Author: Mertov

Indian Wells Match Report: Denis Shapovalov – Ricardas Berankis (first round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

We often hear that “stats can be misleading.” This phrase is indeed a misguided assumption. It can only be true if the person looking at the statistics of the match in question views them as nothing more than sheer numbers without engaging their critical thinking. It is a rare occurrence at best. In reality, the evaluator’s personal observations of the match, influenced by his/her expert knowledge of tennis, mobilize a certain level of critical thinking that should lead to a healthy post-match analysis. Stats can be useful ingredients during such process, but they merely play a complementary role to the two main components, personal observation and critical thinking. To be blunt, it is very possible to do a sound analysis of a match using these two components alone. It is, by contrast, highly improbable that the same can be done if we lacked one of the two components, even if we had every numerical data at our disposal.

Thursday’s first-round match between the left-handed Denis Shapovalov (Canada, ranked no.44) and the qualifier Ricardas Berankis (Lithuania, ranked no.106) provides a good example of how numbers can be misguiding if stats are mainly taken into account.

Photo: Jeff Gross – Getty Images

In the first game of the match, Shapovalov made his first serve only once in six total points, double-faulted once, yet still managed to hold serve. In the third game at 1-1, he committed another double fault, only hit half of his first serves in, but held serve again. In the fifth game at 2-2, he double-faulted twice to start the game and still dug himself out of the hole and held serve.

In fact, when the scoreboard showed 3-2, it almost seemed miraculous that Denis would still be on serve. Thus far in three serving games, stats showed that he committed four double-faults and got only seven out of seventeen first serves in at 41%. I prefer to say the following: Denis Shapovalov was serving so well that even at 41% first serves and four double faults, he had yet to face a break point and lost only one point on his serve outside of the four double faults.

Because, you see, the numbers could not tell you the story of how well Shapovalov was placing the first and second serves that he was getting in, how much variation his serves had in terms of spin and speed, or how many errors Berankis was making on returns as he would try to adjust to the different bounces coming off the Canadian’s wicked combination of flat, slice, and kick serves.

Neither could the numbers tell the story of what precisely happened in the four points that followed when Denis went down 0-30 at 2-2, after the two successive double faults. At 0-30, Shapovalov got in a high-kicking second serve that forced Berankis to hit a defensive return, eventually leading to a forehand winner by Denis. At 15-30, Shapovalov hit a slice first serve to the outside corner of the box, stretching Berankis to the outside of the court and forcing him to float the one-handed backhand out. At 30-30, Shapovalov struck a hard serve to the “T” that Berankis could not get back in the court. Finally, at 40-30, Shapovalov hit a clean ace to the outside, for good measure, and closed out the game.

Stats were showing a “bad serving day” for Shapovalov. To a careful observer however, it was clear that Berankis was having a “nightmare returning day,” precisely because of Shapovalov’s serving skills. Do you believe that, after Shapovalov held and went up 3-2, Berankis was getting edgy thinking what he would do if Shapovalov’s first serve began to truly click, considering how much trouble the Canadian’s “un-clicking” serve was already giving him? You bet he was! And that anxiety showed in the ensuing sixth game.

The same Berankis that cruised through his first two service games without losing a point became restless. He committed his first double-fault at 30-15. He escaped a break point at 30-40 with what was probably his best point of the match, a long rally ending with his forehand winner to the deuce corner. He squandered two chances to hold serve before saving another break point. Then, the pressure finally got to Berankis. He double-faulted a second time in the game on the fourth deuce point and gave Shapovalov his third chance to break. Berankis then missed a fairly routine backhand cross-court wide, and Denis was now out in front 4-2.

To confirm the break, Shapovalov served three successive first serves in, winning the ensuing rallies in each point, to go up 40-0. To finish the game, Shapovalov kicked a second serve so high that Berankis swung and almost completely missed the ball, his racket frame barely clipping the ball behind him. It was very symbolic of the havoc that Shapovalov’s serve was causing on the Lithuanian.

Yet, when the set ended 6-3 in Shapovalov’s favor, his serving numbers were unimpressive. He served at 48% first serves, recorded two aces and four double faults. It was rather the placement and the variation of both his first and second serves that did the damage not the amount of aces or first serves that he got it in the box.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

It was déjà vu in the second set, except that Berankis did try to attack more by coming to the net. The problem was that he could never solve the puzzle of Shapovalov’s serves. For example, when he was leading 3-2 and 0-15 on Shapovalov’s serve, he tried to attack on a second serve that kicked so high that he had to jump up to hit it and missed it deep. On the next point, Shapovalov’s terrific first serve earned a return error from Berankis again. At 30-15, another solid second serve eventually led Denis to finish the point at the net. At 40-15, yet another second serve forced Berankis to miss the backhand return wide. Do you notice a pattern?

It is not the kind of pattern in which a player holds serves by simply serving aces or powerful serves. It is a singular type of service domination, one where the server hits double-faults, only a handful of aces, yet manages to completely derail the opponent’s returns. This is not to say that Shapovalov is not capable of doing the first pattern. He did it at 3-4 in the second set, by winning the game in 62 seconds, thanks to three aces and one winning second serve.

Berankis finally cracked on his serve at 4-4. A double fault and two unforced errors from the baseline were enough to give Shapovalov a chance to serve for the match at 5-4. Of course, Denis obliged, winning the game and the match 6-3 6-4. He will face the 30th-seeded Pablo Cuevas in the second round.

Side note 1
Shapovalov finished with 25/53 first serves for 47%, but out of the 25 points that he started with his first serve, he only lost three. Not counting the five double faults, he only lost six points when having to start the point with a second serve. Variety and placement are the essentials here, not power and stats. Looking at first-serve percentage, and the number of aces and double faults, one could easily say that Denis had a “bad serving day.” The truth is, his serves played the leading role in his victory.

Side note 2
Shapovalov rarely uses the slice on backhand returns. Even when reaching for the ball, he seldom blocks or slices the ball back in the court. It’s a questionable choice in my opinion, especially considering that one-handed backhand hitters have stronger wrists and better control of the racket head when forced to hit a stretched one-handed backhand. A slice return could also come in handy when facing a powerful server. Trying to muscle a one-handed return over the top of the ball on a serve coming to you like a bazooka may prove costly. I can only assume Denis and his coaching know something others don’t because he has been doing this for almost two years with little sign of integrating the slice into his backhand returns.

Side note 3
It never ceases to amaze me how well Berankis serves for a player of his size.

Side note 4
Shapovalov rarely tries a regular drop shot during a rally. Maybe it will come with time, but seeing his finesse skills at the net, I would be surprised if he does not develop his drop shots.

On an unrelated note, I would like to thank all those who provided wonderful, positive, and encouraging feedback/comments via social media and private messages on my previous match report from Wednesday.

Until the next one, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Marketa Vondrousova – Madison Brengle (first round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA 2 Comments

Many variables come into play when one considers which WTA or ATP athletes one enjoys watching, but I would guess that most viewers of tennis roughly belong to the following four categories (not denying the possibility that some slight overlaps among them may exist).

There are those people who watch tennis for professional reasons. They could be writing or reporting on matches for the media, conducting a study, or representing a sponsor. There are those who center their interest on fanship around one specific player. They watch, for the most part, his/her matches and perhaps a few of his/her main competitors – in the hopes that they lose, naturally. To these fans, little else in the world of tennis matters, including the sport itself. A third group of viewers prefer to only watch the largest tennis events, such as the Majors, because they are mainly interested in seeing the best players in the world perform. Finally, there are others who enjoy watching tennis players perform at any professional tournament, simply because they love the sport and genuinely find it pleasurable to watch a competitive tennis match.

I would like to believe that I belong to the last category of tennis viewer noted above. I can watch any tennis match from the very first point to the last and get a thrill out of its “story.” And yes, every match has a story, regardless of the score. I must nevertheless admit that I do enjoy watching a few players more than others. It could simply be the result of a personal connection to the player or their style appealing to me as an ex-player, ex-coach, or simply as a tennis fan. Throughout the Spring season, leading up to Roland Garros, I will attempt to write as many match reports as possible, involving some of these types of players. I will also add, if needed, some useful “side notes” at the bottom of each match report.

The talented eighteen-year-old Marketa Vondrousova is one of those. In case you have never seen her play, the 54th-ranked Czech is a left-handed player with a strong first serve and a fine touch. She uses a two-handed backhand and plays mostly from the baseline, although she will not avoid approaching the net if given the chance.

Photo: Robert Cianfrone – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Vondrousova began her BNP Parisbas Open campaign in Indian Wells against the 76th-ranked American Madison Brengle. Both players held serve to begin the match, but you could already see signs of Vondrousova’s plan when, in four out of the first five points of her serving game (including the double-fault on the second point), she used slice serves curving away from Brengle’s backhand. It is nothing unusual for left-handed players to work the outside corner of the service box on the advantage side to move the opponent off the court so that the winner to the open deuce side becomes available for the next shot. Yet, Vondrousova used the same slice serve also on the deuce side and showed from very early on that she would seek to earn short returns from the outstretched backhands of Brengle in order to either control the ensuing rallies, or hit a winner with the second shot of the 1-2 punch (example: the very first point of the match on her serve at 0-1).

One area of Marketa’s game that remains error-prone at times is the return of serve. It was nevertheless her returns, mixed with a bit of luck, that earned her the first break of the match. At 1-1 and 30-0 for Brengle, Vondrousova hit three aggressive forehand returns in a row over the next three points. The first one forced the American into an error on the next shot. The second one put her in a defensive position enough to commit one later in the rally. The third hit the net and dropped over for a winner. Vondrousova was now up 30-40. She squandered that break point on a forehand mishit that sailed up and out. She earned a second one later after she nailed a sharply angled cross-court-backhand return that eventually led to her winning the point two shots later. She would capitalize on that ensuing second break point and go up 2-1. More on her returns a bit further.

Once down a break, Brengle began stepping into the court and accelerating her down-the-line shots, usually one of her game’s strengths. But the one she missed at 1-3 down, serving at 15-0, did not help her cause. She also attempted to come to the net behind short balls and pressure Vondrousova’s forehand (her weaker side by a thin margin). Yet, to apply that pressure, you have to first start the point. And the two double faults in that game, first at 15-15 and the second to squander a game point later, only served to lead to another break against her.

