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?
David Goffin pulls the shocker, defeats Roger Federer 2-6 6-3 6-4
What constitutes a shocking upset? There are many components to it, but the three major ones in my opinion are when the match pits two players where one has clearly dominated the other in their previous encounters, it takes place on one of the favorite player’s surfaces in one of his favorite events, and it initially takes shape as expected, meaning the favorite player showcases his skills, looks unbeatable, repeats successfully the patterns seen in their previous matches, subsequently grabbing a commanding lead while the underdog seems to look helpless.
And then, the improbable (or the impossible) happens. The match turns around completely, and stays that way for an extended period of time while most people are constantly expecting at any time that it will “soon reset back to normal.” Yet, it never does. It continues to the bitter end.
This is virtually the scenario we saw today in London with Goffin and Federer. There was also the added pre-match nuance about Goffin’s condition in terms of his endurance and his knee.
Photo: AFP – Glyn Kirk
In my preview, I talked about the match-up problems that Goffin would have against Federer, which were directly the causes of his 0-6 record against the Swiss until today. Here they are:
“Firstly, his second serve is weak enough to where Federer can either attack the net and pressure Goffin behind the return, or begin running him ragged from the start of the point. Secondly, handling Federer’s serves is a puzzle that he needs to solve to have any chance to get ahead, in case he stays toe-to-toe with him in the early portions of the match. Thirdly, his up-and-down movement will have to shine, because Roger can bounce the ball high or keep it low with his slice, and David is a player that has a strong preference on where to strike the ball, which is around his hip-to-chest level.”
These took place in the first set, more or less in the way described above.
Then came the beginning of the second set.
Each of the first two games deserves a close look.
0-15 up in the first game on David’s serve, Roger misses a makeable passing shot, frames another backhand, erasing his 0-15 and 15-30 leads. Goffin, to his credit, gets his first serves in when needed and holds. Yes, there was a bit of help from Federer, but Goffin also did his part.
The second game on Federer’s serve is when we see clear signs of shift in Goffin’s approach. He begins tackling Roger’s serves with aggressiveness, at the cost of missing a few returns, in order to solve the puzzle that I mentioned as my second point in the preview above. Not much he could do on a wide serve by Federer on the first point. On the second point however, Federer hits a first serve to his comfort zone, and Goffin nails the reflex return deep to the corner – ok, a bit of a mishit may have helped, I am not sure. Federer, caught a bit by surprise, misses the the next shot, a forehand.
At 15-15 on Federer’s second serve, Goffin takes a big risk again. He steps inside the court and sends the return deep to the middle. It lands a bit out, but it’s the right play. This is what I meant by “at the cost of missing” above. It’s a typical case of doing the right thing, missing the execution.
At 30-15, same thing again! Goffin nails the return from inside the baseline, this time on Roger’s first serve. Federer is caught backing up and misses the next shot, which is also a forehand. Now it’s 30-30.
Roger serves well in the next point and wins it at the net. Now, it’s 40-30, game point for Roger.
Roger serves a second serve, and guess what? David returns aggressively again, pushing Roger back to hit a backhand that lands short, on which David attacks to the open corner. Federer misses the next shot, a forehand, again!
Notice closely what is happening here.
Goffin makes an adjustment, noticeably going fully aggressive on returns, and not only does it begin working for him, but bye then he has already pushed Federer into making three forehand errors. The consequence? Anytime a player misses three times from the same wing in a game, you better believe that a certain level of doubt begins to settle in his mind about that particular shot. Need I remind those who watched the match how Federer’s forehand went from this point forward? Well, its downfall began right here, in the second game.
(Those who do need the reminder should just watch the 1-0 game in the third, in which Roger goes up 0-30 on David’s service game with a legitimate chance to get a head start in the final set.)
At another game point for the Swiss later in the same game, an extended rally ends with, Roger missing his forehand again in the net. That error may go down as unforced error in the stats, but it is a direct result of the doubt beginning to burgeon in Federer’s mind from the three previous misses caused by Goffin’s aggressive returns. Back to deuce, still 1-0 Goffin, in the second set.
Fast forward to the third deuce. Goffin hits a direct winner on the return and now he has a break point against the man who has only lost his serve twice in the tournament. What happens in that break point? A short rally takes place in which Roger gets a short ball on his forehand, and hits a badly placed, mid-pace approach to David’s forehand who passes him cross-court. Is it a mediocre approach shot by Roger? Yes. Was it just a brain freeze? No. Did the previous four forehands missed in the game, the first three caused by David’s shift in tactics, play a role in his apprehensiveness to nail that approach shot? You bet. I believe the fear of missing that forehand contributed to the fact that Roger ended up hitting the approach shot safer than he would have otherwise done.
Goffin gets the break, goes up 2-0. The improbable turnaround has now taken off the ground, about to turn into an extended, high-altitude flight for two sets.
It does just that, with more adjustments from Goffin. He is determined to play inside the court and begins to move forward beautifully to hit the ball at his favorite height – see my third point above in the preview quote – on evry short ball hit by Roger. A great example of that is the very first point of the next game. It ends with Goffin’s swing-volley winner, set up by three aggressive shots in a row from inside the court.
The pattern has now changed. Federer is defending, Goffin attacking. For that to work, Goffin not only needs to return aggressively, but also get a lot of first serves in and “go big” on the second shot. He will do just that for the remainder of the match, and by the time he holds to confirm the break, the improbable turnaround has reached the necessary altitude and cruising.
Speaking of the second shot following the serve: see the 1-2 game in the final set. David has played, up to that point, his worst service game since the beginning of the second set. He should feel the heat, right? Nope. He stays as cool as cucumber. He presses on. He gets the first serve in, attacks on the second shot, hits the a volley winner: deuce. Next point, he gets the first serve in, attacks on the second shot, hits the volley winner: ad-in. Maybe I should have copied and pasted. Finally, a return error by Roger, and it’s 3-1. Break confirmed.
By now, Goffin is feeling it, Federer is not, probably a bit in shock himself. So were most tennis fans, I would think. Goffin rolls on his service games continuing the same pattern, all the way to the end. He continues to hit hard on returns whenever he can, but by now, holding serve has become a priority. For that to continue, getting first serves in and staying aggressive on second shots are the two components he needs. They do indeed work, his winning formula is complete. One break each set suffices.
Could Federer have made adjustments once down a break in the third? Of course, he was in a losing pattern. For example, he attempted to hit his backhand return that he has been slicing for the most part (not for the wrong reasons, it has worked in the past and in the first set) and missed it into the net to lose the game. That is what losing confidence does, and makes you less likely to try it again.
His confidence was also long gone in his two biggest weapons. As noted above, his forehand was spotty by then. Under the heat brought on by David’s returns, his first serves were no longer clicking either. While he served beautifully at 68% first serves in the first set, in the second and third set those numbers dwindled down to 57% and 59% respectively.
Conclusion: let’s give credit where credit is due. Goffin deserved to win the match. He was the better player for two sets, and the fact that Federer’s level dropped after the early break in the second set was secondary, and consequential, to what Goffin did to reverse the tide.
The Belgian facing a giant hill to climb
For the preview of the other semifinal between Grigor Dimitrov and Jack Sock, click here
David Goffin played two lop-sided matches in his last two group matches. He lost the first, won the second. One certainty is that after a grueling three-setter against Rafael Nadal in his first match, he could not have asked for a more economical duo of matches even if he ended up on the losing end in one of them.
For him to have any chance against Roger Federer, he needs to have his footwork geared up, and even in today’s seemingly routine win over Thiem, he did not appear to be at 100% in his movement. By tomorrow, hopefully for him, it will improve. It better! Or else, he is packing up his bags.
The question is, would packing up his bagsy necessarily be a bad thing for him? Consider that he is one week away from playing his first match, a five-setter need I remind, at the Davis Cup finals in Lille, France. The Belgian tennis fans might not think it would be. But what does Goffin think? I tend to believe that top professionals in our sport would give 100% in an event like the ATP World Tour Finals, regardless of what awaits the week after.
Photo: Getty – Julian Finney
I do, however, believe that if Federer gets a head start and wins the first set, the subconscious may create a few dents in the professionalism of David, in the sense that the will to fight and to climb back into the match may not be as intense, since something even more intense is approaching fast – and yes, Davis Cup is a more intense experience for a player than any other event.
The bad news for Goffin is that getting a head start is a trademark of Federer. He has won Basel, and remained undefeated so far in London, without playing at his top level. You can, on the other hand, see his desire to win, his will to achieve perfection.
Everyone knows that this tournament means a lot to him. On numerous occasions, he has explicitly stated that winning the ATP World Tour Finals is a priority for him, ranking right behind the Majors. His drive will insure that, even if he does not perform at his best, his mind will stay sharp. He will put forth what is necessary to turn the match in his favor. “Efficiency” will be the key term for him, as it was in his win over Zverev on Tuesday. His top-level form may not even be necessary.
Furthermore, there are match-up problems here for David, above and beyond the psychological weight of having an 0-6 record against the Swiss.
Firstly, his second serve is weak enough to where Federer can either attack the net and pressure Goffin behind the return, or begin running him ragged from the start of the point. Secondly, handling Federer’s serves is a puzzle that he needs to solve to have any chance to get ahead, in case he stays toe-to-toe with him in the early portions of the match. Thirdly, his up-and-down movement will have to shine, because Roger can bounce the ball high or keep it low with his slice, and David is a player that has a strong preference on where to strike the ball, which is around his hip-to-chest level.
Photo: Getty – Julian Finney
The longer the rallies, the better for Goffin. At his sharpest, Goffin moves side-to-side as quickly as any other player on the tour, and extended rallies are likely to favor him, if not, at least increase the chances of Federer committing errors. Again, we come back to Goffin’s endurance. Can he play the scrambling style of game throughout the match, putting in long miles on his legs, and not run empty on fuel? I do not believe so.
If Federer’s first serve is on, considering all the above factors, look for a routine straight-set affair. Otherwise, Goffin must stay on serve early in the match, just to keep it close. Let that happen first, then have Goffin manage to steal the first set, “and then we’ll talk” (as Hank says to Walter in an episode of Breaking Bad).
Grigor Dimitrov on fire, defeats a flat David Goffin 6-0 6-2
After a match like the one Dimitrov and Goffin played this morning in London, it is next to impossible to evaluate with accuracy the value of such win for the victorious side, as well as the negative effect it may have on the losing side.
Grigor should feel great for having won so convincingly. But wait, should he really after this match? David should feel bad for having gotten blown away so quickly. But wait, should he really? The circumstances surrounding this match cause the existence of those two “but wait” clauses.
Dimitrov could have played the best match of his career, yet he would not get the full credit because his opponent was (or at least appeared to be) diminished. Well, what the 6th seed from Bulgaria did was still pretty close to perfect. His footwork was stellar and that led to the display of his spectacular shot-making skills.
Photo: Getty – Julian Finney
Grigor Bulgaria generated power on his serve and returns, varied the pace and the spin on his backhand at will, and nailed winners with his forehand every time he had a chance to step in the court. As the icing on the cake, he won several points at the net, looking impressive not only because of his sound volleying technique, but also because of how quickly he was closing into the net whenever he sensed that Dominic was in trouble and about to float the ball back in the court.
You need examples of Dimitrov’s all-around skills working to perfection? Look no further than the two game points he won in the second and third games of the match.
At 1-0, 15-40 up on David’s serve, Dimitrov hit an aggressive return, a low backhand slice, two backhand heavy topspins, a dazzling forehand counter-punch shot on the full run that put David on defense, a slice approach shot, and a high-degree-of-difficulty drop-volley that force David into an error.
Footwork, defense, offense, transition, wrist control, you name it, Grigor had it. He enjoyed it too, yelling a loud “Come oooon!” that you could hear over the cheers and claps of the spectators.
Next, game 2-0, 40-15 on his serve, he went on full offense, imprisoning Goffin to the add corner with a trio of stifling forehands, each time pushing him further wide and back, and running lightning fast to the net after the third one to catch the ball in the air and put the forehand volley away to the open court.
These two points were part of a doozy set of three first games by Dimitrov during which he showed all the signs of a determined player with a purpose. Notice that at 3-0, Goffin did not have the body language of a defeated player, or even a diminished one. He was simply outplayed for three games.
Photo: AFP – Glyn Kirk
I would argue that Goffin began feeling the after effects of his fatigue from his previous match – or is he injured? We will not know for sure anytime soon – only after the reality of having to fight another long battle to overcome a player on top of his game has set in. Those three games were a large part of that reality setting in.
The last straw came when he had a chance to hold serve on an advantage point in the next game.
In that point, and I would call it the best point of the match, it seemed like Dimitrov made Goffin run the five-mile marathon at high speeds following a 22-shot rally that ended with an exquisite drop shot half-volley at the net, leaving Goffin visibly breathing hard. Goffin was so exhausted that he double faulted the next point. He eventually lost that 16-point-long service game that lasted 8 minutes and 15 seconds.
The curtains closed on David at 4-0, he never recovered. That was the moment after which he began feeling the fatigue, his shoulders slumped, and appeared to have very little fight left in him.
So, what is next for both of these players?
Photo: Getty – Julian Finney
Grigor has now qualified for the semifinals and will face either Jack Sock or Alexander Zverev. Should he feel confident? Yes. Does he look as sharp physically as (or sharper than) anyone else in the tournament? Yes. Is he good enough to win the tournament? Possibly, certain within the realm of possibilities, and it’s not like there are many possibilities here. What would this title mean to his career if he were to win? A whole lot! Hard to express in words, and if he really were to win it, I believe he would also find it hard to express after the match.
Goffin says he did not lose the match because of a physical ailment and gave all the credit to Dimitrov. Did we expect anything less from one of the nicest guys on the ATP Tour? I don’t believe so, even though most of us saw it differently on the court. He was either tired, or injured, or both. I would take the first over the next two, but also give credit to Grigor’s tennis in the early going for aggravating David’s problems.
David still has a decent chance to make it to the semis if he defeats Dominic Thiem on Friday. I am not so sure how many Belgians around the world will cheer for him in that match. Davis Cup finals against France and the prospect of playing a best-of-five-set match for his country loom large for Goffin, precisely one week from Friday.
Grigor Dimitrov def. Dominic Thiem 6-3 5-7 7-5
Two weeks ago, in a podcast hosted by Tennis Accent, when the discussion centered on Dominic Thiem, I spent a few minutes drawing a comparison between him and Grigor Dimitrov. I maintained that Dimitrov has better on-court instincts than Thiem does, and consequently, makes better decisions during points than the Austrian does. When Thiem makes errors, they can often be due to bad decisions whereas when Dimitrov makes them, it’s usually because he simply missed the execution although he chose the right shot.
Little did I know that they would face each other thirteen days later in the ATP World Tour Finals. Having now seen them play for the third time this year, and with all three matches going to the final set, I stand even more firmly behind what I said.
As far as today’s match is concerned, I realize that most people remember the last couple of games better than any other part of the match. Thus, they remember Dimitrov getting tight and struggling to close out the match at the end. That is certainly (but only partly) true. To make that, however, the principal theme of one’s after-match thoughts on the winning player would be incomplete. Let’s look instead at the complete picture.
Photo: AFP – Glyn Kirk
Neither player performed particularly well or dominated the match at any moment, even though there were plenty of shot-making on both sides.
There was however only one player who had a firm game plan in which he believed. That same player insisted relentlessly on taking the initiative during points in order to execute that plan that he and his team designed specifically for this match. That same player believed in that plan with such clarity that he was willing to accept the minor setbacks caused by occasional errors but not let them deter him from achieving his goal. He and his team probably believed that in the long run the cumulative effects of their plan would tilt the outcome in his favor. That proactive player’s name was Dimitrov.
Then, there was the other player. His plan was like the one he had used in most of his past matches regardless of the surface. He had stuck to his strengths that were enough against most players that he faced. He was not going to be proactive like his opponent, instead he would adjust if his opponent happened to get the lead. That reactive player’s name was Thiem.
Let me illustrate the difference I described above with some examples.
The match began on Dimitrov’s serve. On the first point, Dimitrov got a solid first serve in, Thiem responded with a rather short ball to the middle of the court. Dimitrov went for the inside-out forehand winner and missed by a couple of inches.
Two points later, at 15-15, another solid first serve, another short return by Dominic to the middle (albeit a bit shorter this time), another inside-out forehand winner attempt by Grigor, this time successful. Missing that same shot on the first point made no difference. No hesitation on the footwork, no holding back on the speed of the swing. That first point would not be the only time he missed the second part of the 1-2 punch (see the 1-1, 15-0 point), but he obviously believed in that tactic enough to stick with it from the beginning to the end.
Later in that first game at 40-30, we saw the first rally of the match. Dimitrov kept rallying deep until he got a ball that gave him just enough time to wind up for a big backhand. He flattened it out for a powerful down-the-line for winner to take a 1-0 lead.
First game made his plan was clear to everyone. He was going to look to push Thiem around, put him on his backfoot and use the court’s speed in order to press Thiem who needed some time to prepare his big backswings to launch his groundies.
The 1-2 punch behind the first serve and the flat backhand down-the-line accelerations were two of the many components of that plan. Another major one was to step in on Thiem’s second serves and unleash on returns. He was also determined to approach the net anytime he stretched his opponent on the run or got a short ball to move forward.
Not every component had to work perfectly. Errors were allowed and expected. Not every component needed to end with a point won either because there was another player on the other side of the net, a skilled one at that. The goal was to make the components work as an ensemble often enough to collect most of the points. Hopefully, after some time, Thiem would feel the urgency to make adjustments beyond his comfort zone, and as a result, commit more errors.
Thiem relied on big swings to generate pace and on direct points from first serves.
That was enough to hold a couple of times, but serving at 2-3, it began to fall apart. Leading 15-0, Thiem ran down a cross-court backhand by Dimitrov and floated it back in the court. Dimitrov quickly ran to the net, caught it in the air, and finished the volley. Chalk one up for Dimitrov’s plan.
At 15-15, Dimitrov hit a low, slice backhand return, deep to the middle of the court. Thiem had no plan, no idea what to do with the ball, except aimlessly swing a heavy spin forehand to Grigor’s deuce side. From the ankle level, slightly behind the baseline, on a sliding, low ball, a hard spin ball to the opponent’s strength should have been Thiem’s last choice. Yet, he hit that shot, missed it, and went down 15-30.
Chalk one up for Thiem’s bad decision-making.
At 15-30, Thiem double-faulted. You can simply blame Thiem, or do like Paul Annacone did on the Tennis Channel and give credit to Dimitrov for consistently stepping inside the baseline and unleashing on returns, thus pressing Thiem into a risky second serve. I chalk one up for a combination of both because while I agree with Annacone, I cannot pretend that a player should get zero blame for double faulting. Not for double faults.
Regardless, Dimitrov now had two break points.
On the second break point, Dimitrov again got a slice return in, this time a bit shorter than at 15-15, and what did Thiem do? He attempted exactly the same shot as the one at 15-15, and missed it long, again!
Even if that shot landed in, it would not have been a winner. In fact, Dimitrov would have gotten it back without much problem because it was to his stronger forehand side and he was already there. Once again, there was no reason to hit that low-percentage, high-velocity shot on a heavy slice ball that bounced no higher than the knee level, unless he aimed it to the open court for a winner.
Bad decisions by Thiem, clarity and purpose from Dimitrov.
Dominic sailing aimlessly, Grigor following his plan.
There is the difference that I noted above between these two players.
On the scoreboard, it meant a break for Dimitrov, 4-2. He would go on to win the first set 6-3.
Thiem eventually turned it around in the second, largely thanks to keeping his balls deeper, and more to Dimitrov’s backhand. When short-ball opportunities became rare, Dimitrov began rushing, taking unnecessary risks, and eventually losing the second set 7-5 on three straight errors on his service game.
Photo: AFP – Glyn Kirk
When Dimitrov was serving at 0-1, 0-15, in the final set, his prospects looked grim. He had just played his two worst games of the match and needed to stop the slide. He had gotten away from one particular component of his plan, which was to approach the net when the opportunity presented itself. He had passed on some of those chances in the last several games. Solid serves came to his rescue and he held for 1-1. Balance was restored, as well as his confidence.
Dimitrov, looking more and more positive as the final set progressed, finally broke Thiem in the seventh game and served for the match at 5-4.
That is when one of the most disastrous sequences any player can face took place.
With Dimitrov two points away from the match at 30-15, Thiem’s return landed clearly deep. Grigor even stopped his feet momentarily, after hitting the ball back. Yet, there was no call (replays showed that it was clearly out). Dimitrov realized that and continued the point.
It turned into a long rally in which Thiem approached the net on a cross-court shot, right to Grigor’s forehand – yes, another terrible decision by Dominic. Dimitrov simply needed to hit a mid-pace forehand down-the-line to passing shot to the open court. He didn’t hit it accurately enough, and not with enough speed. Thiem got to the ball and won the point.
Dimitrov should have won that point at two different times and hold two match points on his racket at 40-15. Instead, it was 30-30. First the umpire betrayed him, then his own apprehensiveness, within the same point.
At 30-30, Dimitrov hit a forehand inside-out that bounced off the net and landed conveniently for Thiem in the mid-court. He put it away with his backhand. It was now 30-40, break point for Thiem. Dimitrov ended this dreadful turn of events with a framed backhand that sailed wide.
In a matter of two minutes Dimitrov went from staring at the finish line at 5-4 30-15 to a neck-to-neck race at 5-5. It all happened in less than two minutes, because of some combination of a horrendous non-call, bad luck, and his own gagging.
This is where I come back to what I said in the beginning of my recap.
Most people will only remember the two successive double faults by Thiem to lose that next 5-5 game. Thus, they will claim that it was thanks to Dominic that Dimitrov got over the disappointment of losing his serve at 5-4, got the break again, and eventually won the final set 7-5. Because, well, “Dimitrov can’t finish.” Why in quotation marks? Because that is what the complicated sequence of three points described above will be reduced to: “Dimitrov can’t finish.”
They will also ignore how Dimitrov got to 0-30 in that 5-5 game before Thiem double faulted. They will not remember the great defense by Grigor on the first point, and the forehand lunging return he hit on a terrific first serve by Thiem on the second point (even though Thiem should not have missed the next shot).
More importantly, they will forget that Grigor played those two points, virtually less than a minute after the disastrous three-point sequence I described above. Many players would have lost their cool and never keep their resolve the way Dimitrov did, immediately following such a disappointing 2-minute-long sequence.
So, yes, Thiem did help Dimitrov with those two double faults and even an error at deuce on the 6-5 game. Yes, Dimitrov did have “some” trouble closing out the match. Just like he deserves “some” credit for the win.
In fact, he thoroughly deserved to win the match, because not only was he the more determined player with clear plan as I noted above, but also because he knew how to persevere and quickly put behind a forgettable plot twist at a crucial moment late in the final set.
In his post-match interview on the court, Dimitrov showed self-awareness, admitting that he was “pretty nervous in [his] first match out here.” When asked about those 5-4 and 5-5 games, Dimitrov had a few sentences to say, something that sounded like “You fail and you get back up again” and something else about how to “manage to switch it that fast around.”
Sorry I can’t remember the exact quote.
But, you get the idea…
Grigor certainly does…
The bottom half of the men’s draw at the Australian Open has opened up after Denis Istomin’s shocking upset of Novak Djokovic. On the women’s side, the two favorites in the bottom half of the draw, Serena Williams and Karolina Pliskova, are still going but there are plenty of new names raising eyebrows. After three rounds, we have a clearer idea of the players’ forms and physical conditions and that adds a new dimension to the discussion of how that will carry into the scoreboard. In fact, some of the matches have become question marks precisely because some in-form players, exceeding expectations. Isn’t that what makes tennis fun anyway? The challenge to sort through the unknowns and to bring some sense into the complicated equation that entails what may happen when two players walk into the court, is the ultimate “fun” exercise for all tennis fans and experts alike. Having said that, let’s take a look at three men’s matches and one women’s match from the bottom halves of the draw that will take place on Monday.
Dominic Thiem (8) – David Goffin (11)
In his last-round encounter against Benoit Paire, Thiem experienced some shoulder pain. Not knowing how that may carry over to the next match, I will leave that out of this analysis. I do know, however that Thiem’s game is not at the high level that it was last year around this time. His only chance to gain some ground in this match rests on his ability to pull a Rafa-like (or Gael-like) performance, meaning scramble a lot from the baseline, put a large number of balls back in play from defensive positions, and force Goffin into taking more risks in order to earn some errors from the Belgian. Equally, he will have to play a high percentage of first serves in, because Goffin will jump on Dominic’s second serve, as he did in last year’s Australian Open when the two played each other in the third round (Goffin won in four sets).
Thiem will also need to use his backhand slice in abundance. Goffin likes to take balls early in the bounce and use that speed to generate more velocity for his hard and flat, agressive shots. If Thiem keeps the balls low with his slice, that should negate some of Goffin’s advantage in the rallies. On low balls, Goffin will either need to use his wrist more topspin or respond with a slice of his own which should relieve some of the pressure on Thiem. On his second serve, I expect Thiem to mix in the slice more frequently than he usually does in order to, again, keep the balls low and not allow Goffin to take charge from the first shot in the rally like he would if Thiem simply used the kick on his second serve. Neither player is, for the lack of a better term, a “head case,” therefore I don’t expect them to lose discipline. Thus, the score is likley to be determined by tactical adjustments that the two of them will make as the match progresses. Although he is the lower-ranked player, I see Goffin being one step ahead as they step on the court.
Gaël Monfils (6) – Rafael Nadal (9)
There is not much to say for this encounter. On any surface, in any city, and in any condition, Rafa would walk on the court as the clear favorite against the flashy Frenchman. Gaël’s refusal to add an attacking – a forward – dimension to his game for over a decade, his insistence to camp out three or four meters behind the baseline and retrieve balls, and the fact that considering his existing game he will face an opponent that does everything little better than he does, infinitely limit his chances to record a win against Nadal.
Let’s push the envelope as far we can for a moment. Let’s use the convenient “you never know in tennis” platitude and let’s add the endurance factor remembering that Nadal played a grueling five-setter against the young Alexander Zverev two days earlier. Let’s also assume for a second that Monfils overachieves from the baseline, serves a ton of aces, and steals the first set. Then, only then, he could possibly have a chance if Rafa shows signs of wear and tear. Yes, it’s a reach, I know! In reality, here is what should normally happen: (1) Gaël running himself ragged from one corner to the other, hopelessly waiting for Rafa to make an error, (2) Rafa clicking on all cylinders and winning practically all the rallies that extend beyond 15 shots while his opponent dazzles the crowd with his athleticism on one or two meaningless points and (3) Gaël constantly bending down to pull his shoe tongues or to tie his laces, and breathing deeply to recover from the preceding point. Just for the sake of tennis fans, I hope Gaël can prove me wrong and at least win the first set to make it interesting.
Grigor Dimitrov (15) – Denis Istomin
Few months ago, this would have been a tough match to predict. If it were two years ago, it would have been an easy one to predict. Now, on the other hand, both players are coming into this match with confidence, playing their best tennis in a while. In his three matches, Denis stayed on the court 10 hours and 49 minutes and played 14 sets. In comparison, Grigor played only 10 sets and spent more than four hours less (6:39) on the court than Istomin. Dimitrov should have the fresher legs when they step on the court for the match.
Dimitrov’s chances should greatly increase if he moves well from the start, because it will allow him to immediately start using the great variety of shots in his arsenal. If that’s the case, Istomin will be covering a lot of court space early and likely struggle with endurance in the later stages of the match. Nevertheless, there are a few positives to Istomin’s game in this match-up. His brand of tennis, featuring deep and flat shots that carry weight, and his remarkable ability to accelerate down-the-line shots on both sides should take Dimitrov out of his comfort zone. Unlike Gasquet, Dimitrov’s previous-round victim who plays with variety and spin, Istomin will drive the balls flat and deep without giving Grigor any angles to work with.
From 2014, Cincinnati
However, Dimitrov did not just beat Gasquet, he dominated him. If his level does not go down, he should still be the favorite to win this match and could go to the semifinals and further. I am also sure that, other players who are in that half of the draw, having seen Dimitrov’s form of late and his drubbing of Gasquet, will wish deep down that Istomin can pull yet another upset. Istomin must absolutely win the first serve to have chance.
Johanna Konta (9) – Ekaterina Makarova (30)
I am sure many readers, especially if they had seen Konta’s thrashing (there is no other word for what happened) of Caroline Wozniacki in the previous round, are giving the edge to Konta and maybe they are right. Yet, as much as some experts may now claim that Konta even has a chance to take the title, I believe that Makarova has the tools to halt the relentless Konta train. Wozniacki was stuck playing defense, scrambling to get Konta’s shots back for most of the match. It should be a different pattern against Makarova. The Russian has the capacity to send Konta’s high-octane balls back with the same pace and should not allow the Brit to get too many looks at shoulder-length, high-bouncing balls that she received from Caro on Thursday. Makarova’s balls will stay low and deep, forcing Konta to hit balls at knee level or below, and keeping her behind the baseline more than she had to in her previous rounds. I should also mention that Makarova can make use of angles and carry her opponents off the court’s outside lines. The Russian could end up controlling a number of rallies this way, putting Konta in the unfamiliar position of being pushed around. Then, there is also Makarova’s lefty serve with which she is able to hit all corners, especially the wide one on the ad court that would force Konta to hit a backhand from outside the court, just to start the rally. In return, Konta can also win a bunch of free points with her powerful serve. So, first-serve percentage is likley to be a key factor in the match.
At the end of the day, I believe it will be Konta’s level of play and decisions during points that will ultimately determine the outcome. Let’s not forget to mention the endurance factor for both players. Makarova spent a lot of effort in taking Dominika Cibulkova out in 2 hours and 53 minutes, so it will be interesting to see how fresh her legs will feel. Konta, for her part, has played twelve matches in twenty days in three different cities, and one can’t help but wonder if that will catch up to her at any given moment in Melbourne. Last but not the least, Makarova has consistently performed well at Majors. I lean toward the Russian to pull the upset in this match.
Until next time, take care everyone and enjoy the tennis.