Nuance: I am not talking only talking about “stepping forward” in the figurative sense in this piece I wrote for Tennis with an Accent on the upcoming US Open men’s competition. Can anyone get past the Big 3 and lift the trophy?
Click the link for my preview: US Open Men – Anyone Ready to Step Forward?
If you are a fan of Kei Nishikori, your hair already turned gray by a few tones this week, and we are still a full day away from the first weekend of the Australian Open. If you are not familiar with what I mean, let me see if I can recap what they witnessed in the last 72 hours, in one long sentence.
After a first-round match two days earlier that must have resembled a nightmare to Kei himself for the first hour and a half before he turned it around, partially benefiting from the physical woes of his opponent Kamil Majchrzak, the number-eight seed survived a nightmare of a different kind in the second round vs. Ivo Karlovic, one in which, following a dreamy couple of sets where his game clicked on all cylinders, he saw his serve broken once each in the late stages of the third and fourth sets, and found himself down three break points at 4-4 in the fifth, before he finally put away the big Croat who blitzed 59 aces past him in a match that needed the newly adopted 10-point tiebreaker to come to an end.
The final score was 6-3 7-6 5-7 5-7 7-6 (10-7). It lasted 3 hours and 48 minutes.
Nishikori is in the third round, but there is enough cause for concern if you are in Kei’s camp, for a very specific reason. Before I point out that reason, let me first make another point.
Nobody can dispute the fact that this 2019 edition of the Australian Open is in the rackets of the big 3, so to speak, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Until someone else makes a mammoth breakthrough (and yes, the adjective is appropriate considering how they have been dominating the Majors), any other player’s shot at winning one of the four Grand Slam events remains an outside shot at best.
Having said that, if you were forced to pick an outsider to lift the winner’s trophy on that second Sunday, Nishikori may have been one of the few fair choices other than Kevin Anderson (ousted already), Marin Cilic, and maybe one or two others of your choosing. So, these two weeks represent a monumental opportunity for Nishikori to break through, stun the world of tennis, and grab that elusive elite title that would do wonders to his otherwise very respectable resumé. Plus, he came to the tournament in good form, at the heels of a successful comeback from injury after missing last year’s Australian Open. He returned to ATP-tour level competition in New York in February and steadily rose all the way to top 10 by the end of the year. It’s a remarkable comeback that was only overshadowed by Novak Djokovic’s comeback to number one in the world.
What better way to crown the impressive 10 months Nishikori just had than with his first Major title!
Yet, the reality is that Kei’s biggest nemesis is not the big 3. And that brings me to my central point.
Playing 10 sets (ok, nine and a half) just to reach the third round is anything but ideal for the Japanese star. Kei, whose career has been halted more than once by injuries, cannot be expected to pull an Edberg-1992 or even a Federer-2017 where the winners pulled five-set wins in the three out of four matches in their last four rounds, let alone having a couple or more of those in the first week to begin with, the way Nishikori has so far this week. His nemesis – I reiterate, it is not Novak, Rafa, or Roger – will likely rear its ugly head again unless Kei can get in a couple of short-duration wins in the next round or two.
Having said that, there is a silver lining in what Nishikori has achieved this week. Or, I should more specifically say, in the way that he has earned the two wins.
Out of the ten sets that he has played, one would have a hard time pointing to any one of them and say that his performance was subpar. Furthermore, he has not allowed the downturns in either of the matches to obnubilate his tactical vision or dampen his spirit.
He first had to deal with a youngster who came out firing and outplaying him for two sets. Nishikori remained steady on course and collected the fruits of his hard labor when Majchrzak began running out of steam. Then, against Karlovic on Thursday, he faced a completely different set of challenges and still managed to overcome the hurdle.
One can easily say that 59 aces in an extended five-setter is not a startling number by Dr. Ivo’s standards. Since time immemorial, his opponents have walked on the court against him, expecting to get aced frequently. In order to counterbalance that effect, they aim to get back in the court as many returns as possible out of the ones that they can get their rackets on, so that Karlovic can have a shot at maybe missing a routine volley at a crucial juncture in the match. Beyond that, the occasional appeal to the skies in hopes that he chucks in a couple of double faults may also prove helpful, no?
Nishikori succeeded in going above and beyond the above. He not only got plenty of returns back in the court when he could get his racket on the serve – and he often did, because his first-step is awfully quick – but managed to nail a large number of them down to Karlovic’s ankles, forcing the big Croat to resort to placements volleys rather than straight put-away ones. Even when Ivo got the first volley back over the net, he found himself staring at Kei getting ready to zoom a passing shot by him. And Nishikori did all that with Karlovic serving at… wait for it… 79% first serves for the match! Add 59 aces to that and it’s almost miraculous that Nishikori was even able to break once!
Then, there was Nishikori’s own serving. He served at a whopping 90% first serves until the tiebreaker of the second set and finished the match at 83%. He often served and volleyed, taking advantage of Karlovic’s floating returns to put his (underrated) volleys away. He did not face a break point in the first two sets and faced only two in the next two sets. The problem is that he lost both of those break points, and they came at the late stages of each set, causing him to go down 7-5 in both.
Karlovic’s first break (the one in the third set) was a key one. He needed that to start re-nurturing his belief. At 5-5 on Nishikori’s serve, he nailed a cross-court winner at 0-15. He followed that up with a monstrous return to the middle of the court that caused Nishikori to miss in the net. That eventually led to a blank-game break by Ivo who had not really come close to breaking his opponent’s serve for almost three sets until then.
You could tell that Karlovic’s confidence was growing at that point. His body language went up a level in the positive-vibes department. And when Dr. Ivo feels good, his second-serve performance catapults to impressive levels to complement his bazooka first serves. He won below 50% of his second-serve points in the first two sets, whereas in the last three, he recorded 67%, 80%, and 75% success rates in points won with his second serve. Don’t think Nishikori did not notice: “[Karlovic] was really serving well today, I think, even the second serve.” Kei had only two break-point opportunities (both in the fourth set) after he got broken in that 5-5 game in the third. He also confirmed after the match that Karlovic “mixed up really well” his serves “after [the] third set.”
Nishikori faced oblivion at 4-4 in the fifth. Down 0-40 on his serve, he managed somehow to remain cool as ice, despite horrendously gagging a high forehand volley in the net at 0-30 to dig that hole for himself. They were “virtual match points” for Ivo, quoting Paul Annacone on the Tennis Channel, yet Kei remained error-free for the next five points, and it was Karlovic whose elbow got heavy. Ivo had chances to approach the net in the second and third break points but stayed at the baseline. He really should have ‘pulled a Colin Dowdeswell’ (who remembers that guy?) and chipped and charged from anywhere on the court to get up to the net. Nishikori, contrary to the first two sets, was feeling the heat during that period of the match and had missed some makeable passing shots earlier in the fifth set. Why not test him again? But Ivo chose the option not to instead, and he paid dearly. Five points in a row won by Nishikori, all resulting in Karlovic errors (the one at 30-40 was an unforced forehand error), and the world number nine held serve to lead 5-4.
It was only fitting that the final set would end in a 10-point tiebreaker.
Nishikori got an early mini-break, an advantage that he kept until 6-5. A big return by Karlovic erased that lead and in the ensuing point, Nishikori had an easy put-away on top of the net that he struck inside-out on his forehand, but Karlovic guessed the right side and passed Kei in the open court. Just like that, Karlovic was now up a mini-break at 7-6, and Nishikori’s chances looked bleak once more. Yet again, he did not lose his composure. After a little ‘nudge’ by Karlovic who made a forehand error to lose his mini-break advantage, Nishikori hit a great return (his umpteenth of the match) at 7-7 that forced Karlovic to lunge at the backhand volley and miss.
Now leading at 8-7, Nishikori simply needed to win his two serving points to close the curtain. He did so with two solid serves that Karlovic could not get back in the court.
Karlovic, who will turn 40 next month, got a well-deserved standing ovation from the pro-Nishikori crowd as he left Margaret Court Arena.
As for Nishikori, the question remains, can he sustain his physical prowess in the second week if he has to battle this hard in the early rounds? He remains optimistic: “Yeah, these two matches can go, you know, I could lose these two matches. So yeah, I just need to recover well. But, I mean, it’s only two matches yet, so I’m not too tired yet.”
He will face Joao Sousa who also survived a testing five-setter (4h18m) against Philip Kohlschreiber and has also played ten sets going into the third round. Whether that is another silver lining or not for Nishikori remains to be seen. In any case, Kei will need to find an easy win or two before reaching the quarterfinals in order to have a legitimate shot at upsetting the top players in the second week. Facing a pesky competitor like Sousa in the third round does not sound promising in reaching that goal, but Nishikori’s camp can take comfort in knowing that the quality of his tennis is unlikely waver. It’s just that he will need to defeat the player on the other side of the net and that other nemesis looming large on the horizon, waiting for him to push his physical limits to the edge.
[source for the Nishikori quotes: Australian Open website]
Friday’s men’s semifinal matches did not provide the thrill that many were hoping for but at the end of the day, Juan Martin del Potro and Novak Djokovic advanced to Sunday’s final probably because they managed in the best possible way the physical challenges presented to them throughout the two weeks. What that means is open to interpretation and enough has been written about those challenges throughout the tournament. Rehashing them falls beyond the scope of this piece which includes on a round-up of the two matches played on Friday, as well as an early look ahead to Sunday.
Rafa never had a chance, or did he?
Rafael Nadal and Juan Martin del Potro were the first ones to step inside Arthur Ashe stadium. They had a memorable quarterfinal encounter at Wimbledon, one of the best matches of 2018 so far. Del Potro came into this match serving extremely well and spent around three and a half hours less time on the court on his way to the semifinals than Nadal did on his. Nadal took four hours and 49 minutes to overcome Dominic Thiem in a terrific quarterfinal match that went to a fifth-set tiebreaker and featured grueling baseline rallies, while Del Potro eliminated John Isner in three hours and 31 minutes earlier on that same day, in a match dominated by short rallies and big serves. In a tournament marked by retirements and physical ailments, it did not come as a surprise that one area of concern was whether or not Nadal could continue to put forth the best version of himself for one more match, if not two.
We did not have to wait long for the answer. It became clear to the naked eye, by the early moments of the second set, that Rafa’s knee was not going to allow him to finish the match. He confirmed that much himself when he was down 1-4 in the second set during an argument with the umpire, telling him that he is “gonna retire anyway.” He did four games later, when Del Potro won the second set 6-2 to take a two-set lead.
That should not take away any credit from Del Potro who showed the resolve to get past a great deal of dismay stemming from a significant collapse when he served for the first set at 5-4. At 40-30, on his first set point, he sailed a backhand cross-court winner attempt wide. It was on a short sitter hit by Nadal and Del Potro should not have missed it since he got to strike the backhand from about a meter behind the service line.
He earned a second set point after drilling a backhand down-the-line winner at deuce. He hit a big serve to set it up perfectly for his classic 1-2 punch execution. Rafa returned the ball short and high, allowing Del Potro to move inside the baseline for his trademark forehand bazooka winner. He dumped it into the net! In the ensuing deuce point, he missed a similar forehand, long this time, giving Nadal a break-point opportunity. Juan Martin completed the collapse when he landed another backhand sitter into the net to lose his serve.
His body language appeared deflated when he lost the next game in four relatively quick points and went down 5-6. Things appeared to go from bad to worse when he began that game with a first serve that he thought landed out, and stopped playing. Rafa’s return went in and he was awarded the point. Juan Martin challenged his own service call, a rare occurrence, hoping that it was out. The replay confirmed that it caught the line and he was down 0-15. At that point, Del Potro had lost eight points in a row, going from a set point up to being down 5-6, 0-15, in a string of points lost in the most deflating ways possible. He managed to get to 30-30, largely thanks to a couple of solid first serves.
Now, it was Nadal’s turn to squander a golden opportunity. With the momentum completely on his side and his opponent in a mentally fragile state, he had a look at a second serve on the 30-30 point. He hit a superb return to the baseline that forced Del Potro into responding with a defensive backhand while leaning on his backfoot. It landed short and Rafa had a perfectly aligned forehand inside the baseline and in the middle of the court. He had a choice of either corner for the routine forehand winner or even a drop shot since Del Potro was three meters behind the baseline. Rafa has hit thousands of winners from that position routinely, in practice or in matches.
Yet, he hit a fair-paced topspin approach shot that bounced a bit past the service line, one that was not even placed to the corner. Furthermore, he chose to hit it to Del Potro’s forehand side.
The Argentine took two quick steps to his right and struck a forehand down-the-line passing shot that landed on the line. Rafa should have been up a set point, but instead, found himself down 40-30. He then committed a backhand unforced error which brought forth the tiebreaker.
That represented the last key moment of the match as Del Potro, with renewed energy, raised his level to win the tiebreaker. From that point forward until Rafa’s retirement at the end of the second set, the Argentine’s level never dropped. He only committed three unforced errors during that part, whereas he committed 15 of them prior to the tiebreaker. Nadal’s movement appeared visibly diminished from the early portion of the second set forward. Frankly, I was surprised that he even waited until the end of the set to retire.
While Del Potro would have certainly preferred to earn the victory with a full-length match and was concerned for Rafa’s health, I have little doubt that he is delighted deep inside to get past Nadal in two sets and in barely over two hours. After all, he will undoubtedly need every ounce of energy in his tank for a chance to beat an in-form Novak Djokovic and lift the trophy on Sunday.
Novak is unstoppable, or is he?
Well, the answer to the above subtitle is a lot less ambiguous than the answer to the previous one. He certainly appears unstoppable. Djokovic is playing stellar tennis, moving faster, rallying more consistently, hitting deeper, and without a doubt, returning better than anyone. It’s true that Nishikori’s forehand did not get off the gates as quickly as the rest of his game did when the match began, thus facilitating the early-lead jump start by Novak. Yes, it’s also true that Kei missed some makeable returns here and there that could have given him a chance to sink his teeth into the second set. Then what? Would it have made a difference?
Even if Kei’s forehands were on fire, can anyone comfortably say that it would have been enough for him to mount a lead against this version of Novak? Could he have strung together three such sets to score the upset? It would push the boundaries of plausibility to expect Nishikori to perform at that level for three sets. For about three and a half games early in the second set he did, and that still included a game (first of the second) in which he had to bust his rear end for thirteen minutes and save four break points, just to hold serve.
You want to see how fast Novak was moving? Watch the 15-15 point at 1-1 in the second set for one example among many.
You want to see how many outrageous shots Kei had to produce at times to win a point? See the first point of the 3-2 game in the second set as one example.
You want to see how well Novak returned? Watch just about any of Kei’s service games, including the ones where he produced some first serves on the line. Djokovic would just lunge and send back a deep rocket-shot, forcing Nishikori to take steps back instead of setting up the 1-2-punch combination that he loves. And heavens forbid if Kei missed a first serve. Novak would then move into the court and launch his attack immediately.
In any case, on Friday night, there was no uncertainty as to who the better player on the court was for two hours and 22 minutes. Djokovic secured a 6-3 6-4 6-2 victory and reached his eighth US Open final, tying the record held by Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras.
Looking ahead to Sunday
On paper, this is an appetizing menu for tennis fans.
On the one hand, a beloved player, who overcame multiple injuries and extended lay-offs from the sport, will make his first reappearance in the final of a Major in nine years, on the same venue where he won his only Major title in 2009. On the other hand, you have one of the best players in the history of our game, a phenomenal athlete who recently recovered himself from a grave injury and rediscovered his form so quickly that he is now in a position – or, even favored – to win his second Major title in a row, his fourteenth overall.
By Sunday afternoon, both players should feel fresh and ready to click on all cylinders. The weather will be a relevant factor in that a chance of rain may force the roof to be closed. As to whom that benefits, I am ready to be convinced by anyone who can provide a valid argument for one player or the other.
Otherwise, I can only confirm a couple of things per player. Del Potro must keep his first-serve percentage high to collect free points, as he has done all tournament (except on Friday against Nadal). He must also find a way to deal with Novak’s depth on ground strokes because he cannot be the one scrambling and defending in extended baseline rallies.
Djokovic, for his part, must continue to return explosively as he has all tournament because Del Potro frequently relies on the 1-2 punch following first serves. Let’s not forget that, as well as he may have returned so far, Novak has yet to face a power server of Del Potro’s caliber in the tournament. He must also keep Juan Martin on the move because the big Argentine’s striking power is in direct correlation with how well he sets up his lower body. The classic triangle-rally is also an option for Novak who can, if he chooses to use it, exclusively work Del Potro’s backhand side until he gets a short ball, at which point he can pick his target and end the point with a winner.
Until Sunday…
This was billed by most as a one-sided affair for valid reasons. Although Kei Nishikori was to play his first match in a Major – due to injuries – since Wimbledon of last year, he has lately shown signs of elevating his level of play, reaching the final in Monte-Carlo and the quarterfinal in Rome. Squeezed in between those, was a retirement in the first round in Barcelona, after going down a set vs. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez, citing a wrist injury resulting from fatigue from the previous week in Monte-Carlo. He did suffer two losses to Novak Djokovic in Madrid and Rome, so it is hard to claim that he has returned to the high form that marked his top-5 ranking back in 2015.
Facing him, nevertheless, was the wild-card recipient Maxime Janvier – ranked 304 – who had yet to play a main-draw match at the ATP events or in the Majors. He had mostly been playing Challengers, with one title under his belt (Casablanca, 2016).
The final score was an expected straight-set victory for Kei, but an unexpectedly tedious one. The Japanese player quickly admitted after the match that it was a hard-fought battle and that he felt “lucky to finish in three sets.” That was because Janvier had a plan for this match, and it was one that fit his long-term goals perfectly (more on that shortly).
Nishikori began the match serving, and Janvier began unloading. He would look to move well inside the baseline and go for direct winners whenever he could on returns. On Nishikori’s first serves that came into his strike zone, he would nail the ball, and if Kei’s serve was well placed, he would get the return back deep and accelerate on the second shot. On second-serve returns, there would be no hesitation at all. He would attempt winners on most, if not all, of them.
This plan was naturally going to also result in more errors, but that was understood. He would control the points and decide his own fate. Janvier confirmed himself after the match that it was precisely his plan because he and his coach had decided that, in general, if he were going to be successful later in his career, he needed to find “regularity in his aggressiveness.” In other words, his goal is to put out this high-octane shot production more consistently: “I’d like my game to pay off one day. I’m very aggressive, and I’m proud because I’m doing my job.”
In his first ever ATP-level main draw match, he came up just short of that goal, and under the parameters of this match, it is understandable. But he made life very hard for Nishikori for 2 hours and 19 minutes. He relentlessly put Kei on the run from the beginning of rallies. He did not stop either when he erred. For example, at 1-2 and serving, he made a forehand unforced error, then a backhand one, to go down 15-30. You would think that a player with zero experience at this level may get apprehensive and play more conservatively. Not Monsieur Janvier. He attacked again with his forehand to get to 30-30, served and volleyed successfully to go up 40-30, and held serve in the next point.
His big chance came in the fifth game. He hit two winners on the way earning three break points at 0-40 on Nishikori’s serve. Yet, as noted above, this type of tactic also carries its hazards. They appear in the form of errors. First break point was eradicated when he missed winner attempt on the return. Then, came a drop-shot attempt in the net. Finally, another forehand return in the net, and just like that, it was back to deuce.
He got a fourth opportunity to break when Nishikori, under pressure again, missed a passing shot at deuce. Maxime had a look at a backhand down-the-line winner and sailed it deep. Kei, feeling some high heat on his second serves, double-faulted to give the Frenchman a fifth chance to break. Nishikori came up with a sharp, wide serve to level at deuce again. There would not be a sixth opportunity.
Five of those for Janvier, four squandered on his errors…
First game-point opportunity for Kei, he held…
That is how it goes when you have two players on the extreme ends of the experience barometer. One with 70 wins and a final to his name in the Majors, the other with the number zero in the “matches played” column in those categories…
In fact, Janvier would end up 0/10 on break -point opportunities for the match.
In fairness to him, he played those break points in the same way that helped him reach them. His awareness of that fact manifested itself in his post-match press conference. He affirmed that he had no regrets and that he needed to press on. He understands that it may not work out for him at the end. Again, he reiterated that in the long term, this is what he needed to improve; the ability to attack consistently. He has a point. Tennis skills are not texts to be studied. You must actually learn by doing, stumble a few times, get better at it, before finally – and hopefully – reaching a higher plateau of success.
To Janvier’s credit, there were also cases where that vision worked to his advantage. At 3-4 down and serving, Janvier faced three break points himself at 0-40. Guess how he saved them? A backhand winner at 0-40, a well-hit wide serve that forced a stretched Nishikori to miss the return at 15-40, and a forehand inside-out winner completing a 1-2 punch at 30-40. He also closed the game at ad-in with a volley winner after serving and volleying.
Three errors at 0-40 up on his opponent’s serve earlier, three winners at 0-40 down on his own serve later. You win some, you lose some, and that is how you learn.
It’s too bad that Janvier was on the losing end of an easy put-away opportunity on his forehand at 5-5, 30-30, on Nishikori’s serve. That cost him a crucial break-point opportunity to go up 6-5 and serve for the set.
It’s also too bad for Maxime that the tiebreak turned into a disaster. He lost it 7-0, losing six out of seven points on his backhand errors, four of them unforced. He finished the set with 19 unforced errors**, 12 of them on the backhand. Meanwhile Nishikori committed only four errors, two on each side.
