Category: ATP & WTA

Australian Open 3rd Round Match Report: Two Matches, Two Lessons

Félix Auger-Aliassime (20) def. Denis Shapovalov (11) 7-5 7-5 6-3
Quality Plan A, recognition, poise!

I always underline the value of drawing up a good game plan before players step on the court, so I cannot help but wish I were a fly on the wall and listened in as Félix Auger-Aliassime and his team plotted the nuts and bolts of his strategy earlier on Friday over his upcoming match against his compatriot Denis Shapovalov.

Félix’s impeccable tactics led the way to earning him one of the most impressive wins of his career, a 7-5 7-5 6-3 victory over Denis, in a match that not only showcased his brilliant talent, but also his poise between the ears.

The first two sets were alike, with Denis going ahead by an early break, but Félix coming back to win each set 7-5. More than how the scoreline progressed, it’s rather the way in which Félix navigated the highs and lows at various points of the match and remained loyal to his working plan that proved top-notch. The latter consisted of sending the returns and the second shot in rallies deep, while avoiding taking unnecessary risks (read: not going for the lines, just deep to the middle of the court). The idea, I presume, was to establish early an equal footing in baseline rallies, goading his opponent into hitting riskier shots to end the point. Obviously, Denis was more likely to accelerate for the winner or at least control the point to squeeze an opportunity to come to the net rather than engage on long rallies. The longer the rallies went, the more time Denis spent behind the baseline, the better were the chances of Félix earning free points or get his own chance to finish the point.

To be fair, Shapovalov is a favorable match up, in my view, for Auger-Aliassime who has been frustrated in the past by players who count on consistency and keep a steady flow of deep balls coming back at him, thus not allowing Félix to dictate rallies (see this match report from 2020 Roland Garros for more on this). Shapovalov is not that type of player. He prefers to attempt winners from behind the baseline, make or miss, before most rallies reach 12 or 13 shots. I gather that Félix’s plan counted on him keeping the balls deep, not going for the lines too early, but still taking his chances when the opportunity presented itself (after all, it’s not like Félix is a “defensive” player either). It worked to perfection.

Auger-Aliassime seemed to recognize his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and that it was not going to be a perfect match from the first point to the last, even if he gets the lead in the scoreboard. Remaining focused on the task was the key to his success. Anyone who closely observed his body language throughout the match would probably agree that he passed the “focus” test with flying colors. He was tuned in, never showing exaggerated emotions, always keeping eyes on the ball, on his racket, or on the court.

The only bad patch for Félix took place early in the second set. With him leading 1-0, and 0-30 on Shapovalov’s serve, he had a chance to run away with the second set because Denis was just coming off a badly lost point at the end of which he went on a rant to his box and looked quite lost. Instead, Auger-Aliassime committed two unforced errors in a row to allow his opponent back into the game and reenter the match mentally. Denis took advantage with conviction, going on a positive stretch, lading a lot of returns in the court and putting some serious heat on his groundies to roll to a 4-2 lead (Félix’s two missed approach shots in the 2-2 game also played a role).

The reality is, as much as people constantly refer to both Shapovalov and Auger-Aliassime as “youngsters” and speak of their “growing pains,” these guys are, frankly, way beyond their ages in terms of maturity. They are not fragile youngsters like many other 20 and 21-year-olds. And in my view, they handle themselves well in the face of adversity during matches and know to evaluate matches with clarity. I would advise the casual tennis fan to listen to podcasts featuring either of these two “up-and-comers” or catch one of their post-match press conferences to witness for themselves the coherence of their thought process.

The above is a central part of the reason why, for example, Shapovalov knew to take advantage of Félix’s momentary blink at 0-1, 0-30 down, and it’s also why Auger-Aliassime did not fall apart after finding himself down 4-2 instead of running away with the set 15 minutes earlier. Auger-Aliassime’s body language looked no different at that point than it did earlier when he had the lead. Equally, watch Denis at 4-5 in the second set, how well he plays that game to stay in the set under pressure, shaking off the disappointment of losing the break minutes ago and finding himself in a position to hold, just to survive.

It was Auger-Aliassime finally ripping the 12th game away from Shapovalov to go up by two sets, rather than Denis giving it away. Félix, sticking to his plan, hit multiple returns back in the court deep, including in the last two points (his return on set point to the corner was exceptional, the more typical return he hit most of the match was in the point before at 30-30).

Auger-Aliassime’s gameplan reduced Shapovalov’s chances of winning points to mainly hitting great first serves or producing non-stop winners (read: taking more risks, even by his own standards). Needless to say, that is a big ask against a player as fast as Félix. Denis did not quit by any means but Félix, overflowing with confidence, was by then stroking freely and hardly making any errors. The way he protected the early break lead and shut the curtains on Shapovalov with four terrific serves served as an apt summary of the match.

The Canadian’s next-round opponent is Aslan Karatsev. It’s another opponent against whom Auger-Aliassime will not have to resort to long rallies, so a similar game plan may possibly work again. Except… have you watched Karatsev?** He can nail winners from anywhere on the court but don’t take my word for it. Watch the replay of his matches this week, especially how helpless he made Schwartzman look at times even though the Argentine is one of the better baseliners in the game.

** Popular question, it seems, all of a sudden.

Remember when Yannick Noah entered the court to console a very young Auger-Aliassime in 2016 following his heartbreaking loss to Geoffrey Blancaneaux in the finals of Roland Garros juniors?

Karolina Muchova (25) def. Karolina Muchova (6) 7-5 7-5
Scoreboard and self-awareness!

