Only one new tournament winner in 2012

In 2012, all of the tournaments for the most part were won by players that had been there before. 15 players reached ATP finals for the first time, 14 of those players lost in the final. How do we read this fact? It is a very odd statistic as in 2011 I believe we had more than a handful of first time tour champions. Is this as a result of the weakness of the young players? Or are we seeing it become harder to break through due to a wealth of talent at the top. Lets look at the way the draws have gone. Every single top 8 guy except Del PO and tipsy advanced to the quarters. Is this a sign that the next 4 after the big 4 are also elevating their consistency and games? Is their a higher barrier to breaking through at the top tournaments then we have seen in the past or is it a paucity of talent? Interesting stat that Cahill was talking about on the ESPN broadcast, something frankly that I don't think has ever happened in the modern tour, that 15 first time finalists, 14 of them lose? And only one 250 tournament was a new player able to win his first tournament.

Says it all socal - where is the new talent and what are they doing.

I don't really follow stats, but if you take three of the bigger players, Tsonga - Ferrer & Del Potro between they have two Master titles (to date), OK Del P has a Slam then he drops down to 500' & 250's,

So from 250 tournaments where there was one new winner in 2012 up to the Masters & Slams the chances of someone outwith the top four winning one of the bigger prizes Looks remote.

So where is the challenge going to come from?

Who was the sole winner, incidentally? I'd guess Seppi at the back end of the year, wherever it was...Stockholm? Can't think of any other candidates off the top of my head.

I reckon you're right that #5 - #8 are now tending to elevate their standard slightly against weaker opponents, socal. I think a lot of the prospective finalists are getting taken down by sheer consistency relatively early, or even late (Paris Masters). A player like Ferrer or Berdych is easily good enough to blow away the vast majority of the tour.

Sportslover, I think the answer is a little bit different then what you are saying. I agree the young guys have really been underperforming. But I think we are seeing players develop later in their careers, guys like tipsy and ferrer playing well at an age when in the past it was rare to even be competive at that age. The modern game requires fitness, conditioning, point construction, consistency, and great returning are now more important than in the past. These are areas that are hard to develop. I don't think you can just blast your way to the top like Becker did at 17, the new racquets give even smaller players a lot of power. What now separates players isn't power, the modern game power is a given it is everything else that distinguishes you as a champion.

What I think we will see is the prime of tennis players move backing in the past the prime was 22-26, I think we will see tennis players reach their primes now in the mid twenties and later. Because the fitness, consistency, durability, and returning skills required to make it to the top are not things that a new guy on tour generally possesses, and it takes time to develop.

Hey Silver, the winner was Klizan in st. petersburg.

I see the same thing I think Berdy, Del Po, Ferrer, and even Tsonga are getting better and looking to the formula of the guys ranked above them. I mean upsets even an upset of the a top 8 or 10 guy just seems to happen much less often in slams. I think it is because the power is more evenly disbursed, everyone can generate big shots so power alone is not going to get you to the top and keep you there. You still need weapons that are better than the rest, but power alone is just not going to do much for you. It is necessary but no sufficient. Even a little guy like ferrer is now hitting mid 120s on his serve.

I am not the tallest player in the world and with the strings and racquets I have, I hit the ball much bigger and heavier than I ever have. My serve has always been like two second serves, now I average a couple aces a match. In the past I would hit an ace once a blue moon. I think the same thing is true on the tour, everyone can crank a pretty big serve and a pretty big forehand. So you better bring more weapons than that to the fight.

Baker and Matosevic must be two of the new finalists, neither of whom are exactly drinking from the fountain of youth. BTW, have we heard any more about Baker's injury?

Interesting, although it could just have been a freak year (after all, there were a lot of first time finalists).

Anothr consideration is how many of the 250 and 500 tournaments were won by the likes of Ferrer (who won as many titles as anyone last year), Almagro and Monaco (enough to reach the edges of the top 10). I think the 2nd rung of players are targetting these lower level tournaments more, to keep a healthy cushion of ranking points in the bank - there are enough tournaments to allow them to pick one or two where none of the top 4 are playing and the next best player in the field is ranked 25-30, so they should be winning these tournaments fairly reliably (similar to Murray with Brisbane a couple of weeks ago).

Your comment about power is reasonable, and echos something I said last week, that in the women's game the difference between the best and others is that the lesser players can't handle the power, but in the men's game they are all plenty powerful so it's the consistency, defence, movement and shot-making skills that differentiate the best from the rest.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/Archive-Event-Calendar.aspx?t=2&y=2012

14 out of 15 new finalists losing their maiden final, so lack of experience. Not sure why that statistic is a significant measure of new talent though.

