Category: WTA

Istanbul Cup: Quarterfinals Recap

WTA 5 Comments

Maria Sakkari def. Arantxa Rus 6-3 7-6

This encounter between the 48th-ranked Sakkari and the qualifier Rus turned out to be a straight-forward baseline affair, with little variety produced by either player. Points were largely decided on errors, with the Dutch player committing a few more than her opponent. There were not many points won at the net, or specialty shots like angles and drop shots. While Rus managed to strike several impressive forehands – especially down-the-line – she also sprayed a number of them deep. Interestingly, several of those deep errors came on shots aimed to the middle of the court.

She had a couple of chances to break Sakkari’s serve in the beginning of the match but could not capitalize on them. As happens so often in these cases, the player who just squandered break-point chances, loses her own serve in the very next game. Sakkari carried that early-break advantage all the way to the end of the set, taking it 6-3.

Maria Sakkari – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi

Rus was able to go up a break early twice, thanks to a few forehands missed by Sakkari, but could neither hold at 2-0, nor at 4-2, to confirm those breaks. Nevertheless, she stayed a step ahead throughout the second set. Sakkari, for her part, could not get her first serve going in the second set, registering a dismal 29% midway through. But Rus could not take advantage of her leads enough to force Sakkari to modify her game plan. Sakkari continued to feed her opponent a steady stream of cross-court shots and waited for her errors.

Second set came down to a tiebreaker. Rus did hit a couple of forehand down-the-line winners (by far, her most potent weapon in this match) to get ahead. She went up 6-4 on a double fault by Sakkari, thus earning two chances to send the match to a final set.

However, Rus committed costly errors to lose the next four points and the match. It was a fitting microcosm for how the match went for Rus on important points. On her second set point at 6-5, she had a forehand sitter inside the baseline that she failed to put away, missing the next forehand deep. Then at 6-7, down a match point, she missed a backhand wide. Just like that, the match was over 6-3 7-6 in Sakkari’s favor.

This is the Greek player’s second career semifinal appearance in a WTA Event and she will need to get past Polona Hercog to reach her first final.

Polona Hercog def. Svetlana Kuznetsova 6-1 1-6 7-5

Sometimes there are sets where one player clicks on all cylinders and there is not much that her opponent can do about it, like in the first set of this match. Hercog came out firing winners and managed to make Sveta, one of the best defensive players in the WTA Tour, look helpless on several occasions. She struck 20 winners (to three for Sveta) and only made six unforced errors on the way to pocketing the set 6-1.

Polona Hercog – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi

As the second set commenced, there was only one question that mattered. Would Hercog be able to maintain her form? We did not have to wait long for the answer as Hercog began the second set with a series of errors to go down a break. Sveta who, for her part, remained calm and collected, although still not completely free of errors.

The match took a 180-degree turn and Kuznetsova cruised to a 6-1 victory in the second set. The shocking number, even with such a blatant reversal, was Hercog hitting only one winner in the second set, after having recorded twenty of them in the first. Kuznetsova won it without really playing well.

With the first two sets having been decided by the early games, it only made sense that the next ten minutes would play a crucial role in the outcome of the match. Both players knew it because you could sense the tension in their game. At 30-30, Hercog gagged a shoulder-level forehand volley in the net! Sveta returned the favor in the ensuing break point with a forehand mishit that landed deep. She added credit to that favor with another forehand missed wide on her second break-point opportunity. You could tell the relief in Hercog’s body language as she walked to her chair, up 1-0, after Sveta erred on a third forehand on game point.

Both players began to hold their serves as some sense of order seemed to settle in the match. Or so everyone thought.

It all went haywire again after the seventh game. Following an exchange of breaks at 3-3, Hercog played a shockingly bad game on her serve at 4-4. She chucked her racket to the ground in disgust after the last point. Sveta, serving at 5-4, outperformed Hercog yet again by losing four points in a row, three of them on routine errors.

At 5-5, we finally had our first “quality” game of the final set, at least for Hercog. She hit a fine drop-shot winner and followed it with a forehand winner on the next point – from the same spot she misfired on two of them back in the 4-4 game.

That hold to go up 6-5 turned out to be the crucial “break” for Hercog, Sveta simply could not put a stop to the string of unforced errors that she was committing on her service games. Fittingly, in the last two points of the match, she missed a backhand wide and a forehand inside-out wide again before walking up to the net to congratulate her opponent for the win.

Kuznetsova fans are probably concerned, for valid reasons. Ranked 28 in the WTA, Sveta’s form is nowhere near the level needed for a possible run in the French Open. I am not sure if the three matches she got under her belt in Istanbul have helped the cause. Furthermore – and this is a shocker in my opinion – Sveta has not won a title on clay courts since 2009, when she lifted the trophy at Roland Garros, one of her two Major titles.

Polona Hercog will take on Maria Sakkari in the semifinals on Saturday.

Pauline Parmentier def. Caroline Wozniacki 4-6 6-3 ret.

Before I get to the “why” and “how” of Wozniacki’s retirement, let me start from the beginning.

Parmentier is a very solid clay-court player. Her forehand is probably one of the most intimidating weapons on clay because of the amount of spin that she generates on it. She usually prefers to park on the baseline and dictate the point, seeking to eventually wear her opponent down under the heavy weight of her aggressive forehands. On the downside, she happens to have the type of game that Wozniacki can easily dismantle.

Caroline will run all those hard-to-reach balls and put them back in play, eventually pushing the likes of Parmentier to take bigger risks and commit error after error. She will operate with a high first-serve percentage, not allowing opponents to start the point aggressively. She will mix in a drop shot or two for good measure, in order to bring them in and get them out of their comfort zone.

A combination of the above took place during the first set. For example, at 1-1, Wozniacki got her first break by winning a point during which she covered, twice, the court from one corner to the other and got three balls back in the court that Parmentier may have recorded as winners against many others. Parmentier, desperate to put the ball away, eventually overfired on a forehand that landed deep. Riding that break, Wozniacki would eventually climb to a 4-1 lead.

Parmentier recovered impressively and got back to 4-4. At the 30-30 point on Wozniacki’s serve, the Danish player worked Parmentier’s backhand during a long rally. It finally ended when Pauline cracked and hit a backhand in the net. It was a key point, one from which Parmentier would not recover. She committed five more errors in the next few minutes and Wozniacki pocketed the first set 6-4.

It was a close set, but it was undoubtedly played on Wozniacki’s terms.

Then, things turned sour for the Australian Open winner. Parmentier, a remarkable fighter herself, had a terrific start to go up an early break. Wozniacki needed a medical time-out at 0-3, notably having problems with her abdominal area and stretching her back. When play resumed, you could see that she was not moving at her best when she had to run forward to pick up low balls on a couple of slice shots by Parmentier. She also seemed to hold back a bit on her serve.

She did not give up on the set, even managing to break Parmentier’s serve at 2-5. Parmentier answered the challenge with a very solid return game and won the second set 6-3.

Pauline Parmentier (Shenzhen Open, Jan 2018) —- Photo: Zhong Zhi – Getty Images

Wozniacki asked the trainer to come on the court and had a brief conversation with her. She pointed to her abdominal area and showed certain movements with her arm which made her feel pain. She then approached the chair umpire, told her she was retiring, and headed over to Parmentier to explain.

In a matter of two hours, the top two seeds, Kuznetsova and Wozniacki, were no longer in the tournament. Any hope that tournament organizers had of filling the already empty stands inside the otherwise impressive Center Court at Koza WOS probably evaporated away around that time.

Irina-Camelia Begu def. Donna Vekic

Begu did not particularly play a bad first set, but still felt helpless at times – see her chat with her coach at 2-5 down – as Vekic played an all-around solid set, overpowering her opponent for the most part. It is not easy to do against Begu who is a skilled player that possesses the ability to change the pace of the game during rallies. It’s just that she could rarely get her feet set to do so.

Irina Begu – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi

The same pattern more or less held through the first part of the second set. Vekic got the break to take a commanding lead at 6-3 3-1.

Two games later, down 2-4, Begu played two spectacular points in a row, finishing both with forehand errors to go up 0-30. She was patient and waited for the right opportunity to unleash her forehand. Vekic committed two backhand errors in the next three points and there was the break Begu desperately needed.

At 4-4 and Begu serving, Vekic had a golden chance to break at 30-40. She had an easy passing shot opportunity with Begu 5 meters in front of her at the net and she missed the backhand wide. She covered her head with her hands in disbelief. But she did not lose her nerves – at least, not at that point. She won the next two points, the second one on a remarkable forehand angle, and went up again to serve for the match at 5-4.

But for someone who kept her resolve so well in that particular sequence, the rest of the match turned into an utter disaster.

She double-faulted twice and made two unforced error to hand the break right back. But no worries, Begu did pretty much the same – minus one double fault – and Vekic found herself serving for the match again at 6-5. On match point at 40-30, she double-faulted! It all went downhill after that moment. Two point later, down a break point this time, she had a high sitter on top of the net that she could have easily guided to the open court for a winner. She smacked it right at where Begu was standing. The Romanian passed her.

Break, 6-6, tiebreaker!

It continued to go from bad to worse for Vekic. She threw in another double fault (her sixth of the set) at 1-1 in the tiebreaker and added five more unforced errors in succession to lose it 7-1. Just like that, a third set appeared on the horizon.

That horizon did not offer any light to Vekic.

No need to recount the final set in detail other than to say that it became agonizing to watch as she committed error after error, falling completely apart. Every tennis player goes through this type of downfall at some point(s) in their career. It never gets any easier though, neither for the player, nor for her team. She did calm down a bit later in the final set and tried to climb back in the match but, by then, Begu had built a substantial lead and was not planning on looking back.

Begu won the match 3-6 7-6 6-1, a little over half an hour after she had faced a match point against her. She will take on Pauline Parmentier in the semifinals on Saturday.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Caroline Wozniacki – Aliaksandra Sasnovich (3rd round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA 2 Comments

After hovering in the 80-to-150 ranking range for the last few years, Aliaksandra Sasnovich is having a career year in 2018, having cracked the top 50 for the first time (no.49 currently). Prior to today’s match, the 23-year-old from Belarus had accumulated a number of quality wins this year and had a breakthrough tournament in Brisbane where, as a qualifier, she advanced to the finals before losing to Elina Svitolina. She had then reaffirmed her form by advancing to the third round of the Australian Open, her best result in a Major.

Caroline Wozniacki had a breakthrough of her own at the Australian Open, winning her first Major title in her 43rd participation in one. More importantly for her, the title ensured that she would never again have to answer that relentless question “a million times or a hundred thousand times.”

Photo: Adam Pretty – Getty Images

For a baseline player like Sasnovich who does not rely on consistently overpowering her opponent, Wozniacki represents a daunting challenge. It puts the Belarusian in this precarious domain where she faces a player who can do everything she does well but do them a little better than her (ok, maybe not drop shots, but that is a specialty shot, not one to build a game plan around). Such matchups often result in lop-sided scores because the better-skilled player beats the underdog at her own game and the latter feels the need to switch to another game plan with which she does not feel at ease.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the favorite may simply have an off day and commit an unexpectedly high amount of errors as a consequence of which the underdog may gain confidence and perform above her expected level. The underdog would also have to continue her form and not take the foot off the pedal. That would be the formula for an upset. The first part of the above equation did indeed materialize in the early games of this match on Stadium Court 1.

Wozniacki made three unforced errors in the first game of the match to lose her serve. After her fifth one at 15-15 in the next game, she switched rackets, but it was soon to become clear that the racket was not the cause of her erratic play**. By the time she lost her serve again to go down 0-3, she had committed six unforced errors and a double fault.

**Side note 1: She said after the match that she was “not a morning person” so maybe that was it (or something)? She also called her father for some coaching advice at 0-3, but the dialog came across more like a back-and-forth disagreement between the two than anything else.

The first part of the equation required for an upset to take place, as noted above, had come true. Wozniacki had a dismal start and Sasnovich had a commanding lead without even having played very well. For the second part of the equation to materialize, Sasnovich would need to lift her game even higher and sustain her lead before Wozniacki had a chance to steady the ship.

She did not.

In fact, this would become the pattern for the rest of the match. Wozniacki would never manage to rise above her average level of play and resort to depending on her mental toughness to pull through. She admitted that much herself after the match. After acknowledging that she struggled throughout the match to find her timing, she said “I mentally stayed tough out there, that’s why I won.”

She would soon find out that she could also depend on Sasnovich letting her back in the match each time that the Belarusian had an opportunity to pull away. That is what happened when Sasnovich served at 3-0. Out of nowhere, she committed three unforced errors, and not-so-out-of-nowhere, she added two double faults (7 total in the set), to lose her service game. But hey, no big deal. Today’s Wozniacki was in a giving mood. She returned the favor in the next game with a double fault of her own to start the game, and a sitter backhand that sailed out to end it. Up by two breaks again, serving at 4-1, Sasnovich would surely run away with the first set now, right?

No, she would not.

She would double-fault twice more and miss a routine approach shot wide on her way to losing her serve with a blank game. Wozniacki then played her first decent game of the match and held serve for the first time to get back to 3-4. In the ensuing game, Sasnovich would add another double fault to go down 15-40. She then played two terrific points to get back to deuce, only to be hampered by another double fault followed by a forehand routine error.

The set was leveled at 4-4 when in fact, all signs indicated that Sasnovich should have pocketed it ten minutes ago. Wozniacki was certainly not raising the level of her game and the fact that she went down 0-40 on her serve at 4-4, due to two more unforced errors, was proof of that. Nevertheless, she would find a way to win five points in a row and pull ahead for the first time in the match. That is what being a Major title holder with renewed confidence does, it makes you believe that you can still cook a decent meal even when the required ingredients are missing on that particular day.

The last game summarized the set well. Sasnovich lost her service game one more time by committing her seventh double fault and three unforced errors (including one on her favorite shot, the backhand down-the-line). Wozniacki was up a set without having played well at all. It was a devastating way to lose the set for Sasnovich.

Up to this point in the match it was a typical case of the favorite having an off day. What was atypical was the fact that, not only did Wozniacki’s errors not lead to the underdog gaining confidence and lifting her level higher, but Sasnovich’s game actually regressed as her lead grew and the set progressed. You would think that the order would now be restored. The underdog would not recover from the disappointment of squandering her opportunity and the favorite would finally feel relief, and find her rhythm to a straight-set victory.

None of that would take place.

In that game, all points but one would end with errors, including two unforced backhands by Wozniacki. Sasnovich would once again start the set with a break. The next game was very contested and it actually had some quality points. Yet, the key point was a dreadful – sorry, no other adjective would do it justice – forehand miss into the net by Wozniacki on an easy sitter from well inside the court at deuce.

Well, you get the idea. I will not bore you with the detailed account of the next two sets, but will simply offer some last remarks to summarize.

– Wozniacki won 6-4 2-6 6-3 in two hours and sixteen minutes.

– After the first set that featured more breaks than holds, some mild sense of normalcy returned in the second set with six holds and two breaks. In the final set, it would go back to more breaks than holds. In total, there were fourteen breaks in the match, which was also the number of total double faults committed by Sasnovich (no deeper meaning here, just a coincidence).

– Sasnovich went on to win the second set 6-2. She probably played her best tennis, within the parameters of this match I must underline, in the three games that took her from 3-2 up to 6-2. Which makes it that much more stunning that, after the confidence-building stretch to end the set and breaking Wozniacki’s serve to start the third one, she still found a way to let Caroline back in. In fact, that first game of the third set was by far her best game. At that point of the match, she had established her aggressive play (which she started doing to increase her lead in the second set) and she was really pushing Wozniacki around the baseline.

– So how did that turnaround happen? How did Wozniacki, who was still playing poorly, stop the slide precisely when Sasnovich seemed poised to break away? You may have guessed it; unforced errors and double faults by Sasnovich. She gifted two of each category in that 1-0 game. Later, Wozniacki broke Sasnovich’s serve for the second time at 3-2 when the Belarusian made four unforced errors, two of them dreadful – yes, there is that adjective again, but for the other player’s errors this time.

– Even when Wozniacki gained control of the match at 4-2 in the third and saw the light at the end of the tunnel, she still struggled with her timing. Watch the replay of the 4-2 game and you will understand.

– It was not a high-quality match by any stretch of the imagination and its fate lingered, for the most part, on what each player failed to do rather than what they accomplished well. On the other hand, it offered some valuable lessons on how matches change patterns for better or worse. It demonstrated that shifts in a match do not necessarily emerge as a result of tactical adjustments by a player, but sometimes originate in the degree of mental struggles that the players manifest. It showed that persistence, combined with patience, can offer a pay off, as it did to Wozniacki, even when the player’s performance remains at a mediocre level.

– This is not a disheartening loss for Sasnovich in the sense that she was not supposed to lose. A defeat to Wozniacki should not be a source of depression for any player. However losing to today’s Wozniacki, especially after having been in a position to win multiple times, is a letdown for an in-form player like Sasnovich. Wozniacki did not do anything differently to turn the match around. If anything at all, whenever she found herself in a position to establish her dominance as the favorite, she kept on allowing Sasnovich to climb back on top by committing errors of her own.

– For those who are interested in variations within the two-handed backhand technique, Sasnovich’s backhand is a great example of how the left hand can be dominant force in your shot. Take a look at the photo below. You can see that the left hand is there for control, and the right hand (and the arm) is the one used to accelerate the ball. Keep in mind that Sasnovich hits her best backhands rather flat. That comes from the dominant left arm that allows her to follow through forward rather than around the body, thus her ability to hit stellar down-the-line backhands, her best shot by far.

Photo: Harry How – Getty Images

Until the next one, enjoy the BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Marketa Vondrousova – Aryna Sabalenka (3rd round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

This match, viewed by some as “a look at the future of the WTA,” featuring two of “the rising stars of women’s tennis,” for good reasons, did not quite live up to the hype in terms of scoreline, but was rich in nuance, thus highly informative with regard to both players’ strengths and shortcomings.

Let me first repeat that which some casual fans may not know about these two players. As I said in my first-round analysis of Marketa Vondrousova’s win over the American Madison Brengle, the eighteen-year-old Czech player is a talented left-handed player, ranked 54 in the world. The 63rd-ranked Aryna Sabalenka is nineteen years old and has improved by leaps and bounds over the last few months. Both players are making their first appearances at the BNP Parisbas Open in Indian Wells. So you can imagine how high the stakes were for them in this match as they stepped on the court at 11 AM, California time. Let’s also not forget the $88,175 prize money for the fourth-round qualifier, a little under what Vondrousova has earned this year so far and a little over that of Sabalenka.

The match pitted two players with contrasting styles. You had the crafty Vondrousova who possesses a wide repertoire of shots in her arsenal, facing a powerful hitter in Sabalenka who, when clicking on all cylinders, is capable of blowing her opponent off the court so fast that the opponent may never get the chance to put her skills to use. Of course, the downside of Sabalenka, or any player with that style, is that her errors can pile up just as quickly as she can produce winners.

Unfortunately for Aryna, that is precisely what happened in the early games of this match.

Sabalenka began the match on her serve and won the first point with one of her favorite patterns, a hard first serve followed by a winner on the next shot, your basic 1-2 punch. The first minute must have pleased her fans, especially when she hit a second-serve ace to lead 40-15. Then, things turned sour. She lost the next four points and her service game.

She committed four unforced errors (three in the net, one deep) in that first game, three of them on winner attempts from inside the court. To add salt to the wound, Vondrousova’s return clipped the net and dropped over for a winner at deuce. When the game ended, the commentator called it a “dream start for Vondrousova.” The more accurate description would have been “a nightmarish start for Sabalenka.” Unfortunately, she was just getting started with this nightmare.

Photo: Ryan Pierse – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Sabalenka made three more errors in the next game, all deep this time, two on eminently makeable returns and one on a winner attempt from inside the baseline. Vondrousova’s break was confirmed with a blank hold. She led 2-0.

By the time Sabalenka began the third game with another winner attempt from inside the baseline that went in the net and followed it up with a double fault to go down 0-30, alarm bells were already ringing. Vondrousova added two fine forehand winners and Sabalenka found herself down two breaks, at 0-3, ten minutes into the match. The rapid slide needed to stop, she asked for her coach Magnus Tideman.

Tideman was positive, trying to lift her spirits: “long way to go”; “no problem.” He told her to “play higher over the net” and repeated it again, “you need height.” He felt that Vondrousova was “playing too good on the flat ones.” It was true that out of the five errors Sabalenka made so far during rallies, four were in the net, below the tape level. Three of the four “out” errors came on returns and Vondrousova’s wicked left-handed spin may have had something to do with that.

The errors in the net, however, were straight-forward glitches by Tideman’s player. Perhaps he added the last part (about Vondrousova playing the flat balls well) in order to avoid saying “you are missing too much in the net and need to add some margin.” Of course, I am speculating, but sometimes, as a coach, you want to tell your player to change something, not by reminding them how they have failed at it thus far, but rather by saying that it favors the other player, although it may only be partially true.

In any case, Tideman was one-hundred percent right about the margin of error over the net. The question is, can Sabalenka play that type of game, the kind where she has to mix in some loopy, spin shots that make the ball bounce high? Would that not be out of her game’s character? For a player who consistently goes full-force on virtually every shot for high-risk flat winners, can she feel at ease doing anything else? I certainly have my doubts, and it certainly did not take place in this occasion.

At 0-15 in the following game, Sabalenka went for another flat, hard, cross-court backhand that smashed below the tape in the net. On game point at 40-15, she went for another backhand flat-liner, this time from deep behind the baseline and her body falling back. It landed, yet again, in the net. In fact, she played those five points as if she never heard what her coach told her at the game change. There had been no adjustments in her game, no added margin to clear the net, and the scoreboard showed 4-0 in her opponent’s favor.

Sabalenka finally held serve (not because of high-bouncing balls) and got on board in the fifth game, but chances for a comeback in this set disappeared quickly when she missed four straight returns to go down 1-5.

How bad did it get for Sabalenka in this first set on returns? She only won three points on Vondrousova’s serves, two of them coming at 5-2 40-0 down to save two set points before losing it on the third. And this is with Vondrousova serving at 37% first serves in the set!

Speaking of Vondrousova and her serve, make no mistake, despite the low percentage, she relentlessly kept on varying the speed and placement of her serves, as well as the amount of spin on them. That had as much to do with Sabalenka’s disarray on returns as her slow start did. In fact, after a second watch, I can specifically confirm that Marketa never hit the same type of serve twice in a row throughout the set. It was about as great an example as you can have, to show that stats alone – 37% first serves for the first set – do not always reflect reality and that in-person observation is necessary for sound judgment.

On another note, Vondrousova committed only three unforced errors** and one double fault in the first set. She ran every ball down, kept hitting every shot deep, essentially sending a message to her Belarusian opponent that she was ready to make her come up with the goods to earn the victory.

**Side note 1 —-> The number of unforced errors is my own count. Essentially, these are shots, three for Vondrousova in this case, that the player should make without much trouble. I do not know what the official number is, not that I can find it anywhere, nor would I completely trust it if did (reasons to be discussed another time). And yes, I count unforced errors and double faults separately!

I have spent most of my analysis of the first set, talking about Sabalenka. It’s time to give Vondrousova the credit that she duly deserves, especially for what she accomplished during a sequence of about ten minutes in the middle part of the second set. It started when she was serving at 1-2 and the score was deuce.

Because, you see, when the score was 1-2 in games, it was the first time in the match that Vondrousova trailed in the game count within a set. Furthermore, it came on the heels of two games in a row won by Sabalenka, the Belarusian’s first positive streak of the match.

Vondrousova had broken Sabalenka’s serve to start the second set, and right when it had appeared as if she was about to run away with the match, she had played her first dismal game of the match, on her serve, no less. When Sabalenka had followed that up with her best game and held serve to go up 2-1, everyone in the stadium and watching on TV could see that she was pumped up. Her body language had turned positive and she was getting more and more vocal after each point in her favor.

And the 2-1 game had indeed started brightly for her when Vondrousova served two double faults in the first five points and let Sabalenka back to deuce. But at deuce, where many other players would have had doubts creeping in, hesitated with their shots, and shown bursts of negative emotions, the eighteen-year-old Marketa became a mental giant. She first got one of her fastest first serves in to force an error out of her opponent. It was immediately followed by the most animated “come on” (or the equivalent in her language) that Vondrousova let out in the match. Then, she ended up scrambling all over the court to win what was probably the longest – certainly the best – point of the match, an 18-shot rally that Sabalenka would have won at least twice against most other players.

Photo: Quinn Rooney – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Vondrousova weathered the storm. It was 2-2, on serve. The next game showed that Sabalenka, for her part, was no longer feeling the same as she did when she had gone up 2-1. At 15-30, she double-faulted, then at 15-40, she slammed a forehand in the net to lose her serve. That should not take away anything from the fact that in that game, Vondrousova hit four terrific returns and a forehand winner from a difficult position. She now led by a break at 3-2. It was time for Sabalenka to consult once again with her coach.

Once again, Tideman tried to give positive messages: “Now you’re returning much better, now it’s a match!” ; “The first set was too quick” ; “Now it’s much better.” He also advised her on two separate occasions between the encouragements, to go back to the same corner twice to catch Vondrousova on her backfoot**.

**Side note 2 —-> I noted above that when Tideman visited Sabalenka in the first set, it seemed like Sabalenka never heard his advice. I can’t tell how much she took heed in his advice this time. She did actually try to go behind Marketa twice in the second point of the ensuing game. Then, she tried it again once at 2-4, 30-30. That’s two points out of 19 they played from his visit at 3-2 to the end of the match. You decide.

With Vondrousova leading 3-2 and 30-0, Sabalenka hit a return that landed on the back of the baseline but the line judge called it out. Sabalenka challenged it, and it was overturned. The referee awarded the point to her because Vondrousova had hit the next shot in the net. Vondrousova argued, for a little while, that the point should be replayed and that she missed it due to the call. But the umpire rightfully refused (Marketa did indeed hit her shot before the line judge made the call). She needed to forget about it and move on. She missed her first serve. When you thought she might be unnerved by the call, she pulled an exquisite second serve that landed close to the “T” but had so much side spin that that it sharply curved into Sabalenka’s body who missed the return. One point later, another return miss by Aryna, and Marketa was now leading 4-2.

In that sequence, from 1-2 deuce to 4-2 up, Vondrousova showed no signs of nerves, made no unforced errors, and manifested a sharp awareness of the turning points of the match. Even when she went from seeing the finish line to staring at going down a break against a streaky opponent, she stood tall and avoided making rash decisions.

The match lasted one hour and one minute. Vondrousova won 6-2 6-2 and moved on to the fourth round where she will face the unseeded Petra Martic.

Until the next one, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Marketa Vondrousova – Madison Brengle (first round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA 2 Comments

Many variables come into play when one considers which WTA or ATP athletes one enjoys watching, but I would guess that most viewers of tennis roughly belong to the following four categories (not denying the possibility that some slight overlaps among them may exist).

There are those people who watch tennis for professional reasons. They could be writing or reporting on matches for the media, conducting a study, or representing a sponsor. There are those who center their interest on fanship around one specific player. They watch, for the most part, his/her matches and perhaps a few of his/her main competitors – in the hopes that they lose, naturally. To these fans, little else in the world of tennis matters, including the sport itself. A third group of viewers prefer to only watch the largest tennis events, such as the Majors, because they are mainly interested in seeing the best players in the world perform. Finally, there are others who enjoy watching tennis players perform at any professional tournament, simply because they love the sport and genuinely find it pleasurable to watch a competitive tennis match.

I would like to believe that I belong to the last category of tennis viewer noted above. I can watch any tennis match from the very first point to the last and get a thrill out of its “story.” And yes, every match has a story, regardless of the score. I must nevertheless admit that I do enjoy watching a few players more than others. It could simply be the result of a personal connection to the player or their style appealing to me as an ex-player, ex-coach, or simply as a tennis fan. Throughout the Spring season, leading up to Roland Garros, I will attempt to write as many match reports as possible, involving some of these types of players. I will also add, if needed, some useful “side notes” at the bottom of each match report.

The talented eighteen-year-old Marketa Vondrousova is one of those. In case you have never seen her play, the 54th-ranked Czech is a left-handed player with a strong first serve and a fine touch. She uses a two-handed backhand and plays mostly from the baseline, although she will not avoid approaching the net if given the chance.

Photo: Robert Cianfrone – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Vondrousova began her BNP Parisbas Open campaign in Indian Wells against the 76th-ranked American Madison Brengle. Both players held serve to begin the match, but you could already see signs of Vondrousova’s plan when, in four out of the first five points of her serving game (including the double-fault on the second point), she used slice serves curving away from Brengle’s backhand. It is nothing unusual for left-handed players to work the outside corner of the service box on the advantage side to move the opponent off the court so that the winner to the open deuce side becomes available for the next shot. Yet, Vondrousova used the same slice serve also on the deuce side and showed from very early on that she would seek to earn short returns from the outstretched backhands of Brengle in order to either control the ensuing rallies, or hit a winner with the second shot of the 1-2 punch (example: the very first point of the match on her serve at 0-1).

One area of Marketa’s game that remains error-prone at times is the return of serve. It was nevertheless her returns, mixed with a bit of luck, that earned her the first break of the match. At 1-1 and 30-0 for Brengle, Vondrousova hit three aggressive forehand returns in a row over the next three points. The first one forced the American into an error on the next shot. The second one put her in a defensive position enough to commit one later in the rally. The third hit the net and dropped over for a winner. Vondrousova was now up 30-40. She squandered that break point on a forehand mishit that sailed up and out. She earned a second one later after she nailed a sharply angled cross-court-backhand return that eventually led to her winning the point two shots later. She would capitalize on that ensuing second break point and go up 2-1. More on her returns a bit further.

Once down a break, Brengle began stepping into the court and accelerating her down-the-line shots, usually one of her game’s strengths. But the one she missed at 1-3 down, serving at 15-0, did not help her cause. She also attempted to come to the net behind short balls and pressure Vondrousova’s forehand (her weaker side by a thin margin). Yet, to apply that pressure, you have to first start the point. And the two double faults in that game, first at 15-15 and the second to squander a game point later, only served to lead to another break against her.

In the meantime, Vondrousova was continuing her all-around solid, but not perfect, returning performance. By the time she won the first set 6-2, she was allowing Madison to win only 40% of her first-serve points. When the match ended one hour seven minutes after it began, that number decreased further to 38%. Brengle fared better on points started with her second serve, mainly because Vondrousova risked and missed more, thus the “but not perfect” clause in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Brengle continued to search for solutions after losing the first set. Her best opportunity to turn the tide came early in the second set when she was leading 1-0 and had two break points (see also side note no.1). She committed a forehand unforced error in the net on the first one. Vondrousova moved in on a floater and hit one of her several forehand swing-volley winners of the day to save the second. She finally held with a well-placed first serve into the body that jammed Brengle’s forehand.

The curtains seemed to be coming down on Brengle in the very next game when Vondrousova played her best tennis of the match to go up a break again. As a matter fact, you want an example of her versatility without having to watch a long game? Watch this one. A thunderous, inside-out forehand return gives her the first point. At 0-15, a long rally takes place. Marketa eventually nails the flat forehand down-the-line to Madison’s deuce corner. Madison gets it back but the ball lands short. Marketa moves forward, slices the low backhand approach inside-out, spinning away from Madison on the ad-side. Madison cannot get the ball back and now it is 0-30. After the American misses a backhand to go down 0-40, Marketa breaks her serve on a point that ends with her accelerating a flat backhand cross-court and sneaking to the net behind it to win it on a backhand volley punctuated by an overhead.

Brengle is a fighter though. She responded with her own best returning game of the match to earn her only break of the match and get back on serve at 2-2. As if Vondrousova needed luck to seal the deal for her, in the first two points in that game, her shots clipped the net and dipped on Brengle’s side of the court for winners. Vondrousova would break to go up 3-2 and would do it again after tightly contested seventh game to go up 5-2. The second break, ending on a backhand error did truly shut the curtains on Brengle. Two minutes later, the scoreboard would read 6-2 6-2 and Vondrousova would be on her way to face the 11th-seeded Johanna Konta in the next round.

Side note no.1

Juniors should take heed of what Vondrousova did at 0-1 down in the second set. She had a game point at 40-30, only to double fault twice and go down a break point at ad-out. Vondrousova served perhaps her safest first serve of the match to get the ball in the service box and avoid at all costs the prospect of facing another second serve. Remember that losing that point would have given Brengle a break and a 2-0 lead in the second set and possibly turned around a match that had been one-sided in Vondrousova’s favor until then. This tactical decision by Marketa only makes sense. It is not some wondrous secret to other tennis players or coaches either. Yet, it remains rarely practiced and under-rated.

It does not matter that you rarely double-fault or that your first serves earn you a slew of free points. In that type of situation, following a double-fault or two, your first priority is to avoid the “oh-dear-what-if-I-do-it-again” apprehension that will undoubtedly slip in the center of your brain and grow there within a matter of seconds, if you miss the first serve. Get that first serve in, period!

Side note no.2

Vondrousova has the habit of bending down and grabbing her knees to catch her breath after long points (example: 0-1 in the second set, deuce). It is perfectly understandable that she is exhausted after a taxing point, however, I have always been for the idea that you should hide all indications of physical condition from your opponent as much as you can. And this is a case where you can do that by walking around, breathing deeply, and/or going for the towel. Bending over and resting your hands on your knees basically shows your opponent that you may not be fully recovered by the time the next point begins or that you are not as fit as you may have looked otherwise. While either or both of those cases may well be true, there is no need to telegraph that to your opponent.

Until the next match report, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open 2018 !

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Wimbledon 2017, Match Preview: Magdalena Rybarikova vs Garbine Muguruza (14)

Majors Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

Among the four semifinalists in the Wimbledon women’s draw, there is one unseeded player and the other three are all seeded outside the top five. With Serena Williams out, Angelique Kerber still trying to find her top form, Victoria Azarenka and Petra Kvitova making their comebacks, it was no secret that the women’s draw in Wimbledon presented an opportunity for some players to advance into the second week, and possibly have a breakthrough. However, only a handful of people would have picked Magdalena Rybarikova, who has never reached the second week of a Major in her 12-year-long career, to be that player in the semifinals.

The 87th-ranked Slovakian did not have a very convenient draw either. Among her victims were the third-seeded Karolyna Pliskova in the second round, the athletic Croatian Petra Martic in the fourth, and the hard-hitting, 24th-seeded American Coco Vandeweghe in the quarters. It was anything but a cakewalk for a player who had spent the larger part of last year recovering from two surgeries, one on her knee and the other on her wrist. She started her comeback in February, having dropped to no. 453 in the WTA rankings. It is nothing less than impressive that she even amassed enough points in such a short time and made the main draw of Wimbledon, let alone advance to the semifinal round.

Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images Europe

Rybarikova was able to do it, thanks to a crafty style of play, with plenty of variety that can at times leave her opponents bewildered. It is the type of game that can throw heavy-hitters like Pliskova and Vandeweghe out of their rhythm and frustrated. She can vary her ground strokes through a multitude of spins (such as high and loopy at times, flat drives at others, with the occasional low-bouncing slice mixed in) and give a different look to the returner through changes in placement and speed on her serves. For example, she has the ability to slice the serve and make it curve further once the ball hits the ground as well as any other players that utilizes that type of serve, such as Lucie Safarova.

Her opponent Garbine Muguruza is another heavy-hitting star. This is partially the reason for which a match that shows her as the clear favorite to win, at least on paper, could quickly turn into a nightmare for the 14th-seeded Spaniard if she does not take the necessary precautions. After all, Muguruza will hit the ball aggressively from the baseline but not more than Pliskova does, and will serve big, but not bigger than Vandeweghe does, and we saw how that all worked out for Karolyna and Coco when they faced Magda. Muguruza will also need to strike a lot of balls from the knee level or below, not exactly her preferred height for ball contact.

The good news for Garbine fans is that their favorite player is more athletic than any of Rybarikova’s previous opponents (except Martic) and she seems to have caught fire as the rounds progressed. She played a terrific match against Svetlana Kuznetsova, never allowing her to get set and gain any control of the rallies. She was even able to hit spectacular counter-punch shots from defensive positions in the court, even when she found herself chasing balls down. She can move side to side, and explode forward, a lot better than most of her colleagues. It means that against Rybarikova’s low-paced shots, she will likely have her chance to frequently get in position, in order to unleash her powerful baseline strokes.

Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images Europe

The outcome of this match will for the most part depend on two things. First, in terms of on-court tactics, the way both players handle the first shots in the rallies – meaning the returns, first-serves and their percentages, accuracy of the second shot the 1-2 punch pattern – will largely determine the outcome of the points. Garbine’s success rate in these will prove central to her game plan. The last thing she wants is to allow Rybarikova to park herself in the middle area of the court, switch her “slice-dice-direct” mode in active mode, and make Muguruza guess the next shot instead of the other way round. Second, in terms of inner game, the way Rybarikova handles being in the semis of a Major for the first time in her career, against a player appreciated by the Wimbledon crowd, will make the difference in the first 20 minutes of the match. Luckily, it is not her first outing on Centre Court where she already defeated Pliskova and finished her match against Vandeweghe.

I do not consider Muguruza a heavy favorite in this match, as most people do. In fact, I believe Rybarikova, with a solid start in the first couple of games, has a legitimate chance to derail Garbine. I am intrigued!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Wimbledon

Tactical Analysis: Ana Konjuh def. Irina Begu, 2nd Round Wimbledon 2017

Majors Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

It is an old cliché in tennis to speak of the importance of first-serve percentage, yet every once in a while, there will come along a match where players will depend on it so much that not only can you not avoid discussing it, but you feel compelled to use that particular match to rehash its importance. Such was the match pitting the 29th-ranked Croatian Ana Konjuh against the 64th-ranked Romanian Irina-Camelia Begu.

Let’s begin by numbers alone. Begu won 80% of her first-serve points, but only 29% of her second-serve ones. For Konjuh, the discrepancy between the two numbers was not that large. She won 66% of her points when she put her first serves in versus 53% when she had to settle for a second serve. However, when you look beyond the sheer numbers, it is not hard to see that Konjuh needed first serves just as badly as her opponent did. In fact, I will go a step further and say that, in a match where she served only 58% first serves and gifted 8 double faults to her opponent, the timing of her first serves played a central role in the outcome of the match.

