Best College Players v. Next Gen Guys

#1
I am really enjoying tennis Channel‘s coverage of some college matchups that I’ve seen recently. It is really my first exposure in a while to college level tennis. The camera angles can understandably be a little tough at times, however.

This may be a basic question, but what I am wondering is whether the best college players (men) could hang with guys like Chung Hyeon, Shapovolov, Zverev, Tiafoe, etc. in a match. How noticeable would the disparity be? Are these guys just prodigy/virtuoso types or would it be close? Appreciate your thoughts.
 
#2
There are maybe 3-4 college players who would give an OK match against those guys (think 6-2, 6-4). Everyone else would be lucky to win two or three games.

Not sure I see a McDonald or Norrie in college tennis this year

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
#3
I am really enjoying tennis Channel‘s coverage of some college matchups that I’ve seen recently. It is really my first exposure in a while to college level tennis. The camera angles can understandably be a little tough at times, however.

This may be a basic question, but what I am wondering is whether the best college players (men) could hang with guys like Chung Hyeon, Shapovolov, Zverev, Tiafoe, etc. in a match. How noticeable would the disparity be? Are these guys just prodigy/virtuoso types or would it be close? Appreciate your thoughts.
I dont think any current college player can hang with the guys you list who all are or will be ranked in the top 60 in the world. However William Blumberg, ATP 619 and one of the top college players, beat Dennis Kudla, currently ATP 164, 3,2 in July 2017 so the top college guys have a shot at the guys ranked 150-200. Tiafoe actually lost to Kudla in the Dallas Challenger Feb 2017.
 
#4
I am really enjoying tennis Channel‘s coverage of some college matchups that I’ve seen recently. It is really my first exposure in a while to college level tennis. The camera angles can understandably be a little tough at times, however.

This may be a basic question, but what I am wondering is whether the best college players (men) could hang with guys like Chung Hyeon, Shapovolov, Zverev, Tiafoe, etc. in a match. How noticeable would the disparity be? Are these guys just prodigy/virtuoso types or would it be close? Appreciate your thoughts.
NO, they will get blown out, like 6-2, 6-1. Chung would blow away Torpegaar 6-0, 6-0. Talent level is just too high for next gen. College guys go to college because they just don't have the talent for top 20 ATP tennis.
 
#6
I am really enjoying tennis Channel‘s coverage of some college matchups that I’ve seen recently. It is really my first exposure in a while to college level tennis. The camera angles can understandably be a little tough at times, however.

This may be a basic question, but what I am wondering is whether the best college players (men) could hang with guys like Chung Hyeon, Shapovolov, Zverev, Tiafoe, etc. in a match. How noticeable would the disparity be? Are these guys just prodigy/virtuoso types or would it be close? Appreciate your thoughts.
Depends on what you mean by hang with them.

A guy like Redlicki may pose some problems if he serves well. Blumberg has the game to hang..would like to see how Geller's game matures by the end of the spring. Torpegaard offered a little resistance against Nadal in Davis Cup a few years ago.
 
#9
How can you idiots say that when Noah Rubin lost matches in college the year before going 6-7,6-7,6-7 against Fed. Nevermind guys like Isner and Johnson.

J
Agreed. Last years's NCAA singles champ went 5 sets with Mischa Zverev at the US Open. Top tier college guys are pretty much already pro level players without many (or any) pro results.
 
#10
How can you idiots say that when Noah Rubin lost matches in college the year before going 6-7,6-7,6-7 against Fed. Nevermind guys like Isner and Johnson.

J
Agreed. Last years's NCAA singles champ went 5 sets with Mischa Zverev at the US Open. Top tier college guys are pretty much already pro level players without many (or any) pro results.
 
#14
Just like my post said, there are 3-4 guys who could compete. The rest would get smoked.

Vukic, Blumberg, Redlicki, Torp and Geller are guys who should have a shot at ATP challenger level. Not sure I see anyone else over next year or so

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
#15
Just like my post said, there are 3-4 guys who could compete. The rest would get smoked.

Vukic, Blumberg, Redlicki, Torp and Geller are guys who should have a shot at ATP challenger level. Not sure I see anyone else over next year or so

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Geller is definitely top 10 ATP player in the future with that 140 mph serves. and I would say Redlicki has a good shot at top 50 in the tour if he can improve his movement and footwork. he has the weapons for sure and being Lefty really helps.
 
#16
Geller is definitely top 10 ATP player in the future with that 140 mph serves. and I would say Redlicki has a good shot at top 50 in the tour if he can improve his movement and footwork. he has the weapons for sure and being Lefty really helps.
Didn't Geller just lose to Petros 3 and 4 at National Indoors? Where indoor courts should def favor a big guy like a Geller with a big serve?
 
#18
Didn't Geller just lose to Petros 3 and 4 at National Indoors? Where indoor courts should def favor a big guy like a Geller with a big serve?
just a bump on the road to top 10 in ATP tour. and everyone has growing pains and learning curve. Geller is 10 X more talented than Petros will ever be.
 
#19
Let's not forget that Torp has already won a challenger event. All these guys can easily compete on the challenger tour. Going past that will be tricky.
Yeh, those guys will do OK on Challenger. I doubt they would really compete with Shapovalov, Zverev and whatnot. Maybe 6-3, 6-2

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
#21
Shapovalov lost in a Challenger literally two weeks before he beat DelPo and Rafa. What is wrong with you guys?

J
Because outliers aren't what is being discussed. Sure Torp or Blumberg could beat Tiafoe or Zverev in a match this week but if they play ten times, he isnt winning more than one or two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#22
Because outliers aren't what is being discussed. Sure Torp or Blumberg could beat Tiafoe or Zverev in a match this week but if they play ten times, he isnt winning more than one or two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
He isn't going to get bageled more than once or twice either, they will mostly be competitive matches. The OP asked if they could hang and the answer is yes. They will most often put up a respectable score ie better than 2&2.

J
 
#24
He isn't going to get bageled more than once or twice either, they will mostly be competitive matches. The OP asked if they could hang and the answer is yes. They will most often put up a respectable score ie better than 2&2.

J
it isn't the score that counts, it is about wins and losses
 
#28
I saw Redlicki at a Futures tourney about 4 years ago. I just remember his funny sounding name....and then saw his huge serve! I think he lost early in that event. Funny enough, Frances Tiafoe was there too. I think he was only about 16 years old. I hadn't heard or read the name, Redlicki, since then.... until I saw this thread. Sounds like he's done well in college.
 
#29
Didn't Geller just lose to Petros 3 and 4 at National Indoors? Where indoor courts should def favor a big guy like a Geller with a big serve?
Those courts and conditions were more like outdoor courts at the National Indoors. Super super slow. And they wouldn't turn on the heat. Freezing.
 
#30
I saw Redlicki at a Futures tourney about 4 years ago. I just remember his funny sounding name....and then saw his huge serve! I think he lost early in that event. Funny enough, Frances Tiafoe was there too. I think he was only about 16 years old. I hadn't heard or read the name, Redlicki, since then.... until I saw this thread. Sounds like he's done well in college.
Very well I'd say. Something about his game is very awkward looking, but he kills the ball.
 
#32
Yeah that's true. I mean you often see mediocre college players enter futures and make the later rounds. I remember a couple summers ago when Chris Cooprider of UNC Wilmington (who was not ranked in the ITA 125 and played 2 or 3 for UNCW) randomly made 3 consecutive deep runs in Turkish future events. All the way to the final in one of them IIRC
 
#36
Here is the thing, the top college guys on a good day can hang with established pro’s, but they cannot do it consistently.

Some thoughts:

- How often do we see the “next big thing “ because they make a run in a tournament then they are seen a year later struggling to make the main draw. Professionals will find a weakness in an opponent *and* can exploit it consistently. Word will quickly get around about a player.

- Tennis is a game of percentages. Many players can hit a series of low percentage shots and string together a few games even against Nadal or Federer. Someone posted a YouTube vid of the 4.5 guy playing a game against Djokovic and winning it. He sure won’t win a match against Novak.

- “People” expect top pros to never lose a game or even a few points against a lower ranked opponent. The level between players is so close that of course anyone can lose points and games or even sets. But the percentages generally play out and the better player wins.

- Professional tennis players are insanely good. Honestly beyond what most people on this board can even relate to, tennis wise. I am not talking about all time greats, just journeymen pros. If the top college guys could transition to pro and compete every week at that level , there would be a lot more getting past the Futures level tour.

Anyway yes, top college players are extremely good, but it is all relative and beating professionals consistently just doesn’t happen without the time investment, experience and all the work that makes professionals, well, professionals!
 
#37
just a bump on the road to top 10 in ATP tour. and everyone has growing pains and learning curve. Geller is 10 X more talented than Petros will ever be.
Petros Chrysoschos is the most talented player in college tennis. He is top 100 level player. I'll take my shot and say he will be the NCAA champion this year.
 
#38
Petros Chrysoschos is the most talented player in college tennis. He is top 100 level player. I'll take my shot and say he will be the NCAA champion this year.
I wouldn't be surprised if he wins. Other likely winners could be Vukic, Torp, Blumberg, and maybe Geller.
 
#40
Petros Chrysoschos is the most talented player in college tennis. He is top 100 level player. I'll take my shot and say he will be the NCAA champion this year.
I'm assuming you are kidding? If all we did was forehand rallies, then sure, I can see that. For top 100, got to have more than one weapon and a way to mask deficiencies.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#41
Here is the thing, the top college guys on a good day can hang with established pro’s, but they cannot do it consistently.

Some thoughts:

- How often do we see the “next big thing “ because they make a run in a tournament then they are seen a year later struggling to make the main draw. Professionals will find a weakness in an opponent *and* can exploit it consistently. Word will quickly get around about a player.

- Tennis is a game of percentages. Many players can hit a series of low percentage shots and string together a few games even against Nadal or Federer. Someone posted a YouTube vid of the 4.5 guy playing a game against Djokovic and winning it. He sure won’t win a match against Novak.

- “People” expect top pros to never lose a game or even a few points against a lower ranked opponent. The level between players is so close that of course anyone can lose points and games or even sets. But the percentages generally play out and the better player wins.

- Professional tennis players are insanely good. Honestly beyond what most people on this board can even relate to, tennis wise. I am not talking about all time greats, just journeymen pros. If the top college guys could transition to pro and compete every week at that level , there would be a lot more getting past the Futures level tour.

Anyway yes, top college players are extremely good, but it is all relative and beating professionals consistently just doesn’t happen without the time investment, experience and all the work that makes professionals, well, professionals!
By hang with I thought he meant not be embarrassed by. Obviously if you could make the quarters of Wimbledon you wouldn't be playing college tennis, but to me hang with means you go and have a workout and play a couple practice sets and the other guy appreciates your hitting instead of thinking he just wasted two hours of his life.

J
 

db379

Hall of Fame
#42
The thing with college players is that they are obviously very good players and most of them are very talented, but they usually have some MAJOR weakness in their game, be it physical, technical or mental or a combination of these, compared to the top young pro players. Every player has weaknesses of course, but what I'm saying is that this puts them at a strong disadvantage against pros. Often times the serve or the BH are the weak links in their game, and the pros can make them pay for that.

That being said, I respect college players a lot, they are great athletes and players and they can give a good practice to any pro. In a match situation, they can still hang in there and win points and games for sure, but small things make a HUGE difference at this level. Look at a top pro who is slightly injured and whose motion is slightly impaired and they can easily lose to a guy outside the top 100 on this occasion. A college player could also push a good pro on the big stage if he's giving it 200%, but the pro might still win at only 80%.

Some of the top college players however will still make it on the pro tour after as few years of college tennis, and can be very successful e.g. Isner, Johnson, Anderson etc... however these are exceptions, not the rule.
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
#43
NO, they will get blown out, like 6-2, 6-1. Chung would blow away Torpegaar 6-0, 6-0. Talent level is just too high for next gen. College guys go to college because they just don't have the talent for top 20 ATP tennis.
It's not purely a talent issue. It's also an intensity and consistency issue. Top 200 pros have the ability to hit, while keeping the ball in, consistently harder and deeper than just about every college player I've ever seen. The college guys that make a successful transition to the pros e.g. Steve Johnson, generally have some growing pains in terms of adjusting to the greater intensity and pace the game is played at.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#44
It's not purely a talent issue. It's also an intensity and consistency issue. Top 200 pros have the ability to hit, while keeping the ball in, consistently harder and deeper than just about every college player I've ever seen. The college guys that make a successful transition to the pros e.g. Steve Johnson, generally have some growing pains in terms of adjusting to the greater intensity and pace the game is played at.
Steve Johnson who in his senior year of college made the third round of the US Open and the year after college went 5 sets with #10 in the world, or a different Steve Johnson?

J
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
#45
Steve Johnson who in his senior year of college made the third round of the US Open and the year after college went 5 sets with #10 in the world, or a different Steve Johnson?

J
Nice cherry picking. You're attempting to make a sarcastic point that's unfounded. That third round is his best showing to date at the US Open. You might as well chalk that effort up to "luck" given that he hasn't been able to break through there. Also, what does that or taking the world #10 to do with a college player having growing pains on tour? Whether it's getting used to the consistent pace of he pro game or the other physical/mental requirements, even the best college players are not without struggles.

Steven Johnson, as an example, admitted at one point that after winning everything in college he didn't think he was good enough to compete at the top of the pro game because wasn't used to losing so much. He made the physical adjustments (fitness, consistency, pace of shot, depth of shot, strategy) and now look at him.
 
Last edited:

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#46
Nice cherry picking. You're attempting to make a sarcastic point that's unfounded. That third round is his best showing to date at the US Open. You might as well chalk that effort up to "luck" given that he hasn't been able to break through there. Also, what does that or taking the world #10 to do with a college player having growing pains on tour? Whether it's getting used to the consistent pace of he pro game or the other physical/mental requirements, even the best college players are not without struggles.

Steven Johnson, as an example, admitted at one point that after winning everything in college he didn't think he was good enough to compete at the top of the pro game because wasn't used to losing so much. He made the physical adjustments (fitness, consistency, pace of shot, depth of shot, strategy) and now look at him.
I'm saying it was a bad example, he is ranked lower now than he was two years out of college, you could argue he hasn't gotten much better since his second professional year.

You said " Top 200 pros have the ability to hit, while keeping the ball in, consistently harder and deeper than just about every college player I've ever seen," and then used Johnson as an example.

I thought my sarcastic point was that Steve Johnson was more than capable of competing within the top 200 while still in college.

J
 
#47
Nadal was caught unprepared and he underestimated the college player. so Rafa played it like it was practice match and yet he still won easily
Professional tennis players treat every single match the same. It doesnt matter if they play someone who is 1900 or 5, they prepare and treat the match the same..
 
#49
The only recent college guys to make in the top 20 are Isner, Anderson, Johnson.

The reason is they all have world class serves. This is in spite of having flaws in backhands and movement. If you can hold you always have a chance.
 
#50
The thing with college players is that they are obviously very good players and most of them are very talented, but they usually have some MAJOR weakness in their game, be it physical, technical or mental or a combination of these, compared to the top young pro players. Every player has weaknesses of course, but what I'm saying is that this puts them at a strong disadvantage against pros. Often times the serve or the BH are the weak links in their game, and the pros can make them pay for that.
If you watch a lot of college and pro tennis one of the biggest differences you'll notice is service placement and consistency. College players don't hit very many aces/service winners. (Now part of this is the returner squeezing the lines by calling line clippers out), but typically college guys, even the top ones, don't use their serves as much of a weapon as they could. Especially in tight 3rd sets, most college guys just roll them in.

Pros are very good at mixing up placement and getting free points here and there, even guys who aren't known for a big serve.
 
Top