PDA

View Full Version : How good do you think Federer would be if...


HunterST
11-12-2009, 09:53 AM
It's fairly common knowledge that for someone to become a professional tennis player that have to have started playing tennis at least before 10 years of age and preferably around 5. So what if someone like Roger Federer with a huge amount of natural talent started at an age like 18 or so. How fast do you think he would progress? How good do you think he'd be overall?

Kostas
11-12-2009, 10:03 AM
Never picked up a racquet before 18?

Local Teaching Pro: 4.5/5.0 IF he stayed with it.

shazbot
11-12-2009, 10:10 AM
Never picked up a racquet before 18?

Local Teaching Pro: 4.5/5.0 IF he stayed with it.

Agreed. Probably 4.5-5.0 at most.

It takes someone 6-7 years of playing 4-6 hours a day to get to the 6.0 level. For someone to start playing when they just turn 18, that is near impossible because you have probably already started your college life and will not have a lot of time to practice tennis.

Tsonga#1fan
11-12-2009, 10:18 AM
It's fairly common knowledge that for someone to become a professional tennis player that have to have started playing tennis at least before 10 years of age and preferably around 5. So what if someone like Roger Federer with a huge amount of natural talent started at an age like 18 or so. How fast do you think he would progress? How good do you think he'd be overall?

In my opinion, not much difference if any at all....Stan Smith didn't pick up a racquet until 14, 15...16, or so, and went on to be a US and Wimbledon champion and I don't think he'd have been any better if he had been born with a racquet hanging out of his butt to play with.

HunterST
11-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Never picked up a racquet before 18?

Local Teaching Pro: 4.5/5.0 IF he stayed with it.

Really? I know a guy that started playing at 19 and he's 27 now and is a solid 4.5. I figure Federer with way more natural talent would be better than him. I would have guessed 5.0 to 5.5 myself.

shazbot
11-12-2009, 10:21 AM
In my opinion, not much difference if any at all....Stan Smith didn't pick up a racquet until 14, 15...16, or so, and went on to be a US and Wimbledon champion and I don't think he'd have been any better if he had been born with a racquet hanging out of his butt to play with.

You are quite the funny troll heh.

elquien
11-12-2009, 10:23 AM
uh. I started at age 21 and got to 4.5 in about 4 years. I am short and have the reflexes of a sloth.

some college players started in high school

Fed would at least be in a top ranked college tennis team.

Cup8489
11-12-2009, 10:38 AM
Bill Tilden dominated tennis for 7 years, but didn't start till he was an adult!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-12-2009, 10:41 AM
Bill Tilden dominated tennis for 7 years, but didn't start till he was an adult!

You cant compare him to todays players, i thought you understood that.
Fascinating man though, i just finished reading a book about him. He had a very exciting life.

Kostas
11-12-2009, 11:34 AM
I guess this somewhat depends on the perspective of what exactly "starts tennis at age 18 means"...does it means he instantly goes to Bolleterri and gets world class training at age 18? Or does it mean he picks up a racquet and just starts playing?

rosenstar
11-12-2009, 11:36 AM
too many variables involved. What if he played both baseball and soccer for years? Not crazy too say that then he would have developed the necessary coordination/footwork to play at a very high level.

On the other hand, if he played no sports for the first 15 years of his life, he wouldn't get anywhere.

The reason the ages 4-12 are so important is b/c these are the years where a child develops important muscular tendencies. Did you know that if you don't learn to throw a ball by about age 6, you'll never be able to master the motion?

Like I said, it's impossible to determine, there are just too many unknowns

HunterST
11-12-2009, 02:20 PM
Yeah I know it's impossible to know for sure, that's why it's (to me) and interesting theoretical discussion. The situation is assuming Federer lived a normal life, playing other sports like any kid would, and then started playing tennis with a coach at age 18.

Basically we're discussing how much of a role starting early has. Is it so much that even with Federer's talent he couldn't reach 6.0 or would talent be enough to get him to a high level despite a late start.

Cup8489
11-12-2009, 08:18 PM
You cant compare him to todays players, i thought you understood that.
Fascinating man though, i just finished reading a book about him. He had a very exciting life.

winning is winning, and while i realize that today's game is based on fitness, becoming a dominant no 1 when you didn't make your college team is pretty impressive.

kishnabe
11-12-2009, 08:28 PM
Plus as a kid you have dreams of winning wimbledon or rolland garros. That motivates you to play better and to have the psychological desire. If federer started played tennis at the age 18 even if there was that desire it won't be beyond the other players who had dreams as a kid. That why you can see so many hungry guys in grand slams. They want it badly.

darthpwner
11-12-2009, 08:38 PM
In my opinion, not much difference if any at all....Stan Smith didn't pick up a racquet until 14, 15...16, or so, and went on to be a US and Wimbledon champion and I don't think he'd have been any better if he had been born with a racquet hanging out of his butt to play with.

Bill Tilden dominated tennis for 7 years, but didn't start till he was an adult!

Tilden played in the pre-open era when the quality of play was nowhere near today's level. Stan Smith also would not have succeeded in today's game due to his s&v style

OTMPut
11-12-2009, 09:11 PM
Well it is completely useless to base on what one's own experience or what one see around. That is the enigma of genius.