Polona Hercog’s game, while she is riding the high end of a confidence cycle, can be a treat tow watch. Kuznetsova was on the receiving end of 20 winners in the first set in the quarterfinals yesterday and Sakkari’s fate today in the first set was not much different. The 48th-ranked Greek player tried to use every bit of her athletic ability to keep up with the steady onslaught of winners and drop shots flowing steadily from her opponent’s racket. She even saved a set point at 3-5, but Hercog’s form proved too much for her at the end as the 75th-ranked Slovenian wrapped the first set up 6-4. It was thanks to a sizzling start right out of the gates to go up a break, an advantage that Hercog held on to until the end of the set.
The only moment of concern during that set was when she led 3-2 and committed a rare couple of dismal errors – one on an easy overhead missed wide – to go down a break point. However, when you perform with confidence, those moments appear as nothing more than nuisances rather than turning points. Hercog quickly corrected course with two spectacular winners to hold serve and continue the ride. It was the first set that Sakkari lost this week, although that sentence does not accurately reflect reality since it was rather Hercog who won it.
Polona had experienced a letdown in her match yesterday after dominating the first set against Kuznetsova, therefore Sakkari needed to remain calm and keep pressing on the pedal. First few games of a set are often where shifts in balance occur in tennis matches. Maria also needed a few more first serves after serving at 44% in the first set – 27% at 4-2 down.
Losing a blank game on her serve to start the second set meant that the shift was not appearing anytime soon on the horizon for the Greek player. In fact, if anything at all, it was a repeat of the first set. Hercog held to go up 2-0 and here we were, once again, watching Sakkari trail Hercog by a break.
Hercog took it a step further by increasing her lead with a second break after a contested game at 3-1 in which Sakkari fought hard to stay within distance, ultimately falling short. Seemingly with “nothing left to lose” – I use quotation marks because that phrase is never true – at 2-5, she tried to take returns early and get to the net. It did temporarily catch Hercog off-guard and allow Sakkari to earn three break points at 0-40. It proved to be nothing more than a momentary glitch as Hercog climbed back to hold and end the match with a score of 6-4 6-2.
It was a convincing win for Hercog. She never wavered from her game plan and kept pushing Sakkari around from the beginning of the match to the end.
The desired pattern of play was the same for either player in this match. It consisted of running around the backhand whenever possible, dictating play with heavy forehands, and approaching the net if the opponent’s ball landed short. Having a high first-serve percentage plays a significant role in this type of match since getting the upper hand on your opponent early in the point allows you to impose your plan while denying your opponent the same.
Hence, the fact that neither player served well early in the match could somewhat explain the four straight breaks to start the match. After two straight holds to get to 3-3, Begu had an error-prone game on the seventh game, losing her serve again with a backhand unforced mistake into the net. Parmentier now had a chance to break free late in the set, with her serve to follow at 4-3.
Begu helped her get to break points in that game on two separate occasions, at 30-30 and deuce, by missing an easy volley on the first, and hitting wide a routine forehand inside-out winner from inside the service line on the second. Although Parmentier could not capitalize on those two chances, she eventually broke the Romanian’s serve a few points later to become the first player to lead by two games at 5-3. All credit to Parmentier in the 5-4 game as she seized the first set-point opportunity that she got, to produce a spectacular forehand winner from a difficult position behind the baseline.
Second set began much like the first, with Begu breaking in the first game on the heels of Parmentier’s fourth double fault of the match. Begu was again unable to confirm the break due to a couple of untimely errors on forehand accelerations – last one coming on break point.
Parmentier, for her part, stayed a lot more composed than her opponent on crucial points, staying within her limits. For example, she would still keep some of the topspin on her forehand swings even when she went for clean winners, instead of flattening them out for warp-speed winner attempts like Begu was attempting. It ultimately led her to the victory, winning eight out of the last points to close the curtain on her opponent with a score of 6-3 6-4.
At the end of the day, Begu simply committed few too many errors on winner attempts, mostly with her forehand, like the ones that put her down 3-5 in the first set and 3-4 in the second. It’s a frustrating way to lose a close match because it means that she played with the right game plan and earned her chances to finish points but misfired on execution shots.
Tomorrow in the finals, it will be Polona Hercog aiming for her third WTA title, her first since 2012 (Bastad) taking on Pauline Parmentier who is, for her part, aiming for her third WTA title as well, first since 2008 (Bad Gastein).
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.
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.
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.
It is an old cliché in tennis to speak of the importance of first-serve percentage, yet every once in a while, there will come along a match where players will depend on it so much that not only can you not avoid discussing it, but you feel compelled to use that particular match to rehash its importance. Such was the match pitting the 29th-ranked Croatian Ana Konjuh against the 64th-ranked Romanian Irina-Camelia Begu.
Let’s begin by numbers alone. Begu won 80% of her first-serve points, but only 29% of her second-serve ones. For Konjuh, the discrepancy between the two numbers was not that large. She won 66% of her points when she put her first serves in versus 53% when she had to settle for a second serve. However, when you look beyond the sheer numbers, it is not hard to see that Konjuh needed first serves just as badly as her opponent did. In fact, I will go a step further and say that, in a match where she served only 58% first serves and gifted 8 double faults to her opponent, the timing of her first serves played a central role in the outcome of the match.
For starters, this match did not feature any long rallies, not that anyone expected it. Konjuh hits the ball hard, very hard. Her baseline shots are rarely intended for merely extending the rally. She will occasionally produce a drop shot to surprise her opponent or sparingly attempt an off-speed slice if extended on her backhand side. Otherwise, her game is driven by power, with her backhand being flatter than her forehand. If you have weathered the storm of a few shots by Konjuh in a rally, there is a good chance that the next ball will either be a winner or an error, with the ball traveling at warp speed 9 in either case. Begu, for her part, is craftier. She can vary her spin, change pace, or generate power if necessary. Both players’ have solid first serves that can produce aces or at least set them up for the second shot.
From the first few minutes, the strategies of both players became fairly clear. Konjuh would seek to mostly go for winners and overwhelm Begu with her power. Knowing that, Begu would look to take charge as early as possible in the point (read that “on the serve or return”) and keep Konjuh in the unfamiliar position of chasing balls and defending. Begu has big backswings, especially on the forehand, so if Konjuh managed to unleash a few shots in a row in, she would eventually pressure Begu into an error.
Begu put herself in a position to take the first set, more than once. In the always-crucial seventh game, Konjuh had to first save two break points (the second one at 30-40 with an exquisite backhand drop shot). At deuce, we witnessed one of the rare long points of the set. At one point in the rally, Konjuh approached and had Begu fully stretched to her forehand. Irina came up with one of the best defensive and high lobs of the day, pushing Konjuh back behind the baseline to reset the rally, and eventually win the point on a forced backhand error by her. In the ensuing break point, Begu produced a mid-pace, floating slice out of nowhere, throwing Konjuh off, and earning a forehand error from the Croatian, one that bounced off the tape and went wide. I know this went down in the stats as an unforced error, but I bet that earning an error from her opponent by feeding her the type of pace and spin that she had not yet seen so far in the match, was precisely what Begu had in mind when she sliced that backhand. Chalk one up for the high-IQ decision by Irina, even if the stats will just remember it as an unforced error by Ana.
Irina Begu — Photo: Shaun Botterill/Getty Images Europe
Begu eventually served for the set at 5-4. Unfortunately for her, she played her poorest serving game of the set. She began the game with two forehand unforced errors and followed them up with a double fault to find herself down 0-40. Two points later, Konjuh equalized at 5-5. Begu once again had an opportunity to take a commanding lead. She went up 0-40 on Konjuh’s serve game, and should have completed the break in four points had it not been for the unexpected forehand error on a shot that she would probably make 8 out 10 times. Subsequently, Konjuh tallied 5 points in a row to force the set into a tiebreaker, in which she took the early lead and never looked back (7-3).
Thus, the first set ended 7-6 in favor of Konjuh, and Begu was probably left feeling that she should have pocketed it 15 minutes earlier. In fact, I would argue that winning the first set, after playing “survival” during most of it, ultimately played the most important role in Konjuh’s three-set victory. The next two sets were more clear-cut in that each player outperformed the other once and split the last two sets.
Now, would be good time to get back to what I underlined in the beginning of my analysis. At that 5-5 game, in which Konjuh went down 0-40, only to come back and hold, she missed her first serve in the first four points of the game. That is when she went down 0-40, and only won the fourth point thanks to the above-mentioned unexpected unforced error from Begu. However, after 15-40, Konjuh made all her first serves. Those four points finished in an ace, a service winner, a forehand winner set up by a big first serve, and a forced return error by Begu. Those four first serves came at a point in the match where she desperately needed them. The same can be said for the 3-5 game, in which Konjuh got 4 out of 5 first serves in and held easier than in any other serving game in the set.
When the match resumed in the second set, Begu broke Konjuh’s serve on the fifth game. Konjuh started that game, when Konjuh started it with a double fault and lost the other two points in which she had to resort to second serve. This is also when Ana’s forehand began to falter. Other than the double fault, she also committed two unforced forehand errors. She would add two more forehand unforced errors in the next game, one more in the 8th game, and throw in a double fault to end the set.
There was going to be a final set.
It was clear that if Konjuh was to defeat her opponent, she needed to cut down the number of double faults and unforced errors, especially on her forehand, and be able to count on her first serves when it mattered.
Ana Konjuh — Photo: Shaun Botterill/Getty Images Europe
Whatever momentum the Croatian garnered when she hit a stunning sharp-cross-court forehand winner to break her opponent’s serve in the opening game of the final set, was negated when Begu produced her best return game of the match in the second game. Two games later at 2-2, things got further complicated for Konjuh when her forehand faltered again when she was leading 15-30 on Begu’s serve. Later in that game, Begu served two clutch aces, both wide on the deuce side, at 30-30 and deuce, that helped her propel to a 3-2 lead in.
Nobody could have guessed it at that moment, but that would be the last game that Begu would win for the rest of the match.
At 3-3 and 30-15 up, she threw in an untimely double fault (one of her two in the set). She would miss her first serve three more times in a row. On one of those, at deuce, Konjuh unleashed a big return on a second serve that forced Begu to miss her backhand. One point later, Konjuh was up 4-3 serving. In that game, she would win 4 out of the 5 points that she started with her first serve, two being aces, helping her to build a 5-3 lead. Konjuh would break Begu one more time to end the match 7-6 2-6 6-3.
In the last 4 games, Konjuh only made two unforced errors and one double fault, consistent with her match-long trend of cutting down on her unforced errors – 19 in the first set, 14 in the second, and 10 in the third. There were three keys to the final set, which I have mentioned above, and Konjuh managed to get them done. She cut down on her double faults (only one in the final set), she cut down her overall number of unforced errors (particularly in the last four games), and she put her first serves in when she needed them.
In the next round, Ana Konjuh will seek to reach the 4th round of a Major for the first time in her career by taking on the 8th seed Dominika Cibulkova.
The Case of Zarina Diyas (#52) vs. Irina-Carmelia Begu (#62) – WTA Cincinnati 2014, First Round – Diyas wins 7/6 7/6
On a rather windy morning, two players that have never met each before entered Court 10, one of the “outside” courts at the Western & Southern Open WTA Premier Event. Both Zarina Diyas of Kazakhstan and Irina Begu of Romania came through the qualifying draw. On the one hand, since this is their first meeting, I can understand (to a degree) that they may not know each other’s’ strengths or weaknesses down to the last detail. On the other hand, isn’t that why the players have coaches? Isn’t that why they talk to other players or coaches on the tour to get bits and pieces of information on the next opponent? I am not sure if this was the case for Diyas, but there is no doubt that Begu could have benefited from some quality scouting, especially in a match like this where the balance hangs on a very small number of points.
Diyas is a solid baseliner who likes to drive the ball on both sides rather flat, with some spin at times. Her shots can penetrate the court and derail an opponent because they do not bounce particularly high. She is a short girl and likes to contact the ball below the shoulder level, preferably low. Needless to say, her best results have come on fast surfaces, with a third-round breakthrough appearance at this year’s Australian’s Open and a fourth-round appearance at Wimbledon little over a month ago. She likes to direct the point with her forehand and driving through the ball, especially if she can make contact with the ball at about hip or knee level. Begu is also a baseliner who has more variety in her game, very characteristic of players with a European pedigree, having developed skills by practicing mostly on red clay. She can hit drop shots, heavy topspin, angle shots, and even mix in an occasional slice.
As the match began and I saw point after point, I was a bit surprised that Begu kept on holding rallies with Diyas where she was hitting the ball with the same pace, trying to be aggressive at times, and going for winners at others. This type of game played into Diyas’ hands as she gained momentum and began to strike the balls with perfect timing. My surprise turned to downright bewilderment by the end of the match, because Begu attempted to play a Sharapova-like game, in other words, hit the balls hard to the corners, and go for winners by out-hitting Diyas. She did not drop shot or use angles much, but more importantly, she did not try to make Diyas hit the kind of shot that makes her uncomfortable, which is any ball above her shoulder, especially on the forehand side! As you can see in this picture, Diyas hits an open-stance forehand which gathers force from the right foot rotation:
Watch also in this clip how essential the right-foot push is to Diyas’ forehand at her comfort zone, as she hits the low forehand on the baseline to force her opponent into a mistake:
A high ball which forces Diyas to make contact above the shoulder may cause her balance to be slightly off, thus take away her control and power. Strangely, Begu forced Diyas to hit forehands above the shoulder level only three times the whole match! First one was at 5-5 in the first set, and it resulted in a short ball by Diyas which allowed Begu to hit a winner. The second was at 4-2 for Diyas in the tiebreaker of the first, and Begu’s high and loopy topspin forehand resulted in a direct error by Diyas! The third time and only other time Diyas had to hit a forehand above the shoulder level is in the clip below. You will see Diyas’ forehand return fall short because she had to hit it above the shoulder level, out of her comfort zone. Begu should have taken advantage of the short ball and gone for the kill but instead she gives Diyas a second chance, and Diyas ultimately wins the point on yet another forehand from her comfort zone around the hip level:
It’s a mystery to me why Begu never centered on hitting high balls to Diyas on both sides and set up the short ball to put the pressure on her opponent? She definitely has that shot in her repertoire and in fact, she used it occasionally against Kimiko Date-Krumm in the first round of qualifying. Yet, she did exactly the opposite against Diyas, mostly hitting the ball hard and going for winners. To exasperate things further, she played that style trying to break Diyas’ forehand down (it’s the only explanation that comes to mind since almost 80% of Begu’s shots went to Diyas’ deuce side as you can see in all of the clips in this article too). Without any surprise, Diyas felt right at home, hitting the type of forehands that she likes, at the pace that she likes, moving the ball around at will. Spectators saw plenty of points like the ones in the three clips below. See how Diyas continuously gets to hit precisely the type of ball that she likes, at the same sweet zone, over and over again even though she remains on defense in this first clip:
And now check out this rally where Diyas gets to play a mixture of offense and defense, always in control of the point because what you don’t see is Begu running from corner to corner on the other side of the net:
In this next rally, see Diyas as the aggressor, stepping inside the baseline, mounting the pressure, and eventually hitting a forehand winner:
As these clips show, the match was played on Diyas’ terms. Considering how versatile her game is, Begu would have done herself a favor by utilizing the full arsenal of shots that she has in her depot, especially the high topspin off-pace ball that she uses on and off on clay courts. Furthermore, a little scouting would have directed the Begu camp in the right path beforehand. Diyas played another Romanian player Monica Niculescu in the last round of qualifying. A close look at that encounter, or some advice from Niculescu’s camp would have pointed to Diyas’ strengths and weaknesses and helped Begu prepare better for the match. Despite the pattern of points in Diyas’ favor, the match’s outcome rested on a handful of points and it was decided in two tight tiebreakers. Thus, the right type of scouting and game-plan preparation could have made the difference between winning and losing. That game plan would not have included allowing Diyas to dictate points with below-the-shoulder level strokes, since she is a rather small girl who has no trouble bending her knees if necessary, as this picture shows:
I spoke to Diyas after the match and asked her if she felt comfortable with the type of ball that she was receiving from her opponent. She responded “yes” and when I vaguely touched on the above, she remembered the point in the tiebreaker where she made the mistake on the high ball, and did not really have an answer as to why her opponent did not hit higher balls. She did point out that it was windy and that perhaps it was not easy to direct the ball in Begu’s defense, however her response clearly showed that she was very much aware of the fact that she was getting to play match on her terms.