Brian Stewart said:The big difference is that you can succeed in the juniors with less. You don't need as much game, and can often get by with one huge weapon to hide any weaknesses. That doesn't translate as well in the pros because (a) no matter how big your weapons, they've seen something similar to it before, which means they have found a way to handle it and (b) they can get to your weaknesses.
Also, the players with the more complete games as juniors are often gone by the time they're 16, and playing on the main tour. As a general rule (although nothing is absolute), if you're still futzing around in the juniors at 17, and especially at 18, you're not likely to blossom into an elite pro.
You can really see it In A.Harkelroad's game.tenn_ace said:I watched a lot of junior competition and my theory is that some juniors are more consistent, less risk takers... They can push the ball back for hours without going for a winner... Very often they prevail over talented juniors, whose shots are more powerful and riskier, but are inconsistent... (see early Serena and Venus).
A recent example: Masha Kirilenko. I really doubt that she will be able to go far in her pro career... Her wins were mostly to her consistency in retrieving shots. Of course, I'll be glad to be wrong.