Tag: Stan Wawrinka

Roland Garros 2020, Men’s 2nd Round Match Report: Wawrinka Powers through Koepfer, Stays the Course

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

This encounter between the 16th seed Stan Wawrinka and Dominik Koepfer appeared to be intriguing on paper in the sense that you had one player who tasted glory more than once in the Majors but slipped off a bit in the aftermath of his knee injury (and operation) in the late-summer of 2017, and another who has been making significant progress into the top 100 ATP since the fall of 2019, currently enjoying his highest career ranking of 61.

I was interested in seeing where Stan stood with regard to his physical shape and his form (he hadn’t played the tournaments in the US, opting to begin his post-Coronavirus season on clay in Europe), and what tactics Koepfer would tap into in order to do challenge Stan’s potent game, so I decided to settle in front of the TV and watch the match with an early morning (5 AM) pot of coffee ready to be consumed.

Wawrinka waving to the crowd after his win over Garin at Roland Garros 2019

Both players began the match somewhat subdued, although it rapidly became clear that the amount of success Wawrinka was going to have with his accelerations, and how many of those Koepfer was going to be able to get back from far behind the baseline where he seemed to hang out, would determine the outcome of at least the first set.

The first key point arrived at break point for Wawrinka when Koepfer served at 1-2. That test ended in Koepfer’s favor when Stan missed an easy forehand approach deep.

Next came Koepfer’s chance to take charge of the set when he led 0-40 on Stan’s serve in the next game at 2-2. Koepfer missed a backhand in his first break-point chance and Stan erased the second one with forehand down-the-line winner (which shaped to become his bread-and-butter shot for the first two sets, along with the inside-out one), following it up with an overhead winner at the net to get back to deuce. He saved a fourth break point at ad-out with his signature backhand down-the-line acceleration that Keopfer could not get back, and eventually survived the game.

Little did the left-handed German know at that time that he would find himself down two sets before he could get a glimpse of another break-point opportunity. Wawrinka began to steadily raise his level from that point forward. Koepfer also played into Stan’s game (and continued to do so until the third set) by not testing the one area where he could have made some inroads, his lefty forehand cross-court to Wawrinka’s backhand, preferably in the form of a high-bouncing topspin to force Stan into making contact above his shoulder level on his one-handed backhand – remember how Nadal exploited that in the French Open final in 2017. Koepfer strangely tried this only once in the set, in the first point of the 4-3 game, and Stan framed the backhand for a mistake. I am at a loss for an explanation as to why he did not resort to that pattern more.

Koepfer did not serve enough wide serves on the ad-side either, something that he usually does well with his lefty slice serve, nor did he try to kick it high to the T on the deuce side, again making Stan start the point with his least favorite shot. Instead of defending high and deep during rallies, he tried to drive balls from far behind the baseline, giving Stan the pace that he seeks in order to generate his own explosive ground strokes.

As for Stan, I know that people cannot marvel enough over his backhand – and don’t misunderstand, I like it too – but as is usually the case, it was his underrated forehand that caused most of the damage. Koepfer found himself deeper and deeper in the back of the court to scramble for the barrage of Stan’s forehand accelerations which also allowed the Swiss to successfully chip in the occasional drop shot for good measure (not so successful after the first set though, I must note).

Koepfer’s armor suffered the its first dent in the 3-4 game on his serve (you could sense this coming from the way the match was developing) when he missed two cross-court backhands in a row wide at 15-15, putting him down two break points. Stan generously contributed to his opponent’s downfall with yet another thunderous inside-in forehand to gain the conclusive lead for the set. It was over in 34 minutes, 6-3 in Stan’s favor, a solid set in which he made seven unforced errors (my count) and 10 winners.

The second set was different in the sense that I am not sure if Koepfer could have done anything to stop the Wawrinka train. The Swiss was unstoppable, putting on full display the best version of vintage “Stan the Man” that many remember from his three runs to Major titles. It was one explosive shot after another, often leaving Koepfer helplessly watching balls zip by him meters away. Stan grabbed a 4-0 lead, hitting seven clean winners off ground strokes in that stretch, along with another half dozen accelerations that the German could not get back in the court. Just to illustrate how vulnerable Koepfer must have felt, he committed only three unforced errors in the second set, but lost it 6-2, probably having something to do with his opponent hitting 13 clean winners.

Koepfer, not one to fold no matter how insurmountable a challenge he faces, kept plugging away. And this time he appeared to make a couple of modifications to his game plan. For instance, he began to unleash on returns in effort to take away Stan’s 1-2 punch, and did finally add some high and deep cross-court forehands into the mix (though still not enough in my view, but see the 3-2, 15-0 point for one example).

He survived through two break points on his first two service games thanks to a more erratic Stan making an appearance in the third set. The pendulum eventually swung his way when Stan served at 3-4 and faced a break point at 30-40. The Swiss missed an inside-out forehand winner attempt wide and Koepfer earned his first (and only) break of the match. That point was also emblematic of the third set in general. In a complete reversal of the second set, and perhaps with an assist by Koepfer’s modifications noted above, Stan struggled to find the court whenever he went for winners. When the scoreboard showed 4-3, he had already committed 15 unforced errors (finished with 18), more than in the first two sets combined. His first-serve percentage also plummeted to 55% for the set, down from 75% in the previous one.

Koepfer appeared to have sunk his teeth into the match and the contested points in the very early portion of the fourth set seemed to confirm that. Until, that is, Koepfer unexpectedly missed two routine forehands in a row deep to find himself down 15-40 in the second game. Stan seized the opportunity with another acceleration on his forehand for the break. That is all it took for Stan to recapture his form of the first two sets and race to the finish line in less than 20 minutes, with the final score showing 6-3 6-2 3-6 6-1.

The match lasted two hours and eight minutes and there were plenty of encouraging signs for Wawrinka’s fans who are longing for another stellar run from their man in a Major. I am not convinced yet, because in a match where his opponent played into his game for the most part, he still showed enough glitches to inject some doubt into his capacity to consistently perform at his top level through a best-of-five-set encounter. Don’t get me wrong, he showed that his best is still within reach, especially during the second set and most of the first and fourth sets. He will undoubtedly need to iron out the bad patches though if the much-anticipated encounter with Thiem is to occur in the fourth round.

Wawrinka faces the wild-card participant Hugo Gaston next, so as far as lovers of spectacular one-handed backhands are concerned, their dream match remains very much within the realm of possibility.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

US Open Men’s Preview: Anyone (non-Big 3) Ready to Step Forward?

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

Nuance: I am not talking only talking about “stepping forward” in the figurative sense in this piece I wrote for Tennis with an Accent on the upcoming US Open men’s competition. Can anyone get past the Big 3 and lift the trophy?

Click the link for my preview: US Open Men – Anyone Ready to Step Forward?

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Resilient Opelka Ousts Wawrinka

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

Two players entered Court no.2 at Wimbledon when the clock showed 11 AM on Wednesday. One of them was a seasoned champion, the three-time Major-winner Stan Wawrinka of Switzerland, the other was Reilly Opelka, a 21-year-old up-and-coming American who won the junior Wimbledon title in 2015, earned his first ATP title in February, and came into this year’s edition at SW19 ranked no. 63 in the world.

When the match ended 3 hours and 13 minutes later, and the American emerged victorious by the score of 7-5 3-6 4-6 6-4 8-6, you could easily make the argument that the Michigan-born youngster was the more seasoned, calculated, clutch player out of the two in what turned out to be a terrific encounter with several momentum shifts. Reilly seemed to be on the brink of losing more than once in fourth and fifth sets, had to swallow a controversial call that went against him on a crucial point in the final set, and still managed to stand tall at the end (and I mean that figuratively, although Opelka is 6’11”, joining Ivo Karlovic as the two tallest players on the ATP Tour). You expect to see that type of resilience from the veterans on the tour, when they seem to be down and out during a match but find a way to dig themselves out of holes and fabricate an avenue to the victory at the end of the day. Reilly is not a veteran by any means, but behaved like one on this day, at least in the mental department.

Court no.2 – Opelka vs Reilly

For a match that featured two big hitters (and servers), most important moments of the match were ironically decided on points that produced long rallies. Now, stop and consider the following question for a moment. Which one of these two players would you expect long rallies to favor? Unless you “inhaled,” I am guessing that your answer is Wawrinka. Logic dictates that Stan should outlast Opelka for the most part in such points.

Not necessarily. The final count on points that had 5 shots or more: 29-28 in favor of Opelka!

Not only that, Opelka was the one who out-rallied Stan on a few key points that had such rallies, and those points led to grave consequences for the Swiss – more on that below.

Take for instance, the deciding (and only) break of the first set on Wawrinka’s serve at 5-5, when Opelka had two break points at 15-40. Stan saved the first with a strong serve, but on the second, the players engaged in a baseline rally that lasted 21 shots. It was the longest one of the set by far, the only one that even went into a double-digit count. Wawrinka was the one who cracked instead of Opelka, when he sailed a forehand out in response to a well-struck shot by the American. It was representative of the set in which Opelka amazingly won six out of eight points that featured rallies of 5 shots or more. He held the next game to pocket the first set.

This awkward pattern certainly could not continue, right? Correct, it did not. After all, Stan is a polished player with a high IQ and if he needed a solution, he was going to find it. He did, by modifying his return position.

He began, and this may sound strange at first, to position himself further back on his opponent’s second serves. Significantly further back! He would wait a meter or so behind the baseline on the booming first serves of Opelka, and then, if Reilly missed the first serve, Stan would actually take several steps back for the second serve and return from almost where the linesmen stood in the back of the court (see photos below).

Wawrinka returning Opelka’s first serve
Same point as above, Wawrinka returning Opelka’s second serve

It worked, as Wawrinka began getting more returns in the court, mostly blocking Opelka’s first serves in order to get it down to the serve-and-volleyer’s feet on the first shot and pass him on the next. On Opelka’s second serve, because he was much further back, he would have enough time wind his big backswing and hit explosive returns for direct passes.

His adjustment bore fruit rapidly, as he broke Opelka’s serve at 2-1 and never looked back, equalizing the match at one set each. The same pattern continued in the third set and if you want to see an illustration of exactly why it was working so well for Stan, look no further than the 1-1 game where he broke Opelka’s serve in the third set. At deuce, Stan landed a return to Opelka’s feet, one that the American could not put back in the court. On the ensuing break point, Stan stepped back on Opelka’s second serve and hit a bazooka down-the-line return with his backhand for a clean winner past Opelka who was running to the net behind his serve. Stan was pumped, letting out a loud “KOM OOOOOON” (if you heard him yell that, you would understand why I spelled it so). His plan was working, he clearly had the upper hand in the match when he rode that break all the way to winning the third set and grabbing the two sets to one lead.

“KOM OOOOOON”

Down two sets to one and feeling the match slipping away from him, it was Opelka’s turn to find solutions. He said in his post-match press conference that Stan “was starting to return really well. He was putting a lot of balls at my feet. At first, I had a lot of success serving and volleying so I kept with that. And then as he kind of picked up on what I was doing and started reading my serve a little bit, it was more difficult for me to win points at the net. So, I had to play, played a lot of tennis on the baseline today.”

Opelka, in other words, had to resort to a tactic that would not normally classify as his A plan. This also showcases the problem-solving prowess of the American, as well as his willingness to perhaps execute a less-desirable plan if that is what it takes to turn the match around, qualities that you would usually find in seasoned competitors.

Well, this shift did not exactly make a big impact apart from taking away Stan’s targets on returns, and it is unclear how important a role it played in swinging the pendulum in Opelka’s favor, because he still struggled to hold serve, having to save three break points in his first two serving games of the fourth set. On the first one, at 15-40 in the first game, he once again won a rally from the baseline that ended with an unforced error in the net on a backhand down-the-line by Stan who would later characterize this missed opportunity as his main chance to put the match away in his post-match press conference. Opelka saved the next two break points with big first serves.

Stan, for his part, was having zero trouble holding serves, losing only three points in his first four serving games. But he did not get the break desired despite getting close as noted above. When Stan served at 4-5, 30-30, Opelka made a gutsy decision to nail the backhand return to the ad corner on Stan’s side. It landed in, the Swiss scrambled for it, but could not get it back in the court. Suddenly, Opelka had a set point. Guess what took place on that set point: a 15-shot rally. And guess in whose favor it ended: Opelka’s!

Out of nowhere, Opelka won a set that telegraphed a bad ending for him until the very last second. It was as close to the definition of “stealing a set” as it gets.

Probably still trying to recover from the unexpected turn of events, Wawrinka found himself down 1-0 in the fifth and 30-40 on his serve. It was Opelka’s chance build further steam and take the decisive lead. He got a short ball from Stan and hit a solid backhand down-the-line approach that clipped the back of the line but was called “out” by the lineswoman. Opelka challenged and Hawk-Eye showed that it was in. The point had to be replayed, which was an incredibly lucky break for Wawrinka because he was in deep trouble trying to get that ball back with Opelka approaching the net. Instead, Stan got to replay the point and won it with a 1-2 punch behind a big first serve. He held serve two points later and Opelka was left to deal with the bad break he got on that call (he was mad about it too).

But Opelka regrouped as soon as the game finished and got back to the business of holding steady on his serve, In fact, he produced his best serving performance of the match in the fifth set, recording an 86% rate on first serves (38 out of 44). So did Stan by the way, at 70% (26 out of 37). Opelka had a couple of close calls on his service games but repeatedly served his way out of trouble. Otherwise, both men kept holding and at one point it felt like we may witness the first implementation of the new “tiebreak at 12-12” rule at Wimbledon.

Opelka with 23 aces (8 in the final set)

It was not to happen because the match came to an abrupt (and frankly shocking) end when Wawrinka, serving at 6-7, made four errors in five points, three of them on routine shots.

Just like that, Opelka earned the biggest win of his career, a thoroughly deserved one for that matter.

He managed to weather the storm after the second and third sets, did not let the match slip away in the fourth, and put behind a controversial moment early in the fifth that deeply disappointed him as he alluded to it in his post-match press conference: “I played a really good point, hit a backhand down the line, on the line. He barely made it back. They called it out. I challenged it. It was in. Replayed the point. I lost. So that was tough, as well. You know, I felt like could have been a break, but…”

The youngster essentially raised to the occasion in the same manner that a seasoned champion would. Nicely done!

His next opponent is Milos Raonic on Friday, one that presents a significantly different, yet no easier, challenge than Wawrinka did on Wednesday. Not to mention, an opportunity for another career victory.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Fitting End to Alexander Zverev’s Career Week

ATP Tactical Analysis 2 Comments

On Sunday, Alexander “Sascha” Zverev outplayed the world number one Novak Djokovic in pretty much all aspects of the game and grabbed the title at the ATP Finals in London, the biggest one of the German’s career, with a 6-4 6-3 win in one hour and 20 minutes.

For a moment, I considered using, for this article, the title of my post-match analysis of Zverev’s win over Federer in the semifinals from yesterday and adding “Part II” to the end. Initially, it made sense and neatly reflected the rare feat accomplished by Sascha. This title made him the first player to defeat Federer and Djokovic (who won this tournament a combined 11 times in the last 16 years) in the same ATP Finals, as well as the first player to defeat the no.1 and 2 seeds back to back to lift the trophy since Andre Agassi did it in 1990 (source: ATP Media Info).

Then, I remembered my own insertion in yesterday’s piece that regardless of what happened in the finals, Sascha’s win over Roger was a giant step for the German that stood on its own.

And so does Sunday’s win over Novak Djokovic in the finals.

The two accomplishments should not be packaged into the same giant step as parts one and two. It is one thing to earn the biggest win of your career up to that point, and it is another to back it up the very next day with another convincing win over the number-one player in the world that propels you to your biggest title ever.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images

While Zverev’s serves, returns, and footwork may have played substantial roles in successfully countering the challenges thrown his way by Djokovic, it was ultimately the 21-year-old German’s astute baseline-pattern tactics that decisively swung the pendulum in his favor.

I believe most tennis fans will agree with me that Zverev’s most valuable (and reliable) stroke has been his backhand. In fact, I have long contended that he can out-duel any player in a backhand-to-backhand rally, whether that would be a cross-court one against a right-hander or a down-the-line one against a left-hander. And I am convinced that Sascha himself believes that he can go toe-to-toe with anyone in this particular pattern.

Would it not then behoove him to find ways to engage his opponents in such rallies, daring them to outperform him even if they possessed one of the best backhands in the world?

Such was the case against Djokovic, and Sascha came out on top in this department. In my opinion, this was the aspect that derailed the wheels of the Djokovic train and led him to a diminished performance in the second set, along with physical fatigue that slowly began to take over – that, in itself, stemming partially from mental fatigue as a result of running out of answers. In the first set, as Darren Cahill also correctly affirmed on TV, Sascha defeated a very good Novak “fair and square,” and backhand cross-court duels played a paramount role in not only that, but also in Zverev getting the decisive break in the second set.

I was interested in who would win the battle of the backhands. I believed that it was one of the only ways (not a guarantee) that Zverev could weather the storm brought on by Djokovic’s ground strokes. It was also something that I had seen in the past, someone using a similar pattern to defeat Djokovic. It took place in Roland Garros, back in 2015, when Stan Wawrinka pulled one of the best baseline-power performances I have ever witnessed on clay courts and took out Djokovic in four sets. In fact, members of Stan’s coaching team confirmed weeks later that engaging in cross-court rallies from the backhand wing was part of his strategy because it would allow Stan to occasionally accelerate down-the-line for the winner to the open court. But what interested me more was the outcome of those rallies where neither Novak nor Sascha would change the pattern.

Thus, I counted the outcome of all rallies in which Zverev and Djokovic got involved in at least four backhand cross-court shots struck in succession (in other words, two shots each). Four shots in a row was a clear indication to me that the two players were fully engaged in a cross-court backhand rally. Djokovic and Zverev played 16 such points until 4-2 in the second set. Sascha won that battle 11-5 over Novak.

Note: My numbers may be off by one, at the most two, as I was briefly interrupted from watching twice and missed a few points.

Then, I wanted to see how many of these points ended in Sascha’s or Novak’s favor when one or the other decided to change the pattern by hitting down-the-line or a drop shot. I found out that when they did, it did not necessarily benefit them. Novak was 1/4 on those, and Zverev did not fare much better at 2/5.

And what about when neither player changed the pattern, and instead, dared each other to miss first or nail the direct winner? This is where Zverev held an overwhelming 7-1 lead!

The only point won by Novak was the last point of the 2-2 game in the first set, when both players attempted to out-slice each other. It ended with Zverev hitting his into the net. But otherwise, he held a clear advantage over Novak in what is otherwise presumed to be an advantageous area for the Serbian player. It is, after all, rare that Novak is unable to out-duel his opponent on backhands. But even if that were to occur, Novak can still use his backhand down-the-line acceleration, another one of his super assets. Well, they were not enough this time to turn the tide in his favor due to above numbers, and also partially due to Zverev having a fantastic day on his forehand. He continuously landed his forehands deep, using a healthy mix of heavy topspin shots and flat swipes.

It also helped that Sascha served 88% of his first serves in – an extraordinary number for a “bazooka” first serve like his – which led to seven aces and a bunch of opportunities for Sascha to take charge on the follow-up shot. Last but not the least, and I can say this for both of his wins over the weekend, I did not see Zverev’s body language turn distinctively sour, which he has done in the past. Even after points lost on strategic mistakes or disappointing errors, I did not at any point observe Sascha “whine” extensively. He may have shaken his head, or glanced at his corner in dismay, but he moved on within seconds and got ready for the next shot. He was a mental rock throughout four sets over two days.

I must again reiterate that none of the tactic-related or stat-related elements that I mention in the last paragraph above would be enough (or even possible) if Sascha had not gained the upper hand in the baseline battles first. In establishing a dominance on the backhand-to-backhand duels, Zverev was able to kill two birds with one stone; negating one of Novak’s most reliable assets by maximizing the return on his own favorite asset.

If you are a Sascha fan, there is a lot to celebrate here. The lack of Major titles still remains in effect, but this weekend should serve to practically make the “if” question disappear to the point where the “when” question is now the only one nagging your mind. In any case, that concern can be swept under the rug until January at least. For now, enjoy the title that your player thoroughly deserved by passing one of the toughest tests in contemporary men’s tennis with flying colors.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

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

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.

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

MENU

Navigation