Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Guy McCrea / 11 August 2010 /

At almost 29 years old, Serena Williams is arguably playing the best tennis of her career. But does the success of her and others show that the days of teenage Grand Slam champions are numbered? Guy McCrea investigates

If you've only just got into following women's tennis, you might think it's simply a pastime for the older crowd. In the last few years at the Grand Slams, players aged over 25 have monopolised the major prizes. You have to go back to the 2006 U.S. Open to find the last teenage titlist - Maria Sharapova (priced around 9.0 on Betfair to win this year's U.S. Open). But women winning Slams at 25 or older isn't new. What's different is that many of the past greats also started in their teens.

Chris Evert won the first two of her 18 major singles titles at eighteen years old, while Steffi Graf also first tasted success as a teenager. The German took her maiden Grand Slam crown at just seventeen. Both Evert and Graf demonstrated remarkable longevity over their respective careers too. The American claimed at least one Slam for thirteen consecutive years - the last of her successes was also her record seventh Roland Garros crown in 1986, at 31 years old. Graf, then in her twenties, dominated for a second time between 1993 and 1996. She won the last of her 22 major titles at almost thirty.

Even after those two, women still won young - albeit without such sustained success. Aged 16 years and three months, Martina Hingis became the youngest ever Grand Slam singles champion at the 1997 Australian Open. The 'Swiss Miss' also became the youngest world number one since rankings began in March of that season. But ankle injuries forced her to retire temporarily in 2003 at just 22. Though she later returned, Hingis was never as successful as before.

At 14, Jennifer Capriati reached the final of a WTA event in 1990 and also won gold at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. The American then took a break after the 1993 U.S. Open due to fatigue. Capriati endured well-documented personal struggles, including arrests for shoplifting and possession of marijuana, before she returned to the game in 1998 and later achieved Grand Slam success for the first time at 24 years old - winning the 2001 Australian Open. After two more major titles, Capriati's 'second career' ended in 2004 because of injuries.

So the optimum age and levels of success vary from player-to-player. But the lack of recent teenage champions at Grand Slam level is still a real change from what we have been used to. It has also surprised those who expected 2010 to be the year when the WTA Tour's new generation - led by Caroline Wozniacki ([23.0] to win the U.S. Open) and Victoria Azarenka ([13.5] to win in New York) - would start to taste Grand Slam glory.

In my view, a major reason they and their contemporaries haven't yet is due to the International Tennis Federation's 'age eligibility rule'. Introduced shortly after Capriati's problems, it seeks to prevent juniors from playing on the WTA Tour if they are too young to deal with the mental and physical pressures involved. Juniors can play up to eight tournaments at 14 years old, ten events at 15, 17 events at 16, and 21 tournaments at 17 years of age.

Now, no-one disputes that the tennis authorities should protect junior players. But this 'one size fits all' approach stifles the development - and Grand Slam opportunities - of teen prodigies.

Hingis had already spent nine years on the WTA Tour when she retired. Injury is part and parcel of professional sport and it is very unusual to see players competing for more than a decade. Isn't there a risk in preventing teenagers from playing their best tennis at their optimum age with these strict limitations? All the age eligibility rule produces is a lack of younger achievers at Grand Slam level.

As one example, consider Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. The Russian won the Australian Open junior title at 14 and became world junior number one at 15. She is someone who was ready to do some damage on the WTA Tour and even at Grand Slam level. But Pavlyuchenkova could only play a handful of professional events, forced to remain on the junior circuit where she was expected to win all the time. Pavlyuchenkova may still win a Slam in the future - but there's little doubt in my mind that her development was stifled by the rules in place.

There is only so much a player can learn on the practice courts. To develop their skills so that they can be used under pressure and achieve match fitness they also need to play against challenging opponents on a regular basis. Unless this rule is changed, the instances of teenage success at Grand Slam level in modern women's tennis are likely to remain rare.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: