Young Guns Watch: 2015 Edition

[El Dude]

I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread dedicated to the Young Guns. Historically this would be players age 20 or 21 and younger, but in today's context I think we can stretch it a bit to the Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov generation - although it is worth noting that Nishikori is 25 already and turns 26 in December, so he's hardly young any more. For context, using my five-year generational theory, this thread is for discussing the two younger generations on tour:

Birth years 1989-93: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Tomic, Vesely, Thiem, etc
Birth years 1994-98: Kyrgios, Coric, Zverez, Kokkinakis, Chung, Donaldson, etc

Here's a very useful link, with age-related rankings updated per week. If we look at only players born in 1989 and later, we get the following:

February 23, 2015
5. Kei Nishikori (25)
6. Milos Raonic (24)
10. Grigor Dimitrov (23)
21. David Goffin (24)
37. Nick Kyrgios (19)
42. Bernard Tomic (22)
45. Donald Young (25)
46. Jiri Vesely (21)
47. Dominic Thiem (21)
49. Jerzy Janowicz (24)
54. Pablo Carreno Busta (23)
56. Jack Sock (22)
59. Federico Delbonis (24)
63. Vasek Pospisil (24)
64. Diego Schwartzman (22)
78. Dusan Lajovic (24)
84. Borna Coric (18)
87. Damir Dzumhur (22)

Others (Top 200, age 21 and younger):
112. Lucas Pouille (21)
120. Hyeon Chung (18)
136. Alexander Zverez (17)
138. Thanasi Kokkinakis (18)
145. Yoshihito Nishioka (19)
147. Jason Kubler (21)
151. Kyle Edmund (19)
152. Luke Saville (21)
154. Roberto Carballes Baena (21)
158. Mate Delic (21)
166. Kimmer Copperjans (21)
172. Bjorn Fratangelo (21)
174. Jared Donaldson (18)
181. Liam Brody (21)
188. Elias Ymer (18)
190. Nicolas Jarry (19)

A few comments.

With his win over Marcos Baghdatis today, Borna Coric is up to #64 in the live rankings.

Of players currently outside the top 100, I'm particularly curious about Pouille, Zverez, Chung, Kokkinakis, Nishioka, Donaldson, and Ymer - but I don't expect to see many or any of them rise too high this year, maybe a few getting into the top 100.

I've also found that top young players seem to follow a pattern. First, they work their way up in the Challenger/Future circuit, angling for spots in bigger tournaments. Then they have a first breakthrough, which establishes a kid of "beach-head" in the lower half of the top 100. Once there, they spend a year or two working their way up the ranks and then have two more big jumps: one into the top 20, and then one into the top 10. Lesser players seem to stagnate at various points, while for top players the whole process--from outside of the top 300 to the top 10--happens in just three or four years, and is accomplished by the time they're 21. In other words, the difference between elite players and second or third tier players is that the elites don't stall out and have a steady, often very quick, rise. The second and third tier players end up getting "stuck" at various points. I think, as a rule of thumb, if a player isn't in the top 10 by the time he's 22, chances are he's not going to be a true elite. But that's just historical norms; it may be that is changing.

Anyhow, that's my bit for now. Feel free to discuss any and all of the two generations of Young Guns in this thread.

 

[Great Hands]

Good thread El Dude, and interesting comments.

It will be interesting to see if Coric and Kyrgios can fulfill their obvious potential. It's worth noting that even the least successful of the big 4, Andy Murray, first entered the top 10 in the world when he was still a teenager! So these guys have got some work to do.

 

[El Dude]

Great Hands, I'd say that NO player from the 89-93 generation can or will be a true elite (meaning a top 5 Slam contender) - the ship is sailing. But Kyrgios and Coric, not to mention Zverev and others, are from the next generation, the 94-98 group, which has time.

I suspect that Slams will be won by Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov simply because someone from that generation has to win some, but they will be few and far between and squeezed out between the great Nadal-Djokovic generation and the potentially good Kyrgios-Coric generation.

 

[Great Hands]

Great Hands, I'd say that NO player from the 89-93 generation can or will be a true elite (meaning a top 5 Slam contender) - the ship is sailing. But Kyrgios and Coric, not to mention Zverev and others, are from the next generation, the 94-98 group, which has time.

I suspect that Slams will be won by Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov simply because someone from that generation has to win some, but they will be few and far between and squeezed out between the great Nadal-Djokovic generation and the potentially good Kyrgios-Coric generation.

Sorry, I messed up there, obviously Coric and Kyrgios are in the younger group - I think I need to get some sleep! :blush: I've corrected my above post accordingly.

Anyway, your description of the various jumps in rankings and the stalling of certain players at various points was interesting to me! And it is true that Coric and Kyrgios will have to work hard to keep up with Andy Murray's career trajectory, even though he is regarded as lesser among today's top players.

 

[herios]

Good thread El Dude, and interesting comments. So based upon your 'top 10 by 22' rule, the only 2 players from your list of the 89-93 generation who have a chance to be true elites are Coric and Kyrgios, which I think is about right.

It will be interesting to see if these two can fulfill their obvious potential. It's worth noting that even the least successful of the big 4, Andy Murray, first entered the top 10 in the world when he was still a teenager! So these guys have got some work to do.

Andy has entered top 10 when he was shy one month of his 20 birthday on the 10 spot. He bounced then in and out for a few months before establishing a stable top 10 player in 2008.

