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?
Roger Federer (2) vs. Marin Cilic (6)
At this point in the Roger Federer – Marin Cilic rivalry, their 2014 US Open encounter, in which the Croat crushed the Swiss in straight sets, looks more and more like a colossal exception to the norm. It remains to this day Marin’s only victory over his rival. In return, Roger has defeated him eight other times, with the only “close call” having taken place at the Wimbledon 2016 quarterfinals (Federer came back from two sets down and saved three match points in the third). Roger played average tennis for most of that particular match and, by his own admission much later, did not prepare adequately for the tournament due to an arthroscopic surgery that required substantial time-off earlier in the spring. This Sunday, I strongly doubt he will play average tennis on Centre Court.
There are several reasons for which Federer dominates Cilic. I will not list all of them here because most are obvious to every enthusiastic tennis fan. The one that makes the biggest difference, in my opinion, is the fact that Cilic’s first step on returns and change of directions lacks the explosiveness needed to position his upper body for his shot, without which he cannot generate enough power on his groundstrokes.
Cilic’s upper-body rotation on the forehand and his ability to lean into the ball on his two-handed backhand are two essential elements required to produce his best tennis which mainly consists of overpowering the opponent. It is a complete change of equation when Cilic has to stretch for his shots and reach with his upper body to make contact.
Photo: Scott Barnour – Getty
I believe most readers will agree with me when I say that Federer is one of the best in the history of our sport when it comes to exploiting the glaring weaknesses of his adversaries. It should be no different on Sunday. Federer will look to vary his serves – some into the body, many out wide, some flat ones to the “T” – with the goal of exploiting Marin’s lack of speed on his first-step. He will use his serves to force the Croat to either get out of the way quickly on a serve that is curving into his body, or lunge wide to reach a sliding serve to the outside on the deuce side, or retrieve a flat serve bouncing on the “T.”
The only way this advantage in favor of Federer gets negated is if he struggles with his first serve and begins to depend on second ones. I do not, obviously, mean to knock down Federer’s second serve since it is one of the best in the Open Era, probably right behind Pete Sampras’ second serve. I intend simply to emphasize the fact that a bad first-serve day by Roger will not allow him to take advantage of an edge that he would otherwise have against Marin.
That still does not solve Cilic’s potential problems during baseline rallies. Federer is a master of creating angles and not relinquishing the upper-hand in the rally once it turns in his favor. He can keep his opponent on the run until he puts it away with a winner at the net or from the baseline, or until his opponent makes an error on a low-percentage winner attempt from a difficult position under pressure. He can also accelerate the ball to the same corner from which the opponent is recovering, putting him on his backfoot. Did that ring a bell? See two paragraphs above if it did not.
For his part, – and this will sound like a repeat of my semifinal preview – Cilic needs to focus on his strengths and not contemplate too much on aspects that he cannot control. He was able to do it against Kyle Edmund, another player with a big forehand and first serve, and raise the rest of his game as a consequence. Can he not do the same on Sunday? So what if his opponent serves well? So what if the opponent out-rallies him? Can he still not stay toe-to-toe with his oppponent if he serves at a high first-serve percentage and adds in a healthy number of aces? Can he not successfully put to use his solid 1-2 punch skills as a follow-up to those serves? Sure, he can. In that scenario, he would probably need to take the set to a tiebreaker and steal it, but yes, it is possible. But now change the word “opponent,” used thrice earlier in this paragraph, to “Federer.” All of a sudden, Cilic’s task seems a lot more difficult than it did against Edmund.
Defeating an in-form Federer is an imposing mountain to climb for any player. It is a challenge that very few players have been able to overcome, and that, only a handful of times. Cilic is not one of those players. I do not expect that to change on Sunday. His first serve and 1-2 punch – assuming the first serve clicks – may earn him a set, and then he would need help from Roger (or something…).
Otherwise, look for an extremely jovial Federer to break a new record, his own, for the number of Majors won, as well as the record for the “duration-of-post-match-interviews” statistic, also his own, set earlier this week (I gather).
Enjoy the match!
Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter
Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty
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 !
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.
Zverev defeats Cilic 6-3 4-6 6-3 in a match filled with ebbs and flows
(For the Federer vs Sock recap from earlier, scroll down)
It is hard to gauge the speed at which Alexander “Sascha” Zverev Jr. will develop into a top player. While there is no doubt that he has immense potential, he also seems to suffer from lapses of concentration and/or frustration, and from wide fluctuations of form within matches. Or shall I say he “benefits” from the latter? Because in today’s match, he ultimately benefited from one such fluctuation, the last one, the one that mattered the most. Or something…
That is what Zverev offers at this point in his career. An exciting up-and-comer, with question marks lingering as to “when” he will join the group of elites at the top of the men’s game.
Sascha began the encounter with a pristine first game, probably one of his best games of the match, to break Cilic’s serve and get a head start à-la-Federer (see my recap of the first match for clarification). He did not commit one single unforced error, he outlasted (and “out-skilled”) the big Croat in every extended rally, putting the exclamation point at the end with a five-star drop-volley winner. At 2-0, he saved the only break point he faced with an ace, and operated on cruise-control for the rest of the first set. Last game included one excellent low-volley winner and three big first serves that did not come back over the net. Solid start, solid finish, a 6-4 set against a veteran player who did not particularly play bad, yet did not have enough consistency and depth to answer the initiatives that the young German kept taking in rallies.
In the second game of the next set, came the first bad sequence of the match for Sascha. At 15-15 on his serve, he committed two unforced errors in the net, one on each side. Although Sascha saved the two break points, his next two wild forehand misses, both deep, gave Cilic his first break of the match.
Well, you see, with Zverev, the bad patches can last, for a while. This is part of the uncertainty I noted above. While top players will quickly put that one-game bad sequence behind them and get back to the labor at hand, Zverev tends to drop his shoulders, look at his corner, wave arms in the air in a dejected manner. And subsequently, the errors keep coming.
To be fair, his body language did not turn, at that stage of the match, as negative as it does at other times, but his intensity did drop. In the very next game, he missed a routine backhand error to start, and at 30-30, missed another wild forehand deep. A point later, Cilic was walking confidently to the chair, up 3-0. That confidence carried Marin for the rest of the second set, losing only two points on his service games in the next three service holds. The set ended on yet another forehand error by Sascha.
Photo: Getty Images – Julian Finney
Fast forward to the 1-1 game of the final set. At this point, Cilic has kept a steady level of play since he regained his confidence early in the second set. He has been serving well but still losing most of the long rallies to his opponent. Sascha has seemingly recovered from his extended “bad sequence” because he has also been holding serve for a while. At 30-30 serving, Sascha makes two disastrous backhand errors in a row. After the first error, he slams his racket’s strings in frustration with his right hand. Following the second one, he almost slams his racket to the ground, only to hold back at the last second. He then turns to his corner to start a monologue during which the expression on his face resembles one that you would have if the 5000-piece puzzle on which you spent five days putting together just got thrashed by the bullying kid next door.
Coaches may want their junior players to observe Cilic’s glance at Zverev as he walks to his chair. I assure you that it is nothing less than a generous amount of adrenaline, boost, or whatever you want to call it, that Marin is feeling as he sees Sascha’s negative body language. You don’t believe me? Watch the four excellent points that Cilic wins in the next game to hold and go up 3-1 (Zverev also won two).
Then, the unexpected took place in the next 20 minutes. At 1-3 serving, Zverev committed two bad errors to go down 0-30 and I am sure most viewers concluded that he was on his last leg at that point. Somehow, he pulled off his best point of the match to get to 15-30, and with a bit of help (but not too much) from Cilic, he managed to hold to get back to 2-3. As Zverev’s fans were thinking “ok, that hold lifted him up, now one break and he is back in this,” they saw their man go down 40-15 and slam his racket to the ground – he actually did it this time – and look dejected. As I have noted above, this is not a good version of Sascha. When he gets this way, it does not end well for him. I will steal a quote from another tennis writer (I doubt he will mind) that I respect a lot, Matt Zemek: “Zverev is an evolving, young player, but to this point in his career, he has usually not played well when angry.”
Photo: AFP – Adrian Dennis
Perhaps there is a first for everything, because this “bad sequence” did not last! Sascha won the next four points in a row, three of which included a superb backhand down-the-line winner, a volley put-away, and an outstanding defensive lob. Virtually out of nowhere, Sascha was back on serve. Then, he did something baffling as he went to the chair to change his racket: argue with the chair umpire on a challenged call from two points ago that actually ended in his favor. What was the point of that? I do not know, nor care to. What matters is that Sascha needs to learn to let trivialities go. It is literally trivial on his part to argue with the referee on whether he should have corrected a call (or not) two points ago, after having realized the most amazing turnaround of the match and won the game.
Sascha held serve to go up 4-3 and never looked back. He was back to his first-set form, looking pumped, and ready to cross the finish line. Up 5-4 on Cilic’s serve, he did just tha with four efficient rallies in a row, three of which ended in impressive winners after several hits. It was a blank game, the best one he played in the match. Did Cilic play badly during the two hours and four minutes that elapsed? No. Did he choke? No. Could he have won maybe one or two more points within the large group of “turning points” throughout the match (there were many)? Maybe. The point is, Zverev should take credit rather than Cilic carry the blame for the outcome of this match. I do not believe that anyone, myself included, at about 25 minutes before the players shook hands at the net, expected Sascha to chalk up the win.
——————-
Roger Federer sets the pace early to a tight but straight-forward 6-4 7-6 win
By “setting the pace early” in Federer’s case, I mean getting the lead off the gate, and never relinquishing it. Federer is one of the best front-runners in tennis. That should come as no surprise considering his serving and one-two-punch skills, although his first serves were below their peak level in the first set at 58%. Ultimately, he did not need them to perform at their peak level, thanks largely to a phenomenal first game of the match.
It began with a backhand down-the-line winner with pinpoint accuracy on the first point and continued with a defensive topspin forehand hit with just enough dip to force Sock into an error at the net on the second. Although Sock equalized at 30-30 with an ace and a forehand winner, Roger hit an exquisite backhand return deep enough to set the forehand winner on the next shot to earn the break point. It would be his only one in the first set, one that put a definite stamp on the first set. Roger won it with his second backhand winner, a high-velocity one going down-the-line, leaving Sock helpless in his effort to reach it. That first game was Federer at his best, every single shot hit with a purpose, designed to stifle his opponent. It was like a runner getting a head start by a few steps on his nemesis and looking back occasionally to watch him try desperately to catch up to him, but to no avail.
Photo: AFP – Adrian Dennis
The rest of the first set was a straight-forward affair, with Federer keeping his advantage by using a variety of first and second serves, allowing him for the most part to gain the advantage early in rallies. On his return games, he never played a perfect game like the first one again, sporadically spraying uncharacteristic errors (for an example, see the 3-1, 15-0 point, in which Federer hits almost identically the same backhand as he did on the break point, this time missing it deep). Sock, for his part, recovered remarkably well mentally from the break and stuck to his guns, insisting on trying to push Federer into hitting shots off his backfoot. He succeeded several times, such as the game point he won to get back to 2-3, but not frequently enough to make a dent on Roger’s service games. Certainly not enough to earn a break point, despite the subpar first-serve performance by the Swiss in the first set. Who mourns a 58% on first-serves, four percentage points lower than Roger’s career number, when he still wins 89% of the ones he hits in, and finishes the set with an ace, an almost-registered trade mark in his name?
The first set, and I mean the part after the break in the first game, did establish the tone of the second set. It would be tight affair, going down to the wire, unless Federer reached perfection once again on a return game to cut the party short. He did not, and the set went to a tiebreaker, but not before the Swiss causing his fans to feel some familiar chills to their necks by not capitalizing on five break-point opportunities in three different games.
In the 3-3 game, at 15-40 on the American’s serve, Roger missed two backhand returns in a row, the second one being on a second serve that bounced in the middle of the box. Later in the 4-4 game, the Swiss sent a makeable backhand passing shot into the doubles alley on his third break point of the set. By the time the fourth one came around two points later, you could almost see the apprehensiveness in Federer. Instead of returning aggressively, like he has done so far on routine second serves by Sock, he hesitantly hit the return back in play, short to the middle of the court for that matter, and on the next shot, hit another makeable backhand into the net, below the tape. The fifth and last failed-break-point attempt on his behalf would come in the 5-5 game, but Sock would fully deserve the credit on this one, pinning and stretching his opponent to the corner.
Photo: AFP – Adrian Dennis
Eventually came the tiebreaker, in which first serves were a precious commodity, until that is, Sock double-faulted at the most inopportune time to go down 5-4, with two points to follow on Federer’s serve. That was all Roger needed to pull another one of his almost-trademark qualities: relying on his first serve when circumstances demand it. A wicked first-serve that curved into Sock’s body to set up the forehand winner on the next shot (i.e. textbook one-two-punch) earned Roger a match point, and an ace hit wide allowed the match to get registered into record book.
Overall, it was a solid, but not ground-breaking, effort by both players. There were even a couple of lamentable misses by both players. Federer smacked a ball into the net at game point for Sock on the seventh game of the second set, after Sock gave up on the point and turned his back to offer his butt as a target (yes, you read it correctly). Federer would later joke, saying that perhaps he missed the shot because he didn’t go for that “rather unusual target.” Sock for his part, sent a routine high-backhand volley into the net – on game point at 5-6 mind you? – instead of the wide-open court, but recovered to still hold his serve.
Again, Federer’s fans will probably feel unsatisfied, largely focusing on the break-points missed in the second set – Side note: Don’t all fans do this? Remember only the negatives? I once heard Jimmy Connors say in an interview that when asked what his “most memorable” matches were, he admitted that the close one the he lost, such as his five-set losses to Borg at Wimbledon, always crept in his mind first. Hopefully they will not overlook that Federer served extremely well in the second set, faced no break points, stuck to his A plan to push his opponent around to create openings, exploit those openings to cut the points short, and found the best in his arsenal when he needed it, first to get the crucial break in the beginning, and second, to finish the match at the end. Sock, for his part, also played well and should tackle his next match with confidence.
You can find all the information you want on the internet about Federer’s accomplishments, if you do not know them already, with one or two clicks. Nevertheless, I have always found interesting what his colleagues have to say about him during tournaments. So I will skip any lengthy introduction to this preview and begin with some quotes by the last two victims of Federer, Milos Raonic and Tomas Berdych, from their post-match talk with the press.
Raonic:
“I was sort of moving on, okay, let’s see if he can do it again. Let’s see if he can do it again. He kept doing it.”
“You can see there’s not much doubt in his mind. He’s feeling it.”
Berdych:
“I don’t see anything that would indicate really Roger is getting older.”
“I think he’s playing by far the best tennis right now.”
“He’s playing barely with any mistakes.”
Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images Europe
Having watched Roger improve through each round at Wimbledon – not that he was playing anything below “pretty well” tennis before the tournament even began – the above observations by Milos and Tomas do not seem exaggerated. In fact, Federer’s past-round performances confirm them. Roger is three straight sets away from pulling a “1976-Borg,” in other words, capturing the title without losing a set. He would also become the only man to ever win eight Wimbledon titles. Both are very much within the realm of possibility, unless his opponent Marin Cilic concocts some brilliant game plan to first snatch a set, and then two more. (Side note to (some) people: Yes folks! There will be another tennis player on the other side of the net. He is the number 6 player in the world, and he plays “pretty well” too!)
Cilic was in position to do just that last year in the quarterfinals, when he led Federer two sets to zero and had 0-40 lead on Roger’s serve at 3-3 and could not capitalize on those break points, then squandered three match-point opportunities in the fourth set, and eventually lost the match 6-3 in the fifth. It was a thrilling match with several unexpected turns – you can read my detailed analysis of that match from a year ago by clicking here. It was only a year ago, yet a lot has changed since that day.
First of all, Cilic is at a high point in his career, although 2017 cannot yet be called his best year. There is no doubt that the year 2014, in which he amassed the US Open title, as well as three other ATP ones, is his golden one. However, if we drop the calendar-year angle aside, and center on his last twelve months, Cilic is on the verge of moving up an echelon by his own standards.
After losing to Federer in the quarterfinals of last year’s Wimbledon, Cilic managed to win his first ATP 1000 event in Cincinnati. Then, he captured the titles at the Swiss Indoors in Basel, and at the Istanbul Open in May, the last one being his first career title on clay. He is currently ranked the sixth-ranked player in the ATP, the highest ranking he has achieved in his career. Finally, he is now on the verge of winning his second Major title, first Wimbledon.
Do you get the picture?
He is one win away from confirming his status as an elite player in men’s tennis, ensuring his induction into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and, as one of my favorite tennis writers Matt Zemek says in his article, “traveling from one tennis universe to another.”
He did not get here by coincidence. I will not go into the “who”s and “why”s of how he has risen up the rankings and won titles, nor blemish his accomplishment of reaching the final here by trivial mentions of whom he did not face. It is sufficient to say that for most of us who follow tennis closely, when the draw was made, Marin was right behind Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray when considering the possible names who could make the final from the top of the draw.
What makes him different now than in the past years, including in 2014?
For starters, the 2014 US Open run was one of a kind. His performances in the semifinal and final rounds were nothing less than dazzling, and highly unlikely to happen again. Cilic literally blitzed through two formidable opponents, playing some type of what I call “spatial tennis.” It is neither realistic nor fair to Cilic, though not impossible in the word’s true sense, to expect that type of performance repeated again. He has not since then and he is not currently doing it in this Wimbledon. Instead, he has gotten the job done the old-fashioned way, by the use of sound tactics, a steady level of tennis, and by maximizing his strengths (84% points won on first-serve points).
This brings me to the heart of the answer to the question above. Today’s version of Cilic has one thing going for him that he did not have, at least not as much as he does today, in his version of the past. It is his improvement of how he handles nerves.
Cilic has been known in the past to get tight in matches. His loss to Federer last year was the most glaring and recent example of that. I am sure the end of his first set against Sam Querrey, when he framed two backhands in a row and hit the outside of the doubles’ alley to lose the tiebreaker, reminded Marin of those times. Yet, he persevered, and put that moment behind him to win most, if not all, of the clutch points in the next three sets. He eventually held two match points, at 6-5 in the fourth set. In the first one, Cilic blew another backhand sitter in the net. Was he going to now hesitate unleashing a shot if he got a similar chance in the next point? He was not. The remarkable forehand winner that left Querrey staring in the second match point secured the victory. The win against Querrey only proved once again that Cilic has learned how to handle pressure and will no longer succumb to it like he has in the past.
Photo: Julian Finney – Getty Images Europe
It is a long process to overcome such barriers. You could tell how much the mental improvement meant to him back in May, after he defeated Diego Schwartzman 6-1 7-6 in the semifinal of the Istanbul Open. Cilic dominated that match until midway through the second set when he began making errors and allowed Shwartzman to crawl his way back into the match. In his post-match comments, he touched on those moments in the second set when doubts crept into his mind: “I am extremely satisfied with how I was hitting, and also in the second set, when things got tight, when things were not working so well, I still kept the same focus and same mentality, that is something that I believe is going to bring me much more in the next couple of months.”
Here we are, a couple of months later, and Cilic could not have been more accurate.
So yes, his serves and his forehands, how deep he can keep the ball during rallies to stop Federer from directing rallies, or how often he can return Roger’s serve back in the court, will all play a role in the outcome of Sunday’s final. Yet, very few of those factors would matter now, had Cilic not learned how to master the mental challenge with which he was faced.
Federer, for his part, does not seem to have any questions marks in his mind. None at all! He has won all the key points that he had faced in his previous matches, including five tiebreakers in which he raised his level even higher than in the rest of those matches. If you have not seen them and you would rather see it for yourself, I would suggest that you watch the tiebreaker against Lajovic, or the one against Raonic, or the second-set one against Berdych.
The problem facing Cilic is that Federer has already encountered in this tournament a first serve as big as his, much better second serves than his, and forehands as big as or better than his, and dealt with all of them just fine. I would comfortably say that Marin is not likely to win prolonged baseline battles. He returns well, but Federer throws a lot of different types of serves at his opponents at his adversaries until he finds the right formula. This is nevertheless one small window of opportunity that could open for the big Croat. He could get an early break before Roger finds the right formula on the serve, and protect that lead as long as possible.
In terms of on-court patterns and tactics, I believe Federer is clearly superior to Cilic in that, he can vary his shots more, transition from defense to offense in the blink of an eye, and fabricate a different pattern in rallies than the previous ones that may not have worked, and do those adjustments in a very short period of time. Thus, the main puzzle to solve for Roger will be how to neutralize Cilic’s power and not allow him to start the match like the one in New York in 2014.
Last note: I have said before Federer’s quarter and semifinal matches that, in order to have shot at defeating him, his opponents must absolutely find a way to win the first set, and that carrying it to a tiebreaker would be one possible way to do that. Having watched the three tiebreakers in those two matches, I feel fairly at ease saying that tiebreakers would not be in Cilic’s favor.
Where does all this leave the two finalists? You make your own call. It is nevertheless undeniable that Federer is the heavy favorite and that Borg, in the category noted earlier, could have some company in the record books by tomorrow evening.
Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Wimbledon