Young Player Watch (aka waiting for the Big Three Hegemony to crumble)

[El Dude]

Talking recently with some fellow Rafa fans, we were discussing who we liked coming up for when Rafa hangs them up. I thought we had a thread for "Who's going to be your next...etc" but I didn't find it. However, I did find this one from @El Dude, and it seems like a good place to bring back the conversation. 20 months later, and note that Alcaraz isn't even on the radar. Not so much looking for predictions as who folks are warming up to as someone they think they can back/root for/take to their fannish hearts. I don't have an answer yet, for myself. I think everyone is a Sinner believer. For various reasons that have been discussed, I have cooled on Zverev and Tsitsipas. Liking Sebastian Korda. Dunno where I am yet, but curious to know where others are on the newer crop, emotional-investment wise.

I'm still dabbling with my last installment of the "mega-thread" where I go into some detail about a whole bunch of players, but my quickish take:

Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are already elite players (and Thiem, if healthy). By "elite" I mean top 5 regulars, multiple big title winners, and Slam contenders. They've made it. Now whether any can enter the hallowed halls of greatness remains to be seen. They're all too young and accomplished to write off (except for Thiem), but all have question marks. I would guess that the four of them win about 10-12 Slams between them. But I don't think any will reach the special 6-Slam mark and become a "true great."

I think Rublev, Berretini and Hurkacz are the new "second tier" - meaning, top 10 guys, Masters contenders, and darkhorses at Slams. Shapovalov, Khachanov and Ruud might be there as well, but all have something to prove. I see them more as "tier 2.5" players ala Gasquet and Monfils.

Of the younger guys, Sinner combines the best of accomplishment and age. He is, in my view, the best bet for the next great. I still believe in FAA, at least to become an elite, but I think the shine of future greatness has dimmed somewhat. But he's still just 21 and I doubt he's maxed out his ability, and he's already quite good. Look for things to click within the next year, and for him to win a bunch of titles and maybe challenge for a Slam. Alcaraz Garfia is very promising - and I think he is on the radar, at least top 40, Slam QF and a title at age 18 -- all good signs. But he's still a year or two from being a serious contender for the elite.

The next group would be guys like Korda, Brooksby, Fokina, Cerundolo, Kecmanovic, Humbert, de Minaur, Nakashima, Popyrin, Musetti, etc; none of whom look like future elites, but we might find a second tier guy or two from that group. I suspect most of those guys will end up as "third tier" like Borna Coric: a guy who dips into the top 20 or even top 10 for a moment, but spends most of his time in the 20-50 range. Garin, Opelka, Fritz and Tiafoe are in this range, as well. Of those mentioned, I think Korda, Brooksby, and Musetti have the best chance of becoming bonafide second tier players.

Too soon to say on Holger Rune. In six months he could be right there with Alcaraz, or he could be stalling out on the edge of the top 100.

As for my next favorite, I don't know. I've liked Rublev since he showed up on tour, but he's hardly a replacement for Roger. No one ever will be, probably. I imagine that once Sinner, FAA, and Alcaraz Garfia (and maybe Rune) come into their own, I'll find myself gravitating towards one over the other. Right now I'm more towards FAA, but I haven't fully bonded with him yet.

 

[El Dude]

By the way, Ruud (8) and Hurkacz (10) reached the top 10 on Monday, and Sinner will next week (he's #9 in the live rankings).

10 of the top 13 are now age 25 or younger.

 

[Moxie]

I could be totally wrong, but Hurkacz to me he seems like a flash in the pan. What am I missing about his game that is stand-out? Somebody tell me why he's #10 in the world.

 

[El Dude]

I could be totally wrong, but Hurkacz to me he seems like a flash in the pan. What am I missing about his game that is stand-out? Somebody tell me why he's #10 in the world.

Well, he's mainly #10 because he won a Masters and reached the SF of Wimbledon, and also an ATP 250.

"Flash in the plan" implies that he's not as good as it seems. But here's the thing: someone has to be the new second tier, the guys who hang out in or around the top 10 and win ATP 250s/500s and maybe the occasional Masters. I don't see why Hurkacz couldn't be in that group. I mean, look at who he beat to win Miami: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistic...erId=27834&tab=matches&tournamentEventId=4469

As for his game, I think he's comparable to Berretini: really good on some surfaces, but not necessarily the well-rounded player you need to be in the true elite. Second tier tends to include such players: think Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych.

