Baby Fed or Baby Pete?

Grigor Dimitrov seems to have quite a large responsibility on his shoulders, a responsibility he may not realize the size of yet.  That responsibility is to take up the mantle and be one of the dominant players of his generation with a single hand backhand.  A lot of people call him Baby Fed but from what I’ve seen so far I also see a “Baby Pete” in the making.

Oh and that responsibility?  To follow a long tradition; John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer to be number 1 players with an all court game.  Since Federer lost the number 1 ranking it seems as though a single hander getting to number 1 is a thing of the past.

To me, Dimitrov’s game is reminiscent of Sampras in terms of strategy and physical appearance.  The classic Wilson racquet with a slightly smaller head size and Nike clothes is now the classic combination.  The first thing that comes to mind is the physical appearance.  Dimitrov has had issues with fitness and physicality.  A young Sampras who burst onto the scene and won the US Open as a teenager in 1990 was a tall lanky skinny kid with a big game and remarkable fluidity.  Dimitrov with his curly mane has an appearance not too dissimilar to Sampras who of course has Mediterranean heritage.

 

Like Federer and Sampras before him, Dimitrov has attracted criticism for taking a little too long to come through in the eyes of the fans and tennis commentators.  In Sampras’ case, after winning the US Open, there was a lull in his form as he came to terms with superstardom and expectation.  In Federer’s case, after beating Sampras in Wimbledon 2001 as a teenager, he crashed out the next year in the very 1st round.  Dimitrov may have the added benefit of maturing later which could help him to cope better should he win the big titles.

Sampras made these comments about Dimitrov in January after his Australian Open loss to Rafael Nadal  “If he’s not in the top 10 or maybe even the top five by the end of the year, I’ll be surprised. He believes in himself more, he’s got a great game, "He’s a pretty thin guy and I think he’s working on trying to get some more muscle and get in better shape. He knows it, so he’s working on it. He’s only 22, so he’s got a little time to get a little stronger, a little fitter, but he’s on his way."  So why do I think Dimitrov’s game resembles Sampras’?

During the fall of 2013 I watched Dimitrov in quite a few of the indoor tournaments in Northern Europe.  He managed to win in Stockholm beating Ferrer in a close 3 set final for his first ATP title.  Dimitrov also lost to Federer in the quarterfinal of Basel where he had his chances to take the match away from Federer.

Dimitrov’s serve

I notice Dimitrov has quite a big 1st serve, regularly able to deliver serves in the 130 mph range (210kph).  It is said that Dimtrov’s serve is similar in appearance to Roger Federer’s and I would certainly not dispute that!  It is indeed very similar and you could argue a carbon copy.  However, one interesting feature of Dimitrov’s delivery on the ad court is that he uses what I would call a more traditional technique reminiscent of the big servers of the 1990s.  Which is to stand close to the centre line and swing the ball down the centre at pace; adding slice to swing the ball away from the returner.  Many of the modern players, Federer included stand further away from the centre line, having to add sidespin to get the ball through.  This is one of the reasons why Federer is not able to serve as many aces as Sampras on that side of the court and relies on the kick serve for his 2nd delivery more often than not.  Whereas Sampras regularly hit 1st and 2nd serve aces in that corner. 

If Dimitrov can develop this technique further, it will give him an extra dimension.  During the indoor season in the autumn, Dimitrov was also not afraid to go for big 2nd serves into the corners or into the body, another Sampras trait, Federer has always preferred to go for 2nd serves around the 85 to 100mph range but of course Federer gets a lot of kick so that works for him.  By and large tennis is a more conservative game today and whereas Sampras amazed everyone in the latter stages of his career by hitting some 2nd serve aces at 120mph on the line (194kph); no one today is bold enough to do that at the very top level.  But Stanislas Warwinka showed in the Australian Open final against Nadal that hitting big 2nd serves in the 110mph range into the corners can still destabilize an opponent and keep them off balance.  I think Dimitrov has the potential to do this.

Dimitrov’s Forehand

Dimitrov uses a conventional grip like the guys he’s followed (somewhere between eastern and semi western).  His follow through on the forehand stroke is slightly more classic and not quite the typical windshield wiper motion across the chest which so many players including Federer use, his finish is more around the upper part of his body around his shoulder, whilst still employing a fast whiplash motion.  

Dimitrov when stretched out wide really reminded me of Sampras, regularly going for the big forehand cross court, shunning the forehand slice to keep the rally going which is by far the modern way of playing.  I feel Dimitrov only goes for the forehand slice when he really has to.  This indicates to me that Dimitrov is prepared to shun the slightly conservative nature of today’s tennis.

Dimitrov’s Backhand

During the matches played over the indoor season, Dimitrov often adopted the loopier topspin backhand strategy.  This usually has two effects, the first is to slow the game down slightly which gives Dimitrov more time.  The second is by getting heavily topspun backhands deep, it can illicit short balls which Dimitrov can attack with his forehand and come into the net.  This is a strategy Sampras adopted throughout his career against baseliners like Agassi, Courier, Chang and others.  Federer has over the years adopted the strategy of hitting hard flat drives from right on the baseline almost like ping pong.  An almost macho approach which is not to give ground, but many of today’s top baseliners like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray like that approach because they are counterpunchers by nature first and foremost, then add aggressiveness to their game to be winners.  Where Federer has struggled in recent times is his unwillingness to hit the backhand down the line and take to the net to finish points.  We also know by hiring Stefan Edberg as Consultant Federer is taking steps to address this.

I think Dimitrov has the potential to use what I would call the Sampras / Amelie Mauresmo approach, which is to regularly combine slice and topspin to keep the opponent off balance; the deep heavy balls then low slice forcing two handers to hit up, this could be a winning combination for Dimitrov.  Dimtrov is also not afraid to go after the backhand return down the line or crosscourt, a play Federer has neglected perhaps because he didn’t face attackers on a regular basis, but it’s also an opportunity to take offense in the rallies, especially on break point opportunities. 

Tactics

One play I particularly liked from Dimitrov was his willingness to hit down the lines and come to the net as often as possible.  That for me is a good attacker’s instinct and is a play from a bygone era.  Roger Federer and many other players rarely use that strategy to apply the pressure, perhaps for fear of being passed at net or many players are just not prepared to go near the lines on a regular basis, again all part of the more conservative tennis we’ve seen in the last few years. 

A lot of people confuse and blur the lines when it comes to hitting the ball hard.  Hitting the ball hard does not make an aggressive player; it’s where they hit the ball into parts of the court of their opponents and if they are prepared to take risks on a regular basis which determine that.  Dimitrov potentially is a player prepared to take risks, perhaps trying to cut down on the length of rallies whilst working on building up his fitness more. 

Movement

I think this is one area Dimitrov has to really work on to get to the next level.  Federer and Sampras were two of the best movers of all time on a tennis court so the standards are very high here but that’s where Dimitrov wants to get.  Dimitrov has very good movement but at this stage his fitness has been an issue which of course affects his speed and endurance around the court.  But as noted, I see potential for Dimitrov to really go up a notch over the next 12 to 24 months, especially with a coach like Roger Rasheed who is a hard task master when it comes to fitness.  The fitter you are, the more confident you get and with the shots Dimitrov has at his disposal, then fitness can really be the key to him getting to the next level. 

I also think Dimitrov can at times play too far behind the baseline where he can’t do much damage, he wants to be playing further up the court more often where he can then employ his aggressive tactics easier.

I recall a couple of years ago the media were getting excited about Milos Raonic comparing him to Sampras due to his big serve.  I always knew that was a non-starter and the media have calmed down on this bandwagon.  At 6 ft 5 Raonic simply does not have the movement or athleticism Sampras possesses, and consequently cannot engage in some of the memorable baseline exchanges Sampras had over the years with Agassi, Courier and the other top players of that era.  With Raonic’s height he is more in the bracket of Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich and Mark Philippoussis.

In summation, it will be interesting to see how Dimitrov performs over the remainder of 2014, having got to the quarterfinal of the Australian Open and won in Acapulco.  The stage is now set for a new player to come through; with his single hand backhand and attractive game, Dimitrov could be the player to follow in the footsteps of Pete Sampras and Roger Federer and win the big titles.  That would be welcome news for fans of the single hand backhand and all court game in the purest sense.

Will British Tennis get the memo?

Lizzy Yarnold

The winter Olympics in Sochi has been a great event with so many sports to enjoy.  From ski jumping, downhill skiing, speed skating to ice hockey, figure skating and snow boarding, there is one recurring theme throughout the games.

Which is the athleticism of the participants on display in virtually every sport I’ve watched so far.  The speed, power, endurance, twists, turns and bravery is there for all to see and is a sight to behold; especially as so many of the sports come with a “don’t try this at home tag”.  And Lizzy Yarnold’s dominance to take gold in the Skeleton is a culmination of all of those things mentioned.

Lizzy Yarnold’s achievement is incredible for a number of reasons.  After taking gold, she was interviewed on BBC radio 5 live and immediately made herself available to schools in her local area of Kent! where she offered to go in and give inspirational chats to schoolkids and girls in particular to chase their dreams and participate in sport.  Lizzy sited former heptathlete Denise Lewis as a strong woman and inspiration to her growing up.  It transpired that Lizzy had only been doing the Skeleton for five years, having switched from heptathlon as a teenager, and had issues initially with funding along her journey to dominance and achievement.  The reasons are precisely that, switching from heptathlon to trying the Skeleton and taking so well to it after at first not having ever heard of the sport.

I understand what allowed Lizzy to switch sports is a programme where athletes are encouraged by UK Sport to try out different sports presumably to use their athleticism in other areas where they may be able to excel better.  This seems an excellent idea; potentially top class athletes are not lost at a young age and may find their calling in other areas.

As far as I can tell, British tennis is not part of this set up.  Run by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) we know that British tennis has failed to produce a champion of any significance for decades other than Andy Murray.  We also know that Andy Murray’s parents took the risk of mortgaging their house to send Andy to Valencia in Spain to get elite training, which clearly worked.  In fact, it’s not just a matter of not producing champions, but the thing that has vexed me for so long is  the woeful lack of athleticism of many past and present British players.

There are many reasons for this but one of the key reasons is the obsession with British coaches and Tennis Leadership of hand eye co-ordination.  I refer you to quotes by former Queens club Tournament Director Ian Wight made during a speech recorded by the Observer newspaper in December 2006 “'We excel at middle-class sports in the UK and tennis is a middle-class sport. Let's exploit it”.  Ian Wight went on to say that tennis is a complex game to learn “'An intelligent player will, over time, win out, so let's think about finding kids who are bright enough to excel at the technical and tactical aspects of the game. Let's put brains before brawn. The former is a god-given gift, the latter can be developed.”

If this is the approach that has been taken for decades, well this approach has failed miserably.  Look at some of the best tennis players male and female in the open era.  In the late 1970s and early 1980s Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe held the number 1 position.  Ivan Lendl took over from John McEnroe and there were a host of players who burst on to the scene including Pat Cash, Yannick Noah, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg.  In the 1990s, new breed of players came through in Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Michael Chang, Pat Rafter, Richard Krajicek.  Then came Hewitt, Safin, Federer, and then Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga.  In the womens game we had Martina Navratilova at the very top followed by Steffi Graf and since the 2000s superior athleticism became ultra important with Serena and Venus Williams, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo.

Many of these players could easily have turned their abilities to other sports at a young age.  Steffi Graf had the ability to be a sprinter or long jumper, Sampras had the spring in his legs to play basketball or volley ball.  Yannick Noah also had that spring and his son is a successful basketball player in the NBA.  

The legendary ex Wimbledon winner and founder of professional tennis Jack Kramer made some interesting comments to Tennis magazine back in 2004 when he said youngsters should be allowed to choose which sport they would like to follow at the age of 14, until that age they should be allowed to play a range of sports until they find their niche and stick to that.  We have seen examples of that here in England where the likes of Philip Neville and Joe Hart were accomplished cricketers before deciding to concentrate exclusively on football around the age of 16.    

In tennis, Czech player Petra Kvitova started to concentrate wholly on tennis at the age of 16, and became Wimbledon champion at the age of 21. Being encouraged to follow different sports gives young players a different perspective on how to approach sport.  For instance, Anabel Croft mentioned once that footballers make really good tennis players because they have naturally good footwork and movement. In fact, since retiring from football in 2011, ex Cameroon and Chelsea player Geremi Njitap has played in his national tennis championships. 

So, this goes back to why the Lawn Tennis Association are not getting the right types of young athletes to play the game of tennis, they often appear to be looking in the wrong areas and at the wrong criteria.  If the LTA have changed that policy in the last few years then so far I do not see any evidence of our best players coming through who can be considered natural athletes.

 

Arvind Parmar had very nice strokes indeed, but his movement was just not good enough to make it to a decent level.  Ditto with Jamie Delgado who was junior world number 1 in the 1990s but never got beyond the challengers in the pro level.  Then there was Alex Bogdanovic who never won a match in Wimbledon after almost 10 wildcards.  In the womens game Melanie South had a very strong serve and good groundstrokes but struggled for movement.  The same can be applied to Elena Baltacha.  Anne Keothavong neither possessed world class athleticism.

And our current top two players of Laura Robson and Heather Watson also do not possess elite athleticism.  In Laura Robson’s case, her lack of athleticism could prevent her getting to the very top as she has all the other attributes of hand eye coordination and clean strokes, but her lack of athleticism really prevents her from moving forward and adding important net play to her game.

A lot of players above were given the opportunity to play the game because as Ian Wight quite rightly points out, they had parents who could afford to pay for expensive lessons and travel to tournaments, the opportunity to play is there.   

However, the reason Britain is much more successful in athletics and other individual sports is because the clubs are much more intertwined into the community, allowing kids with natural ability to make their way, and try out different sports.  We know that in France, tennis is also linked to local authorities who run many of the facilities, and the results are clear by how many players they have in the top 100 in both the ATP and WTA tours.

British tennis will only improve when it is acknowledged that athleticism, speed and physicality are as important as the fabled hand eye co-ordination and intelligence borne from the opportunity to attend very good schools.  I think anyone who has natural athletic ability can pick up good hand eye co-ordination because they simply can get to the ball quickly and efficiently to play the strokes.  The technicalities can be taught such as serving, volleys etc.  Tennis is no more technical a sport than high hurdles, triple jump or basketball.  From that viewpoint I disagree with what Ian Wight stated back in 2006.

We need to find kids with natural athletic ability first and foremost, and then the technical and tactical aspects can be put in place.  And we have to encourage kids to discover tennis from different sports and not be obsessed with concentrating on that alone from the age of 4, 5 or 6.