Tag: Stan Wawrinka

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.

Roland Garros 2015: Final Notes

ATP & WTA Majors 2 Comments

Stan the “Iron” Man

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

Tennis: Part of the Parisian Bar scene

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

Bar Tennis

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

20150607_220358

Crowds and Circulation, Never-ending Headache

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

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

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

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

Entertainment at RG

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

Line - Court 5

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

Under Chatrier rain

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

Roland Garros Musée – A Gem

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

35

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

Musee RG 7

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

Musee RG 5

Here Comes the Grass-Court Season!

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

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Stan Wawrinka’s Unstoppable 1-2 Punch

ATP Majors 8 Comments

The effectiveness of the first shot behind the first serve is an underrated statistic. First of all, it is extremely hard to keep track of it despite how easy it is to recognize when it occurs. There are many intangibles, not in the execution of the 1-2 punch itself, but on the consideration of which ones belong to the statistics’ count. Do you consider every single shot that is hit after the opponent returns the ball? Do you consider every winner on that shot when, in some of those points, it was really the serve that got the job done and earned a weak return that sat high inside the service line? What about when you hit a big serve and follow it up with even a bigger shot, yet you still end up hitting one or two more shots to finish the point although you clearly gained the advantage thanks to the serve and the next shot (example: Wawrinka serving, 4-5 in the second set, 0-15)? Do you add that to the statistic? Finally, do you give the same consideration to the shot hit behind a great second serve? These are all subjective approaches, and there are many coaches who keep a close eye on this stat depending on their expectations from their player. It is also why you rarely see the main media offer statistics on this shot.

Wawrinka is a unique case in this category due to his approach to the follow-up shot behind the serve. When he is focused and his game is ticking with the precision of a Swiss clock, he smacks the second shot of the rally following his first serve, regardless of his position in the court. If you want to see a good example of what I mean – and I am sure replays of the match will pop-up on various TV channels over the next 48 hours – watch the 40-30 point at 6-3 3-2. You will see Stan serve, and Tsonga make an above-average return that bounces close to the baseline and pushes Stan back. Yet, Stan will still go for the big forehand winner to the deuce corner (while he is backing up, mind you?), and hit the clean winner somehow. Now, this example was an extreme one, although similar points took place a number of times, both against Tsonga in the semis and Federer in the quarters. The more usual case is when the return falls short due to a powerful serve and Wawrinka simply nails the forehand to the open court or behind the opponent who is recovering from the return corner. Two prime examples are the first and the last points of the 6-3 2-1 game.

Of course, for this simple and efficient game plan to work you need a high first-serve percentage and powerful ground strokes, both of which Stan possesses in his arsenal. On a secondary level, it also helps to avoid double faults. Wawrinka did not commit a double fault until the later stages of the second set (he committed none against his third-round opponent Steve Johnson and against Federer in the quarterfinal). In fact, when Tsonga broke Wawrinka’s serve in the eighth game of the second set, that was the first time the Swiss got broken since his match against Gilles Simon, in the round of 16s. Even as Tsonga won the second set, coming up with a solution to Stan’s 1-2 punch still remained a priority. It was Wawrinka who decided to render his 1-2 punch less of a factor in the second set, by hitting only 31% of his first serves in, after 69% in the first set. In other words, one of the two key components (see the first sentence of this paragraph) of an effective 1-2 punch was missing.

In the crucial third set, Tsonga found his top-class serve that helped him win so many matches in big stages. It was not until his fourth serving game that he lost a point on a first serve. The seventh game constituted a minor turning point for Wawrinka. His serve finally came back and carried him through that game precisely when Tsonga was starting to receive a large amount of amour from the French crowd and was giving some of his own right back at them by holding his fists up. Stan knew the importance of that game and pulled two of his most animated “Come on!” yells, the first one coming after an ace served wide to the deuce side at 30-30. The 4-4 game was another crucial one. Stan’s first serve deserted him through the long game in which Tsonga first made a silly return cross-court forehand winner attempt from far outside the court at 0-30, and then, could not capitalize on two break points later in the game. The tiebreaker was inevitable.

In the tiebreaker, Stan stood tall in the string of grinding points from 1-1 to 4-3, and closed the set out by winning the next three points. When he walked to the bench two sets to one down, Tsonga probably understood how Wawrinka felt at the end of the second set and was asking himself “How did I let this set get away?” After all, the Frenchman served very well throughout the set while the Swiss remained below 50%, and had six break points (of which he converted none) while his opponent did not even garner one.

I reckon, there were many tennis fans who predicted during the third set that, considering the scorching heat in Philippe Chatrier court, the loser of that set would perhaps lose his energy, lower his level of tennis, or even fold in the fourth one. Tsonga did not exactly fold, but slowly faded away after he squandered additional break points away at 1-2 down that would have helped him get back on serve. Wawrinka held his serve for the rest of the set and triumphed, after 3 hours and 46 minutes, by the score of 6/3 6/7 7/6 6/4

At the end of the day, the main story of the match was Wawrinka’s ability to serve-and-finish (and no, that does not equate serve-and-volley) in two shots, and Tsonga’s frustrated attempts at countering that crippling disadvantage in order to find some type of equilibrium. Stan was throwing something at Jo and asking him to deal with it. Jo had two options: either deal with it, or find something else to throw back at Stan and balance the “headache” count. He could do neither. The Swiss now finds himself in his second Major final, first Roland Garros one. A big challenge awaits him, but he has shown enough in the past that he is not to be discarded when it comes to big stages in the Majors. Stan’s unique 1-2 punch helped him build his singular résumé that seems to shine during the weeks of Majors and glimmer for a large majority of the other weeks in the ATP calendar.

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates from Roland Garros

Will Roland Garros Reflect the Clay-Court Season?

ATP & WTA Majors 2 Comments

Only a retrospective look after June 7th can provide the answer to the question in the title. The clay-court season does nevertheless give valuable indications on what to expect at the 16e arrondissement of Paris once matches begin seven days from now. And then there are the intangibles, always looming on the horizon, ready to influence outcomes. On the men’s side the three-out-of-five-set format will result in awkward scores during long matches (remember for example Marcel Granollers’ upset of the in-form Alexandr Dolgopolov by the score of 1-6 3-6 6-3 6-0 6-2?). It will also and bring into question injuries and physical endurance. On the women’s side, there will be question marks on whether some players who withdrew from clay-court events in the last few weeks can sustain two weeks of high-level competition or not. One intangible for both draws will be whether some past underdogs can manage the responsibility of being favorites in a Major.

The W.T.A. side

If the head-to-head record of Maria Sharapova vs. Serena Williams were not so lopsided, one could pencil the Russian’s name in as the clear favorite. What is quite underrated is how abundantly Sharapova wins matches on clay without playing a clay-court style tennis. Her success on this surface, with a style that favors hard, flat balls, and not much change of pace, would be the main topic of many tactical studies on different surfaces (read that as “for another day”). The good news for Maria is that she earned her way to the number-two ranking during the clay-court season and will not face Serena before the finals under any circumstances. Serena would love to see Sharapova’s name in the finals if she can get there herself, but that remains in doubt due to her less-than-stellar past appearances at Roland Garros, as well as her injury-related glitches during the spring. It seems like the bigger challenge for Serena will consist of going through the earlier rounds without damage, and then maximizing her performance in the later rounds.

Yet, there are potential challengers in the draw. Carla Suarez Navarro, freshly ranked inside the top 10 for the first time in her career, has proven capable of derailing her opponents with a wide arsenal of shots and her nerves of steel. While the spotlight in a Major will be a novelty for the Spaniard, her cool-headed approach to matches, as well as her high on-court IQ level, should be enough to negate the unfamiliar position of being the favorite against the vast majority of her opponents.

Will Carla still be demoted to the outside courts after her success this year? (photo taken during Roland Garros 2014) Will Carla still be demoted to the outside courts during Roland Garros after her success this year? (photo – during Roland Garros 2014)

Simona Halep, another favorite despite having garnered no clay-court titles in 2015, will have one clearly defined goal in mind as the number three seed: make it to the semifinal and go through Sharapova or Williams, or both. After reaching the finals last year and raising the bar, Halep is one of the few players, maybe the only one other than Sharapova and Williams, who cannot leave Roland Garros satisfied unless she wins the title.

Outsiders, there are plenty. One that has not gotten any mention in the early reports is Timea Bacsinszky who has been on a tear this year. Yes, she is outside the top 20, and yes, she did get taken out by the sensational Daria Gavrilova in Rome. Past years have shown however that any player who experiences unprecedented success in the clay-court tournaments leading up to Paris can also produce an equal type of run during the two weeks. Finally, there are some familiar names who have gotten the job done at the top level during their career, but are coming into this French Open without much momentum. Svetlana Kuznetsova is a name that no favorite wants to encounter in the first week, especially on her best surface. Although their chances of winning are slim to none, Petra Kvitova can rise up to the occasion on a given day, and players such as Carolina Wozniacki, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Angelique Kerber, and Sara Errani can extract valuable miles from the legs of those favorites who wish to remain fresh for the “final four” rounds.

The A.T.P. side

2015 has anything but concretized the dominance of the Big Four (yes, capitals are necessary in this case). Or should we distinguish the invincible Novak Djokovic from the other three? If you are one of the many followers of the tennis world who choose to do so, I cannot blame you. The number one player in the world has gone undefeated in four Masters 1000 tournaments (last two on clay) and the Australian Open. He is heading into Roland Garros sporting a 22-match win streak that ironically represents only the third longest one in his spectacular career. He outclassed his two biggest rivals Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the two finals on clay, Monte-Carlo and Rome. The improvement in his game – and I can’t underline this enough – since he became number one first in 2011, is something to behold. His serve is now a weapon, his drop shots are uncanny, and in the last few weeks, has even shown remarkable progress in the weakest area of his game, the overhead.

NovakFansNovak made his fans in Indian Wells happy. Can he do the same for those in Paris?

Having said that, I am not one of those followers. I cannot separate Novak as a clear favorite from the rest of the field at the French Open, not until a player, as a winner, shakes Rafa’s hand at the net, at the end of an official French Open round match. Nadal has lost before to Djokovic during the clay-court season, only to emerge on the last day at Philippe Chatrier court, as the winner of the only Major of the year on that surface. In fact, this sequence has taken place more than once (2011 and 2014). Last year, Novak entered Roland Garros as the top seed, with a victory against Rafa in Rome, and still came up short. Nadal’s 6-0 record against Djokovic in Roland Garros (three of those in the last three years), and the fact that he lost only one match ever on the red clay of Roland Garros – yes, you read it correctly, ONLY ONE, his record is a stupefying 66-1!! – simply do not allow me to place Djokovic above the Spaniard as the clear favorite. Defeating Nadal by winning three sets against him, in a period of less than a few hours, would still be in the fantasy category for anyone if were not for that one surreal day in 2009, when Robin Soderling banged away warp-speed winners for exactly three hours and a half.

I will thus modify my version to saying that I place Nadal and Djokovic above everyone else, with Federer and Andy Murray slightly below them, followed by a few names that can go no further than possibly spoil the late-round meetings between these four. Roger Federer enters Roland Garros as the second best player of 2015, and even Andy Murray’s late form on clay cannot change that. Roger has earned that seeding, deservedly, by winning three titles, the Istanbul title on clay, and reaching the finals of two Masters 1000 tournaments. The second one of those was today on the clay courts of Foro Italico in Rome, where he was dominated by the lunar play of Djokovic. Murray for his part arrives to Paris with two titles and zero defeats on red dirt (he withdrew from Rome after winning his first match). That is an unprecedented accomplishment for the Scot who, despite often playing well on the surface prior to this year, could never earn a title on it. Yet, Murray and Federer are two of the three reasons – and the only ones in my opinion – that could stop the eventual Nadal vs. Djokovic final. The third is the much-debated seeding question.

Nadal will amazingly be seeded number seven in the very tournament that he won nine times in the last ten years. A combination of rare bad form in the first few months of 2015 and several months of injury-related absence on the ATP Tour in the second half of 2014 has led to Rafa’s lowest ranking ever at the time of Roland Garros. This means that Nadal could face any of the top four seeds as early as in the quarterfinals. The tournament organizers refused to utilize the skewed seeding system that Wimbledon does by taking into consideration the player’s success on the particular surface. Now the ideal situation for them would be that Nadal falls into Berdych’s quarters so that the possibility of semifinals consisting of the Big Four remains alive, and not to mention, likely. It would be a disaster to say the least, if Rafa goes in Novak’s quarters, meaning that by the semifinals, we are guaranteed that one of the two biggest favorites of the tournament, the very two that dominated it for the last three years, will not be present on the last weekend of the event. Rafa could also draw Murray’s quarter of the draw, in which case the next question will beckon: are they on Djokovic’s side or Federer’s side? If they are on Djokovic’s side, Berdych and Federer would rejoice (not publicly of course). If they are on Federer’s side, Federer fans may become the biggest Murray fans for one day if their man makes it to the semis and awaits the winner of Murray-Nadal. These questions will keep the minds of tennis fans, as well as experts, busy until the Main Draw is revealed on May 22nd, at which time all forms of prognostics will inundate social networks and the media.

Rafa TrophyCan Rafa do this again for the 10th time in 11 years, even as the 7th seed in the draw?

So, who could play the role of the spoiler to this Big Four party? One of them is Gaël Monfils whom the crowd could galvanize to a higher level of play. He is a name that neither Andy Murray nor Roger Federer would want to see in their quarters, although for Nadal and Djokovic, I doubt it would make much difference. There is also the loose cannon by the name of Fabio Fognini who holds two clay-court wins over Nadal this year, a feat accomplished only by Djokovic until this year. The Italian does not lack the talent to push any player to the limit on a given day, yet his seeding will likely force him to go through several gritty matches to make any major noise, and by now, everyone knows that grit is not Fabio’s forte. It would be fascinating to see him match up with Nadal for the third time on clay, and it could happen as early as the first week, considering their seeding.

Kei Nishikori remains the biggest threat to the Big 4 and the only one who could reach the final weekend without it being considered a stunning upset. Kei will need some help on the day of the draw. As a below-the-top-four seed, it is unlikely that he could go through three big names to lift the trophy on the last Sunday. The two guys on whom everyone has given up any hope of winning Roland Garros are strangely ranked 5 and 8 in the world. The problem with Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer is their miserable record against the Big 4. Yes, each has reached a Major final before (Berdych in Wimbledon 2010 and Ferrer in Roland Garros 2013) but one required a shocking upset (Berdych defeated Federer in 2010) and the other required one of the luckier draws in recent history (2013 French for Ferrer).

Milos Raonic is recovering from surgery and his participation next week is in doubt. Stan Wawrinka could give major headaches to one of the big names, but will not be more than a nuisance to the ensemble of the top favorites. Stan did oust Rafa in Rome, but that remains the one shining moment in his season since he won a title in Rotterdam in February. He is also breaking the cardinal rule for a contender in Majors by participating in a tournament taking place the week preceding a Major, the ATP Geneva event. One guy that did record two wins over Wawrinka in the clay-court season is Grigor Dimitrov. The Bulgarian has however underperformed in light of to the expectations following his successful 2014 campaign. Two Spanish players, Fernando Verdasco and Feliciano Lopez, have proven capable of winning against the best at some points in their careers, and don’t count them totally out. Gilles Simon could also make a big name feel sick in the stomach, but whether that would last more than a couple of sets remains improbable. But in any case, the above-mentioned players, outside of the Big Four, will have to catch fire, of a colossal size, to have any chance of belonging to the “active participant” category in the last few days of Roland Garros.

There are some “far-and-away” outsiders who could find their form and have career tournaments, such as Dominic Thiem, Roberto Bautista Agut, David Goffin, and Richard Gasquet – sorry dear Americans, no John Isner or Jack Sock -, but my use of the adjective “career tournaments” in this case does not point to a shocking upset of one of the Big Four members. With a bit of luck, they could march into the second week of the tournament, and at the most, could reach the quarterfinal rounds.

As for me, I am looking forward, for now, to my favorite portion of the Majors: the qualifying rounds. That is where emotions fly high, away from the scrutiny of cameras for the most part, and where the importance of winning a round often translates into career-high accomplishments, or in the case of a loss, into crushing blows. Enjoy the week, the Parisian party is near.

Note: Click here to stay tuned to MT-Desk on Twitter

Australian Open 2015, Logical Men’s Quarterfinals: Can They Materialize?

ATP No Comments

As soon as the draws were announced at the Australian Open, it did not take long for the logical quarterfinals projections to be announced by the media members and tennis experts. The process is simple: you take the two highest seeds in each quarter and assume that they will beat their opponents to eventually face each other in that section of the draw for a berth in the semifinals. Thus, on the men’s draw the line up would be the following: Novak Djokovic (1) vs. Milos Raonic (8), Stan Wawrinka (4) vs. Kei Nishikori (5), Rafael Nadal (3) vs. Tomas Berdych (7), and Roger Federer (2) vs. Andy Murray (6). While those are dream match-ups for the second week and the tournament organizers, past experience tells us that the chances of this logical outcome coming to fruition is close to zero percent. Here are my takes on each quarter section, assuming that injuries play no part in the outcome:

Top quarter: Djokovic vs. Raonic

The chances of Djokovic getting upset early are close to none. He is a consistent performer in the Majors and it usually takes a monumental effort (Rafa at the French or Wawrinka 12 months ago in Melbourne are good examples) to eliminate Djokovic in a five-set battle. He rarely gets upset by lesser opponents. While I would be interested to see the talented Swede Elias Ymer do well, get past his first two rounds (tall order as it is, and not very likely), and take the stage against the number one player in the world, Djokovic is likely to get to the round of 16s without any complication. Then, he will have a more serious test, possibly against John Isner who has given him trouble in the past in two-out-of-three-sets matches. IIsner’s section, there are also couple of intriguing names, Dominic Thiem and Laurent Lokoli, who are looking for their first breakout Major tournaments. Throw in the dangerous Roberto Bautista-Agut and the in-form Gilles Muller, you have a fantastic early-round section with players battling to face Djokovic. Nevertheless, Djokovic should get to the quarters, possibly without even losing a set. Raonic’s path to the quarterfinals is a bit more complicated, but not until the third round. Once past his first two matches, he should face someone who will challenge him, such as Lleyton Hewitt or Julien Benneteau, who have wnough experience to trouble Raonic. If he gets past that, he will have to face either Feliciano Lopez who performs well in Majors and has the experience, or Gaël Monfils whom everyone fears except Nadal and Djokovic. Chances of Djokovic and Raonic meeting in the quarters: around 70%.

2nd quarter: Stan Wawrinka vs. Kei Nishikori

The big question here is “which Wawrinka will show up?” If it is the one from last year’s Australian Open or Wimbledon, look for him to steamroll his way to the quarterfinals. One player floating dangerously that nobody has heard of: Marius Copil. If he faces Wawrinka in the second round, it should be entertaining, providing that Copil does not melt under the “my-first-Major-appearance” syndrome. I do not see how Fognini, Dolgopolov, or anyone else in the third round, including Guillermo Garcia-Lopez who beat him in Paris, can stop Wawrinka. At first glance, Nishikori’s draw looks tough, but it could turn out to be a cakewalk. Nicolas Almagro would be one of the last players any seeded player cares to play in the first round, except that Almagro has not played an ATP match since Wimbledon due to a foot injury. I personally like Santiago Giraldo and Steve Johnson but I believe they are good match-up for Nishikori who can do everything they do, but a bit better. In the round of 16s, he will face the usually dangerous David Ferrer or Gilles Simon. I use the word “usually” seriously because in 2014, Ferrer was not the Ferrer that we are used to seeing for the last eight years, and Gilles Simon has battled injuries lately. I am looking for Nishikori to make it to the quarters easier than expected. Chances of Wawrinka and Nishikori meeting in the quarters: around 85%.

3rd quarter: Nadal vs. Berdych

Considering that he is not coming into the tournament on a high note, Nadal could not have asked for a better draw. Unlike Federer and Wawrinka, Nadal (like Djokovic) has the ability start a tournament on third gear, and eventually pull it to the fifth gear by the time the second week comes around. And all the names that could have given the Spaniard trouble in the early rounds are dispersed elsewhere. Don’t be fooled by some crazy upset pickers, his first round opponent Mikhail Youzhny is a shadow of his former self. The one name that stands out in his potential early-round opponents is Lukas Rosol. But this is not grass; it’s rather a slow version of hard courts. Does either Richard Gasquet or Kevin Anderson have a chance against Nadal if they play in the round of 16s? Anderson, small chance… Gasquet, none! In contrast to Nadal, Berdych has one of the hardest roads to travel in orderto reach the quarterfinals. Jurgen Melzer, his possible second-round opponent, has too much game and experience to be intimidated by neither Berdych nor a Major tournament atmosphere. Then, he will face Leonardo Mayer, Jiri Vesely, or Viktor Troicki, who are all able to cause an upset, and hungry for victories in the big stage. Even if he makes it through the first three rounds, Berdych will then have to take on a solid player such as Philipp Kohlschreiber (the last guy to get intimidated when playing a seeded player), Sam Groth (dangerous serve-and-volleyer who keeps improving steadily), or Ernest Gulbis (maybe the biggest loose cannon in the draw who can beat anybody depending on which side of the bed he wakes up that morning). Chances of Nadal and Berdych meeting in the quarters: around 60%.

4th quarter: Federer vs. Murray

Federer’s potential early-round opponents are composed of some solid names on the tour, but none good enough to cause a remarkable upset in a Major. Jeremy Chardy, Simone Bolelli, Borna Coric, Juan Monaco, Andres Seppi, Denis Istomin, can all beat a higher seeded player in any other ATP tournament (and have), or even take a set of a top player in a Major, but do not stand a chance to topple a top four seed here. Ivo Karlovic could be a dangerous fourth round opponent, but Federer seems to know how to deal with big servers, and Tommy Robredo (another potential fourth round opponent) defeating Federer in a Major will only happen once (2013 US Open). I can see Federer playing a few tiebreakers, or even losing a set (or sets) but do not see him losing prior to the quarterfinals. Andy Murray’s side has a couple of loose cannons in Marinko Matosevis and Martin Klizan who can be nightmares on the court. And yet, this is precisely what Murray needs, in order to be ready to face either Grigor Dimitrov, or David Goffin, or Dustin Brown (speaking of loose cannons), or Marcos Baghdatis, or Teymuraz Gabashvili in the fourth round. Yes, any of those can make it to the fourth round; this is by far the most contested section of the men’s draw. Again, Murray needs these tests to have a chance against Federer in the quarters, because he, like Djokovic and Nadal, can play himself into form as the tournament progresses. Chances of Federer and Murray meeting each other in the quarters: around 75%.

And now, it’s time to enjoy the first Major of 2015!

Follow MT-Desk on Tweeter throughout the tournament: @MertovsTDesk

In Defense of Arnaud Clément

ATP 2 Comments

The big "Salad Bowl" sitting pretty in Biel, Switzerland
The big “Salad Bowl” sitting pretty in Biel, Switzerland
For a few days, following the French’s devastating (at least from their perspective) defeat at the hands of the Swiss team in the finals of the Davis Cup campaign, Arnaud Clément, the captain of the French team, experienced what most losing Davis Cup captains go through in such periods: suffer the wrath of retrospectively enlightened critics who seem to know better, the angry fans who are looking for a victim to blame, and anyone (and everyone) who claims that they would have known what to do, had they been in his shoes. While the irresistible art of “armchairing” gripped those who believed – in the after-math of course – that Clément made the wrong decisions, anyone with a rational approach to the ins and outs of the developments leading up to, and through, the final weekend, should be able to see that his choices were not the wrong at the time that he had to make them.

The first challenge that faced Clément was to nominate four players that were to represent the French team against the Swiss. He had an accomplished doubles team composed of Julien Benneteau and Édouard Roger-Vasselin, the winners of the 2014 Roland Garros title. Had he picked them, he would have had to leave out two of the following players out of the team: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gilles Simon, Gaël Monfils, and Richard Gasquet. Furthermore, his head would have been hanging at the Place de la Concorde even before the weekend was over, had one of the two singles players that he picked got injured on Friday, and was substituted by one of the doubles players on Sunday, leading to an almost-guaranteed loss. He did what any reasonable coach would do. Unless you have an extraordinary doubles team, such as the Bryan brothers of the U.S.A., you go with your strong singles players who could collect four out of the five points that you need to win the tie, and hope that two of them can combine to provide a solid doubles effort.

Out of the four strong singles players mentioned above, two of them could also play doubles: Gasquet and Tsonga. In fact, they won a crucial doubles match against a formidable Tomas Berdych – Radek Stepanek in Davis Cup when they played the Czech team, and did reach the quarterfinals of the Toronto Masters 1000 having beaten a respectable Laender Paes – Stepanek team, only to withdraw in the quarterfinals. In contrast, Simon and Monfils are singles players. Clément wanted one doubles specialist on the team and he took Benneteau, a sensible choice. It is also reasonable that he picked the two singles players that could also play doubles, and chose only one out of the two other players who could play singles. Calm down Simon fans (and I happen to be one myself), but on clay, Clément’s choice to pick Monfils over your guy was completely understandable and justified.

Friday ended with a 1-1 tie, and displayed a version of Federer that represented a level situated somewhere between “terrible” and “mediocre” compared to his real one. None of the after-the-fact armchair experts could have predicted that Federer’s level would rise in the following 48 hours faster than the Enterprise accelerated from ¼ impulse drive to Warp Speed nine. Most believed that Tsonga and Gasquet would triumph over Wawrinka and Federer, and that is, if Federer played doubles in his limited condition.

However, on Friday two things happened that were completely outside the control of either captain. First, Tsonga injured his wrist which caused him to withdraw, by his own request, from the doubles. Second, Federer played through his match against Monfils with no pain in his back, and although he got crushed by the Frenchman, he was unusually upbeat about the rest of the weekend. Clément once again made the only reasonable decision: replace Tsonga with Benneteau, and thus, put his two best doubles players on the court. Gasquet and Benneteau did not play bad, but Wawrinka and Federer played the kind of sensational doubles that they have not played since their run to the gold metal back in 2008 Olympic Games. Three sets later, Switzerland took a 2-1 lead in the tie, and everything went from bad to worst on Sunday when Federer put up one of his better clay-court performances in the last few years, running Gasquet around and finishing the points with remarkable shot-making skills.

Just like that, the Swiss won the Davis Cup, and the Statlers and Waldorfs of the world came out in numbers, ready to guillotine Clément. Yet, once again, Clément’s choices were not only the most reasonable ones to make, but as seen above, the only ones he could make in certain cases. It was one of the most unfortunate weekends for a Davis Cup captain that I have ever witnessed, because it contained every twist needed to transform it into the “festival of blame” that followed the next few days in the French tennis circles.

Unfortunately for Clément, if someone wanted to write a script to make him look bad at the end of the day, they could not have done a better job. First, the controversy surrounding the Swiss team, involving the Wawrinka-Mirka malaise on the preceding weekend in London, followed by the unexpected injury of Federer that caused him to withdraw from the finals against Novak Djokovic, made the Swiss team look beatable and demoralized, thus giving the impression that the French had the psychological upper hand. Second, the fact that the French had two weeks of preparation on clay, versus the less-than-a-week preparation time for the Swiss, not to mention that Federer had a total of one hour and twenty minutes of total practice time before Friday’s first match, added to the impression that the French had all the necessary elements tilted to their advantage. Last, the aura of having a team composed of Monfils, Tsonga, and Gasquet, that has never lost at home, firmly put the French in the favorite category in the perceptions of many, although reality was the opposite, at least on paper. These factors combined to create a firm belief by the French that losing to Switzerland on that particular weekend in Lille would be considered nothing less than a debacle. Clément ended up in the position of a captain who would either be doing only what was expected had France won, or face the prospect of being profiled as a failure in the case of a loss. Unfortunately for him, the latter took place.

Fortunately for him, however, the French Tennis Federation recently consulted the players, and they stood tall behind Clément, ensuring that he retains his captaincy. Today, The French Tennis Federation confirmed that Clément will continue to serve as the captain, for at least two more years. It must be a relief to the ex-Australian Open finalist, knowing that over the weekend, Yannick Noah expressed his disappointment over the loss and explicitly verbalized his interest to become the captain if given the opportunity. Clement did not take that lightly and struck back at Noah with criticism of his own, saying that he takes the 1983 Roland Garros champion’s words as an attack against him, and that things in reality are not the same as they may have appeared to Noah on the TV screen. Personally, I am a big fan of Yannick Noah, and he has already proven to be an astute Davis Cup captain in the past (remember 1991 and his decision to play Henri Leconte in singles). Yet, I can’t help but agree with the players in Clément’s case, and disagree with the members of the “armchair crew,” including Noah, who have the luxury to speak in retrospect unlike the captain.

Clément did carry them to the finals and the French need to understand that for one weekend in November, they faced a Swiss team that had superior skills and better level of quality in their tennis than they did. Donned with the number two and four players in the world, and one of the most underrated coaches in tennis (Severin Lüthi), the Swiss lived up to their potential under very difficult circumstances. Considering Wawrinka’s form and Federer’s quick recovery, followed by his excellent level of play on Saturday and Sunday, I am not sure if Clément would have coached his team to victory, even under the best of circumstances. Davis Cup captains sometimes do commit mistakes and fail, and even deserve to be fired in extreme circumstances. But the loss against Switzerland two weekends ago was not one of those cases. Clément should rightfully remain in his position and deservedly get another chance to lead his team in 2015.

Fed-WawLittle did Federer & Wawrinka know on May 23rd, during this early morning practice on Philippe Chatrier court, that exactly six months from that day, they would be lifting the Davis Cup trophy together!

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

MENU

Navigation