PDA

View Full Version : How would former pros do against current college players


ttwarrior1
04-28-2009, 06:31 PM
i have no examples, just list your own if you want. I just say this because i got whipped by a 70 year old today yet i beat the #1 ranked player from university of evansville that is turning pro next year.

egn
04-28-2009, 06:38 PM
i have no examples, just list your own if you want. I just say this because i got whipped by a 70 year old today yet i beat the #1 ranked player from university of evansville that is turning pro next year.

How old are you and this i find hard to believe..a 70 year old whipping you but you beating a #1 ranked college student turning pro.

Isn't the #1 at evansville a soph so she is turning pro early...and i don't think too many 70 year old women are capable of playing high level tennis..unless evansville added in a mens team that i do not know of..and not to be mean but is evansville even good enough to produce pro players?

did some research


"One of the main lessons I learned is it's about more than tennis," said Bader. "For coaches and players alike, it's about learning about yourself and working with other people toward a common goal.

"Nobody on this team is going to play pro, so they have to be ready for something else. Through my experience I learned this is something that should be enjoyed. It helps that we all get along."

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/apr/23/ignore-her-age-ues-bader-knows-coaching/?partner=RSS

ttwarrior1
04-28-2009, 06:44 PM
im a guy, everyone in the open division which is over the advanced division, id say the average age is 50 years old.

egn
04-28-2009, 07:07 PM
okay but what about the evansville person? I have never heard of them having a mens tennis team it is not even listed on their website.

drakulie
04-28-2009, 07:13 PM
uhmmmmm, the story here makes zero sense.

ttwarrior1
04-28-2009, 10:36 PM
uh im saying what if mcenroe took on lets say the 1 ranked tennis player on arizona , usc or whoever how good would he do as well as other retired pros

origmarm
04-29-2009, 12:20 AM
I would say it depends on how "former" the pro is. If you took Safin next year vs a college player I say washout, Safin kills them. If you took Ilie Nastase I say the college player wins though mobility alone. Anyone on Courier's tour would probably murder a college player I reckon. If you then go Blackrock tour (McEnroe etc...) I would say 50/50 depending on the college player (i.e. which college etc..) and their style of play.

egn
04-29-2009, 01:25 PM
uh im saying what if mcenroe took on lets say the 1 ranked tennis player on arizona , usc or whoever how good would he do as well as other retired pros

I got the point but

i have no examples, just list your own if you want. I just say this because i got whipped by a 70 year old today yet i beat the #1 ranked player from university of evansville that is turning pro next year.

You are a man who plays tennis against other men but beating a #1 ranked player from a university that only has a female tennis team..Of course I would expect you to win..and I would expect 50 year old Johnny Mac to beat the top ranked womens tennis player..Men wise I think it might be fairer competition and it could be interesting.

hoodjem
04-29-2009, 02:17 PM
i have no examples, just list your own if you want. I just say this because i got whipped by a 70 year old today yet i beat the #1 ranked player from university of evansville that is turning pro next year.
Is the 70-year-old a former pro?

mental midget
04-30-2009, 04:51 AM
I would say it depends on how "former" the pro is. If you took Safin next year vs a college player I say washout, Safin kills them. If you took Ilie Nastase I say the college player wins though mobility alone. Anyone on Courier's tour would probably murder a college player I reckon. If you then go Blackrock tour (McEnroe etc...) I would say 50/50 depending on the college player (i.e. which college etc..) and their style of play.

sounds about right. as long as the former player's movement is still reasonably good, the college player isn't going to throw anything at them they haven't seen before, and handled, a thousand, thousand times over.

courier, stich, goran, edberg, etc--total murder, with the exception maybe being if the college player has a ridiculous serve, and is playing out of their mind (think maybe an isner-type player, having a career day.)

former top 5, certainly, former #1's--just a whole different ball game.

DunlopDood
04-30-2009, 05:31 PM
Probably get blown off he court

junbumkim
04-30-2009, 09:12 PM
It really depends on what level of D1 player we are talking about.

I have seen a reserve player at UW-Madison a few years ago gettting beaten by a girl. She was not a professional.

Also, Jim Courier took out Scoville Jenkins(?), African American tennis player, in a baseline game during the Aussie Open.

