The Borna Coric Experience.

[mrzz]

^I saw Coric playing just once and was impressed with his game (as a defensive player). I was under the impression that he would be next great defender. But this requires a hell lot of physicality, and if he had injuries you would expect this kind of stagnation. He will need to learn how to deal with his body.

And, @El Dude , I am sure nothing I wrote in my post above was exactly news for you in particular, but I just felt it was an appropriate remark. Following the few tennis sites here in Brazil, if I bother to read the comments to the news, I see people treating our players as complete garbage. We now have three guys on the top 100, and in general people consider this as complete sh!t. I always feel like replying with "well, try and do better". Obviously is not the case here in our boards, but, anyway...

 

[El Dude]

@britbox , that is interesting and I hope you are right as I'm always rooting for the young guys. If you are right, then Borna's attitude will separate him from the Tomics of the world. I think it is what separates a David Goffin, who is a player of good but limited ability but seems smart and determined.

@mrzz , what you say about him possibly being the next great defender makes me think of David Ferrer, who had periods of stagnation in his career. He jumped into the top 100 in the middle of 2002, at the age of 20, and hung around in the 50-70ish range--like Coric--for almost three years, before jumping into the top 20 shortly after his 23rd birthday. While he did finish 2007 at #5, from 2005-09 he was mainly ranked in the 10-20 range. It wasn't until 2010, at age 27-28, that he took another step forward and was a fixture in the top 10 for six straight years.

Maybe Coric will have a similar career path, although at overall younger ages, I would think. Coric is 2-3 years ahead of Ferrer, in terms of when he reached the top 100. If he follows the "Ferrer path," he is due for another leap forward soon. I'm not saying that he will follow that path, but your phrasing of "great defender" made me think of Ferrer.

As for Brazilians, Thiago Monteiro is a good young player. I can't remember if it was you, but someone at TF pointed out that he stalled out due to injury for a couple years but is a player to watch. I don't think he'll necessarily be top 10, but I could see him reaching the top 20 at some point.

 

[mrzz]

As for Brazilians, Thiago Monteiro is a good young player. I can't remember if it was you, but someone at TF pointed out that he stalled out due to injury for a couple years but is a player to watch. I don't think he'll necessarily be top 10, but I could see him reaching the top 20 at some point.

I guess it was me who brought the injury... yes, he is a good player but I guess he will fall back in 2017 before advancing further. I would like to be wrong, but I think his current management is not used to this level of competition, and instead than preparing him to be a top 100/top 50 player, they keep him playing the same challenger level clay tournaments, probably to make back the money invested, looking at prize money (I am completely speculating and have zero actual information about this, except for following the tournaments he actually plays).

He has a tough first round in Buenos Aires, and afraid he could finish February and thus the clay South American swing with very few wins to his name, which would cost him. He is yet to win a main draw match in 2017.

 

[Federberg]

I think the rationale for El Dude's dismissal of Coric is flawed and it's the problem with just focusing purely on rankings progress. It's never that easy. There are a few exceptional players that jump right into the top 20 or 30 then continue a slower but inevitable progress into the higher echelons of the game (by the way this is the path I think Zverev is taking, which is similar to the Big 4 in their youth). But it's never that simple. Sometimes your progress can be stopped by injuries, getting used to the tour, retooling your game to cope with much tougher competition. Let's give Coric a little bit more time. I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant jump that takes him much much higher up in the rankings. Sometimes it happens that way, as you adjust your game. He seems like the sort of guy to me, like Raonic who is determined to be one of the best and will do what is necessary to improve. It's just that sometimes the results aren't immediately apparent. I have always found it to be much more useful to see how well a young player does against the very best than to focus exclusively on rankings. My stock tip on Coric right now would be a MAINTAIN...

 

[El Dude]

Well, your dismissal of my rationale is flawed because I'm not just focusing purely on rankings progress, or at least am openly saying that my original critique was based solely on rankings but tried to incorporate britbox's analysis. So there .

That said, history is history. Great players rarely - if ever - stall out for 2-3 years. Again, this is using the rarified criteria of "great," and there's nothing wrong with being "merely" very good. It may even be that players who deal with injuries in their late teens/early 20s lose their chance to become elites, because they miss a key developmental phase that is hard to make up later on. But again, time and time again you see a separation in age 19-22ish period, where the elites quickly or steadily reach the top 10 or top 5, while non-elites settle in at a lower level, at least for a time.

As far as Coric is concerned, I think the question is whether he's going to be a second tier type - ranked in the #5-15 range, winning ATP 250s and 500s and maybe an occasional Masters, and being a QF type in Slams - or if he's going to be more of a tier three - Slam seed, thus top 30ish, occasional lesser titles. Right now he's what could be called "fourth tier" - not seeded at Slams, but comfortably in the top 100. My point is simply that it looks like he's not going to be elite, and I would stand by that as I see little to suggest he will be - whether we look at his rankings progress or his actual game, which doesn't have the weaponry to be an elite player.

So in my view, and adjusting for what britbox said about his attitude, his ceiling would be a David Ferrer - and that is still pretty darn good, as David was the best of the second tier for several years. Tomic would be more of a floor scenario.

 

[Federberg]

Well, your dismissal of my rationale is flawed because I'm not just focusing purely on rankings progress, or at least am openly saying that my original critique was based solely on rankings but tried to incorporate britbox's analysis. So there .

That said, history is history. Great players rarely - if ever - stall out for 2-3 years. Again, this is using the rarified criteria of "great," and there's nothing wrong with being "merely" very good. It may even be that players who deal with injuries in their late teens/early 20s lose their chance to become elites, because they miss a key developmental phase that is hard to make up later on. But again, time and time again you see a separation in age 19-22ish period, where the elites quickly or steadily reach the top 10 or top 5, while non-elites settle in at a lower level, at least for a time.

As far as Coric is concerned, I think the question is whether he's going to be a second tier type - ranked in the #5-15 range, winning ATP 250s and 500s and maybe an occasional Masters, and being a QF type in Slams - or if he's going to be more of a tier three - Slam seed, thus top 30ish, occasional lesser titles. Right now he's what could be called "fourth tier" - not seeded at Slams, but comfortably in the top 100. My point is simply that it looks like he's not going to be elite, and I would stand by that as I see little to suggest he will be - whether we look at his rankings progress or his actual game, which doesn't have the weaponry to be an elite player.

So in my view, and adjusting for what britbox said about his attitude, his ceiling would be a David Ferrer - and that is still pretty darn good, as David was the best of the second tier for several years. Tomic would be more of a floor scenario.

Lol! Please don't take my challenging the points you make as antagonism in anyway. I mean this sincerely (besides you're a Fed fan!). I look at your posts as a gold standard in terms of thoughtful content, and my natural tendency towards dialectic makes me want to argue the point with you. My sense is you have a quant/statistical background which I deeply respect, and because I spent a lot of years of my trading career arguing with quants. I guess I find it comforting having those sorts of debates with you Anyway... I still think it's a bit too early to sell Coric as an elite player. I do agree he has to do something in the near future to justify that belief, but the eye test tells me he has it in him

 

[El Dude]

Haha, I didn't take it as antagonism - thus the "smiley" emoticon. A challenge, yes - which is fun to take up. But thanks for the clarification (and compliment0, anyway. I'm actually not a quant/stat guy, at least professionally - actually, far from it! But I grew up loving baseball as my favorite sport, which is "the" statistical sport and I enjoy the mental puzzle/stimulation of it, and like to bring a statistical eye to tennis (which has surpassed baseball as my favorite sport). But I've also found that this only goes so far - both in terms of what it brings and how much you can rely upon it, but also my interest - that is, how deep down the rabbit hole I'm willing to go. I've found that I'm actually more interested in trends and trajectories than statistical minutia. And trends and trajectories offer probabilities based upon precedent, but should never be taken as definitive.

An example of what I mean is that I did a study over at TF last year in which I figured out what I called the "pace of greatness" - the benchmarks that all true greats (6+ Slam winners) of the Open Era met as young players. One was reaching the top 100 before their 19th birthday. Now just because no player who turned 19 and didn't reach the top 100 after the 1973 ATP rankings were in place became a 6+ Slam winner, doesn't mean it can't happen now or in the future. Someone will eventually do it - it just hasn't happened yet, in 43 years and 11 6+ Slam winners. We can look to Stan Wawrinka as a recent precedent breaker, as he is the only multi-Slam winner of the Open Era who won his first Slam after his 27th birthday - and he was 28, almost 29! (the previous oldest was Ilie Nastase, who won his first Slam at age 26).

Given the fact that we're seemingly in a period in which the prime age is higher than historical averages, I wouldn't be surprised if we see this precedent - a future 6+ Slam winner reaching the top 100 after their 19th birthday - broken by one of the young players current on tour. One candidate is Nick Kyrgios, who reached the top 100 at age 19 and, if he ever gets his shit together, could win a few Slams. Another is Andrey Rublev who I have a special feeling about, but turned 19 in October and is only now knocking on the door of the top 100 (I admit that I probably have too rosy a perspective on him, but it is a hunch). But I ramble.

(You could also check out my most recent article, which offers a different take on looking for the next great player - looking at the gap in time between first title and first big title)

As for Coric - we shall see! I'm definitely still open, but the "opening" has narrowed a bit over the last couple years. In a similar fashion that I'm starting to get a bit worried about Taylor Fritz, who has stagnated for about a year now. Again, I'm not going to write him off but his shine has dulled just a bit.

 

[Federberg]

^That's fair enough, and I would have broadly the same view (i.e., not specific to Coric, but as a general rule). But I don't think that Stan is going to be that unusual a late bloomer. I think that modern technology, primarily improvements in conditioning make it tougher and tougher for young players to break out early. By the way, that's one reason I'm super bullish on Zverev. I think he might just be something even more extraordinary that we currently assume

That's why I'm still keeping Coric at maintain. He has the basic tools already. We just need to see if it all clicks

 

[El Dude]

But here's a question: Has the "modern technology" and "improvements in conditioning" changed that much from when Rafa broke through as an elite player in the months leading up to his 19th birthday? I think people forget that Rafa's big breakthrough (to elite status) wasn't actually the 2005 Roland Garros, but he won his first ATP 500 in February and two Masters, Monte Carlo in April and Rome in May, before winning his first Slam a month later in early June. I'm only so specific because he became an elite player while still 18 years old; he was almost exactly a year younger than Zverev is now when he won his first Masters.

Now we could say that Rafa is a bit of a freak, but we don't have to go back that much further to find other elite youngsters: Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt were both 20 when they won their first big titles, and Safin actually made a Masters final at 19. And of course Novak won his first Slam at age 20, and del Potro was entering the elite as a 21 year old. So within the last 15ish years, we've had a bunch of players reaching elite status around 20 years of age. Consider that Zverev will be 20 in a couple months, Kyrgios 22 around the same time, and Dominic Thiem 24 later this year. If they're blooming later, we're talking about a change in only about the last ten years; it might be more likely an explanation that the young players over the last decade - or at least before Alex Zverev - are simply not as good.

Clearly elite status at 20 isn't the same thing as Chang, Becker, and Wilander winning a Slam at 17 years old - and I doubt we're going back to those days. Actually, the 80s were a bit of a historical anomaly in terms of how many teenagers were both breaking into the top 100 and winning Slams. But one thing that has been consistent throughout Open Era history is that ALL great players turn elite no later than 21-22 years old; by "elite" I mean winning at least Masters tournaments, seriously challenging for Slams, and in the top 5. Maybe that will change, but I don't think it will change that much. For example, while Grigor Dimitrov is one of my favorite non-Federer players and I hope he wins a Slam or three, I highly doubt he's on the verge of a run in which he wins half a dozen or more Slams and becomes a true all-time great. We simply would have seen more by now. Lendl didn't win his first Slam until age 24, and Andy Murray not until age 25 - and presumably Andy still has time to join the true all-time greats - but both Ivan and Andy were elite players well before their first Slam.

But again, new precedents will be set - just ask the Stanimal. Maybe he's starting a new trend of players peaking in their late 20s to early 30s, or maybe not. I think we'll also have to see how Andy, Novak, and Rafa age. Right now Roger looks like a throwback to Laver and Rosewall, but maybe he's just a new standard and Novak will be winning his 20th Slam in five years. But that would be a surprise...I think more realistically the traditional peak range of 21-27ish is being pushed back a bit to 22-30ish, and perhaps the truly great players can extend elite level into their 30s a bit - like Roger and Andre Agassi a few years back. Each year going forward will tell us a lot more - whether we're in a radically new era, or just a slightly altered/evolved one.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[El Dude]

Nice win by Borna over Karen Khachanov today. He us up a set but down 2-5 in the second and came back in a tiebreaker.

 

[Federberg]

But here's a question: Has the "modern technology" and "improvements in conditioning" changed that much from when Rafa broke through as an elite player in the months leading up to his 19th birthday? I think people forget that Rafa's big breakthrough (to elite status) wasn't actually the 2005 Roland Garros, but he won his first ATP 500 in February and two Masters, Monte Carlo in April and Rome in May, before winning his first Slam a month later in early June. I'm only so specific because he became an elite player while still 18 years old; he was almost exactly a year younger than Zverev is now when he won his first Masters.

Now we could say that Rafa is a bit of a freak, but we don't have to go back that much further to find other elite youngsters: Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt were both 20 when they won their first big titles, and Safin actually made a Masters final at 19. And of course Novak won his first Slam at age 20, and del Potro was entering the elite as a 21 year old. So within the last 15ish years, we've had a bunch of players reaching elite status around 20 years of age. Consider that Zverev will be 20 in a couple months, Kyrgios 22 around the same time, and Dominic Thiem 24 later this year. If they're blooming later, we're talking about a change in only about the last ten years; it might be more likely an explanation that the young players over the last decade - or at least before Alex Zverev - are simply not as good.

Clearly elite status at 20 isn't the same thing as Chang, Becker, and Wilander winning a Slam at 17 years old - and I doubt we're going back to those days. Actually, the 80s were a bit of a historical anomaly in terms of how many teenagers were both breaking into the top 100 and winning Slams. But one thing that has been consistent throughout Open Era history is that ALL great players turn elite no later than 21-22 years old; by "elite" I mean winning at least Masters tournaments, seriously challenging for Slams, and in the top 5. Maybe that will change, but I don't think it will change that much. For example, while Grigor Dimitrov is one of my favorite non-Federer players and I hope he wins a Slam or three, I highly doubt he's on the verge of a run in which he wins half a dozen or more Slams and becomes a true all-time great. We simply would have seen more by now. Lendl didn't win his first Slam until age 24, and Andy Murray not until age 25 - and presumably Andy still has time to join the true all-time greats - but both Ivan and Andy were elite players well before their first Slam.

But again, new precedents will be set - just ask the Stanimal. Maybe he's starting a new trend of players peaking in their late 20s to early 30s, or maybe not. I think we'll also have to see how Andy, Novak, and Rafa age. Right now Roger looks like a throwback to Laver and Rosewall, but maybe he's just a new standard and Novak will be winning his 20th Slam in five years. But that would be a surprise...I think more realistically the traditional peak range of 21-27ish is being pushed back a bit to 22-30ish, and perhaps the truly great players can extend elite level into their 30s a bit - like Roger and Andre Agassi a few years back. Each year going forward will tell us a lot more - whether we're in a radically new era, or just a slightly altered/evolved one.

Interesting times ahead.

Interesting times indeed. As I said I think we're seeing a new paradigm here. The old path towards elite-hood may well have changed. Top players are dominant for far longer, the game is deeper and more physical even compared to a decade ago. This is why I'm not so concerned that we don't see early breakouts so much. It doesn't mean some of these guys in their early 20s should be consigned to mediocrity just yet. At least in my view, I'll withhold my judgement for a bit