Guido Pella had to consider both the last three weeks and the progress of the match, in order to overcome Daniil Medvedev in a three-setter. High-IQ performance by the Argentine at the Mutua Madrid Open.
Here is my match report on Tennis with an Accent:
Guido Pella had a plan B and it made all the difference against Medvedev
The scoreboard at the end of today’s first semifinal at the Miami Open between last year’s title holder John Isner and the young qualifier Félix Auger-Aliassime showed a very Isnerian score, 7-6 7-6 in favor of the American. Nothing groundbreaking there, considering that John has basically marched all the way to the finals via sets won in tiebreakers except one (7-5, whoop-de-doo, a virtual rupture in the flow). He is also known for playing a mammoth number of tiebreakers throughout his career.
There were a couple of aspects, however, that set this victory apart from the others, thus keeping me from labeling it a “vintage” Isnerian win. First of all, he lost his service twice in the same match, once each set, after having lost it only twice during the rest of the tournament. He literally came back from the brink of defeat in both sets. Secondly, he stumbled off the block to begin the match, making uncharacteristic errors, and never seemed to fully settle throughout the match, even after brief sequences of brilliance which made it seem as if he were reestablishing his game. Simply put, he did not play very well.
Instead, at least for the first half hour of the encounter, it looked like it was rather the 18-year-old Auger-Aliassime, playing in his first career ATP1000 semifinal, who was executing his game plan with the disposition of a seasoned pro, even though he was also far from playing a perfect match. For example, I fully expected Félix to have a commanding advantage in points during which both players found themselves on equal footing from the baseline. **
** These “equal footing from the baseline” points that mention in this write-up are not related to the number of shots hit in a rally. They strictly include those points during which Auger-Aliassime had time to get in a position to hit a comfortable ground stroke with Isner also placed at the baseline on the other side.
Yet, Auger-Aliassime never seemed to establish any visible dominance in such points, often committing unforced errors of his own early in rallies. It was only at the end of the seventh game, up 4-3, that he began leading John in this particular category. In that seventh game, two such points catapulted Félix to a 0-30 lead on his opponent’s serve. Two shaky forehand errors by Isner (yes, I repeat, he was error-prone throughout the match) completed the break.
But getting back to my earlier point, I had expected more of those equal-footing rallies to end in Auger-Aliassime’s favor, but as I noted above, they did not. It was not because he was jittery, but rather because he could not establish his rhythm against a player who was not giving him more than two or three shots to hit. This is not a concern unique to Félix, as most ATP players suffer from the same syndrome when they have to play the big-serving American. There is no doubt, however, that Félix was less prepared for it than others. In my opinion, that played a big role in his inability to take an early lead, even before the seventh game when John had yet to find stability in his game.
Having said that, Auger-Aliassime still had a clear advantage when he confirmed the break and went up 5-3. He put in 63% of first serves in up to that point, with two aces and zero double faults. In fact, knowing now what took place in the 5-4 game, one could oddly say that his serve was his most reliable weapon until then.
Well, as to what took place in that 5-4 game on Auger-Aliassime’s serve, the three double faults precisely, nerves seem to be the most reasonable explanation. For my part, I don’t believe his first double fault resulted from nerves. He just went up 15-0 after a very solid point that he won at the net. It was his fourth successful point at the net in five tries up to that moment in the match. He was poised to put the set away. He even went for a powerful serve to the outside at 15-0, clearly aiming for a clean ace. It got stuck in the net. Then, he tossed the ball way to the right and front on his second serve and made his first double fault. I agree with everyone else that the next two double faults at 15-15, and 15-40, were the result of doubt rapidly creeping into his mind.
Auger-Aliassime still showed great resolve at 5-6 by playing one of his best games until then to show Isner, who was suddenly on fire after winning three games in a row, that he was not fading away. The problem is that, even though he was not having a banner day by his standards, Isner can probably stay calmer through a tiebreaker than can most of his colleagues. Auger-Aliassime, not so much.
Up 1-0 and serving twice early in the tiebreaker, Félix lost both of his serving points. The first one was a double fault. The second one was another equal-footing rally (noted above) during which Félix slightly held back on his ground strokes, allowing John to eventually take his chance on a shorter ball and get another mini-break. In that first set tiebreaker, Félix only made one first serve and lost it 7-3 on one of the longest rallies of the match (17 shots) that ended, oddly again, with an unforced error by Auger-Aliassime.
Second set progressed much in the same pattern as the first. Félix once again got the early break and served for the set at 5-3. He even won the first point to go up 15-0, just like in the first set. It then got complicated, again, when he did not do enough with his first volley at 15-15 and gave Isner a second chance at a passing shot. He lost the point. To make matters worse, he double-faulted on the next one to go down 15-40. At 30-40, Félix prepared the point beautifully, forcing John to scramble a high floater back. He made the right decision to move forward and hit a swing volley to put it away before John could recover, but he gagged the shot into the net. Just like that, Isner was allowed to crawl back into the set, again.
The second-set tiebreaker began on Auger-Aliassime’s serve with another one of those equal-footing baseline rallies noted above, ending with yet another unforced error by Félix. It turned out to be a precious mini-break as Isner did not lose a single point on his serve in the tiebreaker and rolled to another victory with an unreturnable serve on match point.
At the end of the day, it was a missed opportunity for Auger-Aliassime not only because he served for both sets, but also because Isner’s performance was spotty throughout the match, especially in the first set. Auger-Aliassime just could not win enough key points at different points of the match, and especially in those games when he served for each set. I reckon Isner feels fortunate to have made it to the final. I also suspect that he knows he will need to perform significantly better than he did today, when he faces either Federer or Shapovalov (to be played later) in the finals on Sunday.
Don’t shoot the messenger! I am only quoting in the title what Denis Shapovalov said right after defeating Frances Tiafoe 6-7 6-4 6-2 on Thursday night at the Miami Open and earning the right to play Roger Federer in the semifinals on Friday. He also said: “I’ve been looking forward to this matchup, I think, my whole life.”
If you are a Shapovalov fan, you are probably feeling somewhere between happy and ecstatic, with good reason! Your player just won his second impressive match in a row, showing improvements not only in his game but in his mental fortitude. You can read my post-match report – click here – on his victory over Stefanos Tsitsipas on Tuesday, in what I believe to be the most thrilling match of the tournament so far on the men’s side. It was a shot-making festival of sorts, with each player responding to the challenges raised by the other, culminating in an electrifying final set that went to a tiebreaker.
Thursday’s match against Tiafoe was a slightly different type of conquest for Shapovalov in texture and content. As far as fans of Denis are concerned, the satisfying (or nerve-wrecking) part of this win is that the Canadian came out on top despite not performing nearly as well as he did on Tuesday. In fact, he blew a number of chances that turned out to be costly. Yet, he knew how to quickly stack those disappointing moments to the back of his head (probably to be revisited at a later point) and keep a clear vision on the target in front. When time arrived to ultimately grab the decisive lead, he did not flinch.
The first set was a straight-forward and entertaining affair, in that players dominated their service games not because they hit a slew of aces, but rather because they served efficiently by keeping high percentage on their their first serves and picking the right spots to hit in the service box. Simply put, if you wanted to argue that a server can cruise through his service games without striking ace after ace, the first set needed to be your exhibit A. Shapovalov served at 61% first serves with only two aces, and Tiafoe at 61% with three. Neither even came close to facing a break point until the last two games prior to the tiebreaker (one in each). Both players enjoyed a high success rate at the net until the tiebreaker, with Denis winning five out of six points in which he decided to approach the net, Frances four out of five**.
**Clarification: I count as “approach” any point at which the player decides to come to the net behind a strong shot. I include it in my count even if the opponent misses the next shot and he wins the point without hitting a volley. It’s the pressure applied to the opponent by coming forward that counts.
A key moment came when Tiafoe had a break-point chance at 5-5 and Shapovalov saved it with an ace (one of two in the set for him). In the very next game, he was the one with the break-point opportunity which also meant a set point at 6-5. Denis hit a routine forehand wide, a disappointing unforced error at an inopportune time. He was not even going for a winner. It was a loopy, topspin forehand aimed to Tiafoe’s backhand. Considering his style, one can wonder if Shapovalov would have been more likely to hit the ball in the court, had he unleashed on that forehand for a winner instead of going conservative.
Another disappointing moment came shortly after when Tiafoe led 3-2 in the tiebreaker and Shapovalov had another routine forehand from almost the exact same position as the one he missed on set point. This time, he struck it hard to the other corner for a winner and missed it badly. So, back to the question above, but in reverse: would he have avoided the error had he been more reserved and not gone for a flashy winner? You see how comfortable things can be in the peanut gallery?
The only valid answer to either of the questions above: it’s easy to theorize in retrospect.
That being said, there was nothing ambiguous about Denis’s third disappointing moment of the set. At 4-5 in the tiebreaker, Tiafoe hit a dismal drop shot that bounced high. Shapovalov got there without too much trouble and line up for a forehand. The deuce corner on Tiafoe’s side was wide open and Denis went there, but sailed it deep. Suddenly, he was down two set points. On the second set point, Tiafoe hit a spectacular backhand return smack to the baseline, one that the Canadian could not send back over the net.
Speaking of Tiafoe, I am deeply in awe of how much he has improved his overall game. Angles, he can hit. Drop shots, he can place. Volleys, he can put away. Returns, well, just see the set point. Add to the mix his ground strokes that have, over the last couple of years, upgraded in terms of velocity and accuracy, and you have a young player that has as much potential as the rest of the exciting up-and-comers making noise so far this year.
When Frances went up 1-0 in the second and led 0-15 on Denis’s serve, thanks to a stellar forehand passing shot he hit on the run (and may I add, one hit with a semi-continental grip, thus somewhat scooped and flat), it looked as if the American was about to break free and sprint to the finish line.
Down 0-1, 0-15 on his serve, Shapovalov persevered. He hit four first serves in a row and quickly halted the down-slide by holding. This game also included a charming moment when he hit one of several amazing drop volleys showcased throughout the match by both. Tiafoe walked up to the net and gave him a congratulatory hand-slap. Then, Shapovalov broke his opponent’s serve for the first break of the match for either player, in a game that featured two high-octane returns by the Canadian on Tiafoe’s first serves.
Shapovalov, whose chances of winning were looking grim around 8 minutes ago, now caught fire. He hit 80% of his first serves in and won all five points on approaches during a four-game sequence that placed him at a 5-1 lead. He has two set-point chances in that game. Tiafoe saved the first one with a fine approach and a put-away volley. On the second one, Shapovalov had an easy forehand to hit inside the baseline, in the middle of the court, one that he should generally put away. He missed it in the net and Tiafoe held serve.
Tiafoe slowly closed the gap back to 5-4, but he fell short of stopping Shapovalov from winning the second set because the Canadian did not allow the disappointment of the blown forehand on set point back at 5-1 linger in his mind. It is not a secret that Shapovalov has squandered similar leads more than once in the past couple of years. I must confess that I thought he might get tight at that point, especially when I saw him jump around at the baseline trying to remain concentrated in the moment while Tiafoe was getting medical treatment during the extended 5-4 changeover.
Once again, Shapovalov did not falter. He started the game with two effective 1-2 punch combinations to go up 30-0 and served an ace at 40-0 (one of his two for the set) to send the match to a final set. Just like against Tsitsipas, Shapovalov figured out a way to rise to the occasion after losing the first set, and did not have any let downs for the remainder of the match.
Tiafoe, for his part, could never recapture his form from earlier in the match. He played his worst service game at 1-1 in the final set, committing three unforced errors from the baseline to fall behind a break. Another backhand unforced error in the 2-4 game put him down by two breaks. Shapovalov closed the match out on the next game.
For the record, Shapovalov finished the match hitting 69% of first serves in, while chipping in seven aces and one double fault. At least three of his seven aces that I can remember were on clutch points (two on break points, one to save a set point). Tiafoe did not fare as well in this department, serving at 62%, with five aces and six double faults.
