In Hindsight, should player x have gone pro?

[okdude1992]

@okdude1992 Bangoura spent 3 years in college at Florida. I agree with ClarkC, there are no credible cases that can actually be made that college kept any top 100 talents from progressing. I think at the end of the day, most casual fans do not understand how mentally and physically taxing playing the circuit can be. If you do not have guaranteed funding (through an agency or sponsor) for an extended period of time (at least 3-4 years) the circuit can break you. Injuries, losing streak, loneliness are just a couple of reasons why people quit the futures circuit. Unless you are lighting it up (ie Jared Donaldson) why not give college an opporutnity?

Oh I thought he only played 2 years. I still think it was a bad decision to not finish and turn pro.

I generally agree with your post, although you have to consider that clear "top 100 talents" almost always skip college, so there's not a whole lot of examples to prove/disprove your case. Anyway the OP was about whether certain players (Harrison was named) should have gone to college. While players CAN improve in college, it is NOT a training ground for the pros, IMO. So for those who are "lighting it up" as you say and their primary goal is pro tennis, it is a waste of time. BTW Donaldson is at about the same point Harrison was at 17...

 

[tennisballer]

How about we focus on a player who is currently in college and based off his junior record and ranking (I believe was top 20 itf) still chose the college route - Mitchell Frank. He has had a very successful college career (including coming back from wrist surgery) and has matured and gotten stronger. In addition, he has continued to play a fair number of futures events over the years. He had a great summer and today took down world #245 Matt Reid 6-2, 6-3. Not sure what his ceiling is, but I feel very strongly that he made the right choice to go to college and that it has been a huge benefit for him.

 

[ClarkC]

How about we focus on a player who is currently in college and based off his junior record and ranking (I believe was top 20 itf) still chose the college route - Mitchell Frank. He has had a very successful college career (including coming back from wrist surgery) and has matured and gotten stronger. In addition, he has continued to play a fair number of futures events over the years. He had a great summer and today took down world #245 Matt Reid 6-2, 6-3. Not sure what his ceiling is, but I feel very strongly that he made the right choice to go to college and that it has been a huge benefit for him.

I believe that Mitchell's only surgery was a badly torn meniscus in one knee.

Interesting that Matt Reid committed to Georgia, then decided to go pro. This was the 2008 recruiting class, and it was a big blow to Georgia because the scholarship money was allocated and then he decided to go pro in about early August.

A little over six years later, Reid is #254, career high ranking of #183, and has combined singles and doubles earning of $256K for his career, about $40K per year. Meanwhile, Mitchell Frank is two years younger and is going to have a degree soon.

 

[Silver Fox]

I didn't read any posts above but the answer is "No". If the question has to be asked, the answer is always "No".

 

[Clemson_tennis]

Giron will play Fratangelo today in an interesting match. Fratangelo is one of those who could have gone to college.

 

[tennisdad65]

Great chart! IMO only DY should have gone pro. Tim S. should not have gone pro.~1 Mil in earnings in 8-9 yrs, i.e. 125K a year. Factor in expenses, coaching etc.. and he probably made ~25K a year. When he retires from tennis, he will be 10 yrs behind the curve in a new career. And no, teaching pro or asst. coach is not exactly a great career.

....

 

[Clemson_tennis]

Why is Fugate a wrong decision and Hunt a right one?


And what's wrong with being a teaching pro or a college tennis coach? If it's the game you love then there is nothing wrong with balancing your life around it.

 

[ClarkC]

Why is Fugate a wrong decision and Hunt a right one?

Fugate went pro and did nothing; bad decision.

Hunt went to college and proved to be a good college player who would never be a big winner on the ATP tour; good decision to go to college.

 

[CaliDawg]

Fugate went pro and did nothing; bad decision.

Hunt went to college and proved to be a good college player who would never be a big winner on the ATP tour; good decision to go to college.

Plus both are still in tennis as coaches, but Hunt, as a college graduate, has the opportunity to coach in college, while Fugate does not.

 

[Nostradamus]

question is should marcos giron have gone pro ?

 

[SStrikerR]

question is should marcos giron have gone pro ?

!WONDERFUL QUESTION!

Yes. In most cases, I wouldn't argue with a player deciding to go pro after winning the NCAAs. Especially if he or she is consistently ranked highly.

 

[matchtime]

Respectfully don't agree with that logic for Giron. That's like the juniors that win a jr. slam and decide that is the trigger to go pro. He didn't have anything close to an undefeated regular season like SJ and the NCAAs don't represent the best in college tennis with many toast by the time the play and many not playing them at all. But I get riding the WC/opportunities that come your way by winning it, so he may have not had a choice in a better time to do it.

 

[SStrikerR]

Respectfully don't agree with that logic for Giron. That's like the juniors that win a jr. slam and decide that is the trigger to go pro. He didn't have anything close to an undefeated regular season like SJ and the NCAAs don't represent the best in college tennis with many toast by the time the play and many not playing them at all. But I get riding the WC/opportunities that come your way by winning it, so he may have not had a choice in a better time to do it.

I see what you're saying, but I think you misread my post. I didn't say he should go pro based off of just winning the NCAAs, I said that that, coupled with the fact that he was highly ranked all season makes me not argue with his decision. Not even saying he should or shouldn't. Just that I don't blame him since multiple signs point in the right direction for him. I don't know how well he did in pro events before this summer though, that's obviously a factor as well. He seems to be doing fine so far though. He plays bjorn fratangelo in the 2nd round of the Sacramento challenger today. Same age, two different paths.

Also in regards to thinking a junior winning a junior slam is an indication to go pro...never. I didn't think fratangelo should've gone pro, and I definitely don't think Rubin should either, so it's good that he's not.

 

[matchtime]

Actually agree with most of your posts. I just don't think his record or potential justifies leaving a year shy of degree. WCs he received were a motivation but they didn't translate to points over the summer, we'll see.

 

[2ndServe]

this isn't rocket science, you must be able to hold serve in tennis. And you must do it without trying to scrap out every point on your serve. If you are scrapping on your serve every time you'll get destroyed by the big boys. The futures tour swung by and I watch a few points, all good players but none with a serve that can compete with the top guys.

That is a fact. No matter how great somdev was in college, you could bet everything that he'd have trouble on the tour. And to me he goes down as one of the best all time NCAA players. You have to be able to hold serve pretty easily against your peers then you can progress to next level.

a) guy with a great serve and crummy return can still be something

(s. johnson, isner, harrison, becker, klahn, querrey etc all pretty good serves, with no return game and questionable movement(at least among the pros) these guys all have a fighting chance

b) guy with a great return and crummy serve will languish on the futures tour

(too many to name)

For whatever reason there are plenty of good servers who learned to return or at least be more competitive on the return game. The inverse is not true, I've never seen a good returner with a mediocre server suddenly develop an above avg. one on tour.

Probably at the top of the list for pro prospects is

1) a good server and forehand
2) great movement, court coverage
3) mental strength (you can have this and without 1 or 2 you're still dead in the water)

 

[matchtime]

^^^nailed it.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

this isn't rocket science, you must be able to hold serve in tennis. And you must do it without trying to scrap out every point on your serve. If you are scrapping on your serve every time you'll get destroyed by the big boys. The futures tour swung by and I watch a few points, all good players but none with a serve that can compete with the top guys.

That is a fact. No matter how great somdev was in college, you could bet everything that he'd have trouble on the tour. And to me he goes down as one of the best all time NCAA players. You have to be able to hold serve pretty easily against your peers then you can progress to next level.

a) guy with a great serve and crummy return can still be something

(s. johnson, isner, harrison, becker, klahn, querrey etc all pretty good serves, with no return game and questionable movement(at least among the pros) these guys all have a fighting chance

b) guy with a great return and crummy serve will languish on the futures tour

(too many to name)

For whatever reason there are plenty of good servers who learned to return or at least be more competitive on the return game. The inverse is not true, I've never seen a good returner with a mediocre server suddenly develop an above avg. one on tour.

Probably at the top of the list for pro prospects is

1) a good server and forehand
2) great movement, court coverage
3) mental strength (you can have this and without 1 or 2 you're still dead in the water)

Very American styled blue print for success. That's not the only way.

Somdev was solidly in the top 100 before he got injured(career high rank of 62). That's not really "trouble" on tour.

 

[SStrikerR]

Not all top guys have big serves. Obviously ferrer springs to mind. It sure does help a lot though, I don't think anyone would argue that. There are multiple ways to be successful, and the more weapons and skills a player has the better their chances are. I didn't watch somdev much, but he was a grinder was he not? Not very offensive with his strokes? Didn't work for him. Ferrer is similar in that he's a smaller guy and his serve isn't much of a weapon. However, he made up for his deficiencies with tenacity, speed, aggressive court positioning, and smart tactical play. Tennis is all about maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. Some guys have a skill set that allows them to do well, others don't.

I hate to go back to him, but..Harrison had a big serve and a good second. However, his deficiencies currently outweigh his weapons. Jack sock has a **** poor backhand, but this year he's gotten better at getting around that and figuring out how to better play to his strengths.

 

[andfor]

Gilles Simon

 

[Rob_C]

Plus both are still in tennis as coaches, but Hunt, as a college graduate, has the opportunity to coach in college, while Fugate does not.

I thought the requirements to coach in college were either to have played college tennis, I'm not sure if you needed to play at the level you aspire to coach at, or you needed to have had an ATP/WTA ranking??

Fugate has been ranked on tour.

 

[CaliDawg]

I thought the requirements to coach in college were either to have played college tennis, I'm not sure if you needed to play at the level you aspire to coach at, or you needed to have had an ATP/WTA ranking??

Fugate has been ranked on tour.

Every college makes their own rules so it's theoretically possible to coach on the college level without a degree, but, in reality, a diploma is a requirement for breaking into that side of the business. Just take a look at the classified coaching ads (http://www.itatennis.com/Coaches/classifieds.htm). They all list a bachelors degree as a minimum qualification.

 

[Lemmy]

To answer the OP's question, here's a list of the top 8 seeds from Kalamazoo in 2006 along with a description of their decision about whether to turn pro or not and an evaluation of that decision based on whether they reached the top 200 in the world at any point.

nice chart, just one note: Levine active in DC

UVA tennis message board

link please

Plus both are still in tennis as coaches, but Hunt, as a college graduate, has the opportunity to coach in college, while Fugate does not.

you have to be a college graduate to coach in college

 

[Lemmy]

this isn't rocket science, you must be able to hold serve in tennis. And you must do it without trying to scrap out every point on your serve. If you are scrapping on your serve every time you'll get destroyed by the big boys. The futures tour swung by and I watch a few points, all good players but none with a serve that can compete with the top guys.

That is a fact. No matter how great somdev was in college, you could bet everything that he'd have trouble on the tour. And to me he goes down as one of the best all time NCAA players. You have to be able to hold serve pretty easily against your peers then you can progress to next level.

a) guy with a great serve and crummy return can still be something

(s. johnson, isner, harrison, becker, klahn, querrey etc all pretty good serves, with no return game and questionable movement(at least among the pros) these guys all have a fighting chance

Harrison questionable movement? guy had probably among the fastest feet in the top 100 back in 2011. Also Klahn is a good mover and Johnson is definitely decent.

b) guy with a great return and crummy serve will languish on the futures tour

LMAO, are you saying a healty Brian Baker, to name one, would have been a futures player. You might wanna have a look at a Sela's match for instance or a Tipsarevic.

The inverse is not true, I've never seen a good returner with a mediocre server suddenly develop an above avg. one on tour.

Probably at the top of the list for pro prospects is

David Ferrer

 

[Lemmy]

Please disregard my college coaching question, didn't see Calidawg reply and I still can't edit messages.

 

[NLBwell]

Domijan has chosen not to pursue a pro tennis career, instead choosing a career in the military.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cavalierinsider/future-soldier-domijan-shines-as-virginia-sets-acc-record/article_220ec012-c35e-11e3-8f6d-001a4bcf6878.html

If he had gone on the pro tour, he might be be unhappy grinding it out on tour instead of finding what he is really passionate about, which is being an officer in the military.

 

[andfor]

If he had gone on the pro tour, he might be be unhappy grinding it out on tour instead of finding what he is really passionate about, which is being an officer in the military.

Good for him! I think that's really cool and good to hear he's pursuing what he wants in life.

 

[Gemini]

Every college makes their own rules so it's theoretically possible to coach on the college level without a degree, but, in reality, a diploma is a requirement for breaking into that side of the business. Just take a look at the classified coaching ads (http://www.itatennis.com/Coaches/classifieds.htm). They all list a bachelors degree as a minimum qualification.

It makes sense for the most part. Coaches are supposed to set the example and the primary purpose of going to college is to get a degree. I see it as being hypocritical to hire someone that does not have a degree.

 

[Ferbious]

I think its up for debate whether college helped "shore up" Steve Johnson's weaknesses. Sure his backhand is still a liability, but college tennis definitely helped in so many ways (a much bigger serve, becoming more fit, learning how to win in pressure situations, etc.). You have life long professionals like Andy Roddick who were never able to improve certain weaknesses in their game (very weak bh).

My coach's sons played roddick when he still lived in texas

he credits the bad backhand to what happened when he left for florida

roddick used to have a flawless backhand at 10....yes flawless according to my coach

but it was a one handed backhand



knowing that when you look at him hit backhands its almost as if hes trying to hit a 1hbh with 2 hands leading to the dysfunction