CA takes five games off kohlschreiber
- Thread starter mikej
- Start date
Actually thought he competed pretty well for a 17 year old.
Not even sure he will be going to college?
Granite Chief will fill you in but I would have him grinding futures for another year.
Nick from Oz did a pretty good job against Ferru too but don't know what is expected from these guys
...The tour has got tougher & even for the accelerated chosen ones it is going to get harder. Please don't mention Rafa ,he is a freak!
CA will be fine.
F
Freak4tennis
Guest
Not just CA but any of them with pro aspirations. Not necessarily for the education (although that's a good fallback) and not necessarily for the full four years.
It will take a minimum of three years for a yet to be fully matured player to be able to grind deep in futures AND challengers. That equates to a min. of $80K - $100K in just travel expenses. With a greater travel budget needed for Challengers. Futures tend to be "lumped" 3 in one area, then 2 in another etc. While Challengers it's 1 here, 1 there, etc.
At that point if any of them are lucky they will be inside the top 300. If not then it's at least another year or two to get the points to crack the 300 mark.
In my opinion the D1 system is clearly starting to feed the pro ranks. I do see more and more domestic and foreign college players competing in futures and challengers during the school year, and the summers.
Also I read somewhere (and it would be great if it was proven out by some data counters), that there was only 1 or 2 players UNDER the age of 20 inside the top 300, but there were over 50 over the age of 28. Which, if true would indicate that the game is moving to an older, smarter, and more experienced pool of players. This gives 2-4 years playing D1 tennis a very smart play.
F
Freak4tennis
Guest
I think it's a number of factors;
1) A guarantee of hotel accommodations for main draw players
2) Prize money is much higher
3) Ranking cut offs are much stronger
4) the "weeding out" process. Only those that truly deserve to be playing them will step up, play them and succeed.
This is where D1 tennis appears to have a huge advantage. Most top 3 players at most of the strong conference schools are at the strong futures or weak challenger level. The list is really really long. Recently of course, Steve Johnson, Blaz Rola, Rhyne Williams, Bradley Klahn among many many others.
I do think it has become a form of "feeder system" very much like football, or basketball. Those that succeed do seem to do well, and appear to be prepared for the grind. While having something to fall back on may be a weakness, in my opinion, if you want it bad enough you wont think about what you have to fall back on.
lol.
Not really sure why CA is being discussed here.
Is he even going to college?
He may be taking another path...
The discussion about futures? challengers & how little money is offered
for those that are trying to climb the rankings has been a long one...very
tough & getting tougher. So many are struggling.
But just because the road is long & hard , doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
Actually thought he competed pretty well for a 17 year old.
Not even sure he will be going to college?
Granite Chief will fill you in but I would have him grinding futures for another year.
Nick from Oz did a pretty good job against Ferru too but don't know what is expected from these guys
The tour has got tougher & even for the accelerated chosen ones it is going to get harder. Please don't mention Rafa ,he is a freak!
CA will be fine.
Agreed. Collin did a pretty good job but he's not going to beat or even be close a guy who is top 25 in the world. Nick K played great too, very impressed by his 1st set against Ferrer, and the kid has fire power. Reminds of Isner...
But in reality times have changed. There used to be a time when talented kids could come and turn pro at 15 and be successful on tour! Agassi did, Gasquet did, Nadal did at either 15 or 16. Impressive. Today, even a 18 yo finds it hard to compete with 20-25 yo guys in the top 100.
Collin did great, and its all positive for him. Right now he belongs with bathe juniors. Come back in 2 yrs and show the world what ou can do!
Btw, he could go to college but he is already a step ahead the top 18yo who are going to college this year, so... If he goes to college, he will dominate and his progress will be zero compared to training with pros. He has too much consistency for the college guys.
tacoben
Semi-Pro
I got to watch CA's match yesterday. I think the venue and the wind may have overwhelmed/unsettled him. He showed a lot of potential and it will be interesting if he goes the college route or pro. It's amazing that, a little over a year ago, he played in an adult open tournament in my town (which he won), and to go on and win KZoo....with an amazing lopsided win over GB in the semis. Seems that CA has been flying under the radar. Got to give the kid his props!
Last edited:
Clemson_tennis
Legend
You don't even have to go to the top guys for examples of college guys being top futures players. Several times this summer a pretty good but not great college player made a deep run into a future overseas. David Sofaer #6 for Pepperdine won one! It shows that college tennis is pretty good these days.
dominikk1985
Legend
I think it's difficult to keep referencing Isner though. A guy with his physical attributes and serve come around very infrequently.
There are currently 4 former collegians in the top 100 singles ranking list and 7 former collegians ranked from 101-150.
While some players have shown success, I think there is a big difference between a "tour player" and "slam champion." I am all for going to college and huge advocate of college tennis. But, I have to agree with Lansdorp that by going to college you have about an EXTREMELY slim chance of winning a major in singles in the future.
Whatever this kid does, I support him either way. Most American tennis kids have loaded parents anyway and can afford to bum around playing Futures for 10 years.
There are currently 4 former collegians in the top 100 singles ranking list and 7 former collegians ranked from 101-150.
While some players have shown success, I think there is a big difference between a "tour player" and "slam champion." I am all for going to college and huge advocate of college tennis. But, I have to agree with Lansdorp that by going to college you have about an EXTREMELY slim chance of winning a major in singles in the future.
Whatever this kid does, I support him either way. Most American tennis kids have loaded parents anyway and can afford to bum around playing Futures for 10 years.
tennisballer
Rookie
@goldy0084. I agree with almost everything you are saying. But the problem you stated "If you go to college, you have an extremely thin chance of winning a major in singles..." Is actually the main issue with not only usta player development but also steering kids to go pro who are not ready. It's been well documented but there is no way of producing a singles champion and in reference to American tennis, for about a 4-5 year window in the early to mid 2000's we lost about 6-10 kids who should've gone to college but instead went pro (scoville Jenkins, Scott Oudsema, Phillip Simmonds, just to name a few). As several posters above pointed out, the level of college tennis has grown leaps and bounds in the last 5 years and seems to only been trending upwards. Lastly, you point out that its difficult to keep pointing to Isner as an example because of his obvious physical advantages, but even as he has stated himself on numerous occasions college tennis allowed him to mature, grow into his body, play learn to play in a pressure-packed environment and also get used to winning (which I don't think can be understated). All these things, in addition to his physical tools, have allowed to become a world class player. Not to mention Kevin Anderson, Somdev Devarman, both who are representing college tennis very well this week at the open.
How many men's players are winning majors recently? How about how many different men in last 5 yrs? Slim chances no matter what - but sure the next federer or nadal won't come through the college ranks just like the next Lebron won't graduate from college
There are absolutely a lot of guys who should have gone to college. You could probably add HUGE chunk of names to that list...especially guys that you have probably not heard of that have toiled in the 500-1000 range and/or quit pretty soon after there opportunity enroll in D1 vanished. Of the guys you listed, Sco actually had a great chance though...big game, always played when in practice when I saw him on tour..but just couldn't put it together/between the ears. Anyhow, I know it goes both ways. Sommie, Kevin, and Isner are all representing college tennis very well. But, on the whole, it's damn tough to be an "impact player" on tour if you do four years of college (although I know how much Isner has credited his time in Georgia. But, let's be serious. I think we all knew he had a pretty legitimate shot to be a decent touring pro while he was at UGA...Kevin included)...which leads me into what mikej said.
Mike I am well aware of the select group of players who have won a singles slam over the past 10 years. So, you are absolutely right in that regard. It's tough ANY way you shake it!! But, again, I think it is really difficult in general to break out on tour and be an "impact player" if you go to school. I am a college tennis fanatic! But, most of the "developmental coaching" in college that people talk about is mostly a myth. Much harder for a guy to succeed in a large group where 8-12 people have different wants, needs, etc, and you cannot receive constant feedback and attention. Regardless, I am a huge college tennis guy..so don't get me wrong!
Mike I am well aware of the select group of players who have won a singles slam over the past 10 years. So, you are absolutely right in that regard. It's tough ANY way you shake it!! But, again, I think it is really difficult in general to break out on tour and be an "impact player" if you go to school. I am a college tennis fanatic! But, most of the "developmental coaching" in college that people talk about is mostly a myth. Much harder for a guy to succeed in a large group where 8-12 people have different wants, needs, etc, and you cannot receive constant feedback and attention. Regardless, I am a huge college tennis guy..so don't get me wrong!
Clemson_tennis
Legend
Yeah exactly. If your criteria for judging if a player should go to college is winning a slam then you can look at the hundreds of guys who went straight pro who never won a slam.
Altamarino isn't winning any slams. Neither is any other guy ego is going into college. You know who else isn't winning any slams, basically all of the worlds too juniors who aren't going to college.
No, no definitely not my criteria. Absolutely right that many top ITF juniors never sniffed a Slam. You of all people should know working at Clemson about this and seeing Uriguen play : ) Ignatik and Pless were both ITF #1 and have never broke the top 60. I am simply stating it is exponentially harder to be a quote unquote impact player on tour if you do choose to play college. I'm not saying it's impossible and I am certainy not saying the barometer for choosing/bypassing college should be your perceived ability to win a Slam...just don't ever envision it happening for any future guys coming out.
F
Freak4tennis
Guest
To me way you judge is;
1) Is the player inside the top 400
2) Does the player have the financial means (parents, federation, or sponsor) to sustain the expense of futures and challenger level play for at least 3-5 years before breaking through main draw 250's.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is a yes. Then absolutely bypass college. If no, then the college route is a very viable option while still playing futures and challengers for one to three years.
Also as I stated many times the level of competition at the college level is at least high level futures, and low level challengers. If you have the game and do well you have a sliver of a chance at succeeding on tour.
tennisballer
Rookie
I would say 400 is still pushing it. Rola, Cunha and even Jenkins had rankings near that while they were in college. I'd say top 250 just to be safe. Otherwise, like you said, go to college and you can keep playing futures and challengers while you are in school.
I am not sure whether people are asking the right questions. College may be the right option for some but not for everyone, independently of the tennis abilities of the kid. To simplify the picture, I think there are 3 scenarios:
1) the kid is super talented, physically strong AND wants to become pro
2) the kid is somewhat talented but not the next Fed or Nadal
3) the kid is good but nothing special AND wants to become pro
Who should go to college, and who should go pro?
Clearly #3 should go to college, and #1 should go pro.
Now #2 is the most problematic case because it all depends on his
Motivation to go pro or not, and his willingness to improve and do the
necessary sacrifice to become pro.
1) the kid is super talented, physically strong AND wants to become pro
2) the kid is somewhat talented but not the next Fed or Nadal
3) the kid is good but nothing special AND wants to become pro
Who should go to college, and who should go pro?
Clearly #3 should go to college, and #1 should go pro.
Now #2 is the most problematic case because it all depends on his
Motivation to go pro or not, and his willingness to improve and do the
necessary sacrifice to become pro.
Recent examples of these scenarios are:
Steve Johnson, was talented but had weaknesses in his game and decided to go to college. Improved his game in college and now turned pro. Good decision, and it is paying off!
Bradley Klahn, same as above!
Other examples are Somdev, Kevin etc....
Less recently, but still surprised no one mentioned them.... The Bryan bros, yes they never were that good in singles but they made a career in doubles with multiple grand slam wins!
I would consider all of these in group #2. They were talented and wanted to play pro tennis, but decided to play it safe and go to college. Smart choice.
Isner, clearly a physical phenomenon, and a strong desire to become pro but probably wasn't completely ready for bathe pros.
Decided to go to college first. Worked for him very well!
Steve Johnson, was talented but had weaknesses in his game and decided to go to college. Improved his game in college and now turned pro. Good decision, and it is paying off!
Bradley Klahn, same as above!
Other examples are Somdev, Kevin etc....
Less recently, but still surprised no one mentioned them.... The Bryan bros, yes they never were that good in singles but they made a career in doubles with multiple grand slam wins!
I would consider all of these in group #2. They were talented and wanted to play pro tennis, but decided to play it safe and go to college. Smart choice.
Isner, clearly a physical phenomenon, and a strong desire to become pro but probably wasn't completely ready for bathe pros.
Decided to go to college first. Worked for him very well!
Now, there are examples of talented kids who were in college and decided to leaved college to go pro. Many recent examples: kosakowski, novikov, sand green, Williams, etc....
Did they make the right choice? Yes and no. Let me try to explain.
Kosakowski spend 1 year at Ucla and stated several times that he hated college.
He really just wanted to play tennis and become pro. In his case, college was not a good choice, and even if he had stayed four years he may not have got his degree. Does it mean he will be a successful pro? No. After one year on the tour, he has not had any significant wins, and is now out injured. Best of luck to him, but the point is that in his case he didn't seem to be cut for college no matter what. Some people will be successful even without a college degree, playing tennis or not.
Did they make the right choice? Yes and no. Let me try to explain.
Kosakowski spend 1 year at Ucla and stated several times that he hated college.
He really just wanted to play tennis and become pro. In his case, college was not a good choice, and even if he had stayed four years he may not have got his degree. Does it mean he will be a successful pro? No. After one year on the tour, he has not had any significant wins, and is now out injured. Best of luck to him, but the point is that in his case he didn't seem to be cut for college no matter what. Some people will be successful even without a college degree, playing tennis or not.
Novikov, one of the fastest arm I've seen in tennis, and a lot of talent. Quit Ucla to turn pro, even though he has not shown he was among bathe elite of college players... Novikov is a great player but you don't decide to become pro because you have a super fast serve , although not very consistent, and a big FH. Steve Johnson went from a very good player in his first year at USC, but with a weak BH, and a few other holes in his game, to the best player in college in his jr. and sr. years. He had a legitimate shot at the pros. Novikov doesn't. He is still very slow around the court, not fit enough, his BH is weak compared to most pros.
Good luck to him, but I am not sure it was a good choice at that time. Should have improve while in college and show he could be #1 at Ucla first, and top 3 in college. Now, of course, maybe he just didn't like college. Maybe he has rich parents who can support him on tour. Maybe college was not for Him in the first place.
Good luck to him, but I am not sure it was a good choice at that time. Should have improve while in college and show he could be #1 at Ucla first, and top 3 in college. Now, of course, maybe he just didn't like college. Maybe he has rich parents who can support him on tour. Maybe college was not for Him in the first place.
tennis7777777
Rookie
Some people crack me up.....do you realize his backhand is better then his forehand?
Clemson_tennis
Legend
Don't be silly
tennis7777777
Rookie
Clemson are you suggesting his backhand is better?
Who? Is there only one player being discussed in this thread? I see about a dozen names in the thread.
Clemson_tennis
Legend
I was talking about Steve Johnson. That's who I thought you were responding about.
tennis7777777
Rookie
Ok ok Novikov for me my bad
dominikk1985
Legend
I know isner is a type of player that has special weapons but other players like steve johnson or bradley klahn played college too, as did international players like ben becker and alex waske.
Also I think that the internationalisation of college play is very good. there are guys who think it is bad that foreign players steal scholarships and college opportunities from american players (see wayne bryans letter
http://www.tennis-prose.com/articles/wayne-bryans-letter-to-the-usta/) however I think what US tennis needs quality, not quantity.
of course the foreign players take away a lot of spots but the USTA cannot worry about "good american kids" getting their college paid. the do not need top500 players but top100 players.
and the internationalisation means that less americans make it to D1 schools but those who make it face really good opponents and improve.
It is certainly possible to make the top100 out of college as many players proved.
of course most top20 players are not going to college but IMO this is not because college hurts their developement, most guys with top20 talent (i.e guys that at least make quarters at Jr. grand slams or are top10 in the ITF junior WORLD (not national) ranking in HIGH SCHOOL) won't go to college anyway.
players that don't make the top20 after college likely wouldn't have made them anyway.
Also I think that the internationalisation of college play is very good. there are guys who think it is bad that foreign players steal scholarships and college opportunities from american players (see wayne bryans letter
http://www.tennis-prose.com/articles/wayne-bryans-letter-to-the-usta/) however I think what US tennis needs quality, not quantity.
of course the foreign players take away a lot of spots but the USTA cannot worry about "good american kids" getting their college paid. the do not need top500 players but top100 players.
and the internationalisation means that less americans make it to D1 schools but those who make it face really good opponents and improve.
It is certainly possible to make the top100 out of college as many players proved.
of course most top20 players are not going to college but IMO this is not because college hurts their developement, most guys with top20 talent (i.e guys that at least make quarters at Jr. grand slams or are top10 in the ITF junior WORLD (not national) ranking in HIGH SCHOOL) won't go to college anyway.
players that don't make the top20 after college likely wouldn't have made them anyway.
Last edited:
Clemson_tennis
Legend
I can't pull for Isner today. Just can't pull for a Dawg in any form today.
It is part of the code of silence, to keep outsiders in the dark on these discussions.
I cannot break the code of silence, but I can drop hints: CA won Kalamazoo this year in a surprise run, and got a U.S. Open wild card as a result, and is also playing in the U.S. Open Junior draw.
MarTennis
Semi-Pro
No rich parents...
I am pretty sure the plan was pro tour all the way. Novikov's father was my son's (and others) conditioning coach at Claremont Hotel junior HP program this summer. I love him, hard as nails; bet your bottom dollar his dad is personally handling the conditioning now, 'cause they aren't rich.
I am pretty sure the plan was pro tour all the way. Novikov's father was my son's (and others) conditioning coach at Claremont Hotel junior HP program this summer. I love him, hard as nails; bet your bottom dollar his dad is personally handling the conditioning now, 'cause they aren't rich.
thank you I just was about to come on and ask if this is on TV!
GRANITECHIEF
Hall of Fame
Armstrong Stadium! What an honor! Success so far in the Jr. event with wins over the Asian and European champs.
Go CA!
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/1081079/
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/console...en.org/en_US/interactive/video/live.html&alt=
Go CA!
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/1081079/
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/console...en.org/en_US/interactive/video/live.html&alt=
Bash and Crash
Semi-Pro
Hey Granite, are you guys playing Tiburon or Napa challengers coming up? Way to go today, nice come back.
GRANITECHIEF
Hall of Fame
^^ Very likely the case.
Yes, he hung tough when the going was rough, down a set and 4-4.
Yes, he hung tough when the going was rough, down a set and 4-4.
Bash and Crash
Semi-Pro
If we still had the junior forum this thread would be 30 pages by now, and great discussion about what CA should do in the next year.
no, if we still had the junior forum we would have gotten sidetracked into talking about a junior who has never won a single notable tournament in his life
as much as i was a part of the problem briefly in that forum, good riddance to it - hope it never comes back
Similar threads
