croatian sensation
Professional
Đoković.
Actually he'll be in top 3.
Actually he'll be in top 3.
Who will be in top 10 in five years?
- Thread starter Ivanišević
- Start date
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Nothing against Roddick or Nalbandian, but they would be 29 in 5 years. Almost the only players that have been top 10 players at 29 the last decade were Agassi, Sampras. Alltime greats decline at a slower rate than normal top 10 players(which is why it wouldn't be a surprise to see Federer still top 5, maybe even 1 at 30)
Roddick & Nalbandian are clearly not all time great material. Plus the top 10 has rarely had multiple 29+ players in the top 10 over the last decade.
As the '01 & '02 lists have shown, the top 10 changes a lot in just a few years. Most of the top 10 players in 5 years are likely players we haven't heard of. Over the years the average age of the top 10 is usually around 23/24. So Djokovic/Monfils are better bets than Roddick or Nalbandian to be top 10 in five years.
As for Donald Young, I'm not writing his career completely off yet, but I doubt many players have made the top 10 after starting their career 0-9. And 17 isn't that young, he should have been able to at least do well in a challenger by now, I don't believe he's even won a match at that level yet.
K
K Coria
Guest
heh heh nice work, nice subject...
I just want to remind Ljubcic case... Donald Young or another one... Who knows.. Today's 24 years old player could be succesfull at his 29 or 30...
But let me tell you that there will be 4 people from former eastern block. Serbian, Russian, Hrvatska, Ukranian players are coming.. They will be the stars in many fields...
Nadal... I am not sure for him... He has to improve his game..
I just want to remind Ljubcic case... Donald Young or another one... Who knows.. Today's 24 years old player could be succesfull at his 29 or 30...
But let me tell you that there will be 4 people from former eastern block. Serbian, Russian, Hrvatska, Ukranian players are coming.. They will be the stars in many fields...
Nadal... I am not sure for him... He has to improve his game..
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Looking at atptennis, these guys are looking good at 17/18, so in 5 years I wouldn't be suprised to see some of them in top 10:
Marin Cilic, Croatia, 17, ranked 197
Evgeny Korolev, Russia, 18, ranked 122
Juan Martin Del Potro, Argentina, 17, ranked 116
this is a good chart, showing the age that all top 10 players of the last 10 years were when they broke into the top 10:
http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/RM_Top10.html
Marin Cilic, Croatia, 17, ranked 197
Evgeny Korolev, Russia, 18, ranked 122
Juan Martin Del Potro, Argentina, 17, ranked 116
this is a good chart, showing the age that all top 10 players of the last 10 years were when they broke into the top 10:
http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/RM_Top10.html
Ivanišević
Rookie
it's individual.. one player could be on his peak at age of 21 and another one on the age of 26 (like ljubicic).K Coria said:
i'm not sure who are the serbian and ukrainan players (except đoković) that u're talking about.
but i'm pretty sure there'll be few players in top 10 in 5 years who are currently ranked around 800th place
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I don't think that was the case. Tennis has been a young man's sport since the mid 70s(Borg winning majors at 18, Mac winning the Open at 20)
I think the average age of the year end top 10 of the last 20 years is 24. Connors/Agassi types are the exception not the rule.
Here are all the year end top 10s(mostly pretty young guys all years since 80s, look at '86:
Becker,19
Edberg,20
Wilander,22
Leconte,23
Mecir,22
Nystrom,23
Noah, Gomez, Lendl, 26
http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/yearend_topten.html
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
So how would you determine that age? It seems rather subjective, you can't really prove a players peak. Most players are retired by 30, so 27 may be close enough for that definition.
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
The "peak years" of a tennis player are the convergence of all the different phases of his life that affect his game--mental, physical, and skill.
Take a few of the "tennis greats", for example.
Andre Agassi is a guy who always had great skill, but his mental game didn't improve until after he made his comeback and adopted Lendl's training style.
His mental game was weak in the beginning, strong in the end. But his physical game, by the time that he played Sampras at the US Open, and Federer at the US Open, was declining rapidly so that he wasn't the best player during those matches. Thus we saw a golden period of Agassi winning the Australian 4 times, while as a youngster he never even got there.
Michael Chang is a guy who had the goods at the beginning, but that's about it. His strong point was always his mental game, but his physical game never reached the level of Agassi. So while he could beat the teenage versions of both Sampras and Agassi, while their physical abilities were still developing, he was no match for them once they got rolling on all cylinders, later in their career.
Sampras took a long time to get into his prime. I think it's because his serve and volley game took time to develop both the physical and skill aspects of it.
He didn't have the mental problems of Agassi, so therefore his mental game and physical game were in sync with each other. Agassi, on the other hand,
took a long time to develop his mental game, but by the time that happened he was midway through his career, and already on the decline physically.
Federer seems to have the mental game strong, but it is on the verge to be damaged by his games vs. Nadal. Physical and skill wise, his progress seems to be very stable.
Nadal has a strong mental game and physical game, but his weak point is skill. However, we saw after Wimbledon that he is a very fast learner, and we could very well see him gaining ground against Federer in the rankings very soon. As to the progress of his mental game and physical game, they can't get much better, but the question is can they get worse. I think it's a matter of keeping his impulse under control and not allowing it to lead to injuries. And that nearly makes all the difference.
Take a few of the "tennis greats", for example.
Andre Agassi is a guy who always had great skill, but his mental game didn't improve until after he made his comeback and adopted Lendl's training style.
His mental game was weak in the beginning, strong in the end. But his physical game, by the time that he played Sampras at the US Open, and Federer at the US Open, was declining rapidly so that he wasn't the best player during those matches. Thus we saw a golden period of Agassi winning the Australian 4 times, while as a youngster he never even got there.
Michael Chang is a guy who had the goods at the beginning, but that's about it. His strong point was always his mental game, but his physical game never reached the level of Agassi. So while he could beat the teenage versions of both Sampras and Agassi, while their physical abilities were still developing, he was no match for them once they got rolling on all cylinders, later in their career.
Sampras took a long time to get into his prime. I think it's because his serve and volley game took time to develop both the physical and skill aspects of it.
He didn't have the mental problems of Agassi, so therefore his mental game and physical game were in sync with each other. Agassi, on the other hand,
took a long time to develop his mental game, but by the time that happened he was midway through his career, and already on the decline physically.
Federer seems to have the mental game strong, but it is on the verge to be damaged by his games vs. Nadal. Physical and skill wise, his progress seems to be very stable.
Nadal has a strong mental game and physical game, but his weak point is skill. However, we saw after Wimbledon that he is a very fast learner, and we could very well see him gaining ground against Federer in the rankings very soon. As to the progress of his mental game and physical game, they can't get much better, but the question is can they get worse. I think it's a matter of keeping his impulse under control and not allowing it to lead to injuries. And that nearly makes all the difference.
stormholloway
Legend
Good analysis but Nadal's weak point being skill is kinda vague. I would say nerves get to Nadal too often. Perhaps lack of variety would be a weak point.
As for earlier posts, Murray is NOT overrated. He is extremely skilled but physically very childish with room to gain mass and power. He has great lengths to go with his mental game as he slumps and mopes too often, but he is clearly a child and not a man-child like Nadal.
As for earlier posts, Murray is NOT overrated. He is extremely skilled but physically very childish with room to gain mass and power. He has great lengths to go with his mental game as he slumps and mopes too often, but he is clearly a child and not a man-child like Nadal.
Ivanišević
Rookie
murray is clearly overrated by british press. mainly because there's a lack of british players. he's good but, imo, there's too much pressure. there's nothing special, nothing mindblowing about his game.stormholloway said:
i simply can't see him in top 10 in five years.
onkystomper
Hall of Fame
Murray is overraed but i hate to admit he does show potential. He is already beating big names and this is whilst being weak mentally and physically.
Blake will be 31 in 5 years so cant see him being top 10 stuff.
Federer still has a chance of being top ten. No.1 may be a struggle though.
Nadal depends on his body. If it can take the punishment he is giving it then yes he could be top 10 / 5. He will only be 25 so that is likely it will be late 20's it catches up with him.
Blake will be 31 in 5 years so cant see him being top 10 stuff.
Federer still has a chance of being top ten. No.1 may be a struggle though.
Nadal depends on his body. If it can take the punishment he is giving it then yes he could be top 10 / 5. He will only be 25 so that is likely it will be late 20's it catches up with him.
Ivanišević
Rookie
nadal retired at 25 years of age??cuddles26 said:
did u predict him an injury? that's cruel!
helloworld
Hall of Fame
No great player ever retired at 25. The youngest retired champion is Bjorn Borg at 26 and I doubt Nadal would retire that soon.
cuddles26
Banned
Ivanišević said:
He wont want to keep playing once he drops out of the top 10, with his game he will be burnt out to the point he will struggle to stay in top 10. Yes with his game he will get alot of injuries by the time he gets closer to mid 20s as well, quite possably enough to retire due to injury as well.
cuddles26
Banned
helloworld said:
Nadal's game is more physicaly demanding then Borg's was, and Nadal is not one of the all time greatest like Borg is, and Borg did not commit himself to stupid schedules like Nadal does since he was a smarter individual. Not unreasonable for him to retire before Borg.
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
LMAO
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
Genius
Yugram
Legend
Meanwhile Nadal:
Breaking longest consecutive weeks in top 10 record in tennis history.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
LMAO internet "geniuses" predicting Nadal would no longer be in the top 5 in 2011 at age... 25.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Nostradamus level prediction. In an era where people still debated who was better between Djokovic and Murray, this man read the future.
P. S.: of course the Gasquet part was a mistake, but overall a fantastic prediction as he included 4 of the Big 4 among the top 5.
Last edited:
Yugram
Legend
Wow, not only this guy got Djokovic statement right, look just how close he was to predicting Big4 establishment in 2011...
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Not too bad
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
yea.. he did meet another Nadal indeed.. and that Nadal goes by the name of Djokovic.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Back when Baghdatis and Ancic were looking pretty good for future success predictions lol 
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
That's what I said. About the best prediction in the thread but needed to switch the top 2 and remove Gasquet.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
This thread is a reminder how so many people kept predicting Nadal to have a short career and at the same time a true reminder how good it is for players to have a strong country behind them. Case in point: Murray. I reminder how so many of the media predicted him to dominate mainly because the UK pushed him so hard. By 2007, to me it was clear Djokovic was the one with the skills to do it but not a lot of people were talking about him in 2006.
T
Tiki-Taka
Guest
Zardoz7/12
Hall of Fame
Murray wasn't pushed hard in Britain, actually I remember his "anyone but England to win the World Cup in 2006" comment which was a joke, he had to earn the adoration and respect, I think people softened up to Murray at Wimbledon 2012 when he lost in the final and broke down in tears. Henman was the Media darling in regards of Tennis in Britain, they hyped him up every time Wimbledon came around, even in 2007 when Murray was out with a wrist injury, the media in particular the BBC made out Henman would win Wimbledon in 2007. Yes that laughable.
It's always bothered me this "Britain loves Murray", no the English nationalist types hated Murray over a joke, which shows you the mental capacity of such people.
It's always bothered me this "Britain loves Murray", no the English nationalist types hated Murray over a joke, which shows you the mental capacity of such people.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
wow damn good prediction
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Good prediction besides claiming Federer would lose power and speed instead of gaining 5 years of experience and thus being at his best ever level.
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
but the prediction is still right...
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If you predict the top 10 in 2025, I (almost) guarantee you'd be embarrassed by your choices. Most of us would be.
Sosuke Aizen
Rookie
I think Gasquet was still top 10 in 2011 though so although he missed the ranking it was a fantastic prediction.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Similar threads
- Poll
