Teenagers with 2+ Titles in the Open Era

[Moxie]

Jesuslookslikeborg brought this up on another thread, and TC had a graphic on it today, during Zverev v. Thiem, as Zverev has 2 titles, and he's still 19. I tried to do the homework, but it's tough, because you have to know the dates of the tournaments, in some cases. I'll start it off with broad strokes, and see how we go. I'm pretty sure that Nadal is the most successful teenager, having passed Agassi. On the list, per Tennis Channel and memory are: Borg, Hewitt, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Del Potro and now Zverev.

 

[masterclass]

Michael Chang with 6 titles as a teenager including the French Open at a little over 17 years old (still a Grand Slam record) was one of the most precocious teens in history. Of course, Bjorn Borg was maybe the most tremendous teen talent with 17 titles before his 20th birthday including winning the French Open twice just after turning 18 and 19 years old, and won Wimbledon just after turning 20. Nadal won 16 titles before turning 20, including the French Open just after he turned 19 and won his second there just after turning 20. Mats Wilander won 13 titles and 2 majors before turning 20, including the French and Australian Opens. Boris Becker won 12 titles, including 2 at Wimbledon before turning 20. Edberg and Sampras also each won a major before turning 20.

There have been plenty of players in the Open Era that were superb as teens. However, recently teens seem to lack something... One could understand it if they were making finals and coming up short vs. the top tier players, but they seem to come up short against lesser players far too often. And this is not just a teen problem. It is a problem all the way up to ages 27. There are no Major or Masters winners under age 28!!!


Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[El Dude]

There are a ton of teenagers with 2+ titles. I can get some of the info in one of my files, give me a few...

 

[El Dude]

OK, this might not be comprehensive, but it is what I found - Open Era only. Where it says "Masters" it could be Grand Prix or another Masters-equivalent tournament.

17 Borg (2 Slams, 1 WCT final, 3 Masters)
16 Nadal (1 Slam, 6 Masters)
13 Wilander (2 Slams, 2 Masters)
12 Becker (2 Slams, 4 Masters)
10 Agassi (1 Masters)
8 Medvedev (2 Masters)
7 Hewitt
6 Edberg (1 Slam, Olympic Gold)
6 Chang (1 Slam, 1 Masters)
5 McEnroe (year-end championship, 2 Masters equiv)
5 Noah
5 Arias (1 Masters)
5 Sampras (1 Slam, Golden Slam Cup)
5 Roddick
5 Djokovic (1 Masters equiv)
4 Connors
4 Krickstein
4 Carlsson
4 Perez-Roldan
4 del Potro
3 Rios
2 Cash, Rosset, Ivanisevic, Enqvist, Moya, Murray, Zverev

1 Nishikori, Berdych, Gasquet, Coria, Robredo, Acasuso, Federer, Vinciguerra, Ferrero, Safin (players born 1980 or later only)

The best player not to win any titles before turning 20 is Ivan Lendl. I found it interesting that Jimmy Arias won five titles before turning 20, and none after - despite playing another 10 years or so.

Anyhow, that's 28 players accounted for (and my guess is there are several more I missed). Here's how they break up, in terms of career accomplishments:
*10 are all-time greats (6+ Slam winners); and it is 10 of 12 such players who turned 20 in the Open Era
*19 won at least a single Slam

Players by birth decade:
1990s: 1 (Zverev)
1980s: 6
1970s: 8
1960s: 10
1950s: 3

The 1980s and early 90s saw a real spike in terms of teenagers - that is, players born in the 1960s to early 70s. A lot of these players went on to have only middling success (e.g. Perez-Roldan, Krickstein, etc).

