korriban wrote:

---

Agree with much of this Indy - I'd love to know what the magic sauce is for Marcus that has turned a really poor 2012 (on Steven's top 25 table, its interesting that he has no points to defend until September!!!) into a flying start to 2013. I suspect we all know the answer, but it would be good to hear it direct from Marcus. 8 wins in a row is NOT a change of luck, its more than that. But we need to see this throughout the year, not just for a few weeks here and there - many of our mid ranked players seem to go on these form spurts, which then fade away.

I am more convinced than ever that there are relatively few super talents out there, and that the difference between most players ranked between 1000 and 100 is actually quite small (although bank balances will differ hugely) - fitness, commitment, game plans, training regimes, practice, coach, mental fortitude, etc rather than serves, forehands and backhands. Above this ranking it may be a different story, but I still think there are plenty of very average players ranked 50-100 who have simply maximised what they have, and plenty of much more gifted players below 500 who simply haven't.

Although, when I watch Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet I see probably the best athlete to ever pick up a tennis racquet and arguably the most gifted player to ever play the game (IMHO) who have both underachieved on a massive scale compared to their potential, for exactly the same type of reasons..........so it's not just our boys.  

---

I totally agree and isn't this perhaps where having a couple of players start to make it into the top 100 while a lot more are in the top 500 could really pay dividends? What I mean is that it is obvious that a huge amount of effort is needed to get into the top 100 (and/or fulfill your potential), yet in some ways it must be easier for a super talent (as korriban put it) like Andy to find the motivation to put in the amount of effort required when the rewards are likely to be ATP titles (and even grand slams) and millions of dollars than is for players whose best hope is to get into the lower reaches of the top 100 and who (especially when so many of their compatriots have tried and failed over the year) might not, deep down, believe even that is possible.

Now of course, getting into the top 100 is a very big deal and likely to be more than lucrative and exciting enough to be well worth the effort involved but I can understand why some players might find it hard to be committed enough if they start wondering whether reaching the top 100 is even a possibility. (*) Such players might look at Andy and think, well he puts in a huge amount of effort and reaps the rewards, but I'm nowhere near as talented as he is, so that doesn't mean I could so it. I can also imagine that even a few of the GB women getting into the top 100 might not have encouraged the GB men to think they could do the same, e.g. if they feel that there is more depth in the men's game.

However, if a British player whom a lot of Brits saw as 'like them' (someone they themselves had grown up with and had been competitive against, for example) upped their commitment level and made it into the top 100, then that would surely help the others to believe that they could do it too if they put in enough work.

Obviously, non-Brits who have made it into the top 100 could also been seen as examples of what is possible too, but I don't think it is too hard to understand why seeing someone from the same country (who has come up through a similar system to you) making it into the top 100 is more likely to make you think you could do it too than someone from another country / system managing it.

(*) this of course makes it all the more impressive that many players who don't have much hope of reaching the top 100 do put in a huge amount of effort, just to see how good they can be