Tag: Novak Djokovic

Although all the top players participated in the so-called warm-up tournaments to the first Major of the year, tennis fans came to the realization that they will have to wait for this Monday to satisfy their craving of some high-quality, exciting encounters. However, the draw that came out Friday did not do any favors to anyone looking for a thrilling narrative to carry the two weeks, starting Monday. By “thrilling narrative,” I mean an eye-opening one that will end up being one of the main stories of 2016. Sorry Novak Djokovic fans, but your man lifting the winner’s trophy would not qualify as one. Nor would seeing the Big Four members (and/or Stan Wawrinka) play each other for the umpteenth time again in the semis. Yet, one look at the draw and that seems to be the most probable outcome.

Sure, there is some potential for first-week match-ups that feature two players who would probably be more than happy to make it the second week. I will even entertain the idea that Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer, or both, may get knocked out before the semis (only to have their conquerors melt away in the next round). But I neither see an emerging name reach the finals à-la-Kei in New York, nor envision an unlikely winner lifting the trophy like Wawrinka did two years ago, or Marin Cilic did in New York later that same year.

That being said, ticket holders should get their money’s worth. The possibility that this Australian Open may not go down as a trend-setting tournament does not mean that matches will be boring or of low quality. Without further ado, here is how I see the draw fill out section by section. In order to increase the suspense, I will not reveal the player favored to win the tournament. Read and see if you can figure it out (hint: pay attention to titles).

TOP HALF OF THE DRAW

Djokovic’s “early” victims
Prior to eventually running into Djokovic in the third round, Andreas Seppi and Teymuraz Gabashvili will square off with the winner likely to battle Denis Kudla next. Although Gabashvili is down 1-3 in the head-to-head count against Seppi, he has a great chance to advance. He is enjoying his highest ranking of his 14-year career and Seppi, who is going through a dangerous slump, could see his ranking plummer in the first half of the season if he does not recover soon. Gabashvili is the only one from that top section who could challenge Novak in the third round, provided he can live up to his nickname “Tsunami” for three sets (which is almost like saying “provided that Ivo Karlovic finishes a match with less than 5 aces”). Otherwise, look for Djokovic to get to the 4th round being more challenged in practice sets than in the actual matches.

Djokovic’s “midway” victims
Speaking of “Dr. Ivo,” he finds himself as a possible opponent of Djokovic if he makes it to the fourth round. Stands in his way one of the biggest overachievers in today’s tennis by the name of Gilles Simon who, unfortunately for the French, matches up terribly with the big-serving Croate. Simon will still make Karlovic earn the victory if they both make it that far. Anyone knows by now that even when Simon is losing to you, he will make you suffer before doing so. I don’t see any other name from that section (sorry Vasek Pospisil, not in Australia) reaching the fourth round to be victimized by Djokovic.

In the quarters, Djokovic could face a number of players. The two highest seeds in that section are Kei Nishikori (7) and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (9). I do not like the fact that I am writing this while the three qualifying spots in this section still display the word “Qualifier” instead of names. I am one of those who believe that careers are made in the Majors, and they are made when a player comes through qualifying and unexpectedly creates a sensation (or with an “s”) in the first week of a Major, and then, backs it up in the following months, before finally establishing himself as persona grata in the upper echelons of the ATP Tour.

Regardless of who the qualifiers are, Tsonga has a rocky road to the quarters. Even before a possible match against Nishikori or XYZ player in the 4th round, he will have to knock out Marcos Baghdatis, the in-form Ilya Marchenko, and his countryman Benoit Paire. In any case, unless Nishikori or Tsonga somehow catch fire, Djokovic could have an easier win in the quarters than in his previous round. I consider Kei’s chances of catching fire low, but still higher than that of Jo-W.

Djokovic’s “later” victims
Novak’s most serious opponent in 2015, the one that he faced 7 times in the finals, could line up on the other side of the net to challenge him, this time before the finals. His name is Federer, and as incredible as it sounds with the kind of season that Djokovic had, he managed to beat the world number one three times, all on hard courts. The reality: Federer has not beaten Djokovic in a Major since the 2012 Wimbledon. The irony: Federer has not lost to Djokovic (4-0) in their matches before the finals since 2013.

Federer’s quarter also happens to be loaded with loose cannons. While I don’t see his first-round opponent Nikoloz Basilashvili, who had his best year by a long mile in 2015, shock a top player any time soon, Federer’s potential opponents in the next rounds could cause him some headaches. Alexandr Dolgopolov, his likely opponent in the second round, and Grigor Dimitrov in the third round, are both respectable players who have proven their ability to beat top players on a given day. In the fourth round, Federer’s “on-paper” opponent is David Goffin, but the bigger dangers for Federer are Goffin’s first-round opponent Sergiy Stakhovsky and the Belgian Dominic Thiem. I have argued for two years now that Thiem is destined for greatness and I am not wavering from my position on him. He is one of the faces of the next generation, and I expect him to break through to the top 10 in 2016. That path could begin in Melbourne. Having said that, the reality remains that for anyone to reach the quarterfinals from that section, they would need some help from Roger who, dare I say, played well only sporadically in Brisbane.

Federer could eventually face an experienced top-10 player like Tomas Berdych, or another young talent like Nick Kyrgios. I am not as sold on Kyrgios as everyone else is, and it is not because I don’t believe in his talent. It’s a cliché, but for some reason, it’s one that takes time to dawn on people: champions are made in practice. Kyrgios’ level of intensity and focus in practice is nowhere near that of the elite champions in our sport. Kyrgios may not make it that far anyway. Cilic, Tomas Berdych, and Roberto Bautista-Agut are nearby in the draw, as well as Borna Coric, another name that represents the future face of men’s tennis. The young Croat would need to beat Cilic, Bautista-Agut, Kyrgios or Berdych, in a row, just to get to the quarters. Can he do it? Yes! This section will be my favorite one to watch during the first week.

BOTTOM HALF OF THE DRAW
(i.e. Djokovic’s “final” victim)

Some are intrigued by the first-round clash between Fernando Verdasco and Nadal. We are quickly reminded of the five-set semifinal in the 2009 Australian Open, in which Verdasco pushed Rafa very hard. He also defeated Rafa as recent as nine months ago, in Miami. Despite that win, Verdasco is nowhere near his 2009 level, and Rafa is playing a lot better than in March 2015. I don’t see an upset happening, and with all due respect to Benjamin Becker and Dudi Sela, I expect them to challenge the world number 5 even less in the second round. Rafa’s road will get rockier starting with the third round. He should face the Frenchman Jérémy Chardy who is known to put out his best tennis in the Majors. Chardy can hang with Nadal from the baseline, and even overpower him, like Fabio Fognini did at the US Open. However, whether Chardy himself believes that he can do that or not, is a rather large question mark.

Nadal would then have to get past either Kevin Anderson or Gaël Monfils. I must again point out that, Anderson and Monfils have three qualifiers yet to be named in their little eight-man section. Despite his 0-3 record against Nadal, Anderson is the only name with a legitimate chance to beat the Spaniard, simply because he has improved in 2015 and added to his experience of facing the elite players in the Majors. He also has a big serve which has been a trade mark of most of the players who have upset Nadal in the Majors. It does not help either that Rafa has been unable to erased the question marks surrounding his game. But this is different. Two weeks ago in Doha, he played some of his best tennis in a long time and the fact that he got floored by Djokovic in the finals should not change that. If anyone can overcome a steep challenge, Rafa is that man. This Australian Open represents a golden chance for the 14-Major winner to reestablish himself as the top player, along with Djokovic, Murray, Federer, and Wawrinka.

In the quarters, Nadal will no doubt face a tough opponent. There are again four qualifiers in this section. Unless one of them pulls a stunner or two, and/or Viktor Troicki’s form soars even higher than it did this week in Sydney, I don’t see who can stop Raonic and Wawrinka (sorry Jack Sock fans, not yet) from battling each other to earn the right to face Rafa.

I have long maintained (since 2010 exactly) that Raonic would be one of our sport’s top players and I believe he is on the right track. Despite injuries hampering his progress over the last three years, he has steadily improved. He arrives to Melbourne healthy and confident. He has a legitimate chance to go far, even if it means going through Wawrinka and Nadal just to reach the semifinals. The success of Nadal, Wawrinka, or Raonic, when one of them reaches the “final four” stage, will largely depend on how much they have labored in the previous rounds. I dare anyone to predict this early how they will do in the semis where they would likely face Murray.

So what of Murray’s quarter of the draw? Big-serving Sam Groth could frustrate him – it does not take much to do that – in the second round, but can he do it for three sets? Fognini and Tomic, the two major head-cases of our sport, could play against each other in the third round, which may possibly make that encounter the highest-rated third-round match in the history of Majors. But can either one challenge Andy? The section with John Isner and David Ferrer is wide open and should provide someone with a golden opportunity to reach the quarterfinal. But, can that quarterfinalist, whomever it may be, surprise Murray? I believe the answer to all the questions in this paragraph is a “No.” Meanwhile, squeezed in-there-somewhere in this section is Brian Baker who has managed more comebacks than Aaron Krickstein has come back from two sets down in his days.

I see some sections of the draw that fascinate me for the first few days. I see others that should be exciting when we get to the third and fourth rounds. Then, from the quarterfinals on, I expect great tennis. What I do NOT expect, is to find names in the semifinals that are different than the ones we have seen in the last several Majors.

The show begins in 48 hours!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Djokovic vs Federer: US Open Showdown

September 12, 2015

Mertov

In Cincinnati, in his semifinal match against Andy Murray and in the final against Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer put forth two magical performances in as many days, dazzling the spectators at the Western & Southern Open. Apart from his tremendous agility at the age of 34, he also showcased his latest contribution to the game of tennis, a “half-volley-return-approach-shot” (later named SABR), using it in every one of his matches in Cincinnati against some of the best servers and players in the world…

With success…!

Following his 7th Cincinnati title, and his 87th title overall praised the great champion, the tennis world praised Federer – deservedly – who provided much-needed relief to his fans around the world, still recovering from the Wimbledon loss to Djokovic in the final, and wondering if their man would still be in top form after weeks of no competition.

Now the two men will face each other for the U.S. Open title in the biggest tennis stadium in the world, in less than 48 hours – weather permitting, yes, that needs to be mentioned.

Ex-player-and-coach Darren Cahill, usually the cooler-headed member of the ESPN Tennis crew on TV, and the one who often brings order to the plethora of somewhat chaotic and emotional plethora of analysis by the other experts on that team, astutely said that he cannot really pick a winner in this match. Federer has looked formidable this summer, and in New York so far. Some pick him to hold his 18th Major trophy once it is all said and done. Others believe that Djokovic will find that extra gear on Sunday and once again topple the Swiss in the final match of a Major.

I happen to be in that small group of people, like Cahill, who find it difficult to tilt the scale in one player’s favor. Seeing how well Federer is playing, and how Djokovic did not consistently perform at a high level in his previous rounds, I tended to lean toward Roger until the semifinals. However, after seeing Djokovic’s ground strokes on fire against Marin Cilic, I had to remind myself that the Serb can peak at the right time, and has done it numerous times before. As Novak graciously pointed it out in the on-court interview after the match, there is no denying that Cilic was hampered by injury. Nevertheless, that should not negate how well the world number one was stroking the ball. Djokovic continuously absorbed Cilic’s serves, placed the returns deep in the court and pushed the Croat around from the very first shot of the rally, and then, repeatedly found dimes to hit on the court at will.

I prefer to stay away from overrated clichés such as reminding everyone that Federer looked invincible against Murray in the semifinals at Wimbledon but that Djokovic raised his level to still take him out in the finals, thus hinting that Djokovic should win again… OR, that Cincinnati shows that Federer had overcome the 4-set loss at Wimbledon, thus claiming that he is poised to beat Djokovic again on Sunday. These types of conclusions do have some merit, and yes, a win in Cincinnati without losing serve once (and only once in the US Open, against Philipp Kohlschreiber, if I am not mistaken) must have added a level or two to Roger’s already sky-high confidence. We can also say that defeating a solid Federer in the Wimbledon final, and doing it convincingly in the last two sets of the match, can only increase Djokovic’s belief in his late dominance over the Swiss in the Majors (6-2 since 2010). Or maybe, the fact that Djokovic ran almost 3 more miles than Federer did so far in the tournament, meaning that Roger will feel fresher than Novak (ok… not really… Djokovic will not lose the final because he is “tired,” considering how short his semifinal match lasted, let’s be honest). In any case, these stats remain great “clubhouse chat” topics, but do not influence the outcome of the next match as much as tennis fans are led to believe.

So, in an attempt to explain why it is such a complicated task to pick a favorite in this particular US Open final, I will dare to go a bit further and nitpick some details that are pertinent to how this 42nd meeting (Federer leads 21-20) between the world’s two best players may play out.

First, Federer’s SABR will no longer be an element of surprise for Djokovic. For example, in Cincinnati, neither Novak nor anyone else expected Federer to do it at 3-1 in the tiebreaker. That will not be the case in New York. Djokovic will now expect it and get ready for it. He may even turn it in his favor if he passes Federer in the first couple of attempts, making Roger think twice before he decides to approach the net again. Quite frankly, Federer does not base his game or his “Plan A” on the SABR, although I can understand the media and the fans talking it up because it is indeed a spectacular shot. He is not winning because the SABR works. It is in fact nothing more than a minor component of his overall attacking plan which includes (1) aggressive returns, often coming over the ball rather than slicing the backhand like he used to do à-la-pre-2014, (2) parking on or inside the baseline during rallies and suffocating his opponent by rushing him, (3) frequently serving and volleying, even on some second serves, (4) throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the opponent in terms of variety and effect on the ball, including drop shots, inside-out slices, and loopy topspin balls followed by hard and flat strokes, in the name of forcing the opponent to lose rhythm and hit that one short ball so that he can charge the net (in the past he used to do the same, but often, with only the goal of forcing an error from the opponent). Whether the SABR results in two or three points won or not is a lot less important than whether the above general areas work or not. One or more minor components of this master plan, such as the SABR or the drop shot, may not function well on a particular day, but if the rest clicks like a Swiss clock, Federer still has a great chance to lift the trophy on Arthur Ashe.

Expect a lot of this: Federer looking to create, Djokovic on his toes, rock solid.

Second, many people seem to forget that, as much as Federer’s serve may have dominated opponents this summer, the last two times that these two champions faced each other, Djokovic has broken Federer’s serve a total of 4 times (more than everyone else combined since the French Open), while Federer has broken Djokovic’s only twice. And we are talking about two matches in which Federer played brilliant tennis for the most part. Consider also that the only break that Federer could muster in the 7-6 6-3 win in Cincinnati came when Djokovic committed three double faults in one game.

Third, the idea that Djokovic can defeat Federer simply by keeping the ball deep, staying solid from the baseline, and out-rallying him, while valid from 2013 until this summer, may now appear outdated. Federer has shown since the beginning of the 2015 season that he has no intention of settling for baseline rallies, although that plan alone worked well enough for him to win a good portion of his career wins and titles. That being said, let’s also admit that against Djokovic, as Federer himself probably knows, he can no longer win like that. This type of challenge is precisely why Federer and his team undertook certain adjustments to his game at the start of the season, beginning with his off-season practice sessions in Dubai in December of 2014 (the move to the bigger racket should also get a mention here, even if it took place much earlier than that). Just as modifications to one’s game takes time to integrate to the existing arsenal of shots, and reach the level desired, it took some time for Federer’s adjustments to become one with how he and his team envisioned his game to develop in 2015. But I believe most of us can now comfortably say that he is now at ease with the attacking style of tennis that we are seeing from him today.
But only now…!
Meaning that, on Sunday, we will most likely witness a Federer who feels more confident about every facet of his game than ever before. To put it bluntly, I expect Federer to attempt to impose his attacking style on Djokovic more efficiently than he may have done in their previous five encounters this year, including the latest one in Cincinnati. He will find a way (unlike in Rome, or in significant portions of Wimbledon) to keep the rallies short and rush to the net earlier than expected. That brings me back to my original point in the beginning of the paragraph: yes, the idea that solid baseline rallies largely favor Djokovic is valid on paper, and would work on the court just as it did in many of their previous matches. But it will be much harder, perhaps impossible, for Djokovic to put that idea into practice this particular weekend in September. Djokovic will need to come up with an extra answer this time.

Fourth, the New York crowd is unlike any other crowd in the world. They will once again be pro-Federer, in the same way that the Wimbledon crowd was, except that they will be louder, tipsier and more obnoxious than the spectators that fill the Centre Court on SW19. Djokovic expects that when facing Federer and Nadal. However, expecting it does not mean that it does not bother him. It will be essential for Djokovic to keep his cool, and not share an unnecessary number of “silent-stare-down” moments with his corner every time something does not go his way on the court.

Finally, there is one intangible when these two play that complicates the outlook: which will have the longer “down period” during the match? I define “down” period as the number of games where a player’s intensity level drops physically or mentally – and unintentionally of course – causing him to lose focus, and letting the other player grab the upper hand as a result. For example, Federer had a visible down period in the third set of this year’s Indian Wells final, effectively ending the match. Djokovic also had one that lasted for most of the third set that he lost 6-1 to Rafael Nadal (speaking of a player who rarely goes through a down period) in their memorable five-set semifinal match in 2013 at the French Open. Even a brief down period can turn a match around, such as the one by Federer against Djokovic in the Wimbledon final when he led 0-30 on Djokovic’s serve at the 1-1 game in the third set. Two points from breaking Novak and taking charge of the third set, with all the momentum on his side (remember how he won the second set tiebreaker?), Federer went on to commit several unforced errors unexpectedly, causing him to lose the next two games and going down a break. It is very hard to predict which player will have the longer down period, or how many, but I feel certain that we will see at least one or more.

So, have you picked a favorite yet? If you must, good luck! If you are like me and simply desire to see a high-quality tennis match, I reckon we will not be disappointed. The way both players have performed in 2015, and in this tournament, I expect nothing short a stellar match.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter
Reminder: Click here and send in your 2019 numbers 1 and 2 predictions. Be prepared for it to come back up four years later (in the name of having fun of course).

No More under the Radar

August 22, 2015

Mertov

ATP Players 4 Comments

On Friday, men’s quarterfinals in Cincinnati featured five top-10 players, the number 13, 23, and a qualifier by the name of Alexandr Dolgopolov. When the day ended, the world’s top three players, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, and Roger Federer took their place in the semifinals, along with that guy Dolgopolov. He is from Ukraine and he is ranked number 66 in the ATP Tour. He may require an introduction because he redefined the term “going under the radar” this week.

The Ukrainian has won five matches, and has yet to play on Center Court. While the other winners of yesterday and today have for the most part enjoyed (or suffered) the company of a dozen or more media members in their after-match press conferences, only one media member asked to talk to Dolgopolov yesterday following his win vs. Jerzy Janowicz, and today, as a semifinalist, that number increased to a whopping two. As one of those two (the other was the knowledgeable Pete Ziebron – Twitter: @tennisacumen), I asked him if the lack of attention bothered him or not. He shrugged his shoulders, then laughed and said “No, it’s good that I save some time, I mean, I can concentrate on my tennis, that’s my concern now.” When asked if he was surprised by his run to the semifinals as a qualifier, his answer was two-fold: “I always think there is a possibility that I get a result. Obviously I couldn’t come here and expect to be in the semifinals from qualifying, with a tough match against [Santiago] Giraldo in the qualies [won 6-3 3-6 6-4]. I was playing quite good actually since the grass-court season. I had a lot of tight matches and a few bad losses. I couldn’t expect to make the semis here coming in, but I know I have the ability to do that. So both, I am surprised and not surprised.”

Many tennis fans believe that lower-ranked players faces less pressure when they surprisingly advance to the later rounds, and face highly ranked players, because they have “nothing to lose.” In Dolgopolov’s case, there is no doubt that that this is an invalid assumption. On Thursday, when he faced Janowicz, it was obvious looking from the outside that he was under tremendous pressure. He led 5-2 in the final set and had two match point opportunities that slipped out of his hands. In the next game, on his serve, he got very tight, and visibly could not hit the ball freely. He ended the game with double fault, giving up the break advantage. He calmed down during the game change, and with a little bit of help from his opponent who committed two unforced errors and two double faults, Dolgopolov was able to close the match out. The relief was clearly showing on his face as he shook Janowicz’ hand and left the court later.

The Ukrainian confirmed that he felt the weight of that match on his shoulders, especially when he was leading: “I was thinking about [the win] too much when I was closer to winning. It was a big match for me point-wise you know, because I lost some ranking spots in the start of the year, I had a surgery last year. It was really important to find my game and some results because I have not had a great year so far this year. So that match I was very nervous. I just tried to survive, get the ball back in play. I don’t think I played as well as I played today.”

Against Berdych today, Dolgopolov seemed to give a clinic on how to pacify the big Czech’s powerful game that is known to reduce opponents to just getting balls back in the court. Already in his first service game, Dolgopolov put to use the 1-2 punch, following up his serve with a winner attempt or an aggressive shot, enough to send an early message to Berdych: he was not going to play the match on his opponent’s terms. As he confirmed later, playing aggressive was the one clear idea he had before going into the match. Once he held his serve, he remained unpredictable, mostly avoiding longer, hard-hitting, monotonous rallies which would have given Berdych rhythm. He worked the angle cross-courts, followed by hard flat down-the-line winner attempts. He utilized his sizzling slices, well-known drop shots, keeping Berdych off-balance, not allowing him to direct traffic during points. He even did something rare on a few occasions which is to all of a sudden move into the court during the rally, and almost half-volley the ball and follow it up to the net in order to rush Berdych (if you have access to match replay, watch the 6-4 4-2, 15-30 point on Berdych’s serve for an example of this). These patterns left Berdych unsure of what was to come next and unable to plant his feet to unleash his ground strokes. Again, if you have access to replay, the point at 6-4 2-1 40-15 is a wonderful example of a long rally during which Dolgopolov uses a wide variety of shots and effects on the ball, always keeping Berdych on the stretch, eventually forcing him into an error.

