Category: Majors

Greetings again from Roland Garros! This second entry offers a hodgepodge of diverse tidbits to make up for the tedious, tactical match analysis of the first one back on Thursday. I know many readers enjoy the X’s and O’s of our wonderful game, but I bet that even the most meticulously rigid readers of this blog cannot honestly say that they wouldn’t enjoy some light-hearted material to browse through. Thus, here is hoping that your definition of “light-hearted” matches with mine.

How about the best picture from each day of this week, so far? It will be chosen from a variety of shots taken by me and carefully selected by the photo committee consisting of one member, me. I only arrived on Monday, May 25th, so there is nothing for the first day of the tournament which took place on Sunday the 24th.

Monday – From the Musée Roland Garros
Men’s tennis shoe, or rather “boot,” from the 1900s – on display at the Musée Roland Garros
——————

Tuesday – let’s have fun with captions.
Federer: “I wish Sevi wouldn’t look at me this close.”
Luthi: “I can’t even look at that forehand, it’s so terrible!”
——————

Wednesday – The crowd gathered around the entrance to the protocol and the player’s lounge at Court Philippe Chatrier, all in the name of catching a glimpse of their heros.
——————

Thursday – The most-traveled walkway in Roland Garros, the alley from Suzanne Lenglen to Philippe Chatrier. Yes, to walk the distance of around 100 meters between the two courts can (and will most likely) turn into a nightmare trip.
——————

Friday – You cannot be serious! What is he doing here? One certainty, he definitely seems to be in pain trying to bend down for that low ball. Actually, he is here for the Legends’ Trophy (June 2-7).
——————

Saturday – Jeremy Chardy defeating his second to-20 opponents in a row (John Isner, David Goffin) on the “Bull Ring” court, Court no. 1. When asked, Chardy said he feels as if that court is his home.
——————

Say what? – Part 1
If you have followed tennis remotely, you may not know this. If you are an avid fan of tennis, you will know it. If you are a casual fan of tennis but an ardent fan of Roger Federer, you will know this without a doubt. If you are working as a media member at one of the four Majors, you should know this. What am I talking about? It’s Federer’s yearly stop by the grass-court tournament in Halle, Germany, prior to Wimbledon. In fact, a good portion of the people who fit in one of the categories above will know that the Swiss has a lifetime agreement with that tournament that takes place during the same week as the Queens tournament in London, another well-known grass-court event. Yet, a media member asked Roger – after listing the names of the important grass-court tournaments leading up to Wimbledon mind you? – if he was going to play a tournament on grass and which one it would be. Roger answered in one word before the guy even finished his question completely: “Halle”

Say what? – Part 2
Earlier today Timea Bacsinszky entered the post-match press conference, probably expecting an awkward question or two coming her way, in the same way that every other player does, after having acquired some experience in dealing with media members who have never played competitive tennis in their lives outside of club/veteran tennis (and that is, if…), or others who are looking for a sensational slogan. But I am not sure she expected this. A journalist, impressed with Timea’s concentration level during the match, said one “could put Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio naked in front of her, and she would still remain focused on the match!” What do you say to something like that? How about Bacsinszky’s response? –-> “Could you find another example of what could destabilize me? That would make me neither hot nor cold.”

More pictures

I love the staircase that takes you down to the Museum at Roland Garros, because you have to walk by this giant wall donning all the previous winners.
——————

11 AM at the main A and B gates.. Endless crowd waiting to get in. At least, the kids in front kept their good humor.
——————

German Fans – No commentary needed!
——————

The Americans’ hopes rest on the shoulders of Jack Sock! Next up for him on Sunday: none other than Rafael Nadal.

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

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

May 28, 2015

Mertov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Roland Garros Reflect the Clay-Court Season?

May 17, 2015

Mertov

ATP & WTA Majors 2 Comments

Only a retrospective look after June 7th can provide the answer to the question in the title. The clay-court season does nevertheless give valuable indications on what to expect at the 16e arrondissement of Paris once matches begin seven days from now. And then there are the intangibles, always looming on the horizon, ready to influence outcomes. On the men’s side the three-out-of-five-set format will result in awkward scores during long matches (remember for example Marcel Granollers’ upset of the in-form Alexandr Dolgopolov by the score of 1-6 3-6 6-3 6-0 6-2?). It will also and bring into question injuries and physical endurance. On the women’s side, there will be question marks on whether some players who withdrew from clay-court events in the last few weeks can sustain two weeks of high-level competition or not. One intangible for both draws will be whether some past underdogs can manage the responsibility of being favorites in a Major.

