Era of the Big Four is Over

[Andy22]

I do not think they will ever be another big 4 like the current one, but if where it would most likely be thiem, kyrgios Sasha, Chung.

 

[atttomole]

I didn't mean to leave Chung out, and I've actually been an early champion of his. I just see that Sasha and Nick have played each other a few times now and they're already sort of stars enough that much seems at stake. I'm not ready to call out the next big 4, or whatever. I just see that particular pairing has having rivalry potential.

Yes, I do remember you mentioned Hyeon Chung before most of us knew about him.

 

[Federberg]

I'm a huge fan of Chung. Of the up and comers, Chung, Kyrgios, Zverev, Shapovalov, I think Chung has the least to do to be consistently strong. That's not to say the others cannot win big before him. But I feel the most confidence in his ability to be there or thereabouts most frequently. Still think Shapo will be the one in the end. Something about him

 

[atttomole]

I'm a huge fan of Chung. Of the up and comers, Chung, Kyrgios, Zverev, Shapovalov, I think Chung has the least to do to be consistently strong. That's not to say the others cannot win big before him. But I feel the most confidence in his ability to be there or thereabouts most frequently. Still think Shapo will be the one in the end. Something about him

Shapovalov will be in the mix too. I watched him for the first time yesterday and I was impressed. He oozes confidence, but he will have to get rid of the swagger to reduce pressure on himself.

 

[Federberg]

Shapovalov will be in the mix too. I watched him for the first time yesterday and I was impressed. He oozes confidence, but he will have to get rid of the swagger to reduce pressure on himself.

Yes agreed. He's very young. His game is so big, it feels like he doesn't have full control of it yet. But man he can fight. In my mind I see bits of Roger about him with the flash, but bits of Rafa as well with the fight

 

[Andy22]

Isner was on fire today in beating Chung in straight sets,Isner a very unrated player he's really good.

 

[El Dude]

Shapo definitely seems to have the highest upside of the Next Genners. Too soon to say with FAA.

Too bad about Chung. I just assumed he'd get past Isner.

 

[Moxie]

Shapo definitely seems to have the highest upside of the Next Genners. Too soon to say with FAA.

Too bad about Chung. I just assumed he'd get past Isner.

I really wanted him to win that match, too.

 

[Front242]

I like Chung but feel he was overrated and hyped a bit too much since beating Djokovic at the AO given that Djokovic really wasn't very good that day and was mostly pushing the ball meekly all match. His movement is great but either this surface is playing too fast for him or his ROS really isn't enough to beat guys like Isner.

 

[Andy22]

I like Chung but feel he was overrated and hyped a bit too much since beating Djokovic at the AO given that Djokovic really wasn't very good that day and was mostly pushing the ball meekly all match. His movement is great but either this surface is playing too fast for him or his ROS really isn't enough to beat guys like Isner.

I agree, way over hyped.

 

[Federberg]

I like Chung but feel he was overrated and hyped a bit too much since beating Djokovic at the AO given that Djokovic really wasn't very good that day and was mostly pushing the ball meekly all match. His movement is great but either this surface is playing too fast for him or his ROS really isn't enough to beat guys like Isner.

What was odd about the match was that he was getting into rallies on Isner's serve. Isner played better than I remember seeing him. He really was crushing his ground strokes. The problem for Chung, it seemed to me, was that he simply didn't know how to play him. You've got to get the big guy moving and he wasn't able to do that. My conclusion was that it was inexperience. He'll no doubt go back and look at the tapes with his team and work out a plan.

 

[El Dude]

I like Chung but feel he was overrated and hyped a bit too much since beating Djokovic at the AO given that Djokovic really wasn't very good that day and was mostly pushing the ball meekly all match. His movement is great but either this surface is playing too fast for him or his ROS really isn't enough to beat guys like Isner.

I agree that he is being a bit over-hyped. I do think he'll reach the top 10, but right now I see someone who is more future second tier, not elite. That said, given the era we're moving into, his chances of winning big are better than the second tier players of the past decade (e.g. Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer).

 

[Andy22]

Well that's why dimitrov who I'm pretty big on, is interesting in that he's could be a another big four victim or if he stays around long enough near the top he could get lucky and get one of these slams.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that he is being a bit over-hyped. I do think he'll reach the top 10, but right now I see someone who is more future second tier, not elite. That said, given the era we're moving into, his chances of winning big are better than the second tier players of the past decade (e.g. Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer).

