Following a three-month-long absence on new posts (because of an important period in my “other life” that ended with great success I shall add), I am back to dedicating my time to tennis, the sport that I love. I planned trips to big tournaments this summer, and I may add more depending on my schedule. I will be happy to share my thoughts as much as possible on MT-Desk.
Here is what you will find on Mertov’s Tennis Desk during the next 2 months:
– Frequent comments and updates from Roland Garros 2016 on Twitter and MT-Desk, throughout the three-week period (Qualifying and Main Draw).
– Frequent comments and updates from Wimbledon 2016 on Twitter and MT-Desk, throughout the three weeks (Qualifying and Main Draw).
– Match analysis, tactical comments,and pictures from the world of tennis…
– More chats with players for the “Sitting Across Mertov’s Tennis Desk” series…
– I will, at some point, probably at the start of Wimbledon, post the English version of my article/story on Cagla Buyukakcay, the 2016 Istanbul Cup winner, and her trials and tribulations during the pre-2016 period that will appear on the upcoming issue of Tenis Dunyasi, Turkey’s number one monthly tennis magazine.
And later in the summer —> Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati (ATP Masters 1000 and WTA Premier 5), and more…
As always, keep your comments and feedback coming on Twitter, or here in the comments section, or by email.
The well-known scenario usually repeats itself. Rafael Nadal steps on the court, Federer stands on the other side of the net. Nadal reboots the game plan which consists of two simple components. First, rip the topspin shots hard and high to Federer’s backhand over and over again. Most rallies will end with a mistake from the Swiss, or with the Spaniard stepping further and further into the court until he hits a winner. Second, hit an overwhelming majority of serves, again, to Federer’s backhand. He will chip it most of the time and miss, or will return it short, allowing Rafa to make Roger chase one shot after another for the remainder of the rally.
There are, of course, contributing factors to this plan’s success. For instance, it helps that Nadal, unlike the rest of the ATP, is not bothered by Federer’s slice backhand. It also helps that Nadal is left-handed, allowing his heavy forehand to push Federer outside the court on his backhand. It does not hurt either that Federer’s game is not based on booming flat shots, like that of some lesser players who have been able to bother Nadal. In any case, this simple plan consistently produces the desired result for Nadal, mostly explaining the skewed head-to-head record (23-11 for Nadal) between the two legends. For over a decade, Nadal has dominated Federer adhering to a game plan designed around these two major components.
In Basel, Federer showed from the first game of the match that he was determined to shake the grounds of at least one of those components: the second one. If you have watched their countless encounters, you have noticed how many times Federer chips the defensive backhand return back on Nadal’s serve. You have consequently seen how large a percentage of serves Rafa hits to the Swiss’ backhand. It happened today too. Out of 90 serves put in play by Nadal, 61 of them were directed to Federer’s backhand. That is 68% of all serves in, and that does not even include the times that Rafa served to the backhand, only to see Roger moving around the ball to hit a forehand.
At 4-2 up in the first set, after Federer had just consolidated his break, Nadal hit a first serve to Federer’s backhand, the Swiss chipped the return in the net. Another one happened at set point for Rafa in the second set. The Spaniard served to the backhand (what’s new?), Roger chipped the return, Nadal got aggressive and punished Roger. Another example was when…….
……….
No!
That was it!
Just twice!
Yes, out of the 61 times that Nadal served to Federer’s backhand, those were the only two times that Roger sliced the return back! And he lost both points.
The other 59 times, he came over the top, hitting drives! Even when he was stretched, Federer continuously refused to block/slice/chip (however one chooses to term it) his backhand returns, at the cost of making a few more errors. Federer won 6-3 5-7 6-3 to claim his 88th career title.
This… 59 times out of 61! (Image: Getty)
For example, in the first game of the match, he drove the backhand return to the corner, came in, and got passed to go down 0-1. It did not matter. Next return game, he went right back to his plan, driving more backhand returns. Did it rattle Rafa? You bet it did.
If you have access to the match, watch the 2-2 game in the first set. In the first point, he will push Rafa back (Rafa moved as if he was expecting a slice return which usually gives him time to set his feet on or inside the baseline), enough to force him into hitting a short ball, to which he will smack the winner. Four points later, at 30-30, you will see his drive backhand return, put Rafa off balance enough to the point where he will sneak in to the net, and hit the volley winner. That would end up being the game that Federer first broke Nadal’s serve, one in which he faced seven backhand returns, and came over the top of all of them! But, he was just getting started.
At the 5-3 game, he once again started with a drive backhand return that allowed him to dominate the rest of the point. Then again, on set point, the backhand drive return set up the winner on the next shot. Over and over again, Rafa expected the backhand return to fall short, have nothing more than a neutralizing pace, give him enough time to set the next shot up, and pin his opponent behind the baseline. Over and over, Roger caught him off guard.
I will give only one example out of many in the second set. At 4-3 for Federer, and 30-15 with Rafa serving, watch how Federer responds to a solid serve to his backhand with a drive that pushes Rafa deep, resulting in his miss. It looks like a bad miss on a routine shot by Nadal, but it is far from it. For a player used to receiving a weak return on that serve he just dished out, not getting the short ball you have come to expect for a decade can play tricks in your mind. Another example (out of many) took place on the second point of the 2-1 game in the final set. Rafa, finding himself in an unfamiliar spot on the second shot after the serve, missed the next shot again. On the 4-3 game, when Federer finally broke Nadal’s serve for the decisive lead, he came over the top of all the six backhand returns that he had to hit.
Did Federer also miss some of those returns? Of course he did, several times. But that is not the point. His adjustment led to Rafa to not being able to count on a major component of his Plan A that had, until today, been very reliable. Federer broke Nadal three times. He was 3 out of 7 on break points, which is, as you may suspect (unless you have not followed their rivalry), surprisingly high for Federer when he faces Nadal.
More importantly, beyond the numbers, standing tall is the pay-off for the hard work that Federer has put in since almost a year ago, meticulously honing a single skill. This pattern change did not “out of nowhere” take place on Sunday. Federer’s increased tendency to come over the top on the backhand returns since the 2015 season started in Brisbane, has been remarkable to anyone who was willing to notice it. I suspected that it was an essential goal that he set with his team, to focus on the aggressive drive backhand return, starting with the off-season practice in December of 2014. When I asked him, during the Istanbul Open, if that was the case, he confirmed that it indeed was. 2015 showed that he would apply it to his matches… Relentlessly…
Here he is, practicing it on clay (Istanbul Open) Here he is, doing it on grass, at Wimbledon (vs. Simon) And on hard courts (Cincinnati final)
He may have had to wait ten months, but this final match in Basel was the first time that his hard work and long-term planning bore fruit, in a concrete and visible manner. The numbers showed it, his growing confidence manifested it as the match progressed, and Nadal’s reactions to the returns confirmed it. It does not necessarily mean that Federer turned the corner on his rivalry with Nadal. Let’s be honest, the conditions were favorable to Federer (indoors, hard court, Basel). It does nonetheless show that even at 33 (and 34), an elite player in the ATP, can improve a specific aspect of his game, even in the long term. Tennis is indeed a sport for all ages, with room to improve, even for the most skilled player.
When I looked at the schedule of matches on Thursday at Wimbledon that featured Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Petra Kvitova, and Caroline Wozniacki, there was a match scheduled on the small court no. 16 that immediately piqued my interest. It pitted the Italian hard-hitting Camila Giorgi against the savvy Spaniard Lara Arruabarrena. Giorgi undoubtedly went into the match heavily favored, not only because she is the seeded player, but also because she possesses aggressive, flat shots that are more likely to do damage on grass-court surface than Arruabarrena’s arsenal of shots that favors the trickier bounce of clay courts. It was also the kind of match where anyone who closely follows women’s tennis knew that Giorgi would come out aggressively, fire on all cylinders, and go for the quick kill. Yet, that some someone would also know that Arruabarrena has one of the highest I.Q levels on the WTA Tour and would not fold easily. She is a cool customer who knows how to earn the maximum return from her bag of tricks. She will scramble, scratch, claw, pull one shot after another from her bag, ultimately find a way to stop the bleeding, and succeed in turning the match into a competitive battle. The match did not disappoint: all of the above took place.
Giorgi floored Arruabarrena in the early going. In the first set, Giorgi hit 8 winners to Arruabarrena’s 1, and won all 6 points at the net. She also hit a ton of returns early, well inside the court (see the picture below), often winning them immediately either with clean winners or by forcing an error out of her opponent.
