Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Many of the contents are posted in the lendl thread. but it thought the topic was important enough to merit its own.

My Key points(rather strong i feel)

1. Early developers tend to fizzle out earlier either due to
motivation problems, if they are good enough .
Borg retired at 25.Mcenroe didn't win a GS after 1984 .wilander, a 17 yr old FO winner fell into a terrifying slump
after the landmark year of 1988.

2. The games of some top early developers put them in danger of
being overrated. Their games probably is not too complex to
master to have so much success at a early age in the first
place. People with more complex games are likely to have
better potential.chang/courier/hewitt/roddick all had their
hopes belied as more talented people put them in their
place. Even if edberg ,wilander, becker did win Multiple GS,
it has to be noted they were never as longlasting a no 1 as
lendl.Borg is a true all time great from this bunch.


On the women's side, it is even more comprehensive. 16 yr
old winner serena has won 2 GS in last four years.Venus
hardly better. Hingis won 3 GS in 1997 but won only two more
after that. capriati reached a FO semi in 6 months at 14
ended up in tragedy but came back to win 2 consolation GS.

Martina and graf who took time to put their games togther
ended up as the most long lasting champions.

if you see a 17 yr old winner, chances are they are not the
ones with the best potential. unless you are borg. even he
didn't last past 25.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Roger had a complex game to develop and it took time to figure how to put things together.

To get the best out of yourself , you need to a find a strategy that optimises your strengths and wekanesses.

Its not easy to find a strategy that suits an indivdual best because young immature minds lack the maturity to think in terms of strategies and maybe confused how to do full justice to their potential. ofcourse they may be lucky to have a stratgeic thinker behind them in their support staff. but they have to
figure it out.

The struggles of gasquet also is a replay of the same old problem.
More complex your game is, more difficult it is to figure out how best to use your gifts/tools and what's the best strategy for you.

People with more simpler games like Hewitt and nadal(coupled with their mental development and good suppport staff ) were able to figure out things quicker with less complexity and make their mark early. They are early developers.


so its a good sign if you peak like sampras or roger at 21/22.

djokovic is "slightly early" .but he can still win multiple GS and maybe he won't last as long as agassi did. His early rise is not an indication his game may fall early. but that his game is not as hard to master as roger or gasquet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,695 Posts
Probably have to put Murray in the Late Developer category too. He's got a fairly complex game but can't quite seem to figure out to stop using that damn drop shot and just hit the ball. I so hope the "late developers" like Gasquet (and yes even Murray) get their act together and show Nadal and Djoke and the other "simpler" players just how amazing tennis can be when you possess a full arsenal of shots and know how to use them/not be afraid to use them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
Valid points mediter :yeah: A perfect example of why it is better to look at the post and not the poster.

I am not sure that the "simple game" argument is the entire story for early developers. A common feature for Borg, Wilander, Becker, Hewitt, Nadal is that they all had outstanding fitness. It might very well be the case that early success and better physical conditioning relative to their peers left them with little incentive to enhance their playing styles or try things out of their comfort zone.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Muster had a simple game, but he hit his peak at 27, so it varies.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
28,821 Posts
I cant believe its been a year that we've been graced by your presence. And I agree with your post its an interesting way to look at it. George, there will always be exceptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
It might very well be the case that early success and better physical conditioning relative to their peers left them with little incentive to enhance their playing styles or try things out of their comfort zone.
Its not going to change their level strategically. Once you reach your true level, only incremental improvements and benefits of experience are possible. not strategic level improvements.

from where are they going to get a sampras serve? or federer's shotmaking skills? you either have it or you don't. As becker said, against pete he lost his belief that he can win at his best. he could have done nothing to reach pete's or laver's league. he was born to win around 6-8slams and that's what he did.

Pete of 1993 and roger of 2003 were tipped by pundits to win 10+ slams because their game had enough ammunition to dominate the rest. That's is missing in becker or wilander.

of the early developers, only borg or "slight early " mcenroe had significant years as no 1.
even both of them failed to last past 25.

my basic point is if you are looking for a dominating champion or the kid with the best potential, don't bet on a 17 yr old winner. his game is probably not complex enough to have been mastered so quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Muster had a simple game, but he hit his peak at 27, so it varies.
here comes hitler fan to spoil this thread. peak in a strategic sense. muster did reach a key biscayne final in 1989 itself and around no 4 in the world. so he was hardly new to a high level.

he had to stretch himself to be a one time champion (after all there are reasons for 1 slam wonders) as opposed to being born with gifts for a champion.

One his highly physical game was not compatible with his physique as it was in the case of nadal. After all he dropped a 3 setter vs serve and volleyer ,rafter in a 3rd round after one epic five setter vs agassi in 1994 FO. Also the benefits of years of experience and expertise.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
here comes hitler fan to spoil this thread. peak in a strategic sense. muster did reach a key biscayne final in 1989 itself and around no 4 in the world. so he was hardly new to a high level.

he had to stretch himself to be a one time champion (after all there are reasons for 1 slam wonders) as opposed to being born with gifts for a champion.

One his highly physical game was not compatible with his physique as it was in the case of nadal. After all he dropped a 3 setter vs serve and volleyer ,rafter in a 3rd round after one epic five setter vs agassi in 1994 FO. Also the benefits of years of experience and expertise.
Did Muster reach is peak at 27? You know the answer to this. Therefore there was a player with a limited game can reach their peak later, as Snowwy said that was an exception, but it has already happened.

So he reached the final in Miami, but was he at his peak then? The answer is no.

What type of game did you expect him to play? He never had the talent, so he had to get strong physically and mentally. In fact he changed his game and got more aggressive and it helped him in 95 and 96 to reach that level.

Therefore a late developer with a simple game. Your original point is right, but only to an extent.

RG, poor example, seems you fail to understand the basic concept of a match up. He hated playing serve/volleyer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
So he reached the final in Miami, but was he at his peak then? The answer is no.
you are talking about peaking by experience and expertise after years of practice in the field.Mastery of skill to be precise.

i am talking about finding your true level. ( sampras level? borg level? connors level? becker level ? GS winner? top 5? top 10? top 20? top 50?)

Read again. the word "strategic"

At a strategic level yes. by reaching the semis of Australian and the finals of key biscayne(which he won in 1997)in 1989 and reaching no 4,he demonstrated this is the level he can achieve or over achieve. he was not that better than this for the rest for his career ,was he?

it like federer reaching his true level in 2003and remaining at that strategic level while gradually polishing a more lethal arsenal in the years to come. example, even in the 2004 final vs roddick , his serving did not seem invincible. His serving became lot more impeccable by 2005.

In fact he changed his game and got more aggressive and it helped him in 95 and 96 to reach that level.
he reached a high level LONG ago. he used his experience and expertise to tweak a better strategy and his skills needless to say were fully polished by the time.

from the semis of 1990, he had to take that two extra steps and from one or two master wins , he learnt tto dominate the entire season. This is not a major strategic change for me. he was not really winning GS after that either.

I cannot see a multi slam winner following a similar path. Its understandable for one/two slam wonders who had to stretch themselves.

Rafter is another example,though slightly better.


Therefore a late developer with a simple game. Your original point is right, but only to an extent..
No. A guy who needed the full benefit of experience and polished skills to stretch himself to win that one GS. Because his natural gifts did not help him set the high standard of champions.

nadal was able to set a high standard almost immediately because he was gifted enough. he effortlessly wins one FO after other.

RG, poor example, seems you fail to understand the basic concept of a match up. He hated playing serve/volleyer...
don't dream ,hitler fan. I did remember that particular match and remember the reports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,323 Posts
Muster did get hit by a car which would have inhibit his development as a player.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top