Raonic & Roddick
- Thread starter sid
- Start date
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,163
- Reactions
- 5,848
- Points
- 113
Unless Raonic is a late-bloomer, Roddick - and it isn't particularly close. Compare their titles:
Roddick: 1 Slam, 5 Masters, 5 ATP 500s, 21 ATP 250s
Raonic: 1 ATP 500, 7 ATP 250s
Raonic is 25, so he's no longer young. He's still got some prime years left, so he can increase those numbers, but unless he wins 2-3 Slams, he won't surpass Roddick.
Roddick: 1 Slam, 5 Masters, 5 ATP 500s, 21 ATP 250s
Raonic: 1 ATP 500, 7 ATP 250s
Raonic is 25, so he's no longer young. He's still got some prime years left, so he can increase those numbers, but unless he wins 2-3 Slams, he won't surpass Roddick.
El Dude said:
Hi El Dude,Raonic should start to increase titles now,that would be my guess.Titles he could get near Roddick by the time he's done with J/Mac by his side.
GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
Raonic is a big server who has reached the finals of a grass tourney for the first time in his life. Go figure. :snicker
Some More Raonic vs. Roddick Comparisons:
Grandslams:
Roddick(career) Roddick(2004 Federer) ------ Roddick(2006 Nadal) ------- Raonic
Wins: 1 -------------------0---------------------------0-------------------------------0
Finals: 4------------------4---------------------------2-------------------------------1
SFs: 5---------------------3---------------------------2-------------------------------2
QF: 9----------------------7---------------------------5-------------------------------2
Masters Series:
Wins: 5--------------------3---------------------------2--------------------------------0
Finals: 4-------------------3---------------------------1--------------------------------3
SFs: 11--------------------9---------------------------6--------------------------------3
QFs: 15-------------------10--------------------------9-------------------------------11
Its interesting thinking of Raonic vs. Roddick for a number of reasons. Roddick burst on the scene early and did a ton of his damage before the rise of Fed and Rafa by the age of 23(ish). After then his career numbers aren't that impressive with only 2 finals and SF grand slam appearances.
Raonic, on the other hand, was a late bloomer and is only now coming into his prime. And unlike Roddick his rise has happened in an era dominated by greats! In the next year or two with Nole and Andy still on their game I expect Raonic to have similar career numbers as Roddick in terms of accomplishments while playing in the era of greats.
The real measure will come when Nole and Andy decline(the flip side of Roddick's early achivements). Raonic right now looks like the next best thing after those guys(and considering the aging of other players). I think it's very likely he can match or surpass Roddicks numbers because of this.
On a side note, I think there is a very strong chance Milos goes into next year as the 3rd ranked player, and depending if he can keep up his form that will give him even more opportunities to avoid the big 2 until SFs, which in turn will give him more chances of taking advantages of upsets(like wimby) or getting greater results if he beats those two(like what looked to be happening in the AO before the injury).
I'm a big Raonic fan obviously but just thought I'd throw out a fuller look at a comparison of these two. I'm super curious to see how he does from a position of strength instead of having to battle back up the ratings after injury.
*the 2004 and 2006 columns are his career stats once Fed and Rafa came on the scene starting at the beginning of those years as easy reference points
**excuse all the dashes, I'm not sure how to format things well on this site yet!
Grandslams:
Roddick(career) Roddick(2004 Federer) ------ Roddick(2006 Nadal) ------- Raonic
Wins: 1 -------------------0---------------------------0-------------------------------0
Finals: 4------------------4---------------------------2-------------------------------1
SFs: 5---------------------3---------------------------2-------------------------------2
QF: 9----------------------7---------------------------5-------------------------------2
Masters Series:
Wins: 5--------------------3---------------------------2--------------------------------0
Finals: 4-------------------3---------------------------1--------------------------------3
SFs: 11--------------------9---------------------------6--------------------------------3
QFs: 15-------------------10--------------------------9-------------------------------11
Its interesting thinking of Raonic vs. Roddick for a number of reasons. Roddick burst on the scene early and did a ton of his damage before the rise of Fed and Rafa by the age of 23(ish). After then his career numbers aren't that impressive with only 2 finals and SF grand slam appearances.
Raonic, on the other hand, was a late bloomer and is only now coming into his prime. And unlike Roddick his rise has happened in an era dominated by greats! In the next year or two with Nole and Andy still on their game I expect Raonic to have similar career numbers as Roddick in terms of accomplishments while playing in the era of greats.
The real measure will come when Nole and Andy decline(the flip side of Roddick's early achivements). Raonic right now looks like the next best thing after those guys(and considering the aging of other players). I think it's very likely he can match or surpass Roddicks numbers because of this.
On a side note, I think there is a very strong chance Milos goes into next year as the 3rd ranked player, and depending if he can keep up his form that will give him even more opportunities to avoid the big 2 until SFs, which in turn will give him more chances of taking advantages of upsets(like wimby) or getting greater results if he beats those two(like what looked to be happening in the AO before the injury).
I'm a big Raonic fan obviously but just thought I'd throw out a fuller look at a comparison of these two. I'm super curious to see how he does from a position of strength instead of having to battle back up the ratings after injury.
*the 2004 and 2006 columns are his career stats once Fed and Rafa came on the scene starting at the beginning of those years as easy reference points
**excuse all the dashes, I'm not sure how to format things well on this site yet!
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,163
- Reactions
- 5,848
- Points
- 113
I agree with you that, right now, Milos looks like a top 5 player, and assuming Rafa and Roger don't change their fading trajectories, would be the third best player on tour after Novak and Andy. That said, I think there are several players who will eclipse him within the next couple years: Kyrgios, Thiem, and Zverev most especially, possibly others eventually.
Milos could be an interesting bridge between the Rafa-Novak-Andy generation and the Thiem-Kyrgios-Zverev generation, with his best window of opportunity being 2016-18. Once we get to 2018-19, the younger guys will have come more fully into their own.
Milos could be an interesting bridge between the Rafa-Novak-Andy generation and the Thiem-Kyrgios-Zverev generation, with his best window of opportunity being 2016-18. Once we get to 2018-19, the younger guys will have come more fully into their own.
I agree with your thoughts El Dude, and the 2016-18 window you mention. However, Thiem, Kyrgios, Zverev are still unproven and we don't know what they will end up being yet. Not only that, but even going by your own metrics, besides Zverev, the other two seem to be in the "near great" category instead of "greats".
This means that when that generation rises up in say 2019, it won't be the same level of dominance as this last era of the big 3(plus Andy) that Roddick had to deal with and I think there will be much more opportunities for Raonic to win big tournaments to the end of his career. Watching Andy against those guys you never felt he had a chance. Watching Milos I already think he has a chance against everyone besides Nole. I can't see going against this next generation as being any different.
I have a question for you though:
Looking at Milos as a "near great" potentially I was wondering what comparables you might know for him? He has risen to top 10 before the age of 23, top 4 before the age of 25(right before he got injured), and now if he continues to hold his position he could be top 3 before 26. Know obviously he is lacking big wins yet(no 1000s or slam wins) although he has made 4 finals in those. But going by those rankings what are his comparables? does he land among "near greats" with those rankings? or a tier down?
This means that when that generation rises up in say 2019, it won't be the same level of dominance as this last era of the big 3(plus Andy) that Roddick had to deal with and I think there will be much more opportunities for Raonic to win big tournaments to the end of his career. Watching Andy against those guys you never felt he had a chance. Watching Milos I already think he has a chance against everyone besides Nole. I can't see going against this next generation as being any different.
I have a question for you though:
Looking at Milos as a "near great" potentially I was wondering what comparables you might know for him? He has risen to top 10 before the age of 23, top 4 before the age of 25(right before he got injured), and now if he continues to hold his position he could be top 3 before 26. Know obviously he is lacking big wins yet(no 1000s or slam wins) although he has made 4 finals in those. But going by those rankings what are his comparables? does he land among "near greats" with those rankings? or a tier down?
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,163
- Reactions
- 5,848
- Points
- 113
Well you're right that it is too soon to say on Thiem, Kyrgios and Zverev, and I would take it a step further: it isn't even certain that they'll be "near-greats," although all three are very much on that pace and Zverev is, of course, still safely on the "Pace of Greatness." But I mentioned those three because, as of this moment, they're the most likely to be elite players of all players born in 1993 and later. As I see it, at least. There are plenty of other candidates: Pouille, Fritz, Coric, Tiafoe, Rublev, Kozlov, not to mention Shapovalov and Aliassime.
(And by "elites" I mean something a bit different than greats, probably including both greats and near greats - players that are top 10, occasionally top 5, and at least dark-horses for Slams)
I also agree with you that there are no surefire true greats in the next generation, that they very well could be a generation of several multi-Slam Slam winners but no clear 6+ Slam greats. But it is too soon to tell. As I wrote in one of my pieces, Zverev and Fritz look especially promising among those born in 94-98. I'm also curious about Rublev and Kozlov, and the two young Canadians (Shapo and Alia).
It is also worth mentioning that in the entire history of tennis, going back to the late 19th century, the biggest gap in birth year between 6+ Slam winners is the ten years between Sampras (1971) and Federer (1981). As Novak was born in 1987, a gap of the same length would be 1997, which is conveniently the birth year of Zverev, Fritz, and Rublev - three of my candidates for the next great player. If we expand that a bit we get to Tiafoe, Lee, Kozlov, and Tsitsapis in 1998, Shapovalov in 1999, and Aliassime in 2000. It would be a massive historical anomaly for the next great player not to be born in at the latest the late 90s, and if he was born in 1998 or later it would be the largest gap in tennis history.
I still hold out hope that Zverev--and possibly Fritz--could break through as a true great. We must remember that these guys are only 19 and 18 respectively, so there's still a lot of time. Zverev in particular seems really on the cusp. He's ranked #27 now and, I suspect, will win his first title before turning 20 in April of next year, and make his first Slam QF no later than next year. But I think it won't be until 2018 that he's really starting to enter his prime, Fritz then or a year later.
As for your question, my first response is that there are TONS of comparable players for him using those criteria. Raonic is far off the "Pace of Greatness" that I outlined, but he still is very much on the pace of "near-greatness" (for 2-4 Slam winners).
It is difficult to compare contemporary players like Milos to historical players because it seems that players are blossoming much later now. Part of this may be that we just haven't seen a true great since Novak, and that we'll know the next true great when he rises into the top 5 as a 21-year old like all true greats have (which is, I think, the most stringent criterion of true greatness). In other words, it may be that players actually aren't peaking later, but just that we haven't seen any true greats since Novak and before him Rafa, both of whom blossomed within the normal young range for true greats.
One of the statistical differences between true greats and near greats is that they meet a lot of the same benchmarks, but the latter do so at an older age. So while all true greats reached the top 10 as 20 year olds, Milos did so at 22, and all true greats reached the top 5 at 21, Milos did so at 24.
Aside from statistics, the player that Milos reminds me most of is Goran Ivanisevic. But his career is quite different in that Goran--like most of his peers--broke through at a very early age, finishing his age 19 year (1990) at #9. But it took Goran until he was 29--and well out of his prime--to win his one and only Slam, because he peaked alongside of Sampras and Agassi; I suspect Milos will win his first before that because the true greats of his era are a few years older, and he may win two or three. The context will open up for him, as you say, both because the current elite are in or entering their 30s, and because no dominant players have yet emerged from the next generation.
2018 should be an interesting year. Consider the age that various players turn:
Rafa turns 32, Andy and Novak turn 31, del Potro 30.
Milos turns 28 at the end of the year, thus will be 27 for most of the year.
Thiem turns 25, Pouille turns 24, Kyrgios 23.
Zverev, Fritz, Rublev all turn 21.
Shapovalov turns 19, Aliassime turns 18.
So you can see that 2018 will see the older generation solidly in their 30s, Thiem, Pouille, and Kyrgios all very much in the heart of their prime years, and the younger guys entering their prime, with the following generation starting to appear on the radar. But unless we see one or two of those younger guys break through in a big way, it will be an open context in which players of a wide range of ages could win Slams. Should be exciting to watch!
(And by "elites" I mean something a bit different than greats, probably including both greats and near greats - players that are top 10, occasionally top 5, and at least dark-horses for Slams)
I also agree with you that there are no surefire true greats in the next generation, that they very well could be a generation of several multi-Slam Slam winners but no clear 6+ Slam greats. But it is too soon to tell. As I wrote in one of my pieces, Zverev and Fritz look especially promising among those born in 94-98. I'm also curious about Rublev and Kozlov, and the two young Canadians (Shapo and Alia).
It is also worth mentioning that in the entire history of tennis, going back to the late 19th century, the biggest gap in birth year between 6+ Slam winners is the ten years between Sampras (1971) and Federer (1981). As Novak was born in 1987, a gap of the same length would be 1997, which is conveniently the birth year of Zverev, Fritz, and Rublev - three of my candidates for the next great player. If we expand that a bit we get to Tiafoe, Lee, Kozlov, and Tsitsapis in 1998, Shapovalov in 1999, and Aliassime in 2000. It would be a massive historical anomaly for the next great player not to be born in at the latest the late 90s, and if he was born in 1998 or later it would be the largest gap in tennis history.
I still hold out hope that Zverev--and possibly Fritz--could break through as a true great. We must remember that these guys are only 19 and 18 respectively, so there's still a lot of time. Zverev in particular seems really on the cusp. He's ranked #27 now and, I suspect, will win his first title before turning 20 in April of next year, and make his first Slam QF no later than next year. But I think it won't be until 2018 that he's really starting to enter his prime, Fritz then or a year later.
As for your question, my first response is that there are TONS of comparable players for him using those criteria. Raonic is far off the "Pace of Greatness" that I outlined, but he still is very much on the pace of "near-greatness" (for 2-4 Slam winners).
It is difficult to compare contemporary players like Milos to historical players because it seems that players are blossoming much later now. Part of this may be that we just haven't seen a true great since Novak, and that we'll know the next true great when he rises into the top 5 as a 21-year old like all true greats have (which is, I think, the most stringent criterion of true greatness). In other words, it may be that players actually aren't peaking later, but just that we haven't seen any true greats since Novak and before him Rafa, both of whom blossomed within the normal young range for true greats.
One of the statistical differences between true greats and near greats is that they meet a lot of the same benchmarks, but the latter do so at an older age. So while all true greats reached the top 10 as 20 year olds, Milos did so at 22, and all true greats reached the top 5 at 21, Milos did so at 24.
Aside from statistics, the player that Milos reminds me most of is Goran Ivanisevic. But his career is quite different in that Goran--like most of his peers--broke through at a very early age, finishing his age 19 year (1990) at #9. But it took Goran until he was 29--and well out of his prime--to win his one and only Slam, because he peaked alongside of Sampras and Agassi; I suspect Milos will win his first before that because the true greats of his era are a few years older, and he may win two or three. The context will open up for him, as you say, both because the current elite are in or entering their 30s, and because no dominant players have yet emerged from the next generation.
2018 should be an interesting year. Consider the age that various players turn:
Rafa turns 32, Andy and Novak turn 31, del Potro 30.
Milos turns 28 at the end of the year, thus will be 27 for most of the year.
Thiem turns 25, Pouille turns 24, Kyrgios 23.
Zverev, Fritz, Rublev all turn 21.
Shapovalov turns 19, Aliassime turns 18.
So you can see that 2018 will see the older generation solidly in their 30s, Thiem, Pouille, and Kyrgios all very much in the heart of their prime years, and the younger guys entering their prime, with the following generation starting to appear on the radar. But unless we see one or two of those younger guys break through in a big way, it will be an open context in which players of a wide range of ages could win Slams. Should be exciting to watch!
GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
El Dude said:
I agree with most of what you see. Perhaps, you can replace the bolded part by "boring". :snicker
El Dude: Thanks for the long reply! Very interesting stuff! Yeah, the tour is getting more and more interesting to me as things are getting more and more uncertain with the ending of a era. 2018 should be super interesting! Hopefully by then I'll see Milos ranked #1 with a slam win under his belt and Shapo climbing up the charts
Gamesetandmath: haha, fair enough! I was team Agassi over team Sampras back in the day so I get that! I heard an opinion on a podcast though that I share. Milos can be interesting when NOT playing other serve and volleyers. The contrasting styles can bring more drama to the matches. I tend to agree with this...although I got to say it's weird now cheering for the big server instead of the scrappy returner(but I'm a Canadian so what can you do?
Gamesetandmath: haha, fair enough! I was team Agassi over team Sampras back in the day so I get that! I heard an opinion on a podcast though that I share. Milos can be interesting when NOT playing other serve and volleyers. The contrasting styles can bring more drama to the matches. I tend to agree with this...although I got to say it's weird now cheering for the big server instead of the scrappy returner(but I'm a Canadian so what can you do?
