Category: Tactical Analysis

This was billed by most as a one-sided affair for valid reasons. Although Kei Nishikori was to play his first match in a Major – due to injuries – since Wimbledon of last year, he has lately shown signs of elevating his level of play, reaching the final in Monte-Carlo and the quarterfinal in Rome. Squeezed in between those, was a retirement in the first round in Barcelona, after going down a set vs. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez, citing a wrist injury resulting from fatigue from the previous week in Monte-Carlo. He did suffer two losses to Novak Djokovic in Madrid and Rome, so it is hard to claim that he has returned to the high form that marked his top-5 ranking back in 2015.

Facing him, nevertheless, was the wild-card recipient Maxime Janvier – ranked 304 – who had yet to play a main-draw match at the ATP events or in the Majors. He had mostly been playing Challengers, with one title under his belt (Casablanca, 2016).

The final score was an expected straight-set victory for Kei, but an unexpectedly tedious one. The Japanese player quickly admitted after the match that it was a hard-fought battle and that he felt “lucky to finish in three sets.” That was because Janvier had a plan for this match, and it was one that fit his long-term goals perfectly (more on that shortly).

Nishikori began the match serving, and Janvier began unloading. He would look to move well inside the baseline and go for direct winners whenever he could on returns. On Nishikori’s first serves that came into his strike zone, he would nail the ball, and if Kei’s serve was well placed, he would get the return back deep and accelerate on the second shot. On second-serve returns, there would be no hesitation at all. He would attempt winners on most, if not all, of them.

This plan was naturally going to also result in more errors, but that was understood. He would control the points and decide his own fate. Janvier confirmed himself after the match that it was precisely his plan because he and his coach had decided that, in general, if he were going to be successful later in his career, he needed to find “regularity in his aggressiveness.” In other words, his goal is to put out this high-octane shot production more consistently: “I’d like my game to pay off one day. I’m very aggressive, and I’m proud because I’m doing my job.”

In his first ever ATP-level main draw match, he came up just short of that goal, and under the parameters of this match, it is understandable. But he made life very hard for Nishikori for 2 hours and 19 minutes. He relentlessly put Kei on the run from the beginning of rallies. He did not stop either when he erred. For example, at 1-2 and serving, he made a forehand unforced error, then a backhand one, to go down 15-30. You would think that a player with zero experience at this level may get apprehensive and play more conservatively. Not Monsieur Janvier. He attacked again with his forehand to get to 30-30, served and volleyed successfully to go up 40-30, and held serve in the next point.

His big chance came in the fifth game. He hit two winners on the way earning three break points at 0-40 on Nishikori’s serve. Yet, as noted above, this type of tactic also carries its hazards. They appear in the form of errors. First break point was eradicated when he missed winner attempt on the return. Then, came a drop-shot attempt in the net. Finally, another forehand return in the net, and just like that, it was back to deuce.

He got a fourth opportunity to break when Nishikori, under pressure again, missed a passing shot at deuce. Maxime had a look at a backhand down-the-line winner and sailed it deep. Kei, feeling some high heat on his second serves, double-faulted to give the Frenchman a fifth chance to break. Nishikori came up with a sharp, wide serve to level at deuce again. There would not be a sixth opportunity.

Five of those for Janvier, four squandered on his errors…

First game-point opportunity for Kei, he held…

That is how it goes when you have two players on the extreme ends of the experience barometer. One with 70 wins and a final to his name in the Majors, the other with the number zero in the “matches played” column in those categories…

In fact, Janvier would end up 0/10 on break -point opportunities for the match.

In fairness to him, he played those break points in the same way that helped him reach them. His awareness of that fact manifested itself in his post-match press conference. He affirmed that he had no regrets and that he needed to press on. He understands that it may not work out for him at the end. Again, he reiterated that in the long term, this is what he needed to improve; the ability to attack consistently. He has a point. Tennis skills are not texts to be studied. You must actually learn by doing, stumble a few times, get better at it, before finally – and hopefully – reaching a higher plateau of success.

To Janvier’s credit, there were also cases where that vision worked to his advantage. At 3-4 down and serving, Janvier faced three break points himself at 0-40. Guess how he saved them? A backhand winner at 0-40, a well-hit wide serve that forced a stretched Nishikori to miss the return at 15-40, and a forehand inside-out winner completing a 1-2 punch at 30-40. He also closed the game at ad-in with a volley winner after serving and volleying.

Three errors at 0-40 up on his opponent’s serve earlier, three winners at 0-40 down on his own serve later. You win some, you lose some, and that is how you learn.

It’s too bad that Janvier was on the losing end of an easy put-away opportunity on his forehand at 5-5, 30-30, on Nishikori’s serve. That cost him a crucial break-point opportunity to go up 6-5 and serve for the set.

It’s also too bad for Maxime that the tiebreak turned into a disaster. He lost it 7-0, losing six out of seven points on his backhand errors, four of them unforced. He finished the set with 19 unforced errors**, 12 of them on the backhand. Meanwhile Nishikori committed only four errors, two on each side.

**Disclaimer on my unforced error numbers: After observing five days of qualifying matches, and few matches earlier today, and seeing the way the stat people judge and record the unforced errors, I have decided to keep my own count of them for my match analyses. An easy passing shot missed from the middle of the court is counted as an unforced error. A shot where the player’s feet are set, yet simply missed, counts as an unforced error in my book even if they are three or four meters behind the baseline. A second-serve return where the player misses it going for a winner, because they were able to balance their body to go for one, also counts as an unforced error, even if the serve had a kick on it. In general terms, if the player misses a shot that they should make the large majority of the time, that is an unforced error in my book.

Another key moment came in the beginning of the second set. You could tell by Nishikori’s body language, when he won the last point of the first set, that a deep relief had invaded him. He came out liberated to return Janvier’s serve in the first game of the second set. You could also tell that he made a decision: he was going to start taking some risks of his own on returns and not let Janvier push him around on the second shot, like he had done in the first set.

Nishikori turns aggressive on returns himself in the 2nd and 3rd sets

When I asked Nishikori after the match if the shift to more aggressive returns at that point in the match was a “conscious decision” on his part, he confirmed it: “Yeah, well, that was the most toughest part. I was struggling. First set I wasn’t returning well, and I tried to be little more aggressive, stepping in, and change my position.”

It worked. He hit two direct forehand return winners to go up 15-40 and finished the game on a backhand one at 30-40. It also helped that Janvier hit only two first serves out of the six total points played in that game (the Frenchman was 0/4 on second-serve points). That was all that Nishikori needed to wrap up the second set. He carried that single break all the way to 6-4.

It was, nevertheless, another high-quality set played by the Frenchman, despite not taking advantage of the only two break-point opportunities he had. Yet, the problem was not his errors this time (he only made a total of nine in this set). Nishikori stepped up on his returns for one game and got sufficient leverage with that break to pocket the two-set lead.

Down two sets, Janvier would still not fade away. In fact, at 3-2 up and Nishikori serving, he put himself in a position once again to get a decisive break. He had three different looks at break-point opportunities. Nishikori got the upper hand in the rally on the first one and saved it with a forehand winner. On the second one, Janvier went for a rocket backhand down-the-line and missed it in the net.

On the third, he actually had a clean look at a winner, inside the court, on a sitter. He had produced numerous winners with that same attempt, up to that point in the match. He lined up (see the photo below) and swung at it.

He framed it! The ball did not even land in the court!

When asked about that miss, Janvier said that he started that point with the same type of aggressive return that got him to the break-point opportunity – it’s true, Janvier’s return was phenomenal and Nishikori struggled to get those back throughout the match. But Kei was able to return that one in the court. Janvier praised Nishikori for making him come up with the big shots on important points and even said at one point that he wants to be consistent at a high level like him: “For me, I would like to be like Nishikori, of course.”

With that miss, disappeared Janvier’s last chance to extend the match. Nishikori held serve first, then broke Janvier’s serve to go up a break. Janvier must have framed at least four more shots in the last three games, but it was influenced by deception rather than a loss of concentration. He did not stop fighting until the last point.