Considering their last thriller at Wimbledon in 2019 (13-11 in the final set), this match between two friends who know each other’s game like the back of their hands promised much intrigue. In the first set, neither player put out high-quality performances (Muchova admitted after the match that she came out nervous and thought that maybe her opponent did too). It was a patchy set, with good and bad moments. The difference was on serves, with Muchova giving a clinic on clutch first serves in the latter part of the set, starting with the break point save at 3-4, 30-40. Pliskova, for her part, was not getting the free points from her serves like she usually does and sputtered five double faults, the last one coming on break point down at 5-5.

Pliskova was frustrated and took it out on her rackets, smashing one in the 5-6 game, and another one in the tunnel when she took a break before the start of the second set. That put her down 0-15 to start the second set on a point penalty. Note: I admit, I had no idea that you could be penalized for racket abuse in the tunnel, away from the court. The official who accompanied her reported the infraction to the chair umpire who announced it and slapped the point penalty. Pliskova thought she could “do what [I] want off court.” Apparently not!

Perhaps, that helped her shake the negative vibes out, because she came out smashing her baseline shots, and more importantly, suddenly reading Muchova’s serves like an open book. At one point, Muchova’s points won on second serves dipped to the 20% range and she was not faring much better on her first serves. Pliskova, on a roll, overpowered her way to a 5-0 lead.

Lesson time here…With Karolina Muchova as your instructor…

Muchova came out of the 0-5 break sprinting to the baseline for the first point, as if she were getting ready to play a decisive tiebreaker. After she won the first point, she made a big fist pump, acting as if she got the mini-break lead in that tiebreaker. Why so pumped up out of nowhere at 0-5 down? I am fairly certain that it was not necessarily because she firmly believed, at that point, in her chances to come back from 0-5 down and win the set.

It was rather because she understood the importance of starting the third set with her serve, thus the urgency to hold for 1-5. And if she happened to win the next game to get one break back, that much better. It would mean that she clawed her way back into the match game-wise – and mentally – and be primed for the third, even if she were to lose the second set.

Well, she did indeed get the break and hold for 3-5, and more. So, in retrospect, what may have appeared an exaggerated display of emotional positivity considering the 0-5 score not only served its purpose – halting Pliskova’s roll on the scoreboard and dominance in rally patterns –, but also led to perhaps the most riveting comeback in a set in this tournament so far.

By the time Muchova got in position to level the set at 5-5 on her serve, she was dialed in, pulling off stellar shots on big points. Case in point number one, Pliskova had a last glimmer of hope to close the set out at 4-5, 30-40 on Muchova’s serve, and Muchova erased it with high-velocity first serve to the “T.” Case in point number two at 5-5, with Pliskova serving at 40-30, Muchova showed her underrated footwork to reach Pliskova’s drop shot and placed a sharp-angled placement shot on the full run (this is harder to do than she made it look, easier to rip one on the full run than “caressing” the ball to place it).

Muchova broke her opponent’s serve and held to end the match. The last two games were contested and while Muchova missed a couple of makeable approach shots, she more than made up for it with her anticipation on returns, winner production, and overall aggressive play (propelled by confidence originating in that 0-5 game). The rally patterns late in the set were the reverse of those seen in the first five games with Muchova being the aggressor this time.

She will next face the winner of the match between Belinda Bencic and Elise Mertens.

Note: For those interested, you can also find my match report on Muchova’s previous-round win over Mona Berthel by clicking here.

Muchova at the Australian Open 2020 — Photo: Getty Images, AsiaPac

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Roland Garros & Wimbledon Retro Podcasts

There has been no tennis since the break of Coronavirus but you can listen to four podcasts on Tennis with an Accent, with me as a guest with hosts Saqib Al and Matt Zemek, in which we took a retro approach to both Majors. Below are the links and synopses.

Roland Garros Podcasts

1) For Roland Garros, we “time-traveled” back to the Monday after the 1991 men’s tournament (meaning we do not know what the future may bring at that point, ha!) that saw Andre Agassi defeat Jim Courier in the final. We examined that final, along with the important events of the two weeks:

Men’s Tournament – Roland Garros 1991 Time-Travel

2) In our second Roland Garros podcast, the conversation focuses on the type of game that is suited to succeed on the clay of Roland Garros. Saqib and I delve into the evolution of classic styles from a pure baseliner to attacking players. Seles vs Graf battles from the 90’s are used as illustrations on how the playing trends kept evolving even from the baseline. Some iconic finals such as Lendl vs. McEnroe, Evert vs. Navratilova, and Courier vs Bruguera, among others, are covered. A lot of details are packed in this one.

Roland Garros Classic – Game trends, iconic matches, and more

Wimbledon Podcasts

1) 2006 Wimbledon – Time-Travel episode. Once again, Saqib and I beam back to the Monday after the 2006 men’s tournament and look back in detail to the first Federer vs. Nadal final on the grass courts of Wimbledon. We weigh in on the turn-around moments of the match and discuss its importance in the launching of the the rivalry (Nadal came in with a 6-1 lead in the head-to-head count). This also happened to be Andre Agassi’s last championships. We discuss his Wimbledon career in depth and where does he rank with some of the modern greats of the game. Plus, we talk about the potential up-and-comers (at the time) who performed well in the tournaments. Some names will be very familiar with today’s tennis fan.

Men’s Tournament – Wimbledon 2006 Time-Travel

2) I join Matt Zemek to chronicle women’s tennis at Wimbledon from the start of the Open Era in 1968 through the 1990s. Playing styles, surface speeds, racquet technology, and other changes over the course of Wimbledon history are weighed and evaluated in this study of women’s tennis at the All-England Club. The Martina Navratilova-Chris Evert rivalry is a natural centerpiece of this discussion, but don’t forget about Margaret Court versus Billie Jean King in the early 1970s, or Steffi Graf versus multiple challengers in the 1990s, and the 2000s with Venus Williams taking the spotlight. Many players mentioned and notes discussed on the tournament’s evolution.

Wimbledon Women’s Open Era Revisited

Note: The above podcasts and all other Tennis with an Accent podcasts are also available on Apple and Google Podcasts.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Who Will Be No. 1 and 2 in Men and Women in Four Years? – Second Edition

At the end of the U.S. Open in 2015, I posted an update in which I asked friends, followers, and people on social media to guess who would be the number 1 and 2 players in men and women in exactly four years. The results are in. Few people correctly guessed the no. 1 player in the ATP – Novak Djokovic – and one person, the no. 2 – Rafael Nadal (the only time Nadal’s name was written in!)

On the women’s side, nobody correctly picked the no. 1 player but a couple of people correctly guessed the no. 2 player – Karolina Pliskova. Many guessed Simona Halep and Madison Keys at either 1 or 2. Simona now stands at no. 6 and Madison at no. 19. Best predictions came from @bestennispicks who picked Djokovic and Federer at 1 and 2 (they are 2 and 3) and Serena Williams and Karolina Pliskova at 1 and 2 (they are 9 and 6).

Most people blew it though, to be blunt, like I did – none of the four players I picked are now in the top two, two of the four are outside the top 20!

In any case, this was fun !!! Let’s do another one. Who are your picks for no. 1 and 2 in men’s and women’s rankings in 2023, at the end of the U.S. Open?

Please share this page on social media so we get a large pool of picks and we can have fun with it four years later. All entries are listed below.

Reply with your picks to my post on Twitter or use the message space below, or send me an email: mertov (at) mertovstennisdesk (dot) com. I will collect all the picks and list them below in the next week or two.

Good luck !!

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Latest list of brave souls and their picks 🙂
(no more entries allowed)

Mert @mertovstdesk
WTA: (1) Halep (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Hurkacz

Enrico @enricomariariva
WTA: (1) Coco Gauff (2) Iga Swiatek
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Tsitsipas

Pablo @pablomosquera_
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (3) Jannik Sinner

Fraser @fraser_caldwell
WTA: (1) Barty (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Berrettini

Jacco @downthelineblog
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Bencic
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Djokovic

Alp @alpos
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Zverev

Euler @eulerisapimp
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Djokovic

Ramazan @gregorramza
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Svitolina
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Tsitsipas

Deniz @dogruer_deniz
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Bencic
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Tiafoe

Saqib @saqiba
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Auger-Aliassime

El Zorres @elzorres9
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Swiatek
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Sinner

Can @can_aklinizi
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Auger-Aliassime

Mustafa @MMSevim13
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Shapovalov

Jess @jesslakei
WTA: (1) Sabalenka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Zverev

Krishna @krishnafree
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Yastremska
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Auger-Aliassime

Nihad @nicologiic
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Bencic
ATP: (1) Nadal (2) Medvedev

Benjamin @benj_tucker
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Medvedev

@angel12mruiz
WTA: (1) Wozniacki (2) Vondrousova
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Mikaela @mikaelatennis
WTA: (1) Federer (2) Nadal
ATP: (1) Serena (2) Venus

Hamze @mayuhayu9
WTA: (1) Anisimova (2) Kenin
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Shapovalov

@forehandslice
WTA: (1) Barty (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Tsitsipas

@overdosechimera
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Felix

Brian @BCDWrites
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Maru @AdvFed
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Vekic
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Auger-Aliassime

Alex @hkewell_fan
WTA: (1) Gauff (2) Barty
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Nadal

Kevin (replies below)
WTA: (1) Kenin (2) Sabalenka
ATP: (1) Fritz (2) Opelka

Ryan @RybotCalbearo
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Thiem

Melissa @sashaysashay
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Barty
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Tsitsipas

Neil @DPUNeil
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Barty
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Auger-Aliassime

Omar @omarcanuck
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Sinner (2) Medvedev

Nadir @Ndr_Nadir_
WTA: (1) Anisimova (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Khachanov

@k1ingkyrgios
WTA: (1) Sabalenka (2) Konjuh
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Nadal

Renato @renato3089
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Munar

@SpreadAstaire
WTA: (1) Ostapenko (2) Kasatkina
ATP: (1) Opelka (2) Auger-Aliassime

@somnolantik
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Medvedev

@namodarling2019
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Medvedev

@TennisReviewFct
WTA: (1) Q. Wang (2) Townsend
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Djokovic

David @davidihughes
WTA: (1) Anisimova (2) Sabalenka
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Tsitsipas

Jared @JaredPineTennis
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Khachanov (2) Thiem

Bailey (replies below)
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Medvedev

Kibils (replies below)
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Bublik

@IamPammieWammie
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Tsitsipas

DomiNos @ulTHIEMmatefan
WTA: (1) Keys (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Djokovic

Arif @arifsahin1
WTA: (1) Anisimova (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Susie @pandsreid
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Barty
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Thiem

Ardeal @UnArdeal
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Kenin
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Stefano @carretero77
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Sinner

15lovetennis @15lovetennis
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Tsitsipas

Joan @Joanmassepulcre
WTA: (1) Anisimova (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Thiem

Eda @EdaTalksTennis
WTA: (1) Gauff (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Medvedev

Alper @ayemalperovic
WTA: (1) Potapova (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Shapovalov (2) Auger-Aliassime

Nawal @NawalNadal
WTA: (1) Halep (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Zverev

Kieran @NZKieran
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Nadal

Samir @samirvd
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Pliskova
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Djokovic

Donpova @TennisAddictDon
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Djokovic

