I wrote an article- Dimitrov will never reach number 1

Article I wrote, it's an opinion piece, read it if you want: http://www.sportpulse.net/content/why-grigor-dimitrovs-mental-weaknesses-mean-he-will-never-rank-number-one-or-become-all-time-great-160139

He's currently ranked 11, but has been number 8, his game is pretty but as I explained I don't see him ever reaching number 1 and justifying the hype on him.

What's your views on this, and Dimitrov in general ?

So, you just killed his ambitions and the career? To a young guy?

Why? You are jealous of his GF, thats all

Jahu wrote:

Why? You are jealous of his GF, thats all

Hah ! No, I can assure you that's not why; if it was I'd probably be writing about Stepanek whose probably gone out with half the WTA tour.

Agree, Stepo must be one hell of a Dinosaur in bed.

Otherwise, I have a low IQ to comment on your article, but good luck and keep it up

Grigor isn't an Alpha. He's too friendly with opponents a bit like Delpo without the power and focus. Doesn't look like even winning a MS yet.

Jahu wrote:good luck and keep it up

Thankyou Jahu

Josiah wrote:Grigor isn't an Alpha. He's too friendly with opponents a bit like Delpo without the power and focus. Doesn't look like even winning a MS yet.

I think the best he's done IIRC in a Masters is reach the semi, not yet reached a Masters 1000 Final

Absolutely no chance that his bh is his best shot. Ludicrous.

LuvSports! wrote:Absolutely no chance that his bh is his best shot. Ludicrous.

What do you see as his best shot ?

I see his BH marginally stronger than his FH (which has improved), his serve is strong but he can throw in double faults too often, his net game is strong but he doesn't regularly go to the net.

The main sum up of the article was why he won't reach number 1, specifically the mental aspect, rather than his best shot.

Dimi's bh really isn't that good a shot. His FH is far better. You watch his match vs djoko at wimby and his fh was definitely keeping him in the match and close to making it a 5th set and it had more purchase than djoko's.

Why is his BH better? Do you see him dictating with it, like Stan or Gasquet?
It's a rallying shot imo. He never really moves forward with it. He hits it a lot of the time moving backwards whereas with the fh he can do a lot more with it.
I really feel he uses the slice lots because it's a relative weakness.

LuvSports! wrote:Dimi's bh really isn't that good a shot. His FH is far better. You watch his match vs djoko at wimby and his fh was definitely keeping him in the match and close to making it a 5th set and it had more purchase than djoko's.

Why is his BH better? Do you see him dictating with it, like Stan or Gasquet?
It's a rallying shot imo. He never really moves forward with it. He hits it a lot of the time moving backwards whereas with the fh he can do a lot more with it.
I really feel he uses the slice lots because it's a relative weakness.

His backhand slice was really effective against Djokovic in that match. I still see it as overall a better shot, the forehand has improved in its consistency but it's not upto that level yet.

But as I said, the article was not about his backhand being better than his forehand, it's a judgement about the mental aspect of his game and the consequences of that.

Well I disagree with a point in the article. Is that not ok?

LuvSports! wrote:Is that not ok?

Of course it's ok, something such as best shot/groundstroke isn't statistical so there will always be ground for disagreement there

Did you agree that Dimi won't get to number 1, and if so; what do you think the main reason for that is ?
One thing I could have talked about but didn't is how his younger rivals will fare. If the even younger generation such as Kyrgios and Vesely spike and peak quickly, he may never get time at the top.

I am much more certain that his FH is better than his BH, than I am about his no1 prospects.
The last time i predicted something well (i.e. tipped a mate to put money on something, won £60) was Murray to win the 2012 US Open. Actually I did well in that old v2 prediction game.

Can you not answer my question?

Meh. People began to rave about Dimi because he was a decent player whose game (superficially) resembled Federer's. TBH I don't see him making it much higher than top 10. Good FH, average BH (nice slice, but the one he hits through just isn't that good, as in fact most SHBHs are, nice though they are to look at). First serve excellent, second serve can be a liability (4 DFs in one game??). Mentality good without being extra special.

There's nothing there that screams top 5 for me, let alone n°1 and (multi)slam winner, but then again I don't see that in the other younger guys coming through either, so he has as good a shot as any I guess...

MfC wrote:There's nothing there that screams top 5 for me, let alone n°1 and (multi)slam winner, but then again I don't see that in the other younger guys coming through either, so he has as good a shot as any I guess...

MFC, LS; who do you think has a better chance of reaching number 1 out of Kyrgios and Dimitrov ?

Remember when I said why is his bh better than his fh? Then you skipped it.
People disagree with points all the time in articles, that is the one i chose to question you on.
You say his bh slice in that match but don't say his actual backhand.
He hits far more winners on the fh than he does the bh. He can't dictate points with it like some very gd shbh players can.
These questions.

Yeah, his backhand is relatively weak. Definitely not a strength. Clearly has talent but I'm yet to see enough to justify the hype. Have been impressed by his work ethic this year though.

LuvSports! wrote:
You say his bh slice in that match but don't say his actual backhand.
He hits far more winners on the fh than he does the bh. He can't dictate points with it like some very gd shbh players can.
These questions.

I said his backhand slice was effective in that match, but overall I'd also say his backhand is a better shot. His forehand is probably more potent in terms of winners, but his backhand can also generate a lot of pace, and is more consistent (I feel).
A big test of the SHBH is playing Nadal, and I've been particularly impressed by how Dimi's SHBH coped there; withstood pressure unlike many SHBHs I've seen.

In terms of comparison to Stan, I'd rate Stan's backhand as better than Dimitrov's.

Born Slippy wrote:Yeah, his backhand is relatively weak. Definitely not a strength.

More people probably disagree with me on this than agree, but there we go. I certainly don't think it's clear cut, but I'd marginally give the edge to his backhand. A few years ago his forehand was really unreliable.

Born Slippy wrote:Clearly has talent but I'm yet to see enough to justify the hype. Have been impressed by his work ethic this year though.

I am of a similar position. But what has to be mentioned is that sometimes he goes mentally walkabouts (tonnes of double faults in a row sometimes), and in big moments he seems to doubt himself. Not a sign of a champion surely.

There is not a single player who has not lost matches. Drawing conclusions based on loses is saying glass is half-empty. What about the wins?

Perhaps replacing Dimitrov with Nishikori or Cilic or even Murray would make this article have the same tone.

In the Open Era this is a list of #1s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players

About 25 players in 40+ years, the average being 0.62.

If you took the ratio of these numbers to number of ATP ranked players, how many will ever get to #1? (left as an exercise).

Playing Tennis to the best of one's ability is why they are professionals, and we are armchair pundits.

Well... I mean he could? Problem is there is a generation of kids coming up who seem pretty handy at this tennis thing, and Nadal and Co, for all that has been written, haven't actually gone away yet. So maybe Dimi gets caught in a bit of of hole that way? Still, I'm a big fan, so I'd be quite chuffed if Mr. Sharapova could sneak a spell at #1. Don't think his game is that much worse than a few of the guys who sneaked spells from 2001-03.

As for the question of his forehand vs Backhand - well I can see where IMBL is coming from, you look at the Djokovic Wimbledon match, a lot of the big points he lost came off that wing. Would say he's athleticism is his biggest strength myself

It Must Be Love wrote:

MfC wrote:There's nothing there that screams top 5 for me, let alone n°1 and (multi)slam winner, but then again I don't see that in the other younger guys coming through either, so he has as good a shot as any I guess...

MFC, LS; who do you think has a better chance of reaching number 1 out of Kyrgios and Dimitrov ?

sorry just seen this. An interesting question, but right now you'd have to go with Dimitrov. Kyrgios has great ability, but really he's had one very good tournament and that's about it (with an admittedly hugely impressive win against Nadal), still has a lot to prove to me to show he belongs at the very top. Dimitrov has several excellent wins on his ledger, and is on the cusp of the top 10, so right now clearly has the better credentials.

I do think KR made a good point, in that right now it's hard to see who comes next after the big three. Could Dimitrov be a "transitional era" n°1? Possibly. You look at his competition (those his age) and there's not much there, only really Nishikori who struggles to stay fit. Having said that, Nadal-Djokovic are going to be around at least 3 more years or so you'd think (and Murray of course, who's still a better player than Dimi), by which time other contenders will hopefully have emerged.

This rather ties in with my response on the "who will you support when your player retires?" thread, where I said I'm waiting for a young guy to come along whom I could support...

kingraf wrote:Would say he's athleticism is his biggest strength myself

Rashid is doing the best he can. Dimi has a better Tennis brain than LaMonf, IMO.

To be honest I am least interested in your article title, coz why just Dimi why not rave about kei, Cilic, Stan ,Del Po etc,..

For me Cilic got bigger attacking game than Dimi and he proved that by winning the USO, Kei on the other hand was an awesome sight by the way he nullified Djoko in the USO semis and those 2 crushing wins over Fed, what has Dimi done special so far? an odd win over Djoko?

Dimi is way too over rated and over hyped for 2 reason one he has the similar style of Fed and 2nd for he dates Masha, but neither of these are going to help him win a slam or get to number 1.

Inspite of getting a style similar to Fed his execution is not ever 50% as good as Fed of 33 let alone Fed at 23.

Dimi might make it to no.1 who knows future is uncertain and never exists never, but for me he is nothing special over say Cilic, Roanic, kei etc.,,, and posses equal chance like them to become the no.1

DirectView2 wrote:To be honest I am least interested in your article title, coz why just Dimi why not rave about kei, Cilic, Stan ,Del Po etc,..

I'm not raving about Dimitrov ?

LuvSports! wrote:Dimi's bh really isn't that good a shot. His FH is far better. You watch his match vs djoko at wimby and his fh was definitely keeping him in the match and close to making it a 5th set and it had more purchase than djoko's.

Why is his BH better? Do you see him dictating with it, like Stan or Gasquet?
It's a rallying shot imo. He never really moves forward with it. He hits it a lot of the time moving backwards whereas with the fh he can do a lot more with it.
I really feel he uses the slice lots because it's a relative weakness.

It's exceptionally rare for a player to have a better BH than a FH. The FH is pretty much always the dictating shot. Only Nalbandian really dictated play with his BH as much as his FH. BH's can look relatively strong. But in absolute terms the FH is virtually always the main shot.

In Dimitrov's case his FH is clearly stronger than his BH and it's not even close.

Federer was pretty easily outhitting him in the BH to BH rallies today. Dimitrov has a good slice but an erratic and often short BH drive. His wind up is also very long and he gets cramped on that wing quite often ergo he resorts to the slice too often. Even in the middle of neutral rallies. In short I agree with you.

Anyway, I think the real hype around Dimitrov has died down. It's pretty obvious he's not going to be an all time great. Bottles it under pressure more often than not, scampers around the court rather than moving fluidly (ends up on the deck as much as any player I've seen - unintentionally). Weakish BH (relative to top 20). I could've called him Federer lite only because of the constant comparisons (widly off mark imo) but even at 33 Federer does just about everything better.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:It's exceptionally rare for a player to have a better BH than a FH. The FH is pretty much always the dictating shot.

I'm aware of this, even Djokovic, who has the best backhand in the world, hits more winners and controls more rallies with his forehand.
When I judge this, I judge a shot on it's role in someone's game and how well it does for that role. Hence I think Djokovic's backhand is better than forehand (same with a few others players including Dimitrov).


The only guy I've seen actually hit a backhand on his forehand corner regularly is Benoit Paire.

Dimitrov and Federer showed today what I meant by his clear mental weaknesses.

Federer has that champions mentality and the ability to turn his game up a gear when it counts... Dimitrov's game probably gets much worse in the crucial moments.
Dimitrov had 4 set points in the first set, Federer hit some big aces (including one on 2nd serve), but there was a pretty makable chance for Dimi on a backhand pass... but he netted.

From what I've seen so far the likes of Kyrgios has better mentality

he definitely can win a slam as he has so much game. If Cilic and Wawrinka can so can he, however every time he seems to gain momentum, he loses form in a season to become number 1 and seems to enjoy hitting trick shots a little too much to me as well.

kingraf wrote:Problem is there is a generation of kids coming up who seem pretty handy at this tennis thing, and Nadal and Co, for all that has been written, haven't actually gone away yet. So maybe Dimi gets caught in a bit of of hole that way?

I don't see any 'kids' who look anywhere near getting in the Top 10, never mind replacing the old(er) crew

But in fairness I don't see Dimi either

For me it's quite simple, if injuries have finally caught up with Nadal and age with Roger, then it's still very hard to see who's going to consistently stop Novak / Andy competing in finals. Murray's had a rubbish year, but has a very good chance of ending up back in the world Top 5. So he's played his worst stuff for 6 years and still no-one comes through

Let's face it Dimi and Roanic don't have it mentally and Kei physically and I've not really seen any youngsters who really thrill me. Kyrgios is getting grossly over-rated - the kid has moves slower that Roger does now and basically has a big serve / forehand. We saw what Murray did to him and that was the 2006 version of the Scot!!

I've actually found it quite sad, that there are few serious contenders - as I'm happy enough as a Murray fan to see others come through and put him in his place. Sadly, it's only his peers (Ferrer, Robredo) other than the usual three suspects that get anywhere near

Did you miss the bit when Stan won Aus? Cilic won the US and nishi got to the final beating djoko?

@IMBL... do you see Goffin becoming #1?

Predicting a player will not do something very difficult is a very easy thing to do.

Why not stick your neck out and try to predict someone who will reach number one?

I think I would ask myself if we take Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray out of the question who in the rest of field would win a Slam? Looking at Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori/Gulbis. The breakthrough players and what have you. You have Dimitrov and Gulbis that mentally have a great ability to lose matches with their mindset. Nishikori has issues with his physical levels and Raonic seems too one dimensional when he can't out-power an opponent.

Looking at the non big 4 Slam winners. Stan was on fire and ran into an un-perfoming Nadal. His results post Monte Carlo have been a bit pants. Out of the 11 tournaments he played since that success he went out in the first round on 4 occasions. Not the Mr consistency for a top 4 player.

With the serial winners around it is unlikely for Dimitrov to make the number one ranking. At 23 though with probably 5-6 years of his peak ahead of him, who knows.