'Great' young players?

nadal, djokovic, murray, del potro..born 1986, 1987, 1988 respectively.

after these names above,,young players come and go.
e. gulbis challenged djokovic in FO 08, took first set against in-form nadal in wimby,
ff 3 years, theres little story about him
k. nishikori promised a good future once,,tht flying backhand trademark is quite good to see,,upsetting ferrer in us open.
injuries hit him,,he's never a same guy.

grigor dimitrov,,bernand tomic,,to name a few,,
but nobody really stand up to take a torch from the legacy.
is tennis really in declined?

or maybe someone can tell me a young player today that is good enough to shake the world
bcoz as far as i could see,,there is none.

Like the look of dolgopolov and ryan harrison... ones to look out for imo

ebar, I have talked about this a few times before. There really aren't any great young talents. Nadal won the french open at 18, Djokovic won the Canada master's beating Nadal, Roddick, Federer (then the 1,2,3) player in the world on consecutive days. The current crop of players from 22-26 is much stronger than the crop of 18-22 year old players even when you take age into consideration. Del Po is the only 22 year old or younger to have made a big impact and djokovic is currently the youngest player in the top 20. Maybe it has to do with the more physical nature of the tour.

dolgopolov playing good lately,,but hes not that young anymore

and last time i checked ryan harrison in atp website,,theres nothing significance in his achievement esp in majors

nadal had challenged fed as early as 17 years old
fed beat king of grass sampras at age of 20

i think i once read somewhere that toni nadal has son..which is quite good,,as it 'mentioned' in that article

but couldnt remember where i read it

ebar86 wrote:dolgopolov playing good lately,,but hes not that young anymore

and last time i checked ryan harrison in atp website,,theres nothing significance in his achievement esp in majors

nadal had challenged fed as early as 17 years old
fed beat king of grass sampras at age of 20

With respect one cant use Rafa as a yard stick otherwise you would write off anyone in their twenties.... He was a bit of a phenomina ... so I wouldn´t put too much store by that

It is silly to use Rafa as yardstick on young players. There will never be a breakthrough talent so you like that again. I agree with Haddie Dolgopolov and Harrison. Think Raonic will be one to watch and Tomic.

If only Murray had taken up the game earlier instead of playing footie, what a waste of 4 years, maybe if he's gone to Spain earlier too, difficult given their age at around 14-16, but where would he be now ??

Can't see any kids standing out right now, but you never know, we might get a British kid suddenly break the barrier known as the British "should I be here" Psyche and be able to emulate the Nadals and Roddicks and take the tennis world by storm......

Sorry, had a senior moment just then, silly me, we still have the LTA coaching our youngsters. God, its never going to happen is it ?

Nadal and Becker were freaks.

Nobody today is going to win a slam at 18 or 19 with the power of the modern game plus the strength in depth.

On the men's side they peak in their mid twenties and, if they can sustain it, keep going till early 30s. That's only ten years at or around the top of the game for most.

Jubbahey this idea that they should only play tennis from a very early age is baloney. Most of these top players were good at football or other sports (please feel to correct me but both Rafa and Roger played as youngsters). Once they reach say 13-14 that's the time to only play tennis.

Tell that to Tiger Woods dad who put a club in his hand at 3 !

But I know what you mean NB, my point was more rather that had he concentrated on tennis more than a professional career in football, can't remember which club it was, but they were ready to sign him up in the junior league I think, aged around 14 was it ? someone correct me, I know I'm wrong somewhere, but he did have about 4 yrs playing footie when he could have been swinging a tennis racquet and he has stated he was a late starter compared to Nadal and Federer.

But yes, it doesn't make sense to have them play too seriously before they are 10, muscle and bone formation are not developed properly and can even be hampered by over training at a young age.

i started watching tennis on tv during my lunch in a cafe in my college,,australian open,,fed against safin,,cant remember the score,,but close five-setter if im not mistaken,,since that,,never miss any major tournaments

come the FO,,i first time watched a young gun named rafael nadal,,looking at his play,,i thought..damn,,this kid is wall or what? fast,,never let balls past him,,n the thing tht caught my eyes most is his passing shot..unbelievable.
back then,,he playing more freely,,he just go for his shots.

i first watched djoko in indian wells,,which year i couldnt remember,,but its final against nadal,,lost easily in first set,,but playing better in 2nd set.
his groundstrokes are textbook for me,,but its effective,,n i believed he'll be going further in his career.
on next tournament,,i thought he defeated nadal,,
sorry,,cant really remember these things n lazy enough to check wiki

being said tht,,we could actually see when someone has something special in him,,evn watching them for first time,,they caught ur eyes.
n unfortunately,,i have never see someone like this in recent years.

but tbh,,i once thought nishikori to be a hit,,saw his match against nadal in queens 08,,quite easy for the eye to watch,,
but yeah,,as i said earlier,,injuries might hamper his progress,,
unlucky guy.

