[BLOG] Looking for the Next Great Player - *UPDATED* - now with Parts One & Two

[El Dude]

I've got a new blog series up - don't worry, this one is only in two parts! Anyhow, take a look. It is a long one and probably only of interest for those who are into my thought process on this sort of inquiry, but hopefully some of you will find it worth the slog .

Part One is mainly an inquiry into what is greatness, how do we separate the "true greats" from everyone else, and what are the benchmarks that all great players historically meet on their way to the top.

Part Two will bring everything together the findings in Part One and discuss actual candidates, including a look at "failed greats" and my take on who the best candidates for greatness are. The second part will be up next week, and I'll post the link in this thread, rather than start a new one.

Part One: The Pace of Greatness
Part Two: Candidates of Greatness

 

[Riotbeard]

RE: [BLOG] Looking for the Next Great Player - Part One

Great post dude! You found some really interesting patterns. I am curious to see where the next one goes.

 

[El Dude]

RE: [BLOG] Looking for the Next Great Player - Part One

OK, I know you've all been waiting for it. Here's part two.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/el-dude/looking-for-the-next-great-player-part-two-candidates-of-greatness/

 

[Riotbeard]

OK, I know you've all been waiting for it. Here's part two.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/el-dude/looking-for-the-next-great-player-part-two-candidates-of-greatness/

Great work again. It's nice to be able to have a well-reasoned and logical optimism toward the youngsters! Unlike the previous generation, they seem to be progressing at a nice pace. The one problem with Fritz and Zverev is their size makes them, like delpo, seeming more vulnerable to injury, although Delpo's have had nothing to do with movement...

 

[Kieran]

Great post, Dude. And an interesting way of looking at things. Courier was one of those boys who was mentally maxing out, I thin, in winning the big titles he won and in getting to #1. Gruelling game he had. Then Pete rose above him and he sort of gave in. Kafelnikov and Rafter are two who came later and who might have been great, but in kafelnikov's case I think the old Russian mentality of chasing dollars worked against him. The bloke played a ridiculous amount of meaningless tournaments and arrived at slams wasted and burnt out. He might have won more than 2 otherwise, I think...

 

[Fiero425]

Great post, Dude. And an interesting way of looking at things. Courier was one of those boys who was mentally maxing out, I think, in winning the big titles he won and in getting to #1. Grueling game he had. Then Pete rose above him and he sort of gave in. Kafelnikov and Rafter are two who came later and who might have been great, but in Kafelnikov's case I think the old Russian mentality of chasing dollars worked against him. The bloke played a ridiculous amount of meaningless tournaments and arrived at slams wasted and burnt out. He might have won more than 2 otherwise, I think...

That was the problem with some players; esp. Davydenko! Being a money HO only hurts up and coming players! He looked older than me during his prime and I was twice his age! Courier definitely worked harder than necessary to win matches; on par with Agassi and Nadal! He needed to take a "chill pill" in my opinion; so hyped up, but his ego was bigger than his game! He still uses terms like Edberg "his pigeon" where Edberg got the most out of his game; winning 6 majors that he never came close to in his career! Interesting write-up; Chang I couldn't put in this category since he had no real weapon! He got the most out of his game as well; probably overachieved, but no way near the talent and ability of these other great players! He was a poor man's Wilander who just dug deep to outlast his opponents; that isn't going to do it for you then or now! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Great Hands]

great stuff dude.

i really like zverev. hope he can stay healthy. haven't seen much of frtiz.

as an murray fan, i havet o add this:

'Andy is known for his ...penchant for falling apart in tight matches...'

I would add 'against fedavllic'. andy's overall record in tight matches/big matches/compettive matches/5 setters etc against anyone not named fedalvoic is absotuely outsntading and extraordianry. he's virtaully never lost a big match at grand slam or masters level to anyone other than fedalovic.i checked this a while back, but i beleive of all andy;'s nuermous grnad slam sfs and fs, he's only ever lost one to someone other than febalovic once - roddick in wdsf09. and at masters level the same thing, only one sf or f loss to someone opther than fedalvoic at masters level in his entire career. i would aruge that murray being on the 'path of greatness' and then gettign 'stuck' behind fedalvic is bevause they are better players than him, not bevaue of his mentality. they are more talented than he is, oeverall. he can beat them when they're not a ttheir best, but not when they're at their best. his feisty perfectionism can be apparent in his matches agaisnt all the playrs out there [- in fact he plays well after he's got angry just as often as he doesn't -] but it never stops him winning. why should it sudenly do so against fedalvoic? that 's not logical. no, it's because they're better than him. they may weel be regarded as teh three greatest players of the open era once their careers are through. the fact that andy was in line with the pact of greatenss - say becker/edberg level greteness - only to be stopped almost exlcuevley by 3 of the greatest players who ever lived says to me that he is the unluckeist 'faield great'. no other player has had three players of the calibre of fedabl;ovic to complete with for greatness, especially when you also consider the fact that, as i say, he's been stopped aomost ezxcleuvely by those three players alone for his entire career, whilst being significantly better than anyone else for most of his career.]

 

[the AntiPusher]

Great post, Dude. And an interesting way of looking at things. Courier was one of those boys who was mentally maxing out, I thin, in winning the big titles he won and in getting to #1. Gruelling game he had. Then Pete rose above him and he sort of gave in. Kafelnikov and Rafter are two who came later and who might have been great, but in kafelnikov's case I think the old Russian mentality of chasing dollars worked against him. The bloke played a ridiculous amount of meaningless tournaments and arrived at slams wasted and burnt out. He might have won more than 2 otherwise, I think...

