Nuance: I am not talking only talking about “stepping forward” in the figurative sense in this piece I wrote for Tennis with an Accent on the upcoming US Open men’s competition. Can anyone get past the Big 3 and lift the trophy?
Click the link for my preview: US Open Men – Anyone Ready to Step Forward?
On Sunday, Alexander “Sascha” Zverev outplayed the world number one Novak Djokovic in pretty much all aspects of the game and grabbed the title at the ATP Finals in London, the biggest one of the German’s career, with a 6-4 6-3 win in one hour and 20 minutes.
For a moment, I considered using, for this article, the title of my post-match analysis of Zverev’s win over Federer in the semifinals from yesterday and adding “Part II” to the end. Initially, it made sense and neatly reflected the rare feat accomplished by Sascha. This title made him the first player to defeat Federer and Djokovic (who won this tournament a combined 11 times in the last 16 years) in the same ATP Finals, as well as the first player to defeat the no.1 and 2 seeds back to back to lift the trophy since Andre Agassi did it in 1990 (source: ATP Media Info).
Then, I remembered my own insertion in yesterday’s piece that regardless of what happened in the finals, Sascha’s win over Roger was a giant step for the German that stood on its own.
And so does Sunday’s win over Novak Djokovic in the finals.
The two accomplishments should not be packaged into the same giant step as parts one and two. It is one thing to earn the biggest win of your career up to that point, and it is another to back it up the very next day with another convincing win over the number-one player in the world that propels you to your biggest title ever.
While Zverev’s serves, returns, and footwork may have played substantial roles in successfully countering the challenges thrown his way by Djokovic, it was ultimately the 21-year-old German’s astute baseline-pattern tactics that decisively swung the pendulum in his favor.
I believe most tennis fans will agree with me that Zverev’s most valuable (and reliable) stroke has been his backhand. In fact, I have long contended that he can out-duel any player in a backhand-to-backhand rally, whether that would be a cross-court one against a right-hander or a down-the-line one against a left-hander. And I am convinced that Sascha himself believes that he can go toe-to-toe with anyone in this particular pattern.
Would it not then behoove him to find ways to engage his opponents in such rallies, daring them to outperform him even if they possessed one of the best backhands in the world?
Such was the case against Djokovic, and Sascha came out on top in this department. In my opinion, this was the aspect that derailed the wheels of the Djokovic train and led him to a diminished performance in the second set, along with physical fatigue that slowly began to take over – that, in itself, stemming partially from mental fatigue as a result of running out of answers. In the first set, as Darren Cahill also correctly affirmed on TV, Sascha defeated a very good Novak “fair and square,” and backhand cross-court duels played a paramount role in not only that, but also in Zverev getting the decisive break in the second set.
I was interested in who would win the battle of the backhands. I believed that it was one of the only ways (not a guarantee) that Zverev could weather the storm brought on by Djokovic’s ground strokes. It was also something that I had seen in the past, someone using a similar pattern to defeat Djokovic. It took place in Roland Garros, back in 2015, when Stan Wawrinka pulled one of the best baseline-power performances I have ever witnessed on clay courts and took out Djokovic in four sets. In fact, members of Stan’s coaching team confirmed weeks later that engaging in cross-court rallies from the backhand wing was part of his strategy because it would allow Stan to occasionally accelerate down-the-line for the winner to the open court. But what interested me more was the outcome of those rallies where neither Novak nor Sascha would change the pattern.
Thus, I counted the outcome of all rallies in which Zverev and Djokovic got involved in at least four backhand cross-court shots struck in succession (in other words, two shots each). Four shots in a row was a clear indication to me that the two players were fully engaged in a cross-court backhand rally. Djokovic and Zverev played 16 such points until 4-2 in the second set. Sascha won that battle 11-5 over Novak.
Note: My numbers may be off by one, at the most two, as I was briefly interrupted from watching twice and missed a few points.
Then, I wanted to see how many of these points ended in Sascha’s or Novak’s favor when one or the other decided to change the pattern by hitting down-the-line or a drop shot. I found out that when they did, it did not necessarily benefit them. Novak was 1/4 on those, and Zverev did not fare much better at 2/5.
And what about when neither player changed the pattern, and instead, dared each other to miss first or nail the direct winner? This is where Zverev held an overwhelming 7-1 lead!
The only point won by Novak was the last point of the 2-2 game in the first set, when both players attempted to out-slice each other. It ended with Zverev hitting his into the net. But otherwise, he held a clear advantage over Novak in what is otherwise presumed to be an advantageous area for the Serbian player. It is, after all, rare that Novak is unable to out-duel his opponent on backhands. But even if that were to occur, Novak can still use his backhand down-the-line acceleration, another one of his super assets. Well, they were not enough this time to turn the tide in his favor due to above numbers, and also partially due to Zverev having a fantastic day on his forehand. He continuously landed his forehands deep, using a healthy mix of heavy topspin shots and flat swipes.
It also helped that Sascha served 88% of his first serves in – an extraordinary number for a “bazooka” first serve like his – which led to seven aces and a bunch of opportunities for Sascha to take charge on the follow-up shot. Last but not the least, and I can say this for both of his wins over the weekend, I did not see Zverev’s body language turn distinctively sour, which he has done in the past. Even after points lost on strategic mistakes or disappointing errors, I did not at any point observe Sascha “whine” extensively. He may have shaken his head, or glanced at his corner in dismay, but he moved on within seconds and got ready for the next shot. He was a mental rock throughout four sets over two days.
I must again reiterate that none of the tactic-related or stat-related elements that I mention in the last paragraph above would be enough (or even possible) if Sascha had not gained the upper hand in the baseline battles first. In establishing a dominance on the backhand-to-backhand duels, Zverev was able to kill two birds with one stone; negating one of Novak’s most reliable assets by maximizing the return on his own favorite asset.
If you are a Sascha fan, there is a lot to celebrate here. The lack of Major titles still remains in effect, but this weekend should serve to practically make the “if” question disappear to the point where the “when” question is now the only one nagging your mind. In any case, that concern can be swept under the rug until January at least. For now, enjoy the title that your player thoroughly deserved by passing one of the toughest tests in contemporary men’s tennis with flying colors.
Alexander “Sascha” Zverev has been taking substantial steps over the last couple of years toward reaching the elite status in the ATP. These manifest steps are already a part of his record, such as the three ATP 1000 titles, the first appearance in the quarterfinals of a Major, and an entrance into the top 5 of the rankings. We have been hearing the footsteps of his forthcoming arrival to the top level of our sport for a while now. You can add this week to that list of steps, a giant one in fact, now that Zverev has reached the final round of the ATP World Tour Finals where, every year, eight players considered the cream of the crop in men’s tennis meet in an attempt to earn the prestigious year-ending title.
Sascha’s win over Roger Federer on Saturday, however, goes a bit further than just jumping through another hoop in terms of ascendancy. It’s not just that the German added another check mark to his list of achievements in Wikipedia. What matters more is that, throughout the 7-5 7-6 victory, Zverev exhibited the type of characteristics that you would want an elite player to regularly put on display with regard to tactics, IQ level, and mental fortitude.
And Sascha decorated the victory with some the highest quality of tennis that he has ever played on big stage, especially in the first set.
For starters, he did not merely rest on the laurels of his solid baseline game. He also sought to take the initiative and attack. He approached the net more times than Federer despite not using the serve-and-volley like Roger occasionally does. It is undeniable that few – and not the majority – of those approaches were the result of short slices hit by Federer, thus leaving Sascha little choice but to move forward. However, Sascha of the past may have still sent some of those back over the net and step back to the baseline to continue the rally (in fact, an example of that came in the second set at a crucial moment and he paid the price for it – more on that later). In this match though, Zverev was willing to do plow forward and squeeze the bolts on the Federer machine, even in big points (ex: 3-3, 30-30, serving).
There were also the other times when he came to the net with conviction and not as a result of a short ball. There is no doubt that applying pressure to Federer when given the occasion and daring him to produce the passing shot was part of Sascha’s overall plan. That plan also appeared to include a conscious effort to pick on Roger’s backhand. If my count is correct, Zverev approached the net nine times in the first set and only one of those was to his opponent’s forehand. As for rallies from the baseline, Zverev dictated most of them, looking to end the point in the same way that Federer usually does when he is forced to engage in longer rallies.
To top all of the above, he served phenomenally well. No, the numbers will not necessarily tell you that (3 aces, one double fault, 68% first serves), but the fact that he came up with big serves on crucial points will.
Federer, for his part, did not play a bad first set by any means. He did miss a makeable return wide at 15-30 in the 3-3 game on Sascha’s serve, but I would advise people to watch the previous 15-15 point before rushing to judgment on that return miss. After a long and exhausting point in which you had to scramble corner-to-corner multiple times, it is very possible that you have not recovered by the time the ensuing point starts, and you make an error.
Otherwise, Federer had little trouble holding serve despite a below-average first-serve percentage (55%) for his standards because he was using the follow-up shots to his first and second serves extremely well and changing the pace of the ball with great accuracy during rallies. By the time he was serving at 5-6, he was a perfect eight for eight when approaching the net, with only four unforced errors committed in the match.
In that 5-6 game, Federer missed only one first serve (first point). He did however miss a forehand to start the game. In the second point, he only did what had worked well for him up to that point in the match. He hit a first serve, approached the net on the next shot, and volleyed to the open corner. Except, Zverev came up with a spectacular passing shot on the run from the forehand side (not usually his forté). It was his only point won in the set with Roger at the net. At 0-30, Roger got another first serve in but Zverev landed a rock-solid return smack on the baseline, pushing the Swiss into a defensive position, and eventually winning the point on Roger’s forced error. Zverev had three set points at 0-40. He only needed one. Sascha sent back another first serve by Roger who missed the subsequent forehand wide. Two forehand errors by Federer to start and finish the game, with two exceptional points by Sascha squeezed in between. Blank break for the German, 7-5.
In the early part of the second set, Zverev, for some reason, did not stick to the level of aggressiveness that he demonstrated in the first. He was still hitting the ball hard, placing them deep, and continuing to play good tennis overall. Yet, little details make the difference at this level and this particular shift to a less offensive disposition almost cost the German dearly when, at 1-1 in the second set and down a break point on his serve at 30-40, Federer returned short and yet Sascha elected to back-step to the baseline after hitting his backhand instead of approaching the net. It was a strange decision because until that point he had a great success rate (7 out of 8) on points won when approaching Federer’s backhand! To add salt to the wound, he passed on two more shots in that same rally on which he could have pulled the trigger. The rally ultimately ended on a backhand down-the-line winner by Federer for his only break of the match.
Unfortunately for Federer, he played his worst two games of the match after that break and had to then contend with holding serve just to get to the tiebreaker.
He had a final regrettable error at 4-5 in the tiebreaker when he netted a routine forehand volley that he would/should otherwise make in the third cycle of his REM sleep. It was a grave error because it gave Zverev two match points at a moment when it looked like Federer was getting close to having a set-point. To be honest, considering his level since the early break in that set, it was a jackpot opportunity. Zverev had been the better player since that break, getting within two points of breaking Roger’s more than once in the 4-3 game that he lost with two successive unforced errors at 30-30.
Zverev did not let that bother him though. Instead, the tiebreaker only served to confirm how far the 21-year-old German has matured overall. In the three chances that he had to approach the net and apply to pressure to Federer, he did not hesitate, winning all three including the match point. He only missed one first serve out of 6 in the tiebreaker. Following a delay after a ball-boy dropped a ball and the point had to be replayed at 3-4 down, he stepped up to the baseline and bombed an ace. Lastly, he came out on top of a grueling rally at 4-4 when he ended it with a backhand down-the-line winner.
There are the ‘listed’ accomplishments for everyone to see. Then, there are those intangibles that players value as precious assets when it comes to the long climb to the top of the ATP echelon. For Zverev, this particular victory, regardless of the outcome in Sunday’s final, must surely feel like one of those treasured intangibles.
Until next time…
Alexander Zverev def. Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-4
In the aftermath of Rafael Nadal’s loss in the quarterfinals of Mutua Madrid Open, an encounter between Alexander “Sascha” Zverev and Dominic Thiem is about the highest-profiled final that tournament organizers in Madrid could have hoped to see on stage. If you had to count the best five clay-court players in the ATP outside of Rafa, both players would probably figure in your top-five list. It promised to be a baseline slug-fest.
