Top 20 Pros resullts as Juniors

[doctor dennis]

Hi All

I'm wondering if anyone can help by informing or pointing me to any previous threads on the top 20 male / females results as Juniors?

What i really want to know is if they dominated as soon as they started playing competitive tennis or did any of them not really win until they reached the pros.

This stems from a discussion i had with a coach and parent about child tennis development.

To cut a long discussion short, they said it doesnt matter if a child wins much now its all about when they are adults.

I agreed but i countered with my thoughts that anyone can be taught a world class forehand, backhand, serve. Basically all strokes. Knowing how to win and wanting to win cannot be taught and comes from the person.

Basically, my thoughts are that being able to win through desire / determination / mentally is fairly important as Junior as this can shape how you are as an adult. Plus i believe if you ar fairly successful at a young age you are likely to keep playing as you are older.

So, does anyone have any information on how the top guys and girls did throughout their Junior careers please?

Also, if anyone wants to share their views that will helpful and appreciated.

Kind Regards

DD

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Andy Murray ended 2004 as the #2 Junior player in the world.

 

[Huanita99]

sorry, not sure about the thread you are looking for but I think Tipsarevic almost won everything as a junior. Novak won nothing if I can remember correctly. look where they are now.

 

[doctor dennis]

Andy Murray ended 2004 as the #2 Junior player in the world.

Thanks for the reply.

Although there aren't any other responses yet I'm going with my theory that the top pros now have always been at the top.

Thanks

 

[joeri888]

I know Federer, Monfils, Gasquet were good juniors too. Cilic won RG as a junior I think. Not sure about a guy like Ferrer though. Also, I think Gasquet and Nadal came onto the main tour so early that they might not have had the best results in juniors, because when they played the junior tour they were very young.

 

[stringertom]

There are way too many learning curves to make a blanket generalization. For every successful transition from top junior to top pro, there are several varieties of crash&burn outcomes, whether due to injury, burnout or just plain peaking while others keep evolving past the former dominator.

 

[SStrikerR]

If memory serves, raonic was ranked in like the 40s in juniors in 2008 or 2009. Also, Donald young was the top ranked junior and he's out of the top 100 now.

 

[tacou]

Thanks for the reply.

Although there aren't any other responses yet I'm going with my theory that the top pros now have always been at the top.

Thanks

I doubt you will find a top ranked pro (top 10-20) who had a poor juniors career, however the opposite is true. Plenty of successful juniors don't even sniff the top 100 let alone top 10 when they go pro, doesn't matter how accustomed to winning they are.

Your thoughts on the mentality of winning are right on, but I feel like your coach might have been saying that juniors are the same as formative years: refine your technique, apply practice sessions to live match situations, improve tactics, etc.

getting wins at that age is good for confidence but improving your game before you take it on tour is huge

Also here: http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/rankings/year-end-rankings.aspx
Only goes back to '04 unfortunately

 

[Bobby Jr]

I could be mis-rembering but Stefan Edberg completed the Junior Grand Slam - making him the only junior to have ever done it.

Now, imagine if he'd won that 1989 French Open vs Chang and completed the career slam as an adult.

On the topic of juniors going on to become top pros - I'd say the majority of top juniors never amount to anything special on the adult tour. There have been many winners of junior majors or highly ranked player who simply couldn't make the transition to the seniors. Some countries used to keep their juniors in the juniors too long - preferring the comfort zone of easier competition while their same aged peers who were truly good were already on the real tour reaching the later rounds of the majors.

 

[doctor dennis]

I doubt you will find a top ranked pro (top 10-20) who had a poor juniors career, however the opposite is true. Plenty of successful juniors don't even sniff the top 100 let alone top 10 when they go pro, doesn't matter how accustomed to winning they are.

Your thoughts on the mentality of winning are right on, but I feel like your coach might have been saying that juniors are the same as formative years: refine your technique, apply practice sessions to live match situations, improve tactics, etc.

getting wins at that age is good for confidence but improving your game before you take it on tour is huge

Also here: http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/rankings/year-end-rankings.aspx
Only goes back to '04 unfortunately

110% agree.

The discussion i had with the parent and coach is that the alledged philosphy in the UK is to get the "talented" children into a national programme if you like. The criterea for this selection does not take winning into accout. They choose the kids who can do certain tennis related drills better than others. I agree with this in part but i also think they should take kids who are winning routinely with "poorer" technique and give them better technique to use. They shouldnt be overlooked as they obviously know / want to win and dont have the best tools at there disposal. What would they be like with effective tools? Who knows? Currently, the UK have nobody in the upper echelon of tennis using the current strategy.

This is what sparked me to ask the question to the TT following.

I dont believe any of the top pro's came from "nowhere" to dominate the sport. They would always have been on the radar.

Again i agree with what you are stating.

Kind Regards

DD

 

[batz]

110% agree.

The discussion i had with the parent and coach is that the alledged philosphy in the UK is to get the "talented" children into a national programme if you like. The criterea for this selection does not take winning into accout. They choose the kids who can do certain tennis related drills better than others. I agree with this in part but i also think they should take kids who are winning routinely with "poorer" technique and give them better technique to use. They shouldnt be overlooked as they obviously know / want to win and dont have the best tools at there disposal. What would they be like with effective tools? Who knows? Currently, the UK have nobody in the upper echelon of tennis using the current strategy.

This is what sparked me to ask the question to the TT following.

I dont believe any of the top pro's came from "nowhere" to dominate the sport. They would always have been on the radar.

Again i agree with what you are stating.

Kind Regards

DD

Re the bold - I guess there are some exceptions. I think Rafa was probably 'on the radar' from the age of 12 but I'm not sure that he was a dominant junior - I don't think he won a junior slam? That said - he was probably in the Top 50 by the time most guys are finishing juniors.

 

[joeri888]

Re the bold - I guess there are some exceptions. I think Rafa was probably 'on the radar' from the age of 12 but I'm not sure that he was a dominant junior - I don't think he won a junior slam? That said - he was probably in the Top 50 by the time most guys are finishing juniors.

Like I already said, I think Nadal made his full ATP debut when he was still eligible for juniors. I think he was an extremely good junior, but so good on clay that he already made a pro living and didn't bother with the junior GS tourneys at an age he could've won them.

 

[batz]

Like I already said, I think Nadal made his full ATP debut when he was still eligible for juniors. I think he was an extremely good junior, but so good on clay that he already made a pro living and didn't bother with the junior GS tourneys at an age he could've won them.

Just saw that mate - good shout re Dickie Gasquet too.

 

[doctor dennis]

Thanks all for the responses.

When i was talking about the top 20 guys / girls being dominant, i wasnt being specific to the "major" junior events such as a slam or Orange Bowl for example.
I meant winning anything from Club Championships, County Championships, Regional etc.
These kind of "less prestigious" events would have been dominated by any of the top 20 entering them. They had to start entering competitions at levels much lower than international / National events and these are the type of events that they would have "dominated" and been serial winners if you like.

IMO its far more likely for a top 20 player to go from winning to winning than from not winning to suddenly winning enough top be a top 20 player.

The thing they all have in common is a will to win that cannot be taught which is what the coach and parent didnt grasp what i was trying to emphasise.

In life, not just tennis, there will always be early junior success stories that dont come to fruition when adults.

Thanks for all the contributions

Kind Regards

DD

 

[dominikk1985]

Thanks for the reply.

Although there aren't any other responses yet I'm going with my theory that the top pros now have always been at the top.

Thanks

of course. however it doesn't work the other way round, a lot of the jGS winners of the last decade never made it.

junior winners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_boys'_singles_champions
and their careers
2002 winners: gasquat (top player), todd reid (never heard), clement morell (never heard)

2003 winners:bagdatis (top player), wawrinka (top player), mergea (never heard), tsonga (top player)

2004 winners:monfils (top player), murray (top player)

2005 winners: donald young (no comment), marin cilic (top player), jeremy chardy (solid player), sweeting (solid player)

2006 winners: sidorenko (never heard), martin klizan (good player, maybe more), thiemo de bakker (ok player), dujan lodja (never heard)

2007: brydan klein (never heard), ignatic (average player), the donald, berankis (good player)

2008: tomic (maybe top player?), chinese guy (never heard), dmitrov (maybe top player?)

2009-2012 none has made it to the top but let's give them some time (although a decade ago the best juniors often were in the top30 after 2 years -so the 09 and 10 generation is kinda slow to catch up as they should at least scratch the top 100 by now).

 

[dominikk1985]

Thanks all for the responses.

When i was talking about the top 20 guys / girls being dominant, i wasnt being specific to the "major" junior events such as a slam or Orange Bowl for example.
I meant winning anything from Club Championships, County Championships, Regional etc.
These kind of "less prestigious" events would have been dominated by any of the top 20 entering them. They had to start entering competitions at levels much lower than international / National events and these are the type of events that they would have "dominated" and been serial winners if you like.

IMO its far more likely for a top 20 player to go from winning to winning than from not winning to suddenly winning enough top be a top 20 player.

The thing they all have in common is a will to win that cannot be taught which is what the coach and parent didnt grasp what i was trying to emphasise.

In life, not just tennis, there will always be early junior success stories that dont come to fruition when adults.

Thanks for all the contributions

Kind Regards

DD

At the lower levels (kids to HS) any top100 guy has dominated like crazy. there are many that dominate those levels but those super talents dominate to a whole other dimension. there are physical late bloomers of course but usually those stars are in a whole other league.

I did some track and field and one of my teammates competed with a future olympic decathlon medalist at 10U or so. he said that he jumped about 3 feet farther than anyone else in the competition.

but there are also many kiddie stars that never make the show.

why did you create that thread? is your kid a star?

 

[dominikk1985]

Re the bold - I guess there are some exceptions. I think Rafa was probably 'on the radar' from the age of 12 but I'm not sure that he was a dominant junior - I don't think he won a junior slam? That said - he was probably in the Top 50 by the time most guys are finishing juniors.

nadal beat federer on hardcourt at age 17. he did not bother to play in the juniors as did other junior stars like becker or chang. I wonder why this is so rare today. in these days former jGS winners at age 19 are ranked like 150 when guys like nadal or federer were in the top10 at that age.

 

[stringertom]

^^^Don't give up on '10crop...Sock ('10USO junior champ) has won MD slam and went R3 this past men's singles and won a Challenger recently. Also, Kudla ('10USO runner-up to Sock) won a recent Challenger. That puts them on pace with Klizan's development.

Janowicz now has broken through after a few years of transition from the juniors (finalist twice in majors). Every player is different on the learning curve...coaching and injury often come into play as to why some are slower than others.

 

[joeri888]

nadal beat federer on hardcourt at age 17. he did not bother to play in the juniors as did other junior stars like becker or chang. I wonder why this is so rare today. in these days former jGS winners at age 19 are ranked like 150 when guys like nadal or federer were in the top10 at that age.

you even watch matches. Try see a 17 year old play against Djokovic or Nadal in a BO5 set match. It's a physical world out there today.

 

[dominikk1985]

you even watch matches. Try see a 17 year old play against Djokovic or Nadal in a BO5 set match. It's a physical world out there today.

but why were becker and chang able to win GS at age 17? because the game changed so much?

I see that tennis has changed but is tennis different now than in 04 when nadal beat fed at age 17?

and even if they cannot beat nadal or nole, why cannot the best 17yo even beat the no. 100?

 

[kishnabe]

Nadal reached the Junior Semifinals of Wimbledon. He rarely even played Juniors.

 

[doctor dennis]

At the lower levels (kids to HS) any top100 guy has dominated like crazy. there are many that dominate those levels but those super talents dominate to a whole other dimension. there are physical late bloomers of course but usually those stars are in a whole other league.

I did some track and field and one of my teammates competed with a future olympic decathlon medalist at 10U or so. he said that he jumped about 3 feet farther than anyone else in the competition.

but there are also many kiddie stars that never make the show.

why did you create that thread? is your kid a star?

No, far from it.

The thread was created basically in response to a discussion i had around selecting juniors to be involved in a National programme in th UK.
My thoughts are that serial winners can often be over looked to be selected for this programme due to the criterea.
The message i received from the coach and parent in question was that it doesnt matter what they are doing now (winning) it only mattwers when they are older. To which i agree to certain extent. I just firmly believe that "winning" cannot be taught and serial winners should not be over looked for the programme.
During the discussion i said tha the top 20 would have dominated at junior levels and won a ridiculous amount which they didnt agree on so i decided to throw it out to TT.

Kind Regards

DD

 

[dominikk1985]

No, far from it.

The thread was created basically in response to a discussion i had around selecting juniors to be involved in a National programme in th UK.
My thoughts are that serial winners can often be over looked to be selected for this programme due to the criterea.
The message i received from the coach and parent in question was that it doesnt matter what they are doing now (winning) it only mattwers when they are older. To which i agree to certain extent. I just firmly believe that "winning" cannot be taught and serial winners should not be over looked for the programme.
During the discussion i said tha the top 20 would have dominated at junior levels and won a ridiculous amount which they didnt agree on so i decided to throw it out to TT.

Kind Regards

DD

well I agree that the will to win is very important and cannot be taught but at this level physical talent is probably the more important factor. those kids win because they are stronger and better tennis players. even if they have weak nerves and no good work ethic they will still win because they are so superior in coordination, speed, strength and technique.

you could probably let those kids do a standing long jump competition and the same kids who won tennis would win that too.

tennis is foremost a game of skill and more recently also physical talent. thinks like the will to win will show very late in the career (say at 14-15) when skill levels become closer.

when a player is that superior he doesn't even need those skills, just like karsten braasch could beat the williams sisters while smoking and drinking a beer.

the best kids win because of talent, no because they try harder. this is why so many "serial kid ball champions" fail, those attributes were just not needed to dominate their peers as kids.

 

[jokinla]

Sampras wasn't a junior champion, he changed his backhand and sucked in juniors, but he wasn't concerned with juniors, unlike Al Parker who at the time won everything in juniors, then had no pro career.

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal reached the Junior Semifinals of Wimbledon. He rarely even played Juniors.

Yeah. I think his mom didn't let him skip school to play the junior slams.

 

[*Sparkle*]

It's a bit like predicting the tallest adult based on who is the tallest in the class at age 13. You'd expect the tall kids age 11 to be tall adults, but they all have different growth spurts at different ages. Tennis is even more complicated, but those who are late developers will find it harder to win juniors against their more physically advanced counterparts.

Success at a junior level, especially junior slams will also depend on how accessible those tournaments are, and how much decent competition they've had to push them forward.

If a promising junior isn't winning tournaments, or at least doing well in them, it could mean that they aren't entering the right tournaments for their level, but unless there is some freak of statistic and you grow up along the road from two or three other future champions, you would expect a future top player to stand out from the kids who generally athletic and good at sport.

 

[Ash_Smith]

Re the bold - I guess there are some exceptions. I think Rafa was probably 'on the radar' from the age of 12 but I'm not sure that he was a dominant junior - I don't think he won a junior slam? That said - he was probably in the Top 50 by the time most guys are finishing juniors.

This is true of many of the current crop of Spanish men, most didn't even make top 100 jr rankings I think Feli was highest at 43 (or it may have been Verdasco, can't remember without looking up the rankings). Rafa's highest was in the 170's I think. Traditionally the Spanish have competed within Spain as there are plenty of high quality jr events to play without travelling vast distances and many have not had the funding to travel anyway, so they have not accrued the ITF points, then they've been playing futures events anyway.

From speaking to a couple of coaches in Spain this may be changing and more players are seeking to travel a bit wider to test themselves more as juniors.

 

[Ash_Smith]

There are also plenty of Jr no 1's who have gone nowhere. I remember watching a Swiss kid called Roman Valent at Wimby a few years back, he was ranked 3, seeded 1 and absolutely dominated the event taking home the trophy (2001 maybe?). His ranking peaked in 03 at about 300ish and he last competed in 2010. Similarly Mariano Zabaleta was absolutely dominant as a junior and as a young pro, won FO jr's in 95 and finished as year end no 1. Best senior ranking was 21, which is no mean feat obviously, but his junior career would have suggested he would reach the top of the tree, sadly he faded away.

 

[doctor dennis]

There are also plenty of Jr no 1's who have gone nowhere. I remember watching a Swiss kid called Roman Valent at Wimby a few years back, he was ranked 3, seeded 1 and absolutely dominated the event taking home the trophy (2001 maybe?). His ranking peaked in 03 at about 300ish and he last competed in 2010. Similarly Mariano Zabaleta was absolutely dominant as a junior and as a young pro, won FO jr's in 95 and finished as year end no 1. Best senior ranking was 21, which is no mean feat obviously, but his junior career would have suggested he would reach the top of the tree, sadly he faded away.

I agree with everyone that being successful as a junior has no bearing on becoming pro.
My point of the thread is that the top players have been winning throughout their carriers. I'm talking about club championships, county matches etc, not just the big events. A win is a win.
It was just suggested to me that winning early isn't important to which I disagreed.

Ash, what do you think about the UK talent ID system / philosophy?

Kind regards

DD

 

[dominikk1985]

I agree with everyone that being successful as a junior has no bearing on becoming pro.
My point of the thread is that the top players have been winning throughout their carriers. I'm talking about club championships, county matches etc, not just the big events. A win is a win.
It was just suggested to me that winning early isn't important to which I disagreed.

Ash, what do you think about the UK talent ID system / philosophy?

Kind regards

DD

I agree but is it the winning that is important or is it their high skill of tennis that automatically leads to winning?

I would say developing skill is important but not actual winning. of course skill improvement will lead to more winning but I think it is important to not mix up cause and effect.

for example at the very young levels (say till 12U) some styles that are not suited to the pros (i.e. pushing) might create the best results. in that case going for success would be hurting that kid.

Winning young is good but not if it comes at the expense of skill developement. the first goal should be skill developement and winning the consequence (I know there are other guys that believe that this approach creates technically perfect clone robots with no mental toughness and players should be more selected for that but I still believe tennis is a skill sport foremost).

 

[*Sparkle*]

My point of the thread is that the top players have been winning throughout their carriers. I'm talking about club championships, county matches etc, not just the big events. A win is a win.

Yes. It's unreasonable to presume all future top players should be winning the junior slams. They are obviously hugely competitive junior tournaments, but most will have just one season (at best) where they are developed enough to be stronger than the competition before they get too old to enter.

However, I'd still expect that any genuinely promising junior would be winning some tournaments and would stand out from the crowd at local, county and even national level. You'd have to factor in if they are small for their age, but there are always stories of the top players beating bemused senior club players before they've hit puberty, because they are relying on talent, not power.

 

[winstonplum]

Nadal's junior career is the funniest of all, and part of his legend--he didn't really have one. He beat Pat Cash is a clay-court exhibition when Nadal was 14. He beat the defending French Open champion at MC in 2003 when he was 16; and then a month or so later beat Carlos Moya in Hamburg, also as a 16 year old. We'll ever, ever see anything like that again.

 

[doctor dennis]

Yes. It's unreasonable to presume all future top players should be winning the junior slams. They are obviously hugely competitive junior tournaments, but most will have just one season (at best) where they are developed enough to be stronger than the competition before they get too old to enter.

However, I'd still expect that any genuinely promising junior would be winning some tournaments and would stand out from the crowd at local, county and even national level. You'd have to factor in if they are small for their age, but there are always stories of the top players beating bemused senior club players before they've hit puberty, because they are relying on talent, not power.

This was exactly my point and the reason for the thread. I was locked in a discussion about UK county and regional events.

Kind regards

DD

 

[jokinla]

I agree with everyone that being successful as a junior has no bearing on becoming pro.
My point of the thread is that the top players have been winning throughout their carriers. I'm talking about club championships, county matches etc, not just the big events. A win is a win.
It was just suggested to me that winning early isn't important to which I disagreed.

Ash, what do you think about the UK talent ID system / philosophy?

Kind regards

DD

Not sure what you mean by club/county matches, I'm going to guess they are tournaments not on any kind of international level, and if that's the case, there are 1000's of these every year across the world, with 1000's of different juniors winning them, and none of these have any relevance when it comes to being a world class pro, being good enough to make it onto the international stage is probably the only prerequisite to becoming a world class pro because if you can't even make it to that level, it's unlikely you'll make it as a world class pro, and winning one of these lower level tournaments has pretty much nothing to do with that, it's just so far down on the ladder of things that you must achieve along the way. Anyhow, I disagree, a win isn't just a win until it's at a certain level.

 

[doctor dennis]

Not sure what you mean by club/county matches, I'm going to guess they are tournaments not on any kind of international level, and if that's the case, there are 1000's of these every year across the world, with 1000's of different juniors winning them, and none of these have any relevance when it comes to being a world class pro, being good enough to make it onto the international stage is probably the only prerequisite to becoming a world class pro because if you can't even make it to that level, it's unlikely you'll make it as a world class pro, and winning one of these lower level tournaments has pretty much nothing to do with that, it's just so far down on the ladder of things that you must achieve along the way. Anyhow, I disagree, a win isn't just a win until it's at a certain level.

Correct, they are not of international level.
I agree that winning ANY tournament as a junior has no baring on becoming a pro unless its an adult pro tournament.
To summarise why I asked the question was basically around the criteria used to select promising juniors into a national programme.
There are certain things said player needs to achieve which I am fine with. However I said that winning on a regular basis at regional / national level junior tournaments must also be looked at. Currently this isn't. We were given a presentation during one of these selection processes which the presenter also stated that winning wasn't part of the criterea.
At the levels I am talking which is regional / national I cant see how a child who wins on a regular basis does not gain access to the programme. At this level a pusher will not win. Only the better players will win regularly.
I'm on the belief that a serial winner should be looked at as even if they do not currently have the greatest technique they obviously have something extra that cant always be picked up on these selection days.
Hope this clarifies a bit.
However, a win is a win. It does not matter what level it is at. Only the person who enters said tournament can determine that. If you win a slam. Great. If you win a club tournament. Great. Its relevant to that person who wins. Nothing can be taken away from them.
Winnings winning.

DD

 

[jokinla]

Correct, they are not of international level.
I agree that winning ANY tournament as a junior has no baring on becoming a pro unless its an adult pro tournament.
To summarise why I asked the question was basically around the criteria used to select promising juniors into a national programme.
There are certain things said player needs to achieve which I am fine with. However I said that winning on a regular basis at regional / national level junior tournaments must also be looked at. Currently this isn't. We were given a presentation during one of these selection processes which the presenter also stated that winning wasn't part of the criterea.
At the levels I am talking which is regional / national I cant see how a child who wins on a regular basis does not gain access to the programme. At this level a pusher will not win. Only the better players will win regularly.
I'm on the belief that a serial winner should be looked at as even if they do not currently have the greatest technique they obviously have something extra that cant always be picked up on these selection days.
Hope this clarifies a bit.
However, a win is a win. It does not matter what level it is at. Only the person who enters said tournament can determine that. If you win a slam. Great. If you win a club tournament. Great. Its relevant to that person who wins. Nothing can be taken away from them.
Winnings winning.

DD

I guess they do it differently over in Europe, that's your home? Over here winning on a national level is how you get to the next level, but just because you don't win doesn't necessarily mean you can't make it to the next level, for instance, if you don't win any of the top national tournaments, yet finish highly in some, your ranking will reflect that and you can make it to the next level, which seems to be the best way to determine who should be going to the next level, not sure how the selection process occurs in your part of the world. I guess my point is, you don't necessarily have to win a national tournament, but you have to be doing well enough in them to be ranked high enough, to go on to the next level. Now of course anyone ranked high enough in the nation, will of course be winning any and all of the little local, sectional tournaments they want, but that isn't necessarily important in the grand scheme of things, and generally those players aren't playing the smaller tournaments anyhow because it's pointless.

 

[doctor dennis]

I guess they do it differently over in Europe, that's your home? Over here winning on a national level is how you get to the next level, but just because you don't win doesn't necessarily mean you can't make it to the next level, for instance, if you don't win any of the top national tournaments, yet finish highly in some, your ranking will reflect that and you can make it to the next level, which seems to be the best way to determine who should be going to the next level, not sure how the selection process occurs in your part of the world. I guess my point is, you don't necessarily have to win a national tournament, but you have to be doing well enough in them to be ranked high enough, to go on to the next level. Now of course anyone ranked high enough in the nation, will of course be winning any and all of the little local, sectional tournaments they want, but that isn't necessarily important in the grand scheme of things, and generally those players aren't playing the smaller tournaments anyhow because it's pointless.

Yep I'm from the UK.
It seems we actually agree going by your post.
In the UK as a junior mini tennis player to get into a national system you need to be selected based on test from one day.
Previous wins in regional / national tournaments don't count.
That's what I don't really agree completely with.

Kind regards

DD

 

[jokinla]

Yep I'm from the UK.
It seems we actually agree going by your post.
In the UK as a junior mini tennis player to get into a national system you need to be selected based on test from one day.
Previous wins in regional / national tournaments don't count.
That's what I don't really agree completely with.

Kind regards

DD

Yep that system is pretty ridiculous, players can be amazing in drills, practice, whatever, but completely different in matches, which is where it counts. Either way though, a world class pro will eventually make it through.

 

[Ash_Smith]

Ash, what do you think about the UK talent ID system / philosophy?

Kind regards

DD

There are aspects of it which are world class and there are some aspects which I think could be improved. The general principal of any Talent ID system is to identify and confirm players with the potential to become Elite athletes. This is much easier in a primary skill sport with late specialisation (such as cycling or rowing), for a secondary skill, early specialisation sport like tennis it is much harder.

The way we do it (in wheelchair tennis) is in the early ID stages you are looking for players who meet a certain profile, based on key talent markers for future performance (based on world standards). As player progress into the talent confirmation stage we start looking for results and rankings. This may not be so easy for able bodied tennis as the key talent markers are more varied so writing a ID profile is harder, but could still be done.

 

[vernonbc]

I'm on the belief that a serial winner should be looked at as even if they do not currently have the greatest technique they obviously have something extra that cant always be picked up on these selection days.
Hope this clarifies a bit.
However, a win is a win. It does not matter what level it is at. Only the person who enters said tournament can determine that. If you win a slam. Great. If you win a club tournament. Great. Its relevant to that person who wins. Nothing can be taken away from them.
Winnings winning.

I'm with you doctor dennis. Winning is something that can't be taught and if a youngster has that innate ability to somehow win a match, to sometimes overcome a lack of technique, that mentality should be recognized and developed. Technique can be taught. Often a winning attitude is just something that a few fortunate people are born with.

Rafa has been mentioned quite often. While his spin was unique I'm quite sure that there were any number of other 12 and 14 or whatever year olds that could hit a backhand as well as he could, certainly could serve better than him, but the mental strength that has served him so well in his pro career made him something special even as a youngster. Was he born with it or was it part of Tio Toni's madcap genius that instilled it in him? We may never know the answer to that but he has a rare magic that unfortunately maybe gets overlooked in other kids that don't get chosen for the 'team'.

 

[adil1972]

whats the minimum and maximum age for juniors

 

[doctor dennis]

whats the minimum and maximum age for juniors

In the UK are have a mini tennis system.
3-8 = mini red. 8-9= orange ball. 9-10=green ball. 10+ is yellow ball.

To answer your question my classification is under 11's based on the mini tennis system but strictly speaking a junior could really be classed as under 18.

I'm actually a fan of the mini tennis system but I know many parents who aren't.

It will be interesting to see if any pros develop from going through this system.

Kind regards

DD

 

[Deleted member 307496]

In the UK are have a mini tennis system.
3-8 = mini red. 8-9= orange ball. 9-10=green ball. 10+ is yellow ball.

To answer your question my classification is under 11's based on the mini tennis system but strictly speaking a junior could really be classed as under 18.

I'm actually a fan of the mini tennis system but I know many parents who aren't.

It will be interesting to see if any pros develop from going through this system.

Kind regards

DD

These days you pretty much need to get onto the main tour at fifteen to have any sort of early success. That trend seems to be fading though, and fast.

 

[kOaMaster]

I can tell you just that Federer did win almost everything in switzerland and was by the age of 13-16 by far the best player in the country and started his international career.

I can't remember of any player who didn't have at least some respectful success in his early years and still got into the top20. is there really somethink like a late bloomer?

(not counting the guys who had almost no junior tour experience because they went straight to the pros like nadal, hewitt)

 

[*Sparkle*]

(not counting the guys who had almost no junior tour experience because they went straight to the pros like nadal, hewitt)

I don't think this thread is about kids on the junior tour anyway. If they have got to that stage, they have obviously been identified and are having their careers nurtured and the OP is trying to establish how important winning is to deciding which players to develop. Anyone who gets to enter a junior slam, never mind win, is already in the system.

Rafa may not have travelled as much as a junior compared with other top players, but he was still playing a lot of tournaments. It was an international tournament in Andorra where he had that fateful conversation with Andy Murray about their relative training regimes.

 

[vernonbc]

Rafa may not have travelled as much as a junior compared with other top players, but he was still playing a lot of tournaments. It was an international tournament in Andorra where he had that fateful conversation with Andy Murray about their relative training regimes.

It was also a Nike sponsored tournament (Stars of the Future) in South Africa where he first met Juan Martin del Potro. Rafa was 14 and Delpo was 12. As they both spoke Spanish they hung out together and kept in touch and have remained good friends to this day.

It's not only the national tennis organizations that identify kids when they're young, the sporting goods companies are very aggressive at doing the same thing.

 

[doctor dennis]

I don't think this thread is about kids on the junior tour anyway. If they have got to that stage, they have obviously been identified and are having their careers nurtured and the OP is trying to establish how important winning is to deciding which players to develop. Anyone who gets to enter a junior slam, never mind win, is already in the system.

Rafa may not have travelled as much as a junior compared with other top players, but he was still playing a lot of tournaments. It was an international tournament in Andorra where he had that fateful conversation with Andy Murray about their relative training regimes.

100% what I was thinking.

What was the conversation that Rafa and Murray had out of interest?

 

[*Sparkle*]

It was the one where he told him about the tennis academy and how often he got to practice and who he got to practice with. Andy realised that he wasn't getting nearly as much practice and needed stiffer competition to play with. When he went home, he persuaded his parents to let him go to the Spanish Academy, going there instead of with the LTA programme that Jamie had hated.

 

[beckstennis]

Yep I'm from the UK.
It seems we actually agree going by your post.
In the UK as a junior mini tennis player to get into a national system you need to be selected based on test from one day.
Previous wins in regional / national tournaments don't count.
That's what I don't really agree completely with.

Kind regards

DD

Stay away from the LTA talent id days !!!

 

[doctor dennis]

Stay away from the LTA talent id days !!!

I know many people who refuse to let their kids attend them.

I don't think they are that bad they just need better criterea and take into account grade 2 & 3 wins.

DD