Have been watching Daniel Berta, Carlos Boluda, Matt Ebden, Vasek Pospisil (Raonic's partner who beat Rafa/Nole in doubles), Jiri Vesely, Gianni Mina (the next Monfils), Dominic Thiem, Jack Sock, Oliver Golding, ...

There is a long list of stars....

Look at the slam Boy's draws at FO and AO for ATP.

Carol Garcia (almost beat Sharapova) for WTA stands out.

Also watch some of the Challengers (apart from older players who want to come back to the main tour).

Had great expectations from Mahut (as old as Federer).

Even taking Rafa out of the equation because of all he achieved at such a young age. This current generations of youngsters can't even compare to Murray or Djoko. Cilic and Gulbis have been near total bombs. Dolgopolov is 22 years old and has never won anything. Raonic and Harrison are promising but haven't amounted to much. I think we saw a golden generation arise with the likes of Nadal, Murray, Gasquet, Djoko, Monfils, Tsonga, and Berdych. All of whom right now are 24-25 years old and top ranked players. All of whom first made their push into the top 20-30 range as teenagers. Del Po has been the only player of the current 18-22 generation that could hold a candle to the previous generation.

socal1976 wrote:Even taking Rafa out of the equation because of all he achieved at such a young age. This current generations of youngsters can't even compare to Murray or Djoko. Cilic and Gulbis have been near total bombs. Dolgopolov is 22 years old and has never won anything. Raonic and Harrison are promising but haven't amounted to much. I think we saw a golden generation arise with the likes of Nadal, Murray, Gasquet, Djoko, Monfils, Tsonga, and Berdych. All of whom right now are 24-25 years old and top ranked players. All of whom first made their push into the top 20-30 range as teenagers. Del Po has been the only player of the current 18-22 generation that could hold a candle to the previous generation.

exactly..
many young players gave stern test/challenge for todays top players,,but challenging is not good enough,,at the end,,only wins tht will be counted (big stages alike of fed beating sampras,,nadal beat fed,,djoko beat nadal,,delpo beat fed etc2..


in recent aus open ,,blogs/sites/papers repeatedly mentioned about bernard tomic (might be because hes australian),,who can make an upset on nadal blablabla..
just checking his stats in atp website,,average level, losing 1st/2nd round,,
cant win against the like of pablo andujar,,victor troicki..let alone the big guns.
just,,not good enough for me

now im using delpo as a measure-stick instead of nadal.
in same age (19 yrs old) in 2007,,delpo already ranked in top 50,,going into top 10 the next year

tomic now rest comfortably at no. 173 in atp,,2011 season just past the first half,,so possibility of reaching top 50 by year-end?
impossible .

guys interesting debate.

Another factor that has to be thrown into the mix is the physical demands now of the game. An 18 year old is still growing (and Nadal aside) hasn't reached that physical maturity yet (never mind the mental side). It's therefore no surprise that it took someone like Del Potro until (was it?) 20 to show both the physical and mental maturity to really come through. If you're not of that stature then it'll be difficult to ever even make it.

Coming back to this dedication to tennis argument. Look at Gasquet - solid top 20/top 10. Unlikely to win a slam as mentally weak. To me he looks like someone who only ever player tennis from an early age and would have benefited from playing other sports.

Newballs and ebar good posts, i think tennis progresses forward but there is a tendacity for that forward progress to not always be in a straight line.The game sometimes takes two steps forward and then a step back. I think the Djoko/Nadal/Murray group of players represent a progression in the game, the generation that so far has come after them maybe is a step backwards from the guys that came up three or 4 years before. Still we could be wrong if Raonic all of sudden steps up and shocks the world at wimby. God I hope he is in Rafa's quarter and not Nole's.

As for Gasquet, he is player that in my mind never wanted to put in the hard yards physically, he has all the talent in the world, enough talent to be #1. But you look at Murray, Nadal, Djoko all these guys have gotten stronger and added new wrinkles to their game. Gasquet is a guy who the game came so easily to that maybe he just never got accustomed to having to work to progress and grow. I really can't think of one area of his game that he has gotten reasonably better in for the last 3 or 4 years. Monfils is also another world beating talent that just has stagnated he is still basically the same exact player he was 3 to 4 years ago. While murray, Nadal, and Djoko have added to their weapons and their conditioning.

Raonic (as mentioned earlier) is #28 and has wins over Top 10 (Verdasco in San Jose), almost beat Roddick.

Re Tomic, just leading Rafa 4-1 @AO does not really make him a star.

if tennis only allow backhands,,gasquet must hav 5 majors at least in his cabinet seriously,,his backhand is superb!

whenever he lead 2-0 in majors, n if his opponent snatched the 3rd set,,he would crumble n lose it all

what a waste of talent.

Never really Rated Tomic as a future big star - i think some people have been beating the drum too har don that one.

As for Raonic - i have more hope, but not sure about his mentality for some reason from what ive seen.

You have to remember it wouldn't take much for a shock to turn into something special though - it could be in two years time theres a guy playing righ now whos nobody has heard of, who suddenly gets a good result and uses it as a spring board.

I think with Del P he had good winning run in lower tournaments to rise up the rankings and get on the map - then he never fell off it again. there so many ways for a player to burst through.

I'm waiting for a player to come through who has been juggling since the age of 3 and has the ability to hit forehands off both sides and is able to switch from single handed BH to doublehanded at will.

just can't think of their name right now though.........

Tom I have always thought that a completely ambidextrous tennis player would be the next step in the evolution of the game. One who can hit forehands left handed or right hand equally well and serve from both sides. If that is the case why even have a backand?

socal1976 wrote:Tom I have always thought that a completely ambidextrous tennis player would be the next step in the evolution of the game. One who can hit forehands left handed or right hand equally well and serve from both sides. If that is the case why even have a backand?

Because the backhand can be a weapon above the forehand in some situations - e.g slice and control (if double handed). However the bigest thing i could think of is it simply adds variety. If you had a players who had option to hit forehand, single BH of double BH from one position the variety of shot choice is stagering.

That is true tom you could the backhand slice, forehand slice, really mix up the spins. From lefty slice to right handed flat power could be a very difficult matchup for sure. In baseball they have switch hitters who bat both lefty and righty, in tennis I am surprised we have never seen a player who could pull something like this off.

Tom_____ wrote:I'm waiting for a player to come through who has been juggling since the age of 3 and has the ability to hit forehands off both sides and is able to switch from single handed BH to doublehanded at will.

just can't think of their name right now though.........

oh,,its amazing if someone can use both hand in tennis,,but is it allowed?

a friend of mine could use both his hand while playing badminton,,quite amazing you know
he did once in tournament,,he couldnt reach the shuttle on his left side,,so he switched racket to his left hand,,
he returned the shuttle back,,
n get a warning from umpire haha


anyway,,if someone has the hybrid of djoko backhand n gasquet backhand,,that will be the most beautiful backhand shot

Tom_____ wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Tom I have always thought that a completely ambidextrous tennis player would be the next step in the evolution of the game. One who can hit forehands left handed or right hand equally well and serve from both sides. If that is the case why even have a backand?

Because the backhand can be a weapon above the forehand in some situations - e.g slice and control (if double handed). However the bigest thing i could think of is it simply adds variety. If you had a players who had option to hit forehand, single BH of double BH from one position the variety of shot choice is stagering.

FO 1934 QF Giorgio De Stefani bt. Fred Perry 6-2 1-6 9-7 6-2

Took Fred Perry's potential Grand Slam away. He was an ambidextrous hand-switcher. Read Bud Collins's encyclopedia for details.

Also, the bachkhand shots help backhand volleying skills at the net - where someone wouldnt have time to play FH volleys on both sides. Also agree it would be hard playing a forehand slice that should be as effective from the same side that would be a backhand slice...

Doublehanded both sides has been the nearest we got - e.g, The Magician Santoro...miss watching him play.

The down side to ambidextrous play is the footwork. It is a nightmare to position oneself. The choice of a shot and corresponding footwork are interdependent.

What does one choose, the positioning in the court or the shot to hit?

lydian wrote:Also, the bachkhand shots help backhand volleying skills at the net - where someone wouldnt have time to play FH volleys on both sides. Also agree it would be hard playing a forehand slice that should be as effective from the same side that would be a backhand slice...

Doublehanded both sides has been the nearest we got - e.g, The Magician Santoro...miss watching him play.

On the women's side, Bartoli, Peng, Morita, Seles, some pretty good players.

I think it would help the most on the serve being if a player could serve great lefty wide on the add court and right hand slice in the add court. Gives you that dangerous wide slice serve on both sides. Where if you play one handed you have to slice wide on one side and kick it wide on the other.

socal1976 wrote:I think it would help the most on the serve being if a player could serve great lefty wide on the add court and right hand slice in the add court. Gives you that dangerous wide slice serve on both sides. Where if you play one handed you have to slice wide on one side and kick it wide on the other.

The Jensen brothers playing doubles @FO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqmRN4cgIns (Time index 1:30+)

Thiago Monteiro will be a great player.

Never heard of him Josiah, what is his ranking is he junior or on the challenger circuit?

He's a junior player, number 3 in the juniors.

Win/Loss for this year is 28/6.

Very aggresive.

Lets hope he doesn't turn into a monfils or gulbis. How old is he?

17.

17 year old Olliver Golding could be the England's best player since Tim Henman retired.

Lets hope so Gboycottnut, it would be nice if we had more young talent especially one from a large market and the historical hotbed of tennis.

socal1976 wrote:Lets hope so Gboycottnut, it would be nice if we had more young talent especially one from a large market and the historical hotbed of tennis.

More English talent that is! It says just how bad the state of English tennis is that currently the best british player in the men's game is a Scot (Murray) and the best british player in the women's game is also a Scot (Baltacha).

George Morgan another up and coming decent player.

James Marsalek too :/

gboycottnut wrote:17 year old Olliver Golding could be the England's best player since Tim Henman retired.

Douglas Bader could be Englands best tennis player since Henman!!!

Super_realist

Harsh, but rather close to the truth...