James Blake on the Young Guns

[El Dude]

Some interesting thoughts here.

He especially likes Dimitrov's game, which he feels is the complete package (my words, not his) but found Raonic really imposing with his big serve. He feels that Janowicz is more predictable in his patterns and Nishikori, while moving and hitting the ball well, is smaller and faces a higher chance of injury.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what Blake's opinion is worth, but he seems pretty right on. I still like Janowicz better than Raonic long-term because I think his game is more diverse and even if he's predicable, that's a habit that can be broken.

As for Dimitrov, if he becomes a truly elite player, he'll possibly be the latest bloomer in Open Era history. I put together a study that I'm going to publish at some point on the blog when I get a chance, but the long and short of it is that the vast majority of players who win their first title at age 22 or later don't become elite [/i]players - actually none do, at least not truly elite (#1, multi-Slam wins, etc). Based upon historical trends, Dimitrov projects to be more of a top 10 player.

This is not to say that he won't buck the trend, but that if he does he'll be the first!

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Nadal bucked plenty of trends. So did Federer. So did Agassi. Every era has one or two big time trend-buckers. So if Dimitrov is the best of the next gen, he most likely will buck a trend. I'm concerned that Dimitrov may actually be all alone at the top, and cruise to many, many, many slam titles (a terrible thing to see, after watching Nadal/Federer/Djokvoic/Murray duke it out). I see no major potential in Raonic. By elite standards, he's simply awful in every aspect but the serve. Any great player will wipe him out EVERYTIME (as Nadal has shown, although admittedly Federer has had close battles with Raonic, although Federer probably wasn't at his best in those matches). JJ, I need to see him play more to decide.

 

[Kieran]

That's true NADAL2005RG, though at the moment I just don't see ANY player rising to the very top of the game, replacing what we have. They all still seem so far off. It's normal that we should have sensed something deep and potentially destructive in some youngster by now...

 

[tossip]

Dimitrov is like Ljubicic and just as disgusting as his tall older girlfriend...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nadal bucked plenty of trends. So did Federer. So did Agassi. Every era has one or two big time trend-buckers. So if Dimitrov is the best of the next gen, he most likely will buck a trend. I'm concerned that Dimitrov may actually be all alone at the top, and cruise to many, many, many slam titles (a terrible thing to see, after watching Nadal/Federer/Djokvoic/Murray duke it out). I see no major potential in Raonic. By elite standards, he's simply awful in every aspect but the serve. Any great player will wipe him out EVERYTIME (as Nadal has shown, although admittedly Federer has had close battles with Raonic, although Federer probably wasn't at his best in those matches). JJ, I need to see him play more to decide.

I am assuming you do not believe Murray is a great player? Or Delpo? :huh: Really does not matter because in tennis , you do not play against great players every day. And at the tail end of the tournaments, you just have to be on top of your game, if you are a guy like Milos. Good things might happen.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Dimitrov is like Ljubicic and just as disgusting as his tall older girlfriend...

Anything, tennis-wise, you need to say or...?

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I am assuming you do not believe Murray is a great player? Or Delpo? :huh: Really does not matter because in tennis , you do not play against great players every day. And at the tail end of the tournaments, you just have to be on top of your game, if you are a guy like Milos. Good things might happen.

Murray is definitely not a great player. And Del Potro is not even as good as Murray. They are both very good players. The only great players are Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. I mean, if "great" is the most complimentary word, then I think that word should be given to the most successful players. And Nadal, Federer, Djokovic are at a level of success not reached by Murray/Del Potro.

As for Raonic, maybe I'm a bit biased because of how lopsided the Nadal-Raonic matches are. They've met 4 times (including 3 times on hardcourt), and Nadal has never lost serve. Meanwhile Raonic has never held serve for a set! And in those matches, Raonic has looked incredibly clumsy and uncoordinated. Maybe he looks skillful versus others, but I haven't seen it. I've seen Dimitrov play and I am certain that Dimitrov is a couple of tiers above Raonic potential-wise and talent-wise. In their prime, I don't give Raonic a chance of beating Dimitrov. I give Tomic and JJ a better chance of beating Dimitrov. I don't put Raonic in the picture at all. He has a limit (his serve). And as history has proven, serve means nothing (as far as winning slams is concerned) if you have no other skills. Goran won Wimbledon because he had a lot more than the serve. Raonic is always prone to being upset by guys ranked far outside the top 20, because his serve won't always save him if the opponent is having a consistent day from the baseline. Raonic was not defending much this year. Next year, he'll be defending a lot more and we'll see if he really belongs in the top 10.

 

[Moxie]

I am assuming you do not believe Murray is a great player? Or Delpo? :huh: Really does not matter because in tennis , you do not play against great players every day. And at the tail end of the tournaments, you just have to be on top of your game, if you are a guy like Milos. Good things might happen.

Murray is definitely not a great player. And Del Potro is not even as good as Murray. They are both very good players. The only great players are Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.

I think you're grading on too high a curve, Nadal2005RG. You should realize how short the list is of players who have even won 2 Slams. And in this era, which you are proclaiming is full of greats, Murray has been basically 3-4 ranked for 6 years now, (with a some time at #2, and a couple of dips to #5.) I would say he is a great player in this era, but not yet all-time. Del Potro, we're still holding judgement on, should he be a one-Slam wonder.

But back to the original point, interesting analysis from Blake on some of the comers. Today proved another disappointment for those looking for Dimitrov to make a mark, and Janowizc, too, I guess. Interesting Blake's comment about JJ's predictable game. Maybe Nishikori, with enough will, can have a career like Ferrer's...smaller guy, but lots of heart. Raonic is to "meh" for me.

 

[isabelle]

Dimitrov is like Ljubicic and just as disgusting as his tall older girlfriend...

Why are Dimitrov, Ljubo and Sharpy disgusting ? can't get it

 

[El Dude]

With regards to Andy Murray's "greatness" (or not), its important to remember that only twenty players in Open Era history have more Slam titles than Murray.

I think the threshold of greatness in terms of Slam count is somewhere between 4 (Courier and Vilas) and 6 (Edberg, Becker, and Djokovic). Of course this is semantic to a large degree, but I would think that Courier and Vilas aren't "true greats" but more akin to "near greats", while the 6-Slam winners are all true greats. So to make this is a discussion I would think Any needs to win at least 5 total, which is very possible but not a foregone conclusion.

I do think Andy Murray is a bit greater than players like Roddick, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, and even 3-time Slam winner Gustavo Kuerten. But until he wins at least a few more Slams I'm not ready to dub him a true great.

 

[Riotbeard]

It's really hard to choose. All have major upsides and downsides. The most traditionally talented is dimitrov, but he seems to be the mentally weakest to me. He is both inconsistent and hasn't had any really big results at big events.

JJ, who I like a lot, has tons of power and shot making when he is on, but at its core, his game is all about redlining. He has had the biggest results at a high level, and followed up a paris final (with a bunch of huge wins compared to milos's master's final) with the wimbledon semi. He even took a set of murray at wimbledon without playing his best. He is mentally pretty strong in the big moments, but seems disinterested in the week in-week out routine.

Milos is by far the most consistent on the tour on a week to week basis. He had a big result this summer at Montreal, and has a good couple small tournament wins under his belt. He has improved at the net and with his approaches, but the biggest problem I see is, I am not sure how much his game can be improved to the point of winning a grandslam. I am not sure he isn't close to the ceiling of what his game can do. He will really have to become much more than a serve if he hopes to become an elite.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I think you're grading on too high a curve, Nadal2005RG. You should realize how short the list is of players who have even won 2 Slams. And in this era, which you are proclaiming is full of greats, \

You are entitled to your definition of "great". Rafter for example, was a very good player. So is Murray. Both guys have won 2 slam titles and been in other slam finals. Do I rate Murray ahead of Rafter? Yes. But both are not great. Very good, not great.

 

[DarthFed]

I think you're grading on too high a curve, Nadal2005RG. You should realize how short the list is of players who have even won 2 Slams. And in this era, which you are proclaiming is full of greats, \

You are entitled to your definition of "great". Rafter for example, was a very good player. So is Murray. Both guys have won 2 slam titles and been in other slam finals. Do I rate Murray ahead of Rafter? Yes. But both are not great. Very good, not great.

So your definition of great is basically top 20 to have ever lifted a racquet because I doubt there are more than 20 players in the Open Era to have won 3 or more. And we already know it is especially pointless to compare Open Era with Pre-Open Era. Murray is a great player by any reasonable definition of the word. 2 slams, probably close to 10 MS titles, Gold medal, etc.

I think most who have won a slam can be called great players, well except for Gaudio :snigger I don't have trouble with anyone not calling DP great as he truly only has won 1 big tournament in his career. I do think there will be many more big ones to follow though...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

"Very good" is a big time compliment. If someone said "Murray is very good", I don't think Murray would be offended. And yes, Murray isn't far from being great. He's in his prime, so he has a very good shot at being great. But he's only just begun winning slam titles. Rafter/Murray have 2 each. I don't remember anyone saying Rafter was a "great".

 

[El Dude]

You guys keep squabbling but ignore the voice of reason - that is, me .

This really depends upon what we mean by "great."

Do we mean a tennis Hall of Famer? Then yes, Andy would be elected if he retired today. Yannick Noah is in the Hall of Fame, and Andy is a greater player than Noah was. Gustavo Kuerten is in the Hall of Fame, and I think Andy is greater also - despite Kuerten having three Slams. Kuerten was great for three years but declined quickly. I could go on.

Do we mean a tennis immortal? (whatever that means). He's not there yet. For me that's the 6+ Slam club. No one, at least in the Open Era, has won 5 Slams, and just below that is Courier and Vilas who, to me, are the gatekeepers of true greatness, of tennis immortality. Get past Vilas and Courier and are in consideration.

Actually, Vilas is an interesting comp for Andy. He won 4 Slams and consistently the third or fourth best player behind Connors and Borg, then McEnroe and Lendl as well. He was the "best of the rest" beyond the true elites of his era, sort of like Andy before he won the US Open last year.

Vilas is a better comp than Courier, because like Andy he was very consistent for a long period of time; Vilas finished in the top 6 for nine years in a row. Jim Courier's career was a bit more like Lleyton Hewitt's in that he peaked very young and then fizzled away. Like Hewitt, Courier's peak was at a time when one generation (Lendl, Becker, Edberg) was fading and the next, which Courier was part of (Sampras and Agassi) hadn't quite hit its stride yet.

Poor Andy will likely never be considered the greatest player in the game. He's consistently been the third or fourth best player over the last five years. Right now he's still probably only third, although his injuries have made it unclear as he's pretty close to Novak right now. I suppose his best chance is if Rafa struggles with injury and Novak declines sooner. Who knows, maybe that will be 2014 or 2015. The story isn't written yet.

 

[DarthFed]

Andy is certainly not an all time great, a legend, etc. But you can argue Novak isn't one yet either depending on what your cut off is (this was a big debate on the old board). But what it takes to say someone is a "great" player, I'd say Andy's career more than qualifies. So did Rafter, Hewitt, etc. These aren't all time greats (though Murray still has a chance) but they are definite hall of famers.

 

[Iona16]

Has Andy retired? Can we wait until he does before we decide his place in the history of tennis? I think he could win 4-6 slams but we'll have to wait and see. I'm just enjoying the journey so far.

 

[Riotbeard]

Has Andy retired? Can we wait until he does before we decide his place in the history of tennis? I think he could win 4-6 slams but we'll have to wait and see. I'm just enjoying the journey so far.

To be fair Iona, all the players get put through this type of speculation. Will Novak get 10? With 14 would Rafa be the GOAT?

 

[Iona16]

Has Andy retired? Can we wait until he does before we decide his place in the history of tennis? I think he could win 4-6 slams but we'll have to wait and see. I'm just enjoying the journey so far.

To be fair Iona, all the players get put through this type of speculation. Will Novak get 10? With 14 would Rafa be the GOAT?

Very true.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I wonder if Djokovic/Murray will get extra points (for their historical ranking) for being in the same era as Nadal/Federer. Although I guess the 80s had a bunch of greats, so same deal there.