Jan @JanDeBakker
WTA: (1) Clijsters (2) Serena
ATP: (1) Federer (2) Nadal

Sagar @Sagarerr
WTA: (1) Bencic (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Medvedev

Erik @erktennis
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Thiem

Rob @rawbdesj
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Barty
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Medvedev

@shots_drop
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Muguruza
ATP: (1) Nishikori (2) Medvedev

Diego @DiegoMB27
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Bencic
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Tsitsipas

Jovica @YoungTennisGuns
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Zverev

Krasimir @lobdowntheline
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) McNally
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Mert @mmertyazici
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Anne @brooklynpeach
WTA: (1) Gauff (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Aguer-Aliassime

Tucker @TuckerBlanc
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Barty
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Tsitsipas

Samet @SametOzcalkap
WTA: (1) Vondrousova (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Medvedev

Gencay @Gencayogeturk
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Auger-Aliassime

Kaan @kaansnprlk
WTA: (1) Sakkari (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Nadal

@TurkishMommy
WTA: (1) Serena (2) Venus
ATP: (1) Federer (2) Nadal

Vickesh @Vickesh
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Auger-Aliassime

Dogukan @dogukandilber
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Medvedev

Muzaffer @MuzafferAcik
WTA: (1) Swiatek (2) Sabalenka
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Thiem

@Wowbad2
WTA: (1) Barty (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Opelka

@5stepsfwd4back
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Sinner

@j8tennis
WTA: (1) Bencic (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Thiem

@cal1tennisR
WTA: (1) Anisimova (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Nadal

@1verkehrsunnfall
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Thiem

Onur @onurakmeric
WTA: (1) Gauff (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Nadal

Ece @echobella
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Nadal

@ecoatanasov
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Yastremska
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Nadal

Gokalp @gokotaskes
WTA: (1) Gauff (2) Kenin
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) Sinner

Mustafa @MustafaYBozkurt
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Khachanov (2) Thiem

Paul @PaulT_Tennis
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Lopatetska
ATP: (1) Auger-Aliassime (2) Medvedev

Alejan @AlejanMilos
WTA: (1) Zverev (2) Medvedev
ATP: (1) Anisimova (2) Andreescu

Ceyda @Ceydasancar
WTA: (1) Halep (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Auger-Aliassime

Adrian @Adrianeltete
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Bencic
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Auger-Aliassime

Cemil @derecdere
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Kenin
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Auger-Aliassime

@ostaplosion
WTA: (1) Ostapenko (2) Yastremska
ATP: (1) Medvedev (2) Zverev

@Coach4Tennis
WTA: (1) Garcia (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Khachanov (2) Berrettini

Divyanshu @tweetsbydivyu
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Tsitsipas

Rabia @Rabia91465583
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Nadal (2) Djokovic

Hasan @hasantenis
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Medvedev

Jonathan @jonnyboy613
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Osaka
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Baez

Stephen @Stephen_Greig
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Zverev (2) Djokovic

@k1ngkkyrgioss
WTA: (1) Sabalenka (2) Kvitova
ATP: (1) Djokovic (2) O’Connell

Tom @ETFroggy
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) Khachanov (2) Medvedev

Andrea @andrea_fede1
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Zverev

Ramesh @zbrain
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Anisimova
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Khachanov

@aussietennistr1
WTA: (1) Sabalenka (2) Andreescu
ATP: (1) De Minaur (2) Kyrgios

Charles-Louis (replies below)
WTA: (1) Osaka (2) Gauff
ATP: (1) Thiem (2) Zverev

@swaroop1232008
WTA: (1) Andreescu (2) Halep
ATP: (1) Tsitsipas (2) Thiem

Australian Open: A Look Ahead to Two Tuesday Quarterfinals

Here are my thoughts on a couple of quarterfinal matches, one from each draw, scheduled for Tuesday in Melbourne. At the end of each, I take a shot at predicting the outcome, and I should emphasize that they should not be taken too seriously. I don’t need to remind you of, among others, Collins vs. Kerber and Anisimova vs. Sabalenka in the women’s draw, and Tiafoe vs. Anderson and Tsitsipas vs. Federer in the men’s, do I?

Petra Kvitova (8) vs Ashleigh Barty (15)

My pre-tournament pick Kvitova is marching on in an even more dominating fashion than I expected. One can claim that she’s had a more ‘convenient’ draw, so to speak, than some other quarterfinalists, but whether that claim holds water considering the depth and unpredictability of the women’s field, or whether it justifies the manner in which Kvitova has been flooring her opponents until now, is another story.

There are couple of match-up aspects that swing the pendulum in Petra’s favor. Her lefty serves, especially the ones that slide wide to the ad side, and the fact that she is likely to work the corners of the court during rallies, thus not allowing Barty to take charge from the middle of the court, are couple of problems that the Australian will need to solve. Petra’s serve to the backhand will especially be tough for Barty because she may have no other option but to float one-handed backhand-slice returns back to the middle of the court, and prepare herself as quick as possible, to chase the next strike by Petra. That sounds to me like the kind of pattern that the Czech player would gladly jot down on every page were she in full charge of the scenario. It may sound like a reductive slogan but Kvitova could earn the win with a simple “strike first” stratagem from the baseline, one that already exists in the core tenet of her preferred style of play. I also expect her to include the occasional drop shot in her game plan, for better or worse.

Photo: Scott Barbour — Getty Images AsiaPac

If Barty manages to have a good day on her first serves, her horizons turn much brighter. In their entertaining encounter from earlier this year in Sydney (Kvitova won 1-6 7-5 7-6), Barty came very close to victory, ending with more points won in total than her opponent, I thought her inability to land her first serve in on a few key points was one of the factors that played a role in the final score. She finished the match with a 60% first-serve rate.

So far in Malbourne, she has fared slightly above that, but not by much, recording 65% – 61% – 68% – 60% respectively against Kumkhum, Wang, Sakkari, and Sharapova. If she can rise beyond her average so far and climb to a 70% or above first-serve percentage, the problem-solving task may shift over to Petra’s shoulders. It’s not just a number in Barty’s case, because its ramifications not only matter to the number of free points she may collect on the missed returns or aces, but also to her ability to confine Kvitova to the area behind the baseline, forcing her into a defensive mindset for an extended number of points. Hopefully for Ashleigh, those periods in the match will be long enough to derail the Czech’s attacking groove so that some degree of hesitation may materialize in Petra’s mind and carry over to her own serving games.

I would also not be surprised to see Barty approach the net as much as possible, all the while accepting that some fierce passing shots could zoom by her at the net. To some degree, that is to be expected, although Barty can cut down on their numbers by placing the approach shot well enough to make Kvitova stretch for them. The larger scope of this type of aggressive disposition in tactics from Barty’s standpoint is to bank on its long-term impact on Kvitova in the latter portions of each set when pressure mounts. Let’s also remember that Petra will likely deal with a pro-Barty crowd.

I am giving a slight edge to Kvitova who, in two close sets, should improve her head-to-head record against the Australian to 4-0.


Stefanos Tsitsipas (15) vs. Roberto Bautista Agut (23)

Due to multiple reasons, the task of making an educated guess on this match’s outcome is an exercise in futility. For starters, they never faced one another before. More importantly, how the two feel in the physical-shape department when the they step on the court on Tuesday will likely remain a mystery to everyone – except them – until the designated server tosses the ball up for the first point of the match. It’s only once it begins that we can observe their footwork and mental sharpness, and carve an opinion on how much endurance each has left following the mentally and/or physically exhausting victories that they amassed in the previous four rounds. Not before.

Tennis fans who follow Agut know better than to be fooled by the Spaniard’s relatively modest stature. He has been nothing short of a freight train in 2019, knocking down one adversary after another, and soaring to a 9-0 record for the year. Those opponents are no slouches either, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka, Karen Khachanov, Marin Cilic, to name some.

In the Australian Open, he has been getting it done via cool-headed and gritty performances, three of which have extended to five sets. He offers no gifts, does not shy away from marathon points, and appears to be in incredible shape. Agut is that nightmare opponent who fools you into playing unimpressive points that accumulate overtime and soon begin to weigh on you like an ongoing nightmare. You think you will soon wake up, but you don’t. And if you do, you can’t quickly shake it off.

The above qualities should not be casually dismissed because they will loom large for Tsitsipas who will not enjoy the luxury he had against Federer on whose errors he could count when the opportunity to attack the net did not present itself. Agut may not serve like Federer, and he is not nearly as creative as the Swiss, but he will commit only a fraction of the errors that Federer did from the baseline, firmly planting in Tsitsipas’s head that he cannot take comfort in the assumption that his chances are good in extended rallies. In fact, if Agut had his choice, extended rallies would be top priority in his wish list. Stefanos will need to solely rely on his accelerations and approaches to the net, with not much help coming from elsewhere.

For Tsitsipas, there is also the added challenge of mentally handling the aftermath of the biggest win in his career, his four-set victory over Federer on Sunday, and do so while facing a clutch opponent. This is not a trivial matter because several players stunned members of the big 3 in Majors in the past, only to turn around and produce lackluster performances in their next round.

Photo: Julian Finney – Getty Images AsiaPac

Tsitsipas, not unlike Barty in my preview above, needs a high first-serve percentage, preferably 70% or above (he has remained below that mark in his four matches). I am not sure that a repeat of his 60% vs. Roger is enough to make the cut. He needs those first serves to take charge in the follow-up shot and approach as much as he can. Tsitsipas covers the net well and possesses apt volleying skills. He is not afraid to venture up there either, so I expect a 1-2 punch ‘serve-and-approach’ tactic – or even a ‘return-and-approach’ one on some of Agut’s second serves – to be an integral part of his game plan.

Another determining factor in increasing the Greek’s chances to win lies in how well he can deal with the steady flow of low-bouncing balls struck his way by Agut. The Spaniard does not hit with heavy topspin, so Tsitsipas should know that he will not be able to take too many big cuts on balls that sit up high for him to make contact at the chest-to-shoulder level, his preferred contact-point height on groundstrokes. His consistency on shots struck below the hip level will be under scrutiny, and his backhand slice will be tested.

For all the unknowns above and more, be my guest in guessing the outcome. I am going to roll the dice with Tsitsipas, mainly because I would like to see the youngster back his career-best victory up with another remarkable one and separate himself from others in his generation (excluding Zverev). And I mean that as a motivational force for the others. I remember Milos Raonic saying a few years back in a press conference that Stan Wawrinka winning the Australian Open in 2014 did wonders in the locker room for guys like him who were chasing the dream of shaking the big 4’s stranglehold on Majors. Stan’s win represented a wake-up call for them, proving that it was indeed possible. Tsitsipas reaching the semis (or more) here may have the same kind of impact on his generational peers and give them a boost, thus accelerating the process of narrowing the current gap that seemingly exists between the top elite players and the rest of the men’s field.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

A Short Essay on Underrated Overachievers – Two in Action on Friday at Wimbledon

Wimbledon’s 2018 edition has been marked by stunning upsets and we have only completed four days of competition. Six out of the top 8 seeds on the women’s side, including names like Garbine Muguruza, Caroline Wozniacki, and Petra Kvitova, and three out of the top 8 seeds on the men’s side (possibly four with Alexander Zverev’s match suspended at two sets to one down), have all temporarily changed their status from competitors to tourists in London.

While you will find plenty written on the seeded-player debacle in the tennis media, you will not find any on two names that got lost in the shuffle, probably much to their liking. Most casual tennis fans probably never heard of them, and yet here they are, quietly waiting for their third-round matches. First, let me describe the type of players that I want to tackle in this piece.

These players neither have flashy styles, nor fan followings. They are often overshadowed by spectacular shot-makers with physical presences or flair on the court, or by ones that possess a certain type of character on the court that fans deem “worthy of watching” (yes, such approach exists indeed). They do not possess a big weapon in terms of stroke production. Instead, they rely on either their shrewd on-court-decision-making skills, or on their resolve during critical moments, or on their dependable footwork and fighting spirit, or on their endurance, or on a combination of any of the above.

History of our sport is filled with them although you would have a tough time getting any expert to name 10 of them right off the bat. For example, do you remember Rainer Schuttler (if you are old enough)? The German turned pro in 1995, and steadily rose through the rankings, finishing 332 in 1996, 117 in 1997, entering the top 100 in the beginning of 1999, reaching top 50 later that same year, getting to no.40 in 2001, finishing 2002 at number 33, rising all the way to number 6 by the end of 2003, and reaching the finals of the Australian Open in that same year.

It was a slow but steady rise, with no fanfare. Hardly anyone recognized him if they passed him by in the street or even at tournaments. He remained in the top 10 for one more year and top 50 for a few more, managing to reach the semis of Wimbledon in 2008 as his last big hurray.

Why such little recognition for the man who was, in reality, one of the most admired work horses of his time by his peers? Because, he was the type of player that I mentioned above. He neither had the flashy personality nor the game to garner attention. He had no big weapons – for example, his second serve was considered a weakness and he hit no one out of the court, so to speak. He was also ice-like on the court, showing very little emotion.

Schuttler was simply a good athlete who worked hard and offered no gifts to his opponents. He was the ultimate overachiever against a pool of superiorly talented players during his era, simply because he was a mental rock who would feel to his opponents like that chewing gum feels to you when it gets stuck in your hair and you can’t get it out no matter how hard you try.

Now back to Wimbledon…

There are two of “those” players here, one in each draw and both ranked outside the top 100.

Evgeniya Rodina, a qualifier currently ranked 120 in the WTA, and MacKenzie McDonald, ranked 103 in the ATP, are quietly – and efficiently – having their best show in the Majors. Rodina has matched her third-round appearance at Wimbledon from 10 years ago and McDonald is at his first ever third round in a Major.

If you are a casual tennis fan and you have never heard of them, you are not alone.

On the one hand, they are riding in somewhat different boats in terms of their overall careers. 29-year-old Rodina has been around a long time, but the Russian’s highest ranking was no.74 in 2011, and she has yet to earn a WTA title (she did win a WTA 125K series event in 2016). McDonald, for his part, is a newcomer who turned pro two years ago. The American is 23 years old.

On the other hand, they have plenty in common. They are both astute thinkers on the court and fierce competitors. Although they are limited by their sizes and lack of power, they are skilled at fabricating formulas to get the job done. They don’t hit dozens of winners or blow the opponent off the court. They are not natural shot makers. Yet, both are planning to play their third-round matches on Friday while renowned names have been sent packing, along with their previous-round opponents who had superior talent and skills in comparison to them, at least on paper.

I wrote in detail about Rodina’s first-round win over the more talented Antonia Lottner two days ago and if you read it, you probably understand why I chose the title is “Rodina ‘finds a way,’ again!”

Her comeback win in three sets against Lottner was the product of a never-die attitude, backed by her willingness to do whatever’s necessary to turn the tide around. I will not repeat the details of that win, you can find them in my recap from two days ago. It was her fourth win in one week, having come from the qualifying draw, and a reprint of the script that she has been writing on many occasions for years.

So was the case in her second-round match against Sorana Cirstea, another skilled performer with much more potential in terms of shot production than her. Rodina again “found a way” to turn around what appeared to be a lost cause after the first hour of the match.

After Cirstea dominated the first set 6-1, Rodina began to steady the ship early in the second. She held serve four times in a row to get to 4-3 up in the second set. At 15-15 on Cirstea’s service game, Rodina hit a return winner and followed that up with another sharp cross-court return that forced Cirstea into an error to earn two break-point opportunities at 15-40. On her second opportunity at 30-40, she struck another return deep into Cirstea’s deuce corner. The Romanian barely got it back and Rodina nailed her backhand for a winner to the open court.

Mind you, this was not the way Rodina had planned her comeback, i.e. hitting winners. It is not in her pedigree to win matches solely on direct hits. The two winners in that 4-3 game were only her second and third winners of the set. She finished the set with only three winners!

The bottom line is this: Rodina was willing to step outside the box to get the job done! She was astute enough to realize that her moment had arrived and that she had to force the issue in order to finally take charge in the match. One break right then and there meant that she would serve for the set. She succeeded. She then held serve in the next game and pocketed the second set 6-3. Rodina made the hard decision when it mattered, and the match’s complexion changed in a matter of 5 minutes. She won it 6-3 in the third.

This is how this type of player wins matches. You do not necessarily see it in the stats because stats do not reflect mental fortitude in delicate moments. One telling stat (somewhat) is that Rodina hit 14 winners to Cirstea’s 25, but she only made 7 unforced errors to Cirstea’s 35. Unspectacular, yet efficient, much like her victory against Lottner.

Rodina managed to overcome two athletically superior players, with clearly more firepower potential than her, thanks to her high IQ and competitive spirit. It’s your emblematic, underrated overachiever, having a gritty day at the office, tackling challenges and solving problems with no fanfare.

Much like McDonald on the men’s side.

The American does not have an overpowering serve or forehand. He is a good athlete with quick hands but stands way clear of the over-six-foot range that tennis seems to demand from its top male prospects. His best shot is his return, which comes in handy when he plays doubles, or when he plays a big server like Nicolas Jarry, whom he defeated 11-9 in the fifth set after three hours and 31 minutes in a workman-like performance to reach the third round.

Jarry was without a doubt the more talented player with bigger shots. He was also several inches taller than McDonald. When they stood at the net together, it resembled the second coming of Dudi Sela vs Ivo Karlovic (ok, not that bad, I exaggerated). Jarry did begin the match with a bunch of winners, building a 4-1 lead on McDonald. The Californian remained calm and worked his way back into the match, thanks to some remarkable returns once he got the feel of Jarry’s serves. I will summarize the meat of what happened in one paragraph.

McDonald won a set in which he came within two points of losing twice (4-5, deuce, and 4-5 down in the tiebreaker), produced only six winners to Jarry’s 24, and appeared to be outclassed by the Chilean for the most part. He did so because he stood tall in points like 5-4 30-30, or 5-4 in the tiebreaker. Jarry, required to produce bigger shots and more of them, was the one to err first, including the forehand volley missed in the net that put McDonald up one set to zero (7-6).

It was a crucial set because for another hour and a half after that, his opponent dominated again. Jarry took the second and third sets to go up two sets to one. McDonald recovered in the fourth thanks to an early break and steadied the ship enough to get to extra time in the fifth. With no tiebreaker on the horizon, Jarry cracked first at 9-9 and lost the match in which he recorded 103 winners (including 24 aces) vs. 26 for McDonald, a match that he dominated for a good two and a half hours out of three and a half.

And that was after McDonald defeated the experienced Ricardas Berankis in the first round in four sets, in a similar fashion on Monday. Berankis held a set point to go up two sets to love at 6-5 in the second but he missed the return. On every important point, once again, McDonald stood tall. From the set point saved until the end of the tiebreaker which went his way to equalize the match at one set each, McDonald made only one unforced error, despite some rockets fired at him by Berankis from the baseline.

Again, the numbers will not tell you the story. Berankis produced twice the number of winners that McDonald produced, 14 to 7, in that second set. The unforced-error count was not in McDonald’s favor by much either (16 to 14). The total-points-won category was almost head-to-head (46 to 45). The difference was that McDonald buckled down and gave no gifts on the points that mattered the most. Berankis hit twenty more winners than McDonald, and he lost. McDonald got the job done!

This is repeatedly the pattern with which overachievers such as Rodina and McDonald are able to compete against better talent. Most casual spectators do not notice them, nor watch them much. But coaches adore them. Martin Blackman, the General Manager of USTA Player Development was present on the sideline during McDonald’s five-set victory over Jarry from the first game to the last. I did not ask him, but I assure you he was elated. Compared to coaching talented players who “almost” achieve great things, coaching players like McDonald and Rodina is a heavenly experience.

These overachievers deserve to get their due credit for their achievements, but they usually don’t. Whether it is because they will never get to the elite level – they simply do not have that kind of talent – or because their games are not breathtaking, it is hard to say. I am not even sure if that matters. I would venture to say that these players are not in pursuit of accolades. If they were, they would not last long because the constant disappointment would be exhausting. In my opinion, they bask in the reserved glory of knowing that they are able compete and make a living through their one passion in life.

But I will leave the examining of inner reasons aside and hail openly the likes of Schuttler, Rodina, and McDonald. Whether you care or not, you do not go completely unnoticed, unrecognized. There are those of us who see you!

Until next time…

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Thursday: Australian Open Semifinals Preview

It has been a fantastic ride so far in the first Major of the year, and the four match-ups in the semifinals of the two singles’ draws should delight any tennis fan. You have again a healthy mix of favorites still marching on, newcomers on the rise, and established players chasing their first Major title. Could anyone have guessed correctly the eight names still in the draw? I doubt it, but if someone did, my hats off to them.

Speaking of guessing, I have been wrong several times this week. As those of you who regularly follow my posts already know, when I write these previews, I attempt to forecast what may happen in the match, strictly tennis-wise, based on past observations. Any player or coach will tell you that the strange and unexpected take place regularly in the arena of competitive tennis. For example, in my last preview, I gave the reasons why I felt that Marin Cilic’s chances were very slim against Rafael Nadal. I also explained specifically my take on what Cilic would need to do in order to pull the improbable upset win. I maintained that it was highly unlikely that he could put all that together.

Guess what? He did.

Yes, Rafa’s injury sealed the match in the fifth set, but Cilic deserves full credit for doing what was necessary to put himself in a position to win. Although I turned out right in the ins-and-outs of how he could do it, I was wrong in thinking that he ultimately could not. And turning out wrong on the final score is nothing new for me, ha! People who know me can tell you that I am terrible at predicting scores. They can also tell you that I have had zero interest in betting. I don’t even know what those numbers mean when I see the occasional tweet or article about odds. So, if there are any obsessed gamblers reading my posts hoping to gain insight, you have been warned !!

Let’s now get to two** semifinal matches scheduled for Thursday. Keep in mind that, I write all this under the assumption that players will not suffer from injuries or sickness during the match, or retire.
**Time constraints unfortunately do not allow me to preview all three singles’ matches, so I had to pick two.

Simona Halep (1) vs Angelique Kerber (21)

Let me provide a quick check list:
– Two players, one officially ranked number one in the WTA, the other motivated to get there and certainly playing like one.
– Evenly matched encounter, with Kerber leading 5-4 the head-to-head tally. Both undefeated in 2018, each with a record of 10-0.
– Both playing five-star tennis in the quarterfinals, winning routinely against opponents to whom most in the WTA field lose routinely.
– Now scheduled to play each other in the semis of a Major with the number-one-ranking implications.

I ask you, what more could you want as a tennis fan? I have an idea. You would want to clear out your schedule, make sure you have an ample of supply of popcorn, your favorite beverage, and a quality screen on which to watch it unless you are in Melbourne holding a ticket to see it live.

Photo: Mark Kolbe – Getty

This match promises a lot precisely because it is almost impossible to predict. Kerber and Halep are two of the best baseliners in our game for many reasons. They move exceptionally well and possess fine counterpunching skills from difficult positions. Plus, there is not a particular baseline pattern in which they show a visible weakness. You hit a sharp cross-court, they can run it down, respond with a wicked angle, and put you on your backfoot. You accelerate down-the-line, they can take advantage of the open cross-court or send it back in the same direction. You hit the ball hard and deep to the baseline in hopes of putting them off-balance, they can bend their knees, to the point of touching the ground, and use their wrist-control to strike back with a half-volley, thus take back the control of the rally.

So, can either of them break the other down from the baseline? I do not have the answer to this question. That is mainly the reason for which I find this match fascinating. The outcome will hinge more on factors such as mental toughness, problem-solving, on-court IQ, conditioning, experience, and the will to win. As I compare and contrast the two players with those factors, I find myself repeating sentences like “Simona excels in X, but so does Angie,” or “Angie is the best at doing Y, except for Simona,” or even “I remember the match where [one] mounted an incredible comeback, but wait, there is also that other match where [the other] fought through adversity.”

Do you see where I am going with all this? Maybe the right answer is nowhere, and I am happy with that. Because, that is the type of puzzle that produces the highest quality in tennis, one in which the two players push each other to their level to new heights as the match progresses to a thrilling climax.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

I can almost hear some readers reminding me that Kerber has already won two Majors compared to zero for Halep, and thus she has shown the ability to cross that barrier, giving her the edge over her opponent. It is a fair argument, but then, could we argue that Simona’s lack of Major titles adds to her desire to win, because she the stakes are higher for her than for Angie? But wait, hasn’t that been the case for Simona since she reached the finals of Roland Garros in 2014 and lost to Maria Sharapova? So that could make Simona tight when the match is on the line… or something… !
…………………….. !!

Yes, it is all beginning to sound silly. I am stopping right here before I get a headache and setting my priorities straight. I must clear out my schedule, get my popcorn and beverage. Thank heavens, I already have a quality screen. Phew!

Marin Cilic (6) vs Kyle Edmund

My Tuesday preview involving Edmund’s match against Grigor Dimitrov had a certain pattern that did not age well. Firstly, I talked about Edmund’s qualities and emphasized his good form of late. Secondly, I admitted that I should have learned my lesson about picking against him (I favored Kevin Anderson to eliminate him in the first round, same with Andreas Seppi in the fourth), only to finish by saying that, although he had already proved me wrong twice, I still cannot favor him against Dimitrov. I even finished with the following ironic quote: “Edmund will simply have to teach me the same lesson again.”

Well, he did teach me a lesson, again. And I promise, I learned my lesson this time.

I do not care that he will be an underdog against Cilic. He made a believer out of me by now, as he did with many others around the world. I will, however, add that the reason for which I believe Edmund can yet pull another upset does not solely originate from some silly fear that I may repeat the same mistake four times. It is also because Edmund possesses the bits and pieces necessary to beat Cilic.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty

I have written about Edmund’s ability to produce an abundant number of winners in my preview of his quarterfinal match vs Grigor Dimitrov. As of today, he leads all players in the Australian Open this year in the forehand-winner category with 127 of them. Both against Seppi in the fourth round and Dimitrov on Tuesday, Edmund repeatedly nailed winners from that side that left his opponents bewildered. He also added a bunch of aces and unreturnable first serves for good measure.

I cannot underline enough the fact that he was able to maintain his level and produce those winners against two different type of players. On the one hand, Seppi hits the ball with pace and rather flat, giving little time to his opponents to prepare for the next stroke. Dimitrov, on the other hand, can hit a high-bouncing spin, as well as a sizzling slice that will stay very low. This shows Edmund’s ability to impose his game to a variety of players. Does that group include Cilic? I believe so.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty

The big Croate loves to make contact with the ball high, preferably around the chest and shoulder level. This is why he was able to take some of Rafael Nadal’s balls on the rise and drive them back deep into the Spaniard’s baseline territory. Cilic struggles a bit more on lower balls, and on those where he has to reach wide to hit. In other words, if you face Marin, do not let him get set and lean into the ball with his upper body, because that is when he can generate some heavy, warp-speed shots. Edmund, for his part, is equipped to deal with that, because he is not a heavy topspin hitter by nature anyway.

In fact, when Edmund performs at his best, he often takes the initiative with crisp forehand accelerations, and occasionally, with flat down-the-line backhands. In doing so, he makes the ball glide through the court without losing much velocity. Furthermore, the ball stays low on the bounce. Seppi and Dimitrov, his last two victims, could handle those balls when they could get to them (except that they often could not). Cilic, in contrast, should struggle with those even if he does get to them, because he will need to reach to strike an off-balance shot from below-the-hip level. That should not allow him to load his body into the shot like he prefers to do.

So, Edmund fans, I apologize ahead of time, but not because I think your man is going to lose. On the contrary, I think he will once again get it done. I am apologizing ahead of time, for picking him to win, because of my dreadful past track record 🙂

Stay well and enjoy the tennis !

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Navigation