Great to see one of our juniors make an impression in the juniors at a young age. I know its not a precise indicator of future success, in fact its potentially misleading, but many of those who stand out from a very young age do go on to make an impression in senior level early too. Bencic and Konjuh certainly have done so.  Katy seems to be one to watch, and 1 or 2 of the other junior GB girls do have that tournament winning habit about them.

just looked at the junior boys ITF lists and it makes depressing reading in terms of the next generation of GB boys/men. None of the 96, 97, or 98 boys seem to have made any standout impression whatsoever. Interestingly, 5 of the top 10 junior boys are in fact 98s, even though 96 and 97s are still very much entitled to play. Our top 98s are in the mid 200s and none of our top boys are close to top 50 despite having played a lot of tournaments compared to many of their peers. Cupboard? Bare? 

I'd be very encouraged by Ms Swan's success, and less worried by the lack of success among the junior boys. I've been - in desultory fashion - trying to work out the relationship between career highs in juniors (ITF) and seniors. Haven't had much time to do it yet ... but there seems to be a far stronger relation in the results for the girls than those for the boys.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Spectator wrote:

---

I'd be very encouraged by Ms Swan's success, and less worried by the lack of success among the junior boys. I've been - in desultory fashion - trying to work out the relationship between career highs in juniors (ITF) and seniors. Haven't had much time to do it yet ... but there seems to be a far stronger relation in the results for the girls than those for the boys.

-- Edited by Spectator on Saturday 12th of April 2014 06:31:34 AM

---

 

This makes sense, because males develop physically later than females. And because physique is a comparatively more important part of male tennis.

So, at 16, you get a significant number of boys doing very well who are, in fact, the smaller boys. They're very well coordinated, technically good, nice 'defensive' players, keep the ball in court well. THey're very difficult to beat.

And the taller boys (especially those who shoot up suddenly) are often rather gangly, uncoordinated, haven't developed the necessary muscle to make their size be a help, have a great serve (say) but trip over their feet trying to run in a rally.  . . Their aggressive shots don't really pay off (because of lack of muscle) and so they don't know what gameplan they should use and so small defensive kids run rings round them.

Seven years later, when they're in their early- mid twenties, the taller guys have stopped growing for a good few years, are now a lot stronger, have developed the coordination to control their frame, and suddenly come into their own.

There as, as always, exceptions but skinny boys who are still doing some serious growing at 17 are often going to have trouble making an impact in juniors. Give them a few years and they'll be grateful for the height, fill out, and the results will show.

 

---

 That all makes sense. The only counter I would make is that at the VERY HIGHEST level, top 10, top 20 ATP, you often see those kids making a mark in world level competitions at under 12, under 14, under 16 because of sheer talent - Rafa, Andy, Roger, Novak were all very successful young kids of course - Cilic, Delpo, Gasquet, Monfils, the list goes on. With the exception of Max Stewart, is there anyone that people outside GB might be mentioning in noises off.......?

Korriban, Yes, I think you're right - at the VERY TOP, quality may well shine through whatever (though I also think it is how they are managed through that crucial growing period - LTA, take note . . .. ).

But, and TMH - would you like a new project????? - I wonder if the taller (top) players came through later? i.e. Benoit Paire, 6ft 5, Jerzy 6 ft 8 ? Ivo ? It seems to me they did. But I'm not backing this up (and I also think it can depend on when they grew and how quickly)

I just checked on the NHS website and it says that, in the UK, the average age that girls hit puberty is 11 and the majority have finished growing and developing by age 15. The average age that boys start puberty is 12 and the majority take 6 years to finish growing and developing. i.e. age 18.

Just to say, the French don't set any store by junior rankings, it's not part of the assessment (or only a very small part). They use performance in important junior ITF tournaments (and national championships and domestic rankings). But they don't expect kids to play the circuit to gain points. They only really use it for the younger kids (to play 'up' against older juniors).

Spectator wrote:

---

DavidC, do you think that the emergence of a significant number of very talented 15-16s in the US (boys and girls) is one of those chance phenomena? Or part of a wider trend that reflects on something that the USTA is doing? The World Junior girls team (Gordon, Bellis and Liu) and the trio of Kozlov, Tiafoe and Mmoh are both having rather spectacular results.

---

 Good question. I'm not aware of the US doing anything differently to cause this (there has been a debate over changes the USTA have introduced to under 10s, but that isn't relevant to this year group - see http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/2012/10/20/usta-changes-junior-tennis-10-and-under/1642239/ for example ). They always have a large pool of talented players, and I guess that with the 99s they have real stars who have motivated the cream to try and match their standards. The fact that with the 99s they have this with both boys and girls is I suspect coincidental