Australian Open Women’s 2nd Round Match Report: Karolina Muchova vs. Mona Barthel

Once in a while you come across a match where both players start with solid game plans and push each other in the early going, until the moment where one player takes over the match not because they suddenly begin producing first-rate shots, or not because the other player stumbles onto a bad patch of errors out of nowhere, but rather because intangibles slowly but surely begin to impose in favor of one over the other. Such was the case on Court 13 on Thursday, in 25th-seeded Karolina Muchova’s 6-4 6-1 take down of Mona Barthel in one hour and 13 minutes under windy conditions.

You will not find stats on categories like craftiness, versatility, confidence, perseverance, and athleticism. And yet, they were the central reasons why Muchova, having once grabbed the decisive lead in the first set, was able to sprint to victory without looking over her shoulder.

Muchova at the 2020 Autralian Open — Photo: Getty Images, AsiaPac

In fact, if one strictly looked at stroke production, Barthel was able to match Muchova’s skills for most of the first set. She began with clever tactics, going for her second serves in order to halt Muchova’s intention to attack on returns, taking cuts on returns herself to put Muchova on her backfoot early in the point, and using her down-the-line accelerations in rallies from both wings to keep Muchova from stepping inside the baseline, looking to cut off the cross-court strikes to rush the net (one of Muchova’s favorite patterns).  

And then, there were the intangibles…

Example 1:
At 30-30 in the 1-1 game on her serve, Barthel served two second-serve aces to hold, thus challenging her opponent to reconsider her plan to park inside the baseline and unleash on second-serve returns. But this is where confidence and belief come into play (one of the above-mentioned intangibles) and Muchova was not intimidated one bit. She kept on pressing on returns, giving a message to Barthel that the German better keep taking risks on her second serves and consistently produce, or else. “Or else” happened and Barthel, feeling the pressure herself, committed double faults at the most inopportune times throughout the match.

Example 2:
At 2-2, 0-15 on Barthel’s serve, Muchova sneak-attacked the net on a sharp cross-court backhand and finished the point with an overhead on Barthel’s floater (intangibles: high on-court IQ, versatility, athleticism). She followed that up with a terrific return winner on the German’s first serve, proving again that she was not backing down on her return positioning (intangible: persistence).

Example 3:
At 3-3, Barthel trailed 0-30, but Muchova made two unforced forehand errors in the following points to allow Barthel back into the game. Did that hold her back? Nope. She accelerated her forehand again at 30-40, landing it on the baseline this time, and Barthel could not get it back into the court (intangibles: high on-court IQ, perseverance).

Barthel essentially found herself trailing 3-4 and down a break, without having played a bad match at all up to that point, and having committed less unforced errors than her opponent. That break proved conclusive, Muchova won the first set 6-4 on her fourth set point when Barthel missed a return deep.

Barthel tried to dial up on aggressive play in the second set, but Muchova managed to derail her plans when she began herself attacking the net relentlessly whenever Barthel stretched for the ball at the baseline. The Czech even mixed in a few serve-and-volley attempts with success. She finished the match with 15 point won at the net out of 21, several of them on overheads because she set the approach up so well that Barthel had no choice but to hit a lob just to allow herself time to recover back to the middle of the court. Executing her all-court game to perfection throughout the second set, Muchova put forth some first-rate tennis, forcing Barthel into more errors in the process.

Consider for example the 30-15 point on Muchova’s serve at 0-1 in the second set. In that point, Muchova nailed an inside out forehand and Barthel, expecting Muchova once again to rush the net behind it, went for a high-risk, low-probability down-the-line passing shot (or what she thought to be a passing shot) on her backhand, and missed it wide. But in reality, Muchova had not followed her forehand to the net. Barthel could have just hit a defensive shot back to the middle of the court and relaunch the rally. Except that Muchova had attacked so many times from that position prior to that point that Barthel, expecting Muchova to once again bring the heat, felt the necessity to come up with a winner to the line, and made the error as a result. This is one of the long-term benefits of the all-court game (read: versatility and craftiness) when it’s well executed. You collect points on the turmoil your game causes inside your opponent’s head (read: intangible).

I will give one last illustration of an intangible, in the form of clutch timing. Post-match stats indicate that Muchova hit one ace in the second set. They will not indicate, however, that it came at break point down when leading 4-1, conclusively shutting the curtains on the last ray of hope Barthel had in order to climb back into the match.

Muchova’s third-round opponent is her compatriot Karolina Pliskova, seeded 6th, in what promises to be a tasty encounter for tennis fans. They met at the Majors twice, both in 2019, with Pliskova winning in straight sets at the Australian Open, and Muchova prevailing in a thrilling three-setter at Wimbledon (13-11 in the final set). I am certainly looking forward to Saturday for the third go-round between these two.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Australian Open Men’s 2nd Round Match Report: Pedro Martinez vs. Emil Ruusuvuori

Fortune favors the brave is the best fitting motto if you wanted to summarize what took place between Pedro Martinez and Emil Ruusuvuori, ranked right next to each other at 87 and 86 respectively, on Court 13 at the Australian Open in their second-round match on Tuesday. Martinez was aiming for the second time to reach the third round at a Major (first at 2020 Roland Garros) and Ruusuvuori was at his second attempt (first at US Open 2020) to get there for the first time in his career (first at 2020 US Open).

The match began in the scenario that the 21-year-old Finnish player would have written if he had the option. Engaging Martinez in extended cross-court rallies, working the middle of the court at times, baiting Martinez to go for winners from two or three meters behind the baseline, were patterns that favored Ruusuvuori who is perfectly comfortable with the notion of relying on sheer consistency from the backcourt, à-la Swedish school of the 80s (minus Anders Jarryd and Stefan Edberg).

It worked. Like clockwork.
And if you are an admirer of Ruusuvuori’s game like me, you enjoyed watching his impeccable timing on groundstrokes combine with his footwork, to showcase some impressive baseline execution.

Unfortunately for him, it only lasted for one set, but more on that later.

Ruusuvuori outclassed Martinez in the overwhelming majority of baseline rallies, with the Spaniard committing errors not because he was going for too much too early, but rather because he was simply not matching his opponent’s consistency. That trend reflected in the first-set stats, with Pedro scoring a mere 6 winners from his groundstrokes while attacking the net only twice. He also committed 12 unforced errors in 7 games, double the amount of that committed by his opponent. Ruusuvuori grabbed the first set 6-1 after 34 minutes.

Side note:
An area of future improvement for Ruusuvuori, one that I already noted in my previous match report involving him at Roland Garros 2020, is his reluctance to venture up to the net even when he has a clear opportunity to do so (read: even when his positioning on the court points to it being the best option). For those who enjoy visual examples, put the replay to the 30-30 point at the 2-0 game in the first set for one such moment out of many throughout the match. Ruusuvuori has a clear shot from well inside the baseline, at two different moments in the rally, at blasting the ball for a winner or hitting a targeted approach shot to advance to the net. Instead, he chooses to prolong the point by making contact and backing up, rendering that particular shot ineffective and less offensive in the process than it would have been had he committed to taking the initiative. He pays for it a few shots later when Martinez drives a deep ball that Emil cannot get back in the court. To leap to the next level in his career, in my opinion, Ruusuvuori must firmly embed the offensive mindset into his primary game plan as an option.

Having been dominated in the first set, it was obvious that Martinez needed to modify “something” to shake the foundation of the match, so to speak.

Pedro Martinez (Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images)

He started the second set attacking the net twice in the first game (same number as he did for the totality of the first set), winning both, and added an ace to start with a hold. It was a sign of things to come. Martinez was not going to remain in submission to his opponent’s terms. He obviously decided to win – or lose – on his terms, with his racket deciding the outcome. He forged ahead, consistently pushing the envelope during rallies, looking for ways to sap Ruusuvuori’s comfort level at the baseline. He did this in the form of occasional sharp-angle accelerations, stepping inside the court to take balls on the rise and challenging his opponent to pass him at the net. He took bigger cuts on returns and flattened out his accelerations. Sure, he missed some, but he also made enough of them to keep holding his serve to steady the ship in the second set.

This shift in Martinez’s tactics put some pressure on Ruusuvuori during rallies, something that must have felt strange to him after a full set of serene efficiency from the baseline. It’s likely the reason for the sharp increase in the number of his unforced forehand errors, 10 for the second set, a high number by his standards.

Martinez got rewarded in the 4-3 game when he broke Ruusuvuori’s serve, thanks to a couple of impressive flat accelerations that earned forced errors from the Finn. It helped also that Emil gave him an assist with his only double fault of the set in that game (possible cause: fear of Pedro stepping in for the big cut on the return). The Spaniard held the next game and leveled the match at one set each.

It capped a remarkable turnaround by Martinez, winning all 8 points at the net in the set and capitalizing on the only break point he had, after just managing to stay alive through the first seven games (he had to survive three break points). His body language improved as the set progressed, thanks to increased belief in his tactical modifications that were working. He was striking cleanly, overwhelming Ruusuvuori at times with his pace.

This pattern continued until late in the fourth set. Martinez was on fire, “feeling it,” while Ruusuvuori’s game stagnated. Not only did the Finnish player become error-prone, but his strategy seemed to consist of simply “waiting out” the Martinez storm, I reckon, to see if he would start missing again. Because I neither noticed an adjustment in his tactics, nor an effort to counteract Martinez’s working game plan, unlike what Martinez did at the start of the second set when he was in dire need of modifying his plan A.

Side note:
Consider the 2-1 game in the fourth set for instance, with Martinez already up a break, for an illustration of his “win or lose, it’s my terms” mental stance. Martinez found himself down a break point at 30-40. He saved it by unleashing his shot on Ruusuvuori’s passive return and landing it on the line. In the next point, he approached the net on the first chance he got and made Emil miss the passing shot. He missed the game-point chance because he went for a big winner attempt and missed it (acceptable error, within his modified game plan). He had another shot at winning the game two points later, and his backhand winner attempt missed by a little (same as before, acceptable error). In the third ad-in, he approached the net, but Ruusuvuori hit a spectacular passing shot (note: Pedro lost the point on his terms again, making Emil come up with the goods). He nailed a forehand winner to earn his fourth chance to hold. Seeing that Ruusuvuori is stepping in for the return, he went for a high-velocity second serve to the outside — never mind the risk of double fault, he aint’ holdin’ back, remember? — and caught his opponent off guard making him miss the return. He stuck to what got him back into the match, persistently and fearlessly. Fortune favors the bold, as they say.

It looked like Martinez was running away with the match when he broke Ruusuvuori’s serve a second time to take the 4-1 lead in the fourth set. He was two games away from the match, having won 19 out of the last 25 games.

Well, tennis won’t let you get away at Majors with even the slightest drop in focus. Martinez did, and suffered for it when, out of nowhere at 4-1 15-15, he missed a routine backhand and double-faulted (his first of the set, third in the match). It must have been some type of a wake-up call for Emil because it was the first time that I noticed a visible intent on his part to modify his tactics. He began going for his shots with determination, also amping up his first serve and returns. He strung together four games in a row to take the 5-4 lead!

Then, things took a strange turn as both players pushed the limits of their endurance. After the incredible run of four games by Ruusuvuori, Martinez produced four strong first serves in succession for a blank hold, and Emil followed it up with four straight unforced errors on his serve, for a total of eight straight points won by the Spaniard, allowing him to re-grab the lead at 6-5 and get a chance to serve out the match. Except that Martinez did not, because he matched Ruusuvuori with four successive unforced errors of his own at 15-0 to lose his serve and bring forth the tiebreaker to decide the set. It was not your ordinary sequence of tennis to say the least, certainly not one you would expect from two otherwise-stable baseliners.

The tiebreak’s latter stages felt like a microcosm of the match. Martinez nailed a big forehand down-the-line that Ruusuvuori could not get back over the net to take the 5-3 lead. Despite the incredible lunging forehand return winner by Emil to equalize at 5-5, Martinez did not waver in his conviction to keep taking his chances at crunch time. He served an ace to get to match point and closed the curtains with a stellar backhand down-the-line winner that Ruusuvuori could only watch land on the corner.

Frankly, hats off to Pedro Martinez! He gave a clinic on high-IQ tactics and resolved on-court posture. This is the type of match that many juniors (and Ruusuvuori) could draw lessons from with regard to the importance of mid-match adjustments, as well as understanding that the willingness to make that change is the first step in turning a match around. Martinez firmly took that step at the beginning of the second set and applied it to his game plan from that point forward, a process that Ruusuvuori, for his part, did not go through when the third set began, although the match had already begun slipping away from him by that time. The braver player won, deservedly so, with the final score of 1-6 6-3 6-2 7-6 in three hours and nine minutes.

Martinez will face 23rd-seeded Dusan Lajovic for a spot in the fourth round.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Navigation