Below is the link to my contribution to Tennis with an Accent —-> My post-match analysis of last year’s finalist Madison Keys’ decisive straight-set victory over Dominika Cibulkova in the fourth round of the US Open.
KEYS CLOSES THE DOOR ON CIBULKOVA
Until next time…
Following a slew of upsets and thrillers throughout the first three rounds, the second week features a good mix of opportunistic and in-form players from the middle echelons (as in, not seeded high), and established players eager to confirm their top-player status. Here is my take on three matches, scheduled for Monday, that feature such players.
Caroline Garcia (8) vs Madison Keys (17)
Garcia is having a solid run, a very solid one. I can’t put it on the same level as the quarterfinal-run she had in last year’s Roland Garros – not yet – but it has the potential to match and surpass it. In terms of performing at the Majors, Caro is steadily fulfilling the primary requirement, which is, a string of second-week appearances, gradually pushing the envelope further. You judge for yourself: a third-round run in the 2016 US Open, followed by a quarterfinal and a fourth-round appearances in Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the summer of 2017. This is what I call a healthy progress for a (near-)future contender.
She enters yet another second week in a Major and her road to get there has not been a cakewalk by any means. She had to solve two puzzles in a row in the previous rounds, overcoming the up-and-comer Marketa Vondrousova in the second round, and Aliaksandra Sasnovich next. She passed both tests with flying colors, don’t let the close scorelines tell you otherwise. Garcia offered her best in the final sets of both matches, clutch responses to the successful challenges thrown at her in the earlier portions of each match. Furthermore, Vondrousova and Sasnovich are different players, the former one being a crafty left-hander, and the latter, a solid baseliner with a terrific backhand. Her conquest of both opponents in the extended moments of the final sets shows Caro’s ability to make use of her I.Q. (of which she has plenty, her problem in the past has been nerves, never her on-court astuteness) in dealing with a variety of tasks presented to her.
Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty
Keys, last year’s US Open finalist, now presents a daunting challenge to Garcia, not only because she is motivated herself to add another deep run to her list of accomplishments, but also because she can match Garcia’s power and turn the tables on the French’s preferred game plan. It is no mystery that both players would like to dictate rallies, keep their opponents on the run, and eventually finish the point with a baseline or a volley winner. It is also well-known that they struggle if they are forced to play defense, and thus, find themselves in the unusual role of having to scramble from corner to corner. It is that second factor on which rests the key to the outcome of this match.
First question: can each player, if forced to, retrieve a number of successive balls without erring? Second one: if so, can they turn such rallies to their advantage with a counter-punch shot, gain the initiative, and press back successfully? The way each player grapples with the two questions above will determine the winner. I should rather say, the player with the more emphatic “yes” answer to both will reach the quarterfinal round. I believe Garcia is a step ahead of Keys on the first part because she is slightly quicker than Madison with her first step. As to the second question, I am leaning toward the Amrican, only because one of her specialties is nail winners from anywhere on the court, even on the full run. At the end, my nod goes ever so slightly toward Garcia solely based on the fact that her previous two rounds got her primed and ready for Keys, whereas the American has not yet faced an opponent of Garcia’s caliber.
Novak Djokovic (14) vs Hyeon Chung
Couple of the biggest questions coming into the men’s draw have, for the most part, been answered. Djokovic is physically fine and the level of his tennis is not too shabby either. Notice how I threw “for the most part” in the first sentence. We cannot be one hundred percent sure of Novak’s health until the end of this tournament, even if his win against Monfils was played under brutal conditions. He did also get a massage on his back during his last match, though I did not consider that worrisome. I will only feel at complete ease, once he survives a match that goes to distance and comes out to play the next one with still no physical pain. For example, finishing this tournament with zero pain in his arm or any other part of his body would undoubtedly mean that Novak can get back to his regular tournament schedule in 2018. That is my primary wish for him. I missed the Federer-Nadal rivalry prior to last year and was happy to see it make a come back in 2017. I missed Novak last year, and I would equally be happy to see him back in the mix.
The going-to-distance test, that I mentioned above, may very well take place against Chung. The South Korean is consistent, athletic, pesky. He probably feels to his opponents like that chewing gum that gets stuck in your hair and no matter how hard you try, you cannot get it out. He rarely donates points, uses angles efficiently, and accelerates well. Furthermore, he comes into this match with his confidence riding high. The problem for him, lies as much in the details of this particular match-up as the identity of his adversary.
Photo: Pat Scala – Getty
Yes, Novak’s status will play an important role as both players walk on the court. Fans can ignore it or pretend for one day that such notion does not exist, but it will loom large in Chung’s mind. For a young player like him, facing a legend in a Major, is a one of the necessary steps in his own potential transformation into a top player in the future. Usually, the first time it happens, it does not end well for newcomers – remember Roddick’s learning experience in his night-time Arthur Ashe stadium encounter vs Pete Sampras at the 2002 US Open before he became no.1 player one year later?
Regarding the match-up, Chung’s two best shots from the baseline, the inside-out forehand and the cross-court backhand accelerations, play into Djokovic’s strengths. In fact, if there were one area in which Novak does not appear to have lost an iota of confidence, it is his phenomenal ability to absorb heavy balls drilled to his backhand side and send them back with interest, especially down-the-line. I like Chung a lot, but I am afraid his run in this Major stops here. Do not expect his long-term development to halt anytime soon though. This tournament, coupled with his title in the Next Gen ATP Finals in November, are nothing less than confirmations of his steady rise in the ATP ranks.
Fabio Fognini (25) vs Tomas Berdych (19)
How well did Berdych perform against Juan Martin Del Potro in the third round? Extremely well. He may have played his best match ever in a Major, outside of his wins against Roger, Novak, and Rafa in previous ones. It was an eye-opening performance because it came somewhat unexpectedly. Berdych had not impressed anyone with his form since having reached the semis at Wimbledon. He had recorded 4 wins and 5 losses and gotten past the second round only once, in the ATP 250 event in Los Cabos. He has, however, played nothing but solid tennis in Melbourne so far – okay, maybe not in the second set of his second-round match, but let’s not get picky.
His opponent Fognini has had an easier draw – relatively speaking of course – and has at times struggled with his concentration (nothing new there). But he is an underrated performer on the big stage. Frankly, I don’t know how long it will take before the tennis world recognizes how impressive the Italian has been in Majors. I can understand why his on-court antics preoccupy and fascinate most people. However, if you take the time to follow his antics, get amused by them, comment on them, or criticize them, and yet you are half aware of the fact that he has reached the second week of Majors four times, the third round on three different occasions on his least favorite surface at Wimbledon, and been a steady fixture in the ATP top 50 during the last nine years, with substantial time in the top 30, I would argue that you are as much an antic (if not more) as a tennis fan as Fabio is as a player. He is a spectacular shot-maker and I guarantee you that his name is somewhere on top of the list of players that favorites at Majors would like to see the least in their early-round section of the draw.
Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty
Fabio has a chance to win if he can derail Tomas’s steady and crisp production of power from the baseline. He is certainly skilled enough to do just that. Thanks to his impeccable timing on his swings, he possesses the ability to create angles and depth regardless of his positioning on the court. I am guessing that Berdych will see some balls come back with a vengeance from Fognini, in situations where other players would be happy to just remain in the point (one example: Fabio’s shot production in his US Open win vs Nadal in 2015). You may think that Berdych already faced that problem with the Del Potro forehand and handled it fine, but Fognini is a different case. Firstly, the Italian can do it from both sides. Secondly, because of his wrist control during the swing, the direction of his shot is hard to read from both wings. He can prepare a certain way to hit a down-the-line flat winner, yet prepare i the same way to fabricate a mid-pace, topspin-angle shot.
If Fognini focuses on the task at hand, and not on the side shows, I am picking the upset here. I know, you don’t have to remind me that I am perhaps expecting a lot. If you insist on doing so though, I would also ask in return, is it not expecting a lot to assume that Berdych will perform at the same level as he did against Del Potro?
Enjoy!
After two grueling days at scorching temperatures – above 100 degrees Fahrenheit – the weather is finally supposed to calm down on Saturday, and the players could not be more thankful. It will be interesting to see how much of the heat effect from Thursday will carry over to Saturday for those who had to play taxing matches during the day session. Yes, Novak Djokovic, Maria Sharapova, Caroline Garcia, Dominic Thiem, and Ana Bogdan, I am talking about y’all.
Let’s look at three of Saturday’s third-round matches, two of which involve the names mentioned above.
Madison Keys (17) vs Ana Bogdan
The draw is shaping up nicely for Keys, the 2017 US Open finalist. She has had two expeditious wins, allowing her to remain fresh for the next round(s) to come. She would love to play on Rod Laver Arena, the fastest of the show courts at the Australian Open. Regardless of the court, she will be the heavy favorite in this match, and should deliver. Her opponent, the Romanian Bogdan ranked 104 in the WTA, faces a steep hill to climb. To make matters worse, Bogdan played a physically and emotionally (she cried, exhilarated, for a full minute after the handshake) taxing match against the pesky Yulia Putintseva, winning 6-3 in the third after 2 hours and 6 minutes under brutally hot conditions.
Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty
Unfortunately for Ana, her game does not match up well with Madison’s either. The unseeded Romanian likes to accelerate the ball, but in order to do that, she will need to get her feet set and control the rally from the middle of the court. Keys is the last person to allow her opponents to direct rallies. The American’s plan A also involves aggressive groundstrokes, except that she can do it with more power and accuracy than her opponent. Furthermore, she can produce bazookas even when she is on the full run, something that sorely lacks in Bogdan’s game. Once forced into a game of scrambling and retrieving, Bogdan’s level drops drastically, and I must add strangely, because she is actually a very good athlete.
All signs point to another comfortable win for the American. These two have never played each other, and I am guessing that Keys will still remain undefeated in this head-to-head count after tomorrow.
Angelique Kerber (21) vs Maria Sharapova
Well, what a blockbuster we have here in the first week of a Major! Kerber is so far undefeated in 2018, having won the Sydney WTA event. She seems to have found the form that carried her to two Major titles in 2016, both on hard courts. Sharapova has equally looked sharp in defeating the 14th-seed Anastasija Sevastova, avenging her loss from the 2017 US Open. This could be a final and hardly anyone would be surprised.
What is compelling about an encounter such as this one is the clash of contrasting styles of the two players. On the one hand, the Russian is a relentless attacker, a power hitter, a shot-maker. The German, on the other hand, is an incredible scrambler, retriever, a counterpuncher. If you watched Friday’s thriller between Petra Martic and Luksika Kumkhum, you know what I am talking about. Expect no less from Kerber and Sharapova tomorrow. This is the kind of match-up that produces memorable matches. Their last three matches were entertaining to say the least, all going three sets. They will not matter match in determining the outcome of Saturday’s match however, the last one having taken place in 2015. It is three years later, and both players have evolved in more ways than I can fit in an extended research paper.
Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty
The match is likely to be scheduled on Rod Laver Arena. Chalk that factor up for Sharapova who will look to flatten out her shots and hit the corners on the fastest show court. She will indeed need every advantage she can get, because Kerber has faced the same test on Rod Laver Arena before, and passed it with flying colors on her way to the title two years ago. I am giving a slender edge to Angelique to win this match in a tight, extended three-setter. I am however looking for Maria to reestablish herself as an elite force in the WTA in 2018, vying for the top titles throughout the rest of the year.
Roger Federer (2) vs Richard Gasquet (29)
Glancing at the social media, I am surprised to observe that many people expect Gasquet to offer some degree of challenge to Federer. Forget about the 16-2 head-to-head record in favor of Roger (Gasquet’s two wins coming on clay), and tell me when is the last time Gasquet won a set against the Swiss on hard courts? I will give you a few hints. George W. Bush was the President of the United States, there was no such thing as an iPhone, and Zinedine Zidane was sent off in a match that saw Italy win the World Cup two months earlier.
This is simply a bad match-up for Gasquet, not only because Roger is in good form, but also because, I believe, Gasquet will walk out on the court with close-to-zero belief that he can beat Roger. We are talking about a player, albeit very talented, who has a 3-44 record against Roger, Rafa, and Novak combined. It is hard to build any confidence after so many failures against the game’s elite players. 2011 was the last time the Frenchman recorded a win against either of those three champions (Federer in 2011, on clay, 7-6 in the third).
Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty
Look for Gasquet to either play a close first set, most likely due to a slow start by Federer, and wilt away in the next two, or go down by two sets, only to challenge the Swiss in the third, only because he freely goes for his shots, feeling like he has nothing left to lose. A let-down by Roger is the only way Richard can steal a set and create some tension in this match. Otherwise, Federer will overpower Gasquet from the baseline, stretch him to the backhand side and put the floaters away by sneaking to the net. He will also add a few aces here and there for good measure. I am a fan of Gasquet’s style, but here, the only thing I can say to him is “bonne chance mon pote.”
We have reached the third round stage at the Australian Open, and although the surge in the number of surprise winners in the first days of competition emerged as a major topic of conversation, the title contenders on both women’s and men’s draws have moved forward. Only two of those players, Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal, have been in legitimate danger of being ousted by their “lesser” opponents, but both showed why they belong to the elite group of genii in our sport who rise above challenges in ways that others can only imagine. Down a match point twice, Sharapova hit two forehands winners that most other players would only dare to attempt if they were up 5-0 30-0. Nadal overcame violent stomach pains, vomiting on the court, and still found an extra supply of his interminable fighting spirit somewhere deep within him to come back from two-sets-to-one down to win in a battle that lasted over four hours.
