Category: ATP

Men’s Quarterfinals Preview: Potential for a Short Day (*)

The last time all four men’s quarterfinals finished in straight sets was in 1998. Even then, Goran Ivanisevic needed three tight tiebreakers (two extended beyond 7 points) to keep the crafty, left-handed, serve-and-volley specialist Jan Siemerink from winning a set. Since then, men have come twice within one set of having all quarterfinals end in straight sets. First one was in 2000 when the unorthodox Jan-Michael Gambill won a tiebreaker from the legendary Pete Sampras, and the second happened when Lleyton Hewitt also managed to steal a tiebreaker from another legend by the name of Roger Federer.

I am sure many would disagree (is that not the fun part of playing the crystal ball game?), but tomorrow’s quarterfinals on the men’s side could be another short day at the office, similar to those in 2000 and 2004, and potentially, to the one in 1998.

On top of the draw, Novak Djokovic takes on Marin Cilic. Last year’s five-set win by Djokovic over Cilic still echoes in a number of heads because as soon as the Serb finally defeated Kevin Anderson in the fifth set played on Tuesday morning, several people mentioned that match from last year and begged the question of whether Novak could sustain another five-set marathon or not. That should never come into question in this year’s case. Djokovic is an established champion, more dominating than last summer, and he is on top of his game. Cilic, for his part, seems to play catch-up (very slowly at that) since coming back down from the clouds where he was residing during the second week of US Open 2014, partially due to a nagging shoulder injury that kept him out of competition. While it is true that he is finally getting back to the form that elevated him inside the top 10, he will need generous help from Djokovic in order to break his serve, or else, he will have to fancy his chances in tiebreakers. Cilic’s game depends a lot on aggressive returns that allow him to control the point and to push his opponents around. Djokovic’s counterpunching skills, best in that category with Rafael Nadal in the 21st century, coupled with his ever-improving serve, should effectively keep Cilic at bay. When Cilic is not returning, he will need a lot of first serves, not necessarily to garner direct points, but to set up the next shot in order to execute his game plan. Cilic’s success hinges on too many things falling into the right places. The chances of a straight-set, lop-sided victory by Djokovic are more likely than a five-set match.

Djokovic

Second quarterfinal of the day will pit Stan Wawrinka against Richard Gasquet. Although it promises some spectacular points scattered here and there, Gasquet will only win a set – thus have a shot at winning – if Stan were to start slow enough to fall behind in the first set, or to simply check out of the match mentally (remember the match vs. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in the 2014 Roland Garros?). Gasquet and Wawrinka played twice, one too long ago (2006) and the other on clay in 2013. Wednesday’s match has different dynamics. Gasquet will now deal with a two-time Major champion, on top of his game, and against whom, the Frenchman does not seem to possess any weapons to tilt the match in his favor. Gasquet can neither overpower Wawrinka nor win through consistency. Federer learned very fast (gladly for him, he was on the brink of going down 2-0 in sets) in last year’s quarterfinals that you cannot simply rally with Wawrinka from the baseline, who will slowly catch fire, harass you with rock-solid shots, and push you around far behind the baseline. As is the case in many matches that he won against his countryman, Federer knew to switch from one tactic to another, dig deep into his arsenal of shots, and produce a solution that turned the match around. As talented as he is, Gasquet is not Federer, and furthermore, Wawrinka’s level hovers above the one from the summer of 2014. The Swiss has yet to lose a set so far in this tournament, and it could remain that way until Friday.

He would never say it out loud, but if you whispered to Andy Murray’s ear ten days ago that Vasek Pospisil would stand across the net from him in the quarterfinals of a Major, let alone Wimbledon, Andy would have given you his conventional half-smile, with his fingers rubbing the side of the eyebrows, before wondering if you became delusional. Yet, here we are in the quarterfinals, and the Canadian being in the final eight is the biggest surprise of the second week. That is partially why he is unlikely to push Murray, who is in another league from his previous four opponents, beyond a straight-set victory. The other half is the difference in the amount of labor done by the two players on the courts of SW19. In his four matches so far, Murray has spent 8 hours 50 minutes on the court. Pospisil has spent 11 hours 32 minutes with only one match going less than five sets (Fabio Fognini in four). Pospisil did surprise me – I should rather admit that he “stunned” me – when he came back from 0-2 in sets to pull a five-set win against Victor Troicki on Monday. He looked tired at the end of his five-set match against James Ward the round before, and I did not believe that his body, that has proven to be fragile at times in the past, could sustain another grueling five-set match once he was led 2-0 in sets. Having said “all that,” the big stage in a Major (no, doubles titles do not negate that lack of experience in singles) on the most legendary court in the history of the game, against a home-town legend that has the crowd’s support, will prove too much for the young Canadian (assuming 25-year-olds are nowadays perceived as “young” on the ATP Tour?). I see maybe one close set taking place, but nothing more on the horizon for Pospisil.

Roger Federer takes on another French player in a Major for the umpteenth time in his career. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only Frenchman to whom he has lost in Majors is Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Wimbledon 2011 and Roland Garros 2013). On top of that, Gilou does not have the necessary ingredients to cook up a plan on grass that can take the Swiss out of his comfort zone. Anyone who has followed my articles or has discussed with me the contrast between overachievers and underachievers on the ATP Tour will know that I mention Simon as one of the emblematic examples of overachievers who get the maximum out of their limited talent due to their high on-court I.Q. as well as their ability to create solutions where none seem to exist. But even Simon will have a tough time stopping the Federer Express steaming along so far this year. I have no doubt that the Frenchman has already concocted a plan for the match, but I am afraid that what he is good differs from what he needs to do to beat Federer. His mid-to-hard-paced baseline shots play into Federer’s hands because they bounce to about thigh or hip level (Federer’s favorite level to strike the ball) and come with enough pace so that the Swiss can punch and accelerate, yet not fast enough to where he will feel rushed. Once Federer takes the lead, watch out, it could be a quick one.

Edberg Federer Wimbledon 2015 b

So can it be another 2000, 2004, or even 1998? For the spectators’ sake, I hope not. Personally I also see the beauty in a lop-sided match when one player delights the fans with regal shot-making skills. However, four in a row on a day that historically produces at least one electric moment, if not more, would undoubtedly disappoint even the most avid tennis fans. Let’s hope that I jinxed that possibility with this article. Instead of a quarterfinal day like in 1998, let’s hope for a one quality match after another in which one player excels, and the other goes above and beyond himself to force his opponent to sustain that level while gradually joining him on that plateau of excellence.

(*) “Why the asterisk?” you may ask. Any of my friends with whom I spend any amount of substantial time discussing sports can tell you that I am a horrible prognosticator and that I am notorious for “drying up” some competitors’ chances of winning by simply picking them. Hence, this article is for discussion purposes, I would strongly advise you against taking it into consideration if you intend to bet. Now you know why…

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates throughout Wimbledon.

Rafa Fading Away? Think Again!

If you have observed the media write-ups and social media ramblings, you may have sensed the underlying theme behind all the flashy headlines attempting to grab your attention on Dustin Brown’s victory over Rafael Nadal. For example, I give ten points to Sun Sport for creativity, for sticking the picture of Brown screaming, and his hair flying everywhere while the headline on top read “Rasta la vista, Rafa.”

Copyright: thesun.co.uk
Copyright: thesun.co.uk

Having said that, the larger question invading most write-ups and analyses center on Rafa, or more precisely, on the question of whether or not he will ever regain the form that made him an elite-level player over the last decade. The fact that this question pops up now deserves its own perspective.

Rafa lost to Novak Djokovic one month ago, on a court that he views as his temple. Let me modify that statement: he got dominated by the Serb in three straight sets, 7-5 6-3 6-1, eroding away as the match progressed. The invincible player was finally taken down from his throne, on the red dirt that he cherishes. Yet, only a few such as this article announced the nadir for Rafa, the way they announced it for Pete Sampras in 2001 or Roger Federer in 2013. Yes, it is true that the challenge imposed on Djokovic to show that he was capable of winning Roland Garros and defeating Nadal in Paris weighed heavier than any other topic. That being said, Rafa losing his iron hold on his favorite tournament to his biggest rival should have raised more uncertainty about his future than it did.

Now we find out that those concerns were patiently waiting in a for his possible defeat at Wimbledon. The fact that he lost to yet another outside-the-top-100 player early in the tournament only added fuel to the fire. Suddenly, speculations multiplied over the last 24 hours on whether or not he will ever be a top player again, or a top-5 player, or even if this may be his last year on the ATP Tour. Let’s be clear: the “less-than-a-day-old-yet-explosive” trend of declaring Rafa’s rapid downfall originate not in his loss to “Dreddy” Brown yesterday, but in the lingering effects of the one to Djokovic in Paris. Since 2010, Rafa has not advanced to the second week in Wimbledon and has suffered defeats to opponents outside the top 100 (Lukas Rosol, Nick Kyrgios, Steve Darcis) before the one against Brown yesterday. In contrast, Rafa losing to anyone on the Philippe Chatrier court would signify a career-changing moment for Rafa and that someone (ask Robin Soderling) and shatter the economy (ok, I exaggerate). The loss to Brown is the final push that opened wide the heavy door, while Djokovic was the one who removed its rusty hinges, unlocked it and left it ajar. Now the trend of calling for the gloom and doom of Rafa’s career is enjoying free entrance into the domain of drama. And the traffic to that entrance is flowing freely!

100_5835Rafa at his best: practicing hard…

Great champions have always made it their business to prove the pundits wrong, especially if the former believe that the latter is ready to put them in the coffin and send them to the graveyard (yes! I am using metaphors). Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Serena Williams have all done it, as well as Stan Wawrinka (remember how long he was treated a one-tournament wonder after 2014 Australian Open?), Kim Clijsters and Jana Novotna, to a smaller scale. You can bet that Rafa will do everything he can, in order to prove that the latest surge in the call for the end of his career reflects bad judgment. If anything at all, the Big 4 have repeatedly shown that they can reach for higher grounds when most pundits believe the opposite.

In the middle of this “end-of-Rafa” mania, I dare to remind everyone that if Roland Garros started tomorrow, barring Djokovic, Nadal would be the favorite to win. I use “dare” because I did just that earlier on Tweeter and I got anything from “Nadal’s bubble has burst” to “err… no” from one gentleman and an overall disagreement (or reserved outlook) from a couple of others. I also got strange looks from two colleagues with whom I dared to discuss it (a third agreed with me, but he was Spanish, does that count?). The reasons given were how bad he has done in other tournaments on clay, how his forehand has regressed, and how the coach-player relationship with uncle Toni has run its course. While I was given the examples of Rafa’s losses on clay, how bad Djokovic dominated him in Paris, and his woes on other surfaces, when it came down to it, nobody could say “[fill in the name] would be the favorite against Rafa in a Roland Garros match.” While I agree that Wawrinka, Murray and a couple of others can be more competitive against Rafa today in Paris, I would question anyone’s objectivity who would call them “favorite” in that setting.

Nadal will get back to work, train hard, and find a way to remain longer among the elite players. On a larger scale, I believe that the call for Rafa’s end as an elite player is chaotically premature. Unless he walks away from the game (which is also included in the speculations circulating around, obviously some have somehow built an information streamline into the Rafa camp), I would warn anyone who banks on him to fade away. Can he get back to number 1? Unless Djokovic, Federer, and Murray have historical collapses in form, that seems unlikely in the near future. Can he get back into the top 5? Of course. Can he win another Major? Absolutely. The most likely place would once again be in Paris. There is almost a year before next year’s French Open (and shamefully, I am not even discussing the next U.S. Open and the Australian Open).

To claim that Rafa will somehow continue to compete and practice, yet not find his form during that period, or at least fail to get back to a level nearing his top form, seems hasty. Injuries can always halt improvement and end careers, and that remains a possibility with the Spaniard. However, the chances of Rafa getting back to elite level remain a higher possibility if he is not hampered by injuries. One loss (again, namely the one to Djokovic) does not take you from elite level to an ordinary player. If that was the case, top players would not still be on top after those types of losses (remember Serena Williams losing to Virginie Razzano in Roland Garros 2012? Sampras and Federer losing to Bastl in 2001 and Stakhovsky in 2013 respectively, both in Wimbledon?). Rafa losing to Brown? Been there done that in London before, and that never stopped him from remaining at the top. Losing to Djokovic at the French does not mean Rafa can no longer play on clay, or no longer win Roland Garros. The announcements and declarations ending Nadal’s career as a tennis player at the top level are not only ill-advised, but they are also hasty and impulsive. I expect cooler heads to prevail overtime.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates throughout Wimbledon.

Sitting Across MT-Desk: Diego Schwartzman

Interview done on May 27, 2015, at Roland Garros, following Diego’s loss to Gaël Monfils in the second round of the French Open. Score: 4-6 6-4 4-6 6-2 6-3

This was a one-on-one interview I did with Diego Schwartzman at the French Open, initially for Tenis Dunyasi magazine, the largest monthly tennis publication in Turkey. This is the English version of the interview (which was also its original version). One month earlier, Diego reached the semifinals in the Istanbul Open, his highest achievement at the professional level for the 22-year-old Argentine. He earned a ranking of 57 on the Monday (May 4, 2015) following the Istanbul event, and to this day, it remains his highest ranking. Currently, he stands at number 65.

Diego gracefully accepted to do a one-on-one interview despite having lost a heartbreaker and I cannot stress enough how delightful and modest he is as a person. I have already had the chance to observe him live at the Istanbul Open earlier in the summer. He handled his progress to the semifinal round, and his loss to the eventual winner Roger Federer, with class and sincerity. As if his character needed a confirmation, as I was waiting for him to come, few South American journalists, especially one from Argentina, could not praise him enough to me, telling me what a “nice guy” Schwartzman was and that I would enjoy my interview with him. They were completely right. When I told Diego about this right before we began chatting and mentioned his high reputation among the South American media, he extended a genuine smile and nodded his head with modesty.