There have also been stories where top D1 level player from UCLA took out Sampras in a practice set (well...)

I guess my point is, I wouldn't overlook the ability of former ATP pro and hype-up D1 players.

Frank Silbermann
05-02-2009, 08:44 PM
None of today's college players would have a chance -- not without at least several months of training to get used to using a wood racket. Even then, developing the strokes and tactics suitable for wood rackets and bad grass courts would take years.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
05-03-2009, 01:32 AM
i have no examples, just list your own if you want. I just say this because i got whipped by a 70 year old today yet i beat the #1 ranked player from university of evansville that is turning pro next year.

Lets say...Stefan Edberg,who is 43 years old,he would never lose to the best college player in USA. No way.

Tennis Dunce
05-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Lets say...Stefan Edberg,who is 43 years old,he would never lose to the best college player in USA. No way.

Not a chance in bloody f'n Hell mate!

!Tym
05-03-2009, 03:31 PM
Lets say...Stefan Edberg,who is 43 years old,he would never lose to the best college player in USA. No way.

...um, yes, he DEFINITELY would. The best college players in the US equate to fringe main tour/challenger level guys. They kind of reside in that tenuous bubble of tennis never-never land, where they're basically just one hair below the main tour level guys (i.e. I'd say that equates to about top 60 in the world). Top U.S. college players generally hover in the 60-250 range and pretty much stay there for there entire careers. If they go on a hot streak, the move closer to 60. If they slump, they move closer to 250. But they never really completely fall out of the picture nor do they ever completely break through. They're essentially basically just stuck treading water for their entire careers as pros, and very occasionally they may even upset a top player once in their career or come close...and that tends to be their one career highlight.

They're not bad players though make no mistake about that. World class players they still definitely are. They're usually just lacking in one key area. A guy like Cecil Mammit for example just didn't have the pop or height to compliment his court sense, mental toughness, tennis intangibles, consistency, and foot speed. Kevin Kim lacks the consisitency, mental toughness, ability to change up his game or strategy mid-flight and adjust to different spins and styles on the fly, intuitive strategic accumen...in short, the tennis intangible type things that Mammit had. Michael Russel...if only he had access to human growth hormone as a kid he's probably thinking, because otherwise the tools are definitely there. He's athletic and talented...but just not quite unbelievably so the way say Olivier Rochus was to compensate. Paul Goldstein...same deal as with Mammit but being just a little bit taller helped him I feel. Alex Kim...same deal as with Mammit. George Bastl...just a rock solid player all-around, but no weapons. He's like mini-me version of Kafelnikov. Solid...but not piercing, like say Kafelnikov's vortex rocket red backhand down the line. Kevin Kim is a poor man's James Blake...and also is Blake's former doubles partner in his early days on tour, and also almost beat Blake once on tour in singles. Goldstein are Alex Kim are poor mans' Giles Simon. Sanguinetti, the touchy feely type, is a poor-man's Kucera. Russel is a poor man's Olivier Rochus. If he were adopted by the Rochus family as a kid, he would be the poor man's third wheel in that trio of brothers. Mammit is a poor-man's Chang. Amer Delic is a poor man's Richard Krajicek. Rajeev Ram is a big serve and volleyer...whose feet are stuck in mollassas, in quick sand. He's a poor man's Jason Stoltenberg, and so on and so forth.

Often times when you watch former top D1 prospects once they hit the tour, it's like watching ALMOST the same thing but not. It feels like you're watching an *empty ghost shell* of the REAL thing. Case in point, like when I watched Bastl get routined by Rios at the US Open one year. Bastl wasn't bad per say, but he just looked like he was in slow motion next to the enguinity and improvisation of Rios. The basic strokes were there, but that which you cannot put your finger on wasn't. The established main tour players, and the top players and talents especially, you can just FEEL that there's a little something extra there that for whatever reason the other guys no matter how hard they practice and want it just don't have.

It's like Kevin Kim and James Blake have the same exact style of play, I'd say actually Kevin Kim's strokes are more aesthetically pleasing however. That hower doesn't count for anything in real world results. Both are very quick guys who hit pancake flat and hard with little margin for error, and shaky one-handers. Blake's backhand, however, is just a little less shaky, is less prone to breaking down under pressure. Blake is just a little bit taller which gives him more margin on his flat shots, hence a little bit more consistent, just a little bit taller equals just a little bit better of a serve. Just a little bit quicker, Kevin Kim is very quick, James Blake is very, Nike want to sponsor you, quick. Neither are the most mentally tough players in the world, and can be mentally broken down...but Blake is just a little bit more mentally tough, etc.