In the meantime, Vondrousova was continuing her all-around solid, but not perfect, returning performance. By the time she won the first set 6-2, she was allowing Madison to win only 40% of her first-serve points. When the match ended one hour seven minutes after it began, that number decreased further to 38%. Brengle fared better on points started with her second serve, mainly because Vondrousova risked and missed more, thus the “but not perfect” clause in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Brengle continued to search for solutions after losing the first set. Her best opportunity to turn the tide came early in the second set when she was leading 1-0 and had two break points (see also side note no.1). She committed a forehand unforced error in the net on the first one. Vondrousova moved in on a floater and hit one of her several forehand swing-volley winners of the day to save the second. She finally held with a well-placed first serve into the body that jammed Brengle’s forehand.

The curtains seemed to be coming down on Brengle in the very next game when Vondrousova played her best tennis of the match to go up a break again. As a matter fact, you want an example of her versatility without having to watch a long game? Watch this one. A thunderous, inside-out forehand return gives her the first point. At 0-15, a long rally takes place. Marketa eventually nails the flat forehand down-the-line to Madison’s deuce corner. Madison gets it back but the ball lands short. Marketa moves forward, slices the low backhand approach inside-out, spinning away from Madison on the ad-side. Madison cannot get the ball back and now it is 0-30. After the American misses a backhand to go down 0-40, Marketa breaks her serve on a point that ends with her accelerating a flat backhand cross-court and sneaking to the net behind it to win it on a backhand volley punctuated by an overhead.

Brengle is a fighter though. She responded with her own best returning game of the match to earn her only break of the match and get back on serve at 2-2. As if Vondrousova needed luck to seal the deal for her, in the first two points in that game, her shots clipped the net and dipped on Brengle’s side of the court for winners. Vondrousova would break to go up 3-2 and would do it again after tightly contested seventh game to go up 5-2. The second break, ending on a backhand error did truly shut the curtains on Brengle. Two minutes later, the scoreboard would read 6-2 6-2 and Vondrousova would be on her way to face the 11th-seeded Johanna Konta in the next round.

Side note no.1

Juniors should take heed of what Vondrousova did at 0-1 down in the second set. She had a game point at 40-30, only to double fault twice and go down a break point at ad-out. Vondrousova served perhaps her safest first serve of the match to get the ball in the service box and avoid at all costs the prospect of facing another second serve. Remember that losing that point would have given Brengle a break and a 2-0 lead in the second set and possibly turned around a match that had been one-sided in Vondrousova’s favor until then. This tactical decision by Marketa only makes sense. It is not some wondrous secret to other tennis players or coaches either. Yet, it remains rarely practiced and under-rated.

It does not matter that you rarely double-fault or that your first serves earn you a slew of free points. In that type of situation, following a double-fault or two, your first priority is to avoid the “oh-dear-what-if-I-do-it-again” apprehension that will undoubtedly slip in the center of your brain and grow there within a matter of seconds, if you miss the first serve. Get that first serve in, period!

Side note no.2

Vondrousova has the habit of bending down and grabbing her knees to catch her breath after long points (example: 0-1 in the second set, deuce). It is perfectly understandable that she is exhausted after a taxing point, however, I have always been for the idea that you should hide all indications of physical condition from your opponent as much as you can. And this is a case where you can do that by walking around, breathing deeply, and/or going for the towel. Bending over and resting your hands on your knees basically shows your opponent that you may not be fully recovered by the time the next point begins or that you are not as fit as you may have looked otherwise. While either or both of those cases may well be true, there is no need to telegraph that to your opponent.

Until the next match report, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open 2018 !

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Australian Open: Men’s Final Preview

ATP Majors No Comments

Roger Federer (2) vs. Marin Cilic (6)

At this point in the Roger Federer – Marin Cilic rivalry, their 2014 US Open encounter, in which the Croat crushed the Swiss in straight sets, looks more and more like a colossal exception to the norm. It remains to this day Marin’s only victory over his rival. In return, Roger has defeated him eight other times, with the only “close call” having taken place at the Wimbledon 2016 quarterfinals (Federer came back from two sets down and saved three match points in the third). Roger played average tennis for most of that particular match and, by his own admission much later, did not prepare adequately for the tournament due to an arthroscopic surgery that required substantial time-off earlier in the spring. This Sunday, I strongly doubt he will play average tennis on Centre Court.

There are several reasons for which Federer dominates Cilic. I will not list all of them here because most are obvious to every enthusiastic tennis fan. The one that makes the biggest difference, in my opinion, is the fact that Cilic’s first step on returns and change of directions lacks the explosiveness needed to position his upper body for his shot, without which he cannot generate enough power on his groundstrokes.

Cilic’s upper-body rotation on the forehand and his ability to lean into the ball on his two-handed backhand are two essential elements required to produce his best tennis which mainly consists of overpowering the opponent. It is a complete change of equation when Cilic has to stretch for his shots and reach with his upper body to make contact.

Photo: Scott Barnour – Getty

I believe most readers will agree with me when I say that Federer is one of the best in the history of our sport when it comes to exploiting the glaring weaknesses of his adversaries. It should be no different on Sunday. Federer will look to vary his serves – some into the body, many out wide, some flat ones to the “T” – with the goal of exploiting Marin’s lack of speed on his first-step. He will use his serves to force the Croat to either get out of the way quickly on a serve that is curving into his body, or lunge wide to reach a sliding serve to the outside on the deuce side, or retrieve a flat serve bouncing on the “T.”

The only way this advantage in favor of Federer gets negated is if he struggles with his first serve and begins to depend on second ones. I do not, obviously, mean to knock down Federer’s second serve since it is one of the best in the Open Era, probably right behind Pete Sampras’ second serve. I intend simply to emphasize the fact that a bad first-serve day by Roger will not allow him to take advantage of an edge that he would otherwise have against Marin.

That still does not solve Cilic’s potential problems during baseline rallies. Federer is a master of creating angles and not relinquishing the upper-hand in the rally once it turns in his favor. He can keep his opponent on the run until he puts it away with a winner at the net or from the baseline, or until his opponent makes an error on a low-percentage winner attempt from a difficult position under pressure. He can also accelerate the ball to the same corner from which the opponent is recovering, putting him on his backfoot. Did that ring a bell? See two paragraphs above if it did not.

For his part, – and this will sound like a repeat of my semifinal preview – Cilic needs to focus on his strengths and not contemplate too much on aspects that he cannot control. He was able to do it against Kyle Edmund, another player with a big forehand and first serve, and raise the rest of his game as a consequence. Can he not do the same on Sunday? So what if his opponent serves well? So what if the opponent out-rallies him? Can he still not stay toe-to-toe with his oppponent if he serves at a high first-serve percentage and adds in a healthy number of aces? Can he not successfully put to use his solid 1-2 punch skills as a follow-up to those serves? Sure, he can. In that scenario, he would probably need to take the set to a tiebreaker and steal it, but yes, it is possible. But now change the word “opponent,” used thrice earlier in this paragraph, to “Federer.” All of a sudden, Cilic’s task seems a lot more difficult than it did against Edmund.

Defeating an in-form Federer is an imposing mountain to climb for any player. It is a challenge that very few players have been able to overcome, and that, only a handful of times. Cilic is not one of those players. I do not expect that to change on Sunday. His first serve and 1-2 punch – assuming the first serve clicks – may earn him a set, and then he would need help from Roger (or something…).

Otherwise, look for an extremely jovial Federer to break a new record, his own, for the number of Majors won, as well as the record for the “duration-of-post-match-interviews” statistic, also his own, set earlier this week (I gather).

Enjoy the match!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty

Thursday: Australian Open Semifinals Preview

ATP & WTA Majors No Comments

It has been a fantastic ride so far in the first Major of the year, and the four match-ups in the semifinals of the two singles’ draws should delight any tennis fan. You have again a healthy mix of favorites still marching on, newcomers on the rise, and established players chasing their first Major title. Could anyone have guessed correctly the eight names still in the draw? I doubt it, but if someone did, my hats off to them.

Speaking of guessing, I have been wrong several times this week. As those of you who regularly follow my posts already know, when I write these previews, I attempt to forecast what may happen in the match, strictly tennis-wise, based on past observations. Any player or coach will tell you that the strange and unexpected take place regularly in the arena of competitive tennis. For example, in my last preview, I gave the reasons why I felt that Marin Cilic’s chances were very slim against Rafael Nadal. I also explained specifically my take on what Cilic would need to do in order to pull the improbable upset win. I maintained that it was highly unlikely that he could put all that together.

Guess what? He did.

Yes, Rafa’s injury sealed the match in the fifth set, but Cilic deserves full credit for doing what was necessary to put himself in a position to win. Although I turned out right in the ins-and-outs of how he could do it, I was wrong in thinking that he ultimately could not. And turning out wrong on the final score is nothing new for me, ha! People who know me can tell you that I am terrible at predicting scores. They can also tell you that I have had zero interest in betting. I don’t even know what those numbers mean when I see the occasional tweet or article about odds. So, if there are any obsessed gamblers reading my posts hoping to gain insight, you have been warned !!

Let’s now get to two** semifinal matches scheduled for Thursday. Keep in mind that, I write all this under the assumption that players will not suffer from injuries or sickness during the match, or retire.
**Time constraints unfortunately do not allow me to preview all three singles’ matches, so I had to pick two.

Simona Halep (1) vs Angelique Kerber (21)

Let me provide a quick check list:
– Two players, one officially ranked number one in the WTA, the other motivated to get there and certainly playing like one.
– Evenly matched encounter, with Kerber leading 5-4 the head-to-head tally. Both undefeated in 2018, each with a record of 10-0.
– Both playing five-star tennis in the quarterfinals, winning routinely against opponents to whom most in the WTA field lose routinely.
– Now scheduled to play each other in the semis of a Major with the number-one-ranking implications.

I ask you, what more could you want as a tennis fan? I have an idea. You would want to clear out your schedule, make sure you have an ample of supply of popcorn, your favorite beverage, and a quality screen on which to watch it unless you are in Melbourne holding a ticket to see it live.

Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty

This match promises a lot precisely because it is almost impossible to predict. Kerber and Halep are two of the best baseliners in our game for many reasons. They move exceptionally well and possess fine counterpunching skills from difficult positions. Plus, there is not a particular baseline pattern in which they show a visible weakness. You hit a sharp cross-court, they can run it down, respond with a wicked angle, and put you on your backfoot. You accelerate down-the-line, they can take advantage of the open cross-court or send it back in the same direction. You hit the ball hard and deep to the baseline in hopes of putting them off-balance, they can bend their knees, to the point of touching the ground, and use their wrist-control to strike back with a half-volley, thus take back the control of the rally.