I don't know that he's necessarily OVER-hyped. He's a young guy who looks to be in the mix. Front mentions the win over Djokovic, and I agree with him that Novak was there to be picked off. But Chung won the NextGen tourney impressively. He seems to have a good head and work ethic. Maybe he will have a career more like Berdy, Ferrer, Tsonga, but that's not a terrible thing, and why we've got our eyes on him. Personally, I'm not just interested in identifying the next future Hall of Famer, but also the up-and-comers who are going to round out the top 10-20. (Which I think you're interested in, too, btw. I had to choose one post to respond to, so I picked yours.) They can't all end up being elite, right? By the same token, some of the brighter lights may turn out to be "duds," rather in the way of Dimitrov. I know I'm harsh on him, but he seemed to have all the talent, just not the right mindset to best capitalize.

 

[herios]

I don't know that he's necessarily OVER-hyped. He's a young guy who looks to be in the mix. Front mentions the win over Djokovic, and I agree with him that Novak was there to be picked off. But Chung won the NextGen tourney impressively. He seems to have a good head and work ethic. Maybe he will have a career more like Berdy, Ferrer, Tsonga, but that's not a terrible thing, and why we've got our eyes on him. Personally, I'm not just interested in identifying the next future Hall of Famer, but also the up-and-comers who are going to round out the top 10-20. (Which I think you're interested in, too, btw. I had to choose one post to respond to, so I picked yours.) They can't all end up being elite, right? By the same token, some of the brighter lights may turn out to be "duds," rather in the way of Dimitrov. I know I'm harsh on him, but he seemed to have all the talent, just not the right mindset to best capitalize.

I am on the same page as you .I cannot recall anywhere reading Chung to be the next big thing .
Frankly, why people are seeking for the next dominant player anyway?
Nobody knows who will emerge in the top.
And why now that Chung lost, suddenly we are coming out like gangbusters to say that he was overhyped? Wasn't Isner the higher ranked player, a fixture in the top 20, where Chung has never been until now?

 

[Moxie]

I am on the same page as you .I cannot recall anywhere reading Chung to be the next big thing .
Frankly, why people are seeking for the next dominant player anyway?
Nobody knows who will emerge in the top.
And why now that Chung lost, suddenly we are coming out like gangbusters to say that he was overhyped? Wasn't Isner the higher ranked player, a fixture in the top 20, where Chung has never been until now?

Imo, you're totally right. As to looking for the next dominant player, or maybe "group of greats," I'd say because it's irresistible. What we're most hoping is there's not a talent and personality vacuum once Fedal and the Big 4 are gone. Who can blame us?

 

[El Dude]

You folks are making too much of my remark. Chung is fine, I just think the "next Djokovic" comments are a bit over the top, and some here have been talking about him like he's a future elite. I think he'll be very good, but I'm just questioning how good. Me saying he'll be a future second tier is by no means a bad thing - that's a top 10 player.

 

[Moxie]

Please note that I didn't mean you, which I said.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, sorry - didn't mean to be defensive.

I like what you said about looking for the next greats being "irresistible." I don't as much mind a power vacuum as I am just damn curious. For me it is just exciting thinking about what the next configuration is going to be. It is like an ever-changing power dynamic, and the Big Four, in one form or fashion, have dominated the ATP for 15 years, and it is exciting that their reign is beginning to crumble. What and who will emerge, and how will it come about? Of course we cannot know for sure, but it is a lot of fun speculating about it.

 

[Moxie]

We're all curious. And I think we're all looking for the next "greats." But we're used to grading on a really high curve. (See your graph above.) We forget that 2-3 Majors puts you on a very short list and into the HOF. I'm going to put Kokkinakis back into the mix, and not just because he beat Roger. 2 years ago, at 19, he looked like he had real potential. If the injuries are behind him, I think he'll also be a top player. Not necessarily "elite." But, as I said above, I think that all of these guys we're listing will be solidly top 10-20 in the next year or two. It's hard to saw who will rise to the top, though, and who will tend to just spoil. I think they're all destined for good careers, though.