PS: Why not use the statistic of 14 new finalists as a measure of new players performing better?

What was it Fed said in an interview recently? He talked about guys developing later but then he said something along the lines of...(I'm paraphrasing here) 'perhaps the next crop of youngsters will have some guys with world beating talent like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray' - that's much cruder than how he said it, but there was an implication that while he knows the Tomics and Raonics can be a threat on a given day, he doesn't really rate them to fill the shoes of the above. He said something yesterday about great to see Raonic and Tomic playing well, young players coming up etc, but of course they were established now - I think in Fedspeak, you can translate that to don't expect to see anyone elbowing aside the top guys for the big prizes anytime soon - hope for more from the next generation.

@TP...

If several 30+ year-olds (Benneteau, Federer, Ferrer) continue to beat youngsters like Tomic, Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, et al., it is tough for the young'uns to make significant inroads.

I would still consider 14 new finalists as the glass being half-full, than just one new trophy-holder being glass half-empty. . 14 out of 64 ATP tournaments, so roughly about 22%, not a bad number to have.

I think partly due to big4 strength, partly due to lack of young player progress in the last 2 years, and partly random chance, can explain this.

I think quality comes to the top whatever, and I'm yet to be convinced that the young guys have what it takes to become superstars of the game. At 22, Raonic is established though I do see that he actually played with inflammation of his feet yesterday and was touch and go whether he would compete, so perhaps yesterday's performance shouldn't be considered in the discussion.

I would bet that if the present 'young'er hopefuls do snatch a slam it will need a lot of luck and more than one top 4 player dropping by the wayside. I don't believe we have seen the next multiple winner emerge on the men's tour yet.

6 weeks into 2013 and we have two for the year already.

ryan86 wrote:6 weeks into 2013 and we have two for the year already.

Good observation, looks like as I have been saying the young guys will come around the modern game seems to favor a more experienced and seasoned pro. It is all preliminary stuff though, some of these new guys need to start beating the stars in slams and making a deep run. We need an unexpected slam winner in the game, it hasn't happened in some time and I have feeling that it won't be this year.

I believe a third one this year... Nicolas Mahut.

Yes, I will be honest I do see signs that the young guys are slowly but surely getting there. Up until this year I thought them a bit hopless. Late last year Jerzy came around and gave me a sliver more of hope. Then dimitrov solidifies and upsets djoko. Raonic and Kei have been consistently performing. And Benoit Paire although a little older I believe he is 23 but I could be wrong starts moving up the rankings. Tomic and Harrison have regressed a bit, but I think they will come around and Sock, I think will be good as well. I really think that part of it really is that the modern game is a grown man's game and the skills and maturity levels required now make it very tough for a raw talent to just blast or use his athletic advantages alone to rise to the top. Unless of course that player is a very singular type of talent.

ryan86 wrote:I believe a third one this year... Nicolas Mahut.

Yeah Ryan that is nice, I like Nicolas mahut and his game, always wondered about him never winning any tournaments, even more mysterious is Benetteau

I actually just remembered we'd have had another one and how could we forget! Lukas Rosol. 

The funny thing about both of them is that in the future no one will want to know about their ATP tour titles and rather each about 1 match at Wimbledon.

Yes that is pretty ironic ryan. Rosol at least one that one famous match, poor mahut I was absolutely gutted for him after that marathon.

For whatever reason they seem to be mental lightweights.

Dimi looked a cert to at last burst through, beating Nole in a 'watershed' type manner like Fed did to Sampras and then has done nothing

banbrotam wrote:For whatever reason they seem to be mental lightweights.

Dimi looked a cert to at last burst through, beating Nole in a 'watershed' type manner like Fed did to Sampras and then has done nothing

Yes banbro, but fed didn't really do much for 2 years after his win over Sampras. If players today are having their best years in their mid to late 20s and even early 30s then these guys might be right on schedule. But I don't see any of the current crop being 5 plus slam winners. They would have accomplished more at even this early part of their careers like a Djoko, Nadal, and to a lesser extent Fed who won his first slam at an older age than the other two.

What I find interesting is that all the young guys I mentioned with the exception kei are really bad returners. If Raonic, Dimitrov, and Jerzy could go from being below average returners to average or above average returners that in itself could be enough.