Whatever has happened to the 1989 and 1990 guys ?

LadyTigress · County player

RE: Whatever has happened to the 1989 and 1990 guys ?

Josh · Challenger level

I guess Rufin would be up there with Ignatik and Berankis. Maybe Ryan Harrison too.

indiana · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:

You have to go just outside the top 150 to find the highest ranked 1989 and 1990 borns :
1989 : Donald Young ( USA ) : 23/07/89 aged 20 WR 151
1990 : Guillaume Rufin ( FRA ) : 26/05/90 aged 19 WR 155

As at 1st February, the highest ranked 20 yo and 19 yos were almost certainly Young & Rufin respectively. OK, I was looking here at year of birth, but since we were only one month into the year, it pretty much correlates. I haven't checked it out more recently.

LadyTigress · County player

Thanks Indy.

Anyone know 18 and 17?

steven · Tennis legend

LadyTigress wrote:

Thanks Indy.

Anyone know 18 and 17?

Assuming that steveg's 'young guns' list isn't missing contenders (it might be, because he didn't list Rufin last year), I've looked up the birth dates for the players he lists and the top 1991s are:

306 Andrey Kuznetsov (RUS) 22.2.1991
324 Yang Tsung-Hua (TPE) 29.3.1991
338 Grigor Dimitrov (BUL) 16.5.1991

... and the top 1992s are:

248 Ryan Harrison (USA) 7.5.1992
299 Bernard Tomic (AUS) 21.10.1992
326 Yuki Bhambri (IND) 4.7.1992
331 Filip Krajinovic (SRB) 27.2.1992

Kuznetsov has already turned 19, so this would mean the top 18-year-olds are:

324 Yang Tsung-Hua (TPE) 29.3.1991
331 Filip Krajinovic (SRB) 27.2.1992
338 Grigor Dimitrov (BUL) 16.5.1991

... but Yang will drop off that list when he turns 19 on Monday.

Similarly, the top 17-year-olds would be:

248 Ryan Harrison (USA) 7.5.1992
299 Bernard Tomic (AUS) 21.10.1992
326 Yuki Bhambri (IND) 4.7.1992

Note that these three 17-year-olds are all ranked higher than the top 18-year-olds as of next Monday, Krajinovic and Dimitrov.

indiana · Tennis legend

BY that, I'd say I could have extended my title to "1989, 1990 and 1991 guys".

Looks as if the next real generation coming is the 1992 guys.

philwrig · Hall of fame

No doubt Andy's generation has a great opportunity to dominate the grand slams for several years to come only Tomic has a chance of challenging this group.

indiana · Tennis legend

It's such a pity that some of our 1990 guys ( ceretainly one of our best groups overall ) have not fully progressed so far as much as some hoped.

OK, it is still a big ask to really break through, but there is kind of a gap in the market.

LadyTigress · County player

Great work, steven! Interesting that the 18 yo top 3 are clustered so close... although really I would consider Dimitrov and Krajinovic to be a year apart in age it's just Grisha hasn't had his birthday yet.

And extremely interesting that the 17 yo's ranked higher... Although I would also point out that Filip Krajinovic would have been in that group had he not had an early birthday in February and when he was ranked 17 he was also hovering in the mid 200's. Lol that goes back to what you were saying before steven about it'd be much easier if they were all just born on 1st January.

I must admit, that is my only tiny regret about the current situation in the game. The Men's Tour is so strong right now! It's wonderful, of course, and I'm loving it - excellent boundary-pushing tennis, truly competitive, juicy match-ups left right and centre - it's great from the game and it's great for the spectator! I couldn't imagine if we had a weak Men's Tour right now, although, it'll come back to that eventually I suppose, as the game is fairly cyclical, if random... but that's the thing:

The very strong guys will hold onto their grip on the game for a good long time, blocking this set of youngsters trying to break through, it's harder for them to breakthrough against tougher guys at the top and even if they're on a par of talent they're up against guys who are stronger and tougher and more experienced so it's really having a denigrating effect on their progress and in different circumstances their progress would have been quite different. It's also worth mentioning that the recent change in ranking points systems also means that these strong guys at the top are sucking up all the points so even if the youngsters are getting not-so-tough opponents at their Challengers, they're not making enough headway in terms of picking up points. Meanwhile, when the guys at the top are getting older and fading away to finally open things up a bit more, it will be the very youngest group, who still have much more career ahead of them, who will have the chance to capitalise and form, theoretically, the next generation of stalwarts at the top.

Then again, if you want optimistic news, we could also look at the fact that Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, Delpo and co are amongst the youngest in the top 100. That tells you that 1) most of the rest of the guys are older than that and hence will be retiring sooner, clearing the way somewhat; and 2) here are several examples that successful younger guys can infiltrate the top 100 and implies that the cream of the crop of these 21-17 year olds will make it through. And you know, that ALSO adheres to past patterns in the game, so...

What can I say, there's evidence to be both hopeful AND dubious about the future prospects of this 1988 - 1992 age group.

EDIT: And if all else fails, let's not forget that there are plenty of examples of "late bloomers" out there.

-- Edited by LadyTigress on Thursday 25th of March 2010 04:44:26 PM

Josh · Challenger level

I don't see the change in the points system as an 'excuse'. Zeballos reached the top 50 last year based almost exclusively on Challengers. It's pretty simply, if you tournaments whatever the level then your ranking will fly up quite quickly.

LadyTigress · County player

I didn't say it was an excuse, I said it was worth a brief mention.

indiana · Tennis legend

Josh wrote:

I don't see the change in the points system as an 'excuse'. Zeballos reached the top 50 last year based almost exclusively on Challengers. It's pretty simply, if you tournaments whatever the level then your ranking will fly up quite quickly.

The aforementioned Dolgopolov Jr is another one who has risen quickly in the rankings basically by Challenger points and can now join in with the big boys.

I see he has reached another Challenger final and is now ranked 69 with his best 10 scores coming from 4 Challenger titles, 2 Challenger finals and 4 Challenger semis. He was outside the top 300 in July last year.

He is maybe an extreme example, but in general I would say that while the changes made to the points system will have some effect I think it can be exaggerated and the really good will still make it.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 25th of March 2010 11:21:15 PM

Josh · Challenger level

Yeah, and lots of the new Germans in the top 100 have benefited from Challengers. There were a lot of fears at the beginning of last year that the changes would prevent anyone from rising quickly up the rankings but I think there have been enough examples to show that there was no problem.

steven · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:

Josh wrote:

I don't see the change in the points system as an 'excuse'. Zeballos reached the top 50 last year based almost exclusively on Challengers. It's pretty simply, if you tournaments whatever the level then your ranking will fly up quite quickly.
The aforementioned Dolgopolov Jr is another one who has risen quickly in the rankings basically by Challenger points and can now join in with the big boys.

I see he has reached another Challenger final and is now ranked 69 with his best 10 scores coming from 4 Challenger titles, 2 Challenger finals and 4 Challenger semis. He was outside the top 300 in July last year.

He is maybe an extreme example, but in general I would say that while the changes made to the points system will have some effect I think it can be exaggerated and the really good will still make it.

I'd go further than that and say that, all other things being equal (*), the new points system should create more movement into and out of the top 100 rather than less.

I know that sounds counter-intuitive when the number of points you get for winning a Challenger has gone up by a lot less than the number of points you get for winning one of the big ATP events, but it's because it's only the points for going deep into events that have gone up significantly, so those who win Challengers and reach Challenger finals are in a better position relative to those who only win the odd ATP match than they used to be.

That doesn't mean I'm a convert to the ranking changes, I hasten to add. Skewing the points even more towards the later rounds than before plays into the hands of the mercurial muppets (the players who go on one or two wonder runs over year and go out in the first couple of rounds the rest of the year) at the expense of the more consistent players. There tends to be a correlation between the more 'glamorous' players and muppetry, so I'm sure this was a commercial consideration on the ATP's part, but I don't think it's fair, not least because it makes the luck of a draw opening up even more important.

I also still think the transition was handled incredibly badly, creating the kind of demotivating situation LT was referring to, where players could do as well as or better than the previous year in the same tournament yet still lose a sackload of points, but at least that is now behind us.

(*) The other problem at the moment is that all other things aren't equal, in the sense that there has been a drop in the number of Challenger events relative to main tour events over the last couple of years (sponsorship for main tour events seems to be more recession-proof) so there are less opportunities to gain points in Challengers and the Challengers that do take place tend to have stronger entry lists. Even that should sort itself out in the medium term, unless we are at the start of some kind of long-term decline.

LadyTigress · County player

LadyTigress wrote:

...Successful younger guys can infiltrate the top 100 and implies that the cream of the crop of these 21-17 year olds will make it through...

AHEM! Nuff said.