What makes a breakthrough?

[El Dude]

Alright, fine. I've offered what I can. I have been having a hard time trying to figure out what you're trying to figure out with this one, so I'll leave you to it, now.

It might be because you're looking for something more definitive than I'm actually intending. Its just curiosity.

 

[DarthFed]

I'd break it down to three categories: 1. Minor breakthroughs, 2. Relevant breakthroughs and 3. Major breakthroughs.

First category is almost generous to call them breakthroughs. It's more along the lines of baby steps. FAA is a good example this week, he won a couple matches, is now ranked in the top 100.

The relevant breakthroughs would be more along the lines of big results at MS events or a decent run at a major, usually semis or finals. I'd say Zverev winning Rome 2017 or even Tsitsipas making Toronto final last year. Going back you could say Rafa at 2005 Miami, Djoker 2007 IW final and for Fed maybe the 2001 Wimbledon when he beat Sampras. Dimitrov seemed to have that in 2017 with making AO semis, and winning Cincy and YEC that year. But he's a bit of an anomaly and he may have had some of us fooled

Major breakthroughs are slams. Either finals or wins and I'd say it really should be the latter. But maybe in the case of someone like Stan we'd say his first major breakthrough was beating Djoker at AO 2014 and making the final. Even had Stan lost to Nadal I have a feeling he'd have been a different/stronger player after that tournament than he was before it. Same with Sod in 2009 RG. Even though he didn't win that final he was clearly a different player after that tournament.

 

[Federberg]

I think you can only define a breakthrough retrospectively. That is if we want to define a breakthrough as something that leads to a sustainable progression going forward. Otherwise we have to remember that it takes two to tango. Someone might have what appears to be a breakthrough but in reality the opponent they faced was injured or didn't perform, and the other has merely benefited. That happens. Dimitrov is an interesting case, he has shown the ability at times to lift to another level but doesn't appear to be able to sustain it. He might be at his appropriate level already so if we want to identify when he made his breakthrough we might have to go back and identify a match or period where he was able to move from his preceding level to reach where he is now.

 

[El Dude]

Grigor looked like he was breaking through in 2014, when he finished #11, but then he slid back. Then again in 2017...and another back-slide. I suppose at this point, turning 27 this year, this is simply the player he is. After 2017 I thought he might go on a run of a few years in which he was a fixture in the top 10 and a darkhorse Slam candidate, but now I'm not so sure. I see more of an up-and-down player, might win another Master or two and even sneak in a Slam at some point, but I don't think he has the edge to have the consistency, and it may be that with the rise of NextGen, his window is closing quickly.

As for breakthroughs, I do think it is a big deal that FAA broke into the top 100. He now has main entries into Slams and as long as he doesn't get injured, should at least consolidate his ranking and create opportunities to advance. But @DarthFed's and @Federberg's posts made me think that there are actually several things on discussion:

1. Jumps to new tiers of play (e.g. from challengers and qualifications, ranking 100-200, into the top 100 and main entry to Slams)
2. Career milestones (e.g. first title, Slam final, Slam win, etc)
3. Improvement in level

All three are related, but not quite the same thing.

 

[Federberg]

I think that it's reasonable to say that players have more than one breakthrough through out their career. FAA has definitely had a breakthrough recently but his story is just beginning. There will be more levels for him. That's not always the case for all players. Perhaps we can define the levels..

1, Breaking into top 100
2, Breaking into top 40
3, Breaking into top 20
4, Breaking into top 10
5, Breaking into top 5

I think it has to be done by ranking. Ranking is the only true way we can assess the sustainability of progression. Along the way players can accumulate titles, but these levels can actually be reached without winning titles funnily enough. When all is said and done we can look back at the titles to make an assessment of how much the player has achieved but winning those titles in themselves don't signpost the level where the player is. Only the ranking and its sustainability really does

 

[El Dude]

Yes, well put. I like your point about titles, because winning one has a lot to do with who the competition is. As we all know, there are some "one-Slam wonders" who were inferior players to some who didn't win Slams. Players like Davydenko, Ferrer, Rios, Mecir etc were better than T Johansson, Gaudio, etc. Or we could look at specific years, like 1998. Rios was ranked #2 but didn't win a Slam, but did win the Grand Slam Cup, three Masters, and seven titles overall. Sampras was #1 and won a single Slam, but otherwise was inferior, winning no other big titles and only four titles overall. The other Slam winners--Rafter, Moya, Korda--all had lesser seasons to Rios.

This is also why I think any conversation about GOAT cannot stop at Slam count but has to at least take into account rankings. I'm even fine with stopping there as rankings take into account all performance.

