What a unique young fellaHis groundstrokes seems to be his best assets, pretty weak at the net.
Maybe let the dude grow the heck up and then we'll see? LOL
Maybe let the dude grow the heck up and then we'll see? LOL
He has great depth on his shots, there is djokerish potential in his game. Think of krygios maxing his potential
Another Di Minaur, with a bit more natural talent. Whether that will translate into slam winning is highly debatable. Biggest concern for me is health issues that forced him to quit on his major debut last year, will that be a chronic thing?
Already seeing "Baby Djokovic" comments, what a surprise!
No we shouldn't!
We use Becker and Wilander as role models.
He has great depth on his shots, there is djokerish potential in his game. Think of krygios maxing his potential
He's Djokovic but also Demon but also.... Kyrgios?Another Di Minaur, with a bit more natural talent. Whether that will translate into slam winning is highly debatable. Biggest concern for me is health issues that forced him to quit on his major debut last year, will that be a chronic thing?
Already seeing "Baby Djokovic" comments, what a surprise!
The window of 17 year old slam winners was very narrow, all in the 80s. Combination of the previous generation not being able to adapt to the new technology.Nobody will emulate their achievements at a young age. Nobody. Even Nadal did not. It is just not possible for a 17-year-old boy to win majors in today’s men’s game. We have to adopt different standards.
The window of 17 year old slam winners was very narrow, all in the 80s. Combination of the previous generation not being able to adapt to the new technology.
There is a height concern with Felix, most professional athletes his age have calcified their grow plates but if for instance he grows beyond 6'3 movement could be affected. Overall, I really like his game, hope he plays on some faster surfaces to see the benefit of swing weight and he starts swinging a hammerHe's Djokovic but also Demon but also.... Kyrgios?
mmkay
Currently things are trending older. But there's no way of knowing what is next - in the early 70s slam winners were eben older than now.Yeah, agreed. Won’t happen again. Even 18 is very unlikely, and I don’t think 19 is all that likely. Nadal is the only teen slam finalist since the start of 1991. It’s even an open question whether we’re likely to see many 20 or 21 year olds go deep in majors in the near future, though I think we will. 20 seems to be the youngest age at which a man can realistically hope to compete for big titles today.
His athleticism definitely stands out big time compared to his peers. He hasn't impressed me a ton visually since last Rotterdam or so, but this is always a tough age for a tennis player as they have to adapt to many things and the results have been good (and he's also playing a lot of clay so obviously he won't be doing as much shotmaking on it)He should become a great allround player, suited both for hard courts and clay.
What sort of makes him an especially enticing prospect, at least to me, is that he doesn't just have one upside but lots of them. He could potentially become a solid server, his forehand is a weapon, but his backhand isn't shabby either, he has shown some signs of competence at the net, and on top of all that he is a marvelous athlete in a great physical frame. If you ask me, that's at least the needed foundation of a player who could become very, very good.
His favourite surface is hard court - it's what he grew up on. His coaches made a decision that early in his pro career he should play a lot of clay because clay develops a players game so much more. Obviously it was a good call because he's gotten quite good on a surface he had had very little experience on. Last year they purposely skipped the grass season so he could concentrate on clay but this year they plan to have him play as much grass as possible to round out his tennis game.From his results, he seems to favor clay.
Currently things are trending older. But there's no way of knowing what is next - in the early 70s slam winners were eben older than now.
A few factoids: Isner and Anderson in top 10, at career highs in their 30s. A ton of 33-5+ in the top 100/50. Seppi, Jaziri, Kohli, I'm sure there are others - 35+ dudes playing their bedt best, hitting career highs.I don't know that things are trending older so much as the same players keep winning....and they get older each year. As soon as Djokovic stops winning the trend ends.
Which surface is he built for, and what are his biggest strengths?
A few factoids: Isner and Anderson in top 10, at career highs in their 30s. A ton of 33-5+ in the top 100/50. Seppi, Jaziri, Kohli, I'm sure there are others - 35+ dudes playing their bedt best, hitting career highs.
And on the other side, there's like 2 teens in the top 100. Used to be much more.
His volleying is really bad though.He should become a great allround player, suited both for hard courts and clay.
What sort of makes him an especially enticing prospect, at least to me, is that he doesn't just have one upside but lots of them. He could potentially become a solid server, his forehand is a weapon, but his backhand isn't shabby either, he has shown some signs of competence at the net, and on top of all that he is a marvelous athlete in a great physical frame. If you ask me, that's at least the needed foundation of a player who could become very, very good.
Currently things are trending older. But there's no way of knowing what is next - in the early 70s slam winners were eben older than now.
Nobody will emulate their achievements at a young age. Nobody. Even Nadal did not. It is just not possible for a 17-year-old boy to win majors in today’s men’s game. We have to adopt different standards.
Nah, you had both ends of the spectrum proving it's possible:
A S/V'er and a pusher.