As a result, you often saw the picture below, Giorgi walking to the other side to return the next point, shortly after hitting a terrific return.
It also led to plenty of looks by Arruabarrena following her forced errors, like the one below, with a grimace on her face, as she watched her second shot sail long or wide after Giorgi hit yet another booming return.
By the time the second set started, Arruabarrena was already seeking solutions to the downfall. She got annihilated the first set 0-6 and something needed to change. She began varying the pace more and using more deliberately her drop shots like the one below.
She also began stepping inside the baseline more herself, and flattening out her shots when she needed to, in order to keep Giorgi from pushing her around.
Arruabarrena even managed to go up a break, forcing Giorgi into the uncomfortable position of chasing balls, thus collecting some errors from the Italian. She did however make one of her six double faults on a break point at 4-3 up, letting Giorgi equalize and recapture the momentum. Speaking of double faults, they were a product of how much pressure Giorgi was putting on the Spaniard on the returns. Camila’s returns forced Lara to take more risks on her second serves, leading to double faults. Just to illustrate Lara’s frame of mind when Camila was returning, see the picture below. Notice how quickly Arruabarrena is looking to step back behind the baseline. You can see her push back with the right leg, fully focused on the aggressive return already coming her way, no later than when she lands from striking the serve into the court.
Right when it looked like the Italian found her rhythm back and was on her way to winning the second set on a string of 4 games (from 2-4 down to 6-4), Arruabarrena saved three match points in a row at 4-5 0-40, leaving Giorgi in a look of disbelief toward her corner, after saving the 3rd one.
At 5-6, Arruabarrena saved the fourth match point on a return blown out by Giorgi and marched into the tiebreaker. Giorgi led in the tiebreaker for the most part and earned another set of match points at 6-3 up. Once again, Arruabarrena did not fold quickly and saved two more match points to get back to 6-5. Finally, Giorgi won the match on her seventh match point, sending her corner, featuring her dad Giorgi, into a bundle of joy (see the clip below).
Speaking of Sergio Giorgi, in case you have not followed closely over the years, he has been a colorful personality, to say the least. Along with the rest of Camila’s team, he is very vocal (you can hear them on the clip too), and extremely passionate about his daughter’s tennis. Having said that, he has also been at the center of some questionable reports and made some controversial comments – see also this report on both Sergio and Camila. But after a first set that inaccurately indicated an easy route to victory followed by an extremely nervous second set, one can understand why he had to take some down time with friends, minutes after Camila’s win, right outside the court.
Congratulations to Camila and dad Sergio. Caroline Wozniacki is next for them!
Coming into today’s final match, the head-to-head record between Serena Williams and Lucie Safarova was 8-0 in the American’s favor, for a very good reason. Williams is very good at forcing her opponents into a defensive position and demand that they produce a high-level, counterpunch-style tennis. Lo and behold, that happens to be exactly what carries Safarova through most of her wins: the ability to set her feet, shift the shoulders forward to produce some penetrating winners from both sides. Let’s simplify the equation: what Serena does very well, single-handedly negates Lucie’s biggest weapon and ruins the core of the Czech’s plan A.
If you have access to the replay of the match, and you want to see the type of damage that Safarova can inflict on her opponents when she gets her feet set, watch the two points from 30-0 to 30-30 at 4-2 in the first set. Another good example is the first point of the 3-1 game in which Lucie struck three good shots in a row, pushed Serena around, and finally won the point. Now, if you want a great contrast to that last example, watch the following point at 15-0. In that long point, Lucie stays in control for several shots but can’t put it away; then Serena counterpunches with her forehand hard to the cross-court corner and puts Lucie on the run. Next (and yes, you guessed it), Lucie misses the very first shot (a backhand) that she has to hit on the stretch from the outside the boundaries of the singles lines. A second example of the same contrast happened also at 5-5 and 15-0 in the second set, with Safarova serving. During the majority of that long point, the ball traveled back and forth at high speed, yet remained mostly within the singles line, which allowed Lucie to hang tough. However, as soon as Serena hit a hard, sharp cross-court shot and pushed Safarova out to the doubles alley, the Czech had to stretch and float the shot back, which then allowed Serena to hit the winner to the open court.
These are only a couple of examples of why Serena had more trouble against Victoria Azarenka, Sloane Stephens, and Timea Bacsinszky. They could counterpunch Serena’s power with accuracy and speed when they were put on the run. Serena still ended up winning because she has superior skills and, this next one is ex-cathedra, she can raise her game when needed. Azarenka can power back Serena’s shot and surprise her, Stephens and Bacsinsky can hit backhands and forehands on the stretch, generating power with the flick of their wrists (especially Bacsinszky on the backhand side). Safarova, on the other hand, is not the speediest player moving side-to-side, which is an oddity considering how exceptional her movement is around the ball, in place, using quick and small steps (reminds me of Andre Agassi).
You are probably saying to yourself “Wait, did you watch the match? Lucie went three sets too!” My response to you would be, don’t let the second set fool you. This match was never out of Serena’s control. Safarova got back in the set only because Williams began to commit double faults and few untimely errors out of nowhere. It also helped Safarova that throughout the comeback in the second set, from 1-4 down to winning the tiebreaker, the Chatrier crowd got behind her (they chanted her name in two different versions: “Lucie” the French version, “Lu-zi-yé” the Czech version!)
Yet, the main plot remained untouched. When Safarova served her only double fault of the match at 2-1, and 30-40, and lost the early break, one could sense that it was the beginning of the end for the Czech. It was confirmed the next time Serena had a break point, two games later, up 3-2. The players engaged in a rally, and the original pattern ensued, with Serena collecting a mistake from Safarova the first time she pushed her to the outside of the court.
There are three types of matches that end lopsided. First case is when both players play the same style, and one does everything a little better than the other (Nadal-Ferrer on clay comes to mind). Second case is when one player’s weakness plays into the strength of the other, or vice-versa. Third is when a player, for one reason or another, decides not to put forth any effort to win (there are plenty examples of this in the past, you pick your own). Today’s case would have fit the second one if it were not for an extended period of meltdown by the American in the middle portion of the match.
Now Serena Williams stands at 20 Major titles, only second to Steffi Graf’s 22. This could also be the year in which she achieves the Grand Slam, the only elite accomplishment that is still not in her résumé. She is 33 years old, but still rules the W.T.A. arena, and there is no reason to think that both accomplishments are not within her reach.
Roland Garros Girls’ Singles, 2nd Round Match – Tactical analysis
As I strolled into Roland Garros little before the beginning of scheduled matches at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, I knew the main attraction would be later on Philippe Chatrier and Suzanne Lenglen courts where, beginning at 2 PM (or “14 heures” as the French say), two women’s quarterfinal matches would take center stage, followed by two men’s quarterfinals. My plan until then, consisted of engaging in one of my favorite activities at Majors: watching some of tomorrow’s potential stars in the juniors’ matches. One of those featured two girls far beyond their ages in terms of mental maturity and on-court I.Q., and ended up grabbing all my attention. The match in question was on Court 6, between the American Catherine ‘Cici’ Bellis (seeded 4th in the juniors’ draw) and the Russian Sofya Zhuk.
The 16-year old Bellis is not an unknown to most tennis fans. Her claim to fame took place when, as a 15-year old at the 2014 US Open, she defeated Dominika Cibulkova, then-ranked 13 in the world. Sofya Zhuk is a fast-rising Russian teenager. At 15 years old, she is 7 months younger than Cici, and not known for any one noticeable win, although steadily improving (I can say this with confidence. I saw her play 2 years ago and the improvement is monumental). Having watched her match in the previous round, I knew that the 4th seed Bellis would face a monumental challenge. What I did not know is what a fascinating mental battle the match would turn into, and how tough these two teenagers would be under pressure circumstances that would make most adult tennis players crumble.
Do not get me wrong, the quality of tennis did have its low moments. There were untimely double faults, a string of bad games from one player or the other, and a topsy-turvy wind that would not allow the players to gain any decent timing on their strokes. Perhaps it is exactly what made the match-up so intriguing: the possibility to observe two teenagers deal not only with adversity in terms of weather conditions, but also with the fact that they had to overcome bad streaks, missed opportunities, and blown break points, and yet, never lost their sanity through a memorable epic crescendo in the third set. By the time it was over and Bellis, unable to hold her tears of joy, ran up to the net to shake Zhuk’s hand, I knew I had to add yet another write-up to my “tactical analysis” series on this blog, featuring this match. Its story needed to be told, and more people than the 150 or so people that were there needed to know what “went down”.
Bellis broke Zhuk’s serve early to start the match, and eventually led 4-2. Zhuk was aggressive on returns, putting pressure on Bellis from the first shot of the rally forward. On a separate note, it may have worked to some degree at least because it led to seven double faults by the young American, few coming at inopportune times. But it was rather a string of unforced (and a few forced) errors by Bellis from the baseline that resulted in Zhuk winning four games in a row to steal the first set 6-4. Zhuk did her part efficiently, avoiding unforced errors altogether during the four-game streak, other than one double fault (and she was not just “bunting” the ball in either, mind you?). It was such a good run that she even recorded her only two aces of the match during that stretch. Zhuk serving an ace at 4-4, 15-all
Second set saw the level of tennis drop. Bellis played a great first game, breaking Zhuk immediately to bring her opponent’s four-game winning streak to a halt. She went up 40-15 in her service, only to double fault, miss a makeable passing shot, miss an easy forehand sitter, and make another double fault, to lose four successive points and hand the break right back. To return the favor, Zhuk played one of her worst games at 1-1 and lost her serve again. Bellis finally recorded the first “service hold” of the second set to go up 3-1, after which she trimmed down the number of errors and gained confidence, as Zhuk never recovered. The not-so-memorable set (for both, really) ended 6-1 in Bellis’ favor.
Then, something that we see too often (unfortunately, I dare to add) happened again: the player that lost the set took a bathroom break. “It is in the rules, so why not use it right?” is the argument that one always hears. I guess until a decent answer is found to that question, it will continue. Maybe in the 1980s and 1990s human beings were made differently because I don’t remember ever leaving the court for a bathroom break (except maybe once or twice), and I remember very few others doing so. But it seems in the last ten years or so, somehow bodily needs pop up right when sets are lost. That being said, I don’t want to single out Zhuk here because I did a one-on-one feature interview with her this week and I can affirm that she is a genuinely nice girl, a delightful character. If anything at all, I am inclined to believe that either she really had to go, or simply used the rule to recover mentally from a set during which she never held serve. But anyone who has read my articles before knows that this bathroom break business right when the opponent is on a good streak drives me absolutely crazy. So, allow me a few sentences of digression here. Ok, now, let’s move on.
Zhuk came back on the court, and lo and behold, it was a 180-degree turn in the momentum. The Russian brought back her accuracy in her ground strokes and put Bellis on the run. It was the second streak of the match during which Zhuk was the one dictating the point with Bellis running down as many shots as she can, basically scrambling to stay in the points, and sometimes failing to do so. Cici running balls down
Zhuk won the first three games to go up 3-0, while Bellis who sat down and waited during the break, couldn’t buy a shot that went over the net or one that bounced within the singles lines. This is also the streak during which Zhuk garnered a lot of errors from Bellis by steering the ball down-the-line more often than she has done in the first two sets, and catching her opponent on the back foot. The wind also picked up considerably at this point and made both players occasionally hold up before serving due to swirling clay around them. Serving at 3-0 and deuce, Zhuk served a second serve that was called out, one that she believed to have touched the line. A brief argument with the umpire over the mark ensued, enough to keep her thinking about it until the next point which also ended in a double fault (2 of her 5 double faults in the match). Bellis was finally on board in the final set (1-3).
That may be all the push that Bellis needed. She also modified her tactics after she went down 0-3. Instead of trying to out-hit Zhuk who was on a roll at that point, Bellis began to change pace and use more variety. She sliced more than usual, used drop shots, and for the first time, she began to frequently ‘moonball.’ When Zhuk lost the game and her serve at 3-0, these extended points became crucial and they held the key for Bellis to get back on equal terms in the final set. Now, Zhuk had to be more patient, because Bellis, by now, ceased to make early, easy errors in the rallies, as was the case in the first two sets. The Russian needed to either back up behind the baseline to hit those high balls back, or step in and take them on the rise for a more aggressive approach. Both options brought its different set of problems. Backing up meant giving up the ability to dictate the points, which has own Zhuk a lot of points early in the third set, and taking the ball on the rise meant too high a risk due to the wind and the possibility of a bad bounce on clay.
A very long point at 3-1, deuce, exacerbated the problem for Zhuk. Perhaps the longest rally of the match up to that point, Zhuk put Bellis on the run throughout the exchange while Bellis was content to return the ball high and recover to the middle of the court. At one point, Bellis was really stretched to the deep forehand corner and floated the ball high back to the middle of Zhuk’s court. I saw Zhuk take couple of steps in, almost as if she decided to hit a swing volley (which would have been the right choice), but then she backed up and let the ball bounce, giving Bellis time to recover. Bellis ended up winning that point, and you can tell it meant a lot to her as she gave the longest standing fist pump toward her corner up to that point in the match (see picture below)
—-
Another digression: This is what I would tell my players in similar situations all the time, with regard to overheads and high swing volleys: “Step in, take the risk, and miss if you have to, but do it! If you don’t, and you choose to extend the point and end up losing it, it will be worst for you, and it will pump your opponent up. It will reassure them that the pattern is working. Instead, you choose step in, and even if you miss, you know you did the right thing, and they know that you are willing to do it, so they will think twice next time.” Zhuk, in this case, chose to stay back, played into Bellis’ hands, and lost. Bellis, naturally, kept playing the same strategy to win the next game. By now, at 3-3, Bellis was feeling good, and Zhuk was in the middle of a nightmare. Points were long and while Zhuk was searching for answers to tilt the momentum back to her favor, Bellis was constantly hindering her plans with wall-like consistency and no-pace high balls mixed in with the occasional slice or flat hit. Then, came the crucial break point which basically reflected everything that you have just read above. Watch how difficult it has become at this point in the set for Zhuk to deal with different height on balls that vary in pace, and how frustrating it gets for her as she tries harder and harder to end the point or collect an error from Bellis.
Just like that, Bellis broke Zhuk to win her fourth straight game since starting the final set down 0-3. Zhuk goes straight to the umpire (you see her take the first two steps at the end of the clip above) and asks for the trainer, pointing to a spot below her right knee. Now, this is where I believe umpires and “rulekeepers” in general should strive to be more efficient. I timed it, and it took close to 5 minutes for the trainer to come out to the court. Court 6 is not one of the outside courts. It’s located right by the Chatrier court and close to Lenglen court. It should not take five minutes to get someone out there. Time five minutes, wait through it, and you will see how long it actually is). It took another 45 seconds for the trainer to identify the issue which was followed by the three-minute medical time-out. Bellis had to sit and wait around nine minutes after having won 4 games in a row.
Injury time-out
Finally, when the players stepped back on the court, lo and behold (again), Bellis lost four points in a row and the score was 4-4 in the blink of an eye. Three were on unforced errors by Cici, despite the fact that she climbed back from 0-3 to 4-3 precisely by cutting down on errors and frustrating Zhuk with long rallies. Oddly enough, she also stopped the high-ball bonanza that has worked for her in the last 4 games, and went back to duking it out with Zhuk. Perhaps, she felt that her confidence was now back and that she could go toe-to-toe with Zhuk again, even with the pace (if so, she did indeed turn out right).
From that point forward, spectators on Court 6 marveled at two spectacular youngsters, with nerves of steel, who were dealing with the increasingly violent wind, and were attempting to outwit each other. Zhuk remained resilient despite Bellis’ several different tactics. She kept yelling “Come on” to herself (which is, according to her, something she consciously does to keep herself focused) even when she was struggling to find a solution to her opponent’s consistency. Bellis who was focused, but not so vocal through most of the first two sets, was now in full “war mode”. She was posing the questions, Zhuk was answering them. When Zhuk would get the upper hand, Bellis would not panic and pull out another plan from her bag of tactics. Both girls are good athletes who refused to lose, and that led to several games of intense rallies and increasing tension on Court no. 6. Zhuk finally reached a match point on 6-5 in which she missed a forehand long. Bellis won that game to equalize at 6-6. The next game was hotly contested. Zhuk had at least 5 game points (that I counted) and could not capitalize. Bellis, after missing, one herself (maybe two), finally capitalized on this point:
In the 7-6 game, Bellis yet once again came out victorious after Zhuk had more game points to equalize at 7-7. Bellis essentially saved a slew of game points against her in the last three successive games – one being a match point – and capitalized on the few that she had, to come back from 5-6 to win the final set 8-6. How tight was it? The picture below, taken at the moment she won the match should clarify some of it. Relief Celebration
On my tweet, I called it “relief celebration”. She got back up, and walked toward Zhuk to shake her hand, barely holding back tears.
—-—-
It is one thing to feel the joy of winning a match when one “zones” so to speak. It is another thing to win a match through sheer drive and grit while having to play nothing less than a chess match in the I.Q. department with your opponent.
These two girls, aged 15 and 16, deserve high praise, for sending the message that mentally they are ready to do battle at any level. Just give them a few years to develop their games, get physically stronger, and they will have many more duels to come. On this particular Tuesday, Bellis may have outwitted (and “outgritted”) Zhuk, but their on-court awareness and I.Q., along with their athleticism, makes both of these teenagers compelling prospects for the future of women’s tennis.
Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates from Roland Garros Note 2: Thanks to John T. for the clips and the picture during the injury time-out
One of the best matches of the early rounds in the 2015 edition of Roland Garros took place on Court 3 between the veteran and the 21st seed Pablo Cuevas and the much-younger, yet fast rising, Dominic Thiem from Austria. Both players, enjoying the high points in their career in the recent months, showcased why they are among the best clay-court players in the world. Endurance, topspin, footwork, and patterns preceded big serves and flat winners. As a bonus, spectators got to enjoy two of the most stylish one-handed backhands in the game. More importantly, two highly intelligent players continued to modify their game plans to outwit the other, taking the spectators through a crescendo in each of the four sets, thus the score 7-6 7-5 6-7 7-5.
In this article, I will mostly focus on the first set, only because going through the whole match would take too long to write. But no worries! There was plenty happening in the first set alone. Furthermore, the first set largely determined the outcome of the matches for reasons to be explained later.
When the match started, it quickly became obvious that both players planned to begin the match with their respective plan A’s. On the one hand, Cuevas would stay back, keep the ball deep, move Thiem around with his forehand, and get aggressive only if the opportunity presented itself. On the other hand, Thiem would dictate the rallies with his big forehand, go for winners if the ball came short, and avoid high and loopy rallies. Although each player held to equalize at 2-2, it was evident that Cuevas was winning the long rallies, and Thiem was feeling more and more pressure to finish the point, or else. Cuevas was beginning to impose his game, keeping Thiem on the run just enough to let his forehand direct the traffic of the rally’s pattern.
Cuevas, exactly in the position he prefers in rallies..
If you are in Thiem’s position at that stage, the last thing you want is your first serve to take a vacation. You need it for a few free points, and to set the tone for the next shot in the rally. Yet, it is exactly what happened to Thiem at 2-2. He only made one first serve that game, and was forced into rallies. In fact, Thiem knew going into that game that it was just a matter of time before Cuevas breaks him unless he can keep coming up with big serves and shots. And if you can’t hit big serves, it puts that much more pressure on your groundstrokes. In Thiem’s case, it led to errors that looked like unforced errors, but are in fact errors that resulted from the Austrian player putting too much pressure on himself due to his opponent flawlessly dictating every extended baseline rally up to that point (if only there were a way to keep stats on such categories). Here are the first two points of the 2-2 game:
And just like that, it’s 0-30. Thiem does recover to 30-30 thanks to aggressive play, but then tries to go for too much too soon again:
On that break point, Thiem attacks again, this time on a ball that allows him to step inside the baseline. Moving all the way to the backhand doubles’ alley, he unleashes a forehand winner (who does not do that nowadays anyway?):
Having gotten back to deuce, now Thiem finds himself stuck exactly in the kind of point that he would like to avoid. Cuevas pushes him around the baseline, never giving him a chance to get a firm grip on the rally and get on the offensive.
This is precisely why Thiem has been unloading on those early shots in the rally that led to errors. If he does not go for them, this type of point happens over and over again. In the ensuing break point (2nd one of the game), Thiem once again steps in to hit a big “jump” backhand but does not quite pull the trigger. So what happens? Cuevas punishes Thiem’s half-way-passive-aggressive backhand by sticking a winner right back to the open corner:
Now, you would think that at this point, Cuevas has taken charge in the match. He would have, except that in the next game, he pulls out of his “error” bag one of his 3 double faults in the match, and follows it up with a forehand drop volley in the net that he would make nine out of ten times. It is an uncharacteristically generous game by the otherwise error-free Cuevas that brought Thiem back to life.
Thiem did indeed come alive. For example, until then, Cuevas was exclusively serving to his backhand to start the rally, including a high-kick serve to the ad side, making the Austrian hit above the shoulder and from the outside of the court. But now, all of a sudden, Thiem begins to step in and catch the ball on the rise, immediately putting Cuevas on the defensive. Check out his placement on the backhand returns during the 4-3 game:
He even got to run around the backhand to hit some direct forehand winners (this one at 4-3 up, and 40-30 down on Cuevas’ serve):
This led to Cuevas taking bigger cuts on his first serves, or using a strong outside kick as the first serve, in order not to allow Thiem to attack. This resulted in Thiem having to slice some of the backhand returns because he either had to stretch too far and/or too high to hit topspin, as is the case in this return below in the 6-5 game:
In other words, Cuevas adjusted and responded to Thiem’s increasingly intimidating game by tweaking his serve, just enough to hold his serve and carry the set to a tiebreaker. Thiem still had the momentum going into the tiebreaker, and definitely looked like he was on his way to a 1-0 lead in sets, when he went up 5-1 in the tiebreaker. Check out how Thiem punishes Cuevas for favoring his forehand too much and leaving too much court open on the deuce side at the 2-1 point in the tiebreaker:
Thiem gets a commanding 5-1 lead in the tiebreaker. Then, for one reason or another, he gets passive for the first time in the tiebreaker and lets up during the rally. Did he think that Cuevas lost hope at 1-5 and would hand the next two points to him? In any case, here is what happens that point:
Cuevas also wins the next point to get back to 3-5. Suddenly, it’s a different dynamic. Thiem feels the pressure, leading to this gag on the 5-3 point:
It is now 5-4 and what looked like a blow-out tiebreaker for Thiem has turned into a tight, tedious affair. It soon turns into a nightmare for him when this happens when he has set point on his racket at 6-5:
Yep! Thiem served his only double fault in the set (total of 3 in the match) on set point! The clip showed you Pablo’s subdued relief as if he were saying to himself “Wait! I saved a set point without ever having to hit a ball?”
At 6-6, the players change sides. Thiem, despite the disappointment, plays a solid, aggressive point, only to be passed by Cuevas. Pay particular attention to Thiem’s body language after the point before you read on:
From the end of that point until the beginning of the next, Thiem kept looking at his corner, talking and yelling to himself, seethed with anger over how he now finds himself a set point down after leading 5-1 in the tiebreaker and double-faulting on set point. Yet, here is when youthful enthusiasm can help you. You can mumble and whine for the full 20-to-30 seconds between two points, and still come up with the goods once the ball is in play. Watch how Thiem, still talking to himself few seconds before the point begins (continuous since the end of the last point above), plays his best point of the tiebreaker:
But it is not enough as Cuevas wins the next point to earn another set point at 8-7. This time, the veteran capitalizes on it when Thiem cracks on the very shot, the forehand from the backhand side of the middle, that has worked for him so well for the most part of the first set:
First set goes to Cuevas. How important was that? It was devastating enough for Thiem to temporarily lose focus and go down 0-3 in the second set. It forced him to play catch up the rest of the second set and the match. He did eventually get the break back, but still lost the second set 7-5. Thiem’s mental maturity is far ahead of his biological one. Most young players would have fallen apart after losing two sets like these against a seasoned, seeded player in a Major tournament. However, Thiem found a way to extend the match to a fourth set, playing a much smarter tiebreak in the third set (did go up early again, this time not letting up). Cuevas, unfazed by the length of the match, or the challenge from the talented Austrian, kept his cool and came up with the goods (which, in his case, means that he turned error free) in the latter stages of the fourth set to avoid a fifth one.
The match lasted 3 hours and 51 minutes. If the analysis above showed anything, Thiem and Cuevas do not just have plenty in the tank to survive long duels on clay, but also the I.Q. power to make them entertaining. The “chess” part of the first set was a fascinating “intangible spectacle” while the tangible ones such as stroke production and execution, tremendous agility and speed, and creative baseline tennis while maintaining consistency added the icing on the cake.
