Author: Mertov

Thursday at Roland Garros: Preview of Timea Bacsinszky (30) vs. Jelena Ostapenko

The reason why you don’t see a number in parenthesis next to Ostapenko’s name in the above title is because she is the only unseeded player left in the draw since the quarterfinals. The 47th-ranked player in the world has been the biggest revelation of this year’s Roland Garros, defeating the Olympic champion Monica Puig in straight sets, the 23rd-seed Samantha Stosur in three sets in the round of 16, and Caroline Wozniacki in the quarterfinals, also in three sets. The Latvian is also the last teenager to reach the semifinal in Paris since 2007, although her teenage years will come to an end tomorrow as she will face Timea Bacsinszky who will also be celebrating her birthday – what are the odds, right?

Jelena Ostapenko – Photo: Jimmie48Photography

Ostapenko is a powerful hitter, very powerful. She wins most of her points with direct winners, striking the ball at warp speed. She does it from the very beginning of the point, with either a high-velocity first serve or a speedy return that overwhelms the server. This is a big reason why she leads the tournament in break-points-won category with 31. Her opponent Bacsinszky is close behind her with 29. It is highly unlikely that Ostapenko will play any differently against Bacsinszky than she does against others. She does one thing, and she does that very well. This is not to say that she has not developed any other shots. For example, she can once in a while stick in a wicked drop shot, or a sharp angle. But at this point in her development, she rarely uses specialty shots, rather choosing to produce powerful shots during the large majority of rallies.

Timea Bacsinszky, on the other hand, as I wrote in my preview of her previous match, can vary the effects on the ball as well as any other player. Unlike other players that Ostapenko has faced, she is highly unlikely to give Ostapenko the same look over an extended rally (and against Ostapenko a six-shot rally may be considered an extended one). Look for the Swiss to mix in slices, high and loopy spin balls, as well as occasional accelerations to keep her opponent off rythm during rallies. Timea also has great footwork and anticipation which means the young Latvian will likely be forced into hitting a shot or two more to put the ball away than she has had to do so against her previous opponents.

Timea Bacsinszky – Photo: Jimmie48photography

Finally, there is the experience factor. Bacsinszky has been to the quarterfinal stage three times now, and this is her second semifinals in the last three years. She also has four WTA titles in her career. Ostapenko, in contrast, has done neither. I believe Bacsinszky will seize the opportunity and reach her first Major final on her birthday. I look for a fairly contested straight-set victory or a three-set victory with a strong finish by Timea, in which the unforced error count for Jelena grows quicker as the match progresses.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Roland Garros

Tuesday at Roland Garros: Selected Match Previews

In this post, I take a look at two quarterfinal matches that will take place on Tuesday, the women’s match that pits the French player Kristina “Kiki” Mladenovic against the Swiss player Timea Bacsinszky, and the men’s match that opposes the defending champion Novak Djokovic to Dominic Thiem, one of the leading members of the ATP’s “next generation.”

Mladenovic (13) vs Bacsinszky (30)

This is a very intriguing match-up not only tactically but also because of the inspiring runs of both players. Kiki, who feeds off the French crowd better than any other French woman (Gaël Monfils would be the one among the French men), has so far recorded three marathon victories against Jennifer Brady
Shelby Rogers and the defending champion Garbine Muguruza, and a straight-set one against Sara Errani, who is a respectable opponent on clay at any moment in her career. Kiki is enjoying, in 2017, the best campaign of her tennis career, moving up to number 7 in the Porsche Race Singles ranking that determines who qualifies for the year-ending WTA Championships. In short, she is on fire this year, and in this tournament.

Jimmie48Photography

She faces Timea Bacsinszky, one of the most versatile players on the WTA Tour. Kiki has faced her twice in the last 12 months, winning once on grass courts, losing the other one on hard. I do not believe that says much (not that I am a big believer of previous head-to-head matches having a big impact on the current match anyway), considering this will be their first encounter on clay courts. Timea defeated Venus Williams in the last round, taking the last two sets comfortably despite the disappointment of losing the first set from 5-1 up, and leaving no Americans in the women’s draw for the second week (none left in men either). Timea is one of the more mature players on the tour, with a life experience that goes beyond the tennis courts. She does not easily gets distracted by the crowd and I am sure she is expecting nothing less than the same type of arduous support from the French spectators for her opponent that the latter received during the third sets of her Brady, Rogers, and Muguruza wins. Especially against Rogers, down 2-5 in the final set, one could almost sense the positive energy from the crowd flowing in Kiki’s direction. Rogers felt it too (and believe me, Rogers is a cool customer in the body-language and mental discipline departments), losing eleven out twelve points in the three-game stretch that brought Kiki back to 5-5. I do not believe I would be exaggerating if I claimed that Mladenovic would not have made it this far had the tournament taken place elsewhere than at Roland Garros.

The key questions here are, can Kiki bring the match to a point in which the crowd can become a factor, and if she does, will Timea manage to mentally block the crowd out? My answer to the first question: yes, Kiki can. My answer to the second: yes, Timea definitely will!

First of all, the Swiss player is fairly well liked by the Roland Garros crowd, and I believe there will be a small group of Timea supporters who will also make their voices heard. I also do not expect any player, let alone Kiki, to sustain the level of play that she has demonstrated over a two-week period, going through one extended (and exhausting) match after another. They take a lot out of your reserves not only physically, but also mentally. I look for Kiki’s game to become a bit more erratic, even with a vociferous crowd pumping her up, if the match goes beyond 5-5 in the final set. Timea will not lose her cool and execute her game plan regardless of the score or tension.

Jimmie48Photography

In terms of tactics, I expect Timea to use all the shots available in her arsenal, without getting into predictable rally patterns that could allow Kiki to accelerate and take charge. I believe the Swiss will use her slice generously on both sides – yes, she also possesses a formidable forehand slice that she occasionally uses –, yet step into the court whenever she can to push Kiki around the baseline, and often use her drop shots when Kiki finds herself backed up (or backing up, expecting an aggressive hit from her opponent).

Kiki, for her part, will need a lot of forehand winners, which she can produce when needed, but more importantly, will have to set up the point so that she can get those types of opportunities. Couple of ways to do that: get a lot of first serves in and take risks on returns when the opponent serves a second serve. I really believe Kiki’s chances of winning decrease drastically if Timea wins the first set, much more so than Timea’s chances of winning the match if Kiki were to win the first set. Timea’s ability to adjust her game and apply a different make-up to her shots is much more developed than that of Kiki’s. The French’s options diminish if she cannot impose her baseline game on her opponent. I am going with a 2-set Bacsinszky win here, one set being very tight, the other one being less contested.

Djokovic (2) vs Thiem (6)

In 2016, when these two players met in the semifinal here in Paris, Thiem was having the best year of his career that saw him enter the top 10 for the first time, and Novak Djokovic was in the process of joining the ranks of the elite in the history of our sport by dominating the tour. He would eventually go on to take the title at Roland Garros, thus winning all four Majors consecutively and accomplishing the “Novak Slam”. In their particular match that afternoon, Novak routed Dominic in three sets.

One year later, Thiem is once again having a career year. Novak, however, is not last year’s version of himself by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t expect this match to be one-sided, in fact, I would guess that it will go to the distance (and hopefully) go down as one of the best matches of the tournament. It has the ingredients to be one.

Julian Finney – Getty Images

Djokovic finally gave signs (just signs) of his old self in the post-1st-set portion of his match against Albert Ramos-Vinolas and sporadically in his earlier matches. However, none of those players are Thiem’s level, and furthermore, none of them had the amount of belief that they could win like the Austrian will, when he steps on the court tomorrow. He has now spent a full year at the top-10 level and has recorded some terrific wins, notably the one against Rafael Nadal in Rome, the only clay-court loss for the Spaniard this year.

I know people will point to Thiem’s 0-5 record vs Djokovic this year, including the lop-sided loss in the finals of the Rome tournament. I am just not sure how much that will matter to Dominic when he steps on the court tomorrow to play a five-set match in the quarterfinals of a Major. First of all, that is no longer undiscovered territory for him. Second, he is taking on a player who may still harbor many doubts in his mind about his game. This also an opportunity of a lifetime for the Austrian. He would have to defeat Djokovic and Nadal, and win one more match, to claim his first Major title. It would be nothing short of a miracle, but if it were to happen, it would once and for all enter him into the elite of today’s game in a matter of five days.

Novak, even at “less-than-his-top” level is still one of the world’s few greatest players. He will still not give away gifts and remain solid from the baseline. Thiem will have to create chances from the backcourt and he is capable of doing that. The problem for him, is that balls will come back a few more times in each rally against Djokovic than they may have done so against lesser players. One key for this match-up: patience. Will Thiem be patient enough to build points up and win them instead of trying to nail spectacular shots for at least three sets? Will Novak be patient enough to endure a possible assault from Thiem for a set or so, knowing that he will prevail if he remains resolved and continues his machine-like consistency?

Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

Another key: serve and return performances. Considering that these two players lead the stats in the return categories at the French Open so far, which one will take bigger cuts on second-serve returns? Can someone like Thiem, who is prone to double faulting at times, be shaken by Nole’s aggressive returns? These are some of the tactical challenges waiting for Thiem and Djokovic.

Then, there is the physical side. Djokovic has the edge here if the match transforms into a long, grueling five-set affair. By Djokovic “having the edge here,” I mean he is “less likely” to suffer fatigue or cramps in an extended match than his opponent. Eventually, that could be the difference in this match. I am picking Nole to record a five-set victory. I think Thiem will have to wait one more year (and probably no longer) to join the ranks of the elite players, barring injuries.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Roland Garros

Sunday at Roland Garros: Selected 4th-Round Previews

I will attempt to post a preview or two of matches each day, time permitting, for the rest of Roland Garros 2017 on MT-Desk. Here are two previews of fourth-round matches, one from the women’s draw and one from the men’s, both scheduled to be played on Sunday.

Svetlana Kuznetsova (8) vs Caroline Wozniacki (11)

This will be a shorter preview than the men’s match below, simply because there are less unknowns here. Wozniacki’s game is one of the most predictable ones in the women’s game. She will attempt to out-rally and out-endure her opponents until the Sahara Desert freezes over. Her plan A (is there a plan B?) will not change much whether she is playing a touch player, a hard-hitter, a big server, or anyone’s grand-parent.

Kuznetsova’s game is also fairly well-known to every tennis fan. She more one-dimensional than not only Wozniacki but many other WTA players. I do not believe anyone will argue that Sveta has more experience in the Majors, a more complete all-around game, more weapons, and more creativity than Wozniacki. She is also prone to rare concentration lapses, sometimes occurring at important segments in the match. She has been known to blow leads, or play excellent until she has three set points, only to lose them with unexpected errors. This is one area where you can trust Caro more than Sveta. Wozniacki’s level is unlikely to fluctuate throughout the match. Barring that from happening, I believe Sveta should come out on top of this encounter.

Photo: Jimmie48Photography

The first three or four games will play a key role in this match. If Kuznetsova establishes her game from the beginning, pushes Caro around from the baseline, later adds her touch with drop shots and angles, and complements all that with the type of patterns that she likes to set up (consisting of moving into the court with forehands only to finish the point either with a direct winner or a high volley) she could turn the match into a routine two-set win because Wozniacki’s game does not contain anything that can answer the all-around assault of which Kuznetsova is capable. If the reverse were to take place, in other words, if Sveta’s game is not clicking on all cylinders, she becomes error-prone, and Wozniacki gets ahead on sheer consistency, the Russian should still be able to use other options to turn the match around.

Look for aggressive returns from Sveta, along with varying pace and unpredictable patterns in long rallies. I would guess that Sveta will not hit more than two balls to the same side of Caro, unless it is with the intention of surprising her opponent and putting her on the back foot. Also look for the Russian to use plenty of semi-aggressive forehands from the baseline or behind, to set up the winning forehand (or swing-volley) from inside the baseline. Wozniacki will need to rely on her footwork and keeping the cross-court angles wide enough so Sveta cannot get set in the middle of the court and take control.

First-serve percentage plays a more paramount role for Wozniacki than her opponent. Kuznetsova still has the arsenal for shot production once she engages in the rally. But if Wozniacki does not wish to allow Sveta to use that arsenal at will from the first shot of the rally, she will need to get in a lot of first serves. I see Kuznetsova winning this match in two sets, one comfortable, one tightly contested.

Photo: Jimmie48Photography

Milos Raonic (5) vs Pablo Carreno-Busta (20)

This is a tough pick due to two specific reasons: it is 2017 and the match will be played on red clay. Let me elaborate further, first starting with the surface. On hard courts, and especially on grass, I would pick Raonic without much hesitation, especially if he is physically fit. But on clay, which also happens to be Carreno Busta’s favorite surface, I think twice. Raonic, for his part, has not left any doubt in anyone’s mind that clay is his least favorite surface. Most tennis fans would have guessed that anyway, but no need to even make an educated guess, Milos will personally confirm that to anyone’s face if he is asked directly the question. During Istanbul Open, he gave one-word answer, specifically “no,” anytime he was asked if he liked playing on clay, if he felt comfortable on it, or if he would have expected to make the finals on a clay-court ATP tournament (which he did in Istanbul).

One cannot ignore either the kind of year that Carreno Busta is enjoying. Having the best year of his career, at least so far, the Spaniard lifted the trophy on the clay courts of Estoril and, as of three weeks ago, climbed to his career-high ranking of 18 (currently at no. 21).

Thus my mention of the surface and the year as two reasons that make the outcome hard to predict. Yet, tactically, the players’ plans should be fairly straight forward. Raonic will look to attack, Carreno Busta will look to resist and count on consistency. More on that later.

When one scratches below the surface, however, there are minor details that tilt this match, in my opinion, in Raonic’s favor. Let’s dig deeper by beginning this with the surface from the Canadian’s perspective and finishing with Carreno Busta’s 2017 campaign.

Raonic is a top-10 player who has reached multiple second weeks in Majors (going far in a few, remember Wimbledon last year?) and the round of 16s in last year’s French Open. Furthermore, he reached quarterfinals or better in every clay-court tournament leading up to the French Open, including the final in Istanbul, except in Madrid where he lost to a superb David Goffin in the round of 16. While the red dirt may not be his favorite surface, his only losses on it have come against Marin Cilic, David Goffin, Alexander Zverev and Thomas Berdych, all finalists or winners in those tournaments.

AP Photo – Christophe Ena

Carreno Busta, while having racked up a lot of wins this year on clay, has not beaten a player of the caliber of Raonic in any tournament. Nevertheless, he has some very respectable wins by any player’s standards. Defeating Pablo Cuevas (also lost to him once), Fabio Fognini, Gilles Simon and David Ferrer (even their 2017 versions), all on clay, should all be considered solid victories. Yet, Raonic also has a legitimate chance to defeat those players on a given day, even on clay.

One other factor that should be always mentioned when talking about the Canadian: he is physically fine, and as many know by now, that is nothing less than wonderful news for any Milos fan.

Then, and finally, there is the tactical side. Raonic will probably face from Carreno Busta the type of baseline-rally patterns and the amount of topspin that he has seen on numerous occasions against other previous clay-court players. Plus, as Milos himself pointed out yesterday, Carreno Busta is not as much a “clay-court specialist” as some of the other Spanish or South Americans, although he accepts that it is Pablo’s best surface. From Carreno Busta’s perspective, in contrast, chances are he has played very few opponents that can get him ready for Raonic. He will have to confront one of the biggest and most efficient servers on the ATP Tour, with a terrific one-two punch, and the type of game that will not allow Pablo to operate on his well-established patterns to set the points up in his favor. He will probably feel a bit hurried at times and take more risks on his second serves, aware of Raonic’s urge to take charge early in the rally and cut the point short. On the positive side, he will also get a few more “gift” points from Milos than he may receive from a baseline-oriented player.

Getty Images / Dennis Grombkowski

It will be up to the Spaniard to counteract his opponent. I do not believe Carreno Busta can do that for three sets. I am going with Milos in this match, in a tight four-set affair or a five-set marathon, assuming (and it is an important assumption) that he does not get physically get hurt or diminished through the course of the match.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Roland Garros

On Istanbul Open’s Attendance Woes

Two weeks of world-class tennis in Istanbul ended on Sunday, first the TEB BNP Paribas Istanbul CUP (WTA) on the last week of April, followed by the TEB BNP Paribas Istanbul Open (ATP) on the first week of May, both taking place at the Koza World of Sports facility in the Esenyurt neighborhood of the greater Istanbul area. I was not here for the Istanbul Cup due to my obligations in my “other” life, but I made it to my hometown on time to catch all the action during the Istanbul Open. Everything that follows, with regard to the attendance woes of the tournament, will be based on my observations during the Istanbul Open. I will add that many people that I know have told me that same type of issues also existed during the previous week, albeit not as blatantly, thanks to the success of two Turkish WTA players reaching the quarterfinals.

My friends, and those who follow me, know that I show great interest in the organizational structure and planning of tournaments, and talk about them often. It is what I plan to do in this article. Istanbul is my hometown, where I was born. I come from the tennis world of the city. I grew up as a tennis player in this same milieus. I want this tournament to succeed. I want the stands to fill up. So, I write a bit more passionately about it than I have for most other tournaments. It may seem like a long post, but there are a lot of pictures and embedded tweets used to clarify the talking points for you, the reader. Having said that, let’s move on to the topic at hand.

There are many contributing factors to the tournament drawing very little amount of on-site spectators. Furthermore, none of this is new. This problem existed in the tournament’s inaugural year 2015, brushed under the carpet thanks to the Roger Federer frenzy that carried the week, and it continued in 2016:

The attendance was a painful issue, once again this year, leading to some people commenting on it on social media. It just looks bad when the stands are empty, and I really mean empty, day after day, match after match.

It was only on the final Sunday, thanks to two top-10 players meeting for the title and the completely unexpected success of Tuna Altuna, a local player who generated much-needed energy by reaching the doubles’ final with his partner Alessandro Motti, that Koza WOS Arena filled up around little more than half-way, between 4500 and 5000 people.

I know 6,700 was the official number given but if you were there, you knew that was an inflated number, in the same way that some universities inflate their attendance numbers above the actual ones through various methods (attendance vs ticket sold vs turnstiles turned, etc) in the College Basketball world of the U.S.A. Yet, nobody who was there all week can deny that “little-more-than-half-full” was a beautiful sight compared to previous days. Here was the attendance on the Raonic vs. Tomic quarterfinal match, at 7 PM on Friday evening:


There is one major contributing factor to this problem, one for which there is no solution in the foreseeable future. The facility is simply too far away from the rest of Istanbul. The Ataturk airport is considered “away from the city center” by many life-long Istanbulites and the tournament site is a considerable distance past the airport. To give you an example, I drove every day from Camlica neighborhood, on the Asian side of Istanbul, but only a few minutes away from the Bosphorus Bridge (the oldest and the busiest of the three bridges that now cross the two continents). It took me anywhere from 1 hour, when I would drive past 10 PM, to over two hours during the day just to go one way! There are a ton of tennis fans living on the Asian side, much further from the bridge than I do, and it takes them longer just to reach the bridge, i.e. add roughly an hour to the trip. People living in the busy neighborhoods of Levent, Etiler, Nisantasi, Bebek, Istinye on the European side, probably spent roughly the same amount of time on the road going one way, meaning it could possibly be a three-to-four-hour affair to go back and forth to the tournament for most of those people. It is thus, a pain to get to the location, a major pain!

Yet, this problem is here to stay. The facility is owned by Garanti Koza, a successful land development company with far-reaching resources part of which they use generously, to their credit and they should be applauded for this, to help the development of Turkish tennis. Furthermore, the construction continues on site to transform it into a state-of-the-art, world-class sports facility. It’s their facility, their point-of-pride (understandably), the tournament is not moving anywhere else, thus the unsolvable problem of location. Istanbul’s infrastructure and the urban public transportation system are simply not there to ease the burden either.

There are, however, smaller issues that exacerbate the problem, ones that are indeed solvable. Let’s keep in mind the central issue: the lack of attendance. Thus, in order to at least ease the burden brought on by uncontrollable factors, one must do all else that remains within one’s power to counter the effect. For example, one can take measures to make the experience pleasant for those who do indeed decide to come, so that they will come back, and encourage others to do so. What should be the primary goal? To make every effort possible to let people know the different ways with which they can get to the site, inform them, do it frequently, do it visibly, and most importantly, do it clearly!

First, it starts with the official website, the number one source for the dissemination of information about the tournament. Let me first point out that the website is an improvement from two years ago, the last time I attended the tournament. It’s nicely designed and has both English and Turkish pages. However, once again, remembering the number one obstacle you are fighting, and the fact that anyone who decides to attend the tournament probably never heard of the site, should the instructions on how to get to the site not be the first thing that appears on it? You type in the web address to Istanbul Open’s homepage, and even if you make the browser full-page, you still don’t see it. You have to scroll down to get to the link that tells you how to get there. In other tournaments, this may be acceptable, but not when the location of your tournament is perennially the main reason why you can’t get people to come out. When I tweeted about the public transportation problem (by which I meant the city’s public transportation system), the tournament director Paul McNamee was quick to point out to me that my tweet was inaccurate, that there was transportation offered (again, my post was about public transportation system and the city’s infrastructure, not the tournament’s sponsor-arranged transportation specifically for the week, but ok..), and had his assistant’s*** phone opened up to the page on which it shows the transportation points, and had her show it to me. That link, more specifically, what it shows on that link, should be the glaring, unmistakable information staring at the person who just arrived to the home page. If not, at least a big bold link saying “Click here for Transportation schedule” should show up, and not be on the lower portion of the page with three other links of same size, where one must scroll down to see. Attendance and location are your main problems: then, make your instructions on how to get there easy-to-reach and visible.

***I will not go into the details of the short dialog that took place between her and I, but anyone involved in public relations of a tournament should have better communication and/or social skills, should definitely keep the second sentence that she said to himself/herself, if anything at all, certainly not say it to a media member (my badge clearly showed that I was), who could easily make a flashy heading for an article, if he/she had bad intentions or aspirations of high clicks or ratings, at the cost of making the tournament look bad (plenty of those around, believe me).

Second, announce relentlessly and continuously that a sponsor has arranged transportation to the tournament site from two key spots in Istanbul. People who use regular public transportation do not automatically become aware of this, because it is not part of the public transportation system. Don’t announce it on the tournament’s facebook page only once, on April 27th, before the Main Draw of the tournament even begins, and then never post it again! Don’t wait until Wednesday of the tournament to announce it for the first time, and the only time, on tournament’s Twitter page! Announce it on social media at least once or twice a day throughout the tournament. Tweet it, Facebook it, Instagram it, tell the broadcasting TV station to remind it to the viewers, every single day, every morning and evening, and get others to do it. Why? Because nobody knew until then about the arranged transportation for the tournament. Here is a great idea to remedy the problem, at least partially, and yet, it is not announced properly. When I was made aware of it, I asked as many people as I could, including people in the world of tennis in Turkey and regular attendees of the tournament, and not a single person said “yes I knew that they set up transportation for this week.” Nobody until that point (we had the conversation on Wednesday) mentioned it either when the lack of attendance was the topic of conversation because, again, they did not know. One facebook post on April 27th and one Tweet on May 3rd are not enough for a tournament taking place throughout the first week of May. When I found about it on Wednesday (May 3rd), I began tweeting about it, underlining it constantly on TV (I was doing daily commentary on the TV station broadcasting the tournament), turning to the camera and literally appealing to the people of Istanbul, to look at the website for the transportation schedule, every day. Yes, I received some feedback from regular listeners and followers saying “thanks” and that they did not know. Unfortunately, I was the only one relentlessly repeating it on either the social media and on TV for people to come and look to the website for transportation schedule. I did not see the same diligence from tournament organizers other than a tweet or two at the most for the rest of the tournament. Below is a tweet from a devoted tennis fan, who had discovered the arranged transportation on that Wednesday, informing other people on the exact location of the bus (translation: “by the Migros located under the stadium”). The website link simply says “by the stadium,” which happens to be Fenerbahce’s big home stadium (50,000+ capacity) and “by the stadium” could be anywhere around it. Good luck walking around that stadium to find the bus. Yes, specifics indeed matter. (Side note: This tennis passionate told me there were only 8 or 9 people in the bus)

Third, make the instructions on how to get there – let me put it in bold letters again – clear! Do not simply assume that everyone owns a GPS-abled phone. It is not enough to instruct those who depend on the directions from the website, to simply “take the Esenyurt Toll Booths exit to reach Garanti Koza Arena” (or the equivalent of on the Turkish version of the page). It is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and lazy. You can’t even see toll booths at the exit that you must take, nor does it say anywhere at the exit that there are toll booths. And once you miss the exit and keep going straight on that highway, you end up seeing the tolls on the right. By then, it’s too late, you can’t turn, and there you go swirling around in complicated traffic for another 15-to-20 minutes. If you did manage to take the exit, you don’t just “reach the Garanti Koza Arena.” There are few more turns and splits on the road. The sentence “take the Esenyurt Toll Booths exit to reach Garanti Koza Arena” is anything but accurate. Make the tournament site clear to those who drive up. Have big signs telling people where to turn, and have them at several points, all the way from the toll booths. Perhaps, it’s better to show in pictures:

1) Here is the first time you see the exit as you approach it. As you can see, there are no toll booths within sight, and not even the word “Esenyurt” in this first sign.

2) Then as the exit separates, there is a second sign with Esenyurt on it, but still no toll booths, nor can you see any in the distance. If you remain on the highway (left side) you are lost for 15-20 minutes.

3) If you made it to the toll booths, once you pass them, you come to another road split. It says to go right for “Esenyurt.” You must NOT! You need to stay on the left, which you would not know to do, especially that the site is announced as being located in “Esenyurt.” Now pay attention to the two small signs under the big Esenyurt traffic sign, to the left of the ambulance. The smaller of those signs, the lower one, tells you in small letters to go left for the Istanbul Cup and Istanbul Open. Unfortunately, they are impossible to see if you are driving as you can see from the image, unless you are right up close to them at which point you have already committed to the turn and cannot go back. Could these signs not have been larger? Or better yet, could this not have been explained on the directions rather than saying “take the Esenyurt Toll Booths exit to reach Garanti Koza Arena”?

4) You eventually notice the large Koza WOS Arena on the far right (if you have seen pictures of it), so you feel that you may be approaching. But right here, you must turn right and not go straight (and get lost for another 10-15 minutes), which you could easily do since the Arena straight up the road, on the right side. Again, that “invisible-from-your-car sign” tells you go right, if you can see it while you are driving while frantically trying to figure out where to go. I circled it in orange so you can see which sign I mean. The bigger letters at the bottom say “Parking” and the smaller letters at the top say the names of the tournament (shouldn’t at least that be reversed?). Good luck seeing that from inside your car, which is where I was, when I took this picture.

Fourth, and once and for all, please have a big banner, or some sort of a large sign showing anyone who drives up that there is actually an entrance to the ATP Tennis event taking place, “TEB BNP Paribas ISTANBUL OPEN.” This was the case in 2015, and two years later, there is still not a ‘visible-to-everyone sign’ indicating that you have actually arrived at the entrance of a world-class tennis event! I literally saw dozens of people asking others in buildings nearby where the tournament is, when they were but 50 meters away from the entrance, because they cannot see it. The site is continuously expanding, therefore, there is the constant noise and appearance of construction in the area. This is simply not a pretty sight when you first drive up. It was not in 2015, it is not now. But that is understandable since a world-class sports facility is under construction. However, it is no excuse to make the simple process of parking and finding the entrance to the tournament feel like yet another obstacle. Here are more pictures to clarify further:

1) Let’s pick up from the right turn in the last picture above. This is what you see once you have turned. Now the tournament’s entrance is about 60 meters to the left. Can you tell? Nor can anyone else unless they have already been there or unless they see a big sign of the tournament at the entrance. But, alas..

2) Here is the same street, driving from the other site. The tournament entrance is now to the right, between where the van and the two buses are parked. Again, can you tell? Nor can anyone else coming from this direction. Would a giant, high banner saying “Istanbul Open” help? You bet!

3) I will simply ask the question: Should the entrance to an ATP Event look like this? There are again, two of those small signs on each side, with the words “Turnuva Alani” (meaning “Tournament Area”) added. They are hard to see from your car anyway as you drive past them (and not easy to read unless you are up close to them), and then, they are blocked by people at times(because they are only at about hip-level), or by vehicles at others.

4) The next four pictures illustrate what you see once you walk past the above entrance. (a) You walk a straight path during which you see blue signs ahead saying the tournament’s name, so at least now you know you are headed in the right direction.

(b)You go up two escalators.

(c)Finally, at the top of the second escalator, you arrive to the security and ticket check.

(d) After you go past that, the outside courts are on your left and right, and the impressive Koza WOS Arena is staring at you straight ahead.

The outside area of the tournament is nothing exceptional, but the Koza WOS Arena itself is a wonderful show court to say the least. The players like it, the structure is stunning, and it has a retractable roof. Overall, the tournament is a definite improvement from its inaugural 2015 edition. Paul McNamee, whose tennis past should prove by itself that he is vastly qualified for such position, is obviously an excellent choice as the tournament director. The field of players was also great, featuring two top-10 players in the finals, which happened in only three other ATP 250 events in 2016 and 2017 so far. The players were thankful of how well they were taken care of during their stay. Credit goes to Paul and others who made it a pleasant experience for them.

Nevertheless, there is more to a tournament’s success than the players, and it needs to be a team effort. One person cannot do it all. In all fairness, I would speculate with a certain amount of comfort (for the record, I haven’t talked to him about all this specifically, not that I have not tried) that Paul probably faces the same daunting challenges that the previous two tournament directors faced: trying to make things work in a situation where many elements are out of your control, and sometimes, people to whom you delegate responsibilities do not exactly “get” what you expect them to do in the day-to-day operations.

One must, however, and again I keep coming back to the number one problem facing the tournament – the empty stands -, diligently attack the things that one can fix. Yet, some of the problems I foregrounded above have existed since the first year of the tournament. They are indeed fixable. Once you take care of these (solvable) problem, therefore negate some of the negative effects of the site’s geographical location (the unsolvable problem), and you manage to add a certain amount of a “pleasant” experience to the process of attending the tournament, people may come in larger numbers. It would certainly be worth the effort in order to make attendance numbers improve. But if people have to battle extra elements on top of simply driving/riding for a long time, just to get to the vicinity of the site, they are unlikely to come back, and highly unlikely to talk positively about it to their friends and acquaintances.

I remain hopeful for the years to come.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Conversation with Steve Flink — 2017 International Tennis Hall of Fame Inductee

I have been following Steve Flink’s writings ever since my lifelong passion for tennis began in my childhood years, and continued throughout my playing and coaching years. One of the leading journalists and historians in the tennis arena, Flink’s vast knowledge of our sport is second to none. Moreover, Mr. Flink will be inducted on July 22 of this year at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island. You can therefore imagine what a great honor it was for me when I got to meet him at the 2016 Wimbledon, the place where his passion for tennis began to take root in the early 1960s. The following day, I had lunch with him during which we chatted, in some detail, about some of the great matches and memorable events in the history of tennis. It was one of the most stimulating conversations I have ever had as a tennis lover, and of course, it helped that those were two of Mr. Flink’s favorite topics to discuss. He did, after all, write two fascinating books (both must-reads for any tennis fan) entitled The Greatest Tennis Matches of the 20th Century (1999) and The Greatest Tennis Matches of All-Time (2012).

In our first chat, we covered a variety of topics such as some of the unforgettable matches in history, the usage of correct terms when discussing historical accomplishments, and the ins and outs of the discussion surrounding the “Greatest of All-time” debate. Below is that chat, only minimally edited for clarification purposes.

Notice: This conversation was also translated into Turkish and initially published in the post-Wimbledon-2016 issue of the magazine Tenis Dunyasi. This is the original English version.

——————–

Thank you for taking the time! Let’s start with where you first caught the “tennis bug.” Can you identify such a moment in your life?

Yes! Right where we are sitting! I was 12 about to turn 13. It was 1965. I had seen a little tennis, I watched the Davis Cup finals for a couple of years in a row in 63 and 64, US vs Australia which was on public broadcasting in the States. I enjoyed watching it but it hadn’t gripped me the way it did later. I mean I was interested in those matches and those guys played, I got to watch Dennis Ralston and I liked him a lot, but it was not until I came out here in 1965 that I caught the bug. My father brought me out here and I was 12, about to turn 13. I came a bunch of times in 65 including the final. But I first came on a cloudy day during the first week and it just [pauses]… just… [shakes his head] completely engulfed me, I guess that would be the word. Then, form that point on, I followed it every day in the newspapers.

Later, I was back in New York, my parents were divorced then. I went to the US Nationals at Forest Hills, which later became the US Open. I went a bunch of times there. My passion grew out of those experiences. The summer of 1965 was the beginning of my passion for tennis.

As someone with a unique insight of a tennis historian on the matter of using correct terms: there are few terms that are often used out of context or incorrectly. For example, when a player wins one of the four elite tournaments, is it correct to say they won a Grand Slam, a Grand Slam event, or a Major? Also, isn’t it incorrect (or unnecessary) to say the “Calendar Year Grand Slam” since the term Grand Slam’s meaning has historically included the completion of that achievement in the same year? Many people, including some of the top players, now say call Majors “Grand Slams” as in for example, saying that Djokovic won a Grand Slam when he won Roland Garros, or that Roger Federer has won “17 Grand Slams.” Along those lines, which is it when the score is 6-6, is it a “tiebreaker” or a “tiebreak”?

Ok, bunch of points to make there. People say – and I even use it sometimes just to make clear and to not have anybody be confused by what the achievement is – “Calendar Year Grand Slam.” In a sense, it’s repetitive, but I think people use that as a clarification means. But obviously the “Grand Slam” is the four Majors in one year. What happened was, players started getting caught saying, way back in the 80s and early 90s, things like “I know next year I am going to win a Grand Slam,” I remember Jennifer Capriati saying this. What she really meant was “a Grand Slam Event.” This is one of the few areas where I disagree with the late Bud Collins. He was a strong believer in that you could absolutely and only call it a Major. I think if you say “Grand Slam Event” or “Grand Slam Championship,” it’s very clear, there is no mistaking it. So, I think these are interchangeable with “Major.” When I write, I use both. Sometimes I call it a Major, sometimes a Grand Slam Event, but the point is that they are both acceptable. I know other historians agree with me that as long as you get that word “event” or “championship” in there, you make the distinction from “Grand Slam” which is only one thing, winning all four Majors in one year. Now, the “Calendar Year” – and I know in some ways it’s a mistake and people claim it is – is added just so people understand, I think, the difference between that and Djokovic winning four straight over two years for example.

I try to be a bit more flexible about these terms, but Bud became very adamant about that, not in the early years, but let’s say, by the last 20 years of his life. He was more and more adamant as the years went by, and I respected him greatly on it, but it reminded me of his feeling about “tiebreak” vs “tiebreaker.” Again, I don’t agree, I think either of them is fine. There is no confusion in the public’s mind. What happened was, and Bud was absolutely right about this, “tiebreaker” was initially what Jimmy Van Alen, the inventor of the tiebreaker, named it. From the time that it was first used at the Majors in 1970, that is how we referred to it. Then, somewhere along the lines, I would say in the late-80s or early-90s, certainly by mid-90s, people from the ITF and other tennis-governing bodies adopted the term “tiebreak.” I did not have a problem with that. I thought “ok, that’s fine, there is not a big difference.” I would use either one personally, I don’t see how there could be any confusion between the two. But again, Bud felt very strongly about it, I respectfully disagreed with him. These were probably the only two things I ever disagreed with him in all the years that I knew him. “Tiebreak” or “tiebreaker,” either is fine.

Speaking of Bud Collins, is there a special dialogue that makes you say “yes, that was Bud Collins” or an anecdote with him that you particularly remember?

Wow, that’s tough! There were so many experiences with him. I think of his humor, his wit. I am not sure if a single one stands out, but one amusing story that makes me think of him was when I had to play tennis against him. He would always put a lot of pressure on you, he would chip and charge a lot, get to the net. He was much better player than he led on by the way. Ground strokes were not that great, but he volleyed beautifully and had a good kick serve. He was tough to play against. So I would start to press on my ground strokes, but I also would start double-faulting. We played a bunch of times, many times over here in England. One particular time, when I began pressing and double-faulting again, he said to me “Steve, just like Hazel Wightman** always said, you can’t double-fault when you get your first serve in.” I thought that summed him up. It was actually good valuable advice, his way of saying “get more first serves in and you won’t fall into that trap.” But only he could say it in such an amusing way.

** “Mrs. Wightie” (1886-1974) was an American tennis player who won 17 Major titles in singles and doubles in the early 1900s.

A second story was when I used to work with him behind the scenes as a statistician. Later, I actually started doing on-air with him in Madison Square Garden during the Virginia Slims Championships. Couple of years after we started, I did a telecast for ESPN. I was a color commentator. He sent me a very nice, thoughtful note in which he said “I watched your telecast from Memphis. You were very good; I was proud of you. Collini.” It was so nice of him to say that because it was not my telecast after all. “Collini” was how he liked to refer to himself. I am trying bring across his humor and his kindness, and I think those two stories epitomize that.

Is it true that in the early 20th century, women played five sets at Wimbledon, and that the committee back then decided to have women three sets because they felt their bodies were more suited for shorter on-court battles?

U.S. did it too. 1902 may have been the cut-off point. They just felt that it was unnecessary and it became the common currency to get away from that and get back to best-of-three. There was a little experimentation with it in the earlier days, it’s true. Just to tie that in, I don’t accept the argument that some people connect it with the ATP Tour or men’s tennis. Advocates of men’s tennis say “to have equal prize money, women are going to have to play best-of-five.” I think that’s foolish.

As a historian of the game, what are few things that you believe have lost their importance, unjustly perhaps, over the years? In other words, what should never be forgotten by the tennis world?

I think the main thing is to remember the efforts of those pioneers, the players that turned pro, particularly in the 1950s, up to 1968 when Open tennis arrived to the scene. All the great players would be signed to play pro. Jack Kramer played the pro tour himself and eventually became a promoter. They would get signed up after they won Wimbledon or the US Nationals, then they would go into the wilderness. They would lose the chance to play the Majors. Obviously, we know that Rod Laver couldn’t play the Majors until 1968, after his first Grand Slam in 1962. Ken Rosewall was gone much longer than that. Lew Hoad barely played in them. So, I think the record keeping is a bit distorted when we just look at the Majors and how many of them a player has won. Some of these great players lost out on the chance to win Majors. Pancho Gonzales, for almost 20 years, from 1949 to 1968. Imagine what he could have done, particularly on grass with his game. He was such a great serve-and-volleyer, he would have won a bundle of Majors, and it didn’t happen. Jack Kramer would have won so many more than the three he got in the amateur years. He said he wanted to write a book called “we were robbed.” To me, that is the thing that is too easily forgotten.

Do you believe the “Greatest of all Times” argument or discussion has its valid place in the world of tennis? Of course, none of us can settle it, but is it a healthy discussion?

Oh sure, it’s a very good discussion. Of course, everybody has to try to be fair. I mean, ESPN recently did something that the Tennis Channel had done 4 or 5 years ago, which is to try to combine the men and the women in this discussion. I had my qualms with that idea because I don’t know how you combine or compare men’s and women’s games. But leaving that aside, the notion of the greatest male or female players of all the time, yes I think it’s a very healthy discussion. Again, there has to be some fairness toward the prior years, to Suzanne Lenglen and Bill Tilden in the 1920s, Alice Marble in the 1930s, and other great players like Don Budge who was the first to win the Grand Slam. They are too easily forgotten and you have to project them into modern times by asking what if they had the same diet, rackets, training abilities. I have always felt that if you took those great players in prior years, and they were taught now, they would be great in any year. So, I think that is the only problem in this discussion. It’s a little too loaded toward the modern generation and not enough respect payed to Tilden, Lenglen, Helen Moody and other great players of the first half of the 20th century.

Even today, sometimes for example, Laver or Bjorn Borg don’t get much respect in men’s tennis because people are emotionally tied to today’s players like Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer.

That’s true, they don’t, Borg and Laver get lost. Already, and I mean already, it’s hard to believe, Pete Sampras! I mean, when he left the game, many of us thought he was the best of all times, and again, he gets too quickly forgotten in that discussion. Frankly, I would add that if you put all of them together on the court with their playing styles, and settle it that way, Sampras would be the one that would come out on top, except on clay. On any medium-to-fast courts, hard or grass courts, I would take him to beat Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and any others, because of the nature of his game. The combination of the serve with the attacking game, the big forehand, and his temperament would make him come out on top. Of course, that’s just my opinion. There was a bunch of us who participated in a Tennis Magazine imaginary tournament with the great players of all time. It was one set on clay, one set on hard, and the deciding set would be on grass. Sampras ended up winning that imaginary event defeating Nadal and Federer. We had Djokovic losing to Borg. It came down to the grass court set at the end.

I am just throwing out my view here, but to get back to the original question, yes, it’s a very healthy discussion. Nobody is right, it’s all judgmental, but it promotes tennis and that’s a good thing.

If you had to mention the top three greatest matches that you have ever seen in your life time, what would they be? [Reminder: Flink wrote the book The Greatest Tennis Matches of All-Time, published in 2012]

Well, I wrote a book on the greatest tennis matches of all times so that one comes naturally to me. Nadal vs Federer in 2008, I still believe, was the best that we have ever seen. The quality was so high on all five sets. Couple of 6-4 sets to Nadal, two tiebreakers to Federer, and then a 9-7 in the fifth. The thrill factor, the two best players in the world for the third straight year in the final of Wimbledon, pushing each other to the hill, all played into it. Then, there was the fact that it was a pretty miserably cool day at Wimbledon, yet they lit the place up and withstood all the rain delays. That match stands out to me the most.

Two other men’s matches stand out in different ways. The 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and John McEnroe was one. I didn’t think I would ever see that match surpassed until Federer and Nadal came along. The other one that is high in my list is the Laver vs Rosewall match in Dallas in 1972, which went to a fifth-set tiebreaker. They were two men who were both slightly past their primes, but it was like they turned the clock back on that day. The Agassi vs Sampras in the 2001 US Open quarterfinals was a similar case in that they were both past their prime but played a phenomenal match. These are the ones that I would mention.

To throw another match out there, what about the 1984 French Open, when Ivan Lendl came back to John McEnroe in five sets?

That one was a great match but I didn’t put it quite up there with some of the others because for two sets McEnroe was just way superior, then Lendl came back and McEnroe got perturbed and upset, the crowd went against him. It maintained a nice quality until the end, but it was dramatic more than anything else. I still didn’t feel the quality was up there with some of the others I mentioned, but it was a pivotal moment in McEnroe’s career, as well as Lendl’s.

Let’s take that match as an example for the next question, or the Federer – Nadal one, or even a match like Fabio Fognini vs Nadal last year at the US Open where one player won the first two sets and the other came back to turn the match into a memorable one. Interjecting that notion into the discussion about perhaps bringing men’s matches down to two-out-of-three set format, would we miss out on the possibility of classics like these matches?

Well, you are right. But I also think, instead, we would get three-set epics. You would have matches that end 7-5 6-7 7-6 that still went three hours. A part of this argument that makes me realize that I may be in the minority. Some of us who are “die-hards,” we can actually sit and watch an entire five-set match with no problem, but I don’t think the typical spectator stays necessarily with a five-set match the way they stay with a three-set match. That would be the argument for the best-of-three format, you may keep the fans more immersed from beginning to end and it’s still a fair test. Having said that, I don’t think the top players are ever going to want to agree to this, because they will feel that there is a better chance that they will get picked off. They would lose an advantage in that they have a better chance to come back in five-set format. So, I don’t think that will ever happen.

My biggest qualm is the fifth-set tiebreak. I am a big believer that it should be used and the US Open is the only Major that does it. I am very baffled by that. We had the famous Isner -Mahut match ending 70-68 in the fifth set, 11 hours and 5 minutes. It ruined them for the rest of the year.

Would you be fine with playing two-out-of-three up to a certain point and switch to the five-set format in the later rounds?

No, that was tested in the 1970s in the French and the US Open, I didn’t like it. I don’t like the idea of suddenly changing the rules when you get to the later rounds. I feel like they are going to stick with the best-of-five format, but the tiebreak should absolutely be used in every set. You put somebody who has been in one of those extra-long matches, and they have a bad disadvantage. Federer suggested the other day that maybe it should be tried at 12-12, I don’t even think that makes sense. Just play it at the same time you play it in any other set at 6-6, and settle it there. It’s better for the fans, and frankly, it puts the players under added pressure, and that is not bad thing for them either. If you haven’t been able to establish a service break lead after 12 games in the set, a tiebreak is perfectly fair to both of them.

——————–

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter. This week: Live, on-site updates from the ATP Istanbul Open

Monday at the Australian Open: 4th Round Preview

The bottom half of the men’s draw at the Australian Open has opened up after Denis Istomin’s shocking upset of Novak Djokovic. On the women’s side, the two favorites in the bottom half of the draw, Serena Williams and Karolina Pliskova, are still going but there are plenty of new names raising eyebrows. After three rounds, we have a clearer idea of the players’ forms and physical conditions and that adds a new dimension to the discussion of how that will carry into the scoreboard. In fact, some of the matches have become question marks precisely because some in-form players, exceeding expectations. Isn’t that what makes tennis fun anyway? The challenge to sort through the unknowns and to bring some sense into the complicated equation that entails what may happen when two players walk into the court, is the ultimate “fun” exercise for all tennis fans and experts alike. Having said that, let’s take a look at three men’s matches and one women’s match from the bottom halves of the draw that will take place on Monday.

Dominic Thiem (8) – David Goffin (11)

In his last-round encounter against Benoit Paire, Thiem experienced some shoulder pain. Not knowing how that may carry over to the next match, I will leave that out of this analysis. I do know, however that Thiem’s game is not at the high level that it was last year around this time. His only chance to gain some ground in this match rests on his ability to pull a Rafa-like (or Gael-like) performance, meaning scramble a lot from the baseline, put a large number of balls back in play from defensive positions, and force Goffin into taking more risks in order to earn some errors from the Belgian. Equally, he will have to play a high percentage of first serves in, because Goffin will jump on Dominic’s second serve, as he did in last year’s Australian Open when the two played each other in the third round (Goffin won in four sets).

Getty Images: Photo by Scott Barbour

Thiem will also need to use his backhand slice in abundance. Goffin likes to take balls early in the bounce and use that speed to generate more velocity for his hard and flat, agressive shots. If Thiem keeps the balls low with his slice, that should negate some of Goffin’s advantage in the rallies. On low balls, Goffin will either need to use his wrist more topspin or respond with a slice of his own which should relieve some of the pressure on Thiem. On his second serve, I expect Thiem to mix in the slice more frequently than he usually does in order to, again, keep the balls low and not allow Goffin to take charge from the first shot in the rally like he would if Thiem simply used the kick on his second serve. Neither player is, for the lack of a better term, a “head case,” therefore I don’t expect them to lose discipline. Thus, the score is likley to be determined by tactical adjustments that the two of them will make as the match progresses. Although he is the lower-ranked player, I see Goffin being one step ahead as they step on the court.

Gaël Monfils (6) – Rafael Nadal (9)

There is not much to say for this encounter. On any surface, in any city, and in any condition, Rafa would walk on the court as the clear favorite against the flashy Frenchman. Gaël’s refusal to add an attacking – a forward – dimension to his game for over a decade, his insistence to camp out three or four meters behind the baseline and retrieve balls, and the fact that considering his existing game he will face an opponent that does everything little better than he does, infinitely limit his chances to record a win against Nadal.

Photo: Getty Images – Mike Hewitt

Let’s push the envelope as far we can for a moment. Let’s use the convenient “you never know in tennis” platitude and let’s add the endurance factor remembering that Nadal played a grueling five-setter against the young Alexander Zverev two days earlier. Let’s also assume for a second that Monfils overachieves from the baseline, serves a ton of aces, and steals the first set. Then, only then, he could possibly have a chance if Rafa shows signs of wear and tear. Yes, it’s a reach, I know! In reality, here is what should normally happen: (1) Gaël running himself ragged from one corner to the other, hopelessly waiting for Rafa to make an error, (2) Rafa clicking on all cylinders and winning practically all the rallies that extend beyond 15 shots while his opponent dazzles the crowd with his athleticism on one or two meaningless points and (3) Gaël constantly bending down to pull his shoe tongues or to tie his laces, and breathing deeply to recover from the preceding point. Just for the sake of tennis fans, I hope Gaël can prove me wrong and at least win the first set to make it interesting.

Grigor Dimitrov (15) – Denis Istomin

Few months ago, this would have been a tough match to predict. If it were two years ago, it would have been an easy one to predict. Now, on the other hand, both players are coming into this match with confidence, playing their best tennis in a while. In his three matches, Denis stayed on the court 10 hours and 49 minutes and played 14 sets. In comparison, Grigor played only 10 sets and spent more than four hours less (6:39) on the court than Istomin. Dimitrov should have the fresher legs when they step on the court for the match.

Dimitrov’s chances should greatly increase if he moves well from the start, because it will allow him to immediately start using the great variety of shots in his arsenal. If that’s the case, Istomin will be covering a lot of court space early and likely struggle with endurance in the later stages of the match. Nevertheless, there are a few positives to Istomin’s game in this match-up. His brand of tennis, featuring deep and flat shots that carry weight, and his remarkable ability to accelerate down-the-line shots on both sides should take Dimitrov out of his comfort zone. Unlike Gasquet, Dimitrov’s previous-round victim who plays with variety and spin, Istomin will drive the balls flat and deep without giving Grigor any angles to work with.

From 2014, Cincinnati

However, Dimitrov did not just beat Gasquet, he dominated him. If his level does not go down, he should still be the favorite to win this match and could go to the semifinals and further. I am also sure that, other players who are in that half of the draw, having seen Dimitrov’s form of late and his drubbing of Gasquet, will wish deep down that Istomin can pull yet another upset. Istomin must absolutely win the first serve to have chance.

Johanna Konta (9) – Ekaterina Makarova (30)

I am sure many readers, especially if they had seen Konta’s thrashing (there is no other word for what happened) of Caroline Wozniacki in the previous round, are giving the edge to Konta and maybe they are right. Yet, as much as some experts may now claim that Konta even has a chance to take the title, I believe that Makarova has the tools to halt the relentless Konta train. Wozniacki was stuck playing defense, scrambling to get Konta’s shots back for most of the match. It should be a different pattern against Makarova. The Russian has the capacity to send Konta’s high-octane balls back with the same pace and should not allow the Brit to get too many looks at shoulder-length, high-bouncing balls that she received from Caro on Thursday. Makarova’s balls will stay low and deep, forcing Konta to hit balls at knee level or below, and keeping her behind the baseline more than she had to in her previous rounds. I should also mention that Makarova can make use of angles and carry her opponents off the court’s outside lines. The Russian could end up controlling a number of rallies this way, putting Konta in the unfamiliar position of being pushed around. Then, there is also Makarova’s lefty serve with which she is able to hit all corners, especially the wide one on the ad court that would force Konta to hit a backhand from outside the court, just to start the rally. In return, Konta can also win a bunch of free points with her powerful serve. So, first-serve percentage is likley to be a key factor in the match.

Getty Images: Photo by Scott Barbour

At the end of the day, I believe it will be Konta’s level of play and decisions during points that will ultimately determine the outcome. Let’s not forget to mention the endurance factor for both players. Makarova spent a lot of effort in taking Dominika Cibulkova out in 2 hours and 53 minutes, so it will be interesting to see how fresh her legs will feel. Konta, for her part, has played twelve matches in twenty days in three different cities, and one can’t help but wonder if that will catch up to her at any given moment in Melbourne. Last but not the least, Makarova has consistently performed well at Majors. I lean toward the Russian to pull the upset in this match.

Until next time, take care everyone and enjoy the tennis.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Navigation