Are the two guys good enough to practice with each other? Yup, sure are. On any given day, can James Blake have a so-so day, and Kevin Kim a great day, and Kevin Kim can push Blake to the limit and almost beat him? Yup, sure can; it's already happened. Would you expect James Blake to beat Kevin Kim in 20 out of 21 tries in real matches? You betcha. Would you expect James Blake to beat Kevin Kim 0 and 2 the majority of those matches? Nope.

That's how it is. The very few college guys who are able to break through have a *LITTLE* something extra. Malivai Washington and James Blake had tour elite level athleticism, not just very good, Washington had elite level mental toughness, not just ok. Blake has elite level power, not just very good. Haarhuis had elite level all-court senses, a real knack for understanding the intracices of court positioning and being in the right place at the right time. Pernfors is unnervingly, eerily consistent. Todd Martin is one of the most cerebral of players, a master strategist and thinker out there, and his condor like wingspan made him a tough pass once he figured out how to piece together an intelligent attacking game based on tremendous return (huge reach really helped him here), incredibly solid two-handed backhand, and incredibly solid but not genius volleys.

Some guys like Amer Delic and Robert Kendrick seem to have all the necessary athleticism, size, height, power, serve, etc. that you need...yet are again like other stucks in the never-never land, treading water, taking one step forward, then back. One can only say they don't have it upstairs then.

A guy like Blake says Kendrick's one of those guys who for years, we've all thought why doesn't he do better? The reason is simple after awhile. In real matches, there is something called intangibles after awhile. Don't ask why, just know that some guys just have a KNACK for winning...and others don't. Guys like Giles Simon don't do anything fancy, but they have those intangibles, guys like that in a close match, they almost feel like a magnet, because you can literally feel the "W" gravitating toward them the closer it gets. Whereas a guy like Kendrick...or Kevin Kim for that matter...the closer it gets, the more you feel like they'll figure out a way to lose it in the end. They don't know how to seal the deal, they don't know how TAKE IT, to EXPECT IT, to DEMAND IT with their mere presence. Guys like this when they get their chance, they don't know how to step through the hoop, maybe because they're afraid I don't know. But I do know this, when you don't, it sends a CLEAR message to all the guys in the locker room that you don't have it in you.

A case in point, is Kendrick not stepping through and foot stomping Nadal to death when he had the chance at Wimbledon. That was his moment to step through and tell the guys I'm here, and get used to me, I PREFER it here on the main tour than the nobody's ville of the challenger tour. He didn't take it...no one respected him anymore. Kevin Kim finally looked like he was putting it all together, and has Thomas Johansson on the ropes at the Australian Open, a former champion there, and Johansson has that look in his eyes and body language, of like, oh my gosh, this is so embarrassing, how could I POSSIBLY be losing to THIS guy, a complete nobody! We've all seen that look from established players when they're losing a challenger guy who they see below them. And yet, instead of stepping through and reaching the fourth round, he shriveled up, he constricted, he tighetened up, he didn't know how to close out the match, or what situation he'd just gotten himself in. Seeing, sensing, the opportunity, he was AFRAID to step through the hoop, to take the next step. Tour observers say you see thing happen all the time when the no namer starts off well against a name...inveitably time and time again you'll see that the closer they get to putting away the name, the more afraid they get. Like they're afraid of the unknown of what will happen if they actually win, because they don't know what it would be like to win...then, just as invetably, the name sensing this, manages to turn things around, perks up, and then proceeds to send the other guy back to the nobody's ville again. That's what happened here, by the end Johansson looked chipper. He realized that if this guy was too afraid to take it when I'm all but giving it to him now with my bad oh my gosh how can I be losing to this guy attitude...then, well, ok, smiles, I'll just go ahead and take it then.

This spells L-O-S-E-R to the other tour players. They don't forget this. More importantly, to the nobody who knows he just blew and LOST his golden opportunity, they feel like a loser too...which doesn't help matters in the end. Why? Because they know it. They're LOSERS...and that's how it'll always be, forever more, and 'till the end.

Fedace
05-03-2009, 03:37 PM
I heard Pete Sampras beat up on the current boys Of UCLA so bad, they went home crying.... guys from UCLA had trouble winning points against Pete, nevermind games.

Shaolin
05-03-2009, 03:40 PM
Great post !Tym.

mary fierce
05-03-2009, 04:06 PM
Johnny Mac was the special guest last July at a hospital fund-raiser tennis tournament in Rockland County, NY. He reported that he had recently played the sixth ranked college player in the country (don't recall the name) and beat him.

tonyg11
05-03-2009, 07:47 PM
1) McEnroe plays competitive games against Pete Sampras on the seniors tour. He can still hit hot at 50. The biggest difference at that age would be endurance. As long as we're only talking about a best 2 of 3 match then an older player still has a good shot.

2) Edberg still plays and plays well. Whomever said he definitely would lose needs a reality check. Yeah if he never picked up a racquet since he retired i'd say you have a point. But he's fit, he plays, he can still hit great shots, he'd own.

3) Theoretically in a 2 of 3 match guys like Courier and Rafter would still have a shot against top 50 players no problem. The biggest issue like I said at that age is stamina. So no way they could ever pull of a full tournament schedule or play a grand slam. But on a good day they still have the shot making.

4) In a basic 2 of 3, Sampras on a good day could still probably beat current top 10 players.

5) Tennis is a great game because you can remain competitive for quite a long time in terms of playing skill and quick matches or short tournaments. I’ve seen top ranked players in their 50s whip young hot shot players. It happens all the time.

!Tym
05-04-2009, 02:47 AM
1)

2) Edberg still plays and plays well. Whomever said he definitely would lose needs a reality check. Yeah if he never picked up a racquet since he retired i'd say you have a point. But he's fit, he plays, he can still hit great shots, he'd own.



Um, no, that was me. I don't think I need a reality check imo. Top college players translate to challenger tour level guys. I didn't say Edberg would DEFINITELY lose, what I said or rather what I actually meant was that Edberg would definiitely NOT win EVERY single match against top US college players. Now, THAT is imo not true.

The top seniors guys would trade matches with the top college guys, win some, lose some. On an on day, yeah, they could possibly own, but on a bad day they could also get owned. The difference I feel is that the former top players turned seniors have a higher top level of play, a higher gear still on an on day...they just don't get those on days as often, no one does when they're older. That is the primary difference as Martina says about when you get older. It's not that you can't play well anymore, it's that you can't count on WHEN you play well anymore.

There's no shame in trading matches with top college guys imo. The VERY best college guys you do realize, guys like Isner and Devarmen have reached ATP finals, beat Moya, etc. don't you? They are NO JOKE. You do know that Alex Kim once beat Kafenikov in straight sets at the Australian Open, that Michael Russel once had Gustavo Kuerten match point down at the French during his PRIME. That Kevin Kim once beat former world #1 Juan Carlos Ferrero in straight sets, and I believe took Blake to a third set tie-break two years ago or so, and Coria to two tie-breaks during his prime. That Mammit once beat Chang and Agassi, and once reached the finals of that event (from what I recall). Then Kendrick almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon, etc.

The best talents from D1 tennis are quite capable players thank you very much.

Put it this way, it's usually the case that if they're good enough to spar with you, they're good enough to beat you on any given day. May not win the majority, but to say never or DEFINITELY would never be able to beat is 110% proven wrong imo.

AndrewD
05-04-2009, 08:31 AM
I heard Pete Sampras beat up on the current boys Of UCLA so bad, they went home crying.... guys from UCLA had trouble winning points against Pete, nevermind games.

That isn't what I heard from one of the UCLA players. They were amazed that, at that stage (prior to his return to comp), Gimelstob could push him and they could win games from him. Serve still great, forehand inconsistent, backhand sucked.

If you're thinking of Division I players crying, you must mean the Stanford boys, I know one did quite a bit of that at Ojai.

Regardless, I'm still puzzled regarding the OP. egn pointed out some problems regarding the claims but I don't believe there was a reply.

ichibanosaru
05-04-2009, 09:18 PM
1) McEnroe plays competitive games against Pete Sampras on the seniors tour. He can still hit hot at 50. The biggest difference at that age would be endurance. As long as we're only talking about a best 2 of 3 match then an older player still has a good shot.

2) Edberg still plays and plays well. Whomever said he definitely would lose needs a reality check. Yeah if he never picked up a racquet since he retired i'd say you have a point. But he's fit, he plays, he can still hit great shots, he'd own.

3) Theoretically in a 2 of 3 match guys like Courier and Rafter would still have a shot against top 50 players no problem. The biggest issue like I said at that age is stamina. So no way they could ever pull of a full tournament schedule or play a grand slam. But on a good day they still have the shot making.

4) In a basic 2 of 3, Sampras on a good day could still probably beat current top 10 players.

5) Tennis is a great game because you can remain competitive for quite a long time in terms of playing skill and quick matches or short tournaments. I’ve seen top ranked players in their 50s whip young hot shot players. It happens all the time.

Well written and well said. :)

PERL
05-05-2009, 04:09 AM
On a side note, I heard that story about a club player looking for a partner to play a set. An old man proposed to play. He was about 70 years old. The club player was embarrassed but he could not refuse. They started to play and he got schooled by the shotmaking of the old man whose name was… Jean Borotra. Probably a true story. Borotra played up to the age of 90.

laboule
05-05-2009, 07:29 AM
Stefan Edberg sometimes goes to Båstad Tennis Academy and plays against Swedens aspiring upcommers which are in the ages of 15-18. They are the best in Sweden atm and I know that doesnt say alot anymore, but they should be equal to many US college players and better then some... Anyhow these guys never take a single game from Edberg... He destroys them.

goober
05-05-2009, 08:45 PM
Stefan Edberg sometimes goes to Båstad Tennis Academy and plays against Swedens aspiring upcommers which are in the ages of 15-18. They are the best in Sweden atm and I know that doesnt say alot anymore, but they should be equal to many US college players and better then some... Anyhow these guys never take a single game from Edberg... He destroys them.

As a group, the best 15-18 year olds in Sweden are not in the same class as the very top college players in the US. Yes they could all play college in the US, but that is not really saying much since if you are 4.5 and above you could probably find *some* college to play at.

VGP
05-05-2009, 09:19 PM
!Tym - I totally agree with what you said in post #16 on being able to be walked to the door, handed the key, sometimes your opponent taking the key from your hand, unlocking and opening the door, and even holding it open for you.....only for you to stand there dumbfounded refusing to walk through.

One of the worst matches on tour that I watched was the first round match at Cincy last year between Monfils and Donald Young. Monfils looked like he was having respiratory problems. He was sweating profusely, doubled over at times barely being able to run down every ball.

Meanwhile, Donald Young proceeds to play "his game" seemingly paying no mind to Monfils' condition. Monfils totally sees this and even looks up as he's doubled over smirking as if he's thinking....."this guy just doesn't get it, I'll just let him self destruct and the winner's check is mine."

Young tries to hit big off the ground but Monfils just shovels them back until Young's UE's pile up to a nice 6-1, 6-1 54 minute loss.

Monfils looked like he got away with murder while Young still didn't seem to get it after the match was done. It has to be one of those performances that resonated through the locker room that perhaps this Young guy's not gonna live up to his hype.

Monfils looked totally willing to cash it in during the first round if Young actually put up a fight. Seems he got up to practice the next day as I saw him on the practice courts and tried in his second round match against Haas but retired being down 5-1. I'm sure he decided not to waste his time and energy trying to beat Tommy......

35ft6
05-07-2009, 08:22 PM
Um, no, that was me. I don't think I need a reality check imo. Top college players translate to challenger tour level guys. I didn't say Edberg would DEFINITELY lose, what I said or rather what I actually meant was that Edberg would definiitely NOT win EVERY single match against top US college players.Yeah, I remember being told by a member at Tennissport in Queens that Mac has been known to lose to the top teaching pro at a the club. I was kind of surprised, asked if it was because Mac simply wasn't trying, and the guy said, nah, it was just a matter of 25 yo legs against Mac's, at the time, 42 or 43 yo legs. And this was red clay. On a slick indoor carpet surface, Mac would probably still beat every college player in a best of 3.