This is how these genii operate and that is why they are likely to be there when late next week arrives instead of the emerging group of great players such as Madison Keys, Zarina Diyas, and Caroline Garcia on the women’s side, and Grigor Dimitrov, Milos Raonic, and Nick Kyrgios on the men’s.
The gap between these players and the elite has narrowed, but is still far from disappearing. Even for Eugenie Bouchard and Kei Nishikori, both reaching the finals of one Major each in 2014, the road still seems long before they can step on the same pedestal as the elite few. But this article belongs to one player on the men’s draw who is neither a genius, nor a great up-and-comer. It is about Feliciano Lopez, the veteran who has been around the top 20 for a long time while remaining a nightmare for most top players, and why he is the most unlikely player to still be in the tournament.
First of all, let’s make it very clear: it is not just the four match points saved by Lopez in his first two rounds combined against Denis Kudla and Adrian Mannarino that make his presence in the third round spectacular. It is rather how poorly he has played in those matches and still managed to turn them into victories.
Against Kudla, his first serve, which is usually the driving force for the rest of his game, hovered around the 55% mark throughout the match. It was also only in the mid-portion of the fifth set that (10-8) that the numbers of his winners surpassed that of his unforced errors; and even then, he still had to save three match points in the final stages of the match to survive. He was constantly having to catch up with Kudla’s rhythm, getting outplayed from the baseline, and having to chase the American’s balls down and committing silly errors in his attempts to dig out of that pattern and take charge during the points. Nevertheless, he survived and it could not get any worse for Lopez right? Wrong!
The level of his play dropped even lower against Mannarino. His first serve percentage was this time well below 50% (46% and 43% in the first two sets, respectively) for most of the match. Despite an opponent who kept throwing in double faults at the most inopportune moments, and who did nothing more than return low and bunt the ball back in play, Lopez made mistake after mistake and constantly complained to his corner, in search of answers for the shockingly low quality of shots coming out of his racket. Yes, Lopez did save a match point at 4-6 4-6 4-5, but alone, that does not reflect how lop-sided the match was at times in Mannarino’s favor. The Frenchman was actually up 4-0 in that third set and serving, then 5-3 and 30-0, and finally 3-0 up in the tiebreaker before losing seven points successively to lose the third set, and melting away in the fourth due to illness (he retired down 0-4 in the fourth set, unable to move the last few games).
So how did Lopez do it? Blaming Mannarino’s illness for the Frenchman’s exit from the tournament would be nothing more than telling a tall tale, because he did everything possible in the third set when he had the match in his hands, short of rolling the red carpet for Lopez and inviting him back in the match, to not cross the finish line.
At 4-0 down in the third, Lopez looked like he was ready to get in the locker room and playing terrible, except that Mannarino served a succession of double faults and committed a number of errors on shots that challenged him no more than the five-minute warm-up balls coming from the opponent. To be clear, it is not as if Mannarino led Lopez 6-4 6-4 4-0 because he was outplaying his opponent. He was up because he could not lower the quality of his game as much as Lopez did during that period. This match did not feature a world-class level of tennis, both players serving so poorly that there were a number of consecutive breaks in three and a half sets of play. Although the first sentence of the paragraph asked for an explanation of how Lopez “did it,” the more appropriate question for this particular match would have been “how did Mannarino do it?”
Yet, there must be a reason why, in Majors, Lopez has a 16-8 record in five-setters (win against Mannarino does not count because technically, Lopez did not win in five sets) and has won his last seven five-setters, dating back to Wimbledon 2009.
The Spaniard never loses hope no matter the score, and he does not link the level of his play to his will to win. In Lopez’s world, “playing bad” or “sucking” does not equal a loss. A very common phrase in tennis players’ language, “I can’t win playing like this,” does not exist for Lopez. As far as Lopez is concerned, he can play “like this,” and still win playing “like this.” In this edition of the Australian Open, he is easily the worst performer to reach the third round.
Lopez will face Jerzy Janowicz next round. In order to win, Lopez will desperately need to raise the level of his play against an opponent who has more power and shot-making capability than him. But wait! That is probably not how Lopez thinks. He probably thinks “I can win, but what can I do anyway in order to raise the level of my play?”
Note: Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the Australian Open: @MertovsTDesk