Tag: Grigor Dimitrov

MT-Desk’s Next Stop: ATP Istanbul Open

ATP 2 Comments

Istanbul, the city that spans across two continents, is hosting its inaugural ATP Tour event next week (April 27 – May 3): TEB BNP Paribas Istanbul Open.

Roger Federer and Grigor Dimitrov will headline the tournament, joining clay-court specialists such as Pablo Cuevas, Santiago Giraldo, Juan Monaco, as well as Turkey’s Marsel Ilhan.

Mertov’s Tennis Desk will be on site throughout the week. Check here daily for pictures and reports throughout the week.

For up-to-the-minute live updates throughout the tournament, follow MT-Desk on Twitter: @MertovsTDesk

Istanbul Open(Picture via Istanbul Open Official Facebook Page)

How to Play Piss-Poor and Still Reach the Third Round at a Major 101- Course taught by Feliciano Lopez

ATP & WTA 1 Comment

We have reached the third round stage at the Australian Open, and although the surge in the number of surprise winners in the first days of competition emerged as a major topic of conversation, the title contenders on both women’s and men’s draws have moved forward. Only two of those players, Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal, have been in legitimate danger of being ousted by their “lesser” opponents, but both showed why they belong to the elite group of genii in our sport who rise above challenges in ways that others can only imagine. Down a match point twice, Sharapova hit two forehands winners that most other players would only dare to attempt if they were up 5-0 30-0. Nadal overcame violent stomach pains, vomiting on the court, and still found an extra supply of his interminable fighting spirit somewhere deep within him to come back from two-sets-to-one down to win in a battle that lasted over four hours.

This is how these genii operate and that is why they are likely to be there when late next week arrives instead of the emerging group of great players such as Madison Keys, Zarina Diyas, and Caroline Garcia on the women’s side, and Grigor Dimitrov, Milos Raonic, and Nick Kyrgios on the men’s.

The gap between these players and the elite has narrowed, but is still far from disappearing. Even for Eugenie Bouchard and Kei Nishikori, both reaching the finals of one Major each in 2014, the road still seems long before they can step on the same pedestal as the elite few. But this article belongs to one player on the men’s draw who is neither a genius, nor a great up-and-comer. It is about Feliciano Lopez, the veteran who has been around the top 20 for a long time while remaining a nightmare for most top players, and why he is the most unlikely player to still be in the tournament.

First of all, let’s make it very clear: it is not just the four match points saved by Lopez in his first two rounds combined against Denis Kudla and Adrian Mannarino that make his presence in the third round spectacular. It is rather how poorly he has played in those matches and still managed to turn them into victories.

Against Kudla, his first serve, which is usually the driving force for the rest of his game, hovered around the 55% mark throughout the match. It was also only in the mid-portion of the fifth set that (10-8) that the numbers of his winners surpassed that of his unforced errors; and even then, he still had to save three match points in the final stages of the match to survive. He was constantly having to catch up with Kudla’s rhythm, getting outplayed from the baseline, and having to chase the American’s balls down and committing silly errors in his attempts to dig out of that pattern and take charge during the points. Nevertheless, he survived and it could not get any worse for Lopez right? Wrong!

The level of his play dropped even lower against Mannarino. His first serve percentage was this time well below 50% (46% and 43% in the first two sets, respectively) for most of the match. Despite an opponent who kept throwing in double faults at the most inopportune moments, and who did nothing more than return low and bunt the ball back in play, Lopez made mistake after mistake and constantly complained to his corner, in search of answers for the shockingly low quality of shots coming out of his racket. Yes, Lopez did save a match point at 4-6 4-6 4-5, but alone, that does not reflect how lop-sided the match was at times in Mannarino’s favor. The Frenchman was actually up 4-0 in that third set and serving, then 5-3 and 30-0, and finally 3-0 up in the tiebreaker before losing seven points successively to lose the third set, and melting away in the fourth due to illness (he retired down 0-4 in the fourth set, unable to move the last few games).

So how did Lopez do it? Blaming Mannarino’s illness for the Frenchman’s exit from the tournament would be nothing more than telling a tall tale, because he did everything possible in the third set when he had the match in his hands, short of rolling the red carpet for Lopez and inviting him back in the match, to not cross the finish line.

At 4-0 down in the third, Lopez looked like he was ready to get in the locker room and playing terrible, except that Mannarino served a succession of double faults and committed a number of errors on shots that challenged him no more than the five-minute warm-up balls coming from the opponent. To be clear, it is not as if Mannarino led Lopez 6-4 6-4 4-0 because he was outplaying his opponent. He was up because he could not lower the quality of his game as much as Lopez did during that period. This match did not feature a world-class level of tennis, both players serving so poorly that there were a number of consecutive breaks in three and a half sets of play. Although the first sentence of the paragraph asked for an explanation of how Lopez “did it,” the more appropriate question for this particular match would have been “how did Mannarino do it?”

Yet, there must be a reason why, in Majors, Lopez has a 16-8 record in five-setters (win against Mannarino does not count because technically, Lopez did not win in five sets) and has won his last seven five-setters, dating back to Wimbledon 2009.

The Spaniard never loses hope no matter the score, and he does not link the level of his play to his will to win. In Lopez’s world, “playing bad” or “sucking” does not equal a loss. A very common phrase in tennis players’ language, “I can’t win playing like this,” does not exist for Lopez. As far as Lopez is concerned, he can play “like this,” and still win playing “like this.” In this edition of the Australian Open, he is easily the worst performer to reach the third round.

Lopez will face Jerzy Janowicz next round. In order to win, Lopez will desperately need to raise the level of his play against an opponent who has more power and shot-making capability than him. But wait! That is probably not how Lopez thinks. He probably thinks “I can win, but what can I do anyway in order to raise the level of my play?”

Note: Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the Australian Open: @MertovsTDesk

Australian Open 2015, Logical Men’s Quarterfinals: Can They Materialize?

ATP No Comments

As soon as the draws were announced at the Australian Open, it did not take long for the logical quarterfinals projections to be announced by the media members and tennis experts. The process is simple: you take the two highest seeds in each quarter and assume that they will beat their opponents to eventually face each other in that section of the draw for a berth in the semifinals. Thus, on the men’s draw the line up would be the following: Novak Djokovic (1) vs. Milos Raonic (8), Stan Wawrinka (4) vs. Kei Nishikori (5), Rafael Nadal (3) vs. Tomas Berdych (7), and Roger Federer (2) vs. Andy Murray (6). While those are dream match-ups for the second week and the tournament organizers, past experience tells us that the chances of this logical outcome coming to fruition is close to zero percent. Here are my takes on each quarter section, assuming that injuries play no part in the outcome:

Top quarter: Djokovic vs. Raonic

The chances of Djokovic getting upset early are close to none. He is a consistent performer in the Majors and it usually takes a monumental effort (Rafa at the French or Wawrinka 12 months ago in Melbourne are good examples) to eliminate Djokovic in a five-set battle. He rarely gets upset by lesser opponents. While I would be interested to see the talented Swede Elias Ymer do well, get past his first two rounds (tall order as it is, and not very likely), and take the stage against the number one player in the world, Djokovic is likely to get to the round of 16s without any complication. Then, he will have a more serious test, possibly against John Isner who has given him trouble in the past in two-out-of-three-sets matches. IIsner’s section, there are also couple of intriguing names, Dominic Thiem and Laurent Lokoli, who are looking for their first breakout Major tournaments. Throw in the dangerous Roberto Bautista-Agut and the in-form Gilles Muller, you have a fantastic early-round section with players battling to face Djokovic. Nevertheless, Djokovic should get to the quarters, possibly without even losing a set. Raonic’s path to the quarterfinals is a bit more complicated, but not until the third round. Once past his first two matches, he should face someone who will challenge him, such as Lleyton Hewitt or Julien Benneteau, who have wnough experience to trouble Raonic. If he gets past that, he will have to face either Feliciano Lopez who performs well in Majors and has the experience, or Gaël Monfils whom everyone fears except Nadal and Djokovic. Chances of Djokovic and Raonic meeting in the quarters: around 70%.

2nd quarter: Stan Wawrinka vs. Kei Nishikori

The big question here is “which Wawrinka will show up?” If it is the one from last year’s Australian Open or Wimbledon, look for him to steamroll his way to the quarterfinals. One player floating dangerously that nobody has heard of: Marius Copil. If he faces Wawrinka in the second round, it should be entertaining, providing that Copil does not melt under the “my-first-Major-appearance” syndrome. I do not see how Fognini, Dolgopolov, or anyone else in the third round, including Guillermo Garcia-Lopez who beat him in Paris, can stop Wawrinka. At first glance, Nishikori’s draw looks tough, but it could turn out to be a cakewalk. Nicolas Almagro would be one of the last players any seeded player cares to play in the first round, except that Almagro has not played an ATP match since Wimbledon due to a foot injury. I personally like Santiago Giraldo and Steve Johnson but I believe they are good match-up for Nishikori who can do everything they do, but a bit better. In the round of 16s, he will face the usually dangerous David Ferrer or Gilles Simon. I use the word “usually” seriously because in 2014, Ferrer was not the Ferrer that we are used to seeing for the last eight years, and Gilles Simon has battled injuries lately. I am looking for Nishikori to make it to the quarters easier than expected. Chances of Wawrinka and Nishikori meeting in the quarters: around 85%.

3rd quarter: Nadal vs. Berdych

Considering that he is not coming into the tournament on a high note, Nadal could not have asked for a better draw. Unlike Federer and Wawrinka, Nadal (like Djokovic) has the ability start a tournament on third gear, and eventually pull it to the fifth gear by the time the second week comes around. And all the names that could have given the Spaniard trouble in the early rounds are dispersed elsewhere. Don’t be fooled by some crazy upset pickers, his first round opponent Mikhail Youzhny is a shadow of his former self. The one name that stands out in his potential early-round opponents is Lukas Rosol. But this is not grass; it’s rather a slow version of hard courts. Does either Richard Gasquet or Kevin Anderson have a chance against Nadal if they play in the round of 16s? Anderson, small chance… Gasquet, none! In contrast to Nadal, Berdych has one of the hardest roads to travel in orderto reach the quarterfinals. Jurgen Melzer, his possible second-round opponent, has too much game and experience to be intimidated by neither Berdych nor a Major tournament atmosphere. Then, he will face Leonardo Mayer, Jiri Vesely, or Viktor Troicki, who are all able to cause an upset, and hungry for victories in the big stage. Even if he makes it through the first three rounds, Berdych will then have to take on a solid player such as Philipp Kohlschreiber (the last guy to get intimidated when playing a seeded player), Sam Groth (dangerous serve-and-volleyer who keeps improving steadily), or Ernest Gulbis (maybe the biggest loose cannon in the draw who can beat anybody depending on which side of the bed he wakes up that morning). Chances of Nadal and Berdych meeting in the quarters: around 60%.

4th quarter: Federer vs. Murray

Federer’s potential early-round opponents are composed of some solid names on the tour, but none good enough to cause a remarkable upset in a Major. Jeremy Chardy, Simone Bolelli, Borna Coric, Juan Monaco, Andres Seppi, Denis Istomin, can all beat a higher seeded player in any other ATP tournament (and have), or even take a set of a top player in a Major, but do not stand a chance to topple a top four seed here. Ivo Karlovic could be a dangerous fourth round opponent, but Federer seems to know how to deal with big servers, and Tommy Robredo (another potential fourth round opponent) defeating Federer in a Major will only happen once (2013 US Open). I can see Federer playing a few tiebreakers, or even losing a set (or sets) but do not see him losing prior to the quarterfinals. Andy Murray’s side has a couple of loose cannons in Marinko Matosevis and Martin Klizan who can be nightmares on the court. And yet, this is precisely what Murray needs, in order to be ready to face either Grigor Dimitrov, or David Goffin, or Dustin Brown (speaking of loose cannons), or Marcos Baghdatis, or Teymuraz Gabashvili in the fourth round. Yes, any of those can make it to the fourth round; this is by far the most contested section of the men’s draw. Again, Murray needs these tests to have a chance against Federer in the quarters, because he, like Djokovic and Nadal, can play himself into form as the tournament progresses. Chances of Federer and Murray meeting each other in the quarters: around 75%.

And now, it’s time to enjoy the first Major of 2015!

Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the tournament: @MertovsTDesk

Peeling the Skin Away

ATP 4 Comments

Experts say that skin renews itself approximately every 28 days. In terms of tennis chronology, assuming that the period of dominance by a few elite players counts as a cycle, and looking at the pattern since the turn of the century, 28-day cycle of skin renewal in men’s tennis terms translates to… well, we do not know yet! The fact that there is nobody called Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, or Roger Federer in the finals of a Slam tournament for the first time since the 2005 Australian Open does not necessarily point to the end of an era. In fact, one could argue that even in a tournament in which Nadal did not show up due to an injury, Djokovic looked like he has yet to recover from a dismal hard court summer, Federer played his worst tennis of the 2014 campaign, and Andy Murray ran into one of the other three in the quarterfinals, two of the big 4 names were still in the semi-finals.

That being said, the trend has arrived. In my last entry prior to the US Open, I predicted that this US Open was a great opportunity for an outsider to have a career tournament due to the lack of quality performance that the top-10 players have displayed through the tournaments prior to the Major in New York. At first glance, it looks like my prediction was spot on. We did have two outsiders battle in the men’s finals on Monday night, and in fact, I even counted Cilic’s name amongst the possible outsiders in the comments below. However, my premise was flawed. I assumed that it would happen because it was a ‘low’ period for the stars and that represented a window of opportunity for the newcomers. What I did not realize was to what point the transformation of the ATP’s composition of top players has begun. When I looked at 2014 as a season so far, it all became evident.

Yes, the skin is changing! When Stan Wawrinka won the Australian Open, most believed it was an anomaly. By the time Novak Djokovic won the two Masters Series tournaments in Indian Wells and Miami, people believed so much in the flash-in-the-pan nature of Wawrinka’s accomplishment that they have all but overlooked Kei Nishikori outplaying an in-form Federer in Miami. But the players did apparently take notice. Milos Raonic at Wimbledon, and Marin Cilic few days ago, have both pointed to Wawrinka’s victory as the day where they came to the realization that the “others” had a chance. They explicitly credited the Swiss for opening the door for them, at least mentally. When the clay-court season arrived, the so-called anomaly Wawrinka showed that he is not an anomaly, as he took the clay-court specialist and long-time top-6 player David Ferrer out in Monte Carlo, and then won the title against his good friend Federer in the finals. One week later, tennis fans were stunned for an hour and a half when they watched Nishikori ‘school’ (yes, that is the only term that comes to mind if you watched that segment) Nadal on clay in Madrid until a 6-2 4-2 lead, only to see his hopes of winning the title slip away due to an injury that forced him to withdraw from the match 0-3 down in the third after losing a painful seven games in a row.

Marin CilicMarin Cilic practicing during the Cincinnati ATP tournament

After Roland Garros showed that the big 4 were still able to dominate, Wimbledon confirmed the coming-of-age of few new faces. Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov who have been knocking on the door of the top 10 reached the semi-finals, only to be reminded by Federer and Djokovic that they are not quite there, but very close. Wawrinka was anything but missing in action as some predicted, reaching the quarterfinals, only to lose to Federer in a tough four-setter. As to Nadal, he was knocked out early in the second week by another flashy newcomer, the Australian Nick Kyrgios. Now, the change of skin was becoming a reality. Wawrinka, Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori (the latter’s injury slowed his year down, but only temporarily) were here to stay. The change of skin was no longer an anomaly. Ernests Gulbis was one of those. An anomaly, an exception, highly unlikely to appear again in a semi-final or a final, even if the Big 4 put down their rackets today and never picked them up again. He has been around, operating below his potential for many years. Gulbis was one single anomaly; the rest represented the renewal of the faces of the ATP.

This U.S. Open confirmed the trend, stamped it, officialized it. Federer and Djokovic looked under-matched against two of the new faces, Nishikori and the big-serving Cilic. On the one hand, the next couple of years will make us appreciate how important Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are to men’s tennis and to its explosion as a popular sport around the world over the last decade. ATP should forever be thankful to these great champions who will deservedly take their places in the historiography of the sport as the main representatives of second golden age of tennis, following the first during the late 70s and the early 80s. I doubt we will ever see such a dominant group of individuals whose equivalent of “28-day skin-renewal” in men’s tennis has yet to be determined, even after a decade. Yet, the end-of-the-year ATP Championships, as well as the Majors next year, will become bigger sources of anticipation as the fascinated tennis fan will now look forward to discussing who will get to the semis, which player will enter top 5, or who will win their first Major title, rather than guessing who out of the big 4 will win the next Major title. This is not to say that one option is less entertaining than the other. It’s just that the latter question has thrilled us for so long that I now predict tennis fans will embrace with open arms the emergence of the former types of questions.

US Open Men’s Draw: Open to Outsiders

ATP 2 Comments

The two Masters 1000 tournaments that take place Canada and Cincinnati often give a solid indication of what is likely to take place in the U.S. Open, which starts one week after the end of the Cincinnati tournament. For example, last year, Rafael Nadal went on to win both tournaments, in Montréal and Cincinnati, and kept rolling through the U.S. Open all the way to his 13th Slam title.

If that trend holds true, in other words, if these two tournaments signal what is to come in New York, one message is clear: the top 15 players in the ATP are either out of form or injured and it may just be the perfect opportunity for an outsider to reach for the elite status. Stanislas Wawrinka did in the Australian Open, but he had to go through two of the world’s best — Novak Djokovic and Nadal — in order to hold the Slam trophy.

Djokovic has had the most miserable two-week period of his career in a long time. He played well below his usual level of tennis, often looking like a novice on the court, missing silly balls and appearing afraid to hit the ball. He played four matches during which he never played better than mediocre tennis by his standards. He admitted that the two weeks did nothing for his confidence and that he is heading into the U.S. Open without enough match play in the hard courts.

Rafael Nadal has pulled out of the US Open due to his left-wrist injury. Roger Federer is no doubt the most consistent top player on the tour this summer. However, as good as his results have looked during these two weeks, his tennis has been up and down. Even as he won in Cincinnati, he only played one great match from beginning to end, his semifinal win against Milos Raonic. The rest of his matches featured patches of dry spells filled with strings of unforced errors.

Stan Wawrinka did not make the semifinals in either tournament. After his win against Cilic in the third round of the Cincinnati tournament, he responded to a media member’s question by saying, “I am glad I won, but I have to play much better to go further.” He did not, and he was eliminated by Julien Bennetteau in the quarterfinals. Tomas Berdych is in a virtual free-fall since Roland Garros and risks being left out of the top 10 by the end of the year unless he recuperates quickly. Andy Murray, meanwhile, still does not have a win against a top-10 player since Wimbledon 2012. Milos Raonic has been more consistent than other top-10 players, but still not playing at the level that got him to the semifinal round of Wimbledon. He is the number 6 player in the world, but he has yet to record a single win against the top five players ahead of him in 21 attempts.

Dimitrov - Cincy

Another newcomer to the scene and the other semifinalist in Wimbledon, Grigor Dimitrov (pictured above), made it to the semis in Toronto, but played dismal against Jerzy Janowicz in his early-round exit in Cincinnati. As for David Ferrer, although he did reach the final in Cincinnati, by his standards, he is having his most inconsistent year on the tour since, well… ages ago. If one considers that Kei Nishikori, Richard Gasquet, and Juan Martin del Potro have all pulled out of the U.S. Open, we can extend this list of out of form attribute to the players ranked in the top 15. Ernests Gulbis (13) and John Isner (14) are not exactly burning the barn, either.

Once the U.S. Open begins on Monday, it will naturally be hard to pick anyone outside the top 15 to win the tournament or even to get to the semifinals. Yet, if the players ranked in the 15-to-40 range take a close look at the field, they should be able to see that this US Open may be their best opportunity to dig far in a Slam and earn valuable points. The big names are clearly not playing well, and an outsider who wants to make a run to the last weekend of the tournament, may not have to go through bunch of them to get there. Unless any one or more of the top players happened to rediscover their form during this week in practice, the window of opportunity is there for one or more outsiders to have a career-building tournament.

Of the Importance of 2nd Serves…

ATP No Comments

Back in my college coaching days, my ex-roommate and life-long friend named Michael Kreider originally from Buffalo, NY, and a current tennis pro in Atlanta, said to me one time “you are only as good as your second serve.” At the time, I would make my team practice second serves as part of our daily serving routine. However, after Michael’s reminder, I began designing drills specifically geared towards making my players feel under pressure, and force them to serve second serves under those circumstances. Eventually, I got on the same page with Michael and began believing that second serves were just as important as any other single shot in tennis, if not more. You may have even read one of my pieces where I praise Raonic, Federer, and Isner for being, in my opinion, the best second-serve hitters in the game.

Let’s take a quick look at the Wimbledon Men’s Draw from the perspective of second serves.

2nd serve

There is a stat called “2nd serve points won” and you can find it on Wimbledon’s website. Three of the quarter-finalists are in the top 8 of that list (see picture above). At number 1, there is Tatsuma Ito whose percentage is based on one match only since he lost in the first round, thus not very indicative of the overall second-serve effectiveness. At number 2, 3, and 4, we have Roger Federer (68%), Feliciano Lopez who lost today (66%), and Milos Raonic (65%). At number 7, there is the guy who took Lopez out, Stan Wawrinka (62%). I will also add as a side note that, on the women’s list in the same category, after Kristina Pliskova, who also played only one round, you can find Petra Kvitova at #2 with 64%, and Simona Halep at #3 with 63%.

But wait! It does not end there.

It is generally accepted that the serve is an essential factor in playing successful tiebreaks. Until today, Lopez was 6 out of 7 in tiebreakers in his first three rounds. Today he lost two tiebreakers to Wawrinka who is third on the list among the players still alive in the tournament. Additionally, Federer is the leader of the career tiebreak winning percentage category on the ATP Tour.

No, it still does not end there.

Here is an incredible stat from today: against Tommy Robredo, Federer lost only one – yes, ONE – point on his second-serve points in the first two sets combined! Furthermore, since second serve is the shot that determines if you double fault or not, I should add that Federer had 0 – yes, zero! – double faults today, despite hitting them well enough to serve-and-volley on several of them. In fact, today’s four quarterfinal winners had a total of only 8 double faults between them. Half of those came from Nick Kyrgios who more than made up for that with his 37 aces against Rafael Nadal.

Is it becoming clear how important second serves are yet? If not, here is one last tidbit…

Out of all 8 men left in the singles draw, Dimitrov and Kyrgios have the highest number of double faults per match. They both average just below four double faults a match. They also average 10 aces (Dimitrov) and 26 aces (Kyrgios) per match. Next, there is Marin Cilic at less than 3 double faults per match and he is averaging 24,5 aces per match. The other five quarterfinalists are averaging less than two double faults per match.

Three of them are still in the tournament in the men’s draw. Watch Raonic, Wawrinka, and Federer, on their second serves, and you will see the variation on the spin, slice, speed, and placement. That is why these three players love the pattern of putting the next shot away with their big forehands (or even volleys in Federer’s case who serves-and-volleys on second serve occasionally), because they get a number of returns back from their second serves that are placed exactly where they want them for the winning shot.

Does all this mean that a tour player cannot win without a terrific second serve? No, but it does mean that if a player wants to succeed at the highest level, second serves will have to be incorporated into his/her practice routine, just like any other shot in tennis. Not just “serves,” but specifically “second serves”.

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

MENU

Navigation