Category: ATP

Istanbul Open: Semifinals Recap

ATP Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Taro Daniel def. Jérémy Chardy 6-3 4-6 6-4

Jérémy Chardy entered the day as the favorite to win the match and the only semifinalist out of the four remaining players to have won an ATP event in his career (Stuttgart 2009). His game-plan is well known to everyone. He relies on his biggest weapon – his forehand – to control points and hit winners. He is also one of the most frequent users of the 1-2 punch thanks to a fairly effective first serve that can set the next shot up for him.

That is exactly how he started the match, winning four straight points to hold serve, including a couple of forehand winners in the process.

Taro Daniel, for his part, was going to need to use his athleticism to get balls back in play and generate power in return, in order to not only counter-punch Chardy’s powerful forehands, but also to produce winners winners of his own. In other words, he would look to negate Chardy’s plan, deal the deck from the bottom so to speak, and put the Frenchman in the more undesired position of having to chase balls.

Daniel managed to hold serve in the second game, saving a break point with a drop shot to bring Chardy to the net and pass him in the ensuing forehand.

The first turning point of the set came at 2-2, on Chardy’s serve. It was a terrific game filled with high-octane baseline rallies, one that showed Daniel going toe-to-toe with his opponent from the baseline. The last two points of the game demonstrated that he was gaining confidence and beginning to impose his game on his opponent. At deuce, there was a long rally with both players using the full parameters of the court and running each other around. Chardy was the first to break down when he missed a backhand slice in the net. In the next point Daniel put a stop to another contested rally by striking a terrific cross-court-backhand winner.

When Daniel held to confirm the break and led 4-2, it was clear that Chardy’s task had just become a lot more tedious. Daniel was beating him at his own game, turning rallies upside down, putting the Frenchman on the defensive, and hitting some spectacular winners, especially with his down-the-line backhand accelerations.

Chardy could also hope that Daniel descended from the clouds. It looked like that may happen when Daniel went up 0-40 at first on Chardy’s serve at 4-2, and committed three errors to squander those opportunities. Chardy eventually held to stay within distance.

But, Taro remained resolved, holding serve with a well-disguised drop-shot winner to safeguard his break advantage. Chardy, for his part, was struggling to regain any type of control during rallies or figuring out how to put the ball away against this pesky opponent who seemed to run everything down and forcing him to produce several big forehands in succession.

Daniel won the first set 6-3, breaking Chardy’s serve one more time when the Frenchman missed a routine backhand wide at deuce and followed it up with a low forehand volley error on set point.

Taro Daniel – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi on Twitter

As the second set began, Chardy was not only battling Daniel but also a sense of uncertainty. If Taro continued his flawless rhythm of the last twenty minutes, what could Jérémy do to overcome the challenge and stage a comeback?

The first eight games of the second set gave mixed answers to that question.

But one thing was certain, Chardy had yet to recover his top form. He was still committing the occasional error, and Daniel was not helping matters as he continued to produce winners, including some great drop shots at the most unexpected moments.

The Frenchman would not give up though. He pressed on with his attacking game whenever he had the chance. That is how he held his serve at 2-3, with a deep approach shot and an overhead winner. That is also how he saved a break point at 3-4, when he moved in to catch a floater in the air, putting it away with forehand swing-volley winner. Determined to keep fighting, he pumped his fist as he held serve to get to 4-4. You could sense that his belief was reemerging as the second set progressed.

He pumped his fist a second time when he saved a game point on Daniel’s serve at 4-4. Daniel got another chance to hold serve and that is when Chardy hit three sensational return winners in a row to break his opponent’s serve and go up 5-4. It was a remarkable show of poise by the experienced Frenchman. Daniel had not lowered his level of play, so it appeared that Chardy had essentially decided to take matters into his own hands at that point by going for broke. It worked to perfection and resembled that moment when two people are fighting over the remote control and one finally rips it away from the other’s hands.

Chardy sealed the set in the next game with a forehand cross-court winner and carried the match to a third and final set.

The seesaw battle continued with each player holding serve until the fifth game. Chardy seemed to finally break through when, on his third break-point opportunity, Daniel got apprehensive and failed to take charge from a position inside the court. It allowed Chardy to recover and finish the point a few shots later, with a forehand inside-out winner.

Right when you thought Chardy was taking charge of the match for the first time, Daniel broke right back, equalizing at 3-3. The pattern was repeated again in the next two games and the players found themselves at 4-4, probably yearning for a time in the past when they could hold serves.

Chardy had a golden chance to continue the pattern when he had a shoulder-level forehand sitter from the middle of the court – he could not have asked for a better opportunity – and missed the put-away attempt by an inch on the sideline. Two more break-point opportunities would pass by Chardy. Daniel finally held serve, despite having committed two double faults in the game – his sixth and seventh ones of the match.

That turned out to be the final turning point of the match. Chardy must have come out mentally deflated from not having capitalized on those chances, because he quickly committed three unforced errors to go down 0-40 and give Daniel three match-point opportunities. On the second one, Chardy sent another routine forehand in the net, and just like that, Daniel won.

On the one hand, it was a great moment for the 114th-ranked Japanese player, carrying him to the final of an ATP event for the first time in his career. On the other hand, it was a deeply disappointing one for Chardy. The last game was an unusually abrupt ending for such a tight match. Daniel thoroughly deserved the victory at the end of the day, but one wishes it did not end on a game that featured for unforced errors. The last three minutes reflected inaccurately the kind of tennis played during the previous two and a half hours.

Daniel could finally enjoy a couple of hours that he had never experienced in his life, which would consist of sitting back and watching a semifinal match in an ATP event, just to see which player he would face in the finals on Sunday.

Malek Jaziri def. Laslo Djere 6-3 6-2

I have no intention to take away any credit from Malek Jaziri’s well-deserved and thoroughly-earned march to the finals of the Istanbul Open, but it appeared that Djere’s marathon (3 hours 13 minutes) victory over Paolo Lorenzi yesterday in the quarterfinal played a role in the outcome of today’s match. The Serbian’s footwork appeared lethargic in the early games of the match.

For example, serving at 2-3, his legs just did not seem to bend enough to hit the backhand slice on the 15-0 point, and it sailed deep. In the same game, up 40-15 with two chances to get back to 3-3, he seemed a step late as he jumped awkwardly on a defensive backhand and hit it out on the first one. On the second, he did not move enough out of the way as he struck a run-around forehand that got stuck in the net. A bit later in the same game, on the second deuce point, his legs remained static as he erred on a backhand that landed wide. Jaziri ended up winning the game, earning the definitive break of the first set.

Djere, to his credit, did fight hard to get the break back, especially when his back was against the wall at 3-5. He squandered three break-point opportunities in that game, second of which must have been devastating. It followed the longest rally of the match thus far, with Djere finally taking charge with a great approach shot and getting the chance to put a high backhand volley away. He sailed it wide. Six points later, Jaziri nailed a big serve and sealed the first set 6-3 in his favor.

Djere had another opportunity to sink his teeth back in the match when he led 1-0 in the second set and 0-30 on Jaziri’s serve, but The Tunisian went on a tear with a plethora of powerful forehands to climb back out of the hole.

Perhaps, that was a sign of things to come because Jaziri continued to rely on his forehands – with success – to produce more winners and opportunities at the net. The examples are too many to cite but it seemed that Jaziri, using his forehand, was able to push Djere around or come up with a big strike from a defensive position on most key points. His first serve came to his rescue as well, as he struck a big one that either did not come back in the court or set him up for the winner on the next shot (see the 3-1 game).

Malek Jaziri – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi on Twitter

Djere gave him an assist with a forehand unforced error in the net, allowing Jaziri to grab the decisive lead in the fourth game of the second set. Jaziri added to that lead by breaking Djere a second time in the seventh game to serve for the match at 5-2. Djere’s body language was one of resignation by that time, surely the result of endless miles accumulated by his legs over the last four days, in three matches that included the longest one in the four-year history of the tournament, two final sets, and five tiebreakers.

Let’s reiterate, nevertheless, that Jaziri has so far delighted tennis fans in Istanbul (he has more local fans than any other non-Turkish player in the tournament) with dazzling shot production and the kind of determination that has occasionally lacked in his game in the past. He is a streaky player and that has not always worked in his favor in the past. He has, by contrast, showed exceptional consistency in this tournament. Outside of a couple of badly played games in the first set against Jiri Vesely in the quarterfinals, he has avoided the extreme cycles within a match of which he had occasionally been a victim in his career.

Ready for Sunday’s final?

Tomorrow’s final promises to be intense and entertaining. Both Daniel and Jaziri are in pursuit of their first ATP titles and their entrance to the record books forever. That is, at the end of the day, one of the most meaningful accomplishments in the career of a tennis player. Almost every professional player will tell you that they never forget their first title or that they are dreaming of winning one. That is the moment where they finally engrave their name forever in the history of the game, regardless of what happens after that point in their career. In short, Jaziri and Daniel will vie for that which can never be taken away from them in the future. I, for one, cannot wait to see history unfold.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Istanbul Open: Quarterfinals Recap (First two matches)

ATP No Comments

Taro Daniel def. Rogerio Dutra Silva 1-6 6-1 6-4

Players often claim that playing in a crowded stadium motivates them to play better. Well, the ones at the Istanbul Open this week do not have that luxury. Matches are being played in front of empty stands, and I mean, literally. Discussing the reasons for the tragic state of (non-)attendance at the Istanbul Open would require dozens of pages and an afternoon panel, but that topic would go beyond the intended scope of this match-recap post. For those interested, I have extensively written about it in my past Istanbul Open articles on this site (see Istanbul Open 2015 and 2017 related ones).

My point in mentioning the empty stands is rather related to the two players that walked on the court to play the first quarterfinal match of the day in this year’s edition of the tournament. Their names are Rogerio Dutra Silva and Taro Daniel. The former is on his fourteenth year on the tour and the latter, on his eight. They are both ranked outside the top 100 – 104 and 114 respectively – and they have never gotten to the semifinal round of an ATP event. Much of their success has come on the Challenger tour. With a career opportunity presented to them as they stepped on the court earlier today, I would guess that neither needed the stands filled for extra motivation.

Dutra Silva began the match as most people who have seen him play many times would have expected him to begin. Get engaged in tedious, long baseline rallies, move around the backhand as much as possible to hit forehands, and keep the ball deep and high with plenty of topspin. In simpler terms, get a lot of balls back and outlast the opponent. It’s a simple formula, made famous by the Swedish players during the 1980s (except the running around the backhand). It also happens to be the only one that Dutra Silva has regularly utilized – and has at his disposition, to be frank – in his 14 years as a professional. The Brazilian is your emblematic clay-court grinder.

Daniel, for his part, is a baseliner too, but can generate more pace from the baseline and on his first serve. You may remember him from his upset win over an out-of-form Novak Djokovic in Indian Wells this year or from his four-set loss to Rafael Nadal at the US Open last year. Although a baseliner himself, he can flatten out and hit winners on both wings, but he can also be erratic. One thing he certainly did not need to do was to get into long rallies against the veteran Dutra Silva from behind the baseline.

Yet, that is precisely what occurred in the first set. A pattern, very convenient to the 34-year-old Brazilian, began to emerge. Daniel got involved in mid-pace rallies from behind the baseline and perhaps waited “too patiently” to get that one opportunity to strike the “higher” percentage winner. As a result, Dutra Silva got to play plenty of above-8-shot rallies and had time to calibrate his strokes. Daniel grew frustrated and committed more errors, eventually bringin the first set to an abrupt close, 6-1 in favor of Dutra Silva.

It was clear that Daniel needed to get away from his opponent’s strengths and take risks. He did, it worked, and the match turned around. It was that simple, that straight-forward.

Taro did what any player should do against a consistent opponent who likes to use his forehands to control the baseline. Since Dutra Silva was parked on the ad corner to allow room for his forehands, Daniel began accelerating down-the-line with his backhand to catch him off-guard. This allowed Taro to create space and hit winners to the open court, or at least, force Dutra Silva to hit more backhands, his weaker side by far. Once Daniel got ahead by a break early in the second, he became confident and began producing some spectacular winners. The second set also ended 6-1, this time in Daniel’s favor.

Taro Daniel – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi on Twitter

Third set started with another reversal, as Daniel turned erratic once again and Dutra Silva raced to a 4-0 lead. He looked poised to grab the 5-0 lead when he hit a fine drop-volley winner to get the 40-30 lead. Then, arrived the most critical three-point sequence of the match.

Dutra Silva committed, out of nowhere, a routine forehand cross-court error from the baseline at 40-30. At deuce, he hit a backhand that landed on the service line. Daniel stepped in and approached the net on a hard shot to Dutra Silva’s forehand. The Brazilian missed the makeable passing shot wide. In the ensuing break point, Dutra Silva approached the net and missed a backhand volley, wide again. Ironically, all three errors landed almost on the same spot, wide in the deuce-side doubles alley.

It would only get worse for Dutra Silva. Leading 4-2, and serving at 30-30, he had a sitter inside the baseline. He lined up his forehand and nailed it. The ball landed almost exactly to the same wide spot in the doubles alley as the three errors previously noted. He lost the next point and his service game. The reset button was hit after Daniel easily held serve in the next game and the scoreboard showed 4-4 in the final set.

In that ninth game, Dutra Silva was clearly not content with just rallying. He started off with a swing-volley winner at the net and did not let up. He recorded two more forehand winners, but this tactical shift also led to errors. It was obviously not his A plan but Daniel was feeling pumped at that juncture in the match and Dutra Silva probably felt like he needed to take more charge in the rallies. His backhand down-the-line error on game point at 40-30 proved fatal. Daniel won the next two points to break Rogerio’s serve one more time and served for the match at 5-4.

Dutra Silva appeared mentally deflated during the game change and as he walked out to play the tenth game. Daniel quickly raced out to a 40-0 lead. He put Dutra Silva away on his second match point, completing an impressive come back in the final set, winning the last six games in succession.

Kudos to Daniel for the 1-6 6-1 6-4 win, but you also cannot help but feel bad for Dutra Silva. At 34 years of age, he may have seen his last genuine shot at reaching the semifinal stage of an ATP event. He played a younger, less-experienced, lower-ranked opponent on his favorite surface and had a substantial lead to put the match in the books. He had his foot in the door but could not enter. The good news for him, the clay-court season has only begun. As for Daniel, his dream week carries on.

Jérémy Chardy def. Thomas Fabbiano 6-2 6-2

There is not much to write about this particular match. Chardy was the more accomplished player and the clear favorite to advance to the semifinal. The scenario played out as expected, with zero deviation.

Jérémy Chardy – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi on Twitter

Something extraordinary needed to happen for Fabbiano to have a chance. Any glimmer of hope for that possibility quickly eroded when the 100th-ranked Italian committed two unforced errors in a row to lose his first service game of the match. Both were on routine forehands struck from the middle of the court, the first one landing in the net, the second sailing wide.

Following the break, the encounter turned into a routine Chardy match, meaning the Frenchman dictated rallies with his forehand, occasionally collecting free points with his first serve. Fabbiano resorting to slice backhands when he was chasing balls further helped Chardy’s cause as it gave him time to run around the backhand to unload his forehands. He finished the set by breaking his opponent’s serve one more time.

The first set’s pattern was almost identically repeated in the second, with Chardy earning the break on the fourth game. Fabbiano could never manage to find a solution to Chardy’s dominance from the baseline. The 87th-ranked Frenchman recorded the 6-2 6-2 win in one hour and seventeen minutes. He should once again be the clear favorite when he faces Daniel tomorrow in the semifinals.

Unfortunately, I will be unable to recap the last two quarterfinal matches of today.
Until tomorrow, for the semifinals.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Alexander Zverev – John Isner (men’s final)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

Coming into today’s Miami Open final between two in-form players, the fifth-ranked German Alexander “Sascha” Zverev and the 17th-ranked American John Isner, one could not help but wonder what kind of impact each player’s preferred style of play would have on the other.

In the two previous rounds, Zverev won in straight sets against two solid baseliners, Borna Coric and Pablo Carreno-Busta, accelerating efficiently in rallies and overpowering his opponents with accelerations. Isner, for his part, demolished the rising star Hyeon Chung in two routine sets and put a stop to Juan Martin Del Potro’s fifteen-match winning streak. He relied for the most part on his bazooka serves and forehands, and never allowed either of them to settle into their favorite patterns.

This championship match also offered a fascinating background story. On the one hand, Isner had never won an ATP 1000 title but did have a history of performing well on American soil regardless of whether the crowd got behind him or not (see his match from two days ago vs Del Potro). On the other hand, Zverev had never lost in the finals of an ATP 1000, having won both of his previous appearances.

Nevertheless, all that would matter less once the fuzzy ball would get tossed in the air for the first serve of the match. The players’ tennis outputs on the stadium court at Crandon Park would determine the outcome on this day.

Could Isner cook the same recipe that worked so well against Coric and Carreno-Busta, and hinder the German’s well-oiled production of steady, high-paced ground strokes? Could he return big against Sascha, like he did against his previous opponents? In any case, his game plan seemed crystal clear: serve big, return big, nail forehand, and apply pressure.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

The answer to how Zverev would respond was a little blurrier. Could Zverev put forth enough power of his own to stop the American from getting the upper hand in the first two shots of each point? Could he stay in the point long enough to exploit Isner’s weaknesses, such as his backhand and footwork? Tennis fans awaited those answers as the players stepped on the court.

The first two sets were decided on a few key points at different times. The third set was, by contrast, the product of an overarching trend that worked against Zverev throughout the match and ultimately doomed him in the late stages of the match.

Unlike what many expected, break chances came early, all in favor of Isner. The way Zverev saved the first two break points (0-1, 15-40) was, on the other hand, very predictable. He hit a wide (and big) first serve to get to 30-40. Then, he engaged Isner in a deliberately paced backhand cross-court rally, the important term being “deliberately” (more on this later). Isner missed his fifth backhand and Sascha got back to deuce.

Isner would get another break-point opportunity two points later, one that he probably regretted for the rest of the set. He set the point up perfectly, approaching the net behind a forehand, but floated a very makeable forehand volley deep. Zverev held with a couple of big first serves.

In the first set, Zverev executed his game plan well. For starters, he stuck with the right pattern in baseline rallies. As noted above, he pinned Isner to the ad corner, making him hit backhands. He knew that Isner would want to run around the backhand and nail forehands, exactly like the American did against Chung and Del Potro. Thus, Zverev was not holding back on his backhand cross-courts, and therefore, not allowing Isner enough time to move outside the court (again, more on this later).

