They are all 19.
They are all ranked 10-16.
They are all in the IW semis.
Who do you think is better at making the respective Tour more interesting?
Not sure what to say really
I think that the next couple of years will be crucial in determining which of the 4 does better throughout their careers.
In some ways, Peer and Chakvetadze are similar. Neither bare a particular amount of power, so both of them have to make up for it in sheer grit and determination. I think Peer is better in that respect - it seems she has a more reliable head on her shoulders (due to Chakvetadze's reactions to certain points she loses!
) which is crucial to her game style. However... I think Chakvetadze has the upper hand regarding tactics, finesse, alternative gameplans etc.. What I really admire about her is how she can almost cry after losing a point but is straight back in the game to play the next rally - she doesn't really dwell.
I think that their sheer grit has the potential to really upset rhythm and to completely frustrate opponents. It will be interesting to see who has a better career. I think I prefer Peer's game (maybe because I prefer Peer - she seems very down to Earth) but I think Chakvetadze's has more potential. She is almost Hingis-like - not as good yet
- in the way she approaches rallies. I think she is one of those gems who has a "tennis brain". That thread about someone not seeing her do anything good is maybe partly to do with how deceptive - not a run of the mill player.
Both remind me of more accomlished and tidier Camille Pins
Peer is probably more of a fighter - Chakvetadze has a more intelligent game
Looks like I did know what to say after all
As for Djokovic and Murray. I think they are both completely full of potential. I absolutely love how Murray can suddenly turn defence into attack. I guess he could be the male version of Chakvetadze
but he is much more equipped to finish rallies and hit winners. I remember in the Aussie Open against Maria, Anna would get in the position to hit an easier winner at the net (not a volley) and stuff it up - very weird!
Djokovic is a gritty competitor with a good head on his shoulders and a very "clean" game for lack of a better word. He looks so natural when playing. Novak has more power than Murray and, as his win against Nadal yesterday suggests, he has the potential to really go places. Although I much prefer him as a person (quit with the hormones, Murray!
), I think Andy will probably go further in the game. There is almost a gap in the market for a player like him - one who doesn't have an incredible amount of power and is effectively a defencive player. He too has a real tennis brain. I think his overall game will really improve with his netplay and tempremant. Hopefully, Djokovic will have a huge break-through where his confidence is totally boosted. Then, I think he will achieve more tahn Murray - in the short term at least.
I think they will all make their respective tours more interesting. As a group, they defy the up-and-coming power tennis stereotype and therefore are fun to watch and follow
. I think they are all real assets to tennis.
That's my opinion anyway. Sorry for rambling!!