Category: ATP

Lessons from the Tomic vs. Berdych and Kyrgios vs. Seppi Matches

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

Prior to the start of Sunday, most tennis fans had high expectations of the fourth-round matches on the men’s side. But it was not until the end of the third set of the Nick Kyrgios vs. Andres Seppi that the excitement finally surfaced. The first two matches, Bernard Tomic vs. Tomas Berdych and Rafael Nadal vs. Kevin Anderson finished in anti-climactic fashion. You could almost write the scenario of Nadal vs. Anderson match prior to its beginning, and it remained loyal to that scenario. Anderson’s strengths played into Nadal’s hands, and baseline rallies ensued in which Rafa did everything better than his opponent, and won convincingly as expected. However, Tomic vs. Berdych could have been – should have been – handled more astutely by Tomic.

The young Aussie came into the match playing perhaps the best tennis of his career, and had the necessary skills to startle Berdych. He possesses the ability to flatten out his forehand, push his opponent around, approach the net, as well as win a slew of free points with his awkward-looking-yet-effective serve. What Tomic seems to have forgotten to do, quite stunningly for a player at his level, was to come out with a game plan. The Tomic camp overlooked one of the most underrated areas of tennis tactics: how to come out of the gates.

The match began with Tomic’s serve. From the first point on, for some odd reason, Tomic stayed at the baseline, rallied and obeyed Berydch’s plan A. The result is that Tomic made three unforced errors on the forehand, Berdych pushed him around on another rally, and broke Tomic’s serve to start the match. When the Czech followed that game with three aces of his own to go up 2-0, Tomic, again oddly, stayed the course with the same tactic of rallying at the baseline. Consequently, Berdych took a 4-0 lead in fifteen minutes. By that time, Berdych beamed with confidence, worked his monster ground strokes and served aces and service winners left and right. Tennis coaches often say “It’s better to have a bad game plan than no plan at all.” That cliché could not have been more accurate in this case. Tomic seemed to have spent the entire first set figuring out what to do next. In 27 minutes, Berdych won the set 6-2 having committed three more unforced errors (11) than Tomic (8). On paper it may raise an eyebrow, but Tomic committing less unforced errors than Berdych is a bad sign for Tomic, not for Berdych. It showed how passive Tomic played throughout the set.

The first game of the second set was indicative of what Tomic needed to do from the beginning of the match. At 15-30 serving, Tomic served a big serve and earned a short return from Berdych. Instead of rushing Berdych and coming to the net, he inexplicably contented with putting the ball back in play. Three points later at deuce, he got the same type of short ball, and this time, hit his forehand with a purpose, forcing Berdych into an error. When he held that game to go up 1-0, it looked like he finally figured out that he could not rally with the Czech from the baseline, that he needed to keep the points short and not let Berdych have the first shot at target practice during rallies. Tomic did just that in the ensuing games with renewed confidence, and Berdych began to feel the pressure. The Czech forced some shots to keep Tomic from unleashing shot after shot. It resulted in him making a number of “forced” errors, and eventually, the match leveled. Again, it was the early games of that set that established the tone.

The problem remained that Tomic now had to play catch-up, down a set. And when you play catch-up against an experienced top-10 player, there is no room for blunders and every point becomes crucial because that second set is vital to having a chance to win. Despite a much better set by Tomic, Berdych played an impeccable tiebreaker to take a 6-2 7-6 lead, effectively shutting the door on Tomic. Third set was just the countdown to the inevitable.

The lesson from this match: you must come out with a game plan. The underlying message: do not underestimate the underrated importance of the first games in any set. Regular readers and my friends have heard me say this numerous times before: sets are won or lost in the first few games. Nobody remembers the 15-30 1-0 point, or the deuce point in the first game (à la Ivan Lendl did with his computer brain), and often focus on a set point at 6-5 or the 5-5 point in the tiebreaker. Then the clichés resurface: “A point here and there on big points at late stages, and the outcome would have been different!” First question should rather be “How did it get there?” The answer often lies in the first couple of games where momentum swings occur and set the tone for the later games in the set.

The Kyrgios vs. Seppi match provided an emblematic example of this underrated aspect, for anyone that cares to remember the early points of the third set.

This match was the featured event of the night. What it lacked in quality of tennis, it made up for in excitement. The score line was dramatic, and it pitted the player who upset Roger Federer against the most exciting youngster in the ATP in front of his home crowd at the Hisense Arena. I will refrain from doing a lengthy analysis of the match (there are plenty around the web) and center on the first two games of the third set which, in my opinion, played a paramount role in the improbable comeback of Kyrgios. Once again, people will remember, the match point in the fourth set, the crucial point or two at 6-5 and 6-6 in the fifth, and talk about them. But none of that would have taken place if Seppi did not serve the first two games of the third set on a golden platter to Kyrgios.

At 7-5 6-4, Seppi had complete control of the match, and generated more winners from both sides and served more aces than Kyrgios (who would have guessed that?!?!). More importantly, his performance had quietened the crowd and seemed to sap Kyrgios’ spirit. Uncharacteristically, the Italian veteran had a let-down. Either he felt that he had the match in his pocket and relaxed, or simply lost his concentration. In any case, he played the two loosest games of his Australian Open adventure, did not move well, and lacked intensity and determination. He spat out seven unforced errors in two games, four of them coming in the second game where he got broken to give – and I don‘t use the verb ‘give’ lightly here – Kyrgios the 2-0 lead. Just like that, Kyrgios held to go up 3-0. Seppi gave Kyrgios a shot of renewed belief and energy that he masterfully sucked out of him for two sets. But Kyrgios was not the only energized. The break also galvanized the Hisense Arena fans that were desperately looking for something to cheer. They began to feed Kyrgios a steady stream of loud cheers and banging noises on the walls, seats, and anything else they could find on which to tap their hands. It is no secret that any player can feed off the crowd support. But Kyrgios is a different horse in this category. He savors the crowd; he communicates and teams up with them. He pumps them up, they pump him up! All of a sudden, Kyrgios looked determined in his demeanor. He began to pierce his groundstrokes, pressuring Seppi, and serving bigger and better. Doubts began to creep in Seppi’s mind and he began to falter on his ground strokes that have previously clicked on all cylinders.

When the first set was over, Seppi knew that this was now a much different match than the first two sets. Yes, not capitalizing on match point in the fourth set did not help. Yes, not daring to go for the short ball on Kyrgios’ return on the last point of the match did not help. Yes, Kyrgios’ improved serve in the last two sets did not help. However, none of those late “key” points were momentum changers. Everything that happened in the last three sets were the end-product of the momentum change from the first two games of the third set. Seppi had the match in his hands, did not put it away. I would argue that he had the match “in his hands” more at 7-5 6-4 than when he had the match point.

Coaches of today: spend time with your young pupils in front of the TV and make them watch professional matches from the first point to the last. More importantly, discuss and analyze as the match progresses, stimulate their minds to the importance of the early games. I see too often junior players beginning their matches with low intensity, playing the first games of the match, or even the early games of the next set, as if they were the continuation of the five-minute warm-up. They are not! Tomic and Seppi can tell you more if you run into them.

tennisYes, this point is important, but how did it get there? (Image: Movitec Electronics)

Note: Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the Australian Open: @MertovsTDesk

Australian Open 2015, Logical Men’s Quarterfinals: Can They Materialize?

ATP No Comments

As soon as the draws were announced at the Australian Open, it did not take long for the logical quarterfinals projections to be announced by the media members and tennis experts. The process is simple: you take the two highest seeds in each quarter and assume that they will beat their opponents to eventually face each other in that section of the draw for a berth in the semifinals. Thus, on the men’s draw the line up would be the following: Novak Djokovic (1) vs. Milos Raonic (8), Stan Wawrinka (4) vs. Kei Nishikori (5), Rafael Nadal (3) vs. Tomas Berdych (7), and Roger Federer (2) vs. Andy Murray (6). While those are dream match-ups for the second week and the tournament organizers, past experience tells us that the chances of this logical outcome coming to fruition is close to zero percent. Here are my takes on each quarter section, assuming that injuries play no part in the outcome:

Top quarter: Djokovic vs. Raonic

The chances of Djokovic getting upset early are close to none. He is a consistent performer in the Majors and it usually takes a monumental effort (Rafa at the French or Wawrinka 12 months ago in Melbourne are good examples) to eliminate Djokovic in a five-set battle. He rarely gets upset by lesser opponents. While I would be interested to see the talented Swede Elias Ymer do well, get past his first two rounds (tall order as it is, and not very likely), and take the stage against the number one player in the world, Djokovic is likely to get to the round of 16s without any complication. Then, he will have a more serious test, possibly against John Isner who has given him trouble in the past in two-out-of-three-sets matches. IIsner’s section, there are also couple of intriguing names, Dominic Thiem and Laurent Lokoli, who are looking for their first breakout Major tournaments. Throw in the dangerous Roberto Bautista-Agut and the in-form Gilles Muller, you have a fantastic early-round section with players battling to face Djokovic. Nevertheless, Djokovic should get to the quarters, possibly without even losing a set. Raonic’s path to the quarterfinals is a bit more complicated, but not until the third round. Once past his first two matches, he should face someone who will challenge him, such as Lleyton Hewitt or Julien Benneteau, who have wnough experience to trouble Raonic. If he gets past that, he will have to face either Feliciano Lopez who performs well in Majors and has the experience, or Gaël Monfils whom everyone fears except Nadal and Djokovic. Chances of Djokovic and Raonic meeting in the quarters: around 70%.

2nd quarter: Stan Wawrinka vs. Kei Nishikori

The big question here is “which Wawrinka will show up?” If it is the one from last year’s Australian Open or Wimbledon, look for him to steamroll his way to the quarterfinals. One player floating dangerously that nobody has heard of: Marius Copil. If he faces Wawrinka in the second round, it should be entertaining, providing that Copil does not melt under the “my-first-Major-appearance” syndrome. I do not see how Fognini, Dolgopolov, or anyone else in the third round, including Guillermo Garcia-Lopez who beat him in Paris, can stop Wawrinka. At first glance, Nishikori’s draw looks tough, but it could turn out to be a cakewalk. Nicolas Almagro would be one of the last players any seeded player cares to play in the first round, except that Almagro has not played an ATP match since Wimbledon due to a foot injury. I personally like Santiago Giraldo and Steve Johnson but I believe they are good match-up for Nishikori who can do everything they do, but a bit better. In the round of 16s, he will face the usually dangerous David Ferrer or Gilles Simon. I use the word “usually” seriously because in 2014, Ferrer was not the Ferrer that we are used to seeing for the last eight years, and Gilles Simon has battled injuries lately. I am looking for Nishikori to make it to the quarters easier than expected. Chances of Wawrinka and Nishikori meeting in the quarters: around 85%.

3rd quarter: Nadal vs. Berdych

Considering that he is not coming into the tournament on a high note, Nadal could not have asked for a better draw. Unlike Federer and Wawrinka, Nadal (like Djokovic) has the ability start a tournament on third gear, and eventually pull it to the fifth gear by the time the second week comes around. And all the names that could have given the Spaniard trouble in the early rounds are dispersed elsewhere. Don’t be fooled by some crazy upset pickers, his first round opponent Mikhail Youzhny is a shadow of his former self. The one name that stands out in his potential early-round opponents is Lukas Rosol. But this is not grass; it’s rather a slow version of hard courts. Does either Richard Gasquet or Kevin Anderson have a chance against Nadal if they play in the round of 16s? Anderson, small chance… Gasquet, none! In contrast to Nadal, Berdych has one of the hardest roads to travel in orderto reach the quarterfinals. Jurgen Melzer, his possible second-round opponent, has too much game and experience to be intimidated by neither Berdych nor a Major tournament atmosphere. Then, he will face Leonardo Mayer, Jiri Vesely, or Viktor Troicki, who are all able to cause an upset, and hungry for victories in the big stage. Even if he makes it through the first three rounds, Berdych will then have to take on a solid player such as Philipp Kohlschreiber (the last guy to get intimidated when playing a seeded player), Sam Groth (dangerous serve-and-volleyer who keeps improving steadily), or Ernest Gulbis (maybe the biggest loose cannon in the draw who can beat anybody depending on which side of the bed he wakes up that morning). Chances of Nadal and Berdych meeting in the quarters: around 60%.