Secondly, Sascha’s first serves were clutch. Whenever he faced a break point, or a 30-30 point, he came up with an ace or an unreturnable serve, shutting the door quickly on Isner. He saved three of the five break points in the first set with big serves and won numerous other free points on important points.

Zverev was also making Isner hit the first volley low. It was not enough for Isner to simply hit his forehand hard and win the point without having to play the next shot. Isner had to showcase his volleying skills to put the ball away. Muscling serves and forehand were not going to be enough. It worked for Zverev. Isner missed some of those volleys, or at least, had to resort to just placing the volley, giving Zverev a second look at a passing shot.

A glaring example of this occurred when Isner got in trouble for the first time on his serve at 2-2. On game point, he hit a big kick serve wide to the ad side (one of his “money” shots) and followed it to the net. Zverev got the backhand return right down to Isner’s feet. Although Zverev was way outside the court when he returned, he was able to recover and chase the next ball down because Isner had to hit the low volley upward. Zverev ran it down and passed Isner cross-court with his forehand. Although Isner ended up holding serve, he knew he had to stay on his toes, even behind good serves and approaches. That is the type of pressure that, if applied consistently, works on you and makes a difference on an important point later in the match.

It did, in the tiebreaker…

The quality of tennis significantly dropped in the tiebreaker, for one reason or another. Both players committed uncharacteristic errors and lost awkward points on patterns that should have otherwise favored them. Until Zverev led 3-2, nothing looked out of the ordinary. The German won his two serving points on big first serves and he earned the mini break on yet another low volley that he forced Isner to hit. That was the pay-off (see above) for Zverev repeatedly making Isner hit low first volleys.

Zverev lost his mini-break advantage though, and more, when he committed two unforced backhand errors in a row to go down 4-3. Then Isner missed a forehand and double-faulted to return the favor. Remember, I did use the adjectives “awkward” and “uncharacteristic” earlier to describe what happened in this tiebreaker, so you were warned.

The last two points showcased again the winning formula(s) that Zverev adopted throughout the set. Another clutch first serve put him up 6-4. On set point, Zverev once again engaged Isner in a rally, making the American hit several backhands until he missed.

So, what went wrong for Zverev – or right for Isner – after the first set? Not much actually, except in two specific games, one in each set, and the overarching trend on which I touched at the beginning and kept putting off by saying “more on this later.” That is all it took for the American to grab the biggest title of career.

Until 4-4 in the second set, players held serves without difficulty. Then suddenly, on his serve, Zverev played by far the worst game of the match thus far. Out of nowhere, leading 30-15, Zverev squeezed in two unforced errors (one of them, a forehand framed to the sky) and a double fault to give Isner his first break-point opportunity of the set, the only one he needed.

And this is where I finally get to the overarching trend that doomed Sascha.

On that break point, Sascha had a mid-court backhand, similar to the ones he had all along the first set and a half, one that he has been taking early at shoulder level and drilling cross-court. That pattern, until then, regularly pushed Isner to the backhand corner and allowed Zverev to settle into the favorable cross-court-backhand pattern. Instead, and inexplicably, Zverev held back and hit a mid-pace backhand on which Isner was able to run around his backhand and pound a forehand. Zverev responded with another defensive, and shorter, backhand. This time Isner stepped inside the court and unleashed his forehand for a winner, grabbing the first break of the match.

Isner won the second set on his serve in the next game, although he had to save a couple of break points. More importantly for him, the trend from Sascha freely hitting his backhands cross-court and out-rallying him to Sascha hitting his backhands tentatively and giving him a shot at running around to unload his forehands was now in full progress.

Zverev’s success with his first serves still continued. He saved break points early in the third set with big serves. Plus, he was still making Isner hit low volleys when the American ventured to the net. Those two factors remained in his favor. However, extended rallies were no longer a write-in for Zverev like they were in the first 90 minutes of the match.

And you could tell that Isner was smelling blood because, you see, when a player shows apprehensiveness, it is not just the previously working pattern that loses traction for him. His loss of confidence, and Zverev’s body language tends to show this, motivates the opponent to gain mental momentum. Hence, Isner began staying in rallies longer because he now believed that Zverev, due to his tentative baseline play, would eventually hold back on one shot somewhere and give him a chance to take charge in the rally.

Photo: Michael Reaves – Getty Images

At 4-4 in the final set, Zverev’s increasing malaise on his ground strokes had spread to the rest of his game. Even his reliable first serve disappeared. He began with a double fault. Then, Isner, full of confidence, hit a thunder return on a first serve, and followed it with a forehand winner to go up 0-30. One point later, at 15-30, he had to serve a second serve and get in a rally. If there were a rally to show how much Zverev had regressed – the overarching trend – in the deliberate nature of his ground strokes, this would be the one.

He had a sitter on his backhand inside the baseline, in the middle of the court, on a ball by Isner that bounced inside the service line. Instead of accelerating to the backhand corner of Isner, like he has done numerous times throughout the first set and a half (and the tournament), Zverev simply half-looped the backhand back to the middle of the court heck, (he might have even slightly mishit it). Isner moved up and hit a forehand back to Sascha’s backhand. It was deeper but nothing that Sascha could not handle. The German missed the routine backhand deep by over a meter at least.

The miss, and his body language after the miss, pointed to one thing: he had lost his mental edge. The ensuing break point confirmed it. Another rally, another set of baseline shots underplayed by Zverev, ending with an easy forehand sitter slammed in the net. He smashed his racket to the ground, twice, and broke it. It seemed that the match had ended there.

Isner served up the formalities, literally, with three aces to earn his first ATP 1000 title.

The match was more of a mental battle than anything else. The quality of tennis was higher in the first half of the encounter, minus the tiebreaker. The tactical adjustments made by both players, on the other hand, were remarkable. The battle of IQs had no clear winner, both players proved potent there, but the one with the higher resolve stood tall, no pun intended, at the end.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Alexander Zverev vs Borna Coric (quarterfinal)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

Although Alexander “Sascha” Zverev, ranked no.5 in the ATP and holder of six career titles, should have been on paper the favorite to win when he stepped on the court to face Borna Coric, the 36th-ranked Croat, for his quarterfinal match at the Miami Open, most tennis fans who follow the game closely knew better.

Outside of his first-round loss at the Australian Open, Coric had enjoyed an impressive 2018 season, including a semifinal appearance in Indian Wells and a trio of three-set victories, all against quality opponents, to reach the quarterfinals in Miami. Having played nine matches in three weeks, with five of them extending to three sets, he had appeared to answer the call physically and mentally.

There was also their head-to-head record that favored Coric 2-0 when they started the match. Both previous encounters were extremely close, with Borna winning 7-5 3-6 7-6 in Cincinnati in 2015 and 3-6 7-5 7-6 7-6 at the US Open in 2017.

Coric vs Zverev – Cincinnati, 2015

Simply put, there was every reason to expect an intriguing match that was hard to predict.

It ended up more one-sided than expected, with Zverev outplaying Coric in almost every facet of the game. I have a couple of lingering thoughts on these two players that I want to put on paper, or on the computer screen in this case, but let’s get to the story of the match first, because every match has one.

Zverev’s straight-set victory today did not happen because he did one thing to which Coric could not find a solution or because Coric had a bad day at the office all around, or because Zverev happened to win the few key points that decided the outcome, although the 6-4 6-4 scoreline would suggest the latter. Few differences coming into play intermittently made it possible for Zverev to never be in any trouble throughout the match.

Zverev served well, on both first and second serves. Yes, his percentage on first-serve points won was striking at 83%, but the depth on his second serves was majestic. He was able to apply persistent pressure Coric during rallies. So, what should Coric, or any player facing this problem, do to tackle this problem? One possible solution is to step in on your opponent’s second serve and return aggressively in order to take away his baseline drives from the beginning of the point.

Yet, every time Coric attempted to take charge with his return on the German’s second serves, Sascha came up with high-velocity and/or high-bouncing serves that landed on the back line of the service box, forcing Coric to step back or hit the return at a higher point than his sweet spot, in case he did not step back.

If you need examples, see the 2-1, 40-15 and the 4-3, 40-15 points in the first set. In the latter, for instance, Sascha lands a fabulous second serve that pushes Borna back and forces him into a defensive return. In other words, Coric had no choice but resort to doing the opposite of what he initially intended to do when he stepped up to return. Thus, Sascha controls the second shot, Coric has to scramble on defense, and the point ends with Sascha hitting the winner on the third shot.

There is your explanation as to how Zverev won 75% of the points launched with his second serve. When you can complement your 83% first-serve points won – he literally won two or three free points in each serving game with his first serve – with a 75% rate on your second-serve points won, and commit zero double faults, you get to win your service games comfortably. Zverev lost only 5 points on his service games in the second set. Coric’s only two chances to break came in the very first service game of the match by Zverev.

And that brings me to my pet peeve, which is the importance of the first two games of a set and their underrated existence in match analyses. I bet Coric would like to replay that 30-40 break point at 1-0 up in the beginning of the match, the one in which he missed a routine forehand deep.

Speaking of errors, they were another factor that contributed to Coric’s inability to worry Zverev. As I noted above, Coric did not particularly play badly. He did, however, err uncharacteristically on some important points. The above at 1-0 up, break point, was perhaps the most important one.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

There were also the two unforced errors that made him trail 15-40, at 3-3 in the second set. He got out of that hole, so initially it may seem like a no-biggie in retrospect. But when you do that two service games in a row and fight hard to dig yourself out of each hole, it carries long-term consequences. When you get behind in the score due to those types of errors, although they end up not costing you in those two games (Coric also saved two break points in the 1-1 game), harm your confidence in your ground strokes. The resulting mental dent may come back to haunt you later in the set.

It most likely did for Coric, in the most crucial game of the second set, when he served at 4-4. At 15-15, he missed a backhand down-the-line deep that he would make nine out ten times. He followed it up with another routine cross-court backhand missed wide, and he found himself down two break points once again. He saved the first one but could not save the second (sixth in the set), committing yet another backhand error. It was probably the worst service game played by Coric from the baseline but having to dance on thin ice on your service games throughout the set while your opponent is winning his serves with ease, can crush you when the match is on the line.

Again, it was not like Coric performed badly throughout the match from the baseline. In fact, in those break points that he saved in the second set, he played some of his best tennis. He bravely hit a rocket backhand down-the-line on one, put his touch on display with a fine drop volley on another, and got a big first serve in on a third one. Zverev did not perform far above his standards from the baseline either. He also committed some errors. The German was, however, the more pro-active player, looking for openings, stepping inside the baseline, changing the pace of the ball, while Coric parked three meters behind the baseline, mostly retrieving, relying on his legs, and playing the reactive role.

Put all the above together and you get a convincing win in favor of Sascha, not in the form of a blow-out (which is more likely to occur if one player had a weakness that the other relentlessly exploited or if one player did everything a little better than the other), but in the form of a steady stream of shifting advantages appearing through various facets of the game, resulting in the inevitable.

I will conclude with one last lingering thought specifically with regard to these two players – and a handful of others with the same obsession, Karen Khachanov comes to mind.

Both players possess better backhands than forehands. Yet, they both occasionally, and inexplicably, move around their backhands to hit forehands. It is baffling to say the least and I am not even sure that it benefits them. Coric and Zverev do not have bad forehands per se and they are capable of accelerating using them. It is just that they can cause the same damage, or more, I would argue, with their backhands. I also believe that Borna and Sascha are themselves aware of the fact that they have better overall skills on their backhands than on their forehands.

So, why then, this obsession with hitting a forehand when you can line-up your strongest shot from the exact same spot? I can provide several detailed examples from this match alone for both players, but I will just stick to a few by Zverev. In the 2-1, 15-0 point, he chooses to hit a forehand and misses. In the 40-15 point at 5-3, he hits three great backhands, puts Coric on the defensive, then moves to hit a forehand on the next shot and misses deep. On the deuce point at 1-1 in the second set, he takes a few steps to run around the backhand, and strikes a forehand that lands behind the baseline.

I would argue that in each one of those points, Zverev would have gotten better results if he got his feet positioned and took those same cuts with his backhand.

In fact, a sequence in the fourth game of the second set shows that he can. In the 2-1 game, at 15-15, Zverev runs around the backhand and produces an inside-out forehand winner. Guess what? Two points later, Coric hits the ball slightly more to Zverev’s backhand side, and this time, Zverev does not around. He sets up and strikes a backhand. He produces almost an identical winner to the one from two points ago, except on his backhand this time, and with a sharper angle.

Photo: Micheal Reaves – Getty Images

I discussed this obsession of certain players with one of the leading tacticians in our game at Roland Garros two years ago and he said that there were studies showing that players can accelerate – or create power – with their forehands better than their backhands. He was not necessarily arguing to the contrary, but data apparently showed that hitting forehands is the preferred method of players when taking charge of a point. I have no doubt that the majority of the ATP players can power up the amp with their forehands. However, using that particular point to draw a blanket conclusion that forehands are preferable to backhands is one that I am not willing to accept.

Zverev will next play the Spaniard Pablo Carreno-Busta, another baseline monster, for a spot in the final. I predict that the German will have to decide a number of times in that match whether to run around the backhand or not. If he does, his forehand better be operating at maximum capacity.

Until next time, enjoy the tennis!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Denis Shapovalov vs Sam Querrey (3rd round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

A friend of mine texted me in the beginning of this match’s deciding set and asked: “Can we please talk about Shapo’s serves?” It was a rhetorical question of course, her way of languishing in the misery of watching Denis Shapovalov, one of her favorite players, hit only 37% of his first serves in for the first set, and 32% for the second, while throwing in seven double faults for good measure.

I answered her question with another one, except mine was on a positive note: “Can we please talk about Shapo’s second serves?”

The main reason why Shapovalov was still in the match was precisely because he gave a clinic for one set on how to win points when your first serve temporarily disappears. The problem was that he was playing against a top 20 player and you can only live on your second serves for so long against that type of competition. The Canadian’s first-serve began working better in the late stages of the match, but before we get there, let us take a closer look at the first set.

Both players seemed to start with similar game plans in mind. Each knew that the other would prioritize offense over all else, but instead of focusing on defending well, they seemed to have decided that attacking furiously, early in the point, was the best defense. Making the occasional error was acceptable within this game plan, as long as the opponent did not get to win points on his terms.

Querrey began by serving big, aiming for direct points or big cuts on follow-up ground strokes if Shapovalov happened to get the return back in the court. He did make an error at 40-15, but again, that was within acceptable parameters, because he won the other points thanks to big serves or by forcing Denis into errors.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

Querrey took a big cut on the return on Shapovalov’s second serve to start the next game. Denis was ready. He set his feet quickly and sent the ball back with the same pace. Sam was caught off guard and made the error. 15-0 Shapovalov.

Sam tried another explosive return on the next point. Denis responded even better this time, nailing a spectacular winner with his backhand as he was backing up from the American’s aggressive return. 30-0 Shapovalov.

The Canadian added an ace to go up 40-0.

He followed that with a double fault, surely caused by his attempt at a risky second serve, aware of Querrey’s intention to whack the return. Querrey did go for another rocket return at 40-15, and again, Shapovalov answered the call with a solid backhand down-the-line to the open corner. Querrey did get to the ball but missed it under pressure.

The initial response to the Querrey charge succeeded.

That serving game was the best reaction Shapovalov could have put together to plant seeds of doubt in Querrey’s mind that just power alone would not be enough to oust the Canadian today.

The shift in tone carried into the next game that decided the set. Shapovalov essentially showed Querrey that he can beat the American in his own game. He turned the tables around and went for bazookas on returns, just like the American tried to do in the previous game. At 40-30, he punished Sam’s second serve two points in a row with big forehand returns. Sam saved that break point. Later in the game, on another deuce, Shapovalov went for another big cut on a backhand return that landed on the baseline. Querrey barely got it back and Shapovalov put the forehand away, earning his third break point. He finally got the break on another huge forehand return, this time for a clean winner.

When Shapovalov held serve easily to confirm the break and go up 3-1, Querrey was facing an unpleasant reality. He came out with what he thought was a good plan. It worked in the first game. Then, Denis essentially said, “not so fast Sam.” He turned the challenge around and threw it back at Sam. And precisely where Denis had the answers, Sam did not.

Whereas Shapovalov quickly adjusted to handling Querrey’s monster-return tactic in the second game of the match, Querrey could not handle Shapovalov’s big returns in the following game. That is because Querrey’s legs are not as agile as Shapovalov’s and do not react as quickly to an offensive shot.

Whereas Shapovalov needed one game in which the American had to largely resort to second serves to go up a break, Querrey could not break Shapovalov’s serve all set long, even though the Canadian played with a 37% first-serve percentage. That is because Shapovalov relentlessly varied the placement and speed of his second serves throughout the set.

It’s not that Querrey played a bad set. In fact, he attacked relentlessly, often with success. He served big or used the 1-2 punch after a big serve, and as a result, held serve easily for the rest of the set. Except that the damage was already done. He happened to under-perform on his first serve for one game during which his second serve did not penetrate (or kick, or slice) enough to stop Denis from finding enough rhythm to launch one big return after another. Denis, in comparison, under-performed on his first serve for the whole set, yet he never faced a break point.

If you regularly read my posts, you probably know that I prefer to give concrete examples to illustrate my observations. As for Shapovalov’s second-serve efficiency, the 3-2 game is an excellent example and here is what you will see. Down 0-15, Shapovalov serves and volleys to get back to 15-15. Then, he throws in a heavy-spin second serve that collects an error from Querrey. Up 30-15, he loses the point but goes for a wide, slice serve, which he had not tried previously. He follows that up with a flat first serve, earning a direct point to go up 40-30. Sam gets back to deuce. Dennis misses his first serve again. He hits a high-pace second serve, catching Sam off balance. The American’s return is short and Denis attacks, forcing Sam into a defensive lob that sails long. Denis then closes out the game with a big first serve.

Just look at how many different types of serves the American had to confront even though the majority were second serves. He had to return low on a serve-and-volley, lunge to the outside on a wide serve, step inside the court only to jerk back quickly to get a high-paced second serve back, only to mention a few.

For an additional example, see the 30-15 point at 4-3; a second serve by Shapovalov lands so deep in the service box that Querrey, who stepped inside the baseline with the intention of producing a big return, does not have enough time to make a full swing and misses the return deep.

At the end of the set, Shapovalov had collected 10 out of 19 second-serve points and never faced a break point. He did win 11/11 first-serve points. Imagine if Shapovalov landed most of his first serves in!

You cannot, however, count on winning two successive sets in the third-round of an ATP 1000 event, against a top-20 player, while making less than 40% of your first serves and recording an increasing number of double faults (2 in the first, 5 in each of the next two sets). Shapovalov’s first-serve percentage did not improve in the second set and it did not take long before it caught up to him.

1-0 down in the second set, the Canadian double-faulted twice, once on game point at 40-30, and again on break point, and fell behind 2-0. Querrey raced to a double-break lead when he broke Shapovalov’s serve again in the sixth game. It was on another mediocre service game by Shapovalov in which he double-faulted twice again and missed an easy forehand volley in the net on break point.

When Querrey closed out the second set 6-3, the only question that mattered to Shapovalov was whether he could improve his first-serve percentage or not. He did, to a whopping (!) 53% in the third set. Yet, it was once again his second serve that kept him in the match when the third set began.

At 30-30 in the first game, he hit a great kick serve to the “T” and jammed Querrey’s backhand into his body. Sam’s return fell short and Shapovalov hit the winner to go up 40-30. Three points later, Shapovalov pocketed the game on another kick second serve that bounced so high that Sam had to jump to hit at the last moment. He missed it deep.

During the 2-2 game, Denis’s first serve finally began to come back. It was a contested game that saw Querrey have four chances at breaking Shapovalov’s serve. On three of those, Denis did not need his second serve, winning two of them directly on his first serves. He finished the game with an ace and grabbed the 3-2 lead.

Shapovalov would have to save two more break points in the 3-3 game, one with a hard serve to the service-box ‘T’ and the other with an ace. He won that game on another wonderful kick serve that bounced high into Sam’s body, causing him to miss the return.

At 5-5, Shapovalov would double-fault twice more to go down yet another break point at 30-40, only to save it, yet again, with a big first serve that allowed him to hit a winner on the next shot.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

Having saved seven break points since 1-1 in this deciding set, Shapovalov would only need one chance himself to break Querrey’s serve. It came in the 6-5 game. Querrey made only one first serve in the game and committed three routine baseline errors, including the backhand in the net on match point. It was an abrupt ending, considering how comfortably Sam had been holding serves since the early break in the set.

While Shapovalov’s first-serve percentage barely climbed above 50% in the final set, he got them in on six out of the seven break points saved in the final set. Out of those six points, five were won directly on his first serve. Querrey, for his part, had his worst first-serve percentage in the final set at 36%.

In other words, the first-serve percentage numbers from the first set were essentially reversed in the third set and that brings me to my last point about the difference in this match. When Querrey had to overwhelmingly resort to second serves in the third set, he depended on winning those points from the baseline. It worked for the most part, but all it took was a single string of bad errors (four in that last game) for things to fall apart for Querrey. Unlike Denis, he could not collect many free points on his second serves.

When Shapovalov missed his first serves in the first set, he was still able keep Querrey off balance on returns through the use of different speeds and spins on his second serves. He would thus earn some effort-free points on return errors by Sam or collect weak enough returns to finish the point himself on the next shot.

I would speculate that Martin Laurendeau, Shapovalov’s coach, is extremely pleased with the match, not because his pupil played particularly well, but because he ‘performed’ at a high level. By that I mean, Denis showed high IQ in terms of problem-solving when Querrey came out swinging very early, dealt with the malfunctioning of one of his main weapons (first serves) by meticulously regulating his second serves, remained cool-headed numerous times under pressure throughout the third set, and rediscovered his missing weapon during the extended stages of the match.

In the fourth round, Shapovalov will take another rising youngster, the Indian Wells semifinalist Borna Coric.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Kyle Edmund – Frances Tiafoe (2nd round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

This encounter appeared to be one of the most intriguing match-ups of the day when the order of play was initially announced. It pitted two rising stars of this year, Kyle Edmund, the highest-ranked British player at no.26 and a semifinalist at the Australian Open, against the American Frances Tiafoe (no.63) who had won his maiden ATP title just a little less than a month ago in Delray Beach.

The match lived up to its billing, not necessarily in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of the twists and turns that it took until the very end of the three-set duel.

From the start, it became clear that both players were going to have considerable edge on their service games, as long as their first-serve percentages remained high. Edmund began with a blank game, hitting three out of four first serves and never having to hit the second shot. Tiafoe returned the favor with a blank game of his own, not missing any first serves. Edmund replied with two aces in the third game for another easy hold and Tiafoe held firm with his second routine hold to get back to 2-2.

You get the picture, don’t you? The first serves were so dominant that by the time it was 5-5, each game averaged around 2,5 minutes. There had been no break points and only one deuce. The first set lasted a brief 45 minutes despite ending with a tiebreaker.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

The only break point – a set point for Edmund at the same time – was in the 6-5 game and it needed a lot of unusual things to occur for it to take place. At 30-15, Tiafoe made an unforced error on his forehand that had been working well until then. Then, a framed-forehand return by Edmund happened to land on the baseline (more on Edmund’s frame mishits later), completely catching Tiafoe unprepared. Frances barely got the ball back on an off-balance shot that landed short. Edmund attacked with his forehand, forcing Tiafoe into an error. Out of nowhere, the Brit found himself up a set point. It was too much variation in an otherwise metronomic set. Frances needed to reset the system. He served three big serves in a row – the third one, an ace – and carried the set into a tiebreaker.

So far, I have talked about how dominating first serves were in the first set, but I would not want you to think that the players served a ton of aces. At 6-6, Tiafoe had six aces and Edmund had two, so nothing groundbreaking there. On the other hand, they had one double fault combined (Edmund), and each played with an extremely high rate of first-serve percentage, Tiafoe at 95%, Edmund at 75%, but there was even more to it than that.

First serves were dominating in the sense that both players collected a ton of points in the form of 1-2 punches (winning on the second shot after a weak return caused by an effective first serve) or in the form of 1-2-3 punches (in which the third shot is a winning volley after a good approach shot on a short return, thanks to an effective first serve).

The returner never seemed to get out of the hole even when he was able to return and manage to get in a rally, because he would be stuck defending from the first shot forward. For an example of this, see the 5-5, 15-0 point. Edmund gets the first serve in, takes an offensive position in the court and runs Tiafoe ragged for the rest of the point behind the baseline, until the American eventually misses after multiple scramble shots.

It should come as no surprise then, that at 6-6, both players were hovering in the mid-80% range on points won on first serves. That set seemed to have “tiebreaker” written all over it from the beginning. Yet, the tiebreaker itself completely deviated from the norms.

It all started with Tiafoe leading 3-2 and serving. Until then, he was 100% on first-serve points won. He got the first serve in and Edmund hit an average return that gave Tiafoe a high forehand to attack. It was the 1-2-punch pattern that had worked to perfection for the American until then. Tiafoe nailed it deep behind the baseline. At 3-3, he got another solid first serve in and Edmund pulled perhaps his best return of the set, a rocket forehand that landed smack on the baseline, and went up 4-3. Tiafoe just lost the first (and only) two points of the set on a total of 37 points that started with his first serve.

So, you would think that with two serves coming, Edmund had a significant advantage, especially if he gets his first serves in. He did, on both points, and he lost both points on errors, the second one being an unforced one. Four points in a row lost by the server despite all starting with first serves in this match? Bizarre indeed, but as many on social media would say, with a hashtag attached to it, “that’s #Tennis.”

There was one more twist. At 4-5, Edmund had a forehand sitter on the service line that he would usually put away with one eye closed. He literally hit the ball with the frame of his racket, sending it to the sky and far behind the baseline. Tiafoe had two set points at 6-4. He needed only one. With an ace he pocketed the first set 7-6.

Edmund must have been disappointed at losing the set. He had a set point and led 4-3 in the tiebreaker with two serves to follow. Also, he probably knew that the match could easily turn around in his favor at any point if he could manage to break his opponent’s serve. After all, Tiafoe never came close to breaking his serve in the first set.

The American would not fare much better in the second set in that department, earning only one break point. To make matters worse for him, he would play his first below-average serving game on the fourth game of the set and get broken. He would double fault to start the game, then at 30-15, he would hit a wacky slice forehand approach shot on a last-second decision that would float out. Down a break point, he would hit the forehand approach shot in the net for good measure, giving Edmund a much-needed adrenaline shot in the arm.

Kyle rode the only break of the match all the way to the end of the set, winning it 6-4. Other than the break point that Edmund saved by an ace at 4-3, the rest of the set reflected more or less the pattern of the match, meaning routine service holds.

As the third set began, it was very hard to predict which player would come out on top. Edmund had the only break of the match, but there had only been a total of four break points in the 22 games played in the first two sets. First-serve percentages remained high, and it looked like unless one of the two had an unexpectedly dismal serving game (à-la fourth game of the second set by Tiafoe), another tiebreaker loomed large on the horizon.

In fact, the first game only served to reaffirmed that expectation. Tiafoe had to resort to second serves in the first three points and lost all three. Down 0-40, he got his next five first serves in, and other than the forehand smacked in the net by Edmund at 15-40, he had little trouble coming back to hold his serve. There were three more routine service holds and the scoreboard showed 2-2 in the final set.

There was one small variation though. While both players were winning almost 100% of their first serves, they were hardly winning any of their second-serve points. They were a combined 2 out of 10 on those, up to that point in the third set. That was different than in the first two sets. Tiafoe was the one to suffer from this problem in the fifth game. He got only one first serve in – an ace, naturally – and made three unforced errors on rallies started with his second serves. Edmund broke to go up 3-2 and it looked like a repeat of the second set was forthcoming.

Until 5-4…

On the first point, Edmund got the first serve in and Tiafoe returned short, like zillion other times before, except that this time, instead of completing the 1-2 punch, like he has zillion other times before, Edmund framed the backhand wide to go down 0-15. At 15-15, Edmund got his first serve in again, but Tiafoe returned well, and a rally ensued. After several shots, Edmund framed the backhand again and Tiafoe punished the ball that landed short with a clean forehand winner to go up 15-30. You could sense the crowd intensity go up a notch. Was an unlikely break finally on the way for the American?

At 30-30, Edmund’s backhand let him down again, this time missing deep on a routine cross-court shot. At 30-40, Edmund approached the net and missed a low backhand volley into the net. The improbable happened. Edmund played his first less-than-average serving game and lost 3 out of 4 points on those started with his first serve. Tiafoe got his first and only – and truly golden – break of the match to stay alive and level the match at one set each, five games each.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

At 5-5, Edmund had another chance to take charge when he led 15-40 on the American’s serve. He had a look at a second serve and hit his third framed shot in the last two games, a forehand return this time, that landed wide (I promise, no more mentions of “frame” shots). Tiafoe followed it up with three big serves to go up 6-5. Not much seemed to go right for Edmund in the last five minutes. He was looking to hold his serve for the 16th time in a row and shake his opponent’s hand as the victor about five minutes ago. Now, he was looking to hold to stay alive and get to a tiebreaker to decide the final set.

For a moment, it looked like he would not even get there. The best point of the match, a spectacular rally during which Kyle threw the kitchen sink and more at Frances, only to see the American get everything back and win the point with a brilliant counter-punch winner, gave the first point of the game to Tiafoe. He would eventually get to a match point at 30-40. Credit to Edmund who played a solid point of his own, approaching the net and challenging Tiafoe to pass him from a difficult position. Frances could not, and Edmund held serve two points later, forcing the tiebreaker.

So, yes, the match did indeed go to the tiebreaker in the final set, just not in the way you would have expected. The tiebreaker would not stick to the script either. Tiafoe would go up 6-1, only to see Edmund climb back to 6-5. On match point number five, Tiafoe would step up to the baseline, toss the ball up, and end the match with an ace.

It was a glorious victory for Tiafoe, and a heavy defeat for Edmund. It was so, not because both players performed at a very high level – in fact, the quality of tennis went slightly down in the final set.

It was a glorious victory for Tiafoe, rather because he had to play for an extended period of time with the burden of letting the match get away from him after having won a close first set, and yet find the determination within himself to finally overcome the barrier that sapped his mind for almost two hours – the inability to break Edmund’s serve – and do so precisely when it counted.

It was a heavy defeat for Edmund, rather because he felt like he had the victory within his reach for the better part of the match, only to have it snatched out of his hands at the last second. It may also bring up some larger questions for Edmund’s camp. The Brit, following a stellar month of January, has now been upset in his first matches, both in Indian Wells and in Miami. The hip injury that followed the Australian Open may have temporarily halted his progress more than expected. One can only hope that he does not have to go through a more complicated mental-recuperation process than he has had to go through on the physical side.

Next challenge for Tiafoe will be the 10th seed Tomas Berdych.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

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

MENU

Navigation