Tag: Australian Open 2019

Australian Open: A Look Ahead to Two Tuesday Quarterfinals

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

Petra Kvitova (8) vs Ashleigh Barty (15)

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

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

Photo: Scott Barbour — Getty Images AsiaPac

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Julian Finney – Getty Images AsiaPac

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

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

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

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Dimitrov? Come On… Or, Can He?

Janko Tipsarevic, Pablo Cuevas, and Thomas Fabbiano. Just a reminder of who Grigor Dimitrov, the Bulgarian 20th-seed has eliminated on his way to his fourth-round match-up against Frances Tiafoe, scheduled for Sunday at the Australian Open. Although none of the victims were part of the so-called significant threats when the tournament began, the victories did not come trouble-free for Grigor as he had to play four sets against the first two and needed to overcome a heavy-handed start against Fabbiano, albeit winning straight sets.

For Grigor fans, the notion of taking comfort in your player’s ability to regularly show up in the second week of Majors has been bruised and battered plenty over the last few years. In 2018, it turned dismal despite the exciting cross at the finish line in 2017. Many went as far as suggesting a coaching change when Dimitrov’s woes deepened through the course of last year. He obviously did not think so (right decision, in my opinion) and he stuck with Daniel Vallverdu, recently adding Andre Agassi to the mix. That is one quality coach and one great mind who can perhaps squeeze the Bulgarian’s talent in ways that can bring stability to his topsy-turvy outings. We shall see, maybe very shortly.

Back to Grigor fans… It’s not all doom and gloom, my friends.

Photo — Getty Images AsiaPac

Your player did show signs of recovering his brilliance against Fabbiano, and more importantly, the quality-level of his performance increased as the match progressed against a pesky opponent that has largely been underrated. Grigor survived (no other verb to describe it) the first set with a tiebreaker in which both men committed a generous amount of errors.

Dimitrov started the second set surprisingly well. In the first two games, he showcased his trademark shot-making abilities, hitting a couple of forehand winners on the full run, stifling Fabbiano by stepping into the court, returning with determination, and adding in a spectacular backhand-volley winner for good measure. He seemed to be back on track and kept that break advantage until 3-2. Then, the seemingly fine-tuned Grigor machine got derailed. In that game, he sprayed four very makeable forehands out in five points. It was completely unbecoming, compared to how well he was playing up to that moment in that set. Gone was his break advantage.

That is maybe how little it takes nowadays for self-doubt to appear in Grigor’s mind, I ‘dunno.’ Because, in the first two points of the ensuing 3-3 game, he engaged in rallies during which he had multiple chances (four in the first point, one in the second) to step inside the court, which he did, unleash his shot and put Fabbiano on the stretch, which he did, and follow it up to put it away at the net, which he did not! Yep, he hesitated. He won both points anyway and that may actually not be a good thing, because he did not suffer the consequences of his apprehensiveness.

That small stretch, the sixth game followed by Dimitrov’s hesitancy in the first two points of the seventh, represented a worrisome glitch for Grigor’s camp, I presume. To make matters worse, Fabbiano climbed back to 30-30 following another forehand error by Dimitrov. Was he about to plunge back into troublesome waters after a few games of vintage flair on his part?

This is where the silver lining lies and what followed demonstrated that it’s not all gloom and doom for Dimitrov’s fans at the end of the day. He did not crumble. On his second break-point opportunity, he put forth on display once again his all-court dexterity in a rally that saw him chase down and retrieve several great shots by Fabbiano, counterpunch with a stellar forehand to get the upper hand at one point in the rally, only to lose it again two shots later (because Fabbiano also happens to be an able counterpuncher), but still manage to end it on a spectacular lob from a very difficult position. It was the best point of the match. Dimitrov stood still two seconds with his right fist raised above his head, staring at his camp. He did not flail, he was back. That little stretch earlier was indeed just a glitch. He was not going to let it spoil the party.

From that point forward, Dimitrov’s performance turned even more solid by the minute. He finished the second set at 5-4 with four unreturnable serves. In the third set, there were no glitches such as the one in the second and Dimitrov exhibited a level of consistency far above that of the first. He made five unforced errors in that last set (my count, I assure you it’s more accurate than the official one), all on the forehand side, which had something to do with the fact that he was in a better groove and was pounding them harder. With no errors on the backhand side in the third set and the serve (the importance of which I cannot emphasize enough with regard to Grigor’s success) clicking on all cylinders in the last two sets, Dimitrov had about as strong a finish as one could expect, considering the mediocre first forty minutes of the match.

It’s true that one can hardly call this a great overall performance by Dimitrov, but when analyzed in detail, there is quite a lot to be hopeful about. In the Majors you would like your game to improve with each round and walk off the court after each victory with the feeling that you just accomplished something beyond just what the scoreline indicates, one on which you can build for the next 48 hours to tackle the next challenge. That process effectively took place for Dimitrov in his win against Fabbiano, and his next challenge comes in the form of Frances Tiafoe, the American fast-rising youngster.

And honestly, for Dimitrov, in the grand scheme of things, the name of the opponent matters less than how his frame of mind is shaped on the court. He is an intelligent player and has two able helpers to provide further assistance, but his fate lies on his racket.

If he can beat Tiafoe, he will match his quarterfinal showing from last year and avoid losing more points.

If he can do so and do it at a level of the highest order – read that as “raise his level far beyond that of the previous three matches – he will march into the second week having recaptured his identity as one of the rare menaces to elite-level players.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Nishikori Advances, as His Nemesis Looms Large

If you are a fan of Kei Nishikori, your hair already turned gray by a few tones this week, and we are still a full day away from the first weekend of the Australian Open. If you are not familiar with what I mean, let me see if I can recap what they witnessed in the last 72 hours, in one long sentence.

After a first-round match two days earlier that must have resembled a nightmare to Kei himself for the first hour and a half before he turned it around, partially benefiting from the physical woes of his opponent Kamil Majchrzak, the number-eight seed survived a nightmare of a different kind in the second round vs. Ivo Karlovic, one in which, following a dreamy couple of sets where his game clicked on all cylinders, he saw his serve broken once each in the late stages of the third and fourth sets, and found himself down three break points at 4-4 in the fifth, before he finally put away the big Croat who blitzed 59 aces past him in a match that needed the newly adopted 10-point tiebreaker to come to an end.

The final score was 6-3 7-6 5-7 5-7 7-6 (10-7). It lasted 3 hours and 48 minutes.

Nishikori is in the third round, but there is enough cause for concern if you are in Kei’s camp, for a very specific reason. Before I point out that reason, let me first make another point.

Nobody can dispute the fact that this 2019 edition of the Australian Open is in the rackets of the big 3, so to speak, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Until someone else makes a mammoth breakthrough (and yes, the adjective is appropriate considering how they have been dominating the Majors), any other player’s shot at winning one of the four Grand Slam events remains an outside shot at best.

Having said that, if you were forced to pick an outsider to lift the winner’s trophy on that second Sunday, Nishikori may have been one of the few fair choices other than Kevin Anderson (ousted already), Marin Cilic, and maybe one or two others of your choosing. So, these two weeks represent a monumental opportunity for Nishikori to break through, stun the world of tennis, and grab that elusive elite title that would do wonders to his otherwise very respectable resumé. Plus, he came to the tournament in good form, at the heels of a successful comeback from injury after missing last year’s Australian Open. He returned to ATP-tour level competition in New York in February and steadily rose all the way to top 10 by the end of the year. It’s a remarkable comeback that was only overshadowed by Novak Djokovic’s comeback to number one in the world.

What better way to crown the impressive 10 months Nishikori just had than with his first Major title!

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty Images AsiaPac

Yet, the reality is that Kei’s biggest nemesis is not the big 3. And that brings me to my central point.

Playing 10 sets (ok, nine and a half) just to reach the third round is anything but ideal for the Japanese star. Kei, whose career has been halted more than once by injuries, cannot be expected to pull an Edberg-1992 or even a Federer-2017 where the winners pulled five-set wins in the three out of four matches in their last four rounds, let alone having a couple or more of those in the first week to begin with, the way Nishikori has so far this week. His nemesis – I reiterate, it is not Novak, Rafa, or Roger – will likely rear its ugly head again unless Kei can get in a couple of short-duration wins in the next round or two.

Having said that, there is a silver lining in what Nishikori has achieved this week. Or, I should more specifically say, in the way that he has earned the two wins.

Out of the ten sets that he has played, one would have a hard time pointing to any one of them and say that his performance was subpar. Furthermore, he has not allowed the downturns in either of the matches to obnubilate his tactical vision or dampen his spirit.

He first had to deal with a youngster who came out firing and outplaying him for two sets. Nishikori remained steady on course and collected the fruits of his hard labor when Majchrzak began running out of steam. Then, against Karlovic on Thursday, he faced a completely different set of challenges and still managed to overcome the hurdle.

One can easily say that 59 aces in an extended five-setter is not a startling number by Dr. Ivo’s standards. Since time immemorial, his opponents have walked on the court against him, expecting to get aced frequently. In order to counterbalance that effect, they aim to get back in the court as many returns as possible out of the ones that they can get their rackets on, so that Karlovic can have a shot at maybe missing a routine volley at a crucial juncture in the match. Beyond that, the occasional appeal to the skies in hopes that he chucks in a couple of double faults may also prove helpful, no?

Nishikori succeeded in going above and beyond the above. He not only got plenty of returns back in the court when he could get his racket on the serve – and he often did, because his first-step is awfully quick – but managed to nail a large number of them down to Karlovic’s ankles, forcing the big Croat to resort to placements volleys rather than straight put-away ones. Even when Ivo got the first volley back over the net, he found himself staring at Kei getting ready to zoom a passing shot by him. And Nishikori did all that with Karlovic serving at… wait for it… 79% first serves for the match! Add 59 aces to that and it’s almost miraculous that Nishikori was even able to break once!

Then, there was Nishikori’s own serving. He served at a whopping 90% first serves until the tiebreaker of the second set and finished the match at 83%. He often served and volleyed, taking advantage of Karlovic’s floating returns to put his (underrated) volleys away. He did not face a break point in the first two sets and faced only two in the next two sets. The problem is that he lost both of those break points, and they came at the late stages of each set, causing him to go down 7-5 in both.

Karlovic’s first break (the one in the third set) was a key one. He needed that to start re-nurturing his belief. At 5-5 on Nishikori’s serve, he nailed a cross-court winner at 0-15. He followed that up with a monstrous return to the middle of the court that caused Nishikori to miss in the net. That eventually led to a blank-game break by Ivo who had not really come close to breaking his opponent’s serve for almost three sets until then.

You could tell that Karlovic’s confidence was growing at that point. His body language went up a level in the positive-vibes department. And when Dr. Ivo feels good, his second-serve performance catapults to impressive levels to complement his bazooka first serves. He won below 50% of his second-serve points in the first two sets, whereas in the last three, he recorded 67%, 80%, and 75% success rates in points won with his second serve. Don’t think Nishikori did not notice: “[Karlovic] was really serving well today, I think, even the second serve.” Kei had only two break-point opportunities (both in the fourth set) after he got broken in that 5-5 game in the third. He also confirmed after the match that Karlovic “mixed up really well” his serves “after [the] third set.”

Nishikori faced oblivion at 4-4 in the fifth. Down 0-40 on his serve, he managed somehow to remain cool as ice, despite horrendously gagging a high forehand volley in the net at 0-30 to dig that hole for himself. They were “virtual match points” for Ivo, quoting Paul Annacone on the Tennis Channel, yet Kei remained error-free for the next five points, and it was Karlovic whose elbow got heavy. Ivo had chances to approach the net in the second and third break points but stayed at the baseline. He really should have ‘pulled a Colin Dowdeswell’ (who remembers that guy?) and chipped and charged from anywhere on the court to get up to the net. Nishikori, contrary to the first two sets, was feeling the heat during that period of the match and had missed some makeable passing shots earlier in the fifth set. Why not test him again? But Ivo chose the option not to instead, and he paid dearly. Five points in a row won by Nishikori, all resulting in Karlovic errors (the one at 30-40 was an unforced forehand error), and the world number nine held serve to lead 5-4.

It was only fitting that the final set would end in a 10-point tiebreaker.

Nishikori got an early mini-break, an advantage that he kept until 6-5. A big return by Karlovic erased that lead and in the ensuing point, Nishikori had an easy put-away on top of the net that he struck inside-out on his forehand, but Karlovic guessed the right side and passed Kei in the open court. Just like that, Karlovic was now up a mini-break at 7-6, and Nishikori’s chances looked bleak once more. Yet again, he did not lose his composure. After a little ‘nudge’ by Karlovic who made a forehand error to lose his mini-break advantage, Nishikori hit a great return (his umpteenth of the match) at 7-7 that forced Karlovic to lunge at the backhand volley and miss.

Now leading at 8-7, Nishikori simply needed to win his two serving points to close the curtain. He did so with two solid serves that Karlovic could not get back in the court.

Karlovic, who will turn 40 next month, got a well-deserved standing ovation from the pro-Nishikori crowd as he left Margaret Court Arena.

As for Nishikori, the question remains, can he sustain his physical prowess in the second week if he has to battle this hard in the early rounds? He remains optimistic: “Yeah, these two matches can go, you know, I could lose these two matches. So yeah, I just need to recover well. But, I mean, it’s only two matches yet, so I’m not too tired yet.”

He will face Joao Sousa who also survived a testing five-setter (4h18m) against Philip Kohlschreiber and has also played ten sets going into the third round. Whether that is another silver lining or not for Nishikori remains to be seen. In any case, Kei will need to find an easy win or two before reaching the quarterfinals in order to have a legitimate shot at upsetting the top players in the second week. Facing a pesky competitor like Sousa in the third round does not sound promising in reaching that goal, but Nishikori’s camp can take comfort in knowing that the quality of his tennis is unlikely waver. It’s just that he will need to defeat the player on the other side of the net and that other nemesis looming large on the horizon, waiting for him to push his physical limits to the edge.

[source for the Nishikori quotes: Australian Open website]

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Australian Open Day 3: Petra Martic Advances Despite Fragmented Play

Under normal circumstances, any tennis fan would justifiably get excited to watch an encounter between Petra Martic (no.32) and Marketa Vondrousova (no.73), two of the more talented players in the WTA. Both women are fine shot-makers, largely thanks to the large variety of hits they can produce from any position on the court. This particular second-round match between the two at the Australian Open, however, did not meet the expectations despite the close scoreline.

There were a number of eye-opening winners hit by each player – that much was expected in any case – and neither was shy about digging deep into her bag of tricks. Yet, the 6-4 7-5 victory in favor of the Croatian player Martic was also marked by her piecemeal performance that turned out to be just sufficient, largely because of the progressively erratic play by her opponent throughout the match.

In an oddball first set, neither player held serve until 4-3 for Martic. It is not that this never happened before, although it’s quite rare. What made this particular start atypical was that neither player served badly or returned particularly well up to that point, which are the main reasons why such oddity occurs. Marketa served put 64% of her first serves in while Petra did the same at 72% up to that juncture in the match. Although it should be noted that Vondrousova was returning aggressively at times, one can hardly point to spectacular returning as the reason for which neither player could buy a service hold if their lives depended on it. They did not even get close to holding! By the time that eight game began, the total number of game-point opportunities that both players had on their serves was… wait for it… zero!

It was as if each got touched by some magic wand every time the serve changed hands. The server would all of a sudden sail balls out and wide, or slam them into the net, while the returner would suddenly turn solid as a rock, adding a winner or two in the mix for good measure.

Petra Martic at the Miami Open (Photo: Al Bello – Getty Images North America)

A magic wand of a different kind arrived, I presume, after that game, one that brought some degree of normalcy back to court number 8 at Melbourne Park. Martic held serve the next two times to grab the first set 6-4. Through both periods of the set, the “atypical” portion and the “normal” one, Martic made seven unforced errors, a tad better than Vondrousova who committed 12 of them. Simply put, the player that ‘donated’ less won the first set.
[Reminder: I do my own count for unforced errors, so my numbers may differ slightly than the official ones. For example, I don’t include double faults in this category, to cite one possible difference among others.]

Vondrousova began the second set with a clear willingness to get more aggressive from the baseline. She also appeared to be determined to approach the net if any short-ball opportunity presented itself. It worked. She won all but one of the point in which she approached the net in the first four games of that set.

There was one moment where Vondrousova could have truly taken over the reins. She was up 2-1 and had a break-point opportunity with Martic serving at 30-40. She had the chance to grab a two-game lead for the first time in the match and truly swing the pendulum of momentum her way, at least in this set. Martic was showing signs of frustration, accompanied by racket-throwing or self-monologuing outbursts, certainly due the pressure she felt from her opponent’s increasingly aggressive tactics.

Vondrousova got the return in play and a rally ensued. She committed a dreadful unforced error on her forehand that briskly ended the rally and brought the score to deuce. That forehand shot landed to the bottom of the net, literally, and rolled to the other side of the court through that little opening at the bottom of the net caused by the net strap being hooked to the ground. Following the error, Vondrousova bent and grabbed her right knee, rolled her hand over it (more on this later).

Martic served an ace at deuce. Vondrousova followed that up by dipping a routine forehand return into the net again on Martic’s second serve. Just like that, her one chance at taking charge vanished, the only one that she had in the match.

Marketa Vondrousova at the US Open (Photo: Al Bello – Getty Images North America)

Both players sprayed even more unforced errors in the second set than they did in the first. Most of Marketa’s 18 errors (Petra had 11) came in the last several games of the second set after her momentum was halted.

Martic eventually grabbed a 5-3 lead but could not put Vondrousova away due to a few errors of her own. But it almost felt like a delay of the inevitable. At 5-5, Martic won the next eight out of nine points, the last three on unforced errors by Voundrousova, and ended the match after one hour and 32 minutes.

In the upcoming days, Vondrousova must confront a bigger concern than the loss of a tennis match. She clearly has a right-leg problem that has not gone away. It already hindered her progress once in the spring of 2018 when she had to retire in the second round in Stuttgart, leading 3-2 in the third vs. Svitolina. Then it reappeared in September, forcing her to stay away from competition until this week in Melbourne. On Monday, after her straight-set win over Evgeniya Rodina in the first round, Marketa did admit to suffering from pain on that same leg, explaining that it has now shifted to her knee. She admitted that she will need to “deal with it” after the Australian Open in one way or another.

As for Martic, she will need to perform at a significantly higher level than she did on Wednesday, when she takes on fifth-seeded American Sloane Stephens in the third round on Friday. Petra possesses the tools to dismantle anyone’s game on a given day, but Stephens can neutralize the strenghts of an opponent better than most WTA players can, thanks to her on-court sense and counter-punching skills. If they both play at a high level, expect the quality of tennis to skyrocket in that match.

————— Random final thought:

I found it puzzling that Martic seemed fine with engaging in so many cross-court rallies from her forehand (arguably her less versatile side) to Vondrousova’s backhand. I did not count the win-loss numbers on them (I should have, in retrospect) but I have a feeling that a large percentage ended in Vondrousova’s favor, which is not surprising. She seemed perfectly content with sending the ball right back cross-court to Martic’s forehand and waiting for her opportunity to pull the trigger. That’s no surprise, considering that she has the ability to accelerate better – or nail the occasional, flat, warp-speed winner – with her backhand. She is a bit more prone to errors on her forehand, thus more apprehensive on that side. 

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Australian Open Day 1: McDonald vs Rublev (first rd)

MacKenzie McDonald won his first main-draw match in Majors one year ago in Melbourne. On Monday, one year later, he improves his record to 5-4 in Majors by defeating Andrey Rublev 6-4 6-4 2-6 6-4 in the first round of the Australian Open. To read my detailed post-match analysis of this match on Tennis with an Accent, click here ——> MacKenzie McDonald Solidifies His Place at the Majors

MacKenzie McDonald in action during last year’s Australian Open
Photo: Michael Dodge – Getty Images AsiaPac

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Navigation