Tag: Petra Kvitova

Roland Garros 2020 Report: Trio of Women’s 2nd Matches

Petra Kvitova (7) def. Jasmine Paolini 6-3 6-3

Convince me that there is a better first-striker than Petra Kvitova in women’s tennis. I dare you! I promise to keep an open mind, but you better have plenty of substance to support your pick. I don’t envy you. It will be difficult to find a player that can be held to the high standards of excellence put on display by the Czech champion in this category. She relentlessly stifles her opponents with explosive shots as soon as the first ball is in play, whether a serve or a return. Consider them lucky if they make it to the third shot, ecstatic beyond that.

Jasmine Paolini, her opponent of Thursday, would probably tell you all about it, assuming she has recovered.

As early as in the second game of the match, it was apparent that Paolini was feeling overwhelmed by the speed and power generated by Kvitova’s shots (it’s the first encounter). Paolini lost her serve on a double fault in that game to trail 0-2. That double fault went down in the stats as one of her five total for the match and too bad a foot note cannot be added to it. It would explain that it was the eighth point of that game, coming on the heels of seven crushing returns by Kvitova, two of them for clean winners. It would explain the urgency Paolini felt for a “great” (read: risky) second serve and the subsequent double-fault as the consequence. Later, Kvitova earned a second break for a 5-1 lead when Paolini double-faulted again under similar circumstances.

It was a vintage Petra performance, as she produced 15 clean winners for the set and won who knows how many other points that counted as Paolini’s “forced errors” only because her racket ‘touched’ the ball in full stretch.

The nightmare continued for Paolini in the second set. Exacerbating her problem was the fact that her usual strength lies in controlling the rallies with her ground strokes, especially her forehand. She can drill a mean inside-out winner on that wing at times and she generally prefers to stand close to the baseline, not minding taking balls on the rise if needed, which makes her game adaptable to both clay and hard courts. It’s true that her best results have come on clay but she has enjoyed some success on hard courts too.

Unfortunately for Paolini, that all seemed irrelevant in this match. Kvitova never allowed her to settle into her comfort zone, forcing her to a scramble for balls from the start of almost every point in the match.

Kivota’s next opponent is the young, talented left-handed Canadian player Leylah Fernandez. I presume that Fernandez is aware of the monumental task that awaits her. Is she ready for it? Can anyone really be ready for their first match against Kvitova? Don’t answer, rhetorical question.

Kvitova in action during Roland Garros 2018

Sofia Kenin (4) def. Ana Bogdan 3-6 6-3 6-2

Here is one that should go down as Exhibit One on the topic of “problem-solving during a tennis match.” The Australian Open title holder Sofia Kenin overcame a dreadful start to oust Ana Bogdan of Romania in three sets.

Bogdan’s game relies on footwork and consistency first and foremost, but she can also generate pace from the baseline if needed. Her game was clicking on all cylinders in the first set, as she kept Kenin on the move and behind the baseline with a steady flow of deep shots (usually, Kenin is the one taking her opponents on scenic routs). She committed only four unforced errors** and, more importantly, took away Kenin’s ability to dictate the points. Kenin found herself in the unfamiliar position of retrieving balls rather than being the one to direct traffic and maybe that was the reason behind some of her 16 unforced errors in the set. In any case, her baseline play was erratic, to say the least.
** As always, I do my own count on unforced errors for reasons explained before. The official number may slightly vary.

It was not until around the third game of the second set (Kenin with 19 unforced errors at that juncture, Bogdan with 5) that the tide began to turn little by little. I know many observers will mention, with good reason, the numerous drop-shot winners that Kenin produced, but apart from that, she also started to push Bogdan further outside the court during rallies. She began using sharp cross-courts followed by flat accelerations to the open court. She also returned with more authority from the early moments of the second set forward.

Kenin grabbed a 3-1 lead but Bogdan, a terrific (and underrated) competitor, won eight points in a row, including three winners, to get back to 3-3. The difference was, as opposed to the first set, Bogdan now needed to be the one to push the envelope to win points because Kenin had already steadied the ship. She was making less errors and already throwing Bogdan out of balance in some rallies. By the time the score showed 4-3 in Kenin’s favor, the numbers were confirming the shift. The two were tied at 7 each in the unforced-error count for the second set, in comparison to the lop-sided 16-4 count in the first in Bogdan’s favor.

The 30-30 point in that eighth game was an apt representation of Kenin’s tactics in turning the match around. She made Bogdan chase after her aggressive shots behind the baseline (read: Kenin in full control) before she sneaked in a drop shot. Bogdan had to sprint forward from behind the baseline and barely got to the ball. She flipped it over the net, but it was an ineffective shot, and Kenin won the point with a passing shot. In the next point, Bogdan hit a fairly routine backhand wide to lose her serve. That error could have been the result of not having recovered from the previous point, or not feeling as confident as earlier in the match, or feeling the need to hit closer to the lines so that Kenin did not get to settle do the same to her. In any case, Kenin now led 5-3 and served for the set. She made all five of her first serves, finishing the set with a big one landing close to the “T.” Bogdan lunged and got her racket on it, but the ball never made it back into the court.

Primed and ready to take control of the match from the onset of the final set, Kenin executed beautifully in the first three games. She hit four drop-shot winners made zero unforced errors to go up 3-0. It’s not that Bogdan was falling apart — she was not, she made only one unforced error herself in that same span –, it’s just that she was rendered helpless by the pinpoint accuracy of her opponent’s shot placement. The bigger problem for Bogdan was that she had to now shift tactics and come up with solutions, and she simply lacked the necessary variety in her arsenal to try anything significantly distinct from her established Plan A. Perhaps, that is why she has not yet been able to reach the final of a Tour event or record a win against a top-10 opponent.

Kenin catapulted to a 5-1 lead a bit later and overcame a brief glitch in the last two games (7 of her 8 unforced errors in this set came here), before crossing the finish line on her 14th winner of the set. She will next take on the qualifier Irina Bara for a spot in the round of 16.

Kenin in action during 2019 Mutua Madrid Open (Photo: Getty Images Europe)

Paula Badosa def. Sloane Stephens (29) 6-4 4-6 6-2

Paula Badosa achieved a first in her tennis career, reaching the third round of a Major, at the same location where she won the junior girls’ titles in 2015 (photo below is from her semifinal win over Marketa Vondrousova that year). If you have followed Badosa’s career, her reaching the third round of a Major should not come as a surprise frankly, although it is her first time doing so. She has made considerable improvements to her game over the last two years (currently ranked 87, only one spot below her career best achieved in 2019) and had it not been for her pre-2018 struggles with injury, anxiety, and depression, she would have probably made it to this stage sooner. It’s nevertheless impressive to see how much better she is with her movement, ball placement (especially her backhand down-the-line), and decision-making. Note: It will be interesting to see how her tennis progresses forward from here forward considering that, after her semifinal appearance in Istanbul three weeks ago, she ended her two-year-long partnership with Xavi Budo, the coach she credits for the upturn in her career. Well, so far, no problem!

I would not be telling the full story of this match if did not mention that her opponent Stephens contributed just as much to this particular result as the progress in Badosa’s game. The Spaniard won eight out of nine points to start the match raced to a 2-0 lead, thanks to three winners of her own and three unforced errors by Stephens. The American held serve in the next game and caught up with Badosa at 4-4, but it was not because her game had recovered from the mediocre start. Errors were still coming in force (15 in the first set) and after a contested game that ended in Badosa’s favor for a 5-4 lead, the Spaniard won 12 of the next 15 points in less than 10 minutes to go up 6-4 2-0. The strange part was that Sloane was not even going for the lines. A significant portion of her errors came on shots aimed to the middle of the court, either sailing deep or slamming into the net. A number of them were actually short sitters! I kept wondering if she was ever going to try for more angles, or a change of pace, or maybe a drop shot or two, or something!

I finally noticed one such point with Badosa leading at 2-0 in the second set, when Stephens angled a forehand to push Badosa outside the court and hit the winner on the next shot to the wide-open ad side to grab the 30-15 lead. Two points later she held serve.

A second such point came in the next game, at 15-0 on Badosa’s serve at 2-1, when Stephens mixed in a slice backhand, followed by deep drive, and smacked her backhand down-the-line for a winner. Badosa still won that game to lead 3-1 when she hit a backhand down-the-line winner of her own (an example of one of the improvements I noted above), but Stephens was finally sinking her teeth in the match.

More importantly, Badosa was now having to worry about protecting her break lead until the end of the match, rather than just cruising along while Sloane’s errors piled up. That increased pressure on Badosa may well have been one of the reasons behind her first double fault of the match at 4-3, 30-30. Then, Stephens won the next point on a forehand winner and yelled out “Come on” for the first time in the match. It was maybe the most refreshing sound since it began, and that is coming from a neutral observer.

Now at 4-4 and Stephens serving, Badosa had a break point at 30-40 to reclaim the lead and serve out the match. Stephens drilled a forehand inside-out winner and yelled “Come on” again (with a fist pump this time) to deny her opponent the break. At deuce, another forehand winner gave her the ad, and she won the game with a powerful serve, taking a 5-4 lead.

When Badosa missed her backhand deep on set point one game later, Stephens let out her loudest and longest “Come On,” and for good reasons! She just won four games in a row to level a match in which she was behind most of the time. I thought at that moment that this match would end in a similar outcome as the previous one, with the player who has a Major title in her resumé (plus a Roland Garros final appearance in Sloane’s case) scoring a comeback victory. Not this time.

Badosa did not crumble despite squandering the set and 4-2 lead, and had a terrific start to the final set. After breaking Sloane’s serve in a close first game, she served her only two aces in the next one and added a winner to go up 2-0.

Apparently, that is all it took for the wheels to fall off for Stephens. She lost the next 8 points, six on routine mistakes, to find herself down 0-4. It is not that matches cannot have momentum swings, but this was a lightning-fast, baffling 180-degree turnaround of four games that sunk the same player who had just executed a dazzling 180-degree turnaround of four games of her own to get back into the match!

Badosa, stayed the course, completed the formalities, and closed the curtains down on Stephens by winning the last four points of the match at 5-2. She made only 13 unforced errors in the match (less than Stephens’s total in the first set alone), and only one in the final set. She was clearly the better player, thoroughly deserving of victory, and in retrospect, it’s astonishing that this match even extended to a third set. Take away the four-game stretch late in the second set, this was as lop-sided as a match can get in favor of one player. It proves, yet again, how unpredictable tennis is and how deceptive it can be to watch only certain parts of match.

Next for Badosa is another previous Major title winner, the 2017 Roland Garros champion Jelena Ostapenko.

Roland Garros 2015, Badosa in action, on her way to the junior girls’ title

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Kvitova Recovers From a Bad Start to Overcome Mladenovic

My post-match report from the action on Thursday features the second-round women’s match featuring the two-time Wimbledon champion (2011 and 2014) Petra Kvitova and France’s Kristina Mlanedovic.

You can find it on Tennis with an Accent by clicking on the link below,and after you read my analysis, check out all the other latest reports Tennis with an Accent offers on the action from London. Enjoy!

Kvitova Gets Healthy Against Mladenovic – On Tennis with an Accent

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

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

Roland Garros Match Report: Anett Kontaveit vs Petra Kvitova (third round)

Saturday Update:

My latest match report/analysis of Anett Kontaveit’s 7-6 7-6 upset win over Petra Kvitova is now posted on Tennis with an Accent —> Kontaveit Conquers Kvitova in a Hodgepodge Galore

Note: You can also follow Tennis with an Accent for great coverage of Roland Garros. I am delighted to be contributing to their efforts this week.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Will Roland Garros Reflect the Clay-Court Season?

Only a retrospective look after June 7th can provide the answer to the question in the title. The clay-court season does nevertheless give valuable indications on what to expect at the 16e arrondissement of Paris once matches begin seven days from now. And then there are the intangibles, always looming on the horizon, ready to influence outcomes. On the men’s side the three-out-of-five-set format will result in awkward scores during long matches (remember for example Marcel Granollers’ upset of the in-form Alexandr Dolgopolov by the score of 1-6 3-6 6-3 6-0 6-2?). It will also and bring into question injuries and physical endurance. On the women’s side, there will be question marks on whether some players who withdrew from clay-court events in the last few weeks can sustain two weeks of high-level competition or not. One intangible for both draws will be whether some past underdogs can manage the responsibility of being favorites in a Major.

The W.T.A. side

If the head-to-head record of Maria Sharapova vs. Serena Williams were not so lopsided, one could pencil the Russian’s name in as the clear favorite. What is quite underrated is how abundantly Sharapova wins matches on clay without playing a clay-court style tennis. Her success on this surface, with a style that favors hard, flat balls, and not much change of pace, would be the main topic of many tactical studies on different surfaces (read that as “for another day”). The good news for Maria is that she earned her way to the number-two ranking during the clay-court season and will not face Serena before the finals under any circumstances. Serena would love to see Sharapova’s name in the finals if she can get there herself, but that remains in doubt due to her less-than-stellar past appearances at Roland Garros, as well as her injury-related glitches during the spring. It seems like the bigger challenge for Serena will consist of going through the earlier rounds without damage, and then maximizing her performance in the later rounds.

Yet, there are potential challengers in the draw. Carla Suarez Navarro, freshly ranked inside the top 10 for the first time in her career, has proven capable of derailing her opponents with a wide arsenal of shots and her nerves of steel. While the spotlight in a Major will be a novelty for the Spaniard, her cool-headed approach to matches, as well as her high on-court IQ level, should be enough to negate the unfamiliar position of being the favorite against the vast majority of her opponents.

Will Carla still be demoted to the outside courts after her success this year? (photo taken during Roland Garros 2014) Will Carla still be demoted to the outside courts during Roland Garros after her success this year? (photo – during Roland Garros 2014)

Simona Halep, another favorite despite having garnered no clay-court titles in 2015, will have one clearly defined goal in mind as the number three seed: make it to the semifinal and go through Sharapova or Williams, or both. After reaching the finals last year and raising the bar, Halep is one of the few players, maybe the only one other than Sharapova and Williams, who cannot leave Roland Garros satisfied unless she wins the title.

Outsiders, there are plenty. One that has not gotten any mention in the early reports is Timea Bacsinszky who has been on a tear this year. Yes, she is outside the top 20, and yes, she did get taken out by the sensational Daria Gavrilova in Rome. Past years have shown however that any player who experiences unprecedented success in the clay-court tournaments leading up to Paris can also produce an equal type of run during the two weeks. Finally, there are some familiar names who have gotten the job done at the top level during their career, but are coming into this French Open without much momentum. Svetlana Kuznetsova is a name that no favorite wants to encounter in the first week, especially on her best surface. Although their chances of winning are slim to none, Petra Kvitova can rise up to the occasion on a given day, and players such as Carolina Wozniacki, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Angelique Kerber, and Sara Errani can extract valuable miles from the legs of those favorites who wish to remain fresh for the “final four” rounds.

The A.T.P. side

2015 has anything but concretized the dominance of the Big Four (yes, capitals are necessary in this case). Or should we distinguish the invincible Novak Djokovic from the other three? If you are one of the many followers of the tennis world who choose to do so, I cannot blame you. The number one player in the world has gone undefeated in four Masters 1000 tournaments (last two on clay) and the Australian Open. He is heading into Roland Garros sporting a 22-match win streak that ironically represents only the third longest one in his spectacular career. He outclassed his two biggest rivals Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the two finals on clay, Monte-Carlo and Rome. The improvement in his game – and I can’t underline this enough – since he became number one first in 2011, is something to behold. His serve is now a weapon, his drop shots are uncanny, and in the last few weeks, has even shown remarkable progress in the weakest area of his game, the overhead.

NovakFansNovak made his fans in Indian Wells happy. Can he do the same for those in Paris?

Having said that, I am not one of those followers. I cannot separate Novak as a clear favorite from the rest of the field at the French Open, not until a player, as a winner, shakes Rafa’s hand at the net, at the end of an official French Open round match. Nadal has lost before to Djokovic during the clay-court season, only to emerge on the last day at Philippe Chatrier court, as the winner of the only Major of the year on that surface. In fact, this sequence has taken place more than once (2011 and 2014). Last year, Novak entered Roland Garros as the top seed, with a victory against Rafa in Rome, and still came up short. Nadal’s 6-0 record against Djokovic in Roland Garros (three of those in the last three years), and the fact that he lost only one match ever on the red clay of Roland Garros – yes, you read it correctly, ONLY ONE, his record is a stupefying 66-1!! – simply do not allow me to place Djokovic above the Spaniard as the clear favorite. Defeating Nadal by winning three sets against him, in a period of less than a few hours, would still be in the fantasy category for anyone if were not for that one surreal day in 2009, when Robin Soderling banged away warp-speed winners for exactly three hours and a half.

I will thus modify my version to saying that I place Nadal and Djokovic above everyone else, with Federer and Andy Murray slightly below them, followed by a few names that can go no further than possibly spoil the late-round meetings between these four. Roger Federer enters Roland Garros as the second best player of 2015, and even Andy Murray’s late form on clay cannot change that. Roger has earned that seeding, deservedly, by winning three titles, the Istanbul title on clay, and reaching the finals of two Masters 1000 tournaments. The second one of those was today on the clay courts of Foro Italico in Rome, where he was dominated by the lunar play of Djokovic. Murray for his part arrives to Paris with two titles and zero defeats on red dirt (he withdrew from Rome after winning his first match). That is an unprecedented accomplishment for the Scot who, despite often playing well on the surface prior to this year, could never earn a title on it. Yet, Murray and Federer are two of the three reasons – and the only ones in my opinion – that could stop the eventual Nadal vs. Djokovic final. The third is the much-debated seeding question.

Nadal will amazingly be seeded number seven in the very tournament that he won nine times in the last ten years. A combination of rare bad form in the first few months of 2015 and several months of injury-related absence on the ATP Tour in the second half of 2014 has led to Rafa’s lowest ranking ever at the time of Roland Garros. This means that Nadal could face any of the top four seeds as early as in the quarterfinals. The tournament organizers refused to utilize the skewed seeding system that Wimbledon does by taking into consideration the player’s success on the particular surface. Now the ideal situation for them would be that Nadal falls into Berdych’s quarters so that the possibility of semifinals consisting of the Big Four remains alive, and not to mention, likely. It would be a disaster to say the least, if Rafa goes in Novak’s quarters, meaning that by the semifinals, we are guaranteed that one of the two biggest favorites of the tournament, the very two that dominated it for the last three years, will not be present on the last weekend of the event. Rafa could also draw Murray’s quarter of the draw, in which case the next question will beckon: are they on Djokovic’s side or Federer’s side? If they are on Djokovic’s side, Berdych and Federer would rejoice (not publicly of course). If they are on Federer’s side, Federer fans may become the biggest Murray fans for one day if their man makes it to the semis and awaits the winner of Murray-Nadal. These questions will keep the minds of tennis fans, as well as experts, busy until the Main Draw is revealed on May 22nd, at which time all forms of prognostics will inundate social networks and the media.

Rafa TrophyCan Rafa do this again for the 10th time in 11 years, even as the 7th seed in the draw?

So, who could play the role of the spoiler to this Big Four party? One of them is Gaël Monfils whom the crowd could galvanize to a higher level of play. He is a name that neither Andy Murray nor Roger Federer would want to see in their quarters, although for Nadal and Djokovic, I doubt it would make much difference. There is also the loose cannon by the name of Fabio Fognini who holds two clay-court wins over Nadal this year, a feat accomplished only by Djokovic until this year. The Italian does not lack the talent to push any player to the limit on a given day, yet his seeding will likely force him to go through several gritty matches to make any major noise, and by now, everyone knows that grit is not Fabio’s forte. It would be fascinating to see him match up with Nadal for the third time on clay, and it could happen as early as the first week, considering their seeding.

Kei Nishikori remains the biggest threat to the Big 4 and the only one who could reach the final weekend without it being considered a stunning upset. Kei will need some help on the day of the draw. As a below-the-top-four seed, it is unlikely that he could go through three big names to lift the trophy on the last Sunday. The two guys on whom everyone has given up any hope of winning Roland Garros are strangely ranked 5 and 8 in the world. The problem with Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer is their miserable record against the Big 4. Yes, each has reached a Major final before (Berdych in Wimbledon 2010 and Ferrer in Roland Garros 2013) but one required a shocking upset (Berdych defeated Federer in 2010) and the other required one of the luckier draws in recent history (2013 French for Ferrer).

Milos Raonic is recovering from surgery and his participation next week is in doubt. Stan Wawrinka could give major headaches to one of the big names, but will not be more than a nuisance to the ensemble of the top favorites. Stan did oust Rafa in Rome, but that remains the one shining moment in his season since he won a title in Rotterdam in February. He is also breaking the cardinal rule for a contender in Majors by participating in a tournament taking place the week preceding a Major, the ATP Geneva event. One guy that did record two wins over Wawrinka in the clay-court season is Grigor Dimitrov. The Bulgarian has however underperformed in light of to the expectations following his successful 2014 campaign. Two Spanish players, Fernando Verdasco and Feliciano Lopez, have proven capable of winning against the best at some points in their careers, and don’t count them totally out. Gilles Simon could also make a big name feel sick in the stomach, but whether that would last more than a couple of sets remains improbable. But in any case, the above-mentioned players, outside of the Big Four, will have to catch fire, of a colossal size, to have any chance of belonging to the “active participant” category in the last few days of Roland Garros.

There are some “far-and-away” outsiders who could find their form and have career tournaments, such as Dominic Thiem, Roberto Bautista Agut, David Goffin, and Richard Gasquet – sorry dear Americans, no John Isner or Jack Sock -, but my use of the adjective “career tournaments” in this case does not point to a shocking upset of one of the Big Four members. With a bit of luck, they could march into the second week of the tournament, and at the most, could reach the quarterfinal rounds.

As for me, I am looking forward, for now, to my favorite portion of the Majors: the qualifying rounds. That is where emotions fly high, away from the scrutiny of cameras for the most part, and where the importance of winning a round often translates into career-high accomplishments, or in the case of a loss, into crushing blows. Enjoy the week, the Parisian party is near.

Note: Click here to stay tuned to MT-Desk on Twitter

Navigation