Tennis Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i'm just wondering about this........
coz Angelique Widjaja and Marion Bartoli
seem to rank to low at 18 to be called TOP 10 potential,
so what do u think "normally" they should be at?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,187 Posts
at least in the top 40's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,053 Posts
I don't think Widjaja has top 10 potential, but Bartoli is fine where she is, she just needs a breakthrough tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
I think if you play a baseline game--defensive or counterpunch attack you should be top 50 to 100 at least. If you play more all around attacking game with big serve,attacking mid court balls, good net game it takes a bit longer. !00 to 200 and moving up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,369 Posts
hmm its tough to say

some people may just be late bloomers
peaking young doesnt neccesarily mean success

look at Martina Navratilova
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,110 Posts
widjaja has the potential but it's just that she's not consistent enough coz she 'often' loses to players ranked relatively lower..... on the other hand, she loves to spring surprises by toppling seeds such as patty, pistolesi, fernandez etc....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,386 Posts
Their rank shouldnt be judged by their age. Everyone develops at a diff pace. Like mmc said, good early results doesnt necessarily mean long term success.

Their are alot of factors to consider...like when did they start playing pro events, did they have the advantage of WC's etc

I love the mystery of tennis..for all we know Widjaja could turn out to have a great career winning slams and all...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,313 Posts
You can't really use rankings to predict anything. Lucic was 69th when she appeared on the rankings and she was only 15.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,969 Posts
yeah, and potential doesn't really say much...

Look at Mirijana Lucic and Katarina Srebotnik....they won their first WTA tournament that they played (mirijana = bol, katarina=estoril) and yet they have struggled since. Katarina is off and on and Mirijana is supposedly reshaping her game. So really its hard to tell. I think though that the Williams sisters are an anomoly, so I think that in order to be top 10 potential, you have to be in the top 70 by age 18 and DEFINITELY top 50 by age 20 (if not top 40).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
angie is not top 10 material as of yet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
368 Posts
and Myskina isnt in TOP 20 or 50 when she was 20 years old,
she still reached TOP 10........:)

but most girls peak around 22.......
i think TOP 100 at 20 shouldnt be too hard,
and TOP 50 by 23, TOP 20 by 25,
that the latest.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,049 Posts
I don't think there is any relation

YOu can't predict a player's career based on what others achieved, each player is different, the circumstances are different.

Some players develop early, some later (look at Dominque Van Roost, Testud, Tauziat that have their best rankings at the end of their careers). Some styles need more time to mature, some less.

Players might be not too committed when they are young and work harder later.

Some players learn to win when they are more mature, some do it earlier.

And the competition has a lot to do, the ranking is not only up to the player (except in the case of Serena :p ), and it also will depend on how weak or strong the rest of the field is. A player can face a strong field early in her career and a weaker one later and then climb in the rankings.

However, you can tell (with a big margin for error) if a player is top ten material early in her career by watching her play, but not by the rankings.

A player can be losing all the time because of mental problems, or because she needs to work on parts of her game but she can have great skills and then there is hope she can eventually start winning.

If the player doesn't have a good game, it's probable that even if she achieves a relatively high ranking early she won't go much further.

And also remember you can't compare with players that didn't go through the AER.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
368 Posts
Fingon said:
I don't think there is any relation

YOu can't predict a player's career based on what others achieved, each player is different, the circumstances are different.

Some players develop early, some later (look at Dominque Van Roost, Testud, Tauziat that have their best rankings at the end of their careers). Some styles need more time to mature, some less.

Players might be not too committed when they are young and work harder later.

Some players learn to win when they are more mature, some do it earlier.

And the competition has a lot to do, the ranking is not only up to the player (except in the case of Serena :p ), and it also will depend on how weak or strong the rest of the field is. A player can face a strong field early in her career and a weaker one later and then climb in the rankings.

However, you can tell (with a big margin for error) if a player is top

ten material early in her career by watching her play, but not by the rankings.

A player can be losing all the time because of mental problems, or because she needs to work on parts of her game but she can have great skills and then there is hope she can eventually start winning.

If the player doesn't have a good game, it's probable that even if she achieves a relatively high ranking early she won't go much further.

And also remember you can't compare with players that didn't go through the AER.
rankings are not as bad as you think..........
we do care about people who have TOP 10 potentials,
and we do determine a person's potential and career with ranking,
even though titles do matter, but ranking can not be ignored,
that's why former TOP 10 players are more easily identified,

so to become TOP 10, at 18, u've to be at least
ahead of many of the TOP 100 players,
so 20 i think is when they're reaching the peak,
and look at the present TOP 10 players,
most of them are there by teens,
so that's 100% accuracy now.........
plus, Jelena, Kim, Justine i believe were all under AER,

Domnique, Sandrine, Natalie etc. late bloomers
are probably only less than 10% in the tour,
so normally, i think TOP 10 players are already there,
by the time they hit 20,

if one reaches TOP 10 @ 20,
she should better be ranked at least TOP 30 @ 19,
and at least TOP 100 by 18.......
that's pretty much the norms.........
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,293 Posts
I think it also has a lot to do with which country a player comes from. Here in Japan it's just so rare for promising teen players to skip high school. They at least graduate from high school before turning pro just like Kimiko Date and Ai did. Every country has different values on education and different education system. It's unthinkable Japanese girls play on the tour before turing 18 but it seems just a norm among Russian players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anton

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,843 Posts
Depends what kind of top ten player you're talking about, too... there's an elite top ten player like Venus, Serena, Justine etc., and there are players who sort of hang around the lower end of the top ten but aren't really ever going to be Slam champions (Sandrine and Dominique were this sort of player, and Jelena will be as well). For the latter sort, it really doesn't matter where you're ranked at age 18, while the former tend to be ranked pretty high early on.

I'd agree that rankings matter less than game... you can't judge on rankings alone, but you can judge if you see a girl play.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top