Tag: Alexander Zverev

Miami Open Match Report: Alexander Zverev vs Borna Coric (quarterfinal)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

Although Alexander “Sascha” Zverev, ranked no.5 in the ATP and holder of six career titles, should have been on paper the favorite to win when he stepped on the court to face Borna Coric, the 36th-ranked Croat, for his quarterfinal match at the Miami Open, most tennis fans who follow the game closely knew better.

Outside of his first-round loss at the Australian Open, Coric had enjoyed an impressive 2018 season, including a semifinal appearance in Indian Wells and a trio of three-set victories, all against quality opponents, to reach the quarterfinals in Miami. Having played nine matches in three weeks, with five of them extending to three sets, he had appeared to answer the call physically and mentally.

There was also their head-to-head record that favored Coric 2-0 when they started the match. Both previous encounters were extremely close, with Borna winning 7-5 3-6 7-6 in Cincinnati in 2015 and 3-6 7-5 7-6 7-6 at the US Open in 2017.

Coric vs Zverev – Cincinnati, 2015

Simply put, there was every reason to expect an intriguing match that was hard to predict.

It ended up more one-sided than expected, with Zverev outplaying Coric in almost every facet of the game. I have a couple of lingering thoughts on these two players that I want to put on paper, or on the computer screen in this case, but let’s get to the story of the match first, because every match has one.

Zverev’s straight-set victory today did not happen because he did one thing to which Coric could not find a solution or because Coric had a bad day at the office all around, or because Zverev happened to win the few key points that decided the outcome, although the 6-4 6-4 scoreline would suggest the latter. Few differences coming into play intermittently made it possible for Zverev to never be in any trouble throughout the match.

Zverev served well, on both first and second serves. Yes, his percentage on first-serve points won was striking at 83%, but the depth on his second serves was majestic. He was able to apply persistent pressure Coric during rallies. So, what should Coric, or any player facing this problem, do to tackle this problem? One possible solution is to step in on your opponent’s second serve and return aggressively in order to take away his baseline drives from the beginning of the point.

Yet, every time Coric attempted to take charge with his return on the German’s second serves, Sascha came up with high-velocity and/or high-bouncing serves that landed on the back line of the service box, forcing Coric to step back or hit the return at a higher point than his sweet spot, in case he did not step back.

If you need examples, see the 2-1, 40-15 and the 4-3, 40-15 points in the first set. In the latter, for instance, Sascha lands a fabulous second serve that pushes Borna back and forces him into a defensive return. In other words, Coric had no choice but resort to doing the opposite of what he initially intended to do when he stepped up to return. Thus, Sascha controls the second shot, Coric has to scramble on defense, and the point ends with Sascha hitting the winner on the third shot.

There is your explanation as to how Zverev won 75% of the points launched with his second serve. When you can complement your 83% first-serve points won – he literally won two or three free points in each serving game with his first serve – with a 75% rate on your second-serve points won, and commit zero double faults, you get to win your service games comfortably. Zverev lost only 5 points on his service games in the second set. Coric’s only two chances to break came in the very first service game of the match by Zverev.

And that brings me to my pet peeve, which is the importance of the first two games of a set and their underrated existence in match analyses. I bet Coric would like to replay that 30-40 break point at 1-0 up in the beginning of the match, the one in which he missed a routine forehand deep.

Speaking of errors, they were another factor that contributed to Coric’s inability to worry Zverev. As I noted above, Coric did not particularly play badly. He did, however, err uncharacteristically on some important points. The above at 1-0 up, break point, was perhaps the most important one.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

There were also the two unforced errors that made him trail 15-40, at 3-3 in the second set. He got out of that hole, so initially it may seem like a no-biggie in retrospect. But when you do that two service games in a row and fight hard to dig yourself out of each hole, it carries long-term consequences. When you get behind in the score due to those types of errors, although they end up not costing you in those two games (Coric also saved two break points in the 1-1 game), harm your confidence in your ground strokes. The resulting mental dent may come back to haunt you later in the set.

It most likely did for Coric, in the most crucial game of the second set, when he served at 4-4. At 15-15, he missed a backhand down-the-line deep that he would make nine out ten times. He followed it up with another routine cross-court backhand missed wide, and he found himself down two break points once again. He saved the first one but could not save the second (sixth in the set), committing yet another backhand error. It was probably the worst service game played by Coric from the baseline but having to dance on thin ice on your service games throughout the set while your opponent is winning his serves with ease, can crush you when the match is on the line.

Again, it was not like Coric performed badly throughout the match from the baseline. In fact, in those break points that he saved in the second set, he played some of his best tennis. He bravely hit a rocket backhand down-the-line on one, put his touch on display with a fine drop volley on another, and got a big first serve in on a third one. Zverev did not perform far above his standards from the baseline either. He also committed some errors. The German was, however, the more pro-active player, looking for openings, stepping inside the baseline, changing the pace of the ball, while Coric parked three meters behind the baseline, mostly retrieving, relying on his legs, and playing the reactive role.