I doubt however that many people expected one of them to have disastrous starting game on his serve after seeing these two at peak form for a large portion of the week.
Zverev took advantage of two unforced errors and a double fault by Thiem, complementing that with return winner of his own, to break the Austrian’s serve. Then, he comfortably held to confirm the break and go up 2-0. Early breaks have played a prominent role in the outcome of almost every set played from the quarterfinals forward. Thiem found himself in a position to break that pattern if he wanted to stay in the set.
Zverev had other ideas of course. He kept his errors to a minimum, mostly playing deep and not targeting spots too close to the sidelines. For example, his sharp backhand cross-court, usually a potent weapon, was relegated to the background during this stretch. The idea – I suppose – was to keep pushing Thiem back and make him force the issue from far behind the baseline. In contrast, Sascha often stepped inside the baseline and struck a few hard and flat shots directly at Thiem in an attempt to rush him, or sneak in a few drop shots to catch him off guard.
Thiem steadied the boat on his service games but he could not shake all the errors out of his system. Sascha’s tactic was apparently working. He maintained his break advantage all the way to 5-4, losing only three points on his service games despite only serving at 56% of his first serves in. If you are wondering why Thiem was not attempting to nail a few returns for winners on those second serves, I am too.
Sometimes a successful tactic can instantly turn into a dangerous habit and bite you in the back if you stick to it too many times. It is true that Zverev was winning plenty of points by playing deep to the middle part of the court and staying away using risky lines, but when you get a short sitter inside the court on your favorite wing – backhand for the German – and you decide to approach behind it, you need to put your opponent on the run. Zverev did not**. He hit a high-paced backhand approach that went straight to Dominic’s backhand. The Austrian got it low to Sascha’s feet first and passed him on the next shot.
** See the game point at 3-2 in the second set for an example of what he should have done in that same position.
Zverev then aimed for the sideline on forehand down-the-line and missed it wide, swaying away from the plan that has been working until that point in the set. Just like that, following two tactical errors in succession, Sascha trailed 0-30 on his service game and found himself in dangerous territory on his serve for the first time in the set. That is when his first serve came to the rescue. He won four out of the next five points on powerful serves that either did not come back in the court or forced a defensive return out of Thiem, allowing Zverev to put the ball away. He won the set 6-4 on a forehand winner.
In case anyone has not yet figured it out, Zverev is a great front-runner. He seems to tune in far better with the lead than most other players do. I should spend a paragraph foregrounding the nuance to avoid misunderstanding, so here it is.
I am not saying Zverev plays better with the lead than when trailing. Although true, that is nothing more than a score-related confidence and it is valid for almost any other player holding a significant lead. I am rather making the distinction that Sascha performs better with the lead in comparison to how other players perform when they have the same type of lead. That is the nuance. This is probably because Zverev has a tendency to lose his poise when falling behind or after committing critical errors in neck-to-neck positions – more than most other players at his level do when faced with the same situation. His body language shows it, he expresses it verbally, and his level drops significantly, more than that of other players in similar positions.
Hence, transitioning back to the match recap, the alarms bells began ringing loudly for Thiem when he lost his serve again to start the second set. Once again, it was enough for Zverev. No need to go into details because everything progressed much in the same way as the first set, with the 3-2 game being the only one in which Thiem was able to reach deuce on his opponent’s serve. Zverev closed the curtains on him with a score of 6-4 6-4, without ever facing a break point on his service games.
For those who doubt Zverev’s potential, this week should have been enough, even in their mind, to place Sascha, along with Thiem, into that small group of players – behind Nadal, naturally – with a legitimate chance to win Roland Garros. It should also tilt the explanation for Zverev’s lack of success in Majors toward one of an “oddity” at this point, rather than one of “insufficiency.”
The next step of evolution for the 21-year-old German is to be a threat to go deep in the Majors (he has yet to reach the second week of a Major). It should not delay much longer. Roland Garros, the Major played on what seems to be Zverev’s favorite surface, emerges as a tremendous opportunity for him to vie for an elite spot in our sport.
Oh wait, there is still Rome! The grind on the professional tour, I tell ya’…
Dominic Thiem def. Kevin Anderson 6-4 6-2
There was little doubt earlier today that this top-10 encounter presented all kinds of match-up problems for the eighth-ranked Anderson, the 2017 US Open finalist. Thiem, a spot ahead of Kevin in the ATP rankings, is the steadier baseline rallier and he was getting to play on his favorite surface, as opposed to his opponent who has yet to win a title on clay courts. And frankly, Thiem’s 0-6 record vs Anderson, none played on clay, mattered little in today’s outcome.
Anderson would naturally have to rely on his serve but what was he to do on the return games? That was a question that haunted him throughout the match, one to which he could not come up with a response against Dominic who was, for his part, oozing with confidence following his upset win over Rafael Nadal one day earlier.
Anderson began the match on his serve and the expected pattern settled in early, too soon for the South African. He found it difficult to push Thiem around. Instead, the Austrian was the one striking the corners with considerable depth making Kevin scramble, a lot.
The 30-30 point put on display the type of rally on which Thiem built his impressive clay-court career. It lasted around twenty shots. Anderson not only got stuck three meters behind the baseline, running left and right to retrieve balls, but ended up losing it in the most discouraging way possible, with Thiem stepping inside the baseline on a short ball and smacking the inside-out forehand winner.
Anderson did save the ensuing break point thanks to a big first serve – precisely what he needed – but could not turn this nine-minute-long game in his favor. He won a point or two more on big serves but anytime Dominic got the return in and the rally began, Anderson would force the issue and make the error. His last one in the game came when he sailed a forehand deep on the third break point.
Following a comfortable hold by Thiem, Kevin trailed again (0-30) on his serve. It was clear that he needed to avoid extended baseline rallies at all cost. This is probably why he began going for big cuts on the second shot following the serve, and even served and volleyed once – which, in retrospect, he should have attempted to do more in the set than just this one time. He came back and held serve before the first set got out of control from his perspective. Nevertheless, he was still behind a break, and Thiem’s serve was clicking. He played an Anderson-like game, winning three points directly on well-placed serves, to go up 3-1 and keep the break advantage.
Instead of Anderson challenging Thiem for a break and looking to level the score, he ended up being the one to struggle on his service games. After saving two more break points at 1-3, he succeeded to stay within distance with a big service winner at deuce and a well-timed drop shot in the next one.
Unfortunately for Anderson, Thiem responded with another routine hold to go up 4-2.
Unfortunately for Anderson, this pattern would continue for the rest of the match.
Except the one anomaly at 5-4.
Something extraordinary needed to take place to cause a glitch in that pattern and it took place in that tenth game. Thiem committed a double fault at 0-15, and Kevin fired a flat and hard return – despite a bad bounce on the second serve – that forced Thiem to misfire a backhand. All of a sudden, Anderson had three break-point opportunities at 0-40.
But that is where the anomaly ended.
Kevin missed a forehand deep at 0-40, another one at 15-40, and backhand deep on the third one. “Poof” flew away his only chance to sink his teeth into the match, in a game where Thiem made only one out of eight first serves.
It would not be fair to say though that it was all due to Anderson’s missed shots. Thiem did come up with three terrific second serves in succession – from 15-40 to ad-in – that did not allow Anderson to nail the returns for winners, something he was definitely aiming to do at that point. On set point, Thiem made a first serve, his only one in the game, and completed the 1-2 punch with a forehand cross-court winner.
It only got worse from that point forward for Anderson, beginning with a double fault to lose his serve to start the second set. It did not help either that Anderson’s first-serve percentage hovered around 50% in the second set. The pattern that I described above, score-wise and tennis-wise, for the first set continued even more blatantly. No anomalies, no glitches.
Thiem would solidify his lead with another break and oust the South African with a score of 6-4 6-2, in a comprehensively dominating performance. Now he needs to erase the one anomaly for his career. For as accomplished a clay-court player as he is, he has yet to win his first ATP-1000 title on the surface. Alexander Zverev stands in his way tomorrow.
Alexander Zverev def. Denis Shapovalov 6-4 6-1
Alexander “Sascha” Zverev is the third-ranked player in the world, already holding two ATP 1000 titles at the age of 21. Denis Shapovalov, at the age of 19, is one of the most exciting up-and-comers, the youngest top-100 member of the ATP rankings at no.43 (probably top 30 by Monday). Both are former junior champions at Majors (Sascha at the 2014 Australian Open, Denis at the 2016 Wimbledon), and experienced meteoric rises following their junior careers to eventually reach their current rankings.
Both have already recorded wins against the ATP’s elite. Both still have plenty of room for improvement.
On top of everything else, both play exciting brands of tennis. Zverev relies on a powerful first serve, a fundamentally sound backhand, and the ability to generate power from the baseline. Shapovalov counts on his terrific shot-making skills and overall aggressive play. Both are brave, both are athletic.
For all the above reasons and more, there was no reason why any tennis fan should not have been excited to watch these two names face each other in the semifinals of an ATP 1000 event.
Did it live up to its billing? No, it did not.
Until 4-4, each player comfortably held serve, not because they were hitting extraordinary shots – only a few, combined – but rather because their opponent would either miss the return or make an error in the next shot. The only deuce came at 2-2 on Shapovalov’s serve, but he won the next two points without much difficulty. There were not even many rallies that went beyond five shots during this stretch. The quality barometer remained inoperative because neither returning player pushed the other one to raise his level on service games.
Zverev broke through one of the best shots of the match until then, a well-placed backhand down-the-line return that Denis could not get back in the court. He did nevertheless get to that break point thanks to two unforced errors by Shapovalov, the second one coming on a framer at 30-30. That was all that the German needed as he closed out the set on his serve with a forehand winner on a 1-2 punch.
Prior to the match, we were wondering how Shapovalov would react to his forehand cross-court, one of his favorite weapons, going to Zverev’s strong side, or if Zverev would respond to Shapovalov’s power with counter-strikes or steady retrieval, or if Denis would consider coming to the net to finish some points instead of going for winners with big cuts from the baseline.
Yet, nothing that elaborate took place in the confines of the Manolo Santana Court. Instead, we got a dud first set – dud (adj.): not working or meeting standards; faulty.
It basically consisted of errors, one bland break, and only a handful points worthy of mentioning.
Contrary to the first set, the second started with a break, and marked the moment where one of the players finally elevated his level. Zverev hit two spectacular winners, both followed by pumped-up screams and fist pumps, that helped him get the definitive lead on the Canadian.
Sascha started holding his end of the bargain from that point forward, or at least, showing glimpses of his potential. Denis, for his part, never took off. He fell behind 0-4 in the blink of an eye. It was a constant drip-drip of errors that would not cease, a backhand smacked in the net here, an overhead from the top of the net framed deep there, and so on.
The encounter was over in 58 minutes, with the final score of 6-4 6-1.
Sascha could not have asked for a better outcome in a match that began past 10 PM in Madrid. The last thing he needed was to get involved in a long battle that finishes past midnight and does not allow him enough rest time to properly get ready for tomorrow’s final. He not only avoided that, but also finished on a strong note, never mind that he was largely left unchallenged by his opponent.
As for Shapovalov, his second career semifinal in an ATP 1000 tournament resulted in a straight-set loss again, suffered at the hands of the same player (first one, Canadian Open 2017). This semifinal run on the red clay of Madrid is still a major step forward for the Denis who, I imagine, would have gladly accepted it, had it been offered prior to the tournament’s start.
All eyes now turn to tomorrow’s final, pitting two of the best baseliners in the men’s game. As a fan, I can only hope that it will be more closely contested than today’s semifinals.
Coming into today’s Miami Open final between two in-form players, the fifth-ranked German Alexander “Sascha” Zverev and the 17th-ranked American John Isner, one could not help but wonder what kind of impact each player’s preferred style of play would have on the other.
In the two previous rounds, Zverev won in straight sets against two solid baseliners, Borna Coric and Pablo Carreno-Busta, accelerating efficiently in rallies and overpowering his opponents with accelerations. Isner, for his part, demolished the rising star Hyeon Chung in two routine sets and put a stop to Juan Martin Del Potro’s fifteen-match winning streak. He relied for the most part on his bazooka serves and forehands, and never allowed either of them to settle into their favorite patterns.
This championship match also offered a fascinating background story. On the one hand, Isner had never won an ATP 1000 title but did have a history of performing well on American soil regardless of whether the crowd got behind him or not (see his match from two days ago vs Del Potro). On the other hand, Zverev had never lost in the finals of an ATP 1000, having won both of his previous appearances.
Nevertheless, all that would matter less once the fuzzy ball would get tossed in the air for the first serve of the match. The players’ tennis outputs on the stadium court at Crandon Park would determine the outcome on this day.
Could Isner cook the same recipe that worked so well against Coric and Carreno-Busta, and hinder the German’s well-oiled production of steady, high-paced ground strokes? Could he return big against Sascha, like he did against his previous opponents? In any case, his game plan seemed crystal clear: serve big, return big, nail forehand, and apply pressure.
The answer to how Zverev would respond was a little blurrier. Could Zverev put forth enough power of his own to stop the American from getting the upper hand in the first two shots of each point? Could he stay in the point long enough to exploit Isner’s weaknesses, such as his backhand and footwork? Tennis fans awaited those answers as the players stepped on the court.
The first two sets were decided on a few key points at different times. The third set was, by contrast, the product of an overarching trend that worked against Zverev throughout the match and ultimately doomed him in the late stages of the match.
Unlike what many expected, break chances came early, all in favor of Isner. The way Zverev saved the first two break points (0-1, 15-40) was, on the other hand, very predictable. He hit a wide (and big) first serve to get to 30-40. Then, he engaged Isner in a deliberately paced backhand cross-court rally, the important term being “deliberately” (more on this later). Isner missed his fifth backhand and Sascha got back to deuce.
Isner would get another break-point opportunity two points later, one that he probably regretted for the rest of the set. He set the point up perfectly, approaching the net behind a forehand, but floated a very makeable forehand volley deep. Zverev held with a couple of big first serves.
In the first set, Zverev executed his game plan well. For starters, he stuck with the right pattern in baseline rallies. As noted above, he pinned Isner to the ad corner, making him hit backhands. He knew that Isner would want to run around the backhand and nail forehands, exactly like the American did against Chung and Del Potro. Thus, Zverev was not holding back on his backhand cross-courts, and therefore, not allowing Isner enough time to move outside the court (again, more on this later).
Secondly, Sascha’s first serves were clutch. Whenever he faced a break point, or a 30-30 point, he came up with an ace or an unreturnable serve, shutting the door quickly on Isner. He saved three of the five break points in the first set with big serves and won numerous other free points on important points.
Zverev was also making Isner hit the first volley low. It was not enough for Isner to simply hit his forehand hard and win the point without having to play the next shot. Isner had to showcase his volleying skills to put the ball away. Muscling serves and forehand were not going to be enough. It worked for Zverev. Isner missed some of those volleys, or at least, had to resort to just placing the volley, giving Zverev a second look at a passing shot.
A glaring example of this occurred when Isner got in trouble for the first time on his serve at 2-2. On game point, he hit a big kick serve wide to the ad side (one of his “money” shots) and followed it to the net. Zverev got the backhand return right down to Isner’s feet. Although Zverev was way outside the court when he returned, he was able to recover and chase the next ball down because Isner had to hit the low volley upward. Zverev ran it down and passed Isner cross-court with his forehand. Although Isner ended up holding serve, he knew he had to stay on his toes, even behind good serves and approaches. That is the type of pressure that, if applied consistently, works on you and makes a difference on an important point later in the match.
It did, in the tiebreaker…
The quality of tennis significantly dropped in the tiebreaker, for one reason or another. Both players committed uncharacteristic errors and lost awkward points on patterns that should have otherwise favored them. Until Zverev led 3-2, nothing looked out of the ordinary. The German won his two serving points on big first serves and he earned the mini break on yet another low volley that he forced Isner to hit. That was the pay-off (see above) for Zverev repeatedly making Isner hit low first volleys.
Zverev lost his mini-break advantage though, and more, when he committed two unforced backhand errors in a row to go down 4-3. Then Isner missed a forehand and double-faulted to return the favor. Remember, I did use the adjectives “awkward” and “uncharacteristic” earlier to describe what happened in this tiebreaker, so you were warned.
The last two points showcased again the winning formula(s) that Zverev adopted throughout the set. Another clutch first serve put him up 6-4. On set point, Zverev once again engaged Isner in a rally, making the American hit several backhands until he missed.
So, what went wrong for Zverev – or right for Isner – after the first set? Not much actually, except in two specific games, one in each set, and the overarching trend on which I touched at the beginning and kept putting off by saying “more on this later.” That is all it took for the American to grab the biggest title of career.
Until 4-4 in the second set, players held serves without difficulty. Then suddenly, on his serve, Zverev played by far the worst game of the match thus far. Out of nowhere, leading 30-15, Zverev squeezed in two unforced errors (one of them, a forehand framed to the sky) and a double fault to give Isner his first break-point opportunity of the set, the only one he needed.
And this is where I finally get to the overarching trend that doomed Sascha.
On that break point, Sascha had a mid-court backhand, similar to the ones he had all along the first set and a half, one that he has been taking early at shoulder level and drilling cross-court. That pattern, until then, regularly pushed Isner to the backhand corner and allowed Zverev to settle into the favorable cross-court-backhand pattern. Instead, and inexplicably, Zverev held back and hit a mid-pace backhand on which Isner was able to run around his backhand and pound a forehand. Zverev responded with another defensive, and shorter, backhand. This time Isner stepped inside the court and unleashed his forehand for a winner, grabbing the first break of the match.
Isner won the second set on his serve in the next game, although he had to save a couple of break points. More importantly for him, the trend from Sascha freely hitting his backhands cross-court and out-rallying him to Sascha hitting his backhands tentatively and giving him a shot at running around to unload his forehands was now in full progress.
Zverev’s success with his first serves still continued. He saved break points early in the third set with big serves. Plus, he was still making Isner hit low volleys when the American ventured to the net. Those two factors remained in his favor. However, extended rallies were no longer a write-in for Zverev like they were in the first 90 minutes of the match.
And you could tell that Isner was smelling blood because, you see, when a player shows apprehensiveness, it is not just the previously working pattern that loses traction for him. His loss of confidence, and Zverev’s body language tends to show this, motivates the opponent to gain mental momentum. Hence, Isner began staying in rallies longer because he now believed that Zverev, due to his tentative baseline play, would eventually hold back on one shot somewhere and give him a chance to take charge in the rally.
At 4-4 in the final set, Zverev’s increasing malaise on his ground strokes had spread to the rest of his game. Even his reliable first serve disappeared. He began with a double fault. Then, Isner, full of confidence, hit a thunder return on a first serve, and followed it with a forehand winner to go up 0-30. One point later, at 15-30, he had to serve a second serve and get in a rally. If there were a rally to show how much Zverev had regressed – the overarching trend – in the deliberate nature of his ground strokes, this would be the one.
He had a sitter on his backhand inside the baseline, in the middle of the court, on a ball by Isner that bounced inside the service line. Instead of accelerating to the backhand corner of Isner, like he has done numerous times throughout the first set and a half (and the tournament), Zverev simply half-looped the backhand back to the middle of the court heck, (he might have even slightly mishit it). Isner moved up and hit a forehand back to Sascha’s backhand. It was deeper but nothing that Sascha could not handle. The German missed the routine backhand deep by over a meter at least.
The miss, and his body language after the miss, pointed to one thing: he had lost his mental edge. The ensuing break point confirmed it. Another rally, another set of baseline shots underplayed by Zverev, ending with an easy forehand sitter slammed in the net. He smashed his racket to the ground, twice, and broke it. It seemed that the match had ended there.
Isner served up the formalities, literally, with three aces to earn his first ATP 1000 title.
The match was more of a mental battle than anything else. The quality of tennis was higher in the first half of the encounter, minus the tiebreaker. The tactical adjustments made by both players, on the other hand, were remarkable. The battle of IQs had no clear winner, both players proved potent there, but the one with the higher resolve stood tall, no pun intended, at the end.