This is one of the most unrealistic and misinformed posts I have ever seen.Very much. Nadal was winning grand slams at your age (he turned 19 on the day of the semi-final in RG 2005). Rafa was the last teenager to win a slam. 18 would have been too late to join the tour in the past.
But with the current lot of teenagers and those in early 20s, you can take a lot of heart about the fact that none of them are actually setting the stage on fire.
If you are really good at it, you must give it another shot. Who knows you may be playing the Challengers by the end of next season and the main tour by the end of the year after that.
I know how tough it is to break onto the main tour. I am trying to boost up the OP. If he feels he is good enough (which he says, he is), there is no reason why he cannot compete on the tour. I know of many collegiate tennis players who were late bloomers.This is one of the most unrealistic and misinformed posts I have ever seen.
99.9% of players know where they stand at 16 years of age. They know whether they can be good enough to play on the main tour or the challengers. Taking a two year break at 16 (as implied by the OP) just means it’s going to be that much tougher just to play futures events.
You’re talking about “teenagers and those in their early 20s...none of them are setting the stage on fire.” Almost all of those players “not setting the stage in fire” were top 10 ranked juniors, many of them even higher. They all knew for a long time that they would be on the main tour one day because they were (all of them) heads and shoulders above their peers. They would best most of their local peers 6-0 6-0 and would need international competition. For ordinary players (assuming OP isn’t a former top ranked junior), it’s going to be impossible to break into even the challengers. People do not understand how hard it is to get to the main tour let alone win on it consistently.
Yes, give it a shot, but there’s a close to zero % chance someone who’s unknown breaks out into even the challengers.
Nice of you to encourage the OP, but we’re talking about literal impossibilities. Some unknown after taking a break will not qualify for challengers and certainly, 99.9% we will know what will happen: he won’t qualify. If he somehow does, he’ll be beaten badly. You have thousands of players fighting for these slots, most of whom were considered very talented when they were young.I know how tough it is to break onto the main tour. I am trying to boost up the OP. If he feels he is good enough (which he says, he is), there is no reason why he cannot compete on the tour. I know of many collegiate tennis players who were late bloomers.
And once he qualifies for the Challengers, you never know what may happen. For instance, Shapovalov was playing Challengers at the beginning of this year. Look where he is right now. Just saying.
OP's question was whether he should start. I answered 'yes'. Because if he is good enough, there is no reason why he can't succeed. Of course chances are slim (chances are slim for even those who did not take a 2 year break as OP did. Most of them are not going to make it to the top). But what is the harm in trying? That was my whole point. It may seem unrealistic and misinformed to you, but if encourages OP to take up the racquet again, my job is done.
I'd take that the other way, actually. What, do you think teenagers just randomly stopped being talented for no apparent reason? No. The fact that teenagers are having a harder time breaking through now means that breaking through has gotten even harder than it used to be.But with the current lot of teenagers and those in early 20s, you can take a lot of heart about the fact that none of them are actually setting the stage on fire.
Depends what your goal is.I started playing tennis at a pretty young age and got pretty good but i stopped playing about 2 years ago, is there still a way to get back into it and going to tournaments? Im 18 at the moment.