Tag: Indian Wells 2018

Indian Wells Match Report: Milos Raonic vs Joao Sousa (3rd round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

Milos Raonic launched his 2018 campaign in Brisbane in January following a three-month injury-related break that he probably wanted to leave behind as fast as possible. What he has done in the first three months of this year, however, has only been the continuation of the nightmare, except that instead of recovering from injury, he found himself trying to recover from disappointing losses. The Canadian began the year with two first-round losses in Brisbane and at the Australian Open. It takes time to recover from injury, especially for a big guy like Milos, but surely, he was hoping for a better record than 1-3 and an ATP ranking of 38 (last week it was 40, his lowest since 2011) coming into the BNP Parisbas Open in Indian Wells.

Well, his record is leveled at 3-3 after two wins vs Félix Auger-Aliassime and Joao Sousa. His match on Tuesday against the 85th-ranked Sousa was, at least on paper, a straight-forward matchup between an attacker with a big serve and a retriever-counterpuncher with a reliable footwork. Most of the encounter lived up to that billing, with the outcome resting on a game or two here and there. Raonic, being the aggressor and donning a clear weapon, his serve, was the player more likely to decide the fate of the match.

Milos did get couple of assists from Sousa, but it was his shot-making (or shall I say “serve-making with the support of some other shots”?) or his errors that oscillated the match one way or the other.

Photo: Jeff Gross – Getty Images

One aspect of his game plan that had an immediate impact, on Sousa particularly, was his decision to nail as many forehands as possible for winners on his opponent’s second-serve returns. He blatantly ran around his backhand and went for forehand winners each time he saw a second serve coming from Sousa. The Canadian also served big both on first and second serves, even by his standards, from the very first game forward. He seemed determined to finish the point with one shot, period. It was an astute strategy**. Sousa is a pesky player who can run down many balls and create angles from the baseline. The last thing Raonic wanted to do was to resort to extended rallies against an opponent who relies on building his rhythm with longer points.

**Side note 1: I reject the notion that what I described here is “always Raonic’s strategy” thus implying that it has nothing to do with astuteness. Milos is a hihgly intelligent player and to say that he solely does one thing and never varies it only shows that the person making the claim has hardly ever watched Raonic and seen that he often adjusts his return position, his serve’s placement, and the amount of slice he adds to his backhand depending on his opponent.

The example of the first game should suffice to illustrate Raonic’s desire to cut the point short. Most servers start pulling their biggest serves when they are well into the match and there comes a moment when they feel physically and mentally geared to make a run. Their focus peaks and they “free-flow” into hitting one service bomb after another. This does not usually happen in the very beginning of the match. Unless, evidently, your name is Milos Raonic.

His very first serve of the match was a 143 mph bazooka that Sousa could not return in the court. Milos missed the next first serve at 144 mph. In the third point, he nailed a 125 mph second serve that forced an error out of Sousa. In the fourth point, his second serve had such an overwhelming kick that Sousa, bewildered by the bounce, swung the air with his racket. It was a clean ace. The first game was over in one minute and 55 seconds, and it lasted that long only because the second point turned out to be an eleven-shot rally.

Therefore, when one looks at Raonic’s first-serve percentage for the first set, it can be misleading. It stood at 43% when the set ended. Low number by any means, but not as dismal as you might think if you observed how much he went for on them from the opening point. In fact, he only lost two points when he did put them in. He also won the majority of points on his second serves because he was taking risks on them too. Although he would like to at least serve over 50% first serves, his priority here was to cut the point short even if it came at the cost of committing few more errors.

He finished the match at 57% first-serve percentage largely thanks to the third set during which he made 15 out 20 first serves. He won 41 out of the 46 points that started with his first serves, losing only one in the second set, ironically the only one he lost.

As noted above, where the strategy really paid off for Raonic was on returns. He sent an early message to Sousa that the Portuguese better get his first serve in, or else**. In his first two service games, Raonic moved around his backhand side to unload his forehand on Sousa’s second serves, and won a large majority of those points. In fact, Sousa would go on to win only around 20% of his second-serve points for the first two sets and finish the match at 29%.

**Side note 2: By the way, Raonic did not limit his risk-taking on returns to Sousa’s second serves. Whenever he could get his feet set, he also unleashed his forehand on Sousa’s first ones. If you wonder the effect his returns had overall on Sousa, look at the expression on Joao’s face immediately after Raonic hits a warp-speed return at deuce in the 2-1 game, on a solid, wide first serve by the Portuguese no less. Sousa barely gets his racket on it, loses the point to face the third break point in that game, and smiles sarcastically toward his box, probably wondering how Milos was pulling those returns.

You could sense, very early in the match, Sousa’s malaise on second serves when that reality set in. Raonic’s aggressive returns led to two double faults by Sousa in his second-serving game of the match at 1-2. Both double faults came after Raonic punished Sousa’s second serves in the preceding points (at 15-15, and 30-30). Sousa then had to battle for 9 minutes 55 seconds and save five break points in order to survive that game.

Strangely, it was Sousa that got to break Raonic first at 4-4. It was the only game in which Raonic did not get a first serve in and double-faulted twice. It also helped that Sousa’s shot clipped the net and dropped over for a winner on break point. In the ensuing game, Sousa would give his first of two assists to Raonic. He started the 5-4 game with a double fault followed by a badly timed backhand slice that allowed Raonic to attack and win the next point to go up 0-30. Raonic broke serve to get to 5-5 and did it again at 6-5 to finish the first set. In that game, Raonic nailed another forehand return for a winner on a second serve by Sousa at 15-30. Sousa followed that up with a double fault, a pattern previously seen more than once in this set, and lost the first set 7-5. When you look at stats and see four double faults for Sousa in the first set, remember that they are in part products of Raonic’s tremendous pressure on his second serves.

A similar pattern took place in the second set, with a different ending. Again, Raonic served two double faults in the 4-4 game, and again, Sousa broke his serve to go up 5-4. Sousa would not let his opportunity get away this time. He played a very solid game** to hold comfortably and force a third set.

**Side note 3: I should note that Sousa played many solid games in this match and won most points that turned into baseline battles. This is no surprise, but it also shows how accurate Raonic was in his successful attempt to turn this match into one whose outcome depended on serves and returns, rather than winners and unforced errors hit during rallies.

Photo: Matthew Stockman – Getty Images

The turning point of the third set came when Sousa was serving at 2-3. Raonic deserves credit for extending the game to deuce, thanks to the fabulous forehand cross-court winner he hit on the run at 40-30. Then, Sousa gave Raonic his second – and definitive – assist. After an ace to earn another game point, Sousa netted a short, albeit low, forehand in the net on an approach shot. He would get a third chance at holding serve, but then would string together his worst sequence of three-points-in-a-row of the match at a most inopportune time.

He first attempted a serve-and-volley on an average first serve that Raonic was easily able to get down to his feet at the net. I have no idea why Joao would try to do the opposite of what has worked for him during the last hour, which is to engage Raonic in a rally, either to squeeze an error out of him or to approach the net when the short-ball opportunity presented itself. In fact, this formula worked more than once in the very game that he was playing. He missed the low backhand volley and the score went to deuce. He would then pass on a chance to come to the net in the next rally when he had a short ball on his forehand, probably because the volley miss from the last point was fresh in his mind. Few shots later in that rally, he netted a forehand to go down a break point, and followed it up with an angled forehand attempt from the middle of the court that went wide to lose his serve. It was poor decision-making for three successive points and his disappointment showed when he turned to his box to express it after losing the break point.

Raonic took control and raised his level considerably. He played his best tennis of the match in the last two games of the match, breaking Sousa’s serve one more time to win the match 7-5 4-6 6-2. He advanced on to the next round to face the streaky Marcos Baghdatis for a spot in the quarterfinals. Raonic’s game still has glitches and his movement is not at 100%, but playing more matches is precisely what the doctor ordered so the central task was accomplished.

At the end of the day, Sousa and Bahdatis are no more than other competitors who line up as his opponents on a given day. Milos is relentlessly harassed by a much more vicious and powerful nemesis than any single tennis player, one that methodically keeps hampering his progress: physical pain. In the bigger picture, it is nothing less than remarkable that he has been able to accumulate as many impressive results as he has in his career, considering that injuries have relentlessly pursued him since his early years on the tour, often with success, much to the dismay of his fans.

Having said that, you cannot build a game plan for your upcoming opponent around the notion of avoiding injury. Raonic must rather concentrate on repairing the existing glitches in his game. He must aim to win more efficiently than he did in Tuesday’s match against Sousa so that he can move on to the next round with the least amount of wear and tear to his body. And drawing up an efficient winning plan for the next match involves forehands, backhands, serves, winners, aces, angles, et cetera, as well as all the other x’s and o’s that matter once the first point begins. Winning, after all, leads to more match play and the more victories Milos can amass, while remaining healthy, the more confidence he can gain and the quicker he can return inside the top ten.

Until the next one, enjoy the BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Caroline Wozniacki – Aliaksandra Sasnovich (3rd round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA 2 Comments

After hovering in the 80-to-150 ranking range for the last few years, Aliaksandra Sasnovich is having a career year in 2018, having cracked the top 50 for the first time (no.49 currently). Prior to today’s match, the 23-year-old from Belarus had accumulated a number of quality wins this year and had a breakthrough tournament in Brisbane where, as a qualifier, she advanced to the finals before losing to Elina Svitolina. She had then reaffirmed her form by advancing to the third round of the Australian Open, her best result in a Major.

Caroline Wozniacki had a breakthrough of her own at the Australian Open, winning her first Major title in her 43rd participation in one. More importantly for her, the title ensured that she would never again have to answer that relentless question “a million times or a hundred thousand times.”

Photo: Adam Pretty – Getty Images

For a baseline player like Sasnovich who does not rely on consistently overpowering her opponent, Wozniacki represents a daunting challenge. It puts the Belarusian in this precarious domain where she faces a player who can do everything she does well but do them a little better than her (ok, maybe not drop shots, but that is a specialty shot, not one to build a game plan around). Such matchups often result in lop-sided scores because the better-skilled player beats the underdog at her own game and the latter feels the need to switch to another game plan with which she does not feel at ease.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the favorite may simply have an off day and commit an unexpectedly high amount of errors as a consequence of which the underdog may gain confidence and perform above her expected level. The underdog would also have to continue her form and not take the foot off the pedal. That would be the formula for an upset. The first part of the above equation did indeed materialize in the early games of this match on Stadium Court 1.

Wozniacki made three unforced errors in the first game of the match to lose her serve. After her fifth one at 15-15 in the next game, she switched rackets, but it was soon to become clear that the racket was not the cause of her erratic play**. By the time she lost her serve again to go down 0-3, she had committed six unforced errors and a double fault.

**Side note 1: She said after the match that she was “not a morning person” so maybe that was it (or something)? She also called her father for some coaching advice at 0-3, but the dialog came across more like a back-and-forth disagreement between the two than anything else.

The first part of the equation required for an upset to take place, as noted above, had come true. Wozniacki had a dismal start and Sasnovich had a commanding lead without even having played very well. For the second part of the equation to materialize, Sasnovich would need to lift her game even higher and sustain her lead before Wozniacki had a chance to steady the ship.

She did not.

In fact, this would become the pattern for the rest of the match. Wozniacki would never manage to rise above her average level of play and resort to depending on her mental toughness to pull through. She admitted that much herself after the match. After acknowledging that she struggled throughout the match to find her timing, she said “I mentally stayed tough out there, that’s why I won.”

She would soon find out that she could also depend on Sasnovich letting her back in the match each time that the Belarusian had an opportunity to pull away. That is what happened when Sasnovich served at 3-0. Out of nowhere, she committed three unforced errors, and not-so-out-of-nowhere, she added two double faults (7 total in the set), to lose her service game. But hey, no big deal. Today’s Wozniacki was in a giving mood. She returned the favor in the next game with a double fault of her own to start the game, and a sitter backhand that sailed out to end it. Up by two breaks again, serving at 4-1, Sasnovich would surely run away with the first set now, right?

No, she would not.

She would double-fault twice more and miss a routine approach shot wide on her way to losing her serve with a blank game. Wozniacki then played her first decent game of the match and held serve for the first time to get back to 3-4. In the ensuing game, Sasnovich would add another double fault to go down 15-40. She then played two terrific points to get back to deuce, only to be hampered by another double fault followed by a forehand routine error.

The set was leveled at 4-4 when in fact, all signs indicated that Sasnovich should have pocketed it ten minutes ago. Wozniacki was certainly not raising the level of her game and the fact that she went down 0-40 on her serve at 4-4, due to two more unforced errors, was proof of that. Nevertheless, she would find a way to win five points in a row and pull ahead for the first time in the match. That is what being a Major title holder with renewed confidence does, it makes you believe that you can still cook a decent meal even when the required ingredients are missing on that particular day.

The last game summarized the set well. Sasnovich lost her service game one more time by committing her seventh double fault and three unforced errors (including one on her favorite shot, the backhand down-the-line). Wozniacki was up a set without having played well at all. It was a devastating way to lose the set for Sasnovich.

Up to this point in the match it was a typical case of the favorite having an off day. What was atypical was the fact that, not only did Wozniacki’s errors not lead to the underdog gaining confidence and lifting her level higher, but Sasnovich’s game actually regressed as her lead grew and the set progressed. You would think that the order would now be restored. The underdog would not recover from the disappointment of squandering her opportunity and the favorite would finally feel relief, and find her rhythm to a straight-set victory.

None of that would take place.

In that game, all points but one would end with errors, including two unforced backhands by Wozniacki. Sasnovich would once again start the set with a break. The next game was very contested and it actually had some quality points. Yet, the key point was a dreadful – sorry, no other adjective would do it justice – forehand miss into the net by Wozniacki on an easy sitter from well inside the court at deuce.

Well, you get the idea. I will not bore you with the detailed account of the next two sets, but will simply offer some last remarks to summarize.

– Wozniacki won 6-4 2-6 6-3 in two hours and sixteen minutes.

– After the first set that featured more breaks than holds, some mild sense of normalcy returned in the second set with six holds and two breaks. In the final set, it would go back to more breaks than holds. In total, there were fourteen breaks in the match, which was also the number of total double faults committed by Sasnovich (no deeper meaning here, just a coincidence).

– Sasnovich went on to win the second set 6-2. She probably played her best tennis, within the parameters of this match I must underline, in the three games that took her from 3-2 up to 6-2. Which makes it that much more stunning that, after the confidence-building stretch to end the set and breaking Wozniacki’s serve to start the third one, she still found a way to let Caroline back in. In fact, that first game of the third set was by far her best game. At that point of the match, she had established her aggressive play (which she started doing to increase her lead in the second set) and she was really pushing Wozniacki around the baseline.

– So how did that turnaround happen? How did Wozniacki, who was still playing poorly, stop the slide precisely when Sasnovich seemed poised to break away? You may have guessed it; unforced errors and double faults by Sasnovich. She gifted two of each category in that 1-0 game. Later, Wozniacki broke Sasnovich’s serve for the second time at 3-2 when the Belarusian made four unforced errors, two of them dreadful – yes, there is that adjective again, but for the other player’s errors this time.

– Even when Wozniacki gained control of the match at 4-2 in the third and saw the light at the end of the tunnel, she still struggled with her timing. Watch the replay of the 4-2 game and you will understand.

– It was not a high-quality match by any stretch of the imagination and its fate lingered, for the most part, on what each player failed to do rather than what they accomplished well. On the other hand, it offered some valuable lessons on how matches change patterns for better or worse. It demonstrated that shifts in a match do not necessarily emerge as a result of tactical adjustments by a player, but sometimes originate in the degree of mental struggles that the players manifest. It showed that persistence, combined with patience, can offer a pay off, as it did to Wozniacki, even when the player’s performance remains at a mediocre level.

– This is not a disheartening loss for Sasnovich in the sense that she was not supposed to lose. A defeat to Wozniacki should not be a source of depression for any player. However losing to today’s Wozniacki, especially after having been in a position to win multiple times, is a letdown for an in-form player like Sasnovich. Wozniacki did not do anything differently to turn the match around. If anything at all, whenever she found herself in a position to establish her dominance as the favorite, she kept on allowing Sasnovich to climb back on top by committing errors of her own.

– For those who are interested in variations within the two-handed backhand technique, Sasnovich’s backhand is a great example of how the left hand can be dominant force in your shot. Take a look at the photo below. You can see that the left hand is there for control, and the right hand (and the arm) is the one used to accelerate the ball. Keep in mind that Sasnovich hits her best backhands rather flat. That comes from the dominant left arm that allows her to follow through forward rather than around the body, thus her ability to hit stellar down-the-line backhands, her best shot by far.

Photo: Harry How – Getty Images

Until the next one, enjoy the BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Marketa Vondrousova – Aryna Sabalenka (3rd round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA No Comments

This match, viewed by some as “a look at the future of the WTA,” featuring two of “the rising stars of women’s tennis,” for good reasons, did not quite live up to the hype in terms of scoreline, but was rich in nuance, thus highly informative with regard to both players’ strengths and shortcomings.

Let me first repeat that which some casual fans may not know about these two players. As I said in my first-round analysis of Marketa Vondrousova’s win over the American Madison Brengle, the eighteen-year-old Czech player is a talented left-handed player, ranked 54 in the world. The 63rd-ranked Aryna Sabalenka is nineteen years old and has improved by leaps and bounds over the last few months. Both players are making their first appearances at the BNP Parisbas Open in Indian Wells. So you can imagine how high the stakes were for them in this match as they stepped on the court at 11 AM, California time. Let’s also not forget the $88,175 prize money for the fourth-round qualifier, a little under what Vondrousova has earned this year so far and a little over that of Sabalenka.

The match pitted two players with contrasting styles. You had the crafty Vondrousova who possesses a wide repertoire of shots in her arsenal, facing a powerful hitter in Sabalenka who, when clicking on all cylinders, is capable of blowing her opponent off the court so fast that the opponent may never get the chance to put her skills to use. Of course, the downside of Sabalenka, or any player with that style, is that her errors can pile up just as quickly as she can produce winners.

Unfortunately for Aryna, that is precisely what happened in the early games of this match.

Sabalenka began the match on her serve and won the first point with one of her favorite patterns, a hard first serve followed by a winner on the next shot, your basic 1-2 punch. The first minute must have pleased her fans, especially when she hit a second-serve ace to lead 40-15. Then, things turned sour. She lost the next four points and her service game.

She committed four unforced errors (three in the net, one deep) in that first game, three of them on winner attempts from inside the court. To add salt to the wound, Vondrousova’s return clipped the net and dropped over for a winner at deuce. When the game ended, the commentator called it a “dream start for Vondrousova.” The more accurate description would have been “a nightmarish start for Sabalenka.” Unfortunately, she was just getting started with this nightmare.

Photo: Ryan Pierse – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Sabalenka made three more errors in the next game, all deep this time, two on eminently makeable returns and one on a winner attempt from inside the baseline. Vondrousova’s break was confirmed with a blank hold. She led 2-0.

By the time Sabalenka began the third game with another winner attempt from inside the baseline that went in the net and followed it up with a double fault to go down 0-30, alarm bells were already ringing. Vondrousova added two fine forehand winners and Sabalenka found herself down two breaks, at 0-3, ten minutes into the match. The rapid slide needed to stop, she asked for her coach Magnus Tideman.

Tideman was positive, trying to lift her spirits: “long way to go”; “no problem.” He told her to “play higher over the net” and repeated it again, “you need height.” He felt that Vondrousova was “playing too good on the flat ones.” It was true that out of the five errors Sabalenka made so far during rallies, four were in the net, below the tape level. Three of the four “out” errors came on returns and Vondrousova’s wicked left-handed spin may have had something to do with that.

The errors in the net, however, were straight-forward glitches by Tideman’s player. Perhaps he added the last part (about Vondrousova playing the flat balls well) in order to avoid saying “you are missing too much in the net and need to add some margin.” Of course, I am speculating, but sometimes, as a coach, you want to tell your player to change something, not by reminding them how they have failed at it thus far, but rather by saying that it favors the other player, although it may only be partially true.

In any case, Tideman was one-hundred percent right about the margin of error over the net. The question is, can Sabalenka play that type of game, the kind where she has to mix in some loopy, spin shots that make the ball bounce high? Would that not be out of her game’s character? For a player who consistently goes full-force on virtually every shot for high-risk flat winners, can she feel at ease doing anything else? I certainly have my doubts, and it certainly did not take place in this occasion.

At 0-15 in the following game, Sabalenka went for another flat, hard, cross-court backhand that smashed below the tape in the net. On game point at 40-15, she went for another backhand flat-liner, this time from deep behind the baseline and her body falling back. It landed, yet again, in the net. In fact, she played those five points as if she never heard what her coach told her at the game change. There had been no adjustments in her game, no added margin to clear the net, and the scoreboard showed 4-0 in her opponent’s favor.

Sabalenka finally held serve (not because of high-bouncing balls) and got on board in the fifth game, but chances for a comeback in this set disappeared quickly when she missed four straight returns to go down 1-5.

How bad did it get for Sabalenka in this first set on returns? She only won three points on Vondrousova’s serves, two of them coming at 5-2 40-0 down to save two set points before losing it on the third. And this is with Vondrousova serving at 37% first serves in the set!

Speaking of Vondrousova and her serve, make no mistake, despite the low percentage, she relentlessly kept on varying the speed and placement of her serves, as well as the amount of spin on them. That had as much to do with Sabalenka’s disarray on returns as her slow start did. In fact, after a second watch, I can specifically confirm that Marketa never hit the same type of serve twice in a row throughout the set. It was about as great an example as you can have, to show that stats alone – 37% first serves for the first set – do not always reflect reality and that in-person observation is necessary for sound judgment.

On another note, Vondrousova committed only three unforced errors** and one double fault in the first set. She ran every ball down, kept hitting every shot deep, essentially sending a message to her Belarusian opponent that she was ready to make her come up with the goods to earn the victory.

**Side note 1 —-> The number of unforced errors is my own count. Essentially, these are shots, three for Vondrousova in this case, that the player should make without much trouble. I do not know what the official number is, not that I can find it anywhere, nor would I completely trust it if did (reasons to be discussed another time). And yes, I count unforced errors and double faults separately!

I have spent most of my analysis of the first set, talking about Sabalenka. It’s time to give Vondrousova the credit that she duly deserves, especially for what she accomplished during a sequence of about ten minutes in the middle part of the second set. It started when she was serving at 1-2 and the score was deuce.

Because, you see, when the score was 1-2 in games, it was the first time in the match that Vondrousova trailed in the game count within a set. Furthermore, it came on the heels of two games in a row won by Sabalenka, the Belarusian’s first positive streak of the match.

Vondrousova had broken Sabalenka’s serve to start the second set, and right when it had appeared as if she was about to run away with the match, she had played her first dismal game of the match, on her serve, no less. When Sabalenka had followed that up with her best game and held serve to go up 2-1, everyone in the stadium and watching on TV could see that she was pumped up. Her body language had turned positive and she was getting more and more vocal after each point in her favor.

And the 2-1 game had indeed started brightly for her when Vondrousova served two double faults in the first five points and let Sabalenka back to deuce. But at deuce, where many other players would have had doubts creeping in, hesitated with their shots, and shown bursts of negative emotions, the eighteen-year-old Marketa became a mental giant. She first got one of her fastest first serves in to force an error out of her opponent. It was immediately followed by the most animated “come on” (or the equivalent in her language) that Vondrousova let out in the match. Then, she ended up scrambling all over the court to win what was probably the longest – certainly the best – point of the match, an 18-shot rally that Sabalenka would have won at least twice against most other players.

Photo: Quinn Rooney – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Vondrousova weathered the storm. It was 2-2, on serve. The next game showed that Sabalenka, for her part, was no longer feeling the same as she did when she had gone up 2-1. At 15-30, she double-faulted, then at 15-40, she slammed a forehand in the net to lose her serve. That should not take away anything from the fact that in that game, Vondrousova hit four terrific returns and a forehand winner from a difficult position. She now led by a break at 3-2. It was time for Sabalenka to consult once again with her coach.

Once again, Tideman tried to give positive messages: “Now you’re returning much better, now it’s a match!” ; “The first set was too quick” ; “Now it’s much better.” He also advised her on two separate occasions between the encouragements, to go back to the same corner twice to catch Vondrousova on her backfoot**.

**Side note 2 —-> I noted above that when Tideman visited Sabalenka in the first set, it seemed like Sabalenka never heard his advice. I can’t tell how much she took heed in his advice this time. She did actually try to go behind Marketa twice in the second point of the ensuing game. Then, she tried it again once at 2-4, 30-30. That’s two points out of 19 they played from his visit at 3-2 to the end of the match. You decide.

With Vondrousova leading 3-2 and 30-0, Sabalenka hit a return that landed on the back of the baseline but the line judge called it out. Sabalenka challenged it, and it was overturned. The referee awarded the point to her because Vondrousova had hit the next shot in the net. Vondrousova argued, for a little while, that the point should be replayed and that she missed it due to the call. But the umpire rightfully refused (Marketa did indeed hit her shot before the line judge made the call). She needed to forget about it and move on. She missed her first serve. When you thought she might be unnerved by the call, she pulled an exquisite second serve that landed close to the “T” but had so much side spin that that it sharply curved into Sabalenka’s body who missed the return. One point later, another return miss by Aryna, and Marketa was now leading 4-2.

In that sequence, from 1-2 deuce to 4-2 up, Vondrousova showed no signs of nerves, made no unforced errors, and manifested a sharp awareness of the turning points of the match. Even when she went from seeing the finish line to staring at going down a break against a streaky opponent, she stood tall and avoided making rash decisions.

The match lasted one hour and one minute. Vondrousova won 6-2 6-2 and moved on to the fourth round where she will face the unseeded Petra Martic.

Until the next one, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Denis Shapovalov – Ricardas Berankis (first round)

ATP Players Tactical Analysis No Comments

We often hear that “stats can be misleading.” This phrase is indeed a misguided assumption. It can only be true if the person looking at the statistics of the match in question views them as nothing more than sheer numbers without engaging their critical thinking. It is a rare occurrence at best. In reality, the evaluator’s personal observations of the match, influenced by his/her expert knowledge of tennis, mobilize a certain level of critical thinking that should lead to a healthy post-match analysis. Stats can be useful ingredients during such process, but they merely play a complementary role to the two main components, personal observation and critical thinking. To be blunt, it is very possible to do a sound analysis of a match using these two components alone. It is, by contrast, highly improbable that the same can be done if we lacked one of the two components, even if we had every numerical data at our disposal.

Thursday’s first-round match between the left-handed Denis Shapovalov (Canada, ranked no.44) and the qualifier Ricardas Berankis (Lithuania, ranked no.106) provides a good example of how numbers can be misguiding if stats are mainly taken into account.

Photo: Jeff Gross – Getty Images

In the first game of the match, Shapovalov made his first serve only once in six total points, double-faulted once, yet still managed to hold serve. In the third game at 1-1, he committed another double fault, only hit half of his first serves in, but held serve again. In the fifth game at 2-2, he double-faulted twice to start the game and still dug himself out of the hole and held serve.

In fact, when the scoreboard showed 3-2, it almost seemed miraculous that Denis would still be on serve. Thus far in three serving games, stats showed that he committed four double-faults and got only seven out of seventeen first serves in at 41%. I prefer to say the following: Denis Shapovalov was serving so well that even at 41% first serves and four double faults, he had yet to face a break point and lost only one point on his serve outside of the four double faults.

Because, you see, the numbers could not tell you the story of how well Shapovalov was placing the first and second serves that he was getting in, how much variation his serves had in terms of spin and speed, or how many errors Berankis was making on returns as he would try to adjust to the different bounces coming off the Canadian’s wicked combination of flat, slice, and kick serves.

Neither could the numbers tell the story of what precisely happened in the four points that followed when Denis went down 0-30 at 2-2, after the two successive double faults. At 0-30, Shapovalov got in a high-kicking second serve that forced Berankis to hit a defensive return, eventually leading to a forehand winner by Denis. At 15-30, Shapovalov hit a slice first serve to the outside corner of the box, stretching Berankis to the outside of the court and forcing him to float the one-handed backhand out. At 30-30, Shapovalov struck a hard serve to the “T” that Berankis could not get back in the court. Finally, at 40-30, Shapovalov hit a clean ace to the outside, for good measure, and closed out the game.

Stats were showing a “bad serving day” for Shapovalov. To a careful observer however, it was clear that Berankis was having a “nightmare returning day,” precisely because of Shapovalov’s serving skills. Do you believe that, after Shapovalov held and went up 3-2, Berankis was getting edgy thinking what he would do if Shapovalov’s first serve began to truly click, considering how much trouble the Canadian’s “un-clicking” serve was already giving him? You bet he was! And that anxiety showed in the ensuing sixth game.

The same Berankis that cruised through his first two service games without losing a point became restless. He committed his first double-fault at 30-15. He escaped a break point at 30-40 with what was probably his best point of the match, a long rally ending with his forehand winner to the deuce corner. He squandered two chances to hold serve before saving another break point. Then, the pressure finally got to Berankis. He double-faulted a second time in the game on the fourth deuce point and gave Shapovalov his third chance to break. Berankis then missed a fairly routine backhand cross-court wide, and Denis was now out in front 4-2.

To confirm the break, Shapovalov served three successive first serves in, winning the ensuing rallies in each point, to go up 40-0. To finish the game, Shapovalov kicked a second serve so high that Berankis swung and almost completely missed the ball, his racket frame barely clipping the ball behind him. It was very symbolic of the havoc that Shapovalov’s serve was causing on the Lithuanian.

Yet, when the set ended 6-3 in Shapovalov’s favor, his serving numbers were unimpressive. He served at 48% first serves, recorded two aces and four double faults. It was rather the placement and the variation of both his first and second serves that did the damage not the amount of aces or first serves that he got it in the box.

Photo: Cameron Spencer – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

It was déjà vu in the second set, except that Berankis did try to attack more by coming to the net. The problem was that he could never solve the puzzle of Shapovalov’s serves. For example, when he was leading 3-2 and 0-15 on Shapovalov’s serve, he tried to attack on a second serve that kicked so high that he had to jump up to hit it and missed it deep. On the next point, Shapovalov’s terrific first serve earned a return error from Berankis again. At 30-15, another solid second serve eventually led Denis to finish the point at the net. At 40-15, yet another second serve forced Berankis to miss the backhand return wide. Do you notice a pattern?

It is not the kind of pattern in which a player holds serves by simply serving aces or powerful serves. It is a singular type of service domination, one where the server hits double-faults, only a handful of aces, yet manages to completely derail the opponent’s returns. This is not to say that Shapovalov is not capable of doing the first pattern. He did it at 3-4 in the second set, by winning the game in 62 seconds, thanks to three aces and one winning second serve.

Berankis finally cracked on his serve at 4-4. A double fault and two unforced errors from the baseline were enough to give Shapovalov a chance to serve for the match at 5-4. Of course, Denis obliged, winning the game and the match 6-3 6-4. He will face the 30th-seeded Pablo Cuevas in the second round.

Side note 1
Shapovalov finished with 25/53 first serves for 47%, but out of the 25 points that he started with his first serve, he only lost three. Not counting the five double faults, he only lost six points when having to start the point with a second serve. Variety and placement are the essentials here, not power and stats. Looking at first-serve percentage, and the number of aces and double faults, one could easily say that Denis had a “bad serving day.” The truth is, his serves played the leading role in his victory.

Side note 2
Shapovalov rarely uses the slice on backhand returns. Even when reaching for the ball, he seldom blocks or slices the ball back in the court. It’s a questionable choice in my opinion, especially considering that one-handed backhand hitters have stronger wrists and better control of the racket head when forced to hit a stretched one-handed backhand. A slice return could also come in handy when facing a powerful server. Trying to muscle a one-handed return over the top of the ball on a serve coming to you like a bazooka may prove costly. I can only assume Denis and his coaching know something others don’t because he has been doing this for almost two years with little sign of integrating the slice into his backhand returns.

Side note 3
It never ceases to amaze me how well Berankis serves for a player of his size.

Side note 4
Shapovalov rarely tries a regular drop shot during a rally. Maybe it will come with time, but seeing his finesse skills at the net, I would be surprised if he does not develop his drop shots.

On an unrelated note, I would like to thank all those who provided wonderful, positive, and encouraging feedback/comments via social media and private messages on my previous match report from Wednesday.

Until the next one, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open!

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

Indian Wells Match Report: Marketa Vondrousova – Madison Brengle (first round)

Players Tactical Analysis WTA 2 Comments

Many variables come into play when one considers which WTA or ATP athletes one enjoys watching, but I would guess that most viewers of tennis roughly belong to the following four categories (not denying the possibility that some slight overlaps among them may exist).

There are those people who watch tennis for professional reasons. They could be writing or reporting on matches for the media, conducting a study, or representing a sponsor. There are those who center their interest on fanship around one specific player. They watch, for the most part, his/her matches and perhaps a few of his/her main competitors – in the hopes that they lose, naturally. To these fans, little else in the world of tennis matters, including the sport itself. A third group of viewers prefer to only watch the largest tennis events, such as the Majors, because they are mainly interested in seeing the best players in the world perform. Finally, there are others who enjoy watching tennis players perform at any professional tournament, simply because they love the sport and genuinely find it pleasurable to watch a competitive tennis match.

I would like to believe that I belong to the last category of tennis viewer noted above. I can watch any tennis match from the very first point to the last and get a thrill out of its “story.” And yes, every match has a story, regardless of the score. I must nevertheless admit that I do enjoy watching a few players more than others. It could simply be the result of a personal connection to the player or their style appealing to me as an ex-player, ex-coach, or simply as a tennis fan. Throughout the Spring season, leading up to Roland Garros, I will attempt to write as many match reports as possible, involving some of these types of players. I will also add, if needed, some useful “side notes” at the bottom of each match report.

The talented eighteen-year-old Marketa Vondrousova is one of those. In case you have never seen her play, the 54th-ranked Czech is a left-handed player with a strong first serve and a fine touch. She uses a two-handed backhand and plays mostly from the baseline, although she will not avoid approaching the net if given the chance.

Photo: Robert Cianfrone – Getty Images (Jan 2018)

Vondrousova began her BNP Parisbas Open campaign in Indian Wells against the 76th-ranked American Madison Brengle. Both players held serve to begin the match, but you could already see signs of Vondrousova’s plan when, in four out of the first five points of her serving game (including the double-fault on the second point), she used slice serves curving away from Brengle’s backhand. It is nothing unusual for left-handed players to work the outside corner of the service box on the advantage side to move the opponent off the court so that the winner to the open deuce side becomes available for the next shot. Yet, Vondrousova used the same slice serve also on the deuce side and showed from very early on that she would seek to earn short returns from the outstretched backhands of Brengle in order to either control the ensuing rallies, or hit a winner with the second shot of the 1-2 punch (example: the very first point of the match on her serve at 0-1).

One area of Marketa’s game that remains error-prone at times is the return of serve. It was nevertheless her returns, mixed with a bit of luck, that earned her the first break of the match. At 1-1 and 30-0 for Brengle, Vondrousova hit three aggressive forehand returns in a row over the next three points. The first one forced the American into an error on the next shot. The second one put her in a defensive position enough to commit one later in the rally. The third hit the net and dropped over for a winner. Vondrousova was now up 30-40. She squandered that break point on a forehand mishit that sailed up and out. She earned a second one later after she nailed a sharply angled cross-court-backhand return that eventually led to her winning the point two shots later. She would capitalize on that ensuing second break point and go up 2-1. More on her returns a bit further.

Once down a break, Brengle began stepping into the court and accelerating her down-the-line shots, usually one of her game’s strengths. But the one she missed at 1-3 down, serving at 15-0, did not help her cause. She also attempted to come to the net behind short balls and pressure Vondrousova’s forehand (her weaker side by a thin margin). Yet, to apply that pressure, you have to first start the point. And the two double faults in that game, first at 15-15 and the second to squander a game point later, only served to lead to another break against her.

In the meantime, Vondrousova was continuing her all-around solid, but not perfect, returning performance. By the time she won the first set 6-2, she was allowing Madison to win only 40% of her first-serve points. When the match ended one hour seven minutes after it began, that number decreased further to 38%. Brengle fared better on points started with her second serve, mainly because Vondrousova risked and missed more, thus the “but not perfect” clause in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Brengle continued to search for solutions after losing the first set. Her best opportunity to turn the tide came early in the second set when she was leading 1-0 and had two break points (see also side note no.1). She committed a forehand unforced error in the net on the first one. Vondrousova moved in on a floater and hit one of her several forehand swing-volley winners of the day to save the second. She finally held with a well-placed first serve into the body that jammed Brengle’s forehand.

The curtains seemed to be coming down on Brengle in the very next game when Vondrousova played her best tennis of the match to go up a break again. As a matter fact, you want an example of her versatility without having to watch a long game? Watch this one. A thunderous, inside-out forehand return gives her the first point. At 0-15, a long rally takes place. Marketa eventually nails the flat forehand down-the-line to Madison’s deuce corner. Madison gets it back but the ball lands short. Marketa moves forward, slices the low backhand approach inside-out, spinning away from Madison on the ad-side. Madison cannot get the ball back and now it is 0-30. After the American misses a backhand to go down 0-40, Marketa breaks her serve on a point that ends with her accelerating a flat backhand cross-court and sneaking to the net behind it to win it on a backhand volley punctuated by an overhead.

Brengle is a fighter though. She responded with her own best returning game of the match to earn her only break of the match and get back on serve at 2-2. As if Vondrousova needed luck to seal the deal for her, in the first two points in that game, her shots clipped the net and dipped on Brengle’s side of the court for winners. Vondrousova would break to go up 3-2 and would do it again after tightly contested seventh game to go up 5-2. The second break, ending on a backhand error did truly shut the curtains on Brengle. Two minutes later, the scoreboard would read 6-2 6-2 and Vondrousova would be on her way to face the 11th-seeded Johanna Konta in the next round.

Side note no.1

Juniors should take heed of what Vondrousova did at 0-1 down in the second set. She had a game point at 40-30, only to double fault twice and go down a break point at ad-out. Vondrousova served perhaps her safest first serve of the match to get the ball in the service box and avoid at all costs the prospect of facing another second serve. Remember that losing that point would have given Brengle a break and a 2-0 lead in the second set and possibly turned around a match that had been one-sided in Vondrousova’s favor until then. This tactical decision by Marketa only makes sense. It is not some wondrous secret to other tennis players or coaches either. Yet, it remains rarely practiced and under-rated.

It does not matter that you rarely double-fault or that your first serves earn you a slew of free points. In that type of situation, following a double-fault or two, your first priority is to avoid the “oh-dear-what-if-I-do-it-again” apprehension that will undoubtedly slip in the center of your brain and grow there within a matter of seconds, if you miss the first serve. Get that first serve in, period!

Side note no.2

Vondrousova has the habit of bending down and grabbing her knees to catch her breath after long points (example: 0-1 in the second set, deuce). It is perfectly understandable that she is exhausted after a taxing point, however, I have always been for the idea that you should hide all indications of physical condition from your opponent as much as you can. And this is a case where you can do that by walking around, breathing deeply, and/or going for the towel. Bending over and resting your hands on your knees basically shows your opponent that you may not be fully recovered by the time the next point begins or that you are not as fit as you may have looked otherwise. While either or both of those cases may well be true, there is no need to telegraph that to your opponent.

Until the next match report, enjoy BNP Parisbas Open 2018 !

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter

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

MENU

Navigation