Pace of Greatness

[El Dude]

A couple years ago I wrote a blog article about the “Pace of Greatness” - that is, a certain pattern of benchmarks that all 6+ Slam winners in the Open Era have followed. @Carlg asked me to locate this article, and I decided to just write a shorter updated version, with an eye towards looking at the current young players on tour.

First, the benchmarks:

Age 18 (before 19th birthday): Top 100
Age 19: Top 50
Age 20: Top 10; first ATP title; first big title; first Slam QF
Age 21: Top 5
Age 24: #1, first Slam title

​

In chronological birth order order, here are the players who met every benchmark, with 6+ Slam winners in bold: Jimmy Connors*, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Marat Safin, Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic.

*ATP rankings didn't begin until Connors was 21 years old, so we don't have data on when he reached the top 100 or top 50, but he met the rest of the benchmarks so I'm including him.

Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Murray just missed the cut with one benchmark missed by a single year (or months). Hewitt didn't win his first big title until age 21, and Murray his first Slam until age 25.

As you can see, 15 players in all reached every benchmarks, and 12 of 15 won at least 6 Slams and thus are “true greats.” That's an 80% conversion rate, which means that if you reach every benchmark then chances are you are going to win 6+ Slams.

Still Eligible (with at least one benchmark):

Juan Martin del Potro – hasn't yet been #1, but has met every other benchmark.
Alexander Zverev – hasn't reached #1, a Slam QF, or won a Slam. If he doesn't reach the Australian Open QF, he will miss that benchmark as he turns 21 in April of 2018.
Frances Tiafoe reached the top 100 at age 18 but hasn't yet met any other benchmarks.
Denis Shapovalov was #49 at age 18 so has reached the first two benchmarks.​

Other NextGenners:

Andrey Rublev met three benchmarks--top 50, first title and first Slam QF—but didn't reach the top 100 until age 19, so missed the very first benchmark.
Taylor Fritz reached the top 100 at age 18 but fell back and did not reach the top 50 at age 19; he's 20.
Borna Coric reaches his age 18-19 benchmarks, but just turned 21 and thus missed all four age 20 benchmarks.
Stefanos Tsitsipas reached the top 100 a couple months after his 19th birthday, so just missed the first benchmark.
​

Dominic Thiem, Nick Kyrgios, Hyeon Chung, Daniil Medvedev, Karen Khachanov and others have not reached any or most of the benchmarks. Caspar Ruud will turn 19 in December and has not yet reached the top 100, so will miss the first benchmark.

Players turning 18 in 2018, to look out for: Felix Auger Aliassime, Nicola Kuhn. Remember, upon turning 18 they'll have one year (into 2019) to reach the top 100, but both are candidates to reach it sometime next year.

 

[Carlg]

Thanks for this post Dude!

Neat to see that Zverev could actually hit that tough age 20 requirement if he can manage a good Aussie result! It's been awhile since we've had a guy do that!

Shapo, Tiafoe, Felix and Kuhn will be fun to track but I feel the age 18 and 19 goals are a whole lot easier to reach than that tough age 20 one!

The exciting thing about Shapo, Felix, and Kuhn though is how far ahead of those paces they currently are...helps feed the hype of their potential futures!

Curious to see what progress they all make this next year!

 

[Moxie]

Great post, Dude. Interesting stuff. Made me wonder about men who'd won 2+ Slams without making the markers, and so my mind went to Wawrinka. As far as I can determine, he didn't hit any of them. I think we all agree that Stan is an outlier, but it did make me wonder if some of those markers could slip to a bit older. (As @Carlg mentions, the age 20 one is tough. As is maybe the age 21 one of being Top 5.) I can see where these markers would be especially critical for the 6+ Slam winners, but maybe 2-5 Slam winners miss some? Or will in the future? Can you think of any 2-5 Slam winners who missed some of the markers, or a majority of them.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I like to point out that one should also look at other players who met these criteria and then proved to be miserable failures.
A classic example is Gasquet. He was on the cover of French sports magazines when he was as young as 15 or so.
At 19, he won his first ATP title. At 21, he already made it to SF of GS and also made it to the Master's cup (WTF of that
time). Look what happened to him.:lulz2:

In order to measure the predictive power of benchmarks, one needs to know the percentage of players who achieved the
benchmarks and then went on to become a 6+ slam winner etc.

 

[Moxie]

I like to point out that one should also look at other players who met these criteria and then proved to be miserable failures.
A classic example is Gasquet. He was on the cover of French sports magazines when he was as young as 15 or so.
At 19, he won his first ATP title. At 21, he already made it to SF of GS and also made it to the Master's cup (WTF of that
time). Look what happened to him.:lulz2:

In order to measure the predictive power of benchmarks, one needs to know the percentage of players who achieved the
benchmarks and then went on to become a 6+ slam winner etc.

You're looking at the downside, of who seemed to be making the cut, and didn't, and I'm asking about those who didn't meet the criteria, and still won 2-5 Majors. I think both are interesting questions. No diss to your research, Dude. But possibly to give a little shape around how the model can work for the up-and-comers.

 

[El Dude]

@GameSetAndMath , I actually did include a list of all players who reached those benchmarks - that's what the first long list was. 12 of 15 became 6+ Slam winners; only Safin, Roddick, and Courier did not. Gasquet reached some of the benchmarks, but trailed off and didn't reach the top 10 until age 21, never reached the top 5 or won a Slam.

Now there are quite a few more players who reached earlier benchmarks but not later ones. For instance, over 70 players have reached the top 100 as 18 year olds; of those, less than 30 reached the top 10 at age 20. Or there are players who reached all but one or two. For instance, Michael Chang reached every benchmark but never became #1. Sergi Bruguera also didn't become #1 and didn't reach a Slam QF until age 22, but reached all the others. Lleyton Hewitt reached them all but didn't win his first big title until 21.

@Moxie , I actually did track 2-5 Slam winners but the benchmarks are quite a bit broader, mainly due to Stan. All reach the top 100 at age 20, top 50 and first title by age 23, top 20 at age 23; top 10 by age 26, and not all reached top 5, Slam QF by age 25. The Slam title benchmark is age 28 because of Stan. We also don't have adequate data on early 2-5 Slam winners like Nastase, Smith, Ashe, and Kodes. Because of how broad some of those benchmarks are, I haven't checked every possible player who reached them.

But yeah: I had the thought that just as Stan created new benchmarks for multi-Slam winners (winning his first Slam at age 28), so too might some currently active player create new benchmarks for 6+ Slam winners. If Zverev doesn't reach the AO QF, he could expand that benchmark to age 21, assuming he wins 6+ Slams.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

@GameSetAndMath , I actually did include a list of all players who reached those benchmarks - that's what the first long list was. 12 of 15 became 6+ Slam winners; only Safin, Roddick, and Courier did not. Gasquet reached some of the benchmarks, but trailed off and didn't reach the top 10 until age 21, never reached the top 5 or won a Slam.

.

Yes, you did. I actually read your OP long ago that I have forgotten that you did.

 

[mrzz]

assuming he wins 6+ Slams

Isn't it odd to think that we may assume he might win it 6 times while the guy has never even played 6 matches - in fact 5 -- in a given major?

 

[El Dude]

Isn't it odd to think that we may assume he might win it 6 times while the guy has never even played 6 matches - in fact 5 -- in a given major?

Yeah, I hear you. No offense to Sascha, but it seems this has just as much if not more to do with the fact that it has to be someone, and he’s the most likely candidate - rather than on his own merits as a “can’t miss great.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I hear you. No offense to Sascha, but it seems this has just as much if not more to do with the fact that it has to be someone, and he’s the most likely candidate - rather than on his own merits as a “can’t miss great.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get @mrzz's point that, though I agree with you that Sasha does seem the next up-and-comer. But I do also think we may be assuming too much that anyone in the next group would win 6+. That's a HUGE marker. We've gotten too used to multiple Slam winners. We think it's going to happen every generation. But look at the group just after Pete and before Roger: there were a lot of one-two Slam winners. No more. If Kyrgios pulls himself together, he'll probably win a couple. Or he could be the real deal. The Big Four aren't done, completely, at least in terms of messing up everyone's life. Everyone else is unchartered waters. We could really be looking at a period of a couple of Majors here and there by each.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you @Moxie and have said before that I think this next generation could be a "Wild West" scenario in which there are a bunch of 1-3 Slam winners but not many (any?) 6+ greats.

That said, consider the birth years of 6+ Slam winners: 1987, 1986, 1981, 1971, 1970, 1967, 1966, 1964, 1960, 1959, 1956, 1952, 1944, 1938, 1934...

From Ken Rosewall (1934) to Novak Djokovic (1987), there has only been one gap more than eight years (1971-81, Sampras to Federer).

Or to put the above in gaps: 1, 5, 10, 1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 3, 4, 8, 6, 4.

Djokovic to Zverev is 10 years, so it would tie the longest gap.

This doesn't only have to do with talent array, but also simply the fact that after a certain number of years, someone has to step up and take the baton. Zverev is simply the most likely candidate.

 

[Moxie]

No matter your stats, no one actually has to step up. After an era of 3 greats, which is also anomalous, there's no reason to think that another great is in the immediate offing. I like Nick and Sasha and some of the other youngsters, but I'm not convinced we have a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic amongst them.

 

[El Dude]

Who said anything about a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic? We may never see their like again, or at least not in a trio.

They aren't "my stats." They are just the years in which players who won 6+ Slams were born. Things don't have to follow a historical pattern, but there's a reason that they generally do, with only slight variance. I posted those numbers because they point to the likelihood that the next 6+ Slam winner (not necessarily 12+ Slam winner) is already on tour, and presumably born not far from 1997, which is when Zverev was born and ten years from the last 6+ Slam winner. Maybe it will be 1998 or 1999, but I think the next "great" is already among us, and maybe more than one of them.

 

[mrzz]

I concur with what you just posted, El Dude -- but as yourself put, things don't have to follow a historical pattern. Agreed again there's a reason they do, but that's precisely part of my point. I think this reason is changing, that in general we have a larger population of players to share the big titles, and that we are bound to see distinct pattern change (I am sure Federberg will like this part). Of course, we need to see the data first to be sure. (Assuming no change, yes, the next 6+ major winner should be around the corner).

This is one reason why I think Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are so absurdly good: they won more than the previous great guys in an era were they were supposed to win less. I would not be surprised that in 50 years people will look at their numbers in awe -- and some will credit them to weak/scarce competition. Oh, the future morons!

 

[Federberg]

I concur with what you just posted, El Dude -- but as yourself put, things don't have to follow a historical pattern. Agreed again there's a reason they do, but that's precisely part of my point. I think this reason is changing, that in general we have a larger population of players to share the big titles, and that we are bound to see distinct pattern change (I am sure Federberg will like this part). Of course, we need to see the data first to be sure. (Assuming no change, yes, the next 6+ major winner should be around the corner).

This is one reason why I think Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are so absurdly good: they won more than the previous great guys in an era were they were supposed to win less. I would not be surprised that in 50 years people will look at their numbers in awe -- and some will credit them to weak/scarce competition. Oh, the future morons!

As you know mrzz, given what you do, data is data. It can be published but it doesn’t mean it has any value. I’m sure you know what quants like to say..

 

[El Dude]

I concur with what you just posted, El Dude -- but as yourself put, things don't have to follow a historical pattern. Agreed again there's a reason they do, but that's precisely part of my point. I think this reason is changing, that in general we have a larger population of players to share the big titles, and that we are bound to see distinct pattern change (I am sure Federberg will like this part). Of course, we need to see the data first to be sure. (Assuming no change, yes, the next 6+ major winner should be around the corner).

This is one reason why I think Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are so absurdly good: they won more than the previous great guys in an era were they were supposed to win less. I would not be surprised that in 50 years people will look at their numbers in awe -- and some will credit them to weak/scarce competition. Oh, the future morons!

Well we can look at Laver's and Rosewall's numbers in awe; some of the things they did just don't seem possible today (like Laver's 200 titles or Rosewall's 20-year Slam winning span). But yeah, I hear your point...I don't expect to see another trinity like those guys, at least not at the same time.

New historical precedents can and will be made. Stan Wawrinka became the oldest multi-Slam winner when he won his first Slam at age 28. But there's also a simple logic at work here, in terms of the passage of time.

In that regard, I want to clarify my point: It may have little or less to do with Zverev's talent as a bonafide "6+ Slam winner," and more simply to do with the fact that the more years pass, the greater the likelihood that we'll see a 6+ Slam winner. It is just a matter of increased mathematical probabilities. If it isn't Zverev (1997) then it is almost certainly someone born between 1998-2000, and thus someone we've probably heard of (Tiafoe, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, Aliassime, Kuhn, etc), but I see no reason why Zverev couldn't be that next guy in line.

 

[Carlg]

Just a little thread bump here.

Looks like both Shapo and Felix are still on that pace to greatness with Shapo soon entering that daunting age 20 stage!

Felix just busted through the first stage and is likely to bust through the 2nd shortly!

Interestingly even though Stefanos missed the first one by a couple months(one of the easiest benchmarks) I think he's already done most of the tough age 20 one and is thus kind of back on pace? I think it's just getting into the top 10 he's missing right now and that is coming very soon! He seems the one most likely to challenge the big 3!

Is there anyone I'm missing still on that pace? And are there any historical examples of guys missing that first hurdle but then teaching the next two?

Man I'm looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds! It finally feels like a real changing of the guard is soon upon us!

 

[El Dude]

Hey @Carlg. I suspect those benchmarks won't hold for the new generation, and someone is due to change them like Stan Wawrinka did with 3+ Slam winners (winning his first at age 28).

Alex Zverev just missed the first Slam QF at age 20...his was 2018 RG, which was like a month after his 21st birthday. Otherwise he's met all of the benchmarks through age 21.

And yeah, Stefanos missed the first benchmark by a couple months but has reached a bunch of other ones. He's about to reach the top 10. He would need to win a big title before August 12, his 21st birthday. He'll have some chances.

As you said, Shapo is still on pace and has over a year to reach the age 20 benchmarks as he doesn't turn 21 until April of 2020.

All of the other guys have missed a bunch of benchmarks.

 

[Carlg]

By big tournament do you mean 1000 level or higher? Just curious.

Also, how far off has ADM been?

Thanks for your input!

 

[Federberg]

so hard to figure out what the pace to greatness is these days. The paradigm seems to have shifted and the Big 3 will continue to distort trajectories for the next few years. I suspect when those 3 finally start to diminish there'll be an explosion of slam acquisitions from the next greats. The fact that they don't necessarily match up with previous eras shouldn't be held against them. There simply hasn't been an era with so many incredibly strong players in their 30s. 30s are the new 20s it seems