 

[Great Hands]

Good thread El Dude, and interesting comments. So based upon your 'top 10 by 22' rule, the only 2 players from your list of the 89-93 generation who have a chance to be true elites are Coric and Kyrgios, which I think is about right.

It will be interesting to see if these two can fulfill their obvious potential. It's worth noting that even the least successful of the big 4, Andy Murray, first entered the top 10 in the world when he was still a teenager! So these guys have got some work to do.

Not to be picky, but Andy Murray was not a teenager when he broke into the top 10, he turned 20 a few weeks before (he is born on 15 May 1987). He entered in the top 10 on 11 June 2007.

The source I had - http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/history/murray.html - had Murray first entering the top 10 on April 16, 2007, when he was still 19. But maybe this is wrong - what's your source?

 

[herios]

Good thread El Dude, and interesting comments. So based upon your 'top 10 by 22' rule, the only 2 players from your list of the 89-93 generation who have a chance to be true elites are Coric and Kyrgios, which I think is about right.

It will be interesting to see if these two can fulfill their obvious potential. It's worth noting that even the least successful of the big 4, Andy Murray, first entered the top 10 in the world when he was still a teenager! So these guys have got some work to do.

Not to be picky, but Andy Murray was not a teenager when he broke into the top 10, he turned 20 a few weeks before (he is born on 15 May 1987). He entered in the top 10 on 11 June 2007.

Ah, the source I had - http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/history/murray.html - had Murray first entering the top 10 on April 16, 2007, when he was still 19. But maybe this is wrong - what's your source?

I was wrong, I corrected this post already, I was looking at the single digits positions, below 10.
I already replaced my statement, see above.

 

[herios]

El Dude, you have missed a few players in the list, especially born 1989, Kei's peers:

Klizan,
Johnson,
Sousa
also:
Struff born 1990 and Kuznetsov born 1991.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, whoops. I'll fix it later - thanks, herios.

What happened to Benoit Paire, anyway? He seemed on the verge of breakthrough into the top 20 but then disappeared.

 

[herios]

Oh, whoops. I'll fix it later - thanks, herios.

What happened to Benoit Paire, anyway? He seemed on the verge of breakthrough into the top 20 but then disappeared.

Injury happened to him. Then, ever since he came back from that, he is very inconsistent.

 

[El Dude]

Borna! The kid is legit. With his defeat of Andy Murray he moves up a few more spots in the live rankings to #61.

 

[herios]

I saw Borna for the first time today. He is a very promising talent. I hope he keeps his focus intact.

 

[Federberg]

Definitely this kid is for real. You have to take notice when a youngster has the nerve to take out slam winners. He adds Murray to the list, following his defeat of Rafa. He'll only get better! I'm not going to say he's more impressive than someone like Dimi, but I don't remember him doing this. well done!

 

[herios]

Definitely this kid is for real. You have to take notice when a youngster has the nerve to take out slam winners. He adds Murray to the list, following his defeat of Rafa. He'll only get better! I'm not going to say he's more impressive than someone like Dimi, but I don't remember him doing this. well done!

Let's put it this way. Dimi was nowhere at 18.

 

[El Dude]

Both Coric and Kyrgios have a certain gleam in their eyes, a hunger, that seems unfortunately lacking in Grigor. I still think Grigor can win a Slam or two, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's more of a Nalbandian type.

Coric turns 19 later this year. Grigor turned 19 in 2010, a year in which he played only one qualification Slam. Borna seems more like where Grigor was in 2012, when he was 20-21, or even 2013, when he was 21-22. I also get the sense that Borna could rise much more quickly; a top 30 finish this year is not out of the question.

If you look at Grigor's career trajectory it is more similar to a second tier player. Sure, a nice steady rise each year, but he never had that quick jump that most elites have. Coric might this year or next, and Kyrgios seems to have that potential as well.

 

[Federberg]

^ perhaps a bit harsh. In many ways Coric has a simpler game, so perhaps it's easier for him to develop. I could easily see Dimi take another step up again. What I'm trying to say is players take different paths. Roger's path was more step function, while Novak - for example - was steadier and inevitable

 

[Kirijax]

I think Dimitrov is too in love with himself and his game to improve enough to win a slam.

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! again.. a bit harsh. But if you'd said he's too busy enjoying Sharapova then I would agree. One sympathises! :lolz:

 

[Billie]

I watched Coric only twice and while I think that he has an X factor in him, I just don't know a lot about him yet. What I do know is that Nole is very high on him, practiced with him in the last few months and is trying to help him. So my opinion of Borna might be influenced by Nole's comments on him.

As for Coric, he says about himself this: when he plays at a very high level, he resembles Nole, when he does not play so great, he resembles Murray. I thought that was interesting comparison. He also said that he wants to be the best, he doesn't aim at top 20, top 10 finish but the top spot. A great attitude to have, IMO.

 

[El Dude]

^ perhaps a bit harsh. In many ways Coric has a simpler game, so perhaps it's easier for him to develop. I could easily see Dimi take another step up again. What I'm trying to say is players take different paths. Roger's path was more step function, while Novak - for example - was steadier and inevitable

Good points, but what was a bit harsh? I said that I think he will still win a Slam or two--which is pretty darn good--but that I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes another Nalbandian. Nalbandian was disappointing, but still quite good.