Joined
·
3,328 Posts
This weekend has highlighted the different strategies players can use as they attempt to get up to "main draw" territory. Chung Hyeon won the Savannah Challenger and made his Top 100 debut at #88, while Thanasi Kokkinakis easily qualified for the Istanbul 250 (losing only thirteen games in three qually matches).
Both teenagers appear to be handling the transition well: since the start of 2015, Chung has gone from #173 to #88, and Kokkinakis from #150 to #103. Yet they've done so with opposite styles. Despite his ranking, Kokkinakis has played an entirely main-tour schedule (not a single Challenger), going 4-for-4 in qualification attempts and getting a couple of WCs. Meanwhile, Chung has tried to qualify for a tour-level event only twice (succeeding once), electing instead to tear his way through the Challenger circuit (with two titles, another final, and two SFs since January).
For both these guys their choices appear to be working for them. Which strategy do you prefer? Or is the ratio of Challenger vs. main-tour something each guy has to balance on an individual level? Main-tour can be high-risk - you can lose in quallies and get piddly points, and even if you get through, you might draw a top-10 player in the first round. Challengers (particularly the weaker ones) are great opportunities to pick up easier points. And yet the money (and arguably the experience level) is higher on the main tour.
Even in this case, you can see the difference - both have been very successful, but in 2015 Chung has vaulted 85 ranking spots and earned $65K, while Kokkinakis has jumped "only" 47 spots and earned $150K.
Anyway, this is all just stuff I've been thinking about! Anybody have any thoughts on Challengers vs. main-tour quallies?
Both teenagers appear to be handling the transition well: since the start of 2015, Chung has gone from #173 to #88, and Kokkinakis from #150 to #103. Yet they've done so with opposite styles. Despite his ranking, Kokkinakis has played an entirely main-tour schedule (not a single Challenger), going 4-for-4 in qualification attempts and getting a couple of WCs. Meanwhile, Chung has tried to qualify for a tour-level event only twice (succeeding once), electing instead to tear his way through the Challenger circuit (with two titles, another final, and two SFs since January).
For both these guys their choices appear to be working for them. Which strategy do you prefer? Or is the ratio of Challenger vs. main-tour something each guy has to balance on an individual level? Main-tour can be high-risk - you can lose in quallies and get piddly points, and even if you get through, you might draw a top-10 player in the first round. Challengers (particularly the weaker ones) are great opportunities to pick up easier points. And yet the money (and arguably the experience level) is higher on the main tour.
Even in this case, you can see the difference - both have been very successful, but in 2015 Chung has vaulted 85 ranking spots and earned $65K, while Kokkinakis has jumped "only" 47 spots and earned $150K.
Anyway, this is all just stuff I've been thinking about! Anybody have any thoughts on Challengers vs. main-tour quallies?