthrough to a higher level he needs greater consistency. But what else?

And what about FAA? He obviously has the weapons - a complete game. But is it so drastically different than a few months ago? Why the breakthrough now? What clicked? And what needs to happen for him to have further breakthroughs? Actually, it is easier for me to understand the latter: he has a huge game, but is young and erratic. So I can imagine how he polishes things up and becomes an elite player, in a similar fashion that I can imagine Shapo maturing and taking the next step forward.

I guess I'm wanting to hear from folks who play the sport and have a sense of what needs to happen from a skill development perspective, especially that first breakthrough out of Qualie Hell and into the top 100.

So....what makes a breakthrough?

 

[mrzz]

Coming from 66 in the world to win Roland Garros.

 

[El Dude]

Coming from 66 in the world to win Roland Garros.

Is that Guga?

 

[mrzz]

Is that Guga?

OF COURSE IS GUGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ricardo]

Coming from wildcard and win Wimbledon, at the time nobody in the world expected him to.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

1. First break through is to achieve 6.0 rating. The tennis ratings stop at 6.0. Once you are a 6.0 player it means you are as good as a professional in terms of basic skills. This should not be confused as me saying you can win against a top 100 player once you are a 6.0.
It means you have the basic skills to potentially become a professional player.

2. Second break through is to actually believe that you will make it one day and keep toiling in challengers and futures.
It would be very tempting to give up and make a decent livelihood doing some regular job. One needs to believe in oneself
tremendously at this level (more than after you make it to top 100) to ever bear the grind. Not everyone who makes the
first breakthrough even tries due to lack of belief.

3. Getting MD entry in slams is certainly the next break through. Once you achieve this, you don't worry about making a decent living playing tennis. Take for example RCB. He is currently ranked 111. Career best ranking is 72. He is aged 25. But he has already earned more than a million bucks in prize money. At this point, one gets "Tomic Syndrome". Hey I am already a millionaire and why should I bother to practice and actually care when I play.

4. After that I would say the next real breakthrough is in winning an ATP tour level title, even if it is just a 250 title.

5. After that the main break through is ensuring MD entry in Masters tourneys. Apart from IW, M , all other have a draw size of only 56 (even less in Bercy) and typically there are about 8 qualifiers and 4 wild cards and so one has to be in top 48 to get MD into ATP 1000 events. Usually what happens is that players move in and out of this group. Once you are able to maintain fairly stable presence in top 48, one quickly becomes a seeded player at slams.

Of course, one could keep saying various other obvious things such as getting into top 20, top 10, making it to WTF, winning a 500, winning a 1000, winning a GS, surpassing Roger in GS counts etc. But, to me the above five are major breakthroughs.

 

[El Dude]

Nice post, @GameSetAndMath. It almost sounds like the 1st breakthrough is graduating college, the 2nd is getting an internship the 3rd is getting a paid job, the 4th a promotion, etc.

A nitpick: I think the sequence of the 4th and 5th breakthroughs can differ. Some players are regulars in the top 50 before they win an ATP title. Take Shapovalov, for instance. Or the classic example: Julian Benneteau, who spent about a decade as a top 50 player without ever winning a title. He's a bit of an exception, though, and is arguably the best player never to win a title.

Breakthroughs seem to have a lot to do with tiers of play, as, as represented by the rankings and certain benchmarks. The top 100 is huge because it represents main entry in Slams. Getting through qualifications is rough; once you're in the top 100, you've "made it." The rest is just how well you make it.

 

[Moxie]

I think there are lots of ways to look at a breakthrough, and I'm not sure it's as incremental as you and GSM would have it. Obviously, you're thinking of FAA, and describing moves for younger players. You and GSM both make rather a formula of it. I do think there are "breakthrough" moments, and I would rather describe the "prose" of it. I would argue that a "breakthrough" is more about when you announce yourself to the tournament and the world, or crack your own limitations and get above them. I think everyone would say that Stan's breakthrough was beating Novak at the AO in '14, and he'd obviously passed your #1(qualies) and #2 (top 30) long before. Kyrgios broke through beating Rafa at Wimbledon (then Roger and Djokovic,) and Shapo did beating Rafa in Cincy, I think it was. Early or late, these are the breakthough moments, IMO. I don't think they have to capitalize immediately. Tsitsipas broke through last year. Khachanov, too. FAA broke through this year. This may sound superficial, but I think it's about attitude and profile on the tour, even before results.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, Moxie. My interest in this subject has a lot to do with my interest in tracking young players, and differentiating between those young guys who become true elites and those that end up becoming more "second tier" types or journeymen. While I realize that every player is different, I am curious about patterns of development. One thing I've noticed is that elite players generally don't stall out at one of the breakthroughs, at least not for too long, whereas second tier types and journeymen might end up hanging out in a range for two or three years.

