Tag: Denis Shapovalov

Australian Open 3rd Round Match Report: Two Matches, Two Lessons

ATP & WTA Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Félix Auger-Aliassime (20) def. Denis Shapovalov (11) 7-5 7-5 6-3
Quality Plan A, recognition, poise!

I always underline the value of drawing up a good game plan before players step on the court, so I cannot help but wish I were a fly on the wall and listened in as Félix Auger-Aliassime and his team plotted the nuts and bolts of his strategy earlier on Friday over his upcoming match against his compatriot Denis Shapovalov.

Félix’s impeccable tactics led the way to earning him one of the most impressive wins of his career, a 7-5 7-5 6-3 victory over Denis, in a match that not only showcased his brilliant talent, but also his poise between the ears.

The first two sets were alike, with Denis going ahead by an early break, but Félix coming back to win each set 7-5. More than how the scoreline progressed, it’s rather the way in which Félix navigated the highs and lows at various points of the match and remained loyal to his working plan that proved top-notch. The latter consisted of sending the returns and the second shot in rallies deep, while avoiding taking unnecessary risks (read: not going for the lines, just deep to the middle of the court). The idea, I presume, was to establish early an equal footing in baseline rallies, goading his opponent into hitting riskier shots to end the point. Obviously, Denis was more likely to accelerate for the winner or at least control the point to squeeze an opportunity to come to the net rather than engage on long rallies. The longer the rallies went, the more time Denis spent behind the baseline, the better were the chances of Félix earning free points or get his own chance to finish the point.

To be fair, Shapovalov is a favorable match up, in my view, for Auger-Aliassime who has been frustrated in the past by players who count on consistency and keep a steady flow of deep balls coming back at him, thus not allowing Félix to dictate rallies (see this match report from 2020 Roland Garros for more on this). Shapovalov is not that type of player. He prefers to attempt winners from behind the baseline, make or miss, before most rallies reach 12 or 13 shots. I gather that Félix’s plan counted on him keeping the balls deep, not going for the lines too early, but still taking his chances when the opportunity presented itself (after all, it’s not like Félix is a “defensive” player either). It worked to perfection.

Auger-Aliassime seemed to recognize his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and that it was not going to be a perfect match from the first point to the last, even if he gets the lead in the scoreboard. Remaining focused on the task was the key to his success. Anyone who closely observed his body language throughout the match would probably agree that he passed the “focus” test with flying colors. He was tuned in, never showing exaggerated emotions, always keeping eyes on the ball, on his racket, or on the court.

The only bad patch for Félix took place early in the second set. With him leading 1-0, and 0-30 on Shapovalov’s serve, he had a chance to run away with the second set because Denis was just coming off a badly lost point at the end of which he went on a rant to his box and looked quite lost. Instead, Auger-Aliassime committed two unforced errors in a row to allow his opponent back into the game and reenter the match mentally. Denis took advantage with conviction, going on a positive stretch, lading a lot of returns in the court and putting some serious heat on his groundies to roll to a 4-2 lead (Félix’s two missed approach shots in the 2-2 game also played a role).

The reality is, as much as people constantly refer to both Shapovalov and Auger-Aliassime as “youngsters” and speak of their “growing pains,” these guys are, frankly, way beyond their ages in terms of maturity. They are not fragile youngsters like many other 20 and 21-year-olds. And in my view, they handle themselves well in the face of adversity during matches and know to evaluate matches with clarity. I would advise the casual tennis fan to listen to podcasts featuring either of these two “up-and-comers” or catch one of their post-match press conferences to witness for themselves the coherence of their thought process.

The above is a central part of the reason why, for example, Shapovalov knew to take advantage of Félix’s momentary blink at 0-1, 0-30 down, and it’s also why Auger-Aliassime did not fall apart after finding himself down 4-2 instead of running away with the set 15 minutes earlier. Auger-Aliassime’s body language looked no different at that point than it did earlier when he had the lead. Equally, watch Denis at 4-5 in the second set, how well he plays that game to stay in the set under pressure, shaking off the disappointment of losing the break minutes ago and finding himself in a position to hold, just to survive.

It was Auger-Aliassime finally ripping the 12th game away from Shapovalov to go up by two sets, rather than Denis giving it away. Félix, sticking to his plan, hit multiple returns back in the court deep, including in the last two points (his return on set point to the corner was exceptional, the more typical return he hit most of the match was in the point before at 30-30).

Auger-Aliassime’s gameplan reduced Shapovalov’s chances of winning points to mainly hitting great first serves or producing non-stop winners (read: taking more risks, even by his own standards). Needless to say, that is a big ask against a player as fast as Félix. Denis did not quit by any means but Félix, overflowing with confidence, was by then stroking freely and hardly making any errors. The way he protected the early break lead and shut the curtains on Shapovalov with four terrific serves served as an apt summary of the match.

The Canadian’s next-round opponent is Aslan Karatsev. It’s another opponent against whom Auger-Aliassime will not have to resort to long rallies, so a similar game plan may possibly work again. Except… have you watched Karatsev?** He can nail winners from anywhere on the court but don’t take my word for it. Watch the replay of his matches this week, especially how helpless he made Schwartzman look at times even though the Argentine is one of the better baseliners in the game.

** Popular question, it seems, all of a sudden.

Remember when Yannick Noah entered the court to console a very young Auger-Aliassime in 2016 following his heartbreaking loss to Geoffrey Blancaneaux in the finals of Roland Garros juniors?

Karolina Muchova (25) def. Karolina Muchova (6) 7-5 7-5
Scoreboard and self-awareness!

Considering their last thriller at Wimbledon in 2019 (13-11 in the final set), this match between two friends who know each other’s game like the back of their hands promised much intrigue. In the first set, neither player put out high-quality performances (Muchova admitted after the match that she came out nervous and thought that maybe her opponent did too). It was a patchy set, with good and bad moments. The difference was on serves, with Muchova giving a clinic on clutch first serves in the latter part of the set, starting with the break point save at 3-4, 30-40. Pliskova, for her part, was not getting the free points from her serves like she usually does and sputtered five double faults, the last one coming on break point down at 5-5.

Pliskova was frustrated and took it out on her rackets, smashing one in the 5-6 game, and another one in the tunnel when she took a break before the start of the second set. That put her down 0-15 to start the second set on a point penalty. Note: I admit, I had no idea that you could be penalized for racket abuse in the tunnel, away from the court. The official who accompanied her reported the infraction to the chair umpire who announced it and slapped the point penalty. Pliskova thought she could “do what [I] want off court.” Apparently not!

Perhaps, that helped her shake the negative vibes out, because she came out smashing her baseline shots, and more importantly, suddenly reading Muchova’s serves like an open book. At one point, Muchova’s points won on second serves dipped to the 20% range and she was not faring much better on her first serves. Pliskova, on a roll, overpowered her way to a 5-0 lead.

Lesson time here…With Karolina Muchova as your instructor…

Muchova came out of the 0-5 break sprinting to the baseline for the first point, as if she were getting ready to play a decisive tiebreaker. After she won the first point, she made a big fist pump, acting as if she got the mini-break lead in that tiebreaker. Why so pumped up out of nowhere at 0-5 down? I am fairly certain that it was not necessarily because she firmly believed, at that point, in her chances to come back from 0-5 down and win the set.

It was rather because she understood the importance of starting the third set with her serve, thus the urgency to hold for 1-5. And if she happened to win the next game to get one break back, that much better. It would mean that she clawed her way back into the match game-wise – and mentally – and be primed for the third, even if she were to lose the second set.

Well, she did indeed get the break and hold for 3-5, and more. So, in retrospect, what may have appeared an exaggerated display of emotional positivity considering the 0-5 score not only served its purpose – halting Pliskova’s roll on the scoreboard and dominance in rally patterns –, but also led to perhaps the most riveting comeback in a set in this tournament so far.

By the time Muchova got in position to level the set at 5-5 on her serve, she was dialed in, pulling off stellar shots on big points. Case in point number one, Pliskova had a last glimmer of hope to close the set out at 4-5, 30-40 on Muchova’s serve, and Muchova erased it with high-velocity first serve to the “T.” Case in point number two at 5-5, with Pliskova serving at 40-30, Muchova showed her underrated footwork to reach Pliskova’s drop shot and placed a sharp-angled placement shot on the full run (this is harder to do than she made it look, easier to rip one on the full run than “caressing” the ball to place it).

Muchova broke her opponent’s serve and held to end the match. The last two games were contested and while Muchova missed a couple of makeable approach shots, she more than made up for it with her anticipation on returns, winner production, and overall aggressive play (propelled by confidence originating in that 0-5 game). The rally patterns late in the set were the reverse of those seen in the first five games with Muchova being the aggressor this time.

She will next face the winner of the match between Belinda Bencic and Elise Mertens.

Note: For those interested, you can also find my match report on Muchova’s previous-round win over Mona Berthel by clicking here.

Muchova at the Australian Open 2020 — Photo: Getty Images, AsiaPac

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

US Open Men’s Preview: Anyone (non-Big 3) Ready to Step Forward?

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

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?

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Shapovalov’s “Dream Come True” Moment Is Here

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

Don’t shoot the messenger! I am only quoting in the title what Denis Shapovalov said right after defeating Frances Tiafoe 6-7 6-4 6-2 on Thursday night at the Miami Open and earning the right to play Roger Federer in the semifinals on Friday. He also said: “I’ve been looking forward to this matchup, I think, my whole life.”

If you are a Shapovalov fan, you are probably feeling somewhere between happy and ecstatic, with good reason! Your player just won his second impressive match in a row, showing improvements not only in his game but in his mental fortitude. You can read my post-match report – click here – on his victory over Stefanos Tsitsipas on Tuesday, in what I believe to be the most thrilling match of the tournament so far on the men’s side. It was a shot-making festival of sorts, with each player responding to the challenges raised by the other, culminating in an electrifying final set that went to a tiebreaker.