Surprisingly, Dolgopolov said he did not have any specific pre-planned patterns as he stepped on the court for the match, other than playing an overall aggressive game: “I mean, I was just finding ways to win the rallies. I did not have a really set-up plan on how to play him because he is solid from the baseline. It’s tough to find ways with him. I was searching for what is best for me on this day. I think I was very good at hitting angles on my forehand and that was probably the key in the match. But I can’t say that there was a specific tactic you know. I know he is an all-around player. He does not give you a lot of easy points and he does not have bad shots. It was more about what he will show today and what I will show. I played him a few times. You can see if he is playing good or not. If he feels uncomfortable than you try to make him play more. Obviously, I had more or less a tactic that I wanted to play aggressive, but then, I was just looking to see what happens on the court.” In retrospect, it is so true that when a certain pattern worked in his favor, Dolgopolov looked to repeat it as much as he could. But those patterns were discovered as the match progressed and not planned in advance. The point is that Dolgopolov’s case, at least in this match, shows that we should not universally assume that every player goes into a match with a detailed scheme already mapped out in their head.

During the match, a problem that has existed for years in the Western & Southern Open once again resurfaced. When Berdych and Dolgopolov started their match, Serena Williams and Ana Ivanovic were expected to begin their match shortly after on the adjacent Center Court. Until the women began their match, loud announcements and music could clearly be heard from the Grandstand. Other players have complained about this in the past, as well as earlier in the week. It was no exception with the two men who had to play until 4-3 in the first set with that noise, at which point the match started on Center Court and the music stopped. Until then, both Dolgopolov and Berdych complained several time to the chair umpire about it. Dolgopolov voiced his anger twice in the early games, and Berdych followed suit, especially after he went down a break at 2-4. “I thought it was disrespectful you know” Dolgopolov said, “I understand that it’s the Center Court but it was too loud. Both of us said it a few times. There has been also other things in this tournament with which I am not happy [would not elaborate]. It’s their choice. I mean, it’s their choice if they want to make the players happy or make the money and do what they care about. Our job is to go out and play. Nothing changes if you are not happy with something.”

On Saturday, Dolgopolov will face the ultimate challenge when he walks on the Center Court to take on the world number 1 Novak Djokovic in the first semifinal match scheduled for 1 PM. Djokovic is well aware of his opponent. He said that although his prepration remains the same on match days, he will do specific things during the morning warm-up in preparation for his opponent because he is a “different player” than the one he face today (Wawrinka). In any case, one thing is certain: Dolgopolov will no longer have the luxury to remain under the radar to his opponents, the media, or the fans.

Note: Watch for commentary posts here and stay tuned to MT-Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates.

Men’s Quarterfinals Preview: Potential for a Short Day (*)

July 7, 2015

Mertov

ATP Majors 2 Comments

The last time all four men’s quarterfinals finished in straight sets was in 1998. Even then, Goran Ivanisevic needed three tight tiebreakers (two extended beyond 7 points) to keep the crafty, left-handed, serve-and-volley specialist Jan Siemerink from winning a set. Since then, men have come twice within one set of having all quarterfinals end in straight sets. First one was in 2000 when the unorthodox Jan-Michael Gambill won a tiebreaker from the legendary Pete Sampras, and the second happened when Lleyton Hewitt also managed to steal a tiebreaker from another legend by the name of Roger Federer.

I am sure many would disagree (is that not the fun part of playing the crystal ball game?), but tomorrow’s quarterfinals on the men’s side could be another short day at the office, similar to those in 2000 and 2004, and potentially, to the one in 1998.

On top of the draw, Novak Djokovic takes on Marin Cilic. Last year’s five-set win by Djokovic over Cilic still echoes in a number of heads because as soon as the Serb finally defeated Kevin Anderson in the fifth set played on Tuesday morning, several people mentioned that match from last year and begged the question of whether Novak could sustain another five-set marathon or not. That should never come into question in this year’s case. Djokovic is an established champion, more dominating than last summer, and he is on top of his game. Cilic, for his part, seems to play catch-up (very slowly at that) since coming back down from the clouds where he was residing during the second week of US Open 2014, partially due to a nagging shoulder injury that kept him out of competition. While it is true that he is finally getting back to the form that elevated him inside the top 10, he will need generous help from Djokovic in order to break his serve, or else, he will have to fancy his chances in tiebreakers. Cilic’s game depends a lot on aggressive returns that allow him to control the point and to push his opponents around. Djokovic’s counterpunching skills, best in that category with Rafael Nadal in the 21st century, coupled with his ever-improving serve, should effectively keep Cilic at bay. When Cilic is not returning, he will need a lot of first serves, not necessarily to garner direct points, but to set up the next shot in order to execute his game plan. Cilic’s success hinges on too many things falling into the right places. The chances of a straight-set, lop-sided victory by Djokovic are more likely than a five-set match.

Second quarterfinal of the day will pit Stan Wawrinka against Richard Gasquet. Although it promises some spectacular points scattered here and there, Gasquet will only win a set – thus have a shot at winning – if Stan were to start slow enough to fall behind in the first set, or to simply check out of the match mentally (remember the match vs. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in the 2014 Roland Garros?). Gasquet and Wawrinka played twice, one too long ago (2006) and the other on clay in 2013. Wednesday’s match has different dynamics. Gasquet will now deal with a two-time Major champion, on top of his game, and against whom, the Frenchman does not seem to possess any weapons to tilt the match in his favor. Gasquet can neither overpower Wawrinka nor win through consistency. Federer learned very fast (gladly for him, he was on the brink of going down 2-0 in sets) in last year’s quarterfinals that you cannot simply rally with Wawrinka from the baseline, who will slowly catch fire, harass you with rock-solid shots, and push you around far behind the baseline. As is the case in many matches that he won against his countryman, Federer knew to switch from one tactic to another, dig deep into his arsenal of shots, and produce a solution that turned the match around. As talented as he is, Gasquet is not Federer, and furthermore, Wawrinka’s level hovers above the one from the summer of 2014. The Swiss has yet to lose a set so far in this tournament, and it could remain that way until Friday.

He would never say it out loud, but if you whispered to Andy Murray’s ear ten days ago that Vasek Pospisil would stand across the net from him in the quarterfinals of a Major, let alone Wimbledon, Andy would have given you his conventional half-smile, with his fingers rubbing the side of the eyebrows, before wondering if you became delusional. Yet, here we are in the quarterfinals, and the Canadian being in the final eight is the biggest surprise of the second week. That is partially why he is unlikely to push Murray, who is in another league from his previous four opponents, beyond a straight-set victory. The other half is the difference in the amount of labor done by the two players on the courts of SW19. In his four matches so far, Murray has spent 8 hours 50 minutes on the court. Pospisil has spent 11 hours 32 minutes with only one match going less than five sets (Fabio Fognini in four). Pospisil did surprise me – I should rather admit that he “stunned” me – when he came back from 0-2 in sets to pull a five-set win against Victor Troicki on Monday. He looked tired at the end of his five-set match against James Ward the round before, and I did not believe that his body, that has proven to be fragile at times in the past, could sustain another grueling five-set match once he was led 2-0 in sets. Having said “all that,” the big stage in a Major (no, doubles titles do not negate that lack of experience in singles) on the most legendary court in the history of the game, against a home-town legend that has the crowd’s support, will prove too much for the young Canadian (assuming 25-year-olds are nowadays perceived as “young” on the ATP Tour?). I see maybe one close set taking place, but nothing more on the horizon for Pospisil.

Roger Federer takes on another French player in a Major for the umpteenth time in his career. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only Frenchman to whom he has lost in Majors is Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Wimbledon 2011 and Roland Garros 2013). On top of that, Gilou does not have the necessary ingredients to cook up a plan on grass that can take the Swiss out of his comfort zone. Anyone who has followed my articles or has discussed with me the contrast between overachievers and underachievers on the ATP Tour will know that I mention Simon as one of the emblematic examples of overachievers who get the maximum out of their limited talent due to their high on-court I.Q. as well as their ability to create solutions where none seem to exist. But even Simon will have a tough time stopping the Federer Express steaming along so far this year. I have no doubt that the Frenchman has already concocted a plan for the match, but I am afraid that what he is good differs from what he needs to do to beat Federer. His mid-to-hard-paced baseline shots play into Federer’s hands because they bounce to about thigh or hip level (Federer’s favorite level to strike the ball) and come with enough pace so that the Swiss can punch and accelerate, yet not fast enough to where he will feel rushed. Once Federer takes the lead, watch out, it could be a quick one.

So can it be another 2000, 2004, or even 1998? For the spectators’ sake, I hope not. Personally I also see the beauty in a lop-sided match when one player delights the fans with regal shot-making skills. However, four in a row on a day that historically produces at least one electric moment, if not more, would undoubtedly disappoint even the most avid tennis fans. Let’s hope that I jinxed that possibility with this article. Instead of a quarterfinal day like in 1998, let’s hope for a one quality match after another in which one player excels, and the other goes above and beyond himself to force his opponent to sustain that level while gradually joining him on that plateau of excellence.

(*) “Why the asterisk?” you may ask. Any of my friends with whom I spend any amount of substantial time discussing sports can tell you that I am a horrible prognosticator and that I am notorious for “drying up” some competitors’ chances of winning by simply picking them. Hence, this article is for discussion purposes, I would strongly advise you against taking it into consideration if you intend to bet. Now you know why…

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates throughout Wimbledon.

Rafa Fading Away? Think Again!

July 3, 2015

Mertov

ATP Majors Players 5 Comments

If you have observed the media write-ups and social media ramblings, you may have sensed the underlying theme behind all the flashy headlines attempting to grab your attention on Dustin Brown’s victory over Rafael Nadal. For example, I give ten points to Sun Sport for creativity, for sticking the picture of Brown screaming, and his hair flying everywhere while the headline on top read “Rasta la vista, Rafa.”

Having said that, the larger question invading most write-ups and analyses center on Rafa, or more precisely, on the question of whether or not he will ever regain the form that made him an elite-level player over the last decade. The fact that this question pops up now deserves its own perspective.

Rafa lost to Novak Djokovic one month ago, on a court that he views as his temple. Let me modify that statement: he got dominated by the Serb in three straight sets, 7-5 6-3 6-1, eroding away as the match progressed. The invincible player was finally taken down from his throne, on the red dirt that he cherishes. Yet, only a few such as this article announced the nadir for Rafa, the way they announced it for Pete Sampras in 2001 or Roger Federer in 2013. Yes, it is true that the challenge imposed on Djokovic to show that he was capable of winning Roland Garros and defeating Nadal in Paris weighed heavier than any other topic. That being said, Rafa losing his iron hold on his favorite tournament to his biggest rival should have raised more uncertainty about his future than it did.

Now we find out that those concerns were patiently waiting in a for his possible defeat at Wimbledon. The fact that he lost to yet another outside-the-top-100 player early in the tournament only added fuel to the fire. Suddenly, speculations multiplied over the last 24 hours on whether or not he will ever be a top player again, or a top-5 player, or even if this may be his last year on the ATP Tour. Let’s be clear: the “less-than-a-day-old-yet-explosive” trend of declaring Rafa’s rapid downfall originate not in his loss to “Dreddy” Brown yesterday, but in the lingering effects of the one to Djokovic in Paris. Since 2010, Rafa has not advanced to the second week in Wimbledon and has suffered defeats to opponents outside the top 100 (Lukas Rosol, Nick Kyrgios, Steve Darcis) before the one against Brown yesterday. In contrast, Rafa losing to anyone on the Philippe Chatrier court would signify a career-changing moment for Rafa and that someone (ask Robin Soderling) and shatter the economy (ok, I exaggerate). The loss to Brown is the final push that opened wide the heavy door, while Djokovic was the one who removed its rusty hinges, unlocked it and left it ajar. Now the trend of calling for the gloom and doom of Rafa’s career is enjoying free entrance into the domain of drama. And the traffic to that entrance is flowing freely!

Rafa at his best: practicing hard…

Great champions have always made it their business to prove the pundits wrong, especially if the former believe that the latter is ready to put them in the coffin and send them to the graveyard (yes! I am using metaphors). Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Serena Williams have all done it, as well as Stan Wawrinka (remember how long he was treated a one-tournament wonder after 2014 Australian Open?), Kim Clijsters and Jana Novotna, to a smaller scale. You can bet that Rafa will do everything he can, in order to prove that the latest surge in the call for the end of his career reflects bad judgment. If anything at all, the Big 4 have repeatedly shown that they can reach for higher grounds when most pundits believe the opposite.

In the middle of this “end-of-Rafa” mania, I dare to remind everyone that if Roland Garros started tomorrow, barring Djokovic, Nadal would be the favorite to win. I use “dare” because I did just that earlier on Tweeter and I got anything from “Nadal’s bubble has burst” to “err… no” from one gentleman and an overall disagreement (or reserved outlook) from a couple of others. I also got strange looks from two colleagues with whom I dared to discuss it (a third agreed with me, but he was Spanish, does that count?). The reasons given were how bad he has done in other tournaments on clay, how his forehand has regressed, and how the coach-player relationship with uncle Toni has run its course. While I was given the examples of Rafa’s losses on clay, how bad Djokovic dominated him in Paris, and his woes on other surfaces, when it came down to it, nobody could say “[fill in the name] would be the favorite against Rafa in a Roland Garros match.” While I agree that Wawrinka, Murray and a couple of others can be more competitive against Rafa today in Paris, I would question anyone’s objectivity who would call them “favorite” in that setting.

Nadal will get back to work, train hard, and find a way to remain longer among the elite players. On a larger scale, I believe that the call for Rafa’s end as an elite player is chaotically premature. Unless he walks away from the game (which is also included in the speculations circulating around, obviously some have somehow built an information streamline into the Rafa camp), I would warn anyone who banks on him to fade away. Can he get back to number 1? Unless Djokovic, Federer, and Murray have historical collapses in form, that seems unlikely in the near future. Can he get back into the top 5? Of course. Can he win another Major? Absolutely. The most likely place would once again be in Paris. There is almost a year before next year’s French Open (and shamefully, I am not even discussing the next U.S. Open and the Australian Open).

To claim that Rafa will somehow continue to compete and practice, yet not find his form during that period, or at least fail to get back to a level nearing his top form, seems hasty. Injuries can always halt improvement and end careers, and that remains a possibility with the Spaniard. However, the chances of Rafa getting back to elite level remain a higher possibility if he is not hampered by injuries. One loss (again, namely the one to Djokovic) does not take you from elite level to an ordinary player. If that was the case, top players would not still be on top after those types of losses (remember Serena Williams losing to Virginie Razzano in Roland Garros 2012? Sampras and Federer losing to Bastl in 2001 and Stakhovsky in 2013 respectively, both in Wimbledon?). Rafa losing to Brown? Been there done that in London before, and that never stopped him from remaining at the top. Losing to Djokovic at the French does not mean Rafa can no longer play on clay, or no longer win Roland Garros. The announcements and declarations ending Nadal’s career as a tennis player at the top level are not only ill-advised, but they are also hasty and impulsive. I expect cooler heads to prevail overtime.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates throughout Wimbledon.

Roland Garros 2015: Final Notes

June 8, 2015

Mertov

ATP & WTA Majors 2 Comments

Stan the “Iron” Man

When Stan Wawrinka hit his 60th winner (yes, that’s right, double the number of his opponent’s) on Sunday to triumph over Novak Djokovic, he finished 5 weeks of straight ATP events on very high note. Nowadays, you rarely come across a top player who plays one of those the week before a Major, let alone end up winning the Major. For example, when Brad Gilbert became Andy Roddick’s coach, one of his first rules was not to let Andy play in an event prior to the Majors. Andy did previously do just that, before 2013 French Open. Although he won the St. Poelten event, it did not serve him well as he lost first round in Paris. The last two players to accomplish Wawrinka’s feat were Lleyton Hewitt and Thomas Johansson, both in 2002. I should remind that Patrick Rafter played a whopping seven weeks straight in 1998, leading into the US Open that he won. He also won three of the five events before, two of those wins coming in the Masters 1000 events (called Masters Series back then) in Toronto and Cincinnati. Although Wawrinka only played two matches in each Madrid and Geneva, his vctory still put into question one of the taboos in high-level play, the refusal to play the week preceding a Major.

Tennis: Part of the Parisian Bar scene

Watching sports in bars is an established activity in the American life. Yes, Europeans do it too, especially for football (ok, fellow Americans, I mean soccer), but the term Sports Bars is a common theme in the U.S. and the idea of watching a sports event in a bar often supersedes the choice of doing the same thing in the comfort of your home. One thing is for certain: tennis is not included in this activity. College Bowl games, NBA playoffs, the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, yes, but heavens forbid if a bar were to announce having a tennis match on TV, and still expect a big crowd. This is not the case in Paris. Throughout the two weeks, you can see tennis regularly on the TV screens in bars. People watch it, discuss it, argue about the players, and comment on points. Below is a scene from a bar on the 16e arrondissement, on a week-day afternoon.

And yes, they even advertise the fact that Roland Garros will be shown on the screens of the establishment, although this particular bar on 18e arrondissement seems to have forgotten how to spell France’s sacred tennis arena, on the day of the men’s final.

Crowds and Circulation, Never-ending Headache

I know I have harped on this endlessly in the past and in my earlier post during this tournament, so I will try to keep it short this time. Roland Garros organizers got a big boost from the government who declared that they are behind the new project for the expansion and modernization of the site. Tournament director Gilbert Ysern proudly announced that the permits are on their way, although he faced more urgent matters during the two-week run, such as the metal panel on a scoreboard collapsing on spectators. Yet, the projected completion date is now 2019. It was in 2011 that Roland Garros won the vote to keep the tournament at its current site, and the authorities have been promising the modernization ever since. During the campaign for the vote, 2016 or 2017 were the projected finish dates. Following struggles with the ecologists and various organs of the government questioning the expansion, the turtle-slow French bureaucracy showed its teeth and delayed its commencement.

Nevertheless, it is still the only Major that does not possess a covered court or lights. The other three Majors are not only far ahead of the French Open in terms of space (the US Open and the Australian Open are more than three times the size of Roland Garros), but they have also gotten busy covering a multitude of courts – each already has covered courts – and have had lights on courts for a long time.

Will this ever get here? Let's hope so. — Will this ever get here? Let’s hope so.

But more importantly, the circulation inside the site is a nightmare for spectators. It is obvious that too many tickets are being sold, leading to lines to get in the outside the courts that make the spectators miss a multitude of games, or even sets, while they wait in line. And entertainment like the one below in the alleys temporarily help distract the stifling effect, but does not suffice.

For example, the two ladies in red that you see below, got in this line when the score was 2-1 in the Anna-Lena Friedsam vs. Alexa Glatch 1st round match. At the time this picture was taken, Friedsam just closed out the first set 6-2.

This was the case for a first round match between two unseeded players, both ranked below the top 100 on that day (Friedsam is 97 in this week’s rankings). I will let you imagine the case for seeded players competing on the outside courts. When it rains, the amount of limited covered space guarantees that many spectators will be left outside in the rain. It often leads to scenes like the one below, under the stadium stands of the two show courts, Philippe Chatrier and Suzanne Lenglen (this one is from Chatrier).

I did say I would try to keep it short, but apparently I failed. I promise to hold myself back the next time this endless issue, unique to Roland Garros among the four Majors, agonizes my mind. Now onto a more pleasant topic…

Roland Garros Musée – A Gem

If you ever get to attend Roland Garros in person, you do have one choice if the crowds stifle you: a visit to the RG Museum. You will not be disappointed. On your way down the stairs to the museum area, you are welcomed by a wall displaying past champions.

Once you are downstairs, the first thing you perceive is the row of rackets from all periods of tennis, stashed on your left.

Once past that, there is the history of tennis with authentic paraphernalia in front of your eyes. If you are an ardent student of the history of tennis, like me, make this visit your priority. This year, there was also an impressive exhibit on the evolution of style and fashion in tennis. Yes, tennis players such as Max Décugis and Hugh Laurence Doherty (wearing the manteau de tennis in the picture) wore items such as the ones below, in the early 20th century.

Here Comes the Grass-Court Season!

Now that the grass-court season has started, with an extra week to enjoy prior to Wimbledon, one of the best calendar-related decisions the people in charge of our game have ever made, our attention turns to a different style of play, different stories to follow. Some players that have been forgotten during the clay-court season may shine through during the next five weeks. My next stop will be the culmination of this period, none other than Wimbledon. In the meantime, I will try to post up more articles (assuming life lets me do it). Until next time!

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

2016 Australian Open Men’s Draw: More of the Same?

Djokovic vs Federer: US Open Showdown

No More under the Radar

Men’s Quarterfinals Preview: Potential for a Short Day (*)

Rafa Fading Away? Think Again!

Roland Garros 2015: Final Notes

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation