23rd-seeded Donna Vekic entered her first-round encounter against Liudmilla Samsonova as a heavy favorite on paper and the scoreboard at the end of the match, 6-2 6-4 in her favor, seemed to accurately reflect that forecast. Nonetheless, it must be noted that her pre-match “favorite” tag was probably based on different reasons than why she actually won so convincingly.
Samsonova, ranked no. 159 in the WTA, was playing in the
main draw of a Major for the first time in her life and her most notable
accomplishments to date have come on the ITF tour. It only seemed to make sense
that Vekic would step on Court 7 on Monday as the clear favorite, even without
taking into account possible match-up issues in terms of style and tactical
play. Isn’t that how upsets often take place anyway? The more accomplished A
player looks to be the favorite on paper, but due to the game-related match-up
problems posed by Player B (the so-called “lesser” opponent), things take a
strange turn and before you know it, an upset is brewing.
Unfortunately for Samsonova, it was the favorite who posed those
match-up problems rather than the underdog in this case.
Both players sought to control rallies with their forehands, but Vekic’s forehand was a tad more accurate and less erratic than Samsonova’s. When both players had opportunities to step inside the baseline and accelerate their forehands for winners, Samsonova struggled with high sitters** while Vekic produced winners anytime she could step in and nail her forehand. To compound that particular problem, Vekic used variety on her ground strokes – loopy topspin floaters, drop shots, angles – while Samsonova struck the ball with pretty much the same velocity throughout the match, hardly ever throwing Vekic off her rhythm.
**As examples of high-forehand errors on sitters by Samsonova, see the 30-30 point at 1-5 in the first set, the 15-30 point in the first game of the second set, the break point at 1-1 that ended the game (photo below), and the first point of the 4-5 game.
Samsonova misses this high forehand sitter…Similar position, Vekic hits a winner on this one…
Most notably, Vekic had the quicker footwork which, by extension, gave her a distinct advantage in this baseline duel between two players with somewhat similar game plans. Whenever Samsonova hit a terrific, aggressive shot to the corners, Vekic was able to scramble, stretch, and counterpunch (or loop it back from either corner), causing Samsonova to hit harder and harder just to end the point. However, they frequently ended in an unforced error by her, resulting from the frustration of seeing so many balls come back over the net. Samsonova finished the match with 19 unforced errors (by my count – as my regular readers may know by now, I prefer to keep the unforced error count myself) just on her forehands, four more than the total number of unforced errors for Vekic.
In contrast, when Vekic put Samsonova on defense, she was
able to force the Russian into an error a lot quicker. Samsonova did not fare
nearly as well as Vekic did (the gap between the two with regard to first-step
explosion was visible in these points) when they had to cover a large area of
the court and run balls down, or react to hard and flat strikes by the opponent**.
**The deuce point in
the 2-1 game and the first point of the ensuing 3-1 game in the first set are
emblematic examples of this distinction.
Don’t let the lop-sided result – or most of my analysis above – mislead you though. Samsonova may have faced an insurmountable match-up problem on Monday, but she can (and will, sooner than later in my opinion) cause nightmares to top 50 players. The firepower on her ground strokes is noteworthy and she possesses a great combination of first and second serve. Her first serve is quite imposing and her second serve, far from being a liability, can have a nasty kick to the outside on the ad-court. I am tempted to say that Samsonova’s game would be more dangerous on faster surfaces because of her serve and the high-octane potential on her groundies but I cannot be certain yet. She uses big, loopy backswings on both sides (see photos below) so I prefer to see a couple of more matches – from beginning to end – on different surfaces – and in WTA events – before I can comfortably comment on that detail.
Suffice it to say that a few holes in Samsonova’s game may need to be filled, but at 20 years old, time is on her side. In my opinion, she should be considered a player to watch in early rounds of WTA events. As for Vekic, she will look to carry her consistency and footwork into her second-round encounter vs. Rebecca Peterson of Sweden.
Although I eventually decided against it, I was tempted to add “time and again” to the end of the title, to avoid any misunderstanding. So, I will clarify. It is not by winning the WTA Luxembourg Open that Julia Goerges “met the bar” this week. There is a lot more nuance to her run to the title than simply accomplishing what was expected on paper from the top-seeded player in the field. What must be emphasized here is the consistent way in which the ninth-ranked German “met the bar” every time she was challenged by her opponents and the stakes got higher.
Any coach/supporter will tell you that, while watching your player roll through matches with great overall performances may feel ecstatic, seeing him/her overcome challenging situations, making the right decisions under duress, and turning into a mental giant each time the score points to a critical stage, corresponds to a unique type of jubilation that satisfies at a far deeper level than one generated by watching him/her dominate an opponent during a routine win.
Let’s take a look at the key moments of the last three matches played this week by Goerges, her quarterfinal win over Donna Vekic, her comeback semifinal one over Eugénie Bouchard, and her victory over Belinda Bencic in the final.
Photo: Lintao Zhang – Getty Images (from the China Open)
Vekic took Goerges to a third set in the quarterfinals and pushed her hard in the final set. Down 2-3 and serving, Vekic saved three break points to hold and get back to 3-3. At the time, it felt like a significant momentum change in a match where each previous set had been decided by a single major momentum shift. When Goerges started that seventh game with a double fault, it felt like the beginning of a final shift in the match. Vekic’s chance to take command of the match had arrived.
Instead, Goerges popped a first serve to the “T,” and followed it up with a backhand down-the-line winner, classic execution of a 1-2 punch, to get to 15-15. Two points later, at 30-30, she pulled the trigger on a running forehand that forced Vekic into a defensive position. Goerges followed her shot to the net, but Vekic made a high – and impressive – retrieval that left Goerges little choice but to back up and hit a forehand swing-volley in the air from less than two meters inside the baseline. She smacked it right on the corner for a winner. She pumped her fist and let out her loudest scream of the match in relief. It was after all at 3-3, 30-30, in the third set, that she pulled those shots of her hat. Yet, that point alone was only a part of the whole.
Outside of the double fault to start that 3-3 game, Goerges committed no unforced errors from that point forward and won eight out of the last nine points to shut the curtains down on Vekic with a 6-3 3-6 6-3 victory. In that short segment, she also hit four winners and an ace.
In the semifinals, she faced qualifier Bouchard who had guaranteed her reentry to the top 100 by reaching the semifinal round and was riding a five-match winning streak, first one since her breakthrough year in 2014. Playing solid from the baseline and keeping the balls deep, Bouchard built a 7-6 5-3 lead on Goerges before the pendulum began tilting, sharply and suddenly, in the German’s favor.
Julia had her back against the wall when Bouchard served for the match at 5-4. It is true that Bouchard could not buy a first serve in that game and double-faulted at 15-15. Nevertheless, it also undeniably true that Goerges nailed three forehand winners on the most important points of the game. The first was to start it, the second at 30-30, the third to end it and earn the break. After Goerges held serve to grab the 6-5 lead, she broke the Canadian’s serve again at love, hitting two return winners in the process. In a matter of few minutes, she went from being two points away from defeat to starting a third set.
Although Goerges may have recorded a stunning +22 difference in the number of winners vs. unforced errors (48-26) for the match, the seven winners that she hit in those three games mattered the most. They came when she found herself in the do-or-die. They also bore dire consequences for her opponent Bouchard because Goerges never looked back, winning 10 out of the last 11 games to get past the Canadian 6-7 7-5 6-1 in two hours and two minutes.
In Saturday’s final, Goerges prevailed in two close sets to outlast the former top-ten player and qualifier Belinda Bencic and earn her second WTA title of the year. Bencic, the 21-year-old Swiss, is climbing back toward the top 20 after a miserable 2016 campaign that saw her suffer from a wrist injury, ultimately requiring surgery and causing her to plummet outside the top 100. She is currently ranked no.47 and poised to climb higher next week following her run this week.
On Saturday, both players had little trouble holding comfortably. For a player to take command, she either needed to pull a few magic shots on a return game, or her adversary had to gag points away on her serving game. Goerges did the former and pulled ahead. At 2-2, she exclusively went for bazooka returns on every point. She missed two out of the first three, going down 30-15. She made the next three, two of them resulting in clean winners, and the other, an almost-clean one. Four huge returns made brought Goerges the only break that she needed, to win the set.
It would not be fair though if I did not mention the 5-4 game. Goerges rode the early break until 5-4 and had the chance to serve the set out. She lost the first point when she sailed her forehand deep. She did not let the scoreboard pressure get to her. She served her first ace of the match to get to 15-15. Two points later, another big first serve brought her two set points at 40-15. She only needed the first. Another vintage 1-2 punch 3ending with a forehand winner put the first set in Julia’s pocket. It was perhaps her best serving game of the match, right when it counted the most.
In the second set, Goerges found herself serving at 4-5 to remain alive in the second set. She met the bar, yet again! Cool as a cucumber, she served four first serves to hold serve, one being an ace, the other two resulting in follow-up winners. In the next game on Bencic’s serve at 5-5, Goerges produced three more winners but also got an assist from her opponent when Bencic missed a high-forehand volley from the top of the net. That was the decisive break.
In the 6-5 game, Goerges earned her first match point at 40-0 when she served two aces and hit an unreturnable second serve. On her second match point at 40-15, Goerges pulled her umpteenth 1-2 punch winner to earn the title with a score of 6-4 7-5.
Goerges had 19 more winners than unforced errors (35-16), another spectacular spread in those numbers. She never faced a break point in the match. However, the stringing together of a few great points by Goerges at crucial junctures mentioned above played the largest role in deciding the match. Goerges seemed to find the extra gear whenever she needed it.
The above-noted segments from her last three matches are fresh in Goerges’s memory. When one uses the type of aggressive game that she plays, confidence can be the cornerstone of one’s performance. For three days and three matches, Goerges repeatedly met the bar, and that should mean something. I would not be surprised if a series of wins like these, combined with the title, propel her to a period of rapid improvement, perhaps even to the next level in her progress, whatever that may represent to her.
A baseline player who mainly operates on safe groundstrokes and consistency can maintain a certain level even during a down cycle in confidence. In the case of a striker like Goerges, down cycles can be painful and filled with an abundance of sprayed errors. At the same time, that which she can accomplish would have no limits if she can ride on a high degree of confidence and belief. If anything at all, the Luxembourg Open serves to bring Goerges closer to that ride.
This encounter between the 48th-ranked Sakkari and the qualifier Rus turned out to be a straight-forward baseline affair, with little variety produced by either player. Points were largely decided on errors, with the Dutch player committing a few more than her opponent. There were not many points won at the net, or specialty shots like angles and drop shots. While Rus managed to strike several impressive forehands – especially down-the-line – she also sprayed a number of them deep. Interestingly, several of those deep errors came on shots aimed to the middle of the court.
She had a couple of chances to break Sakkari’s serve in the beginning of the match but could not capitalize on them. As happens so often in these cases, the player who just squandered break-point chances, loses her own serve in the very next game. Sakkari carried that early-break advantage all the way to the end of the set, taking it 6-3.
Maria Sakkari – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi
Rus was able to go up a break early twice, thanks to a few forehands missed by Sakkari, but could neither hold at 2-0, nor at 4-2, to confirm those breaks. Nevertheless, she stayed a step ahead throughout the second set. Sakkari, for her part, could not get her first serve going in the second set, registering a dismal 29% midway through. But Rus could not take advantage of her leads enough to force Sakkari to modify her game plan. Sakkari continued to feed her opponent a steady stream of cross-court shots and waited for her errors.
Second set came down to a tiebreaker. Rus did hit a couple of forehand down-the-line winners (by far, her most potent weapon in this match) to get ahead. She went up 6-4 on a double fault by Sakkari, thus earning two chances to send the match to a final set.
However, Rus committed costly errors to lose the next four points and the match. It was a fitting microcosm for how the match went for Rus on important points. On her second set point at 6-5, she had a forehand sitter inside the baseline that she failed to put away, missing the next forehand deep. Then at 6-7, down a match point, she missed a backhand wide. Just like that, the match was over 6-3 7-6 in Sakkari’s favor.
This is the Greek player’s second career semifinal appearance in a WTA Event and she will need to get past Polona Hercog to reach her first final.
Sometimes there are sets where one player clicks on all cylinders and there is not much that her opponent can do about it, like in the first set of this match. Hercog came out firing winners and managed to make Sveta, one of the best defensive players in the WTA Tour, look helpless on several occasions. She struck 20 winners (to three for Sveta) and only made six unforced errors on the way to pocketing the set 6-1.
As the second set commenced, there was only one question that mattered. Would Hercog be able to maintain her form? We did not have to wait long for the answer as Hercog began the second set with a series of errors to go down a break. Sveta who, for her part, remained calm and collected, although still not completely free of errors.
The match took a 180-degree turn and Kuznetsova cruised to a 6-1 victory in the second set. The shocking number, even with such a blatant reversal, was Hercog hitting only one winner in the second set, after having recorded twenty of them in the first. Kuznetsova won it without really playing well.
With the first two sets having been decided by the early games, it only made sense that the next ten minutes would play a crucial role in the outcome of the match. Both players knew it because you could sense the tension in their game. At 30-30, Hercog gagged a shoulder-level forehand volley in the net! Sveta returned the favor in the ensuing break point with a forehand mishit that landed deep. She added credit to that favor with another forehand missed wide on her second break-point opportunity. You could tell the relief in Hercog’s body language as she walked to her chair, up 1-0, after Sveta erred on a third forehand on game point.
Both players began to hold their serves as some sense of order seemed to settle in the match. Or so everyone thought.
It all went haywire again after the seventh game. Following an exchange of breaks at 3-3, Hercog played a shockingly bad game on her serve at 4-4. She chucked her racket to the ground in disgust after the last point. Sveta, serving at 5-4, outperformed Hercog yet again by losing four points in a row, three of them on routine errors.
At 5-5, we finally had our first “quality” game of the final set, at least for Hercog. She hit a fine drop-shot winner and followed it with a forehand winner on the next point – from the same spot she misfired on two of them back in the 4-4 game.
That hold to go up 6-5 turned out to be the crucial “break” for Hercog, Sveta simply could not put a stop to the string of unforced errors that she was committing on her service games. Fittingly, in the last two points of the match, she missed a backhand wide and a forehand inside-out wide again before walking up to the net to congratulate her opponent for the win.
Kuznetsova fans are probably concerned, for valid reasons. Ranked 28 in the WTA, Sveta’s form is nowhere near the level needed for a possible run in the French Open. I am not sure if the three matches she got under her belt in Istanbul have helped the cause. Furthermore – and this is a shocker in my opinion – Sveta has not won a title on clay courts since 2009, when she lifted the trophy at Roland Garros, one of her two Major titles.
Polona Hercog will take on Maria Sakkari in the semifinals on Saturday.
Before I get to the “why” and “how” of Wozniacki’s retirement, let me start from the beginning.
Parmentier is a very solid clay-court player. Her forehand is probably one of the most intimidating weapons on clay because of the amount of spin that she generates on it. She usually prefers to park on the baseline and dictate the point, seeking to eventually wear her opponent down under the heavy weight of her aggressive forehands. On the downside, she happens to have the type of game that Wozniacki can easily dismantle.
Caroline will run all those hard-to-reach balls and put them back in play, eventually pushing the likes of Parmentier to take bigger risks and commit error after error. She will operate with a high first-serve percentage, not allowing opponents to start the point aggressively. She will mix in a drop shot or two for good measure, in order to bring them in and get them out of their comfort zone.
A combination of the above took place during the first set. For example, at 1-1, Wozniacki got her first break by winning a point during which she covered, twice, the court from one corner to the other and got three balls back in the court that Parmentier may have recorded as winners against many others. Parmentier, desperate to put the ball away, eventually overfired on a forehand that landed deep. Riding that break, Wozniacki would eventually climb to a 4-1 lead.
Parmentier recovered impressively and got back to 4-4. At the 30-30 point on Wozniacki’s serve, the Danish player worked Parmentier’s backhand during a long rally. It finally ended when Pauline cracked and hit a backhand in the net. It was a key point, one from which Parmentier would not recover. She committed five more errors in the next few minutes and Wozniacki pocketed the first set 6-4.
It was a close set, but it was undoubtedly played on Wozniacki’s terms.
Then, things turned sour for the Australian Open winner. Parmentier, a remarkable fighter herself, had a terrific start to go up an early break. Wozniacki needed a medical time-out at 0-3, notably having problems with her abdominal area and stretching her back. When play resumed, you could see that she was not moving at her best when she had to run forward to pick up low balls on a couple of slice shots by Parmentier. She also seemed to hold back a bit on her serve.
She did not give up on the set, even managing to break Parmentier’s serve at 2-5. Parmentier answered the challenge with a very solid return game and won the second set 6-3.
Wozniacki asked the trainer to come on the court and had a brief conversation with her. She pointed to her abdominal area and showed certain movements with her arm which made her feel pain. She then approached the chair umpire, told her she was retiring, and headed over to Parmentier to explain.
In a matter of two hours, the top two seeds, Kuznetsova and Wozniacki, were no longer in the tournament. Any hope that tournament organizers had of filling the already empty stands inside the otherwise impressive Center Court at Koza WOS probably evaporated away around that time.
Irina-Camelia Begu def. Donna Vekic
Begu did not particularly play a bad first set, but still felt helpless at times – see her chat with her coach at 2-5 down – as Vekic played an all-around solid set, overpowering her opponent for the most part. It is not easy to do against Begu who is a skilled player that possesses the ability to change the pace of the game during rallies. It’s just that she could rarely get her feet set to do so.
Irina Begu – Photo: Tenis Dunyasi, @tenisdunyasi
The same pattern more or less held through the first part of the second set. Vekic got the break to take a commanding lead at 6-3 3-1.
Two games later, down 2-4, Begu played two spectacular points in a row, finishing both with forehand errors to go up 0-30. She was patient and waited for the right opportunity to unleash her forehand. Vekic committed two backhand errors in the next three points and there was the break Begu desperately needed.
At 4-4 and Begu serving, Vekic had a golden chance to break at 30-40. She had an easy passing shot opportunity with Begu 5 meters in front of her at the net and she missed the backhand wide. She covered her head with her hands in disbelief. But she did not lose her nerves – at least, not at that point. She won the next two points, the second one on a remarkable forehand angle, and went up again to serve for the match at 5-4.
But for someone who kept her resolve so well in that particular sequence, the rest of the match turned into an utter disaster.
She double-faulted twice and made two unforced error to hand the break right back. But no worries, Begu did pretty much the same – minus one double fault – and Vekic found herself serving for the match again at 6-5. On match point at 40-30, she double-faulted! It all went downhill after that moment. Two point later, down a break point this time, she had a high sitter on top of the net that she could have easily guided to the open court for a winner. She smacked it right at where Begu was standing. The Romanian passed her.
Break, 6-6, tiebreaker!
It continued to go from bad to worse for Vekic. She threw in another double fault (her sixth of the set) at 1-1 in the tiebreaker and added five more unforced errors in succession to lose it 7-1. Just like that, a third set appeared on the horizon.
That horizon did not offer any light to Vekic.
No need to recount the final set in detail other than to say that it became agonizing to watch as she committed error after error, falling completely apart. Every tennis player goes through this type of downfall at some point(s) in their career. It never gets any easier though, neither for the player, nor for her team. She did calm down a bit later in the final set and tried to climb back in the match but, by then, Begu had built a substantial lead and was not planning on looking back.
Begu won the match 3-6 7-6 6-1, a little over half an hour after she had faced a match point against her. She will take on Pauline Parmentier in the semifinals on Saturday.