4th quarter: Federer vs. Murray

Federer’s potential early-round opponents are composed of some solid names on the tour, but none good enough to cause a remarkable upset in a Major. Jeremy Chardy, Simone Bolelli, Borna Coric, Juan Monaco, Andres Seppi, Denis Istomin, can all beat a higher seeded player in any other ATP tournament (and have), or even take a set of a top player in a Major, but do not stand a chance to topple a top four seed here. Ivo Karlovic could be a dangerous fourth round opponent, but Federer seems to know how to deal with big servers, and Tommy Robredo (another potential fourth round opponent) defeating Federer in a Major will only happen once (2013 US Open). I can see Federer playing a few tiebreakers, or even losing a set (or sets) but do not see him losing prior to the quarterfinals. Andy Murray’s side has a couple of loose cannons in Marinko Matosevis and Martin Klizan who can be nightmares on the court. And yet, this is precisely what Murray needs, in order to be ready to face either Grigor Dimitrov, or David Goffin, or Dustin Brown (speaking of loose cannons), or Marcos Baghdatis, or Teymuraz Gabashvili in the fourth round. Yes, any of those can make it to the fourth round; this is by far the most contested section of the men’s draw. Again, Murray needs these tests to have a chance against Federer in the quarters, because he, like Djokovic and Nadal, can play himself into form as the tournament progresses. Chances of Federer and Murray meeting each other in the quarters: around 75%.

And now, it’s time to enjoy the first Major of 2015!

Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the tournament: @MertovsTDesk

In Defense of Arnaud Clément

ATP 2 Comments

The big "Salad Bowl" sitting pretty in Biel, Switzerland
The big “Salad Bowl” sitting pretty in Biel, Switzerland
For a few days, following the French’s devastating (at least from their perspective) defeat at the hands of the Swiss team in the finals of the Davis Cup campaign, Arnaud Clément, the captain of the French team, experienced what most losing Davis Cup captains go through in such periods: suffer the wrath of retrospectively enlightened critics who seem to know better, the angry fans who are looking for a victim to blame, and anyone (and everyone) who claims that they would have known what to do, had they been in his shoes. While the irresistible art of “armchairing” gripped those who believed – in the after-math of course – that Clément made the wrong decisions, anyone with a rational approach to the ins and outs of the developments leading up to, and through, the final weekend, should be able to see that his choices were not the wrong at the time that he had to make them.

The first challenge that faced Clément was to nominate four players that were to represent the French team against the Swiss. He had an accomplished doubles team composed of Julien Benneteau and Édouard Roger-Vasselin, the winners of the 2014 Roland Garros title. Had he picked them, he would have had to leave out two of the following players out of the team: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gilles Simon, Gaël Monfils, and Richard Gasquet. Furthermore, his head would have been hanging at the Place de la Concorde even before the weekend was over, had one of the two singles players that he picked got injured on Friday, and was substituted by one of the doubles players on Sunday, leading to an almost-guaranteed loss. He did what any reasonable coach would do. Unless you have an extraordinary doubles team, such as the Bryan brothers of the U.S.A., you go with your strong singles players who could collect four out of the five points that you need to win the tie, and hope that two of them can combine to provide a solid doubles effort.

Out of the four strong singles players mentioned above, two of them could also play doubles: Gasquet and Tsonga. In fact, they won a crucial doubles match against a formidable Tomas Berdych – Radek Stepanek in Davis Cup when they played the Czech team, and did reach the quarterfinals of the Toronto Masters 1000 having beaten a respectable Laender Paes – Stepanek team, only to withdraw in the quarterfinals. In contrast, Simon and Monfils are singles players. Clément wanted one doubles specialist on the team and he took Benneteau, a sensible choice. It is also reasonable that he picked the two singles players that could also play doubles, and chose only one out of the two other players who could play singles. Calm down Simon fans (and I happen to be one myself), but on clay, Clément’s choice to pick Monfils over your guy was completely understandable and justified.

Friday ended with a 1-1 tie, and displayed a version of Federer that represented a level situated somewhere between “terrible” and “mediocre” compared to his real one. None of the after-the-fact armchair experts could have predicted that Federer’s level would rise in the following 48 hours faster than the Enterprise accelerated from ¼ impulse drive to Warp Speed nine. Most believed that Tsonga and Gasquet would triumph over Wawrinka and Federer, and that is, if Federer played doubles in his limited condition.

However, on Friday two things happened that were completely outside the control of either captain. First, Tsonga injured his wrist which caused him to withdraw, by his own request, from the doubles. Second, Federer played through his match against Monfils with no pain in his back, and although he got crushed by the Frenchman, he was unusually upbeat about the rest of the weekend. Clément once again made the only reasonable decision: replace Tsonga with Benneteau, and thus, put his two best doubles players on the court. Gasquet and Benneteau did not play bad, but Wawrinka and Federer played the kind of sensational doubles that they have not played since their run to the gold metal back in 2008 Olympic Games. Three sets later, Switzerland took a 2-1 lead in the tie, and everything went from bad to worst on Sunday when Federer put up one of his better clay-court performances in the last few years, running Gasquet around and finishing the points with remarkable shot-making skills.

Just like that, the Swiss won the Davis Cup, and the Statlers and Waldorfs of the world came out in numbers, ready to guillotine Clément. Yet, once again, Clément’s choices were not only the most reasonable ones to make, but as seen above, the only ones he could make in certain cases. It was one of the most unfortunate weekends for a Davis Cup captain that I have ever witnessed, because it contained every twist needed to transform it into the “festival of blame” that followed the next few days in the French tennis circles.

Unfortunately for Clément, if someone wanted to write a script to make him look bad at the end of the day, they could not have done a better job. First, the controversy surrounding the Swiss team, involving the Wawrinka-Mirka malaise on the preceding weekend in London, followed by the unexpected injury of Federer that caused him to withdraw from the finals against Novak Djokovic, made the Swiss team look beatable and demoralized, thus giving the impression that the French had the psychological upper hand. Second, the fact that the French had two weeks of preparation on clay, versus the less-than-a-week preparation time for the Swiss, not to mention that Federer had a total of one hour and twenty minutes of total practice time before Friday’s first match, added to the impression that the French had all the necessary elements tilted to their advantage. Last, the aura of having a team composed of Monfils, Tsonga, and Gasquet, that has never lost at home, firmly put the French in the favorite category in the perceptions of many, although reality was the opposite, at least on paper. These factors combined to create a firm belief by the French that losing to Switzerland on that particular weekend in Lille would be considered nothing less than a debacle. Clément ended up in the position of a captain who would either be doing only what was expected had France won, or face the prospect of being profiled as a failure in the case of a loss. Unfortunately for him, the latter took place.

Fortunately for him, however, the French Tennis Federation recently consulted the players, and they stood tall behind Clément, ensuring that he retains his captaincy. Today, The French Tennis Federation confirmed that Clément will continue to serve as the captain, for at least two more years. It must be a relief to the ex-Australian Open finalist, knowing that over the weekend, Yannick Noah expressed his disappointment over the loss and explicitly verbalized his interest to become the captain if given the opportunity. Clement did not take that lightly and struck back at Noah with criticism of his own, saying that he takes the 1983 Roland Garros champion’s words as an attack against him, and that things in reality are not the same as they may have appeared to Noah on the TV screen. Personally, I am a big fan of Yannick Noah, and he has already proven to be an astute Davis Cup captain in the past (remember 1991 and his decision to play Henri Leconte in singles). Yet, I can’t help but agree with the players in Clément’s case, and disagree with the members of the “armchair crew,” including Noah, who have the luxury to speak in retrospect unlike the captain.

Clément did carry them to the finals and the French need to understand that for one weekend in November, they faced a Swiss team that had superior skills and better level of quality in their tennis than they did. Donned with the number two and four players in the world, and one of the most underrated coaches in tennis (Severin Lüthi), the Swiss lived up to their potential under very difficult circumstances. Considering Wawrinka’s form and Federer’s quick recovery, followed by his excellent level of play on Saturday and Sunday, I am not sure if Clément would have coached his team to victory, even under the best of circumstances. Davis Cup captains sometimes do commit mistakes and fail, and even deserve to be fired in extreme circumstances. But the loss against Switzerland two weekends ago was not one of those cases. Clément should rightfully remain in his position and deservedly get another chance to lead his team in 2015.

Fed-WawLittle did Federer & Wawrinka know on May 23rd, during this early morning practice on Philippe Chatrier court, that exactly six months from that day, they would be lifting the Davis Cup trophy together!

Peeling the Skin Away

ATP 4 Comments

Experts say that skin renews itself approximately every 28 days. In terms of tennis chronology, assuming that the period of dominance by a few elite players counts as a cycle, and looking at the pattern since the turn of the century, 28-day cycle of skin renewal in men’s tennis terms translates to… well, we do not know yet! The fact that there is nobody called Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, or Roger Federer in the finals of a Slam tournament for the first time since the 2005 Australian Open does not necessarily point to the end of an era. In fact, one could argue that even in a tournament in which Nadal did not show up due to an injury, Djokovic looked like he has yet to recover from a dismal hard court summer, Federer played his worst tennis of the 2014 campaign, and Andy Murray ran into one of the other three in the quarterfinals, two of the big 4 names were still in the semi-finals.

That being said, the trend has arrived. In my last entry prior to the US Open, I predicted that this US Open was a great opportunity for an outsider to have a career tournament due to the lack of quality performance that the top-10 players have displayed through the tournaments prior to the Major in New York. At first glance, it looks like my prediction was spot on. We did have two outsiders battle in the men’s finals on Monday night, and in fact, I even counted Cilic’s name amongst the possible outsiders in the comments below. However, my premise was flawed. I assumed that it would happen because it was a ‘low’ period for the stars and that represented a window of opportunity for the newcomers. What I did not realize was to what point the transformation of the ATP’s composition of top players has begun. When I looked at 2014 as a season so far, it all became evident.

Yes, the skin is changing! When Stan Wawrinka won the Australian Open, most believed it was an anomaly. By the time Novak Djokovic won the two Masters Series tournaments in Indian Wells and Miami, people believed so much in the flash-in-the-pan nature of Wawrinka’s accomplishment that they have all but overlooked Kei Nishikori outplaying an in-form Federer in Miami. But the players did apparently take notice. Milos Raonic at Wimbledon, and Marin Cilic few days ago, have both pointed to Wawrinka’s victory as the day where they came to the realization that the “others” had a chance. They explicitly credited the Swiss for opening the door for them, at least mentally. When the clay-court season arrived, the so-called anomaly Wawrinka showed that he is not an anomaly, as he took the clay-court specialist and long-time top-6 player David Ferrer out in Monte Carlo, and then won the title against his good friend Federer in the finals. One week later, tennis fans were stunned for an hour and a half when they watched Nishikori ‘school’ (yes, that is the only term that comes to mind if you watched that segment) Nadal on clay in Madrid until a 6-2 4-2 lead, only to see his hopes of winning the title slip away due to an injury that forced him to withdraw from the match 0-3 down in the third after losing a painful seven games in a row.

Marin CilicMarin Cilic practicing during the Cincinnati ATP tournament

After Roland Garros showed that the big 4 were still able to dominate, Wimbledon confirmed the coming-of-age of few new faces. Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov who have been knocking on the door of the top 10 reached the semi-finals, only to be reminded by Federer and Djokovic that they are not quite there, but very close. Wawrinka was anything but missing in action as some predicted, reaching the quarterfinals, only to lose to Federer in a tough four-setter. As to Nadal, he was knocked out early in the second week by another flashy newcomer, the Australian Nick Kyrgios. Now, the change of skin was becoming a reality. Wawrinka, Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori (the latter’s injury slowed his year down, but only temporarily) were here to stay. The change of skin was no longer an anomaly. Ernests Gulbis was one of those. An anomaly, an exception, highly unlikely to appear again in a semi-final or a final, even if the Big 4 put down their rackets today and never picked them up again. He has been around, operating below his potential for many years. Gulbis was one single anomaly; the rest represented the renewal of the faces of the ATP.

This U.S. Open confirmed the trend, stamped it, officialized it. Federer and Djokovic looked under-matched against two of the new faces, Nishikori and the big-serving Cilic. On the one hand, the next couple of years will make us appreciate how important Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are to men’s tennis and to its explosion as a popular sport around the world over the last decade. ATP should forever be thankful to these great champions who will deservedly take their places in the historiography of the sport as the main representatives of second golden age of tennis, following the first during the late 70s and the early 80s. I doubt we will ever see such a dominant group of individuals whose equivalent of “28-day skin-renewal” in men’s tennis has yet to be determined, even after a decade. Yet, the end-of-the-year ATP Championships, as well as the Majors next year, will become bigger sources of anticipation as the fascinated tennis fan will now look forward to discussing who will get to the semis, which player will enter top 5, or who will win their first Major title, rather than guessing who out of the big 4 will win the next Major title. This is not to say that one option is less entertaining than the other. It’s just that the latter question has thrilled us for so long that I now predict tennis fans will embrace with open arms the emergence of the former types of questions.

US Open Men’s Draw: Open to Outsiders

ATP 2 Comments

The two Masters 1000 tournaments that take place Canada and Cincinnati often give a solid indication of what is likely to take place in the U.S. Open, which starts one week after the end of the Cincinnati tournament. For example, last year, Rafael Nadal went on to win both tournaments, in Montréal and Cincinnati, and kept rolling through the U.S. Open all the way to his 13th Slam title.

If that trend holds true, in other words, if these two tournaments signal what is to come in New York, one message is clear: the top 15 players in the ATP are either out of form or injured and it may just be the perfect opportunity for an outsider to reach for the elite status. Stanislas Wawrinka did in the Australian Open, but he had to go through two of the world’s best — Novak Djokovic and Nadal — in order to hold the Slam trophy.

Djokovic has had the most miserable two-week period of his career in a long time. He played well below his usual level of tennis, often looking like a novice on the court, missing silly balls and appearing afraid to hit the ball. He played four matches during which he never played better than mediocre tennis by his standards. He admitted that the two weeks did nothing for his confidence and that he is heading into the U.S. Open without enough match play in the hard courts.

Rafael Nadal has pulled out of the US Open due to his left-wrist injury. Roger Federer is no doubt the most consistent top player on the tour this summer. However, as good as his results have looked during these two weeks, his tennis has been up and down. Even as he won in Cincinnati, he only played one great match from beginning to end, his semifinal win against Milos Raonic. The rest of his matches featured patches of dry spells filled with strings of unforced errors.

Stan Wawrinka did not make the semifinals in either tournament. After his win against Cilic in the third round of the Cincinnati tournament, he responded to a media member’s question by saying, “I am glad I won, but I have to play much better to go further.” He did not, and he was eliminated by Julien Bennetteau in the quarterfinals. Tomas Berdych is in a virtual free-fall since Roland Garros and risks being left out of the top 10 by the end of the year unless he recuperates quickly. Andy Murray, meanwhile, still does not have a win against a top-10 player since Wimbledon 2012. Milos Raonic has been more consistent than other top-10 players, but still not playing at the level that got him to the semifinal round of Wimbledon. He is the number 6 player in the world, but he has yet to record a single win against the top five players ahead of him in 21 attempts.

Dimitrov - Cincy

Another newcomer to the scene and the other semifinalist in Wimbledon, Grigor Dimitrov (pictured above), made it to the semis in Toronto, but played dismal against Jerzy Janowicz in his early-round exit in Cincinnati. As for David Ferrer, although he did reach the final in Cincinnati, by his standards, he is having his most inconsistent year on the tour since, well… ages ago. If one considers that Kei Nishikori, Richard Gasquet, and Juan Martin del Potro have all pulled out of the U.S. Open, we can extend this list of out of form attribute to the players ranked in the top 15. Ernests Gulbis (13) and John Isner (14) are not exactly burning the barn, either.

