Untapped Assets: Young Talents Left Unfulfilled September 3, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , trackback
Two nights ago was an evening that provided me good fodder for another offering to the Blogosphere. Ernests Gulbis was struggling through his encounter against Andy Murray in the second night match on Day 2 of the US Open, in Flushing Meadows, New York. Gulbis, the son of an oil magnate, had the honor of getting dissected by John McEnroe on ESPN’s telecast, for his lack of commitment to the game, unstable focus, and sketchy fitness. A quick glance by any keen tennis observer gives the following conclusion: the Latvian oozes of talent. He’s built well, strong-legged, and possesses great power on his ground strokes. But, he barely belonged on the same court, as his opponent on Tuesday evening. Murray was the far superior player; and, in the end, completely dismantled Gulbis.
McEnroe’s lecture got me thinking: which young stars in the men’s game have yet to fulfill their apparent potential? The discussion, here, is not about looking back on the career of an older star, and determining whether or not this protagonist managed to fully leverage one’s talent. We’re not doing the post-mortems of former, promising touring pros that have already ridden into the sunset. If that was the case, men like Marat Safin, Cedric Pioline, Taylor Dent, or Tommy Haas may have been tossed into that conversation. This exercise is more about using a discerning eye on the young and talented, who have yet to reach their promise. These pros with untapped tennis assets still have time to turn around their careers. They have an opportunity to take an example from Andre Agassi’s career arc, and rededicate themselves to flourishing on the court. So without further ado, here are the top contenders for the role of “Mr. Unfulfilled.”
1) Richard Gasquet: the Frenchman has a flair for controversy. From rumors about his sexual orientation, to a cocaine suspension cut short, Gasquet has grown up with the spotlight squarely on him. At age 9, he made the cover of the French Tennis Magazine. Since then, his dazzling, electric backhand and all-court game have wowed crowds and enabled him to advance in the rankings, and garner himself some tour titles. But any analyst of the game worth his weight in salt would tell you that Gasquet has been far from reaching his full potential. Gasquet has long-been the new hope for French tennis; the man a whole nation has hoped would be Yannick Noah’s successor as Grand Slam title-holder. Thus far, he’s been thoroughly disappointing, particularly in Slam play. His only noteworthy run in a Major has been at Wimbledon 2007, where he made the semifinals, after an epic win over Andy Roddick in the previous round. Federer went on to dismantle him in the semis, in straights, however. Can Gasquet put this most recent bit of tumult behind him? Can the “Cocaine Kiss Affair” finally be put in his rear view mirror, and allow him to fully focus on his craft? Only time will tell…. But if yesterday’s lackluster effort against Nadal is any indication, the road ahead will be long and tortuous for the young Frenchman….
2) Donald Young: This kid was touted as a potential leader in a new generation of American players. His hands, lefty serve, and mobility around the court have drawn comparisons to John McEnroe. But at 20 years old, his singles ranking stands at 185. A lot of top young talents have already broken through to the top 100 or top 50 by that age. It will be interesting to see what it takes to get this American to come through and match all the buzz that had been generated about him. The next couple of years will be crucial in his evolution as a touring pro.
3) Ernests Gulbis: the inspiration of this list, the Latvian champ has shown plenty of talent since coming on the scene of professional tennis. That explosion on the tennis’ main stage probably happened during the 2007 US Open, when he beat Tommy Robredo (then seeded 8th) with great conviction. At the 2008 French Open, he managed to make the quarterfinals of Roland Garros, by taking down such marquee names as James Blake, Nicolas Lapentti, and Michael Llodra. What has been missing, however, according to John McEnroe (among others) is the maturity to look in the mirror, and make the necessary changes to leverage that God-given asset he’s been blessed with. This criticism has grown so substantially in recent months that some tennis pundits are starting to wonder if Gulbis might afflicted with “affluenza”. A few times during Tuesday’s telecast, ESPN’s commentators were freely dispensing information on Gulbis’ flight arrangements. According to the McEnroe’s, the Latvian tennis star had a private jet chartered for him exclusively by his wealthy father. You would be hard-pressed to see any other players with a current singles ranking of 95, to fly in privately-chartered aircrafts. The compelling aspect to follow over the next couple of ATP campaigns is whether Gulbis is willing and able to trade in his silver spoon for a lunch pail and hard hat. Will he hunger to put in the extra work on and off the court that would end up paying dividends for his tennis? Will Gulbis have the desire to perform the sometimes tedious and mundane tasks that are integral to big match preparation? Stay tuned to find out.
Comments»
While covering a Muster match, McEnroe wisely pointed out that the ability to focus and work hard is a talent. Most people consider talent to be made of fast feet and deft hands. Interestingly, McEnroe has talent in the traditional sense, but opted to include “work ethic” in this mixture-something he lacked during his tumultuous career.
I would add one more person to this list: Novak Djokovic. The Serb has all the tools: a big game, fast feet, and solid volleys, yet has only won one major. True, he is facing Federer and Nadal, but Novak has the game to beat this guys on the big stage, if not consistently at least more often than he has. Maybe Novak should take a couple of pages out of arch rival Andy Roddick’s playbook. Roddick, who hasn’t won a major for 6 years, continues to give the game his all. Andy already has a hot wife, plenty of fame, and more money than God. And all he wants is his elusive 2nd major, something he probably won’t get given the current field, but he keeps on fighting doggedly. I’m not a big fan of everything Andy does, but I very much respect the dedication he continues to bring at this stage in his career.
Novak, while still only 22 years old, still has plenty of time to add his trophy case. And Novak is probably more deficient in mental tools than physical ones. His improvement will likely come less from forehands and fitness, and more from what he’s got upstairs. If he can’t literally become Andy mentally (this is probably a good thing), he could try hiring Roddick’s former coach, Brad Gilbert, for a year. Brad is arguably the best thinker in the game today, and could probably help Novak’s mental game keep pace with his physical talent.
Novak may have underperformed up to this point, but I suspect we will see him hoist a few more grand slam titles before he hangs up his rackets.
Nick–this is a decent point about Djokovic. Although I would argue that he has at least scratched the surface, as it pertains to leveraging his talent. The evidence would be winning one Slam, with the existing stiff competition at the top. The other men I mentioned in the piece haven’t even done that, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, Novak still has a lot to prove. But at least he’s shown us what kind of heights his ability can take him to….
Great piece Paul, and an outstanding addition by Nick. Gulbis and Gasquet both have top 5 talent and are clearly wasting it away at this point. Gasquet has obviously accomplished much more then his Latvian counterpart, but has faded away this year in the rankings due to the controversy you listed. I would contend that I find a big difference between Donald Young, and the rest of the group that you have eloquently offered in this group. I don’t know if Young is really a waste of talent like the other two. I think he should be the poster child for a group of players who have received too much hype. While he certainly possesses excellent hands and is quick, he does not hit nearly a big enough ball to compete at the top of the men’s game. The others in your piece all have the game to be top players if they were to exhibit the work ethic and mental fortitude that is demanded of a top 10 player. I don’t believe that Young has the necessary game to reach the top 10 or 20 even if he was the hardest worker on Tour. Lastly, to address Nick’s point about Novak. Paul, I agree with you that it is hard to fault Djokovic considering he is the only person in the last couple of years to win a major besides Rafa or Roger. However, I will agree with Nick that he is well on his way to being the Marat Safin of this generation. While his temper is not quite as explosive (although Novak is ornery), his game is good enough to be competing with Roger and Rafa at the top of his game. Over the last year or so, he has regressed from being the clear #3 and seriously challenging the top 2 to being the #5 player in the world (maybe not in the rankings but in almost every keen tennis observers opinion) and has allowed the Andy’s to pass him by. I think Novak has some motivation and work ethic problems (along with physical limitations like breathing issues) that may limit him to 1 or 2 Slams even though he has the talent for many more.
Nicely-written, Paul. As you probably anticipate, I see such concepts as talent, underachieving, overachieving and so on quite differently.
My macro principle: perhaps the gods in some degree give certain morsels of some predilections to everyone. But so what? It’s what’s done with them that counts. I believe far more in skill than talent, in work than appearance, in intention over destiny, in choice and persistent over allegedly innate.
How any skill in anything is built is a complicated matter. Maybe Gulbis is just a guy who showed some nifty skills early but has little idea how to put them together. Maybe Agassi was force-fed tennis at such a young age his skill blossomed with exceptional precocity.
And if writing about Agassi and Connors for more than 20 years has taught me anything it’s the danger of predictions.
Nice story.
Gents–thanks for the thoughtful additions and commentary.
Neil, I think we see eye-to-eye on the Djokovic issue. His omission in the piece was probably due to the fact that he didn’t fit squarely in the defined category. Your point about Donald Young is duly noted. I certainly feel buzz could be part of the equation in his case.
Joel–always fun to get involved in yet another great tennis conversation with you. I’m guessing determinism is not your cup of tea ;). But you make a great point. Talent is very hard to decipher and even evaluate. What can be perceived as natural ability can only be a small component of what would make someone successful on the tennis court. Predictions are difficult to make, particularly in an individual sport like tennis. In a team game, you benefit from the law of averages, where teammates can pick each other up. In individual athletic pursuits, the whims of the lone participant will have a huge impact on the outcome. Hopefully, the men mentioned in this piece will work on their lacking skills, so we can all benefit from having them at the top of the men’s game….