My Kalamazoo Preview
I'm neck-deep in registration at the moment, but earlier this week I did write a Kalamazoo preview for The Tennis Recruiting Network. Not nearly as detailed as Brent's and Austin's breakdowns, I'm afraid, but I encourage everyone to check out their predictions at the Kalamazoo Nationals post.
TAGS:
9 comments:
I have been thinking about this topic for awhile now and finally wanted to ask people this question. How does everyone feel about players such as Prakash Amritraj, Stephen Amritraj and Cecil Mammit switching from the USA flag? India in the case of the Amritraj cousins and Philippines for Mammit (Eric Taino also switched with Mammit to Philippines to play Davis Cup but never got a US Open wildcard that I could find).
I only list these three in particular because they have all taken wildcards into the US Open during their careers under the USA flag. They were all born and raised in the United States and each attended college here in America before turning pro. Prakash was actually the 2002 Kalamazoo champion.
Is it fair they all accepted wildcards and grew up under the American flag before changing their national allegiance to that of their parents/grandparents? Remember, they were only given these wildcards for the most part for having USA next to their names.
Opinions?
wowwww john isner is a BALLLERRRRRR he just beat haas and is going to the semis at legg mason hello!
Austin
The players were born and raised in the US and it was fitting for the USTA to grant wild cards to these players, to play in the US OPEN and other USA events.
The USTA did not know they would play for their "HOMELAND" at a later date. The players certainly had the right to change to other countries.
Now, I hope they don't TRY and come back and get coaching, wild cards, not only to the US Open but to other ATP events in the US (many US tournaments are partial to Americans).
Let them go to India, Philippines or where ever and get wild cards, coaching, etc. from the other countries. They made their bed, so now let them sleep in it.
Austin, how is this for interesting. Donald Young maybe the youngest pro player to have such a ranking (in the 200's) but guess what-- he has been out on the pro circuit for 3 years-- do your homework and compare to all the other players who have been out on the tour for 3 years. Young doesn't look to good on that evaluation.
Now take a look at Isner-- 2 ATP pro events and he should either pass Young this week or certainly wihin the next 2- 3 weeks depening if he plays.
My point is, it is not how soon you get on the ATP Tour, or how old you are-- it is how fast you go up the rankings and how far.
The pro players now have a book on Young -- and according to no other than Peter Bodo -- it will take a long time for Young to erase his "NO FIGHT ATTITUDE".
On the other hand Isner also (now in two tournaments) has a book. He just knocked off HAAS(# 12 in the WORLD) AND BECKER (# 47 in the WORLD). Isner certainly has some work to do - on return of serve, movement-especially laterally and moving into the net-- but all in all after, 2 ATP events --pretty darn great.
As I mentioned before - ONLY WINNING BREEDS TRUE CONFIDENCE- and not winning junior events, futures or challengers -- at least it doesn't do anything for the ATP EVENTS-- talk to Paul Goldstein who has the most wins on the Challenger circuit-- see how much that helps on the ATP Circuit--not that much!!!
Querry, Roddick, Fish, Ginepri great idea NOT to go to college.
Goldstein, Isner great idea TO go to college.
Young is now going to have a long road ahead- without a college degree --
One final question Austin,
if you only had 1 wild card left for the US Open-- who would you pick Young or Isner?
No-brainer, Isner. Not because of the past four days, but because if I had to pick one of them to go out and win a best three-of-five match I think Isner has a better chance because of his ability to win cheap points with his sledgehammer of a serve.
Plus, it's on here somewhere from the past year when I said he would be in the top100 next summer because he has a weapon that allows for huge jumps in the rankings, opposed to someone like Young who will slowly move up because he has a well-rounded game that lacks a huge weapon to rely on. Same reason Roddick jumped up so quick in 2001 and Querrey last year.
Can't wait for the Roddick-Isner final on Sunday. Hope I didn't just jinx John with that, but Monfils is going down.
man in the moon,
Comparing Young to other pros who have been on tour 3 years isn't fair unless they started at the same age. A player who starts at age 22 should rise a lot faster than one who starts at 15. I think it's a mistake To downgrade him because he had the audacity to play professionally at such a young age. If you were comparing him to another 18-year-old who started later, then you could make the argument that that player is more impressive.
What Young has accomplished to this point has been very impressive in my view. I don't understand the remark about him having a load road ahead without a college degree. He's well on track to be a successful pro (certainly further ahead than Fish and Ginepri were at the same age).
Isner is doing great, and I agree that he deserves a wild card above all others based on his recent results and the fact that he has the best chance to win matches. However, I don't think it's necesary to use his success to detract from what Young has done.
David
Michael Chang became a Pro at 15 and was in the Top 10 by age 17, including winning a Grand Slam.
Life sometimes isn't fair, David and the window for a pro tennis player is very, very small.
I am not comparing Chang, Isner or any one else to Young.
As I have said many times before, Young is a very good player- I just don't think he is as good as everyone thinks (including the so called experts).
I am not downgrading him because he started to play pro tennis at 15-- I still believe he should have gone to college, because I do not think he will be anything but a journeyman tennis player.
I think the college experience would have been more beneficial to him than playing pro tennis at the age of 15.
BTW, many so called experts are NOW saying the exact same thing that I said 2 years ago.
Once again, I wish Donald the best and I know that he is working very hard. However there are many, many players working very hard, I just don't think he has a back up plan, if the tennis thing doesn't work out ( meaning top 10 or better- as Young believes).
David, there isn't any track that you can compare what one player does compared to another.
Fish, Ginepri, Chang, Isner all went up the rankings at a different pace and will attain different levels based upon specific characterestics.
In my opinion, Young and his mentors have done it wrong, and frankly I blame the mentors much more than I blame Donald.
Donald Young Advocates
THINK ABOUT IT!!!
YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE TO BE A TOP ATP 10 PLAYER IF YOU DON'T WIN (JUNIOR US OPEN, WIMBLEDON OR THE ZOO)
History confirms that winners of the ZOO have a 3 in 41 chance of making it to the top ATP 10 (since 1966 -Gottfried, Krickstein, Chang).
Winners of Junior Wimbledon - 6 in 48 chance of making it to the top 10 (since 1959 - Roger F, Edberg, Cash, Lendl, Borg, Orantes)
Winners of the Junior U.S. Open- 4 in 34 chance of making it to the top 10- ( since 1973 Cash, Edberg, Rios, Roddick)
My point is -- Junior Fame does not guarantee anything in the Pros.
man in the moon,
That's because there are a hell of a lot more players who don't win those tournaments than do. That also isn't a fair comparison. You seem to be looking at total numbers instead of the rate. The *rate* at which winners of those tournaments reach ATP top 10 is almost certainly higher than the *rate* at which all other players reach ATP top 10.
Besides, Donald Young hasn't just had junior success, so you have to factor that in as well when projecting his future. And I didn't say that his junior fame guaranteed him anything.
Nothing you said refutes what I said. Your comparison of players with 3 years of pro experience is heavily flawed when you're comparing 22-year-olds to 15-year-olds. That should be obvious. Defending it on the basis that "life isn't fair" is pretty silly. If you prefer, I'll call it invalid. That applies as well.
You seem to refute your own argument, actually, by saying that "there isn't any track that you can compare what one player does compared to another." So is the 3 year comparison meaningful or not? Is the comparison to Chang meaningful or not?
Young couldn't have played college tennis at 15, so I don't understand the point about how he would have been better off to do so at that age. He would probably be entering college in the fall had he gone that route. And given his results, I don't know how one can be so adamant that he should have gone to college. He's already knocking on the door of the top 200. Sure, there's a chance he could still flop, but there was also a chance that Roddick, Fish, Ginepri, and Querrey flopped when they started.
I think I'm going to take a break from debating Donald Young. It's getting old, and I don't think I'm having any success in persuading you.
David
I was being facetious, I am sorry you did not pick up on my sarcasam.
I did not expect a comment on Young / Isner for the 1 wild card. It is obvious. Chang started at a similiar age to Young- no comparsion.
Young by the age of 18 has 3 years experience - Isner has 2 months at the age of 22.
All the players that I have mentioned have not flopped and that is the difference so far, they have proven that they bleong, Young has not.
And, yes you are right -- I still believe that Young will be a journeyman tennis player.
I also agree we should take a break from Donald Young.
Post a Comment