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?
My post-match analysis of the five-set, two-day-long semifinal between Dominic Thiem and Novak Djokovic is posted on Tennis with an Accent. Click on the link below:
On Sunday, Alexander “Sascha” Zverev outplayed the world number one Novak Djokovic in pretty much all aspects of the game and grabbed the title at the ATP Finals in London, the biggest one of the German’s career, with a 6-4 6-3 win in one hour and 20 minutes.
For a moment, I considered using, for this article, the title of my post-match analysis of Zverev’s win over Federer in the semifinals from yesterday and adding “Part II” to the end. Initially, it made sense and neatly reflected the rare feat accomplished by Sascha. This title made him the first player to defeat Federer and Djokovic (who won this tournament a combined 11 times in the last 16 years) in the same ATP Finals, as well as the first player to defeat the no.1 and 2 seeds back to back to lift the trophy since Andre Agassi did it in 1990 (source: ATP Media Info).
Then, I remembered my own insertion in yesterday’s piece that regardless of what happened in the finals, Sascha’s win over Roger was a giant step for the German that stood on its own.
And so does Sunday’s win over Novak Djokovic in the finals.
The two accomplishments should not be packaged into the same giant step as parts one and two. It is one thing to earn the biggest win of your career up to that point, and it is another to back it up the very next day with another convincing win over the number-one player in the world that propels you to your biggest title ever.
While Zverev’s serves, returns, and footwork may have played substantial roles in successfully countering the challenges thrown his way by Djokovic, it was ultimately the 21-year-old German’s astute baseline-pattern tactics that decisively swung the pendulum in his favor.
I believe most tennis fans will agree with me that Zverev’s most valuable (and reliable) stroke has been his backhand. In fact, I have long contended that he can out-duel any player in a backhand-to-backhand rally, whether that would be a cross-court one against a right-hander or a down-the-line one against a left-hander. And I am convinced that Sascha himself believes that he can go toe-to-toe with anyone in this particular pattern.
Would it not then behoove him to find ways to engage his opponents in such rallies, daring them to outperform him even if they possessed one of the best backhands in the world?
Such was the case against Djokovic, and Sascha came out on top in this department. In my opinion, this was the aspect that derailed the wheels of the Djokovic train and led him to a diminished performance in the second set, along with physical fatigue that slowly began to take over – that, in itself, stemming partially from mental fatigue as a result of running out of answers. In the first set, as Darren Cahill also correctly affirmed on TV, Sascha defeated a very good Novak “fair and square,” and backhand cross-court duels played a paramount role in not only that, but also in Zverev getting the decisive break in the second set.
I was interested in who would win the battle of the backhands. I believed that it was one of the only ways (not a guarantee) that Zverev could weather the storm brought on by Djokovic’s ground strokes. It was also something that I had seen in the past, someone using a similar pattern to defeat Djokovic. It took place in Roland Garros, back in 2015, when Stan Wawrinka pulled one of the best baseline-power performances I have ever witnessed on clay courts and took out Djokovic in four sets. In fact, members of Stan’s coaching team confirmed weeks later that engaging in cross-court rallies from the backhand wing was part of his strategy because it would allow Stan to occasionally accelerate down-the-line for the winner to the open court. But what interested me more was the outcome of those rallies where neither Novak nor Sascha would change the pattern.
Thus, I counted the outcome of all rallies in which Zverev and Djokovic got involved in at least four backhand cross-court shots struck in succession (in other words, two shots each). Four shots in a row was a clear indication to me that the two players were fully engaged in a cross-court backhand rally. Djokovic and Zverev played 16 such points until 4-2 in the second set. Sascha won that battle 11-5 over Novak.
Note: My numbers may be off by one, at the most two, as I was briefly interrupted from watching twice and missed a few points.
Then, I wanted to see how many of these points ended in Sascha’s or Novak’s favor when one or the other decided to change the pattern by hitting down-the-line or a drop shot. I found out that when they did, it did not necessarily benefit them. Novak was 1/4 on those, and Zverev did not fare much better at 2/5.
And what about when neither player changed the pattern, and instead, dared each other to miss first or nail the direct winner? This is where Zverev held an overwhelming 7-1 lead!
The only point won by Novak was the last point of the 2-2 game in the first set, when both players attempted to out-slice each other. It ended with Zverev hitting his into the net. But otherwise, he held a clear advantage over Novak in what is otherwise presumed to be an advantageous area for the Serbian player. It is, after all, rare that Novak is unable to out-duel his opponent on backhands. But even if that were to occur, Novak can still use his backhand down-the-line acceleration, another one of his super assets. Well, they were not enough this time to turn the tide in his favor due to above numbers, and also partially due to Zverev having a fantastic day on his forehand. He continuously landed his forehands deep, using a healthy mix of heavy topspin shots and flat swipes.
It also helped that Sascha served 88% of his first serves in – an extraordinary number for a “bazooka” first serve like his – which led to seven aces and a bunch of opportunities for Sascha to take charge on the follow-up shot. Last but not the least, and I can say this for both of his wins over the weekend, I did not see Zverev’s body language turn distinctively sour, which he has done in the past. Even after points lost on strategic mistakes or disappointing errors, I did not at any point observe Sascha “whine” extensively. He may have shaken his head, or glanced at his corner in dismay, but he moved on within seconds and got ready for the next shot. He was a mental rock throughout four sets over two days.
I must again reiterate that none of the tactic-related or stat-related elements that I mention in the last paragraph above would be enough (or even possible) if Sascha had not gained the upper hand in the baseline battles first. In establishing a dominance on the backhand-to-backhand duels, Zverev was able to kill two birds with one stone; negating one of Novak’s most reliable assets by maximizing the return on his own favorite asset.
If you are a Sascha fan, there is a lot to celebrate here. The lack of Major titles still remains in effect, but this weekend should serve to practically make the “if” question disappear to the point where the “when” question is now the only one nagging your mind. In any case, that concern can be swept under the rug until January at least. For now, enjoy the title that your player thoroughly deserved by passing one of the toughest tests in contemporary men’s tennis with flying colors.
Friday’s men’s semifinal matches did not provide the thrill that many were hoping for but at the end of the day, Juan Martin del Potro and Novak Djokovic advanced to Sunday’s final probably because they managed in the best possible way the physical challenges presented to them throughout the two weeks. What that means is open to interpretation and enough has been written about those challenges throughout the tournament. Rehashing them falls beyond the scope of this piece which includes on a round-up of the two matches played on Friday, as well as an early look ahead to Sunday.
Rafa never had a chance, or did he?
Rafael Nadal and Juan Martin del Potro were the first ones to step inside Arthur Ashe stadium. They had a memorable quarterfinal encounter at Wimbledon, one of the best matches of 2018 so far. Del Potro came into this match serving extremely well and spent around three and a half hours less time on the court on his way to the semifinals than Nadal did on his. Nadal took four hours and 49 minutes to overcome Dominic Thiem in a terrific quarterfinal match that went to a fifth-set tiebreaker and featured grueling baseline rallies, while Del Potro eliminated John Isner in three hours and 31 minutes earlier on that same day, in a match dominated by short rallies and big serves. In a tournament marked by retirements and physical ailments, it did not come as a surprise that one area of concern was whether or not Nadal could continue to put forth the best version of himself for one more match, if not two.
We did not have to wait long for the answer. It became clear to the naked eye, by the early moments of the second set, that Rafa’s knee was not going to allow him to finish the match. He confirmed that much himself when he was down 1-4 in the second set during an argument with the umpire, telling him that he is “gonna retire anyway.” He did four games later, when Del Potro won the second set 6-2 to take a two-set lead.
That should not take away any credit from Del Potro who showed the resolve to get past a great deal of dismay stemming from a significant collapse when he served for the first set at 5-4. At 40-30, on his first set point, he sailed a backhand cross-court winner attempt wide. It was on a short sitter hit by Nadal and Del Potro should not have missed it since he got to strike the backhand from about a meter behind the service line.
He earned a second set point after drilling a backhand down-the-line winner at deuce. He hit a big serve to set it up perfectly for his classic 1-2 punch execution. Rafa returned the ball short and high, allowing Del Potro to move inside the baseline for his trademark forehand bazooka winner. He dumped it into the net! In the ensuing deuce point, he missed a similar forehand, long this time, giving Nadal a break-point opportunity. Juan Martin completed the collapse when he landed another backhand sitter into the net to lose his serve.
His body language appeared deflated when he lost the next game in four relatively quick points and went down 5-6. Things appeared to go from bad to worse when he began that game with a first serve that he thought landed out, and stopped playing. Rafa’s return went in and he was awarded the point. Juan Martin challenged his own service call, a rare occurrence, hoping that it was out. The replay confirmed that it caught the line and he was down 0-15. At that point, Del Potro had lost eight points in a row, going from a set point up to being down 5-6, 0-15, in a string of points lost in the most deflating ways possible. He managed to get to 30-30, largely thanks to a couple of solid first serves.
Now, it was Nadal’s turn to squander a golden opportunity. With the momentum completely on his side and his opponent in a mentally fragile state, he had a look at a second serve on the 30-30 point. He hit a superb return to the baseline that forced Del Potro into responding with a defensive backhand while leaning on his backfoot. It landed short and Rafa had a perfectly aligned forehand inside the baseline and in the middle of the court. He had a choice of either corner for the routine forehand winner or even a drop shot since Del Potro was three meters behind the baseline. Rafa has hit thousands of winners from that position routinely, in practice or in matches.
Yet, he hit a fair-paced topspin approach shot that bounced a bit past the service line, one that was not even placed to the corner. Furthermore, he chose to hit it to Del Potro’s forehand side.
The Argentine took two quick steps to his right and struck a forehand down-the-line passing shot that landed on the line. Rafa should have been up a set point, but instead, found himself down 40-30. He then committed a backhand unforced error which brought forth the tiebreaker.
That represented the last key moment of the match as Del Potro, with renewed energy, raised his level to win the tiebreaker. From that point forward until Rafa’s retirement at the end of the second set, the Argentine’s level never dropped. He only committed three unforced errors during that part, whereas he committed 15 of them prior to the tiebreaker. Nadal’s movement appeared visibly diminished from the early portion of the second set forward. Frankly, I was surprised that he even waited until the end of the set to retire.
While Del Potro would have certainly preferred to earn the victory with a full-length match and was concerned for Rafa’s health, I have little doubt that he is delighted deep inside to get past Nadal in two sets and in barely over two hours. After all, he will undoubtedly need every ounce of energy in his tank for a chance to beat an in-form Novak Djokovic and lift the trophy on Sunday.
Novak is unstoppable, or is he?
Well, the answer to the above subtitle is a lot less ambiguous than the answer to the previous one. He certainly appears unstoppable. Djokovic is playing stellar tennis, moving faster, rallying more consistently, hitting deeper, and without a doubt, returning better than anyone. It’s true that Nishikori’s forehand did not get off the gates as quickly as the rest of his game did when the match began, thus facilitating the early-lead jump start by Novak. Yes, it’s also true that Kei missed some makeable returns here and there that could have given him a chance to sink his teeth into the second set. Then what? Would it have made a difference?
Even if Kei’s forehands were on fire, can anyone comfortably say that it would have been enough for him to mount a lead against this version of Novak? Could he have strung together three such sets to score the upset? It would push the boundaries of plausibility to expect Nishikori to perform at that level for three sets. For about three and a half games early in the second set he did, and that still included a game (first of the second) in which he had to bust his rear end for thirteen minutes and save four break points, just to hold serve.
You want to see how fast Novak was moving? Watch the 15-15 point at 1-1 in the second set for one example among many.
You want to see how many outrageous shots Kei had to produce at times to win a point? See the first point of the 3-2 game in the second set as one example.
You want to see how well Novak returned? Watch just about any of Kei’s service games, including the ones where he produced some first serves on the line. Djokovic would just lunge and send back a deep rocket-shot, forcing Nishikori to take steps back instead of setting up the 1-2-punch combination that he loves. And heavens forbid if Kei missed a first serve. Novak would then move into the court and launch his attack immediately.
In any case, on Friday night, there was no uncertainty as to who the better player on the court was for two hours and 22 minutes. Djokovic secured a 6-3 6-4 6-2 victory and reached his eighth US Open final, tying the record held by Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras.
Looking ahead to Sunday
On paper, this is an appetizing menu for tennis fans.
On the one hand, a beloved player, who overcame multiple injuries and extended lay-offs from the sport, will make his first reappearance in the final of a Major in nine years, on the same venue where he won his only Major title in 2009. On the other hand, you have one of the best players in the history of our game, a phenomenal athlete who recently recovered himself from a grave injury and rediscovered his form so quickly that he is now in a position – or, even favored – to win his second Major title in a row, his fourteenth overall.
By Sunday afternoon, both players should feel fresh and ready to click on all cylinders. The weather will be a relevant factor in that a chance of rain may force the roof to be closed. As to whom that benefits, I am ready to be convinced by anyone who can provide a valid argument for one player or the other.
Otherwise, I can only confirm a couple of things per player. Del Potro must keep his first-serve percentage high to collect free points, as he has done all tournament (except on Friday against Nadal). He must also find a way to deal with Novak’s depth on ground strokes because he cannot be the one scrambling and defending in extended baseline rallies.
Djokovic, for his part, must continue to return explosively as he has all tournament because Del Potro frequently relies on the 1-2 punch following first serves. Let’s not forget that, as well as he may have returned so far, Novak has yet to face a power server of Del Potro’s caliber in the tournament. He must also keep Juan Martin on the move because the big Argentine’s striking power is in direct correlation with how well he sets up his lower body. The classic triangle-rally is also an option for Novak who can, if he chooses to use it, exclusively work Del Potro’s backhand side until he gets a short ball, at which point he can pick his target and end the point with a winner.
Until Sunday…
For the link to my contribution to Tennis with an Accent, my recap/analysis of Novak Djokovic’s thrilling 6-4 3-6 7-6 4-6 10-8 win over Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, click on the link below:
X and O Analysis: Djokovic – Nadal
Until next time…
When it concerns a match being played on grass, the primary stats that people generally use to determine the possible outcome revolve around serving skills (aces, serving percentages, etc.), closely followed by return-related ones. The Friday’s semifinal at Wimbledon pitting the world number one Rafael Nadal against his long-time rival Novak Djokovic is one encounter in which that particular area should be put aside to foreground other facets of the game. Let’s be frank, neither Nadal nor Djokovic are monster servers.
The bread-and-butter components of their formula for winning matches rather rest on stroke production from the baseline and rally patterns that their groundies can carve out in their favor.
Serves may play an important role insofar as initiating the server’s attacking pattern on the next shot or restricting the opponent from initiating his own with the return. These two men are fabulous returners, with the Serb winning 43% of his return games through the first five rounds (best at Wimbledon this year so far) and Nadal winning 31% of them (tied for third). Nadal, for his part, has proven to be more efficient in converting break-point opportunities at 44% (25 out of 57) than Novak has at 40% (31 out of 77).
I reckon that first-serve percentage may have some significance for Novak since he prefers to dictate rallies against Rafa where he can hang around the baseline or inside, keeping the Spaniard two or three meters behind his own, and running him from corner-to-corner. Ironically, it is how Rafa wins a load of points against many other players. Novak is the only one that he has not been able to frustrate into making into errors in those types of elongated rallies.
Aside that particular thought as to how first-serve percentage may play a minor role, I feel safe in assuming that what happens once the baseline rallies take their course will decide, for the most part, who makes it to the final. Serves and returns will merely factor in as that extra push to get over the hump. Let me illustrate what I precisely mean by that last sentence.
A long game at 5-5 may feature a lot of spectacular rallies and shots, yet when either player gets to his umpteenth game/break point, or faces one, a rare big serve or a stunning return may give that player the final nudge to close out the game and move ahead 6-5. There is a good chance that people will retroactively remember that serve or return and say, “that huge serve/return was the key to that set,” when, in reality, it was everything else that got the player to that point where the particular serve or return in question could assist him in taking the last step across the finish line.
As for baseline stats, I am not sure that they mean much in the case of Friday’s semifinal. It is one of the most prolific rivalries in the history tennis. Nobody could know any better than Rafa and Novak what to expect from one another.
It has also been said that the favorable conditions cause the ball to bounce higher than usual (alert: that does not mean “slower”), but again, as to who that favors, your guess is as good as mine. It is true that Rafa’s spins may bounce higher than in previous years, but if you begin to think it will bounce the same way as it does on clay, that is a firm “no.” It is also true that Novak prefers to strike his aggressive shots at a level between the waist and shoulder. In short, conditions will matter little in that they will not give a distinct advantage to one player over the other.
In their past matches, I often found myself in awe of how Djokovic could take the baseline away from Nadal, run him ragged and put the ball away eventually against the very legend who built his legendary status by doing just that, running balls down and getting them back from impossible positions. I was also bewildered by Nadal’s tenacity as he would search for responses to Novak’s patterns and successfully rise to the occasion a number of times. Rafa is one of the best – if not the best – in the business when it comes to problem-solving.
Friday’s match is a bit different in that one of the players, Djokovic, is coming into this match “seemingly” in the process of recovering his top form. I used quotations marks for “seemingly,” because no one can be sure that he has recaptured the same form that has brought him so much success until the summer of 2016. Tomorrow’s match represents the best opportunity that he could have asked for to prove that he has. I believe that an in-form Novak would have a great chance to win on Friday, only because Nadal has shown some vulnerability when having to chase hard-hit balls in mid-length rallies. He just has not played anyone who can do that consistently except Del Potro in the quarterfinals.
Personally, I find Djokovic’s footwork to be at a level slightly below the 2015-16 one, especially when he must make rapid directional changes. He is still moving phenomenally side to side and chasing down balls that appear to be unreachable. My question would be, what if he is caught on his backfoot? Or what if a hard serve comes straight to his body? Will he be able to step away quickly? If Novak’s footwork is not optimal, Rafa will take command from the baseline unless the Serb can come up with big flat winners early in the rallies. I don’t believe he can do that consistently for three sets against Nadal.
That’s all folks! Rejoice, one of the greatest duels in our sports is about to take place in the cathedral of our sport.