Kafelnikov Russian name was more fierce than he was as a competitor. He was no Marat Safin

 

[Fiero425]

Great post, Dude. And an interesting way of looking at things. Courier was one of those boys who was mentally maxing out, I thin, in winning the big titles he won and in getting to #1. Gruelling game he had. Then Pete rose above him and he sort of gave in. Kafelnikov and Rafter are two who came later and who might have been great, but in kafelnikov's case I think the old Russian mentality of chasing dollars worked against him. The bloke played a ridiculous amount of meaningless tournaments and arrived at slams wasted and burnt out. He might have won more than 2 otherwise, I think...

Kafelnikov Russian name was more fierce than he was as a competitor. He was no Marat Safin

Probably a better "poker" player since that's what he ended up doing after retirement! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

OK, I know you've all been waiting for it. Here's part two.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/el-dude/looking-for-the-next-great-player-part-two-candidates-of-greatness/

Great work again. It's nice to be able to have a well-reasoned and logical optimism toward the youngsters! Unlike the previous generation, they seem to be progressing at a nice pace. The one problem with Fritz and Zverev is their size makes them, like delpo, seeming more vulnerable to injury, although Delpo's have had nothing to do with movement...

Thanks. Yeah, the least we can say is that the 94-98 generation, or 93-98 if we include Thiem, is far more talented than the 89-93 group. Beyond that, it is too early to say. But if my suspicion of history repeating itself is correct, and that 89-93 is like 39-43 and 94-98 is like 44-48, then the younger generation will see several "near-greats" and maybe one "kinda great," but no GOAT candidates. It certainly would be interesting to see an era in which we have several multi-Slam winners but no clear dominant player.

Great post, Dude. And an interesting way of looking at things. Courier was one of those boys who was mentally maxing out, I thin, in winning the big titles he won and in getting to #1. Gruelling game he had. Then Pete rose above him and he sort of gave in. Kafelnikov and Rafter are two who came later and who might have been great, but in kafelnikov's case I think the old Russian mentality of chasing dollars worked against him. The bloke played a ridiculous amount of meaningless tournaments and arrived at slams wasted and burnt out. He might have won more than 2 otherwise, I think...

Good stuff. As I was such a casual fan back then, my only real memory of Courier is that a friend liked to boast how he used to play with Courier and Capriati. Anyhow, Courier took advantage of the fact that Lendl was declining and Edberg and Becker were slipping a bit, Agassi was a head-case, and Sampras hadn't quite find his peak form. When Pete did, that was it for Jim - at least as a top player. He did a bit of a Hewitt.

 

[herios]

El Dude

I highly appreciate your hard work, it is tremendous what you do.
I am just a nitpicky guy and I will give you a suggestion. I observed, when you are referring to a player ranking, the LIVE ranking at that moment you are checking it. That is IMO incorrect, because many times that will be changed the following days until the next Monday when the ranking is released.
For example, Taylor Fritz you say is ranked 68, he never was yet there, his highest is 69.
Similarly Zverev has not been yet #50, his current highest is 51, next will he will be breaking in the top 50.
The LIVE ranking is not official.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, good point herios. I get lazy sometimes, or in that case, forgetful. I won't bother correcting this one, but will remember on the next go around. Thanks.

 

[Fiero425]

El Dude

I highly appreciate your hard work, it is tremendous what you do.
I am just a nitpicky guy and I will give you a suggestion. I observed, when you are referring to a player ranking, the LIVE ranking at that moment you are checking it. That is IMO incorrect, because many times that will be changed the following days until the next Monday when the ranking is released.
For example, Taylor Fritz you say is ranked 68, he never was yet there, his highest is 69.
Similarly Zverev has not been yet #50, his current highest is 51, next will he will be breaking in the top 50.
The LIVE ranking is not official.

Well those rankings changed already; Zverev just crossed the 50 and is at #47 IIRC! Like you said, it's notpicky! uzzled :snicker

 

[herios]

El Dude

I highly appreciate your hard work, it is tremendous what you do.
I am just a nitpicky guy and I will give you a suggestion. I observed, when you are referring to a player ranking, the LIVE ranking at that moment you are checking it. That is IMO incorrect, because many times that will be changed the following days until the next Monday when the ranking is released.
For example, Taylor Fritz you say is ranked 68, he never was yet there, his highest is 69.
Similarly Zverev has not been yet #50, his current highest is 51, next will he will be breaking in the top 50.
The LIVE ranking is not official.

Well those rankings changed already; Zverev just crossed the 50 and is at #47 IIRC! Like you said, it's notpicky! uzzled :snicker

Zverev is 49, that is official. 47 is LIVE and that is not official.
This is NITPICKY for ya
:lolz:

 

[herios]

Kyrgios turned 21. He has missed one more milestone.
Frankly I do not see him a future great player (6+ slams), the most I would give him is 3-4 slams and that is very optimistic.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I agree. I actually started writing a piece on him, but looking at benchmarks he has reached. More soon.

I think we might enter a phase where several players--Kyrgios, Zverev, Fritz, maybe one or two others--win 2-4 Slams each, with maybe one of them emerging as a 5-6+ Slam guy, and then a bunch of guys 1 Slam each.

But it also may be that the next 6+ Slam player isn't even on the map, or is very young.

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, I agree. I actually started writing a piece on him, but looking at benchmarks he has reached. More soon.

He still has time! Other players have made a career out of one big win; he has several! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

Of course he has time, he just turned 21 and he's #20 in the world. I just agree with herios that he isn't a future 6+ Slam winner, more like 2-3.