**Disclaimer on my unforced error numbers: After observing five days of qualifying matches, and few matches earlier today, and seeing the way the stat people judge and record the unforced errors, I have decided to keep my own count of them for my match analyses. An easy passing shot missed from the middle of the court is counted as an unforced error. A shot where the player’s feet are set, yet simply missed, counts as an unforced error in my book even if they are three or four meters behind the baseline. A second-serve return where the player misses it going for a winner, because they were able to balance their body to go for one, also counts as an unforced error, even if the serve had a kick on it. In general terms, if the player misses a shot that they should make the large majority of the time, that is an unforced error in my book.
Another key moment came in the beginning of the second set. You could tell by Nishikori’s body language, when he won the last point of the first set, that a deep relief had invaded him. He came out liberated to return Janvier’s serve in the first game of the second set. You could also tell that he made a decision: he was going to start taking some risks of his own on returns and not let Janvier push him around on the second shot, like he had done in the first set.
When I asked Nishikori after the match if the shift to more aggressive returns at that point in the match was a “conscious decision” on his part, he confirmed it: “Yeah, well, that was the most toughest part. I was struggling. First set I wasn’t returning well, and I tried to be little more aggressive, stepping in, and change my position.”
It worked. He hit two direct forehand return winners to go up 15-40 and finished the game on a backhand one at 30-40. It also helped that Janvier hit only two first serves out of the six total points played in that game (the Frenchman was 0/4 on second-serve points). That was all that Nishikori needed to wrap up the second set. He carried that single break all the way to 6-4.
It was, nevertheless, another high-quality set played by the Frenchman, despite not taking advantage of the only two break-point opportunities he had. Yet, the problem was not his errors this time (he only made a total of nine in this set). Nishikori stepped up on his returns for one game and got sufficient leverage with that break to pocket the two-set lead.
Down two sets, Janvier would still not fade away. In fact, at 3-2 up and Nishikori serving, he put himself in a position once again to get a decisive break. He had three different looks at break-point opportunities. Nishikori got the upper hand in the rally on the first one and saved it with a forehand winner. On the second one, Janvier went for a rocket backhand down-the-line and missed it in the net.
On the third, he actually had a clean look at a winner, inside the court, on a sitter. He had produced numerous winners with that same attempt, up to that point in the match. He lined up (see the photo below) and swung at it.
He framed it! The ball did not even land in the court!
When asked about that miss, Janvier said that he started that point with the same type of aggressive return that got him to the break-point opportunity – it’s true, Janvier’s return was phenomenal and Nishikori struggled to get those back throughout the match. But Kei was able to return that one in the court. Janvier praised Nishikori for making him come up with the big shots on important points and even said at one point that he wants to be consistent at a high level like him: “For me, I would like to be like Nishikori, of course.”
With that miss, disappeared Janvier’s last chance to extend the match. Nishikori held serve first, then broke Janvier’s serve to go up a break. Janvier must have framed at least four more shots in the last three games, but it was influenced by deception rather than a loss of concentration. He did not stop fighting until the last point.
Janvier ended up with 39 unforced errors to Nishikori’s 14. Kei did not play his best by any means and will need to raise his level to continue further. He also struggled with Janvier’s serves throughout the match, although that may have had more to do with Maxime’s ability to produce a wide variety of serves to keep him off balance.
In any case, what matters for Nishikori the most is that this match was precisely the type of first-round encounter that a player of his caliber needed. He was challenged by an eager adversary against whom his experience ultimately made the difference. On the road to accomplishing that, he kept his game at a solid level, without any substantial ebbs and flows to his performance.
Kei’s mental state also appears to be in a good place. When asked about how he feels about his form and fitness, he did not hesitate: “I’m feeling almost perfect. I think I had a good preparation, and I had a good couple matches before coming here. So, I’m feeling, yeah, great body-wise, and also tennis-wise, too.” He also added later that he had been “playing pretty good last couple weeks.”
His next opponent will be the winner of the match between Benoit Paire and Roberto Carballes Baena.
The second week of another Major has arrived. While the women’s draw at the Australian Open has provided plenty of “unexpected” thrills, the men’s side went pretty much according to plans (see my preview in the last post), with the exception of Nadal’s exit in the first round at the hands of Fernando Verdasco and his “spatial tennis” in the final set of their match.
Now, I take a look at the upper halves of each draw. If I have time, I will do the same tomorrow for the lower halves. I will even stick my neck out there and give my say on what I believe will take place. It is not something that I usually do, because I am known for being a terrible prognosticator, therefore I would not desire anyone to place a bet based on my opinions (yes gamblers, I am staring at you). Nevertheless, in the name of having fun, let me know in the comments section if you have different ideas. Let’s get to it.
WOMEN
Serena Williams vs. Maria Sharapova
To ask the outcome of the match is like asking “what will your mother say if you spill the juice on the carpet or on her dress?” or “will Wall Street behave responsibly this year?” or “are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders good friends?” You know the answer to those. You can play the dialog in your head numerous times and the outcome will not change one bit. The same applies to this match. It has literally been a dozen years and 17 matches since Maria last defeated Serena. It was when Barack Obama just became a senator, and this member of the media was revealing to New Yorkers that the internet “has finally come of age.” Is there any reason to believe that a different scenario may take place? No! Sharapova simply does not possess the weaponry in her game to out-hit or out-rally Williams. The only category in which Sharapova has consistently led Williams is the earned income category. Within the confines of a tennis court, Serena rules, it’s that simple. Any other scenario may perhaps take place in the parallel universe of this summer’s upcoming Star Trek movie.
Keys for Williams: Change nothing from the previous encounters because (1) she moves better than Sharapova during rallies, (2) she serves better than Sharapova, (3) she gets more pumped up for the opportunity to give a shellacking to Sharapova than to other opponents.
Keys for Sharapova: (1) Hope that Serena somehow loses her head, (2) as a result, the crowd rallies behind Maria because of it and because she is an overwhelming underdog, (3) and as a further result, Serena also loses her cool, suffers the tennis collapse of the decade.
I say —> One set surprisingly close as in 6-3 or 6-4, the other an easy stroll for Serena.
Agnieszka Radwanska vs. Carla Suarez-Navarro
This would be an intriguing match, except that Suarez-Navarro (I will refer to as CSN from here forward) is not one-hundred percent physically and has not played her best tennis in the previous rounds. She has benefited from a convenient draw so far, having faced only one top-100 opponent. In contrast, Radwanska has been tested by higher-quality opponents for one thing, and has come to the tournament with confidence for another, having won the year-ending WTA Finals three months ago. Having advanced to the quarterfinals in five of the last six years in Melbourne also makes her a persona grata at this stage of the tournament.
If CSN is healthy and ready to go, she has the game that can cause trouble to Radwanska who usually likes to park a meter or two behind the baseline and drive opponents crazy with her retrieving skills. She is similar to Simon on the men’s side in that sense, except that she possesses more variety, and thus, can “junk” her opponent out when needed. So, CSN will need to often accelerate her forehand to push Radwanska back, and use her backhand slice to bring her forward. In other words, she needs to get Radwanska to move back-and-forth on the court, rather than side-to-side. She can do that with her three preferred shots from the baseline; the aggressive forehand drive when she is in control of the point, the set-up low slice on the backhand, and the high and heavy topspin backhand. All three of those shots put a different spin and pace on the ball and she will need to frequently rotate between them. Assuming that this pattern eventually generates a short ball from her opponent, she must not pass up the chance to take the ball on the rise and approach the net. She needs to send a message to Aga that she will not ease up on future short balls, even if she ends up losing that particular point.
Keys for Radwanska: (1) Observe, test, and evaluate CSN’s physical condition early in the match by making her move in all directions through the use of her craftiness with drops shots and drive accelerations behind CSN (2) If CSN is not at 100%, keep the ball deep, allowing her to self-destruct, (3) If she is at 100%, engage her in repetitive patterns, such as cross-court backhands, and force her to take risks to get out of them, (4) Get the first serve in! Take the pace off it if needed, but do not rely on second serves to start the points.
Keys for CSN: (1) Create, attack, and harass Aga with aggressive returns on her second serves, (2) Vary often your three strong shots – see above, (3) Switch between kick serves and hard, flat serves on the advantage side, and on the deuce side, between slice serves to the outside and hard serves into the body. Execute the 1-2 punch if Aga’s returns, as a result, land short.
I say —> as noted above, there are some unknowns. But either way, Aga is craftier and better prepared mentally for a quarterfinal-round challenge. She should win in two fairly contested sets, but not really face much danger. If CSN comes out healthy and executes all of the above, it may not guarantee her the win, but it would guarantee an immensely entertaining match to the spectators.
MEN
Novak Djokovic vs. Kei Nishikori
Dear Novak fans, do not fret because your man made 100 unforced errors against Gilles Simon and looked less-than-stellar in his ground-stroke production. Simon, one of the biggest overachievers on the ATP Tour, puts many opponents off balance and Djokovic was no exception in that regard. It will be a different Novak against Nishikori, simply because the Japanese player will feed him a steady stream of high pace balls with which your man can display his superior counter-punching skills.
Yes, there is that loss to Nishikori back in the 2014 U.S. Open, but that seems ages ago. Djokovic is today a level above the player he was back then. Let me try to put in one sentence the summary of what we may see in this match. I see many rallies during which Kei produces one great forehand after another, runs Novak left and right, forces him to defend, only to see the roles reversed with one spectacular counter-punch shot by Novak, followed by the point ending a shot or two later with either Novak hitting a winner, or Kei going for the overkill on the run and committing an error.
That is not to say, Nishikori cannot adjust. He can drop shot, stick in a sharp cross-court or two behind Novak to throw him off balance. If he can force the Serb into a few mistakes early in the match, he may be able to build up enough steam to get ahead. I expect him to come out aggressive and go for big first serves. Nishikori has something to prove since that run to the final in New York. He has not yet backed it up. This time last year, many predicted that he would perhaps win a Major, but those same people have now lowered their expectations. Kei could not find a better opportunity than this to show again that he belongs to the top. I think he will be tuned in, and will want to believe (yes, X-Files is on my mind!).
Keys for Djokovic: (1) Counter-punch, repeat and recycle, (2) continue to win key points with first and second serves, (3) take risks on Nishikori’s second serves to take charge early in the point, (4) if the drop shot is off, take it off the menu, period!
Keys for Nishikori: (1) Be aggressive on the forehand from the beginning, (2) do not overkill from far behind the baseline, wait for the next shot, (3) play with a high first-serve percentage, (4) when pushed to the side, use sharp angles.
I say —> Djokovic wins in three sets, or loses the first and wins the next three.
Roger Federer vs. Tomas Berdych
Federer looked tremendous in his last match against David Goffin, but occasionally average in his previous matches. I always believed that Roger, unlike his main rivals, does better in Majors when he starts putting out his best in the earlier rounds. So the positive trend is a good sign, although it would have been preferable if he clicked on all cylinders from the beginning, like he did in the last two Majors. So, there is a bit of doubt in my mind, if he will again perform at the highest level against Berdych. One area in which Roger’s fans can take comfort is his “unlike-a-human-being-in-his-mid-thirties” footwork. He is moving like a cheetah on the court, and it clearly shows when he has to retrieve balls on defense. That will probably be the key to his success against the Czech who enjoys pounding his ground strokes and overpowering his opponent.
Berdych has had some success against Federer in the past, and even beaten him even in Majors (2010 Wimbledon, 2012 U.S Open). In every match that he won against the Swiss (total of 6 times) he seemed to stay inside the baseline and unleash one heavy ground stroke after another, while Federer committed mistakes when the rallies went beyond the ten-shot limit. When Berdych catches fire, he is a sight to behold and can make his opponent look primitive. That being said, his rhythm depends a lot on what Federer feeds him. So, let’s get to the keys of the match.
Keys for Federer: (1) Well-placed serves followed by either a volley, or a second and third shot that keep Berdych running and scrambling on the stretch, (2) tempt Berdych into coming to the net with low slices, forcing him to use topspin from below the net as an approach shot – not Berdych’s forte, (3) adjust the return position, use the SABR if needed, in short, do whatever it takes not to give Berdych a convenient ball to the middle of the court on the return.
Keys for Berdych: (1) A ton of powerful first serves, placement not that important, simply force Roger to block the return in order to take charge in the rally, (2) do not be afraid to come to the net, send a message to Federer that it’s not enough just to get the ball back with floating slices, (3) lull Roger into trading high-octane shots back and forth, like he did at Wimbledon 2010, or like Del Potro did in the 2009 US Open final, (4) hope that Roger’s footwork happens to be off for few hours on that day.
I say —> as previously noted, Federer’s footwork along with his ability to defend makes the difference, but not by much. This will be a tough one for the Swiss. Berdych is also more likely to get tight at critical junctures in the match. Federer wins in five sets, running away in the fifth after four contested sets.
Although all the top players participated in the so-called warm-up tournaments to the first Major of the year, tennis fans came to the realization that they will have to wait for this Monday to satisfy their craving of some high-quality, exciting encounters. However, the draw that came out Friday did not do any favors to anyone looking for a thrilling narrative to carry the two weeks, starting Monday. By “thrilling narrative,” I mean an eye-opening one that will end up being one of the main stories of 2016. Sorry Novak Djokovic fans, but your man lifting the winner’s trophy would not qualify as one. Nor would seeing the Big Four members (and/or Stan Wawrinka) play each other for the umpteenth time again in the semis. Yet, one look at the draw and that seems to be the most probable outcome.
Sure, there is some potential for first-week match-ups that feature two players who would probably be more than happy to make it the second week. I will even entertain the idea that Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer, or both, may get knocked out before the semis (only to have their conquerors melt away in the next round). But I neither see an emerging name reach the finals à-la-Kei in New York, nor envision an unlikely winner lifting the trophy like Wawrinka did two years ago, or Marin Cilic did in New York later that same year.
That being said, ticket holders should get their money’s worth. The possibility that this Australian Open may not go down as a trend-setting tournament does not mean that matches will be boring or of low quality. Without further ado, here is how I see the draw fill out section by section. In order to increase the suspense, I will not reveal the player favored to win the tournament. Read and see if you can figure it out (hint: pay attention to titles).
TOP HALF OF THE DRAW
Djokovic’s “early” victims
Prior to eventually running into Djokovic in the third round, Andreas Seppi and Teymuraz Gabashvili will square off with the winner likely to battle Denis Kudla next. Although Gabashvili is down 1-3 in the head-to-head count against Seppi, he has a great chance to advance. He is enjoying his highest ranking of his 14-year career and Seppi, who is going through a dangerous slump, could see his ranking plummer in the first half of the season if he does not recover soon. Gabashvili is the only one from that top section who could challenge Novak in the third round, provided he can live up to his nickname “Tsunami” for three sets (which is almost like saying “provided that Ivo Karlovic finishes a match with less than 5 aces”). Otherwise, look for Djokovic to get to the 4th round being more challenged in practice sets than in the actual matches.
Djokovic’s “midway” victims
Speaking of “Dr. Ivo,” he finds himself as a possible opponent of Djokovic if he makes it to the fourth round. Stands in his way one of the biggest overachievers in today’s tennis by the name of Gilles Simon who, unfortunately for the French, matches up terribly with the big-serving Croate. Simon will still make Karlovic earn the victory if they both make it that far. Anyone knows by now that even when Simon is losing to you, he will make you suffer before doing so. I don’t see any other name from that section (sorry Vasek Pospisil, not in Australia) reaching the fourth round to be victimized by Djokovic.
In the quarters, Djokovic could face a number of players. The two highest seeds in that section are Kei Nishikori (7) and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (9). I do not like the fact that I am writing this while the three qualifying spots in this section still display the word “Qualifier” instead of names. I am one of those who believe that careers are made in the Majors, and they are made when a player comes through qualifying and unexpectedly creates a sensation (or with an “s”) in the first week of a Major, and then, backs it up in the following months, before finally establishing himself as persona grata in the upper echelons of the ATP Tour.
Regardless of who the qualifiers are, Tsonga has a rocky road to the quarters. Even before a possible match against Nishikori or XYZ player in the 4th round, he will have to knock out Marcos Baghdatis, the in-form Ilya Marchenko, and his countryman Benoit Paire. In any case, unless Nishikori or Tsonga somehow catch fire, Djokovic could have an easier win in the quarters than in his previous round. I consider Kei’s chances of catching fire low, but still higher than that of Jo-W.
Djokovic’s “later” victims
Novak’s most serious opponent in 2015, the one that he faced 7 times in the finals, could line up on the other side of the net to challenge him, this time before the finals. His name is Federer, and as incredible as it sounds with the kind of season that Djokovic had, he managed to beat the world number one three times, all on hard courts. The reality: Federer has not beaten Djokovic in a Major since the 2012 Wimbledon. The irony: Federer has not lost to Djokovic (4-0) in their matches before the finals since 2013.
Federer’s quarter also happens to be loaded with loose cannons. While I don’t see his first-round opponent Nikoloz Basilashvili, who had his best year by a long mile in 2015, shock a top player any time soon, Federer’s potential opponents in the next rounds could cause him some headaches. Alexandr Dolgopolov, his likely opponent in the second round, and Grigor Dimitrov in the third round, are both respectable players who have proven their ability to beat top players on a given day. In the fourth round, Federer’s “on-paper” opponent is David Goffin, but the bigger dangers for Federer are Goffin’s first-round opponent Sergiy Stakhovsky and the Belgian Dominic Thiem. I have argued for two years now that Thiem is destined for greatness and I am not wavering from my position on him. He is one of the faces of the next generation, and I expect him to break through to the top 10 in 2016. That path could begin in Melbourne. Having said that, the reality remains that for anyone to reach the quarterfinals from that section, they would need some help from Roger who, dare I say, played well only sporadically in Brisbane.
Federer could eventually face an experienced top-10 player like Tomas Berdych, or another young talent like Nick Kyrgios. I am not as sold on Kyrgios as everyone else is, and it is not because I don’t believe in his talent. It’s a cliché, but for some reason, it’s one that takes time to dawn on people: champions are made in practice. Kyrgios’ level of intensity and focus in practice is nowhere near that of the elite champions in our sport. Kyrgios may not make it that far anyway. Cilic, Tomas Berdych, and Roberto Bautista-Agut are nearby in the draw, as well as Borna Coric, another name that represents the future face of men’s tennis. The young Croat would need to beat Cilic, Bautista-Agut, Kyrgios or Berdych, in a row, just to get to the quarters. Can he do it? Yes! This section will be my favorite one to watch during the first week.
BOTTOM HALF OF THE DRAW
(i.e. Djokovic’s “final” victim)
Some are intrigued by the first-round clash between Fernando Verdasco and Nadal. We are quickly reminded of the five-set semifinal in the 2009 Australian Open, in which Verdasco pushed Rafa very hard. He also defeated Rafa as recent as nine months ago, in Miami. Despite that win, Verdasco is nowhere near his 2009 level, and Rafa is playing a lot better than in March 2015. I don’t see an upset happening, and with all due respect to Benjamin Becker and Dudi Sela, I expect them to challenge the world number 5 even less in the second round. Rafa’s road will get rockier starting with the third round. He should face the Frenchman Jérémy Chardy who is known to put out his best tennis in the Majors. Chardy can hang with Nadal from the baseline, and even overpower him, like Fabio Fognini did at the US Open. However, whether Chardy himself believes that he can do that or not, is a rather large question mark.
Nadal would then have to get past either Kevin Anderson or Gaël Monfils. I must again point out that, Anderson and Monfils have three qualifiers yet to be named in their little eight-man section. Despite his 0-3 record against Nadal, Anderson is the only name with a legitimate chance to beat the Spaniard, simply because he has improved in 2015 and added to his experience of facing the elite players in the Majors. He also has a big serve which has been a trade mark of most of the players who have upset Nadal in the Majors. It does not help either that Rafa has been unable to erased the question marks surrounding his game. But this is different. Two weeks ago in Doha, he played some of his best tennis in a long time and the fact that he got floored by Djokovic in the finals should not change that. If anyone can overcome a steep challenge, Rafa is that man. This Australian Open represents a golden chance for the 14-Major winner to reestablish himself as the top player, along with Djokovic, Murray, Federer, and Wawrinka.
In the quarters, Nadal will no doubt face a tough opponent. There are again four qualifiers in this section. Unless one of them pulls a stunner or two, and/or Viktor Troicki’s form soars even higher than it did this week in Sydney, I don’t see who can stop Raonic and Wawrinka (sorry Jack Sock fans, not yet) from battling each other to earn the right to face Rafa.
I have long maintained (since 2010 exactly) that Raonic would be one of our sport’s top players and I believe he is on the right track. Despite injuries hampering his progress over the last three years, he has steadily improved. He arrives to Melbourne healthy and confident. He has a legitimate chance to go far, even if it means going through Wawrinka and Nadal just to reach the semifinals. The success of Nadal, Wawrinka, or Raonic, when one of them reaches the “final four” stage, will largely depend on how much they have labored in the previous rounds. I dare anyone to predict this early how they will do in the semis where they would likely face Murray.
So what of Murray’s quarter of the draw? Big-serving Sam Groth could frustrate him – it does not take much to do that – in the second round, but can he do it for three sets? Fognini and Tomic, the two major head-cases of our sport, could play against each other in the third round, which may possibly make that encounter the highest-rated third-round match in the history of Majors. But can either one challenge Andy? The section with John Isner and David Ferrer is wide open and should provide someone with a golden opportunity to reach the quarterfinal. But, can that quarterfinalist, whomever it may be, surprise Murray? I believe the answer to all the questions in this paragraph is a “No.” Meanwhile, squeezed in-there-somewhere in this section is Brian Baker who has managed more comebacks than Aaron Krickstein has come back from two sets down in his days.
I see some sections of the draw that fascinate me for the first few days. I see others that should be exciting when we get to the third and fourth rounds. Then, from the quarterfinals on, I expect great tennis. What I do NOT expect, is to find names in the semifinals that are different than the ones we have seen in the last several Majors.
The show begins in 48 hours!