Next new Masters winner?

Of all the amazing stats in tennis, the one that really stands out for me is the fact that the youngest Masters winner is 8 time grand slam champ Novak Djokovic - age nearly 28. Guess who the youngest player left in Miami is?

At some stage that has to change but there is no real sign of it happening soon. So predictions? I am going for Cilic - Paris 2015.

That is actually a tough question but on current form I say David Ferrer on one of the clay tournaments coming up.

He has only lost TWO matches this year which is remarkable.

Kei Nishikori and Milos Raonic could be possibilities but I am saying Ferrer.

Cilic has become very mundane since his breakthrough I am personally hoping that Thiem or Goffin can bring some glory for the 20-25 year olds. Raonic will probably fluke one he's playing

Raonic looks like a good bet. Can't see anyone stopping the top 3 over the clay Masters (red-hot Stan excepted), but he could be a factor on some of the quicker HC ones like Cincy.

That's an excellent age stat, BS. Just shows the strangehold that the top boys have on the game.

Scottish Shaun wrote:That is actually a tough question but on current form I say David Ferrer on one of the clay tournaments coming up.

He has only lost TWO matches this year which is remarkable.

Kei Nishikori and Milos Raonic could be possibilities but I am saying Ferrer.

Ferrer won Paris a few years ago.

I would guess - in roughly this order:

Raonic
Dimitrov
Nishikori
Kyrgios
Tomic

When?  Hopefully this year, but perhaps more likely in one of the Masters after the USO when it may be a bit easier to sneak one through.

Amazed you have Dimi at 2. I would say:

Kei
Raonic
Tomic
Kyrgios
Kokkinakis

Agree on timing - Paris always a good option.

Ferrer has not only won a Masters but he is also 5 years older than Novak!

Nishikori is the obvious choice and the momst likely for me, then Raonic. Krygios as a strong dark horse. Not so convinced about Dimitrov and Tomic - up to them to prove it.

So to clarify the stat, you mean of all active players that have won 1 (or more) Masters in their career, Novak Djokovic is the youngest, is that right?

Isner, this Sunday

Yes - that is correct. Not just active players of course - all players.

Isner is 30 this year and therefore older than Novak.

But he hasnt got a masters? Wouldnt he therefore be the next new masters winner?

Yes, I get it now, and yes I agree it's a good stat.

Seems like I'm not the only one getting confused.

Yes, but Novak would remain the youngest winner. Muray, Stan, Ljubo, Ferrer and Tsonga have all won their first Masters since Novak's first but he remains the youngest.

If he needs to be younger than Novak then the Nish is the best bet, hes the only guy good enough on clay to take a clay masters if a draw opens up

It is an interesting point about the young players. Roughly speaking I would guess Nadal won his first masters about ages 18, Djokovic perhaps 19-20, and Murray perhaps 19-21, and Federer did he get one in 2001 or so around 21.

And as for first slam Nadal would be about 18, Djokovic perhaps 20-21, Murray perhaps 26 and Federer around 23.

Sorry for being lazy about not looking up the exact ages.

Born Slippy wrote:Amazed you have Dimi at 2. I would say:

Kei
Raonic
Tomic
Kyrgios
Kokkinakis

Dimi may be wishful thinking on my part.  On the other hand, his best level around midway last year was quite close to the top players I thought, so if he can get back there and step up from there, he might have a shot.

I would definitely give him a better shot at being the next one to win than Kokkinakis.

Can't see Isner doing it. He does give Djokovic trouble though, and he has a reasonable head to head against him of 2-6. But still even if he beats Djokovic he tends to get tired when he reaches a final. Something about his physique, he can't quite seem to hold it together either in the second week of the slam or in a masters final.

Ah to add I get the point about Isner being too old, but I just don't think in any case he will win Miami.

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Amazed you have Dimi at 2. I would say:

Kei
Raonic
Tomic
Kyrgios
Kokkinakis

Dimi may be wishful thinking on my part.  On the other hand, his best level around midway last year was quite close to the top players I thought, so if he can get back there and step up from there, he might have a shot.

I would definitely give him a better shot at being the next one to win than Kokkinakis.

I don't see Kokkinakis winning one this year but I think he looks a player who could suddenly kick on. Weapons galore. Expect him to be top 20 this time next year.

Never heard of him but will try and catch a match

Henman Bill wrote:It is an interesting point about the young players. Roughly speaking I would guess Nadal won his first masters about ages 18, Djokovic perhaps 19-20, and Murray perhaps 19-21, and Federer did he get one in 2001 or so around 21.

And as for first slam Nadal would be about 18, Djokovic perhaps 20-21, Murray perhaps 26 and Federer around 23.

Sorry for being lazy about not looking up the exact ages.

All wrong.

ZZ wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:It is an interesting point about the young players. Roughly speaking I would guess Nadal won his first masters about ages 18, Djokovic perhaps 19-20, and Murray perhaps 19-21, and Federer did he get one in 2001 or so around 21.

And as for first slam Nadal would be about 18, Djokovic perhaps 20-21, Murray perhaps 26 and Federer around 23.

Sorry for being lazy about not looking up the exact ages.

All wrong.

What's the point in posting stats if there all gonna b wrong

ZZ wrote:

ZZ wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:It is an interesting point about the young players. Roughly speaking I would guess Nadal won his first masters about ages 18, Djokovic perhaps 19-20, and Murray perhaps 19-21, and Federer did he get one in 2001 or so around 21.

And as for first slam Nadal would be about 18, Djokovic perhaps 20-21, Murray perhaps 26 and Federer around 23.

Sorry for being lazy about not looking up the exact ages.

All wrong.

What's the point in posting stats if there all gonna b wrong

a complete jumbled mess

Isner lets hope.

Rafa was 18 about a week older than Novak was!!

Federer was 20 and Murray 21

For me it's significant just how many haven't won one, i.e. Gasquet, Cilic and of course Berdych who probably has his best chance ever this week

I also think, that much as I like Nish - he has to be at his maximum for too much of the time to win one of these. Ironically, he's best suited to winning a Slam as it's hard for say an Isner to blast him off the court over 5 sets

Berdych has already won a masters, way back in 05 vs Ljubicic.

Del Potro not winning one is the most surprising, between '12-'14 he was clearly the best of the rest but kept running into Novak and Rafa on streaks

Del Potro had a superb Indian Wells one year when he took down everyone impressively but just got tired in the final against Rafa. I think he took out Murray and Djokovic. So it can he hard to win a masters. He was also on the brink of winning the final before Rafa turned it around.

It`s a rare occurence since the beginning of Fedal era...
From 2009 until now (6 full years and IW - so it's 55 MS1000, arbitrary because wiki goes there) we've had:

Novak: 17 titles
Rafa: 15 titles
Roger: 9 titles
Andy: 7 titles
that's 48/55 between the big 4
then:
2014: 1 new winner! Wawrinka; Tsonga
2013: -
2012: 1 new winner! Ferrer
2011: -
2010: Ljubicic, Roddick, Soderling
2009: Davydenko

All these 7 guys gathered as many as Andy alone on that period...
I'll try to check from 2005

Tsonga isn't a new winner. He won Bercy in 08 beating nalby.

Indeed LuvSports, totally forgot about it - corrected  

From IW 2005 to IW 2015

Rafa: 27 titles
Novak: 21 titles
Roger: 19 titles
Andy: 9 titles

that's 76/91 between the big 4 in the past 10 years - 83.5% of Masters (it's still 75% without Murray...) and Andy Fedalovic shares less than Fedal alone...

then:
2014: Wawrinka, Tsonga
2013: -
2012: Ferrer*
2011: -
2010: Ljubicic, Roddick, Soderling*
2009: Davydenko
2008: Davydenko, Tsonga*
2007: Nalbandian, Nalbandian*
2006: Roddick, Robredo, Davydenko*
2005: Berdych*

*Paris is indeed a good spot to get one: nobody ever won it twice in a row. It accounts for 6/15 Masters that the big 4 didn't get (WTF effect...)

Nishikori is for sure the most likely, I just think he wastes too much energy early on in a tournament he seems to run out of legs. I can think of several occasions thats been the case

For those saying dimitrov, the guys game is a complete mess. He's gone to playing retrieval tennis and whipping his forehand which is very ugly. He's the poor mans gasquet, and that's saying something.

Dimitrov has to be the most disappointing player of 2015, last year he finally seemed as if he was going to kick on but he's stalled majorly

"that's 76/91 between the big 4 in the past 10 years"

This must be such a discouragement to new players, play good a round or two, and then get beaten by the top 4.

Another stat on this, of the 15 times that a "non Big Four" player has won a TMS title, only 9 on those finals were without a "non Big Four" player.

So only 6 times has a "non Big Four" player won a TMS title, by beating a "Big Four" player in the final, in 91 such events. Staggering number/record.....

I like either Raonic or Nishi. I could see Raonic winning Paris or Cincy. For Kei I think any of the north American hardcourts is possible.

biugo wrote:*Paris is indeed a good spot to get one: nobody ever won it twice in a row. It accounts for 6/15 Masters that the big 4 didn't get (WTF effect...)

Djokovic has won Paris twice in a row - 2013 and 2014. First player to do so.

HM Murdoch wrote:

biugo wrote:*Paris is indeed a good spot to get one: nobody ever won it twice in a row. It accounts for 6/15 Masters that the big 4 didn't get (WTF effect...)

Djokovic has won Paris twice in a row - 2013 and 2014. First player to do so.

oh, indeed I'm stuck at US14

A year on from this article, amazingly it still remains pertinent. It won't change in MC either. That leaves only two Masters events until Novak turns 29!

Thiem - Madrid?

Monfils hasn't won a masters has he?

Monfils is older than Novak.

Probably Raonic, Thiem, Goffin next in that order of probability.

Trivia..

Q: who has been youngest Masters winner?
Q: who has been oldest Masters winner?
Q: who has been youngest Masters runner up?
Q: who has been oldest Masters runner up?

I mean the current Masters (and Mercedes Super9) tour from 1990.
By all means we can look separately at the Grand Prix series that preceded it 1970-1989.

youngest Masters winner I'd go for Nadal, he started winning very young on clay IIRC.
oldest winner could be Feds, won Cinci last year didn't he? Can't think of any particularly old winner from the 90's.
Feds might well be the oldest runner up too, or maybe Ferrer.
Youngest runner-up could also be Nadal, didn't he lose one in Miami to Feds early on?

Q: who has been youngest Masters winner?
I'll guess Rafa in 2005, he would have been about 18. However, Novak at Andy also won at a similar age, so that will be close. Chang might have won one, so that's another possibility. However by 1990 he might have been older?

Q: who has been oldest Masters winner?
Ljubicic has one quite late, maybe around 31-32, but Federer likely has him beat. Actually now I think about it, it could easily be Agassi. I think that will be close. I'll go Agassi.

Q: who has been youngest Masters runner up?
I agree with the above, Rafa must have been about 18 when he lost a Miami final to Roger in around 2005 or so so he's a good shout. Novak or Andy could be other possibilities.

Q: who has been oldest Masters runner up?
I would also go Federer here. Second guess Agassi.

CAS wrote:Dimitrov has to be the most disappointing player of 2015, last year he finally seemed as if he was going to kick on but he's stalled majorly

Sad but if he had even an average ATP tour two hander he probably would be a top 5 and top 10 guy already. He just can not return well enough to stand in and take the ball on the rise off his BH. I think he will still come around to having a very nice career and maybe challenge at wimbeldon along with Kyrgios for some titles. But his BH return is subpar and after all these years he still hasn't been able to fix it, principally because he is one hander.

In answer to the OP's question I will take Kyrgios or Nishikori as the next new Master's winner.

Hi, I believe Agassi is the oldest winner (34) and oldest runner up (35).
I think Chang is the youngest winner...although just beats Rafa who occupies the next 4 slots...he won 4 Masters in 2005 when he was 18/19!

Agassi has the biggest span of winning titles...14 years...from 1990 to 2004.
Federer has done 13...2002 to 2015.
Becker did 11...1985 to 1996.
Nadal isnt doing bad either on 11...2005 to 2016...so much for a lack of longevity!

Connors did 11 too...1973 to 1984 (he won 17 titles if you add tours together)

Lendl did 9...1980 to 1989 (he won 22 titles from Grand Prix tour...pre-Masters)
Djokovic has done 9...2007 to 2016
Sampras did 8...1992 to 2000

However...the actual record goes to Daniel Nestor in doubles...19 years from 1996 to 2015!
The Bryans are same as Federer...13...from 2002 to 2015.

Of interest, Mahut/Herbert have won all 3 Masters this year so far!