{"id":4944,"date":"2013-11-02T12:39:05","date_gmt":"2013-11-02T12:39:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tennisfrontier.com\/?p=4944"},"modified":"2015-09-20T01:58:47","modified_gmt":"2015-09-20T05:58:47","slug":"the-curious-case-of-grigor-dimitrov-is-baby-federer-finally-growing-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisfrontier.com\/archive\/blogs\/el-dude\/the-curious-case-of-grigor-dimitrov-is-baby-federer-finally-growing-up\/","title":{"rendered":"The Curious Case of Grigor Dimitrov: Is “Baby Federer” (Finally) Growing Up?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"9077226103_3e45fbc8aa_b\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I can\u2019t help but cheer for Grigor Dimitrov. Maybe it is his fluid grace that is reminiscent of a certain great Swiss player (in style, although not potency). Maybe it is his blas\u00e9 demeanor which is often interpreted as not caring, but also could be indicative of a happy-go-lucky attitude which, while admirable as far as his seeming amiability is concerned, may prove detrimental to the resolve needed for a championship attitude. Regardless, I like young Mr. Dimitrov and want to see him succeed.<\/p>\n

Over the last year Grigor has established himself as one of the premier talents of his generation, rising from No. 46 at the end of 2012 to No. 23 as 2013 comes to a close.\u00a0 Just a couple weeks ago, Dimitrov finally <\/i>won his first ATP title at Stockholm, an ATP 250 event. That win, coupled with his overall improvement in 2013, has led to a response that seems to be cautiously optimistic, that this could be the breakthrough that the talented but seemingly listless young player needs to start actualizing the potential and smooth play on the court that has earned him the appellation \u201cBaby Federer.\u201d<\/p>\n

But not so fast. Let us not forget that Grigor is already 22 and part of a generation that has been either slow to develop, or lacks elite talent.<\/p>\n

\u00a0A Lost Generation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is well known that there aren\u2019t many highly ranked young players on tour at the moment; in fact, above Grigor\u2019s rank of No. 23 there are only two players\u2014Milos Raonic at No. 11 and Jerzy Janowicz at No. 21\u2014that were born in the 1990s (Kei Nishikori, at No. 17, misses the cut by a few days), and both Janowicz and Raonic turn 23 years old later this year. After Dimitrov, the players born in the \u201890s are few and far between; here is a complete list of those players in the Top 100:<\/p>\n

11. Milos Raonic (22)<\/p>\n

21. Jerzy Janowicz (22)<\/p>\n

23. Grigor Dimitrov (22)<\/p>\n

32. Vasek Pospisil (23)<\/p>\n

52. Bernard Tomic (21)<\/p>\n

56. Federico Delbonis (23)<\/p>\n

65. Pablo Carreno Busta (22)<\/p>\n

79. Evgeny Donskoy (23)<\/p>\n

82. Jiri Vesely (20)<\/p>\n

91. Jack Sock (21)<\/p>\n

Perennial disappointment Ryan Harrison (21), Denis Kudla (21), and David Goffin (22) have all slipped just outside of the Top 100, with quite a few others in the No. 101-200 range.<\/p>\n

Jiri Vesely is the youngest player in the Top 100 at age 20. To get to the first teenager, you\u2019ve got to go all the way to promising 18-year-old Nick Kyrgios ranked No. 181.<\/p>\n

It is clear that the rankings\u2014especially the Top 50\u2014are light with young players. The question is why \u2013 <\/i>and there are two general theories. One is that players are simply maturing later, perhaps due to the more physical nature of the game. If this is true we won\u2019t know for another year or two, as the players listed above enter their mid-20s. So we\u2019ll leave that one aside for the time being.<\/p>\n

The second is that we\u2019re in a bit of a generational lull; meaning, the young players on tour\u2014which we can loosely define as anyone born in the 1990s\u2014are not a very talented generation, perhaps harkening back to the generation of players born in the late 70s, of whom Gustavo Kuerten was probably the best.<\/p>\n

As an aside, I\u2019m defining a \u201ctennis generation\u201d as a span of five years. I am dividing generations by half-decades; this is obviously arbitrary but I\u2019m not sure if there\u2019s any way around that.<\/p>\n

Anyhow, Kuerten\u2019s generation \u2013 those players born from 1975-79 \u2013 won only a total of seven Grand Slams. Compare that to other generations of the Open Era:<\/p>\n

1985-89:<\/b> \u00a022<\/b> (Nadal 13, Djokovic 6, Murray 2, Del Potro 1)<\/p>\n

1980-84:<\/b> 23<\/b> (Federer 17, Hewitt 2, Safin 2, Roddick 1, Ferrero 1)<\/p>\n

1975-79:<\/b> 7<\/b> (Kuerten 3, Moya 1, Gaudio 1, Johansson 1, Costa 1)<\/p>\n

1970-74:<\/b> 34<\/b> (Sampras 14, \u00a0Agassi 8, Courier 4, Bruguera 2, Kafelnikov 2, Rafter 1, Chang 1, Krajicek 1)<\/p>\n

1965-69: 15 <\/b>(Becker 6, Edberg 6, Muster 1, Korda 1, Stich 1)<\/p>\n

1960-64: 18<\/b> (Lendl 8, Wilander 7, Cash 1, Gomez 1, Noah 1)<\/p>\n

1955-59: 20 <\/b>(Borg 11, McEnroe 7, Kriek 2)<\/p>\n

1950-54: 16 <\/b>(Connors 7, Vilas 4, Edmondson 1, Gerulaitis 1, Panatta 1, Tanner 1, Teacher 1)<\/p>\n

Going back further, you\u2019ve got Stan Smith, Jan Kodes, Tony Roche, and Ilie Nastase born in the late 40s; John Newcombe and Arthur Ashe born in the early 40s; Rod Laver and Roy Emerson born in the late 30s; Ken Rosewall in the early 30s, etc.<\/p>\n

The generation born in the late 70s is easily the worst of the Open Era, and probably going back much further. This new generation born in the 1990s could very well vie for that honor.<\/p>\n

Either way, they\u2019re both theories. What we do <\/i>know is that this younger generation is not\u2014yet, at least\u2014as strong as past generations.<\/p>\n

Back to Grigor. In the same way that we won\u2019t be able to answer the questions above, at least not for another couple years when the top players in the early 90s generations start reaching age 24 and 25, so too can we not know if Grigor\u2019s win at Stockholm is the beginning of an elite player coming into his own. Grigor has been lauded as one of the few of his generation with the talent to win Grand Slams, yet it is also true that most No. 1 players and Grand Slam winners are already playing at a very high level by the time they are Dimitrov\u2019s age.<\/p>\n

What Does History Tell Us?<\/strong><\/p>\n

What we can do is look at historical precedent. If Dimitrov\u2019s generation is peaking later, then this information is less useful \u2013 but it still gives us a starting place.<\/p>\n

I’ve created a few criteria to look at:<\/p>\n