Shapovalov in action at the 2018 Western & Southern Open
Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images North America

Thursday’s match against Tiafoe was a slightly different type of conquest for Shapovalov in texture and content. As far as fans of Denis are concerned, the satisfying (or nerve-wrecking) part of this win is that the Canadian came out on top despite not performing nearly as well as he did on Tuesday. In fact, he blew a number of chances that turned out to be costly. Yet, he knew how to quickly stack those disappointing moments to the back of his head (probably to be revisited at a later point) and keep a clear vision on the target in front. When time arrived to ultimately grab the decisive lead, he did not flinch.

The first set was a straight-forward and entertaining affair, in that players dominated their service games not because they hit a slew of aces, but rather because they served efficiently by keeping high percentage on their their first serves and picking the right spots to hit in the service box. Simply put, if you wanted to argue that a server can cruise through his service games without striking ace after ace, the first set needed to be your exhibit A. Shapovalov served at 61% first serves with only two aces, and Tiafoe at 61% with three. Neither even came close to facing a break point until the last two games prior to the tiebreaker (one in each). Both players enjoyed a high success rate at the net until the tiebreaker, with Denis winning five out of six points in which he decided to approach the net, Frances four out of five**.

**Clarification: I count as “approach” any point at which the player decides to come to the net behind a strong shot. I include it in my count even if the opponent misses the next shot and he wins the point without hitting a volley. It’s the pressure applied to the opponent by coming forward that counts.

A key moment came when Tiafoe had a break-point chance at 5-5 and Shapovalov saved it with an ace (one of two in the set for him). In the very next game, he was the one with the break-point opportunity which also meant a set point at 6-5. Denis hit a routine forehand wide, a disappointing unforced error at an inopportune time. He was not even going for a winner. It was a loopy, topspin forehand aimed to Tiafoe’s backhand. Considering his style, one can wonder if Shapovalov would have been more likely to hit the ball in the court, had he unleashed on that forehand for a winner instead of going conservative.

Another disappointing moment came shortly after when Tiafoe led 3-2 in the tiebreaker and Shapovalov had another routine forehand from almost the exact same position as the one he missed on set point. This time, he struck it hard to the other corner for a winner and missed it badly. So, back to the question above, but in reverse: would he have avoided the error had he been more reserved and not gone for a flashy winner? You see how comfortable things can be in the peanut gallery?

The only valid answer to either of the questions above: it’s easy to theorize in retrospect.

That being said, there was nothing ambiguous about Denis’s third disappointing moment of the set. At 4-5 in the tiebreaker, Tiafoe hit a dismal drop shot that bounced high. Shapovalov got there without too much trouble and line up for a forehand. The deuce corner on Tiafoe’s side was wide open and Denis went there, but sailed it deep. Suddenly, he was down two set points. On the second set point, Tiafoe hit a spectacular backhand return smack to the baseline, one that the Canadian could not send back over the net.

Speaking of Tiafoe, I am deeply in awe of how much he has improved his overall game. Angles, he can hit. Drop shots, he can place. Volleys, he can put away. Returns, well, just see the set point. Add to the mix his ground strokes that have, over the last couple of years, upgraded in terms of velocity and accuracy, and you have a young player that has as much potential as the rest of the exciting up-and-comers making noise so far this year.

Tiafoe during the 2019 Australian Open
Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty Images AsiaPac

When Frances went up 1-0 in the second and led 0-15 on Denis’s serve, thanks to a stellar forehand passing shot he hit on the run (and may I add, one hit with a semi-continental grip, thus somewhat scooped and flat), it looked as if the American was about to break free and sprint to the finish line.

Down 0-1, 0-15 on his serve, Shapovalov persevered. He hit four first serves in a row and quickly halted the down-slide by holding. This game also included a charming moment when he hit one of several amazing drop volleys showcased throughout the match by both. Tiafoe walked up to the net and gave him a congratulatory hand-slap. Then, Shapovalov broke his opponent’s serve for the first break of the match for either player, in a game that featured two high-octane returns by the Canadian on Tiafoe’s first serves.

Shapovalov, whose chances of winning were looking grim around 8 minutes ago, now caught fire. He hit 80% of his first serves in and won all five points on approaches during a four-game sequence that placed him at a 5-1 lead. He has two set-point chances in that game. Tiafoe saved the first one with a fine approach and a put-away volley. On the second one, Shapovalov had an easy forehand to hit inside the baseline, in the middle of the court, one that he should generally put away. He missed it in the net and Tiafoe held serve.

Tiafoe slowly closed the gap back to 5-4, but he fell short of stopping Shapovalov from winning the second set because the Canadian did not allow the disappointment of the blown forehand on set point back at 5-1 linger in his mind. It is not a secret that Shapovalov has squandered similar leads more than once in the past couple of years. I must confess that I thought he might get tight at that point, especially when I saw him jump around at the baseline trying to remain concentrated in the moment while Tiafoe was getting medical treatment during the extended 5-4 changeover.

Once again, Shapovalov did not falter. He started the game with two effective 1-2 punch combinations to go up 30-0 and served an ace at 40-0 (one of his two for the set) to send the match to a final set. Just like against Tsitsipas, Shapovalov figured out a way to rise to the occasion after losing the first set, and did not have any let downs for the remainder of the match.

Tiafoe, for his part, could never recapture his form from earlier in the match. He played his worst service game at 1-1 in the final set, committing three unforced errors from the baseline to fall behind a break. Another backhand unforced error in the 2-4 game put him down by two breaks. Shapovalov closed the match out on the next game.

For the record, Shapovalov finished the match hitting 69% of first serves in, while chipping in seven aces and one double fault. At least three of his seven aces that I can remember were on clutch points (two on break points, one to save a set point). Tiafoe did not fare as well in this department, serving at 62%, with five aces and six double faults.

Let me finish with a detail that should make fans of both Shapovalov and Tiafoe happy. Denis decided to approach 32 times and won 22 of those points. Frances approached 20 times, winning 14. These are fairly solid ratios, but I was looking for something else. In the past, I have seen Shapovalov and Tiafoe hit big shots from the baseline, put their opponents on the run, yet stay back at the baseline, thus allowing the opponent to loop the ball back and recover to the middle of the court.

So, this time I paid particular attention to their decision-making when they had their opponent scrambling. I looked for points where one had the other on the run, and instead of moving forward and putting more pressure on the opponent, he stayed back. I also looked for balls that came short and allowed either of them to step inside the baseline for a set acceleration shot. If the player in question did not hit that ball with the intention of coming to the net behind, I counted that against them. For one example of what I mean, consider the 5-2, 0-30 point in the second set. Tiafoe’s return falls short in the middle of the court. Shapovalov moves inside the baseline and has a chance to strike a forehand to one of the corners and move up to the net, which is something he has successfully done numerous times in this match. For some odd reason, he stays back on that occasion and engages in a rally. He misses a backhand several shots later and Tiafoe wins the point.

By my count, there was a total of six points (four by Denis, two by Frances) where they passed on an opportunity to approach. That is a low number considering that neither player’s plan A revolves around volleying. In other words, these guys are not afraid to approach, which also means that their net skills are bound to rapidly improve. Transition game is not something you master by studying or watching. Practice drills help, but ultimately, players committed to developing their transition game understand that in order to master that skill, they must literally do it under the pressure of the scoreboard. This is why fans of these two players should be excited. This match is one example of how both Shapovalov and Tiafoe have their eyes set on becoming the best all-around players that they can be.

As for Shapovalov’s “dream-come-true” match, Federer awaits him on Friday evening, “Not Before 7:00 PM.”
Make your plans accordingly!

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Shapovalov and Tsitsipas Delight the Late-Night Crowd

ATP Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Denis Shapovalov earned a thrilling 4-6 6-3 7-6 victory over Stefanos Tsitsipas in arguably the most outstanding men’s match of the tournament so far in terms of problem-solving, mental fortitude, and shot-making quality. Despite their young age, each player reacted with remarkable maturity, multiple times throughout the match, to the challenges raised by the other.

How close was it? 200 points were played in total, 100 won by each!

Tsitsipas started well and playing almost-perfect tennis in the first seven games to a 4-3 lead and a well-deserved break, only making two unforced errors (my own count, as usual) until then. More importantly, he won every single point except one (8-1) whenever the two players engaged in baseline rallies during those seven games. In fact, by the time the set ended, Tsitsipas held a 16-3 lead in points determined by baseline rallies** with the only three points in Denis’s favor coming via clean winners on his part. Otherwise, Tsitsipas did not give an inch to Shapovalov, matching him shot-for-shot and power-for-power in every pattern once they began striking back and forth from the back of the court.

** Just to clarify, by “points determined by baseline rallies,” I don’t mean necessarily rallies that went beyond 5 or 6 shots. Therefore, the ATP’s stat of “points won in rallies of 5 shots or more” is not relevant here. I am only counting points in which both players found themselves on equal footing at the baseline at some moment during the point and needed to create an opportunity to win it, or lose it by making an error. For example, the first point of the 1-1 game in the final set won by Tsitsipas and the first point of the very next game won by Shapovalov, two examples among many, do not count although they lasted six shots or above each. That is because player A had a continuous advantage in those points starting with a strong serve and a weak return by player B, thus consisting of him dominating the point throughout, even though it may have lasted over five shots simply because player B scrambled his way to getting a few shots back before eventually succumbing. So, the 16-3 lead by Tsitsipas in my count of baseline rallies at the end of the first set firmly points to a complete domination on his part from the back of the court whenever the players engaged in what was at one point an equally leveled rally.

To turn the tide around, Denis had to take bigger risks against an error-free opponent who was outplaying him from all parts of the court. Instead, it resulted in more unforced errors from the Canadian who eventually lost the first set 6-4. He committed 15 unforced errors (plus two double faults) in that set, while Tsitsipas only chipped in eight, with no double faults. It was a set played completely on Stefanos’s terms, an unusual position for Denis to be in considering that his shot-making (or error-making) performance usually determines the outcome of his matches. In other words, Shapovalov is more accustomed to having the match on his racket, for better or worse. Yet, Tsitsipas essentially reduced him to the role of the reactive player rather than proactive one by making him chase balls and returning big, taking away his preferred 1-2 punch pattern. Shapovalov’s 55% first-serve performance did not help either, crippling his chances to set up the second shot.

What do you do as a player when the opponent takes away your options and imposes his game? (1) You fall back to your most reliable shot/pattern and, (2) you hope that your opponent slides down just enough from his sky-high level so that you can reestablish the equilibrium in the match.

Number 1 requirement centered on the need on Denis’s part to improve his first-serve percentage so that he can find opportunities to inject his favorite weapon, the 1-2 punch, into the flow of match. By the time he was up a break at 4-1 and seemed to have swung the pendulum in his favor, he had served 17 out of 18 first serves in and won a number of points by either forced return errors or winners on the second shot. Mission number one was accomplished.

As for number 2, Tsitsipas had already begun showing small signs of coming down from his heights of the first 7 games when he missed two easy forehands at 40-15 in the eighth but still held serve, and then, followed that up with two more forehand unforced errors when he served for the set at 5-4. He still did enough to pocket the first set, deservedly so, but considering that he only made one forehand unforced error until 4-3, 40-15, the four that he made since then in his last two service games caused a big enough dent in his armor to bleed over to the second set. He was noticeably more error-prone in the early part of the second, recording six unforced errors at one point compared to Shapovalov’s one. He managed to brush it off as the set progressed, finishing with still six less unforced errors than his opponent (15-9), but it was too little too late to recover from the two-break hole in which he found himself at 1-5 down.

His confidence buoyed by the stunning turn-around in his first-serve percentage (80% in the second set vs 55% in the first) and the accompanying early break, Shapovalov also reversed the trend with regard to baseline rallies. Now, he was the one running Tsitsipas around and winning the aforementioned rally points. After going 3-16 in the first set in such points, Shapovalov led Tsitsipas by three (9-6) in the second.

After the disastrous first three games, Tsitsipas recovered some of his rhythm but never found the quality level that he had in the first set again, largely because Shapovalov elevated his and put his 1-2 punch to work, enough to halt him from gaining any substantial traction on return games.

As the third set began, the task of problem-solving fell this time on Tsitsipas’s shoulders, and he certainly rose to the occasion. He started by topping his opponent’s phenomenal first-serve performance with his own whopping 82% rate in the final set (he was at 65% and 66% in the first two). Shapovalov, for his part, kept up his end of the bargain by not letting up on his serves, getting 77% of them in. Mix in the fact that both stayed in single digits in the unforced-error count and you can understand why the spectators who stayed past midnight at Grandstand, as well as the viewers who patiently remained in front of their screens, probably felt rewarded with a five-star final set featuring two extraordinary shot-makers.

It was only fitting that the match extended to a final-set tiebreaker in which, again fittingly, one player had to outplay the other to grab the decisive lead. Shapovalov broke through by the tiniest of margins when he nailed a dazzling forehand winner down-the-line on the run to grab the mini-break and lead 5-3. He closed the curtain two points later with, what else, a 1-2 punch forehand winner. He will face the American Frances Tiafoe on Thursday in the quarterfinals.

I am not a proponent of youngsters going to bed past midnight on weekdays, but if any junior tennis enthusiast decided to break the house rules for this particular match and watched it until the end, I am inclined to believe that they went to bed deeply inspired by a couple of impressive ball strikers not much older than they are.

Shapovalov in action at the 2018 Western & Southern Open
Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images North America

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Madrid ATP Semifinals: Recap

ATP Tactical Analysis No Comments

Dominic Thiem def. Kevin Anderson 6-4 6-2

There was little doubt earlier today that this top-10 encounter presented all kinds of match-up problems for the eighth-ranked Anderson, the 2017 US Open finalist. Thiem, a spot ahead of Kevin in the ATP rankings, is the steadier baseline rallier and he was getting to play on his favorite surface, as opposed to his opponent who has yet to win a title on clay courts. And frankly, Thiem’s 0-6 record vs Anderson, none played on clay, mattered little in today’s outcome.

Anderson would naturally have to rely on his serve but what was he to do on the return games? That was a question that haunted him throughout the match, one to which he could not come up with a response against Dominic who was, for his part, oozing with confidence following his upset win over Rafael Nadal one day earlier.

Anderson began the match on his serve and the expected pattern settled in early, too soon for the South African. He found it difficult to push Thiem around. Instead, the Austrian was the one striking the corners with considerable depth making Kevin scramble, a lot.

Photo: Denis Doyle – Getty Images

The 30-30 point put on display the type of rally on which Thiem built his impressive clay-court career. It lasted around twenty shots. Anderson not only got stuck three meters behind the baseline, running left and right to retrieve balls, but ended up losing it in the most discouraging way possible, with Thiem stepping inside the baseline on a short ball and smacking the inside-out forehand winner.

Anderson did save the ensuing break point thanks to a big first serve – precisely what he needed – but could not turn this nine-minute-long game in his favor. He won a point or two more on big serves but anytime Dominic got the return in and the rally began, Anderson would force the issue and make the error. His last one in the game came when he sailed a forehand deep on the third break point.

Following a comfortable hold by Thiem, Kevin trailed again (0-30) on his serve. It was clear that he needed to avoid extended baseline rallies at all cost. This is probably why he began going for big cuts on the second shot following the serve, and even served and volleyed once – which, in retrospect, he should have attempted to do more in the set than just this one time. He came back and held serve before the first set got out of control from his perspective. Nevertheless, he was still behind a break, and Thiem’s serve was clicking. He played an Anderson-like game, winning three points directly on well-placed serves, to go up 3-1 and keep the break advantage.

Instead of Anderson challenging Thiem for a break and looking to level the score, he ended up being the one to struggle on his service games. After saving two more break points at 1-3, he succeeded to stay within distance with a big service winner at deuce and a well-timed drop shot in the next one.

Unfortunately for Anderson, Thiem responded with another routine hold to go up 4-2.
Unfortunately for Anderson, this pattern would continue for the rest of the match.

Except the one anomaly at 5-4.

Something extraordinary needed to take place to cause a glitch in that pattern and it took place in that tenth game. Thiem committed a double fault at 0-15, and Kevin fired a flat and hard return – despite a bad bounce on the second serve – that forced Thiem to misfire a backhand. All of a sudden, Anderson had three break-point opportunities at 0-40.

But that is where the anomaly ended.

Kevin missed a forehand deep at 0-40, another one at 15-40, and backhand deep on the third one. “Poof” flew away his only chance to sink his teeth into the match, in a game where Thiem made only one out of eight first serves.

It would not be fair to say though that it was all due to Anderson’s missed shots. Thiem did come up with three terrific second serves in succession – from 15-40 to ad-in – that did not allow Anderson to nail the returns for winners, something he was definitely aiming to do at that point. On set point, Thiem made a first serve, his only one in the game, and completed the 1-2 punch with a forehand cross-court winner.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

It only got worse from that point forward for Anderson, beginning with a double fault to lose his serve to start the second set. It did not help either that Anderson’s first-serve percentage hovered around 50% in the second set. The pattern that I described above, score-wise and tennis-wise, for the first set continued even more blatantly. No anomalies, no glitches.

Thiem would solidify his lead with another break and oust the South African with a score of 6-4 6-2, in a comprehensively dominating performance. Now he needs to erase the one anomaly for his career. For as accomplished a clay-court player as he is, he has yet to win his first ATP-1000 title on the surface. Alexander Zverev stands in his way tomorrow.

Alexander Zverev def. Denis Shapovalov 6-4 6-1

Alexander “Sascha” Zverev is the third-ranked player in the world, already holding two ATP 1000 titles at the age of 21. Denis Shapovalov, at the age of 19, is one of the most exciting up-and-comers, the youngest top-100 member of the ATP rankings at no.43 (probably top 30 by Monday). Both are former junior champions at Majors (Sascha at the 2014 Australian Open, Denis at the 2016 Wimbledon), and experienced meteoric rises following their junior careers to eventually reach their current rankings.

Both have already recorded wins against the ATP’s elite. Both still have plenty of room for improvement.

Photo: Denis Doyle – Getty Images

On top of everything else, both play exciting brands of tennis. Zverev relies on a powerful first serve, a fundamentally sound backhand, and the ability to generate power from the baseline. Shapovalov counts on his terrific shot-making skills and overall aggressive play. Both are brave, both are athletic.

For all the above reasons and more, there was no reason why any tennis fan should not have been excited to watch these two names face each other in the semifinals of an ATP 1000 event.

Did it live up to its billing? No, it did not.

Until 4-4, each player comfortably held serve, not because they were hitting extraordinary shots – only a few, combined – but rather because their opponent would either miss the return or make an error in the next shot. The only deuce came at 2-2 on Shapovalov’s serve, but he won the next two points without much difficulty. There were not even many rallies that went beyond five shots during this stretch. The quality barometer remained inoperative because neither returning player pushed the other one to raise his level on service games.

Zverev broke through one of the best shots of the match until then, a well-placed backhand down-the-line return that Denis could not get back in the court. He did nevertheless get to that break point thanks to two unforced errors by Shapovalov, the second one coming on a framer at 30-30. That was all that the German needed as he closed out the set on his serve with a forehand winner on a 1-2 punch.

Prior to the match, we were wondering how Shapovalov would react to his forehand cross-court, one of his favorite weapons, going to Zverev’s strong side, or if Zverev would respond to Shapovalov’s power with counter-strikes or steady retrieval, or if Denis would consider coming to the net to finish some points instead of going for winners with big cuts from the baseline.

Yet, nothing that elaborate took place in the confines of the Manolo Santana Court. Instead, we got a dud first set – dud (adj.): not working or meeting standards; faulty.
It basically consisted of errors, one bland break, and only a handful points worthy of mentioning.

Contrary to the first set, the second started with a break, and marked the moment where one of the players finally elevated his level. Zverev hit two spectacular winners, both followed by pumped-up screams and fist pumps, that helped him get the definitive lead on the Canadian.

Sascha started holding his end of the bargain from that point forward, or at least, showing glimpses of his potential. Denis, for his part, never took off. He fell behind 0-4 in the blink of an eye. It was a constant drip-drip of errors that would not cease, a backhand smacked in the net here, an overhead from the top of the net framed deep there, and so on.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

The encounter was over in 58 minutes, with the final score of 6-4 6-1.

Sascha could not have asked for a better outcome in a match that began past 10 PM in Madrid. The last thing he needed was to get involved in a long battle that finishes past midnight and does not allow him enough rest time to properly get ready for tomorrow’s final. He not only avoided that, but also finished on a strong note, never mind that he was largely left unchallenged by his opponent.

As for Shapovalov, his second career semifinal in an ATP 1000 tournament resulted in a straight-set loss again, suffered at the hands of the same player (first one, Canadian Open 2017). This semifinal run on the red clay of Madrid is still a major step forward for the Denis who, I imagine, would have gladly accepted it, had it been offered prior to the tournament’s start.

All eyes now turn to tomorrow’s final, pitting two of the best baseliners in the men’s game. As a fan, I can only hope that it will be more closely contested than today’s semifinals.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Denis Shapovalov vs Sam Querrey (3rd round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

A friend of mine texted me in the beginning of this match’s deciding set and asked: “Can we please talk about Shapo’s serves?” It was a rhetorical question of course, her way of languishing in the misery of watching Denis Shapovalov, one of her favorite players, hit only 37% of his first serves in for the first set, and 32% for the second, while throwing in seven double faults for good measure.

I answered her question with another one, except mine was on a positive note: “Can we please talk about Shapo’s second serves?”

The main reason why Shapovalov was still in the match was precisely because he gave a clinic for one set on how to win points when your first serve temporarily disappears. The problem was that he was playing against a top 20 player and you can only live on your second serves for so long against that type of competition. The Canadian’s first-serve began working better in the late stages of the match, but before we get there, let us take a closer look at the first set.

Both players seemed to start with similar game plans in mind. Each knew that the other would prioritize offense over all else, but instead of focusing on defending well, they seemed to have decided that attacking furiously, early in the point, was the best defense. Making the occasional error was acceptable within this game plan, as long as the opponent did not get to win points on his terms.

Querrey began by serving big, aiming for direct points or big cuts on follow-up ground strokes if Shapovalov happened to get the return back in the court. He did make an error at 40-15, but again, that was within acceptable parameters, because he won the other points thanks to big serves or by forcing Denis into errors.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

Querrey took a big cut on the return on Shapovalov’s second serve to start the next game. Denis was ready. He set his feet quickly and sent the ball back with the same pace. Sam was caught off guard and made the error. 15-0 Shapovalov.

Sam tried another explosive return on the next point. Denis responded even better this time, nailing a spectacular winner with his backhand as he was backing up from the American’s aggressive return. 30-0 Shapovalov.

The Canadian added an ace to go up 40-0.

He followed that with a double fault, surely caused by his attempt at a risky second serve, aware of Querrey’s intention to whack the return. Querrey did go for another rocket return at 40-15, and again, Shapovalov answered the call with a solid backhand down-the-line to the open corner. Querrey did get to the ball but missed it under pressure.

The initial response to the Querrey charge succeeded.

That serving game was the best reaction Shapovalov could have put together to plant seeds of doubt in Querrey’s mind that just power alone would not be enough to oust the Canadian today.

The shift in tone carried into the next game that decided the set. Shapovalov essentially showed Querrey that he can beat the American in his own game. He turned the tables around and went for bazookas on returns, just like the American tried to do in the previous game. At 40-30, he punished Sam’s second serve two points in a row with big forehand returns. Sam saved that break point. Later in the game, on another deuce, Shapovalov went for another big cut on a backhand return that landed on the baseline. Querrey barely got it back and Shapovalov put the forehand away, earning his third break point. He finally got the break on another huge forehand return, this time for a clean winner.

When Shapovalov held serve easily to confirm the break and go up 3-1, Querrey was facing an unpleasant reality. He came out with what he thought was a good plan. It worked in the first game. Then, Denis essentially said, “not so fast Sam.” He turned the challenge around and threw it back at Sam. And precisely where Denis had the answers, Sam did not.

Whereas Shapovalov quickly adjusted to handling Querrey’s monster-return tactic in the second game of the match, Querrey could not handle Shapovalov’s big returns in the following game. That is because Querrey’s legs are not as agile as Shapovalov’s and do not react as quickly to an offensive shot.

Whereas Shapovalov needed one game in which the American had to largely resort to second serves to go up a break, Querrey could not break Shapovalov’s serve all set long, even though the Canadian played with a 37% first-serve percentage. That is because Shapovalov relentlessly varied the placement and speed of his second serves throughout the set.

It’s not that Querrey played a bad set. In fact, he attacked relentlessly, often with success. He served big or used the 1-2 punch after a big serve, and as a result, held serve easily for the rest of the set. Except that the damage was already done. He happened to under-perform on his first serve for one game during which his second serve did not penetrate (or kick, or slice) enough to stop Denis from finding enough rhythm to launch one big return after another. Denis, in comparison, under-performed on his first serve for the whole set, yet he never faced a break point.

If you regularly read my posts, you probably know that I prefer to give concrete examples to illustrate my observations. As for Shapovalov’s second-serve efficiency, the 3-2 game is an excellent example and here is what you will see. Down 0-15, Shapovalov serves and volleys to get back to 15-15. Then, he throws in a heavy-spin second serve that collects an error from Querrey. Up 30-15, he loses the point but goes for a wide, slice serve, which he had not tried previously. He follows that up with a flat first serve, earning a direct point to go up 40-30. Sam gets back to deuce. Dennis misses his first serve again. He hits a high-pace second serve, catching Sam off balance. The American’s return is short and Denis attacks, forcing Sam into a defensive lob that sails long. Denis then closes out the game with a big first serve.

Just look at how many different types of serves the American had to confront even though the majority were second serves. He had to return low on a serve-and-volley, lunge to the outside on a wide serve, step inside the court only to jerk back quickly to get a high-paced second serve back, only to mention a few.

For an additional example, see the 30-15 point at 4-3; a second serve by Shapovalov lands so deep in the service box that Querrey, who stepped inside the baseline with the intention of producing a big return, does not have enough time to make a full swing and misses the return deep.

At the end of the set, Shapovalov had collected 10 out of 19 second-serve points and never faced a break point. He did win 11/11 first-serve points. Imagine if Shapovalov landed most of his first serves in!

You cannot, however, count on winning two successive sets in the third-round of an ATP 1000 event, against a top-20 player, while making less than 40% of your first serves and recording an increasing number of double faults (2 in the first, 5 in each of the next two sets). Shapovalov’s first-serve percentage did not improve in the second set and it did not take long before it caught up to him.

1-0 down in the second set, the Canadian double-faulted twice, once on game point at 40-30, and again on break point, and fell behind 2-0. Querrey raced to a double-break lead when he broke Shapovalov’s serve again in the sixth game. It was on another mediocre service game by Shapovalov in which he double-faulted twice again and missed an easy forehand volley in the net on break point.

When Querrey closed out the second set 6-3, the only question that mattered to Shapovalov was whether he could improve his first-serve percentage or not. He did, to a whopping (!) 53% in the third set. Yet, it was once again his second serve that kept him in the match when the third set began.

At 30-30 in the first game, he hit a great kick serve to the “T” and jammed Querrey’s backhand into his body. Sam’s return fell short and Shapovalov hit the winner to go up 40-30. Three points later, Shapovalov pocketed the game on another kick second serve that bounced so high that Sam had to jump to hit at the last moment. He missed it deep.

During the 2-2 game, Denis’s first serve finally began to come back. It was a contested game that saw Querrey have four chances at breaking Shapovalov’s serve. On three of those, Denis did not need his second serve, winning two of them directly on his first serves. He finished the game with an ace and grabbed the 3-2 lead.

Shapovalov would have to save two more break points in the 3-3 game, one with a hard serve to the service-box ‘T’ and the other with an ace. He won that game on another wonderful kick serve that bounced high into Sam’s body, causing him to miss the return.

At 5-5, Shapovalov would double-fault twice more to go down yet another break point at 30-40, only to save it, yet again, with a big first serve that allowed him to hit a winner on the next shot.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

Having saved seven break points since 1-1 in this deciding set, Shapovalov would only need one chance himself to break Querrey’s serve. It came in the 6-5 game. Querrey made only one first serve in the game and committed three routine baseline errors, including the backhand in the net on match point. It was an abrupt ending, considering how comfortably Sam had been holding serves since the early break in the set.

While Shapovalov’s first-serve percentage barely climbed above 50% in the final set, he got them in on six out of the seven break points saved in the final set. Out of those six points, five were won directly on his first serve. Querrey, for his part, had his worst first-serve percentage in the final set at 36%.

In other words, the first-serve percentage numbers from the first set were essentially reversed in the third set and that brings me to my last point about the difference in this match. When Querrey had to overwhelmingly resort to second serves in the third set, he depended on winning those points from the baseline. It worked for the most part, but all it took was a single string of bad errors (four in that last game) for things to fall apart for Querrey. Unlike Denis, he could not collect many free points on his second serves.

When Shapovalov missed his first serves in the first set, he was still able keep Querrey off balance on returns through the use of different speeds and spins on his second serves. He would thus earn some effort-free points on return errors by Sam or collect weak enough returns to finish the point himself on the next shot.

I would speculate that Martin Laurendeau, Shapovalov’s coach, is extremely pleased with the match, not because his pupil played particularly well, but because he ‘performed’ at a high level. By that I mean, Denis showed high IQ in terms of problem-solving when Querrey came out swinging very early, dealt with the malfunctioning of one of his main weapons (first serves) by meticulously regulating his second serves, remained cool-headed numerous times under pressure throughout the third set, and rediscovered his missing weapon during the extended stages of the match.

In the fourth round, Shapovalov will take another rising youngster, the Indian Wells semifinalist Borna Coric.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

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

MENU

Navigation