Those five ranking ranges also constitute "tiers" of players. A "second tier" player spends most or much of his prime in the top 10, might slip into the top 20 at times or sneak into the top 5, but his prime level is top 10. Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Nishikori, Thiem, etc. Of course any system of categorization (like tiers) is only ever about 80% accurate; there are always borderline players that are hard to categorize. Wawrinka is a great example: he was arguably the second most dangerous player on tour from 2014-16 but never ranked higher than #3 and finished all three years #4.

 

[Federberg]

Yes exactly. Perhaps some sort of time weighted true ranking will tell the story. This could be done in two ways. One That focusses on a set amount of time, perhaps a 10yr period, and one for a career measure. The limited period one could be described as the players optimal ranking while the other would be the pure ranking. They would necessarily tell slightly different stories. The optimal one would be the cross-time comparison, while the other is a measure of greatness/ career dominance

 

[Moxie]

I think you can only define a breakthrough retrospectively. That is if we want to define a breakthrough as something that leads to a sustainable progression going forward. Otherwise we have to remember that it takes two to tango. Someone might have what appears to be a breakthrough but in reality the opponent they faced was injured or didn't perform, and the other has merely benefited. That happens. Dimitrov is an interesting case, he has shown the ability at times to lift to another level but doesn't appear to be able to sustain it. He might be at his appropriate level already so if we want to identify when he made his breakthrough we might have to go back and identify a match or period where he was able to move from his preceding level to reach where he is now.

Lots of good points from you and @DarthFed and @El Dude. I want to say that I don't think you can only define a breakthrough retrospectively, as you say above, but I guess one would have said that Rosol d. Nadal in Wimbledon some years back would have been a breakthrough moment, if he'd done anything with it. Instead, it was just a hot hand on a random day. And even for players who come good, some we see only when we look back, because they're incremental small indicators early on. But the "flashy" ones, like upsetting an elite player at a Major, that bring a young player to the tennis-viewing-world's attention are generally considered, in the moment, to be (at least potentially) breakout performances.

Some talk of Dimitrov, and he is a bit of an odd case, but he's still an upper-level player, so his breakouts are his breakouts, right? Are we looking for breakout moments that turn them into world-beaters, or just solid upper-level? I think we have just seen some real breakouts by FAA, Tsitsipas (and Andreescu, if you just watched the women's final,) but we still don't know what lies in store for them. That we can't know. But they have shown us that they have real game and desire, and have hit some of the markers for success.

EDITED to correct: it was Rosol who beat Nadal at Wimbledon.

 

[Federberg]

as I said it depends on how you define a breakthrough. Maybe I'm coming from a financial trading perspective because we have breakouts and false breaks. Janowicz in retrospect was a false break. In trading terms that's a price move that gets above a critical level (support/resistance) that should signify a new price range, but the move doesn't sustain and it falls back into the previous price range again. A breakout or in tennis terms a breakthrough is a move that takes you into a new price range. Or a new level of sustained performance. What we might have considered to be a breakout for Grigor, his semifinal in Australia is more like a false break. It's not something that we have any reason to expect to happen with regularity. Yes he'll have his good days but it's not enough for us to define it as a definite and sustained improvement in his performance level

 

[Moxie]

as I said it depends on how you define a breakthrough. Maybe I'm coming from a financial trading perspective because we have breakouts and false breaks. Janowicz in retrospect was a false break. In trading terms that's a price move that gets above a critical level (support/resistance) that should signify a new price range, but the move doesn't sustain and it falls back into the previous price range again. A breakout or in tennis terms a breakthrough is a move that takes you into a new price range. Or a new level of sustained performance. What we might have considered to be a breakout for Grigor, his semifinal in Australia is more like a false break. It's not something that we have any reason to expect to happen with regularity. Yes he'll have his good days but it's not enough for us to define it as a definite and sustained improvement in his performance level

Yes, I was reacting to your point that it depends on how we define a breakthrough. Interesting on how you relate it to your field, as I realize I have related it to mine, writing "breakout performance." We use it in film to describe the one that brings an actor to the public's attention, which might be why I am a bit focused on the moment that the tennis world realizes who you are and applies scrutiny. In any case, I think we agree that it's the follow-up, including across a career. In tennis terms, it's like you have to consolidate a break for it to be a real break of serve. Still, though, most players will not be Fed/Nadal/Djoker. They'll breakthrough and may stay at a pretty high level. This is sort of Dimitrov. Or Gasquet. There was a lot of ink spilled on those players, early on. I think you get a feel for a really good player, but the ceiling is impossible to predict, at this stage.

 

[Moxie]

This is kind of funny: I was looking at Miami qualifying results and I saw that Lukas Rosol lost. Which reminded me that I'd mis-identified above that Janowicz was the guy who beat Nadal at Wimbledon, while it was Rosol. Neither @Federberg nor I noticed the error, as, I would say, that both had "false breakthroughs," so they feel rather interchangeable. Rosol is now 33 and ranked 133. JJ has had a lot of injury issues and has not played since 2017. I just noticed that he's listed on the ATP site as "inactive." He's 28 years old, so I'm guessing he hasn't retired, but his ranking has dropped off too far to be listed. Any ideas? Anyway, these are two rather stark examples of breakouts that didn't pan out at all. They were both definitely in the conversation for a little while, but turned out to be a "flash in the pan."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'd break it down to three categories: 1. Minor breakthroughs, 2. Relevant breakthroughs and 3. Major breakthroughs.

Once upon a time, the definition used to be as follows:

Minor breakthroughs: Winning a Game against TMF.

Moderate brekathroughs; Winning a Set againt TMF.

Major breakthroughs: Having had an MP against TMF.

Gone are those days.

 

[Moxie]

Once upon a time, the definition used to be as follows:

Minor breakthroughs: Winning a Game against TMF.

Moderate brekathroughs; Winning a Set againt TMF.

Major breakthroughs: Having had an MP against TMF.

Gone are those days.

That's kinda fannish, but you bring up an interesting point: because TMF is at least the greatest champion of men's tennis, he has been on the other side of a lot of breakthroughs for great players, or at least decent ones of his era.

* A great deal of Rafa's early breakthrough was: Beat Roger in MIA '04; lose in the finals to him there '05 (in 5); and beat him RG SF '05.

* Gasquet's breakthrough was to beat him in MC QF '05.

* Novak's breakthrough was the progression of: beat Roger in Cincy '07; lose to him in the F at USO '07, and beat him in AO in '08.

* And now a big point in Tsitsipas's breakthrough was to beat Roger at this year's AO.

For at least 15 years, it has meant a lot for younger players if you can get past him.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's kinda fannish, but you bring up an interesting point: because TMF is at least the greatest champion of men's tennis, he has been on the other side of a lot of breakthroughs for great players, or at least decent ones of his era.

* A great deal of Rafa's early breakthrough was: Beat Roger in MIA '04; lose in the finals to him there '05 (in 5); and beat him RG SF '05.

* Gasquet's breakthrough was to beat him in MC QF '05.

* Novak's breakthrough was the progression of: beat Roger in Cincy '07; lose to him in the F at USO '07, and beat him in AO in '08.

* And now a big point in Tsitsipas's breakthrough was to beat Roger at this year's AO.

For at least 15 years, it has meant a lot for younger players if you can get past him.

You missed JMDP beating him in USO'09 and Cilic beating him at USO and then clinching the title.

 

[Moxie]

You missed JMDP beating him in USO'09 and Cilic beating him at USO and then clinching the title.

I'm don't believe that those were their "breakthroughs". I think each broke through before. I'm just talking about breakthroughs that involved Roger.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm don't believe that those were their "breakthroughs". I think each broke through before. I'm just talking about breakthroughs that involved Roger.

Not sure what you are talking about. JMDP had not even won a Masters event when he beat Roger in USO finals. Also, he has never even been a finalist in slams before. That is certainly a breakthrough for JMDP. Only since then he is a household name. Before that only tennis junkies knew him.

Cilic has not even won a 500 event at the time he captured USO title.

 

[Moxie]

Not sure what you are talking about. JMDP had not even won a Masters event when he beat Roger in USO finals. Also, he has never even been a finalist in slams before. That is certainly a breakthrough for JMDP. Only since then he is a household name. Before that only tennis junkies knew him.

Cilic has not even won a 500 event at the time he captured USO title.

Again it becomes a question of what is a "breakthrough." By 2007-08 both were on the radar, and del Potro was at least reaching Fed, Nadal and Djokovic in tournaments to lose to them. While there may not be a previous signature "breakthrough" match for either, that I can think of, they were well considered as options when they won those Majors. Those didn't come out of the blue, and I think they were far from "breakout" moments, but if you want to say they were career defining, I would agree with that. But we'd long known their names, by that point. And if Cilic's did seem to come out of nowhere, it was rather late in his being a well-known contender.

 

[DarthFed]

Cilic was definitely out of nowhere. He had made 1 major semi I believe (2010 AO) and wasn't really heard from at big events after that. By USO 2014 he was not seen as much of a contender at all.

DP was certainly seen as a contender at USO 2009 as he came in playing pretty well but I'd say his breakouts before that had been moderate, making RG semis and Montreal finals that year.

 

[atttomole]

Once upon a time, the definition used to be as follows:

Minor breakthroughs: Winning a Game against TMF.

Moderate brekathroughs; Winning a Set againt TMF.

Major breakthroughs: Having had an MP against TMF.

Gone are those days.

That could annoy Nadal fans, who will say that it is a typical behavior of Roger fans. They would see it as arrogance.

 

[DarthFed]

That could annoy Nadal fans, who will say that it is a typical behavior of Roger fans. They would see it as arrogance.

Nadal fans see us as arrogant? Impossible