Tag: Dominic Thiem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except the one anomaly at 5-4.

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

But that is where the anomaly ended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

ATP Finals, Monday: First-Match Recap

November 13, 2017

Mertov

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…

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Tuesday at Roland Garros: Selected Match Previews

June 5, 2017

Mertov

Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

In this post, I take a look at two quarterfinal matches that will take place on Tuesday, the women’s match that pits the French player Kristina “Kiki” Mladenovic against the Swiss player Timea Bacsinszky, and the men’s match that opposes the defending champion Novak Djokovic to Dominic Thiem, one of the leading members of the ATP’s “next generation.”

Mladenovic (13) vs Bacsinszky (30)

This is a very intriguing match-up not only tactically but also because of the inspiring runs of both players. Kiki, who feeds off the French crowd better than any other French woman (Gaël Monfils would be the one among the French men), has so far recorded three marathon victories against Jennifer Brady
Shelby Rogers and the defending champion Garbine Muguruza, and a straight-set one against Sara Errani, who is a respectable opponent on clay at any moment in her career. Kiki is enjoying, in 2017, the best campaign of her tennis career, moving up to number 7 in the Porsche Race Singles ranking that determines who qualifies for the year-ending WTA Championships. In short, she is on fire this year, and in this tournament.

Jimmie48Photography

She faces Timea Bacsinszky, one of the most versatile players on the WTA Tour. Kiki has faced her twice in the last 12 months, winning once on grass courts, losing the other one on hard. I do not believe that says much (not that I am a big believer of previous head-to-head matches having a big impact on the current match anyway), considering this will be their first encounter on clay courts. Timea defeated Venus Williams in the last round, taking the last two sets comfortably despite the disappointment of losing the first set from 5-1 up, and leaving no Americans in the women’s draw for the second week (none left in men either). Timea is one of the more mature players on the tour, with a life experience that goes beyond the tennis courts. She does not easily gets distracted by the crowd and I am sure she is expecting nothing less than the same type of arduous support from the French spectators for her opponent that the latter received during the third sets of her Brady, Rogers, and Muguruza wins. Especially against Rogers, down 2-5 in the final set, one could almost sense the positive energy from the crowd flowing in Kiki’s direction. Rogers felt it too (and believe me, Rogers is a cool customer in the body-language and mental discipline departments), losing eleven out twelve points in the three-game stretch that brought Kiki back to 5-5. I do not believe I would be exaggerating if I claimed that Mladenovic would not have made it this far had the tournament taken place elsewhere than at Roland Garros.

The key questions here are, can Kiki bring the match to a point in which the crowd can become a factor, and if she does, will Timea manage to mentally block the crowd out? My answer to the first question: yes, Kiki can. My answer to the second: yes, Timea definitely will!

First of all, the Swiss player is fairly well liked by the Roland Garros crowd, and I believe there will be a small group of Timea supporters who will also make their voices heard. I also do not expect any player, let alone Kiki, to sustain the level of play that she has demonstrated over a two-week period, going through one extended (and exhausting) match after another. They take a lot out of your reserves not only physically, but also mentally. I look for Kiki’s game to become a bit more erratic, even with a vociferous crowd pumping her up, if the match goes beyond 5-5 in the final set. Timea will not lose her cool and execute her game plan regardless of the score or tension.

Jimmie48Photography

In terms of tactics, I expect Timea to use all the shots available in her arsenal, without getting into predictable rally patterns that could allow Kiki to accelerate and take charge. I believe the Swiss will use her slice generously on both sides – yes, she also possesses a formidable forehand slice that she occasionally uses –, yet step into the court whenever she can to push Kiki around the baseline, and often use her drop shots when Kiki finds herself backed up (or backing up, expecting an aggressive hit from her opponent).

Kiki, for her part, will need a lot of forehand winners, which she can produce when needed, but more importantly, will have to set up the point so that she can get those types of opportunities. Couple of ways to do that: get a lot of first serves in and take risks on returns when the opponent serves a second serve. I really believe Kiki’s chances of winning decrease drastically if Timea wins the first set, much more so than Timea’s chances of winning the match if Kiki were to win the first set. Timea’s ability to adjust her game and apply a different make-up to her shots is much more developed than that of Kiki’s. The French’s options diminish if she cannot impose her baseline game on her opponent. I am going with a 2-set Bacsinszky win here, one set being very tight, the other one being less contested.

Djokovic (2) vs Thiem (6)

In 2016, when these two players met in the semifinal here in Paris, Thiem was having the best year of his career that saw him enter the top 10 for the first time, and Novak Djokovic was in the process of joining the ranks of the elite in the history of our sport by dominating the tour. He would eventually go on to take the title at Roland Garros, thus winning all four Majors consecutively and accomplishing the “Novak Slam”. In their particular match that afternoon, Novak routed Dominic in three sets.

One year later, Thiem is once again having a career year. Novak, however, is not last year’s version of himself by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t expect this match to be one-sided, in fact, I would guess that it will go to the distance (and hopefully) go down as one of the best matches of the tournament. It has the ingredients to be one.

Julian Finney – Getty Images

Djokovic finally gave signs (just signs) of his old self in the post-1st-set portion of his match against Albert Ramos-Vinolas and sporadically in his earlier matches. However, none of those players are Thiem’s level, and furthermore, none of them had the amount of belief that they could win like the Austrian will, when he steps on the court tomorrow. He has now spent a full year at the top-10 level and has recorded some terrific wins, notably the one against Rafael Nadal in Rome, the only clay-court loss for the Spaniard this year.

I know people will point to Thiem’s 0-5 record vs Djokovic this year, including the lop-sided loss in the finals of the Rome tournament. I am just not sure how much that will matter to Dominic when he steps on the court tomorrow to play a five-set match in the quarterfinals of a Major. First of all, that is no longer undiscovered territory for him. Second, he is taking on a player who may still harbor many doubts in his mind about his game. This also an opportunity of a lifetime for the Austrian. He would have to defeat Djokovic and Nadal, and win one more match, to claim his first Major title. It would be nothing short of a miracle, but if it were to happen, it would once and for all enter him into the elite of today’s game in a matter of five days.

Novak, even at “less-than-his-top” level is still one of the world’s few greatest players. He will still not give away gifts and remain solid from the baseline. Thiem will have to create chances from the backcourt and he is capable of doing that. The problem for him, is that balls will come back a few more times in each rally against Djokovic than they may have done so against lesser players. One key for this match-up: patience. Will Thiem be patient enough to build points up and win them instead of trying to nail spectacular shots for at least three sets? Will Novak be patient enough to endure a possible assault from Thiem for a set or so, knowing that he will prevail if he remains resolved and continues his machine-like consistency?

Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

Another key: serve and return performances. Considering that these two players lead the stats in the return categories at the French Open so far, which one will take bigger cuts on second-serve returns? Can someone like Thiem, who is prone to double faulting at times, be shaken by Nole’s aggressive returns? These are some of the tactical challenges waiting for Thiem and Djokovic.

Then, there is the physical side. Djokovic has the edge here if the match transforms into a long, grueling five-set affair. By Djokovic “having the edge here,” I mean he is “less likely” to suffer fatigue or cramps in an extended match than his opponent. Eventually, that could be the difference in this match. I am picking Nole to record a five-set victory. I think Thiem will have to wait one more year (and probably no longer) to join the ranks of the elite players, barring injuries.

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

Monday at the Australian Open: 4th Round Preview

January 21, 2017

Mertov

ATP & WTA Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

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.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

2016 Australian Open Men’s Draw: More of the Same?

January 16, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors 6 Comments

Although all the top players participated in the so-called warm-up tournaments to the first Major of the year, tennis fans came to the realization that they will have to wait for this Monday to satisfy their craving of some high-quality, exciting encounters. However, the draw that came out Friday did not do any favors to anyone looking for a thrilling narrative to carry the two weeks, starting Monday. By “thrilling narrative,” I mean an eye-opening one that will end up being one of the main stories of 2016. Sorry Novak Djokovic fans, but your man lifting the winner’s trophy would not qualify as one. Nor would seeing the Big Four members (and/or Stan Wawrinka) play each other for the umpteenth time again in the semis. Yet, one look at the draw and that seems to be the most probable outcome.

Sure, there is some potential for first-week match-ups that feature two players who would probably be more than happy to make it the second week. I will even entertain the idea that Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer, or both, may get knocked out before the semis (only to have their conquerors melt away in the next round). But I neither see an emerging name reach the finals à-la-Kei in New York, nor envision an unlikely winner lifting the trophy like Wawrinka did two years ago, or Marin Cilic did in New York later that same year.

That being said, ticket holders should get their money’s worth. The possibility that this Australian Open may not go down as a trend-setting tournament does not mean that matches will be boring or of low quality. Without further ado, here is how I see the draw fill out section by section. In order to increase the suspense, I will not reveal the player favored to win the tournament. Read and see if you can figure it out (hint: pay attention to titles).

TOP HALF OF THE DRAW

Djokovic’s “early” victims
Prior to eventually running into Djokovic in the third round, Andreas Seppi and Teymuraz Gabashvili will square off with the winner likely to battle Denis Kudla next. Although Gabashvili is down 1-3 in the head-to-head count against Seppi, he has a great chance to advance. He is enjoying his highest ranking of his 14-year career and Seppi, who is going through a dangerous slump, could see his ranking plummer in the first half of the season if he does not recover soon. Gabashvili is the only one from that top section who could challenge Novak in the third round, provided he can live up to his nickname “Tsunami” for three sets (which is almost like saying “provided that Ivo Karlovic finishes a match with less than 5 aces”). Otherwise, look for Djokovic to get to the 4th round being more challenged in practice sets than in the actual matches.

Djokovic’s “midway” victims
Speaking of “Dr. Ivo,” he finds himself as a possible opponent of Djokovic if he makes it to the fourth round. Stands in his way one of the biggest overachievers in today’s tennis by the name of Gilles Simon who, unfortunately for the French, matches up terribly with the big-serving Croate. Simon will still make Karlovic earn the victory if they both make it that far. Anyone knows by now that even when Simon is losing to you, he will make you suffer before doing so. I don’t see any other name from that section (sorry Vasek Pospisil, not in Australia) reaching the fourth round to be victimized by Djokovic.

In the quarters, Djokovic could face a number of players. The two highest seeds in that section are Kei Nishikori (7) and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (9). I do not like the fact that I am writing this while the three qualifying spots in this section still display the word “Qualifier” instead of names. I am one of those who believe that careers are made in the Majors, and they are made when a player comes through qualifying and unexpectedly creates a sensation (or with an “s”) in the first week of a Major, and then, backs it up in the following months, before finally establishing himself as persona grata in the upper echelons of the ATP Tour.

Regardless of who the qualifiers are, Tsonga has a rocky road to the quarters. Even before a possible match against Nishikori or XYZ player in the 4th round, he will have to knock out Marcos Baghdatis, the in-form Ilya Marchenko, and his countryman Benoit Paire. In any case, unless Nishikori or Tsonga somehow catch fire, Djokovic could have an easier win in the quarters than in his previous round. I consider Kei’s chances of catching fire low, but still higher than that of Jo-W.

Djokovic’s “later” victims
Novak’s most serious opponent in 2015, the one that he faced 7 times in the finals, could line up on the other side of the net to challenge him, this time before the finals. His name is Federer, and as incredible as it sounds with the kind of season that Djokovic had, he managed to beat the world number one three times, all on hard courts. The reality: Federer has not beaten Djokovic in a Major since the 2012 Wimbledon. The irony: Federer has not lost to Djokovic (4-0) in their matches before the finals since 2013.

Federer’s quarter also happens to be loaded with loose cannons. While I don’t see his first-round opponent Nikoloz Basilashvili, who had his best year by a long mile in 2015, shock a top player any time soon, Federer’s potential opponents in the next rounds could cause him some headaches. Alexandr Dolgopolov, his likely opponent in the second round, and Grigor Dimitrov in the third round, are both respectable players who have proven their ability to beat top players on a given day. In the fourth round, Federer’s “on-paper” opponent is David Goffin, but the bigger dangers for Federer are Goffin’s first-round opponent Sergiy Stakhovsky and the Belgian Dominic Thiem. I have argued for two years now that Thiem is destined for greatness and I am not wavering from my position on him. He is one of the faces of the next generation, and I expect him to break through to the top 10 in 2016. That path could begin in Melbourne. Having said that, the reality remains that for anyone to reach the quarterfinals from that section, they would need some help from Roger who, dare I say, played well only sporadically in Brisbane.

Federer could eventually face an experienced top-10 player like Tomas Berdych, or another young talent like Nick Kyrgios. I am not as sold on Kyrgios as everyone else is, and it is not because I don’t believe in his talent. It’s a cliché, but for some reason, it’s one that takes time to dawn on people: champions are made in practice. Kyrgios’ level of intensity and focus in practice is nowhere near that of the elite champions in our sport. Kyrgios may not make it that far anyway. Cilic, Tomas Berdych, and Roberto Bautista-Agut are nearby in the draw, as well as Borna Coric, another name that represents the future face of men’s tennis. The young Croat would need to beat Cilic, Bautista-Agut, Kyrgios or Berdych, in a row, just to get to the quarters. Can he do it? Yes! This section will be my favorite one to watch during the first week.

BOTTOM HALF OF THE DRAW
(i.e. Djokovic’s “final” victim)

Some are intrigued by the first-round clash between Fernando Verdasco and Nadal. We are quickly reminded of the five-set semifinal in the 2009 Australian Open, in which Verdasco pushed Rafa very hard. He also defeated Rafa as recent as nine months ago, in Miami. Despite that win, Verdasco is nowhere near his 2009 level, and Rafa is playing a lot better than in March 2015. I don’t see an upset happening, and with all due respect to Benjamin Becker and Dudi Sela, I expect them to challenge the world number 5 even less in the second round. Rafa’s road will get rockier starting with the third round. He should face the Frenchman Jérémy Chardy who is known to put out his best tennis in the Majors. Chardy can hang with Nadal from the baseline, and even overpower him, like Fabio Fognini did at the US Open. However, whether Chardy himself believes that he can do that or not, is a rather large question mark.

Nadal would then have to get past either Kevin Anderson or Gaël Monfils. I must again point out that, Anderson and Monfils have three qualifiers yet to be named in their little eight-man section. Despite his 0-3 record against Nadal, Anderson is the only name with a legitimate chance to beat the Spaniard, simply because he has improved in 2015 and added to his experience of facing the elite players in the Majors. He also has a big serve which has been a trade mark of most of the players who have upset Nadal in the Majors. It does not help either that Rafa has been unable to erased the question marks surrounding his game. But this is different. Two weeks ago in Doha, he played some of his best tennis in a long time and the fact that he got floored by Djokovic in the finals should not change that. If anyone can overcome a steep challenge, Rafa is that man. This Australian Open represents a golden chance for the 14-Major winner to reestablish himself as the top player, along with Djokovic, Murray, Federer, and Wawrinka.

In the quarters, Nadal will no doubt face a tough opponent. There are again four qualifiers in this section. Unless one of them pulls a stunner or two, and/or Viktor Troicki’s form soars even higher than it did this week in Sydney, I don’t see who can stop Raonic and Wawrinka (sorry Jack Sock fans, not yet) from battling each other to earn the right to face Rafa.

I have long maintained (since 2010 exactly) that Raonic would be one of our sport’s top players and I believe he is on the right track. Despite injuries hampering his progress over the last three years, he has steadily improved. He arrives to Melbourne healthy and confident. He has a legitimate chance to go far, even if it means going through Wawrinka and Nadal just to reach the semifinals. The success of Nadal, Wawrinka, or Raonic, when one of them reaches the “final four” stage, will largely depend on how much they have labored in the previous rounds. I dare anyone to predict this early how they will do in the semis where they would likely face Murray.

So what of Murray’s quarter of the draw? Big-serving Sam Groth could frustrate him – it does not take much to do that – in the second round, but can he do it for three sets? Fognini and Tomic, the two major head-cases of our sport, could play against each other in the third round, which may possibly make that encounter the highest-rated third-round match in the history of Majors. But can either one challenge Andy? The section with John Isner and David Ferrer is wide open and should provide someone with a golden opportunity to reach the quarterfinal. But, can that quarterfinalist, whomever it may be, surprise Murray? I believe the answer to all the questions in this paragraph is a “No.” Meanwhile, squeezed in-there-somewhere in this section is Brian Baker who has managed more comebacks than Aaron Krickstein has come back from two sets down in his days.

I see some sections of the draw that fascinate me for the first few days. I see others that should be exciting when we get to the third and fourth rounds. Then, from the quarterfinals on, I expect great tennis. What I do NOT expect, is to find names in the semifinals that are different than the ones we have seen in the last several Majors.

The show begins in 48 hours!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Tactical Analysis: Pablo Cuevas vs. Dominic Thiem, 2nd round Roland Garros 2015

May 28, 2015

Mertov

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

One of the best matches of the early rounds in the 2015 edition of Roland Garros took place on Court 3 between the veteran and the 21st seed Pablo Cuevas and the much-younger, yet fast rising, Dominic Thiem from Austria. Both players, enjoying the high points in their career in the recent months, showcased why they are among the best clay-court players in the world. Endurance, topspin, footwork, and patterns preceded big serves and flat winners. As a bonus, spectators got to enjoy two of the most stylish one-handed backhands in the game. More importantly, two highly intelligent players continued to modify their game plans to outwit the other, taking the spectators through a crescendo in each of the four sets, thus the score 7-6 7-5 6-7 7-5.

In this article, I will mostly focus on the first set, only because going through the whole match would take too long to write. But no worries! There was plenty happening in the first set alone. Furthermore, the first set largely determined the outcome of the matches for reasons to be explained later.

When the match started, it quickly became obvious that both players planned to begin the match with their respective plan A’s. On the one hand, Cuevas would stay back, keep the ball deep, move Thiem around with his forehand, and get aggressive only if the opportunity presented itself. On the other hand, Thiem would dictate the rallies with his big forehand, go for winners if the ball came short, and avoid high and loopy rallies. Although each player held to equalize at 2-2, it was evident that Cuevas was winning the long rallies, and Thiem was feeling more and more pressure to finish the point, or else. Cuevas was beginning to impose his game, keeping Thiem on the run just enough to let his forehand direct the traffic of the rally’s pattern.

Cuevas, exactly in the position he prefers in rallies..

If you are in Thiem’s position at that stage, the last thing you want is your first serve to take a vacation. You need it for a few free points, and to set the tone for the next shot in the rally. Yet, it is exactly what happened to Thiem at 2-2. He only made one first serve that game, and was forced into rallies. In fact, Thiem knew going into that game that it was just a matter of time before Cuevas breaks him unless he can keep coming up with big serves and shots. And if you can’t hit big serves, it puts that much more pressure on your groundstrokes. In Thiem’s case, it led to errors that looked like unforced errors, but are in fact errors that resulted from the Austrian player putting too much pressure on himself due to his opponent flawlessly dictating every extended baseline rally up to that point (if only there were a way to keep stats on such categories). Here are the first two points of the 2-2 game:

And just like that, it’s 0-30. Thiem does recover to 30-30 thanks to aggressive play, but then tries to go for too much too soon again:

On that break point, Thiem attacks again, this time on a ball that allows him to step inside the baseline. Moving all the way to the backhand doubles’ alley, he unleashes a forehand winner (who does not do that nowadays anyway?):

Having gotten back to deuce, now Thiem finds himself stuck exactly in the kind of point that he would like to avoid. Cuevas pushes him around the baseline, never giving him a chance to get a firm grip on the rally and get on the offensive.

This is precisely why Thiem has been unloading on those early shots in the rally that led to errors. If he does not go for them, this type of point happens over and over again. In the ensuing break point (2nd one of the game), Thiem once again steps in to hit a big “jump” backhand but does not quite pull the trigger. So what happens? Cuevas punishes Thiem’s half-way-passive-aggressive backhand by sticking a winner right back to the open corner:

Now, you would think that at this point, Cuevas has taken charge in the match. He would have, except that in the next game, he pulls out of his “error” bag one of his 3 double faults in the match, and follows it up with a forehand drop volley in the net that he would make nine out of ten times. It is an uncharacteristically generous game by the otherwise error-free Cuevas that brought Thiem back to life.

Thiem did indeed come alive. For example, until then, Cuevas was exclusively serving to his backhand to start the rally, including a high-kick serve to the ad side, making the Austrian hit above the shoulder and from the outside of the court. But now, all of a sudden, Thiem begins to step in and catch the ball on the rise, immediately putting Cuevas on the defensive. Check out his placement on the backhand returns during the 4-3 game:

He even got to run around the backhand to hit some direct forehand winners (this one at 4-3 up, and 40-30 down on Cuevas’ serve):

This led to Cuevas taking bigger cuts on his first serves, or using a strong outside kick as the first serve, in order not to allow Thiem to attack. This resulted in Thiem having to slice some of the backhand returns because he either had to stretch too far and/or too high to hit topspin, as is the case in this return below in the 6-5 game:

In other words, Cuevas adjusted and responded to Thiem’s increasingly intimidating game by tweaking his serve, just enough to hold his serve and carry the set to a tiebreaker. Thiem still had the momentum going into the tiebreaker, and definitely looked like he was on his way to a 1-0 lead in sets, when he went up 5-1 in the tiebreaker. Check out how Thiem punishes Cuevas for favoring his forehand too much and leaving too much court open on the deuce side at the 2-1 point in the tiebreaker:

Thiem gets a commanding 5-1 lead in the tiebreaker. Then, for one reason or another, he gets passive for the first time in the tiebreaker and lets up during the rally. Did he think that Cuevas lost hope at 1-5 and would hand the next two points to him? In any case, here is what happens that point:

Cuevas also wins the next point to get back to 3-5. Suddenly, it’s a different dynamic. Thiem feels the pressure, leading to this gag on the 5-3 point:

It is now 5-4 and what looked like a blow-out tiebreaker for Thiem has turned into a tight, tedious affair. It soon turns into a nightmare for him when this happens when he has set point on his racket at 6-5:

Yep! Thiem served his only double fault in the set (total of 3 in the match) on set point! The clip showed you Pablo’s subdued relief as if he were saying to himself “Wait! I saved a set point without ever having to hit a ball?”

At 6-6, the players change sides. Thiem, despite the disappointment, plays a solid, aggressive point, only to be passed by Cuevas. Pay particular attention to Thiem’s body language after the point before you read on:

From the end of that point until the beginning of the next, Thiem kept looking at his corner, talking and yelling to himself, seethed with anger over how he now finds himself a set point down after leading 5-1 in the tiebreaker and double-faulting on set point. Yet, here is when youthful enthusiasm can help you. You can mumble and whine for the full 20-to-30 seconds between two points, and still come up with the goods once the ball is in play. Watch how Thiem, still talking to himself few seconds before the point begins (continuous since the end of the last point above), plays his best point of the tiebreaker:

But it is not enough as Cuevas wins the next point to earn another set point at 8-7. This time, the veteran capitalizes on it when Thiem cracks on the very shot, the forehand from the backhand side of the middle, that has worked for him so well for the most part of the first set:

First set goes to Cuevas. How important was that? It was devastating enough for Thiem to temporarily lose focus and go down 0-3 in the second set. It forced him to play catch up the rest of the second set and the match. He did eventually get the break back, but still lost the second set 7-5. Thiem’s mental maturity is far ahead of his biological one. Most young players would have fallen apart after losing two sets like these against a seasoned, seeded player in a Major tournament. However, Thiem found a way to extend the match to a fourth set, playing a much smarter tiebreak in the third set (did go up early again, this time not letting up). Cuevas, unfazed by the length of the match, or the challenge from the talented Austrian, kept his cool and came up with the goods (which, in his case, means that he turned error free) in the latter stages of the fourth set to avoid a fifth one.

The match lasted 3 hours and 51 minutes. If the analysis above showed anything, Thiem and Cuevas do not just have plenty in the tank to survive long duels on clay, but also the I.Q. power to make them entertaining. The “chess” part of the first set was a fascinating “intangible spectacle” while the tangible ones such as stroke production and execution, tremendous agility and speed, and creative baseline tennis while maintaining consistency added the icing on the cake.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates from Roland Garros

Madrid ATP Semifinals: Recap

ATP Finals, Monday: First-Match Recap

Tuesday at Roland Garros: Selected Match Previews

Monday at the Australian Open: 4th Round Preview

2016 Australian Open Men’s Draw: More of the Same?

Tactical Analysis: Pablo Cuevas vs. Dominic Thiem, 2nd round Roland Garros 2015

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation