It is nice to see that you possess such insight and knowledge about his game that you know best.. And what would you say that those main problems are? That he is too nice on court sometimes, true. That he loses focus, also true. I am not saying that he will be the next big thing, but most players aren't and it is funny that you know better than other players on the tour that rate him as a top 50 player.
I back my judgement and if he makes the top 50, then that would be a fantastic achievement and I for one would be very happy and proud of him, if he did it and it won't be through a lack of effort, but he needs to show some results on the main tour and some decent events before I'd consider revising my call. At the same time there are players that have overachieved in relation to ability, doesn't always mean it's going to be the case.
Working at many tournaments around europe and the states I hear what players say about eachother and they rate him. Peter has already reached a semi final beating Gonzales on the way. What is it about you that makes you know better? And what do you consider damage? I believe that Luczak can do well on the ATP tour, by that I don't mean that he will win tournament after tournament, but I mean that he will be a player who maybe wouldn't be your first pick to play. He has a some great wins in his career and I believe that there are many to come.
Yes, I know about that Costa do Sauipe result and that was one result. It takes more than one result and he hasn't been able to build on that for a variety of reasons.
You are the one who started the damage thing, not me, so it's irrelevant what I think is damage? If Peter can be ranked in between 60-100, then he has done very well and he should be able to get into most of the events he wants, but would require a few semis and quarters at tour level or keep winning challengers, it's not easy to make that consistent transition, but since you work at all these events, then you'd know this.
Remember that Wayne Arthurs for an example played for over 10 years, being in the top 50 for a long time, but didn't win a single title all thise years until almost at the end of his career. Luczaks best play comes out on slow to medium slow surfaces, both hardcourt and clay, and when all is right I don't see why he can't do damage. But thank you for taking the chair of god almighty and informing me of his capability.
Different kinds of players, different circumstances with Arthurs and Luczak, especially in relation to their games. If you wanted to make a comparison then why didn't you use Michael Russell or Oscar Hernandez instead? These guys game wise and mentality wise have more in common with Luczak and have had their best results at relatively late ages and this is something Peter is capable of doing.
I think I know what his best surface is and how he plans his schedule around playing on clay and Luczak could take heed from Hernandez who has been winning matches on tour in addition to challengers at the start of the year. he is as capable as him, but not everything works out as it should or how we'd like it to be.
Why the need to tell me that you worked at all these events? By this admission I could say most tennis journalists do a good job, just cause they cover tennis, when that's not the case. Leave it out and just type your opinions.
Have fun supporting a player you don't believe in all the way!
Who was here doing translations of articles and when Luczak was going crap? That's right, facts are I am realistic when it comes to players that I like. If they get good results then that's a bonus, if not, doesn't mean I am going to stop supporting them.