That said, I would differentiate between the true second tier types--the Tsongas and Berdychs--who hang out in the top 10 for years, and better third tier guys who peak out in the top 10 but don't stay for very long, like Gasquet and Isner. Some of these guys haven't proven they belong in the former category. Meaning, reaching the top 10 is one thing, but maintaining it is another. But 2021 will be the third year in a row that Berretini has finished in the top 10, and second year for Rublev. Hurkacz and Ruud are trying to complete their first year in the top 10, and Khachanov hasn't made it back since 2018, so might be more of a third tier guy.

 

[Fiero425]

Well, he's mainly #10 because he won a Masters and reached the SF of Wimbledon, and also an ATP 250.

"Flash in the plan" implies that he's not as good as it seems. But here's the thing: someone has to be the new second tier, the guys who hang out in or around the top 10 and win ATP 250s/500s and maybe the occasional Masters. I don't see why Hurkacz couldn't be in that group. I mean, look at who he beat to win Miami: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistic...erId=27834&tab=matches&tournamentEventId=4469

As for his game, I think he's comparable to Berretini: really good on some surfaces, but not necessarily the well-rounded player you need to be in the true elite. Second tier tends to include such players: think Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych.

That said, I would differentiate between the true second tier types--the Tsongas and Berdychs--who hang out in the top 10 for years, and better third tier guys who peak out in the top 10 but don't stay for very long, like Gasquet and Isner. Some of these guys haven't proven they belong in the former category. Meaning, reaching the top 10 is one thing, but maintaining it is another. But 2021 will be the third year in a row that Berretini has finished in the top 10, and second year for Rublev. Hurkacz and Ruud are trying to complete their first year in the top 10, and Khachanov hasn't made it back since 2018, so might be more of a third tier guy.

I wanted Khachanov to excel and it ain't happening! He was my substitute for a past Soviet great, Marat Safin! He "zoned out" a few years ago in the Fall, upset Djokovic in Paris Masters after his huge comeback taking Wimbledon and the USO earlier, but since then has done little to nothing! Shame! Berdych was probably only limited by his mind as well (Wawrinka)! He had all the shots, a big serve, and never got tired, but never did better than upsetting Roger and making that Wimbledon final losing to Nadal in 2010! I saw him destroyed 0 & 2 in China several years ago by Nole! He tried hard, had some fantastic points, but was outclassed that day!

 

[Moxie]

I wanted Khachanov to excel and it ain't happening! He was my substitute for a past Soviet great, Marat Safin! He "zoned out" a few years ago in the Fall, upset Djokovic after his huge comeback taking Wimbledon and the USO earlier, but since then has done little to nothing! Shame! Berdych was probably only limited by his mind as well (Wawrinka)! He had all the shots, a big serve, and never got tired, but never did better than upsetting Roger and making that Wimbledon final losing to Nadal in 2010! I saw him destroyed 0 & 2 in China several years ago by Nole! He tried hard, had some fantastic points, but was outclassed that day!

I'm shocked you think you can slot in Khachanov for Safin. Or that you think Berdych was limited only by his mentality. To me, Berdych excelled beyond his game. He was very solid, but his game lacked creativity. Likewise Silent K, imo, though I'm waiting to see if he's even solid.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I agree with Moxie re: KK. He seems rather one-dimensional, closer to Opelka and Bublik than to Medvedev or Safin.

That said, guys like that can go on runs and/or up their game in small ways. Cilic went from being a top 10-20 guy and ATP 250 winner, then was unbeatable at the 2014 US Open and maintained a high level for a few years, adding a Masters trophy.

 

[nehmeth]

Tommy Paul just won Stockholm last week. He is super fun to watch. Seeing him play, I was left wondering why he’d taken so long to get here. Then he shared in an interview how he got distracted with partying. It seems he’s on the verge of fulfilling the promise he showed as a junior. His confidence is high after his first ATP win. I’m looking forward to his continued climb up the rankings ladder.

 

[Fiero425]

Tommy Paul just won Stockholm last week. He is super fun to watch. Seeing him play, I was left wondering why he’d taken so long to get here. Then he shared in an interview how he got distracted with partying. It seems he’s on the verge of fulfilling the promise he showed as a junior. His confidence is high after his first ATP win. I’m looking forward to his continued climb up the rankings ladder.

There's a bunch of them out there! I think they'd commit more if they got a raise in those Challengers! The top players are still $uck'n up the real money! Last I heard, those lower level of prize money hasn't gone up in well over a decade or so! That's criminal IMO!

 

[El Dude]

Young guys in general seem to be slower to get going. We like to attribute that to the Big Three Hegemony, but it doesn't explain them languishing in the 50-200 range for years, and only making their move into seeding at age 22-25ish. I blame social media.

Seriously, though, Sinner and Alcaraz seem to be throwbacks to the older greats who rise young. It is crazy to think that Becker, Chang, Wilander, and Borg all won Slams at 17 years old - that's 3 years younger than Sinner is now, 4 years younger than FAA.

 

[Moxie]

Young guys in general seem to be slower to get going. We like to attribute that to the Big Three Hegemony, but it doesn't explain them languishing in the 50-200 range for years, and only making their move into seeding at age 22-25ish. I blame social media.

Seriously, though, Sinner and Alcaraz seem to be throwbacks to the older greats who rise young. It is crazy to think that Becker, Chang, Wilander, and Borg all won Slams at 17 years old - that's 3 years younger than Sinner is now, 4 years younger than FAA.

It has to be some combination of Big 3 hegemony and something like lack of stunning talent to arise, if you ask me. I do seem to remember that Borg didn't walk into a vacuum of talented players...he was a super-nova. But I can't speak to what Becker, Chang and Wilander faced when they rose early, (though I bet you can.)

In this era, I think we had a "Lost Gen" in part because they weren't that special, in part due to injury, and mostly due to a more talented (and young or youngish) Big 4, combined with the "aura" factor. The Next Gen started to suffer the same fate, of the Big 3 not giving ground, and maybe some paucity of talent and will.

Now, we have some good teenagers/early 20-somethings. Maybe they learned something from their "elders," maybe they're benefitting from feeling a bit of breathing room with the aging of the Big 3. Or maybe they are just more talented then what has come before them. Maybe it's chicken/egg, or maybe we'll understand better as they go along.

You made a joke at the head of your post about blaming social media, and you may have meant time-wasting. I do think there's something in there, though. The off-court time and attention that is demanded of/imposed on these young players is huge. Fedalovic had to handle the media from pretty young, but they didn't have to start to manage twitter and Instagram until they had full teams.

 

[El Dude]

It has to be some combination of Big 3 hegemony and something like lack of stunning talent to arise, if you ask me. I do seem to remember that Borg didn't walk into a vacuum of talented players...he was a super-nova. But I can't speak to what Becker, Chang and Wilander faced when they rose early, (though I bet you can.)

In this era, I think we had a "Lost Gen" in part because they weren't that special, in part due to injury, and mostly due to a more talented (and young or youngish) Big 4, combined with the "aura" factor. The Next Gen started to suffer the same fate, of the Big 3 not giving ground, and maybe some paucity of talent and will.

Now, we have some good teenagers/early 20-somethings. Maybe they learned something from their "elders," maybe they're benefitting from feeling a bit of breathing room with the aging of the Big 3. Or maybe they are just more talented then what has come before them. Maybe it's chicken/egg, or maybe we'll understand better as they go along.

You made a joke at the head of your post about blaming social media, and you may have meant time-wasting. I do think there's something in there, though. The off-court time and attention that is demanded of/imposed on these young players is huge. Fedalovic had to handle the media from pretty young, but they didn't have to start to manage twitter and Instagram until they had full teams.

Yeah, I was only half-joking.

As far as the rest, I think we need to differentiate between Lost Gen and Next Gen. The former's historic weakness does seem to be a combination of lack of talent and the hegemony, as we've discussed for years and as you say here. I made the remark at one point that Kei Nishikori is, according to GOAT points, the best player never to win a big title. In a different era, Kei and guys like Raonic and Dimitrov would probably have won handfuls of big titles, and maybe a Slam here or there. Dimitrov was probably the most talented of that group (not including Thiem), and I think he could have won a Slam or two in the late 90s/early 00s.

But this line of discussion was referring back to Tommy Paul, who at 24 is part of Next Gen - he's a month younger than Zverev who was the first member of NextGen to breakthrough to elite level. Sascha reached #10 about a month after turning 20 years old, so in Sinner we have a similar arc.

But so many of Sascha's peers languished. Even top 10 guys like Rublev and Hurkacz and Berretini--not to mention Medvedev--didn't really start rising until 21-22, or later. And again, I'm specifically talking about languishing outside of the top 50 or even 100, which isn't impacted by the hegemony, who really only impacts big titles, especially Slams, and the #1 spot.

Meaning, the hegemony can be used to account for no new #1s and few Slam winners, and at least a few years ago, very few big titles, but it doesn't account for younger guys breaking out a bit later.

But clearly NextGen is more talented than Lost Gen - and by a good margin. Zverev and Medvedev have won 7 and 6 big titles, respectively, already putting them in a similar category with guys like Hewitt, Safin, and Rios (as far as big titles are concerned), and both seem like they're just getting going. They are gradually eroding away at the hegemony, first by winning big titles, but also Slams--albeit slowly.

Maybe the true "shift of ages" can be marked when someone (probably Daniil) reaches #1. I think it will happen in 2022, at least for a time, but if not then definitely 2023.

Right?!