Lack of teenage Grand Slam champions

Boris Becker(Won Wimbledon in 1985 and 1986 as a 17 and 18 year old), Stefan Edberg (won Australian Open in 1985 as a 19 year old), Mats Wilander (won the French Open in 1982 as a 17 year old), Pete Samparas(won the 1990 U.S.Open as a 19 year old) and Michael Chang (youngest men's Grand Slam winner at the 1989 French Open)

What’s common about all these grand slam champions? They all conquered the Grand Slam events as teenagers and with the exception of Chang, all of them used the serve and volley, which was the  hall mark of that era. The evolution of the game is a reason teenagers are unable to win a Grand Slam in the present day. Tennis has evolved from serve and volley style prevalent in the 80s and the 90s, to the monstrous baseline slug fests of the present day which explains the dominance of players who are in their late 20’s and early 30s. The current top five in men’s tennis are all aged 30 and above and are primarily baseliners. 

It is common sense to understand that a full grown man who has spent numerous years on tour will have the power and experience to outhit a teenager in a baseline slugfest which goes on for over 3 hours in a best of five sets grand slam match. Youth is better in sport? Youthful energy and adrenaline maybe good enough to win matches or have a deep run in a non grand slam event where the matches are contested in a best of three sets. 

Nowadays every top player travels with a huge support staff (coach, trainer, physio, chef) Some players even have mental conditioning coaches to help them stay mentally strong so as to be able to outthink their opponents deep into matches which enter the 4^th or 5^th hour.

A young player will not amass enough in prize money and unless they win they won’t get sponsorship money like the big names do. All players will have to pay for their own travel, lodging and racket stringing and that will leave them with not enough to hire physios and trainers. Their bodies will not be as conditioned as the big guys.

People who have been watching the sport for many years will agree that serve and volley has become almost extinct, but even viewers today can watch Wimbledon Official Films from the 1980’s and closely observe the wear of the grass on any of the courts. As per tradition the defending champion opens play on a lush green court. After two weeks, when the finalists step out on the 2^nd Sunday there used to be a brown patch across the service line, but not one as prominent as the brown patches from the serving/ receiving point to the service box. In last year’s final there were just worn out patches across the service line and small barely won out patches in the box (they are caused by the doubles players) Clear evidence that serve and volley is almost extinct in the sport.

 Wimbledon's centre court during the 2014 final having worn out patches only along the baseline. The grass inside and around the service box is still fresh, showing lack of activity at the net( i.e. lack of volleying)

Wimbledon's centre court in 1986 which features worn out patches all across the playing surface(an abundance of net play and volleying)

Let’s look at a serve and volley game…. A big serve and then charge the net, if your opponent manages to make a return you simply just drop the ball back onto their side of their court.

The serve and volley requires excellent footwork and wrists. Something a teenager can possess and can have a chance at competing with the goliaths of the game.

In the current era of baseline slugfests, a serve has to be absolutely perfect. Players like Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray have raised the level of service returns to such an extent that the server’s advantage is lost the moment the receiver strikes the ball back. What follows is a long rally as defensive skills have improved with players just aiming to keep the serve in and then reset the point over the next three shots. Nowadays even smashes are returned, as players go about 7-8 metres beyond the baseline and return them from right under the nose of the audience. Defensive skills have increased and sharpness at the net is gone. I blame the rise of the two handed backhand for this. The shot allows a counter punch sort of defensive shot which is extremely negative in baseline play as no player takes the initiative to finish off a point(but useful in keeping opponents from approaching the net to finish off a point as the two hander is excellent in hitting a passing shot past an opponent who is stranded at the net).

The returner in modern day tennis has gotten the confidence to stand 5-6 m behind the baseline as they know their opponent too will stay rooted to the baseline and engage them in a long rally, rather than hit a drop shot.

Among the new breed of players, only Dominic Thiem and Grigor Dimitrov have been using the single hander successfully. If coaches identify that the key to countering the defensive play is an all-out attack on both wings, tennis could witness the renaissance of the single handed backhand.

More energy is exhausted, as to defend on the baseline a player ends up constantly sprinting from one end of the court to the other and hitting a ball travelling at over 100mph back to their opponent who is 30 metres away. Rallies last about 10-15 shots per exchange on an average. A five setter has about 250+ points played. Think of the amount of physical strength and stamina required.
Do teenagers have this sort of energy? Yes! Can they sustain it across 5 sets or even across 3 sets? It’s possible. Can it be done across 7 games spread out over 14 days? Not possible in the present day.

I’ll bring up the example of this year’s Australian Open 3^rd round clash between at the time, 14 time Major winner and at the time World. No 10 Rafael Nadal and world no.20 Alexander Zverev (the then top ranked teenager in the men’s game) He managed to outhit Nadal and reach a 2 sets to 1 lead. He was going toe to toe with the Mallorcan in the 5^th set and was absolutely giving it his all. Nadal was playing smart and just working the young German all over the court and exhausting him and he finally broke. He lost his speed for the baseline slugfest had drained him, a 19 year old vs a 30 year old. He doesn’t have the physical structure that Nadal does. Had he managed to conquer Nadal in the match I’m openly saying that the young German would have run out of steam in the next round thus rendering his victory against Nadal, a pyrrhic victory.

Rafael Nadal at 19 years and 2 days old when he won the French Open. Teenagers in the current ATP top 100 do not have such a physique.

Serve and volley seems to be the only way teenagers can break out and win Slams like players did in the 80s and the 90s. At the 2005 French Open(48 Grand Slams ago), Rafael Nadal (a baseliner) won seven consecutive best of five setters to become the first teenage Grand Slam winner in the 58 Grand Slams since Pete Samparas' 1990 U.S.Open triumph (and the only teenage Grand Slam winner in the 106 Grand Slams contested from the 1991 Australian Open till the 2017 French Open). Nadal was a teenager who won a Grand Slam with a baseline style of play but that type of athlete is a once in a lifetime athlete. The average teenage athlete will not be able to overpower an athlete in their late 20s.

As a member of the audience, though I like the game of cat and mouse in a rally and waiting for that one moment when defence will be turned into offense through an incredible passing shot. It gets boring, really boring to watch them scramble and slide rather than watching a quick game involving a test of sharp reflexes and anticipation at the net.

A shorter and sharper match is what audiences need. Shortening a match to a best of three sets has been discussed, but that is not the solution. A change in playing style is needed to make the game unpredictable and for tennis fans to once again witness a faster game(and possibly increase viewership).
 A faster game with shorter points and more usage of the serve and volley could give teenagers a chance to win the Majors once again.