Category: Tactical Analysis

The bottom half of the men’s draw at the Australian Open has opened up after Denis Istomin’s shocking upset of Novak Djokovic. On the women’s side, the two favorites in the bottom half of the draw, Serena Williams and Karolina Pliskova, are still going but there are plenty of new names raising eyebrows. After three rounds, we have a clearer idea of the players’ forms and physical conditions and that adds a new dimension to the discussion of how that will carry into the scoreboard. In fact, some of the matches have become question marks precisely because some in-form players, exceeding expectations. Isn’t that what makes tennis fun anyway? The challenge to sort through the unknowns and to bring some sense into the complicated equation that entails what may happen when two players walk into the court, is the ultimate “fun” exercise for all tennis fans and experts alike. Having said that, let’s take a look at three men’s matches and one women’s match from the bottom halves of the draw that will take place on Monday.

Dominic Thiem (8) – David Goffin (11)

In his last-round encounter against Benoit Paire, Thiem experienced some shoulder pain. Not knowing how that may carry over to the next match, I will leave that out of this analysis. I do know, however that Thiem’s game is not at the high level that it was last year around this time. His only chance to gain some ground in this match rests on his ability to pull a Rafa-like (or Gael-like) performance, meaning scramble a lot from the baseline, put a large number of balls back in play from defensive positions, and force Goffin into taking more risks in order to earn some errors from the Belgian. Equally, he will have to play a high percentage of first serves in, because Goffin will jump on Dominic’s second serve, as he did in last year’s Australian Open when the two played each other in the third round (Goffin won in four sets).

Thiem will also need to use his backhand slice in abundance. Goffin likes to take balls early in the bounce and use that speed to generate more velocity for his hard and flat, agressive shots. If Thiem keeps the balls low with his slice, that should negate some of Goffin’s advantage in the rallies. On low balls, Goffin will either need to use his wrist more topspin or respond with a slice of his own which should relieve some of the pressure on Thiem. On his second serve, I expect Thiem to mix in the slice more frequently than he usually does in order to, again, keep the balls low and not allow Goffin to take charge from the first shot in the rally like he would if Thiem simply used the kick on his second serve. Neither player is, for the lack of a better term, a “head case,” therefore I don’t expect them to lose discipline. Thus, the score is likley to be determined by tactical adjustments that the two of them will make as the match progresses. Although he is the lower-ranked player, I see Goffin being one step ahead as they step on the court.

Gaël Monfils (6) – Rafael Nadal (9)

There is not much to say for this encounter. On any surface, in any city, and in any condition, Rafa would walk on the court as the clear favorite against the flashy Frenchman. Gaël’s refusal to add an attacking – a forward – dimension to his game for over a decade, his insistence to camp out three or four meters behind the baseline and retrieve balls, and the fact that considering his existing game he will face an opponent that does everything little better than he does, infinitely limit his chances to record a win against Nadal.

Let’s push the envelope as far we can for a moment. Let’s use the convenient “you never know in tennis” platitude and let’s add the endurance factor remembering that Nadal played a grueling five-setter against the young Alexander Zverev two days earlier. Let’s also assume for a second that Monfils overachieves from the baseline, serves a ton of aces, and steals the first set. Then, only then, he could possibly have a chance if Rafa shows signs of wear and tear. Yes, it’s a reach, I know! In reality, here is what should normally happen: (1) Gaël running himself ragged from one corner to the other, hopelessly waiting for Rafa to make an error, (2) Rafa clicking on all cylinders and winning practically all the rallies that extend beyond 15 shots while his opponent dazzles the crowd with his athleticism on one or two meaningless points and (3) Gaël constantly bending down to pull his shoe tongues or to tie his laces, and breathing deeply to recover from the preceding point. Just for the sake of tennis fans, I hope Gaël can prove me wrong and at least win the first set to make it interesting.

Grigor Dimitrov (15) – Denis Istomin

Few months ago, this would have been a tough match to predict. If it were two years ago, it would have been an easy one to predict. Now, on the other hand, both players are coming into this match with confidence, playing their best tennis in a while. In his three matches, Denis stayed on the court 10 hours and 49 minutes and played 14 sets. In comparison, Grigor played only 10 sets and spent more than four hours less (6:39) on the court than Istomin. Dimitrov should have the fresher legs when they step on the court for the match.

Dimitrov’s chances should greatly increase if he moves well from the start, because it will allow him to immediately start using the great variety of shots in his arsenal. If that’s the case, Istomin will be covering a lot of court space early and likely struggle with endurance in the later stages of the match. Nevertheless, there are a few positives to Istomin’s game in this match-up. His brand of tennis, featuring deep and flat shots that carry weight, and his remarkable ability to accelerate down-the-line shots on both sides should take Dimitrov out of his comfort zone. Unlike Gasquet, Dimitrov’s previous-round victim who plays with variety and spin, Istomin will drive the balls flat and deep without giving Grigor any angles to work with.

From 2014, Cincinnati

However, Dimitrov did not just beat Gasquet, he dominated him. If his level does not go down, he should still be the favorite to win this match and could go to the semifinals and further. I am also sure that, other players who are in that half of the draw, having seen Dimitrov’s form of late and his drubbing of Gasquet, will wish deep down that Istomin can pull yet another upset. Istomin must absolutely win the first serve to have chance.

Johanna Konta (9) – Ekaterina Makarova (30)

I am sure many readers, especially if they had seen Konta’s thrashing (there is no other word for what happened) of Caroline Wozniacki in the previous round, are giving the edge to Konta and maybe they are right. Yet, as much as some experts may now claim that Konta even has a chance to take the title, I believe that Makarova has the tools to halt the relentless Konta train. Wozniacki was stuck playing defense, scrambling to get Konta’s shots back for most of the match. It should be a different pattern against Makarova. The Russian has the capacity to send Konta’s high-octane balls back with the same pace and should not allow the Brit to get too many looks at shoulder-length, high-bouncing balls that she received from Caro on Thursday. Makarova’s balls will stay low and deep, forcing Konta to hit balls at knee level or below, and keeping her behind the baseline more than she had to in her previous rounds. I should also mention that Makarova can make use of angles and carry her opponents off the court’s outside lines. The Russian could end up controlling a number of rallies this way, putting Konta in the unfamiliar position of being pushed around. Then, there is also Makarova’s lefty serve with which she is able to hit all corners, especially the wide one on the ad court that would force Konta to hit a backhand from outside the court, just to start the rally. In return, Konta can also win a bunch of free points with her powerful serve. So, first-serve percentage is likley to be a key factor in the match.

At the end of the day, I believe it will be Konta’s level of play and decisions during points that will ultimately determine the outcome. Let’s not forget to mention the endurance factor for both players. Makarova spent a lot of effort in taking Dominika Cibulkova out in 2 hours and 53 minutes, so it will be interesting to see how fresh her legs will feel. Konta, for her part, has played twelve matches in twenty days in three different cities, and one can’t help but wonder if that will catch up to her at any given moment in Melbourne. Last but not the least, Makarova has consistently performed well at Majors. I lean toward the Russian to pull the upset in this match.

Until next time, take care everyone and enjoy the tennis.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Sunday at the US Open: Two Match Previews

September 3, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

1) JO-WILFRIED TSONGA (9) vs. JACK SOCK (26)
Louis Armstrong Stadium, Day Session

I am not sure why I am picking this match for a preview, because it involves one of the more unpredictable players of modern times, the athletic, powerful, talented, yet erratic Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and Jack Sock, an American who certainly has his best chance at a deep run in a Major, but has, every now and then, produced lackluster performances when he found himself in such moments. I should even warn everyone (including myself) that I may be doing this for nothing, since both players have retired from matches in the past due to illness, fatigue, or injury. Unpredictability surrounds this encounter.

Nevertheless, I can comfortably say that Tsonga’s form should play a larger role in the match’s outcome than that of his opponent. On a good serving day, Jo has the ability to ace games away. Even on his second serve, he can bounce it high enough to set the winner on the next shot. Nonetheless, this is one of the unknowns. In the US Open so far, he has served a fair share of aces and won plenty of free points on his serves, but his first-serve percentage remained below 60%. Sock is not a great returner, so Jo may not necessarily need to excel in this category, but it would dramatically help his cause if he could serve at 60% or higher. He has been successful at the net, especially against Kevin Anderson in the third round, and I expect him to continue to approach the net whenever he gets a chance.

Photo: Andy Lyons, Getty Images — Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Photo: Getty Images – Andy Lyons)

Unlike against Anderson, however, he will have the Louis Armstrong stadium crowd rooting for his opponent. The last thing Tsonga needs are rallies in which Sock uses his powerful forehand to push Tsonga around behind the baseline, and breaks the Frenchman’s fragile backhand down. Sock’s ground stroke velocity is considerably higher than Anderson’s and I do not believe it is in Jo’s best interest to turn the match into a “who-can-whack-harder-from-behind-the-baseline” battle. That pattern spells a straight-set victory for the American in my opinion, but it is up to Tsonga to avoid falling into that trap. With a variety of first serves, followed by forehand strikes or astutely placed backhand approach shots, Jo should put the pressure on Sock on the American’s service games. It will also diminish the importance of Jo’s backhand, and it’s a good thing for him, in the outcome of the match. In the worst case scenario, meaning extended rallies, Tsonga must keep the large majority of the balls away from Sock’s forehand, unless it is for the purpose of opening up the backhand corner. The American is more likely to produce a short ball from his backhand than from his unorthodox-yet-efficient forehand.

Sock is the lower-seeded player in this match, but I would not exactly call him an underdog in this setting. Most Frenchmen, Tsonga included, and often by their own admission, have never felt comfortable in the American continent, not to mention at the US Open. Furthermore, the pattern of success that American players have traditionally achieved when they are playing a tournament on their home turf is undeniable. Tsonga is not what you would call a “fierce competitor” either, and at times, he tends to lose his spirit on the court. I would therefore say that Sock’s chances of victory will greatly increase (more than it usually would against someone else) if he can pocket the first set. It would also behoove Jack to get the crowd involved quickly in the match and exchange positive vibes (and I say this, because Sock can sometimes do exactly the opposite) with the tennis fans present on the seats.

As I noted above, serves and forehands, or some variation of the “1-2 punch” as it’s sometimes called, will play a central role for Tsonga’s success. Yet, the same can also be said for Sock, because those are his biggest weapons too. The contrast is in the other areas of their game. Jack’s baseline game is superior to Tsonga’s, so he may not necessarily want to take risks and go for winners early (as opposed to Jo). The Frenchman’s volleying skills and athleticism make him a better net player than Sock. The difference is that Jo will need those skills to win, Jack may win without needing them.

Again, a lot of unknowns come into play in this match, but Tsonga is the player that will determine whether those unknowns will have an impact on the outcome or not. If he can execute the details listed above, I have no doubt that he will turn the tide in his favor and come out triumphant regardless of what Sock does, unless factors outside the court take over.

RAFAEL NADAL (4)vs. LUCAS POUILLE (24)
Arthur Ashe Stadium, last match Day Session

First, let me say this, in case my friends and my readers do not already know: I like Pouille. I have followed him since my years of living in France when he was a developing junior. His fundamentally sound technique had impressed me and I somehow knew he would steadily improve and reach the biggest stage. I first watched him live in 2009 when he was 15 years old, at a tournament in a small town just outside of Paris. He was the top player in France in his age group if I am not mistaken, and he lost to Tristan Lamasine, the current no. 222 in the ATP rankings, in three sets (the exact score and the name of the club escape me). Along with several other junior players, he remained on my radar. Once he grew older and began to climb up in the ATP rankings, I was not surprised. My only worry was that he would not physically develop as quickly as some other juniors. That did not turn out to be the case, as he has bulked up and improved his conditioning. In short, where his career stands right now was something that I frankly expected. In fact, I would be surprised if he does not continue his rise. He has a sound all-around game, the necessary on-court disposition, and the endurance needed to succeed in the Majors and other big tournament.

Considering that this is a preview of his match against Rafael Nadal on Sunday, at this point, you are probably expecting a “but” or a “having said that,” before I go on.

You won’t get it. That is because I do believe Pouille has a chance to defeat Nadal, although I am sure that he will enter the Arthur Ashe stadium as a heavy underdog. He will, however, walk in the largest tennis arena in the world with a lot of confidence thanks to a quarterfinal appearance in a Major (Wimbledon) and a terrific win on Friday against a solid Roberto Bautista-Agut, as well as a sense of belonging. He also possesses the mental poise to avoid intimidation, cyclical ups-and-downs triggered by frustration or extreme enthusiasm.

His main problem will be the same one that all players encounter when they face Rafa. The Spaniard will hit the ball a bit harder and with a bit more spin than any other solid baseline player on the tour. Lucas, for his part, will have to deal with a lot of pressure on his weaker backhand side. To make matters worse, the cross-court forehand is Rafa’s most natural shot, and calling Roger Federer for advice will not help Pouille on this particular detail. There is nevertheless a path to victory for Pouille in this match.

For starters, he will need to overcome the same challenge that his compatriot Tsonga faces, as noted above, but with more urgency. Oui! He will need a much higher first-serve percentage than what he has shown in his previous three matches – %43 vs Kukushkin, %57 vs Chiudinelli, %56 vs Bautista-Agut. Pouille’s game plan will need to build on his attacking game, especially on his ability to accelerate the ball with his forehand, and for that to happen, he will need a large bucket of first serves to set the pattern up. A percentage closer to 70 would be just what the doctor ordered for Pouille, but it may be too much to ask from someone who has not gone above 60% in the tournament. He will, in addition, need to adopt the same plan that he executed so well against Bautista-Agut: he must stay aggressive from the baseline but not go for straight winners too early, and unleash his forehand when he does get a ball on which he can step inside the baseline. If not a winner, he still has the volleying skills to get it done at the net, assuming he comes in on well-constructed opportunities. Beyond that, a little help from Nadal would help the young Frenchman. It is not impossible (like it used to be in the past) because Rafa has had off-days as late as this year. Remember, Rafa is not the pre-2014 version where his standard rarely dipped below of greatness whenever he stepped on the court. Yes, I agree that it sounds like I am listing a string of “ifs” for Pouille to succeed, but none of it remains beyond of the realm of possibility. Although, he has played 14 sets in his first three matches, I don’t believe fatigue will be an issue for Pouille (probably my most daring assumption).

In any case, it would be the greatest victory in Pouille’s career to date if he were to take out one of the greatest players of all times who is also one of the very few favorites to win the US Open. All the rising youngsters aiming to join the ATP’s elite level need a milestone victory to get on the path to establish themselves as potential candidates. Players such as Kei Nishikori and Milos Raonic have penetrated that realm with a win or two and are paving the way. If he were to rise to the occasion, tomorrow’s match would be that type of win for Pouille.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Today in Cincinnati, Reilly Opelka Was a Giant

August 16, 2016

Mertov

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

Reilly Opelka is a big guy at 6’11, but that is not what the title of this article foregrounds. Today, in the Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati, the 2015 Wimbledon Boys’ champion passed a remarkable test against Jérémy Chardy, an established top-50 player who has reached 4th round or better at all the 4 Majors throughout his career. For the 18-year-old Opelka who has recorded his first ATP-Tour win earlier this month in Atlanta, today’s 3-6 7-5 7-6(9) win over the Frenchman was the confirmation that he is, at this point, a considerable opponent at any stage of an ATP event. It’s true that earlier this month, he did beat the 28th-ranked Kevin Anderson – who is still recovering from injury and struggling to find his best form – and the 53rd-ranked Donald Young in Atlanta before losing to John Isner in three sets in the semifinals. That being said, today’s win proved that the Atlanta run was not an isolated performance and that the American will quickly improve on his current ranking of 364 from this point forward.

When today’s match started and Chardy broke Opelka’s serve immediately in the second game of the match, it looked like the American Wild Card recipient would gain some valuable experience but not much more. While Opelka is already known for his big serve, it was Chardy’s serve that stole the show as the Frenchman served 22 aces and 3 double faults to Opelka’s 18 and 9 respectively. Opelka also served at 56% first serves while Chardy did so at 64%. What most tennis fans did not expect was how Opelka rose to the challenge in other parts of the game.

Opelka steadied the ship after the early break and never lost his serve during the rest of the match. But it was impossible to break Chardy’s serve. The Frenchman, time after time, served aces and kept Opelka off balance with strong serves into the body including the one he hit (photo below) to win the first set 6-3.

But Opelka was now also winning his service games without much difficulty. The only other break of the match came when the rain interrupted the 6-5 game in the second set when Chardy was about to serve at 30-30. That delay lasted less than an hour and the players came back on the court, but during the warm-up, the weather forecast apparently signaled lightning and the referee made the following rare announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, we have a big lightning coming this way, we are sending the players back to the locker room.” The so-called “lightning delay” lasted over an hour. The skies turned into a nasty, gray-blue toned color, and a period of heavy rain followed.

During this time, Opelka had a Chobani yoghurt as he waited in the dining room. I don’t know what Chardy did but the delay certainly did not work in his favor. As is often the case when a match gets interrupted at such crucial moments, when the players come back to the court, it is possible that one or both players may not have the intensity or the concentration with which they left the court at a moment like 6-5 30-30. Chardy was the victim this time. What looked like a typical “tiebreaker set” before the weather delay finished in about a minute when Opelka quickly won the first two points and recorded his only break of the match to win the second set 7-5.

In the third set, the domination of the servers continued and the second set pattern repeated itself, this time without a delay to throw off either player. In the deciding tiebreaker, Opelka excelled in his decision-making and showed the poise of a player far beyond his years. The match was decided on the tiniest of details. Opelka was willing to take chances and develop patterns to put pressure on Chardy while the Frenchman hesitated on a couple of important points.

The tiebreaker, as it happened

Opelka started the tiebreaker with a successful serve-and-volley point to win the first point. After Chardy hit his signature forehand winner on a short return by Opelka, the American made the first minibreak on a strong return when Chardy hit a kick second serve to his backhand. In the next point, Opelka approached Chardy’s backhand on the first short-ball opportunity, causing the Frenchman to net the passing-shot attempt. Opelka was now up 3-1, but he missed an open-court backhand to record his first big error in the tiebreaker. Another powerful serve by Chardy equalized the score at 3-3 and the players changed ends. In the next point, Chardy had another shot at a forehand winner when he moved into the court on a short ball by Opelka. However, the Frenchman hesitated and instead of going for the usual winner, he simply hit it deep to Opelka’s backhand and allowed him to stay in the point. He paid the price for his reluctance as Opelka slowly gained control of the rally and finished it with a winner of his own. The youngster was up again, holding a minibreak at 4-3. He made his second (and last) unforced error of the tiebreaker when he netted a forehand. The players were back on serve at 4-4.

In the next point, Opelka attacked Chardy’s backhand for the second time in the tiebreaker and Chardy once again missed the passing shot in the net. The Frenchman was down 4-5 but would win the next two points with an ace and a string of dominating forehands to earn his first match point. At 6-5 up, when Chardy hit a powerful return on Opelka’s serve (which is not an easy thing to do) it looked like he would shortly shake hands and go to the locker room as the winner. Yet, Opelka produced a sizzling down-the-line winner off that return with his supposedly weaker backhand side and the players changed sides again at 6-6. Opelka served and volleyed again, this time on his second serve and won the point the classic way, with a winning volley. Now the American held his first match point at 7-6. Chardy was not yet done as he produced two big serves that earned one return mistake and another short return by Opelka, allowing Chardy to hit the winner on the next shot. The Frenchman was up 8-7 with his second match point in hand. Opelka once again rose to the occasion, sticking to the successful pattern that was emerging in the late stages of the match. He served and volleyed yet one more time, this time winning the point on a high forehand volley and saving the match point. At 8-8, Opelka, recognizing that bravery was the path to the win, approached Chardy’s backhand for the third time forcing him to miss the passing shot in the net, again. Chardy saved the second match point against him when he hit a kick serve to Opelka’s backhand and the big American missed the return long. The players changed sides for the third time at 9-9.

In this intense back-and-forth battle, it was the more experienced player that blinked first in the “extended” stages of the tiebreaker. On the 9-9 point, Chardy got another short ball in the middle of the court on his forehand. Usually considered Chardy’s “money shot,” the short forehand sitter let him down a second time in the tiebreaker (first one at 3-3, see above), this time resulting in a direct error in the net. Opelka held his third match point at 10-9, on his serve. As the saying goes, you stick with what got you there. Opelka had been successful serving and volleying or approaching the net to Chardy’s backhand. Sure enough, he did the latter as soon as the opportunity presented itself in the rally. This time, Chardy did hit the passing shot down-the-line over the net, but the tall American was able to reach it and place the cross-court forehand volley to the open court for a winner, ending the tiebreaker with an 11-9 win. He turned to his corner and screamed with joy. His sense of accomplishment was obvious in his face, and Chardy was disappointed as he added to his struggling year another unexpected loss.

Chardy's favorite position on the court — Chardy’s favorite position on the court

Opelka manifested the qualities that competitive players possess during crunch time. He was able to recognize the winning patterns, dare to take chances to put them into action, and execute without fear, realizing that there would always be a chance that it may blow up in his face. He did it whether he was down or up a match point. The bottom line remained that he knew he needed to take those risks, in the form of serving and volleying or approaching to Chardy’s backhand. It was a remarkable display of high-IQ for a player who was performing in the main draw of an ATP-1000 event for the first time in his nascent professional career. It was his opponent, with 11 years of pro experience, who got hesitant with his most powerful weapon while the American became a giant with his decision-making. I am also a fan of Chardy and I believe his career is very underrated, but there is no denying that the 18-year-old stole the show today and made an Opelka fan out of me.

Opelka will take on the 7th-seeded Jo-Wilfried Tsonga next.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Federer “Finds A Way,” yet Again!

July 7, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

Wimbledon’s official site, in its immediate official website update following Roger Federer’s spectacular comeback win vs. Marin Cilic, 6-7 4-6 6-3 7-6 6-3, used the headline “Extraordinary. Exhausting. Exhilarating.” It was an appropriate exclamation, considering that what took place on Centre Court on Wednesday was less about the quality of Federer’s game than about the nature and circumstances of the comeback. The way a tennis legend fabricated a win that seemed so unlikely at several moments of the match was indeed breathtaking.

Prior to the match, I shared my opinion on social media on what to expect. Quite frankly, the match could go either way, in any number of sets, because both players have not yet faced any redoubtable opposition, and thus, there were still many questions unanswered. Federer got to the quarterfinals without much trouble, taking full advantage of a draw that put him against considerably weaker adversaries. His performances in Stuttgart and Halle, two of the leading grass-court tournaments before Wimbledon, were less than impressive, and from his previous matches at SW19, it was hard to tell where his game stood. Adding to the doubt, Federer was still on the comeback trail from his injury. Last but not the least, the last time Roger had to go to distance, playing five sets in a Major, dated back to the 2014 US Open (vs Gaël Monfils). Cilic, for his part, had to overcome a challenging stretch of 10 minutes in the second set of his match vs Sergiy Stakhovsky, but he had yet to face a formidable opponent. At the same time, it is well-known fact, as Roger will be the first one to say so, that on a given day Marin could dominate anyone on the ATP Tour if his game is clicking on all cylinders. For all the reasons above, I felt that the first set would be a central component of the match. If Federer came out swinging freely, he would put doubts to rest and move on to the next round without much headache. If Cilic won the first set, it would be a long duel with the pendulum slightly tilting in the Croat’s favor. Although, I turned out right for the most part – and this is rare – I still did not foresee some of what took place for 3 hours and 17 minutes on the court.

Photo: Clive Brunskill - Getty Images — Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

Both players held serve throughout the first set that went to a tiebreaker. While Federer was serving well, he was alarmingly losing most of the baseline rallies. Cilic was solid overall, but not hitting Roger out of the court like he did at the US Open two years ago. Although Cilic did face two break points at 2-2, he only lost one point on his first serve during the rest of set. He won the tiebreaker 7-4 and took the lead. Now there was no doubt. As he usually does when he plays from behind, Federer was going to have to pull all the weapons from the arsenal and find a way to turn the match around.

However, things went from bad to worse in the second set. Even Federer’s only reliable shot so far, his serve, took a hit. He served barely over 50% in the second set and in the game that he was broken at 1-1, Federer’s footwork looked dismal as he committed one uncharacteristic error after another to lose his serve. Cilic, on the other hand, seemed to remain solid, but not without glitches. He fell behind in a later game 0-30 after two double faults, but Federer was unable to take advantage as he committed a mix of forced and unforced errors during rallies. Cilic led two sets to zero and Federer still looked unsettled in the beginning of the third. Many thought his quest for an 18th Major was soon coming to an end. The quality of his tennis was just not at the point where he could contend for a Major title, or so it seemed. Even Cilic, one of the nice guys on the ATP Tour, would later say that he thought Federer was committing unlikely errors from the baseline, including the fourth-set tiebreaker.

Accordingly, it looked like Cilic was headed for the locker room with a three-set victory when the scoreboard showed 3-3 in the third set and he held three break points at 0-40 on his opponent’s serve. One pattern that kept troubling Federer was the second shot after the serve. Following Cilic’s returns, he often looked out of balance and committed mistakes (although Cilic’s returns would make them “forced errors”) on that particular shot. At 0-40, Cilic once again nailed a return right at Federer’s feet. The Swiss barely had time to take a step back and answered with an off-balance forehand that barely scraped over the net. It landed short. Cilic hit into the net what should be a routine backhand approach shot. It turned out to be one of the key points of the match. Cilic himself would later admit that this point, along with two of the three match points he had, were the points that he “regretted” the most once the match ended. Then at 30-40, Federer hit a well-placed, high-bouncing second serve that forced the Croat into an error. Federer finally held, and all of a sudden, the momentum shifted tiny bit in his favor for the first time in the match. He broke Cilic’s serve in the ensuing game and pocketed the third set 6-3.

Federer would admit later to remembering, during that set, his comeback vs. Tommy Haas in the 2009 French Open. In that match, Haas also led Federer two sets to zero, had a break point to go up, and serve for the match. Federer hit the line with his forehand for a winner and the match turned around quickly, eventually leading to Roger’s win in five sets and his only French Open crown two matches later. The only difference: he won the fourth and the fifth sets handily, whereas that would not be the case here against Cilic. Fourth set would be another battle back and forth, similar to the first set, except that Marin would have the opportunities to put the match away, while Roger would still play catch-up tennis. Cilic had his first chance to reestablish his dominance when he led 2-1, and 15-40 on Federer’s service game. Two effective second serves by the Swiss, second being much riskier than the first, got him out of trouble and he held for 2-2. At 4-5 would come a bigger opportunity for Cilic to put this encounter in the record books when he had a match point at 30-40. Federer missed his first serve on yet another crucial point. However – and yes, you may be noticing a pattern by now, more on it later – served an exceptional second serve to get out of trouble once again. A second match point would arrive at 5-6, but this time, Federer would hit an ace to save that one and bring the set to a tiebreaker.

In a thrilling 4th-set tiebreaker, Federer saved another match point and squandered four set points himself before finally winning it 11-9 on his fifth one. He especially found himself in big trouble after missing a forehand sitter on his first set point at 6-4 and losing the next two points to go down 6-7 and a third match point. His second serve once again took the leading role. He placed it wonderfully, forcing Cilic into another return error. Did I mention he also served an unreturnable second serve earlier in the tiebreaker? Well, I just did.

The fifth set was finally where Federer, for the first time in the match, did swing freely, serving better and better, and beginning to dominate Cilic on all facets of the game. One break was enough and he would find it in the eighth game of the set. In the next game, he served out the match and lifted his hands high up in the air after the ace that officially finished the match. Federer would characterize this comeback as a “big one” but not necessarily his biggest.

This was a special win, not because of the tennis that Federer played, but more because of his often-underrated competitor persona that surfaced. Tim Henman would confirm on his post-match commentary on BBC, accurately so, that Roger’s “will to win” was what got him over the hurdle. Federer said later that he was “lucky to some extent,” but he also affirmed that he would “rather be here than booking a jet.” Isn’t it the sign of a champion anyway to find some solution and fabricate a win when he/she cannot perform at the desired level? The elite athletes in our sport prove repeatedly that it is the case.

One of the most underrated shots in tennis is the second serve, yet somehow one that elite players usually lead in all categories to which it relates. As you read above, it was Federer’s second serve that got him out of trouble on the majority of critical moments during the match. Two match points and three crucial break points that almost felt like match points were all saved thanks to second serves that had faster-than-usual pace or risky placement, or both. Roger said that his serve was the one shot he felt he could always fall back on, specifically mentioning his second serve.

How much does he rely on it? Here are a few numbers to ponder. In yesterday’s five-set match, Federer committed zero double faults. Keep in mind that he was not, by any means, “playing it safe” on his second serves. In fact, he took high risks on many of them simply because he had trouble handling Cilic’s returns. On the break and match points noted above, they were placed extremely close to the lines. At Wimbledon so far, the Swiss has committed a total of 2 (“two” in writing) double faults in five matches! He won 59% of his second-serve points against Cilic, and that stat is at 63% for the overall tournament. Are these details? Maybe… But for some reason, these details are always present and relevant when the topic revolves around the top players of our game.

Federer plays Milos Raonic in the semis. The Canadian is also winning 63% of his second-serve points. Federer will need to extend to the whole match the level of tennis he put on display in the fifth set against Cilic. He will (possibly) need to do that again, in order to lift the trophy on Sunday. In short, he has to play his two best matches of 2016 in succession, in order to win his favorite Major. I neither see him defeating Raonic nor winning the tournament if he plays another match at a level no higher than the previous ones in which he was challenged throughout the grass-court season. The good news: he has improved with each match and during yesterday’s match. He reiterated the importance of the seven matches that he got to play in Stuttgart and Halle in terms of getting prepared for Wimbledon. At the end of the tournament, I am guessing that this particular one against Cilic may yet turn out to be the biggest.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

May 30, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

In this piece, I will only analyze the first set of this match, more particularly, Andy Murray’s brilliant strategy on first serves, because the set (and consequently the match) was essentially decided on it. Andy Murray was never in real danger after winning the thrilling tiebreaker 11-9.

Details often distinguish great champions from other top players. Murray is an elite champion, John Isner is not. This is not to say that Isner is not a successful tennis player. His career speaks for itself. He has occasionally recorded wins against the elites and won numerous tournaments. But there is usually something that separates the likes of Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer from the likes of Isner, Tsonga, Ferrer, and Berdych. The elite champions find something where most other players are not able to, and use that something to their advantage in the way that others do not. In 2013, in the post-match press conference the quarterfinal match in which Tsonga squandered four match points and lost to Djokovic in 5 sets, he was asked why the French players never seemed to get over the hump against top players. Tsonga admitted that there was “something lacking” in them that did not in the elite players. What he said could easily be applied to what I noted above. In this particular encounter between Murray and Isner, the difference was the high-IQ strategy employed by Murray on first serves.

Until the tiebreaker, Isner never faced a break point and was closer to breaking his opponent’s serve than Murray was to breaking his. John had his first break point at 2-1 up. Before I get to that, let me bring up Murray’s strategy on his first serves. For the most part of the first set, he surprisingly served to Isner’s forehand, which is the American’s stronger side. Often able to hit an aggressive return on that side, Isner possesses the ability to put himself in a commanding position from the beginning of the point. One would think that his backhand return being weaker, most player would choose to hit the majority of their serves to that side.

Not Murray, not on that gloomy, drizzly, late Sunday afternoon.

It must have surprised Isner too because he was expecting, especially early in the set, more serves to his backhand, and thus, found himself off balance on some forehand ones. Unfortunately, I did not keep up with the numbers but I feel certain that Isner had to return Murray’s serve with his forehand more often than with his backhand. I do know however that Murray won more points off his first serves when serving wide to Isner’s forehand (meaning wide on the deuce side, to the “T” on the ad side) than to any other spot (body-forehand, body-center, body-backhand, wide backhand) in the service box.

Remember that this chart does not include the number of points in which Isner got the return in play. I would assume that the total number of serves would reflect a pattern of serving by Murray that favors Isner’s forehand returns.

With that said, now let’s get back to Isner’s first break point at 2-1 up, ad-out on Murray’s serve…

Murray chose to hit the serve to Isner’s backhand side, with a slight curve into his body. Isner missed the return out. Murray went back to mostly serving to Isner’s forehand (not to say that none of his serves went to the backhand, but certainly not the majority). Then came the second break point opportunity for the big American at 3-2, 30-40. This is where Murray got a bit lucky, at least at first. Isner returned back, got into the rally and hit a forehand on the line that would have put him into an advantageous position to win the point, except that the line judge called it out. The chair umpire corrected the call and asked for the point to be replayed. Murray hit an ace and got out of that jam. Yes, Isner got unlucky, but guess where Murray served that ace? Yes, wide to the Isner’s backhand side. After he held, Murray continued his pattern of mostly serving to Isner’s forehand side, whether aiming close to the body, or wide to the forehand.

There were no more break points and the tiebreaker was going to decide the first-set winner, a tiebreaker in which Murray, unlike the rest of the set, would relentlessly test Isner’s backhand side on returns. At 2-0 up, Andy aimed once again Isner’s backhand side and hit an ace to the “T.” At 3-2 up, he hit another big, flat serve to the outside corner, taking advantage of Isner’s short backhand return to put the next ball away for a winner. At 4-2 up, another hard, winning serve to the “T” ensued. In other words, after serving mostly to Isner’s strong side throughout the set, Murray was determined to test his opponent’s weaker side on crunch time.

After getting aced twice by Isner, at 5-4 up, Murray chose to serve to Isner’s forehand this time, probably trying to avoid being predictable, and he paid the price. Isner got the return back and Andy eventually missed. At 5-5, he had to serve a second serve to which Isner replied with an aggressive return and the American held a set point on his serve at 6-5. This was the only point where one can truly say that the American should have won, holding the set on his racket. He couldn’t deliver the big ace, as he so often does, and Murray ended up passing Isner at the net to get back to 6-6.

Later at 6-7, down another set point but this time on his serve, Murray served into Isner’s body, but forcing him to hit a backhand. Isner missed the return and they were at 7-7. As one might expect by now, it was another hard first serve to Isner’s backhand. It resulted in another backhand return error by the big guy, and now Murray held a set point at 8-7. Isner held both of his service points and went up 9-8 earning his third set point. Andy attacked Isner’s backhand in the rally and forced him into an error. At 9-9, Andy served big to Isner’s backhand (yes… again!) and saw the American’s return go in the net. He won the next point on a baseline error by John and took the first set 7-6.

At the end of it all, Murray reversed his service pattern, almost completely, when it mattered the most. One may question the wisdom of playing to your opponent’s strength during most of the set, but there is no doubt that it was planned so by Murray and his team, to keep Isner off balance when it truly counted. It is possible to work your opponent’s weak side so much that, by the time crucial points come about, they have found a way to deal with it and gained confidence. Furthermore, they expect you to test their weaknesses.

Andy did the opposite. He served to Isner’s stronger side for almost the whole set. That did not allow John to favor one side or the other, or to begin expecting most serves to his weak side. But when faced with break points earlier in the set, and when the tiebreaker began to determine the outcome of the set, Murray systematically went back to his opponent’s weaker side that did not get worked much previously. It was the difference, that “little something,” in the set that ultimately tilted the balance in the Brit’s favor. Not giving Isner the luxury of making an educated guess throughout the set on which side he would have to return was also why Murray won 80,6% of his first-serve points (25/31).

As it turned out, that first set went a long way to decide the winner of the match. Now, Murray is in the quarterfinals, preparing for an encounter with the local favorite, and the in-form, Richard Gasquet, while Isner will not be back to Roland Garros until next year. Murray had a terrific plan on his first serves, one that he executed to perfection. I am sure it was only a segment of his larger game plan to defeat the 17th-ranked American, and there is no denying that he did come close to losing the set. Ultimately, however, those are the intangibles that somehow seem to work in the favor of the elite players, and on Suzanne Lenglen court yesterday, that one particular intangible lifted the second-ranked player in the world to the next round of a Major.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Tactical Analysis: Kuznetsova def. Pavlyuchenkova 6-1 6-4, French Open 3rd Round

May 28, 2016

Mertov

Majors Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

This was a tough match-up for the 27th-ranked Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova from the moment she walked on the court 3, Roland Garros, to face the 15th-ranked and 2009 French Open winner Svetlana Kuznetsova. The two Russians had previously played five times, all on hard courts. Pavlyuchenkova had only won once, and the four wins by her opponent were all comfortable, straight-set wins, except the match in Canada in 2010 (7-5 4-6 6-1). To make matters worse for Pavlyuchenkova, they were this time playing in Kuznetsova’s favorite Major, on her favorite surface.

Pavlyuchenkova is, for the most part, a hard, flat hitter. She seldom uses a backhand slice, and occasionally hit effective drops shots. She usually tends to put pressure on her opponents by taking the ball on the rise, stepping inside the baseline, and using her powerful forehand to either hit winners, or force her opponent into errors. Unfortunately for her, it all plays into Kuznetsova’s game plan. Sveta has a wide arsenal of shots at her disposal and thrives on scrambling in the back of the court, and getting as many balls back as possible. She can, when the opportunity arises, counterpunch and turn the rally in her favor. She can also hit flat or high topspin on both sides and change the pace efficiently with her backhand slice to take the pace off the ball. With a flick of her wrist she can hit angles at the most unexpected moments, or accelerate the ball and approach the net on whim. She has sound technique on her volleys and serve. I could comfortably say that her game is well-crafted to succeed on clay courts. Sveta usually performs well against (mostly) one-dimensional players, taking them out of their rhythm by giving them several different looks during rallies. Last but not the least, Kuznetsova is one of the smartest players on the WTA tour.

All of the above, as one would expect, worked in Kuznetsova’s favor as she put on a display of high-quality tennis that left the spectators in awe, at least until her lead at 6-1 3-1. If anyone wanted to make a case about why it is important for promising juniors to develop all facets of their game early in their tennis career, this would be the emblematic match to show them.

Pavlyuchenkova did not particularly play badly during that stretch. She stuck to her guns, applying pressure whenever she could, and hitting returns early (photo below) to take charge from the beginning of the point in her return games, which is what she does best.

The problem was that Kuznetsova would not allow her to settle into that routine. Not only would she get those balls back, but she would dazzle the crowd, with how many weapons she possesses in her game. She finished the first game on an ace, the second game on a “sneak-in” swing volley winner when Pavlyuchenkova did not expect it, and the third game on a passing shot on the run, when Pavlyuchekova decided to attack because, up to that point, nothing else worked.

One particular point in the late stages of the first set summarized what was happening (see the sequence below). In that point, Kuznetsova remained on defense during the first part of the rally, starting with the return, then retrieving a couple of balls from deep behind the baseline. On one shot later in the rally, she found enough time to run around her backhand to hit a high, aggressive, inside-out forehand to pull Pavlyuchenkova wide on the ad side. Pavlyuchenkova, who found herself on defense for the first time in the rally (not part of her plan A), returned the ball a bit short on the court. It was the first short ball that Kuznetsova got in the rally, and unlike her opponent, it was all that she needed to put the ball away with a hard forehand to the open deuce corner.

Sveta would later say to me that she was playing “smart tennis” at that point. “I knew what I had to do and I completed it well.”

Then she let her guard down. She squandered a 30-0 lead in the 3-1 game, and a 40-0 lead in the next one. Pavlycuhenkova, with renewed confidence, played a great seventh game and took the lead 4-3 for the first time in the set. Unexpectedly losing those two consecutive games with 30-0 and 40-0 leads did not help Sveta who registered a string of errors for the first time in the match. Kuznetsova admitted later that she “got tense and started to do weird things.” She said the ease with which she got the 6-1 3-1 lead played a role in her let-down: “Really? I’m winning that good? And I just get a little bit nervous, I don’t know, I just got a little bit confused and I started playing short points, and it’s not really what I had to do against Anastasia, and then I started to get back to what I was doing [at 3-4 down]. But it was tricky you know, I had to make my plan to get back in the match, and it was a more difficult task to win then, instead of winning when I was 3-1 [up].” She added that she needed to “shut it down” in her memory when she was down 3-4 and say to herself “Look, you got to start over.” She finished her point saying “I’m better on clay and I have to focus on that.” She did just that, winning the next three games and the set 6-4.

Pavlyuchenkova did have success when she attacked the net (8/10), but the problem is that she did not get to do that much as Kuznetsova kept her guessing and out of balance. One stat jumps out: as aggressive as Pavlyuchenkova plays, going often for winners, Sveta ended up hitting a dozen more winners than her (27 to 15). That is because when Sveta gets a chance to finish the point, she has already worked her opponent and set up the opening for a high-probability winner (remember the sequence above). It is an essential part of her game, to cleverly construct the point. However, not many players can do that unless they possess a variety of shot making skills. That is what sets Kuznetsova apart from most players. It is also the reason for which Sveta remains a daunting opponent on clay, especially at the French Open where she had the most of her success in Majors.

Her next opponent is the fourth seed Garbine Muguruza who also happens to base her game on powerful ground strokes. I cannot wait to see what Kuznetsova will have in store for that match.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Monday at the Australian Open: 4th Round Preview

Sunday at the US Open: Two Match Previews

Today in Cincinnati, Reilly Opelka Was a Giant

Federer “Finds A Way,” yet Again!

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

Tactical Analysis: Kuznetsova def. Pavlyuchenkova 6-1 6-4, French Open 3rd Round

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation