Category: ATP

Federer “Finds A Way,” yet Again!

Wimbledon’s official site, in its immediate official website update following Roger Federer’s spectacular comeback win vs. Marin Cilic, 6-7 4-6 6-3 7-6 6-3, used the headline “Extraordinary. Exhausting. Exhilarating.” It was an appropriate exclamation, considering that what took place on Centre Court on Wednesday was less about the quality of Federer’s game than about the nature and circumstances of the comeback. The way a tennis legend fabricated a win that seemed so unlikely at several moments of the match was indeed breathtaking.

Prior to the match, I shared my opinion on social media on what to expect. Quite frankly, the match could go either way, in any number of sets, because both players have not yet faced any redoubtable opposition, and thus, there were still many questions unanswered. Federer got to the quarterfinals without much trouble, taking full advantage of a draw that put him against considerably weaker adversaries. His performances in Stuttgart and Halle, two of the leading grass-court tournaments before Wimbledon, were less than impressive, and from his previous matches at SW19, it was hard to tell where his game stood. Adding to the doubt, Federer was still on the comeback trail from his injury. Last but not the least, the last time Roger had to go to distance, playing five sets in a Major, dated back to the 2014 US Open (vs Gaël Monfils). Cilic, for his part, had to overcome a challenging stretch of 10 minutes in the second set of his match vs Sergiy Stakhovsky, but he had yet to face a formidable opponent. At the same time, it is well-known fact, as Roger will be the first one to say so, that on a given day Marin could dominate anyone on the ATP Tour if his game is clicking on all cylinders. For all the reasons above, I felt that the first set would be a central component of the match. If Federer came out swinging freely, he would put doubts to rest and move on to the next round without much headache. If Cilic won the first set, it would be a long duel with the pendulum slightly tilting in the Croat’s favor. Although, I turned out right for the most part – and this is rare – I still did not foresee some of what took place for 3 hours and 17 minutes on the court.

Photo: Clive Brunskill - Getty Images
Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

Both players held serve throughout the first set that went to a tiebreaker. While Federer was serving well, he was alarmingly losing most of the baseline rallies. Cilic was solid overall, but not hitting Roger out of the court like he did at the US Open two years ago. Although Cilic did face two break points at 2-2, he only lost one point on his first serve during the rest of set. He won the tiebreaker 7-4 and took the lead. Now there was no doubt. As he usually does when he plays from behind, Federer was going to have to pull all the weapons from the arsenal and find a way to turn the match around.

However, things went from bad to worse in the second set. Even Federer’s only reliable shot so far, his serve, took a hit. He served barely over 50% in the second set and in the game that he was broken at 1-1, Federer’s footwork looked dismal as he committed one uncharacteristic error after another to lose his serve. Cilic, on the other hand, seemed to remain solid, but not without glitches. He fell behind in a later game 0-30 after two double faults, but Federer was unable to take advantage as he committed a mix of forced and unforced errors during rallies. Cilic led two sets to zero and Federer still looked unsettled in the beginning of the third. Many thought his quest for an 18th Major was soon coming to an end. The quality of his tennis was just not at the point where he could contend for a Major title, or so it seemed. Even Cilic, one of the nice guys on the ATP Tour, would later say that he thought Federer was committing unlikely errors from the baseline, including the fourth-set tiebreaker.

Accordingly, it looked like Cilic was headed for the locker room with a three-set victory when the scoreboard showed 3-3 in the third set and he held three break points at 0-40 on his opponent’s serve. One pattern that kept troubling Federer was the second shot after the serve. Following Cilic’s returns, he often looked out of balance and committed mistakes (although Cilic’s returns would make them “forced errors”) on that particular shot. At 0-40, Cilic once again nailed a return right at Federer’s feet. The Swiss barely had time to take a step back and answered with an off-balance forehand that barely scraped over the net. It landed short. Cilic hit into the net what should be a routine backhand approach shot. It turned out to be one of the key points of the match. Cilic himself would later admit that this point, along with two of the three match points he had, were the points that he “regretted” the most once the match ended. Then at 30-40, Federer hit a well-placed, high-bouncing second serve that forced the Croat into an error. Federer finally held, and all of a sudden, the momentum shifted tiny bit in his favor for the first time in the match. He broke Cilic’s serve in the ensuing game and pocketed the third set 6-3.

Federer would admit later to remembering, during that set, his comeback vs. Tommy Haas in the 2009 French Open. In that match, Haas also led Federer two sets to zero, had a break point to go up, and serve for the match. Federer hit the line with his forehand for a winner and the match turned around quickly, eventually leading to Roger’s win in five sets and his only French Open crown two matches later. The only difference: he won the fourth and the fifth sets handily, whereas that would not be the case here against Cilic. Fourth set would be another battle back and forth, similar to the first set, except that Marin would have the opportunities to put the match away, while Roger would still play catch-up tennis. Cilic had his first chance to reestablish his dominance when he led 2-1, and 15-40 on Federer’s service game. Two effective second serves by the Swiss, second being much riskier than the first, got him out of trouble and he held for 2-2. At 4-5 would come a bigger opportunity for Cilic to put this encounter in the record books when he had a match point at 30-40. Federer missed his first serve on yet another crucial point. However – and yes, you may be noticing a pattern by now, more on it later – served an exceptional second serve to get out of trouble once again. A second match point would arrive at 5-6, but this time, Federer would hit an ace to save that one and bring the set to a tiebreaker.

In a thrilling 4th-set tiebreaker, Federer saved another match point and squandered four set points himself before finally winning it 11-9 on his fifth one. He especially found himself in big trouble after missing a forehand sitter on his first set point at 6-4 and losing the next two points to go down 6-7 and a third match point. His second serve once again took the leading role. He placed it wonderfully, forcing Cilic into another return error. Did I mention he also served an unreturnable second serve earlier in the tiebreaker? Well, I just did.

The fifth set was finally where Federer, for the first time in the match, did swing freely, serving better and better, and beginning to dominate Cilic on all facets of the game. One break was enough and he would find it in the eighth game of the set. In the next game, he served out the match and lifted his hands high up in the air after the ace that officially finished the match. Federer would characterize this comeback as a “big one” but not necessarily his biggest.

This was a special win, not because of the tennis that Federer played, but more because of his often-underrated competitor persona that surfaced. Tim Henman would confirm on his post-match commentary on BBC, accurately so, that Roger’s “will to win” was what got him over the hurdle. Federer said later that he was “lucky to some extent,” but he also affirmed that he would “rather be here than booking a jet.” Isn’t it the sign of a champion anyway to find some solution and fabricate a win when he/she cannot perform at the desired level? The elite athletes in our sport prove repeatedly that it is the case.

One of the most underrated shots in tennis is the second serve, yet somehow one that elite players usually lead in all categories to which it relates. As you read above, it was Federer’s second serve that got him out of trouble on the majority of critical moments during the match. Two match points and three crucial break points that almost felt like match points were all saved thanks to second serves that had faster-than-usual pace or risky placement, or both. Roger said that his serve was the one shot he felt he could always fall back on, specifically mentioning his second serve.

How much does he rely on it? Here are a few numbers to ponder. In yesterday’s five-set match, Federer committed zero double faults. Keep in mind that he was not, by any means, “playing it safe” on his second serves. In fact, he took high risks on many of them simply because he had trouble handling Cilic’s returns. On the break and match points noted above, they were placed extremely close to the lines. At Wimbledon so far, the Swiss has committed a total of 2 (“two” in writing) double faults in five matches! He won 59% of his second-serve points against Cilic, and that stat is at 63% for the overall tournament. Are these details? Maybe… But for some reason, these details are always present and relevant when the topic revolves around the top players of our game.

Federer plays Milos Raonic in the semis. The Canadian is also winning 63% of his second-serve points. Federer will need to extend to the whole match the level of tennis he put on display in the fifth set against Cilic. He will (possibly) need to do that again, in order to lift the trophy on Sunday. In short, he has to play his two best matches of 2016 in succession, in order to win his favorite Major. I neither see him defeating Raonic nor winning the tournament if he plays another match at a level no higher than the previous ones in which he was challenged throughout the grass-court season. The good news: he has improved with each match and during yesterday’s match. He reiterated the importance of the seven matches that he got to play in Stuttgart and Halle in terms of getting prepared for Wimbledon. At the end of the tournament, I am guessing that this particular one against Cilic may yet turn out to be the biggest.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Interview with Denis Istomin “Part 2″ – Wimbledon 2nd Round

Side note: I named this “Part 2” because I previously interviewed Denis Istomin after his 5-set, first-round upset win over the 20th-seeded Kevin Anderson on Monday. I would highly recommend that you read that interview first in case you missed it (especially for background information on Istomin), by clicking here before you move on to read this one.

Yesterday, Istomin defeated Nicolas Almagro 6-4 7-6 6-2 to reach the third round at Wimbledon.

DI1

He was nice enough to take the time and talk to me about his pre-match preparation and the details of his win against the former top-10 player from Spain. Here is what he had to say.

Congratulations Denis!
Thank you very much.

You played a big hitter today. Almagro hits big from the baseline, big first serve, and has a game founded on power. Going into the match, did you want to keep the points long in the beginning and force him into mistakes early in the match, or did you perhaps plan to start aggressively yourself in order not to allow him to settle into his game?

I wanted to keep him hitting the ball. He has the kind of game where he wants to hit as hard as he can and it’s tough to play like that all the time. If you get four or five balls back, he wants to go even for more. He could start missing, so I tried to play in that way today. But at the same time, I was serving well, so I decided to be aggressive if I get a chance. I mean, I have a good record against him [6-0 now] so that also worked for me. But today, the first two sets were really tough. I was lucky that I broke him back at 5-6 in the second and won the tiebreaker. In the third set, his game went down, it was 3-0 in like five minutes.

You seemed to accelerate your forehand down-the-line a lot this match. Was that a particular part of your game plan? You usually like to hit out your forehand when you are on the run but it seemed that you paid particular attention to attempting down-the-line winners with your forehand.

Yes, but that is the style of game anyway. I feel I can hit down-the-line very good on the forehand and backhand. Many players know that I can be dangerous on the forehand. I knew that if I run so far out of the court, I will not have time to come back, so I hit my forehand full power. If not, I have to run to the other side and it’s a problem. I mean, I am not a short guy who can run fast, I need to protect the part of the court that I can cover. I don’t need to be playing a style where I run and cover the court like… I don’t know… like Djokovic or someone.

In the first set, you won your only break point, and the set at 5-4 up, with an excellent running passing shot.

Almagro can't reach Istomin's forehand, cross-court passing shot on set point.
Almagro can’t reach Istomin’s cross-court forehand passing shot on set point.

But the second set was more complicated. You had break points at 4-3, didn’t break, then you led 0-30 at 5-4 up, did not put it away. Then, you lost your serve at 5-6 but you were able to break back and win the second set. Can you elaborate on that?

Yeah, it’s tennis and it happens. If you lose such game against Isner and Karlovic it would hurt more because you know that it will be difficult to break back. But with guys who don’t serve as strong, you still have a chance so you keep playing in the same way you have until then and hope you break back. In that 5-6 game, I went up 0-40 and he still came back to deuce but I was finally able to break back. It was a very tough set. Even if I lost that set, I would have felt ok. He played good and deserved to win the set. He held his serve at 4-3 and 5-4 even though he was down in the game.

Are you physically feeling good?

Yeah, today I felt good. I had two days of rest which helped a lot. I play tomorrow again [vs David Goffin] so I am lucky I won in three sets and not 4 or 5. So I kept some energy for tomorrow [smiles].

For fans who may be curious about what players do between matches, what have you done since the end of your match vs Anderson?

After that long match, I showered, had something to eat, got a massage. I tried to sleep early that night but it was tough. It’s not easy to fall asleep after such a long match. It was around midnight when I finally fell asleep I think. The next day, I practiced 40 minutes, maybe even less, just to feel the ball and that was it. Yesterday, I did the same, preparing for the scheduled match. But then we sat all day waiting to see if we will go on the court or not, because of the rain. When it cancelled we went home. I tried to sleep earlier last night too. I did the same this morning, warming up this morning.

On Monday, when we talked you called your season “terrible.” Has that changed?

No, now it changed a little bit [laughs] but it’s still not great [laughs again].

Thank you, and again, good luck tomorrow!
Thank you!

Denis thanks the spectators after his win.
Istomin thanks the spectators after his win

Note: Denis will face the 11th-seeded David Goffin of Belgium on Friday afternoon. It’s the third match scheduled on Court 3. I hope to talk to him again following that match.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter for frequent, live updates from the grounds.

Interview with Denis Istomin – Wimbledon 1st round

Denis Istomin, the 103rd-ranked player from Uzbekistan (highest: 33 in 2012), defeated the 20th-seed Kevin Anderson 4-6 6-7(13) 6-4 7-6(2) 6-3 in the first round of Wimbledon. It was a thrilling come back by a player who has gone through his own trials and tribulations throughout his career. He has had to deal with numerous injuries and was severely injured in a car accident on his way to a junior tournament when he was 14 years old, one that resulted in a broken leg and required 80 stitches and a three-and-a-half-month-long stay in a hospital for recovery.

He is also coached by his mother – considered an “unusual arrangement” in a world dominated by male coaches – who got him back on the court two years after his accident. I thought it would be a good idea to give this background information before showing the interview below, because I did not want Denis to have to talk about these topics again. I am sure he has had to answer hundreds of question about them, although, as you will notice, he seems “pretty cool” about it.

Denis 1

Below is my chat with the soft-spoken, polite 29-year-old Istomin, following his thrilling win vs Anderson. He will face Nicolas Almagro in the second round.

You had 7 set points, yet you lost the 2nd set 15-13 in the tiebreaker to go down two sets to nothing. You were up 6-3 and the first three set points in a row, and the point at 6-4 was the longest rally of the match. Yet, you still managed to come back and win in 5 sets. I am curious, how quickly did you recover mentally after that second-set tiebreaker?

From 6-3 to 6-6 in the tiebreaker, I think he had a good serve. Then, yes, the next point was a Iong rally and I missed the down-the-line backhand a bit long. Then at 6-5, after this kind of point, you know, it’s tough to serve well because you are still tired from the last point. He also hit a good, aggressive return and got back to 6-6. After that, he served unbelievable the rest of the tiebreaker, I had no chances to put the set away although it was a long tiebreaker. When I lost that and went down 2-0 in sets, I took the points one by one, and hoped that I can make a break somewhere. I got lucky but I managed to get a break in the third set. But it changed the game completely. I started to play better, more aggressive, with the momentum. It continued and I played very well in the fourth set tiebreaker. I also think he got tired after the fourth set as well. I could see that and I just waited for my chance to break again.

I thought for a little while that he was getting tired toward the end of the second set, but he played another three sets after that.

Well, it’s a three-out-of-five-set match anyway, but he is good on this surface and he served very, very well. But I had more chances to break later for sure. For example, in the first two sets, I had maybe two or three break points, but then I started to return well and I had more and more chances. Third set, I also changed my tactic a little bit. I began hitting drop shots to make him run a little bit, maybe that had an effect on him as well.

Istomin at the moment of victory
Istomin at the moment of victory

Your peers and coaches who know you seem to admire your work ethic. Is that important to you or does it make you proud?

[smiles] Well, I mean.. I just do my job. I try to do it the best I can. It’s my life, that’s my charisma and character I would say. I try to do my best and work in the best way I can. After my car accident, I had some trouble with my body, you know, a lot of problems with my body. A lot of injuries. Every season, I had something. I try to not think about it and just work.

You have been playing Majors for a long time and have done your best at Wimbledon and US Open, reaching 4th round in both. You have had a tough season so far too. Are you perhaps looking at this Wimbledon and think that it may be a good opportunity for you to recover and find your best game again?

I have a terrible season this year…

[I interrupt briefly, smiling] I did not want to use the word “terrible” in the question…

[Laughs] No, no, it was terrible, terrible… Let’s be honest, it’s been a terrible season. I lost a lot of matches. I had crazy injuries and illnesses, losses came one after another. But ok… It happened. You are human and these things happen. You just have to work around it and it’s going to be better. I just try to keep playing, you know? This kind of match can change a season as well, so I am looking forward to playing better and better.

Does Wimbledon hold a special place for you compared to the other three Majors?

The grass, in general, is my favorite surface. And of course, Wimbledon has a nice atmosphere and I really like it here. All Slams are strong you know, and you have to be at 100%. Finally, I am at 100%.. I hope [chuckles]. In Paris, against Juan Monaco, I strained my ankle after five games [Monaco won in four sets], but in the end I finished a five-set match today so it looks good.

What is one question that you wished you never heard again in your interviews and press conferences?

[smiles] I am not really like this, questions don’t really bother me too much. If someone wants to know what happened somewhere or if I slept well, I mean, that is a question too. They [media] are doing their jobs as well so, for me, it’s ok. If you ask me hundred times, like everybody did to me before, “how’s working with your mom?” every time I like to answer and say “I’m doing really great.”

Thank you for taking the time.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

(Edit: Click here to read my next chat with Istomin three days later, after 2nd-round win.)

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter for frequent, live updates from the grounds.

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

In this piece, I will only analyze the first set of this match, more particularly, Andy Murray’s brilliant strategy on first serves, because the set (and consequently the match) was essentially decided on it. Andy Murray was never in real danger after winning the thrilling tiebreaker 11-9.

Details often distinguish great champions from other top players. Murray is an elite champion, John Isner is not. This is not to say that Isner is not a successful tennis player. His career speaks for itself. He has occasionally recorded wins against the elites and won numerous tournaments. But there is usually something that separates the likes of Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer from the likes of Isner, Tsonga, Ferrer, and Berdych. The elite champions find something where most other players are not able to, and use that something to their advantage in the way that others do not. In 2013, in the post-match press conference the quarterfinal match in which Tsonga squandered four match points and lost to Djokovic in 5 sets, he was asked why the French players never seemed to get over the hump against top players. Tsonga admitted that there was “something lacking” in them that did not in the elite players. What he said could easily be applied to what I noted above. In this particular encounter between Murray and Isner, the difference was the high-IQ strategy employed by Murray on first serves.

Until the tiebreaker, Isner never faced a break point and was closer to breaking his opponent’s serve than Murray was to breaking his. John had his first break point at 2-1 up. Before I get to that, let me bring up Murray’s strategy on his first serves. For the most part of the first set, he surprisingly served to Isner’s forehand, which is the American’s stronger side. Often able to hit an aggressive return on that side, Isner possesses the ability to put himself in a commanding position from the beginning of the point. One would think that his backhand return being weaker, most player would choose to hit the majority of their serves to that side.

Not Murray, not on that gloomy, drizzly, late Sunday afternoon.

It must have surprised Isner too because he was expecting, especially early in the set, more serves to his backhand, and thus, found himself off balance on some forehand ones. Unfortunately, I did not keep up with the numbers but I feel certain that Isner had to return Murray’s serve with his forehand more often than with his backhand. I do know however that Murray won more points off his first serves when serving wide to Isner’s forehand (meaning wide on the deuce side, to the “T” on the ad side) than to any other spot (body-forehand, body-center, body-backhand, wide backhand) in the service box.

RG web site

Remember that this chart does not include the number of points in which Isner got the return in play. I would assume that the total number of serves would reflect a pattern of serving by Murray that favors Isner’s forehand returns.

With that said, now let’s get back to Isner’s first break point at 2-1 up, ad-out on Murray’s serve…

Murray chose to hit the serve to Isner’s backhand side, with a slight curve into his body. Isner missed the return out. Murray went back to mostly serving to Isner’s forehand (not to say that none of his serves went to the backhand, but certainly not the majority). Then came the second break point opportunity for the big American at 3-2, 30-40. This is where Murray got a bit lucky, at least at first. Isner returned back, got into the rally and hit a forehand on the line that would have put him into an advantageous position to win the point, except that the line judge called it out. The chair umpire corrected the call and asked for the point to be replayed. Murray hit an ace and got out of that jam. Yes, Isner got unlucky, but guess where Murray served that ace? Yes, wide to the Isner’s backhand side. After he held, Murray continued his pattern of mostly serving to Isner’s forehand side, whether aiming close to the body, or wide to the forehand.

There were no more break points and the tiebreaker was going to decide the first-set winner, a tiebreaker in which Murray, unlike the rest of the set, would relentlessly test Isner’s backhand side on returns. At 2-0 up, Andy aimed once again Isner’s backhand side and hit an ace to the “T.” At 3-2 up, he hit another big, flat serve to the outside corner, taking advantage of Isner’s short backhand return to put the next ball away for a winner. At 4-2 up, another hard, winning serve to the “T” ensued. In other words, after serving mostly to Isner’s strong side throughout the set, Murray was determined to test his opponent’s weaker side on crunch time.

After getting aced twice by Isner, at 5-4 up, Murray chose to serve to Isner’s forehand this time, probably trying to avoid being predictable, and he paid the price. Isner got the return back and Andy eventually missed. At 5-5, he had to serve a second serve to which Isner replied with an aggressive return and the American held a set point on his serve at 6-5. This was the only point where one can truly say that the American should have won, holding the set on his racket. He couldn’t deliver the big ace, as he so often does, and Murray ended up passing Isner at the net to get back to 6-6.

Later at 6-7, down another set point but this time on his serve, Murray served into Isner’s body, but forcing him to hit a backhand. Isner missed the return and they were at 7-7. As one might expect by now, it was another hard first serve to Isner’s backhand. It resulted in another backhand return error by the big guy, and now Murray held a set point at 8-7. Isner held both of his service points and went up 9-8 earning his third set point. Andy attacked Isner’s backhand in the rally and forced him into an error. At 9-9, Andy served big to Isner’s backhand (yes… again!) and saw the American’s return go in the net. He won the next point on a baseline error by John and took the first set 7-6.

At the end of it all, Murray reversed his service pattern, almost completely, when it mattered the most. One may question the wisdom of playing to your opponent’s strength during most of the set, but there is no doubt that it was planned so by Murray and his team, to keep Isner off balance when it truly counted. It is possible to work your opponent’s weak side so much that, by the time crucial points come about, they have found a way to deal with it and gained confidence. Furthermore, they expect you to test their weaknesses.

Andy did the opposite. He served to Isner’s stronger side for almost the whole set. That did not allow John to favor one side or the other, or to begin expecting most serves to his weak side. But when faced with break points earlier in the set, and when the tiebreaker began to determine the outcome of the set, Murray systematically went back to his opponent’s weaker side that did not get worked much previously. It was the difference, that “little something,” in the set that ultimately tilted the balance in the Brit’s favor. Not giving Isner the luxury of making an educated guess throughout the set on which side he would have to return was also why Murray won 80,6% of his first-serve points (25/31).

As it turned out, that first set went a long way to decide the winner of the match. Now, Murray is in the quarterfinals, preparing for an encounter with the local favorite, and the in-form, Richard Gasquet, while Isner will not be back to Roland Garros until next year. Murray had a terrific plan on his first serves, one that he executed to perfection. I am sure it was only a segment of his larger game plan to defeat the 17th-ranked American, and there is no denying that he did come close to losing the set. Ultimately, however, those are the intangibles that somehow seem to work in the favor of the elite players, and on Suzanne Lenglen court yesterday, that one particular intangible lifted the second-ranked player in the world to the next round of a Major.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Duckhee Lee: Making Himself Heard

Qualifying in the Majors often showcases young talents, surprise names, and a ton of quality matches that go unnoticed for the most part. In the first day of qualifying at the French Open, there was one match that featured little bit of all those things, and more. South Korean player Duckhee Lee (that is how ATP website spells his name, but also known as Lee Duck-Hee or Duck Hee Lee) played on Court 18, the furthest outside court, against the ex-NCAA player from the University of Alabama (2006-10), Saketh Myneni of India (ranked 125 in the ATP and seeded 28 in the qualifying draw).

Background information for those who may not know: Lee is a 17-year-old ATP player, currently ranked 225, who has been deaf from birth! He does not hear when the crowd claps, when the referee calls the score, or when the line judges call the ball out.

Lee

Lee won the first 6-1, remaining error-free for the most part, while Myneni, serving at 50% first serves (no aces), was unable to dictate play and racked up the errors (do not trust the Roland Garros official match stats that shows one unforced error for Myneni – it also shows no net points won for either player for the duration of the match). In the second set, Myneni found his powerful serve and started holding, sinking his teeth into the match.

Mynen

The American referee was having a bad day. At one point, he even called the wrong score and tried to argue that the players had it wrong for a while before realizing his error. Then, with Lee serving at 3-4 down, the referee truly “pooped”! There is no other way to say it.

On a deuce point in that game, Lee hit a shot during a rally that seemed to catch the back of the line. Myneni, unsure, stood still for half a second trying to see the mark in order to quickly decide if he should stop the point or not. He could not find it, thus he continued play. About four shots later, the referee – whose name escapes me at this moment – stopped the point himself, and went to check the mark. Both players were confused as to why the referee came down from his chair in the middle of the point. The referee walked to the baseline on Myneni’s side and wanted to confirm with the Indian player that he stopped play (remember, this is after Myneni went on to play the point, and hit another couple of shots). Myneni quickly pointed out that he did no such thing because he was not sure. The referee probably realized his mistake at this point – that he is the reason why a legitimate point is interrupted in the middle. However, he still went ahead and showed a mark that was out (I personally don’t believe it was the right mark). He turned toward Lee and pointed with his finger the “out” sign. Lee was rightfully flabbergasted, because nobody stopped play, nor asked him to check a mark in the middle of the point. Lee usually lip-reads and has an interpreter to help him communicate. However, the way he gesticulated and argued his case through facial expressions to the referee was just as efficient as anyone else who could speak.

First he tried to tell the referee, I believe, that two shots were already hit after that questionable ball, and that it was too late to stop the play.
Lee - Myneni - Referee 1

He argued correctly that his opponent neither stopped playing, nor challenged the call, which means that the referee had no reason to interrupt play, especially few shots later.
Lee - Myneni - Referee 2

By this time, the referee was also using his gestures, trying to appease the 17-year-old. Lee would not let it go, describing one-by-one each forehand and backhand hit, well after the “contested” shot that nobody on the court actually contested.
Lee - Myneni - Referee 1a

Lee was right. Unfortunately, having shown a mark that was out, the referee could not have the point replayed even though Lee made a case for playing the point over (thus, the “2 serves” sign with the hand). Myneni did not look comfortable at all with the decision either, but he knew replaying the point was not an option at this point. Lee, somehow gathered himself, found a way to save the break point, and held serve to equalize at 4-4. It would have been a tough pill to swallow had that point caused the crucial break to come on the eighth game of the set. It was almost a relief that the set was not decided on a terrible judgement call made by the referee.

It was nonetheless remarkable to see how well Lee made his argument despite his hearing impairment and limited speech. There have been several articles written about how Lee has been able to overcome barriers to become one of the best juniors in the world, and none other than Rafael Nadal hailed him as “inspirational” back in 2013. Lee may not hear but he is making himself heard in the world of tennis through his successful rise, and as in today’s case, even during an argument with an umpire. Others who know him directly have already told me wonderful things about the youngster’s character and determination. His Roland Garros adventure came to an end after losing the third set 6-4, but I have no doubt his fan club is growing by the week.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

2016 Australian Open: M. Raonic vs A. Murray, Semifinal Preview

In a match-scheduling pattern that is unique to the Australian Open, the finalist from the upper half of the men’s draw will have rested almost a day by the time the semifinalists from the bottom half take the court, for the right to face him for the title in the year’s first Major. That is what the thirteenth-seeded Milos Raonic and the number two player in the world Andy Murray will do on Friday.

There is no doubt that on paper, Andy Murray is the favorite to win. On the court, however, the match may play out differently. Raonic was already a monster server in the 2012-13 seasons. Then, starting midway through the 2014 season, his already-solid forehands turned into deadly weapons. About a year later, he began venturing more and more to the net because he improved his volleys to the point where he could back up with ease his big forehands at the net. If there is anything that the young 2016 season has shown us so far, Raonic has established a winning game plan based on these three elements (serve, forehand, volleys), and this plan is ready to challenge the elites of the game. He already passed the test recently against the Swiss connection, with a straight-set win over Roger Federer in the Brisbane finals, and a five-set thriller against Stan Wawrinka in the fourth round here. He now has the chance to record victories over four elite members of the game, Wawrinka, Murray, Federer, and Novak Djokovic, before even February begins. Can he? I happen to believe he can. More on that later, let’s get back to the X’s and O’s of this encounter.

Yuru1

One small problem for Milos: Andy’s repertoire is well-equipped to respond to the challenges that Raonic’s weapons pose. In other words, “he got game.” He returns well, defends well, passes well, and lobs well. This is why this match is so intriguing and promising. It is a contrast of styles featuring two high-I.Q. players who will adjust their tactics and modify their patterns during the course of the match depending on the circumstances.

The pattern that Murray will seek probably centers on baseline rallies in which he can force Raonic, for the most part, into going backhand-to-backhand. It would also behoove Andy to strike the ball once in a while to Raonic’s deuce side to expose the Canadian’s backhand on the next shot. However, Raonic is highly unlikely to hit more than two, maximum three, backhands with the intention of waiting for the next shot. He will most likely strike his awkward-looking, flat, down-the-line backhand that works sometimes, but one that has a low margin for error. That particular shot’s efficiency will be one of the three keys to his victory. If he can make those for the most part, Andy will have to run those down and get it back in the court to a spot where Raonic can get in position to strike his deadly forehand for the winner.

The second key to Raonic’s victory rests on how much damage he can cause when he gets a look at Andy’s second serve which remains one of the Scot’s weaknesses. The third key to beating Andy is for Milos to maintain the high velocity on his underrated second serves. They are underrated largely because his first serve is so impressive (currently one of the three best in men’s tennis with Isner and Karlovic) that his second-serve gets overlooked. Yet, it is a wonderful weapon to set up the second shot, which usually ends up being a high bouncing ball in the middle area of the court, allowing Milos once again to unleash his forehand. The Canadian must take risks on his second serves, even if it means he may double fault a couple of more times than he usually does. If he plays it safe, he will get back a deep return from Andy and will have to engage in a baseline rally. He is better off losing a few points on double faults and playing his “A” game, than sparing the double faults but being forced to get involved in numerous baseline rallies.

Andy, for his part, will rely on his footwork, his ability to hit spots on the court (the desired spot would mostly be his opponent’s backhand), and his counter-punching abilities when Milos begins his assault during rallies. He will absolutely need to put in a large amount of first serves, in order to avoid giving Milos looks on second-serve returns. One factor in Andy favor is that he has been here before, and by that I mean, in the elite stages of a Major. A persona grata in the last weekends of Majors since 2010, he will probably approach this match as another day at the office, and will already have mastered the pre-match routine for the 24 hours leading to the match. Milos has only been to the semifinals of a Major once, Wimbledon 2014. He has however been to the second week of Majors several times. Add to that his maturity level as a competitor and as an individual, I am not exactly sure how much edge Murray has over him in this category, as they step on the court Friday.

Raonic, in my opinion, is poised to take the next step, much to the dismay of those who have mocked him three weeks ago when he said that he was ready to win Majors. The fact that he is 3-3 against Murray, thus playing the one member of the sport’s elite group against whom he has the best chance to win, should add to his motivation. I have championed Milos since the tournament began, and I am sticking with him now. I am going with the upset win over Murray in 4 sets, for an opportunity to face the best player in the world on Sunday for the title.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

IMG_7174_Raonic_Murray_win2012 Barcelona Open – Raonic, seconds after he records his first victory over Murray

Navigation