Where are the Next Generation?

It is spring 2013 and we are finally escaping the heart of a prolonged winter.  Traditionally at this juncture of a decade, a new generation has fully emerged and taken over the top of the world rankings.

This has certainly happened over the last 3 decades.  In spring 1983, John McEnroe was the clear number 1 and Ivan Lendl was close behind challenging for major titles.  In spring 1993, Pete Sampras had just taken over the number 1 position from Jim Courier.  And in spring 2003, Lleyton Hewiit was clear number 1.  Hewitt would lose that position later that year to Andy Roddick who then ceded to Roger Federer.

However, in spring 2013, the rankings have a familiar feel to them, a different man is at the top but it feels like a shuffling of musical chairs.  That’s because the same guys have been top 5 since 2008. 

Now you can argue that Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are the new generation who are set who are set to dominate the game and challenge for the major titles.  But I see them as the mid generation.  Murray and Djokovic will turn 26 next month during May; in fact, Murray won the junior US Open in 2004 almost 9 years ago.  Djokovic played his first US Open final in 2007.  These two players are the same generation of Nadal, Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet and Giles Simon.

Looking back to history in 1993, Boris Becker was 25 and Stefan Edberg was 26 and yet as both had achieved so much at a young age, were seen almost as veterans but were only 3 to 5 years older than the new generation of Sampras, Courier, Chang, Muster, Brugera, Krajicek and Ivanisevic; In fact, Becker was only two years older than Agassi.  The new generation removed the mid generation relatively quickly from the very top of the rankings.

In the 1980s, Mats Wilander, Pat Cash, Yannick Noah, Edberg and Becker came through to challenge McEnroe and Lendl.

However, for the first time in living memory, there appears to be no challengers to the top 4 on the horizon or indeed any impression that players like Tsonga, Berdych or Gasquet will break through to win a major title. And injuries have set Juan Martin Del Potro back two years. 

So the question is, who are the new generation and when will they challenge for Masters 1000 and major titles?  Players should be no older than 22 years of age to be classified as the new generation.  The up and coming players who would fall under that tag are Milos Raonic, Grigor Dimitrov, Bernard Tomic and Ryan Harrison. Other than these guys, I cannot think of any other players who would be considered as “promising”. 

In fact, none of the players here have won a tournament above ATP 250 level so far in their careers. That’s not to say they won’t because at some point in the future, someone will have to win the bigger titles.  But by now you would have thought collectively they would have made a bigger impression at Masters and Grand Slam level.  Rewinding to spring 2003, players like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Federer, Nalbandian and Juan Carlos Ferrero were already winning important tournaments at masters level, Hewitt and Safin were major champions, later that year Ferrero, Federer and Roddick would win the three remaining major titles on offer. 

So why have these players not made a bigger impression so far?  It could be that they are just not ready, or maybe they haven’t got what it takes to take their game to the next level.  The interesting player for me is Bernard Tomic, who plays an “interesting” game of forehand slices and not really making things happen’ it often appears like a junior game played by a senior, I don’t think that will cut it at the top level. 

Milos Raonic certainly has the biggest serve in the game today, in the tradition of Richard Krajicek, Goran Ivanisevic and Michael Stich.  He is talented and plays an aggressive game but at 1metre 96cm tall has to work hard on his movement and return of serve to get to the next level.  This makes Eurosport’s headline of calling Raonic the next Pete Sampras extremely wide of the mark because of his serve, especially as Sampras’ game was all about movement and skill.

Dimitrov is a player a lot of fans are pinning their hopes on to succeed Roger Federer, as he has modelled his game on Federer with the one hand backhand and Wilson racquet.  Federer won junior Wimbledon in 1998 and Dmitrov won junior Wimbledon in 2008. However, at this stage Dmitrov is in danger of having a career in the fashion of a Richard Gasquet. 

In my previous article re slow courts changing womens tennis, Eurosport commentator Simon Reed answered some questions on that subject but he also made an interesting comment to me about Grigor Dmitrov “I’d love to see Grigor Dimitrov break into the top 10 but I’ve waited too long ..this has to be the year. It would be great for tennis to see someone like Dimitrov with real skill in the latter stages of tournaments. That’s especially important if and when Federer calls it a day.”

It’s also said that the physical nature of the game is making it harder for younger players to make an impression on the tour and climb up the rankings relatively quickly.  For sure, it has become harder than ever to penetrate the top 5, which has become a closed shop in recent times.  That along with the constant altering of the points system where players get more points than ever for winning the top prizes.  To illustrate how things have moved on, in 1994 the winner of Miami (Sampras) got 350 points, in 2013 Murray received 1000 points.  Only the experienced players are now in a position to do that on a consistent basis.

At some point during the decade of the 2010s, a new generation will emerge to challenge and take over the established order.  Unlike the last 3 decades, tennis fans will have to wait longer to see a new batch of faces contending for and winning the biggest titles.   

How Slower Courts changed Womens Tennis

Over the past 18 months I have written a few articles on the speed of the courts and how that has affected the game.

The areas where the game has changed in particular are the prominence of return of serve and the reign of the counterpuncher. On the mens side, this has allowed the players who combine consistency and athleticism to stay at the top.  However, the mens game is often the focal point and we have rarely looked into the effect the slowing down of surfaces has had on the womens game.

In fact, the slowing down of surfaces has had as dramatic an effect on the womens game as the mens.  At the turn of the millennium, the top 20 was populated with players who played a variety of styles. For instance the top 10 in 2000 comprised players like Nathalie Tauziat who was a serve volley specialist and Conchita Martinez, an old fashioned player with a one hand backhand who possessed a big forehand and a played with a lot of variety. 

In the top 3, Martina Hingis finished 2000 as year-end number 1 with a game very much built on instinct and finesse as opposed to a style forged in a tennis academy.    Venus Williams was one of the fastest and most athletic players the womens game had seen at that stage with the biggest first serve.  Lindsay Davenport didn’t have raw athletic ability but was a great ball striker and good match player who could finish points at net.  In fact, all top three players had a really good net game.

Womens tennis was also about to benefit from a new batch of players which would form a golden generation for the next decade. That generation would include Venus and Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Elena Dementieva and Amelie Mauresmo.

Serena broke through first in 1999 winning the US Open as a 17 year old defeating 18 year old Martina Hingis.  Mauresmo lost the Australian final to Hingis who incredibly was a year younger than Mauresmo. In 2000, Venus won her first Wimbledon and US Open titles plus Olympic gold age 20.  At 18 years Elena Dementieva got to the semi-finals of the US Open and was Olympic silver medallist in Sydney. In 2001 Kim Clijsters would lose a marathon 3 set final to Jennifer Capriati at Roland Garros and Justine Henin would lose a 3 set final to Venus Williams at Wimbledon. 

Each player brought a different style of play to the table but all possessed a common feature, speed and athleticism around the court. They benefited from playing on the varied surfaces tennis offered at that stage, including indoor carpet and rebound ace; they were able to take womens tennis to a new level of athleticism which was previously only displayed by Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova.  The faster courts in combination with red clay aided the womens game and made for a very exciting product.

Variety and athleticism was manifested the most at Wimbledon, some of the best ever matches took place there during this period such as the 2001 quarterfinal between Capriati and Serena or the 2004 semi-final between Serena and Mauresmo.  2005 threw up incredible matches between Davenport and Clijsters in the quarterfinal, Venus v Sharapova, Davenport v Mauresmo in the semi-finals then the longest ever final between Venus and Davenport.  

In 2006 Mauresmo won Wimbledon serving and volleying every match, a tactic unlikely to be seen again by a top player.  In the final against Henin, Mauresmo’s tactics of getting to net forced Henin to serve and volley throughout the 3rd set to take the net away from Mauresmo.  The faster surface allowed these players to showcase their counterpunching skills and speed around the court; the 2005 final where Venus turned the match around against Davenport is a perfect example.

However, in the mid to late 2000s, a big change has been the phasing out of indoor carpet and this has had as much impact on the womens game as the mens. We recall the classic indoor matches; the 2005 WTA final between Mauresmo and Mary Pierce, the 2006 Antwerp final between Mauresmo and Clijsters or the 2000 Masters final between Hingis and Seles on indoor supreme in Madison Square Garden.  The feature of many of those matches was the clash in styles of play often as well the athleticism. Players like Henin and Mauresmo were looking for ways to get to net and also use the slice backhand as a legitimate tactic and not just a means to stay in the point. 

Tournaments with indoor carpet such as Filderstadt in Germany and Antwerp in Belgium were removed from the calendar.  What have taken their place are more tournaments held on outdoor hardcourt in Asia and the Middle East.  The Tokyo indoor tournament has also been removed from the calendar in recent years.

Around the time of the changes, we saw a new generation of players who grew up in the 1990s and turned pro in the early to mid 2000s; such as Maria Sharapova, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Vera Zvonareva, Dinara Safina, Nicole Vaidisova, Anastasia Myskina, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic.  Interestingly this collective of players didn’t have the same level success as the previous generation and besides Sharapova are either retired or struggling for form, fitness and motivation.

The memo is that this generation did not quite offer up clashes in styles of play or display the level of talent as the generation of the late 1990s/early 2000s.  There could be any number of reasons for this but the slowing down of the surfaces and reliance on hardcourts did not really help these players to develop a more varied game.  For instance, net play was not of the standard of the previous generation of players with the exception of Dementieva who always struggled at net. And even though Kuznetsova and Ivanonic have won majors, they are now non contenders at the highest level.  I feel faster surfaces would have benefited Svetlana Kuznetsova, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic more than medium paced high bouncing tracks that have come to characterize the tour. 

With the latest generation of players to emerge, there has been a continuing trend of a lack of variety in styles of play.  Just as in the law of diminishing returns, the slower courts have resulted in a convergence in style of play; there are currently only two players in the top 25 with a single hand backhand (Carla Suarez Navarro and Roberta Vinci) and three in the top 50 if we include Francesca Schiavone.  This lack of variety has also partly allowed Serena Williams to use her experience to dominate the tour at this late stage of her career.

What I find interesting is that the latest generation of top players comprising Victoria Azarenka, Petra Kvitova, Agnieszka Radwanska and Caroline Wozniacki are collectively the least athletic and least quickest in terms of speed around the court in the last 10 years.  Up and coming players like Laura Robson also appear to lack dynamic movement.  Angelique Kerber bucks the trend in terms of speed and athleticism but she is a late developer who turned pro 10 years ago.  Other top 10 players like Sam Stosur and Sara Errani have built a game that is tailor made for today’s high bouncing slow surfaces with the big kick serve and full western grip on the forehand.  

It also appears that endurance and consistency are now rewarded above skill and variety.  That has been the case since 2008 when Henin made the dramatic announcement of her retirement whilst number 1 in the world.  Since then, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, Caroline Wozniacki and Victoria Azarenka have all held the number1 position; consistent if unspectacular players who play within strict margins of the court whilst relying on consistency to break down their opponents. 

I decided to get the opinions of an experienced observer of the womens game. Simon Reed has been commentating for over 30 years and has been Eurosport’s number 1 tennis commentator since the mid 1990s.

1.    Tennis has changed markedly in the past 10 years.  In 2003, the top 10 included Justine Henin, Amelie Mauresmo, Venus and Serena Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters, Jennifer Capriati and Elena Dementieva,   The current 10 exclusively play with two hands on the backhand side and do not offer much in way of variation or net play.  Do you think the uniform slowing down of courts are playing a part in convergence of style of play at the top of the womens game?

Yes I do think the slowing down of courts has had an influence in the lack of variety around at the moment. Fewer and fewer matches have specific interest. It’s getting tougher and tougher to hit winners so coaches encourage their players to hit harder and harder.

2.    Following on, what can organisations such as WTA, ITF and national associations do to encourage more diversity and to get more younger players wanting to play either with a single hand backhand or cultivate a net game and sliced backhand as a viable tactic?

I think it’s obvious that coaches would react as they are. Why encourage single handed backhands when the need for power is getting more and more important? Until the courts are quickened up the problem will get deeper.The onus on endurance and strength is particularly worrying in the men’s game where more and more Grand Slams are decided by tennis’ version of last man standing

3.    Which upcoming players do you think have the most potential to play a more aggressive high risk game with a chance of competing and getting to the top 10 level?

It depends on what you mean by high risk.   I don’t see any net rushers on the horizon , but the likes of Janowicz and Raonic both have explosive games. I’d love to see Grigor Dimitrov break into the top 10 but I’ve waited too long ..this has to be the year. It would be great for tennis to see someone like Dimitrov  with real skill in the latter stages of tournaments. That’s especially important if and when Federer calls it a day.

On the women’s side it is getting more and more power based. It’s great to see Radwanska doing so well in the last 12 months. She brings something refreshingly different.

The authorities appear to be on a mission to have courts as slow as possible to negate big serving and advances in string technology.  The downsides are that tennis is increasingly becoming a sport of endurance as opposed to explosiveness, skill and improvisation.  This was highlighted recently in the semi-finals of Indian Wells where one of the participants decided to use the moonball tactic to help change the course of the match.  This drew giggles from the crowd but is not the high level skill the paying public would like to see in a major tournament.

Womens tennis as far as I can see has not benefited as a whole on the slowing down of hardcourts and phasing out of indoor carpet.  As in the mens game, players who want to play a different game are being shut out from getting to the upper echelons by percentage players which the slower courts demand.