In 1985 Boris Becker, an unseeded 17-year-old, served his way to the Wimbledon title, beating eighth seed Kevin Curren in the final.
The charismatic redheaded German sent crowds a gasp as he dived on the eminent green grass of All England Club.
Despite the surprise, it was not uncommon to see teenagers taking the most prestigious titles in the sport. Pete Sampras, Michael Chang, Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander and Bjorn Borg all entered the elite list of grand slam winners as teenagers between 1970 and 1990.
Since then, only one man has been able to accomplish the feat: Rafael Nadal at the 2005 French Open.
Tennis has transformed into a sport that requires a herculean level of fitness, and it easily ranks as one of the toughest sports. Anyone who watched the opening sets of the most recent Australian Open final would agree that the level of fitness required has put aspiring teenagers’ dreams of grand slam glory to bed.
The era in which teenagers could successfully reach the final of grand slams has gone. This is in part because it takes them longer to develop the strong mental game necessary to make it to the latter stages of the second week, but is more to do with the increase in physical fitness necessary.
19-year-old Nick Kyrgios rocketed on to the stage at Wimbledon last year, beating Rafael Nadal to reach the quarter finals. However he was unable to overcome Milos Raonic in part due to a lack of energy.
Kyrgios exhibits the same sort of talent and flare that brought Becker to Wimbledon glory back in ’85, but the fact is the top players are now too advanced physically for a repeat shock.
It has been an occurring theme that tennis players start to peak around the age of 25, when their bodies have been able to fully develop and put on the muscle necessary to take them through five sets. Teenagers simply have not had the time to develop enough to challenge the likes of Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray.
Djokovic and Murrary have both displayed their best tennis after periods of physical transformation. Both originally suffered with lasting five sets but are now easily the two fittest players on tour. It was therefore no surprise that the two made the final of the Australian Open.
The standard of tennis in the first two sets was nothing short of extraordinary, with rallies spanning 27 shots long and players covering 60 metres a point while hitting the ball as hard as seemingly possible.
The change in physicality marks the end of grand slam victories for Roger Federer. Despite his change in style, it is hard to see him compete in a match with the intensity seen in the Australian Open final at the end of two weeks of tennis.
Rafael Nadal is a bit of an enigma as he has the age and ability to still be one of the fittest out on tour; whether he can overcome his injury issues in time to build up to ultimate fitness once more is another question. At the age of 28, given his style of play and reoccurring injury niggles, I cannot see him returning to the powerhouse status he once was.
With regards to surging young talent, Grigor Dimitrov must be the man to look to. He has displayed the talent necessary from a very early age, much like Kyrgios, however from the display he put on against Murray a few weeks ago, he now has the mental and physical game necessary to challenge for grand slam titles.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Nice article, Lawrence. Tennis over the last 10 years has definitely progressed to one of the most physically demanding sports out there. The average age of the top 100 now is around 27 I believe. The next generation has copped quite a bit for not taking slams away from the big four already, but I think over the next few years people will realise that 25 is the new 20 and guys will have a shorter window to win slams given the physical contest these days.
Lawrence Palmer
Roar Rookie
Definitely, the slowing down of the courts is a huge factor! I know a lot of fans don't like the change, especially the Wimbledon lovers as it has taken away the serve and volley style. However I'm a big fan for change as I see it as a progression; it requires so much more than just one big weapon to win a grand slam nowadays. I would agree too that Dimitrov struggled a little at the start; he had so much hype and pressure on him being dubbed the second Federer but I think he looks more settled and comfortable in his play now. Most importantly he's gotten over the physical hump needed to make the transition from juniors to seniors. This is a hump Borna Coric will need to make to become a dominant force. I'll be keeping a watchful eye out for him as I haven't seen him play!
Lawrence Palmer
Roar Rookie
Yeah I agree, I think this trend can be seen in a lot of sports. Rugby has also grown physically, you don't see nearly as many overweight forwards that jog around just adding weight to rooks and scrums, they are now absolutely massive but fit at the same time. In terms of tennis, I think Nadal raised the standard of fitness and Federer was able to compete due to the sheer talent he possesses. He takes a lot of balls on the rise which allows him to conserve energy and allows him to still compete at the very top.
Jayden
Guest
Another aspect is the slowing down of the courts, which has led to players being able to rally from the baseline for the length of time which Novak/Nadal and co. are all capable of. As for dimitrov, I think he's suffered from the Early Comparisons to Federer, and I suspect he may win 1-2 Slams, but not become a dominant force in the game, that role may go to Borna Coric
Winston
Guest
You're probably right. It's like in AFL how youngsters get drafted around 18, train 2 years, debut at 20, and remain rather mediocre for another 3-4 years on average before they come good. You might see glimpses of brilliance, but not over the course of whole games and whole seasons. Seems like Fed's raised the standard of the other big 4 and it's not about to come back down any time soon.