You stupid Canadian Fk!!
-
-
Comment -
damn ... i thought 1.05 was a gift
Comment -
Quite frankly it is amazing but I think we should note something from this win. There is actually barely much separating the challenger player's and atp tour players.... there is so much talent that goes under the radar with the challenger players.
There is so much talent that goes under the radar with the challenger players. It seems they get bogged down in the grind of tournament to tournament challenger tour tennis. The play with a desperation to get prize money, as they are slaves to the game essentially. They play to accomodate their travel and stay and that's it. Play so you can afford the stay. That whole times are tough and I just really need to get this win.
I watched Panfil a few times in the tail end to last season when I was slowly getting into watching challenger tennis with more eye and he was a player with some serious arsenal, but I really wondered if he produce close to his A game or even B game stuff, consistently. I bet on him to take a set off Arnold (Schwarzman) and the match, separate bets and the only reason he lost out in 3 sets was because the match was on clay and Schwarzman could just grind him down. I think a problem with player's like him is despite being very "capable" of playing at tour level; when they produce this overall, big first strike tennis game... the brand/style of it lives/thrives of inspiration and with the dead atmosphere challenger tennis brings, where are their inspiration? This is why they're unable to get it to work often enough. Challenger court stadium's are predominantly empty, unless it's near the final and even the atmosphere is very "villagey". These player's need something that can uplift them, seeing nobody in awe of your shots I imagine can be flattening, or when there's no applause or a very muted one, when you hit a really good winner. Where do player's like this get their momentum from? Ballstriking well match after match with muted crowds is one thing, then there's facing the challenger player that is used to playing long winded challenger matches to tournaments week in, week out, has the better fitness and not only the game to grind you down, but the mindset.
The tournament I watched Panfil at Szczecin Ch (POL) Match Stats, Clay, he came all the way through qualifying and got to the quarter finals. As he was gaining support he could play his brand of tennis to a high enough level. He was producing big serves, one two punches, class at the net, etc. Everything about his game screaming top 50, AT MINIMUM. His presence at the net was what impressed me most, just ahead of his composure. I remember wondering at the time, what part of the top 50 pro criteria he lacked and I was really struggling for anything. Tall ballstriker or small grinder... or if you're good enough for top 3, tall and a combination of weapons and grind. He ticked the tall and ballstriking game. Sick outswinging LEFTY serve, a heavy lefty outswinging forehand that should be destroying most right hander's backhand in the challengers and a very, very solid game at the net.
So my theory is grinders have this strong natural work ethic mentality and it's because they have had to work hard to get themselves on tour since young. Obviously that comes from owning no serious weapons, but this has indirectly given them the advantage of "not struggling for motivation and not requiring an inspiration to play near their A game". Player's like Panfil made it on just talent alone but without the grit they're always going to be victim's to the challenger bulldog bullies. Panfil and his sort need a break so they can get themselves onto the main tour and maximising their potential.
Another bloke from the challengers but obviously a little more well known, Lukas Lacko, is one whom baffles me. I am so puzzled wtf this guy is doing? It really does strike me as if he just doesn't even give a daffy duck in atleast 70% of his matches. Seen this guy make phenominal shots, serve impecably, ballstrike with precision and just play stupidly good tennis but for only like 5, 6 or so tournaments a year? It just seems to me as if he's content with being a challenger bully. He plays to cash in some cheques with minor good runs at the odd 250 event but apart from that he's only interested in indoor challengers around eastern Europe.
When I watch these I get pissed off.
Why WASTE that?Comment -
It's all about the money guys.
I've got a friend who plays constantly on the Challenger Tour and he told me that his expenses for a tournament are around 500 $. (including ticket, entry fee, hotel). If he has to play Q for a 250 ATP Event his expenses will be around 1500 $.
If you are someone like Lukas Lacko, you would want to play it safe. He reaches the final stages of the Challenger events constantly and that's the way he makes around 800-1000 $ a week. He has a chance at 4-5 tournaments per year to give 100 % of his abilities and to get a big fat paycheck.Comment -
Hmmmm. So in other words, you believe it makes more sense for Lacko to tank his ATP tour 1st or 2nd round 250/500 qualifying matches (Or main draw, when he was higher) in order to pace himself fresh for challengers? Surely Lacko can put jam on his bread, does he really need butter?Comment -
Lol, he wasn't trying..... U have to see what he's there for. He's Top 11 guy, he dosnt wanna waste his time on a scrub tourney. Think about it, if he wins now he has to play an extra doubles matchComment -
Perhaps he'd earn slightly less from reaching the 2nd round or quarter finals of a 250 atp event but atleast he's giving himself the points which can later on aid him for better draws? It's the bigger picture, right?Comment -
I believe so.
Winning a Challenger event will give you around 12 500 $. And you will play with lower ranked tennis players. Player like Lacko will have a big chance winning.
However, at ATP 250 he will have to play with at least 1 or 2 top 10/20 players on his way to the Final. He will have his 15 min of fame but his chances to get something from a match vs Djokovic, Nadal, Murray are slim.Comment -
What about Panfil, do you think he lacks the "ready for harship" mentality to battle through challengers?Comment -
Well, we're talking about the average Challenger player. For me these are the players between #101-300 in the world. I'm sure that any tennis player who is around 140-180th in the World can reach top 80-90. The difference is that not everyone can invest 50-100 k per year to play on the ATP circuit.Comment -
No. I'm speaking on one particular type of player. The Panfil type. Not those whom can occasionally mix it with those 30-50 places above themComment -
9 years as a pro, best ranking - 279, coached by a relative
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooolComment -
If i was in his shoes i will be more than happy to play Challenger events. My goal would be to make some money and retire at 27-28. Then i will get a regular 9 to 5 job, and simply enjoy life.Comment -
You're uninformed on this bro.
Read it allComment -
Very interesting read. Suprised you actually think they make anything at all, since your friend plays them?
My ex coach has played with all the young brits; corrie, rice, evans etc..... he's young himself but didn't ever qualifying for an ITF event. Anyway, he tells me any player that is still playing futures or even challengers after 25 must have a serious love for the game. Unless they suffered from a longterm inury that kept them out. THEY GET PEANUTS FOR PRIZEMONEY.Comment -
All of those expenses and the wage suddenly looks measley. Right? What money would you be retiring on at 27/28? He's 2/3 years of that age already and probably barely up anything, if what Michael Russel says in that article holds truth.Comment -
In July Michael Russell won a tennis tournament in Manta, Ecuador, logging 8,628 miles just to get there and back. It was one of his best performances all year and the victory netted him $5,000, yet he barely broke even on the week-long venture. Welcome to the bizarre and trying world of professional tennis.
Russell is the 92nd ranked player in the world. As one of the hundred best players in his sport, he makes a comfortable living, but he doesn’t have millions of advertising dollars pouring in, not like jet-setting Roger Federer. His lifetime prize money ($2.1 million earned over 15 years) suggests a life of extravagance, but that figure ignores the expenses required to play professionally, which Russell estimated at $75,000 last year alone. Travel soaked up $35,000. Taxes ate up another significant portion of the $75,000. Even racket stringing constituted a significant expense. Up to $300 a tournament, the stringing jobs he needed over the year added up to about $9,000. With expenses so high, the men and women ranked outside the top 100 often struggle to scrape by on tour.Comment -
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
Just caught word Panfil was training with Jerzy during the off season.Comment -
Sorry i was out for a bit.
So yeah it's not a secret that these guys are not millionaires but still they make some money. Honestly if you retire at 25 and you've got around 100 k from prize money, you're still in a better position than most of the guys that just went out of college.
And that's only prize money. We're not counting the income from training with the pros. Or giving practice hours in their local tennis clubs.Comment