Janvier ended up with 39 unforced errors to Nishikori’s 14. Kei did not play his best by any means and will need to raise his level to continue further. He also struggled with Janvier’s serves throughout the match, although that may have had more to do with Maxime’s ability to produce a wide variety of serves to keep him off balance.

In any case, what matters for Nishikori the most is that this match was precisely the type of first-round encounter that a player of his caliber needed. He was challenged by an eager adversary against whom his experience ultimately made the difference. On the road to accomplishing that, he kept his game at a solid level, without any substantial ebbs and flows to his performance.

Kei’s mental state also appears to be in a good place. When asked about how he feels about his form and fitness, he did not hesitate: “I’m feeling almost perfect. I think I had a good preparation, and I had a good couple matches before coming here. So, I’m feeling, yeah, great body-wise, and also tennis-wise, too.” He also added later that he had been “playing pretty good last couple weeks.”

His next opponent will be the winner of the match between Benoit Paire and Roberto Carballes Baena.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Madrid ATP Final: Recap

May 13, 2018

Mertov

ATP Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Alexander Zverev def. Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-4

In the aftermath of Rafael Nadal’s loss in the quarterfinals of Mutua Madrid Open, an encounter between Alexander “Sascha” Zverev and Dominic Thiem is about the highest-profiled final that tournament organizers in Madrid could have hoped to see on stage. If you had to count the best five clay-court players in the ATP outside of Rafa, both players would probably figure in your top-five list. It promised to be a baseline slug-fest.

I doubt however that many people expected one of them to have disastrous starting game on his serve after seeing these two at peak form for a large portion of the week.

Zverev took advantage of two unforced errors and a double fault by Thiem, complementing that with return winner of his own, to break the Austrian’s serve. Then, he comfortably held to confirm the break and go up 2-0. Early breaks have played a prominent role in the outcome of almost every set played from the quarterfinals forward. Thiem found himself in a position to break that pattern if he wanted to stay in the set.

Zverev had other ideas of course. He kept his errors to a minimum, mostly playing deep and not targeting spots too close to the sidelines. For example, his sharp backhand cross-court, usually a potent weapon, was relegated to the background during this stretch. The idea – I suppose – was to keep pushing Thiem back and make him force the issue from far behind the baseline. In contrast, Sascha often stepped inside the baseline and struck a few hard and flat shots directly at Thiem in an attempt to rush him, or sneak in a few drop shots to catch him off guard.

Thiem steadied the boat on his service games but he could not shake all the errors out of his system. Sascha’s tactic was apparently working. He maintained his break advantage all the way to 5-4, losing only three points on his service games despite only serving at 56% of his first serves in. If you are wondering why Thiem was not attempting to nail a few returns for winners on those second serves, I am too.

Sometimes a successful tactic can instantly turn into a dangerous habit and bite you in the back if you stick to it too many times. It is true that Zverev was winning plenty of points by playing deep to the middle part of the court and staying away using risky lines, but when you get a short sitter inside the court on your favorite wing – backhand for the German – and you decide to approach behind it, you need to put your opponent on the run. Zverev did not**. He hit a high-paced backhand approach that went straight to Dominic’s backhand. The Austrian got it low to Sascha’s feet first and passed him on the next shot.

** See the game point at 3-2 in the second set for an example of what he should have done in that same position.

Zverev then aimed for the sideline on forehand down-the-line and missed it wide, swaying away from the plan that has been working until that point in the set. Just like that, following two tactical errors in succession, Sascha trailed 0-30 on his service game and found himself in dangerous territory on his serve for the first time in the set. That is when his first serve came to the rescue. He won four out of the next five points on powerful serves that either did not come back in the court or forced a defensive return out of Thiem, allowing Zverev to put the ball away. He won the set 6-4 on a forehand winner.

In case anyone has not yet figured it out, Zverev is a great front-runner. He seems to tune in far better with the lead than most other players do. I should spend a paragraph foregrounding the nuance to avoid misunderstanding, so here it is.

