Taro Daniel def. Malek Jaziri 7-6 6-4
Every player begins a match with a certain game plan in mind. Whether it is the right one or not is unpredictable at that moment, and players are well aware of that fact. There are nuances to this presumption of course, which shield it from falling into the cliché category. For example, it is possible that the plan turns out to be wrong, which leads to a change. It is also possible that it’s the right plan, but the opponent has an answer for it, and a modification becomes necessary. Those are just two possible nuances out of many that may emerge once the match begins.
There is also the case where a plan depends on the combined use of several different shots, and although it is a sound plan, the player gets caught in the web of implementing it too frequently. This leads to the opponent deciphering the plan and its components. It allows him to understand it early and adjust to it before it gets the best of him. In return, the player responsible of executing the plan finds himself unable to tactically reframe the components of his plan, because he does not feel comfortable recalibrating his shots on the spot. He turns into a repeat offender, too apprehensive to change gears as the set progresses and each point becomes paramount.
I believe that I just summarized what happened, in my opinion, to Jaziri in the first set.
He adopted a plan that aimed at derailing Daniel, one that you would call “junk tennis” if you were old school. It consisted of changing the ball’s pace and spin often, throwing in drop shots and loopers, and occasionally producing a flat forehand with the hope of catching Taro off-guard. Throwing Daniel off his rhythm was more important than taking risks and hitting winners.
There is nothing wrong with this type of plan and Jaziri has the ingredients necessary – finesse and variety – to execute it well. The problem would appear if the plan did not work and he had to turn aggressive, because that would represent a 180-degree turn-around from his initial plan. It’s not that Jaziri is not a skilled attacker, but to switch from a passive plan like the one with which he began the match to an aggressive one is not an easy task. Nevertheless, Malek would still have to go for the adjustment, simply because he would not have any other choice if his plan A were to fail.
But he did not, because his plan kept on “teasing” him, you see.
It would work just enough to where Jaziri kept on using it, believing that if he was close to winning the first set. It would work here and there, yet not enough to give him a commanding lead. It would appear friendly to him as it would help him earn chances to put the set away, only to take it away at the last second. It would offer him just enough to keep him attached to it, but not carrying him to the desired conclusion.
It may be best to illustrate my meaning with concrete examples from the match.
First one took place in the second game, on Daniel’s serve. Up 0-15, Jaziri sliced a few backhands and got a look at a short ball from Daniel at one point in the rally. Instead of moving into the court and attacking with a slice approach shot – Jaziri definitely has that shot in his arsenal – his feet stayed close to the baseline and he reached forward with his upper body to simply send back another mid-pace slice. You could tell from his footwork that he never even considered taking charge. He missed the slice deep and lost the point. He should have undoubtedly attacked on that short ball. Typical case of a player so preoccupied with executing the shots of his initial game plan that he fails to recognize a logical opportunity to do otherwise.
Let’s move forward to the 30-30 point of that same game. The next two points are emblematic examples of what I attempted to explain above how his plan would “tease” him.
At 30-30, the players engaged in a long rally. Jaziri, determined to keep the ball low and not give Daniel any pace to work with, hit one sizzling slice after another, making Daniel bend his knees to strike the ball at below-the-knee level. He hit four of them in a total of six shots, the other two being flat and hard forehands. In other words, it was the perfect illustration of how his plan could work. Daniel could not handle the final slice and missed the backhand wide, his feet off-balance. So yes, the plan worked, and Jaziri now had a break point. It only made sense that Jaziri would look to develop the same pattern again to win the break point.
He did. He got Daniel engaged in another backhand-to-backhand rally. On his third backhand, he was on his front foot and could have easily aligned for an acceleration with his two-hander – why not, after slicing a bunch of them? – but he did not. Instead, he decided to slice it back conservatively, although he was positioned inside the court. He missed it wide. There went an opportunity to take command early in the set, simply because other options were being ignored by Jaziri, even when the circumstances demanded that they be used. The plan teased Malek with the 30-30 point, but stopped him from reaching the desired result in the next one.
I thought for a moment, in the sixth game, that Jaziri began to realize the trap he was falling into and would look to adjust. He hit a drop shot for the umpteenth time on the 15-15 point. Daniel read it of course, having faced it at least half a dozen times in five games, and won the point. Down 15-30, Jaziri got aggressive and held serve, playing three attack-oriented points in the process. It made me think that he was coming to terms with the necessity of not completely abandoning aggressive tactics.
In the meantime, the plan was working in the sense that Daniel would occasionally commit errors, like the one mentioned above at the 30-30 point of the second game, or the game point for Daniel at 3-3, 40-15. Taro struggled to respond to a low, short, off-pace slice backhand by Jaziri and missed an ill-advised backhand drop-shot attempt in the net. Then, on the deuce point, one of the longest rallies of the match took place, ending with an error by Daniel who overhit a forehand. Twice in the same game, Jaziri’s plan to derail Daniel’s rhythm worked and provided him with another break-point opportunity.
Yet, guess what took place on that break point? Having been rewarded by Daniel’s errors in the above two points, Malek once again passed on chances where it made sense to get aggressive and stubbornly stuck to his plan. In that break point, Daniel hit two shots to Jaziri’s backhand that bounced well inside the service line. Jaziri reached forward on both and sent them back passively with his backhand slice, instead of running around and striking a forehand, or simply putting the heat on Daniel with a deep slice approach shot. He missed the second slice in the net, a clear unforced error. Just like that, for the second time in the set, Jaziri got his foot in the door thanks to his plan but could not enter because he got too attached to it. Daniel held serve and went up 4-3.
Jaziri did finally break to go up 5-4, largely thanks to a routine forehand error by Daniel at deuce, on another slice by Jaziri. That error led to the break point won by Jaziri. It was another case of his plan working again in his favor.
Let me reiterate; the plan itself was not the problem. It was Jaziri’s over-attachment to it that played a role in the ultimate result. His refusal to take charge on occasions that presented themselves, where going a little outside the box of his plan would have made sense, allowed Daniel to stay tight in the scoreboard and contend for the first set. Jaziri remained too loyal to his plan at moments where logic dictated him to do otherwise. This is not an unusual occurrence by the way. It happens often that a player goes one time too many to the well that may appear to work for him and become too predictable too soon. The key is to recognize the shifting dynamic and intervene in time, so it does not start working against you.
At 5-4, 40-30, the Tunisian earned a set point on his serve. He found himself in the middle of the court with a chance to rip the forehand. He did it this time, stretching Daniel to the backhand corner. Jaziri thought about following that shot to the net, and even took a step forward with that intention, but changed his mind. Daniel’s shot floated back to the middle of the court again and Jaziri unleashed another forehand that sailed wide. Daniel broke back a few points later and the match was relaunched at 5-5.
I would argue that, not approaching on that first forehand on set point was another consequence of playing too passively for too long. Had Jaziri been attacking the net on similar shots in the previous nine games, he would not have hesitated to do the same on that set point. Instead of finishing the set on a makeable volley on Daniel’s floater, Jaziri had to produce a put-away forehand from the baseline and missed it. He should have still hit a winner on that second forehand no doubt, so that part is on Malek. But not taking his chances at the net on the first one had to do with his mental disposition since the match began.
After Jaziri saved a set point himself at 5-6, thanks to a big first serve that Daniel framed on the return and hit out, the two players got to the tiebreaker. Daniel got in front early, starting with a 31-shot rally that ended on a thunderous forehand winner down-the-line. He never relinquished the lead, winning the tiebreaker 7-4.
Jaziri did get aggressive in the tiebreaker but it came too late. And like I said in the beginning of this piece, you cannot just switch from passive to aggressive in the blink of an eye. Your mental state, your strokes, your stance on the court, all need to be modified and it does not smoothly happen from one point to the next. Although he did try to take the initiative during rallies, Jaziri finished the tiebreaker with three unforced errors in the last four points. The second one was an easy forehand sitter missed in the net, that Jaziri should usually make in his sleep, and the third was an overhead smacked in the net on set point.
Jaziri continued the tactical turnaround and attacked frequently in the second set, dropping his initial game plan. He committed 15 errors in the process partly because, as I have pointed out earlier, it takes time to overhaul one’s game plan within a match. He also had to do that against an opponent whose confidence skyrocketed after winning the first set. In short, Jaziri’s adjustment was appropriate, but its timing was too late.
However, the fact that he approached the net 18 times in the second set and won 16 of those points sends significant messages. Had he taken charge on the few chances he had in the important points of the first set – the ones I discussed in detail above – he may have been the one holding his first ATP title now. If he was that successful (16/18) at the net in the second set, against a confident Daniel, imagine how many more points he would have won in the first, if he took advantage of those short balls. And that was when Daniel was still committing errors, prior to elevating his level in the second set.
When Daniel, who had never reached the semifinal round of an ATP event, won the tiebreaker, he found himself a set away from his first title. The 114th-ranked Japanese player about whom I have barely talked so far – apologies to Taro fans – kept his poise like a veteran and marched on. Throughout the match, his footwork remained phenomenal despite having put in long hours to win his previous rounds. More impressive was his disposition, as he never looked desperate or negative, sending a signal to Jaziri that he is not going away unless Jaziri can produce some top-quality tennis.
Much to Jaziri’s dismay, Daniel made only four unforced errors and two double faults in the second set. Two of those six came on match points, completely understandable considering how close he was to a career-changing moment. In fact, let me bring up the first one, as part of the larger discussion on how this week in Istanbul has transformed Daniel.
If you have watched Daniel several times, you probably know that his best weapon is the down-the-line backhand acceleration. He earns most of his winners from that shot. That is precisely the one he missed on the first match point at 5-3, one that he would otherwise make nine out of ten times. You could almost see his arm turn rigid, surely the result of nerves. It was not even close. The ball dropped midway in the doubles alley.
Daniel would get the same chance in his fourth and final match point. He did not let the earlier error prevent him from trying again. He never hesitated as he aligned his body. He trusted his “money” shot and struck it with confidence. This time, it landed smack in the deuce corner by the baseline, leaving Jaziri staring helplessly from the middle of the court. Never mind that Daniel missed that shot on the first match point. Never mind that he double-faulted on the third one less than a minute ago. His mental resolve never eroded, and for that, he got rewarded. The sequence was a microcosm of his mental growth this week.
Wild fact: Daniel was in Estoril – another ATP even that also takes place this week – preparing to play qualifying rounds there one week ago. When he found out he could enter main draw in Istanbul, he made a last-minute decision to hop in a plane and play in Istanbul. Life is a game of choices, they say, don’t they?
This ends the 2018 Istanbul Open coverage. Thanks for reading!