 

[Moxie]

I knew I could count on @masterclass and @El Dude to fill in some details. Thanks for all the stats, El Dude! As masterclass noted, Nadal won RG the day after he turned 20, and so played 6 matches as a 19-year-old. Besides a fan comment, we're talking about the accomplishments of teenagers in this thread, and as it was a Slam, I thought it worth highlighting.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I had to double-check that when I was looking up the list. Regardless, I think it safe to say that Borg, Nadal, Becker and Wilander are the greatest teenagers of the Open Era, in some order. I'd probably rate them in that order. Interestingly, Borg and Nadal bookend an overall younger era; they are the two greatest teenagers, and the first and last of that era.

 

[britbox]

I had it in my mind that Safin had won at least a couple as a teenager, but only one prior turning 20 as El Dude pointed out... Yet at 20, he had won the US Open and gained the #1 slot in the world.

 

[Carol]

Talking about teens... this was probably the first tournament that Rafa won, 13 years old

 

[El Dude]

I had it in my mind that Safin had won at least a couple as a teenager, but only one prior turning 20 as El Dude pointed out... Yet at 20, he had won the US Open and gained the #1 slot in the world.

Yeah, if you add in age 20, all of a sudden Safin jumps considerably. He is in the running for most disappointing player of the last 20 years.

 

[Moxie]

Players by birth decade:
1990s: 1 (Zverev)
1980s: 6
1970s: 8
1960s: 10
1950s: 3

I know we've been trying to work out the reason for the dearth of talented teenagers in the last while. I'm going to posit that the teenagers in the 70s may have come out of a culture of fitness that was beginning in the early 60s. And also, the Open Era was beginning, so they had real careers at stake. They weren't just a bunch of smoking and drinking club boys. In the 80s, (those born in the 60s,) might have been the flowering of this, thus the high number. And so on, until we get to the players born in the 90s. It seems plausible to think this hard stop and abrupt change has something to do with the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era. We have more than the usual number of All-Time Greats playing at the same time, which also lifts the level of the otherwise more seasoned players, making it hard for youngsters to find their way in. I think there's a solid argument that the reason there's a Lost Generation, and the reason that we haven't seen any great teenagers coming up until now likely has a lot to do with the Big 4. They, and a solid 2nd-tier, have made dislodging slots really difficult. The change seems to be coming because of a softening at the top. As the Big 4 age and fall off, the dam is going to break. The rejiggering may be gradual, but at some point I'm expecting a bit of a free-for-all, if no one begins to float to near-top soon.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, if you add in age 20, all of a sudden Safin jumps considerably. He is in the running for most disappointing player of the last 20 years.

For us Safin fans, he WAS the most disappointing player of the last 20 years. Though I think Nalbandian fans will argue.

 

[Moxie]

Talking about teens... this was probably the first tournament that Rafa won, 13 years old

Very cute, but no, I'm sure it wasn't the first tournament he won. He won All-Baleares under 11 when he was 8, and he won 12-under Spain and Europe when he was 12. At least. The reason he turned pro when he was 15 was essentially that he had no one to play anymore, as a junior.

 

[El Dude]

Well at least Marat has those two Slams and a #1 ranking, whereas Nalbandian's best moments were the WTF and two Masters. Both fell far short of their potential and really could have been the Courier and Agassi to Roger's Sampras.

 

[Moxie]

Well at least Marat has those two Slams and a #1 ranking, whereas Nalbandian's best moments were the WTF and two Masters. Both fell far short of their potential and really could have been the Courier and Agassi to Roger's Sampras.

That's exactly part of the complaint. I have no real sympathy for Nalbandian, it's just that they come up in the same breath. But Safin...*sigh*...you likely know he never won another title after the AO '05. What a heart-breaker.

 

[Carol]

Very cute, but no, I'm sure it wasn't the first tournament he won. He won All-Baleares under 11 when he was 8, and he won 12-under Spain and Europe when he was 12. At least. The reason he turned pro when he was 15 was essentially that he had no one to play anymore, as a junior.

I think you are right but I thought this one maybe was the first one out of Spain

 

[El Dude]

Players by birth decade:
1990s: 1 (Zverev)
1980s: 6
1970s: 8
1960s: 10
1950s: 3

I know we've been trying to work out the reason for the dearth of talented teenagers in the last while. I'm going to posit that the teenagers in the 70s may have come out of a culture of fitness that was beginning in the early 60s. And also, the Open Era was beginning, so they had real careers at stake. They weren't just a bunch of smoking and drinking club boys. In the 80s, (those born in the 60s,) might have been the flowering of this, thus the high number. And so on, until we get to the players born in the 90s. It seems plausible to think this hard stop and abrupt change has something to do with the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era. We have more than the usual number of All-Time Greats playing at the same time, which also lifts the level of the otherwise more seasoned players, making it hard for youngsters to find their way in. I think there's a solid argument that the reason there's a Lost Generation, and the reason that we haven't seen any great teenagers coming up until now likely has a lot to do with the Big 4. They, and a solid 2nd-tier, have made dislodging slots really difficult. The change seems to be coming because of a softening at the top. As the Big 4 age and fall off, the dam is going to break. The rejiggering may be gradual, but at some point I'm expecting a bit of a free-for-all, if no one begins to float to near-top soon.

Interesting stuff, Moxie. I don't fully agree, though, abut what you say in the second half. I think this is partially true, but also that there was a legitimately weak generation of players born from 1989ish to the mid-90s. Talent does ebb and flow, with different cohorts of talent coming up, some stronger than others. So in that sense, yes, the Big Four has suppressed the younger generation, and I think there's something to homogenized courts, but it is a combination of great older talent and a weak younger generation, otherwise this would show up in more minor titles won by young players. The Big Four dominate the big tournaments, but they don't play in many of the ATP 500s or most of the ATP 250s.

We can also see this in the number of young players in the top 100, compared to past eras. I actually have a chart to share.

Before you think, "Dude, WTF?" Let me explain. I was working on a research project about young players. The above chart is an abbreviated version of another chart that has the names of the ten highest ranked teenagers in year-end rankings from 1985 to the present. There are different shades of green corresponding to different ages (17, 18, etc); the darker, the younger. The very light green are 19-year olds, the middle green is 18, the darker green is 17, and you'll even see a few players that are very dark green 16-year olds (e.g. Rafa and Gasquet in 2002), and one almost black-green 15 year old (Chang in 1987).

Anyhow, as you can see, the top ten teenagers really start dipping after 2005, which was the last year Rafa was a teenager. By the time you get to 2009 there are no teenagers in the top 100 - compare that to 1989, when there were ten in the top 100!

This "dark age" of young talent really lasts from 2009 to 2013, which are the years that players born from 1990 to '94 are 19-years old, or 1991-95 are 18. The only two teenagers to end the year in the top 10 are Bernard Tomic and Ryan Harrison in 2011 (a 19-year old Grigor Dimitrov finished 2010 at #106).

But things start improving in 2014, when you have Nick Kyrgios leading the pack at #52, 18-year old Borna Coric at #102, and a 17-year old Alex Zverev at #136. And you can see incremental improvement in 2015 and 2016.

So my point, again, is that while I think what you say is true, it is only partially true. The Big Four are great and did suppress young talent, but the young talent born in 1989-94ish was particularly weak, otherwise there would have been more teenagers higher in the rankings and winning minor tournaments.

 

[Moxie]

I think you are right but I thought this one maybe was the first one out of Spain

Not even that. When he won 12-under All-Europe, I think it was played in France, and he beat Richard Gasquet. The one I can't confirm who came in third was Gael Monfils. Even still, in this conversation about early potential, it's interesting to note that all 3 are still in the conversation, 18 years later.

 

[El Dude]

One more thing. That chart makes me think that we're gradually moving back to a similar era to the 90s to early 00s, that the 2009-13 period was an anomaly, or at least a relatively rare valley. But we'll probably never return to the young days of the late 80s when up to 10% of the top 100 were teenagers, and there were regularly teenagers in the top 10. Consider that Rafa and Hewitt are the only players of the 21st century to be ranked in the year-end top 10 as a teenager. I suspect it would take a rare player indeed to reach the top 10 as a teenager. I'm not saying it will never happen again, just that if it does it will be very rare and a special kind of player who would have to mature very quickly.

The only teenager that is at all on the radar that I think has anything similar to that kind of potential is Felix Auger Aliassime.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting stuff, Moxie. I don't fully agree, though, abut what you say in the second half. I think this is partially true, but also that there was a legitimately weak generation of players born from 1989ish to the mid-90s. Talent does ebb and flow, with different cohorts of talent coming up, some stronger than others. So in that sense, yes, the Big Four has suppressed the younger generation, and I think there's something to homogenized courts, but it is a combination of great older talent and a weak younger generation, otherwise this would show up in more minor titles won by young players. The Big Four dominate the big tournaments, but they don't play in many of the ATP 500s or most of the ATP 250s.

We can also see this in the number of young players in the top 100, compared to past eras. I actually have a chart to share.

Before you think, "Dude, WTF?" Let me explain. I was working on a research project about young players. The above chart is an abbreviated version of another chart that has the names of the ten highest ranked teenagers in year-end rankings from 1985 to the present. There are different shades of green corresponding to different ages (17, 18, etc); the darker, the younger. The very light green are 19-year olds, the middle green is 18, the darker green is 17, and you'll even see a few players that are very dark green 16-year olds (e.g. Rafa and Gasquet in 2002), and one almost black-green 15 year old (Chang in 1987).

Anyhow, as you can see, the top ten teenagers really start dipping after 2005, which was the last year Rafa was a teenager. By the time you get to 2009 there are no teenagers in the top 100 - compare that to 1989, when there were ten in the top 100!

This "dark age" of young talent really lasts from 2009 to 2013, which are the years that players born from 1990 to '94 are 19-years old, or 1991-95 are 18. The only two teenagers to end the year in the top 10 are Bernard Tomic and Ryan Harrison in 2011 (a 19-year old Grigor Dimitrov finished 2010 at #106).

But things start improving in 2014, when you have Nick Kyrgios leading the pack at #52, 18-year old Borna Coric at #102, and a 17-year old Alex Zverev at #136. And you can see incremental improvement in 2015 and 2016.

So my point, again, is that while I think what you say is true, it is only partially true. The Big Four are great and did suppress young talent, but the young talent born in 1989-94ish was particularly weak, otherwise there would have been more teenagers higher in the rankings and winning minor tournaments.

Nice work, Dude. I tend to see things as a narrative, and you come in with the hard numbers. Let me say, I'm not really trying to excuse either the Lost Generation or the recent teenagers, only looking for explanations. I agree with you that sometimes there's a talent-gap, and there's no more to be said about it. As to the point that the top guys don't play the lower tournaments, I would say that the otherwise veterans do, and they have been more hardened by the top 4, so, as I said, the 2nd and perhaps 3rd tier still applied a lot of pressure on the young talent.

I agree that it's complicated, and let me add this complication: I think the Lost Generation might also be the Brat Pack. Not Milos or Kei, who have a great work ethic, but the likes of Tomic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios, and Gulbis have been slagged off by the press and fans for falling too much in love with the money they've made, their otherwise distractions, etc., and not caring enough about their tennis. And it may come from finding the glass ceiling of the last 10+ years, but some of the younger players with real talent seem to be rather cynical about it, and taken by fame and other distractions.

 

[El Dude]

And just to clarify: I am agreeing with you, but saying "and also this..."

But I like the Brat Pack idea. Maybe we're seeing a transition in the players born in 1996 and '97...hopefully so! But certain the Facebook/iphone generation has more opportunities for narcissism and self-aggrandizement...maybe the younger guys are learning they have to be a bit more serious and humble.