PDA

View Full Version : Getting to 5.0 is not easy.


crash1929
10-10-2009, 10:37 PM
At what age to you guys think federer was a 5.0 player? How about Aggassi? etc etc etc....

IwishIwasbetter
10-10-2009, 10:40 PM
nine.......

pabletion
10-10-2009, 11:17 PM
five..........?

crash1929
10-10-2009, 11:27 PM
i wonder if there is an actual answer?....

i mean its kind of a cool thing to ponder. most of us can gauge how good a 5.0 player is...above that i think we have no clue what the game is really like.

BreakPoint
10-10-2009, 11:34 PM
At what age to you guys think federer was a 5.0 player? How about Aggassi? etc etc etc....
My guess is around 13 or 14.

JoshDragon
10-10-2009, 11:35 PM
Probably, when he was 12 or 13.

Jay_The_Nomad
10-10-2009, 11:46 PM
Between the ages 11-12.

He would have been a 6.0 at age 13-14

BreakPoint
10-10-2009, 11:59 PM
Between the ages 11-12.

He would have been a 6.0 at age 13-14
I highly doubt it. He probably wasn't a 6.0 until he was 15 or 16. Federer was still playing the juniors at 17 and the juniors are not 7.0 players and are not yet good enough to be competitive on the ATP Tour. Juniors would get killed in the main draw of an ATP event.

Also don't forget that Federer started playing tennis relatively late at age 8.

SystemicAnomaly
10-11-2009, 12:07 AM
My guess is around 13 or 14.

I'd say it would probably be a bit younger than this. I've worked with a few players who were about a 5.0 level at this age. They will get to a high Div 1 level but probably not much higher than 6.0 at their peak.

35ft6
10-11-2009, 02:21 AM
At what age to you guys think federer was a 5.0 player? How about Aggassi? etc etc etc....Agassi... 11 or 12? He was beating top 20 players by age 16, and the leap from 5.0 to 7.0 is pretty huge. I'm sure it didn't happen in just 2 or so years. The true greats are probably 5.0 very early on, maybe 11 or 12, maybe earlier. Nadal beat Cash in an exhibition on clay when he was 14. I remember hearing a story about a 12 year old McEnroe beating an older Peter Fleming at Port Washington. The very top, not just in the country but in the world, 12 year olds, can beat 5.0 players. They can hit the ball way better than a regular 5.0's, it's just a matter of growing up. These types of kids can compete with top pros on any given day by the time they're 14 or 15. Hewitt won the very first ATP tournament he ever played at 15. Agassi got to the qualies of an ATP even at 16, losing to Mac but beating world number 12 on the way. The kids can hit balls all day.

35ft6
10-11-2009, 02:27 AM
I highly doubt it. He probably wasn't a 6.0 until he was 15 or 16.He was world class pro by 16. Most of the really special pros are 7.0 by 16. Chang won a round in the US Open at age 15. Hewitt won an ATP event at 16. Nadal won his first ATP match at age 14 defeating Ramon Delgado. Gasquet took advantage of his wildcard into qualifying to get into the Monte Carlo Masters and to win a round at age 15. Yes yes yes this is incredible stuff. 6.0 players can't even win a match in ATP level qualifiers, let alone win a round in the main draw.

crash1929
10-11-2009, 02:27 AM
35 do you have this info at your finger tips? lol. Surely is an interesting period. 5.0 to 7.0. I wonder what the average lenght of time it took these young future pros to cover that ground. ok way too late to be posting. thanks for sharing everyone.

nfor304
10-11-2009, 04:14 AM
Fed was the number 1 junior in the world and had played a few futures, and was ranked around 700 at 16. I would say that is 6.5-7.0 level.

He played the junior davis cup and defeated a 14 year old Hewitt at 14. I would say that is 5.5-6-0 level.

I would say he was around 12 when he was 5.0

autumn_leaf
10-11-2009, 04:42 AM
i'm quite surprised that many people would say around 12. i think a major factor would be strength and speed to reach higher levels for kids since most haven't reached puberty yet at that age. i think around 14-15 is more realistic.

SystemicAnomaly
10-11-2009, 06:51 AM
i'm quite surprised that many people would say around 12. i think a major factor would be strength and speed to reach higher levels for kids since most haven't reached puberty yet at that age. i think around 14-15 is more realistic.

Seriously, as I said before, I've seen & worked with kids who were 5.0 by 13-14. One of them recently played Div 1 tennis at Stanford. I don't believe that he or any of the others will be able to turn pro. If a player doesn't reach a 5.0 until they are 14-15, it is highly unlikely that they'll ever be able to turn pro.

As others have mentioned, we've seen many players who were world class level by 16. I saw Chang win a a pro tournament in the SF Bay Area at 16. Later that year, a few months after turning 17, he won the French. (Note that Hingis, Graff and a few others on the WTA side were pros at 14 or earlier).

chess9
10-11-2009, 08:46 AM
Federer was a 5.0 en ventra sa mere.

-Robert

SystemicAnomaly
10-11-2009, 09:04 AM
Roger at 3 years old, playing at a 6.0 level:

http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/Modern%20Tennis%20Not/website/Federer%20age%203%20smaller.jpg

Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.

.

Blake0
10-11-2009, 09:31 AM
7.0's are top 100 players right? because its hard to make a living lower..so to get there it should be when federer was around 20 years old? So he was a pro at 17..so thats when he was a 6.5. So when he was 15/16 he could have been a 6.0. He could have been a 5.0 when he was 12 or 13.

6.0 Has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.
6.5 Has extensive satellite tournament experience.
7.0 Makes his living from tournament prize money.

tribunal4555
10-11-2009, 09:48 AM
Most pros become 5.0 in their early to mid teens, I would imagine.

Me personally, I turned 5.0 at 16, but I don't think I can get any farther than 5.5 or 6.0. The only reason I got here was because of athleticism from other sports, not any innate skill...

But hey, for me, tennis is for fun, so at least I can play some USTA tournaments, no?

tribunal4555
10-11-2009, 09:49 AM
Roger at 3 years old, playing at a 6.0 level:

http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/Modern%20Tennis%20Not/website/Federer%20age%203%20smaller.jpg

Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.

.

Lol this post made me crack up.

It's so true yet hilarious.

vinouspleasure
10-11-2009, 10:13 AM
We went to newk's two years ago and saw one of the top juniors in the country. I think he was 11 or 12 and he was already beating the teaching pros who to my eye, are strong 4.5s and 5.0s

tennis_balla
10-11-2009, 10:49 AM
We went to newk's two years ago and saw one of the top juniors in the country. I think he was 11 or 12 and he was already beating the teaching pros who to my eye, are strong 4.5s and 5.0s

Are you talking about Christian Harrison? I was there at Newks while he was about 8 or 9. He was already beating kids that were in U14's fairly easily. Not sure about the teaching pro's there being 4.5's, some when I was there were a lot worse and a few were very good when I first arrived there.

vinouspleasure
10-11-2009, 12:06 PM
Are you talking about Christian Harrison? I was there at Newks while he was about 8 or 9. He was already beating kids that were in U14's fairly easily. Not sure about the teaching pro's there being 4.5's, some when I was there were a lot worse and a few were very good when I first arrived there.

yes, that sounds right. I'm sure sal is at least a 4.5.