The W.T.A. side

If the head-to-head record of Maria Sharapova vs. Serena Williams were not so lopsided, one could pencil the Russian’s name in as the clear favorite. What is quite underrated is how abundantly Sharapova wins matches on clay without playing a clay-court style tennis. Her success on this surface, with a style that favors hard, flat balls, and not much change of pace, would be the main topic of many tactical studies on different surfaces (read that as “for another day”). The good news for Maria is that she earned her way to the number-two ranking during the clay-court season and will not face Serena before the finals under any circumstances. Serena would love to see Sharapova’s name in the finals if she can get there herself, but that remains in doubt due to her less-than-stellar past appearances at Roland Garros, as well as her injury-related glitches during the spring. It seems like the bigger challenge for Serena will consist of going through the earlier rounds without damage, and then maximizing her performance in the later rounds.

Yet, there are potential challengers in the draw. Carla Suarez Navarro, freshly ranked inside the top 10 for the first time in her career, has proven capable of derailing her opponents with a wide arsenal of shots and her nerves of steel. While the spotlight in a Major will be a novelty for the Spaniard, her cool-headed approach to matches, as well as her high on-court IQ level, should be enough to negate the unfamiliar position of being the favorite against the vast majority of her opponents.

Will Carla still be demoted to the outside courts during Roland Garros after her success this year? (photo – during Roland Garros 2014)

Simona Halep, another favorite despite having garnered no clay-court titles in 2015, will have one clearly defined goal in mind as the number three seed: make it to the semifinal and go through Sharapova or Williams, or both. After reaching the finals last year and raising the bar, Halep is one of the few players, maybe the only one other than Sharapova and Williams, who cannot leave Roland Garros satisfied unless she wins the title.

Outsiders, there are plenty. One that has not gotten any mention in the early reports is Timea Bacsinszky who has been on a tear this year. Yes, she is outside the top 20, and yes, she did get taken out by the sensational Daria Gavrilova in Rome. Past years have shown however that any player who experiences unprecedented success in the clay-court tournaments leading up to Paris can also produce an equal type of run during the two weeks. Finally, there are some familiar names who have gotten the job done at the top level during their career, but are coming into this French Open without much momentum. Svetlana Kuznetsova is a name that no favorite wants to encounter in the first week, especially on her best surface. Although their chances of winning are slim to none, Petra Kvitova can rise up to the occasion on a given day, and players such as Carolina Wozniacki, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Angelique Kerber, and Sara Errani can extract valuable miles from the legs of those favorites who wish to remain fresh for the “final four” rounds.

The A.T.P. side

2015 has anything but concretized the dominance of the Big Four (yes, capitals are necessary in this case). Or should we distinguish the invincible Novak Djokovic from the other three? If you are one of the many followers of the tennis world who choose to do so, I cannot blame you. The number one player in the world has gone undefeated in four Masters 1000 tournaments (last two on clay) and the Australian Open. He is heading into Roland Garros sporting a 22-match win streak that ironically represents only the third longest one in his spectacular career. He outclassed his two biggest rivals Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the two finals on clay, Monte-Carlo and Rome. The improvement in his game – and I can’t underline this enough – since he became number one first in 2011, is something to behold. His serve is now a weapon, his drop shots are uncanny, and in the last few weeks, has even shown remarkable progress in the weakest area of his game, the overhead.

Novak made his fans in Indian Wells happy. Can he do the same for those in Paris?