Let me finish with a detail that should make fans of both Shapovalov and Tiafoe happy. Denis decided to approach 32 times and won 22 of those points. Frances approached 20 times, winning 14. These are fairly solid ratios, but I was looking for something else. In the past, I have seen Shapovalov and Tiafoe hit big shots from the baseline, put their opponents on the run, yet stay back at the baseline, thus allowing the opponent to loop the ball back and recover to the middle of the court.
So, this time I paid particular attention to their decision-making when they had their opponent scrambling. I looked for points where one had the other on the run, and instead of moving forward and putting more pressure on the opponent, he stayed back. I also looked for balls that came short and allowed either of them to step inside the baseline for a set acceleration shot. If the player in question did not hit that ball with the intention of coming to the net behind, I counted that against them. For one example of what I mean, consider the 5-2, 0-30 point in the second set. Tiafoe’s return falls short in the middle of the court. Shapovalov moves inside the baseline and has a chance to strike a forehand to one of the corners and move up to the net, which is something he has successfully done numerous times in this match. For some odd reason, he stays back on that occasion and engages in a rally. He misses a backhand several shots later and Tiafoe wins the point.
By my count, there was a total of six points (four by Denis, two by Frances) where they passed on an opportunity to approach. That is a low number considering that neither player’s plan A revolves around volleying. In other words, these guys are not afraid to approach, which also means that their net skills are bound to rapidly improve. Transition game is not something you master by studying or watching. Practice drills help, but ultimately, players committed to developing their transition game understand that in order to master that skill, they must literally do it under the pressure of the scoreboard. This is why fans of these two players should be excited. This match is one example of how both Shapovalov and Tiafoe have their eyes set on becoming the best all-around players that they can be.
As for Shapovalov’s “dream-come-true” match, Federer awaits him on Friday evening, “Not Before 7:00 PM.”
Make your plans accordingly!
Denis Shapovalov earned a thrilling 4-6 6-3 7-6 victory over Stefanos Tsitsipas in arguably the most outstanding men’s match of the tournament so far in terms of problem-solving, mental fortitude, and shot-making quality. Despite their young age, each player reacted with remarkable maturity, multiple times throughout the match, to the challenges raised by the other.
How close was it? 200 points were played in total, 100 won by each!
Tsitsipas started well and playing almost-perfect tennis in the first seven games to a 4-3 lead and a well-deserved break, only making two unforced errors (my own count, as usual) until then. More importantly, he won every single point except one (8-1) whenever the two players engaged in baseline rallies during those seven games. In fact, by the time the set ended, Tsitsipas held a 16-3 lead in points determined by baseline rallies** with the only three points in Denis’s favor coming via clean winners on his part. Otherwise, Tsitsipas did not give an inch to Shapovalov, matching him shot-for-shot and power-for-power in every pattern once they began striking back and forth from the back of the court.
** Just to clarify, by “points determined by baseline rallies,” I don’t mean necessarily rallies that went beyond 5 or 6 shots. Therefore, the ATP’s stat of “points won in rallies of 5 shots or more” is not relevant here. I am only counting points in which both players found themselves on equal footing at the baseline at some moment during the point and needed to create an opportunity to win it, or lose it by making an error. For example, the first point of the 1-1 game in the final set won by Tsitsipas and the first point of the very next game won by Shapovalov, two examples among many, do not count although they lasted six shots or above each. That is because player A had a continuous advantage in those points starting with a strong serve and a weak return by player B, thus consisting of him dominating the point throughout, even though it may have lasted over five shots simply because player B scrambled his way to getting a few shots back before eventually succumbing. So, the 16-3 lead by Tsitsipas in my count of baseline rallies at the end of the first set firmly points to a complete domination on his part from the back of the court whenever the players engaged in what was at one point an equally leveled rally.
To turn the tide around, Denis had to take bigger risks against an error-free opponent who was outplaying him from all parts of the court. Instead, it resulted in more unforced errors from the Canadian who eventually lost the first set 6-4. He committed 15 unforced errors (plus two double faults) in that set, while Tsitsipas only chipped in eight, with no double faults. It was a set played completely on Stefanos’s terms, an unusual position for Denis to be in considering that his shot-making (or error-making) performance usually determines the outcome of his matches. In other words, Shapovalov is more accustomed to having the match on his racket, for better or worse. Yet, Tsitsipas essentially reduced him to the role of the reactive player rather than proactive one by making him chase balls and returning big, taking away his preferred 1-2 punch pattern. Shapovalov’s 55% first-serve performance did not help either, crippling his chances to set up the second shot.
