Next new Major winner

[Moxie]

Someday, someone other than the Big 4, Stan, and Delpo/Cilic will win a Major. Who do you think the first next one will be? When? This is a multiply-answer poll. You can vote for more than one, and we'll see who's favored, by the most votes.

 

[britbox]

I voted Zverev.

 

[Moxie]

I voted Zverev.

Oh, yes, oops, and I misspelled his name. I'm so sure he's a great bet. But it may be another year coming, and someone like Thiem or Kyrgios might get in in front of him.

 

[Federberg]

I voted Thiem, but I could easily have picked any of the others, apart from Dimitrov. I think Goffin would have been a better alternative to Dimi to be honest

 

[mrzz]

The most logical answer is Raonic... but the last two new winners came out of the blue so I went for "other".

 

[Moxie]

I voted Thiem, but I could easily have picked any of the others, apart from Dimitrov. I think Goffin would have been a better alternative to Dimi to be honest

I have no faith in Dimitrov, so I hear you, but, while I like Goffin, I think he's too slight to go the distance at a Major and take out big guys.

 

[Denis]

Raonic has Kraijicek as a coach now. Despite this, I voted for him. I also voted for other.

 

[britbox]

The main reason I went for Zverev was because he's the only guy I'm 100% convinced will win a major. I think there are others that are highly probable (i.e. Thiem)... and guys who have the tools (i.e. Kyrgios) but I'm not 100% on any of them except Sascha.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/02/07/heres-next-big-four-mens-tennis/

 

[isabelle]

I voted Zverev.

same for me

 

[atttomole]

I am torn between Zverev and Dimitrov, and I voted Dimtrov.

 

[mrzz]

Even if I am a long time supporter/defender/believer/whatever of Dimitrov, when I saw this thread/poll again, I thought "whatever it is, I need to change my vote". Then I found out that I already voted for "other". Apart from "other", is there something even more "other", like, for example "otherer"?

 

[El Dude]

It is a tricky question to answer. If I were to change it slightly to, "who among these players is most likely to win a Slam?" it would be Zverev, hands down. But emphasis on next? I think any of Raonic, Thiem and Dimitrov are more likely this year.

Here's an article I wrote about two months ago. This was before Grigor won Brisbane and made it to the AO SF, so I'd definitely include him now. But with Roger and Rafa resurgent, I think the chances of a new Slam winner in 2017 are far less likely then they were a couple months ago.

 

[El Dude]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/02/07/heres-next-big-four-mens-tennis/

Fun little speculative article, but comparing those four to the Big Four is like comparing Thomas Enqvist to Bjorn Borg, because both were the most talented Swedes in their respective eras.

I think also that it is unlikely that four players will utterly dominate for a significant span of time, that the talent is more gradual, without the huge-drop off that we've seen with the Big Four (plus Stan the last few years). Maybe Dimitrov, Thiem, Kyrgios, and Zverev are the most talented among players age 19-25 (or 26, as Grigor's birthday is in a few months), but there are a dozen other players in that age range that will challenge them - not to speak of Kei and Milos.

I've said this before, but I think we're entering an era not unlike the late 90s, with slowly fading greats mixed in with a weak prime generation, and a more talented younger generation starting to make some noise. It isn't an exact comp, but somewhat similar.

 

[Moxie]

Fun little speculative article, but comparing those four to the Big Four is like comparing Thomas Enqvist to Bjorn Borg, because both were the most talented Swedes in their respective eras.

I think also that it is unlikely that four players will utterly dominate for a significant span of time, that the talent is more gradual, without the huge-drop off that we've seen with the Big Four (plus Stan the last few years). Maybe Dimitrov, Thiem, Kyrgios, and Zverev are the most talented among players age 19-25 (or 26, as Grigor's birthday is in a few months), but there are a dozen other players in that age range that will challenge them - not to speak of Kei and Milos.

I've said this before, but I think we're entering an era not unlike the late 90s, with slowly fading greats mixed in with a weak prime generation, and a more talented younger generation starting to make some noise. It isn't an exact comp, but somewhat similar.

I rather agree. While I admire the writer's chutzpah for shouting out a (possible) New Big Four, it seems improbable. There are so likely to be others in the mix, anyway. I'm on the Zverev train, too, even though he's the youngest of those 4, which makes him a bigger gamble, but he's got a lot of game, a lot of ambition, and he seems in it for the long haul. Thiem, while solid, isn't especially inspiring. I think he'll get a RG, when his betters move on, anyway. Dimitrov...still been waiting for that train to come in for some time. The real thriller in the bunch is Kyrgios, but who knows what he'll make of his career. He might just toss off a couple of Majors without hardly thinking of it, or he could also be the biggest waste of talent since Nalbandian and Rios. If he had the head and commitment of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, I think he could have been their successor. He has a lot of talent, but he has wasted a lot of time being a mess. The good news is he's in conversations with coaches.

 

[El Dude]

Thiem will probably be the contemporary version of the clay court specialists of the 90s-00s: Bruguera, Moya, Costa, Coria. He might win a Slam or two, but it only (or mainly) be because Rafa and Novak are waning when he's peaking.

Kyrgios, to me, looks like he'll slot nicely in the Philippoussis category: big serve, big weapons, not the mentality. Maybe if he's lucky, he'll up it a notch and have a Krajicek or Ivanisevic type career. Best case scenario is slim, but possible: he gets his head together a bit and is an elite player for a few years, winning a few Slams and Masters.

Dimitrov has the full package, but is getting his act together at a relatively late date. It is crazy to think, but he's going to be 26 in a few months. That's the age Roger turning in 2007, his last peak season. Maybe he has a nice next 3-4 years where he wins a Slam or two and several Masters, but it is also very possible he only gets one Masters and always finds some way to miss a Slam...

Zverev seems like the closest thing to a sure thing among all players born 1988 and later. Barring injury (which is possible, given his height), it is only a matter of when. As I said, I don't think he wins a Slam this year, but could next year. Certainly no later than 2019. Now whether he wins 3-5 Slams or 6+ depends upon how the rest of his generation pans out.

 

[Moxie]

Thiem will probably be the contemporary version of the clay court specialists of the 90s-00s: Bruguera, Moya, Costa, Coria. He might win a Slam or two, but it only (or mainly) be because Rafa and Novak are waning when he's peaking.

Kyrgios, to me, looks like he'll slot nicely in the Philippoussis category: big serve, big weapons, not the mentality. Maybe if he's lucky, he'll up it a notch and have a Krajicek or Ivanisevic type career. Best case scenario is slim, but possible: he gets his head together a bit and is an elite player for a few years, winning a few Slams and Masters.

Dimitrov has the full package, but is getting his act together at a relatively late date. It is crazy to think, but he's going to be 26 in a few months. That's the age Roger turning in 2007, his last peak season. Maybe he has a nice next 3-4 years where he wins a Slam or two and several Masters, but it is also very possible he only gets one Masters and always finds some way to miss a Slam...

Zverev seems like the closest thing to a sure thing among all players born 1988 and later. Barring injury (which is possible, given his height), it is only a matter of when. As I said, I don't think he wins a Slam this year, but could next year. Certainly no later than 2019. Now whether he wins 3-5 Slams or 6+ depends upon how the rest of his generation pans out.

Just two things: Calling Dimitrov the "full package" is a tired cliche of him, and rather betrays your preference for Fed. Sure, an elegant set of shots, but not so much "weapons." Or at least not as deployed by him. Maybe he'll yet have something to say for himself, but he needs to pull his head together, and he needs real champions to get out of his way. As you say, he's coming up on 26, and lots of other players will be in the muck with him soon enough.

Secondly: Kyrgios no more than a Philippoussis? I think he's got a lot more game than that, if he can pull his head together, which is the big unknown. And he's got a bit of time. I can see where your style preferences lie, though.

 

[El Dude]

Hmm...I think you are a bit suspicious, Moxie:scratch:. I call Dimitrov the "full package" in that he seems to have a relatively complete game - like most multi-Slam winners To be more than a one-Slam wonder, a player either has two have a strong specialization on a specific court (Kuerten) or be multi-dimensional, with a diverse game and variety of weapons. But I agree, that he doesn't quite have that extra bit of firepower, or the ability to deploy them properly.

As for Philippoussis, I'm not sure about the style preference comment as he is quite different from Federer - certainly far more one-dimensional. Kyrgios has the ability to be more, but also could be similar if he doesn't care to broaden his approach rather than just hammering away. I was also thinking of the ethnic similarity - an Australian of Greek heritage. But when I look at Kyrgios, I see a player who could be another Wawrinka, although peaking earlier and therefore possibly winning more titles, or someone like a Philippoussis - dangerous, but disappointing. Maybe Safin is a possible variant?

 

[Moxie]

Hmm...I think you are a bit suspicious, Moxie:scratch:. I call Dimitrov the "full package" in that he seems to have a relatively complete game - like most multi-Slam winners To be more than a one-Slam wonder, a player either has two have a strong specialization on a specific court (Kuerten) or be multi-dimensional, with a diverse game and variety of weapons. But I agree, that he doesn't quite have that extra bit of firepower, or the ability to deploy them properly.

As for Philippoussis, I'm not sure about the style preference comment as he is quite different from Federer - certainly far more one-dimensional. Kyrgios has the ability to be more, but also could be similar if he doesn't care to broaden his approach rather than just hammering away. I was also thinking of the ethnic similarity - an Australian of Greek heritage. But when I look at Kyrgios, I see a player who could be another Wawrinka, although peaking earlier and therefore possibly winning more titles, or someone like a Philippoussis - dangerous, but disappointing. Maybe Safin is a possible variant?

Not suspicious, Dude, just digging into your stereotypes. Dimitrov is the forever "next-best-thing." We've been waiting for him to up-and-come for about 7-8 years now. If the post Big 4 Era is like the late 90s, sure, he'll probably have his moment in the sun. As will a lot of people. But I have no faith in his heart for the kill, I guess is where I land. There are a few obvious examples when he should have stepped on Federer's and Nadal's necks and couldn't do it. If you can't kill them elders, you'll wait for them to die off and hope to pick up the crumbs. That's how I see Dimitrov.

The style comment re: Kyrgios...that's the point. He's a lot different from Fed, and not to your liking, I take it. But he's not nearly as one-dimensional as Philippousis. He's way more than a big serve. He's got a wicked live arm, off both wings. Safin and Wawrinka are better comparisons.

 

[Federberg]

I'm a bit more willing to give Dimi a chance I think. When you consider that Federer was effectively a later starter than Rafa and even Novak and Murray it gives one a clue into the difficulties that a player with Dimi's skill set would have. Add that to the celebrity thing and his career becomes a bit more understandable. But he really has to show that his performance ytd is no outlier. This has to be who he really is now.

Now Zverev... he's a different beastie all together. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets entrenched into the top 10 by the end of this year. We just might be looking at the guy that bullies the Big 3 into retirement. Just a little more variety in his game and he'll be more than a handful