Roland Garros 2020, Men’s 2nd Round Match Report: Wawrinka Powers through Koepfer, Stays the Course

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

This encounter between the 16th seed Stan Wawrinka and Dominik Koepfer appeared to be intriguing on paper in the sense that you had one player who tasted glory more than once in the Majors but slipped off a bit in the aftermath of his knee injury (and operation) in the late-summer of 2017, and another who has been making significant progress into the top 100 ATP since the fall of 2019, currently enjoying his highest career ranking of 61.

I was interested in seeing where Stan stood with regard to his physical shape and his form (he hadn’t played the tournaments in the US, opting to begin his post-Coronavirus season on clay in Europe), and what tactics Koepfer would tap into in order to do challenge Stan’s potent game, so I decided to settle in front of the TV and watch the match with an early morning (5 AM) pot of coffee ready to be consumed.

Wawrinka waving to the crowd after his win over Garin at Roland Garros 2019

Both players began the match somewhat subdued, although it rapidly became clear that the amount of success Wawrinka was going to have with his accelerations, and how many of those Koepfer was going to be able to get back from far behind the baseline where he seemed to hang out, would determine the outcome of at least the first set.

The first key point arrived at break point for Wawrinka when Koepfer served at 1-2. That test ended in Koepfer’s favor when Stan missed an easy forehand approach deep.

Next came Koepfer’s chance to take charge of the set when he led 0-40 on Stan’s serve in the next game at 2-2. Koepfer missed a backhand in his first break-point chance and Stan erased the second one with forehand down-the-line winner (which shaped to become his bread-and-butter shot for the first two sets, along with the inside-out one), following it up with an overhead winner at the net to get back to deuce. He saved a fourth break point at ad-out with his signature backhand down-the-line acceleration that Keopfer could not get back, and eventually survived the game.

Little did the left-handed German know at that time that he would find himself down two sets before he could get a glimpse of another break-point opportunity. Wawrinka began to steadily raise his level from that point forward. Koepfer also played into Stan’s game (and continued to do so until the third set) by not testing the one area where he could have made some inroads, his lefty forehand cross-court to Wawrinka’s backhand, preferably in the form of a high-bouncing topspin to force Stan into making contact above his shoulder level on his one-handed backhand – remember how Nadal exploited that in the French Open final in 2017. Koepfer strangely tried this only once in the set, in the first point of the 4-3 game, and Stan framed the backhand for a mistake. I am at a loss for an explanation as to why he did not resort to that pattern more.

Koepfer did not serve enough wide serves on the ad-side either, something that he usually does well with his lefty slice serve, nor did he try to kick it high to the T on the deuce side, again making Stan start the point with his least favorite shot. Instead of defending high and deep during rallies, he tried to drive balls from far behind the baseline, giving Stan the pace that he seeks in order to generate his own explosive ground strokes.

As for Stan, I know that people cannot marvel enough over his backhand – and don’t misunderstand, I like it too – but as is usually the case, it was his underrated forehand that caused most of the damage. Koepfer found himself deeper and deeper in the back of the court to scramble for the barrage of Stan’s forehand accelerations which also allowed the Swiss to successfully chip in the occasional drop shot for good measure (not so successful after the first set though, I must note).

Koepfer’s armor suffered the its first dent in the 3-4 game on his serve (you could sense this coming from the way the match was developing) when he missed two cross-court backhands in a row wide at 15-15, putting him down two break points. Stan generously contributed to his opponent’s downfall with yet another thunderous inside-in forehand to gain the conclusive lead for the set. It was over in 34 minutes, 6-3 in Stan’s favor, a solid set in which he made seven unforced errors (my count) and 10 winners.

The second set was different in the sense that I am not sure if Koepfer could have done anything to stop the Wawrinka train. The Swiss was unstoppable, putting on full display the best version of vintage “Stan the Man” that many remember from his three runs to Major titles. It was one explosive shot after another, often leaving Koepfer helplessly watching balls zip by him meters away. Stan grabbed a 4-0 lead, hitting seven clean winners off ground strokes in that stretch, along with another half dozen accelerations that the German could not get back in the court. Just to illustrate how vulnerable Koepfer must have felt, he committed only three unforced errors in the second set, but lost it 6-2, probably having something to do with his opponent hitting 13 clean winners.

Koepfer, not one to fold no matter how insurmountable a challenge he faces, kept plugging away. And this time he appeared to make a couple of modifications to his game plan. For instance, he began to unleash on returns in effort to take away Stan’s 1-2 punch, and did finally add some high and deep cross-court forehands into the mix (though still not enough in my view, but see the 3-2, 15-0 point for one example).

He survived through two break points on his first two service games thanks to a more erratic Stan making an appearance in the third set. The pendulum eventually swung his way when Stan served at 3-4 and faced a break point at 30-40. The Swiss missed an inside-out forehand winner attempt wide and Koepfer earned his first (and only) break of the match. That point was also emblematic of the third set in general. In a complete reversal of the second set, and perhaps with an assist by Koepfer’s modifications noted above, Stan struggled to find the court whenever he went for winners. When the scoreboard showed 4-3, he had already committed 15 unforced errors (finished with 18), more than in the first two sets combined. His first-serve percentage also plummeted to 55% for the set, down from 75% in the previous one.

Koepfer appeared to have sunk his teeth into the match and the contested points in the very early portion of the fourth set seemed to confirm that. Until, that is, Koepfer unexpectedly missed two routine forehands in a row deep to find himself down 15-40 in the second game. Stan seized the opportunity with another acceleration on his forehand for the break. That is all it took for Stan to recapture his form of the first two sets and race to the finish line in less than 20 minutes, with the final score showing 6-3 6-2 3-6 6-1.

The match lasted two hours and eight minutes and there were plenty of encouraging signs for Wawrinka’s fans who are longing for another stellar run from their man in a Major. I am not convinced yet, because in a match where his opponent played into his game for the most part, he still showed enough glitches to inject some doubt into his capacity to consistently perform at his top level through a best-of-five-set encounter. Don’t get me wrong, he showed that his best is still within reach, especially during the second set and most of the first and fourth sets. He will undoubtedly need to iron out the bad patches though if the much-anticipated encounter with Thiem is to occur in the fourth round.

Wawrinka faces the wild-card participant Hugo Gaston next, so as far as lovers of spectacular one-handed backhands are concerned, their dream match remains very much within the realm of possibility.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Roland Garros 2020, Women’s 1st Round Match Report: Tauson ousts Brady in a Thriller

Majors Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

As a guest on a few podcasts following the US Open, I argued that the semifinal match between Naomi Osaka and Jennifer Brady in New York was the most spectacular match of the tournament on the women’s side. The encounter featured rallies of extreme high pace, and whereas one may expect a notable dose of wild errors to accompany the potent shot-making in such cases, both women kept their game clean and increased their scintillating shot production instead as the match progresses. I was left wondering how in the world they did not mishit more balls at that velocity.

Tuesday morning at Roland Garros two weeks later, Brady was part of another high-quality match similar in posture to the one in New York, except that her opponent was not a proven performer at the elite WTA level with Major titles in her resumé like Osaka, but was rather the former world junior number one Clara Tauson, the 17-year-old Danish player, who stepped on Court Simonne-Mathieu for her first match in the main draw of a Major. She had only one main draw WTA Tour match in her record prior to entering the qualifying rounds at Roland Garros, a first-round loss at the Lugano event last year, after coming through qualifying. Let those last few lines sink in first. Then, consider what took place during the two hours and 45 minutes of this delightful outing, eventually ending 6-4 3-6 9-7 in favor of the youngster. Tauson not only matched Brady’s shot-making prowess at every juncture of the match, but also put on display the type of mental resiliency that usually defines top-notch performers on the WTA Tour.

Tauson survived two match points and persevered through the disappointment of not capitalizing on three of her own, before coming out on top on her fifth two games later, all taking place in the extended stages of the third set against a seasoned and in-form opponent whose level remained high throughout. It is not that Brady did something wrong and deserved to lose. It is rather Tauson who plucked away to victory by doing (almost) everything right.

Clara Tauson at the 2019 Australian Open (Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty Images AsiaPac)

To hardly anyone’s surprise, especially to those familiar with Tauson’s game, both players began the match on fifth gear, nailing the ball in an effort to dominate rallies, leading to the first five points ending in direct winners.

At the end of three games, there were already a total of 13 winners on record, nine of them coming from Tauson’s racket. May I remind you that we heard repeatedly since the competition began, that the courts playing slower due to weather conditions and the newly adopted – and bigger – Wilson balls. Feel free to toss that observation in the back of the closet for this match.

Tauson broke Brady’s serve to grab an early 3-1 lead and you could tell Brady was already forced to put her high-IQ into overdrive to come up with answers to the overwhelming flow of powerful shots raining her way from the other side of the court. Tauson was generating most of her winners from either the middle of the court on her forehand (eight such winners, four to each corner) or from the ad corner with her backhand down-the-line (five of them in the set). So, Brady began testing the one unproven side in the match thus far and began pulling Tauson wide to her forehand side to see, I presume, if the youngster could effectively produce winners from that location on the court.

She first tried it for the first time at 0-15 on Tauson’s serve in that 3-1 game and it led to an error by the Danish player. Brady finished the game with a winner (one of her ten total) to get back on serve and doubled down on that particular pattern, taking away the two spots on the court from where Tauson was producing the most winners (see above).

At 2-3, 15-0 serving, Brady pushed Tauson again to the forehand corner, earning a short reply which she put away to the open court with her backhand. She followed that up with a strong wide serve to the deuce side, producing a similar result and leveled the set at 3-3 one point later. In the ensuing game at 30-30, Brady looked like she was on track to gain the lead when she once again stretched Tauson to her forehand corner and followed it up with a winner when Tauson’s reply fell short. She could not, however, take advantage of it when she returned the ball into the net on the following break point.

The problem for Brady, you see, was that Tauson is not some one-dimensional player who possesses only a single bag of tricks (read: strike every ball hard and aim for winners). She can hit angles as well from both wings and mix-in the occasional drop shot. On her serve, she has the ability to vary the amount of kick or slice. And lo and behold, she is not afraid to come to the net and use her fundamentally sound volleys (5 out of 8 on approaches to the net in the set). Brady forced Tauson to dig deep into her set of skills. Tauson responded by holding serve after a contested game that saw four deuces, thus halting the American’s progress.

Each player held serve one more time and the scoreboard showed Brady serving at 4-5. This is where Tauson rose to the occasion with the composure of a champion. She started the game with a booming return that Brady could not get back. Two points later, she struck her fourth backhand down-the-line winner to get the 15-30 lead. At 30-30, she came up with a drop-shot winner to earn a set point, where she finally received an assist from Brady who had been playing a clean game with only four unforced errors (my own count) until that moment. The American missed a backhand in the net on Tauson’s return.

Brady, too great a competitor to get discouraged, buckled down on her problem-solving dexterity and adopted an ultra-aggressive game plan to take away Tauson’s ability to direct traffic during rallies. She began pounding on returns at the cost of making mistakes (did not make many) in order to take charge from the get-go and not allow Tauson to continue generating power from comfortable spots.

Brady led 2-1 when Tauson called for a medical time-out due to an ailing thigh. When she emerged from the medical time-out with her upper left thigh bandaged, she was ready to go back to work, but the flow of high-octane shots by Brady coming her way eventually began to take their toll. Brady insisted on exploiting the wide forehand corner on Tauson’s side and took more risks on her second serves with successful results (see for example the last two second serves to the ad side in the 2-1 game, with Tauson having to strain to get them back whereas she was taking charge on second-serve returns in the first set).

Tauson began to show cracks in her game – totally acceptable, bound to happen at some point considering the circumstances from her perspective – toward the end of the set when she served at 3-5. She missed a makeable volley and hit a forehand sitter in the net, losing the set 6-3 on her tenth unforced error of the set.

Fast-forward to Tauson serving at 5-6 in the final set, when it looked like the exciting adventure was about to come to an end for her. She missed two forehand sitters in the net in the first four points to find herself down two match points at 15-40. Somehow, Tauson remained resolved and squeezed a return error out of Brady with her first serve to save one match point. Then, she got back to deuce after a terrific rally in which she fearlessly unleashed four huge shots (and another forehand down-the-line topspin that caught the back of the line), virtually beating an error out of Brady. For good measure, she hit a stellar forehand inside-out winner to equalize at 6-6.

It was all Tauson over the next five minutes or so, as she broke serve and earned her first match point at 7-6 serving, 40-15. She finally showed some signs of nerves, I presume, missing a forehand and a backhand deep in succession, allowing Brady to get back to deuce. She had another chance to put the match to rest two points later, but her drop-shot attempt ended in the net. On Brady’s second break-point chance, Tauson missed a short backhand when Brady’s floater skipped on the service line and bounced low. Just like that it was 7-7.

You would think that the 17-year-old would finally succumb to the magnitude of the moment and crumble away after squandering three chances to win the match, right? Wrong! Not Tauson.

She remained level-headed in a way that would make top players envious after the disappointment of the previous game and it was Brady who cracked with two unforced errors in a row at deuce, both landing deep, and giving Tauson a chance to serve for the match again at 8-7. Tauson did not let this game slip away. She saved a break point at 30-40 with her 48th winner of the match (yes, forty-eight!) and although another match point went by when Brady hit an amazing backhand cross-court winner, Tauson capitalized on her fifth one when she landed a first serve close to the “T” and Brady missed the forehand return wide.

Side notes:

— 48 winners to 38 for Tauson (official count says 46 unforced errors for Tauson) and 39 to 19 for Brady (official count says 25 for her unforced errors). Maybe not at the sky-high levels of the Osaka-Brady US Open semifinal that I mentioned in the beginning, but undoubtedly a quality match by any measure.

— I simply cannot rely on the official unforced-error count. Numbers have been significantly higher than in my counts in all four first-round matches I analyzed so far in this tournament. I’ve closely observed how the official count works. One example: a shot missed by a server following a hard return by the opponent ,landing inches away from the baseline, thus forcing the server to balance on their backfoot to hit a half-volley-like shot, is simply not an unforced error in my book. Another example: a return missed on a high-kicking second serve, one that forces the returner to strike above the shoulder level on a reach is not an unforced error.

— I cannot help but wonder why neither player gave a fair shot to the idea of using slice to see if they could collect errors from their opponent. Especially interesting that Brady stayed away from it so much (she has the shot in her arsenal), never forcing Tauson to hit a couple or three shots from the knee level or below.

— Tauson’s net stats are 14 out of 27, which makes me wonder if they take into account points where Tauson hit a potent shot, and seeing that Brady is on the run and is likely to float the next shot back, began moving to the net, but winning the point without having to volley because Brady’s retrieval never made it back on her side. I am fairly certain that Tauson’s attacking game had a better success rate than 52%.

Tauson takes on an another American next, the 57th-ranked Danielle Collins.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Roland Garros 2020, Men’s 1st Round Match Report: Nishioka Advances as Auger-Aliassime Falters

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

After about an hour-long rain delay on the outside courts at Roland Garros on Monday, the opening match on Court 9 pitting the 19th-seed Félix Auger-Aliassime of Canada against the Japanese player Yoshihito Nishioka, ranked no.52 in the ATP, began under gray, cloudy skies, and cold temperatures.

It took about 4 games – a blank hold featuring two aces and a subsequent break to go up 3-1 – before Auger-Aliassime’s day at the office turned just as gloomy as la météo à Paris.

Auger-Aliassime tried to play aggressively from the baseline (his usual Plan A), hitting mostly deep down the middle of the court (not necessarily usual), with the occasional inside-out/in forehand mixed in, while Nishioka adopted a park-4-meters-behind-the-baseline outlook, perhaps out of respect for Auger-Aliassime’s ability to generate power off his ground strokes, running balls down and sending them back deep, intermittently stepping forward to accelerate on the backhand side and catch his opponent off-balance. Since neither player was too keen on coming to the net to finish points (more on this later), it resulted in the outcome of the match being dependent on both players’ consistency.

Neither player clicked on all cylinders in terms of keeping the unforced-error count low, except that one’s engine sputtered a lot more frequently than the other’s did. A ton more!

In the first two sets alone, Auger-Aliassime committed a total of 33 unforced errors as opposed to Nishioka’s 18 (my own count). To make matters worse for the Canadian, his errors often came in sequences of a few points in a row at crucial junctures in the match, whereas Nishioka, while also susceptible to erring in this match, was stingier in the timing of his errors, only a couple of them coming on important points. If I sound like I am describing an average-quality match at best, that is indeed my intention, and this is coming from a fan of both players.

I accept that on clay the outcome relies less on winners than errors committed, but this was a match where one player did just enough to steadily advance on third gear (read: not challenged to shift to fourth or fifth) while the other made no adjustments to his sputtering engine.

As noted above, Auger-Aliassime did build a 3-1 lead early in the match, but that was largely due to Nishioka’s mediocre start on his backhand (five unforced errors on that wing up to that point), which is usually his stronger side.

And this brings me to the other point I would like to make from Auger-Aliassime’s perspective with regard to this straight-forward 7-5 6-3 6-3 losst. At 3-1 up, 0-15 on his serve, Félix had a great chance to attack a short return by Nishioka (one among many such opportunities throughout the match). He struck a solid backhand that put Nishioka on the run, but he opted to step back to the baseline. A rally ensued and it ended with Nishioka hitting a sizzling backhand down-the-line winner. Two points later at 15-30, the same scenario repeated with Nishioka hitting a short return, giving a sitter to Félix, one that he chose once again not to follow to the net. He came in later in that rally on a less convenient shot and got passed.

Nishioka eventually broke serve and equalized at 3-3. In that seventh game at 0-15, Auger-Aliassime passed up yet another chance to attack on Nishioka’s short return and decided to come in on the next shot, after Nishioka had recovered to the middle of the court, and got passed again.

In fact, the only four points Félix lost at the net in the first set were all clean passing shots by Nishioka, two of them because Auger-Aliassime picked the wrong spots and left a target open at which Nishioka could aim (and Nishioka loves targets). I compare that to the 10 points that he won on other approaches in this set, seven of them coming as the result of direct winners from approaches or volley put-aways, and I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had he elected to do otherwise on chances he passed up to follow his great shots to the net, especially those he got to hit from way inside the baseline. Plus, many of them came on short returns by Nishioka, setting the stage for a 1-2 punch, an otherwise favorable play for Félix.

This pattern described above took place again and again throughout the first two sets – I will mainly focus on the third set in this piece, because the second set was a rehash of the first and by the time the third began, Auger-Aliassime appeared discouraged and quickly fell behind a break early in the set. Side note: This reluctance to integrate coming forward into one’s game is something that a vast majority of today’s up-and-comers need to reconsider if they intend to reach the elite section of the ATP rankings. For most, it is a facet of the game that is visibly lagging behind in comparison to their other assets.

One reason why I am beating this particular drum is precisely because Félix was having a nightmarish day at the office with regard to unforced errors committed from his ground strokes alone. Every player has these days every now and then, including top-notch ones, where you simply cannot seem to find your timing no matter hard you try.

One way to cut down on those errors, is to resort to basic safety tactics such as bringing an extra layer of security to your shot, in other words, hit higher over the net, play to the middle of the court away from the lines, etc. Another way is to adopt a Plan B that depends less on those badly calibrated shots du-jour in your game. In Auger-Aliassime’s case, on a day like this, this would mean that he’d look to cut the point short instead of engaging in long rallies and taking advantage of his opponent’s short balls and come forward, in order to not only bring the heat to your opponent and collect errors, but also to avoid possible errors resulting from long baseline exchanges.

If any of this were not clear in the first nine games, it certainly became crystal clear in the last 10 minutes of the first set. Auger-Aliassime led 5-4, and 0-30 on Nishioka’s serve, only to make his 11th unforced error of the set (6th on his backhand), and then, win only three out of the next 14 points to lose the set 5-7. He added three more unforced errors (and a double fault) in the 5-5 game and chipped in two more in the next one, for a total of 16 unforced errors in the set.

He would up that count by one for the second set, and made no modifications to his game plan. You don’t want to take my word for it, just watch the second and third points of the very first game and that should tell you all you need based on what I’ve noted previously. I thought that when Félix took the bathroom break at the end of the first set, he would settle down and perhaps shift his tactics, but that first game proved otherwise.

Credit should be given to Nishioka for recognizing his opponent’s struggles and sticking to what works for him although, as I mentioned before, he was not exactly pristine in the unforced-error count himself (10 in the first set, 8 in the second). He did however tidy up in the important points over the last two sets, and his two critical errors in the first were negated thanks to Félix generously returning the favor in the ensuing points.

This is not a devastating loss for Auger-Aliassime by any means. Nishioka presents a rough challenge in the opening round of a Major for most of his colleagues, not to mention a particularly difficult match-up for Félix because he is fast, he can handle pace, and he can consistently keep his ground strokes deep. His forehand carries a considerable spin while his backhand is much flatter, allowing him to give a different look to his opponent shot after shot. I am not sure that Félix enjoys facing opponents who can keep a steady flow of deep strokes coming his way on clay, pinning him to the baseline and beyond (his two losses to Laszlo Djere in 2019 come to mind, among others).

In the second round, Nishioka will take on the wild-card participant Hugo Gaston of France, making the possibility of a first-ever appearance in the third round at Roland Garros a realizable goal.

Nishioka at the Australian Open 2020 (Photo: Getty Images AsiaPac)

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Click here for the links to listen to Tennis with an Accent’s Roland Garros Preview podcast released on Saturday

Roland Garros 2020, Women’s 1st Round Match Report: Sasnovich Gets the Last Word vs. Friedsam

Majors Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

Aliaksandra Sasnovich has been a steady performer on the WTA Tour, and on all surfaces, over the last three years. Two of her best results in her career came in 2018, first when she made the finals of the WTA Tour event in Brisbane, losing to Elina Svitolina, second when she stunned Petra Kvitova, one of the title favorites, in the opening round at Wimbledon and won two more matches to reach the fourth round, her best result in a Major. Sasnovich earned a career-high ranking of no.30 in that same year.

Though she eventually dropped below the top 100 in early 2020, she has had solid results since the tour resumed in August with Palermo Ladies Open, where she won six matches in a row as a qualifier to get to the quarterfinals before losing to top-seeded Petra Martic in two tiebreakers. Following a third-round loss to Yulia Putintseva at the US Open and another quarterfinal showing in Istanbul, Sasnovich arrived at Roland Garros ranked at no.96 in the WTA.

Sasnovich in January 2019, Brisbane International – (Photo: Bradley Kanaris — Getty Images AsiaPac)

Her first-round opponent Anna-Lena Friedsam of Germany, ranked no.104, suffered several early-round losses this year, except in Marseille in March where she played her second career WTA final, losing to Sofia Kenin in three sets. It was back in 2016 that Friedsam reached her career-best ranking of 45, before injuries (particularly her shoulder) sidelined her for extended periods of times. After dropping as low as outside the top 300 in 2018, her career finally took an upturn recently. She finds herself on the verge of entering top 100 again.

Sasnovich and Friedsam, both born in 1994 and only 7 weeks apart, had already faced each other at the start of the 2020 season in Shenzen where the Belarusian defeated Friedsam 6-2 6-3.

Being the second match scheduled on Court 13 – click here to read my analysis of the first match between Benjamin Bonzi and Emil Ruusuvuori –, the two women were spared the steady drizzle that Bonzi and Ruusuvuori had been subjected to during the first two sets of their match. Nonetheless, conditions still remained piss-poor with cold temperatures and winds causing havoc in terms of shot-production by both players.

There is always the case of one player adjusting a bit quicker to weather conditions than the other, which could be due to one player’s fundamentals being more adaptable to different conditions than that of the other player, or to that player’s ability to remain more cool-headed than the other under adverse conditions. In any case, that player in this match was Sasnovich who actually lost her serve to start the match by committing three unforced errors in the first game while slipping and sliding on the court (she smacked the bottom of her shoe in frustration with the racket to get the clay off on the fourth point of the match). She did adjust quickly though, and made only two unforced errors for the rest of the set!

She also began to use her drops shots frequently, probably realizing that testing Friedsam’s first-step quickness forward may be something she could exploit further. Despite a bad drop shot that cost her the 3-1 game on her serve, that tactic worked in her favor for the duration of the set, throwing Friedsam out of balance during rallies and not allowing the German to settle into a rhythm. Friedsam made 10 unforced errors from 1-0 up to 2-6 down and by the time she decided to increase the velocity on her shots in an attempt to regain some control in rallies, it was too late.

Friedsam, determined not to find herself in the same situation as in the first set, made an emphatic statement to her opponent in the first game of the second set, producing two forehand winners and two high-octane returns that forced Sasnovich into errors. It could have been costly had she missed them, but ti was the right choice at that moment. The alternative was to play cautious and avoid errors, only to allow Sasnovich to hold the reins during rallies thanks to her variety, including drop shots (read: a rehash of the first set).

Friedsam held serve to go up 2-0 and continued to pound away, especially with her forehand. While Sasnovich remained within distance when she held serve at 1-3, you could tell that she was beginning to fear her opponents’ accelerations. She was straining to place her shots deeper in order to avoid Friedsam’s winner attempts that were now landing in for the most part — because that is what happens when you commit to a plan and believe in it; you embrace the risk itself instead of fearing its consequences. As Sasnovich’s targets became more and more limited in her increased attempts to keep Friedsam behind the baseline and off balance, she began to commit errors of her own and got broken a second time. Sasnovich’s unforced-error count more than doubled in the second set (11) while Friedsam, despite playing riskier tennis, cut hers down to 5 for the set.

When the third set began, it was Sasnovich’s turn to solve problems and make the pendulum swing back her way. She achieved that goal in the first game already by shifting to higher gear on the pace of her baseline shots and stripping away Friedsam’s ability to take the initiative. In doing so, she made three forehand unforced errors in that first game, but she managed to hold serve by forcing Friedsam into errors of her own. The difference between what she did right there at the beginning of the third set, and what Friedsam had done earlier at the beginning of the second (they both successfully managed to shift the momentum) was that Friedsam aimed for direct winners or sought to squeeze rapid, forced errors out of Sasnovich, whereas Sasnovich, instead of looking to end the point quickly one way or the other, added spin (or slice) as well as pace, but hitting closer to the lines, with the ultimate goal being, I presume, to keep Friedsam on the move and make herself be the one to set the patterns in rallies again.

It worked.

As Friedsam found herself in more and more difficult positions, she could not generate the same pace and reproduce the precision she enjoyed in the second set, and errors began creeping into her game. Once Sasnovich went up a break 2-0, the match had a new outlook. It was now the Belarusian directing traffic again during rallies, using the full range of varieties in her arsenal, from topspin to drive accelerations, to slices on both wings (including that rare and wicked inside-out slice that she can hit on her forehand), mixed in with drops shots for good measure. As an example, I would recommend a rewatch of the 2-1 game if you have access, the breaking point of the final set in my view. It starts and ends with two drop-shot winners by Sasnovich, and then, there is the crucial 30-30 point in the middle, where Friedsam responds to the challenge put forth by Sasnovich by coming into the net on a great approach shot (exactly what she should do at that juncture of the match and on that point) that puts Sasnovich on a full run to her backhand side. Yet, the Belarusian, thanks to her agility, hits a tremendous two-handed down-the-line passing shot on the full run, earning the break point, and probably delivering a devastating blow to Friedsam’s charge to sink her teeth into the final set — the German had just broken serve to get back to 1-2 and was serving to equalize at 2-2.

With her timing derailed and down by a break again after the above sequence, Friedsam’s unforced-error count once again skyrocketed. She tried to counteract the effects by coming to the net more often, and had only limited success with it because Sasnovich simply did not provide the German with enough chances to consistently come forward.

Friedsam finished the final set with 11 unforced errors, whereas Sasnovich made only four more after the initial three in the first game, before she concluded the match with 6-2 2-6 6-3 win. It was not a spectacular performance by any means, but it was extremely efficient considering the dreadful circumstances created by not only the lack of spectators (Ct. 13 looked deserted for most of the match), but also the miserable weather conditions. In short, it was an extremely professional day at the office for Aliaksandra Sasnovich.

Her second-round opponent is Caroline Garcia who took out the 17th-seeded Anett Kontaveit in three sets and I feel certain that Sasnovich will have plenty of additional problem-solving to do against the Frenchwoman.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Click here for the links to listen to Tennis with an Accent’s Roland Garros Preview podcast released on Saturday

Roland Garros 2020, Men’s 1st Round Match Report: Bonzi outlasts Ruusuvuori

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

First day of an atypical Roland Garros at an atypical time of the year, coupled with miserable weather conditions to start the day (read: cold, windy, with a steady drizzle), that alone should warn you to lower your expectations in terms of quality of play – understandably – and rather be prepared for the unexpected. It also meant that players who have been on site for a week, getting used to the conditions and surroundings, grinding through qualifying rounds with the new and supposedly heavier Wilson balls (as opposed to the Babolat ones of previous years), would have an advantage over those in the main draw who stepped on the court to play their first match at Roland Garros.

Thus, came victories by lucky loser Astra Sharma over Anna Blinkova, qualifier Kamilla Rakhimova over Shelby Rogers, qualifier Sebastian Korda over Andreas Seppi, and qualifier Jurij Rodionov over Jérémy Chardy, all within the first several hours of play at Roland Garros.

The Frenchman Benjamin Bonzi was yet another beneficiary of that trend on Court 13 when he defeated the 21-year-old Finnish player Emil Ruusuvuori, a promising up-and-comer, 6-2 6-4 4-6 6-4. Bonzi reached his highest ranking of 176 three years ago and has been outside the top 200 since January 2018. After a decent pre-Coronavirus start to 2020, the 24-year-old Bonzi showed up at Roland Garros qualifying rounds ranked 224 in the ATP and made his way to the main draw, getting an assist in his final qualifying round with a walk-over. To even get to that position, however, he had to save five match points in his 3-6 6-4 7-5 first-round victory over Zdeněk Kolář.

Bonzi in action during Roland Garros 2017 (Photo: Clive Brunskill — Getty Images Europe)

The career of Bonzi’s opponent has been on a brighter path than his as of late. Ruusuvuori entered the ATP’s top 200 a little over a year ago, and currently sitting at number 92, one below his career-high from last week.

That mattered little, however, as Ruusuvuori began experiencing all sorts of trouble from the gates, largely due to the conditions. Down a break immediately, he had a routine passing shot that he smashed in the net at 30-30 on Bonzi’s serve at 1-2 and followed it with a maligned drop shot attempt that let Bonzi confirm the break. By the time he got broken again to go down 1-4, Emil had already committed 6 unforced errors on his forehand, accompanying the three on his backhand wing. The fact that Ruusuvuori was unwilling to take his chances on short balls (examples: watch the first two points of the 1-4 game where he hits middle-of-the-court shots from way inside the baseline and backs up) and struggled to calibrate his sputtered timing on his ground strokes, while Bonzi kept putting pressure on him, only served to exacerbate the problem. I counted 6 points in which Emil had Benjamin on the run, with clear chances to attack on short balls, but chose to reset the rally by staying back.

By the time Bonzi, full of confidence at that point, held serve after a blank game (a forehand down-the-line winner to start it, and a cross-court one to end it) to pocket the first set 6-2, the otherwise-solid baseliner Ruusuvuori had committed 12 unforced errors**. Bonzi, for his part, enjoyed great success with his aggressive play, winning 8 out of 10 points on his approaches to the net.

**Side note: As usual for my match analyses, I count unforced errors myself and do not rely on the official stats.

The beginning of the second set saw the same pattern repeat itself. In the second point already, Ruusuvuori was almost at the service line and hit a solid shot, putting Bonzi on the run toward his backhand corner, but backed up to the baseline again, allowing Bonzi to get back in the rally and to produce a forehand winner to win the point. In the very next point, Bonzi approached with a backhand slice on the first chance he got and put the forehand volley away for a 15-40 lead, resulting in the break on the next point. That game was a microcosm of Ruusuvuori’s inability to adjust to the conditions, leading to questionable decision making, because decision-making takes a back seat when you are still preoccupied with cleaning up the mess on the basics.

Ruusuvuori did finally begin steadying the ship, starting with his service game at 1-3, but despite his effort, Bonzi protected his break lead all the way to the end of the set. Although he lost the set, Emil ended with a less “unpleasant” seven unforced-error tally compared to 12 in the first set. He also began to respond to his opponent’s relentless attacking by forcing Bonzi to hit lower volleys and producing clean passing shots. Bonzi’s success rate of 8 out 10 at the net in the first set plummeted to 5 out of 12 in the second and you could tell it was having an impact on him when, leading 4-3 and serving, he missed one approach due to hesitation at 15-0 and passed up a chance at 30-15. He lost both points, but still survived the game when Ruusuvuori committed two of his seven unforced errors after 30-30 to bail the Frenchman out.

Despite the improvement in the second set, Ruusuvuori still remained timid about approaching the net though, even when presented with the opportunity, passing up seven chances to put the heat on his opponent.

Having refilled the confidence tank nonetheless, cut down on errors (read: getting used to the conditions after two sets), and with his opponent now finding himself on the wrong side of the unforced-error race, Ruusuvuori built up a quick two-break lead in the third set. Bonzi put up a late charge that saw him climb back from 1-5 down to 4-5 and serve to equalize at 5-5. Ruusuvuori perhaps played his best return game of the match to break Bonzi back with a blank game and extend the match to a fourth set.

Emil appeared to have grabbed the momentum at the heels of that third set that marked a visible increase in the amount of errors committed by his opponent. Bonzi, to his credit, did not allow the slide to continue and held serve early to kickstart an entertaining fourth set where both players performed adequately – to use a cautionary term, considering the continuing wind and low temperatures – at the same time. This was the set that came down to a few key points.

The first one ended in Ruusuvuori’s favor when he hit a remarkable backhand passing shot at full stretch on the 30-30 point, when serving at 1-1. He followed it up with a backhand winner to go up 2-1. Ruusuvuori came through again when he faced a break point at 3-3, when he scraped through a long rally in which Bonzi was pushing him around, finally winning it when the Frenchman sailed a forehand deep.

Third time proved to be the charm for Bonzi who was progressively getting back to his ways of the first set, increasing the pressure on his opponent. At 4-4 he earned another break point when he attacked the net at deuce and produced a delightful half-volley pick-up. Although he could not capitalize on that break point, his opponent Ruusuvuori cracked in the next two points, erring on two routine approach shots to hand over the break to Bonzi.

Bonzi did not let his chance get away, seemingly knowing exactly what to do. He attacked the net four times in that contested last game alone. After earning his third match point after an overhead winner, he snatched his ticket to the second round when Ruusuvuori’s forehand return landed in the net.

Although this is not Bonzi’s first rodeo in the second round of a Major (as a wild-card entrant in Paris in 2017, he defeated Daniil Medvedev in the first round before losing to Ramos-Vinolas in the second), he couldn’t hide his excitement after the match, saying that he is “very happy” to have won and that it’s a “special” feeling to have the chance to play yet another match at Roland Garros. As for the miserable conditions, he confirmed that it was hard find any rhythm during points due to the wind and underlined that they played a significant portion of the match under the rain. He exclaimed: “We were soaked! The racket, the overgrips, all was wet […] it doesn’t help with the balls either, they become very heavy when they take water.” (Source: TennisActu)

Bonzi will next face Jannik Sinner, another up-and-comer, who eliminated the 11th-seeded David Goffin in three convincing sets, 7-5 6-0 6-3. This is also familiar ground for Sinner who reached the second round of the Australian Open earlier this year. However, it will be a career first in Majors for either man, when the winner of their match reaches the third round later this week.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Click here for the links to listen to Tennis with an Accent’s Roland Garros Preview podcast released on Saturday

© Mertov's Tennis Desk / 2014-2018 / All Rights Reserved / Powered by WordPress

MENU

Navigation