For starters, this match did not feature any long rallies, not that anyone expected it. Konjuh hits the ball hard, very hard. Her baseline shots are rarely intended for merely extending the rally. She will occasionally produce a drop shot to surprise her opponent or sparingly attempt an off-speed slice if extended on her backhand side. Otherwise, her game is driven by power, with her backhand being flatter than her forehand. If you have weathered the storm of a few shots by Konjuh in a rally, there is a good chance that the next ball will either be a winner or an error, with the ball traveling at warp speed 9 in either case. Begu, for her part, is craftier. She can vary her spin, change pace, or generate power if necessary. Both players’ have solid first serves that can produce aces or at least set them up for the second shot.

From the first few minutes, the strategies of both players became fairly clear. Konjuh would seek to mostly go for winners and overwhelm Begu with her power. Knowing that, Begu would look to take charge as early as possible in the point (read that “on the serve or return”) and keep Konjuh in the unfamiliar position of chasing balls and defending. Begu has big backswings, especially on the forehand, so if Konjuh managed to unleash a few shots in a row in, she would eventually pressure Begu into an error.

Begu put herself in a position to take the first set, more than once. In the always-crucial seventh game, Konjuh had to first save two break points (the second one at 30-40 with an exquisite backhand drop shot). At deuce, we witnessed one of the rare long points of the set. At one point in the rally, Konjuh approached and had Begu fully stretched to her forehand. Irina came up with one of the best defensive and high lobs of the day, pushing Konjuh back behind the baseline to reset the rally, and eventually win the point on a forced backhand error by her. In the ensuing break point, Begu produced a mid-pace, floating slice out of nowhere, throwing Konjuh off, and earning a forehand error from the Croatian, one that bounced off the tape and went wide. I know this went down in the stats as an unforced error, but I bet that earning an error from her opponent by feeding her the type of pace and spin that she had not yet seen so far in the match, was precisely what Begu had in mind when she sliced that backhand. Chalk one up for the high-IQ decision by Irina, even if the stats will just remember it as an unforced error by Ana.

Irina Begu — Photo: Shaun Botterill/Getty Images Europe

Begu eventually served for the set at 5-4. Unfortunately for her, she played her poorest serving game of the set. She began the game with two forehand unforced errors and followed them up with a double fault to find herself down 0-40. Two points later, Konjuh equalized at 5-5. Begu once again had an opportunity to take a commanding lead. She went up 0-40 on Konjuh’s serve game, and should have completed the break in four points had it not been for the unexpected forehand error on a shot that she would probably make 8 out 10 times. Subsequently, Konjuh tallied 5 points in a row to force the set into a tiebreaker, in which she took the early lead and never looked back (7-3).

Thus, the first set ended 7-6 in favor of Konjuh, and Begu was probably left feeling that she should have pocketed it 15 minutes earlier. In fact, I would argue that winning the first set, after playing “survival” during most of it, ultimately played the most important role in Konjuh’s three-set victory. The next two sets were more clear-cut in that each player outperformed the other once and split the last two sets.

Now, would be good time to get back to what I underlined in the beginning of my analysis. At that 5-5 game, in which Konjuh went down 0-40, only to come back and hold, she missed her first serve in the first four points of the game. That is when she went down 0-40, and only won the fourth point thanks to the above-mentioned unexpected unforced error from Begu. However, after 15-40, Konjuh made all her first serves. Those four points finished in an ace, a service winner, a forehand winner set up by a big first serve, and a forced return error by Begu. Those four first serves came at a point in the match where she desperately needed them. The same can be said for the 3-5 game, in which Konjuh got 4 out of 5 first serves in and held easier than in any other serving game in the set.

When the match resumed in the second set, Begu broke Konjuh’s serve on the fifth game. Konjuh started that game, when Konjuh started it with a double fault and lost the other two points in which she had to resort to second serve. This is also when Ana’s forehand began to falter. Other than the double fault, she also committed two unforced forehand errors. She would add two more forehand unforced errors in the next game, one more in the 8th game, and throw in a double fault to end the set.

There was going to be a final set.

It was clear that if Konjuh was to defeat her opponent, she needed to cut down the number of double faults and unforced errors, especially on her forehand, and be able to count on her first serves when it mattered.

Ana Konjuh — Photo: Shaun Botterill/Getty Images Europe

Whatever momentum the Croatian garnered when she hit a stunning sharp-cross-court forehand winner to break her opponent’s serve in the opening game of the final set, was negated when Begu produced her best return game of the match in the second game. Two games later at 2-2, things got further complicated for Konjuh when her forehand faltered again when she was leading 15-30 on Begu’s serve. Later in that game, Begu served two clutch aces, both wide on the deuce side, at 30-30 and deuce, that helped her propel to a 3-2 lead in.

Nobody could have guessed it at that moment, but that would be the last game that Begu would win for the rest of the match.

At 3-3 and 30-15 up, she threw in an untimely double fault (one of her two in the set). She would miss her first serve three more times in a row. On one of those, at deuce, Konjuh unleashed a big return on a second serve that forced Begu to miss her backhand. One point later, Konjuh was up 4-3 serving. In that game, she would win 4 out of the 5 points that she started with her first serve, two being aces, helping her to build a 5-3 lead. Konjuh would break Begu one more time to end the match 7-6 2-6 6-3.

In the last 4 games, Konjuh only made two unforced errors and one double fault, consistent with her match-long trend of cutting down on her unforced errors – 19 in the first set, 14 in the second, and 10 in the third. There were three keys to the final set, which I have mentioned above, and Konjuh managed to get them done. She cut down on her double faults (only one in the final set), she cut down her overall number of unforced errors (particularly in the last four games), and she put her first serves in when she needed them.

In the next round, Ana Konjuh will seek to reach the 4th round of a Major for the first time in her career by taking on the 8th seed Dominika Cibulkova.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – Next 2 weeks: live from Wimbledon

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

MENU

Navigation