The Long Road to Number 1

I thought I would highlight something that actually is interesting and thought provoking. These stats are highly intriguing and for me a reflection on the time it takes for a player to reach the top of the tennis summit.

Pete Sampras - Took 5 years to become World No.1
Roger Federer - Took 6 years to become World No.1
Rafael Nadal - Took 7 years to become World No.1
Novak Djokovic - Took 8 years to become World No.1
Andre Agassi - Took 9 years to become World No.1

So there you have it. Young players in Del Potro, Raonic, Tomic, Dolgopolov, Sock who are the youngsters who are seen to be the future. Some Slam success would go along way for them to reach the top. Above all it takes time.

Very interesting.
I wonder what the downhill trend looks like.

That aside, why did you change your "name"?

Probably easier to refer to the age of each player when they first reached the numero uno spot. Most of the 20-odd guys who have got to number one since 1973 did so before their 23rd birthday.
Lleyton Hewitt, I think, was the youngest at 20. The list is full of guys who reached the top at 21 or 22.

sirfredperry wrote:... Lleyton Hewitt, I think, was the youngest at 20. The list is full of guys who reached the top at 21 or 22.

Yes, and I don't think this is going to happen again any time soon.

I woudl say the more physical a game, the youngest you achieve (slams or number 1...ect...), and the more complex the game , the longer it takes...

Borg, Hewitt, Chang, Wilander, Nadal thanks to stamina achieved very early.

Becker, Delpo, thanks to a powerful game achieved a big goal early, helped by an above average strong physique.

Agree, Tenez. Teenage Slam winners have been few and far between in recent years anyway (Sampras 1990, Rafa 2005) but it's difficult to see anyone under 20 winning a GS any time soon.
Remember how Andy M said - a few years back - that he didn't think he was physically strong enough to win seven 5-set matches in two weeks. He's filled out a lot now and his serve is much more of a weapon, so the lack of a slam is now more of a mental thing rather than a physical one.
May be Tomic or Raonic might be fit enough for a GS at a reasonably early age.

sirfredperry wrote:... May be Tomic or Raonic might be fit enough for a GS at a reasonably early age.

I woudl also pick those 2 as the most likely to achieve early thanks to their big frame.

Tenez wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:... May be Tomic or Raonic might be fit enough for a GS at a reasonably early age.

I woudl also pick those 2 as the most likely to achieve early thanks to their big frame.

I think Murray has a small chance if Djokovic hits a decline this season.

For me it is no surprise that Nadal capitalised on Federer's decline and that Djokovic has capitalised on Nadal's decline.

If Murray can find consistency, there is no reason why he can't have a season in the sun.

legendkillarV2 wrote:If Murray can find consistency, there is no reason why he can't have a season in the sun.

Will he have joy, will he have fun, will he have a season in the sun? (Altogether now....) But the Henman hills that he climbed were just seasons out of time.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:... May be Tomic or Raonic might be fit enough for a GS at a reasonably early age.

I woudl also pick those 2 as the most likely to achieve early thanks to their big frame.

I think Murray has a small chance if Djokovic hits a decline this season.

For me it is no surprise that Nadal capitalised on Federer's decline and that Djokovic has capitalised on Nadal's decline.

If Murray can find consistency, there is no reason why he can't have a season in the sun.

You mean lapses...more than decline, don't you?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:... May be Tomic or Raonic might be fit enough for a GS at a reasonably early age.

I woudl also pick those 2 as the most likely to achieve early thanks to their big frame.

I think Murray has a small chance if Djokovic hits a decline this season.

For me it is no surprise that Nadal capitalised on Federer's decline and that Djokovic has capitalised on Nadal's decline.

If Murray can find consistency, there is no reason why he can't have a season in the sun.

You mean lapses...more than decline, don't you?

In regards to Federer?

legendkillarV2 wrote:
In regards to Federer?

Murray v Djoko. They are the same age, so talking decline,it shoudl happen to both equally.

But players dont decline at the same rate surely?

lydian wrote:But players dont decline at the same rate surely?

Some decline only when they are not winning

Yeah, Djokovic is in serious freefall now

lydian wrote:Yeah, Djokovic is in serious freefall now

I was thinking more along the lines of those who always need an excuse for a loss....

The Road has been reached.