I am not saying Zverev plays better with the lead than when trailing. Although true, that is nothing more than a score-related confidence and it is valid for almost any other player holding a significant lead. I am rather making the distinction that Sascha performs better with the lead in comparison to how other players perform when they have the same type of lead. That is the nuance. This is probably because Zverev has a tendency to lose his poise when falling behind or after committing critical errors in neck-to-neck positions – more than most other players at his level do when faced with the same situation. His body language shows it, he expresses it verbally, and his level drops significantly, more than that of other players in similar positions.

Hence, transitioning back to the match recap, the alarms bells began ringing loudly for Thiem when he lost his serve again to start the second set. Once again, it was enough for Zverev. No need to go into details because everything progressed much in the same way as the first set, with the 3-2 game being the only one in which Thiem was able to reach deuce on his opponent’s serve. Zverev closed the curtains on him with a score of 6-4 6-4, without ever facing a break point on his service games.

For those who doubt Zverev’s potential, this week should have been enough, even in their mind, to place Sascha, along with Thiem, into that small group of players – behind Nadal, naturally – with a legitimate chance to win Roland Garros. It should also tilt the explanation for Zverev’s lack of success in Majors toward one of an “oddity” at this point, rather than one of “insufficiency.”

The next step of evolution for the 21-year-old German is to be a threat to go deep in the Majors (he has yet to reach the second week of a Major). It should not delay much longer. Roland Garros, the Major played on what seems to be Zverev’s favorite surface, emerges as a tremendous opportunity for him to vie for an elite spot in our sport.

Oh wait, there is still Rome! The grind on the professional tour, I tell ya’…

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Madrid ATP Semifinals: Recap

May 12, 2018

Mertov

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

Dominic Thiem def. Kevin Anderson 6-4 6-2

There was little doubt earlier today that this top-10 encounter presented all kinds of match-up problems for the eighth-ranked Anderson, the 2017 US Open finalist. Thiem, a spot ahead of Kevin in the ATP rankings, is the steadier baseline rallier and he was getting to play on his favorite surface, as opposed to his opponent who has yet to win a title on clay courts. And frankly, Thiem’s 0-6 record vs Anderson, none played on clay, mattered little in today’s outcome.

Anderson would naturally have to rely on his serve but what was he to do on the return games? That was a question that haunted him throughout the match, one to which he could not come up with a response against Dominic who was, for his part, oozing with confidence following his upset win over Rafael Nadal one day earlier.

Anderson began the match on his serve and the expected pattern settled in early, too soon for the South African. He found it difficult to push Thiem around. Instead, the Austrian was the one striking the corners with considerable depth making Kevin scramble, a lot.

The 30-30 point put on display the type of rally on which Thiem built his impressive clay-court career. It lasted around twenty shots. Anderson not only got stuck three meters behind the baseline, running left and right to retrieve balls, but ended up losing it in the most discouraging way possible, with Thiem stepping inside the baseline on a short ball and smacking the inside-out forehand winner.

Anderson did save the ensuing break point thanks to a big first serve – precisely what he needed – but could not turn this nine-minute-long game in his favor. He won a point or two more on big serves but anytime Dominic got the return in and the rally began, Anderson would force the issue and make the error. His last one in the game came when he sailed a forehand deep on the third break point.

Following a comfortable hold by Thiem, Kevin trailed again (0-30) on his serve. It was clear that he needed to avoid extended baseline rallies at all cost. This is probably why he began going for big cuts on the second shot following the serve, and even served and volleyed once – which, in retrospect, he should have attempted to do more in the set than just this one time. He came back and held serve before the first set got out of control from his perspective. Nevertheless, he was still behind a break, and Thiem’s serve was clicking. He played an Anderson-like game, winning three points directly on well-placed serves, to go up 3-1 and keep the break advantage.

Instead of Anderson challenging Thiem for a break and looking to level the score, he ended up being the one to struggle on his service games. After saving two more break points at 1-3, he succeeded to stay within distance with a big service winner at deuce and a well-timed drop shot in the next one.

Unfortunately for Anderson, Thiem responded with another routine hold to go up 4-2.
Unfortunately for Anderson, this pattern would continue for the rest of the match.

Except the one anomaly at 5-4.

Something extraordinary needed to take place to cause a glitch in that pattern and it took place in that tenth game. Thiem committed a double fault at 0-15, and Kevin fired a flat and hard return – despite a bad bounce on the second serve – that forced Thiem to misfire a backhand. All of a sudden, Anderson had three break-point opportunities at 0-40.

But that is where the anomaly ended.

Kevin missed a forehand deep at 0-40, another one at 15-40, and backhand deep on the third one. “Poof” flew away his only chance to sink his teeth into the match, in a game where Thiem made only one out of eight first serves.

It would not be fair to say though that it was all due to Anderson’s missed shots. Thiem did come up with three terrific second serves in succession – from 15-40 to ad-in – that did not allow Anderson to nail the returns for winners, something he was definitely aiming to do at that point. On set point, Thiem made a first serve, his only one in the game, and completed the 1-2 punch with a forehand cross-court winner.

It only got worse from that point forward for Anderson, beginning with a double fault to lose his serve to start the second set. It did not help either that Anderson’s first-serve percentage hovered around 50% in the second set. The pattern that I described above, score-wise and tennis-wise, for the first set continued even more blatantly. No anomalies, no glitches.

Thiem would solidify his lead with another break and oust the South African with a score of 6-4 6-2, in a comprehensively dominating performance. Now he needs to erase the one anomaly for his career. For as accomplished a clay-court player as he is, he has yet to win his first ATP-1000 title on the surface. Alexander Zverev stands in his way tomorrow.

Alexander Zverev def. Denis Shapovalov 6-4 6-1

Alexander “Sascha” Zverev is the third-ranked player in the world, already holding two ATP 1000 titles at the age of 21. Denis Shapovalov, at the age of 19, is one of the most exciting up-and-comers, the youngest top-100 member of the ATP rankings at no.43 (probably top 30 by Monday). Both are former junior champions at Majors (Sascha at the 2014 Australian Open, Denis at the 2016 Wimbledon), and experienced meteoric rises following their junior careers to eventually reach their current rankings.

Both have already recorded wins against the ATP’s elite. Both still have plenty of room for improvement.

On top of everything else, both play exciting brands of tennis. Zverev relies on a powerful first serve, a fundamentally sound backhand, and the ability to generate power from the baseline. Shapovalov counts on his terrific shot-making skills and overall aggressive play. Both are brave, both are athletic.

For all the above reasons and more, there was no reason why any tennis fan should not have been excited to watch these two names face each other in the semifinals of an ATP 1000 event.

Did it live up to its billing? No, it did not.

Until 4-4, each player comfortably held serve, not because they were hitting extraordinary shots – only a few, combined – but rather because their opponent would either miss the return or make an error in the next shot. The only deuce came at 2-2 on Shapovalov’s serve, but he won the next two points without much difficulty. There were not even many rallies that went beyond five shots during this stretch. The quality barometer remained inoperative because neither returning player pushed the other one to raise his level on service games.

Zverev broke through one of the best shots of the match until then, a well-placed backhand down-the-line return that Denis could not get back in the court. He did nevertheless get to that break point thanks to two unforced errors by Shapovalov, the second one coming on a framer at 30-30. That was all that the German needed as he closed out the set on his serve with a forehand winner on a 1-2 punch.

Prior to the match, we were wondering how Shapovalov would react to his forehand cross-court, one of his favorite weapons, going to Zverev’s strong side, or if Zverev would respond to Shapovalov’s power with counter-strikes or steady retrieval, or if Denis would consider coming to the net to finish some points instead of going for winners with big cuts from the baseline.

Yet, nothing that elaborate took place in the confines of the Manolo Santana Court. Instead, we got a dud first set – dud (adj.): not working or meeting standards; faulty.
It basically consisted of errors, one bland break, and only a handful points worthy of mentioning.

Contrary to the first set, the second started with a break, and marked the moment where one of the players finally elevated his level. Zverev hit two spectacular winners, both followed by pumped-up screams and fist pumps, that helped him get the definitive lead on the Canadian.

Sascha started holding his end of the bargain from that point forward, or at least, showing glimpses of his potential. Denis, for his part, never took off. He fell behind 0-4 in the blink of an eye. It was a constant drip-drip of errors that would not cease, a backhand smacked in the net here, an overhead from the top of the net framed deep there, and so on.

The encounter was over in 58 minutes, with the final score of 6-4 6-1.

Sascha could not have asked for a better outcome in a match that began past 10 PM in Madrid. The last thing he needed was to get involved in a long battle that finishes past midnight and does not allow him enough rest time to properly get ready for tomorrow’s final. He not only avoided that, but also finished on a strong note, never mind that he was largely left unchallenged by his opponent.

As for Shapovalov, his second career semifinal in an ATP 1000 tournament resulted in a straight-set loss again, suffered at the hands of the same player (first one, Canadian Open 2017). This semifinal run on the red clay of Madrid is still a major step forward for the Denis who, I imagine, would have gladly accepted it, had it been offered prior to the tournament’s start.

All eyes now turn to tomorrow’s final, pitting two of the best baseliners in the men’s game. As a fan, I can only hope that it will be more closely contested than today’s semifinals.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Istanbul Open Final Recap

May 6, 2018

Mertov

ATP Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Taro Daniel def. Malek Jaziri 7-6 6-4

Every player begins a match with a certain game plan in mind. Whether it is the right one or not is unpredictable at that moment, and players are well aware of that fact. There are nuances to this presumption of course, which shield it from falling into the cliché category. For example, it is possible that the plan turns out to be wrong, which leads to a change. It is also possible that it’s the right plan, but the opponent has an answer for it, and a modification becomes necessary. Those are just two possible nuances out of many that may emerge once the match begins.

There is also the case where a plan depends on the combined use of several different shots, and although it is a sound plan, the player gets caught in the web of implementing it too frequently. This leads to the opponent deciphering the plan and its components. It allows him to understand it early and adjust to it before it gets the best of him. In return, the player responsible of executing the plan finds himself unable to tactically reframe the components of his plan, because he does not feel comfortable recalibrating his shots on the spot. He turns into a repeat offender, too apprehensive to change gears as the set progresses and each point becomes paramount.

I believe that I just summarized what happened, in my opinion, to Jaziri in the first set.

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

He adopted a plan that aimed at derailing Daniel, one that you would call “junk tennis” if you were old school. It consisted of changing the ball’s pace and spin often, throwing in drop shots and loopers, and occasionally producing a flat forehand with the hope of catching Taro off-guard. Throwing Daniel off his rhythm was more important than taking risks and hitting winners.

There is nothing wrong with this type of plan and Jaziri has the ingredients necessary – finesse and variety – to execute it well. The problem would appear if the plan did not work and he had to turn aggressive, because that would represent a 180-degree turn-around from his initial plan. It’s not that Jaziri is not a skilled attacker, but to switch from a passive plan like the one with which he began the match to an aggressive one is not an easy task. Nevertheless, Malek would still have to go for the adjustment, simply because he would not have any other choice if his plan A were to fail.

But he did not, because his plan kept on “teasing” him, you see.

It would work just enough to where Jaziri kept on using it, believing that if he was close to winning the first set. It would work here and there, yet not enough to give him a commanding lead. It would appear friendly to him as it would help him earn chances to put the set away, only to take it away at the last second. It would offer him just enough to keep him attached to it, but not carrying him to the desired conclusion.

It may be best to illustrate my meaning with concrete examples from the match.

First one took place in the second game, on Daniel’s serve. Up 0-15, Jaziri sliced a few backhands and got a look at a short ball from Daniel at one point in the rally. Instead of moving into the court and attacking with a slice approach shot – Jaziri definitely has that shot in his arsenal – his feet stayed close to the baseline and he reached forward with his upper body to simply send back another mid-pace slice. You could tell from his footwork that he never even considered taking charge. He missed the slice deep and lost the point. He should have undoubtedly attacked on that short ball. Typical case of a player so preoccupied with executing the shots of his initial game plan that he fails to recognize a logical opportunity to do otherwise.

Let’s move forward to the 30-30 point of that same game. The next two points are emblematic examples of what I attempted to explain above how his plan would “tease” him.

