PDA

View Full Version : The Path to the Pro Tour

lucky leprechaun
05-12-2006, 10:55 PM
I was inspired by the new kid on the block nicolas almagro, so I read up on his bio. Thought I'd throw this out there for all you guys asking "how fast should I be improving" or "do I have what it takes" for a modern young gun like almagro who started playing tennis at age 8, received first atp win at age 15. So let's see 15-8 is 7, divide 7 into 7.0 which means he's improving 1.0 ntrp every year. So at age eight he's a 0.0, nine he's a 1.0, ten he's a 2.0, twelve he's a 4.0, fourteen he's 6.0, and finally a 7.0 at age fifteen.

Late bloomer? Maybe perhaps had other things going on in your life that prevented you from getting there faster. Take Ivan Ljubicic known for being a late bloomer on the tour (one of my favorite players). Started playing tennis at age 9, had a little thing going on like becoming a refugee from war-torn bosnia that may have slowed his progress a little at 13, but no biggie winning his first atp points at age 17. So let's see he's at age nine he's a 0.0, twelve he's a 2.5 (uh oh nicolas is kicking his tail at this point), fourteen he's a 4.5, sixteen a 6.0, and finally a 7.0 at age seventeen.

Hmmm, ya think these guys figured out real fast that they were the real deal or not? Just for fun, don't screw with my logic I did math for you guys, something I wouldn't even do for my teacher :mrgreen:

tennus
05-12-2006, 11:22 PM
I was inspired by the new kid on the block nicolas almagro, so I read up on his bio. Thought I'd throw this out there for all you guys asking "how fast should I be improving" or "do I have what it takes" for a modern young gun like almagro who started playing tennis at age 8, received first atp win at age 15. So let's see 15-8 is 7, divide 7 into 7.0 which means he's improving 1.0 ntrp every year. So at age eight he's a 0.0, nine he's a 1.0, ten he's a 2.0, twelve he's a 4.0, fourteen he's 6.0, and finally a 7.0 at age fifteen.

Late bloomer? Maybe perhaps had other things going on in your life that prevented you from getting there faster. Take Ivan Ljubicic known for being a late bloomer on the tour (one of my favorite players). Started playing tennis at age 9, had a little thing going on like becoming a refugee from war-torn bosnia that may have slowed his progress a little at 13, but no biggie winning his first atp points at age 17. So let's see he's at age nine he's a 0.0, twelve he's a 2.5 (uh oh nicolas is kicking his tail at this point), fourteen he's a 4.5, sixteen a 6.0, and finally a 7.0 at age seventeen.

Hmmm, ya think these guys figured out real fast that they were the real deal or not? Just for fun, don't screw with my logic I did math for you guys, something I wouldn't even do for my teacher :mrgreen:

Well done, kinda awesome when you think about it by numbers. I suppose playing styles comes into it a fair bit. Baseliner with a Big Bomb serve matures (tennis wise) faster than a chip charge serve volleyer etc. I think Hewitt won 16/u National Championship at 14 so it pretty much works out for him having won Adelaide International at 16. Take an A for your maths paper !:)

shindemac
05-13-2006, 02:36 AM
LOL, your math is correct but these guys are simply exceptional. It's probably more realistic to say they gained .5 each year. For example, from 4.5 to 5.0. Except for the first 2 years, they advanced a lot faster. At the end of the second year, they reached a 4.0. Also, the rating starts at 1.0 or 1.5, not 0.

Start at 1.0/1.5
1st year at 3.0
2nd year at 4.0
3rd year at 4.5
4th year at 5.0
5th year at 5.5
6th year at 6.0
7th year at 7.0!

nickybol
05-13-2006, 04:20 AM
The younger you are, the faster you learn. They progress much more in their younger years.

topspin kid
05-13-2006, 07:16 AM
i wish i started at younger age id be turnin pro any day now. lol

35ft6
05-13-2006, 09:35 AM
Nick B has said that it's crucial for a person to start playing when they're very young, when the hardwiring of the brain isn't SET yet, in order to have a real shot of becoming a top pro player. At the highest levels, it has to be a part of you, not something you have to think your way through. It's like how a person who grew up speaking Chinese will always be able to speak it better than somebody who learned it later in life, like they'll be able to pronounce certain sounds that others can't. Same thing with tennis. A kid who grows up with a racket in his hand will be able to speak tennis better.

And the whole 7.0, improve by 1 point a year thing is an interesting exercise, but it simply doesn't work that way. If this were body building, it would be like saying "when Mark Coleman started lifting, he weighed 175, and when he first turned pro, 5 years later, his contest weight was 235, therefor he gained 12 pounds of muscle a year." Like in body building, the easiest gains come at the beginning. Getting from 5.0 to 6.0 is much tougher than going from 2.0 to 3.0. As you get better, making significant gains becomes exponentially tougher. Especially when you're an adult. When you're a kid, you can gear your life around tennis even if you're not rich or living at an academy, so that's another reason why it's easier to become good if most of your development takes place during childhood. It's tough to play enough to become really good when you're an adult with a job.

jackabee
05-13-2006, 09:37 AM
Have to agree with 35ft6 there!

snoflewis
05-13-2006, 12:35 PM
I was inspired by the new kid on the block nicolas almagro, so I read up on his bio. Thought I'd throw this out there for all you guys asking "how fast should I be improving" or "do I have what it takes" for a modern young gun like almagro who started playing tennis at age 8, received first atp win at age 15. So let's see 15-8 is 7, divide 7 into 7.0 which means he's improving 1.0 ntrp every year. So at age eight he's a 0.0, nine he's a 1.0, ten he's a 2.0, twelve he's a 4.0, fourteen he's 6.0, and finally a 7.0 at age fifteen.

Late bloomer? Maybe perhaps had other things going on in your life that prevented you from getting there faster. Take Ivan Ljubicic known for being a late bloomer on the tour (one of my favorite players). Started playing tennis at age 9, had a little thing going on like becoming a refugee from war-torn bosnia that may have slowed his progress a little at 13, but no biggie winning his first atp points at age 17. So let's see he's at age nine he's a 0.0, twelve he's a 2.5 (uh oh nicolas is kicking his tail at this point), fourteen he's a 4.5, sixteen a 6.0, and finally a 7.0 at age seventeen.

Hmmm, ya think these guys figured out real fast that they were the real deal or not? Just for fun, don't screw with my logic I did math for you guys, something I wouldn't even do for my teacher :mrgreen:

it doesnt matter if he started tennis at age 8. he couldve had an exceptional mentality for sports in general. i mean, just because he started playing at age 8 doesnt mean he wasn't in shape (at age 8 of course...) or has never played any other sports.