35ft6
10-11-2009, 12:09 PM
35 do you have this info at your finger tips? lol. Surely is an interesting period. 5.0 to 7.0. I wonder what the average lenght of time it took these young future pros to cover that ground. ok way too late to be posting. thanks for sharing everyone.This is stuff I remembered.7.0's are top 100 players right?No. But good question. I think it's probably more like top 300 or 500. I mean, do people agree that solid Futures level pros are 7.0? i'm quite surprised that many people would say around 12. i think a major factor would be strength and speed to reach higher levels for kids since most haven't reached puberty yet at that age.The 12 year olds already hit the ball great. Their point construction isn't awesome but despite their size, they're hitting alone allows them to beat bigger stronger players. I remember a friend telling me about 12 yo Michael Russell just schooling in the 14's and 16's in Southeastern Michigan. The true tennis prodigies play up, remember, despite their smaller size, their superior tennis abilities allow them to compete with bigger players and they usually do very well. The people who go on to become top 10 pros, if not all time greats, strike the ball at a level we just can't understand. Even at the age of 12, their ball striking is unreal. i think around 14-15 is more realistic.There was a kid who played near my place who was top 10 nationally in Boys 14, and he would absolutely smoke any 5.0's around. And he wasn't a true prodigy, just a very good national level junior.

tennis_balla
10-11-2009, 12:13 PM
yes, that sounds right. I'm sure sal is at least a 4.5.

Sal is a good guy, he's one of the main coaches of their adult program I believe now. Very good guitar player, 4.5 sounds about right for him I think.

crash1929
10-11-2009, 12:58 PM
Systemic thanks for posting the pic of fed. This is exactly the picture I had in mind when starting this post. He keeps his friggin head right at the contact point even as a little kid. when ever i do this it means i've done a good job watching the ball and i've more likely hit tht sweet spon on my racquet resultinging in a deeper heavier ball. One of my big problems is picking my head up to see where the ball is going...Especially when i'm running to a ball!! I immediately pick my head up and then..poof into the net! lol. If I could just keep my head still....

SuperDuy
10-11-2009, 01:46 PM
Anyone know how tall federer,nadal,roddick, were at 15 years old? seeing they are all 6'1 now,

SystemicAnomaly
10-11-2009, 02:46 PM
7.0's are top 100 players right? because its hard to make a living lower..so to get there it should be when federer was around 20 years old? So he was a pro at 17..so thats when he was a 6.5. So when he was 15/16 he could have been a 6.0. He could have been a 5.0 when he was 12 or 13.

6.0 Has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.
6.5 Has extensive satellite tournament experience.
7.0 Makes his living from tournament prize money.

I'd call #200 a 7.0 player as well. Not that it matters but this player make a pretty decent wage playing tennis as well. Number 300 might be a 6.5/7.0 (not sure). Here is the general (http://www.usta.com/?sc_itemid=%7BA9EAE203-D273-4CB1-9038-5A293C5ED642%7D) characteristics (http://www.usta.com/?sc_itemid=%7BA9EAE203-D273-4CB1-9038-5A293C5ED642%7D) from the USTA:

6.0 to 7.0
You have had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior and collegiate levels and have obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.

7.0
You are a world-class player.

Nellie
10-11-2009, 03:03 PM
Nadal at 12:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dUV2WVv7Yc

was not a 7.0 player...

Blake0
10-11-2009, 03:08 PM
7.0's can live off their wins in tournaments..which would mean top 100..maybe a bit further down to 200s..but not more.

35ft6
10-11-2009, 03:48 PM
7.0's can live off their wins in tournaments..which would mean top 100..maybe a bit further down to 200s..but not more.To me if you can win a round in futures, you're world class. Even some top college players, and don't forget doubles specialists.

ubermeyer
10-11-2009, 06:37 PM
nadal probably was 5.0 at 10 or so

nfor304
10-11-2009, 06:58 PM
I played a guy who was in the institute of sport (where all the best players in the nation train) in Australia and was also part of the south Australia state squad when he was 18.

When he was in those squads Lleyton Hewitt was also part of the squad, but Lleyton was 13 rather than 17-18. The guy I met said Hewitt was easily the best player there and could double bagel almost everyone every time.

Hewitt became the number 1 junior in Aus just after he turned 15, qualified for the Aus Open when he was 15 and won his debut ATP event at 16.

TonyB
10-11-2009, 07:12 PM
There's a 14/15 year old kid at my club who is nationally ranked in the top 10 in his age group. I'm a pretty solid 4.5 and I would guess that he could beat me fairly easily (maybe 6-2 or 6-3, depending on how well I'm serving). He's probably a 5.0 player or better.

I would guess that the top pros were probably 5.0 by the time they were 12-13 years old.

TonyB
10-11-2009, 07:14 PM
There was a kid who played near my place who was top 10 nationally in Boys 14, and he would absolutely smoke any 5.0's around. And he wasn't a true prodigy, just a very good national level junior.



This sounds exactly like the kid that plays at my club, as I posted above.

However, I don't think he would smoke any 5.0s in the area. He would probably lose to a very good 5.0 or an average 5.5 player.

TonyB
10-11-2009, 07:15 PM
Nadal at 12:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dUV2WVv7Yc

was not a 7.0 player...



Even at age 12, he was hitting loopy defensive shots!

Funny video.

BreakPoint
10-11-2009, 07:16 PM
Agassi... 11 or 12? He was beating top 20 players by age 16, and the leap from 5.0 to 7.0 is pretty huge. I'm sure it didn't happen in just 2 or so years. The true greats are probably 5.0 very early on, maybe 11 or 12, maybe earlier. Nadal beat Cash in an exhibition on clay when he was 14. I remember hearing a story about a 12 year old McEnroe beating an older Peter Fleming at Port Washington. The very top, not just in the country but in the world, 12 year olds, can beat 5.0 players. They can hit the ball way better than a regular 5.0's, it's just a matter of growing up. These types of kids can compete with top pros on any given day by the time they're 14 or 15. Hewitt won the very first ATP tournament he ever played at 15. Agassi got to the qualies of an ATP even at 16, losing to Mac but beating world number 12 on the way. The kids can hit balls all day.
Yeah, but the 12 year old kids don't have the match strategy nor the match experience of someone's who's 18 or older. They are also not physically strong enough to handle the heavy pounding from a bigger, older opponent for hours. They are also too short to blast 120mph serves and probably don't have an aggressive second serve. They don't have the reach at net and are easy to lob over.

BreakPoint
10-11-2009, 07:18 PM
He was world class pro by 16. Most of the really special pros are 7.0 by 16. Chang won a round in the US Open at age 15. Hewitt won an ATP event at 16. Nadal won his first ATP match at age 14 defeating Ramon Delgado. Gasquet took advantage of his wildcard into qualifying to get into the Monte Carlo Masters and to win a round at age 15. Yes yes yes this is incredible stuff. 6.0 players can't even win a match in ATP level qualifiers, let alone win a round in the main draw.
No, he wasn't. Federer was still playing the junior circuit when he was 17. He won the Wimbledon juniors at 17 in 1998 and was the #1 ranked junior at the end of 1998.

SuperDuy
10-11-2009, 07:46 PM
Anyone know how tall federer,nadal,roddick, were at 15 years old? seeing they are all 6'1 now,

35ft6
10-11-2009, 09:33 PM
No, he wasn't. Federer was still playing the junior circuit when he was 17. He won the Wimbledon juniors at 17 in 1998 and was the #1 ranked junior at the end of 1998.Go to ITF website. He was playing satellites as a 16 yo. He got to the semis of one. At age 17, he was also playing some ATP tennis, beating two top 50 pros in France. He finished 1991 ranked 66. To me, he was world class at 16 even if he wasn't playing a full ATP schedule.

There are certainly players who were doing better at that age than Federer. He had two much talent and flash, it took him a while to get his game together, but he was still a solid pro level player by 16 (if you agree getting to the semis of a satellite event is proof of that).

BreakPoint
10-11-2009, 09:56 PM
Go to ITF website. He was playing satellites as a 16 yo. He got to the semis of one. At age 17, he was also playing some ATP tennis, beating two top 50 pros in France. He finished 1991 ranked 66. To me, he was world class at 16 even if he wasn't playing a full ATP schedule.

There are certainly players who were doing better at that age than Federer. He had two much talent and flash, it took him a while to get his game together, but he was still a solid pro level player by 16 (if you agree getting to the semis of a satellite event is proof of that).
Wait, Federer was ranked 66 in the world when he was only 10 years old? :) LOL

He played no challengers nor ATP events at all when he was 16.

At 17, in 1998, the first year he turned pro, he played in 4 tournaments and lost in the first round of 3 of them (one was a challenger level event). I'd say he wasn't even a 6.5 at this point but maybe a strong 6.0. A top Div. I college player is about a 6.0, and could have done what Federer did at 17 in 1998.

Federer started playing tennis at 8 years old. I don't think he was 5.0 at 12. More like 13-14.

tennis_balla
10-11-2009, 10:15 PM
You guys gotta get over your NTRP ratings on here on the board. NTRP is for amateur players, club level players whatever you wanna call them. Go to a good junior tournament or a top open prize money event or especially a Futures tourney or higher and ask someone what their NTRP rating is and you'll look like the biggest noob. Why? because once you're playing at that level and playing that competitively NTRP basically doesn't exist. Its who you've played, what your score was, who you beat, what your results are, especially what your ranking is and so on.
There's a reason why the NTRP rating system is so vague when describing 6.0's and up ;)

crash1929
10-11-2009, 10:27 PM
You guys gotta get over your NTRP ratings on here on the board. NTRP is for amateur players, club level players whatever you wanna call them. Go to a good junior tournament or a top open prize money event or especially a Futures tourney or higher and ask someone what their NTRP rating is and you'll look like the biggest noob. Why? because once you're playing at that level and playing that competitively NTRP basically doesn't exist. Its who you've played, what your score was, who you beat, what your results are, especially what your ranking is and so on.
There's a reason why the NTRP rating system is so vague when describing 6.0's and up ;)


tennis balla. i think we are just trying to get a grip on how these pro players develop.

you bring up an interesting point. this guy from greece who had one of the biggests games i've seen at the club was toying with this 5.0. i asked him what are you like a 6.0? and he looked at me funny and just said "i don't know".

st

nfor304
10-11-2009, 10:46 PM
Wait, Federer was ranked 66 in the world when he was only 10 years old? :) LOL

He played no challengers nor ATP events at all when he was 16.

At 17, in 1998, the first year he turned pro, he played in 4 tournaments and lost in the first round of 3 of them (one was a challenger level event). I'd say he wasn't even a 6.5 at this point but maybe a strong 6.0. A top Div. I college player is about a 6.0, and could have done what Federer did at 17 in 1998.

Federer started playing tennis at 8 years old. I don't think he was 5.0 at 12. More like 13-14.

Federer defeated Hewitt in junior Davis Cup in 1996 just a couple of months after he turned 15, Hewitt went on to qualify for the Aus Open 4 months later.

Federer was 16 when he won junior Wimbledon, almost 17, but had already captured the number 1 ranking after his Wimbledon and Euro championship win, so he was 16 when he was the number 1 junior.

Federer was also posting solid wins in 1997 on the itf tour as a 16 year old.

In 1997 at 16 Fed finished the year ranked 700, in 1998 at 17 he finished ranked 300, in 1999 at 18 he finished ranked 65.

I would say he was 6.5 when he was ranked in the 700's, and 7.0 when he was was in the 300's.

I would then say as a junior in 1996 he was 6.0, and im guessing from that timeline 5.5 in 1995, 5.0 in 1994, so 13.

35ft6
10-11-2009, 11:37 PM
^ Yeah, he was playing satellites at 16. He beat two top 50 players in 1998.Wait, Federer was ranked 66 in the world when he was only 10 years old? :) LOLMeant 1999.

I wish some top level coaches or people from academies posted here to put this to rest. I think some people are seriously underestimating how good the elite pros were at ages 10 and 11. All of their physical limitations from being young doesn't matter, their skills are just too superior.

lawrence
10-12-2009, 09:32 AM
Roger at 3 years old, playing at a 6.0 level:

http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/Modern%20Tennis%20Not/website/Federer%20age%203%20smaller.jpg

Notice that he already had developed his "quiet eye" vision technique at this tender age.

.

LMAO. funny because its true

Bud
10-12-2009, 09:56 AM
My guess is around 13 or 14.

Rafa won his first Futures tournament at 16yrs. 1 month and went on to win 6 Futures and 2 Challengers (plus runner up in 4 more Challengers) before 17... so I'd say probably a bit earlier.

It sounds like Rafa was a 7.0 at 15-16... so, Federer was probably the same. That would probably translate to a 5.0 at age 11-12

"In April 2001, at 14 years and 10 months, the World No. 762 Nadal won his first ATP match, defeating Ramón Delgado, and became the ninth player in the open era to do so before the age of 16. The following year, Nadal won two Challenger titles and finished the year in the top 50."

SystemicAnomaly
10-12-2009, 03:31 PM
7.0's can live off their wins in tournaments..which would mean top 100..maybe a bit further down to 200s..but not more.

That's not really the definition of a 7.0 player. But I'll play along.

Mr #200, Yuri Schukin, has made about 1/2 million dollars in prize money in just over 10 years. Sure, a chunk of that gets eaten up in travel expenses. Donald Young, currently #197, had made $67k so far this year and has already earned more than half a mil in prize monsy since turning pro in 2004.

Blake0
10-12-2009, 04:16 PM
http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document%20Assets/2008/02/14/doc_13_7372.pdf

K i guess you're right..here it says 7.0 are world class players and they're the top 400. I remember reading something about 7.0's are players who can live off their tournament wins...

Karlovic's Sunglasses
10-12-2009, 04:25 PM
Federer? 35.

Nadal was 80 until he could get the hang of his second serve.

So yeah, Federer is much more developed.

Tim Tennis
10-12-2009, 04:33 PM
I'd say it would probably be a bit younger than this. I've worked with a few players who were about a 5.0 level at this age. They will get to a high Div 1 level but probably not much higher than 6.0 at their peak.

Wow, I can't image any 12 year old competing with a 25 year old 5.0 player. They just don't have the physicality. Now 14 years old might be a different situation. A lot happens between the ages of 12 and 14.

Best regards,

Ed
Tennis Geometrics

BreakPoint
10-12-2009, 09:31 PM
Rafa won his first Futures tournament at 16yrs. 1 month and went on to win 6 Futures and 2 Challengers (plus runner up in 4 more Challengers) before 17... so I'd say probably a bit earlier.

It sounds like Rafa was a 7.0 at 15-16... so, Federer was probably the same. That would probably translate to a 5.0 at age 11-12

"In April 2001, at 14 years and 10 months, the World No. 762 Nadal won his first ATP match, defeating Ramón Delgado, and became the ninth player in the open era to do so before the age of 16. The following year, Nadal won two Challenger titles and finished the year in the top 50."
But I was specifically referring to Federer, not Nadal. Nadal developed much earlier than Federer because he started playing tennis at age 4, whereas Federer didn't start until age 8. Nadal turned pro at age 15 whereas Federer didn't turn pro until he was 17. Thus, I wouldn't say that Federer was the same as Nadal as far as their development and early careers.

SystemicAnomaly
10-13-2009, 06:02 AM
Wow, I can't image any 12 year old competing with a 25 year old 5.0 player. They just don't have the physicality. Now 14 years old might be a different situation. A lot happens between the ages of 12 and 14.

Best regards,

Ed
Tennis Geometrics

For the most part, this is probably true. But, I believe that it is within the realm of possibilities that there may be a few 12 year old players in the world that might be up to the task.

I recently ran into a 13yr old (8th grader) who I worked with earlier in the year. He currently has Blue Chip status with TennisRecruiting.net and is listed as the #5 (http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player/activity.asp?id=564761) 8th-grader in the US. He informed me that he had recently came in 2nd place in an 18's Jr tournament (Courtside Club in Los Gatos, CA). The 6 guys that he defeated to get to the finals were all high school seniors (17-18 yrs old). This kid, as talented as he is, will probably play Div 1 but may never make it as a pro.

35ft6
10-14-2009, 02:32 PM
For the most part, this is probably true. But, I believe that it is within the realm of possibilities that there may be a few 12 year old players in the world that might be up to the task.Depends on matchups but I can see top nationally ranked 12 year olds beating a lot of 5.0 players. As a top national player, even as a 12 year old their footwork, preparation, and stroke production is at a way higher level. Their point construction won't be so hot but they'll be hitting with a lot more precision as well. Except for serves, power won't be a huge issue. The biggest disadvantages are movement and serves, the same as it is when men play women. But we've all seen out of shape guys with less power but with superior skills beat a fast big hitter with less skill. What I'm saying is that a top 12 year old has so much more skill than a 5.0 that the physical disadvantages of being 12 won't prevent them from winning.

10 year old is another story. But again, the top juniors play up all the time.

SystemicAnomaly
10-14-2009, 03:34 PM
^ The 13 year old 8th-grader that I was talking about now has a bigger serve than mine. He's not very big or tall at all. Earlier, I've worked with some other 14 yr players that also had huge serves. These guys are Div 1 candidates (1 has already played for Stanford). For someone to achieve a world class level, it does seems plausible that they might have the chops at 12 that these 13 & 14 yr old players have.

5263
10-15-2009, 07:33 PM
You guys gotta get over your NTRP ratings on here on the board. NTRP is for amateur players, club level players whatever you wanna call them. Go to a good junior tournament or a top open prize money event or especially a Futures tourney or higher and ask someone what their NTRP rating is and you'll look like the biggest noob. Why? because once you're playing at that level and playing that competitively NTRP basically doesn't exist. Its who you've played, what your score was, who you beat, what your results are, especially what your ranking is and so on.
There's a reason why the NTRP rating system is so vague when describing 6.0's and up ;)

Excellent post on this topic that needs to be repeated.

Shaolin
10-15-2009, 07:37 PM
No later than 13. At 13 Fed was probably a very strong 5.0. 5.5 by 14.

Jay_The_Nomad
10-16-2009, 01:07 AM
tennis balla. i think we are just trying to get a grip on how these pro players develop.

st

Imo, the real business-end of tennis development comes around the ages of 16-18 when the player is just about to make the jump to the ATP.

Tennis development prior to this age period is just standard stuff that most aspiring young players would be able to get to. So you can't really tell real talent at this stage (unless the junior player has a really outstanding weapon that is unprecedented for his age that really catches the eye). Apart from any such outstanding talent, usually you'll have a good solid group coming through that are pretty much of equal ability & with maybe one or two players just slightly ahead of them in terms of overall play.

It's common for junior players younger than 16 to reach a good solid 5.0/6.0 before age 16, but what happens after that really separates the pretenders from the real deals.

Cloud Atlas
10-16-2009, 03:28 AM
I think at 12 years old, both federer and agassi would have smashed any 4.5 players they came up against. Therefore, they'd have to have been at least 5.0. 4.5 players don't play junior grand slams!

crash1929
10-16-2009, 05:41 AM
i believe there were good stories of agassi killing older people as a little pip squeek.

can't remember them too sleepy.

Kevo
10-16-2009, 09:15 AM
I saw an 11yr. old girl who was ranked something like 200 in the nation put a pretty good whooping on a good 4.0 player once. I don't think she would have bageled him or anything, but I don't see any reason why a top 12 - 14yr. old boy wouldn't be 5.0 or more.

GuyClinch
10-16-2009, 12:03 PM
Well we would have to talk to some pro parents - but my guess is that children might develop their game at different speed. Some pro kids might be 5.5 at 12 others might be just a 4.5.

My guess is that the bigger stronger kids would lag behind the fast smaller kids in development. That's a total guess though.

But in hoops centers seem to develop later then guards.

Pete