Tag: John Isner

The scoreboard at the end of today’s first semifinal at the Miami Open between last year’s title holder John Isner and the young qualifier Félix Auger-Aliassime showed a very Isnerian score, 7-6 7-6 in favor of the American. Nothing groundbreaking there, considering that John has basically marched all the way to the finals via sets won in tiebreakers except one (7-5, whoop-de-doo, a virtual rupture in the flow). He is also known for playing a mammoth number of tiebreakers throughout his career.

There were a couple of aspects, however, that set this victory apart from the others, thus keeping me from labeling it a “vintage” Isnerian win. First of all, he lost his service twice in the same match, once each set, after having lost it only twice during the rest of the tournament. He literally came back from the brink of defeat in both sets. Secondly, he stumbled off the block to begin the match, making uncharacteristic errors, and never seemed to fully settle throughout the match, even after brief sequences of brilliance which made it seem as if he were reestablishing his game. Simply put, he did not play very well.

*Isner in action at the 2019 Australian Open*
*Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty Images AsiaPac*

Instead, at least for the first half hour of the encounter, it looked like it was rather the 18-year-old Auger-Aliassime, playing in his first career ATP1000 semifinal, who was executing his game plan with the disposition of a seasoned pro, even though he was also far from playing a perfect match. For example, I fully expected Félix to have a commanding advantage in points during which both players found themselves on equal footing from the baseline. **

** These “equal footing from the baseline” points that mention in this write-up are not related to the number of shots hit in a rally. They strictly include those points during which Auger-Aliassime had time to get in a position to hit a comfortable ground stroke with Isner also placed at the baseline on the other side.

Yet, Auger-Aliassime never seemed to establish any visible dominance in such points, often committing unforced errors of his own early in rallies. It was only at the end of the seventh game, up 4-3, that he began leading John in this particular category. In that seventh game, two such points catapulted Félix to a 0-30 lead on his opponent’s serve. Two shaky forehand errors by Isner (yes, I repeat, he was error-prone throughout the match) completed the break.

But getting back to my earlier point, I had expected more of those equal-footing rallies to end in Auger-Aliassime’s favor, but as I noted above, they did not. It was not because he was jittery, but rather because he could not establish his rhythm against a player who was not giving him more than two or three shots to hit. This is not a concern unique to Félix, as most ATP players suffer from the same syndrome when they have to play the big-serving American. There is no doubt, however, that Félix was less prepared for it than others. In my opinion, that played a big role in his inability to take an early lead, even before the seventh game when John had yet to find stability in his game.

Having said that, Auger-Aliassime still had a clear advantage when he confirmed the break and went up 5-3. He put in 63% of first serves in up to that point, with two aces and zero double faults. In fact, knowing now what took place in the 5-4 game, one could oddly say that his serve was his most reliable weapon until then.

Well, as to what took place in that 5-4 game on Auger-Aliassime’s serve, the three double faults precisely, nerves seem to be the most reasonable explanation. For my part, I don’t believe his first double fault resulted from nerves. He just went up 15-0 after a very solid point that he won at the net. It was his fourth successful point at the net in five tries up to that moment in the match. He was poised to put the set away. He even went for a powerful serve to the outside at 15-0, clearly aiming for a clean ace. It got stuck in the net. Then, he tossed the ball way to the right and front on his second serve and made his first double fault. I agree with everyone else that the next two double faults at 15-15, and 15-40, were the result of doubt rapidly creeping into his mind.

Auger-Aliassime still showed great resolve at 5-6 by playing one of his best games until then to show Isner, who was suddenly on fire after winning three games in a row, that he was not fading away. The problem is that, even though he was not having a banner day by his standards, Isner can probably stay calmer through a tiebreaker than can most of his colleagues. Auger-Aliassime, not so much.

Up 1-0 and serving twice early in the tiebreaker, Félix lost both of his serving points. The first one was a double fault. The second one was another equal-footing rally (noted above) during which Félix slightly held back on his ground strokes, allowing John to eventually take his chance on a shorter ball and get another mini-break. In that first set tiebreaker, Félix only made one first serve and lost it 7-3 on one of the longest rallies of the match (17 shots) that ended, oddly again, with an unforced error by Auger-Aliassime.

*Félix Auger-Aliassime*
*Photo: Julian Finney – Getty Images North America*

Second set progressed much in the same pattern as the first. Félix once again got the early break and served for the set at 5-3. He even won the first point to go up 15-0, just like in the first set. It then got complicated, again, when he did not do enough with his first volley at 15-15 and gave Isner a second chance at a passing shot. He lost the point. To make matters worse, he double-faulted on the next one to go down 15-40. At 30-40, Félix prepared the point beautifully, forcing John to scramble a high floater back. He made the right decision to move forward and hit a swing volley to put it away before John could recover, but he gagged the shot into the net. Just like that, Isner was allowed to crawl back into the set, again.

The second-set tiebreaker began on Auger-Aliassime’s serve with another one of those equal-footing baseline rallies noted above, ending with yet another unforced error by Félix. It turned out to be a precious mini-break as Isner did not lose a single point on his serve in the tiebreaker and rolled to another victory with an unreturnable serve on match point.

At the end of the day, it was a missed opportunity for Auger-Aliassime not only because he served for both sets, but also because Isner’s performance was spotty throughout the match, especially in the first set. Auger-Aliassime just could not win enough key points at different points of the match, and especially in those games when he served for each set. I reckon Isner feels fortunate to have made it to the final. I also suspect that he knows he will need to perform significantly better than he did today, when he faces either Federer or Shapovalov (to be played later) in the finals on Sunday.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Alexander Zverev – John Isner (men’s final)

April 1, 2018

Mertov

Coming into today’s Miami Open final between two in-form players, the fifth-ranked German Alexander “Sascha” Zverev and the 17th-ranked American John Isner, one could not help but wonder what kind of impact each player’s preferred style of play would have on the other.

In the two previous rounds, Zverev won in straight sets against two solid baseliners, Borna Coric and Pablo Carreno-Busta, accelerating efficiently in rallies and overpowering his opponents with accelerations. Isner, for his part, demolished the rising star Hyeon Chung in two routine sets and put a stop to Juan Martin Del Potro’s fifteen-match winning streak. He relied for the most part on his bazooka serves and forehands, and never allowed either of them to settle into their favorite patterns.

This championship match also offered a fascinating background story. On the one hand, Isner had never won an ATP 1000 title but did have a history of performing well on American soil regardless of whether the crowd got behind him or not (see his match from two days ago vs Del Potro). On the other hand, Zverev had never lost in the finals of an ATP 1000, having won both of his previous appearances.

Nevertheless, all that would matter less once the fuzzy ball would get tossed in the air for the first serve of the match. The players’ tennis outputs on the stadium court at Crandon Park would determine the outcome on this day.

Could Isner cook the same recipe that worked so well against Coric and Carreno-Busta, and hinder the German’s well-oiled production of steady, high-paced ground strokes? Could he return big against Sascha, like he did against his previous opponents? In any case, his game plan seemed crystal clear: serve big, return big, nail forehand, and apply pressure.

The answer to how Zverev would respond was a little blurrier. Could Zverev put forth enough power of his own to stop the American from getting the upper hand in the first two shots of each point? Could he stay in the point long enough to exploit Isner’s weaknesses, such as his backhand and footwork? Tennis fans awaited those answers as the players stepped on the court.

The first two sets were decided on a few key points at different times. The third set was, by contrast, the product of an overarching trend that worked against Zverev throughout the match and ultimately doomed him in the late stages of the match.

Unlike what many expected, break chances came early, all in favor of Isner. The way Zverev saved the first two break points (0-1, 15-40) was, on the other hand, very predictable. He hit a wide (and big) first serve to get to 30-40. Then, he engaged Isner in a deliberately paced backhand cross-court rally, the important term being “deliberately” (more on this later). Isner missed his fifth backhand and Sascha got back to deuce.

Isner would get another break-point opportunity two points later, one that he probably regretted for the rest of the set. He set the point up perfectly, approaching the net behind a forehand, but floated a very makeable forehand volley deep. Zverev held with a couple of big first serves.

In the first set, Zverev executed his game plan well. For starters, he stuck with the right pattern in baseline rallies. As noted above, he pinned Isner to the ad corner, making him hit backhands. He knew that Isner would want to run around the backhand and nail forehands, exactly like the American did against Chung and Del Potro. Thus, Zverev was not holding back on his backhand cross-courts, and therefore, not allowing Isner enough time to move outside the court (again, more on this later).

Secondly, Sascha’s first serves were clutch. Whenever he faced a break point, or a 30-30 point, he came up with an ace or an unreturnable serve, shutting the door quickly on Isner. He saved three of the five break points in the first set with big serves and won numerous other free points on important points.

Zverev was also making Isner hit the first volley low. It was not enough for Isner to simply hit his forehand hard and win the point without having to play the next shot. Isner had to showcase his volleying skills to put the ball away. Muscling serves and forehand were not going to be enough. It worked for Zverev. Isner missed some of those volleys, or at least, had to resort to just placing the volley, giving Zverev a second look at a passing shot.

A glaring example of this occurred when Isner got in trouble for the first time on his serve at 2-2. On game point, he hit a big kick serve wide to the ad side (one of his “money” shots) and followed it to the net. Zverev got the backhand return right down to Isner’s feet. Although Zverev was way outside the court when he returned, he was able to recover and chase the next ball down because Isner had to hit the low volley upward. Zverev ran it down and passed Isner cross-court with his forehand. Although Isner ended up holding serve, he knew he had to stay on his toes, even behind good serves and approaches. That is the type of pressure that, if applied consistently, works on you and makes a difference on an important point later in the match.

It did, in the tiebreaker…

The quality of tennis significantly dropped in the tiebreaker, for one reason or another. Both players committed uncharacteristic errors and lost awkward points on patterns that should have otherwise favored them. Until Zverev led 3-2, nothing looked out of the ordinary. The German won his two serving points on big first serves and he earned the mini break on yet another low volley that he forced Isner to hit. That was the pay-off (see above) for Zverev repeatedly making Isner hit low first volleys.

Zverev lost his mini-break advantage though, and more, when he committed two unforced backhand errors in a row to go down 4-3. Then Isner missed a forehand and double-faulted to return the favor. Remember, I did use the adjectives “awkward” and “uncharacteristic” earlier to describe what happened in this tiebreaker, so you were warned.

The last two points showcased again the winning formula(s) that Zverev adopted throughout the set. Another clutch first serve put him up 6-4. On set point, Zverev once again engaged Isner in a rally, making the American hit several backhands until he missed.

So, what went wrong for Zverev – or right for Isner – after the first set? Not much actually, except in two specific games, one in each set, and the overarching trend on which I touched at the beginning and kept putting off by saying “more on this later.” That is all it took for the American to grab the biggest title of career.

Until 4-4 in the second set, players held serves without difficulty. Then suddenly, on his serve, Zverev played by far the worst game of the match thus far. Out of nowhere, leading 30-15, Zverev squeezed in two unforced errors (one of them, a forehand framed to the sky) and a double fault to give Isner his first break-point opportunity of the set, the only one he needed.

And this is where I finally get to the overarching trend that doomed Sascha.

On that break point, Sascha had a mid-court backhand, similar to the ones he had all along the first set and a half, one that he has been taking early at shoulder level and drilling cross-court. That pattern, until then, regularly pushed Isner to the backhand corner and allowed Zverev to settle into the favorable cross-court-backhand pattern. Instead, and inexplicably, Zverev held back and hit a mid-pace backhand on which Isner was able to run around his backhand and pound a forehand. Zverev responded with another defensive, and shorter, backhand. This time Isner stepped inside the court and unleashed his forehand for a winner, grabbing the first break of the match.

Isner won the second set on his serve in the next game, although he had to save a couple of break points. More importantly for him, the trend from Sascha freely hitting his backhands cross-court and out-rallying him to Sascha hitting his backhands tentatively and giving him a shot at running around to unload his forehands was now in full progress.

Zverev’s success with his first serves still continued. He saved break points early in the third set with big serves. Plus, he was still making Isner hit low volleys when the American ventured to the net. Those two factors remained in his favor. However, extended rallies were no longer a write-in for Zverev like they were in the first 90 minutes of the match.

And you could tell that Isner was smelling blood because, you see, when a player shows apprehensiveness, it is not just the previously working pattern that loses traction for him. His loss of confidence, and Zverev’s body language tends to show this, motivates the opponent to gain mental momentum. Hence, Isner began staying in rallies longer because he now believed that Zverev, due to his tentative baseline play, would eventually hold back on one shot somewhere and give him a chance to take charge in the rally.

At 4-4 in the final set, Zverev’s increasing malaise on his ground strokes had spread to the rest of his game. Even his reliable first serve disappeared. He began with a double fault. Then, Isner, full of confidence, hit a thunder return on a first serve, and followed it with a forehand winner to go up 0-30. One point later, at 15-30, he had to serve a second serve and get in a rally. If there were a rally to show how much Zverev had regressed – the overarching trend – in the deliberate nature of his ground strokes, this would be the one.

He had a sitter on his backhand inside the baseline, in the middle of the court, on a ball by Isner that bounced inside the service line. Instead of accelerating to the backhand corner of Isner, like he has done numerous times throughout the first set and a half (and the tournament), Zverev simply half-looped the backhand back to the middle of the court heck, (he might have even slightly mishit it). Isner moved up and hit a forehand back to Sascha’s backhand. It was deeper but nothing that Sascha could not handle. The German missed the routine backhand deep by over a meter at least.

The miss, and his body language after the miss, pointed to one thing: he had lost his mental edge. The ensuing break point confirmed it. Another rally, another set of baseline shots underplayed by Zverev, ending with an easy forehand sitter slammed in the net. He smashed his racket to the ground, twice, and broke it. It seemed that the match had ended there.

Isner served up the formalities, literally, with three aces to earn his first ATP 1000 title.

The match was more of a mental battle than anything else. The quality of tennis was higher in the first half of the encounter, minus the tiebreaker. The tactical adjustments made by both players, on the other hand, were remarkable. The battle of IQs had no clear winner, both players proved potent there, but the one with the higher resolve stood tall, no pun intended, at the end.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

May 30, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

In this piece, I will only analyze the first set of this match, more particularly, Andy Murray’s brilliant strategy on first serves, because the set (and consequently the match) was essentially decided on it. Andy Murray was never in real danger after winning the thrilling tiebreaker 11-9.

Details often distinguish great champions from other top players. Murray is an elite champion, John Isner is not. This is not to say that Isner is not a successful tennis player. His career speaks for itself. He has occasionally recorded wins against the elites and won numerous tournaments. But there is usually something that separates the likes of Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer from the likes of Isner, Tsonga, Ferrer, and Berdych. The elite champions find something where most other players are not able to, and use that something to their advantage in the way that others do not. In 2013, in the post-match press conference the quarterfinal match in which Tsonga squandered four match points and lost to Djokovic in 5 sets, he was asked why the French players never seemed to get over the hump against top players. Tsonga admitted that there was “something lacking” in them that did not in the elite players. What he said could easily be applied to what I noted above. In this particular encounter between Murray and Isner, the difference was the high-IQ strategy employed by Murray on first serves.

Until the tiebreaker, Isner never faced a break point and was closer to breaking his opponent’s serve than Murray was to breaking his. John had his first break point at 2-1 up. Before I get to that, let me bring up Murray’s strategy on his first serves. For the most part of the first set, he surprisingly served to Isner’s forehand, which is the American’s stronger side. Often able to hit an aggressive return on that side, Isner possesses the ability to put himself in a commanding position from the beginning of the point. One would think that his backhand return being weaker, most player would choose to hit the majority of their serves to that side.

Not Murray, not on that gloomy, drizzly, late Sunday afternoon.

It must have surprised Isner too because he was expecting, especially early in the set, more serves to his backhand, and thus, found himself off balance on some forehand ones. Unfortunately, I did not keep up with the numbers but I feel certain that Isner had to return Murray’s serve with his forehand more often than with his backhand. I do know however that Murray won more points off his first serves when serving wide to Isner’s forehand (meaning wide on the deuce side, to the “T” on the ad side) than to any other spot (body-forehand, body-center, body-backhand, wide backhand) in the service box.

Remember that this chart does not include the number of points in which Isner got the return in play. I would assume that the total number of serves would reflect a pattern of serving by Murray that favors Isner’s forehand returns.

With that said, now let’s get back to Isner’s first break point at 2-1 up, ad-out on Murray’s serve…

Murray chose to hit the serve to Isner’s backhand side, with a slight curve into his body. Isner missed the return out. Murray went back to mostly serving to Isner’s forehand (not to say that none of his serves went to the backhand, but certainly not the majority). Then came the second break point opportunity for the big American at 3-2, 30-40. This is where Murray got a bit lucky, at least at first. Isner returned back, got into the rally and hit a forehand on the line that would have put him into an advantageous position to win the point, except that the line judge called it out. The chair umpire corrected the call and asked for the point to be replayed. Murray hit an ace and got out of that jam. Yes, Isner got unlucky, but guess where Murray served that ace? Yes, wide to the Isner’s backhand side. After he held, Murray continued his pattern of mostly serving to Isner’s forehand side, whether aiming close to the body, or wide to the forehand.

There were no more break points and the tiebreaker was going to decide the first-set winner, a tiebreaker in which Murray, unlike the rest of the set, would relentlessly test Isner’s backhand side on returns. At 2-0 up, Andy aimed once again Isner’s backhand side and hit an ace to the “T.” At 3-2 up, he hit another big, flat serve to the outside corner, taking advantage of Isner’s short backhand return to put the next ball away for a winner. At 4-2 up, another hard, winning serve to the “T” ensued. In other words, after serving mostly to Isner’s strong side throughout the set, Murray was determined to test his opponent’s weaker side on crunch time.

After getting aced twice by Isner, at 5-4 up, Murray chose to serve to Isner’s forehand this time, probably trying to avoid being predictable, and he paid the price. Isner got the return back and Andy eventually missed. At 5-5, he had to serve a second serve to which Isner replied with an aggressive return and the American held a set point on his serve at 6-5. This was the only point where one can truly say that the American should have won, holding the set on his racket. He couldn’t deliver the big ace, as he so often does, and Murray ended up passing Isner at the net to get back to 6-6.

Later at 6-7, down another set point but this time on his serve, Murray served into Isner’s body, but forcing him to hit a backhand. Isner missed the return and they were at 7-7. As one might expect by now, it was another hard first serve to Isner’s backhand. It resulted in another backhand return error by the big guy, and now Murray held a set point at 8-7. Isner held both of his service points and went up 9-8 earning his third set point. Andy attacked Isner’s backhand in the rally and forced him into an error. At 9-9, Andy served big to Isner’s backhand (yes… again!) and saw the American’s return go in the net. He won the next point on a baseline error by John and took the first set 7-6.

At the end of it all, Murray reversed his service pattern, almost completely, when it mattered the most. One may question the wisdom of playing to your opponent’s strength during most of the set, but there is no doubt that it was planned so by Murray and his team, to keep Isner off balance when it truly counted. It is possible to work your opponent’s weak side so much that, by the time crucial points come about, they have found a way to deal with it and gained confidence. Furthermore, they expect you to test their weaknesses.

Andy did the opposite. He served to Isner’s stronger side for almost the whole set. That did not allow John to favor one side or the other, or to begin expecting most serves to his weak side. But when faced with break points earlier in the set, and when the tiebreaker began to determine the outcome of the set, Murray systematically went back to his opponent’s weaker side that did not get worked much previously. It was the difference, that “little something,” in the set that ultimately tilted the balance in the Brit’s favor. Not giving Isner the luxury of making an educated guess throughout the set on which side he would have to return was also why Murray won 80,6% of his first-serve points (25/31).

As it turned out, that first set went a long way to decide the winner of the match. Now, Murray is in the quarterfinals, preparing for an encounter with the local favorite, and the in-form, Richard Gasquet, while Isner will not be back to Roland Garros until next year. Murray had a terrific plan on his first serves, one that he executed to perfection. I am sure it was only a segment of his larger game plan to defeat the 17th-ranked American, and there is no denying that he did come close to losing the set. Ultimately, however, those are the intangibles that somehow seem to work in the favor of the elite players, and on Suzanne Lenglen court yesterday, that one particular intangible lifted the second-ranked player in the world to the next round of a Major.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Citi Open: Saturday’s Tale

August 9, 2015

Mertov

ATP & WTA 2 Comments

First of all, I apologize to the readers who may have come to expect more frequent blog updates when I am present at a tournament. It has been hectic to say the least, with writing obligations outside of MT-Desk mounting up this week. Nonetheless, I woke up this morning, determined to post a write-up at the end of today, so here it is.

The 2014 US Open final between Kei Nishikori and Marin Cilic was lackluster to say the least. It was hard to decide if the match was so one-sided because Cilic played spatial tennis, outclassing Nishikori, or because Nishikori simply performed far below his standard, especially after having beaten the top-seeded Novak Djokovic in the semis. But in terms of score, and tennis quality, it was the least thrilling men’s final match at the Majors last year. So I expected better this afternoon. Cilic was gradually finding his form and Nishikori has looked sharp throughout the week.

Instead, it was another flop, not so much in the score line as in the level of play by both players. Cilic broke immediately to start the match and Nishikori wasted a whole set before starting to do the right thing. He only had a chance to break back at 1-3 down, and instead of keeping the balls deep and looking to out-rally Cilic, he would get impatient and go for broke in the 5th or 6th shot of the rally, mostly from behind the baseline, and make the error. Cilic only had to keep holding the lead with some solid first serves, and he did just that.

It seemed that Kei woke up immediately as the second set began. For those who can go back and watch the match, for example, in the third point of the set (15-15), the Japanese star did something that he neglected (or failed, depending on the perspective) to do since the beginning of the match. He kept the balls deep, did not go for unnecessary, low-percentage winners, and eventually earned the point on a Cilic error. From then on, he cut the unforced errors down largely because he followed that same pattern. Again at 1-0 up, and a break point in his favor, Nishikori once again got the return in, settled for deep shots, kept Cilic on the move, finally collected a backhand in the net by the Croat. Next game at 15-15, Cilic hung in there during a long rally, but having to cover too much ground, the big guy ended the rally by slapping a on-the-run forehand in the net when he was strecthed. Same scenario again occured at the game point to go up 3-0. Funny how the tide can turn when you tweak and adjust small, yet basic, patterns during the points. Nishikori cruised the rest of the set and Cilic, not finding a solution (which was provided for him by Nishikori in the first set), faded away quickly to lose the second set 6-1.

After having the early games decide the outcomes of both first and second sets, it came as no surprise that the same thing happened in the third set. Much less confident now, Cilic double-faulted and missed an easy backhand volley in the net to fall behind in the very first game of the third set, and eventually got broken. Figuring out only at 2-4 down that rallying from the baseline was no longer working with a less generous Nishikori across the net, Cilic got more aggressive and forced the issue. At 3-4 down and Nishikori serving, Cilic took risks on the returns and ventured to the net. At 0-15, he finished the point with a volley winner. At 15-30 he whipped a forehand that left Nishikori at a distance, staring at the winner. He remained aggressive on the return and missed one, on the first break point at 15-40. But Nishikori was feeling the heat, and missed a risky second serve for a double fault on the second break point at 30-40, in an effort to avoid Cilic taking charge on the return. Marin’s body language was extremely positive at that point, pumping his fist regularly.

Then out of nowhere, he makes couple of bad decisions (one, not to attack when he had the chance) and Nishikori gets the important break again to go up 5-4. It seemed that neither player could get in the groove for an extended period of time and both had to battle hard just to keep balls in play and deep. The last game characterized the whole match: 5 total errors by both players, 4 of them complete give-aways. Nishikori held and earned his spot in the finals.

Next on Center Court was the women’s semifinal between Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and the Ekaterina Makarova. Or so everyone thought! On their way out to the court, both women were told that their match was moved to the Grandstand court. A men’s doubles match, featuring the Bryan brothers, was deemed more worthy of the Center Court. Makarova, the top-seeded player, not only did not play her first two matches on either the Center Court or the Grandstand (played the third on Grandstand), but was probably going to go down in the history of professional tennis as the only top-seeded player in history at a WTA event to never get to play on Center Court before the finals. As it turns out, she retired in the beginning of the third set and did not get that accolade! But if there was ever a slap on a top seed’s face, today was it.

Pavlyuchenkova and Makarova on their was to Grandstand

The explanation was that the ATP and the WTA tournaments were two separate events, with the WTA one being a lower-tier tournament forking out less prize money than the men’s, which made it so that the women could be moved to the Grandstand. Let’s be honest, that attitude was obvious anyway from the beginning of the tournament. Prior to Saturday, only 4 women’s matches have been scheduled on the Center Court (all four as the first match of the day, when there is the least amount of crowd on the grounds) whereas men’s matches that were featured there amounted to four times that number.

However, today was unacceptable. You don’t tell the players right before the match that they got demoted to a lesser court, and you certainly don’t do it when it involves the top seed and the no. 12 player in the world Makarova, who had yet to set foot on the Center Court, and Pavlyuchenkova who has been ranked as high as no. 13 in the world (now ranked 40), holder of 7 WTA titles in her career. As far as the “explanation” goes, if the issue is that these are two separate events and not one combined event, then the same committee should not make decisions for both. Nor should you charge one ticket price for both (as @TheBoiledEgg astutely pointed out on Twitter). If the WTA event is the “lesser” event and the spectators come to watch two “separate” events in which one event is taking place on the “lesser” courts, then you designate two separate prices and charge less for those who come to watch the “lesser” event. Sounds ridiculous right? Almost as ridiculous as the “explanation.” Lastly, would the same thing have happened if the match were between Venus Williams (ranked 15) and Svetlana Kuznetsova (ranked 28)? Or if it were between Jelena Jankovic (23) and the American Sloane Stephens (35)? Or better yet, would the reverse have happened if it were a higher tier women’s event and a lower men’s event? To that end, would all the men’s quarterfinals have taken place at the Grandstand on Friday while the women played on the Center Court, as was the case (in reverse) yesterday? I think everyone can guess the answers to these questions.

In the evening session, contrary to most people’s expectations, the second semifinal between John Isner and Steve Johnson greatly exceeded the first semifinal in terms of both quality and suspense. Steve Johnson, having a golden tournament, had two match points at 6-4 up in the thrilling third set tiebreaker. The first one was something to behold. Johnson served and a long rally ensued which meant, as was the case for the most part up to that point, that Johnson would end up winning the point. Instead, Isner played good a baseline rally as you will ever see him do, and outlasted Johnson, finally forcing him into an error. Then, he served an ace to equalize at 6-6. Each player had one more match point, and finally, Isner prevailed 11-9 to deny Johnson his first career final. The big guy served four aces after saving that first match point in spectacular fashion.

Last but not the least, Sloane Stephens, looking for her own first final at a WTA event (amazing, considering how many semifinal appearances she has had, including in some big events) came out to face the in-form Samantha Stosur. From the beginning the scenario was clear. Stephens was stroking her groundstrokes well, and Stosur needed to take risks and cut the points short to win. Sam played the right game for most of the first set, stepping inside the baseline on returns, and going for big shots, especially on her down-the-line backhands. However, Stephens would win the majority of points whenever they got engaged in extended baseline rallies. The first set went to a tiebreaker. Stosur went up 4-2 on a forehand volley error by Stephens and seemed to have the upper hand as they changed sides. Then, a total collapse by Stosur followed. Stephens remained steady as Stosur made mistake after mistake losing the next five points in succession, and the tiebreaker. The worst was yet to come.

In the second set, Stephens, now exuding confidence, efficiently kept the balls deep, pinned Stosur to the baseline, and controlled the rallies. It did not help that Stosur framed more shots than I have ever seen anyone else in a singles match. I wondered if such stats were kept, would Stosur have broken the record. She regularly mishit one or two shots, or more, each game, as the collapse of her game continued. Stephens ended up winning 7-6 6-0, and signed autographs and took selfies with anyone and everyone who came to the court side after the match.

Tomorrow’s singles finals will feature John Isner vs. Kei Nishikori, scheduled to start at 3:00 PM, followed by the women’s finals between Sloane Stephens and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. And yes, they will all take place in the Center Court! At least, that is what the schedule says, with no caveats this time.

Pavlyuchenkova served this ace on set point to take it to a final set, and it turned out to be her last shot as Makarova retired with a leg injury few moments later

Note: Stay tuned to Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates, and on-site photos…

Citi Open – Tuesday’s Narrative

August 5, 2015

Mertov

ATP & WTA 8 Comments

I drive into the grounds around 10:30 AM. The first match is not scheduled to start until 1:50 PM. Nonetheless, I come early, because I have a few things to do on my computer, and more importantly, I love watching the players practice. There is hardly anyone around, and they are busy tweaking bits and pieces of their game, or working on a strategy for their upcoming match later in the day. Parking is problematic to say the least at the Citi Open. First, there are not enough spaces. Second, if you arrive later in the day or in the evening, from first-person experiences of a few people that I have talked to, it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to park and get in the grounds. They are directed to another site to park from where they have to take the shuttle, etc. To make matters worse, not all parking attendants are apparently on the same page, and they get conflicting information on how to do what.

For my part, I run into a lady who made the person before me park very close to the car next to hers. I see that and I have no intention of doing the same, so I park about a foot further than she indicates. She gets mad and tells me that I need to “follow instructions.” I tell her I want to be able to get out, and she keeps ranting. I get out of my car anyway and see the lady who parked before me giving me thumbs up and shaking her head to the attendant. She is barely able to squeeze out of her car. I make a note to myself that if I run into the same problem, that parking attendant will hear a few words back from me such as “I follow instructions if they appeal to my common sense, sorry that you have none!” By the way, did I mention that parking costs $15 per day? If you are there every day, that is over a $100 dollars that you plan to spend. For some weekly ticket holders, it’s included in the cost.

I walk around the courts. Andy Murray is hitting with Richard Gasquet who gets a ton of instructions from his coach (and former two-time French Open champion) Sergi Bruguera during the breaks. It is already hot and Gasquet is wearing a black t-shirt (unlike Murray who has a white one) that says “Paris” on it.

They are both concentrated on the task in hand; this is not what one would call a “fun” practice.

A shirtless John Isner is on the next court. The tall guy is fairly slim and in good shape, not too muscular. He is hitting with a youngster and Justin Gimelstob is on the side of the youngster, yelling across the net to Isner for instructions.

The first match begins promptly at 1:50 PM on Center Court between two Americans, Coco Vandeweghe and Christina McHale. I am more interested in the one that starts in 20 minutes on Grandstand between Kristina Mladenovic and Samantha Stosur. Therefore, I only stay for a few points on Center Court, but I am rather astonished by the fact that the stands are virtually empty. As I walk away I see Wayne Bryan (Mike and Bob’s father) running a tennis clinic for adults, and I wonder if the head count is higher in that clinic than in the Center Court!

The Mldenovic vs Stosur match disappoints largely because nothing seems to work for Kiki. She makes routine errors, and as the match progresses, her body language gets more and more negative. Her mother Dzenita, former professional volleyball player and an ex-member of the national team of the former Yugoslavia, walks out to the court as Kiki’s coach once in each set to turn the tide (pictured below is the first one). Alas, the slide never ends and Stosur walks out with a comfortable 6-2 6-2 score to record her 500th career win.

Little did Dzenita know that her “real” coaching/mothering would come after the match. Kiki sits by the wall outside the players’ area, cries, sobs, and rants to herself for at least 30 minutes. Dzenita stands by her side through all of it, attempting to lift her daughter’s spirits up. I feel bad for Mladenovic because any of us who played high-level competitive tennis (and if it sounds patronizing, sorry, but only people who experienced individual competition under great pressure would understand the gravity of these moments) have gone through these types of agonizing emotions following certain losses, and I can only imagine how painful it must be for her at that moment. Although it is the first round of a WTA Event and it is obviously not her first career loss, there could be many reasons behind it, or a culmination of things. In any case, tennis players know and understand that this happens (or will happen) to every one of them, probably more than once. Each may have a different way of manifesting it. I remember going to my dad’s car and staring at the side mirror for 15 minutes, wondering why I am playing tennis if I can’t win a match like this, following an excruciating loss in the semifinals of a national tournament that played a role in the selection of the country’s national team back then. There are highs and lows, this happens to be one of the “lowly lows.” I am hoping she will get through it.

Next, I see Sam Groth who is getting last-minute instructions from his coach. He is totally relaxed, cracking jokes, and laughing. Not all players have the need to get that tunnel-vision “boxing” face prior to a match. He plays a tricky opponent in Thomaz Bellucci. Groth wins the first set in a tiebreaker, and breaks in the second to go up 4-2. Then, a rare occurrence: Groth loses his serve twice in a row, allowing Bellucci to carry the match to a third set. Sam imposes his game again in the third, and this time, does not squander the lead. While his serve never ceases to amaze, I am more struck by how quick he gets from the baseline to the service line after the serve.

His second step is almost midway between the two lines. You may say that in today’s tennis, in order to be a successful serve-and-volley player, you must do nothing less than that, but we are talking about a pretty big, muscular guy here (6’4 and 216), and his forward explosion after the serve is remarkable.

I quickly go to the next court to watch the third set tiebreaker between Jarmila Gajdosova and the qualifier Naomi Broady. Gajdosova can’t capitalize on a match-point opportunity at 6-5 in the tiebreaker. She is fuming. Broady wins the next two points and closes it 8-6. Someone in the stands (British accent) cheers Broady on along with other spectators clapping. On her way to the net to shake hands, Gajodosova yells and scolds that fan. Broady is not happy and says a few words to Gajdosova who looks shocked for a few seconds and stares at her after the handshake. Then, another exchange between the two players ensues before Jarmila packs up her bags and leaves the court.

As that same fan walks out, he passes by Heather Watson who was there to support Broady. He gives her a few words of encouragement. Watson, always friendly, says “no it was terrible yesterday” and laughs (she lost 6-3 6-0 to Louisa Chirico).

I begin to watch the match between Ivan Dodig, a “Lucky Loser” who only found out that he is in the tournament earlier in the day due to Marcos Baghdatis’ retirement, and the qualifier Guido Pella. I am determined to stick through this match, because I admire the tenacity and the desire that these types of players, ones to whom a first-round win in an ATP 500 level event means as much as that first balloon that your parents get you when you are a kid. Pella ranked 100, Dodig at 104, both players were in the qualifying draw and a second round appearance in the main draw would tremendously boost their confidence. They don’t disappoint. They fight for every point, run down every ball within their reach.

Pella wins the first set 6-3, and can’t close the match out in the tiebreaker of the second set, despite earning a match point. Dodig takes a quick bathroom break before the third set, and I see Pella sitting in his chair, shirtless and dejected. I am wondering if he is replaying the match point wasted in his head.

When he loses his serve routinely in the first game of the third set, I begin to think that Dodig may run away with this match. However, out of nowhere, Dodig tries two ill-advised drop shots that he misses in the net, gags an easy put away, and lets Pella back in the match. At 2-1, the rain arrives, which results in a fairly lengthy delay. When the match resumes around 9:30 PM, both players begin to comfortable hold serves until 6-5 where Dodig once again plays a bad game in which he makes two unforced forehand errors to quickly go down 0-40. Pella capitalizes on his second match point and you can see the “relief” (as he called it after the match when I talked to him) on his face. His celebration is subdued, but his face tells it all.

When the clock strikes midnight, there are still 4 matches on the courts, one that is about to begin, and another still waiting for the prior match to end. I watch the Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova vs Magdalena Rybarikova match on Grandstand 2.

It cannot be an easy task to play a match that starts after midnight, and both players spray balls all over the place. Pavlyuchenkova proves to be the one to make fewer mistakes and hit more winners in tiebreakers, so she wins 7-6 7-6. At one point during the second set, 4th seed Svetlana Kuznetsova casually enters the court around 1:30 AM and joins the other 20 spectators left in the stands.

Before I leave little before 2 AM, I watch a couple of games and the first set tiebreaker between Marin Cilic and Hyeon Chung. There are between 50 and 100 people in the stands to watch the defending US Open champion.

I am not that surprised. It has been a long day and the rain delay in the evening did not help. I leave after the first set and see that the car that parked after me is extremely close to my car and I remember the parking attendant from the morning…

It seems so long ago…

Note: Stay tuned to Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates, and on-site photos…

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

January 18, 2015

Mertov

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

Isner Ousts Auger-Aliassime, Narrowly…

Miami Open Match Report: Alexander Zverev – John Isner (men’s final)

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

Citi Open: Saturday’s Tale

Citi Open – Tuesday’s Narrative

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

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation