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. 

My interview with Mona Barthel - Star in the Making

Last week I had the opportunity to witness a player who could be a new star in the making.

Her name is Mona Barthel from Germany and she received a confidence boost by winning the WTA Paris Indoor event at the Stade de Coubertin.  Mona won the title in style winning all of her matches in straight sets at the business end of the tournament with an incredible display of attacking tennis which the Parisians enjoyed immensely.

A friend of mine who works for the WTA tour told me 12 months ago to check out Mona Barthel, he was convinced that she is the most talented of the German players coming through and has the most potential if she believed in herself and things fell into place.  That’s the beauty and difficult thing about top level sport, identifying potential and hopefully watching it come to fruition.  Some players can take a bit longer to realise it, but what that means is when they are ready to fulfil their potential, they are mature enough to stay there and deal with the inevitable highs and lows top level competition brings.

Perhaps in Paris we saw the start of that potential starting to be realised.  I’ve been watching  tennis for 20 years while commenting for half of that period and every so often you see a player with a game that seems to be a notch above the others.  I recall watching Pete Sampras play defending champion Andre Agassi at Wimbledon in 1993 and thinking this guy was going to be really good because he had great shotmaking ability.  I also remember watching Justine Henin in 2000 at the Canadian Open with her backhand and thinking wow.  And in 2011 even though Petra Kvitova lost the Eastbourne final, I left the stadium convinced she would win Wimbledon (wish I put a bet on that…) 

Why do I think Mona is a bit special?  She plays a brand of tennis that is getting rarer and rarer in both the mens and womens game.  Surface speeds have had a part to play in that but I’ve also often wondered if state of mind and willingness to play a certain style is a factor.

In the Paris indoor quarterfinal, Mona defeated Marion Bartoli, breaking Marion’s usually strong fighting spirit which is rare to see.  The first set went to a tiebreaker after an exchange of breaks and Marion took a 6-2 lead and you would have thought that was the set; but Mona saved 4 set points in a row with bold play to take the tiebreak 9-7 which left the Parisian crowd bemused and perplexed.  I’ve watched Marion play many times over the years in Eastbourne (where she won the title), Wimbledon and Paris but this was the first time I’ve seen her beaten before a match is over. 

That is what a player serving well can do, it gives them confidence to raise their return level which in turn can give a level of hopelessness to an opponent.  That is what Barthel did to her opponents last week in Paris, if she was playing well her opponents felt they didn’t have much of a chance.

Mona plays what used to be referred to as the big game, she has superior talent to impose her game regardless of the opponent.  This type of game involves been prepared to take risks on the serve, take to the net and go for the returns in a controlled but aggressive fashion.  It sounds simple but is not easy to do, it takes a combination of being blessed with natural power, having a certain mentality and using conventional grips for economy and efficiency of movement. 

Mona possesses all of these attributes and is quite tall as well which helps.  Her willingness to get to net is a joy to watch , and her volley technique is very good, she puts slice on forehand volleys and not just push the ball which so many modern players do which leads to unforced errors so often.  Her half volleys were superb; on one point in the final against Errani, she came in and hit a half volley in the corner for a clean winner which left Errani stunned, the sort of stuff Sampras used to do.  The guy next to me was getting very excited, saying things like “magnifique!”

Mona is also willing to hit shots down the line off both wings either for winners or to stretch her opponent so she can come in to net and take floating balls out of the air.  Her movement is quite good for a tall player and she is willing to scramble to stay in the rally until she can get a possibility to get the point on her terms.  But what I found really stood out was her serve.  Mona has potentially the best serve in the world after Serena Williams and could take over as the best server in the world once Serena leaves the scene.

I have often discussed that the technical standard of serving today is not quite up there.  There are many players who can serve fast on the first serve but not many can serve with real precision and deception at pace.  Mona is already mastering the key serves that should take her game to the next level; the slider serve on the deuce and ad court, the big serve down the middle and a strong 2nd serve.  

Having these 3 components whilst possessing the ability to hit lines means the returner has to get into the guessing game, which always makes for a great spectacle for those interested in thinking man’s tennis, the returner has to adjust and come up with something.  Her service motion in many ways is reminiscent of a young Pete Sampras in terms in terms of smoothness and good knee bend and the ability to come over the ball with slice and topspin at pace; it is an elegant service motion.  Mona’s strong 2nd serve will be needed should she progress up the rankings and start to challenge for major tournaments in future.

Having put together such an exciting game is a tribute to her coaching staff.  In my article “The match that changed tennis”  I mentioned that future aggressive players coming through will depend on coaches and young players willing to buck the trend of the safe counterpunching style of play and show that risk and reward tennis can still a viable tactic at the top level.  Make no mistake, risk and reward in a controlled fashion, not hitting wild shots and racking up a large amount of errors.  

The combination of having a great serve and a great game to back it up is an exciting combination which can take a player to the very top. Players like Lindsay Davenport, Venus and Serena Williams have shown that in recent times. If Mona Barthel can keep improving, working hard, continue to build her self-belief and study the past masters, she might one day become a household name and be a contender at the major tournaments and hopefully win the big prizes.

Mona was kind enough to answer some questions after her win in Paris last week:

1. Congratulations on winning the title at the WTA Paris indoor event (Open GDF Suez).  A lot of great players have won there in the 20 years of its existence, including Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams and Amelie Mauresmo.  How does it feel to win such a prestigious event?

Thank you. It is amazing to win such a "big" tournament. So many great players have won it before. It came really unexpected to me. I was so happy, when I won the first round. And then I won match by match and suddenly I was in the final. I beat three players in the Top 15, so it was a great week for me. When I read the names of the former champions, it is quite unreal for me to be on the same list. But of course, it is a good feeling:)

2. You were able to win the quarterfinal, semifinal and final in straight sets, against last year’s finalist Marion Bartoli and French Open finalist Sara Errani.  How much confidence do you feel such a win would give you as your career develops?

This tournament was some kind of a breakthrough for me, because last year I had a lot of close matches against the top players, but I wasn't able to win them. In Paris it was different, especially in the tough moments, I was able to play my best tennis.

3. Last summer I interviewed Angelique Kerber and pointed out that there were a crop of young German players coming through and doing very well on the WTA tour and pushing each other up the rankings.  What do you think is the reason or factor in so many players coming through at a similar age? 

It's true, there are so many good German players right now, which is really nice to see. But to be quite honest, I don't know a reason for it. I think a lot of things has to come together, to have so many good players. But what we have, is a good atmosphere. We are supporting each other and like you said " pushing each other up the rankings".

4. I am fascinated with your serving ability, when I watched you in Paris your service motion reminded me of a young Pete Sampras from the early 1990s in terms of smoothness and technicality.  How did you develop such a technically strong serve?  Is it something you worked on a lot or is it something that came naturally? 

Well first of all, thank you very much. It's really nice to get compared with such a good server. I always had a good serve, but it wasn't always consistent. I was working on it in the offseason a lot, trying to get a higher first serve percentage and getting a more aggressive second serve. And it improved a lot and it is helping me so much on court.

5. Your willingness to get to net is refreshing in an era where many players are content to stay back and keep the rallies going or only going to net “to shake hands” as they say; you are also happy to take the ball out of the air and throw in the odd serve and volley.  Is there a reason you enjoy coming to net so much, or do you adopt certain strategies depending on opponents?

Well I think it is coming naturally. If I feel, I have a good chance to go to the net, I take it. I enjoy playing volleys and it suits my game as well.

6. Which players did you admire and enjoy most when you were growing up?

When I was young, I really liked Steffi Graf. She was playing so nice and was so successful. And I think, she has a great personality as well. I was wearing the same clothes like her and had the same racquet. Even if people asked for my name, I said it's "Steffi". They didn't believe me and wanted to know my real name. But I said " It's Steffi, you can see, I am wearing her clothes". I was about 4 or 5 at that time:). But I still admire her.

7. Which players would you have liked to play from the past and why?

I would choose Steffi Graf. Like I said, she was my idol growing up and it would be great to play with her.

8.  What would you say are your medium to long term goals for your career?

I am more focussing on my game rather than my ranking. If I am improving and playing better tennis, my ranking will go up automatically.

9. What do you think are your greatest strengths on a tennis court?

I would say, my strength is my love for the game. I just enjoy playing tennis and playing against the best players in the world. In my opinion, that is the most important thing.

10. What things do you like to do outside of tennis? 

I like to do a lot off the court. I think, it's really important to have a balanced life and not to think all the time about tennis. For example I created and I am still updating my own website. In the offseason I designed and sewed two of my tennis dresses. I did it for the first time and it is a nice feeling to wear your own dresses. Otherwise, if I have the chance, I like to see things of the places, I am visiting. Last year I went to a lot of musicals and museums, which I really enjoyed.