Think Donald Young, Ernests Gulbis. At what age should you have won an ATP level tournament? MS1000? Glandslam? if you're ever going to do those things. I can't see Young ever winning a MS1000. I think he's only made one ATP tournament final in his career. Raonic, Dimitrov, Harrison (feel free to add more that you can think of), are now in that 20,21, 22 year old slot. At what point do the "experts" (me, you, and everyone) start to feel that they might just not have enough (talent, work ethic, weapons, serve) to get into that top 10, top 5 position. Sorry, this is kind of a vague post, but I'm in the mood to ask this question after reading about another Harrison flame-out in a big tournament. I don't think he's even made it to the the 3rd round of a slam. He had two semis last summer on hc (Atlanta and LA) and another semi at San Jose earlier this year. Someone had an interesting post a couple of days ago about Federer stinking it up in slams (with the exception of '01 Wimby, and then all of a sudden exploding right before his 22nd bday. Is there a magic age that they have to break through, 22, 23, before losing in slams and MS 1000s just become too routine?