Why is it that people say 18 year olds can't be elite players unless they are already - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 12:43 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,950
                     
Why is it that people say 18 year olds can't be elite players unless they are already

people have been saying that certain players because they are already 18 have no chance of being an elite player or haven't shown that they could be. apparently no one can improve once they hit the age of 18. well lina k was mentioned, she is 18 and she just beat seles 7-5 7-5.

so then what happens? people start saying monica is getting tired and old, if she does't finish the year in the top 10 then it is not a big win.

lina also took monica to 3 sets a couple of weeks ago. some people just fcan't handle it when young players come through.

Go the aussies! stosur!!!
and good luck russians: dementieva, safina, kirilenko, sharapova, kuznetsova, bovina, zvonareva, dushevina.

also good luck to: azarenka, lucic, sprem, vakulenko, vaidisova, safarova, ivanovic, groenefeld, mirza, krajicek, kvitkova, larcher de brito, lisicki.
Gowza is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 12:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: this celluloid dream
Posts: 4,078
                     
gowza, look at most of the legends of the women's game. Where were they when they were 18? where was Hingis? Evert? seles? Graf? Venus? Serena? And so on and so on. Nobody saying if you haven't won a major by age 18 you never will (davenport, Navratilova, Novotna), but if you're going to do it, the chances are at age 18 you'll be in the top ten.
King Lindsay is offline  
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 12:52 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York City
Posts: 10,386
 
Lina is not a good example. Had it not been for injury that led to being off the tour most of last season, she would probably be one of the contenders right now...she did very well as a 15 and 16 year old.

VENUS. ANA, TAY TAY. NICOLE. LAURA. KONJUH. MADISON

SERENA. MUGU. VIKA. PETKO. CARO. TIMEA. SVETA. HEATHER. KAIA. TAMIRA. FLAVIA. GEORGI. COCO. LUCIE, SLOANE. PENG. SORANA. ALICIA. JAEDA. CICI. ANETT. DANKA. DONNA. FRANCOISE.

GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN. SHENAY. DINARA. GISELA. SPREM.
BK4ever is offline  
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 03:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
                     
Nobody's saying their can't be exceptions. But who's the last GS winner who wasn't top ten by the time she was 18?

Majoli as born in 1977, and ended 1995 ranked #9. Age 18.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 03:29 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,950
                     
why do we have to base the performance of young up and coming players on those who have come before them? each player is different and develops at different times and at different speeds.

Go the aussies! stosur!!!
and good luck russians: dementieva, safina, kirilenko, sharapova, kuznetsova, bovina, zvonareva, dushevina.

also good luck to: azarenka, lucic, sprem, vakulenko, vaidisova, safarova, ivanovic, groenefeld, mirza, krajicek, kvitkova, larcher de brito, lisicki.
Gowza is offline  
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 04:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
                     
Quote:
why do we have to base the performance of young up and coming players on those who have come before them?
I don't know Gowza. Som of it is, a lot of people in sports are into records. Who won how many GS titles? Who won how many titles on clay? Who was the youngest when they won a GS title? All that is basing 'the performance of young up and coming players on those who have come before them.'

Some folks like to figure out early who's going to be a star and follow them. Venus Williams got pulled out of juniors cause she was clobbering kids three years odler than here. Does that mean the next 9 year old who's beating 12 year olds is the next Venus Williams? No. But that's likely to be a damn good player.

Is it more significant to win a title at 16 or 26? Well, if we measure against those who have gone before, all other things being equal, it's more significant to win at 16. If we ignore what we've learned in life, than what's the difference?

why do we have to base the performance of young up and coming players on those who have come before them?

Because that's historically the most accurate basis on which to judge them?

Because using knowledge combined with observation has historically uyielded more accurate results than guesswork or intuition?

What would be a better way measure of the performance of a player, than how s/he's against her peers, and against the past?

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 04:23 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,950
                     
i really don't mind people making comparisons. but when someone says there is not much hope of her being an elite player because she is now 18 and hasn't done anything amazing, i just think it is unfair.

with lina she has had injuries and been interrupted and so has ally baker and elke clijsters. they don't take these things into account.

someone said kuznetsova or zvonareva won't be an elite player because they haven't done anything special. i guess taking a set off serena when only a couple of people in that year have is nothing.

people also don't take into account that the game is changing. it is changing in a way that players have to develop physically before they can compete at the very top. how is a 16 year old meant to have the same mucle as a 21 year old? they also don't believe that the age eligibility rule has changed anything when it clearly has when you take into account that players are not physically developed to compete at the top at that age, they therefore need to play more so they get the ranking points.

it is all well and good to say a 16 year old has as good a chance to be #1 in the world because serena did it in 13 tournaments and the age rule allows that many played pr however many it is but the player is physically developed and finds it harder to compete because of that therefore you shouldnt compare the players.

if you compare in a fair way then i'm fine with it but people are not comparing things in a fair way.

Go the aussies! stosur!!!
and good luck russians: dementieva, safina, kirilenko, sharapova, kuznetsova, bovina, zvonareva, dushevina.

also good luck to: azarenka, lucic, sprem, vakulenko, vaidisova, safarova, ivanovic, groenefeld, mirza, krajicek, kvitkova, larcher de brito, lisicki.
Gowza is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 04:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
                     
Gowza, the way things have been measured, the game itself have changed down through the years. But players who don't make the top ten young don't win GS titles. The reasons don't matter. Making the top ten is a VERY low bar. You can do it without winning a tournament. Kournikova and Dementieva both did. This IS fair. There hasn't been an exception to the rule for at least 35 years. Possibly the whole Open era.

So what I'm saying is you should be good enough to achieve a goal that doesn't even require winning a tournament, by 18. Sorry, bro' but unless you intend to provide an example of aplayer who breaks this pattern, it seems legit.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 05:07 AM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,388
                     
Jana Novotna did not enter the top ten until she hit 20 or older I think and she ended up winning a tournament.

Mary Joe Fernendez was a promising teenager who was in the top ten early but never ended up winning a grand slam.

I think in the end it's up to the individual, all these predictions based on "numbers" are tiring. We're dealing with people who play a sport here, not the stock market or science experiments.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 05:13 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,950
                     
i'm saying a new pattern is emerging. this generation should be the first to break the pattern. bovina, zvonareva, kuznetsova. these players look to be top contenders to challenge for grand slam titles and they haven't hit top 10 yet. in ten in years comeback and ask me for a player who has broken the pattern and i'm sure i will be able to give you a few.

Go the aussies! stosur!!!
and good luck russians: dementieva, safina, kirilenko, sharapova, kuznetsova, bovina, zvonareva, dushevina.

also good luck to: azarenka, lucic, sprem, vakulenko, vaidisova, safarova, ivanovic, groenefeld, mirza, krajicek, kvitkova, larcher de brito, lisicki.
Gowza is offline  
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 05:50 AM
 
Lisbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,432
                     
When did Davenport make the top 10? I think she was about 22 when she won her first slam.
Lisbeth is offline  
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 06:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 717
                     
I think part of the reason is that women's bodies tend to mature pretty early and that most are more or less fully matured by the age of 18.
bobcat is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 07:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: this celluloid dream
Posts: 4,078
                     
Lindsay was a top ten player in her first full season, 1994.
King Lindsay is offline  
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 07:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Sharapower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: anywhere else
Posts: 3,538
                     
In this debate we must take into account that the WTA changed the rules, not allowing girls under 16 years age to play in WTA tourneys with a restriction on number of tournaments. So in the current field we have girls who began very early, 14-15 on the tour (the case of Hingis-retired and of Venus Williams) and those who began rather at 16-17 : Serena, Kim, Justine, Daniela, Jelena and all the young generation.
A girl like Martina was able to reach #1 at less than 17 obviously because she began on the tour earlyer (at age 14) : then it took 3 years before she got the full rhythm of the tour as a very top-player and everyone agrees she was kind of a prodigy.
With the younger girls, assuming they enter the WTA tour at 17, you can't expect them to peak before 20 or even 21 (see Serena : began on the tour at 16 (1997) and peaking now at 21/22 (though she won a GS in 1999, aged 18) .
I don't think the purely physical question matters a lot considering that women are in the highest of their physical potential between 18 and 24/25 (sometimes even older).
It's rather all a matter of maturing their specific tennis skills : strokes, tactics, vision of the game at the high level.
If there wasn't the total domination of Serena and before her, Venus and Martina, the majors would likely be won by Kim, Justine and Daniela who are around 20 or 21 now. So the assumption in the thread topic seems false to me.
Sharapower is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old Feb 13th, 2003, 11:17 AM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,388
                     
Great post quasimodo!

Thanks for bringing up the topic of "age eligibility rules".

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome