Tag: Andy Murray

Fascinating quartet of matches await tennis fans on Wednesday. All of them, maybe except one, have the potential to either finish in three straight sets, or go to the distance. Below are my thoughts on what to expect tomorrow during these encounters, with the first two matches taking place on Centre Court and the next two on Court 1, in the order below.

Andy Murray (1) vs. Sam Querrey (24)

Querrey is a dangerous player, very dangerous. Murray is an excellent scrambler. This match has the ingredients to contain three entertaining sets, maybe four. For anything else to happen, Querrey must have a big serving day against one of the best anticipators in the sport. It is not outside the realm of possibility but Murray can sometimes make his opponents feel like he is standing right at the spot to which they plan to serve, before they even toss the ball. Same can be said for his anticipation on the opponents’ approach shots.

Photo: Julian Finney – Getty Images Europe

This is simply a good match-up for Andy who has at the same time performed at the highest level for most of the tournament, although he has enjoyed a convenient draw compared to other favorites. It would, quite frankly, be a monumental upset, a disaster for the home crowd, and a nightmare for the organizers who would obviously prefer Andy to play on the final day, if Sam were to somehow win and advance to the semis. Querrey will play the spoiler role, but I don’t believe he will ultimately satisfy the role’s requirements.

Roger Federer (3) vs. Milos Raonic (6)

As you may recall, if you read my last entry in Mertov’s Tennis Desk, I expected Federer and Nadal to reach the finals on July 16th. Nadal is out, but I am still expecting Federer to do so. I also do not believe Milos has at this point reached his form of last year before he faced Roger. More importantly, today’s Federer is not last year’s version, when he was full of doubts and nursing an injury.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images Europe

Raonic returned better in their last year’s match (see the fourth set’s last two return games and the tiebreaker) than I have ever seen him until and since then. He also had the luxury of winning the first set last year, which is also a must for his chances tomorrow.

The strategies these two players will employ against one another do not require a rocket science degree. Federer will exploit Raonic’s backhand and keep him chasing balls rather than attacking. Raonic will look to serve a lot of aces, and hit his forehands big to earn direct winners or set up the winning volley. First-serve percentage will be a major determinant of the scoreboard. We are likely to see at least one tiebreaker, if not more, if these two men happen to have a good serving day by their standards. It was a very close match last year, yet, I expect not only a different outcome this year, but also a more one-sided affair.

Having said that, I am a fan of Milos and I have always believed he would be the first to break through the success that the Big 4 enjoy at the top of the ATP. Stan Wawrinka has done it before him and injuries have repeatedly hindered his progress. He has been healthy for a while now and that alone keeps the possibility of another long thriller like the one from 2016 alive.

Marin Cilic (7) vs Gilles Müller (16)

This is the one exception that I have mentioned in the introduction. I can see Müller or Cilic winning in three or four sets, but I do not believe this match will see a final set, especially if Cilic is the first to get to two sets. A fifth-set affair could spell disaster for Müller who has already played two “hyper-extended” matches against Lukas Rosol (9-7 in the fifth) and Rafael Nadal (15-13 in the fifth). He is in good shape, but not that good.

Müller faces another problem against Cilic that he did not against Nadal. Marin will not park by the line judges behind the courts to wait for his lefty serves. He is an aggressive returner by nature and likes to hit them when the ball is on the rise. At the cost of getting aced a few times, he will stand close to the baseline and force Müller to volley first from around the service line in case the lefty from Luxembourg were to utilize his serve-and-volley pattern. This is why a high first-serve percentage is essential for Müller. He must be able to collect some free points. He served in the low sixty-percent range against Rosol and Nadal, and won over 80% of those points. However, when he had to resort to a second serve, his winning-point percentage drastically fell, below 50% in both matches.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images Europe

The Croate is also unlikely to rally from far behind the baseline, à la Nadal. This means that if Müller has to play the retriever role while Cilic directs the rally’s traffic from the top of the baseline, the lefty can kiss that point goodbye.

I do not want to underestimate Müller though, simply because, at the age of 34, he is having a career year. He garnered his first two ATP titles this year, the most recent one on the grass courts of s’Hertogenbosch. Interestingly, his only loss on grass this season has come against Cilic who, for his part, is also having a solid season. The first two sets should determine the outcome of this match. I am intrigued by this match and plan to watch it.

Novak Djokovic (2) vs. Tomas Berdych (11)

Djokovic finally joined the others today, after his match was postponed from yesterday due to a “series of unfortunate events.” Although he recorded his eighth win in a row on grass, I have yet to see the form he needs to win Wimbledon. The good news, for now, is that he may not need to be at his best to defeat Tomas Berdych who is notorious for beating players he is supposed to beat, appearing to catch fire in the first weeks of Majors, and then fading away when facing an elite player, right when everyone is beginning to wonder if his breakthrough moment has arrived. On the other hand, Wimbledon is the only Major where he had some resemblance of a breakthrough, in 2010, by upsetting Federer and reaching the final. How much of what happened seven years ago is relevant today? I will leave the answer to the readers.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images Europe

Berdych is a heavy hitter. He hits the ball so heavy sometimes that the sound of his racket smacking the ball will produce a “boom” sound in your living room if you are watching it on TV, or in the stadium. The problem for Tomas is that he is playing against Novak who, at his best, eats high-velocity flat shots for breakfast. So the big question for this match remains, will Novak be at his best? If yes, this is a routine script with a few impressive baseline rallies and a bad ending for Tomas. If, however, Novak cannot produce a high level of play, we can see anything from a long thriller like the one he played against Denis Istomin in Melbourne or, if he goes further and begins to battle himself along with his opponent, to the debacle against Dominic Thiem in Paris.

If you have the possibility to watch both courts and have the ability to change back and forth between the courts, good for you. If you like focusing on one match from beginning to the end, like I do, you will have to make some tough choices tomorrow. In either case, you are in for treat. Enjoy!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Wimbledon

Who can stop Roger and Rafa?

July 9, 2017

Mertov

Let me first begin, for better or worse, by giving my one-word answer: Nobody! I believe that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will march on to the finals, not only because they have been the two best players in 2017 by a large margin, but also because they have not shown any signs of considerable drop in their form. It is particularly remarkable that one can take two months off from competition right when he was on top of his form – a risky move even for Roger’s standards – and reach that level again so quickly, while the other adjusts from the clay-courts of Roland Garros, without having played a single match on grass, to the courts at Wimbledon, and still produce his top-quality tennis (not that he has not done the Paris-London victory combination before, twice as a matter of fact).

Can any player challenge them? Sure, but can they actually beat one or the other? Highly unlikely…

First, on Rafa’s path to the final…

It seems that Rafa has picked up where he had left off at Roland Garros. He has yet to lose a set in the 10 matches that he played in Paris and London combined, and there is a legitimate possibility that it may well be the final day of Wimbledon before we see that happening.

Nadal steamrolled through his first three rounds, with the only glitch coming in the third set vs. Karen Khachanov, in the late stages of which the Spanish champion, uncharacteristically, sprayed a few errors on forehands. Many believed the young Russian would push Nadal, even push him beyond three sets. I did not.

While Khachanov has the pedigree of a player that can quickly rise in the rankings in the years to come – powerful serve, decent technique, the ability to unleash during rallies – he still lacks the on-court decision-making that top players possess. A good example of this, among others, took place in his match vs. Victor Troicki in the Istanbul Open where he kept running around his backhand to accelerate with his forehand (although his ability to flatten out the backhand is currently superior to the backhand one, especially on low balls) and leaving the deuce side vulnerable once he was unable to put the ball away. Troicki fed on that throughout the match, and Khachanov never adjusted. In a five-set encounter against a high-IQ champion like Rafa, you can bet that you will need to change and adjust your tactics at some point during the match whether you are leading or trailing. This is not a skill that Khachanov, or any other promising young talent, cannot develop. However, it takes time and the 34th-ranked Russian still has room for improvement in this area, before posing a threat to top players in Majors.

Photo: David Ramos – Getty Images Europe

Rafa faces Gilles Muller next. The 34-year-old veteran from Luxembourg has enough experience, thus he will not be intimidated by any legend on the other side of the net. Furthermore, he has a win over Rafa, at Wimbledon, on his résumé. Yet, that was a dozen years ago and Nadal of today is far better than the one from 2005. I am sure the matchup worries some Nadal fans, for decent reasons. Muller can win a large number of points on his lefty serve, as well as hit a variety of them; flat, sliding slice, kick, curve into the body, you name it, Muller can serve it. Rafa has had trouble with these types of players in the past. Having said that, I do not see how Muller can break Rafa’s serve, especially considering that the Spaniard has increased its velocity to it since coming to London (see the last few break points that he saved against Khachanov). I would guess that Muller will need to get to a tiebreaker or two in order to have any chances to cause an upset.

Like Muller, there are a few other solid players on Nadal’s half. I am simply not convinced if they can defeat him. There are a couple of baseliners, Roberto Bautista-Agut and Marin Cilic, one of whom will face Nadal in the quarterfinals. It has been said that Cilic could have a chance to defeat Rafa, assuming he gets there. Cilic has indeed had a good year and his big game can overwhelm any player when his first serve and forehand are clicking on all cylinders, à-la-2014 US Open. He will nevertheless need to pull one of the best winner-to-error ratios in his career to outlast Rafa from the baseline, as well as a bit of help from him, the kind that Khachanov received (but could not capitalize on) in their third set.

One issue that Rafa has not completely fine-tuned yet is the depth on his groundstrokes. Even in Paris and in his first three rounds here, his shots landed inside the service line at times. I would call this the only apparent difference between the 2008-12 version of Rafa and the one today. On the clay courts of Paris, or against his opponents here so far, this did not present a major problem. Even when they moved in and unleashed on their shots, Rafa’s ability to scramble and get one or two balls back forced them to make errors on their second or third tries. Against the elite players, or the ones that do not think twice when it comes to relentlessly approaching the net on grass, this could present a problem for Rafa. They will either have enough skills to put the ball away when they get their one chance, or immediately approach and challenge Nadal to come up with passing shots from difficult positions. Federer’s two victories over him in Indian Wells and Miami are prime examples of strategies that included this component.

However, this is not the bread-and-butter plan of Andy Murray, Rafa’s potential semifinal opponent. Andy is likely to construct points, look for his opportunity to accelerate down-the-line, and hope to win some free points on his first serve. Coming to the net will not be an essential part of his plan A. Yes, the crowd will be behind him, but alas, depending on “build-up points” from the baseline is a painful way to try to beat Nadal.

Photo: Clive Brunskill – Getty Images Europe

Few more things to keep in mind for Rafa:

– One of his main weapons, the run-around forehand, will be a bit more limited on grass than on other surfaces due to the low bounce. This will not permit Rafa to hit as many forehands from the chest-to-shoulder height, the spot at which he prefers to hit his aggressive forehands.

– Rafa likes to take risks, pound first serves and groundstrokes harder, when he faces break points or trails in a tiebreaker. His first-serve percentage (with the increased velocity), especially on break points against him, will play a major role in holding serve.

– The weather is working in Rafa’s favor. There are only two days on that show rain, less than 50% on each day, for the rest of the tournament. Dryer courts keep the balls bouncing higher, although still nothing like on clay, as Dustin Brown who said grass at Wimbledon is slower than clay in Paris would have you believe, a claim since then refuted (to avoid saying mocked) by a number of other players. They have pretty much unanimously pointed to the dryness of the courts with regard to the speed and admitted that this causes the courts to be slower than usual (again, only by Wimbledon and grass-court standards).

Second, on Roger’s path to the final…

Roger has a more rocky road to the final than Rafa and I would have contemplated for a while about his chances of reaching the final in London, had it not been for what I saw in his victory run in Halle followed by the first two rounds** at Wimbledon. I had believed taking two months off competition while he was at the top of his form had been an extremely risky decision. However, his game improved throughout the five matches he played in Halle, and by now, he seems to have fine-tuned his game just in time to enter the nitty-gritty of the second week.

**I say first two rounds because this had been my thought even before he played Mischa Zverev earlier today and I wrote so, yesterday, in an article published in Tenis Dunyasi magazine website.

He will face Grigor Dimitrov on Monday. I am a fan of Dimitrov’s game and I like his chances to eventually join the elites of men’s tennis at the top of the rankings, but this is just a bad matchup for Dimitrov, very bad. When two players essentially play the same style, possess similar strengths and weaknesses, develop points using similar strategies, and one of them happens to be a tiny bit better than the other, the scoreboard will usually reflect that difference with fairly large margins. Dimitrov will have to wait at least one more Major for his potential breakthrough.

Quarterfinal round is where the plot thickens for Roger. Both Alexander Zverev and Milos Raonic have the game to defeat Federer on a given day and they have both done it before. They are two of the very few candidates with a legitimate shot at dismantling the stranglehold the Big 4, plus Stan Wawrinka, have on the Majors. Milos is a step ahead of Sascha in that he has not only gone further than the German in Majors, but Wimbledon also happens to be the Major in which he reached the final round, having defeated none other than Roger in the semis after a five-set thriller.

Photo: Shaun Botterill – Getty Images Europe

The wounds of that semifinal must undoubtedly be fresh in Federer’s mind. This is the reason for which it is imperative that Raonic somehow “steals” the first set from Roger and makes the Swiss doubt himself again. But this is a different Federer than last year’s version. In 2016, Federer arrived to Wimbledon nursing an injury and questioning his chances of even getting to the finals. He had also been stopped by Novak Djokovic four times in two years, with the most brutal loss coming in the 2016 Australian Open (remember the first two sets?).

This year, Federer made a comeback to the top like no other man probably will for a foreseeable future, at the age of 35. He is full of confidence, injury-free, refreshed, and playing well. I expect him to get to the net a lot against Raonic (not as much if he faces Zverev) and challenge the Canadian’s passing shot skills, as well as backhand returns.

Djokovic will most likely be his opponent in the semis. Among the Big 4, Novak has had the least rocky path until now, and the case remains the same in the next round. If he were to lose to Adrian Mannarino, who has played 25 sets in two weeks, almost half of them in the 105-degrees-Fahrenheit-plus courts of Antalya, it would probably go down as a bigger upset than the loss he suffered against Sam Querrey last year. Then, in the quarters, he will face either Dominic Thiem or Tomas Berdych. That should be the first true test of his game at Wimbledon. Let’s move on and assume Novak makes it past that stage, since our topic is Roger’s path to the final.

Photo: Sahun Botterill – Getty Images Europe

I do not believe Djokovic poses as big a threat to Roger as he did during the 2014-16 period, not only because he is still a few steps away from that level of play, but also because Roger has improved in a couple of areas since then, such as returns and backhand-to-backhand cross-court rallies. The fact that Roger has not beaten him in a Major since in five years will work as a psychological factor in Novak’s favor, but that needs to be coupled with the type of confidence that the Serb can build only if his level of play skyrockets in the next two rounds. I am not talking about the type that you build by beating the likes of Adam Pavlasek, Ernests Gulbis and Mannarino either. Having a convenient draw can work in your favor, but can also work against you. Novak’s case is the latter here.

Few more things to keep in mind for Roger:

– He is slowly but surely fine-tuning his returns. They were worrisome in the first two rounds, but better against Mischa (see his first break early in the match). Nevertheless, there is more room for improvement. He will need his drive and spin returns against Rafa, and his slice and bunt returns against everyone else, to be at their best.

– The larger issue against Mischa was Roger’s success with passing shots. This is where stats can be deceiving. Passing shots missed, or returns missed against serve-and-volley players, count as forced errors, regardless of how easily makeable they may actually be. Thus, you see the number 9 (for the whole match) next to the unforced errors and 36 next to forced error categories in Roger’s stat box. He missed some passing shots yesterday that he should be able to make nine out of ten times in his sleep. There was a particular one in the first set where he literally had time to get set and unleash on either side, with Zverev standing at the net like a traffic officer with no other job but to direct cars to pass on either side of him. This will not be a big issue in the upcoming rounds, unless Roger faces Raonic in the quarters. Milos has one of the highest rates of success at the net and has integrated net play a while ago into his preferred game plan. His serve-and-volley success rate is also among the highest in the tournament, along with Federer and Muller. If Roger does not pass well, Milos may just find a way to get to the tiebreaker and steal a set or two from Roger (see above).

– Speaking of serve-and-volley success… Roger’s high-percentage rate in that category, 83%, must be an encouraging sign to his coaching team. This is central to Roger’s game plan because, during his service games, it keeps the element of surprise weighing heavily on the shoulders of his opponents. Furthermore, Roger’s body language gains a whole new level of positivity when he is cruising on his serve-and-volley points.

– Winning long points has remained a question mark at Wimbledon. In his first two rounds, he only played nine points that lasted above nine shots, and Roger won only three of those. These are not high-enough numbers to draw a sound conclusion, but once Roger possibly faces the likes of Sascha, Novak, and Rafa in the finals, it will be one of the most determining factors in the outcome. Don’t take my word for it. Revisit the Australian Open final.

– See my last note above, in the Rafa portion, with regard to the weather. This should also work in Novak’s favor were the two to meet in the semifinal round.

If I turn out right, we will watch yet another Roger vs. Rafa final on July 16th. If you are an avid fan of either of these two champions, take a few “chill pills,” relax and enjoy. If you are neither, and love tennis, grab your favorite cold or hot beverage, and enjoy the highest quality of men’s tennis possible our lovely sport has to offer.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter – This week: live from Wimbledon

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

May 30, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors Tactical Analysis No Comments

In this piece, I will only analyze the first set of this match, more particularly, Andy Murray’s brilliant strategy on first serves, because the set (and consequently the match) was essentially decided on it. Andy Murray was never in real danger after winning the thrilling tiebreaker 11-9.

Details often distinguish great champions from other top players. Murray is an elite champion, John Isner is not. This is not to say that Isner is not a successful tennis player. His career speaks for itself. He has occasionally recorded wins against the elites and won numerous tournaments. But there is usually something that separates the likes of Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer from the likes of Isner, Tsonga, Ferrer, and Berdych. The elite champions find something where most other players are not able to, and use that something to their advantage in the way that others do not. In 2013, in the post-match press conference the quarterfinal match in which Tsonga squandered four match points and lost to Djokovic in 5 sets, he was asked why the French players never seemed to get over the hump against top players. Tsonga admitted that there was “something lacking” in them that did not in the elite players. What he said could easily be applied to what I noted above. In this particular encounter between Murray and Isner, the difference was the high-IQ strategy employed by Murray on first serves.

Until the tiebreaker, Isner never faced a break point and was closer to breaking his opponent’s serve than Murray was to breaking his. John had his first break point at 2-1 up. Before I get to that, let me bring up Murray’s strategy on his first serves. For the most part of the first set, he surprisingly served to Isner’s forehand, which is the American’s stronger side. Often able to hit an aggressive return on that side, Isner possesses the ability to put himself in a commanding position from the beginning of the point. One would think that his backhand return being weaker, most player would choose to hit the majority of their serves to that side.

Not Murray, not on that gloomy, drizzly, late Sunday afternoon.

It must have surprised Isner too because he was expecting, especially early in the set, more serves to his backhand, and thus, found himself off balance on some forehand ones. Unfortunately, I did not keep up with the numbers but I feel certain that Isner had to return Murray’s serve with his forehand more often than with his backhand. I do know however that Murray won more points off his first serves when serving wide to Isner’s forehand (meaning wide on the deuce side, to the “T” on the ad side) than to any other spot (body-forehand, body-center, body-backhand, wide backhand) in the service box.

Remember that this chart does not include the number of points in which Isner got the return in play. I would assume that the total number of serves would reflect a pattern of serving by Murray that favors Isner’s forehand returns.

With that said, now let’s get back to Isner’s first break point at 2-1 up, ad-out on Murray’s serve…

Murray chose to hit the serve to Isner’s backhand side, with a slight curve into his body. Isner missed the return out. Murray went back to mostly serving to Isner’s forehand (not to say that none of his serves went to the backhand, but certainly not the majority). Then came the second break point opportunity for the big American at 3-2, 30-40. This is where Murray got a bit lucky, at least at first. Isner returned back, got into the rally and hit a forehand on the line that would have put him into an advantageous position to win the point, except that the line judge called it out. The chair umpire corrected the call and asked for the point to be replayed. Murray hit an ace and got out of that jam. Yes, Isner got unlucky, but guess where Murray served that ace? Yes, wide to the Isner’s backhand side. After he held, Murray continued his pattern of mostly serving to Isner’s forehand side, whether aiming close to the body, or wide to the forehand.

There were no more break points and the tiebreaker was going to decide the first-set winner, a tiebreaker in which Murray, unlike the rest of the set, would relentlessly test Isner’s backhand side on returns. At 2-0 up, Andy aimed once again Isner’s backhand side and hit an ace to the “T.” At 3-2 up, he hit another big, flat serve to the outside corner, taking advantage of Isner’s short backhand return to put the next ball away for a winner. At 4-2 up, another hard, winning serve to the “T” ensued. In other words, after serving mostly to Isner’s strong side throughout the set, Murray was determined to test his opponent’s weaker side on crunch time.

After getting aced twice by Isner, at 5-4 up, Murray chose to serve to Isner’s forehand this time, probably trying to avoid being predictable, and he paid the price. Isner got the return back and Andy eventually missed. At 5-5, he had to serve a second serve to which Isner replied with an aggressive return and the American held a set point on his serve at 6-5. This was the only point where one can truly say that the American should have won, holding the set on his racket. He couldn’t deliver the big ace, as he so often does, and Murray ended up passing Isner at the net to get back to 6-6.

Later at 6-7, down another set point but this time on his serve, Murray served into Isner’s body, but forcing him to hit a backhand. Isner missed the return and they were at 7-7. As one might expect by now, it was another hard first serve to Isner’s backhand. It resulted in another backhand return error by the big guy, and now Murray held a set point at 8-7. Isner held both of his service points and went up 9-8 earning his third set point. Andy attacked Isner’s backhand in the rally and forced him into an error. At 9-9, Andy served big to Isner’s backhand (yes… again!) and saw the American’s return go in the net. He won the next point on a baseline error by John and took the first set 7-6.

At the end of it all, Murray reversed his service pattern, almost completely, when it mattered the most. One may question the wisdom of playing to your opponent’s strength during most of the set, but there is no doubt that it was planned so by Murray and his team, to keep Isner off balance when it truly counted. It is possible to work your opponent’s weak side so much that, by the time crucial points come about, they have found a way to deal with it and gained confidence. Furthermore, they expect you to test their weaknesses.

Andy did the opposite. He served to Isner’s stronger side for almost the whole set. That did not allow John to favor one side or the other, or to begin expecting most serves to his weak side. But when faced with break points earlier in the set, and when the tiebreaker began to determine the outcome of the set, Murray systematically went back to his opponent’s weaker side that did not get worked much previously. It was the difference, that “little something,” in the set that ultimately tilted the balance in the Brit’s favor. Not giving Isner the luxury of making an educated guess throughout the set on which side he would have to return was also why Murray won 80,6% of his first-serve points (25/31).

As it turned out, that first set went a long way to decide the winner of the match. Now, Murray is in the quarterfinals, preparing for an encounter with the local favorite, and the in-form, Richard Gasquet, while Isner will not be back to Roland Garros until next year. Murray had a terrific plan on his first serves, one that he executed to perfection. I am sure it was only a segment of his larger game plan to defeat the 17th-ranked American, and there is no denying that he did come close to losing the set. Ultimately, however, those are the intangibles that somehow seem to work in the favor of the elite players, and on Suzanne Lenglen court yesterday, that one particular intangible lifted the second-ranked player in the world to the next round of a Major.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

2016 Australian Open: M. Raonic vs A. Murray, Semifinal Preview

January 28, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors 2 Comments

In a match-scheduling pattern that is unique to the Australian Open, the finalist from the upper half of the men’s draw will have rested almost a day by the time the semifinalists from the bottom half take the court, for the right to face him for the title in the year’s first Major. That is what the thirteenth-seeded Milos Raonic and the number two player in the world Andy Murray will do on Friday.

There is no doubt that on paper, Andy Murray is the favorite to win. On the court, however, the match may play out differently. Raonic was already a monster server in the 2012-13 seasons. Then, starting midway through the 2014 season, his already-solid forehands turned into deadly weapons. About a year later, he began venturing more and more to the net because he improved his volleys to the point where he could back up with ease his big forehands at the net. If there is anything that the young 2016 season has shown us so far, Raonic has established a winning game plan based on these three elements (serve, forehand, volleys), and this plan is ready to challenge the elites of the game. He already passed the test recently against the Swiss connection, with a straight-set win over Roger Federer in the Brisbane finals, and a five-set thriller against Stan Wawrinka in the fourth round here. He now has the chance to record victories over four elite members of the game, Wawrinka, Murray, Federer, and Novak Djokovic, before even February begins. Can he? I happen to believe he can. More on that later, let’s get back to the X’s and O’s of this encounter.

One small problem for Milos: Andy’s repertoire is well-equipped to respond to the challenges that Raonic’s weapons pose. In other words, “he got game.” He returns well, defends well, passes well, and lobs well. This is why this match is so intriguing and promising. It is a contrast of styles featuring two high-I.Q. players who will adjust their tactics and modify their patterns during the course of the match depending on the circumstances.

The pattern that Murray will seek probably centers on baseline rallies in which he can force Raonic, for the most part, into going backhand-to-backhand. It would also behoove Andy to strike the ball once in a while to Raonic’s deuce side to expose the Canadian’s backhand on the next shot. However, Raonic is highly unlikely to hit more than two, maximum three, backhands with the intention of waiting for the next shot. He will most likely strike his awkward-looking, flat, down-the-line backhand that works sometimes, but one that has a low margin for error. That particular shot’s efficiency will be one of the three keys to his victory. If he can make those for the most part, Andy will have to run those down and get it back in the court to a spot where Raonic can get in position to strike his deadly forehand for the winner.

The second key to Raonic’s victory rests on how much damage he can cause when he gets a look at Andy’s second serve which remains one of the Scot’s weaknesses. The third key to beating Andy is for Milos to maintain the high velocity on his underrated second serves. They are underrated largely because his first serve is so impressive (currently one of the three best in men’s tennis with Isner and Karlovic) that his second-serve gets overlooked. Yet, it is a wonderful weapon to set up the second shot, which usually ends up being a high bouncing ball in the middle area of the court, allowing Milos once again to unleash his forehand. The Canadian must take risks on his second serves, even if it means he may double fault a couple of more times than he usually does. If he plays it safe, he will get back a deep return from Andy and will have to engage in a baseline rally. He is better off losing a few points on double faults and playing his “A” game, than sparing the double faults but being forced to get involved in numerous baseline rallies.

Andy, for his part, will rely on his footwork, his ability to hit spots on the court (the desired spot would mostly be his opponent’s backhand), and his counter-punching abilities when Milos begins his assault during rallies. He will absolutely need to put in a large amount of first serves, in order to avoid giving Milos looks on second-serve returns. One factor in Andy favor is that he has been here before, and by that I mean, in the elite stages of a Major. A persona grata in the last weekends of Majors since 2010, he will probably approach this match as another day at the office, and will already have mastered the pre-match routine for the 24 hours leading to the match. Milos has only been to the semifinals of a Major once, Wimbledon 2014. He has however been to the second week of Majors several times. Add to that his maturity level as a competitor and as an individual, I am not exactly sure how much edge Murray has over him in this category, as they step on the court Friday.

Raonic, in my opinion, is poised to take the next step, much to the dismay of those who have mocked him three weeks ago when he said that he was ready to win Majors. The fact that he is 3-3 against Murray, thus playing the one member of the sport’s elite group against whom he has the best chance to win, should add to his motivation. I have championed Milos since the tournament began, and I am sticking with him now. I am going with the upset win over Murray in 4 sets, for an opportunity to face the best player in the world on Sunday for the title.

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

2012 Barcelona Open – Raonic, seconds after he records his first victory over Murray

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

January 16, 2016

Mertov

ATP Majors 6 Comments

Although all the top players participated in the so-called warm-up tournaments to the first Major of the year, tennis fans came to the realization that they will have to wait for this Monday to satisfy their craving of some high-quality, exciting encounters. However, the draw that came out Friday did not do any favors to anyone looking for a thrilling narrative to carry the two weeks, starting Monday. By “thrilling narrative,” I mean an eye-opening one that will end up being one of the main stories of 2016. Sorry Novak Djokovic fans, but your man lifting the winner’s trophy would not qualify as one. Nor would seeing the Big Four members (and/or Stan Wawrinka) play each other for the umpteenth time again in the semis. Yet, one look at the draw and that seems to be the most probable outcome.

Sure, there is some potential for first-week match-ups that feature two players who would probably be more than happy to make it the second week. I will even entertain the idea that Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer, or both, may get knocked out before the semis (only to have their conquerors melt away in the next round). But I neither see an emerging name reach the finals à-la-Kei in New York, nor envision an unlikely winner lifting the trophy like Wawrinka did two years ago, or Marin Cilic did in New York later that same year.

That being said, ticket holders should get their money’s worth. The possibility that this Australian Open may not go down as a trend-setting tournament does not mean that matches will be boring or of low quality. Without further ado, here is how I see the draw fill out section by section. In order to increase the suspense, I will not reveal the player favored to win the tournament. Read and see if you can figure it out (hint: pay attention to titles).

TOP HALF OF THE DRAW

Djokovic’s “early” victims
Prior to eventually running into Djokovic in the third round, Andreas Seppi and Teymuraz Gabashvili will square off with the winner likely to battle Denis Kudla next. Although Gabashvili is down 1-3 in the head-to-head count against Seppi, he has a great chance to advance. He is enjoying his highest ranking of his 14-year career and Seppi, who is going through a dangerous slump, could see his ranking plummer in the first half of the season if he does not recover soon. Gabashvili is the only one from that top section who could challenge Novak in the third round, provided he can live up to his nickname “Tsunami” for three sets (which is almost like saying “provided that Ivo Karlovic finishes a match with less than 5 aces”). Otherwise, look for Djokovic to get to the 4th round being more challenged in practice sets than in the actual matches.

Djokovic’s “midway” victims
Speaking of “Dr. Ivo,” he finds himself as a possible opponent of Djokovic if he makes it to the fourth round. Stands in his way one of the biggest overachievers in today’s tennis by the name of Gilles Simon who, unfortunately for the French, matches up terribly with the big-serving Croate. Simon will still make Karlovic earn the victory if they both make it that far. Anyone knows by now that even when Simon is losing to you, he will make you suffer before doing so. I don’t see any other name from that section (sorry Vasek Pospisil, not in Australia) reaching the fourth round to be victimized by Djokovic.

In the quarters, Djokovic could face a number of players. The two highest seeds in that section are Kei Nishikori (7) and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (9). I do not like the fact that I am writing this while the three qualifying spots in this section still display the word “Qualifier” instead of names. I am one of those who believe that careers are made in the Majors, and they are made when a player comes through qualifying and unexpectedly creates a sensation (or with an “s”) in the first week of a Major, and then, backs it up in the following months, before finally establishing himself as persona grata in the upper echelons of the ATP Tour.

Regardless of who the qualifiers are, Tsonga has a rocky road to the quarters. Even before a possible match against Nishikori or XYZ player in the 4th round, he will have to knock out Marcos Baghdatis, the in-form Ilya Marchenko, and his countryman Benoit Paire. In any case, unless Nishikori or Tsonga somehow catch fire, Djokovic could have an easier win in the quarters than in his previous round. I consider Kei’s chances of catching fire low, but still higher than that of Jo-W.

Djokovic’s “later” victims
Novak’s most serious opponent in 2015, the one that he faced 7 times in the finals, could line up on the other side of the net to challenge him, this time before the finals. His name is Federer, and as incredible as it sounds with the kind of season that Djokovic had, he managed to beat the world number one three times, all on hard courts. The reality: Federer has not beaten Djokovic in a Major since the 2012 Wimbledon. The irony: Federer has not lost to Djokovic (4-0) in their matches before the finals since 2013.

Federer’s quarter also happens to be loaded with loose cannons. While I don’t see his first-round opponent Nikoloz Basilashvili, who had his best year by a long mile in 2015, shock a top player any time soon, Federer’s potential opponents in the next rounds could cause him some headaches. Alexandr Dolgopolov, his likely opponent in the second round, and Grigor Dimitrov in the third round, are both respectable players who have proven their ability to beat top players on a given day. In the fourth round, Federer’s “on-paper” opponent is David Goffin, but the bigger dangers for Federer are Goffin’s first-round opponent Sergiy Stakhovsky and the Belgian Dominic Thiem. I have argued for two years now that Thiem is destined for greatness and I am not wavering from my position on him. He is one of the faces of the next generation, and I expect him to break through to the top 10 in 2016. That path could begin in Melbourne. Having said that, the reality remains that for anyone to reach the quarterfinals from that section, they would need some help from Roger who, dare I say, played well only sporadically in Brisbane.

Federer could eventually face an experienced top-10 player like Tomas Berdych, or another young talent like Nick Kyrgios. I am not as sold on Kyrgios as everyone else is, and it is not because I don’t believe in his talent. It’s a cliché, but for some reason, it’s one that takes time to dawn on people: champions are made in practice. Kyrgios’ level of intensity and focus in practice is nowhere near that of the elite champions in our sport. Kyrgios may not make it that far anyway. Cilic, Tomas Berdych, and Roberto Bautista-Agut are nearby in the draw, as well as Borna Coric, another name that represents the future face of men’s tennis. The young Croat would need to beat Cilic, Bautista-Agut, Kyrgios or Berdych, in a row, just to get to the quarters. Can he do it? Yes! This section will be my favorite one to watch during the first week.

BOTTOM HALF OF THE DRAW
(i.e. Djokovic’s “final” victim)

Some are intrigued by the first-round clash between Fernando Verdasco and Nadal. We are quickly reminded of the five-set semifinal in the 2009 Australian Open, in which Verdasco pushed Rafa very hard. He also defeated Rafa as recent as nine months ago, in Miami. Despite that win, Verdasco is nowhere near his 2009 level, and Rafa is playing a lot better than in March 2015. I don’t see an upset happening, and with all due respect to Benjamin Becker and Dudi Sela, I expect them to challenge the world number 5 even less in the second round. Rafa’s road will get rockier starting with the third round. He should face the Frenchman Jérémy Chardy who is known to put out his best tennis in the Majors. Chardy can hang with Nadal from the baseline, and even overpower him, like Fabio Fognini did at the US Open. However, whether Chardy himself believes that he can do that or not, is a rather large question mark.

Nadal would then have to get past either Kevin Anderson or Gaël Monfils. I must again point out that, Anderson and Monfils have three qualifiers yet to be named in their little eight-man section. Despite his 0-3 record against Nadal, Anderson is the only name with a legitimate chance to beat the Spaniard, simply because he has improved in 2015 and added to his experience of facing the elite players in the Majors. He also has a big serve which has been a trade mark of most of the players who have upset Nadal in the Majors. It does not help either that Rafa has been unable to erased the question marks surrounding his game. But this is different. Two weeks ago in Doha, he played some of his best tennis in a long time and the fact that he got floored by Djokovic in the finals should not change that. If anyone can overcome a steep challenge, Rafa is that man. This Australian Open represents a golden chance for the 14-Major winner to reestablish himself as the top player, along with Djokovic, Murray, Federer, and Wawrinka.

In the quarters, Nadal will no doubt face a tough opponent. There are again four qualifiers in this section. Unless one of them pulls a stunner or two, and/or Viktor Troicki’s form soars even higher than it did this week in Sydney, I don’t see who can stop Raonic and Wawrinka (sorry Jack Sock fans, not yet) from battling each other to earn the right to face Rafa.

I have long maintained (since 2010 exactly) that Raonic would be one of our sport’s top players and I believe he is on the right track. Despite injuries hampering his progress over the last three years, he has steadily improved. He arrives to Melbourne healthy and confident. He has a legitimate chance to go far, even if it means going through Wawrinka and Nadal just to reach the semifinals. The success of Nadal, Wawrinka, or Raonic, when one of them reaches the “final four” stage, will largely depend on how much they have labored in the previous rounds. I dare anyone to predict this early how they will do in the semis where they would likely face Murray.

So what of Murray’s quarter of the draw? Big-serving Sam Groth could frustrate him – it does not take much to do that – in the second round, but can he do it for three sets? Fognini and Tomic, the two major head-cases of our sport, could play against each other in the third round, which may possibly make that encounter the highest-rated third-round match in the history of Majors. But can either one challenge Andy? The section with John Isner and David Ferrer is wide open and should provide someone with a golden opportunity to reach the quarterfinal. But, can that quarterfinalist, whomever it may be, surprise Murray? I believe the answer to all the questions in this paragraph is a “No.” Meanwhile, squeezed in-there-somewhere in this section is Brian Baker who has managed more comebacks than Aaron Krickstein has come back from two sets down in his days.

I see some sections of the draw that fascinate me for the first few days. I see others that should be exciting when we get to the third and fourth rounds. Then, from the quarterfinals on, I expect great tennis. What I do NOT expect, is to find names in the semifinals that are different than the ones we have seen in the last several Majors.

The show begins in 48 hours!

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Citi Open – Tuesday’s Narrative

August 5, 2015

Mertov

ATP & WTA 8 Comments

I drive into the grounds around 10:30 AM. The first match is not scheduled to start until 1:50 PM. Nonetheless, I come early, because I have a few things to do on my computer, and more importantly, I love watching the players practice. There is hardly anyone around, and they are busy tweaking bits and pieces of their game, or working on a strategy for their upcoming match later in the day. Parking is problematic to say the least at the Citi Open. First, there are not enough spaces. Second, if you arrive later in the day or in the evening, from first-person experiences of a few people that I have talked to, it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to park and get in the grounds. They are directed to another site to park from where they have to take the shuttle, etc. To make matters worse, not all parking attendants are apparently on the same page, and they get conflicting information on how to do what.

For my part, I run into a lady who made the person before me park very close to the car next to hers. I see that and I have no intention of doing the same, so I park about a foot further than she indicates. She gets mad and tells me that I need to “follow instructions.” I tell her I want to be able to get out, and she keeps ranting. I get out of my car anyway and see the lady who parked before me giving me thumbs up and shaking her head to the attendant. She is barely able to squeeze out of her car. I make a note to myself that if I run into the same problem, that parking attendant will hear a few words back from me such as “I follow instructions if they appeal to my common sense, sorry that you have none!” By the way, did I mention that parking costs $15 per day? If you are there every day, that is over a $100 dollars that you plan to spend. For some weekly ticket holders, it’s included in the cost.

I walk around the courts. Andy Murray is hitting with Richard Gasquet who gets a ton of instructions from his coach (and former two-time French Open champion) Sergi Bruguera during the breaks. It is already hot and Gasquet is wearing a black t-shirt (unlike Murray who has a white one) that says “Paris” on it.

They are both concentrated on the task in hand; this is not what one would call a “fun” practice.

A shirtless John Isner is on the next court. The tall guy is fairly slim and in good shape, not too muscular. He is hitting with a youngster and Justin Gimelstob is on the side of the youngster, yelling across the net to Isner for instructions.

The first match begins promptly at 1:50 PM on Center Court between two Americans, Coco Vandeweghe and Christina McHale. I am more interested in the one that starts in 20 minutes on Grandstand between Kristina Mladenovic and Samantha Stosur. Therefore, I only stay for a few points on Center Court, but I am rather astonished by the fact that the stands are virtually empty. As I walk away I see Wayne Bryan (Mike and Bob’s father) running a tennis clinic for adults, and I wonder if the head count is higher in that clinic than in the Center Court!

The Mldenovic vs Stosur match disappoints largely because nothing seems to work for Kiki. She makes routine errors, and as the match progresses, her body language gets more and more negative. Her mother Dzenita, former professional volleyball player and an ex-member of the national team of the former Yugoslavia, walks out to the court as Kiki’s coach once in each set to turn the tide (pictured below is the first one). Alas, the slide never ends and Stosur walks out with a comfortable 6-2 6-2 score to record her 500th career win.

Little did Dzenita know that her “real” coaching/mothering would come after the match. Kiki sits by the wall outside the players’ area, cries, sobs, and rants to herself for at least 30 minutes. Dzenita stands by her side through all of it, attempting to lift her daughter’s spirits up. I feel bad for Mladenovic because any of us who played high-level competitive tennis (and if it sounds patronizing, sorry, but only people who experienced individual competition under great pressure would understand the gravity of these moments) have gone through these types of agonizing emotions following certain losses, and I can only imagine how painful it must be for her at that moment. Although it is the first round of a WTA Event and it is obviously not her first career loss, there could be many reasons behind it, or a culmination of things. In any case, tennis players know and understand that this happens (or will happen) to every one of them, probably more than once. Each may have a different way of manifesting it. I remember going to my dad’s car and staring at the side mirror for 15 minutes, wondering why I am playing tennis if I can’t win a match like this, following an excruciating loss in the semifinals of a national tournament that played a role in the selection of the country’s national team back then. There are highs and lows, this happens to be one of the “lowly lows.” I am hoping she will get through it.

Next, I see Sam Groth who is getting last-minute instructions from his coach. He is totally relaxed, cracking jokes, and laughing. Not all players have the need to get that tunnel-vision “boxing” face prior to a match. He plays a tricky opponent in Thomaz Bellucci. Groth wins the first set in a tiebreaker, and breaks in the second to go up 4-2. Then, a rare occurrence: Groth loses his serve twice in a row, allowing Bellucci to carry the match to a third set. Sam imposes his game again in the third, and this time, does not squander the lead. While his serve never ceases to amaze, I am more struck by how quick he gets from the baseline to the service line after the serve.

His second step is almost midway between the two lines. You may say that in today’s tennis, in order to be a successful serve-and-volley player, you must do nothing less than that, but we are talking about a pretty big, muscular guy here (6’4 and 216), and his forward explosion after the serve is remarkable.

I quickly go to the next court to watch the third set tiebreaker between Jarmila Gajdosova and the qualifier Naomi Broady. Gajdosova can’t capitalize on a match-point opportunity at 6-5 in the tiebreaker. She is fuming. Broady wins the next two points and closes it 8-6. Someone in the stands (British accent) cheers Broady on along with other spectators clapping. On her way to the net to shake hands, Gajodosova yells and scolds that fan. Broady is not happy and says a few words to Gajdosova who looks shocked for a few seconds and stares at her after the handshake. Then, another exchange between the two players ensues before Jarmila packs up her bags and leaves the court.

As that same fan walks out, he passes by Heather Watson who was there to support Broady. He gives her a few words of encouragement. Watson, always friendly, says “no it was terrible yesterday” and laughs (she lost 6-3 6-0 to Louisa Chirico).

I begin to watch the match between Ivan Dodig, a “Lucky Loser” who only found out that he is in the tournament earlier in the day due to Marcos Baghdatis’ retirement, and the qualifier Guido Pella. I am determined to stick through this match, because I admire the tenacity and the desire that these types of players, ones to whom a first-round win in an ATP 500 level event means as much as that first balloon that your parents get you when you are a kid. Pella ranked 100, Dodig at 104, both players were in the qualifying draw and a second round appearance in the main draw would tremendously boost their confidence. They don’t disappoint. They fight for every point, run down every ball within their reach.

Pella wins the first set 6-3, and can’t close the match out in the tiebreaker of the second set, despite earning a match point. Dodig takes a quick bathroom break before the third set, and I see Pella sitting in his chair, shirtless and dejected. I am wondering if he is replaying the match point wasted in his head.

When he loses his serve routinely in the first game of the third set, I begin to think that Dodig may run away with this match. However, out of nowhere, Dodig tries two ill-advised drop shots that he misses in the net, gags an easy put away, and lets Pella back in the match. At 2-1, the rain arrives, which results in a fairly lengthy delay. When the match resumes around 9:30 PM, both players begin to comfortable hold serves until 6-5 where Dodig once again plays a bad game in which he makes two unforced forehand errors to quickly go down 0-40. Pella capitalizes on his second match point and you can see the “relief” (as he called it after the match when I talked to him) on his face. His celebration is subdued, but his face tells it all.

When the clock strikes midnight, there are still 4 matches on the courts, one that is about to begin, and another still waiting for the prior match to end. I watch the Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova vs Magdalena Rybarikova match on Grandstand 2.

It cannot be an easy task to play a match that starts after midnight, and both players spray balls all over the place. Pavlyuchenkova proves to be the one to make fewer mistakes and hit more winners in tiebreakers, so she wins 7-6 7-6. At one point during the second set, 4th seed Svetlana Kuznetsova casually enters the court around 1:30 AM and joins the other 20 spectators left in the stands.

Before I leave little before 2 AM, I watch a couple of games and the first set tiebreaker between Marin Cilic and Hyeon Chung. There are between 50 and 100 people in the stands to watch the defending US Open champion.

I am not that surprised. It has been a long day and the rain delay in the evening did not help. I leave after the first set and see that the car that parked after me is extremely close to my car and I remember the parking attendant from the morning…

It seems so long ago…

Note: Stay tuned to Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for live updates, and on-site photos…

Wimbledon 2017: Men’s Quarterfinals Preview

Who can stop Roger and Rafa?

French Open 4th Round: Murray def. Isner 7-6 6-4 6-3

2016 Australian Open: M. Raonic vs A. Murray, Semifinal Preview

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

Citi Open – Tuesday’s Narrative

Navigation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Navigation