Put all the above together and you get a convincing win in favor of Sascha, not in the form of a blow-out (which is more likely to occur if one player had a weakness that the other relentlessly exploited or if one player did everything a little better than the other), but in the form of a steady stream of shifting advantages appearing through various facets of the game, resulting in the inevitable.

I will conclude with one last lingering thought specifically with regard to these two players – and a handful of others with the same obsession, Karen Khachanov comes to mind.

Both players possess better backhands than forehands. Yet, they both occasionally, and inexplicably, move around their backhands to hit forehands. It is baffling to say the least and I am not even sure that it benefits them. Coric and Zverev do not have bad forehands per se and they are capable of accelerating using them. It is just that they can cause the same damage, or more, I would argue, with their backhands. I also believe that Borna and Sascha are themselves aware of the fact that they have better overall skills on their backhands than on their forehands.

So, why then, this obsession with hitting a forehand when you can line-up your strongest shot from the exact same spot? I can provide several detailed examples from this match alone for both players, but I will just stick to a few by Zverev. In the 2-1, 15-0 point, he chooses to hit a forehand and misses. In the 40-15 point at 5-3, he hits three great backhands, puts Coric on the defensive, then moves to hit a forehand on the next shot and misses deep. On the deuce point at 1-1 in the second set, he takes a few steps to run around the backhand, and strikes a forehand that lands behind the baseline.

I would argue that in each one of those points, Zverev would have gotten better results if he got his feet positioned and took those same cuts with his backhand.

In fact, a sequence in the fourth game of the second set shows that he can. In the 2-1 game, at 15-15, Zverev runs around the backhand and produces an inside-out forehand winner. Guess what? Two points later, Coric hits the ball slightly more to Zverev’s backhand side, and this time, Zverev does not around. He sets up and strikes a backhand. He produces almost an identical winner to the one from two points ago, except on his backhand this time, and with a sharper angle.

Photo: Micheal Reaves – Getty Images

I discussed this obsession of certain players with one of the leading tacticians in our game at Roland Garros two years ago and he said that there were studies showing that players can accelerate – or create power – with their forehands better than their backhands. He was not necessarily arguing to the contrary, but data apparently showed that hitting forehands is the preferred method of players when taking charge of a point. I have no doubt that the majority of the ATP players can power up the amp with their forehands. However, using that particular point to draw a blanket conclusion that forehands are preferable to backhands is one that I am not willing to accept.

Zverev will next play the Spaniard Pablo Carreno-Busta, another baseline monster, for a spot in the final. I predict that the German will have to decide a number of times in that match whether to run around the backhand or not. If he does, his forehand better be operating at maximum capacity.

Until next time, enjoy the tennis!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Looking Ahead to Dimitrov vs. Sock

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

From Sascha to Grigor, the road gets bumpier for Jack

For the preview of the other semifinal between Roger Federer and David Goffin, click here

Well, this semifinal between Grigor Dimitrov and Jack Sock should be a first-rate encounter. You cannot find two players, this late in the season, who seem to be peaking in form to the degree that these two are, and they both deserve to be in the semifinals.

Sock will have to deal with a different (and a more complicated) set of problems when he encounters Dimitrov on Saturday than he did in his three-set win over Alexander Zverev on Thursday.

For starters, Sock will not be handed numerous free points on double faults at crucial turning points of the match. This is not to say Dimitrov is not prone to committing double faults, but he will certainly be less generous than Zverev, and unlike Sascha, he will have enough sense to hit a safer first serve and get it in play on a crucial point after having double faulted in the few preceding ones.

Photo: Getty – Alex Pantling

Secondly, the young German played with predictable patterns throughout the match on Thursday, hardly changing the spin and the pace of the ball. That allowed Sock to anticipate his shots, get to the ball in time, and even run around the backhand to nail his forehand. See the 4-2 30-30 point in the final set, for one example out of many. Jack lost that point on an unforced error, but if you observe Jack’s movement during the rally, you will see how he knew ahead of time, on every shot, where Zverev was going to direct the ball. You will see him moving to the anticipated spot before even Sascha struck the ball.

That is because Sascha’s game, after two sets and a half, had become so predictable that when he actually hit a rare backhand down-the-line that was neither powerful (by his standard) nor to the corner, it turned into a winner because Jack was moving to his ad corner expecting the cross-court backhand from Zverev. That was a rare – a very rare – deviation from the norm for Zverev.

That level of predictability will be absent with Dimitrov on the other side of the net. The Bulgarian is a high-IQ player and knows better than to give the same look more than once or twice to a player whose streaky game depends on repetition and rhythm. When the Sock machine clicks on all cylinders, the American is hard to stop. His forehand, his serve, and his volleys can be deadly (see the fine touch volleys he hit on Thursday). Grigor will do everything possible to keep Sock out of his comfort zone, and that starts with staying away from predictable patterns that allows the American to get his feet set.

In addition, Grigor mixes up the ball a lot more than Sascha, and unlike the German, he does not have a visible weakness in his game such as second serves or low forehands on the opponent’s slice shots.

Sock may need to adjust his tactical formula more than once on Saturday, not because his initial one may not work, but because Dimitrov possesses enough ingredients in his game to modify his and counter Sock’s tactics, enough to push the American to adjust.

Photo: Getty – Clive Brunskill

You may have guessed it by now. Yes, I favor Dimitrov in this match, even though some naysayers will throw the “but Sock beat him the last three times he played” or “he is 3-1 against him” lines at me.

And they may be right.

For one thing, Grigor has had matches in the past where he came out unexpectedly flat and disappointed everyone including himself – although I can’t remember off the top of my head an abrupt loss by Dimitrov in recent times due to dismal play, while he was having a good run. Does the loss to Rublev at the US Open count? For another, I am terrible with score predictions. I do, however, feel confident in predicting that the outcome will be determined by how Sock handles the above challenges posed to him by Dimitrov.

Make no mistake: Sock can generate power and he is on a roll. His forehand is arguably this week’s biggest weapon in the tournament. I have no doubt that he feels pumped up after the last two weeks, and that he genuinely believes in his chances against anyone.

He has indeed been riding smoothly and at high speed on a wide-open highway.

Yet, I believe that ride will get very bumpy on Saturday. The terrain is about to change. He will deal with some narrow back roads with holes and low visibility, and after having ridden for so long, his tank may go empty with no gas stations around.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

ATP Finals, Tuesday: Second-Match Recap

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

Roger Federer, efficient enough in his 7-6 5-7 6-1 win over Alexander Zverev

“Efficient enough” is the key term here. It was not a stellar performance, but Roger used whatever was available to him within the scope of his current form and the opponent he faced – yes, yes, I know, that is still way above the standards of others, but let’s focus on this match, shall we?

Let me also note that the Swiss may not even need his top form to win the ATP World Tour Finals. He won the Basel title two weeks ago without performing at his top level. Today, he defeated the number-three player in the world, while playing spotty and uninspiring tennis at times.

Back in 2012, I wrote an article in which I talked about Federer’s rare ability to switch from one Plan A to another and not skip a beat, while others can only switch to plan B’s, thus compromising their preferred tactics in an effort to adjust to their opponents. Roger’s repertoire is large enough to where he can change patterns, shift his positioning on the court, vary his pace and spin, and still call that modified tactic, his Plan A.

Today was no different. He came on the court with yet another Plan A, but he had to modify it after the first five games to pull off a victory that was only delayed by some inexplicable loss of intensity in the early portion of the second set.

Here is the purpose of my piece today. The general impression in the world of tennis after the match was that Federer was slicing his backhand too much, thus playing too defensively, and that it was a mistake on his part. It is true that the slice was part of Federer’s game plan, but certainly not to the extent that we saw over the three sets. Those who closely observed the early games should have realized that he definitely did not begin the match that way. An analysis of the first five games should clarify why Federer initially sought to follow a distinct plan, yet ended up executing a different one.

First let me give you some numbers. Until 3-2, Federer sliced his backhand thirteen times, and came over the top (call it flat, spin, or drive) also thirteen times. However, seven of those thirteen slices came when he had to stretch or lunge to get his racket on Sascha’s booming first serves and return them. In other words, he had no choice but to block or slice those seven returns.

Photo: Getty – Julian Finney

Thus, if we just count the backhands hit once going past the serve-and-return phase of the points, he sliced only six times vs thirteen over-the-top backhands. Plus, he was going to hit some anyway because the short and slice backhand was part of his plan to get Sascha to commit errors – for those interested in visual examples, Sascha missed his first such shot at deuce in the first game. To sum it up, Roger sliced only three or four times in the first 5 games when he had a choice.

I would not call that a defensive tactic.

That short slice, forcing the six-foot-six (almost two meters European terms) German youngster to move forward a bit inside the baseline and strike the ball below his knees, would prove vital to Roger’s success for the rest of the match. He probably walked out on the court planning to utilize that weapon. He would stick mostly with aggressive drives on both wings that have been working well for him this year, and mix in the occasional low slice to throw Sascha off balance. At least, that is precisely what the first five games showed.

Yet, as we know now, he ended up slicing a lot more than that, didn’t he? It was not an error on his part, he did not have a choice. His opponent showed him in the next two games, on three different occasions, that Roger’s plan A that rested on varying the pace just enough to still take charge with aggressive shots would not be enough, and that he would need to defend a bit more than he initially wanted to.

Let’s remember those three occasions:

Federer was leading 2-1 and Zverev was serving at 30-15. The point began with another short and low slice backhand return by Federer. This time Sascha handled it (not the norm in this match) and sent it deep to Roger’s backhand forcing him to defensively slice back. However, on the next shot, Roger got his feet set and nailed maybe the hardest flat backhand of the match to Zverev’s add corner. I am guessing he did not expect it to come back. Not only did it come back, but Sascha landed it on the baseline. Federer backed up quickly and spinned his forehand back. Two shots later, Roger would once again be under pressure on his backhand and this time he would miss it. It was then, the longest point of the match. Federer mixed it up, never giving Sascha the same look twice in a row, using his two biggest weapons, the low and short slice and the crushing flat shot. The problem was that Zverev answered every challenge beautifully in that point and Roger ended up being the one to commit the error.