Take Borna Coric, for instance. He got stuck in the 30-50 range for three years. It is very rare for players like that to then jump to elite status; usually they either remain journeymen types or eventually jump to second tier; it would seem Coric is doing the latter.

This is not to say that Coric cannot still win a Slam, just because he was stuck in the 40s for three years in a row. It is more that his career pattern thus far shows more of a future second tier player, not a true elite (top 5 Slam winner).

But the inspiration was mostly about trying to understand why someone like FAA seemingly puts it all together like he has, or why Tsitsipas jumped from #91 to #15 in just a year, or, on the other hand, why someone like Coric stalls out for a few years.

 

[Moxie]

I get you now. You're not really asking what makes a "breakthrough," as much as what are the measures of progress, for young/or not-so-young players, and how do we measure these moments, as a young player passes them. I think I get this now. A lot to think about, but I'll get back to you.

 

[El Dude]

I get you now. You're not really asking what makes a "breakthrough," as much as what are the measures of progress, for young/or not-so-young players, and how do we measure these moments, as a young player passes them. I think I get this now. A lot to think about, but I'll get back to you.

Well, its both. The thread was inspired by wondering why FAA is doing what he's doing. What are the factors in a breakthrough? What is different about the same player at #150 one year, #50 the next, and #15 in the third year? What changes generally happen within a player's game? How much of it is actual skill development vs. consistency vs. mentality? Etc.

Denis Shapovalov is an interesting test case. He's shown flashes of brilliance since he upset Rafa a few years ago at Canada, at the tender age of 18. He went from #250 at the end of 2016 to #51 at the end of 2017. But he hasn't substantially improved his ranking since, fluctuating in the 20s-40s and still not winning an ATP title. Some of that is consolidation, but it also just doesn't seem like he's taking that next step. Presumably he will, at least to the top 10...but what needs to happen? What separates a talented 18 year old beating a resurgent GOAT candidate from being a perennial champion?

 

[Federberg]

A steady improvement from Shapo is sufficient for now. Not everyone can be a Rafa or Becker. He is only 19. If by the end of this year he still hasn't won anything then we can focus on him more intently. Unless he gets himself to a final or two or even the last 4 of a slam. There are many ways to progress. To be perfectly honest the new paradigm of late progression makes me less concerned about young players generally, but people like Shapo (and Coric as another example) who have taken out the very top players? They've already shown me something extremely important... ability. The rest is at least as important... application, hard work etc, but we already know they have something

 

[Moxie]

A steady improvement from Shapo is sufficient for now. Not everyone can be a Rafa or Becker. He is only 19. If by the end of this year he still hasn't won anything then we can focus on him more intently. Unless he gets himself to a final or two or even the last 4 of a slam. There are many ways to progress. To be perfectly honest the new paradigm of late progression makes me less concerned about young players generally, but people like Shapo (and Coric as another example) who have taken out the very top players? They've already shown me something extremely important... ability. The rest is at least as important... application, hard work etc, but we already know they have something

I think this is right...give him a little time. I think he's maturing. His look is less messy and so is his game, but he still has crazy youthful enthusiasm. You don't want to break the kid's spirit, but you have to bridle that game a bit.

 

[Moxie]

Well, its both. The thread was inspired by wondering why FAA is doing what he's doing. What are the factors in a breakthrough? What is different about the same player at #150 one year, #50 the next, and #15 in the third year? What changes generally happen within a player's game? How much of it is actual skill development vs. consistency vs. mentality? Etc.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for FAA the the otherwise youngsters. Having given it a lot of thought, I don't know how to further quantify what it takes to judge the path of a talented young player, especially in this era. They're all up against all-time greats, however aging. I was thinking maturity and mentality. I believe early mental maturity worked for Nadal. But Federberg mentioned Becker, who has never been mature. I think his point that they display "ability" early on is the most important. From there, we just wait.