Having said that, I am not one of those followers. I cannot separate Novak as a clear favorite from the rest of the field at the French Open, not until a player, as a winner, shakes Rafa’s hand at the net, at the end of an official French Open round match. Nadal has lost before to Djokovic during the clay-court season, only to emerge on the last day at Philippe Chatrier court, as the winner of the only Major of the year on that surface. In fact, this sequence has taken place more than once (2011 and 2014). Last year, Novak entered Roland Garros as the top seed, with a victory against Rafa in Rome, and still came up short. Nadal’s 6-0 record against Djokovic in Roland Garros (three of those in the last three years), and the fact that he lost only one match ever on the red clay of Roland Garros – yes, you read it correctly, ONLY ONE, his record is a stupefying 66-1!! – simply do not allow me to place Djokovic above the Spaniard as the clear favorite. Defeating Nadal by winning three sets against him, in a period of less than a few hours, would still be in the fantasy category for anyone if were not for that one surreal day in 2009, when Robin Soderling banged away warp-speed winners for exactly three hours and a half.

I will thus modify my version to saying that I place Nadal and Djokovic above everyone else, with Federer and Andy Murray slightly below them, followed by a few names that can go no further than possibly spoil the late-round meetings between these four. Roger Federer enters Roland Garros as the second best player of 2015, and even Andy Murray’s late form on clay cannot change that. Roger has earned that seeding, deservedly, by winning three titles, the Istanbul title on clay, and reaching the finals of two Masters 1000 tournaments. The second one of those was today on the clay courts of Foro Italico in Rome, where he was dominated by the lunar play of Djokovic. Murray for his part arrives to Paris with two titles and zero defeats on red dirt (he withdrew from Rome after winning his first match). That is an unprecedented accomplishment for the Scot who, despite often playing well on the surface prior to this year, could never earn a title on it. Yet, Murray and Federer are two of the three reasons – and the only ones in my opinion – that could stop the eventual Nadal vs. Djokovic final. The third is the much-debated seeding question.

Nadal will amazingly be seeded number seven in the very tournament that he won nine times in the last ten years. A combination of rare bad form in the first few months of 2015 and several months of injury-related absence on the ATP Tour in the second half of 2014 has led to Rafa’s lowest ranking ever at the time of Roland Garros. This means that Nadal could face any of the top four seeds as early as in the quarterfinals. The tournament organizers refused to utilize the skewed seeding system that Wimbledon does by taking into consideration the player’s success on the particular surface. Now the ideal situation for them would be that Nadal falls into Berdych’s quarters so that the possibility of semifinals consisting of the Big Four remains alive, and not to mention, likely. It would be a disaster to say the least, if Rafa goes in Novak’s quarters, meaning that by the semifinals, we are guaranteed that one of the two biggest favorites of the tournament, the very two that dominated it for the last three years, will not be present on the last weekend of the event. Rafa could also draw Murray’s quarter of the draw, in which case the next question will beckon: are they on Djokovic’s side or Federer’s side? If they are on Djokovic’s side, Berdych and Federer would rejoice (not publicly of course). If they are on Federer’s side, Federer fans may become the biggest Murray fans for one day if their man makes it to the semis and awaits the winner of Murray-Nadal. These questions will keep the minds of tennis fans, as well as experts, busy until the Main Draw is revealed on May 22nd, at which time all forms of prognostics will inundate social networks and the media.

Can Rafa do this again for the 10th time in 11 years, even as the 7th seed in the draw?

So, who could play the role of the spoiler to this Big Four party? One of them is Gaël Monfils whom the crowd could galvanize to a higher level of play. He is a name that neither Andy Murray nor Roger Federer would want to see in their quarters, although for Nadal and Djokovic, I doubt it would make much difference. There is also the loose cannon by the name of Fabio Fognini who holds two clay-court wins over Nadal this year, a feat accomplished only by Djokovic until this year. The Italian does not lack the talent to push any player to the limit on a given day, yet his seeding will likely force him to go through several gritty matches to make any major noise, and by now, everyone knows that grit is not Fabio’s forte. It would be fascinating to see him match up with Nadal for the third time on clay, and it could happen as early as the first week, considering their seeding.

Kei Nishikori remains the biggest threat to the Big 4 and the only one who could reach the final weekend without it being considered a stunning upset. Kei will need some help on the day of the draw. As a below-the-top-four seed, it is unlikely that he could go through three big names to lift the trophy on the last Sunday. The two guys on whom everyone has given up any hope of winning Roland Garros are strangely ranked 5 and 8 in the world. The problem with Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer is their miserable record against the Big 4. Yes, each has reached a Major final before (Berdych in Wimbledon 2010 and Ferrer in Roland Garros 2013) but one required a shocking upset (Berdych defeated Federer in 2010) and the other required one of the luckier draws in recent history (2013 French for Ferrer).

Milos Raonic is recovering from surgery and his participation next week is in doubt. Stan Wawrinka could give major headaches to one of the big names, but will not be more than a nuisance to the ensemble of the top favorites. Stan did oust Rafa in Rome, but that remains the one shining moment in his season since he won a title in Rotterdam in February. He is also breaking the cardinal rule for a contender in Majors by participating in a tournament taking place the week preceding a Major, the ATP Geneva event. One guy that did record two wins over Wawrinka in the clay-court season is Grigor Dimitrov. The Bulgarian has however underperformed in light of to the expectations following his successful 2014 campaign. Two Spanish players, Fernando Verdasco and Feliciano Lopez, have proven capable of winning against the best at some points in their careers, and don’t count them totally out. Gilles Simon could also make a big name feel sick in the stomach, but whether that would last more than a couple of sets remains improbable. But in any case, the above-mentioned players, outside of the Big Four, will have to catch fire, of a colossal size, to have any chance of belonging to the “active participant” category in the last few days of Roland Garros.

There are some “far-and-away” outsiders who could find their form and have career tournaments, such as Dominic Thiem, Roberto Bautista Agut, David Goffin, and Richard Gasquet – sorry dear Americans, no John Isner or Jack Sock -, but my use of the adjective “career tournaments” in this case does not point to a shocking upset of one of the Big Four members. With a bit of luck, they could march into the second week of the tournament, and at the most, could reach the quarterfinal rounds.

As for me, I am looking forward, for now, to my favorite portion of the Majors: the qualifying rounds. That is where emotions fly high, away from the scrutiny of cameras for the most part, and where the importance of winning a round often translates into career-high accomplishments, or in the case of a loss, into crushing blows. Enjoy the week, the Parisian party is near.

Note: Click here to stay tuned to MT-Desk on Twitter

Women’s Final Preview: Sharapova vs. Halep

June 6, 2014

Mertov

Majors WTA No Comments

Since the eliminations of the top 3 seeds Serena Williams, Li Na, and Agnieska Radwanska in the early days of Roland Garros, the few left who were still daring to make predictions called on two names to meet in the finals: Maria Sharapova and Simona Halep. To their relief, the two players stayed the course and reached tomorrow’s final match, although not without some difficulty in Sharapova’s case.

Logic would dictate that with all her previous Slam titles and her mental toughness, Sharapova should overcome yet another challenge by a newcomer to the elite world of “big time” in WTA in the form of Halep. She has already held off challenges by the so-called the ‘new generation’ by recording remarkable comeback wins against Garbine Muguruza and Eugenie Bouchard, and one other against a proven player in Samantha Stosur. She came back to win in three sets after losing the first against all three. Especially her win against Bouchard deserves special mention.

The 48 hours leading up to the match, a photo of Sharapova taken with an 8-year-old Bouchard circulated all over the social and main stream media, courtesy of the editor at TV Guide who initially posted it on Twitter. The effects of this picture, coupled with Bouchard’s reference to Sharapova as her idol – ‘back then’ Bouchard specified, adding that they are “not friends” now – when asked about it, transformed the match into the image of a champion who stands to cede her younger rival the status of the revered champion and let the newcomer take her place. This was reminded to her more than once in the form of direct question – how did she feel about playing someone who took her as an idol when she was young? –, and in the form of newspaper articles and TV spots, in case she followed the media. She even had to respond to the last-second question by the colorful French TV personality Nelson Monfort on screen right before she walked on the court. He asked her how she felt about being the favorite and Sharapova, probably sick of the hype, bluntly answered that there could be no favorites in a match like this, and walked out. If she lost she would drop out of top 10, and Bouchard would enter it. Thus, it was under tremendous pressure that the Russian took her first steps to the court. To exasperate things further, the Philippe Chatrier crowd overwhelmingly supported Bouchard throughout the match. In short, Sharapova played a match where all the elements worked against her and she had everything to lose, while Bouchard stepped on the court as someone who had everything to gain from a victory.

So, one can understand when Sharapova celebrated her victory as if she won the tournament after her courageous comeback from a set down again. It was not happiness or contentment that she manifested. It was relief! I am not a big Sharapova fan, but I admired her tenacity, her sheer will to find a way to win, or refusal to lose. I believe that she will enter the court much more relaxed against Halep, an recently established top 5 player. She has already passed the toughest mental tests against Muguruza and Bouchard. She will play a match in which she is not the clear-cut favorite, although she is the slightly on paper. Her main advantage is her experience and her awareness that she can accomplish what is necessary when clutch moments arrive.

In contrast, Halep has steamrolled through the tournament, just as she has steamrolled through the last 12 months. If one was to pick the best player on the WTA Tour without a Slam title in the last 12 months, it would be Halep without a doubt. Yet, she has never been to this stage in a Slam tournament. Will that be a factor? It sure did not in her first semifinal in a Slam against Andrea Petkovic. She played the best tennis of the tournament by any player in the first set of that match. Her biggest strength is her footwork. She is able to move around the ball in small steps and get in position better than anyone in the current generation and probably better than any player since Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario of Spain, the French Open winner of 1989, 1994, and 1998. Her forehand is lethal and she does not seem to have a clear weakness.

If the past was not considered and tennis history began in the last 12 months, it would be a 50-50 call. Halep has numerous titles on every surface, skyrocketed to the number 4 ranking. Sharapova recovered from an injury the latter part of 2013, and has won Stuttgart and Madrid. In Madrid and on clay, she did beat Halep in three sets. When the past and the aura are added to the equation, the balance tilts in Sharapova’s favor. She has been to this stage, and has won Slam titles. Halep will play in her first final. All indications show that it has the potential to be a final for ages. Let’s hope it turns out so.

Friday evening – Trophy presentation ceremony rehearsal on Philippe Chatrier

Roger Federer’s Multiple Plan A’s

July 9, 2012

Mertov

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

Yes, we all know about Roger Federer’s 17 Slams, his regaining of the number one ranking, and his equaling of the 286-week record at number one held previously by Pete Sampras. Congratulations to the great Swiss player but in this article, I will neither repeat his astonishing statistics nor reload the “bravo” tributes and comments that newswires have been overloaded with since his moment of victory at Wimbledon. I will simply attempt to point to a certain aspect of Federer as a tennis player that I believe to be non-existent in any other player, and yet seems to mysteriously remain undervalued, if not obscure, to most so-called tennis experts.

Obviously his forehand, his physical shape, the variety of his shots, and his serve, only to mention a few, are all putative qualities of Federer. I would like to go a little further than that in this article. Let’s take into account Federer’s Sunday’s final match against Andy Murray along with his 2009 Wimbledon final match against Andy Roddick. The comparative analysis of these finals posits two relatively overlooked qualities of Federer: his intelligence and awareness on the court.

Let’s rewind the clock back to 3 years ago to that final between Federer and Roddick…

In 2009, in the finals against Roddick, Federer began the match playing aggressively, looking to advance to the net at every opportunity. Roddick was focused from the start and was able to withstand the barrage of attacks from Federer. Roddick took many people by surprise by producing some sizzling passing shots to counter his opponent’s early aggressive tennis. As the set advanced, we witnessed Federer becoming more and more intimidated by Roddick’s accurate passing shots. He began to stay at the baseline and to try to dictate the rally with aggressive ground strokes. On the other hand, Roddick got more confident as the set went on. At 6/5 on Federer’s serve, he hit an “out-of-this-world” forehand crosscourt winner, and then followed it later in that same game with a terrific backhand down-the-line drive on set point to win it 7/5. The Swiss needed to change his tactics before it was too late. Well, he did more than that.

Federer did not simply adjust his game after the first set. He completely changed his tactic and outlook. He took a one hundred and eighty degree turn from his initial plan at the start of the match and went to an exclusively defensive format. He ceased venturing to the net unless forced to do so, thus taking targets away from Roddick. He made each point last longer, giving Roddick plenty of floaters, low-speed slices, in order to force him to hit several great shots to win the points. He placed himself further behind the baseline with the intention of running every ball down, prolonging the time of the rallies and the games, including plenty of off-speed, loopy shots that gave him ample time to come back to the middle of the court if he was ever pushed to the corners.

In short, after the first set, Federer basically took a page out of a classic clay court retrieving game and applied it to the grass of Wimbledon. While it is true that the second set could have gone either way (Roddick did have 4 set points, one of which was an easy forehand volley that he missed!), Federer was able to give himself a chance to level the playing field and have a tangible shot at winning the second set. After he won it in a tiebreaker, the match was not only leveled on the scoreboard but also on the court. Helped by a superb serving performance – he hit his 50th ace to win the epic match at the end of 4 hours of 16 minutes of battle – Federer eventually prevailed over Roddick 16/14 in the fifth set, while playing defensively for the remainder of the match.

Now, let’s fast-forward the clock to Sunday’s 2012 final between Federer and Murray…

Murray began the match with an aggressive approach, and Federer began with an unusual amount of errors (including after he survived the initial break and came back on serve). Federer was not particularly playing defensive, but Murray kept launching so many aggressive shots in succession that all Federer could do was to retrieve balls the best that he could for the first several games of the match. He did eventually break back, but Murray’s early form had him unsettled. The unforced errors still kept coming and he lost the first set 6/4.

To circumvent the problem, Federer did the reverse of what he did in 2009. To counter Murray’s initiative to dictate the points, he began to “out-attack” Murray with an even more aggressive game with the intention to cut the points short. Although he was not the better player in the second set, Federer did what was working best for him: build the points around coming to the net. He came to the net 26 times in the second set (vs. 15 in the first) and won twice more points approaching the new (total: 22) then in the first. Relentlessly staying loyal to his modified plan, Federer began to further embellish it by adding the ‘chip-and-charge’ and progressively coming to the net on second-serve returns in the third set during which he was the better player. Once he won the third set, there was no doubt that he would do more of what he did in the second and third sets. In the fourth set, he came to the net 16 times and won 14!

Overall, in the last three sets, the approaches to the net included slice approach shots, swing volleys, chip-and-charge returns, drop shot that he followed up to the net, wide balls that he knew would put Murray on the run, and last but not the least, several serve-and-volley attempts of which he only lost one point! This time, Federer won the title by changing his game to total offense, in the reverse manner of what he did in 2009, and taking a page out of 70s and 80s grass court tennis, (minus the ‘continuous’ serve-and-volley). It is only fitting that he celebrated the winning point by lifting his arms and immediately falling to his knees at the net after watching yet another passing shot attempt by Murray sail long.

It is an important asset for a top-level tennis player to have the ability to insert variety to his or her game. Although not many do, there are more than a few players who possess the ability to use plenty of variety on their game, including Murray in the finals on Sunday. These few players are already quite distinguished, and in a class of their own. However, it is another thing to be able to combine the intelligence and the on-court awareness, with that variety, in order to modify strategies and produce the result desired. Some of these distinguished players will not do it either because they are still lacking courage to do it, or because they don’t feel comfortable doing it in the course of match, or simply because they the thought does not occur to them. The one that can dare to undertake such adjustment, and actually follow through with it successfully, is the kind of sui generis player who can comfortably claim to have “a Plan A” to fall back to, in case the “other Plan A” already in progress is not functioning well. Plan B is not an option for this type of player. Federer in 2009 against Roddick, as well as on Sunday against Murray, simply switched from one Plan A to another.

I believe Federer’s skill to have more than one Plan A along with the presence of mind to know intrinsically when to shift at will from one to the next is one of the central elements of Federer’s success. While other players strive during their whole careers to improve up weaker defensive (or offensive) parts of their games to match their stronger side, and practice for years their weaker shots to complement their stronger ones, Federer has gone past this stage early in his career. Furthermore, he has not only reached the next stage that I have explained above – the combination of intelligence and variety resulting in multiple Plan A’s – but he has excelled in that area, the one that other players in the game of tennis never even get to experience.

“Fait-divers” from Roland Garros

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

Will Roland Garros Reflect the Clay-Court Season?

Women’s Final Preview: Sharapova vs. Halep

Roger Federer’s Multiple Plan A’s

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation