Tag: Roger Federer

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

ATP Majors 6 Comments

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).

Yuru

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

59-2: Not Just a Stat for Federer

ATP Tactical Analysis 12 Comments

The well-known scenario usually repeats itself. Rafael Nadal steps on the court, Federer stands on the other side of the net. Nadal reboots the game plan which consists of two simple components. First, rip the topspin shots hard and high to Federer’s backhand over and over again. Most rallies will end with a mistake from the Swiss, or with the Spaniard stepping further and further into the court until he hits a winner. Second, hit an overwhelming majority of serves, again, to Federer’s backhand. He will chip it most of the time and miss, or will return it short, allowing Rafa to make Roger chase one shot after another for the remainder of the rally.

There are, of course, contributing factors to this plan’s success. For instance, it helps that Nadal, unlike the rest of the ATP, is not bothered by Federer’s slice backhand. It also helps that Nadal is left-handed, allowing his heavy forehand to push Federer outside the court on his backhand. It does not hurt either that Federer’s game is not based on booming flat shots, like that of some lesser players who have been able to bother Nadal. In any case, this simple plan consistently produces the desired result for Nadal, mostly explaining the skewed head-to-head record (23-11 for Nadal) between the two legends. For over a decade, Nadal has dominated Federer adhering to a game plan designed around these two major components.

In Basel, Federer showed from the first game of the match that he was determined to shake the grounds of at least one of those components: the second one. If you have watched their countless encounters, you have noticed how many times Federer chips the defensive backhand return back on Nadal’s serve. You have consequently seen how large a percentage of serves Rafa hits to the Swiss’ backhand. It happened today too. Out of 90 serves put in play by Nadal, 61 of them were directed to Federer’s backhand. That is 68% of all serves in, and that does not even include the times that Rafa served to the backhand, only to see Roger moving around the ball to hit a forehand.

At 4-2 up in the first set, after Federer had just consolidated his break, Nadal hit a first serve to Federer’s backhand, the Swiss chipped the return in the net. Another one happened at set point for Rafa in the second set. The Spaniard served to the backhand (what’s new?), Roger chipped the return, Nadal got aggressive and punished Roger. Another example was when…….

……….
No!
That was it!
Just twice!

Yes, out of the 61 times that Nadal served to Federer’s backhand, those were the only two times that Roger sliced the return back! And he lost both points.

The other 59 times, he came over the top, hitting drives! Even when he was stretched, Federer continuously refused to block/slice/chip (however one chooses to term it) his backhand returns, at the cost of making a few more errors. Federer won 6-3 5-7 6-3 to claim his 88th career title.

New ImageThis… 59 times out of 61! (Image: Getty)

For example, in the first game of the match, he drove the backhand return to the corner, came in, and got passed to go down 0-1. It did not matter. Next return game, he went right back to his plan, driving more backhand returns. Did it rattle Rafa? You bet it did.

If you have access to the match, watch the 2-2 game in the first set. In the first point, he will push Rafa back (Rafa moved as if he was expecting a slice return which usually gives him time to set his feet on or inside the baseline), enough to force him into hitting a short ball, to which he will smack the winner. Four points later, at 30-30, you will see his drive backhand return, put Rafa off balance enough to the point where he will sneak in to the net, and hit the volley winner. That would end up being the game that Federer first broke Nadal’s serve, one in which he faced seven backhand returns, and came over the top of all of them! But, he was just getting started.

At the 5-3 game, he once again started with a drive backhand return that allowed him to dominate the rest of the point. Then again, on set point, the backhand drive return set up the winner on the next shot. Over and over again, Rafa expected the backhand return to fall short, have nothing more than a neutralizing pace, give him enough time to set the next shot up, and pin his opponent behind the baseline. Over and over, Roger caught him off guard.

I will give only one example out of many in the second set. At 4-3 for Federer, and 30-15 with Rafa serving, watch how Federer responds to a solid serve to his backhand with a drive that pushes Rafa deep, resulting in his miss. It looks like a bad miss on a routine shot by Nadal, but it is far from it. For a player used to receiving a weak return on that serve he just dished out, not getting the short ball you have come to expect for a decade can play tricks in your mind. Another example (out of many) took place on the second point of the 2-1 game in the final set. Rafa, finding himself in an unfamiliar spot on the second shot after the serve, missed the next shot again. On the 4-3 game, when Federer finally broke Nadal’s serve for the decisive lead, he came over the top of all the six backhand returns that he had to hit.

Did Federer also miss some of those returns? Of course he did, several times. But that is not the point. His adjustment led to Rafa to not being able to count on a major component of his Plan A that had, until today, been very reliable. Federer broke Nadal three times. He was 3 out of 7 on break points, which is, as you may suspect (unless you have not followed their rivalry), surprisingly high for Federer when he faces Nadal.

More importantly, beyond the numbers, standing tall is the pay-off for the hard work that Federer has put in since almost a year ago, meticulously honing a single skill. This pattern change did not “out of nowhere” take place on Sunday. Federer’s increased tendency to come over the top on the backhand returns since the 2015 season started in Brisbane, has been remarkable to anyone who was willing to notice it. I suspected that it was an essential goal that he set with his team, to focus on the aggressive drive backhand return, starting with the off-season practice in December of 2014. When I asked him, during the Istanbul Open, if that was the case, he confirmed that it indeed was. 2015 showed that he would apply it to his matches… Relentlessly…

Clay Fed IstHere he is, practicing it on clay (Istanbul Open)
Grass Fed WimbHere he is, doing it on grass, at Wimbledon (vs. Simon)
Hard Fed CincyAnd on hard courts (Cincinnati final)

He may have had to wait ten months, but this final match in Basel was the first time that his hard work and long-term planning bore fruit, in a concrete and visible manner. The numbers showed it, his growing confidence manifested it as the match progressed, and Nadal’s reactions to the returns confirmed it. It does not necessarily mean that Federer turned the corner on his rivalry with Nadal. Let’s be honest, the conditions were favorable to Federer (indoors, hard court, Basel). It does nonetheless show that even at 33 (and 34), an elite player in the ATP, can improve a specific aspect of his game, even in the long term. Tennis is indeed a sport for all ages, with room to improve, even for the most skilled player.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Djokovic vs Federer: US Open Showdown

ATP Majors No Comments

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…!

New Image 23

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.
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).

Monday at “Cincy Tennis”… Briefly…

ATP & WTA No Comments

Here is a brief summary of Monday, and I mean “brief” because the rain delay forced a late finish, with the last match between Irina-Camelia Begu and Alize Cornet just finishing moments ago, little before 1 AM. The talented Romanian took out Cornet in straight sets, 6-4 6-4.

While there were a couple of close matches, in general, Monday’s action was lackluster, with only a few matches that went to distance or provided high-quality tennis. It almost seemed like the spectators on the ground were more interested in what was happening outside the matches. Let me travel into the terrain of exaggeration and claim that more people watched Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Nick Kyrgios practice than the tournament matches (first two for obvious reasons, the third for the infamous comment directed at Wawrinka during their match last week). See below the crowds at the Nadal and Federer practices, and keep in mind that people on top are watching them practice rather than the matches on the Grandstand. During Nadal’s practice (on top), Gilles Simon and Ivo Karlovic were playing, and during Federer’s (bottom), Wimbledon finalist Garbine Muguruza was busy getting upset by Yaroslava Shvedova.

Cincy 2015 Nadal 2
Cincy 2015 Federer 1

And here is a panoramic clip view of the crowd for Federer’s practice.

That was not all. There was a man who had everything planned to propose to his companion (named Michele according to the large banner he had made that said: “Michele, will you marry me?”) during Federer’s practice! She did say “Yes,” and he insisted that Roger hears about it!

Federer finished his practice. Fabio Fognini arrived on the court (with a clean cut and shave) and began his preparation for his encounter vs. Thanasi Kokkinakis later.
Cincy 2015 Fognini 1

Fognini practiced for about 5 minutes in front a full crowd, because Federer was still on the court chatting with a youngster and Severin Luthi while getting his stuff together. When Roger left through the door on the other side, the crowd evacuated the stands so abruptly that 3 minutes later, Fabio found himself hitting in front of about 20 people. His clean look did not change his on-court personality much, as he argued with the umpire and gave fans grief during his three-set loss to Kokkinakis in the evening.

As the night settled, Roberto Bautista-Agut who is currently ranked 22, and has been within the top 20 for most of the past 12 months, walked through the grounds and the crowds to the furthest court possible (Ct. 4) to play his match, without anybody noticing him. He played a great match against Pablo Cuevas, another regular top-30 player (currently 36) who is also “anonymous” to most fans. Bautista-Agut won in straight sets, 6-3 6-4, advancing to meet Federer next, in what is guaranteed to be a more “visible” encounter on his part.

Later, Alison Riske and Elina Svitolina played on Stadium 3. The first two tightly contested sets were a pleasure to watch. At the end of 1 hour and 37 minutes (and past 11:30 PM), the score was even at one set all. The promise of a thrilling third set quickly disappeared as Svitolina ran away with the third set (6-0) in less than 30 minutes.
Cincy 2015 Svitolina

Begu and Cornet were the only ones left playing well past midnight. Tuesday has some explosive matches on the schedule. At 11 AM, there will already be three matches that promise some fireworks. On the Grandstand, two youngsters that are deemed to be an important part of the ATP’s future, Borna Coric and Alexander Zverev (both 18 years old), will battle for a spot in the second round against Stan Wawrinka. On Stadium 3, Nick Kyrgios and Richard Gasquet (remember their epic battles at Wimbledon?) will face each other. On Center Court, the in-form Sloan Stephens will do everything she can to keep the 10th seed Carla Suarez-Navarro out-of-form. Roger Federer vs. Bautista-Agut, Ana Ivanovic vs. Venus Williams, Angelique Kerber vs. Belinda Bencic, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs. Fernando Verdasco, Alexandr Dolgopolov vs. Bernard Tomic, Kevin Anderson vs. Leonardo Mayer, and Daria Gavrilova vs. Sara Errani, are some of the other notable matches scheduled for Tuesday. Bring it on!

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 (*)

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.

Djokovic

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.

Edberg Federer Wimbledon 2015 b

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!

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.”

Copyright: thesun.co.uk
Copyright: thesun.co.uk

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!

100_5835Rafa 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.

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

MENU

Navigation