Tennis is one of the few sports that elects to have its defining events played in the middle of its season, instead of at the end. The Tennis Masters Cup is without question a tournament worth watching, but its significance pales in comparison to a Grand Slam.

There's still something missing in spite of all of the pageantry. For this reason, among others, there are many varying opinions on the importance of the last few weeks of the tennis season, which consists of a stretch of indoor tournaments that follow the US Open.

I'm still on the fence as to what I think about it. It would be better for the sport to have its grandest tournament serve as its conclusion (with the next question being "and that event would be?"). But I do think that the schedule works well for the 'Grand Slam template' which tennis has been built upon. One thing I do enjoy about this time of year is that you can analyze players most objectively. Since they have had the chance to play on all the major surfaces, you can review their past in its totality.

'I don't think you'll see Gasquet holding a Grand Slam trophy at the end of a fortnight in 2008. But I do think that a Masters Series shield is something that is realistic'

There are still tournaments being played, so the 'present' is still a quality that can be studied. And of course, you can forecast the future, since the new Grand Slam season is only a few months away. Looking ahead is my favorite option of the three, since I've already written fields of text about what the ATP's best have done in the past, and the current tournaments don't have a really competitive field until AMS Madrid. But players' achievements now and in the past do serve as solid evidence for thoughts about their future. And that's what I'll be talking about today and in some future posts.

The futures of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have become much like bedtime stories because they've been discussed so much and the ending is always the same - immortality. Instead, I'm going to look at some players who have had a more unclear 2007, since their future is much more debatable. Richard Gasquet, who won the Kingfisher Airlines Tennis Open in Mumbai, India, this past week, sounds like a fine case study.  I'll now pose the five questions that you'll see on each 'Looking Ahead' post:

1. Describe Gasquet using the [G/R] method. [Gifted/Random]

2. What is the most encouraging part of Gasquet's game? His tennis has translated to all courts - he's now won a title on all of the major surfaces, which is a rarity even amongst the top tier of ATP pros. Because of this versatility, Gasquet should be considered a threat on every surface, and therefore, at every Grand Slam tournament. Richard's run to the Wimbledon semi-finals this year, along with his two titles in Nottingham ('05 and '06) certainly suggest that a quicker surface suits his game best. This is augmented further by the fact that Gasquet's best results on clay came years ago (think '05 Monte Carlo and Hamburg) - but he has sporadically conquered the slower dirt, winning Gstaad last year and reaching the finals of a strong Estoril tournament back in April.

3. What is the biggest concern about Gasquet's game? Fans of the Frenchman (and I am one of them) know that his play has been some of the most erratic on tour over the past few years. While Richard has, at various times, done well throughout the year, his consistency has dipped since his 2005 rookie campaign. This is a major problem for Gasquet in regards to two important measuring sticks - world ranking, and Grand Slams. His world ranking will, of course, be tabulated based on a full year's worth of results, and with up-and-down play being the frequent cat call about Richard, a year-end top-10 ranking seems like a very tall order. After Wimbledon, Gasquet reached the top 10 for the first time in his career, but just as quickly, he was out. More importantly, his erratic play stalls a lot of potential success at Grand Slams, where you have to be consistent, or you'll be sent home. Wimbledon '07 was the breakthrough performance for Gasquet at a slam - but only months later in Flushing Meadows, the version of Gasquet that has been lambasted in tennis circles resurfaced after giving Donald Young a free pass to the third round.

4. Have we seen Gasquet's best? In spite of the continuously mind-boggling achievements of Roger Federer, and the age-defying play of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, I believe that tennis is still a young man's game. That's why, even at Richard's tender age of 21, this question is worth asking. To the query, you may respond "of course not", but if you say that, you're telling me that Gasquet will reach the finals of a Grand Slam tournament. It that a definite certainty? Tough to say, if Gasquet improves both physically and mentally, which he has the time to do, he can become a much stronger player and should go deep into the second week at a number of Slams, especially because he can win on all surfaces. Gasquet's choice to work with Yannick Noah was a wise one - the last Frenchman to win Roland Garros should infuse his student with more determination, wisdom, and belief; all qualities that Gasquet can build upon. Presently, I think Gasquet would have a hard time reaching the pinnacle of a tournament like the French Open or Wimbledon. But I think that in a few years, reminiscent of how Roger Federer took his time to finally win a Slam, Gasquet can potentially do the same. And I think it will be at Roland Garros, not Wimbledon - although neither would surprise me.