This was a five-star encounter between two in-form players. You can read my match report on ‘Tennis with an Accent’ website by clicking the link below:
Osaka d. Muguruza: The Mark of A Champion
Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter
Among the four semifinalists in the Wimbledon women’s draw, there is one unseeded player and the other three are all seeded outside the top five. With Serena Williams out, Angelique Kerber still trying to find her top form, Victoria Azarenka and Petra Kvitova making their comebacks, it was no secret that the women’s draw in Wimbledon presented an opportunity for some players to advance into the second week, and possibly have a breakthrough. However, only a handful of people would have picked Magdalena Rybarikova, who has never reached the second week of a Major in her 12-year-long career, to be that player in the semifinals.
The 87th-ranked Slovakian did not have a very convenient draw either. Among her victims were the third-seeded Karolyna Pliskova in the second round, the athletic Croatian Petra Martic in the fourth, and the hard-hitting, 24th-seeded American Coco Vandeweghe in the quarters. It was anything but a cakewalk for a player who had spent the larger part of last year recovering from two surgeries, one on her knee and the other on her wrist. She started her comeback in February, having dropped to no. 453 in the WTA rankings. It is nothing less than impressive that she even amassed enough points in such a short time and made the main draw of Wimbledon, let alone advance to the semifinal round.
Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images Europe
Rybarikova was able to do it, thanks to a crafty style of play, with plenty of variety that can at times leave her opponents bewildered. It is the type of game that can throw heavy-hitters like Pliskova and Vandeweghe out of their rhythm and frustrated. She can vary her ground strokes through a multitude of spins (such as high and loopy at times, flat drives at others, with the occasional low-bouncing slice mixed in) and give a different look to the returner through changes in placement and speed on her serves. For example, she has the ability to slice the serve and make it curve further once the ball hits the ground as well as any other players that utilizes that type of serve, such as Lucie Safarova.
Her opponent Garbine Muguruza is another heavy-hitting star. This is partially the reason for which a match that shows her as the clear favorite to win, at least on paper, could quickly turn into a nightmare for the 14th-seeded Spaniard if she does not take the necessary precautions. After all, Muguruza will hit the ball aggressively from the baseline but not more than Pliskova does, and will serve big, but not bigger than Vandeweghe does, and we saw how that all worked out for Karolyna and Coco when they faced Magda. Muguruza will also need to strike a lot of balls from the knee level or below, not exactly her preferred height for ball contact.
The good news for Garbine fans is that their favorite player is more athletic than any of Rybarikova’s previous opponents (except Martic) and she seems to have caught fire as the rounds progressed. She played a terrific match against Svetlana Kuznetsova, never allowing her to get set and gain any control of the rallies. She was even able to hit spectacular counter-punch shots from defensive positions in the court, even when she found herself chasing balls down. She can move side to side, and explode forward, a lot better than most of her colleagues. It means that against Rybarikova’s low-paced shots, she will likely have her chance to frequently get in position, in order to unleash her powerful baseline strokes.
Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images Europe
The outcome of this match will for the most part depend on two things. First, in terms of on-court tactics, the way both players handle the first shots in the rallies – meaning the returns, first-serves and their percentages, accuracy of the second shot the 1-2 punch pattern – will largely determine the outcome of the points. Garbine’s success rate in these will prove central to her game plan. The last thing she wants is to allow Rybarikova to park herself in the middle area of the court, switch her “slice-dice-direct” mode in active mode, and make Muguruza guess the next shot instead of the other way round. Second, in terms of inner game, the way Rybarikova handles being in the semis of a Major for the first time in her career, against a player appreciated by the Wimbledon crowd, will make the difference in the first 20 minutes of the match. Luckily, it is not her first outing on Centre Court where she already defeated Pliskova and finished her match against Vandeweghe.
I do not consider Muguruza a heavy favorite in this match, as most people do. In fact, I believe Rybarikova, with a solid start in the first couple of games, has a legitimate chance to derail Garbine. I am intrigued!
Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Wimbledon
The following interview appeared (translated to Turkish) on the last issue of Tenis Dunyasi, the most widely read tennis magazine in Turkey. Alberto Lopez Nuñez is the current coach of Marsel Ilhan, the highest-ranked Turkish player in the ATP, and a former coach of Garbiñe Muguruza. During Wimbledon, I sat down with him and discussed in detail his tennis background, developmental years at the Bruguera Tennis Academy, coaching philosophy, and issues important to coach-player relationships. It was one of the most informative interviews I have ever had. Alberto, whom I admire as a coach and a friend, was candid and forthcoming with his commentary. Here is the full interview, in its original English version.
(Interview held on July 1, 2015, at Wimbledon)
For followers of tennis who may not know more than the fact that you are Marsel’s coach, let’s give an introduction to the person Alberto Lopez Nuñez. We know that you became Marsel’s coach at the end of 2013, and that tennis has been life-long passion for you. You were a player, now you are a coach. How was your transition from playing to teaching/coaching tennis? When did you decide that you had enough as a player, and was that when you decided to coach?
Alberto:
At the age of 23, I was young and playing challengers, I was winning some good matches, but I got unlucky. But ok, “unlucky” is perhaps not a precise way to call it, but the bottom line is I lost around 12 out of 14 first rounds in a row. I got tired of that feeling and I no longer wanted to keep going. I felt deep inside that it was my time to stop. Once I stopped playing competitive tennis, I did not go straight into coaching. I went into studies. My parents lived in Galicia so I went back home, and I began studying financial management at a university. When the Galician Tennis Federation found out few months later that I was in the area, they called and asked if I wanted to help. I said to myself “Why not?” because I prefer to stay busy. So I did not start coaching right away after I stopped playing but it was only a short break from tennis. I was going to be studying for three years, so I wanted to be productive during that time. I felt that at the end of my studies I could always come back to Barcelona. During the three years of studying, I went to the university in the mornings, had lunch around 15:00, and then, worked for the federation in the afternoons.
As soon as I finished my last exam at the end of my studies, I went straight back to Barcelona. Once in Barcelona, it was funny because during the first few months, I was planning things around the idea that I was going to work in bank. I had a CV prepared and applied to banks for positions. During that time, Lluis Bruguera Tennis Academy [more on the academy later] knew that I was in Barcelona. One day they called and asked me if working at the academy would interest me until I found a job. Once again, I said “ok, why not?” In the first few months there, I started working with older players from different levels. Five months later, I already found myself working with the top professional players at the academy. There were 2 top 300, 2 top 200, and 2 top 50 players. I was working with all of them, along with another coach. They were a group of six players working with the two of us. That is how it started, and since then, I have been coaching.
Do you contrast the two lives sometimes? You probably discovered that your experience as a player adds to your coaching. But have you also discovered that you understand players better now since you began coaching? Do you feel that you realize things now that you wish you knew when you were a player?
Alberto:
Yes, completely. Do you know what keeps my passion going now in this line of work? I am open, I do learn something new every day, and that brings me to your question. Of course now I am seeing and understanding things in a totally different way than when I was a player, of course I am more mature, and yes, I wish I would have known all this when I used to play. You feel so bad when you are at home watching on T.V. top 50 players that you have beaten before and you have to watch them from the couch of your home instead of being at the same tournament with them. So yes, there are so many things that I have learned during the last 14 years which is how long I have been coaching. I learn something new every day.
Let’s move on to your coaching philosophy in detail. How important are off-season practices to you? Does the amount of training increase in terms of time and intensity during those practice periods? Is there an approximate ideal length to off-season work?
Alberto:
For me, there should be two preseasons during the year. It depends on the ranking and position of the player. Top players normally have around 4-week preseason time at the end of the year, approximately from late-November to late-December. Of course, during that period, intensity should be higher in all aspects. For me, it is one of the most important periods of the year, because you have to get ready for the season. And then, at the midway point of the year, I believe in a two-week preseason training again, to fully get ready for the second half of the season. That means you cut the year in two seasons. You get 4 weeks preseason practice at first, and you get two more in the middle.
