Can Ryan Harrison win a slam in the future? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can Ryan Harrison win a slam in the future?

Luinir
09-08-2010, 04:43 AM
He is 18 and still growing. He made 2nd round at US Open this year from qualifying and missed 3mps for make it 3rd round.

He is mentally good. He has all-around game. Good serve, good forehand, solid backhand, net game etc... He isn't player like Roddick, Fish, Isner and Querrey. At the modern tennis, you have to play rallies if you want win slams and Harrison is really good about that...

I think, he is future of the American tennis and potential grand slam winner.

What do you think?

Voo de Mar
09-08-2010, 04:55 AM
Honestly it doesn't look optimistic. There's a lot of laugh on MTF that D'Joke is a one-slam wonder and Butt-head won't win any slam in the future. They were Top 100 players in the age of Harrison though. Generally there's a tendency that Grand Slam winners are in the Top 100 at the age of 18. Harrison is outside Top 200 and hardcourt season in America - the most favorable for him - behind his back...

n8
09-08-2010, 05:06 AM
Honestly it doesn't look optimistic. There's a lot of laugh on MTF that D'Joke is a one-slam wonder and Butt-head won't win any slam in the future. They were Top 100 players in the age of Harrison though. Generally there's a tendency that Grand Slam winners are in the Top 100 at the age of 18. Harrison is outside Top 200 and hardcourt season in America - the most favorable for him - behind his back...

This is true, but times they are a changing. Harrison is the second youngest player in the top 250:
Rank Player Age
229 - Bernard Tomic (AUS) 17 Years, 10 Months, 18 Days
220 - Ryan Harrison (USA) 18 Years, 04 Months, 01 Days
224 - Filip Krajinovic (SRB) 18 Years, 06 Months, 12 Days
184 - Grigor Dimitrov (BUL) 19 Years, 03 Months, 23 Days

The youngest player in the top 100 is already 21. I think if Harrison makes it to the top 100 before turning 20 (looking a good chance), he is well on track to be a top player. Grand Slam champion is another thing and it's too early to tell for that in my opinion. However, taking all players born 1989 or after, he is right up there among the very best.

Voo de Mar
09-08-2010, 05:11 AM
The youngest player in the top 100 is already 21. I think if Harrison makes it to the top 100 before turning 20 (looking a good chance), he is well on track to be a top player. Grand Slam champion is another thing and it's too early to tell for that.

Agree, this is more complex process.
1) Harrison on clay and indoor is a mystery so far. Obviously he needs to show on these surfaces good results to improve his ranking.
2) A lot of depends on the other players. Harrison will be playing in the non-Federer era but there are still a couple players with GS aspirations: Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro. It's a question whether appear in the next few years good players born in 1992, 93, 94... :confused:

DanaKz
09-08-2010, 05:18 AM
Omg!

kindling
09-08-2010, 05:32 AM
Way too early to tell.

n8
09-08-2010, 05:33 AM
Agree, this is more complex process.
1) Harrison on clay and indoor is a mystery so far. Obviously he needs to show on these surfaces good results to improve his ranking.
2) A lot of depends on the other players. Harrison will be playing in the non-Federer era but there are still a couple players with GS aspirations: Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro. It's a question whether appear in the next few years good players born in 1992, 93, 94... :confused:

Agreed on point 2. Regarding 1, I feel reasonably confident about his clay abilities, with an ATP qualification and main draw win on the surface at age 15. Plus a good showing at Roland Garros qualies this year (final round). Well put it this way, I think he's a lot better on clay than Tomic!

With so many hard court events (especially in the US), I don't think clay results are so vital to his ranking improvement. Of course it would hurt though;). To go back to Tomic (Tomic in a Harrison thread I think will be almost as inevitable as Nadal in a Federer thread:D), I think the young Australian will be able to climb the rankings to tour regular despite being very weak on clay.

Voo de Mar
09-08-2010, 05:43 AM
Agreed on point 2. Regarding 1, I feel reasonably confident about his clay abilities, with an ATP qualification and main draw win on the surface at age 15.

But it was in Houston though. IMO without good display on European clay-courts he won't produce better career than Blake or Fish.

