Category: ATP

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

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pedro Martinez (Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Australian Open Men’s 1st Round Match Report: Lloyd Harris vs. Mikael Torpegaard

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Tennis is a game of unknowns, some say, and this first round match on Court 16 would be one of the exhibits they would show if they had to defend their position in a courtroom. The match pitted the 26-year-old ex-NCAA player (Ohio State), and Lucky Loser (boy, I cannot stand that label), Mikael Torpegaard from Denmark, ranked no.188 in the ATP, in his first main draw match at Major, against the 23-year-old South African player Lloyd Harris (ATP no.91) who has been hovering between 90 and 120, give or take, since 2018.

It all started well for Torpegaard who remained well within his limits and stuck to what he does best which is, keeping the balls deep and accelerating on his backhand when given the chance. He doesn’t have any extraordinary weapons in his arsenal per se – although I would argue that his backhand sharp cross-courts can occasionally do wonders, but that is rather a specialty shot –, but he can keep a steady flow of solid-pace baseline strokes going, forcing the opponent to take risks in order to create an opening. His second serve is deceptive, landing deep in the service box with some velocity, catching an offensive-minded returner off guard at times.

Torpegaard specifically kept the rallies to the middle of the court, not giving Harris much court space to work with, and the South African sprayed one error after another on the forehand wing to start the match as a result, trying to go for angles that did not exist. His seventh forehand unforced error at 1-1, 30-40, gave the lead to Torpegaard who guarded the break advantage all the way to the end of the set. To be clear, Torpegaard wasn’t just “rallying.” He also sent a signal early to Harris that he would not be hesitant to come to the net of the ball landed short. He approached 10 times in the first set, something to which Harris should have resorted for his part (zero approaches in the first set for the South African).

Something did happen, however, in the middle of the set, that had a major impact on the match in my view. The ballkid at the corner of the court collapsed at 4-2 for Torpegaard and play stopped for around 10 minutes. It was a petrifying sight, frankly, to briefly see the ballkid on the ground flat, facing down. The umpires and the players ran to the corner to help, doctor and trainer arriving a minute later. Thankfully, the kid was eventually escorted away, walking, and play resumed.

Torpegaard who seemed flawless up to that point, must have lost some of his intensity during the pause. He lost five straight points off the gate, three of them unforced errors, more than he had made in the six games prior to the unexpected break. He recovered in time with an ace and a 1-2 punch winner to grab the 30-15 lead on his serve at 4-3. Although he double-faulted (his first of the match) to see Harris get back to 30-30, he served one of his deceptive second serves to earn a short ball for another 1-2 punch winner, and managed to hold serve to go up 5-3. It also helped that Harris was still unable to calibrate his forehand, losing the first set 6-4 on his tenth unforced error on that wing.

Nevertheless, the momentum had perceptibly took a turn by then. First of all, Torpegaard’s first serve had gone missing. By the time the scoreboard showed 3-3 in the second set, Torpegaard’s first-serve percentage had cooled down to 32% for the set (6 out of 19), as opposed to 67% in the first set. He had just come off the 2-3 game saving two break points thanks to a missed passing shot by Harris followed by two more unforced errors by the South African on his forehand. Despite those errors, Harris had cleaned up his game up a bit and was having success coming to the net (read: getting bolder due to increased confidence), something he did not do at all in the first set as noted above. The alarm bells were ringing for Torpegaard.

Harris finally broke through on the Dane’s next service game, when Torpegaard double-faulted on break point after having to pause between the serves and tell someone in the stands to keep their voices down. Yeah, when it rains pours. Harris held serve to level the match at one set each.

The rain kept pouring, unfortunately, for Torpegaard. He missed a forehand volley at deuce on his serve in the opening game of the third set and nailed the ball to the stands in frustration, earning a code violation. Harris, for his part, was feeling just fine and got the break on a fine forehand inside-out acceleration.

The pendulum had by now swung conspicuously in Harris’s favor, and his demeanor reflected the shift. He played with confidence throughout the third set, making only three unforced errors in total, and winning all 8 points when he ventured forward to the net. And he did it the blue-collar way, as they say. While he served 21 aces for the match, in the third set he only served two, doing most of the labor from groundstrokes and at the net, working the point and pushing his opponent around. It was a vastly different look than in the first set, or even the second. He broke Torpegaard twice to pocket the third set 6-2. Torpegaard, for his part, had overtaken the role of the one with an unreliable forehand, missing a bunch from that wing, especially early in games.

Torpegaard, seemingly troubled on his left leg (didn’t I say something about pouring rain?), took a medical time out at the start of the fourth set. He was one of the players who went through the isolated hard-quarantine for 14 days, so that may have had an impact — in case you haven’t heard, the hard-quarantined men are faring terribly in the first two days –, especially considering that it was his first go-round at a Major for a five-setter, although it should be noted that he played two matches in the Adelaide International last week, losing to Hubert Hurkacz in his second one.

In any case, he was clearly hampered because he began the fourth set making a visible effort to keep the points short. He tried a drop shot or two, went for uncharacteristic winners from the baseline, and tried to quickly come to the net during rallies. It worked for one game, but Harris broke the Dane’s serve on the third game when Torpegaard slammed a makeable forehand into the net.

That proved to be the conclusive lead for Harris as he broke serve a second time when Torpegaard framed a second serve into the bottom of the net two games later (most likely struggling with the left leg push upward). The South African closed the match on his serve, winning 4-6 6-3 6-2 6-2 in two hours and 25 minutes.

It will be Harris’s fourth attempt at reaching the third round at a Major (Roland Garros 2019 and 2020, US Open 2020), and he will have to play a less patchy match than this one. He put on display some brilliant tennis at times and showed his dexterity on serves, but he will need a better start and more consistency from the baseline to have a shot at defeating David Goffin or Alexei Popyrin (Goffin leads two sets to one at the time of writing).

End notes:

— Harris served four aces for a blank game at 4-1 in the fourth set.

— Despite his level consistently going down after 4-2 in the first set for the remainder of the match, Torpegaard committed only one unforced error on his backhand in the last two sets. It is a very solid shot sporting a compact and short backswing, allowing him to withstand high-velocity strokes flowing his way from the other side of the net.

— The school of forehands had a bad day at the office. The two players combined for 39 unforced errors from that wing, versus 15 on the backhand.

Photo: Jono Searle – Getty Images

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Roland Garros 2020, Men’s Quarterfinal Match Report: Tsitsipas Overcomes Rublev’s Head Start

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

My match report and in-depth analysis of how Stefanos Tsitsipas recovered from a break down in the first set vs. Andrey Rublev, and earned himself a spot in the semifinals of the French Open, is now available on Tennis with an Accent at the following link:

Tsitsipas Overcomes Rublev’s Head Start

Tsitsipas in action during the 2019 Mutua Madrid Open – Photo: Getty Images Europe

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Roland Garros 2020, Men’s 3rd-Round Match Report: Sixth Straight Win in Paris for Altmaier

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

This unusual edition of Roland Garros in taking place in September and October of 2020 continues to showcase fresh faces and new talent. As we approach the end of the first week of competition in Paris, both draws are still filled with players who have never been past the first or second round of a Major in their careers — some having never even made it there. Consider Patricia Tig and Thiago Monteiro for instance, who have been ranked top-100 but never went past the second round of a Major before, or Barbora Krejcikova and Leylah Fernandez in the women’s draw, who are also in the third round for the first time, without ever having enjoyed a top-100 spot in the rankings in their careers.

Then, note players like Martina Trevisan, Hugo Gaston, Nadia Podoroska, and Sebastian Korda, Irina Bara, Daniel Elahi Galan, and Clara Burel, who have never won a match in the main draw of a Major until this week, but found themselves in a position to vie for a spot in the fourth round. Source: my knowledgeable friend Chris Oddo – @TheFanChild on Twitter, follow him if you are a tennis fan!

186th-ranked Daniel Altmaier belongs to the last group above. In fact, he had only played six tour-level matches in his career (2-4) prior to Roland Garros. He arrived to Paris for the qualifying rounds, not even knowing that he would have the opportunity to step on the court due to an injury that he suffered two weeks earlier at the Aix-en-Provence challenger, which forced him to retire from his semifinal match in the first set. He has battled his fair share of injuries in the past, including an elbow-related one in 2018 and shoulder problems later. It was after his arrival to Paris, on Friday before the qualifying competition, that the doctor finally cleared him to play.

Since then, he won six matches, losing only one set (none in the main draw), to find himself in the second week of the French Open. His latest victim was the 7th-seed Matteo Berrettini on Saturday on Court Philippe Chatrier.

Altmaier in action during the Wimbledon 2016 boys competition (Photo: Adam Pretty – Getty Images Europe)

The 22-year-old German behaved as if performing on a big-stage court was nothing unusual for him, starting the match with remarkable energy and positive body language, both of which he sustained throughout the match. After an early break to go up 3-0, he never looked back and pocketed the first set 6-2 in 31 minutes. Berrettini, for his part, struggled not only with his backhands early in the set (nine unforced errors on that wing for the set — by my count), but also found himself off balance constantly, even when he did not miss, due to the versatile, power-oriented, solid all-court play of his opponent. Side note: Not surprisingly considering his game, a close look at Altmaier’s past results shows that he can perform on to all surfaces.

In the second set, Berrettini was somewhat able to steady the ship, cutting down on his backhand errors (only four in this set). It helped that he was able to break serve to start the set when he hit a forehand winner to take the lead in the game and Altmaier drove his one-handed backhand too deep on break point. Berrettini protected his break lead by using his bread-and-butter play, the 1-2 punch, until he served for the set at 5-4. But before I get there, allow me to elaborate on his 1-2 punch for a minute.

I realize that Matteo is one of the most efficient users of the 1-2 punch on the ATP Tour. He places his serve well and reads the opponent’s return early enough for the most part to move in position for the next kill shot, usually coming on his forehand. Even when not putting the ball away, he often produces a good enough second shot to take charge of the point, either putting his opponent on the run for the ensuing rally, or approaching the net to finish it with a volley.

What presents a problem at times, and it came into question in this match, is that he seems to rely too much on his forehand for the second shot, unnecessarily going out of his way to hit one. By that I mean, when his opponent hits a better-than-expected return toward his ad corner, he tries to run-around his backhand to still hit an forehand at the cost of not having his feet set, thus out of balance, and either makes an error on that second shot or hits an ineffective one which then allows his opponent to take charge of the point, producing the opposite effect of what Matteo was aiming for.

In the 2-1 game of the second set on his serve and up 40-30, for example, he served wide and moved slightly inside the baseline, expecting a defensive return from Altmaier who moved well outside the court for the return. The German hit a surprisingly deep cross-court return. Instead of getting set up to drill his backhand down-the-line to the open court for a possible winner (his backhand is solid, no idea what he would insist that much on avoiding it), Matteo attempted to take several short and quick steps to his left, and somewhat backward (because he had to back up due to his positioning following the serve), because he was simply determined to hit a forehand. The resulting off-balance forehand from the ad corner, while still moving left and leaning back, landed wide, giving the point to Altmaier.

That was just one example, and he managed to hold serve in that game, so it didn’t cost him at the end in that case, which brings me back to the 5-4 game where he tried the same thing and paid for it dearly this time. At 15-0, he once again forced the issue by running around his backhand to hit an out-of-sorts forehand on the second shot. It fell short and Altmaier jumped on the opportunity, accelerating his backhand sharp cross-court, and eventually winning the point it at the net. Berrettini’s shoulders slumped, probably regretting his decision. He hit an ill-advised drop shot into the net in the next point to go down 15-30. Three points later, Altmaier hit a beautiful passing shot to earn the break.

It all turned dour from that point forward for Berrettini and his poor decision-making came back to haunt him again later in the set. Serving at 4-5 in the tiebreaker, he missed a drop shot badly into the net when he could have done several other things with that shot from the middle of the court. He saved the first set point with a big first serve but missed the return in the net in the second to lose tiebreaker 5-7 and go down by two sets.

One last glimmer of hope for the Italian appeared when he was up 15-40 on Altmaier’s serve, leading 2-1 in the third. It disappeared quickly when Altmaier stood strong to come back and hold serve. That was all she wrote apparently, because in the ensuing game, Berrettini missed two routine forehands in the net and added a forehand volley to the tally of errors when he sailed it wide. It was a blank break game for Altmaier, with Berrettini muttering in Italian at one point, “I should be ashamed of the way I’m playing.”

The last game adequately summarized the match for Berrettini. Altmaier, serving for the match at 5-4 and on the verge of a monumental accomplishment from his perspective, made two unforced errors in the game, possibly from a bit of nerves (though I cannot tell for sure from his demeanor), but Berrettini topped him with four of his own to lose the game and exit the French Open.

“I was struggling to find the right attitude, the right energy. I was nervous. When I tried to calm down, I was too calm. I was struggling every single aspect of the game. It was a really bad day. I actually almost won a set playing like this, feeling like this,” said the Italian after the match. Source: @RaviUbna on Twitter.

Altmaier, realizing the magnitude of the moment, thanked everyone he knows in three different languages during the post-match, on-court interview, including his parents in Russian, whom he has been known to credit in the past for having encouraged him to play sports at an early age. His next opponent is Pablo Carreno-Busta who is no stranger to latter stages of Majors, having just defeated Roberto Bautista-Agut to reach the fourth round for the second time in Paris (2017, lost in the quarterfinal to Rafael Nadal).

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

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

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

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

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

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

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

MENU

Navigation