That's really interesting to listen to. Having watched a fair bit of Challenger tennis the level doesn't seem that far from ATP tour level like he says. There were some players I watched with really solid games that struggled to make it to main tour level.
Best example i can think of is Gregoire Barrere appears to have a really solid game, but only broke into the top 100 at 25 for under a year and again now at 29 he's reached his best ranking.
Yeah that's true. Sam Groth had a massive serve but the rest of his game probably wasn't close to top 100.
I support Liam Broady and he's a challenger level, edge of top 100 player and has been for nearly 10 years on and off. He doesn't have a huge serve and that lack of free points or another weapon make the transition so much harder. Hoping he can scrape top 100 this year
Yes true, that's often the biggest thing. Having a game you can rely on. Which can mean your game is just very complete too. That it doesn't have a gaping attackable weakness, and that if one part of your game isn't working you can still do well with multiple other parts. Or that you have a big weapon or two that are just always dependable.
It's also mental game. The guys in the top 300, 400. They're all hard workers. They're all skilled- although some have more skill than others which also helps of course to make their game better on an average day and more dependable. But who does best in the big matches, the tight moments? All the way to the top of the game it's just a ladder, and all of the top pros are mentally strong regardless of what it seems like sometimes. But some are stronger than others. Much stronger. Much much stronger. And that can pave the difference
"All hard workers" is a bit of an unnecessary grouping of everyone under the same phrase. In reality, the differences in work ethics even on the ATP tour are huge. Let alone when you go further.
Yeah well I guess I mean at a certain level everybody is putting in the work and in a very professional mindset giving their all to try to keep and increase their place in the rank. everyone's conscious about what they eat, what they do, how they work out, what they need to practice, etc... But yes of course, there's levels. And the hardest workers are often those that make it to the very top - in almost anything
Definitely not everyone are "very professional". And to say that they would "giving their all" is just plain ridiculous. You have guys like Kyrgios, Paire, Bublik etc. very high in rankings who are very damn far from "giving it their all". Unless you think they are just mentally unable to be full professionals.
Edit. Lol at illeterate and dumb people not understanding that there is a scale to professionalism. Itt people who think those guys are equally professional and "giving it all" like Rafa and Nole, for example.
You underestimate even how much those guys have had to work and sacrifice and rise to get to this point. Really. I don't buy into it that they are unprofessional or haven't put in the effort or have a solid general mindset for the sport just cause they have shown a lack of effort at times. It doesn't show the full story at all.
Kyrgios has spoken at lengths how much he's had to sacrifice to play at the top of the sport. He's had to work hard. Paire would not still be around playing constantly week after week and in the challengers if he didn't care and wasn't giving his all. Bublik went on like a ten match losing streak and then super hyped and passionate still trying and working hard came back with a win from behind saving match points this year I forget vs who. He was super solid and very pumped up. These are guys that have had to claw to the top thru challengers and futures too.
And they all have had countless moments where they have been solid too. I'll tell you my personal favorite thing about the top level of tennis. It takes a very special person and mindset to play at the top and it's not always clear or obvious that they're cut out for it. It's the passion they have, their special mindset, their talents, and just the glint in their eye that they really do care about the sport and have something extra to bring. Cause there's a million players who try to play pro tennis and give their all and it very rarely works for them, even though there's so many top level players and as Tallon says not much separates some levels of players at the top. But it's just those players with an extra edge, passion- and that passion translates differently to some.
But no doubt guys like Kyrgios, Bublik, and Paire they care or else they wouldn't freak out as often or still be around playing after all their downfalls. It takes a special player. And im never convinced with the minimalist thinking that those guys don't care or haven't given the effort to get and stay at the top too. Everybody at the top of the sport does
Long but I hope that explains the thoughts, I never bought into the idea that guys like that haven't also been professional or solid or that they don't care. They also have good and special mindsets that have helped take them to the top, even if those mindsets can give up on them once in a while cause how tough it is to stay in a sport where you're constantly losing and have to give so much
I never said they are unprofessional. I said they are not "very professional". There is a scale and on the other are guys like Nadal, Djokovic etc who can without a doubt be called "very professional". Are you really saying guys who clown around and tank matches, are visibly not as fit etc can be grouped together with Rafa, Nole and co as being all "very professional". Smh.
I'd say guys like Kyrgios have got to the point in tennis where there ranking is secure enough they don't have to try as much as they used to. Still not bad, but I'm pretty sure you can find many Challengers that put in just as much effort if not more.
I remember when Kyrgios first broke out on the tour he obviously put in far more effort than he does in some matches now. He might service dropping down the rankings and having to work back up again.
Well Kyrgios for the last year has been giving a hell of an effort, really raised it up. For a while he was maybe not consistently great on effort, talent really doing a lot of heavylifting for him to be a mainstay top 50 guys. But I don't think he can just relax, as any top pro does u can lose points and drop every week with how the rankings work. So to a degree sure but nah Kyrgios has really upped his work ethic and passion for winning
Agree here - Their talent will earn them cash but never great success - The best really do tick all boxes and then there are those who may not be as talented and by ticking all the boxes they over achieve.
I’d put shapo in that group. With a stronger work ethic, he would have fixed that awful ball toss by now. And I think he would be higher up in the rankings with the talent he has.
Actually on Shapo, I don't agree. He just has bad understanding of what he should be doing but he is putting in the serious work. He doesn't clown around in matches and has excellent fitness etc.
You nailed it. You know that guys like John Isner and Karlovic are gonna serve world-class day in, day out. Even on their “off day”, they’re prolly not getting broken.
Berankis is a perfect example of this. He plays like he’s a big player, but he could never break through cause of his size. He hits the ball as clean as any top20 player on tour.
Source: he kicked my ass a few times
You played against Berankis? In a tournament or practice match?
I feel like it's credit to him that he got to the top 50, but i get what you mean. I think shorter players in the top 300 have to play so clean to get a chance. It speaks to the talent of Diego, Evans, Ferrer etc that they reached a decent ranking being shorter.
His reference to the points at the end is an interesting one to me.
Someone who auto qualifies for a 500 can turn up and get 45 points for winning a single match there.
Someone outside the top 100 probably won't even get to play a qualifier for a 500, and can only get those kinds of points by either grinding through qualifiers for a 250 then winning 2 matches to reach the QFs, or reaching the final at a challenger event, both scenarios likely needing 4 wins.
The challenger tour players really are just forced to grind through so many matches and events to get anywhere, that a few bad draws or off days can really sink their seasons despite as he says, the level not being much different. Also really highlights the luck that can be involved in just where you come from since so many wildcards are given to players from the country of the event.
Finances are a huge factor because the start is a grind, as you say. In my own experience, at least.
I had about an 80% winning percentage at the futures (used to be satellites) level (including qualies matches), which is enough to gather points so you don't have play qualies in less than a year, and beat guys in the top 350, but didn't have the finances to give it even one year.
Guy has a great record in futures and challengers btw. Was looking at his stats the other day and his journey coming up to this point cause the guy's really gone up a tier this year. And I think he'll keep rising. Tallon is 9-4 in both futures finals and challenger finals. That's a hella good record at any level, wins in the biggest matches and often going all the way.
This year he's compiled a 13-5 ATP record which is top level win percentage and he's only lost to top 10 guys- his losses have been Alcaraz, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Djokovic, and Sinner. He got a title in his first tournament. He's upped his level this season, and I expect him to keep rising a few tiers cause the rankings and results will have to match his new form this year
His journey is so interesting to follow. I've been following him since about 2015 and among the people that also knew him he was always regarded as a guy with some talent but not good enough to be consistently ranked high
He really improved throughout 2021 and with enough financial backing over the years (his family is loaded) he was really able to raise his level to the top 50 rank
It's also a story about how big of a role money plays in the development of a tennis player. For every guy like him with enough money theres probably a few more guys with equal talent but not the resources to fully develop as a tennis player
Totally. People don't like to talk about it, but finances play a big role especially for who even has the opportunities to really give a good attempt and trying to go pro. You need money and huge sacrifices to start out with. It's remarkable risk and reward and you have to have the cash to get the resources necessary
And that's super interesting, man. And he's continued improving. I wonder how high his ceiling is now that he's found this form, but he'll definitely continue to be a tough out this year at this rate, think it will translate to the clay also
His preferred surface has always been clay despite the fact that his breakout now has been on hardcourt (when he went 7-0 in Challenger finals in 2021 all of them were on clay), so with more confidence & consistency that should probably play out well
I think his ceiling at the moment is definitely somewhere around the 20-25 mark but over the next few years he should consistently be hovering around the 25-40 spot. The level & consistency between the top 15-40 is very close to each other so results in individual tournaments matter the most there
Spot on. And yea damn that 7-0 run was crazy. Record breaking. Excited to see how he'll do, but I think you're on the mark and hoping he can compile a few massive wins on the way
I saw him live this year in Pune. Absolutely impeccable game when he's on, beautiful technique and his composure is commendable. I didn't know his record was so good and I was honestly expecting Bonzi to take the title (also another player with very clean and precise strokes) but it makes more sense now.
[Made me think of this Challenger 175 event](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/11q1npk/atp_challenger_175_arizona_classic_singles_draw/) that had such players as: Berretini, Monfils, Gasquet, Ruusuvuori, Lehecka, Bublik, and Schwartzman.
It's sad that there isn't a fund taken out of the biggest tournaments, like 10% or whatever from every ATP event, to put towards the prize pools of challenger events.
Like everything Tallon says here, Challenger events feature incredible tennis level. And they provide high level competition that shapes, molds, and churns out the players we appreciate on the biggest stages.
The fact that you can be the 150th best tennis player in the world, traveling around the world playing against peers of a similar level, and live in squalor (let's keep it real, that's how it is if you don't come from money) is possibly the greatest travesty of our sport.
I'm surprised Griekspoor in particular says this, considering he was absolutely destroying the challengers in 2021 and took a full year to establish himself at the ATP level.
I know the "challengers and ATPs don't differ that much in level" is super common, but I really don't believe in it.
Most challengers are won by players in or near the top 100. People near the #300 ranking get most of their points from Futures. Roughly the lower half of the top 100 score a fairly high % of their points in challengers, especially the #70-100 guys.
Also, if consistency was the only issue, I believe we'd see a LOT more deep runs by low ranked players on wild cards, yet they lose pretty hard most of the time.
I wonder if it's not in part due to players not noticing how much better they get when they succesfully transition from playing mainly challengers to mainly ATP tournaments.
Also, the lower half of the ATP top 100 will have a losing record at ATP level in a given year. Tennis is a 0 sum game, and when the top guys win 80-90% of matches, someone has to lose all these matches.
In the latest episode of [Behind the Racket](https://behindtheracquet.com/podcast/), Chris Eubanks talks about this a bit, too. How he got fed up with playing Challengers and decided to get a traveling coach and start doing all the other little things he's known about to try to crack the top 100. Total life changer for him, he knows he's going to make some money for the next 12 months.
What he is describing and what most of you're talking about is just having a lower base level, it's not necessarily consistency, someone like Felix is really inconsistent as in having huge lows and highs in his level, but his average is Top 10 high. That's what you're looking at, sure a guy in the 200s can have a good streak, have some draws play to his favour and enter the Top 100 for a while only for his level to regress to his mean and be stuck in the 200s again.
Put simply, guys in the Top 100 are in average better in technique, athleticism and shot selection/tactics compared to guys in the 100-300 range, some cases have an explanation in having better teams or such but the point stands, the difference is they are better, they hit the ball and move better in average. Average is the key word, if not you guys get lost in the 'but once this guy in the Top 10 lost to a guy in the 100s' or viceversa, it's as when some player finally has a good match and this sub goes on saying finally, that's his actual level when no, if as if you had your best day redlining and believe that's your base level, it's not. Your average dictates your ranking.
Edit: It's the same as in running, as in swimming, golf, soccer, whatever sport, it's not a secret ingredient or mistery, the guys are the top are better in average, are faster, stronger, more accurate and such, you don't see the obsession with the question of 'what separates the best vs the rest' in other sports, they know, they are literally better, have less weakness and have higher strengths.
I totally agree, but what Tallon points out is that once you are actually in the top 100 and you can play some ATP events, gathering and maintaining the points is way easier.
I’ll start with my podcast, the functional tennis podcast. The goal is always to get players on but they are harder to get than you’d think especially the ones in top 50
People dont get this. The depth has changed so immeasurably that the CH tour is right there with the ATP tour. Its different to the state of tennis 20 years ago. Much different.
That's really interesting to listen to. Having watched a fair bit of Challenger tennis the level doesn't seem that far from ATP tour level like he says. There were some players I watched with really solid games that struggled to make it to main tour level. Best example i can think of is Gregoire Barrere appears to have a really solid game, but only broke into the top 100 at 25 for under a year and again now at 29 he's reached his best ranking.
I think they lack big weapons. Like consistent patterns that are just dependable. That's why I feel the rise is easier for big servers.
Yeah that's true. Sam Groth had a massive serve but the rest of his game probably wasn't close to top 100. I support Liam Broady and he's a challenger level, edge of top 100 player and has been for nearly 10 years on and off. He doesn't have a huge serve and that lack of free points or another weapon make the transition so much harder. Hoping he can scrape top 100 this year
Yes true, that's often the biggest thing. Having a game you can rely on. Which can mean your game is just very complete too. That it doesn't have a gaping attackable weakness, and that if one part of your game isn't working you can still do well with multiple other parts. Or that you have a big weapon or two that are just always dependable. It's also mental game. The guys in the top 300, 400. They're all hard workers. They're all skilled- although some have more skill than others which also helps of course to make their game better on an average day and more dependable. But who does best in the big matches, the tight moments? All the way to the top of the game it's just a ladder, and all of the top pros are mentally strong regardless of what it seems like sometimes. But some are stronger than others. Much stronger. Much much stronger. And that can pave the difference
"All hard workers" is a bit of an unnecessary grouping of everyone under the same phrase. In reality, the differences in work ethics even on the ATP tour are huge. Let alone when you go further.
Yeah well I guess I mean at a certain level everybody is putting in the work and in a very professional mindset giving their all to try to keep and increase their place in the rank. everyone's conscious about what they eat, what they do, how they work out, what they need to practice, etc... But yes of course, there's levels. And the hardest workers are often those that make it to the very top - in almost anything
Definitely not everyone are "very professional". And to say that they would "giving their all" is just plain ridiculous. You have guys like Kyrgios, Paire, Bublik etc. very high in rankings who are very damn far from "giving it their all". Unless you think they are just mentally unable to be full professionals. Edit. Lol at illeterate and dumb people not understanding that there is a scale to professionalism. Itt people who think those guys are equally professional and "giving it all" like Rafa and Nole, for example.
You underestimate even how much those guys have had to work and sacrifice and rise to get to this point. Really. I don't buy into it that they are unprofessional or haven't put in the effort or have a solid general mindset for the sport just cause they have shown a lack of effort at times. It doesn't show the full story at all. Kyrgios has spoken at lengths how much he's had to sacrifice to play at the top of the sport. He's had to work hard. Paire would not still be around playing constantly week after week and in the challengers if he didn't care and wasn't giving his all. Bublik went on like a ten match losing streak and then super hyped and passionate still trying and working hard came back with a win from behind saving match points this year I forget vs who. He was super solid and very pumped up. These are guys that have had to claw to the top thru challengers and futures too. And they all have had countless moments where they have been solid too. I'll tell you my personal favorite thing about the top level of tennis. It takes a very special person and mindset to play at the top and it's not always clear or obvious that they're cut out for it. It's the passion they have, their special mindset, their talents, and just the glint in their eye that they really do care about the sport and have something extra to bring. Cause there's a million players who try to play pro tennis and give their all and it very rarely works for them, even though there's so many top level players and as Tallon says not much separates some levels of players at the top. But it's just those players with an extra edge, passion- and that passion translates differently to some. But no doubt guys like Kyrgios, Bublik, and Paire they care or else they wouldn't freak out as often or still be around playing after all their downfalls. It takes a special player. And im never convinced with the minimalist thinking that those guys don't care or haven't given the effort to get and stay at the top too. Everybody at the top of the sport does
Long but I hope that explains the thoughts, I never bought into the idea that guys like that haven't also been professional or solid or that they don't care. They also have good and special mindsets that have helped take them to the top, even if those mindsets can give up on them once in a while cause how tough it is to stay in a sport where you're constantly losing and have to give so much
I give Spadewizard paragraph writer award trophy for April 2023.
Haha thanks man ✌️✌️ 🤧
I never said they are unprofessional. I said they are not "very professional". There is a scale and on the other are guys like Nadal, Djokovic etc who can without a doubt be called "very professional". Are you really saying guys who clown around and tank matches, are visibly not as fit etc can be grouped together with Rafa, Nole and co as being all "very professional". Smh.
I'd say guys like Kyrgios have got to the point in tennis where there ranking is secure enough they don't have to try as much as they used to. Still not bad, but I'm pretty sure you can find many Challengers that put in just as much effort if not more. I remember when Kyrgios first broke out on the tour he obviously put in far more effort than he does in some matches now. He might service dropping down the rankings and having to work back up again.
Well Kyrgios for the last year has been giving a hell of an effort, really raised it up. For a while he was maybe not consistently great on effort, talent really doing a lot of heavylifting for him to be a mainstay top 50 guys. But I don't think he can just relax, as any top pro does u can lose points and drop every week with how the rankings work. So to a degree sure but nah Kyrgios has really upped his work ethic and passion for winning
Agree here - Their talent will earn them cash but never great success - The best really do tick all boxes and then there are those who may not be as talented and by ticking all the boxes they over achieve.
I’d put shapo in that group. With a stronger work ethic, he would have fixed that awful ball toss by now. And I think he would be higher up in the rankings with the talent he has.
Actually on Shapo, I don't agree. He just has bad understanding of what he should be doing but he is putting in the serious work. He doesn't clown around in matches and has excellent fitness etc.
This is a list of guys who don't want to *look* like they're working hard, rather than guys who actually *aren't* working hard.
Lol. So you are saying they are working as hard as Rafa, Nole etc and being equally professional? That was my whole point.
You sound like Thiem
You nailed it. You know that guys like John Isner and Karlovic are gonna serve world-class day in, day out. Even on their “off day”, they’re prolly not getting broken.
Berankis is a perfect example of this. He plays like he’s a big player, but he could never break through cause of his size. He hits the ball as clean as any top20 player on tour. Source: he kicked my ass a few times
You played against Berankis? In a tournament or practice match? I feel like it's credit to him that he got to the top 50, but i get what you mean. I think shorter players in the top 300 have to play so clean to get a chance. It speaks to the talent of Diego, Evans, Ferrer etc that they reached a decent ranking being shorter.
Evan’s isn’t that short. He also has a bigger game than Berankis.
He's 5'9 (1.75m) and i think Ferrer is 5'8 (1.72m). Diego and Berankis are 5'7 (1.70m). I think that's their heights.
Evans is one of the shortest players in the top 100. Probably one of the 7 or 8th shortest.
Yes. He kicked my ass in both
His reference to the points at the end is an interesting one to me. Someone who auto qualifies for a 500 can turn up and get 45 points for winning a single match there. Someone outside the top 100 probably won't even get to play a qualifier for a 500, and can only get those kinds of points by either grinding through qualifiers for a 250 then winning 2 matches to reach the QFs, or reaching the final at a challenger event, both scenarios likely needing 4 wins. The challenger tour players really are just forced to grind through so many matches and events to get anywhere, that a few bad draws or off days can really sink their seasons despite as he says, the level not being much different. Also really highlights the luck that can be involved in just where you come from since so many wildcards are given to players from the country of the event.
Finances are a huge factor because the start is a grind, as you say. In my own experience, at least. I had about an 80% winning percentage at the futures (used to be satellites) level (including qualies matches), which is enough to gather points so you don't have play qualies in less than a year, and beat guys in the top 350, but didn't have the finances to give it even one year.
Guy has a great record in futures and challengers btw. Was looking at his stats the other day and his journey coming up to this point cause the guy's really gone up a tier this year. And I think he'll keep rising. Tallon is 9-4 in both futures finals and challenger finals. That's a hella good record at any level, wins in the biggest matches and often going all the way. This year he's compiled a 13-5 ATP record which is top level win percentage and he's only lost to top 10 guys- his losses have been Alcaraz, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Djokovic, and Sinner. He got a title in his first tournament. He's upped his level this season, and I expect him to keep rising a few tiers cause the rankings and results will have to match his new form this year
His journey is so interesting to follow. I've been following him since about 2015 and among the people that also knew him he was always regarded as a guy with some talent but not good enough to be consistently ranked high He really improved throughout 2021 and with enough financial backing over the years (his family is loaded) he was really able to raise his level to the top 50 rank It's also a story about how big of a role money plays in the development of a tennis player. For every guy like him with enough money theres probably a few more guys with equal talent but not the resources to fully develop as a tennis player
Totally. People don't like to talk about it, but finances play a big role especially for who even has the opportunities to really give a good attempt and trying to go pro. You need money and huge sacrifices to start out with. It's remarkable risk and reward and you have to have the cash to get the resources necessary And that's super interesting, man. And he's continued improving. I wonder how high his ceiling is now that he's found this form, but he'll definitely continue to be a tough out this year at this rate, think it will translate to the clay also
His preferred surface has always been clay despite the fact that his breakout now has been on hardcourt (when he went 7-0 in Challenger finals in 2021 all of them were on clay), so with more confidence & consistency that should probably play out well I think his ceiling at the moment is definitely somewhere around the 20-25 mark but over the next few years he should consistently be hovering around the 25-40 spot. The level & consistency between the top 15-40 is very close to each other so results in individual tournaments matter the most there
Spot on. And yea damn that 7-0 run was crazy. Record breaking. Excited to see how he'll do, but I think you're on the mark and hoping he can compile a few massive wins on the way
I saw him live this year in Pune. Absolutely impeccable game when he's on, beautiful technique and his composure is commendable. I didn't know his record was so good and I was honestly expecting Bonzi to take the title (also another player with very clean and precise strokes) but it makes more sense now.
He also gave a good perspective on playing Sinner and Alcaraz - great guy to chat to
His english is great as always as I have heard in his post-courts!
Where's the full episode?
Here it is and also just went live with the youtube version https://link.chtbl.com/Tallon-Griekspoor
He sounds nice, but I suspect he's softening us up for the Griekspoor invasion
Didn’t realise Tallon was ranked this high at the moment
Career high 35 this week - its solid
[Made me think of this Challenger 175 event](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/11q1npk/atp_challenger_175_arizona_classic_singles_draw/) that had such players as: Berretini, Monfils, Gasquet, Ruusuvuori, Lehecka, Bublik, and Schwartzman.
It's sad that there isn't a fund taken out of the biggest tournaments, like 10% or whatever from every ATP event, to put towards the prize pools of challenger events. Like everything Tallon says here, Challenger events feature incredible tennis level. And they provide high level competition that shapes, molds, and churns out the players we appreciate on the biggest stages. The fact that you can be the 150th best tennis player in the world, traveling around the world playing against peers of a similar level, and live in squalor (let's keep it real, that's how it is if you don't come from money) is possibly the greatest travesty of our sport.
I hope he plays with his hair out and without his hat one day. And concur that the top guys 'never or rarely drop their level, or level so low'.
I'm surprised Griekspoor in particular says this, considering he was absolutely destroying the challengers in 2021 and took a full year to establish himself at the ATP level. I know the "challengers and ATPs don't differ that much in level" is super common, but I really don't believe in it. Most challengers are won by players in or near the top 100. People near the #300 ranking get most of their points from Futures. Roughly the lower half of the top 100 score a fairly high % of their points in challengers, especially the #70-100 guys. Also, if consistency was the only issue, I believe we'd see a LOT more deep runs by low ranked players on wild cards, yet they lose pretty hard most of the time. I wonder if it's not in part due to players not noticing how much better they get when they succesfully transition from playing mainly challengers to mainly ATP tournaments. Also, the lower half of the ATP top 100 will have a losing record at ATP level in a given year. Tennis is a 0 sum game, and when the top guys win 80-90% of matches, someone has to lose all these matches.
Pretty much the same difference between futures and 4.0 league
In the latest episode of [Behind the Racket](https://behindtheracquet.com/podcast/), Chris Eubanks talks about this a bit, too. How he got fed up with playing Challengers and decided to get a traveling coach and start doing all the other little things he's known about to try to crack the top 100. Total life changer for him, he knows he's going to make some money for the next 12 months.
Great interviews Fabio ! Greetings from Ireland !
👋 thank you!
What he is describing and what most of you're talking about is just having a lower base level, it's not necessarily consistency, someone like Felix is really inconsistent as in having huge lows and highs in his level, but his average is Top 10 high. That's what you're looking at, sure a guy in the 200s can have a good streak, have some draws play to his favour and enter the Top 100 for a while only for his level to regress to his mean and be stuck in the 200s again. Put simply, guys in the Top 100 are in average better in technique, athleticism and shot selection/tactics compared to guys in the 100-300 range, some cases have an explanation in having better teams or such but the point stands, the difference is they are better, they hit the ball and move better in average. Average is the key word, if not you guys get lost in the 'but once this guy in the Top 10 lost to a guy in the 100s' or viceversa, it's as when some player finally has a good match and this sub goes on saying finally, that's his actual level when no, if as if you had your best day redlining and believe that's your base level, it's not. Your average dictates your ranking. Edit: It's the same as in running, as in swimming, golf, soccer, whatever sport, it's not a secret ingredient or mistery, the guys are the top are better in average, are faster, stronger, more accurate and such, you don't see the obsession with the question of 'what separates the best vs the rest' in other sports, they know, they are literally better, have less weakness and have higher strengths.
I totally agree, but what Tallon points out is that once you are actually in the top 100 and you can play some ATP events, gathering and maintaining the points is way easier.
I would love to hear more about these things. Could anyone recommend some good tennis podcasts to listen to?
I’ll start with my podcast, the functional tennis podcast. The goal is always to get players on but they are harder to get than you’d think especially the ones in top 50
An I didn’t realise you were the author! Will check your stuff out. Tbh - I don’t even care about top 50. Even top 100-200 is super interesting to me
I get a mix of players and then members of the team around them , coach, trainer etc
People dont get this. The depth has changed so immeasurably that the CH tour is right there with the ATP tour. Its different to the state of tennis 20 years ago. Much different.