Andreas Seppi – Mertov's Tennis Desk

We are down to the final 8 of the men’s draw at the Australian Open. Each quarterfinal match offers its own narrative, one more compelling than the next. On Tuesday, the line is clearly drawn as to who the favorites and the underdogs are in the two men’s matches scheduled. These players also have, among themselves, different pursuits. Among the two favorites, one is trying to confirm his number-one status and shape further his place in the history of the sport, while the other is attempting to take a giant step toward that elusive elite status. Among the underdogs, one is seeking to earn more respect than he gets despite having reached the finals of Majors twice, winning one, while the other simply wishes to extend the best week of his young career.

Below are my previews of both matches.

Grigor Dimitrov (3) vs Kyle Edmund

Grigor gets another chance to solidify the argument of why he should be considered one of the current elite performers in men’s tennis. He is not exactly there yet, mind you, but he has a golden chance to reach that status this week. Since having defeated the qualifier and 186th-ranked MacKenzie McDonald in the most unconvincing way possible – 8/6 in the fifth set after being bageled in the fourth, 8 aces and 9 double faults, and a slew of unforced errors – Dimitrov has gotten his act together. He put forth an impressive march to the quarterfinal round in his last two matches. I call it impressive in that he faced two quality opponents, Andrey Rublev and Nick Kyrgios, and showed poise almost each time they challenged him at crucial stages of both matches.

Photo: Darrian Traynor – Getty

His opponent’s run to the quarterfinal, however, may take the cake in the overall sense of the term “impressive.”

For starters, Edmund was not supposed to be here. When the draw was made, he was unseeded and scheduled to face the US Open finalist Kevin Anderson in the first round. The 49th-ranked Edmund, with the never-depleting gas tank, recorded the upset victory over Anderson, the first of two five-setters he won prior to his last round. After a straight-set victory over Denis Istomin in the second round, he won his second five-setter against Nikoloz Basilashvili. All three were remarkable wins, but it is the way in which he pulled his four-set victory in the fourth round against Seppi that was truly striking.

After having lost the first set and gone down a break in the second, and suffering from a lingering pain in his shoulder, Edmund suddenly began to produce his best tennis of the week for the next two hours. At times, Seppi looked helpless against the barrage of winners that Kyle was nailing from all areas of the court. He did not give up after the disappointment of losing the tiebreaker of the first set, kept a positive body language, showed all the signs of mental toughness that would delight any player’s fans and coaching team.

Edmund was placed in a relatively advantageous section of the draw (Jack Sock and Kevin Anderson, the highest seeds). He took full advantage of that opportunity once he got past Anderson. With all due respect to Istomin, Basilashvili, and Seppi, they do not impose the same degree of intimidation that his next opponent or his potential future opponents this week will do when standing next to them in the tunnel prior to walking on the court.

Then, there are the tactical possibilities. As tennis fans, we could be treated to a wonderful spectacle if Edmund starts strong and protects his service games. That begins with a high percentage of first serves and an aggressive approach to the next shot coming from the opponent’s return. This 1-2 punch pattern is in fact an essential part of Kyle’s usual A plan, his “bread-n-butter” so to speak.

Let’s ponder for a second. What if Edmund was to catch fire, à-la-sets-three-and-four of his win vs. Seppi?

To grasp the extent of how incredible Edmund’s performance was in that period of time, you would need to watch the replay. He hit so many winners that, at a certain point in the match, I began to simply expect winners every other point and started considering them “routine points,” only admiring the ones hit from impossible positions. Yes, I admit, from that point forward, I became what you would consider a spoiled tennis fan. Shame on me!

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

Can Dimitrov extinguish that kind of fire? Yes, only because he moves quicker and defends better than Kyle’s previous opponents. In fact, the Bulgarian is one of the best athletes in men’s tennis. How many shots did Kyrgios hit in the previous round that he thought were winners, but ended up coming back, forcing him to take another crack? Only Nick could accurately answer that, but I will make an educated guess and say that the number was easily in double digits. Did you see, for example, the forehand missiles hit by Dimitrov while he was fully stretched and on the run? I can only hope, Edmund’s behalf, that he did not use up all his winners against Seppi and that he still has plenty in his reserves.

There is also that scenario where some physical pain limits Edmund’s ability to perform and he loses in straight sets, or furthermore, forces him to retire. Ignoring that possibility for a moment, I would like to say that I learned my lesson about picking against Edmund (twice in fact), and that I will not pick against him again. Yet, I cannot. I have believed in Dimitrov to go to the final since day one of this tournament. Edmund will simply have to teach me the same lesson again.

Rafael Nadal (1) vs Marin Cilic (6)

There are reasons for which Nadal has, for the most part, dominated Cilic since his only loss to him in Beijing nine years ago. It can partially be explained by intangibles unrelated to technical and tactical aspects. Rafa is one of the best athletes in the world and Marin is not the only player that he has dominated over extended periods of time. He has more experience in the second week of Majors, and on big stage, than any opponent he faces, unless the latter happens to be another member of the rare elites in our game (you know who they are). He is mentally the best competitor our sport has ever seen. I could continue with this list, but I will stop right here and move on to the tactical side where the forecast looks just as bleak for Cilic.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

Diego Schwartzman frequently gave Nadal fits during their match. He forced the Spaniard to come up with several great shots in a row to eventually collect the point. He sent a message to Rafa from the early stages of the match that he would not go away simply because he lost a long point at deuce or a contested game. In short, he gave Rafa some of his own medicine, because that is precisely how Nadal’s adversaries feel until that moment in the match where they cease being his adversary and give up. Diego remained Rafa’s adversary all the way to the bitter end.

He was able to do so because, first and foremost, he is quick. He could run down so many of Rafa’s shots and send them back high and deep at times, flat and hard at others. His speed, agility, and explosive first step allowed him to change directions in the blink of an eye. His ability to counterpunch from off-balance positions produced winners for which even Rafa was not ready.

Well, I just listed a bunch of qualities about Schwarztman’s game that lack in Cilic’s. Let me be clear: Cilic is a good mover. If you hit an average drop shot for example, he has the speed to get to it and punish you. In a basic side-to-side rally, he can stay with his opponent and overpower him. His shortcomings appear if, for example, he has to quickly go outside the boundaries of the court to return a wide serve and immediately get back to the middle of the court for the next shot. Or if he has to stop and change directions during the rally when his opponent accelerates back to the same corner from which he is trying recover.

You can see two examples of these weaknesses in Cilic’s first-set tiebreaker against Pablo Carreno Busta in the last round. In the first point of the tiebreaker, the two players engage in a rally that Cilic initially dictates until Carreno hits a forehand down-the-line that changes the pattern and forces Cilic to backtrack. It momentarily puts him on his backfoot. This allows Carreno to reverse the dynamics of the rally and make Cilic chase balls. Three shots later, Carreno makes Cilic stretch out to the forehand side, far behind the baseline. Marin nets the defensive slice attempt. Another example occurs later in the 4-2 point. Carreno accelerates inside-out with his forehand, which makes Cilic stretch his long legs wide and reach with his upper body for the two-handed backhand that he ends up floating deep. Look for points like this to multiply against Nadal.

When Nadal used this type of pattern against Schwartzman – the kind that Carreno used against Cilic in the points described above – Schwartzman defended without much difficulty. He got Rafa’s shots back and did not miss a beat in recovery time. Cilic, on the other hand, will make errors, and consequently, Nadal will not feel the need to take more risks.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

So, what can Cilic do? He must concentrate on his own strengths and use them with conviction. It starts with his serve and court positioning. He has one of the biggest first serves in the ATP Tour. He must earn a large number of aces, and if the return comes back, he must take extreme risks on his forehand to control the middle of the court. He needs to flatten out his shots and basically look to hit Nadal out of the court, or at least keep him scrambling enough to the point where Rafa will not have the occasion to get set and turn the tables around in the rally. In short, Cilic will need to play big, à-la-USOpen-2014. He must either hit the winner or miss going for one. It’s a tall order. Cilic’s chances are slim at best, although it is within the realm of possibility. If he loses the first set, that realm may also disappear. I do not see Cilic winning three straight sets, or three out of four sets, against Rafa under any circumstance.

Enjoy the matches.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Prior to the start of Sunday, most tennis fans had high expectations of the fourth-round matches on the men’s side. But it was not until the end of the third set of the Nick Kyrgios vs. Andres Seppi that the excitement finally surfaced. The first two matches, Bernard Tomic vs. Tomas Berdych and Rafael Nadal vs. Kevin Anderson finished in anti-climactic fashion. You could almost write the scenario of Nadal vs. Anderson match prior to its beginning, and it remained loyal to that scenario. Anderson’s strengths played into Nadal’s hands, and baseline rallies ensued in which Rafa did everything better than his opponent, and won convincingly as expected. However, Tomic vs. Berdych could have been – should have been – handled more astutely by Tomic.

The young Aussie came into the match playing perhaps the best tennis of his career, and had the necessary skills to startle Berdych. He possesses the ability to flatten out his forehand, push his opponent around, approach the net, as well as win a slew of free points with his awkward-looking-yet-effective serve. What Tomic seems to have forgotten to do, quite stunningly for a player at his level, was to come out with a game plan. The Tomic camp overlooked one of the most underrated areas of tennis tactics: how to come out of the gates.

The match began with Tomic’s serve. From the first point on, for some odd reason, Tomic stayed at the baseline, rallied and obeyed Berydch’s plan A. The result is that Tomic made three unforced errors on the forehand, Berdych pushed him around on another rally, and broke Tomic’s serve to start the match. When the Czech followed that game with three aces of his own to go up 2-0, Tomic, again oddly, stayed the course with the same tactic of rallying at the baseline. Consequently, Berdych took a 4-0 lead in fifteen minutes. By that time, Berdych beamed with confidence, worked his monster ground strokes and served aces and service winners left and right. Tennis coaches often say “It’s better to have a bad game plan than no plan at all.” That cliché could not have been more accurate in this case. Tomic seemed to have spent the entire first set figuring out what to do next. In 27 minutes, Berdych won the set 6-2 having committed three more unforced errors (11) than Tomic (8). On paper it may raise an eyebrow, but Tomic committing less unforced errors than Berdych is a bad sign for Tomic, not for Berdych. It showed how passive Tomic played throughout the set.

The first game of the second set was indicative of what Tomic needed to do from the beginning of the match. At 15-30 serving, Tomic served a big serve and earned a short return from Berdych. Instead of rushing Berdych and coming to the net, he inexplicably contented with putting the ball back in play. Three points later at deuce, he got the same type of short ball, and this time, hit his forehand with a purpose, forcing Berdych into an error. When he held that game to go up 1-0, it looked like he finally figured out that he could not rally with the Czech from the baseline, that he needed to keep the points short and not let Berdych have the first shot at target practice during rallies. Tomic did just that in the ensuing games with renewed confidence, and Berdych began to feel the pressure. The Czech forced some shots to keep Tomic from unleashing shot after shot. It resulted in him making a number of “forced” errors, and eventually, the match leveled. Again, it was the early games of that set that established the tone.

The problem remained that Tomic now had to play catch-up, down a set. And when you play catch-up against an experienced top-10 player, there is no room for blunders and every point becomes crucial because that second set is vital to having a chance to win. Despite a much better set by Tomic, Berdych played an impeccable tiebreaker to take a 6-2 7-6 lead, effectively shutting the door on Tomic. Third set was just the countdown to the inevitable.

The lesson from this match: you must come out with a game plan. The underlying message: do not underestimate the underrated importance of the first games in any set. Regular readers and my friends have heard me say this numerous times before: sets are won or lost in the first few games. Nobody remembers the 15-30 1-0 point, or the deuce point in the first game (à la Ivan Lendl did with his computer brain), and often focus on a set point at 6-5 or the 5-5 point in the tiebreaker. Then the clichés resurface: “A point here and there on big points at late stages, and the outcome would have been different!” First question should rather be “How did it get there?” The answer often lies in the first couple of games where momentum swings occur and set the tone for the later games in the set.

The Kyrgios vs. Seppi match provided an emblematic example of this underrated aspect, for anyone that cares to remember the early points of the third set.

This match was the featured event of the night. What it lacked in quality of tennis, it made up for in excitement. The score line was dramatic, and it pitted the player who upset Roger Federer against the most exciting youngster in the ATP in front of his home crowd at the Hisense Arena. I will refrain from doing a lengthy analysis of the match (there are plenty around the web) and center on the first two games of the third set which, in my opinion, played a paramount role in the improbable comeback of Kyrgios. Once again, people will remember, the match point in the fourth set, the crucial point or two at 6-5 and 6-6 in the fifth, and talk about them. But none of that would have taken place if Seppi did not serve the first two games of the third set on a golden platter to Kyrgios.

At 7-5 6-4, Seppi had complete control of the match, and generated more winners from both sides and served more aces than Kyrgios (who would have guessed that?!?!). More importantly, his performance had quietened the crowd and seemed to sap Kyrgios’ spirit. Uncharacteristically, the Italian veteran had a let-down. Either he felt that he had the match in his pocket and relaxed, or simply lost his concentration. In any case, he played the two loosest games of his Australian Open adventure, did not move well, and lacked intensity and determination. He spat out seven unforced errors in two games, four of them coming in the second game where he got broken to give – and I don‘t use the verb ‘give’ lightly here – Kyrgios the 2-0 lead. Just like that, Kyrgios held to go up 3-0. Seppi gave Kyrgios a shot of renewed belief and energy that he masterfully sucked out of him for two sets. But Kyrgios was not the only energized. The break also galvanized the Hisense Arena fans that were desperately looking for something to cheer. They began to feed Kyrgios a steady stream of loud cheers and banging noises on the walls, seats, and anything else they could find on which to tap their hands. It is no secret that any player can feed off the crowd support. But Kyrgios is a different horse in this category. He savors the crowd; he communicates and teams up with them. He pumps them up, they pump him up! All of a sudden, Kyrgios looked determined in his demeanor. He began to pierce his groundstrokes, pressuring Seppi, and serving bigger and better. Doubts began to creep in Seppi’s mind and he began to falter on his ground strokes that have previously clicked on all cylinders.

When the first set was over, Seppi knew that this was now a much different match than the first two sets. Yes, not capitalizing on match point in the fourth set did not help. Yes, not daring to go for the short ball on Kyrgios’ return on the last point of the match did not help. Yes, Kyrgios’ improved serve in the last two sets did not help. However, none of those late “key” points were momentum changers. Everything that happened in the last three sets were the end-product of the momentum change from the first two games of the third set. Seppi had the match in his hands, did not put it away. I would argue that he had the match “in his hands” more at 7-5 6-4 than when he had the match point.

Coaches of today: spend time with your young pupils in front of the TV and make them watch professional matches from the first point to the last. More importantly, discuss and analyze as the match progresses, stimulate their minds to the importance of the early games. I see too often junior players beginning their matches with low intensity, playing the first games of the match, or even the early games of the next set, as if they were the continuation of the five-minute warm-up. They are not! Tomic and Seppi can tell you more if you run into them.

Yes, this point is important, but how did it get there? (Image: Movitec Electronics)

Note: Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the Australian Open: @MertovsTDesk

Tuesday: Australian Open Men’s Quarterfinal Previews

Lessons from the Tomic vs. Berdych and Kyrgios vs. Seppi Matches

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation