Sock's big title and American men's tennis

[El Dude]

So that Paris Masters title was the first "big title" by an American man since Andy Roddick won the 2010 Miami Masters. Before that it was Roddick in 2006 with another Masters, and then Roddick and Agassi in 2004. The last American Slam title was the 2003 US Open (Roddick); Agassi won the AO earlier that year.

From 1992 to 2000, an American won at least two Slams in every year except two (1996, 1998), with Sampras, Jim Courier, and Agassi dominating, augmented by Michael Chang. And of course going back to the mid-80s to mid-70s, you have McEnroe and Connors.

So it isn't news, but American men's tennis has really been rather week the last 15 years or so, especially the last decade.

But there's hope, right? Jack Sock will probably never win a Slam, but he could hang around in the top 20 for some years to come. And then you have some young talent coming up (with age and current Race to London rankings): Jared Donaldson (21, #55), Frances Tiafoe (19, #77), Taylor Fritz (20, #111), Ernesto Escobedo (20, #117), Stefan Kozlov (19, #131), Michael Mmoh (19, #145), and Tommy Paul (20, #158).

I mean, certainly one or two of those guys will turn out pretty good, right? Right?!

 

[isabelle]

he's a late bloomer, maybe will he do like Stan who started to play well after 30 ? I'ld love to see him win a GS or a gold medal or maybe Masters ????

 

[britbox]

Sorry, Sock isn't winning Grand Slams any time soon.

 

[herios]

he's a late bloomer, maybe will he do like Stan who started to play well after 30 ? I'ld love to see him win a GS or a gold medal or maybe Masters ????

Late bloomer? He is 25y. Players are usually not peaking before this age, so I would say he is improving on time as he should.
Late bloomers are those who peak 28+ years of age.

 

[herios]

Sorry, Sock isn't winning Grand Slams any time soon.

He did already. In doubles and not once.

 

[Moxie]

he's a late bloomer, maybe will he do like Stan who started to play well after 30 ? I'ld love to see him win a GS or a gold medal or maybe Masters ????

I think the Stan comparison is not bad. A lot of people are sneering at Sock, but he's strong, reasonably young by today's standards, and has tasted big wins. I actually like him better for US #1 at the current generation. We undervalued Wawrinka for a long time. Why can't Sock fill in some gaps when the Big 4 fade?

 

[El Dude]

I think the Stan comparison is not bad. A lot of people are sneering at Sock, but he's strong, reasonably young by today's standards, and has tasted big wins. I actually like him better for US #1 at the current generation. We undervalued Wawrinka for a long time. Why can't Sock fill in some gaps when the Big 4 fade?

The problem for Sock and his generation (the best of whom include Nishikori, Raonic, and Dimitrov, and probably including Thiem), is that their peak--which has already started--is sandwiched between the extended prime of the Biggish Five, and a promising younger generation that is rising quickly. So even if the Biggish Five really start showing their age in 2018-19, the NextGen (starting with Kyrgios, but also Zverev, Khachanov, Rublev, Tiafoe, Shapo, etc) will be right there, challenging to "fill in the gaps."

A few years ago I thought Sock's generation would do exactly as you say, but more in the 2017-19 range. But that was before the Fedal fountain of youth, and also before we had a sense of the talent level of NextGen. We still don't know how good they are going to be, but I think it is safe to say that they are more talented than the "Nishithiem" generation (b. 1989-93), although not as talented as the Djodal generation.

 

[Moxie]

The problem for Sock and his generation (the best of whom include Nishikori, Raonic, and Dimitrov, and probably including Thiem), is that their peak--which has already started--is sandwiched between the extended prime of the Biggish Five, and a promising younger generation that is rising quickly. So even if the Biggish Five really start showing their age in 2018-19, the NextGen (starting with Kyrgios, but also Zverev, Khachanov, Rublev, Tiafoe, Shapo, etc) will be right there, challenging to "fill in the gaps."

A few years ago I thought Sock's generation would do exactly as you say, but more in the 2017-19 range. But that was before the Fedal fountain of youth, and also before we had a sense of the talent level of NextGen. We still don't know how good they are going to be, but I think it is safe to say that they are more talented than the "Nishithiem" generation (b. 1989-93), although not as talented as the Djodal generation.

I know how you like to categorize the various groups, and I'm basically with you on the "lost generation." I don't hold out a lot of hope for any of the "Nishiaonicov" (if you will,) group, though I exclude Thiem from it. However, I don't see why there can't be breakouts, in the later years. I'm far from believing that Sock will be the breakout, but as the Big 4-5 decline, there is reason to believe that some of that lost generation might step up, before the Next Gen starts winning it all. It will be interesting to see who steps up.

 

[El Dude]

I think the big questions are:
1. How long can the Big 4+ remain at close to peak (prime) level? and...
2. Will any of NextGen emerge as truly dominant players?

Between the two is the "window" for a Wild West scenario, where a bunch of players have a legitimate shot at winning a Slam.

If I were to speculate on the answers to those questions, I'd say...

1. After this year, who knows? But that's a bit of a cop-out, so I'll say that I think 2017 will be the last truly dominant year of Fedal. Neither will win two Slams in a year again, and I think they'll win something like 3-5 more Slams between the two of them. I'm also worried about Novak, with that rumor about him only being able to hit with his left arm. Andy and Stan? I think they'll bounce back a bit, but not to peak form. So I think 2018 will see overall decline, but still seem them as the dominant group, but slow and steady decline from now on, with maybe a steep drop-off in 2020 or 2021, after which I don't think any of them will win more Slams. But again, who knows.

We're already seeing tiny indications of this, with four Masters going to non-Big Five players. I'm hoping that we see a Slam go to someone else new next year as well. But I suspect they'll still be dominant for at least two or three years, but probably no more than four or so.

2. I don't think we're going to see a Trinity-level player in NextGen, but maybe one or two Edberg/Becker types (Zverev, Shapo?), and several 1-3 Slam winners. Maybe Felix Auger Aliassime will be special, but he just turned 17 so is still 2-3 years away from prime time, and he's really "post-NextGen," born in 2000. Shapo possibly too.

So who knows. I think we'll see one non-Big Five Slam title in 2018, 1-2 in 2019 and 2020, and maybe 2-3 in 2021, with 3-4 in 2022. So we'll see a transition. I think the best window for the lost generation is 2018-20. After that NextGen will be in prime form, with the post-NextGen generation also starting to emerge.

p.s. The categorizations are just handy ways to group players, but shouldn't be taken too seriously. I mean in my groupings you have 1979-83, then 1984-88, but obviously a player born in 1983 is closer in generation to a player born in 1984 (say, Verdasco and Soderling, respectively), than he is to someone born in 1979 (e.g. Ivan Ljubicic).

 

[El Dude]

Of the "lost generation," I actually see Dimitrov or Raonic as most likely to win a Slam; Thiem if you count him. Dimitrov has the overall game to excel anywhere, and after earning a Masters title could have the necessary focus to sneak in a Slam trophy. Raonic could remain a threat at Wimbledon for the next half decade, and "do a Goran" when we're least expecting it. I don't think Kei has the fortitude to win a Slam and missed his only serious chance in 2014 against Cilic. Sock? I'd put him below those guys, but not far behind.

 

[britbox]

He did already. In doubles and not once.

I'm talking singles.

 

[Busted]

Of the "lost generation," I actually see Dimitrov or Raonic as most likely to win a Slam; Thiem if you count him. Dimitrov has the overall game to excel anywhere, and after earning a Masters title could have the necessary focus to sneak in a Slam trophy. Raonic could remain a threat at Wimbledon for the next half decade, and "do a Goran" when we're least expecting it. I don't think Kei has the fortitude to win a Slam and missed his only serious chance in 2014 against Cilic. Sock? I'd put him below those guys, but not far behind.

I don't see any of the "lost generation" wining a Slam as long as The Big 4 are healthy and motivated. The Bottom line is that, as John McEnroe said about the Federer\Dimitrov comparisons when they played at Wimbledon - the problem is - Roger does all the things Dimitrov's good at better than he does. I'd extend that to the other 3 as well. They're all simply better than Dimitrov. As we saw with his Cincy win - and Sock's Paris win - these guys are only going to win inf the Big 4 don't play or lose someone else. Even when someone like Dimitrov (or Kyrgios!) has beaten these guys in an early round - they can't back up the win and usually lose in the next round. As Roger said in his post-Wimbledon press conference - the problem for these guys is that they have to beat 2-3 of the Big 4 to win the title and because each of the Big 4 plays different, that's a hell of a hard task for the next tier of players. And while Roger didn't say it I will - they're just not good enough to do that. I'll put my money on Sasha Zverev winning a Slam before Dimitrov...and he's never even made it to the 2nd week of a Slam.

 

[El Dude]

I don't see any of the "lost generation" wining a Slam as long as The Big 4 are healthy and motivated. The Bottom line is that, as John McEnroe said about the Federer\Dimitrov comparisons when they played at Wimbledon - the problem is - Roger does all the things Dimitrov's good at better than he does. I'd extend that to the other 3 as well. They're all simply better than Dimitrov. As we saw with his Cincy win - and Sock's Paris win - these guys are only going to win inf the Big 4 don't play or lose someone else. Even when someone like Dimitrov (or Kyrgios!) has beaten these guys in an early round - they can't back up the win and usually lose in the next round. As Roger said in his post-Wimbledon press conference - the problem for these guys is that they have to beat 2-3 of the Big 4 to win the title and because each of the Big 4 plays different, that's a hell of a hard task for the next tier of players. And while Roger didn't say it I will - they're just not good enough to do that. I'll put my money on Sasha Zverev winning a Slam before Dimitrov...and he's never even made it to the 2nd week of a Slam.

I completely agree, Busted, which is why I talked about those "two big questions." The "lost gen" will only win Slams if the Big4+ decline before the NextGen rises to dominance, and/or if the stars align just right in a specific tournament.

I think Zverev is probably already better than all of the lost gen, as is Kyrgios on a good day. They'll be joined soon by others coming more fully into their own. I think there are four or five players born 1995 or later have higher upside than any of the lost gen players - maybe more.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think it takes a genius to think this is the last year year of Fedal. It was a surprise, anyway, and a bit of a gift from Murray and Djokovic, who fell off due to injury and ennui. 3-5 more Majors for Fedal? I don't think so. Maybe 3, and it would lean in Nadal's favor, given age, and dominance at RG.

The big question surely is how Djokovic comes back. Next, how Murray comes back. Personally, I think Stan is done being a Major winner and will act more as a spoiler. I do think a transition period is coming. IF Djokovic and/or Murray come back to full power, and Fedal are still healthy, I do see them stymieing the field, to a great extent, for the next year. They really are that superior. If Murray and Djokovic flag, I think the transition year starts in 2018, and a bit of the "Wild West" that you're talking about, Dude. A new Slam winner in 2018? Depends on Novak and Andy, I'd say.

This is where a Sock (to go back to the OP) or otherwise perhaps "lost gen" players might see some daylight, like Dimitrov. Personally, I'd drop Raonic and add Nishikori on the possible list for Slams, but that's a close call. Del Potro could also find some glory in the transition period. I do think that Sasha Zverev is poised to potentially be a super-star, and I don't think he's going to wait much longer. I wouldn't lay money that he'd win a Major in 2018, but I would in 2019. But of everyone who's never won one in 2018, he'd be my pick.

I'm hoping that someone kicks Kyrgios's ass into being the player he might be, soon. He'd be my second pick for a breakout. Love Shapo, but he needs some seasoning.

Please explain "Trinity-level." (Federer/Nadal/Djokovic?)

 

[El Dude]

Agree with almost all of it, @Moxie - nice post. (I think the only thing I disagree on is Kei/Milos...I like Kei's overall game better, but think Milos has a better chance of winning a Slam because of Wimbledon...if he's serving well and maybe has a bit of help from the draw and upsets, he could win one. For Kei to win a Slam a ton would have to go his way).

Yes, "Trinity level" is the Big Three: a level higher than your garden-variety great. I guess we could say double-digit Slam winners, but it isn't so simple.

I said "3-5" because I think Roger has at least one left in him, but not more than two, and Rafa probably has another and maybe as many as three. So maybe 2-5 is more accurate, but less bold.

I like your take on Stan - spoiler sounds about right.

At his best, Kyrgios impresses me more than Zverev, but I have no doubt that Sascha will have a much better career. In a way the comparison reminds me a bit of Safin vs. Federer. Dial back to 2000-02 and Safin looks more impressive, just as Kyrgios at his best is more explosive than Sascha - at least so far.

And yeah, Shapo is young but one to watch. He would be my second choice after Zverev for best player of NextGen. Too soon to say on Aliassime, but he could be there too - or even better.

 

[DarthFed]

It was a big win for Sock and its nice to see some small semblance of life in American tennis. But that's all it is, Sock is a decent player but is unlikely to ever be a threat at slams or even a consistent top 10 player. I was trying to think the last time an American qualified for the YEC and I'm guessing it was Roddick in 2009. That's a looong time ago

 

[Moxie]

Agree with almost all of it, @Moxie - nice post. (I think the only thing I disagree on is Kei/Milos...I like Kei's overall game better, but think Milos has a better chance of winning a Slam because of Wimbledon...if he's serving well and maybe has a bit of help from the draw and upsets, he could win one. For Kei to win a Slam a ton would have to go his way).

Yes, "Trinity level" is the Big Three: a level higher than your garden-variety great. I guess we could say double-digit Slam winners, but it isn't so simple.

I said "3-5" because I think Roger has at least one left in him, but not more than two, and Rafa probably has another and maybe as many as three. So maybe 2-5 is more accurate, but less bold.

I like your take on Stan - spoiler sounds about right.

At his best, Kyrgios impresses me more than Zverev, but I have no doubt that Sascha will have a much better career. In a way the comparison reminds me a bit of Safin vs. Federer. Dial back to 2000-02 and Safin looks more impressive, just as Kyrgios at his best is more explosive than Sascha - at least so far.

And yeah, Shapo is young but one to watch. He would be my second choice after Zverev for best player of NextGen. Too soon to say on Aliassime, but he could be there too - or even better.

As far as a "Trinity" of all-time greats, or even one, I believe we'll wait a long time to see that again. And your Safin/Federer v. Kyrgios/Zverev comparison, I have to think Kyrgios is the Safin in that equation. Believe me, I'm hoping almost as much for Kyrgios as I was for Safin. Wildly talented (never mind what @mrzz says,) and, well, wild. Also both didn't/don't give as much of a rat's ass about tennis as they might. As to Zverev, I think he has lots of talent, lots of ambition, a generally calm head. He's probably not going to be Federer (who will?) but I think he has the disposition to be a king of the hill. And he seems to have a good team around him to keep him grounded.

On the Milos/Kei bet, we can keep that as a sidebar between us. In two years, one of us will owe the other a beer.

 

[El Dude]

Sounds good, @Moxie. And yes, Kyrgios is the Safin in that equation. Although I think one difference is that I actually believe Kyrgios is more explosively talented than Zverev; when he's playing to his peak form, he's such a beast. I have yet to see Zverev play at a level that totally wows me. I mean, Sascha is really good and going to be great, but he hasn't blown me away. Yet. Kyrgios has, at least in moments.

 

[El Dude]

A bit more. If we dial back to Safin's first Slam in 2000, if someone was told that he'd only ever win one more they'd have been surprised. He looked like a future great, but had an overall very disappointing career. In that way Kyrgios is different: the expectations are there, but I think it is generally agreed that there's a huge range of possible outcomes. Right now I wouldn't be surprised if Kyrgios doesn't win any Slams, or if he wins five. He's just such a wildcard.

 

[Moxie]

Sounds good, @Moxie. And yes, Kyrgios is the Safin in that equation. Although I think one difference is that I actually believe Kyrgios is more explosively talented than Zverev; when he's playing to his peak form, he's such a beast. I have yet to see Zverev play at a level that totally wows me. I mean, Sascha is really good and going to be great, but he hasn't blown me away. Yet. Kyrgios has, at least in moments.

I think we both agree that Kyrgios is the more exciting player. Thus the Safin analogy. But I'm not willing to call Zverev tepid in his talents. He's got an awesome bh. (The serve goes rather without saying.) He's more than just level-headed. He just gets that over Kyrgios, by comparison. I actually think he's a bit of a hot-head, too. He's incredibly ambitious.

A bit more. If we dial back to Safin's first Slam in 2000, if someone was told that he'd only ever win one more they'd have been surprised. He looked like a future great, but had an overall very disappointing career. In that way Kyrgios is different: the expectations are there, but I think it is generally agreed that there's a huge range of possible outcomes. Right now I wouldn't be surprised if Kyrgios doesn't win any Slams, or if he wins five. He's just such a wildcard.

Safin is the great cautionary tale of the 21st C. The reason we're willing to be careful about Nick is Marat.