I don;t want to knock Kyle (he is truly a great prospect), and I don't know Oli so I'm not really talking about him specifically, but I tend to veer towards Spectator's point of view.

I know it's been said before (and it's one of my pet points to be boring about) but a few days ago the BBC article claimed that over 50% of the players in the top 100 are now over 28 years in age. This is even older than the last official figures I saw (which were very close anyway).

And these are not guys that broke into the top 100 at age 21 and have been sitting there, hogging the spots ever since (well, some are, obviously, but not the majority).

I completely agree with Spectator that 'you do not have to be 'special' to have a top-100 career' (just from a UK point of view, and not wanting to be controversial but, both Bally and Anne K broke into the top 50 but neither could be called 'special' - I'm not sure you'd even quite refer to them as having a 'top-50 career').

Keeny de Scheepers (WR 69) broke into the top 100 for the first time a couple of months ago practically on his 26th birthday after having spent some time in the 200s, 400s but at age 22 was WR 700 and was around there for a long time. He'll probably fall out again next year but, as a highly 'average', futures player, it's interesting how things can change.

Oli has oodles of time, and all the necessary basics, to have a great career. He may well not, in spite of this, but it's very early days. The other guys have their chances too.

I really hope that kyle emulates Andy - how brilliant that would be - but it'd be maybe equally good to get a handful of players into the top 100, a bigger handful in the top 200 etc. and we're getting a lot closer . . .

PS stevemcqueen - it may well have been my post about Simon and it's true that he DID completely change the mindset of French tennis. But not so much by blooming late - he certainly was no precocious youngster like Gasquet but he was about WR 180 at age 20 and first made the top 100, I think, at about 22. But he changed the French system by actually blooming at all, given that the French federation rejected him several times for their 'elite' training squad and thought that his style of skinny, counter-puncher play would go absolutely nowhere.

I am getting seriously Bras(ed)ov not knowing what has happened to Kyle's match.

Priesty wrote:

---

korriban wrote:

---

 

Everyone matures at different speeds, but the other 2 big '93ers, Jiri Vesely and Dominic Thiem, are light years ahead of Oli at this point, although Kyle is already not too far behind them. Wonder what 2014 will bring?

 

---

 

Kyle is also not that far off in comparison with Murray at a similar age ie Murray aged 18 years 1 month (pre-Wimbledon 05) was ranked 317 which is roughly Kyle's ranking now at 18 years 7 and a half months. Murray had by then won a few more CH matches and a junior Slam but Kyle has an ATP main draw win to his name and a couple of junior slam semis.

Of course every player is different and I'm not expecting Kyle to go on to match Murray's achievements but I think it reinforces what a great prospect he is.

---

Jiri Vesely's "in running" ranking is 84 and Dominic Thiem's is 178, but I think more pertinently both have already been through their period of time at Futures level where they would win multiple tournaments at $10k and then $15k level - not winning every week but certainly almost every other tournament. Both started playing Challengers more often well over a year ago, with Vesely now regularly winning those and also reaching finals - and Thiem now starting to go deeper on a consistent basis. In other words, whilst they may have risen the ranks at different speeds, they both have shown consistent improvements in their results, and have probably left Futures for ever.

Oli hasn't won a Futures tournament of any level since April/May 2012 when he achieved 2 titles in 3 weeks, and his ranking has been going backward this year towards the 500 mark. It's true that many players (even very good ones) regularly hit rankings "walls" in their career, before finding something extra to make the next jump.......although when you compare his current pro ranking to the other players on the 2011 Junior top 10 list, you can't help feeling a little underwhelmed at this point. I'm sure he would have expected to be somewhere in the 200s or 300s by now like many of his peers on that list.

Kyle seems a very different story indeed, much more in line with the Vesely's and Thiem's of this world. Every time we see him, there's something new or improved, and more weapons to beat the opposition, which is the way it should be.....

I'm not saying Kyle can beat Haider-Maurer today (by rights he ought to get a kicking or at least be beaten comfortably) though it's not impossible, but I do think he will at the very least acquit himself well, take many lessons, and very possibly come across as a far better player on clay than James........which could be an entertaining DC "aside" for Leon to think about.

Russian proverb: Go slowly in order to get further.

Having said that, us armchair pundits do enjoy speculating and comparing. I don't think  we mind how long a player takes to reach the top 100 as long as they make it!  I read in a post of several weeks ago how Gilles Simon changed the mindset of the French tennis federation by blooming so late.

So, when is our Dan going to break the top 100?  He'll probably play those 3 Challengers in California, and maybe another 3 in Europe before the end of the year.  A couple of hundred ranking points is a distinct possibility which will bring him very close.  It is an interesting time for British tennis....

The silence doesn't worry me too much. Neither Kyle nor Beechy are the most prolific of tweeters (unless Beechy has been on photoshop) so I wouldn't expect too much direct from them. They may already be in transit back to the UK having taken the decision early this morning to withdraw.

I am sure it's nothing too serious.