So, can either of them break the other down from the baseline? I do not have the answer to this question. That is mainly the reason for which I find this match fascinating. The outcome will hinge more on factors such as mental toughness, problem-solving, on-court IQ, conditioning, experience, and the will to win. As I compare and contrast the two players with those factors, I find myself repeating sentences like “Simona excels in X, but so does Angie,” or “Angie is the best at doing Y, except for Simona,” or even “I remember the match where [one] mounted an incredible comeback, but wait, there is also that other match where [the other] fought through adversity.”

Do you see where I am going with all this? Maybe the right answer is nowhere, and I am happy with that. Because, that is the type of puzzle that produces the highest quality in tennis, one in which the two players push each other to their level to new heights as the match progresses to a thrilling climax.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

I can almost hear some readers reminding me that Kerber has already won two Majors compared to zero for Halep, and thus she has shown the ability to cross that barrier, giving her the edge over her opponent. It is a fair argument, but then, could we argue that Simona’s lack of Major titles adds to her desire to win, because she the stakes are higher for her than for Angie? But wait, hasn’t that been the case for Simona since she reached the finals of Roland Garros in 2014 and lost to Maria Sharapova? So that could make Simona tight when the match is on the line… or something… !
…………………….. !!

Yes, it is all beginning to sound silly. I am stopping right here before I get a headache and setting my priorities straight. I must clear out my schedule, get my popcorn and beverage. Thank heavens, I already have a quality screen. Phew!

Marin Cilic (6) vs Kyle Edmund

My Tuesday preview involving Edmund’s match against Grigor Dimitrov had a certain pattern that did not age well. Firstly, I talked about Edmund’s qualities and emphasized his good form of late. Secondly, I admitted that I should have learned my lesson about picking against him (I favored Kevin Anderson to eliminate him in the first round, same with Andreas Seppi in the fourth), only to finish by saying that, although he had already proved me wrong twice, I still cannot favor him against Dimitrov. I even finished with the following ironic quote: “Edmund will simply have to teach me the same lesson again.”

Well, he did teach me a lesson, again. And I promise, I learned my lesson this time.

I do not care that he will be an underdog against Cilic. He made a believer out of me by now, as he did with many others around the world. I will, however, add that the reason for which I believe Edmund can yet pull another upset does not solely originate from some silly fear that I may repeat the same mistake four times. It is also because Edmund possesses the bits and pieces necessary to beat Cilic.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

I have written about Edmund’s ability to produce an abundant number of winners in my preview of his quarterfinal match vs Grigor Dimitrov. As of today, he leads all players in the Australian Open this year in the forehand-winner category with 127 of them. Both against Seppi in the fourth round and Dimitrov on Tuesday, Edmund repeatedly nailed winners from that side that left his opponents bewildered. He also added a bunch of aces and unreturnable first serves for good measure.

I cannot underline enough the fact that he was able to maintain his level and produce those winners against two different type of players. On the one hand, Seppi hits the ball with pace and rather flat, giving little time to his opponents to prepare for the next stroke. Dimitrov, on the other hand, can hit a high-bouncing spin, as well as a sizzling slice that will stay very low. This shows Edmund’s ability to impose his game to a variety of players. Does that group include Cilic? I believe so.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

The big Croate loves to make contact with the ball high, preferably around the chest and shoulder level. This is why he was able to take some of Rafael Nadal’s balls on the rise and drive them back deep into the Spaniard’s baseline territory. Cilic struggles a bit more on lower balls, and on those where he has to reach wide to hit. In other words, if you face Marin, do not let him get set and lean into the ball with his upper body, because that is when he can generate some heavy, warp-speed shots. Edmund, for his part, is equipped to deal with that, because he is not a heavy topspin hitter by nature anyway.

In fact, when Edmund performs at his best, he often takes the initiative with crisp forehand accelerations, and occasionally, with flat down-the-line backhands. In doing so, he makes the ball glide through the court without losing much velocity. Furthermore, the ball stays low on the bounce. Seppi and Dimitrov, his last two victims, could handle those balls when they could get to them (except that they often could not). Cilic, in contrast, should struggle with those even if he does get to them, because he will need to reach to strike an off-balance shot from below-the-hip level. That should not allow him to load his body into the shot like he prefers to do.

So, Edmund fans, I apologize ahead of time, but not because I think your man is going to lose. On the contrary, I think he will once again get it done. I am apologizing ahead of time, for picking him to win, because of my dreadful past track record 🙂

Stay well and enjoy the tennis !

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Tuesday: Australian Open Men’s Quarterfinal Previews

ATP & WTA Majors 2 Comments

We are down to the final 8 of the men’s draw at the Australian Open. Each quarterfinal match offers its own narrative, one more compelling than the next. On Tuesday, the line is clearly drawn as to who the favorites and the underdogs are in the two men’s matches scheduled. These players also have, among themselves, different pursuits. Among the two favorites, one is trying to confirm his number-one status and shape further his place in the history of the sport, while the other is attempting to take a giant step toward that elusive elite status. Among the underdogs, one is seeking to earn more respect than he gets despite having reached the finals of Majors twice, winning one, while the other simply wishes to extend the best week of his young career.

Below are my previews of both matches.

Grigor Dimitrov (3) vs Kyle Edmund

Grigor gets another chance to solidify the argument of why he should be considered one of the current elite performers in men’s tennis. He is not exactly there yet, mind you, but he has a golden chance to reach that status this week. Since having defeated the qualifier and 186th-ranked MacKenzie McDonald in the most unconvincing way possible – 8/6 in the fifth set after being bageled in the fourth, 8 aces and 9 double faults, and a slew of unforced errors – Dimitrov has gotten his act together. He put forth an impressive march to the quarterfinal round in his last two matches. I call it impressive in that he faced two quality opponents, Andrey Rublev and Nick Kyrgios, and showed poise almost each time they challenged him at crucial stages of both matches.

Photo: Darrian Traynor – Getty

His opponent’s run to the quarterfinal, however, may take the cake in the overall sense of the term “impressive.”

For starters, Edmund was not supposed to be here. When the draw was made, he was unseeded and scheduled to face the US Open finalist Kevin Anderson in the first round. The 49th-ranked Edmund, with the never-depleting gas tank, recorded the upset victory over Anderson, the first of two five-setters he won prior to his last round. After a straight-set victory over Denis Istomin in the second round, he won his second five-setter against Nikoloz Basilashvili. All three were remarkable wins, but it is the way in which he pulled his four-set victory in the fourth round against Seppi that was truly striking.

After having lost the first set and gone down a break in the second, and suffering from a lingering pain in his shoulder, Edmund suddenly began to produce his best tennis of the week for the next two hours. At times, Seppi looked helpless against the barrage of winners that Kyle was nailing from all areas of the court. He did not give up after the disappointment of losing the tiebreaker of the first set, kept a positive body language, showed all the signs of mental toughness that would delight any player’s fans and coaching team.

Edmund was placed in a relatively advantageous section of the draw (Jack Sock and Kevin Anderson, the highest seeds). He took full advantage of that opportunity once he got past Anderson. With all due respect to Istomin, Basilashvili, and Seppi, they do not impose the same degree of intimidation that his next opponent or his potential future opponents this week will do when standing next to them in the tunnel prior to walking on the court.

Then, there are the tactical possibilities. As tennis fans, we could be treated to a wonderful spectacle if Edmund starts strong and protects his service games. That begins with a high percentage of first serves and an aggressive approach to the next shot coming from the opponent’s return. This 1-2 punch pattern is in fact an essential part of Kyle’s usual A plan, his “bread-n-butter” so to speak.

Let’s ponder for a second. What if Edmund was to catch fire, à-la-sets-three-and-four of his win vs. Seppi?

To grasp the extent of how incredible Edmund’s performance was in that period of time, you would need to watch the replay. He hit so many winners that, at a certain point in the match, I began to simply expect winners every other point and started considering them “routine points,” only admiring the ones hit from impossible positions. Yes, I admit, from that point forward, I became what you would consider a spoiled tennis fan. Shame on me!

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

Can Dimitrov extinguish that kind of fire? Yes, only because he moves quicker and defends better than Kyle’s previous opponents. In fact, the Bulgarian is one of the best athletes in men’s tennis. How many shots did Kyrgios hit in the previous round that he thought were winners, but ended up coming back, forcing him to take another crack? Only Nick could accurately answer that, but I will make an educated guess and say that the number was easily in double digits. Did you see, for example, the forehand missiles hit by Dimitrov while he was fully stretched and on the run? I can only hope, Edmund’s behalf, that he did not use up all his winners against Seppi and that he still has plenty in his reserves.

There is also that scenario where some physical pain limits Edmund’s ability to perform and he loses in straight sets, or furthermore, forces him to retire. Ignoring that possibility for a moment, I would like to say that I learned my lesson about picking against Edmund (twice in fact), and that I will not pick against him again. Yet, I cannot. I have believed in Dimitrov to go to the final since day one of this tournament. Edmund will simply have to teach me the same lesson again.

Rafael Nadal (1) vs Marin Cilic (6)

There are reasons for which Nadal has, for the most part, dominated Cilic since his only loss to him in Beijing nine years ago. It can partially be explained by intangibles unrelated to technical and tactical aspects. Rafa is one of the best athletes in the world and Marin is not the only player that he has dominated over extended periods of time. He has more experience in the second week of Majors, and on big stage, than any opponent he faces, unless the latter happens to be another member of the rare elites in our game (you know who they are). He is mentally the best competitor our sport has ever seen. I could continue with this list, but I will stop right here and move on to the tactical side where the forecast looks just as bleak for Cilic.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

Diego Schwartzman frequently gave Nadal fits during their match. He forced the Spaniard to come up with several great shots in a row to eventually collect the point. He sent a message to Rafa from the early stages of the match that he would not go away simply because he lost a long point at deuce or a contested game. In short, he gave Rafa some of his own medicine, because that is precisely how Nadal’s adversaries feel until that moment in the match where they cease being his adversary and give up. Diego remained Rafa’s adversary all the way to the bitter end.

He was able to do so because, first and foremost, he is quick. He could run down so many of Rafa’s shots and send them back high and deep at times, flat and hard at others. His speed, agility, and explosive first step allowed him to change directions in the blink of an eye. His ability to counterpunch from off-balance positions produced winners for which even Rafa was not ready.

Well, I just listed a bunch of qualities about Schwarztman’s game that lack in Cilic’s. Let me be clear: Cilic is a good mover. If you hit an average drop shot for example, he has the speed to get to it and punish you. In a basic side-to-side rally, he can stay with his opponent and overpower him. His shortcomings appear if, for example, he has to quickly go outside the boundaries of the court to return a wide serve and immediately get back to the middle of the court for the next shot. Or if he has to stop and change directions during the rally when his opponent accelerates back to the same corner from which he is trying recover.

You can see two examples of these weaknesses in Cilic’s first-set tiebreaker against Pablo Carreno Busta in the last round. In the first point of the tiebreaker, the two players engage in a rally that Cilic initially dictates until Carreno hits a forehand down-the-line that changes the pattern and forces Cilic to backtrack. It momentarily puts him on his backfoot. This allows Carreno to reverse the dynamics of the rally and make Cilic chase balls. Three shots later, Carreno makes Cilic stretch out to the forehand side, far behind the baseline. Marin nets the defensive slice attempt. Another example occurs later in the 4-2 point. Carreno accelerates inside-out with his forehand, which makes Cilic stretch his long legs wide and reach with his upper body for the two-handed backhand that he ends up floating deep. Look for points like this to multiply against Nadal.

When Nadal used this type of pattern against Schwartzman – the kind that Carreno used against Cilic in the points described above – Schwartzman defended without much difficulty. He got Rafa’s shots back and did not miss a beat in recovery time. Cilic, on the other hand, will make errors, and consequently, Nadal will not feel the need to take more risks.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

So, what can Cilic do? He must concentrate on his own strengths and use them with conviction. It starts with his serve and court positioning. He has one of the biggest first serves in the ATP Tour. He must earn a large number of aces, and if the return comes back, he must take extreme risks on his forehand to control the middle of the court. He needs to flatten out his shots and basically look to hit Nadal out of the court, or at least keep him scrambling enough to the point where Rafa will not have the occasion to get set and turn the tables around in the rally. In short, Cilic will need to play big, à-la-USOpen-2014. He must either hit the winner or miss going for one. It’s a tall order. Cilic’s chances are slim at best, although it is within the realm of possibility. If he loses the first set, that realm may also disappear. I do not see Cilic winning three straight sets, or three out of four sets, against Rafa under any circumstance.

Enjoy the matches.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Monday: Australian Open 4th-Round Previews

ATP & WTA Majors No Comments

Following a slew of upsets and thrillers throughout the first three rounds, the second week features a good mix of opportunistic and in-form players from the middle echelons (as in, not seeded high), and established players eager to confirm their top-player status. Here is my take on three matches, scheduled for Monday, that feature such players.

Caroline Garcia (8) vs Madison Keys (17)

Garcia is having a solid run, a very solid one. I can’t put it on the same level as the quarterfinal-run she had in last year’s Roland Garros – not yet – but it has the potential to match and surpass it. In terms of performing at the Majors, Caro is steadily fulfilling the primary requirement, which is, a string of second-week appearances, gradually pushing the envelope further. You judge for yourself: a third-round run in the 2016 US Open, followed by a quarterfinal and a fourth-round appearances in Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the summer of 2017. This is what I call a healthy progress for a (near-)future contender.

She enters yet another second week in a Major and her road to get there has not been a cakewalk by any means. She had to solve two puzzles in a row in the previous rounds, overcoming the up-and-comer Marketa Vondrousova in the second round, and Aliaksandra Sasnovich next. She passed both tests with flying colors, don’t let the close scorelines tell you otherwise. Garcia offered her best in the final sets of both matches, clutch responses to the successful challenges thrown at her in the earlier portions of each match. Furthermore, Vondrousova and Sasnovich are different players, the former one being a crafty left-hander, and the latter, a solid baseliner with a terrific backhand. Her conquest of both opponents in the extended moments of the final sets shows Caro’s ability to make use of her I.Q. (of which she has plenty, her problem in the past has been nerves, never her on-court astuteness) in dealing with a variety of tasks presented to her.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

Keys, last year’s US Open finalist, now presents a daunting challenge to Garcia, not only because she is motivated herself to add another deep run to her list of accomplishments, but also because she can match Garcia’s power and turn the tables on the French’s preferred game plan. It is no mystery that both players would like to dictate rallies, keep their opponents on the run, and eventually finish the point with a baseline or a volley winner. It is also well-known that they struggle if they are forced to play defense, and thus, find themselves in the unusual role of having to scramble from corner to corner. It is that second factor on which rests the key to the outcome of this match.

First question: can each player, if forced to, retrieve a number of successive balls without erring? Second one: if so, can they turn such rallies to their advantage with a counter-punch shot, gain the initiative, and press back successfully? The way each player grapples with the two questions above will determine the winner. I should rather say, the player with the more emphatic “yes” answer to both will reach the quarterfinal round. I believe Garcia is a step ahead of Keys on the first part because she is slightly quicker than Madison with her first step. As to the second question, I am leaning toward the Amrican, only because one of her specialties is nail winners from anywhere on the court, even on the full run. At the end, my nod goes ever so slightly toward Garcia solely based on the fact that her previous two rounds got her primed and ready for Keys, whereas the American has not yet faced an opponent of Garcia’s caliber.

Novak Djokovic (14) vs Hyeon Chung

Couple of the biggest questions coming into the men’s draw have, for the most part, been answered. Djokovic is physically fine and the level of his tennis is not too shabby either. Notice how I threw “for the most part” in the first sentence. We cannot be one hundred percent sure of Novak’s health until the end of this tournament, even if his win against Monfils was played under brutal conditions. He did also get a massage on his back during his last match, though I did not consider that worrisome. I will only feel at complete ease, once he survives a match that goes to distance and comes out to play the next one with still no physical pain. For example, finishing this tournament with zero pain in his arm or any other part of his body would undoubtedly mean that Novak can get back to his regular tournament schedule in 2018. That is my primary wish for him. I missed the Federer-Nadal rivalry prior to last year and was happy to see it make a come back in 2017. I missed Novak last year, and I would equally be happy to see him back in the mix.

The going-to-distance test, that I mentioned above, may very well take place against Chung. The South Korean is consistent, athletic, pesky. He probably feels to his opponents like that chewing gum that gets stuck in your hair and no matter how hard you try, you cannot get it out. He rarely donates points, uses angles efficiently, and accelerates well. Furthermore, he comes into this match with his confidence riding high. The problem for him, lies as much in the details of this particular match-up as the identity of his adversary.

Photo: Pat Scala – Getty

Yes, Novak’s status will play an important role as both players walk on the court. Fans can ignore it or pretend for one day that such notion does not exist, but it will loom large in Chung’s mind. For a young player like him, facing a legend in a Major, is a one of the necessary steps in his own potential transformation into a top player in the future. Usually, the first time it happens, it does not end well for newcomers – remember Roddick’s learning experience in his night-time Arthur Ashe stadium encounter vs Pete Sampras at the 2002 US Open before he became no.1 player one year later?

Regarding the match-up, Chung’s two best shots from the baseline, the inside-out forehand and the cross-court backhand accelerations, play into Djokovic’s strengths. In fact, if there were one area in which Novak does not appear to have lost an iota of confidence, it is his phenomenal ability to absorb heavy balls drilled to his backhand side and send them back with interest, especially down-the-line. I like Chung a lot, but I am afraid his run in this Major stops here. Do not expect his long-term development to halt anytime soon though. This tournament, coupled with his title in the Next Gen ATP Finals in November, are nothing less than confirmations of his steady rise in the ATP ranks.

Fabio Fognini (25) vs Tomas Berdych (19)

How well did Berdych perform against Juan Martin Del Potro in the third round? Extremely well. He may have played his best match ever in a Major, outside of his wins against Roger, Novak, and Rafa in previous ones. It was an eye-opening performance because it came somewhat unexpectedly. Berdych had not impressed anyone with his form since having reached the semis at Wimbledon. He had recorded 4 wins and 5 losses and gotten past the second round only once, in the ATP 250 event in Los Cabos. He has, however, played nothing but solid tennis in Melbourne so far – okay, maybe not in the second set of his second-round match, but let’s not get picky.

His opponent Fognini has had an easier draw – relatively speaking of course – and has at times struggled with his concentration (nothing new there). But he is an underrated performer on the big stage. Frankly, I don’t know how long it will take before the tennis world recognizes how impressive the Italian has been in Majors. I can understand why his on-court antics preoccupy and fascinate most people. However, if you take the time to follow his antics, get amused by them, comment on them, or criticize them, and yet you are half aware of the fact that he has reached the second week of Majors four times, the third round on three different occasions on his least favorite surface at Wimbledon, and been a steady fixture in the ATP top 50 during the last nine years, with substantial time in the top 30, I would argue that you are as much an antic (if not more) as a tennis fan as Fabio is as a player. He is a spectacular shot-maker and I guarantee you that his name is somewhere on top of the list of players that favorites at Majors would like to see the least in their early-round section of the draw.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

Fabio has a chance to win if he can derail Tomas’s steady and crisp production of power from the baseline. He is certainly skilled enough to do just that. Thanks to his impeccable timing on his swings, he possesses the ability to create angles and depth regardless of his positioning on the court. I am guessing that Berdych will see some balls come back with a vengeance from Fognini, in situations where other players would be happy to just remain in the point (one example: Fabio’s shot production in his US Open win vs Nadal in 2015). You may think that Berdych already faced that problem with the Del Potro forehand and handled it fine, but Fognini is a different case. Firstly, the Italian can do it from both sides. Secondly, because of his wrist control during the swing, the direction of his shot is hard to read from both wings. He can prepare a certain way to hit a down-the-line flat winner, yet prepare i the same way to fabricate a mid-pace, topspin-angle shot.

If Fognini focuses on the task at hand, and not on the side shows, I am picking the upset here. I know, you don’t have to remind me that I am perhaps expecting a lot. If you insist on doing so though, I would also ask in return, is it not expecting a lot to assume that Berdych will perform at the same level as he did against Del Potro?

Enjoy!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

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

MENU

Navigation