Young Guns Discussion

[GameSetAndMath]

I like how Carol made an annoying and unnecessary jab at Federer's fans, but then Front right away gave an example of what she was complaining about.

That is unfair criticism. uzzled Becker got into top 5 before he turned 18 where as Rafa was almost 19 by the time he reached top 5 for the first time. So, Front is factually correct in saying that Becker was even more of a phenom than Rafa as a teenager (of course, we are not talking about their whole career here).

Wilander, Becker and Chang have all won Slams before turning 18. Borg did so before turning 19.
Becker won 2 slams before turning 19. Rafa won his first slam after turning 19. So, while Rafa's achievement as a teenager is certainly noteworthy, to claim that he is an unparalleled super teenager (like Carol did) is just being fan-girlish and is not rooted in fact. :nono

 

[Front242]

I like how Carol made an annoying and unnecessary jab at Federer's fans, but then Front right away gave an example of what she was complaining about.

Not sure I did really. She said there will never be another super teenager like Nadal. I stated I thought Becker as a teenager was more impressive. Wimbledon is considered by the masses to be by far the hardest slam to win and he won it at 17.

 

[Kieran]

Well I don't know which slam is hardest to win, but I think we can all agree that it looks like Rafa is going to be the last great phenom teenager we'll see for a long time...

EDIT:

Just off the top of my head, the 5 greatest teens I've seen in tennis are Borg, Mats, Becker, Rafa and Pete.

The most phenomenal in terms of immediate impact was Becker.

Borg was also 17 when he won Paris, and was also phenomenal in a Fifth Beatle, George Best kinda way. In that, he transcended the sport more effortlessly than Becker, but Boris had this force of nature primitive sensation about him, boyish but animal too...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Boris Becker was even more impressive.

Nah, it was Rafa who won RG at 19 and defeated Federer right before he turned 20(or shortly afterwards). Becker only defeated Kevin Curren and Lendl at Wimbledon. Lendl was a stiff on grass.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, I made a reference to Rafa being the last of the Super Teenagers 5 years ago. I thought Zverev had a slight chance to be the next.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Well I don't know which slam is hardest to win, but I think we can all agree that it looks like Rafa is going to be the last great phenom teenager we'll see for a long time...

EDIT:

Just off the top of my head, the 5 greatest teens I've seen in tennis are Borg, Mats, Becker, Rafa and Pete.

The most phenomenal in terms of immediate impact was Becker.

Borg was also 17 when he won Paris, and was also phenomenal in a Fifth Beatle, George Best kinda way. In that, he transcended the sport more effortlessly than Becker, but Boris had this force of nature primitive sensation about him, boyish but animal too...

Na, Borg was 18+ when he won his first slam (although just by 10 days).

 

[Kieran]

Well I don't know which slam is hardest to win, but I think we can all agree that it looks like Rafa is going to be the last great phenom teenager we'll see for a long time...

EDIT:

Just off the top of my head, the 5 greatest teens I've seen in tennis are Borg, Mats, Becker, Rafa and Pete.

The most phenomenal in terms of immediate impact was Becker.

Borg was also 17 when he won Paris, and was also phenomenal in a Fifth Beatle, George Best kinda way. In that, he transcended the sport more effortlessly than Becker, but Boris had this force of nature primitive sensation about him, boyish but animal too...

Na, Borg was 18+ when he won his first slam (although just by 10 days).

Okay, I thought he was 17 in Paris in 1974, but he was only ten days over, so it's still incredibly young, particularly for clay, where you don't have a Boom-Boom serve to dig you out of trouble. He was a trailblazer the likes of which we'll never see again, because he was first-generation pro-tennis and the mass communications explosion that followed it, which can never be replicated...

 

[Carol]

Ok, even that has been a couple of players winning their first GS one or two years younger than Nadal did if you talk with any tennis followers (it doesn't matter their age) about phenomenon teen players most of them have in their mind Nadal first and probably because he diid more impact than Becker at his best time and this is a fact and not "being fan girlish". Of course some Roger's fans disagree with that opinion, I can't expect something else

 

[GameSetAndMath]

People tend to remember the most recent occurrence more often and confuse that with the best occurrence.

 

[Kieran]

I think the fact that teenage slam champs are nowadays as rare as dinosaurs being spotted on fifth avenue makes the most recent one fairly extraordinary. Especially that he owned Roger, when everyone else was running scared. I think Rafa is the only teen champ since Sampras in 1990. That's a long time. Plus, we're always hearing of how much tougher the game is now. His immediate global impact may not have been like Becker, but still, to tennis aficionados it was quite an achievement.

By the way, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be teenage slam champs nowadays. The likes of Nick is physically strong, but mentally mute. Okay, so his ship has sailed in this regard but I think we'll see a kid with strong nuts and dangerous weapons go through the draw mindlessly clicking W's someday, like Becker did...

 

[herios]

By the way, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be teenage slam champs nowadays. The likes of Nick is physically strong, but mentally mute. Okay, so his ship has sailed in this regard but I think we'll see a kid with strong nuts and dangerous weapons go through the draw mindlessly clicking W's someday, like Becker did...

Not happening. Nick had two QF runs as a teenager, but that is still far from winning the title. His runs there were outstanding, and that is all about it.
And ever since, a more developed Kyrgios technically was not able to repeat his performance, he constantly makes the R4, but not beyond.
He has won a 250 event only and with that he is the youngest title holder on tour at 21....
Just not seeing any teenager doing a lot of damage anytime soon. Zverev is under the radar to make a splash, but he has still some technical issues to work on as well, FH is not consistent and will be exploited by experienced opponents, like Lu did here in Toronto.

 

[mouse]

I really like the look of Khachanov. Had a very impressive win against Kohli last week

 

[herios]

I really like the look of Khachanov. Had a very impressive win against Kohli last week

That was an impressive win, but he could not back it up and lost to Lajovic the next round, quite easily.

 

[Kieran]

By the way, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be teenage slam champs nowadays. The likes of Nick is physically strong, but mentally mute. Okay, so his ship has sailed in this regard but I think we'll see a kid with strong nuts and dangerous weapons go through the draw mindlessly clicking W's someday, like Becker did...

Not happening. Nick had two QF runs as a teenager, but that is still far from winning the title. His runs there were outstanding, and that is all about it.
And ever since, a more developed Kyrgios technically was not able to repeat his performance, he constantly makes the R4, but not beyond.
He has won a 250 event only and with that he is the youngest title holder on tour at 21....
Just not seeing any teenager doing a lot of damage anytime soon. Zverev is under the radar to make a splash, but he has still some technical issues to work on as well, FH is not consistent and will be exploited by experienced opponents, like Lu did here in Toronto.

That's true, but in theory there's no reason why a really special teenager can't succeed spectacularly in future, especially if they ignite at the right time and then get help from the draw, the way Becker did in 85, with regards to McEnroe and even Connors and Lendl...

 

[herios]

By the way, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be teenage slam champs nowadays. The likes of Nick is physically strong, but mentally mute. Okay, so his ship has sailed in this regard but I think we'll see a kid with strong nuts and dangerous weapons go through the draw mindlessly clicking W's someday, like Becker did...

Not happening. Nick had two QF runs as a teenager, but that is still far from winning the title. His runs there were outstanding, and that is all about it.
And ever since, a more developed Kyrgios technically was not able to repeat his performance, he constantly makes the R4, but not beyond.
He has won a 250 event only and with that he is the youngest title holder on tour at 21....
Just not seeing any teenager doing a lot of damage anytime soon. Zverev is under the radar to make a splash, but he has still some technical issues to work on as well, FH is not consistent and will be exploited by experienced opponents, like Lu did here in Toronto.

That's true, but in theory there's no reason why a really special teenager can't succeed spectacularly in future, especially if they ignite at the right time and then get help from the draw, the way Becker did in 85, with regards to McEnroe and even Connors and Lendl...

In theory many things could happen, that is always the case, isn't it?

 

[Kieran]

Not happening. Nick had two QF runs as a teenager, but that is still far from winning the title. His runs there were outstanding, and that is all about it.
And ever since, a more developed Kyrgios technically was not able to repeat his performance, he constantly makes the R4, but not beyond.
He has won a 250 event only and with that he is the youngest title holder on tour at 21....
Just not seeing any teenager doing a lot of damage anytime soon. Zverev is under the radar to make a splash, but he has still some technical issues to work on as well, FH is not consistent and will be exploited by experienced opponents, like Lu did here in Toronto.

That's true, but in theory there's no reason why a really special teenager can't succeed spectacularly in future, especially if they ignite at the right time and then get help from the draw, the way Becker did in 85, with regards to McEnroe and even Connors and Lendl...

In theory many things could happen, that is always the case, isn't it?

As Rafa might say, that's the true. And until we see it, few people will believe it possible, but that's always the way just before these wunderkind destroy the field and leave us all gaping in amazement. Anyway, with the current field, it looks a long way off. Let's hope for healthier competition sometime soon in the future...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

By the way, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be teenage slam champs nowadays. The likes of Nick is physically strong, but mentally mute. Okay, so his ship has sailed in this regard but I think we'll see a kid with strong nuts and dangerous weapons go through the draw mindlessly clicking W's someday, like Becker did...

Not happening. Nick had two QF runs as a teenager, but that is still far from winning the title. His runs there were outstanding, and that is all about it.
And ever since, a more developed Kyrgios technically was not able to repeat his performance, he constantly makes the R4, but not beyond.
He has won a 250 event only and with that he is the youngest title holder on tour at 21....
Just not seeing any teenager doing a lot of damage anytime soon. Zverev is under the radar to make a splash, but he has still some technical issues to work on as well, FH is not consistent and will be exploited by experienced opponents, like Lu did here in Toronto.

That's true, but in theory there's no reason why a really special teenager can't succeed spectacularly in future, especially if they ignite at the right time and then get help from the draw, the way Becker did in 85, with regards to McEnroe and even Connors and Lendl...

I think it could possibly happen when all of Big Four have officially retired.

 

[El Dude]

Look at the two young Canadians--Shapovalov and Aliassime, 17 and 15 respectively. From what a I saw from Shapovalov against Grigor, a couple more years of development could theoretically put him in contention for a Slam. And Aliassime has four years of teenagehood left, and the sky's the limit for that kid.

Teenage Slam winners have always been rare. In the Open Era:

1974 - Borg (18)
1975 - Borg (19)
1982 - Wilander (17)
1983 - Wilander (18)
1984 - Wilander (19)
1985 - Edberg (19), Becker (17)
1986 - Becker (18)
1989 - Chang (17)
1990 - Sampras (19)
2005 - Nadal (19)

So really it was only a short period of time in the Open Era, from 1982-90, where a lot of teenagers were winning Slams: five of the seven teenage Slam winners of the Open Era. That was also the era when the sport was at its youngest, with players peaking and declining younger than before and after.

Perhaps someone more versed in the game could tell us if there were any factors involved other than it being a particularly talent-rich period. Something about the courts or gear, training even?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Becker was 17 and 18 in the two early slams that he won.

 

[Kieran]

Look at the two young Canadians--Shapovalov and Aliassime, 17 and 15 respectively. From what a I saw from Shapovalov against Grigor, a couple more years of development could theoretically put him in contention for a Slam. And Aliassime has four years of teenagehood left, and the sky's the limit for that kid.

Teenage Slam winners have always been rare. In the Open Era:

1974 - Borg (18)
1975 - Borg (19)
1982 - Wilander (17)
1983 - Wilander (18)
1984 - Wilander (19)
1985 - Edberg (19), Becker (18)
1986 - Becker (19)
1989 - Chang (17)
1990 - Sampras (19)
2005 - Nadal (19)

So really it was only a short period of time in the Open Era, from 1982-90, where a lot of teenagers were winning Slams: five of the seven teenage Slam winners of the Open Era. That was also the era when the sport was at its youngest, with players peaking and declining younger than before and after.

Perhaps someone more versed in the game could tell us if there were any factors involved other than it being a particularly talent-rich period. Something about the courts or gear, training even?

Becker was 17 when he won Wimbledon.

I think in his case, the huge serve helped. Most of them have been on clay, where you can view it from two perspectives: in the history of the game, traditionally a ghetto area, less visited than grass.

Or in the professional era, a shifting perspective because the USO was briefly on clay - and also it could be considered the most difficult slam because of the so many greats who failed to make a dent in it.

My own feeling is that slams are difficult depending on circumstances.

I think you're onto something when you consider training, etc. As I said above, there's no logical reason why teenagers should suddenly have shuddered to a halt with the great Sampras, followed a long time later by Nadal. Factor in the questions about how suspect the opposition have been at certain points, and then the culture of the sport, which may not encourage the brave, outlandish types like Rafa and Becker and Borg, and we might be getting closer.

There's no earthly reason why youngsters shouldn't be brushing the fogeys aside, no matter how great they are.

None!