About today’s match… In the 4th set Gaël started getting more aggressive compared to the first three sets and it worked for him. Then, in the beginning of the fifth set, you also started well and leveled back the match. He began to pump the crowd up, and you joined in as well, began showing your fist and celebrating the points won with animated passion. However, do you think it would it would have been better to stay calm against someone like Monfils at that point of the match and not join the “pump-fist” parade, because it only motivated the crowd to get even more behind Gaël, further energizing him?

Diego:
I understand what you say. But I was also playing the first three sets aggressive, focused, solid, motivated. I remember in the fourth set, it was 2-2, I had two break points to go up 3-2, and he hit two aces in the break points. Then he felt well, and he broke me immediately after. He started to play with the groove. It’s good for him, not so good for me. In the fifth set, I played well again and had chances in the first games, but again he played well, broke my serve, and served amazing after that. I am not so sure if the motivation from the body language was really the big factor. He served very well in the fifth set.

Few weeks ago, you did very well in the Istanbul Open, reaching the semi-final round of an ATP event, for the first time in your career. You had one year with great success in the past, then last year you had an excellent year in the Challenger circuit. Now, you reach higher in ATP events and to Monfils in 5 sets in the 2nd round of a Major. Now that you are reaching for the next level in the pro circuit, do you sense that Istanbul Open was a big step, a turning point for you, and your confidence?

Diego:
Yes! Istanbul was amazing for everything. I played very well against good players like Jurgen Melzer, Santiago Giraldo.. I played very well in all the matches there
[Schwartzman lost to the eventual winner Roger Federer 6-4 in the third set, in the semifinals]. Then I go to Rome and also brought that good feeling there. Then, I came here and played well again the first round. And now I just played a 5-set match against Monfils. I feel really well. I need to be focused on my tennis, training, work with my team the same way. I need to be a “regular” during the whole year and improve my tennis continuously. I need to go step by step.

DiegoSchwartzman in his second round win over Giraldo at the Istanbul Open

You just had an injury.
Diego: Yes in Rome.
But it was not a major injury.
Diego: No, it was an extension, 2 mm here (points to the inside of his upper leg), I can’t play in Nice so I pulled out. I came directly here, I felt well all the time. It’s ok.
Have you ever had big injuries in the past?
Diego: No, never, that was actually my first injury.

Question about your tennis game… What is your next goal now? I am asking this in the context of your game. You hit every shot in the book, you hit spin and slice, you hit drop shots and angles, you come to the net, you hit kick or slice serves, as well as a hard first one. So what next would you like to technically improve in your game?

Diego: I need to improve my second serve. My first serve is good I think. Then I need to improve all in my tennis, physically and mentally. My I need to improve my forehand, backhand, and all the other things, because now the players are so good. I don’t have many chances in the match so I need to improve for the few chances that come, I need to be fully focused at that moment and really want to seize that chance.

When you practice in the off-season, do you focus on one particular thing to improve or do you focus on everything?

Diego: No, no, many things many things. The serve, the forehand, you can improve a lot in many things.

You have a big family, two brothers and one sister. Does your family show interest in tennis, or do they love tennis through you? Do they really know the game?

Diego: Yes they show interest. They know about me, and therefore now, they know even more about tennis.

So you are the only one in your family to play competitive tennis?

Diego: Yes, my father and mother play tennis but only amateur tennis in the club on weekends, not professional like me. They are very good models for parents. They support me in every way.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Stan Wawrinka’s Unstoppable 1-2 Punch

The effectiveness of the first shot behind the first serve is an underrated statistic. First of all, it is extremely hard to keep track of it despite how easy it is to recognize when it occurs. There are many intangibles, not in the execution of the 1-2 punch itself, but on the consideration of which ones belong to the statistics’ count. Do you consider every single shot that is hit after the opponent returns the ball? Do you consider every winner on that shot when, in some of those points, it was really the serve that got the job done and earned a weak return that sat high inside the service line? What about when you hit a big serve and follow it up with even a bigger shot, yet you still end up hitting one or two more shots to finish the point although you clearly gained the advantage thanks to the serve and the next shot (example: Wawrinka serving, 4-5 in the second set, 0-15)? Do you add that to the statistic? Finally, do you give the same consideration to the shot hit behind a great second serve? These are all subjective approaches, and there are many coaches who keep a close eye on this stat depending on their expectations from their player. It is also why you rarely see the main media offer statistics on this shot.

Wawrinka is a unique case in this category due to his approach to the follow-up shot behind the serve. When he is focused and his game is ticking with the precision of a Swiss clock, he smacks the second shot of the rally following his first serve, regardless of his position in the court. If you want to see a good example of what I mean – and I am sure replays of the match will pop-up on various TV channels over the next 48 hours – watch the 40-30 point at 6-3 3-2. You will see Stan serve, and Tsonga make an above-average return that bounces close to the baseline and pushes Stan back. Yet, Stan will still go for the big forehand winner to the deuce corner (while he is backing up, mind you?), and hit the clean winner somehow. Now, this example was an extreme one, although similar points took place a number of times, both against Tsonga in the semis and Federer in the quarters. The more usual case is when the return falls short due to a powerful serve and Wawrinka simply nails the forehand to the open court or behind the opponent who is recovering from the return corner. Two prime examples are the first and the last points of the 6-3 2-1 game.

Of course, for this simple and efficient game plan to work you need a high first-serve percentage and powerful ground strokes, both of which Stan possesses in his arsenal. On a secondary level, it also helps to avoid double faults. Wawrinka did not commit a double fault until the later stages of the second set (he committed none against his third-round opponent Steve Johnson and against Federer in the quarterfinal). In fact, when Tsonga broke Wawrinka’s serve in the eighth game of the second set, that was the first time the Swiss got broken since his match against Gilles Simon, in the round of 16s. Even as Tsonga won the second set, coming up with a solution to Stan’s 1-2 punch still remained a priority. It was Wawrinka who decided to render his 1-2 punch less of a factor in the second set, by hitting only 31% of his first serves in, after 69% in the first set. In other words, one of the two key components (see the first sentence of this paragraph) of an effective 1-2 punch was missing.

In the crucial third set, Tsonga found his top-class serve that helped him win so many matches in big stages. It was not until his fourth serving game that he lost a point on a first serve. The seventh game constituted a minor turning point for Wawrinka. His serve finally came back and carried him through that game precisely when Tsonga was starting to receive a large amount of amour from the French crowd and was giving some of his own right back at them by holding his fists up. Stan knew the importance of that game and pulled two of his most animated “Come on!” yells, the first one coming after an ace served wide to the deuce side at 30-30. The 4-4 game was another crucial one. Stan’s first serve deserted him through the long game in which Tsonga first made a silly return cross-court forehand winner attempt from far outside the court at 0-30, and then, could not capitalize on two break points later in the game. The tiebreaker was inevitable.

In the tiebreaker, Stan stood tall in the string of grinding points from 1-1 to 4-3, and closed the set out by winning the next three points. When he walked to the bench two sets to one down, Tsonga probably understood how Wawrinka felt at the end of the second set and was asking himself “How did I let this set get away?” After all, the Frenchman served very well throughout the set while the Swiss remained below 50%, and had six break points (of which he converted none) while his opponent did not even garner one.

I reckon, there were many tennis fans who predicted during the third set that, considering the scorching heat in Philippe Chatrier court, the loser of that set would perhaps lose his energy, lower his level of tennis, or even fold in the fourth one. Tsonga did not exactly fold, but slowly faded away after he squandered additional break points away at 1-2 down that would have helped him get back on serve. Wawrinka held his serve for the rest of the set and triumphed, after 3 hours and 46 minutes, by the score of 6/3 6/7 7/6 6/4

At the end of the day, the main story of the match was Wawrinka’s ability to serve-and-finish (and no, that does not equate serve-and-volley) in two shots, and Tsonga’s frustrated attempts at countering that crippling disadvantage in order to find some type of equilibrium. Stan was throwing something at Jo and asking him to deal with it. Jo had two options: either deal with it, or find something else to throw back at Stan and balance the “headache” count. He could do neither. The Swiss now finds himself in his second Major final, first Roland Garros one. A big challenge awaits him, but he has shown enough in the past that he is not to be discarded when it comes to big stages in the Majors. Stan’s unique 1-2 punch helped him build his singular résumé that seems to shine during the weeks of Majors and glimmer for a large majority of the other weeks in the ATP calendar.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates from Roland Garros

Tactical Analysis: Pablo Cuevas vs. Dominic Thiem, 2nd round Roland Garros 2015

One of the best matches of the early rounds in the 2015 edition of Roland Garros took place on Court 3 between the veteran and the 21st seed Pablo Cuevas and the much-younger, yet fast rising, Dominic Thiem from Austria. Both players, enjoying the high points in their career in the recent months, showcased why they are among the best clay-court players in the world. Endurance, topspin, footwork, and patterns preceded big serves and flat winners. As a bonus, spectators got to enjoy two of the most stylish one-handed backhands in the game. More importantly, two highly intelligent players continued to modify their game plans to outwit the other, taking the spectators through a crescendo in each of the four sets, thus the score 7-6 7-5 6-7 7-5.

In this article, I will mostly focus on the first set, only because going through the whole match would take too long to write. But no worries! There was plenty happening in the first set alone. Furthermore, the first set largely determined the outcome of the matches for reasons to be explained later.

When the match started, it quickly became obvious that both players planned to begin the match with their respective plan A’s. On the one hand, Cuevas would stay back, keep the ball deep, move Thiem around with his forehand, and get aggressive only if the opportunity presented itself. On the other hand, Thiem would dictate the rallies with his big forehand, go for winners if the ball came short, and avoid high and loopy rallies. Although each player held to equalize at 2-2, it was evident that Cuevas was winning the long rallies, and Thiem was feeling more and more pressure to finish the point, or else. Cuevas was beginning to impose his game, keeping Thiem on the run just enough to let his forehand direct the traffic of the rally’s pattern.

Cuevas, exactly in the position he prefers in rallies..
Cuevas, exactly in the position he prefers in rallies..

If you are in Thiem’s position at that stage, the last thing you want is your first serve to take a vacation. You need it for a few free points, and to set the tone for the next shot in the rally. Yet, it is exactly what happened to Thiem at 2-2. He only made one first serve that game, and was forced into rallies. In fact, Thiem knew going into that game that it was just a matter of time before Cuevas breaks him unless he can keep coming up with big serves and shots. And if you can’t hit big serves, it puts that much more pressure on your groundstrokes. In Thiem’s case, it led to errors that looked like unforced errors, but are in fact errors that resulted from the Austrian player putting too much pressure on himself due to his opponent flawlessly dictating every extended baseline rally up to that point (if only there were a way to keep stats on such categories). Here are the first two points of the 2-2 game:

And just like that, it’s 0-30. Thiem does recover to 30-30 thanks to aggressive play, but then tries to go for too much too soon again:

On that break point, Thiem attacks again, this time on a ball that allows him to step inside the baseline. Moving all the way to the backhand doubles’ alley, he unleashes a forehand winner (who does not do that nowadays anyway?):

Having gotten back to deuce, now Thiem finds himself stuck exactly in the kind of point that he would like to avoid. Cuevas pushes him around the baseline, never giving him a chance to get a firm grip on the rally and get on the offensive.

This is precisely why Thiem has been unloading on those early shots in the rally that led to errors. If he does not go for them, this type of point happens over and over again. In the ensuing break point (2nd one of the game), Thiem once again steps in to hit a big “jump” backhand but does not quite pull the trigger. So what happens? Cuevas punishes Thiem’s half-way-passive-aggressive backhand by sticking a winner right back to the open corner:

Now, you would think that at this point, Cuevas has taken charge in the match. He would have, except that in the next game, he pulls out of his “error” bag one of his 3 double faults in the match, and follows it up with a forehand drop volley in the net that he would make nine out of ten times. It is an uncharacteristically generous game by the otherwise error-free Cuevas that brought Thiem back to life.

Thiem did indeed come alive. For example, until then, Cuevas was exclusively serving to his backhand to start the rally, including a high-kick serve to the ad side, making the Austrian hit above the shoulder and from the outside of the court. But now, all of a sudden, Thiem begins to step in and catch the ball on the rise, immediately putting Cuevas on the defensive. Check out his placement on the backhand returns during the 4-3 game:

Thiem 4

Thiem 5

He even got to run around the backhand to hit some direct forehand winners (this one at 4-3 up, and 40-30 down on Cuevas’ serve):

Thiem Winner return 40-30 cuevas 4-3 Th

This led to Cuevas taking bigger cuts on his first serves, or using a strong outside kick as the first serve, in order not to allow Thiem to attack. This resulted in Thiem having to slice some of the backhand returns because he either had to stretch too far and/or too high to hit topspin, as is the case in this return below in the 6-5 game:

Thiem 6

In other words, Cuevas adjusted and responded to Thiem’s increasingly intimidating game by tweaking his serve, just enough to hold his serve and carry the set to a tiebreaker. Thiem still had the momentum going into the tiebreaker, and definitely looked like he was on his way to a 1-0 lead in sets, when he went up 5-1 in the tiebreaker. Check out how Thiem punishes Cuevas for favoring his forehand too much and leaving too much court open on the deuce side at the 2-1 point in the tiebreaker:

Thiem gets a commanding 5-1 lead in the tiebreaker. Then, for one reason or another, he gets passive for the first time in the tiebreaker and lets up during the rally. Did he think that Cuevas lost hope at 1-5 and would hand the next two points to him? In any case, here is what happens that point:

Cuevas also wins the next point to get back to 3-5. Suddenly, it’s a different dynamic. Thiem feels the pressure, leading to this gag on the 5-3 point:

It is now 5-4 and what looked like a blow-out tiebreaker for Thiem has turned into a tight, tedious affair. It soon turns into a nightmare for him when this happens when he has set point on his racket at 6-5:

Yep! Thiem served his only double fault in the set (total of 3 in the match) on set point! The clip showed you Pablo’s subdued relief as if he were saying to himself “Wait! I saved a set point without ever having to hit a ball?”

At 6-6, the players change sides. Thiem, despite the disappointment, plays a solid, aggressive point, only to be passed by Cuevas. Pay particular attention to Thiem’s body language after the point before you read on:

From the end of that point until the beginning of the next, Thiem kept looking at his corner, talking and yelling to himself, seethed with anger over how he now finds himself a set point down after leading 5-1 in the tiebreaker and double-faulting on set point. Yet, here is when youthful enthusiasm can help you. You can mumble and whine for the full 20-to-30 seconds between two points, and still come up with the goods once the ball is in play. Watch how Thiem, still talking to himself few seconds before the point begins (continuous since the end of the last point above), plays his best point of the tiebreaker:

But it is not enough as Cuevas wins the next point to earn another set point at 8-7. This time, the veteran capitalizes on it when Thiem cracks on the very shot, the forehand from the backhand side of the middle, that has worked for him so well for the most part of the first set:

First set goes to Cuevas. How important was that? It was devastating enough for Thiem to temporarily lose focus and go down 0-3 in the second set. It forced him to play catch up the rest of the second set and the match. He did eventually get the break back, but still lost the second set 7-5. Thiem’s mental maturity is far ahead of his biological one. Most young players would have fallen apart after losing two sets like these against a seasoned, seeded player in a Major tournament. However, Thiem found a way to extend the match to a fourth set, playing a much smarter tiebreak in the third set (did go up early again, this time not letting up). Cuevas, unfazed by the length of the match, or the challenge from the talented Austrian, kept his cool and came up with the goods (which, in his case, means that he turned error free) in the latter stages of the fourth set to avoid a fifth one.

The match lasted 3 hours and 51 minutes. If the analysis above showed anything, Thiem and Cuevas do not just have plenty in the tank to survive long duels on clay, but also the I.Q. power to make them entertaining. The “chess” part of the first set was a fascinating “intangible spectacle” while the tangible ones such as stroke production and execution, tremendous agility and speed, and creative baseline tennis while maintaining consistency added the icing on the cake.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates from Roland Garros

ATP Istanbul Open Wrap-Up

Part 1: Cuevas and Federer engage in a cerebral duel in the final

While the level of play never came close to the kind of spectacular tennis one would expect from the number 2 player in the world and one of the better clay-court specialists in the top 30, the spectators at the Garanti Koza Arena and others watching on TV witnessed a fantastic chess battle between the two players. At the end of the day Roger Federer prevailed with a 6-3 7-6 win, and lifted the winner’s trophy at the inaugural TEB BNP Paribas Istanbul Open.

Cuevas came out with a simple and expected plan. He would stay solid from the baseline, work Federer’s backhand, and win through consistency. However, Federer sent a firm message from the very first game that he was not going to submit to Cuevas’ plan A. Whenever Cuevas tried to engage in backhand cross-court rallies that have worked so well for him in his previous matches, including his upset of Grigor Dimitrov in the semi-final, Federer would either run around and accelerate his forehand, or switch the pattern with a down-the-line backhand or a drop shot. In his post-match press conference, Federer did say that hitting his backhand down-the-line was not part of his main game plan because he saw that “Grigor did it and it didn’t work for him.” Nevertheless, the fact that he avoided more than one or two cross-court backhand rallies (something from which he usually does not shy away), whether intentional or unintentional on his part, did negate a pattern that would have favored the Uruguayan player. Let’s remember that Cuevas hits a heavy topspin backhand and that pattern would have forced Federer into hitting several backhands in a row above the shoulder level. Federer also stepped inside the baseline often, rushing Cuevas into mistakes. Add to the mix a few surprise serve-and-volley attempts and the Swiss was already up a break at 3-0, before Cuevas could gain any footing in the set.

Seeing that his Plan A is getting him nowhere, Cuevas began to go for more on his forehands, step inside the baseline, and even attack the net when Federer’s shots landed short. The adjustment did work enough to level the play in the set, except that he was already down a break. He then faced a bigger issue: Federer was having his best serve day of the tournament and collecting two or three points per game just on his serves. Federer said after that he felt his serve was the one thing that worked well for him throughout the week, but added that he served best against Cuevas.

Second set picked up where the first ended. Cuevas continued to depend on his plan B, while Federer got more and more aggressive to push his opponent back and gain the upper hand once again. Both players won their serves until Federer drew first blood at 3-3 to break Cuevas’ serve. Most people thought the match was over when Federer jogged to his seat straight from having hit his volley winner and broken Pablo’s serve (see picture below).

JHFM~??uap©cq
Federer jogs to the bench after hitting the winning the volley to go up 4-3

Cuevas would not fold. At the 4-3 and 30-30, Cuevas won two points that probably corresponded closely to his original game plan. They were both fairly long rallies in which Federer looked to close the rally with risky shots to the corners, Cuevas running them down and making Federer hit the extra shot, and the Swiss finally making the mistake due to impatience. It was now 4-4 and back to being on serve. However, Cuevas stuck to playing aggressive for two reasons: first, it got him to level the play when he was initially being pushed around, and second, he was feeling some pain in his arm, enough to have it massaged earlier and to motivate him to keep the points shorter.

From 4-4 on, it was anybody’s set. Once the players arrived to the tiebreak, everyone thought the quality of tennis would reach a new plateau. It never happened. In fact, both players probably chalked that tiebreaker down in their notebooks as one to forget, quickly! From 4-3 to Cuevas in the tiebreaker to the end of it, it was mistakes galore for both players. At 4-4, Cuevas had an easy put away the service line, and shanked the forehand almost into the stands. At 6-4 and two match points, Federer made two direct unforced errors, and then again one at 7-6, in the third match point.

Cuevas had three set points himself, one of which was another forehand that he would have probably made in his sleep. In fact, the only spectacular point of the tiebreaker came on a backhand return winner that Federer hit on a set point for Cuevas, but one that he later called “lucky, because the ball bounced off the line.” Federer admitted that he reflexed the racket into the ball due to the awkward bounce and it somehow turned into a winner when it could have easily gone “to the stands.”

METADATA-START
“Lucky shot” – on the return winner on set point

At 11-11, Federer served and volleyed, hitting the most terrific “intentional” shot of the tiebreaker: a diving low backhand volley on Cuevas’ low return that landed deep in the opposite corner of the court, completely catching Cuevas off guard. He was moving forward, thinking Federer would either miss the volley or barely get it over the net. Instead he found himself sprinting backward and to the backhand corner to retrieve the ball. He did, and Federer won the point on the next, much easier shot. Federer finally closed the curtain on the next point on a Cuevas error. You could see the exhilaration on Roger’s face when he won the match point. He came to Istanbul with the goal of getting some miles on clay under his shoes, and he accomplished his goal while earning his 85th career singles title.

Part 2: Parting shots

Unfortunately the parting shot of the tournament for the spectators live at the tournament was the trophy presentation. Why unfortunately? Because a portable well was put up for the presentation, in front of which the ceremony took place, and in the back of which half of the stadium who paid the same amount of money for corresponding tickets as the other half of the stadium, were denied the trophy presentation. How did it look to those who happened to be on the “wrong” side? See the view below:

METADATA-START
The view from behind the “portable wall of denial”

Next time, please find another way to show the sponsors’ names on TV. Many other tournaments have found ways to have the trophy presentation, showcase the sponsors names, and yet not put up a “wall of denial” basically disrespecting half of the spectators who came to the stadium, not knowing that they paid for the match only while others earned the right to see the match and the trophy presentation for the same price.

One small negative note goes to the spectators who pass as “tennis fans” but who are really no more than “I-want-to-simply-earn-the-right-to-say-I-saw-Federer” fans. There is something wrong when there is a tennis fan who would be happy to buy a ticket to watch every match, yet he/she can’t, because some person bought that ticket, came and watched a set and a half of Federer (probably because he couldn’t care less about the game of tennis that he half understands) and left, leaving the seat open. There is also something wrong when the organizers succeed in bringing an elite player, a star player, and a few great clay-court players, and yet Federer plays to an almost-filled stadium, while Dimitrov, half an hour later, plays to only half full arena (in the case of semifinals), or no more than 2000 people (in the case of quarterfinals). Next time, dear Turkish “tennis fans”, please treat the tournament as tennis fans and not a showcase event where one earns the title “cool” if he/she attends it.

Major kudos to Federer, a true professional who fulfilled his role as the main actor of the tournament, not only by reaching the finals and putting his name on the winners’ list for the future to come (I don’t even want to think what the attendance would have been if he got upset in the semis and the final match featured Cuevas vs. Schwartzman), but also by engaging in the scheduled activities with enthusiasm, running the kids’ clinic more efficiently by himself than anyone else I have ever seen, becoming basically the advertising face of Istanbul for several days through his facebook and press conferences, and doing everything he can to promote the tournament.

METADATA-START
Roger not turning down anyone for an autograph after matches, including the final Sunday

Despite all its problems this year (see previous posts this week), I remain hopeful that they will be addressed and that the necessary measures will be taken so that next year tennis can become the center of attention. I know there are capable people in position of authority who should manage to turn things around and avoid these errors in the future. But they must galvanize everyone around them to follow their lead. One cannot bank on a super star to come every year and carry the tournament on his shoulders: Federer and this 2015 edition was the exception from that standpoint, and not the rule.

I would like to thank readers for following MT-Desk throughout the TEB BNP Parisbas Istanbul Open. For now, it looks like the next live coverage will be the French Open, however stay tuned for regular blog posts on the tour at any time, and click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter for continuous tweets from the tennis world.

Navigation