If the player comes from a lower-level in the rankings, they don’t play as many matches or long tournaments. Then, five to six weeks of preseason training is better. They are more likely to start late January and you can extend the preseason which is good because they need to work on wider areas or aspects of their game whereas the top players focus more on specific areas. This is why for them, four weeks at the end of the season and two weeks in mid-season is enough. To me the importance of these periods are as obvious as knowing how to play tennis. If players do not accordingly prepare during those times, they cannot be ready or for the season, so it is extremely important to have a proper off-season practice period.
During the year, especially during the tournaments, you can work on specific things but not too long! During the preseason, you can “clean” the player’s game. You can work on technique, you can improve the physical aspects such as strength, in ways that you cannot do during the season because the player cannot really do weights and physical conditioning at 100%, play matches at 100%, and try to reach targets, all at the same time. Normally, during a year you set some targets. When you achieve one goal, you have to move on to the next one. For that next one for example, you have to still practice first during the preseason. You can call them technical targets, tactical ones, or understanding the next step in a game style, like for example in the case of a player with a solid consistent baseline game and you want to develop it toward a more aggressive style game that maybe includes coming to the net.
In your observation of coaches and players in both ATP and WTA, can you think of anything that strikes you as being unique or strange? Is there a moment where you observe other coach-player duos and say to yourself “I wish the coach would do this or the player would do that” or “I wish I did that with my player”?
Alberto:
Never! Because, I believe in the work done by the coach and the one done by that coach’s player. Others are working on their career, not my player’s or mine. So, everyone has a point of view. Obviously different people do some helpful things that can be put to good use by others, but first, you have to keep your eyes open towards your player and concentrate on the details on his or her development as a player. I am open to learn, but first, I believe in the job that I do and in the job that my player does. Of course, I can learn from everyone, but I will not do anything simply because someone else does it.
Ok, some coaches in general could be close to each other in style or philosophy, or even some players among each other. But, tennis is an individual game, it is impossible to be like this. If such thing existed, it would then be something fake, it would make no sense.
What is your opinion on the idea of on-court coaching on the tour? Some say tennis is an individual game it should remain without on-court coaching, others say there should be limited coaching, and others say it should be allowed like in Davis Cup or college tennis in the U.S.A. What do you believe?
Alberto:
I don’t think there should be on-court coaching, I don’t like it and I will tell you why. In my opinion, the job must be done before going on the court. Everything must be clear for the player before stepping on the court. If the player needs to understand something when things are not going right, there are millions way to tell. I believe this whole on-court coaching thing has to do with marketing. For the women for example, maybe in order to increase the viewership on TV, they added this new rule. It makes it more interesting for the viewer because there is a microphone and you hear the dialog between the coach and the player. For the viewer, there is no doubt it is interesting, but for me as a coach, I think you create too much dependence on the coach for the player. The players should be able to make decisions on the court based on the work done with the coach before the match. In a way, from a selfish point of view, it would be easy for me to say “Yes, let’s have coaching so I also become more visible, everyone sees me” and it would give coaches more importance, but then, I would not be respecting my player or fully thinking about my player’s well-being.
What are your future plans? Would you like to continue what you are doing now? Would you like to maybe one day coach a top player? Or in the future, would you like to perhaps get away from what you are doing now and create your own academy, produce tennis players in masses so to speak. Do you think about such long term goals or plans such as these?
Alberto:
Yes, of course, of course! [Pauses a moment]. All of those and in the order that you have said them. I believe that while I am young, I can do what I am doing now which requires to travel all the time and be dedicated 100% to the player. Of course, the target would be to coach a top player. A coach who cares about his job should have ambitions, and the ambition of a coach is to make his player reach the top or get to the point where you can coach a top player. If you make your player go to the top, that is of course the best.
But if you coach a top player how would you manage or run an academy?
Alberto:
This is why I want to do the coaching part first. I feel that I have already accomplished a bit in coaching. I have coached lower-ranked players, I have coached highly ranked women, and I have helped my current player get to a higher level, so I have done it with girls and boys. I would still like to coach a top player. And then, the academy or group projects, or the idea of being a director of a club, that would all come later when I will have a family. That would be the next step, in years’ time, if it is possible and I had some luck, everything went fine etc. In any case, it would all happen in that order hopefully. Now is the time to do what I am doing, but maybe in fifteen years, when I have a family and kids at home, I would change and do things differently. Until then I would like to continue what I am currently doing.
Did you follow Marsel closely before you became his coach? How much did you know him or his game?
Alberto:
I heard from him earlier in 2013. I finished coaching Garbiñe Muguruza in 2012. After four years with her full time and other players prior to her, I felt that I needed a break. I put a lot of emphasis on the individual players during those years, and I wanted to spend some time at the academy. I began working for a while with some girls that were playing in $10,000 ITF futures. During that time, I saw Marsel and talked to him a couple of times because Lluis Bruguera was the tennis program director for the Turkish Tennis Federation. We didn’t even talk about tennis during those conversations. So, I knew about him. I knew about his late results, but nothing else.
Marsel called me one day and asked me if I wanted to work with him. I spoke to Lluis, Lluis spoke to Marsel. Before starting to work with him, I made sure that I had all the information on him, in order to be able to build my own perspective. Obviously, when I started working with him I developed that perspective about how he is and how he behaves, but of course, I got a lot of information on him so I knew who I was going to work with. I did not just say “let’s work and see what happens”, I got informed.
Alberto and Ilhan, Wimbledon 2014
Once you started working with him at first, you probably had immediate goals at the time. Now, in June 2015, you also have goals. Are they completely different from back then? Have you achieved your first goals and moved on to others?
Alberto:
Yes, and they are definitely different now. I remember before I started working with him, I arrived to TED Club in Istanbul and we sat down. Before my arrival, having considered all my information on Marsel and what I knew of his game, I had prepared a written plan with all the different targets and goals. With a full understanding of our situation, I first told Marsel that before him and I started working together, I needed to tell him that from the beginning, we will change several things. Then I told him what those things were in detail. It was a list of around six or seven things. Of course, now, those have changed. There is one that is still the same unfortunately [smiles], but the others have all changed.
Are there any other details that you would like to add? Or perhaps, is there perhaps anyone in particular you would like to address?
Alberto:
Yes, for sure. I want to take this opportunity to say something about Turkish Tennis Federation. I believe they are creating a big, huge opportunity for Marsel with their help. They made it possible for him and I to work together, and I believe that their help is something for which all people involved should be thankful, because nobody forces anyone to do anything. Yes, Marsel is the top player in Turkey, but ok, sometimes help comes in one way, sometimes in another way, and things don’t always work out in the right way, etc. But the Turkish Tennis Federation deserves a big thanks for the type of assistance that they provide.
I would also like to speak about Lluis Bruguera and the Bruguera Tennis Academy where I work, because I am who I am now, thanks to Lluis. I have learned a lot during the years that I competed as a player when I was practicing there, and the years that I have coached while working there, and Lluis helped me become the coach that I am now. Other coaches that are at the Academy are there because of him. I speak a lot to his son Sergi too. Of course it helps the Academy that he is also involved. Both Lluis and Sergi have explained so many things to me and helped me understand a lot. I have a very good relationship with both of them. We are constantly in touch. Lluis closely follows Marsel and me. When we practice in Barcelona, he always spends time with us, constantly helps us, which is also something to be thankful for as well. This is why I am glad I can take advantage of this opportunity that you give me to publicly speak about everything that the academy has done and at the same time thank Lluis. Also, let’s not forget, Lluis is after all allowing me to do this when he could actually require me to stay at his academy and help.
Can you say a bit more on the facilities at the academy?
Alberto:
There are 15 courts in total. Eight hard courts and seven clay courts. We have a swimming pool, large residence for the students where they can sleep and eat. Their school is also right there. Everything is in one site, the players don’t need to go anywhere. It’s a complete academy.
I believe in the system of work that we have there, which is the same system that has produced for us eighteen top-100 players, six top-50 players, and we had two top-10 players, and there is a reason for that success. Our system of work, during the last 25 years, has worked and brought success to many players, men and women.
Alberto thank you very much for taking the time.
—–
A month later, at the Citi Open in Washington D.C., Alberto’s friend and the former two-time French Open champion (1993 and 1994) Sergi Bruguera, who currently coaches Richard Gasquet, had this to say about Alberto:
“I always believed that Alberto constantly remains eager to improve himself and grow as a coach now, just like he did in the past when he used to be a player. More importantly, he knows how to deliver his message to his players which is the most basic yet important thing for a coach. He has succeeded in doing this with all the players he has worked with, for example with Muguruza for a few years in the past, and now with Ilhan for two years, and helped them improve, as well as their rankings during his time with them.”
Source: Adrian Dennis/AFP
While Agnieszka Radwanska can take comfort in the fact that she has previously competed in the semifinal stage of a Major (twice: 2012 Wimbledon, 2014 Australian Open) and even went further in London by reaching the finals in 2012, Garbine Muguruza will undoubtedly play the biggest match of her career to this day when she steps on the Centre Court Thursday afternoon. This contrast cannot be underlined enough and should play a significant role in the outcome. On the one hand, it can be similar to the 2002 case of young Andy Roddick who later admitted to being in awe of the big stage, when he entered Arthur Ashe stadium under the lights to take on Pete Sampras in the 2002 US Open. He was flat and swallowed by the occasion, losing to Sampras in three unexpectedly routine sets. On the other hand, it can also resemble the case of Iva Majoli who never skipped a beat and executed one of the most perfect plans in the final of a Major, in her 6-4 6-2 win against Martina Hingis in the 1997 French Open final, although she has never made it past the quarterfinals at that stage, during the rest of her career.
Muguruza played a highly intelligent game against an in-form Timea Bacsinszky, adjusting her game early in the match to play more aggressively, and pulling a few big shots out of her bag on important points. Bacsinszky used drop shots and moved Muguruza around early in the match knowing that the footwork department would be one area where she could outclass her opponent. Muguruza also missed a monumental chance to take charge at 4-3 up and 15-30 on Bacsinzky’s serve when she missed wide a routine backhand cross-court winner, from well inside the court. When Bacsinzky stormed back to hold at 4-4, it looked like she would take charge. However, that was the only crucial point to go Bacsinszky’s way for the rest of the match. In fact, by the time they shook hands at the net, it was Timea leading the “chances blown away” category by about four or five to one.
Bacsinzky had an easy forehand at 5-5 30-30 on Muguruza’s serve and blew it out. When she had a point to get back to 6-6 on her serve, she committed another costly mistake. Finally on set point for Muguruza, the Swiss got tight and did not move inside the court to hit the low forehand which led to yet another one of her uncharacteristic errors. In the second set, the trend continued on the big points, with either Garbine dictating the point or Timea being generous with errors. This is not to take anything away from Muguruza’s win because one player’s errors often originate in the pressure felt when the other begins to impose his or her game, and that is precisely what Muguruza did. From the fifth game on, she slowly began to get more aggressive from the baseline to counter Bacsinszky’s variety, and pushed the Swiss back further behind the baseline. She wore Timea down, pounding the corners, slowly taking away her opponent’s options. Having said that, the question mark remains on whether Garbine can sustain the same level against Aga in the semifinals when the crafty Pole gets more of those balls back and gifts nothing away on big points in the way that Timea did yesterday.
In conclusion, tomorrow presents a big challenge for the Spaniard. She will need to rise to the challenge and play the match of her life to get to a plateau that she has never before reached. The good news is that she will not have to do that against Maria Sharapova or Serena Wiliams, who each hold a Career Slam and combine for a total of 25 Major titles, but rather against Radwanska who has appeared in one Major title. After her win over Bacsinszky she was asked if she enjoyed playing on “big courts.” She replied: “I like to play on big courts because it’s extra motivation. I like when people live, they feel what you feel when you’re on the court, feel really good.” Tomorrow’s big-court showdown guarantees that “extra motivation,” sets the stage for an opportunity for Muguruza to establish herself in the upper echelon of the WTA Tour and be a force to reckon with for a long time to come.
Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates throughout Wimbledon.
The swing volley began to work its way into professional tennis in the 1980s and grew in frequency for the next two decades until it became almost the norm in the 21st century whenever the opponent hit a floater high in the air, in case he or she would get pushed and stretched to a corner. With the addition of new technology, and fitter players, the use of swing volleys generated winner after winner in both professional tours.
The only problem is that you cannot hit a swing volley on every high floater. Sometimes, the ball is too far, or it’s too risky to make a full swing. It is sometimes enough to simply to block the ball to the open court. When that moment arrives, the arm must remain stiff, and the wrist must go through the minimum amount of recoil possible. Unfortunately for Victoria Azarenka, she did neither of those on her high backhand volley at 2-1 up in the third set against Dominika Cibulkova, when she had an opportunity to break her opponent’s serve at 30-40:
You can see Azarenka’s racket head drop all the way below the wrist level when she strikes the volley, causing the ball to float and allow Cibulkova to chase it down. She simply did not keep her forearm muscles clenched and let her wrist loose. Now, remember that this was not just a point like any other.
I have talked in my last article in depth about momentum shifts early in sets. This point above was precisely that! It led in fact to the most decisive momentum shift of this match. Cibulkova crushed Azarenka in the first set 6-2. Vika began finding depth on her strokes early the second set and took control as the set progressed. She often neutralized Cibulkova’s aggressive baseline shots by making use of all the four corners of the court, keeping her guessing. Vika won the second set 6-3 and when the third set began, it seemed that it was just a matter of time before she took control of the final set. The point above was that moment! Had she made that volley, she would have gone up 3-1 and probably continued to steamroll the way she has done so, since early in the second set. Cibulkova would have had to play catch-up, her only hope of coming back resting on an unlikely let-down by Azarenka. However, Cibulkova held serve, regained her confidence, and zoomed at warp factor nine to the finish line from there on, losing only one more game (6-3).
Let’s fast forward to Serena Williams vs. Garbine Muguruza, to the second game of the final set. Muguruza dominated the first set, Serena recovered, as only she can, to equalize at one set all. In the beginning of the third set, Muguruza held serve after a long game in which she faced break points. It was a big hold, giving Muguruza a chance to sink her teeth back in the match after a disappointing second set. She not only did that, but she climbed to a 15-40 lead on Serena’s serve, looking to go up 2-0 and to take charge again in the third set. Then, this happened:
Again, what you see is Muguruza tilting her wrist back quite far, causing the racket to flip back as she blocks (or not) the ball. Thus the floating ball that should have been an easy put away results in a “floating volley” that sails out. As a result, what should have been a guaranteed early break that would have left Serena frustrated (remember that she was already frowning from not having broken Muguruza in the previous game) and allowed Muguruza to move forward with confidence in the final set, turned into a long game that lasted over ten minutes, ending with Serena holding serve. Serena pumped her fist up screamed when she finally held to equalize at 1-1. She returned to her form of the second set and Muguruza slowly began to fade away, only winning one more game the rest of the set.
This type of shot occurs less and less since the topspin-swing volley has replaced the traditional block volley. However, it does not mean that it should not be practiced specifically. Because it can make your day, or as the cases of Azarenka and Muguruza showed today, it can also break it.
Note: Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the Australian Open: @MertovsTDesk
Since the eliminations of the top 3 seeds Serena Williams, Li Na, and Agnieska Radwanska in the early days of Roland Garros, the few left who were still daring to make predictions called on two names to meet in the finals: Maria Sharapova and Simona Halep. To their relief, the two players stayed the course and reached tomorrow’s final match, although not without some difficulty in Sharapova’s case.
Logic would dictate that with all her previous Slam titles and her mental toughness, Sharapova should overcome yet another challenge by a newcomer to the elite world of “big time” in WTA in the form of Halep. She has already held off challenges by the so-called the ‘new generation’ by recording remarkable comeback wins against Garbine Muguruza and Eugenie Bouchard, and one other against a proven player in Samantha Stosur. She came back to win in three sets after losing the first against all three. Especially her win against Bouchard deserves special mention.
The 48 hours leading up to the match, a photo of Sharapova taken with an 8-year-old Bouchard circulated all over the social and main stream media, courtesy of the editor at TV Guide who initially posted it on Twitter. The effects of this picture, coupled with Bouchard’s reference to Sharapova as her idol – ‘back then’ Bouchard specified, adding that they are “not friends” now – when asked about it, transformed the match into the image of a champion who stands to cede her younger rival the status of the revered champion and let the newcomer take her place. This was reminded to her more than once in the form of direct question – how did she feel about playing someone who took her as an idol when she was young? –, and in the form of newspaper articles and TV spots, in case she followed the media. She even had to respond to the last-second question by the colorful French TV personality Nelson Monfort on screen right before she walked on the court. He asked her how she felt about being the favorite and Sharapova, probably sick of the hype, bluntly answered that there could be no favorites in a match like this, and walked out. If she lost she would drop out of top 10, and Bouchard would enter it. Thus, it was under tremendous pressure that the Russian took her first steps to the court. To exasperate things further, the Philippe Chatrier crowd overwhelmingly supported Bouchard throughout the match. In short, Sharapova played a match where all the elements worked against her and she had everything to lose, while Bouchard stepped on the court as someone who had everything to gain from a victory.
So, one can understand when Sharapova celebrated her victory as if she won the tournament after her courageous comeback from a set down again. It was not happiness or contentment that she manifested. It was relief! I am not a big Sharapova fan, but I admired her tenacity, her sheer will to find a way to win, or refusal to lose. I believe that she will enter the court much more relaxed against Halep, an recently established top 5 player. She has already passed the toughest mental tests against Muguruza and Bouchard. She will play a match in which she is not the clear-cut favorite, although she is the slightly on paper. Her main advantage is her experience and her awareness that she can accomplish what is necessary when clutch moments arrive.
In contrast, Halep has steamrolled through the tournament, just as she has steamrolled through the last 12 months. If one was to pick the best player on the WTA Tour without a Slam title in the last 12 months, it would be Halep without a doubt. Yet, she has never been to this stage in a Slam tournament. Will that be a factor? It sure did not in her first semifinal in a Slam against Andrea Petkovic. She played the best tennis of the tournament by any player in the first set of that match. Her biggest strength is her footwork. She is able to move around the ball in small steps and get in position better than anyone in the current generation and probably better than any player since Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario of Spain, the French Open winner of 1989, 1994, and 1998. Her forehand is lethal and she does not seem to have a clear weakness.
If the past was not considered and tennis history began in the last 12 months, it would be a 50-50 call. Halep has numerous titles on every surface, skyrocketed to the number 4 ranking. Sharapova recovered from an injury the latter part of 2013, and has won Stuttgart and Madrid. In Madrid and on clay, she did beat Halep in three sets. When the past and the aura are added to the equation, the balance tilts in Sharapova’s favor. She has been to this stage, and has won Slam titles. Halep will play in her first final. All indications show that it has the potential to be a final for ages. Let’s hope it turns out so.
Friday evening – Trophy presentation ceremony rehearsal on Philippe Chatrier