Tag: Kyle Edmund

Roland Garros Match Report: Kyle Edmund vs Alex De Minaur (first round)

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

Alex De Minaur, no.105 in the ATP rankings and the recipient of a Wild Card at Roland Garros (thankfully so, he would have missed direct entry by one spot in the rankings), entered Court no.3 earlier today as the clear underdog, at least on paper. His opponent was the 16th-seeded Kyle Edmund, the man who replaced the injured Andy Murray as the highest-ranked British player in men’s tennis earlier this year. There was also the fact that Edmund got the best of De Minaur just a month earlier on the clay courts of the Estoril ATP 250 event in straight sets, 6-2 7-5.

If you asked Edmund this morning, however, I am sure he would have had a much different expectation of the match than “the tale on paper.”

He was certainly aware that De Minaur had a phenomenal debut to his 2018 season, getting to the semifinals of the Brisbane ATP event, then topping that result with an appearance in the final round in Sydney. The 19-year-old Australian further galvanized his fans when he threw everything but the kitchen sink at Alexander Zverev in their Davis Cup duel at the end of January, only to come up short in the tiebreaker of the fifth set, in one of the most thrilling men’s matches so far this year.

Edmund is enjoying a terrific 2018 campaign himself, having reached the semifinals in the Australian Open and earned a top-20 ranking for the first time in his career. He also built some clay-court confidence by getting to the finals of the Marrakesh ATP 250 event, defeating Malek Jaziri and Richard Gasquet on the way.

Kyle Edmund

Then, there are the contrasting styles. Edmund is a straight-forward shooter with a dangerous first serve and a robust forehand that poses as a threat on any surface. His backhand down-the-line acceleration – one of his underrated skills – adds an additional dimension to his overall aggressive game. Although he does not have a flashy style, he can go on productive streaks in the course of a match that can leave opponents – and spectators – bewildered.

De Minaur, on the other hand, relies heavily on his footwork, consistency, and tenacity. His arsenal is not donned with as many weapons as Edmund’s is – although he can direct rallies well with his forehand when positioned on the baseline or inside – but he can counter-punch the heck out of some shots that may have looked spectacular when the ball left the racket of the adversary. He would naturally look to respond to Edmund’s shot-making with some of his own high-octane send-backs.

Except that he rarely got the chance to do that…

Edmund started the match at a stellar-level and relentlessly pushed De Minaur around. If it were not for a few glitches that his well-oiled machine encountered at about midway in the second set, this one may have turned out to be one of the more lop-sided matches of the first round.

The 6-2 6-4 6-3 victory by Edmund showed not only why he should be a force to be reckoned with, but also what De Minaur lacks in his game in order to become one himself in the future. In every area that De Minaur struggled – more details on that a bit later – Edmund excelled. For every ball from the middle of the court that De Minaur struck hard, but could not put away, Edmund fired a winner from the same position. For every break point that De Minaur earned, Edmund responded by raising his game to save them.

Edmund came out bludgeoning the ball. He hit a backhand down-the-line winner to go up 0-15. He then followed that up with a rally that featured three rocket shots in a row struck by him. De Minaur got them back somehow, but in his scramble to do so, he had no choice but leave too much open-court space to avoid Kyle’s backhand winner on the fourth strike. De Minaur managed to get back to 30-30, but Edmund nailed a return that he could not get back in the court and found himself in danger of losing his serve, five points into the match.

That break point at 30-40 encapsulated what awaited Alex for the rest of the afternoon. The two players engaged in a long rally, one in which De Minaur got to run around and hit forehands, heavily testing Edmund’s backhand. He even got to turn up the heat on a couple of those that he got to hit from the top of the baseline. But Edmund’s backhand passed the test, he sustained the rally. Eventually, De Minaur accelerated one more time with his forehand, this time changing direction, to the deuce side of Edmund. It sailed deep and De Minaur lost his serve from the gates.

It was ironically a good example of the type of point that De Minaur would like to play against Edmund, one in which he controls the rally from the middle of the court, working his opponent’s weaker side. Yet, he lost the point, because he was simply not able to unleash his forehands on Edmund the way Edmund was able to unleash them on him when he got similar opportunities – or, I should add, the way highly ranked players do when they get similar opportunities. De Minaur hit them hard, but not hard enough to produce a winner or force Edmund into an error.

To Alex’s credit, he recognized his shortcomings with remarkable clarity.

