Tag: Sloane Stephens

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

Wimbledon Match Report: Jo Konta vs. Sloane Stephens

On Saturday at Wimbledon, Johanna Konta emerged victorious in an impressive comeback effort against Sloane Stephens on Court 1. My post-match analysis focuses on those sequences where she managed to turn the match around. You can read it on Tennis with an Accent by clicking on the link below:

Match report: Jo Konta – Sloane Stephens

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Roland Garros Match Report: Women’s Final

Simona Halep defeats Sloane Stephens 3-6 6-4 6-1

Photo: Jimmy48Photography

There will be a number of well-written pieces focusing on the stories of Saturday’s two women’s finalists at Roland Garros, especially on Simona Halep who handed Sloane Stephens her first loss in the finals of a tournament by a score of 3-6 6-4 6-1.

Therefore, I will pass on that angle and jump straight into the nitty-gritty of what happened on the court over the course of the 2 hours and three minutes that it took for these two champions to carry the match to its conclusion.

When two exceptional baseline players like Halep and Stephens face each other, first few games are critical. One cannot afford to have a slow start, because that would not only mean that she is allowing the other to get ahead on the scoreboard, but it may also give her the false sense that the other player is better than her from the baseline – read that, beating her at her own game – and trick her into making a premature tactical adjustment.

Although both players made it through the first three games with around the same number of unforced errors**, Halep committed three of them in the third game alone, two in a row from 30-30 to lose her serve and go down 1-3. She started the next game with two more unforced errors which eventually led to Stephens confirming the break and going up 4-1. Sloane never relinquished the lead and took the first set 6-3.

**Usual disclaimer: I keep my own count of the unforced errors, double faults are not included.

Because of the timing of those few errors by Simona, Sloane led by a set in the scoreboard and appeared to be the superior baseliner up to that point in the match, holding precisely the kind of edge that I mentioned above.

Of course, I can never be sure of what exactly what goes through a player’s mind, but Halep already appeared to be looking for solutions in the latter part of the first set.

For example, during a long rally in the 15-15 point of the 4-2 game, Halep threw everything but the kitchen sink at Stephens in terms of varying the height and pace of her shots. She hit some shots with heavy topspin, added some mid-pace high-loopers, and squeezed in a flat, hard forehand. She won that point, but in the next one, Stephens answered right back with a dandy of a forehand. Then, Halep missed the return deep, and Stephens put the game away with a clean forehand winner.

Just like in that game, even when Halep found a pattern that temporarily worked, she struggled to replicate it point after point against a player who is on fire. All those rallies in the first set must have felt to Stephens like they were taking place in the comfort of her living room, simply because she had the lead. I remind everyone that she did not start out that way, committing six unforced errors in the first two games. If you think she played a flawless first set, think again. She played a flawless after she got the lead at 3-1. In fact, if you watch the first two games and the last four in that set, you would believe that it’s a 50-50 affair.

However, context is everything, and the first set did not feel like it went neck-to-neck. Stephens appeared to be dominating. So, Halep looked for answers in her bag of solutions. She did not lose her cool** and pursued different paths to come up with a working formula, even though Stephens was operating as smoothly as possible.

**Let’s please put the “she freezes” or the “she crumbles under the moment” narrative away for good.

Again, this is my observation and I cannot know for sure what goes through a player’s head, but as soon as the second set began, it appeared as if Halep turned extremely aggressive and began nailing as many shots as possible.

The problem was that, in her attempt to play a riskier brand of tennis, she either went for some low-percentage shots and missed (see the 15-15 point in the first game, when she tried to hit too perfect a forehand down-the-line while backing up far behind the baseline) or Sloane produced some five-star counterpunches to negate Simona’s aggressiveness (see the very next point at 15-30, Halep hits three high-octane shots in a row, but Sloane gets them back and puts the fourth one away with a backhand down-the-line rocket. See also the second deuce point in the same game for yet another such example).

Down 3-6 0-2, Simona persevered and dug even deeper for a solution. She tried moving forward on floaters, winning three points in that game thanks to swing-volleys. She held serve, but she was still down a set and a break. There was no doubt that her on-court IQ was in overdrive and calculations would not end until she found one.

Until that point, Halep used mixed patterns for the most part (whether consciously or unconsciously, I don’t know), meaning that, she did not specifically work Stephens’s forehand or backhand, but switched back and forth a lot, targeting the open spots (see the 30-15 point at 5-2 in the first set if you prefer to see an example). No “triangle patterns”** were to be found in her shots.

** It is a term used – by some coaches and pros – to make allusion to the triangle trajectory of the ball going back-and-forth when one player stands on one side of the court and moves the other player around. The moving player is expected to run every ball down and send them back to the same corner on the other side. It’s your conventional consistency drill left over from the 70s and 80s that centers on building accuracy in your strokes while working on your stamina.

When Stephens was serving at 2-1, and Halep led 0-30, it was the first conspicuous use of triangle tennis that I saw in the second set. Halep hit seven shots in a row to Stephens’s backhand before accelerating the next one to her forehand. Stephens missed the forehand in the net. The seven shots hit by Halep were not intended to be winners. In fact, a couple of them were mid-pace, topspin shots that Sloane could easily send back. When time came to step in and accelerate for Halep though, she went after Sloane’s forehand and collected the error.

Halep began to adopt this pattern more and more frequently during rallies.

Granted, Stephens put together her worst sequence from 2-1 up to 2-4 down in that second set and made a bunch of unforced errors. So, the turn-around cannot be attributed to Halep’s variation of the triangle by any means, but it must have helped her mentally to discover a pattern that works in her favor, because she repeatedly went back to it, even if she lost a few of those points (see the 30-0 point at 4-3 for Halep).

Halep played three more points using that pattern in the 4-4 game, working Sloane’s backhand side with mixed pace, then accelerating to her forehand side. In the 15-0 point of the 5-4 game, Halep hit five shots to the ad side, four of them being regular-paced deep shots, and two accelerations to Sloane’s forehand side, the second of which collected an error from the American’s racket.

Photo: Jimmy48Photography

Halep began the final set in the same vein as she looked to force the same pattern in five out of six points in the first game (the other one was a return miss by Stephens). Again, Sloane’s deuce side of the court was only targeted for accelerations. Otherwise, Halep kept a steady flow of clean, measured, topspin shots coming to Sloane’s backhand side. On the 40-30 point, Halep hit five “safe” but deep shots to Stephens’s backhand and followed it up with another acceleration to her forehand. Stephens’s forehand clipped the net and kicked up, giving the advantage to Halep. Two shots later, Halep put the ball away and led 1-0 in the third.

In the second game, three more points were directed in this pattern by Halep. At 30-40, she sent another high topspin to Sloane’s backhand corner and got a short ball back from the American. She stepped in and nailed the ball to the deuce side. Sloane got to it but returned the defensive forehand in the net. Halep now led 2-0.

In the last point of the next game, Halep hit seven out of the last ten shots to Stephens’s backhand side (only accelerating one) and hit the other three hard to her forehand side. The point ended with an error by Stephens. Halep now led 3-0.

I could go on and on with more examples, but you get the idea. If you thought that Stephens’s backhand was a major problem for her in this match because of the amount of errors she committed (12 forehands, 21 backhands by my count – officially it’s 13 and 25), you were only partially right. When using this pattern, Halep actually banked on collecting errors from her forehand side, especially on the accelerations. It worked more than once, on important points.

This also took away one of Stephens’s favorite activities, which is to hit counterpunches on the move. Instead, she remained static in one spot for a string of two or three shots (or more) and engaged in rallies where she had to fabricate the pace, or else she would find herself under pressure when she hit a short ball.

Fans of Stephens must be disappointed, and they are probably focusing on the three bad games in the middle portion of the second set. They are right in that Sloane’s level did go down. But surely, it would have been too optimistic to expect her to stay at the level she played during the first hour.

Plus, Halep’s come-back win cannot be entirely attributed to the three-game bad streak by Stephens. Halep deserves a lot of credit because she remained cool-headed while trailing for almost 45 minutes against an opponent who was not only playing high-quality tennis but also answering the call every time Halep made an adjustment in an attempt to turn the match around. Halep persisted, persevered, persisted, and won.

If anyone has anything to say to me about Halep lacking on-court IQ from this moment forward, they can bet that I will throw the “Roland Garros 2018 final” card right back at them.

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Citi Open: Saturday’s Tale

First of all, I apologize to the readers who may have come to expect more frequent blog updates when I am present at a tournament. It has been hectic to say the least, with writing obligations outside of MT-Desk mounting up this week. Nonetheless, I woke up this morning, determined to post a write-up at the end of today, so here it is.

The 2014 US Open final between Kei Nishikori and Marin Cilic was lackluster to say the least. It was hard to decide if the match was so one-sided because Cilic played spatial tennis, outclassing Nishikori, or because Nishikori simply performed far below his standard, especially after having beaten the top-seeded Novak Djokovic in the semis. But in terms of score, and tennis quality, it was the least thrilling men’s final match at the Majors last year. So I expected better this afternoon. Cilic was gradually finding his form and Nishikori has looked sharp throughout the week.

Instead, it was another flop, not so much in the score line as in the level of play by both players. Cilic broke immediately to start the match and Nishikori wasted a whole set before starting to do the right thing. He only had a chance to break back at 1-3 down, and instead of keeping the balls deep and looking to out-rally Cilic, he would get impatient and go for broke in the 5th or 6th shot of the rally, mostly from behind the baseline, and make the error. Cilic only had to keep holding the lead with some solid first serves, and he did just that.

It seemed that Kei woke up immediately as the second set began. For those who can go back and watch the match, for example, in the third point of the set (15-15), the Japanese star did something that he neglected (or failed, depending on the perspective) to do since the beginning of the match. He kept the balls deep, did not go for unnecessary, low-percentage winners, and eventually earned the point on a Cilic error. From then on, he cut the unforced errors down largely because he followed that same pattern. Again at 1-0 up, and a break point in his favor, Nishikori once again got the return in, settled for deep shots, kept Cilic on the move, finally collected a backhand in the net by the Croat. Next game at 15-15, Cilic hung in there during a long rally, but having to cover too much ground, the big guy ended the rally by slapping a on-the-run forehand in the net when he was strecthed. Same scenario again occured at the game point to go up 3-0. Funny how the tide can turn when you tweak and adjust small, yet basic, patterns during the points. Nishikori cruised the rest of the set and Cilic, not finding a solution (which was provided for him by Nishikori in the first set), faded away quickly to lose the second set 6-1.

After having the early games decide the outcomes of both first and second sets, it came as no surprise that the same thing happened in the third set. Much less confident now, Cilic double-faulted and missed an easy backhand volley in the net to fall behind in the very first game of the third set, and eventually got broken. Figuring out only at 2-4 down that rallying from the baseline was no longer working with a less generous Nishikori across the net, Cilic got more aggressive and forced the issue. At 3-4 down and Nishikori serving, Cilic took risks on the returns and ventured to the net. At 0-15, he finished the point with a volley winner. At 15-30 he whipped a forehand that left Nishikori at a distance, staring at the winner. He remained aggressive on the return and missed one, on the first break point at 15-40. But Nishikori was feeling the heat, and missed a risky second serve for a double fault on the second break point at 30-40, in an effort to avoid Cilic taking charge on the return. Marin’s body language was extremely positive at that point, pumping his fist regularly.

Then out of nowhere, he makes couple of bad decisions (one, not to attack when he had the chance) and Nishikori gets the important break again to go up 5-4. It seemed that neither player could get in the groove for an extended period of time and both had to battle hard just to keep balls in play and deep. The last game characterized the whole match: 5 total errors by both players, 4 of them complete give-aways. Nishikori held and earned his spot in the finals.

Nishikori def Cilic Citi Open

Next on Center Court was the women’s semifinal between Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and the Ekaterina Makarova. Or so everyone thought! On their way out to the court, both women were told that their match was moved to the Grandstand court. A men’s doubles match, featuring the Bryan brothers, was deemed more worthy of the Center Court. Makarova, the top-seeded player, not only did not play her first two matches on either the Center Court or the Grandstand (played the third on Grandstand), but was probably going to go down in the history of professional tennis as the only top-seeded player in history at a WTA event to never get to play on Center Court before the finals. As it turns out, she retired in the beginning of the third set and did not get that accolade! But if there was ever a slap on a top seed’s face, today was it.

Pavlyuchenkova and Makarova on their was to Grandstand
Pavlyuchenkova and Makarova on their was to Grandstand

The explanation was that the ATP and the WTA tournaments were two separate events, with the WTA one being a lower-tier tournament forking out less prize money than the men’s, which made it so that the women could be moved to the Grandstand. Let’s be honest, that attitude was obvious anyway from the beginning of the tournament. Prior to Saturday, only 4 women’s matches have been scheduled on the Center Court (all four as the first match of the day, when there is the least amount of crowd on the grounds) whereas men’s matches that were featured there amounted to four times that number.

However, today was unacceptable. You don’t tell the players right before the match that they got demoted to a lesser court, and you certainly don’t do it when it involves the top seed and the no. 12 player in the world Makarova, who had yet to set foot on the Center Court, and Pavlyuchenkova who has been ranked as high as no. 13 in the world (now ranked 40), holder of 7 WTA titles in her career. As far as the “explanation” goes, if the issue is that these are two separate events and not one combined event, then the same committee should not make decisions for both. Nor should you charge one ticket price for both (as @TheBoiledEgg astutely pointed out on Twitter). If the WTA event is the “lesser” event and the spectators come to watch two “separate” events in which one event is taking place on the “lesser” courts, then you designate two separate prices and charge less for those who come to watch the “lesser” event. Sounds ridiculous right? Almost as ridiculous as the “explanation.” Lastly, would the same thing have happened if the match were between Venus Williams (ranked 15) and Svetlana Kuznetsova (ranked 28)? Or if it were between Jelena Jankovic (23) and the American Sloane Stephens (35)? Or better yet, would the reverse have happened if it were a higher tier women’s event and a lower men’s event? To that end, would all the men’s quarterfinals have taken place at the Grandstand on Friday while the women played on the Center Court, as was the case (in reverse) yesterday? I think everyone can guess the answers to these questions.

In the evening session, contrary to most people’s expectations, the second semifinal between John Isner and Steve Johnson greatly exceeded the first semifinal in terms of both quality and suspense. Steve Johnson, having a golden tournament, had two match points at 6-4 up in the thrilling third set tiebreaker. The first one was something to behold. Johnson served and a long rally ensued which meant, as was the case for the most part up to that point, that Johnson would end up winning the point. Instead, Isner played good a baseline rally as you will ever see him do, and outlasted Johnson, finally forcing him into an error. Then, he served an ace to equalize at 6-6. Each player had one more match point, and finally, Isner prevailed 11-9 to deny Johnson his first career final. The big guy served four aces after saving that first match point in spectacular fashion.

Last but not the least, Sloane Stephens, looking for her own first final at a WTA event (amazing, considering how many semifinal appearances she has had, including in some big events) came out to face the in-form Samantha Stosur. From the beginning the scenario was clear. Stephens was stroking her groundstrokes well, and Stosur needed to take risks and cut the points short to win. Sam played the right game for most of the first set, stepping inside the baseline on returns, and going for big shots, especially on her down-the-line backhands. However, Stephens would win the majority of points whenever they got engaged in extended baseline rallies. The first set went to a tiebreaker. Stosur went up 4-2 on a forehand volley error by Stephens and seemed to have the upper hand as they changed sides. Then, a total collapse by Stosur followed. Stephens remained steady as Stosur made mistake after mistake losing the next five points in succession, and the tiebreaker. The worst was yet to come.

Stephens semis Citi Open 1

In the second set, Stephens, now exuding confidence, efficiently kept the balls deep, pinned Stosur to the baseline, and controlled the rallies. It did not help that Stosur framed more shots than I have ever seen anyone else in a singles match. I wondered if such stats were kept, would Stosur have broken the record. She regularly mishit one or two shots, or more, each game, as the collapse of her game continued. Stephens ended up winning 7-6 6-0, and signed autographs and took selfies with anyone and everyone who came to the court side after the match.

Stephens semis Citi Open 3Stephens semis Citi Open 6

Tomorrow’s singles finals will feature John Isner vs. Kei Nishikori, scheduled to start at 3:00 PM, followed by the women’s finals between Sloane Stephens and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. And yes, they will all take place in the Center Court! At least, that is what the schedule says, with no caveats this time.

Pavlyuchenkova ace set point Citi OpenPavlyuchenkova served this ace on set point to take it to a final set, and it turned out to be her last shot as Makarova retired with a leg injury few moments later

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

Safarova’s Game: Perfect Fit for Williams

Coming into today’s final match, the head-to-head record between Serena Williams and Lucie Safarova was 8-0 in the American’s favor, for a very good reason. Williams is very good at forcing her opponents into a defensive position and demand that they produce a high-level, counterpunch-style tennis. Lo and behold, that happens to be exactly what carries Safarova through most of her wins: the ability to set her feet, shift the shoulders forward to produce some penetrating winners from both sides. Let’s simplify the equation: what Serena does very well, single-handedly negates Lucie’s biggest weapon and ruins the core of the Czech’s plan A.

If you have access to the replay of the match, and you want to see the type of damage that Safarova can inflict on her opponents when she gets her feet set, watch the two points from 30-0 to 30-30 at 4-2 in the first set. Another good example is the first point of the 3-1 game in which Lucie struck three good shots in a row, pushed Serena around, and finally won the point. Now, if you want a great contrast to that last example, watch the following point at 15-0. In that long point, Lucie stays in control for several shots but can’t put it away; then Serena counterpunches with her forehand hard to the cross-court corner and puts Lucie on the run. Next (and yes, you guessed it), Lucie misses the very first shot (a backhand) that she has to hit on the stretch from the outside the boundaries of the singles lines. A second example of the same contrast happened also at 5-5 and 15-0 in the second set, with Safarova serving. During the majority of that long point, the ball traveled back and forth at high speed, yet remained mostly within the singles line, which allowed Lucie to hang tough. However, as soon as Serena hit a hard, sharp cross-court shot and pushed Safarova out to the doubles alley, the Czech had to stretch and float the shot back, which then allowed Serena to hit the winner to the open court.

These are only a couple of examples of why Serena had more trouble against Victoria Azarenka, Sloane Stephens, and Timea Bacsinszky. They could counterpunch Serena’s power with accuracy and speed when they were put on the run. Serena still ended up winning because she has superior skills and, this next one is ex-cathedra, she can raise her game when needed. Azarenka can power back Serena’s shot and surprise her, Stephens and Bacsinsky can hit backhands and forehands on the stretch, generating power with the flick of their wrists (especially Bacsinszky on the backhand side). Safarova, on the other hand, is not the speediest player moving side-to-side, which is an oddity considering how exceptional her movement is around the ball, in place, using quick and small steps (reminds me of Andre Agassi).

You are probably saying to yourself “Wait, did you watch the match? Lucie went three sets too!” My response to you would be, don’t let the second set fool you. This match was never out of Serena’s control. Safarova got back in the set only because Williams began to commit double faults and few untimely errors out of nowhere. It also helped Safarova that throughout the comeback in the second set, from 1-4 down to winning the tiebreaker, the Chatrier crowd got behind her (they chanted her name in two different versions: “Lucie” the French version, “Lu-zi-yé” the Czech version!)

Yet, the main plot remained untouched. When Safarova served her only double fault of the match at 2-1, and 30-40, and lost the early break, one could sense that it was the beginning of the end for the Czech. It was confirmed the next time Serena had a break point, two games later, up 3-2. The players engaged in a rally, and the original pattern ensued, with Serena collecting a mistake from Safarova the first time she pushed her to the outside of the court.

There are three types of matches that end lopsided. First case is when both players play the same style, and one does everything a little better than the other (Nadal-Ferrer on clay comes to mind). Second case is when one player’s weakness plays into the strength of the other, or vice-versa. Third is when a player, for one reason or another, decides not to put forth any effort to win (there are plenty examples of this in the past, you pick your own). Today’s case would have fit the second one if it were not for an extended period of meltdown by the American in the middle portion of the match.

Now Serena Williams stands at 20 Major titles, only second to Steffi Graf’s 22. This could also be the year in which she achieves the Grand Slam, the only elite accomplishment that is still not in her résumé. She is 33 years old, but still rules the W.T.A. arena, and there is no reason to think that both accomplishments are not within her reach.

Serena Williams, the 2015 Roland Garros Champion
Serena Williams, the 2015 Roland Garros Champion

Note: Follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter for frequent live updates from Roland Garros

Coming Soon: WTA’s Much-Needed Facelift

Despite the title of the article, for many, it could not come any sooner. After years of Serena Williams’ supremacy and the duo of Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova specializing in failed attempts to dethrone the American, but exceling in the shrieking department, the W.T.A. desperately needs an injection of new and fresh faces into the spotlight.

Fret no more! They are slowly but surely arriving. Three of them were at the Charleston WTA Tournament’s semi-finals, but their road to greatness has been progressing for some time now.

Furthermore, they don’t act like unattainable, superior divas. They actually spend more time praising their opponents in the after-match conferences than the lack of quality in their own game. They don’t necessarily believe the sport revolves around them – read as “I won because I am great, I lost because I played bad, and the girl on the other side of the net is of no consequence.” They behave far more mature than today’s star players did when they were up-and-coming hopefuls.

Eugenie Bouchard (pictured below) is neither jumping up and down for minutes after a win, nor sporting a bitter-face accompanied by comments on how bad she played without a word of credit to her opponent. If you wish to be impressed by the composure and the maturity of a young player in front of cameras, just observe one of her interviews. Belinda Bencic, at 17, keeps her emotions at check whether she saves a match point or chokes one away. You don’t hear the 20-year-old Jana Cepalova complain about being without a coach, a family in her box, or the lack of a hitting partner while she travels in a foreign country playing tournaments. She goes on her business and reaches the finals in Charleston, not to mention defeating Serena Williams, Elena Vesnina, and Daniela Hantuchova on her path. In fact, if it was not for the title-winner Andrea Petkovic mentioning in her after-match speech how much she admires Cepelova for accomplishing that without anyone on her corner, not many people would have even been aware of that remarkable anecdote. You are not likely to witness Caroline Garcia, the 20-year-old French player, talking about how “embarrassed” she is, after losing to a player ranked lower than her.

Bouchard 1

These upcoming and fresh faces constitute what WTA Tour desperately needs. The top players of today ignore the fans for the most part, unless they are fulfilling a contract requirement dictating that they smile for pictures and have a few moments with a number of hand-picked fans for a certain function or a cause. They cannot stand each other and maintain no friendly contact other than the handshake at the end of the match. The other players have expressed many times how these few divas harbor a considerable distance from the rest of the players. When your peers cannot even identify with you, it is naïve for the WTA to expect fans to do so.

John Isner said at the Cincinnati tournament that the top players in the ATP were all “class guys” and that everyone got along incredibly well. Juan Martin del Potro confirmed Isner’s observation. They both talked about how they admire each other as people and as players. Friendships among the top players are well-known. They also don’t mind staying on the court after their practice sessions and after matches to accommodate as many fans as possible, signing autographs. This brief reference to the ATP equivalent of how top players behave was simply to preemptively answer the handful of fans of those divas who will attempt to strike back with the feeble “the top women’s players’ job is not to entertain fans” argument. Fans love to watch Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, David Ferrer and others, because they interact with fans, and remain attainable to the average tennis fan.

It is obvious that the WTA needs a major facelift in terms of who represents its stardom. Being noteworthy athletes can only carry your popularity so far and will prove fatal when the attention begins to diminish. The interest in women’s tennis is nothing like it used to be a decade ago, and there are no notable rivalries (please do not say Williams vs. Sharapova).

This up-and-coming group is talented, athletic, personable, and spectacular to watch. If you have not yet watched Bencic’s sizzling ground strokes, Cepelova’s drop shots, Garcia’s ability to accelerate the ball, Simona Halep’s footwork, and Zarina Diyas’ calmness on the court, and Sloane Stephens’ powerful ground strokes, you do not need to worry. You will get plenty of chances to see them in the near future. I will predict – for the WTA’s sake as much as my own – that by the spring of 2016, we will see a different layer of players fighting for the big titles while the divas of today will be trying to come to terms with what is hitting them. Moreover, instead of hearing yet again the excuses with regards to their games, tennis fans will embrace the change of layer at the top of the women’s game.

Navigation