What do you do as a player when the opponent takes away your options and imposes his game? (1) You fall back to your most reliable shot/pattern and, (2) you hope that your opponent slides down just enough from his sky-high level so that you can reestablish the equilibrium in the match.
Number 1 requirement centered on the need on Denis’s part to improve his first-serve percentage so that he can find opportunities to inject his favorite weapon, the 1-2 punch, into the flow of match. By the time he was up a break at 4-1 and seemed to have swung the pendulum in his favor, he had served 17 out of 18 first serves in and won a number of points by either forced return errors or winners on the second shot. Mission number one was accomplished.
As for number 2, Tsitsipas had already begun showing small signs of coming down from his heights of the first 7 games when he missed two easy forehands at 40-15 in the eighth but still held serve, and then, followed that up with two more forehand unforced errors when he served for the set at 5-4. He still did enough to pocket the first set, deservedly so, but considering that he only made one forehand unforced error until 4-3, 40-15, the four that he made since then in his last two service games caused a big enough dent in his armor to bleed over to the second set. He was noticeably more error-prone in the early part of the second, recording six unforced errors at one point compared to Shapovalov’s one. He managed to brush it off as the set progressed, finishing with still six less unforced errors than his opponent (15-9), but it was too little too late to recover from the two-break hole in which he found himself at 1-5 down.
His confidence buoyed by the stunning turn-around in his first-serve percentage (80% in the second set vs 55% in the first) and the accompanying early break, Shapovalov also reversed the trend with regard to baseline rallies. Now, he was the one running Tsitsipas around and winning the aforementioned rally points. After going 3-16 in the first set in such points, Shapovalov led Tsitsipas by three (9-6) in the second.
After the disastrous first three games, Tsitsipas recovered some of his rhythm but never found the quality level that he had in the first set again, largely because Shapovalov elevated his and put his 1-2 punch to work, enough to halt him from gaining any substantial traction on return games.
As the third set began, the task of problem-solving fell this time on Tsitsipas’s shoulders, and he certainly rose to the occasion. He started by topping his opponent’s phenomenal first-serve performance with his own whopping 82% rate in the final set (he was at 65% and 66% in the first two). Shapovalov, for his part, kept up his end of the bargain by not letting up on his serves, getting 77% of them in. Mix in the fact that both stayed in single digits in the unforced-error count and you can understand why the spectators who stayed past midnight at Grandstand, as well as the viewers who patiently remained in front of their screens, probably felt rewarded with a five-star final set featuring two extraordinary shot-makers.
It was only fitting that the match extended to a final-set tiebreaker in which, again fittingly, one player had to outplay the other to grab the decisive lead. Shapovalov broke through by the tiniest of margins when he nailed a dazzling forehand winner down-the-line on the run to grab the mini-break and lead 5-3. He closed the curtain two points later with, what else, a 1-2 punch forehand winner. He will face the American Frances Tiafoe on Thursday in the quarterfinals.
I am not a proponent of youngsters going to bed past midnight on weekdays, but if any junior tennis enthusiast decided to break the house rules for this particular match and watched it until the end, I am inclined to believe that they went to bed deeply inspired by a couple of impressive ball strikers not much older than they are.
Auger-Aliassime, the 18-year-old Canadian reached the quarterfinals of Miami Open ATP 1000 event, by defeating Nikoloz Basilashvili 7-6 6-4 in a tightly contested match, but only sporadic in quality.
I felt that this was a fascinating encounter in that both players sport similar plan “A”s, i.e., seeking to direct rallies from the baseline and avoid patterns that can lead to defensive scrambles. Basilashvili can dazzle with his strike power – 90-95 mph winners from the baseline are not unusual for him – and Auger-Aliassime is a nightmare to defend against if he is allowed to play on or inside the baseline from where he can run his opponents to exhaustion. Furthermore, both have powerful first serves behind which they can set up shop, so to speak. The question was, which player would more effectively use his strength to expose the other’s weakness? I must also admit that my anticipation level was raised instinctively because I am a fan of both players.
Unfortunately, it did not live up to expectations – for me, at least – as both players struggled with unforced errors and missed opportunities. It turned, instead, into a battle of who could avoid errors or perform better on important points.
Let’s begin with the very first game. Three times in that game Niko turned the rally in his favor and put himself in a position to win only to produce an unforced error to lose them. The biggest one came on a break-point opportunity at ad-out when he set himself up perfectly for a short-ball opportunity, yet netted the routine forehand put-away attempt. Looking back, this seems like a minor point considering the scope of Basilashvili’s troubles for the rest of the match, but it turned out to be his only break-point opportunity in the first set in which he had an easy crack at winning the point. Credit goes to Félix for coming up with the goods in the others.
Unforced errors kept coming in bunches for the Georgian who finished the first set with 18 of them (my count), not including his two double faults. Auger-Aliassime, for his part, did not fare much better, recording 15 unforced errors himself, plus three double faults.
Thus, either player’s success became dependent on which one could do a better job of mentally remaining resolved and brushing off the disappointments, because disappointments, there were many. At a certain point, it almost seemed like one player could rely on the other to blow a chance so that they could recover back from what appeared to be a lost cause. Until 5-5 for example, Basilashvili was serving at below 40% first serves and missing a bunch of makeable returns. At the other end of the court, Auger-Aliassime (who served at 57% himself for the first set) double-faulted a couple of times and framed shots for unforced errors at the most inopportune moments.
There were moments of brilliance though for Félix who served big to save break points prior to the tiebreaker – more about that later. He also showed signs of improvement on what I believe to be a weakness in his game, which has to do with being able to stay long in rallies when he is forced to scramble and retrieve several balls in a row.
Just a paragraph to explain what I mean first, before getting back to this match.
Félix is a fantastic player, way ahead of his peers of the same age range (except his buddy Denis who is actually 16 months older), when it comes to rallies that he can dominate in direction and pace. If you are interested in examples of what I mean, look no further than the first point of the 3-3 game in the first set, or the 15-40 point at 3-2 in the second. There is, on the other hand, a visible drop in performance when he has to play the reverse role, and the drop is more noticeable than you see in most other players who seem to cope better with the difficulties that such rallies present. This showed, for example, in his two losses against Laslo Djere in Rio and Sao Paulo. Djere was able to force him to hit a number of shots from behind the baseline (as a side note, this was also how Jaume Munar got the best of Félix in straight set, with a steady flow of deep shots, in the second round of 2018 Roland Garros qualifying, thus my doubts about clay being the most suitable surface to his game as some appear to claim).
Paragraph over, back to today’s match.
There were indeed several points where Niko collected errors out of Félix when he forced the Canadian to retrieve, but this particular weakness did not come across as glaringly as it has in the past, because the youngster also played a bunch of points, more than usual when compared to past matches, where he successfully dug himself out of difficult situations.
Take the 40-15 point in the second game for example. Basilashvili hit a wide first serve that Félix got back by lunging for it. Niko moved inside the court, just where he likes to be, and struck a backhand to the open ad corner. Félix ran it down and floated it back. Niko, still inside the court, nailed a big forehand, this time to the open deuce corner. Félix chased it down once more, and this time, he managed to put some sauce behind a forehand counter-punch despite being on the full-stretch and sliding with legs spread. Niko had to take a couple of steps back and hit a slightly rushed forehand that ended up in the net**. This is the type of point that typically does not end up well for Auger-Aliassime. It did this time, and it was not the only one.
** Why Basilashvili refuses to come to the net in such points, it remains a mystery to me. This is not unique to this match, and for a player who has sound technique at the net, he resembles that western-movie cowboy who sports a gun in his belt, but rarely uses it – the second point at 5-5, and the first at 6-5, two rare moments when he did. He won both points.
Don’t get me wrong, this is still an area that requires improvement for Félix. The sky is the limit for him if he can reach that stage where he can consistently absorb one or two, or more, of his opponent’s best power shots and not err on the first out-of-position retrieval (see the 30-0 point at 2-1, the 30-0 point at 2-2, and the second point at 4-3, for three such examples). Having said that, in a match where he committed a high number of unforced errors, the fact that he is showing signs of improvement in an area of concern is encouraging to say the least.
When the score reached 5-5 in the first set, the match seemed stuck. Neither player could turn the wheels enough to settle into a rhythm and impose his game on the other. Something extraordinary needed to happen for a breakthrough. One such opportunity dropped in Basilashvili’s lap at 5-5, 15-15, when Auger-Aliassime made three unforced forehand errors in succession (two of them framed) to lose his serve. However, staying true to the pattern of the set thus far, meaning “more misses than hits,” Basilashvili returned the favor at 30-15 when he was two points within the set, by missing two routine baseline shots and a backhand wide on the third to carry the match into a tiebreaker.
Auger-Aliassime went up 2-0 but lost the mini-break with a double fault and players held until 4-3 when, finally, something even more outré took place to finally end the gridlock. Auger-Aliassime, thanks to two aces and a double-fault by Basilashvili, found himself up 6-4, holding two set points, and without having hit a single shot off the ground in the last three points. Or, you could say, Basilashvili found himself down two set points without hitting a single shot in the court. Your pick! That was enough for Félix to pocket the first set when Niko missed a forehand in the net on the first set point.
If Basilashvili fans thought it was a gloomy first set, the second one would be even more depressing. In his first two serving games, Niko was only able to get one first serve in his first 11 attempts. It was only thanks to some second-serve return errors by Auger-Aliassime that the Georgian stayed within distance, and even got back on serve at 3-3. It was finally at this point that one player, Auger-Aliassime, visibly elevated his level of play and took charge.
The Canadian played an excellent point at 15-30 in that seventh game on Niko’s serve (I am zooming past the two double faults by Basilashvili which first allowed Félix to get to 30), featuring a stunning forehand down-the-line to set up the winner on the next shot. He broke to go up 4-3 on the next point and never looked back. At 15-30 down in the next game, Félix came up with three stellar first serves in a row to confirm the break. Then, again at 5-4, serving for the match, two more first serves gave him a 30-0 lead. Four points later at 40-30, Basilashvili’s miasmic afternoon at the office ended when he sailed a forehand out.
The Georgian finished the match with 25 unforced errors and eight double faults. His first-serve percentage was at 39% for the match. His dismal serving performance had a notable negative impact on the rest of his game, especially considering that his success significantly depends on the 1-2 punch opportunities created behind his serve. You want an example of what he can do when his first serve is on? Take a look at the 1-3 game in the second set. Four out of five first serves go in, resulting in two aces and a clean, painless game. The only such game in the match for him.
Auger-Aliassime’s serving, on the other hand, came in handy when he needed them, especially considering that nothing else was exactly clicking on all cylinders. He will next face the 11th-seeded of Borna Coric for a spot in the semifinal. It’s worth repeating: Félix Auger-Aliassime, the qualifier born in 2000, will have a shot at reaching the semifinal of an ATP1000 event on Thursday. If he succeeds, it will be his seventh win in 10 days against terrific competition.
Just sayin’…
Janko Tipsarevic, Pablo Cuevas, and Thomas Fabbiano. Just a reminder of who Grigor Dimitrov, the Bulgarian 20th-seed has eliminated on his way to his fourth-round match-up against Frances Tiafoe, scheduled for Sunday at the Australian Open. Although none of the victims were part of the so-called significant threats when the tournament began, the victories did not come trouble-free for Grigor as he had to play four sets against the first two and needed to overcome a heavy-handed start against Fabbiano, albeit winning straight sets.
For Grigor fans, the notion of taking comfort in your player’s ability to regularly show up in the second week of Majors has been bruised and battered plenty over the last few years. In 2018, it turned dismal despite the exciting cross at the finish line in 2017. Many went as far as suggesting a coaching change when Dimitrov’s woes deepened through the course of last year. He obviously did not think so (right decision, in my opinion) and he stuck with Daniel Vallverdu, recently adding Andre Agassi to the mix. That is one quality coach and one great mind who can perhaps squeeze the Bulgarian’s talent in ways that can bring stability to his topsy-turvy outings. We shall see, maybe very shortly.
Back to Grigor fans… It’s not all doom and gloom, my friends.
Your player did show signs of recovering his brilliance against Fabbiano, and more importantly, the quality-level of his performance increased as the match progressed against a pesky opponent that has largely been underrated. Grigor survived (no other verb to describe it) the first set with a tiebreaker in which both men committed a generous amount of errors.
Dimitrov started the second set surprisingly well. In the first two games, he showcased his trademark shot-making abilities, hitting a couple of forehand winners on the full run, stifling Fabbiano by stepping into the court, returning with determination, and adding in a spectacular backhand-volley winner for good measure. He seemed to be back on track and kept that break advantage until 3-2. Then, the seemingly fine-tuned Grigor machine got derailed. In that game, he sprayed four very makeable forehands out in five points. It was completely unbecoming, compared to how well he was playing up to that moment in that set. Gone was his break advantage.
That is maybe how little it takes nowadays for self-doubt to appear in Grigor’s mind, I ‘dunno.’ Because, in the first two points of the ensuing 3-3 game, he engaged in rallies during which he had multiple chances (four in the first point, one in the second) to step inside the court, which he did, unleash his shot and put Fabbiano on the stretch, which he did, and follow it up to put it away at the net, which he did not! Yep, he hesitated. He won both points anyway and that may actually not be a good thing, because he did not suffer the consequences of his apprehensiveness.
That small stretch, the sixth game followed by Dimitrov’s hesitancy in the first two points of the seventh, represented a worrisome glitch for Grigor’s camp, I presume. To make matters worse, Fabbiano climbed back to 30-30 following another forehand error by Dimitrov. Was he about to plunge back into troublesome waters after a few games of vintage flair on his part?
This is where the silver lining lies and what followed demonstrated that it’s not all gloom and doom for Dimitrov’s fans at the end of the day. He did not crumble. On his second break-point opportunity, he put forth on display once again his all-court dexterity in a rally that saw him chase down and retrieve several great shots by Fabbiano, counterpunch with a stellar forehand to get the upper hand at one point in the rally, only to lose it again two shots later (because Fabbiano also happens to be an able counterpuncher), but still manage to end it on a spectacular lob from a very difficult position. It was the best point of the match. Dimitrov stood still two seconds with his right fist raised above his head, staring at his camp. He did not flail, he was back. That little stretch earlier was indeed just a glitch. He was not going to let it spoil the party.
From that point forward, Dimitrov’s performance turned even more solid by the minute. He finished the second set at 5-4 with four unreturnable serves. In the third set, there were no glitches such as the one in the second and Dimitrov exhibited a level of consistency far above that of the first. He made five unforced errors in that last set (my count, I assure you it’s more accurate than the official one), all on the forehand side, which had something to do with the fact that he was in a better groove and was pounding them harder. With no errors on the backhand side in the third set and the serve (the importance of which I cannot emphasize enough with regard to Grigor’s success) clicking on all cylinders in the last two sets, Dimitrov had about as strong a finish as one could expect, considering the mediocre first forty minutes of the match.
It’s true that one can hardly call this a great overall performance by Dimitrov, but when analyzed in detail, there is quite a lot to be hopeful about. In the Majors you would like your game to improve with each round and walk off the court after each victory with the feeling that you just accomplished something beyond just what the scoreline indicates, one on which you can build for the next 48 hours to tackle the next challenge. That process effectively took place for Dimitrov in his win against Fabbiano, and his next challenge comes in the form of Frances Tiafoe, the American fast-rising youngster.
And honestly, for Dimitrov, in the grand scheme of things, the name of the opponent matters less than how his frame of mind is shaped on the court. He is an intelligent player and has two able helpers to provide further assistance, but his fate lies on his racket.
If he can beat Tiafoe, he will match his quarterfinal showing from last year and avoid losing more points.
If he can do so and do it at a level of the highest order – read that as “raise his level far beyond that of the previous three matches – he will march into the second week having recaptured his identity as one of the rare menaces to elite-level players.