When I asked him about this specific contrast after the match, he acknowledged it immediately as something on which he needs work: “Yes, that was the difference. He’s got a little more power than I do. You know, obviously, it’s such a powerful game, short ball or middle of the court ball, he manages to put away. At this stage in my career, on clay, I don’t have the same sort of power, so I probably got to keep getting stronger. I will look at this match, you know, I have already talked about it [with his team].” He added that this type of shortcoming shows more on clay because “you gotta generate a lot more power [on] slower courts.” He affirmed more than once that he needs to keep working to get better at it.

The stark difference between the number of winners hit by each player serves to confirm the contrast. Edmund finished with 26 winners, De Minaur with 12**. More importantly, Edmund finished with 16 forehand winners, ten more than De Minaur hit with his forehand. Those are precisely the type of forehands that De Minaur was not able to put away (like in that break point in the first game), and that Edmund did.

** I do not include aces in the “winner” column. Hitting an ace is a whole different notion – and requires a completely different set of skills – than producing a winner off one’s ground strokes once the ball is in play. It’s a shame that official stats do not adhere to that standard.

In this day of advanced technology, many readers may have access to replays of matches. If you have one for this match, and you want to see what Edmund did in that same situation – when he had a chance to take charge with his forehand – see the break point that Edmund saved at 30-40, 0-1 in the second set**. In his very first opportunity to accelerate his forehand, he landed the hard forehand to the corner of the court, pushing De Minaur three meters behind the baseline. Alex was able to send the ball back and had to quickly recover to guard the open court. Kyle unloaded another forehand to the same corner, catching Alex on his backfoot, for a clean winner.

**For more examples of this, see also the two points in succession at 3-2, 15-15, and the 15-0 point at 5-4, all in the second set. Keep in mind, these are only few of the many.

In short, What De Minaur could not do in several forehands in that first break point of the match (see above), Edmund was able to do in two forehands.

This pattern also led to an odd statistic. It would seem like Edmund, being the risk taker, would end up with more unforced errors than his opponent who, as I noted in the introduction, relied more on his tenacity and footwork. Yet, when this pattern occurs, the less powerful player feels forced to step outside of his comfort zone, in terms of his “A” plan, to have a chance to win. Consequently, his error count climbs quickly. Edmund, who generally plays with lesser margins for error than his opponent does, ended up with 16 unforced errors, whereas De Minaur ended up 22**.

** That is by my count, of course. See my previous post for an explanation of why I keep my own count of unforced errors. The official count today for both players stood at 30 for Edmund and 32 for De Minaur. I wondered at one point if the stat person was not simply chalking it up to a player’s unforced-error count anytime he missed a shot from the baseline. You want to see an example of why I do not trust that count? See the 30-30 point at 1-1 in the second set. De Minaur hits a sharp cross-court forehand that puts Edmund on the full stretch (his legs were literally wide apart and sliding to get to the ball) and the Brit misses it in the net. That counted as an unforced error! Excuse me? And that is one of several – see also the forehand miss at the 5-1, 15-15 point in the first set. That also went into the records as an unforced error. Oh-kay…

The superior skills Edmund possessed in finishing the points was not the only reason for which he was able to win so convincingly though. If I claimed that, I would be undermining how clutch Kyle was on the few occasions that a glimmer of hope appeared to his opponent.

Alex De Minaur looking at his box after a winner by Edmund

But before I get into that second major contrast, let me clarify for the record that serves did not play a major role in this match (two aces for Edmund, three for De Minaur). If anything at all, double faults were the source of the temporary glitch the Edmund machine experienced in the second set. All of his seven double faults for the match came in the that set, two of them playing a part in the only service break De Minaur managed to get.

But right after breaking Edmund’s serve and equalizing at 4-4, the Australian turned around and played his worst serving game of the match, one that featured three backhand errors and a double fault (one of his four for the match). He had a chance to get a late lead in the game count for the first time since the match had begun, and in less than two minutes, it slipped away from his hands.

Let’s compare that to how clutch Edmund was whenever he faced a difficult moment in the match (other than the break point that I noted above at 0-1 in the second set).

Moment 1:
After going up a break in the first set, Edmund faced a break point himself, serving a second serve at 2-1. He landed it so deep in the box that De Minaur (who was way inside the baseline in the hopes of unleashing his return on Edmund) had to hit an off-balance backhand that sailed wide. Edmund would hold serve two points later with an ace.

Moment 2:
In the second set, De Minaur led 2-1 and had a break-point opportunity on Edmund’s serve at 30-40. Kyle came up with three monster forehands in a row, running De Minaur from one corner to the other on the first two, leaving him helplessly as the third one flew by for a winner.

Time after time, Edmund remained clutch on important points. These are the types of differences that produce clear-cut, straight-set victories. You may look at the final score and be tricked into thinking that it was a boring match, but in fact, the quality of tennis on display was quite high. It is just that, as noted above, De Minaur needs more time to develop the type of skills that his opponent already possesses. The good news for Alex is that he had two chances to learn that lesson in a matter of thirty days – he said “the same thing happened” in their Estoril encounter. He should be able to identify what he needs to work on and tackle those challenges with alacrity.

As for Edmund, I am surprised that he does not get more recognition than what he has gotten so far. Players that have accomplished less than him in 2018 – and behind him in the rankings – are receiving more accolades than him. I am just curious to see on what court his second-round match vs Marton Fucsovics will get scheduled. I would not be surprised if it is not scheduled on one of the main courts (today’s match was on Court no.3).

Edmund’s backhand accelerations worked flawlessly today

The reality is, Edmund played a rock-solid match to begin his Roland Garros campaign.
Forehand winners? He profusely produced them.
Successful backhand down-the-line accelerations? More than usual.
1-2 punch winning points? Plenty.
Clutch? You bet.

Fucsovics will have his hands full in the second round.

Until next time…

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Miami Open Match Report: Kyle Edmund – Frances Tiafoe (2nd round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

This encounter appeared to be one of the most intriguing match-ups of the day when the order of play was initially announced. It pitted two rising stars of this year, Kyle Edmund, the highest-ranked British player at no.26 and a semifinalist at the Australian Open, against the American Frances Tiafoe (no.63) who had won his maiden ATP title just a little less than a month ago in Delray Beach.

The match lived up to its billing, not necessarily in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of the twists and turns that it took until the very end of the three-set duel.

From the start, it became clear that both players were going to have considerable edge on their service games, as long as their first-serve percentages remained high. Edmund began with a blank game, hitting three out of four first serves and never having to hit the second shot. Tiafoe returned the favor with a blank game of his own, not missing any first serves. Edmund replied with two aces in the third game for another easy hold and Tiafoe held firm with his second routine hold to get back to 2-2.

You get the picture, don’t you? The first serves were so dominant that by the time it was 5-5, each game averaged around 2,5 minutes. There had been no break points and only one deuce. The first set lasted a brief 45 minutes despite ending with a tiebreaker.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

The only break point – a set point for Edmund at the same time – was in the 6-5 game and it needed a lot of unusual things to occur for it to take place. At 30-15, Tiafoe made an unforced error on his forehand that had been working well until then. Then, a framed-forehand return by Edmund happened to land on the baseline (more on Edmund’s frame mishits later), completely catching Tiafoe unprepared. Frances barely got the ball back on an off-balance shot that landed short. Edmund attacked with his forehand, forcing Tiafoe into an error. Out of nowhere, the Brit found himself up a set point. It was too much variation in an otherwise metronomic set. Frances needed to reset the system. He served three big serves in a row – the third one, an ace – and carried the set into a tiebreaker.

So far, I have talked about how dominating first serves were in the first set, but I would not want you to think that the players served a ton of aces. At 6-6, Tiafoe had six aces and Edmund had two, so nothing groundbreaking there. On the other hand, they had one double fault combined (Edmund), and each played with an extremely high rate of first-serve percentage, Tiafoe at 95%, Edmund at 75%, but there was even more to it than that.

First serves were dominating in the sense that both players collected a ton of points in the form of 1-2 punches (winning on the second shot after a weak return caused by an effective first serve) or in the form of 1-2-3 punches (in which the third shot is a winning volley after a good approach shot on a short return, thanks to an effective first serve).

The returner never seemed to get out of the hole even when he was able to return and manage to get in a rally, because he would be stuck defending from the first shot forward. For an example of this, see the 5-5, 15-0 point. Edmund gets the first serve in, takes an offensive position in the court and runs Tiafoe ragged for the rest of the point behind the baseline, until the American eventually misses after multiple scramble shots.

It should come as no surprise then, that at 6-6, both players were hovering in the mid-80% range on points won on first serves. That set seemed to have “tiebreaker” written all over it from the beginning. Yet, the tiebreaker itself completely deviated from the norms.

It all started with Tiafoe leading 3-2 and serving. Until then, he was 100% on first-serve points won. He got the first serve in and Edmund hit an average return that gave Tiafoe a high forehand to attack. It was the 1-2-punch pattern that had worked to perfection for the American until then. Tiafoe nailed it deep behind the baseline. At 3-3, he got another solid first serve in and Edmund pulled perhaps his best return of the set, a rocket forehand that landed smack on the baseline, and went up 4-3. Tiafoe just lost the first (and only) two points of the set on a total of 37 points that started with his first serve.

So, you would think that with two serves coming, Edmund had a significant advantage, especially if he gets his first serves in. He did, on both points, and he lost both points on errors, the second one being an unforced one. Four points in a row lost by the server despite all starting with first serves in this match? Bizarre indeed, but as many on social media would say, with a hashtag attached to it, “that’s #Tennis.”

There was one more twist. At 4-5, Edmund had a forehand sitter on the service line that he would usually put away with one eye closed. He literally hit the ball with the frame of his racket, sending it to the sky and far behind the baseline. Tiafoe had two set points at 6-4. He needed only one. With an ace he pocketed the first set 7-6.

Edmund must have been disappointed at losing the set. He had a set point and led 4-3 in the tiebreaker with two serves to follow. Also, he probably knew that the match could easily turn around in his favor at any point if he could manage to break his opponent’s serve. After all, Tiafoe never came close to breaking his serve in the first set.

The American would not fare much better in the second set in that department, earning only one break point. To make matters worse for him, he would play his first below-average serving game on the fourth game of the set and get broken. He would double fault to start the game, then at 30-15, he would hit a wacky slice forehand approach shot on a last-second decision that would float out. Down a break point, he would hit the forehand approach shot in the net for good measure, giving Edmund a much-needed adrenaline shot in the arm.

Kyle rode the only break of the match all the way to the end of the set, winning it 6-4. Other than the break point that Edmund saved by an ace at 4-3, the rest of the set reflected more or less the pattern of the match, meaning routine service holds.

As the third set began, it was very hard to predict which player would come out on top. Edmund had the only break of the match, but there had only been a total of four break points in the 22 games played in the first two sets. First-serve percentages remained high, and it looked like unless one of the two had an unexpectedly dismal serving game (à-la fourth game of the second set by Tiafoe), another tiebreaker loomed large on the horizon.

In fact, the first game only served to reaffirmed that expectation. Tiafoe had to resort to second serves in the first three points and lost all three. Down 0-40, he got his next five first serves in, and other than the forehand smacked in the net by Edmund at 15-40, he had little trouble coming back to hold his serve. There were three more routine service holds and the scoreboard showed 2-2 in the final set.

There was one small variation though. While both players were winning almost 100% of their first serves, they were hardly winning any of their second-serve points. They were a combined 2 out of 10 on those, up to that point in the third set. That was different than in the first two sets. Tiafoe was the one to suffer from this problem in the fifth game. He got only one first serve in – an ace, naturally – and made three unforced errors on rallies started with his second serves. Edmund broke to go up 3-2 and it looked like a repeat of the second set was forthcoming.

Until 5-4…

On the first point, Edmund got the first serve in and Tiafoe returned short, like zillion other times before, except that this time, instead of completing the 1-2 punch, like he has zillion other times before, Edmund framed the backhand wide to go down 0-15. At 15-15, Edmund got his first serve in again, but Tiafoe returned well, and a rally ensued. After several shots, Edmund framed the backhand again and Tiafoe punished the ball that landed short with a clean forehand winner to go up 15-30. You could sense the crowd intensity go up a notch. Was an unlikely break finally on the way for the American?

At 30-30, Edmund’s backhand let him down again, this time missing deep on a routine cross-court shot. At 30-40, Edmund approached the net and missed a low backhand volley into the net. The improbable happened. Edmund played his first less-than-average serving game and lost 3 out of 4 points on those started with his first serve. Tiafoe got his first and only – and truly golden – break of the match to stay alive and level the match at one set each, five games each.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

At 5-5, Edmund had another chance to take charge when he led 15-40 on the American’s serve. He had a look at a second serve and hit his third framed shot in the last two games, a forehand return this time, that landed wide (I promise, no more mentions of “frame” shots). Tiafoe followed it up with three big serves to go up 6-5. Not much seemed to go right for Edmund in the last five minutes. He was looking to hold his serve for the 16th time in a row and shake his opponent’s hand as the victor about five minutes ago. Now, he was looking to hold to stay alive and get to a tiebreaker to decide the final set.

For a moment, it looked like he would not even get there. The best point of the match, a spectacular rally during which Kyle threw the kitchen sink and more at Frances, only to see the American get everything back and win the point with a brilliant counter-punch winner, gave the first point of the game to Tiafoe. He would eventually get to a match point at 30-40. Credit to Edmund who played a solid point of his own, approaching the net and challenging Tiafoe to pass him from a difficult position. Frances could not, and Edmund held serve two points later, forcing the tiebreaker.

So, yes, the match did indeed go to the tiebreaker in the final set, just not in the way you would have expected. The tiebreaker would not stick to the script either. Tiafoe would go up 6-1, only to see Edmund climb back to 6-5. On match point number five, Tiafoe would step up to the baseline, toss the ball up, and end the match with an ace.

It was a glorious victory for Tiafoe, and a heavy defeat for Edmund. It was so, not because both players performed at a very high level – in fact, the quality of tennis went slightly down in the final set.

It was a glorious victory for Tiafoe, rather because he had to play for an extended period of time with the burden of letting the match get away from him after having won a close first set, and yet find the determination within himself to finally overcome the barrier that sapped his mind for almost two hours – the inability to break Edmund’s serve – and do so precisely when it counted.

It was a heavy defeat for Edmund, rather because he felt like he had the victory within his reach for the better part of the match, only to have it snatched out of his hands at the last second. It may also bring up some larger questions for Edmund’s camp. The Brit, following a stellar month of January, has now been upset in his first matches, both in Indian Wells and in Miami. The hip injury that followed the Australian Open may have temporarily halted his progress more than expected. One can only hope that he does not have to go through a more complicated mental-recuperation process than he has had to go through on the physical side.

Next challenge for Tiafoe will be the 10th seed Tomas Berdych.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Thursday: Australian Open Semifinals Preview

ATP & WTA Majors No Comments

It has been a fantastic ride so far in the first Major of the year, and the four match-ups in the semifinals of the two singles’ draws should delight any tennis fan. You have again a healthy mix of favorites still marching on, newcomers on the rise, and established players chasing their first Major title. Could anyone have guessed correctly the eight names still in the draw? I doubt it, but if someone did, my hats off to them.

Speaking of guessing, I have been wrong several times this week. As those of you who regularly follow my posts already know, when I write these previews, I attempt to forecast what may happen in the match, strictly tennis-wise, based on past observations. Any player or coach will tell you that the strange and unexpected take place regularly in the arena of competitive tennis. For example, in my last preview, I gave the reasons why I felt that Marin Cilic’s chances were very slim against Rafael Nadal. I also explained specifically my take on what Cilic would need to do in order to pull the improbable upset win. I maintained that it was highly unlikely that he could put all that together.

Guess what? He did.

Yes, Rafa’s injury sealed the match in the fifth set, but Cilic deserves full credit for doing what was necessary to put himself in a position to win. Although I turned out right in the ins-and-outs of how he could do it, I was wrong in thinking that he ultimately could not. And turning out wrong on the final score is nothing new for me, ha! People who know me can tell you that I am terrible at predicting scores. They can also tell you that I have had zero interest in betting. I don’t even know what those numbers mean when I see the occasional tweet or article about odds. So, if there are any obsessed gamblers reading my posts hoping to gain insight, you have been warned !!

Let’s now get to two** semifinal matches scheduled for Thursday. Keep in mind that, I write all this under the assumption that players will not suffer from injuries or sickness during the match, or retire.
**Time constraints unfortunately do not allow me to preview all three singles’ matches, so I had to pick two.

Simona Halep (1) vs Angelique Kerber (21)

Let me provide a quick check list:
– Two players, one officially ranked number one in the WTA, the other motivated to get there and certainly playing like one.
– Evenly matched encounter, with Kerber leading 5-4 the head-to-head tally. Both undefeated in 2018, each with a record of 10-0.
– Both playing five-star tennis in the quarterfinals, winning routinely against opponents to whom most in the WTA field lose routinely.
– Now scheduled to play each other in the semis of a Major with the number-one-ranking implications.

I ask you, what more could you want as a tennis fan? I have an idea. You would want to clear out your schedule, make sure you have an ample of supply of popcorn, your favorite beverage, and a quality screen on which to watch it unless you are in Melbourne holding a ticket to see it live.

Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty

This match promises a lot precisely because it is almost impossible to predict. Kerber and Halep are two of the best baseliners in our game for many reasons. They move exceptionally well and possess fine counterpunching skills from difficult positions. Plus, there is not a particular baseline pattern in which they show a visible weakness. You hit a sharp cross-court, they can run it down, respond with a wicked angle, and put you on your backfoot. You accelerate down-the-line, they can take advantage of the open cross-court or send it back in the same direction. You hit the ball hard and deep to the baseline in hopes of putting them off-balance, they can bend their knees, to the point of touching the ground, and use their wrist-control to strike back with a half-volley, thus take back the control of the rally.

So, can either of them break the other down from the baseline? I do not have the answer to this question. That is mainly the reason for which I find this match fascinating. The outcome will hinge more on factors such as mental toughness, problem-solving, on-court IQ, conditioning, experience, and the will to win. As I compare and contrast the two players with those factors, I find myself repeating sentences like “Simona excels in X, but so does Angie,” or “Angie is the best at doing Y, except for Simona,” or even “I remember the match where [one] mounted an incredible comeback, but wait, there is also that other match where [the other] fought through adversity.”

Do you see where I am going with all this? Maybe the right answer is nowhere, and I am happy with that. Because, that is the type of puzzle that produces the highest quality in tennis, one in which the two players push each other to their level to new heights as the match progresses to a thrilling climax.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

I can almost hear some readers reminding me that Kerber has already won two Majors compared to zero for Halep, and thus she has shown the ability to cross that barrier, giving her the edge over her opponent. It is a fair argument, but then, could we argue that Simona’s lack of Major titles adds to her desire to win, because she the stakes are higher for her than for Angie? But wait, hasn’t that been the case for Simona since she reached the finals of Roland Garros in 2014 and lost to Maria Sharapova? So that could make Simona tight when the match is on the line… or something… !
…………………….. !!

Yes, it is all beginning to sound silly. I am stopping right here before I get a headache and setting my priorities straight. I must clear out my schedule, get my popcorn and beverage. Thank heavens, I already have a quality screen. Phew!

Marin Cilic (6) vs Kyle Edmund

My Tuesday preview involving Edmund’s match against Grigor Dimitrov had a certain pattern that did not age well. Firstly, I talked about Edmund’s qualities and emphasized his good form of late. Secondly, I admitted that I should have learned my lesson about picking against him (I favored Kevin Anderson to eliminate him in the first round, same with Andreas Seppi in the fourth), only to finish by saying that, although he had already proved me wrong twice, I still cannot favor him against Dimitrov. I even finished with the following ironic quote: “Edmund will simply have to teach me the same lesson again.”

Well, he did teach me a lesson, again. And I promise, I learned my lesson this time.

I do not care that he will be an underdog against Cilic. He made a believer out of me by now, as he did with many others around the world. I will, however, add that the reason for which I believe Edmund can yet pull another upset does not solely originate from some silly fear that I may repeat the same mistake four times. It is also because Edmund possesses the bits and pieces necessary to beat Cilic.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

I have written about Edmund’s ability to produce an abundant number of winners in my preview of his quarterfinal match vs Grigor Dimitrov. As of today, he leads all players in the Australian Open this year in the forehand-winner category with 127 of them. Both against Seppi in the fourth round and Dimitrov on Tuesday, Edmund repeatedly nailed winners from that side that left his opponents bewildered. He also added a bunch of aces and unreturnable first serves for good measure.

I cannot underline enough the fact that he was able to maintain his level and produce those winners against two different type of players. On the one hand, Seppi hits the ball with pace and rather flat, giving little time to his opponents to prepare for the next stroke. Dimitrov, on the other hand, can hit a high-bouncing spin, as well as a sizzling slice that will stay very low. This shows Edmund’s ability to impose his game to a variety of players. Does that group include Cilic? I believe so.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

The big Croate loves to make contact with the ball high, preferably around the chest and shoulder level. This is why he was able to take some of Rafael Nadal’s balls on the rise and drive them back deep into the Spaniard’s baseline territory. Cilic struggles a bit more on lower balls, and on those where he has to reach wide to hit. In other words, if you face Marin, do not let him get set and lean into the ball with his upper body, because that is when he can generate some heavy, warp-speed shots. Edmund, for his part, is equipped to deal with that, because he is not a heavy topspin hitter by nature anyway.

In fact, when Edmund performs at his best, he often takes the initiative with crisp forehand accelerations, and occasionally, with flat down-the-line backhands. In doing so, he makes the ball glide through the court without losing much velocity. Furthermore, the ball stays low on the bounce. Seppi and Dimitrov, his last two victims, could handle those balls when they could get to them (except that they often could not). Cilic, in contrast, should struggle with those even if he does get to them, because he will need to reach to strike an off-balance shot from below-the-hip level. That should not allow him to load his body into the shot like he prefers to do.

So, Edmund fans, I apologize ahead of time, but not because I think your man is going to lose. On the contrary, I think he will once again get it done. I am apologizing ahead of time, for picking him to win, because of my dreadful past track record 🙂

Stay well and enjoy the tennis !

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Tuesday: Australian Open Men’s Quarterfinal Previews

ATP & WTA Majors 2 Comments

We are down to the final 8 of the men’s draw at the Australian Open. Each quarterfinal match offers its own narrative, one more compelling than the next. On Tuesday, the line is clearly drawn as to who the favorites and the underdogs are in the two men’s matches scheduled. These players also have, among themselves, different pursuits. Among the two favorites, one is trying to confirm his number-one status and shape further his place in the history of the sport, while the other is attempting to take a giant step toward that elusive elite status. Among the underdogs, one is seeking to earn more respect than he gets despite having reached the finals of Majors twice, winning one, while the other simply wishes to extend the best week of his young career.

Below are my previews of both matches.

Grigor Dimitrov (3) vs Kyle Edmund

Grigor gets another chance to solidify the argument of why he should be considered one of the current elite performers in men’s tennis. He is not exactly there yet, mind you, but he has a golden chance to reach that status this week. Since having defeated the qualifier and 186th-ranked MacKenzie McDonald in the most unconvincing way possible – 8/6 in the fifth set after being bageled in the fourth, 8 aces and 9 double faults, and a slew of unforced errors – Dimitrov has gotten his act together. He put forth an impressive march to the quarterfinal round in his last two matches. I call it impressive in that he faced two quality opponents, Andrey Rublev and Nick Kyrgios, and showed poise almost each time they challenged him at crucial stages of both matches.

Photo: Darrian Traynor – Getty

His opponent’s run to the quarterfinal, however, may take the cake in the overall sense of the term “impressive.”

For starters, Edmund was not supposed to be here. When the draw was made, he was unseeded and scheduled to face the US Open finalist Kevin Anderson in the first round. The 49th-ranked Edmund, with the never-depleting gas tank, recorded the upset victory over Anderson, the first of two five-setters he won prior to his last round. After a straight-set victory over Denis Istomin in the second round, he won his second five-setter against Nikoloz Basilashvili. All three were remarkable wins, but it is the way in which he pulled his four-set victory in the fourth round against Seppi that was truly striking.

After having lost the first set and gone down a break in the second, and suffering from a lingering pain in his shoulder, Edmund suddenly began to produce his best tennis of the week for the next two hours. At times, Seppi looked helpless against the barrage of winners that Kyle was nailing from all areas of the court. He did not give up after the disappointment of losing the tiebreaker of the first set, kept a positive body language, showed all the signs of mental toughness that would delight any player’s fans and coaching team.

Edmund was placed in a relatively advantageous section of the draw (Jack Sock and Kevin Anderson, the highest seeds). He took full advantage of that opportunity once he got past Anderson. With all due respect to Istomin, Basilashvili, and Seppi, they do not impose the same degree of intimidation that his next opponent or his potential future opponents this week will do when standing next to them in the tunnel prior to walking on the court.

Then, there are the tactical possibilities. As tennis fans, we could be treated to a wonderful spectacle if Edmund starts strong and protects his service games. That begins with a high percentage of first serves and an aggressive approach to the next shot coming from the opponent’s return. This 1-2 punch pattern is in fact an essential part of Kyle’s usual A plan, his “bread-n-butter” so to speak.

Let’s ponder for a second. What if Edmund was to catch fire, à-la-sets-three-and-four of his win vs. Seppi?

To grasp the extent of how incredible Edmund’s performance was in that period of time, you would need to watch the replay. He hit so many winners that, at a certain point in the match, I began to simply expect winners every other point and started considering them “routine points,” only admiring the ones hit from impossible positions. Yes, I admit, from that point forward, I became what you would consider a spoiled tennis fan. Shame on me!

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

Can Dimitrov extinguish that kind of fire? Yes, only because he moves quicker and defends better than Kyle’s previous opponents. In fact, the Bulgarian is one of the best athletes in men’s tennis. How many shots did Kyrgios hit in the previous round that he thought were winners, but ended up coming back, forcing him to take another crack? Only Nick could accurately answer that, but I will make an educated guess and say that the number was easily in double digits. Did you see, for example, the forehand missiles hit by Dimitrov while he was fully stretched and on the run? I can only hope, Edmund’s behalf, that he did not use up all his winners against Seppi and that he still has plenty in his reserves.

There is also that scenario where some physical pain limits Edmund’s ability to perform and he loses in straight sets, or furthermore, forces him to retire. Ignoring that possibility for a moment, I would like to say that I learned my lesson about picking against Edmund (twice in fact), and that I will not pick against him again. Yet, I cannot. I have believed in Dimitrov to go to the final since day one of this tournament. Edmund will simply have to teach me the same lesson again.

Rafael Nadal (1) vs Marin Cilic (6)

There are reasons for which Nadal has, for the most part, dominated Cilic since his only loss to him in Beijing nine years ago. It can partially be explained by intangibles unrelated to technical and tactical aspects. Rafa is one of the best athletes in the world and Marin is not the only player that he has dominated over extended periods of time. He has more experience in the second week of Majors, and on big stage, than any opponent he faces, unless the latter happens to be another member of the rare elites in our game (you know who they are). He is mentally the best competitor our sport has ever seen. I could continue with this list, but I will stop right here and move on to the tactical side where the forecast looks just as bleak for Cilic.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

Diego Schwartzman frequently gave Nadal fits during their match. He forced the Spaniard to come up with several great shots in a row to eventually collect the point. He sent a message to Rafa from the early stages of the match that he would not go away simply because he lost a long point at deuce or a contested game. In short, he gave Rafa some of his own medicine, because that is precisely how Nadal’s adversaries feel until that moment in the match where they cease being his adversary and give up. Diego remained Rafa’s adversary all the way to the bitter end.

He was able to do so because, first and foremost, he is quick. He could run down so many of Rafa’s shots and send them back high and deep at times, flat and hard at others. His speed, agility, and explosive first step allowed him to change directions in the blink of an eye. His ability to counterpunch from off-balance positions produced winners for which even Rafa was not ready.

Well, I just listed a bunch of qualities about Schwarztman’s game that lack in Cilic’s. Let me be clear: Cilic is a good mover. If you hit an average drop shot for example, he has the speed to get to it and punish you. In a basic side-to-side rally, he can stay with his opponent and overpower him. His shortcomings appear if, for example, he has to quickly go outside the boundaries of the court to return a wide serve and immediately get back to the middle of the court for the next shot. Or if he has to stop and change directions during the rally when his opponent accelerates back to the same corner from which he is trying recover.

You can see two examples of these weaknesses in Cilic’s first-set tiebreaker against Pablo Carreno Busta in the last round. In the first point of the tiebreaker, the two players engage in a rally that Cilic initially dictates until Carreno hits a forehand down-the-line that changes the pattern and forces Cilic to backtrack. It momentarily puts him on his backfoot. This allows Carreno to reverse the dynamics of the rally and make Cilic chase balls. Three shots later, Carreno makes Cilic stretch out to the forehand side, far behind the baseline. Marin nets the defensive slice attempt. Another example occurs later in the 4-2 point. Carreno accelerates inside-out with his forehand, which makes Cilic stretch his long legs wide and reach with his upper body for the two-handed backhand that he ends up floating deep. Look for points like this to multiply against Nadal.

When Nadal used this type of pattern against Schwartzman – the kind that Carreno used against Cilic in the points described above – Schwartzman defended without much difficulty. He got Rafa’s shots back and did not miss a beat in recovery time. Cilic, on the other hand, will make errors, and consequently, Nadal will not feel the need to take more risks.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

So, what can Cilic do? He must concentrate on his own strengths and use them with conviction. It starts with his serve and court positioning. He has one of the biggest first serves in the ATP Tour. He must earn a large number of aces, and if the return comes back, he must take extreme risks on his forehand to control the middle of the court. He needs to flatten out his shots and basically look to hit Nadal out of the court, or at least keep him scrambling enough to the point where Rafa will not have the occasion to get set and turn the tables around in the rally. In short, Cilic will need to play big, à-la-USOpen-2014. He must either hit the winner or miss going for one. It’s a tall order. Cilic’s chances are slim at best, although it is within the realm of possibility. If he loses the first set, that realm may also disappear. I do not see Cilic winning three straight sets, or three out of four sets, against Rafa under any circumstance.

Enjoy the matches.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

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

MENU

Navigation