Is it too late to be a good athelete at 15?

[ark_28]

Was just curious was to watch you guys thought? I went along to men's night at my club which is a decent level the best player there is by far the head coach who played at county level.

Last night we had this 15 year old kid who he trains, join us as a one off, his ball striking was awesome beautiful one handed backhand loads of top spin on the forehand.

Most of us play decent and can barely get a game off the coach but this kid played him and beat him 5-3 and was dissapointed to lose 3 games.

We asked the coach in the bar after just how good he could be, he said he is a very talented ball striker but in his opinion isn't a good enough athelete to make it.

He said that the kid could be him in real tennis, because the game has moved on (my coach 40) so he can knock him off the court with power.

But my coach added that the kid cant beat him at mini tennis because that requires great movement and flexibility.

My question is if he has so much natural talent, which he appears to and I appreciate that he can improve as an athelete (although it didnt look obvious that he doesnt move well)

Is being a better athelete something that a kid of 15 can improve if he has the natural talent as a ball striker or is it something that as my coach says because he lacks it he will not be able to go pro?

 

[fuzz nation]

A little murky in terms of what your coach was saying about the abilities and potential of this 15 year old.

Realizing the potential in a young player isn't just about one thing. I get the impression that the coach was offering that the kid's raw power couldn't make up for the shortcomings in his skill set as a tennis player. Maybe he doesn't have enough of a complete game to be able to compete against others with all-court skills, finesse, and decent power.

Looking at the pros around the tour, it's easy enough to see that different players have different "weapons" that they build their games around. I don't understand whether this coach was simply offering that the 15 year old needed to have a more highly developed game in general to actually have a shot at going pro.

I got to watch the #1 kid in the world among 12 year olds when he lived near here a few summers back and this little dude beat the crap out of grown men; both college players and teaching pros. Last I heard, he's off training somewhere and trying to "make it" (has to be around age 20 by now), but I haven't heard of any significant breakthrough.

 

[ark_28]

A little murky in terms of what your coach was saying about the abilities and potential of this 15 year old.

Realizing the potential in a young player isn't just about one thing. I get the impression that the coach was offering that the kid's raw power couldn't make up for the shortcomings in his skill set as a tennis player. Maybe he doesn't have enough of a complete game to be able to compete against others with all-court skills, finesse, and decent power.

Looking at the pros around the tour, it's easy enough to see that different players have different "weapons" that they build their games around. I don't understand whether this coach was simply offering that the 15 year old needed to have a more highly developed game in general to actually have a shot at going pro.

I got to watch the #1 kid in the world among 12 year olds when he lived near here a few summers back and this little dude beat the crap out of grown men; both college players and teaching pros. Last I heard, he's off training somewhere and trying to "make it" (has to be around age 20 by now), but I haven't heard of any significant breakthrough.

It is a fair point you make there, one got the impression talking to him that he was of the view that his lack of ahtleitism in his opinion would stop him being a pro (the kid was ripped and looked in great shape).

Whether he was saying this to try and show him what he could work on or to improve im not sure.

He did kind of imply that it could be lack of motivation, there is an awesome academy near by and they only train the best youngsters around here, my coach said this 15 year old was there but doesnt get on with the main coaches there, my coach told him its all on you its not them they are just trying to get you to work hard.

So perhaps its as much of what he won't do rather than what he can't do?

 

[fuzz nation]

I'll buy that. One of those intangibles with any athlete in development is that aspect of "coachability". Not to suggest that any up-and-comer needs to be ready to ditch their identity and let someone else completely remold them if they want any shot at success. The true diamonds in the rough are probably the ones that are hungry enough to want to put in all the long hours, but they're also probably gifted with enough wisdom at an early age to understand that they don't know it all.

I've coached high school kids for a number of years and even among the stronger players I've been around, I've seen a rather stark difference between the kids who've been handed their general tennis guidance and those who have carried their own motivation with them to the courts. When they have that motivation, they can't learn enough and the only thing they don't want to hear is that it's time to go home.

It's not that every kid that picks up a racquet should have that drive to aspire to a world-class level, but it's got to be pretty much impossible to really get anywhere without it.

 

[rkelley]

The coachability thing is huge I think. There's so much to learn and drill. If a kid is wasting time not listening, or a coach has to finesse him at every step, there's just not enough time in those key teen years to learn all the things that need to be learned and drill them until they are second nature.

As far being a good athlete, I'm not sure what the OP meant. You can't teach someone natural athletic ability. OTOH, tennis is a skill sport so one can make up for some lack of raw athletic ability (speed, strength) with skill, practice, and cunning. Also I think "talent" in tennis has a lot to do with hand/eye coordination and the ability to move and set-up on a moving object.

 

[charliefedererer]

Who is 1-5 in the world?

Djoker, Rafa, Fed, Murray and Ferrer.

No slouches in ball striking, but all are great movers.

Soderling and Isner could crush them in terms of pure strength.

But even someone as incredibly big and strong and as hard a worker as John Isner is only 18th in the world.

Practicing movement can only get you so far.


I see you are from England.

Are you aware that the next highest ranked player in Great Britain after Murray is James Ward at 162.

That's how deep the talent pool in the whole world is.


That's not to say this player, or you, can't have a lifetime of enjoyment playing tennis.

A lifetime of enjoyment is a worthy goal.

 

[5263]

most learn to move well in later years anyway. Some coaches want you to do everything well, right out of the chute. We have to let the kids develop at their pace to an extent. We can only point out where they should improve, but it's up to them to "want it". Drive them too hard and likely they will never want it.

IMO I'd rather have to deal with building better movement with a great ball striker, than have a great mover who can't seem to hit well. Both can be improved, but movement is pretty easy to improve and while important, given the short distances in this game, not as big a deal as some may think (especially for a great ball striker).

Of course as always, balance is the key. You must be very solid at both at some point.

 

[GuyClinch]

^^^Interesting. Bolleteri thinks the exact opposite. He says he looks for quick feet in all of his prospects. You can learn to punish the ball - but you aren't going to be cat quick because of training. To me that thinking makes a ton more sense..

 

[Crazy man]

^^^Interesting. Bolleteri thinks the exact opposite. He says he looks for quick feet in all of his prospects. You can learn to punish the ball - but you aren't going to be cat quick because of training. To me that thinking makes a ton more sense..

Bolleteri actually rejected Safin, which is quite funny if your post is actually correct (Safin is arguably the greatest mover for a guy of his height). The first thing most coaches tell you is move your feet, movement (well for me) was something that got better as I felt more comfortable on court, not something I automatically had.

 

[5263]

^^^Interesting. Bolleteri thinks the exact opposite. He says he looks for quick feet in all of his prospects. You can learn to punish the ball - but you aren't going to be cat quick because of training. To me that thinking makes a ton more sense..

I can see yours and his point, but he is looking for the next number one in the world tennis player, so he can hype his academy more. You are probably not going to make world #1 without exceptional speed these days. I think Fish is an example of a ball striking player with avg speed that has done quite a bit.

I'm more looking to spread tennis to more players and help them play well. Developing good HS players and helping motivated Jrs to compete stronger. I have to embrace the idea of building athletes opposed to discovering them. In the US we also have to except that most good movers are going to be in the big 4 sports; leaving us often to work and develop from a smaller pool, since tennis is so close to full time.

I also think it is folly to believe anyone can learn to punish the ball with consistency, as that is maybe the hardest thing for a player to learn to do well. If he and others could do that so easy, then the US would be doing much better.

Coaches used to believe you can't coach players for speed, as that was from the creator, but IMO they are now finding that you can probably coach speed and quickness just like other qualities. Also at 15, we have little idea how quick a kid may be when fully grown.

 

[5263]

movement (well for me) was something that got better as I felt more comfortable on court, not something I automatically had.

I think this is more common and I don't see the little quick guys playing so much better than avg movers who can strike it well or see the super quick guys learning to punish the ball like some others can.

 

[snvplayer]

By the age of 15, I think you can tell if a kid has good athleticism based on speed, movement, etc. At the same time, it's too early of an age to say how the kid is going to develop physically and how much the training is going to bring out his potential.

So the answer would be "No, it's not too late to be a good athlete. But, it will be very difficult to become an "excellent" athlete for an average athlete.

I read an interview by Jim Courier. He was asked what he thought was most important in tennis. It wasn't speed, power, or anything, but the hand and eye coordination. Obviously, deficiency in any one element can be covered by exceptional ability in other elements.

 

[Ash_Smith]

IMO I'd rather have to deal with building better movement with a great ball striker, than have a great mover who can't seem to hit well.

Funny, I would always rather have the raw athlete and teach them the technical skills than the other way around!

As for this lad, if his ball striking really is different gravy then he can make up for any perceived lack of athleticism by playing smart, big first strike tennis (Davenport style). However, that he beat a 40 year old, ex county player 5-3 doesn't speak volumes for his ball striking in real terms.

Ark - which HPC is he at?

Cheers

 

[Ash_Smith]

Coaches used to believe you can't coach players for speed, as that was from the creator, but IMO they are now finding that you can probably coach speed and quickness just like other qualities. Also at 15, we have little idea how quick a kid may be when fully grown.

The only thing you can't train...is height.

Cheers

 

[RedWeb]

I ask this same question about myself but had to replace the 1 with a 5!

 

[5263]

By the age of 15, I think you can tell if a kid has good athleticism based on speed, movement, etc. At the same time, it's too early of an age to say how the kid is going to develop physically and how much the training is going to bring out his potential.

Not sure your point here as you seem on both sides of the fence above, but
you are in great company if you believe that you can spot potential early. It seems most folks bite on the early indications; probably to get a jump on things.

IMO most of the best athletes of our time have been late bloomers, like
Charles Barkley, David Robinson, Jordan, Brady, Sampras etc....(all these guys have late bloomer stories)
and
the ones who showed big promise early have been the exceptions like Lebron James.
The list of ones who showed promise early, to fade just as strong,
is quite a long one.

I'm not say it is better to pick which group you believe in above, but more to say work hard, but save the determination for later.
Give these kids more time to sort it out. Like pop corn, they don't all pop at the same time. IMO the second worst thing we do to US tennis is pick our top players too young, which makes it way harder on the late bloomers that are probably our best true talents.

 

[5263]

I read an interview by Jim Courier. He was asked what he thought was most important in tennis. It wasn't speed, power, or anything, but the hand and eye coordination.

I guess this puts me in good company on this one, since excellent hand/eye would be the major component in being an excellent ball striker.

 

[Crazy man]

I think this is more common and I don't see the little quick guys playing so much better than avg movers who can strike it well or see the super quick guys learning to punish the ball like some others can.

I honestly believe it was general ignorance on my part; I never really took notice of footwork patters and what the players do between strokes (split steps & side steps etc) and could never really incorporate it at the beginning. Nowadays I just keep my feet moving.

 

[5263]

I honestly believe it was general ignorance on my part; I never really took notice of footwork patters and what the players do between strokes (split steps & side steps etc) and could never really incorporate it at the beginning. Nowadays I just keep my feet moving.

Yep, but it is pretty normal in general. Good that you are continuing to pick on more things and keep improving.

 

[LuckyR]

My question is if he has so much natural talent, which he appears to and I appreciate that he can improve as an athelete (although it didnt look obvious that he doesnt move well)

Is being a better athelete something that a kid of 15 can improve if he has the natural talent as a ball striker or is it something that as my coach says because he lacks it he will not be able to go pro?

Go Pro? Like make money playing tennis? Why would someone who is a "one off" at some nowhere club think about making a living doing something others who go at it full time know is an extreme longshot? He is more likely to become an astronaut, or Spiderman.

 

[ark_28]

Go Pro? Like make money playing tennis? Why would someone who is a "one off" at some nowhere club think about making a living doing something others who go at it full time know is an extreme longshot? He is more likely to become an astronaut, or Spiderman.

Playing tennis for money would be pro yes no Sh*t Sherlock.

This kid is the best player in his region, and he isnt playing at some "nowhere club" he plays at the strongest club in the county and one of the strongest clubs in the country.

Goes to a school that full of atheletes that have gone on to have very good careers in different sports and has trained at a very good academy.

You dont seem to have a clue so for your information being pro doesnt mean you have to be the next Rafa or Roger.

Two Thousand odd guys have world rankings and are pro a guy with such exceptional talent for his age, to contemplate pro tennis isnt a stretch.

 

[5263]

This kid is the best player in his region, and he isnt playing at some "nowhere club" he plays at the strongest club in the county and one of the strongest clubs in the country.

Goes to a school that full of atheletes that have gone on to have very good careers in different sports and has trained at a very good academy.

IMO you didn't make the above that clear earlier, but I may have missed it. You should know that LuckyR is one of the sharpest guys on here.

Based on what you say above for a 15 yr old, he could have pro potential if he wants it seriously bad and has some $$ to back him. Don't underestimate the money aspect. Some of the best players never really get a shot due to lack of funds.

 

[Ash_Smith]

Ark - which HPC is he at?

 

[LuckyR]

Playing tennis for money would be pro yes no Sh*t Sherlock.

This kid is the best player in his region, and he isnt playing at some "nowhere club" he plays at the strongest club in the county and one of the strongest clubs in the country.

Goes to a school that full of atheletes that have gone on to have very good careers in different sports and has trained at a very good academy.

You dont seem to have a clue so for your information being pro doesnt mean you have to be the next Rafa or Roger.

Two Thousand odd guys have world rankings and are pro a guy with such exceptional talent for his age, to contemplate pro tennis isnt a stretch.

OK, I'll treat this thread seriously (against all of the evidence to the contrary). What is his current National ranking in the 16s?

 

[WildVolley]

Is being a better athlete something that a kid of 15 can improve if he has the natural talent as a ball striker or is it something that as my coach says because he lacks it he will not be able to go pro?

In my limited experience, I think I've seen players who have the eye-hand coordination of top-pros but lack the athletic ability to ever be top 100.

Like height, some athletic ability seems to be genetic. People flip out when you say this, but there is a strong genetic component to things like foot speed and fast twitch muscle percentages (which influence quickness).

In the end, no one will decide this for the player and any coach's opinion can be wrong.