I had a positive impression about Tomic, saw in him a potential Grand Slam winner but he needs to step up next season. Gasquet's case shows that winning a Grand Slam isn't simple with good achievements being a teenager. A couple years ago he was only a few months older than today's Harrison when beat Federer in Monte Carlo! And now Gasquet is 24 and rather no-one considers him as a serious contender to win a major :o

moon language
09-08-2010, 05:52 AM
He will win 30 slams.

born_on_clay
09-08-2010, 05:52 AM
I'll be fun to see Harrison winning Slam before Murray :yeah:

Smoke944
09-08-2010, 05:57 AM
Honestly it doesn't look optimistic. There's a lot of laugh on MTF that D'Joke is a one-slam wonder and Butt-head won't win any slam in the future. They were Top 100 players in the age of Harrison though. Generally there's a tendency that Grand Slam winners are in the Top 100 at the age of 18. Harrison is outside Top 200 and hardcourt season in America - the most favorable for him - behind his back...

I also think top 100 at age 18 is a very useful benchmark for judging the best players of the next generation. With that being said, it is miles away from being a surefire predictor of success. Some players develop later than others for one reason or another. Btw, Ryan Harrison will be about 170 in the world come Monday. Say for the sake of argument he plays well in challengers the rest of this year and at the end of the year is near the top 100. Would that success down the stretch this year change his abilities or potential? No. I mean from a purely statistical standpoint it would bode well, but otherwise it wouldn't change much.

Anyways, Ryan has a lot of talent and a burning desire to be great at this sport. This can take him a long way but after that it's impossible to predict the future.

garson
09-08-2010, 08:28 AM
Hopefully he can develop his game further. :)

Orka_n
09-08-2010, 10:53 AM
At least he has a bigger shot than any other American on tour right now.

the graduate
09-08-2010, 10:54 AM
He is not that good he won because of the crowds in NY if he goes to say Australia or France,no one really cares plus he is not hot like Nadal to elicit any attention from girls...he is fugly like his Girlfriend Melanie Oudin Roloff.:p

Vida
09-08-2010, 10:56 AM
bit uglish serve but good talent overall. good size-movement-power ratio.

jrm
09-08-2010, 10:58 AM
Who?

green25814
09-08-2010, 11:11 AM
Too early to tell, he obviously needs to improve considerably, and whether he will all not depends on him. He definitely has the raw ingredients, and I think the work ethic. I hope his last loss spurs him on.

MacTheKnife
09-08-2010, 11:21 AM
Hard to tell at this point. Likely he'll hit his peak with no fedal. Based on the others I see around his age at this point, his chances look real good.
A good thread would also be what happened to teenagers and why they almost never win slams anymore.

ShotmaKer
09-08-2010, 01:44 PM
hopefully.

allpro
09-08-2010, 02:56 PM
i don't see it happening.

River
09-08-2010, 05:02 PM
He's the reason that American tennis isn't dead yet, along with Roddick.

Unlike Young, I really think he's going to use everything he has to make it to the top.

Sham Kay
09-08-2010, 05:07 PM
Here's another thread some genius will bump in a few years time. I'd just first of all like to say a fond "Hello sir!" to this/these genius(es).

Anyway, since this is a prediction, from what I've seen, a strong yes. He may win 2 Grand Slams.

River
09-08-2010, 05:31 PM
Here's another thread some genius will bump in a few years time. I'd just first of all like to say a fond "Hello sir!" to this/these genius(es).

Anyway, since this is a prediction, from what I've seen, a strong yes. He may win 2 Grand Slams.

We did the same with Del Potro when the threads were predicted way back in 2005. Del Potro lived up to his potential.

And he also cut that fugly hair.

Roddickominator
09-08-2010, 09:25 PM
He doesn't exactly have a game that would provide him with big success early in his career. I don't think he'll really get going until age 21-22. Way too far off to predict any Slam success.

Ozone
09-08-2010, 09:57 PM
I was there and watched Ryan play this match. I can undoubtedly say that he will win slamS in his future. Very talented player:worship:

timafi
09-08-2010, 10:41 PM
Harrison is this year's Melanie Oudin;nothing but damn hype:rolleyes: same as this Capra girl:tape:

Filo V.
09-08-2010, 10:42 PM
Obviously as everyone has said, it's way too early to predict. I think he is going to take a while to develop. He has a lot of things going on with his game, and he's a project. He still needs to grow into his body more in terms of gaining more power on his shots, and gaining a bit more speed. Also he needs to learn to control the temper a bit, and be a bit more aggressive off the ground. With that said, he has the tools to be a really damn good player, and the fact he's going to grow up with an old Roger, and aged Nadal/Murray/Nole only raises his chances.

We'll need to wait a couple of years to really get a definitive answer, but I think he has the overall makeup to be a good player.

chammer44
09-08-2010, 10:52 PM
Definitely.

This guy has game. Period.

Sauletekis
09-08-2010, 11:12 PM
I'll be fun to see Harrison winning Slam before Murray :yeah:

Before? You are assuming that Murruy will even win a GS. And that's shocking!

selyoink
09-08-2010, 11:28 PM
So because he won a 5 setter against old man Ljubicic and lost a 5 setter against an injured Stakhovsky we are talking about him being a grand slam champion? Please let the kid actually do something meaningful first.

Voo de Mar
09-08-2010, 11:33 PM
So because he won a 5 setter against old man Ljubicic and lost a 5 setter against an injured Stakhovsky we are talking about him being a grand slam champion? Please let the kid actually do something meaningful first.

Actually it was 4-setter but obviously this base is delusive. It's like "this kid beat a guy who won Indian Wells this year, he must be good". But in the meantime Ljubo has been completely out of form, at Wimbledon lost in straight sets to such a joke player like Przysiezny.

Stakhovsky on the other hand was dead tired already in New Haven. It's really weird he won 2 matches in singles and doubles at the US Open, only self-confidence after another ATP title helped him.

tangerine_dream
03-18-2011, 05:10 PM
Any change in opinions? :)

Voo de Mar
03-18-2011, 05:16 PM
After watching Harrison's three matches at Indian Wells, I'm inclined to thing Harrison would have better career than Fish or Blake but it's not Roddick's level. Maybe one US Open title is within his range with a help of propitious circumstances :shrug:

Vida
03-18-2011, 05:20 PM
definitely.

people seem to forget that somebody has to win those slams, and in ryans generation there arent many (if any) who are better than him :shrug:

also he looks mentally sound.

Johnny Groove
03-18-2011, 05:29 PM
I think so.

Federer and Nadal and I guess Djokovic can't win them all forever.

duong
03-18-2011, 05:31 PM
After watching Harrison's three matches at Indian Wells, I'm inclined to thing Harrison would have better career than Fish or Blake but it's not Roddick's level. Maybe one US Open title is within his range with a help of propitious circumstances :shrug:

who, among the youngsters, can then win one in your opinion ?

River
03-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Possibly.

It all depends on how this year goes, honestly. But in terms of the youth movement, Harrison is way up there. He's one of the better players who's living up to his potential slowly but surely.

Voo de Mar
03-18-2011, 05:36 PM
who, among the youngsters, can then win one in your opinion ?

Between Harrison and Djokovic/Murray is similar age difference like between Federer and Nadal - 5 years. To win a slam, Harrison will be supposed to beat players like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or Del Potro until 2015/16. Maybe he will reach his peak around that year as a 23/24 year-old player, so it's not a matter of his rivalry only with players born after 1990.

oranges
03-18-2011, 05:55 PM
To me, he seems significantly more talented than Roddick. To what extent that potential will be utilized is another matter, but I'm not sure how from this point in time one could conclude Roddick type career is beyond him. Real all rounder, very nice serve for his height, excellent return, good court sense, good groundies, good net game. All the tools are there. I like his mentality too, both the frame of mind in which he enters matches and how he recovers when the nerves get the better of him or after a disappointing loss of set like against Milos.

duong
03-18-2011, 06:03 PM
Between Harrison and Djokovic/Murray is similar age difference like between Federer and Nadal - 5 years. To win a slam, Harrison will be supposed to beat players like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or Del Potro until 2015/16. Maybe he will reach his peak around that year as a 23/24 year-old player, so it's not a matter of his rivalry only with players born after 1990.

usually players reach their peak around 24-26 years old, and when Harrison has that age, Djokovic and Murray will be around 30 years old and I guess it will be tough for them, esp as they've emerged very young :shrug:

Anyway, I would think that the situation with players born before 1990 can be anticipated,

but the main uncertainty is rather about players born after 1990 ... and especially about players younger than Harrison : let's imagine for instance that a new "Nadal" just arrives winning slams at 19 (which is still something exceptional, I think : Nadal is not a common reference imo, he's an exception).

But generation 1993 (Kubler-Fernandes-Boluda-Morgan) already doesn't look as promising as generation 1992 so far, and generation 1994 (Saville-Broady-Bourgue) neither.

Personally I would say Harrison looks the safest bet among all of the youngsters we know : talent+mental+good height (1.85m, the champions'height whereas Tomic and even Krajinovic look too tall to me)

Voo de Mar
03-18-2011, 06:34 PM
usually players reach their peak around 24-26 years old,

Untrue if we take into account the best players of the last three decades, multiple Grand Slam winners. Below the stats which clearly shows that usually the most successful players peak before 25 (second number shows how many slams they won after turning 25, the first one before 25)

Federer (9, 7)
Sampras (8, 6)
Borg (11, 0)

Lendl (2, 6)
Connors (4, 4)
Agassi (3, 5)
McEnroe (7, 0)
Wilander (7, 0)
Becker (5, 1)
Edberg (4, 2)
Courier (4, 0)
Kuerten (3, 0)
Hewitt (2, 0)
Bruguera (2, 0)
Kafelnikov (2, 0)

Safin (1, 1)
Rafter (1, 1)

I think there's no need to include Nadal and Djokovic to the stats before they haden't turned 25 so far.

timafi
03-18-2011, 06:38 PM
he's got more talent that Roddick but that's one thing.Will he be able to stay strong mentally over 2 weeks;no matter the surface.So far he's only shown to be able to play well on hard courts alone which is not surprising:rolleyes:

Raonic has more chance of winning a slam than Harrison

duong
03-18-2011, 08:25 PM
Untrue if we take into account the best players of the last three decades, multiple Grand Slam winners. Below the stats which clearly shows that usually the most successful players peak before 25 (second number shows how many slams they won after turning 25, the first one before 25)

Federer (9, 7)
Sampras (8, 6)
Borg (11, 0)

Lendl (2, 6)
Connors (4, 4)
Agassi (3, 5)
McEnroe (7, 0)
Wilander (7, 0)
Becker (5, 1)
Edberg (4, 2)
Courier (4, 0)
Kuerten (3, 0)
Hewitt (2, 0)
Bruguera (2, 0)
Kafelnikov (2, 0)

Safin (1, 1)
Rafter (1, 1)

I think there's no need to include Nadal and Djokovic to the stats before they haden't turned 25 so far.

your stat only shows that they decline after 25 (actually rather after 26), not when they peak :

I made stats based on rankings and ATP points, the results are remarkably stable : the best period is between 24 and 26, after that they decline, yes, but before that, they're usually not as good as they are at this age.

ssin
03-18-2011, 08:30 PM
We need more American talents, it would be great for tennis. Harrison is likable and talented kid, I really hope he becomes a star, I haven't seen him play much to make some good assessment now.

Voo de Mar
03-18-2011, 08:37 PM
the best period is between 24 and 26, after that they decline

For whom particularly? Among the multiple Grand Slam champions of the last three decades, the best period between 24 and 26 is adequate only to Lendl and Federer's achievements.

Roddickominator
03-18-2011, 09:03 PM
I like what i've seen from Harrison lately, particularly his mentality and gutsy play. But to be a true top player that contends at Slams, you need at least one big weapon. Harrison doesn't have that yet. His 2nd serve might be his best shot. Good news is he's only 18, so he has time to mature physically add some power to his serves and groundies, along with fitness. But right now, I think he'll be a guy that will have a tough time winning that many 5 set matches in a row. He has to compete so hard day in and day out without that big weapon, and it seems that he'd get mentally fatigued by the late point of a Slam.