Chris Surapol, Next Michael Chang ? Not Yet But He Is On His Way.

Fedace · Feb 17, 2007

I just saw Chris Surapol play today at ITA collegiate tennis tournament. He utterly destroyed a very highly ranked Illinois opponent, GD Jones. Chris is by far the fastest player in college tennis and has fairly big serve for a 5'6" guy. He reminds me a lot of Chang but not as good yet at this stage of his career. If chris does not compare to change, he definitely compares well to Olivier Rochus, and he should become a top 50 pro, if he continues to improve each year. He is fastest man in college tennis and has pinpoint accuracy off the ground with very heavy topspin. Also possesses a excellent slice backhand to go with 2-hander. And i was surprised to see how well he volleys. He is a ATP top 50 player waiting to happen.

dukemunson · Feb 17, 2007

are you serious or enjoying the amazing SoCal weather today with several dozen cocktails?

Fedace · Feb 17, 2007

dukemunson said:
are you serious or enjoying the amazing SoCal weather today with several dozen cocktails?

Chria is going to be as good as Olivier Rochus, he has all the tools, speed, heavy groundies and excellent net game. and last not least his serve is a weapon for a little guy. you should have seen him in action

Rob_C · Feb 18, 2007

I'm pretty sure an unranked college senior isn't going to be he next Michael Chang. If he were, he would have been getting wins on the tour by now.

Fedace · Feb 18, 2007

Rob_C said:
I'm pretty sure an unranked college senior isn't going to be he next Michael Chang. If he were, he would have been getting wins on the tour by now.

He is ranked 16th in Division 1 college tennis. He is not ranked in ATP cause he has not played in any ATP events. and if not as good as chang, he will be as good as Olivier Rochus. He has all the tools

Phil · Feb 18, 2007

Fedace said:
He is ranked 16th in Division 1 college tennis. He is not ranked in ATP cause he has not played in any ATP events. and if not as good as chang, he will be as good as Olivier Rochus. He has all the tools

So you've already downgraded him from "The Next Michael Chang" to...Oliver Rochus? Is that such a big deal? Rochus is not exactly Hall of Fame material, is he?

armand · Feb 18, 2007

Phil said:
So you've already downgraded him from "The Next Michael Chang" to...Oliver Rochus? Is that such a big deal? Rochus is not exactly Hall of Fame material, is he?

Is Chang, for that matter?

Fedace · Feb 18, 2007

Phil said:
So you've already downgraded him from "The Next Michael Chang" to...Oliver Rochus? Is that such a big deal? Rochus is not exactly Hall of Fame material, is he?

It is a big deal Phil, cause we need more short little guys like this to do well in the ATP tour. It is being dominated by 6'5" serve and bomb forehand freak athletes and little guys are being discouraged from even trying out in Junior tennis and moving towards the pros. Tennis should go back to the days of artistry and skills like days of Rosewall and Mcenroe. Need more skilled little guys.

FedTard · Feb 18, 2007

Jesse Levine has a better shot at becoming the next Rochus, imo.

Breaker · Feb 18, 2007

Fedace said:
It is a big deal Phil, cause we need more short little guys like this to do well in the ATP tour. It is being dominated by 6'5" serve and bomb forehand freak athletes and little guys are being discouraged from even trying out in Junior tennis and moving towards the pros. Tennis should go back to the days of artistry and skills like days of Rosewall and Mcenroe. Need more skilled little guys.

The only big players who somewhat dominate the game are Berdych, Safin, Ljubicic, and Ancic. There aren't many on tour who fit that description.

armand · Feb 18, 2007

Short people are very fortunate because they have the advantage in gymnastics.

Phil · Feb 18, 2007

Fedace said:
It is a big deal Phil, cause we need more short little guys like this to do well in the ATP tour. It is being dominated by 6'5" serve and bomb forehand freak athletes and little guys are being discouraged from even trying out in Junior tennis and moving towards the pros. Tennis should go back to the days of artistry and skills like days of Rosewall and Mcenroe. Need more skilled little guys.

I see your point, Fedace-the skill part, at least. I don't think the height should matter; skill is skill. Just recently, one of the greatest players ever-a guy who managed to dominate players tall and short, and who himself stood in at around 5'10"-if that-just recently retired...goes by the name of Agassi.

Thor · Feb 18, 2007

i just counted,there are only 5 guys in the top 25 shorter than 6"0(2 in the top 10):
5"9 - 1 player(ferrer)
5"10 - 1 player(davydenko)
5"11 - 3 players(hewitt,nalbandian and robredo)
most
theres no question height is getting a serious factor here

Lefty Spin · Feb 18, 2007

Fedace, I was also at the UCLA-Illinois match and I will admit that Surapol looked good. However, GD Jones is unranked at this time and it was the number 3 match. It is easy to watch the college guys and think they could definately be great pros. I think this just illustrates how good the top pros really are. I think Chris is actually ranked 27th but I would not be surprised if his ranking went up in the next couple of months. I actually spoke to him as UCLA finished off Miami on Friday. Seems like a nice kid.

scineram · Feb 18, 2007

armand said:
Is Chang, for that matter?

Obviously.

Nick Irons · Feb 18, 2007

armand said:
Is Chang, for that matter?

Yes !!!!!!!

dukemunson · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
Chria is going to be as good as Olivier Rochus, he has all the tools, speed, heavy groundies and excellent net game. and last not least his serve is a weapon for a little guy. you should have seen him in action

Played the guy in college and yes he's solid but your completely underestimating the professional game if you think he could even crack the the top 400... Beating an unranked Illini after they've been battling the buckeyes, Hawkeyes and Nittany Lions indoors for 4 months while at the number 3 position is a long way from the US Open...hell its a long way from the Calabasas challenger or even the main draw of the Laguna Nigel Future... Again great guy that can grind like a champ but Chang? Rochus? Let's put a more realistic ceiling on the guy of Rodrigo Grilli's 515...a guy that played 3 at UCLA when Surapol was #7 on the team...

35ft6 · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
Chria is going to be as good as Olivier Rochus, he has all the tools, speed, heavy groundies and excellent net game. and last not least his serve is a weapon for a little guy. you should have seen him in action

You can't compare him to Olivier Rochus until you see him doing what he did against opponents of the quality that Rochus plays, like ATP top 150 quality opponents. If Chris is given a wild card into this years US Open qualies, you'll see how he really stacks up. You've gotta understand, college tennis and ATP tennis is two completely different worlds. You see guys just absolutely dominate college tennis (and Chris isn't even close to dominating) and never even crack the top 100 ATP.

Chris isn't even the best player on his team!

35ft6 · Feb 19, 2007

Nice post, Dukemunson. Go to the US Open qualies where several top college players will get wild cards every year, guys with way more promise than Surapol. They get schooled. I saw Alex Kim get beat like 1 and 1 by Jan Vacek one year. Alex dominated college tennis for a couple of years, the number 1 player in the country, won the NCAA singles twice I think. It wasn't even close. And this happens every year, you see college studs like Phil King, Bo Hodge, Delic, Reynolds, and perhaps especially Matias Boecker, get schooled in the qualies by journeymen you probably never heard of. Rochus would hit Surapol right off the court, believe me. It wouldn't even be close.

goober · Feb 19, 2007

Chris Surapol = the next Tommy Ho as far as the ATP is concerned. He is a very good college player but he is not dominant in college. When the NCAA individual tourney comes around I would be surprised if he is in the top 16.

prostaff18 · Feb 19, 2007

Lefty Spin said:
Fedace, I was also at the UCLA-Illinois match and I will admit that Surapol looked good. However, GD Jones is unranked at this time and it was the number 3 match. It is easy to watch the college guys and think they could definately be great pros. I think this just illustrates how good the top pros really are. I think Chris is actually ranked 27th but I would not be surprised if his ranking went up in the next couple of months. I actually spoke to him as UCLA finished off Miami on Friday. Seems like a nice kid.

Wait a minute.....this guy plays 3 and you are calling him the next Chang. You could call him the next (insert name here) if he was winning K-Zoo at 15, or winning the NCAA's as a freshman. But calling someone that plays 3 the next anyone is insane. Also if he plays 3 how can he be ranked 27th? I hope that I misunderstood what you said.

Lefty Spin · Feb 19, 2007

Prostaff, just to clarify things I didn't call him the next Chang. Fedace called him the next Chang. He is 27th in the nation. In the fall, most teams don't play any dual matches so the rankings are based on the collegiate tournaments. Surapol did very well at the Pacific Coast tournament, thus he has a good ranking. It isn't surprising for a ranked player to play number 3 for his team. Oklahoma State's numner 2 guy was 3rd in the last rankings. In addition, Illinois's number 5 is ranked 89.

Also, Illinois is ranked 7th and Ohio State is 2nd. Ohio State beat UCLA the next night when their number 3 beat Surapol 6-1 in the third.

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

Lefty Spin said:
Prostaff, just to clarify things I didn't call him the next Chang. Fedace called him the next Chang. He is 27th in the nation. In the fall, most teams don't play any dual matches so the rankings are based on the collegiate tournaments. Surapol did very well at the Pacific Coast tournament, thus he has a good ranking. It isn't surprising for a ranked player to play number 3 for his team. Oklahoma State's numner 2 guy was 3rd in the last rankings. In addition, Illinois's number 5 is ranked 89.

Also, Illinois is ranked 7th and Ohio State is 2nd. Ohio State beat UCLA the next night when their number 3 beat Surapol 6-1 in the third.

Surapol was dead tired in the 2nd and 3rd set and that is the only reason he lost to that talentless player from Ohio. I didn't say he will be like chang but he reminds me alot of Alex Kim from Stanford 3 years ago. Surapol has the talent to be in top 100 in the pro tour. I could see the talent in the guy. And probably next year he will play #1 spot for UCLA

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

Thor said:
i just counted,there are only 5 guys in the top 25 shorter than 6"0(2 in the top 10):
5"9 - 1 player(ferrer)
5"10 - 1 player(davydenko)
5"11 - 3 players(hewitt,nalbandian and robredo)
most
theres no question height is getting a serious factor here

i thought Ferrer was like 6'2", i should follow him more

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

35ft6 said:
You can't compare him to Olivier Rochus until you see him doing what he did against opponents of the quality that Rochus plays, like ATP top 150 quality opponents. If Chris is given a wild card into this years US Open qualies, you'll see how he really stacks up. You've gotta understand, college tennis and ATP tennis is two completely different worlds. You see guys just absolutely dominate college tennis (and Chris isn't even close to dominating) and never even crack the top 100 ATP.

Chris isn't even the best player on his team!

Wow , lots of critics on my comparison i see. But mark my words, surapol will be a top #100 player in the aTP tour. I can see the talent in this guy like instinct for the ball, reading his opponents, feel at the net and Speed like no other, hewitt like speed. He is just a #3 player right now, but he will dominate college tennis next year as #1.

goober · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
And probably next year he will play #1 spot for UCLA

It will be kind of hard to be the #1 player for UCLA next year since he is a Redshirt senior this year and his elgibility is up.

Do you realize he is 5 years older than Donald Young?

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

goober said:
It will be kind of hard to be the #1 player for UCLA next year since he is a Redshirt senior this year and his elgibility is up.

Do you realize he is 5 years older than Donald Young?

Goober you maybe right on this one. but i heard that james Wan is sitting out this year due to injury for Stanford, he is a senior this year. Can James play next year as a graduate student since he is sitting out this year, his 4th year ? do you know?

goober · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
Goober you maybe right on this one. but i heard that james Wan is sitting out this year due to injury for Stanford, he is a senior this year. Can James play next year as a graduate student since he is sitting out this year, his 4th year ? do you know?

Chris definitely can't because he used his redshirt year. James can play as a graduate student if he hasn't used his 4 years up and he reshirts this year.

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

goober said:
Chris definitely can't because he used his redshirt year. James can play as a graduate student if he hasn't used his 4 years up and he reshirts this year.

That is nice to know, Now with James Wan back next year after his recovery from his injury this year, next year Stanford could dominate the College tennis once again, Matt Bruch will be back as junior and better than ever and blake Muller will improve and coach said he is getting one recruit that is one of the best junior players in the country so next year Stanford will win the NCAA , My bold prediction.

35ft6 · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
Wow , lots of critics on my comparison i see. But mark my words, surapol will be a top #100 player in the aTP tour. I can see the talent in this guy like instinct for the ball, reading his opponents, feel at the net and Speed like no other, hewitt like speed. He is just a #3 player right now, but he will dominate college tennis next year as #1.

Okay. Hopefully this thread survives. Don't think he'll ever crack the top 100. We can resurrect this thread every year. In the meanwhile, we'll see how he does in the challengers.

But it's just a funny title. Chang won the Zoo's 18's at age 15, won a round at the US Open at age 15, got to the semi's of an ATP event a month later, and then won his first ATP title at 16. Of course, at 17, he won the French Open. At age 22, Surapol hasn't even won an ATP match yet so unless he has a time machine, not really sure how he's on his way to becoming a Michael Chang, who, by the way, was ranked in the top 10 4 years by the time he was 22.

More realistic to say he can perhaps have Alex Kim's career if he wins the NCAA's next year and absolutely dominates. But even then, he hasn't come close to matching Alex's college and junior accomplishments, and Alex never cracked the top 100, so it's still a stretch. The thing is, that kind of consistent, counterpunching game based on speed, works well at junior levels, but not as good in college, and definitely not that well in the pros. Sure, there people who buck the trend, but lately they seem to be guys who more or less grew up on clay. Like compare Rochus:

dvanced to junior SF at Roland Garros and Wimbledon in 1997...Won Wimbledon junior doubles title (w/Federer) in 1998...Finished No. 11 in junior rankings in 1997 and No. 19 following year

To Surapol, who finished 37th in the country as a junior. Just saying, that I kind of think you watched a college match and are a little emphatic on this kid's future prospects. He's going to be 24 by the time he joins the tour. Better than probably anybody on these boards, but...

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

35ft6 said:
Okay. Hopefully this thread survives. Don't think he'll ever crack the top 100. We can resurrect this thread every year. In the meanwhile, we'll see how he does in the challengers.

But it's just a funny title. Chang won the Zoo's 18's at age 15, won a round at the US Open at age 15, got to the semi's of an ATP event a month later, and then won his first ATP title at 16. Of course, at 17, he won the French Open. At age 22, Surapol hasn't even won an ATP match yet so unless he has a time machine, not really sure how he's on his way to becoming a Michael Chang, who, by the way, was ranked in the top 10 4 years by the time he was 22.

More realistic to say he can perhaps have Alex Kim's career if he wins the NCAA's next year and absolutely dominates. But even then, he hasn't come close to matching Alex's college and junior accomplishments, and Alex never cracked the top 100, so it's still a stretch. The thing is, that kind of consistent, counterpunching game based on speed, works well at junior levels, but not as good in college, and definitely not that well in the pros. Sure, there people who buck the trend, but lately they seem to be guys who more or less grew up on clay. Like compare Rochus: To Surapol, who finished 37th in the country as a junior. Just saying, that I kind of think you watched a college match and are a little emphatic on this kid's future prospects. He's going to be 24 by the time he joins the tour. Better than probably anybody on these boards, but...

Then what makes Surapol so different from Rochus ? I see nothing but similarities.

35ft6 · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
Then what makes Surapol so different from Rochus ? I see nothing but similarities.

Rochus was number 11 ranked junior IN THE WORLD. Surapol was 37th in the USA. Rochus was ATP's newcomer of the year when he was 19. Surapol was playing number 6 for UCLA at the same age. Are the differences becoming more obvious yet?

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

35ft6 said:
Rochus was number 11 ranked junior IN THE WORLD. Surapol was 37th in the USA. Rochus was ATP's newcomer of the year when he was 19. Surapol was playing number 6 for UCLA at the same age. Are the differences becoming more obvious yet?

It is only telling me that surapol is a late bloomer like many Americans are. Does name Todd Martin ring a bell ??

Mick · Feb 19, 2007

It's not that easy to become the next Michael Chang. He has got to win a lot of tournaments to measure up.

Michael Chang's record:

travlerajm · Feb 19, 2007

I think many people don't realize one of the things that Chang had that made him so good. Yes he was fast, but there are a lot of guys that were probably just as fast as he was. IMO, Chang had one of the top 5 forehands in his era.

Now I'm not saying it was one of the biggest forehands, but I'm saying it was among the best. It was insanely accurate.

I saw him drilling with his brother/coach before an exo in 1996, and they had construction cones set up on the court in the corners near the baseline. From behind the baseline, he averaged about 8 out of 10 shots hitting the cones. It was an impressive performance.

IMO, Chang probably had the most underrated forehand in history, bar none. I haven't seen Surapol, but something tells me his forehand isn't close to Chang's league. It takes more than speed and pretty strokes, my friend.

Fedace · Feb 19, 2007

travlerajm said:
I think many people don't realize one of the things that Chang had that made him so good. Yes he was fast, but there are a lot of guys that were probably just as fast as he was. IMO, Chang had one of the top 5 forehands in his era.

Now I'm not saying it was one of the biggest forehands, but I'm saying it was among the best. It was insanely accurate.

I saw him drilling with his brother/coach before an exo in 1996, and they had construction cones set up on the court in the corners near the baseline. From behind the baseline, he averaged about 8 out of 10 shots hitting the cones. It was an impressive performance.

IMO, Chang probably had the most underrated forehand in history, bar none. I haven't seen Surapol, but something tells me his forehand isn't close to Chang's league. It takes more than speed and pretty strokes, my friend.

I was comparing him more to Rochus not chang. and yes his forehand is pretty good, and his serve is just as good as chang's

sureshs · Feb 19, 2007

armand said:
Short people are very fortunate because they have the advantage in gymnastics.

And horse racing.

dukemunson · Feb 19, 2007

I like your enthusiasm for the guy as he's a nice guy but there is absolutely no chance he makes it into the top 400...it's not even a remote possibility. Coming out at 24 with no wildcards is one strike against you...being a guy who gets few to no free points on his serve is another strike, etc...You just really have no idea of the professional game. Now Benjamin Kohlloeffel (UCLA's #1) is a guy that could crack the top 200 but Surapol just doesnt have any of the tools to make it. He's a poor mans James Wan who was a poor mans chris lam who is a poor mans Andrew Park who was a poor mans Kevin Kim who was a poor mans etc etc...until you get to Rochus and Chang eight levels later. What the point of the thread comes down to is that people want to believe that their own kid, someone they've hit next to at the club, watched win a local tourny etc...has the tools to make it when frankly the its just not realistic. For every Sam Querrey there is a Ryan Moore, Andrew Park, Chase Exxon, etc...guy that dominated much more then Surapol but never had any pro prospects. Respect and appreciate Chris for what he is...a guy who has played a lot of matches over the years and know's how to win at the 3, 4, 5 and 6 hole of college tennis. He's never going to play and win at 1 but with his consistency and speed he can definetely help a team make a run at the title...perhaps the best comparison is to a guy he shared the Bruin courts with his freshman year, Erfan Djahangiri...a guy who played between 3 and 6 over his career putting together a ridiculous record of beating up on what the lower parts of the lower teams in the Pac-10 threw at him...I'm all for UCLA this year but remember when you watch the next UCLA match how much better the pro's are then those guys...it would be painful to watch what a guy like a Rochus would do to Surapol...

goober · Feb 19, 2007

Well I looked up Surapol's record this year. He has a very respectable 15-4 record playing at the #3 spot and tournament play. He losses came to 3 ranked players and one unranked player. His best wins are over #82 Brandon Wai and #44 Matko Maravic. Solid college record no doubt, but I guess I am still having a hard time envisioning the next Rochus or Chang, but I am glad you are his biggest fan

callitout · Feb 19, 2007

Thor said:
i just counted,there are only 5 guys in the top 25 shorter than 6"0(2 in the top 10):
5"9 - 1 player(ferrer)
5"10 - 1 player(davydenko)
5"11 - 3 players(hewitt,nalbandian and robredo)
most
theres no question height is getting a serious factor here

Nalbandian is 5 11...nonsense. I stood next to him face to face. Nice guy, but 5 9 tops. Ferrer is more like 5 7.
I agree that everything else equal height is an advantage in tennis, but there are a lot of guys who exaggerate their height on the official site.

Lefty Spin · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace, Surapol actually won the second set in the match against Devin Mullings from Ohio State not the first. Also, Mullings is definately not talentless. He is also a very short player who fights for every point. He is ranked 42nd and posesses all of the skills in which you rave about Surapol. (although new rankings will come out tomorrow). I personally think he's faster than Surapol with a little more pop in his strokes. I think Surapol has better point construction but its close. I don't think Surapol will be a top 100 player. It is my understanding that he may not even try to play the pro tour once he graduates. He is actually a red-shirt junior so he will have another year of eligibility left.

goober · Feb 19, 2007

Lefty Spin said:
He is actually a red-shirt junior so he will have another year of eligibility left.

Hmm that is interesting because the UCLA team website lists him as a red shirt senior and lists his activity for 4 prior years(starting in 2002-3 season) with one red shirt year with the current year being his 5th and final year.

http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-tennis/mtt/surapol_chris00.html

Grimjack · Feb 19, 2007

Fedace said:
Chris is by far the fastest player in college tennis and has fairly big serve for a 5'6" guy.

I don't know who the fastest player in college tennis is, but I guarantee you he is not 5'6". Human physiology just doesn't work like that.

FitzRoy · Feb 19, 2007

Grimjack said:
I don't know who the fastest player in college tennis is, but I guarantee you he is not 5'6". Human physiology just doesn't work like that.

Is the human physiology cutoff 5'8" or so, then? (Maurice Green). I've met an NFL player who's about 5'6 (though listed a little taller), Dante Hall, who I would wager would be in contention for "fastest player in college tennis" if he played college tennis.

travlerajm · Feb 19, 2007

Grimjack said:
I don't know who the fastest player in college tennis is, but I guarantee you he is not 5'6". Human physiology just doesn't work like that.

A 5'6" guy has an advantage for court coverage because it's easier to change direction faster when you are smaller. The laws of physics work like that.

The square-cube law says that when you scale things up, they can't accelerate as fast. If you take two people with the same proportions, but one is twice the height of the other, then the taller guy will be 4 times as strong and he will weigh 8 times as much. That means that the shorter guy would have twice the strength-to-weight ratio of the taller guy.

This is the reason why an ant can lift 20 times its weight, and a hummingbird can flap its wings 70 times per second.

35ft6 · Feb 20, 2007

Fedace said:
It is only telling me that surapol is a late bloomer like many Americans are. Does name Todd Martin ring a bell ??

I see. You're Chris' agent...

By the way, yeah, I remember 6'5" Todd Martin, when he was Chris' age he was going 5 sets with Pete Sampras at the US Open.

slim · Feb 20, 2007

I played this kid in juniors, he was a lot better than his older brother peter. Hes very talented, but the pro tour is a different level. I wish him the best, im rooting for him!

Fedace · Feb 20, 2007

slim said:
I played this kid in juniors, he was a lot better than his older brother peter. Hes very talented, but the pro tour is a different level. I wish him the best, im rooting for him!

Chris is definitely ext talented, he has not even tapped into 45% of his abilities. And only reason he lost to that Devin Mullings is he was dead tired from playing 3 straight days of tough grinding tennis. why won't they believe me ?

Fedace · Feb 20, 2007

I will also boldly go on to state that Chris Surapol will go on to Win French open one day, just like Michael Chang did. Mark my Words.

35ft6 · Feb 20, 2007

^ Oh, I will.

Chris Surapol, Next Michael Chang ? Not Yet But He Is On His Way.

Banned

Rookie

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

New User

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

Rookie

Professional

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Legend

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Banned

Banned

Banned

Legend

Banned

Legend

Banned

Legend

Banned

Legend

Banned

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Legend

Professional

Rookie

Legend

Banned

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

New User

Banned

Banned

Legend

Similar threads