 

[El Dude]

That makes a lot of sense, @Federberg. What I am not sure about, though, is whether this new paradigm holds true for great players because we haven't seen a truly great young player since Novak and Andy. The first real candidate has been Alexander Zverev, who is just now the age at which great players tend to become truly great. He turns 22 next month; that would be the equivalent year as 2009 for Novak and Andy, 2008 for Rafa, 2003 for Roger. As you know well, 2003 was the first year Roger won a Slam.

The late progression for the "Lost Gen" players has pretty much been answered by them just not being all that talented. None of Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, etc, have turned out to be greats or even really elites. But the younger generation is more talented and probably is a better test case for the veracy of "late progression theory."

 

[El Dude]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for FAA the the otherwise youngsters. Having given it a lot of thought, I don't know how to further quantify what it takes to judge the path of a talented young player, especially in this era. They're all up against all-time greats, however aging. I was thinking maturity and mentality. I believe early mental maturity worked for Nadal. But Federberg mentioned Becker, who has never been mature. I think his point that they display "ability" early on is the most important. From there, we just wait.

Yes, agreed. Maybe I'll put some research into very young players beating greats in their prime--like Shapo beating Rafa in 2017--to see how many of them went on to become elite players or not. I don't reckon many 18-year olds beat great players unless they themselves become at least elite.

 

[El Dude]

OK, I did some quick research on teenagers who beat Roger, Rafa, and Novak while they were in prime years, which I am defining as their first year winning a Slam (so, 2003, 2005, and 2008, respectively). Here are the players who beat them as teenagers:

FEDERER
Alexander Zverev (19)
Andy Murray (19)
Rafael Nadal x6 (4x19, 18, 17)
Richard Gasquet (18)
Tomas Berdych (18)

NADAL
Denis Shapovalov (18)
Borna Coric x2 (19, 17)
Nick Kyrgios (19)

DJOKOVIC
Filip Krajinovic (19)

Hopefully I didn't miss anyone. As you can see, they are all pretty short lists, with only one "no-name" players in Krajinovic. Roger has more because he had to deal with a teenage Rafa and Andy...Novak didn't beat him until after turning 20, in 2007. Berdych and Gasquet both became very good players, although both are sometimes considered disappointments. Rafa is obvious a GOAT caliber player, and it is too soon to say with Zverev, but he's at least a borderline elite: already with as many big titles as Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga combined before turning 22.

Both Rafa and Novak benefited from having the very weak "LostGen" come up after them. Rafa's victors are all talented "nextGen" players.

Krajinovic is the outlier, although he's a bit of a dangerous floater and could be a late-bloomer. He reached the Paris Masters final a couple years ago, losing to Jack Sock, and reached as high as #26 last year but has struggled with injuries.

I suppose the bottom line is that beating a great player as a teenager is a good indicator for at least being a top 10 player. Everyone on that list has either been top 10, will probably be top 10 at some point (Coric, Kyrgios, Shapo), except for probably Krajinovic - but he's a bit enigmatic, so who knows.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, agreed. Maybe I'll put some research into very young players beating greats in their prime--like Shapo beating Rafa in 2017--to see how many of them went on to become elite players or not. I don't reckon many 18-year olds beat great players unless they themselves become at least elite.

Here's an example: Gasquet beat Roger in MC when he was 18. And Gasquet was pegged for greatness. As was Dimitrov. I think you're looking for some reassurance that FAA will be the The One, or for some formula the explains how it's done. There is none.

 

[El Dude]

Here's an example: Gasquet beat Roger in MC when he was 18. And Gasquet was pegged for greatness. As was Dimitrov. I think you're looking for some reassurance that FAA will be the The One, or for some formula the explains how it's done. There is none.

That's not what I'm doing at all, actually -- never even crossed my mind until you said it. And FAA doesn't even count, as he hasn't beaten a great player...yet.

I'm merely curious about the dynamics of breakthroughs, development, etc.

 

[Moxie]

That's not what I'm doing at all, actually -- never even crossed my mind until you said it. And FAA doesn't even count, as he hasn't beaten a great player...yet.

I'm merely curious about the dynamics of breakthroughs, development, etc.

Alright, fine. I've offered what I can. I have been having a hard time trying to figure out what you're trying to figure out with this one, so I'll leave you to it, now.