The second occasion was even more telling. This was a 22-shot rally, the first point of the 2-2 game, in which Federer threw everything but the kitchen sink at Sascha in terms of being aggressive. He did not use his slice once, and had Sascha on the ropes for the better part of the point. But the German put on display his defensive skills and got every ball back. He eventually found the balance in the rally around the 15th shot. At the first opportunity, when he got his feet set, he accelerated his backhand down the middle of the court to a stationary (and probably frustrated) Federer. Another long rally would end with the Swiss coming out on the losing end, this time missing his forehand into the net.

Two points later, at 15-15, once again Federer got into a back-and-forth with Zverev, and once again, it looked like he had the upper hand in the rally. He was the one with the initiative, slicing his backhand only once but coming over the top and accelerating on all the others. Zverev stood tall once again, got everything back, and Federer eventually went for a rocket shot to the corner that sailed out.

Let me summarize. These three points took place within a three-minute, two-game span and changed the entire outlook of the match. Federer still held to go up 3-2, thanks to some remarkable placement on his serves (what else?) but one thing was clear: he would need to modify his game from that point forward.

He would now play a bit more conservative and make more use of that short and low slice. He would take risks only when a convenient opportunity – read that “one that offered good percentage play” – presented itself. He would rely on his serves to hold and on Sascha’s errors to break. That was now his alternative plan A.

Photo: AFP – Glyn Kirk

The rest of the match was interesting and topsy-turvy. There were some wild swings both ways. The tiebreaker itself, Federer’s loss of intensity at 7-6 3-1 up, his renewed intensity once he held in the second game of the final set, and finally, Sascha’s erosion in the last 15 minutes of the match, are all worthy turning points to be discussed, but beyond the scope of my focus in this article, which was to examine the reasons behind Federer’s seemingly defensive play in today’s match.

Couple of side notes:

– From 3-2 to 5-4, total of four games, only a little over 7 minutes elapsed. And that is including the two game changes. I can’t remember four games that went by so quick. I have no proof, obviously, but it felt like a record. It was 3-2, I blinked, and it was 5-4.

– Federer’s short and low slice backhands harassed Zverev endlessly. He missed one at deuce in the very first game, he lost the first set tiebreaker on one, only to mention two among many. If other players did not know any of his weaknesses before, they know at least one now.

– That was a short-tempered Roger out there today. He visibly got frustrated as early as the second game when his forehand passing shot attempt flicked the net and sailed out. His hand did some sort of quick, upward motion that I can best explain as “Get the hell outta here,” although I have no idea what came out of his mouth. And that was only the beginning.

– I am sorry, I listened to all the explanations for years, but I will still call the likes of the Marin Cilic vs Roger Federer match on Thursday a pseudo-ATP match. I hardly believe that either player cares that much about winning or losing that match (probably Roger even less than Marin). For those who need clarification, Cilic at 0-2 is already eliminated and Federer at 2-0 has already qualified for the semifinals.

Until next time…

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

ATP Finals, Sunday: First-Day Recap

ATP No Comments

Zverev defeats Cilic 6-3 4-6 6-3 in a match filled with ebbs and flows
(For the Federer vs Sock recap from earlier, scroll down)

It is hard to gauge the speed at which Alexander “Sascha” Zverev Jr. will develop into a top player. While there is no doubt that he has immense potential, he also seems to suffer from lapses of concentration and/or frustration, and from wide fluctuations of form within matches. Or shall I say he “benefits” from the latter? Because in today’s match, he ultimately benefited from one such fluctuation, the last one, the one that mattered the most. Or something…

That is what Zverev offers at this point in his career. An exciting up-and-comer, with question marks lingering as to “when” he will join the group of elites at the top of the men’s game.

Sascha began the encounter with a pristine first game, probably one of his best games of the match, to break Cilic’s serve and get a head start à-la-Federer (see my recap of the first match for clarification). He did not commit one single unforced error, he outlasted (and “out-skilled”) the big Croat in every extended rally, putting the exclamation point at the end with a five-star drop-volley winner. At 2-0, he saved the only break point he faced with an ace, and operated on cruise-control for the rest of the first set. Last game included one excellent low-volley winner and three big first serves that did not come back over the net. Solid start, solid finish, a 6-4 set against a veteran player who did not particularly play bad, yet did not have enough consistency and depth to answer the initiatives that the young German kept taking in rallies.

In the second game of the next set, came the first bad sequence of the match for Sascha. At 15-15 on his serve, he committed two unforced errors in the net, one on each side. Although Sascha saved the two break points, his next two wild forehand misses, both deep, gave Cilic his first break of the match.

Well, you see, with Zverev, the bad patches can last, for a while. This is part of the uncertainty I noted above. While top players will quickly put that one-game bad sequence behind them and get back to the labor at hand, Zverev tends to drop his shoulders, look at his corner, wave arms in the air in a dejected manner. And subsequently, the errors keep coming.

To be fair, his body language did not turn, at that stage of the match, as negative as it does at other times, but his intensity did drop. In the very next game, he missed a routine backhand error to start, and at 30-30, missed another wild forehand deep. A point later, Cilic was walking confidently to the chair, up 3-0. That confidence carried Marin for the rest of the second set, losing only two points on his service games in the next three service holds. The set ended on yet another forehand error by Sascha.

Photo: Getty Images – Julian Finney

Fast forward to the 1-1 game of the final set. At this point, Cilic has kept a steady level of play since he regained his confidence early in the second set. He has been serving well but still losing most of the long rallies to his opponent. Sascha has seemingly recovered from his extended “bad sequence” because he has also been holding serve for a while. At 30-30 serving, Sascha makes two disastrous backhand errors in a row. After the first error, he slams his racket’s strings in frustration with his right hand. Following the second one, he almost slams his racket to the ground, only to hold back at the last second. He then turns to his corner to start a monologue during which the expression on his face resembles one that you would have if the 5000-piece puzzle on which you spent five days putting together just got thrashed by the bullying kid next door.

Coaches may want their junior players to observe Cilic’s glance at Zverev as he walks to his chair. I assure you that it is nothing less than a generous amount of adrenaline, boost, or whatever you want to call it, that Marin is feeling as he sees Sascha’s negative body language. You don’t believe me? Watch the four excellent points that Cilic wins in the next game to hold and go up 3-1 (Zverev also won two).

Then, the unexpected took place in the next 20 minutes. At 1-3 serving, Zverev committed two bad errors to go down 0-30 and I am sure most viewers concluded that he was on his last leg at that point. Somehow, he pulled off his best point of the match to get to 15-30, and with a bit of help (but not too much) from Cilic, he managed to hold to get back to 2-3. As Zverev’s fans were thinking “ok, that hold lifted him up, now one break and he is back in this,” they saw their man go down 40-15 and slam his racket to the ground – he actually did it this time – and look dejected. As I have noted above, this is not a good version of Sascha. When he gets this way, it does not end well for him. I will steal a quote from another tennis writer (I doubt he will mind) that I respect a lot, Matt Zemek: “Zverev is an evolving, young player, but to this point in his career, he has usually not played well when angry.”

Photo: AFP – Adrian Dennis

Perhaps there is a first for everything, because this “bad sequence” did not last! Sascha won the next four points in a row, three of which included a superb backhand down-the-line winner, a volley put-away, and an outstanding defensive lob. Virtually out of nowhere, Sascha was back on serve. Then, he did something baffling as he went to the chair to change his racket: argue with the chair umpire on a challenged call from two points ago that actually ended in his favor. What was the point of that? I do not know, nor care to. What matters is that Sascha needs to learn to let trivialities go. It is literally trivial on his part to argue with the referee on whether he should have corrected a call (or not) two points ago, after having realized the most amazing turnaround of the match and won the game.

Sascha held serve to go up 4-3 and never looked back. He was back to his first-set form, looking pumped, and ready to cross the finish line. Up 5-4 on Cilic’s serve, he did just tha with four efficient rallies in a row, three of which ended in impressive winners after several hits. It was a blank game, the best one he played in the match. Did Cilic play badly during the two hours and four minutes that elapsed? No. Did he choke? No. Could he have won maybe one or two more points within the large group of “turning points” throughout the match (there were many)? Maybe. The point is, Zverev should take credit rather than Cilic carry the blame for the outcome of this match. I do not believe that anyone, myself included, at about 25 minutes before the players shook hands at the net, expected Sascha to chalk up the win.

——————-

Roger Federer sets the pace early to a tight but straight-forward 6-4 7-6 win

By “setting the pace early” in Federer’s case, I mean getting the lead off the gate, and never relinquishing it. Federer is one of the best front-runners in tennis. That should come as no surprise considering his serving and one-two-punch skills, although his first serves were below their peak level in the first set at 58%. Ultimately, he did not need them to perform at their peak level, thanks largely to a phenomenal first game of the match.

It began with a backhand down-the-line winner with pinpoint accuracy on the first point and continued with a defensive topspin forehand hit with just enough dip to force Sock into an error at the net on the second. Although Sock equalized at 30-30 with an ace and a forehand winner, Roger hit an exquisite backhand return deep enough to set the forehand winner on the next shot to earn the break point. It would be his only one in the first set, one that put a definite stamp on the first set. Roger won it with his second backhand winner, a high-velocity one going down-the-line, leaving Sock helpless in his effort to reach it. That first game was Federer at his best, every single shot hit with a purpose, designed to stifle his opponent. It was like a runner getting a head start by a few steps on his nemesis and looking back occasionally to watch him try desperately to catch up to him, but to no avail.

Photo: AFP – Adrian Dennis

The rest of the first set was a straight-forward affair, with Federer keeping his advantage by using a variety of first and second serves, allowing him for the most part to gain the advantage early in rallies. On his return games, he never played a perfect game like the first one again, sporadically spraying uncharacteristic errors (for an example, see the 3-1, 15-0 point, in which Federer hits almost identically the same backhand as he did on the break point, this time missing it deep). Sock, for his part, recovered remarkably well mentally from the break and stuck to his guns, insisting on trying to push Federer into hitting shots off his backfoot. He succeeded several times, such as the game point he won to get back to 2-3, but not frequently enough to make a dent on Roger’s service games. Certainly not enough to earn a break point, despite the subpar first-serve performance by the Swiss in the first set. Who mourns a 58% on first-serves, four percentage points lower than Roger’s career number, when he still wins 89% of the ones he hits in, and finishes the set with an ace, an almost-registered trade mark in his name?

The first set, and I mean the part after the break in the first game, did establish the tone of the second set. It would be tight affair, going down to the wire, unless Federer reached perfection once again on a return game to cut the party short. He did not, and the set went to a tiebreaker, but not before the Swiss causing his fans to feel some familiar chills to their necks by not capitalizing on five break-point opportunities in three different games.

In the 3-3 game, at 15-40 on the American’s serve, Roger missed two backhand returns in a row, the second one being on a second serve that bounced in the middle of the box. Later in the 4-4 game, the Swiss sent a makeable backhand passing shot into the doubles alley on his third break point of the set. By the time the fourth one came around two points later, you could almost see the apprehensiveness in Federer. Instead of returning aggressively, like he has done so far on routine second serves by Sock, he hesitantly hit the return back in play, short to the middle of the court for that matter, and on the next shot, hit another makeable backhand into the net, below the tape. The fifth and last failed-break-point attempt on his behalf would come in the 5-5 game, but Sock would fully deserve the credit on this one, pinning and stretching his opponent to the corner.

Photo: AFP – Adrian Dennis

Eventually came the tiebreaker, in which first serves were a precious commodity, until that is, Sock double-faulted at the most inopportune time to go down 5-4, with two points to follow on Federer’s serve. That was all Roger needed to pull another one of his almost-trademark qualities: relying on his first serve when circumstances demand it. A wicked first-serve that curved into Sock’s body to set up the forehand winner on the next shot (i.e. textbook one-two-punch) earned Roger a match point, and an ace hit wide allowed the match to get registered into record book.

Overall, it was a solid, but not ground-breaking, effort by both players. There were even a couple of lamentable misses by both players. Federer smacked a ball into the net at game point for Sock on the seventh game of the second set, after Sock gave up on the point and turned his back to offer his butt as a target (yes, you read it correctly). Federer would later joke, saying that perhaps he missed the shot because he didn’t go for that “rather unusual target.” Sock for his part, sent a routine high-backhand volley into the net – on game point at 5-6 mind you? – instead of the wide-open court, but recovered to still hold his serve.

Again, Federer’s fans will probably feel unsatisfied, largely focusing on the break-points missed in the second set – Side note: Don’t all fans do this? Remember only the negatives? I once heard Jimmy Connors say in an interview that when asked what his “most memorable” matches were, he admitted that the close one the he lost, such as his five-set losses to Borg at Wimbledon, always crept in his mind first. Hopefully they will not overlook that Federer served extremely well in the second set, faced no break points, stuck to his A plan to push his opponent around to create openings, exploit those openings to cut the points short, and found the best in his arsenal when he needed it, first to get the crucial break in the beginning, and second, to finish the match at the end. Sock, for his part, also played well and should tackle his next match with confidence.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Who can stop Roger and Rafa?

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

Let me first begin, for better or worse, by giving my one-word answer: Nobody! I believe that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will march on to the finals, not only because they have been the two best players in 2017 by a large margin, but also because they have not shown any signs of considerable drop in their form. It is particularly remarkable that one can take two months off from competition right when he was on top of his form – a risky move even for Roger’s standards – and reach that level again so quickly, while the other adjusts from the clay-courts of Roland Garros, without having played a single match on grass, to the courts at Wimbledon, and still produce his top-quality tennis (not that he has not done the Paris-London victory combination before, twice as a matter of fact).

Can any player challenge them? Sure, but can they actually beat one or the other? Highly unlikely…

First, on Rafa’s path to the final…

It seems that Rafa has picked up where he had left off at Roland Garros. He has yet to lose a set in the 10 matches that he played in Paris and London combined, and there is a legitimate possibility that it may well be the final day of Wimbledon before we see that happening.

Nadal steamrolled through his first three rounds, with the only glitch coming in the third set vs. Karen Khachanov, in the late stages of which the Spanish champion, uncharacteristically, sprayed a few errors on forehands. Many believed the young Russian would push Nadal, even push him beyond three sets. I did not.

While Khachanov has the pedigree of a player that can quickly rise in the rankings in the years to come – powerful serve, decent technique, the ability to unleash during rallies – he still lacks the on-court decision-making that top players possess. A good example of this, among others, took place in his match vs. Victor Troicki in the Istanbul Open where he kept running around his backhand to accelerate with his forehand (although his ability to flatten out the backhand is currently superior to the backhand one, especially on low balls) and leaving the deuce side vulnerable once he was unable to put the ball away. Troicki fed on that throughout the match, and Khachanov never adjusted. In a five-set encounter against a high-IQ champion like Rafa, you can bet that you will need to change and adjust your tactics at some point during the match whether you are leading or trailing. This is not a skill that Khachanov, or any other promising young talent, cannot develop. However, it takes time and the 34th-ranked Russian still has room for improvement in this area, before posing a threat to top players in Majors.

Photo: David Ramos – Getty Images Europe

Rafa faces Gilles Muller next. The 34-year-old veteran from Luxembourg has enough experience, thus he will not be intimidated by any legend on the other side of the net. Furthermore, he has a win over Rafa, at Wimbledon, on his résumé. Yet, that was a dozen years ago and Nadal of today is far better than the one from 2005. I am sure the matchup worries some Nadal fans, for decent reasons. Muller can win a large number of points on his lefty serve, as well as hit a variety of them; flat, sliding slice, kick, curve into the body, you name it, Muller can serve it. Rafa has had trouble with these types of players in the past. Having said that, I do not see how Muller can break Rafa’s serve, especially considering that the Spaniard has increased its velocity to it since coming to London (see the last few break points that he saved against Khachanov). I would guess that Muller will need to get to a tiebreaker or two in order to have any chances to cause an upset.

Like Muller, there are a few other solid players on Nadal’s half. I am simply not convinced if they can defeat him. There are a couple of baseliners, Roberto Bautista-Agut and Marin Cilic, one of whom will face Nadal in the quarterfinals. It has been said that Cilic could have a chance to defeat Rafa, assuming he gets there. Cilic has indeed had a good year and his big game can overwhelm any player when his first serve and forehand are clicking on all cylinders, à-la-2014 US Open. He will nevertheless need to pull one of the best winner-to-error ratios in his career to outlast Rafa from the baseline, as well as a bit of help from him, the kind that Khachanov received (but could not capitalize on) in their third set.

One issue that Rafa has not completely fine-tuned yet is the depth on his groundstrokes. Even in Paris and in his first three rounds here, his shots landed inside the service line at times. I would call this the only apparent difference between the 2008-12 version of Rafa and the one today. On the clay courts of Paris, or against his opponents here so far, this did not present a major problem. Even when they moved in and unleashed on their shots, Rafa’s ability to scramble and get one or two balls back forced them to make errors on their second or third tries. Against the elite players, or the ones that do not think twice when it comes to relentlessly approaching the net on grass, this could present a problem for Rafa. They will either have enough skills to put the ball away when they get their one chance, or immediately approach and challenge Nadal to come up with passing shots from difficult positions. Federer’s two victories over him in Indian Wells and Miami are prime examples of strategies that included this component.

However, this is not the bread-and-butter plan of Andy Murray, Rafa’s potential semifinal opponent. Andy is likely to construct points, look for his opportunity to accelerate down-the-line, and hope to win some free points on his first serve. Coming to the net will not be an essential part of his plan A. Yes, the crowd will be behind him, but alas, depending on “build-up points” from the baseline is a painful way to try to beat Nadal.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images Europe

Few more things to keep in mind for Rafa:

– One of his main weapons, the run-around forehand, will be a bit more limited on grass than on other surfaces due to the low bounce. This will not permit Rafa to hit as many forehands from the chest-to-shoulder height, the spot at which he prefers to hit his aggressive forehands.

– Rafa likes to take risks, pound first serves and groundstrokes harder, when he faces break points or trails in a tiebreaker. His first-serve percentage (with the increased velocity), especially on break points against him, will play a major role in holding serve.

– The weather is working in Rafa’s favor. There are only two days on that show rain, less than 50% on each day, for the rest of the tournament. Dryer courts keep the balls bouncing higher, although still nothing like on clay, as Dustin Brown who said grass at Wimbledon is slower than clay in Paris would have you believe, a claim since then refuted (to avoid saying mocked) by a number of other players. They have pretty much unanimously pointed to the dryness of the courts with regard to the speed and admitted that this causes the courts to be slower than usual (again, only by Wimbledon and grass-court standards).

Second, on Roger’s path to the final…

Roger has a more rocky road to the final than Rafa and I would have contemplated for a while about his chances of reaching the final in London, had it not been for what I saw in his victory run in Halle followed by the first two rounds** at Wimbledon. I had believed taking two months off competition while he was at the top of his form had been an extremely risky decision. However, his game improved throughout the five matches he played in Halle, and by now, he seems to have fine-tuned his game just in time to enter the nitty-gritty of the second week.

**I say first two rounds because this had been my thought even before he played Mischa Zverev earlier today and I wrote so, yesterday, in an article published in Tenis Dunyasi magazine website.

He will face Grigor Dimitrov on Monday. I am a fan of Dimitrov’s game and I like his chances to eventually join the elites of men’s tennis at the top of the rankings, but this is just a bad matchup for Dimitrov, very bad. When two players essentially play the same style, possess similar strengths and weaknesses, develop points using similar strategies, and one of them happens to be a tiny bit better than the other, the scoreboard will usually reflect that difference with fairly large margins. Dimitrov will have to wait at least one more Major for his potential breakthrough.

Quarterfinal round is where the plot thickens for Roger. Both Alexander Zverev and Milos Raonic have the game to defeat Federer on a given day and they have both done it before. They are two of the very few candidates with a legitimate shot at dismantling the stranglehold the Big 4, plus Stan Wawrinka, have on the Majors. Milos is a step ahead of Sascha in that he has not only gone further than the German in Majors, but Wimbledon also happens to be the Major in which he reached the final round, having defeated none other than Roger in the semis after a five-set thriller.

Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images Europe

The wounds of that semifinal must undoubtedly be fresh in Federer’s mind. This is the reason for which it is imperative that Raonic somehow “steals” the first set from Roger and makes the Swiss doubt himself again. But this is a different Federer than last year’s version. In 2016, Federer arrived to Wimbledon nursing an injury and questioning his chances of even getting to the finals. He had also been stopped by Novak Djokovic four times in two years, with the most brutal loss coming in the 2016 Australian Open (remember the first two sets?).

This year, Federer made a comeback to the top like no other man probably will for a foreseeable future, at the age of 35. He is full of confidence, injury-free, refreshed, and playing well. I expect him to get to the net a lot against Raonic (not as much if he faces Zverev) and challenge the Canadian’s passing shot skills, as well as backhand returns.

Djokovic will most likely be his opponent in the semis. Among the Big 4, Novak has had the least rocky path until now, and the case remains the same in the next round. If he were to lose to Adrian Mannarino, who has played 25 sets in two weeks, almost half of them in the 105-degrees-Fahrenheit-plus courts of Antalya, it would probably go down as a bigger upset than the loss he suffered against Sam Querrey last year. Then, in the quarters, he will face either Dominic Thiem or Tomas Berdych. That should be the first true test of his game at Wimbledon. Let’s move on and assume Novak makes it past that stage, since our topic is Roger’s path to the final.

Photo: Sahun Botterill – Getty Images Europe

I do not believe Djokovic poses as big a threat to Roger as he did during the 2014-16 period, not only because he is still a few steps away from that level of play, but also because Roger has improved in a couple of areas since then, such as returns and backhand-to-backhand cross-court rallies. The fact that Roger has not beaten him in a Major since in five years will work as a psychological factor in Novak’s favor, but that needs to be coupled with the type of confidence that the Serb can build only if his level of play skyrockets in the next two rounds. I am not talking about the type that you build by beating the likes of Adam Pavlasek, Ernests Gulbis and Mannarino either. Having a convenient draw can work in your favor, but can also work against you. Novak’s case is the latter here.

Few more things to keep in mind for Roger:

– He is slowly but surely fine-tuning his returns. They were worrisome in the first two rounds, but better against Mischa (see his first break early in the match). Nevertheless, there is more room for improvement. He will need his drive and spin returns against Rafa, and his slice and bunt returns against everyone else, to be at their best.

– The larger issue against Mischa was Roger’s success with passing shots. This is where stats can be deceiving. Passing shots missed, or returns missed against serve-and-volley players, count as forced errors, regardless of how easily makeable they may actually be. Thus, you see the number 9 (for the whole match) next to the unforced errors and 36 next to forced error categories in Roger’s stat box. He missed some passing shots yesterday that he should be able to make nine out of ten times in his sleep. There was a particular one in the first set where he literally had time to get set and unleash on either side, with Zverev standing at the net like a traffic officer with no other job but to direct cars to pass on either side of him. This will not be a big issue in the upcoming rounds, unless Roger faces Raonic in the quarters. Milos has one of the highest rates of success at the net and has integrated net play a while ago into his preferred game plan. His serve-and-volley success rate is also among the highest in the tournament, along with Federer and Muller. If Roger does not pass well, Milos may just find a way to get to the tiebreaker and steal a set or two from Roger (see above).

– Speaking of serve-and-volley success… Roger’s high-percentage rate in that category, 83%, must be an encouraging sign to his coaching team. This is central to Roger’s game plan because, during his service games, it keeps the element of surprise weighing heavily on the shoulders of his opponents. Furthermore, Roger’s body language gains a whole new level of positivity when he is cruising on his serve-and-volley points.

– Winning long points has remained a question mark at Wimbledon. In his first two rounds, he only played nine points that lasted above nine shots, and Roger won only three of those. These are not high-enough numbers to draw a sound conclusion, but once Roger possibly faces the likes of Sascha, Novak, and Rafa in the finals, it will be one of the most determining factors in the outcome. Don’t take my word for it. Revisit the Australian Open final.

– See my last note above, in the Rafa portion, with regard to the weather. This should also work in Novak’s favor were the two to meet in the semifinal round.

If I turn out right, we will watch yet another Roger vs. Rafa final on July 16th. If you are an avid fan of either of these two champions, take a few “chill pills,” relax and enjoy. If you are neither, and love tennis, grab your favorite cold or hot beverage, and enjoy the highest quality of men’s tennis possible our lovely sport has to offer.

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

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

MENU

Navigation