Once the U.S. Open begins on Monday, it will naturally be hard to pick anyone outside the top 15 to win the tournament or even to get to the semifinals. Yet, if the players ranked in the 15-to-40 range take a close look at the field, they should be able to see that this US Open may be their best opportunity to dig far in a Slam and earn valuable points. The big names are clearly not playing well, and an outsider who wants to make a run to the last weekend of the tournament, may not have to go through bunch of them to get there. Unless any one or more of the top players happened to rediscover their form during this week in practice, the window of opportunity is there for one or more outsiders to have a career-building tournament.

Of the Importance of 2nd Serves…

ATP No Comments

Back in my college coaching days, my ex-roommate and life-long friend named Michael Kreider originally from Buffalo, NY, and a current tennis pro in Atlanta, said to me one time “you are only as good as your second serve.” At the time, I would make my team practice second serves as part of our daily serving routine. However, after Michael’s reminder, I began designing drills specifically geared towards making my players feel under pressure, and force them to serve second serves under those circumstances. Eventually, I got on the same page with Michael and began believing that second serves were just as important as any other single shot in tennis, if not more. You may have even read one of my pieces where I praise Raonic, Federer, and Isner for being, in my opinion, the best second-serve hitters in the game.

Let’s take a quick look at the Wimbledon Men’s Draw from the perspective of second serves.

2nd serve

There is a stat called “2nd serve points won” and you can find it on Wimbledon’s website. Three of the quarter-finalists are in the top 8 of that list (see picture above). At number 1, there is Tatsuma Ito whose percentage is based on one match only since he lost in the first round, thus not very indicative of the overall second-serve effectiveness. At number 2, 3, and 4, we have Roger Federer (68%), Feliciano Lopez who lost today (66%), and Milos Raonic (65%). At number 7, there is the guy who took Lopez out, Stan Wawrinka (62%). I will also add as a side note that, on the women’s list in the same category, after Kristina Pliskova, who also played only one round, you can find Petra Kvitova at #2 with 64%, and Simona Halep at #3 with 63%.

But wait! It does not end there.

It is generally accepted that the serve is an essential factor in playing successful tiebreaks. Until today, Lopez was 6 out of 7 in tiebreakers in his first three rounds. Today he lost two tiebreakers to Wawrinka who is third on the list among the players still alive in the tournament. Additionally, Federer is the leader of the career tiebreak winning percentage category on the ATP Tour.

No, it still does not end there.

Here is an incredible stat from today: against Tommy Robredo, Federer lost only one – yes, ONE – point on his second-serve points in the first two sets combined! Furthermore, since second serve is the shot that determines if you double fault or not, I should add that Federer had 0 – yes, zero! – double faults today, despite hitting them well enough to serve-and-volley on several of them. In fact, today’s four quarterfinal winners had a total of only 8 double faults between them. Half of those came from Nick Kyrgios who more than made up for that with his 37 aces against Rafael Nadal.

Is it becoming clear how important second serves are yet? If not, here is one last tidbit…

Out of all 8 men left in the singles draw, Dimitrov and Kyrgios have the highest number of double faults per match. They both average just below four double faults a match. They also average 10 aces (Dimitrov) and 26 aces (Kyrgios) per match. Next, there is Marin Cilic at less than 3 double faults per match and he is averaging 24,5 aces per match. The other five quarterfinalists are averaging less than two double faults per match.

Three of them are still in the tournament in the men’s draw. Watch Raonic, Wawrinka, and Federer, on their second serves, and you will see the variation on the spin, slice, speed, and placement. That is why these three players love the pattern of putting the next shot away with their big forehands (or even volleys in Federer’s case who serves-and-volleys on second serve occasionally), because they get a number of returns back from their second serves that are placed exactly where they want them for the winning shot.

Does all this mean that a tour player cannot win without a terrific second serve? No, but it does mean that if a player wants to succeed at the highest level, second serves will have to be incorporated into his/her practice routine, just like any other shot in tennis. Not just “serves,” but specifically “second serves”.

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

MENU

Navigation