At 30-30, the players engaged in a long rally. Jaziri, determined to keep the ball low and not give Daniel any pace to work with, hit one sizzling slice after another, making Daniel bend his knees to strike the ball at below-the-knee level. He hit four of them in a total of six shots, the other two being flat and hard forehands. In other words, it was the perfect illustration of how his plan could work. Daniel could not handle the final slice and missed the backhand wide, his feet off-balance. So yes, the plan worked, and Jaziri now had a break point. It only made sense that Jaziri would look to develop the same pattern again to win the break point.

He did. He got Daniel engaged in another backhand-to-backhand rally. On his third backhand, he was on his front foot and could have easily aligned for an acceleration with his two-hander – why not, after slicing a bunch of them? – but he did not. Instead, he decided to slice it back conservatively, although he was positioned inside the court. He missed it wide. There went an opportunity to take command early in the set, simply because other options were being ignored by Jaziri, even when the circumstances demanded that they be used. The plan teased Malek with the 30-30 point, but stopped him from reaching the desired result in the next one.

I thought for a moment, in the sixth game, that Jaziri began to realize the trap he was falling into and would look to adjust. He hit a drop shot for the umpteenth time on the 15-15 point. Daniel read it of course, having faced it at least half a dozen times in five games, and won the point. Down 15-30, Jaziri got aggressive and held serve, playing three attack-oriented points in the process. It made me think that he was coming to terms with the necessity of not completely abandoning aggressive tactics.

In the meantime, the plan was working in the sense that Daniel would occasionally commit errors, like the one mentioned above at the 30-30 point of the second game, or the game point for Daniel at 3-3, 40-15. Taro struggled to respond to a low, short, off-pace slice backhand by Jaziri and missed an ill-advised backhand drop-shot attempt in the net. Then, on the deuce point, one of the longest rallies of the match took place, ending with an error by Daniel who overhit a forehand. Twice in the same game, Jaziri’s plan to derail Daniel’s rhythm worked and provided him with another break-point opportunity.

Yet, guess what took place on that break point? Having been rewarded by Daniel’s errors in the above two points, Malek once again passed on chances where it made sense to get aggressive and stubbornly stuck to his plan. In that break point, Daniel hit two shots to Jaziri’s backhand that bounced well inside the service line. Jaziri reached forward on both and sent them back passively with his backhand slice, instead of running around and striking a forehand, or simply putting the heat on Daniel with a deep slice approach shot. He missed the second slice in the net, a clear unforced error. Just like that, for the second time in the set, Jaziri got his foot in the door thanks to his plan but could not enter because he got too attached to it. Daniel held serve and went up 4-3.

Jaziri did finally break to go up 5-4, largely thanks to a routine forehand error by Daniel at deuce, on another slice by Jaziri. That error led to the break point won by Jaziri. It was another case of his plan working again in his favor.

Let me reiterate; the plan itself was not the problem. It was Jaziri’s over-attachment to it that played a role in the ultimate result. His refusal to take charge on occasions that presented themselves, where going a little outside the box of his plan would have made sense, allowed Daniel to stay tight in the scoreboard and contend for the first set. Jaziri remained too loyal to his plan at moments where logic dictated him to do otherwise. This is not an unusual occurrence by the way. It happens often that a player goes one time too many to the well that may appear to work for him and become too predictable too soon. The key is to recognize the shifting dynamic and intervene in time, so it does not start working against you.

At 5-4, 40-30, the Tunisian earned a set point on his serve. He found himself in the middle of the court with a chance to rip the forehand. He did it this time, stretching Daniel to the backhand corner. Jaziri thought about following that shot to the net, and even took a step forward with that intention, but changed his mind. Daniel’s shot floated back to the middle of the court again and Jaziri unleashed another forehand that sailed wide. Daniel broke back a few points later and the match was relaunched at 5-5.

I would argue that, not approaching on that first forehand on set point was another consequence of playing too passively for too long. Had Jaziri been attacking the net on similar shots in the previous nine games, he would not have hesitated to do the same on that set point. Instead of finishing the set on a makeable volley on Daniel’s floater, Jaziri had to produce a put-away forehand from the baseline and missed it. He should have still hit a winner on that second forehand no doubt, so that part is on Malek. But not taking his chances at the net on the first one had to do with his mental disposition since the match began.

After Jaziri saved a set point himself at 5-6, thanks to a big first serve that Daniel framed on the return and hit out, the two players got to the tiebreaker. Daniel got in front early, starting with a 31-shot rally that ended on a thunderous forehand winner down-the-line. He never relinquished the lead, winning the tiebreaker 7-4.

Jaziri did get aggressive in the tiebreaker but it came too late. And like I said in the beginning of this piece, you cannot just switch from passive to aggressive in the blink of an eye. Your mental state, your strokes, your stance on the court, all need to be modified and it does not smoothly happen from one point to the next. Although he did try to take the initiative during rallies, Jaziri finished the tiebreaker with three unforced errors in the last four points. The second one was an easy forehand sitter missed in the net, that Jaziri should usually make in his sleep, and the third was an overhead smacked in the net on set point.

Jaziri continued the tactical turnaround and attacked frequently in the second set, dropping his initial game plan. He committed 15 errors in the process partly because, as I have pointed out earlier, it takes time to overhaul one’s game plan within a match. He also had to do that against an opponent whose confidence skyrocketed after winning the first set. In short, Jaziri’s adjustment was appropriate, but its timing was too late.

However, the fact that he approached the net 18 times in the second set and won 16 of those points sends significant messages. Had he taken charge on the few chances he had in the important points of the first set – the ones I discussed in detail above – he may have been the one holding his first ATP title now. If he was that successful (16/18) at the net in the second set, against a confident Daniel, imagine how many more points he would have won in the first, if he took advantage of those short balls. And that was when Daniel was still committing errors, prior to elevating his level in the second set.

When Daniel, who had never reached the semifinal round of an ATP event, won the tiebreaker, he found himself a set away from his first title. The 114th-ranked Japanese player about whom I have barely talked so far – apologies to Taro fans – kept his poise like a veteran and marched on. Throughout the match, his footwork remained phenomenal despite having put in long hours to win his previous rounds. More impressive was his disposition, as he never looked desperate or negative, sending a signal to Jaziri that he is not going away unless Jaziri can produce some top-quality tennis.

Much to Jaziri’s dismay, Daniel made only four unforced errors and two double faults in the second set. Two of those six came on match points, completely understandable considering how close he was to a career-changing moment. In fact, let me bring up the first one, as part of the larger discussion on how this week in Istanbul has transformed Daniel.

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

If you have watched Daniel several times, you probably know that his best weapon is the down-the-line backhand acceleration. He earns most of his winners from that shot. That is precisely the one he missed on the first match point at 5-3, one that he would otherwise make nine out of ten times. You could almost see his arm turn rigid, surely the result of nerves. It was not even close. The ball dropped midway in the doubles alley.

Daniel would get the same chance in his fourth and final match point. He did not let the earlier error prevent him from trying again. He never hesitated as he aligned his body. He trusted his “money” shot and struck it with confidence. This time, it landed smack in the deuce corner by the baseline, leaving Jaziri staring helplessly from the middle of the court. Never mind that Daniel missed that shot on the first match point. Never mind that he double-faulted on the third one less than a minute ago. His mental resolve never eroded, and for that, he got rewarded. The sequence was a microcosm of his mental growth this week.

Wild fact: Daniel was in Estoril – another ATP even that also takes place this week – preparing to play qualifying rounds there one week ago. When he found out he could enter main draw in Istanbul, he made a last-minute decision to hop in a plane and play in Istanbul. Life is a game of choices, they say, don’t they?

This ends the 2018 Istanbul Open coverage. Thanks for reading!

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Istanbul Open: Semifinals Recap

May 5, 2018

Mertov

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.

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).

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

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

April 1, 2018

Mertov

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.

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.

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

Roland Garros Match Report: Kei Nishikori vs Maxime Janvier (first round)

Madrid ATP Final: Recap

Madrid ATP Semifinals: Recap

Istanbul Open Final Recap

Istanbul Open: Semifinals Recap

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

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation