Trademark Shots: Which shots make a player stand out?

One interesting aspect of tennis is the varying techniques and shots that players can have in their repertoire.

Particularly at a higher level, players tend to have trademark shots, shots which that player is known for, and one that most other players don't even seem to attempt, let alone execute. A player's trademark shot is not necessarily their best shot or strength, and could be something that’s more unique or unorthodox rather than spectacular.

Below is a list of some of those trademark shots, while obviously there are still quite a few that I've missed out on.

Rafael Nadal

The unusually powerful double-handed backhand crosscourt passing shot, where he swings the racquet through in a straight line making the racquet seem more like a sword or cricket bat. He bends his knees down incredibly low and his racquet nearly hits the ground on the initial contact. Commentators refer to it as being like a double-handed forehand.

Roger Federer

The flick backhand half-volley passing shot. His opponent comes in on an approach shot right to his backhand side and Federer’s still on the forehand side of the court. He smoothly and casually strolls his way there, or so it looks and barely makes any backswing nor does he even look up, he just keeps his head still. He flicks the backhand right at the last second and directs it exactly where he wants to for a winning shot.

He's also got the short-slice backhand intended to make his opponents scoop it back up and force themselves into the net, after finding themselves in no-man’s land. Then Federer whips across an easy passing shot winner straight past them, while making his opponents feel silly and hopeless in the process.

Andy Murray

The high loopy forehand crosscourt that he throws in to completely take his opponent off-rhythm before throwing in the fast-paced flat forehand or backhand the next shot. Two of the most contrasting shots you could play consecutively, and Murray does it deliberately. Most players only hit change-up loopy forehands to give themselves more time to get back into the court, or either they usually hit with a fair amount of topspin as it is. But Murray uses it as a regular shot in his repertoire.

Nikolay Davydenko

I once read someone describe Davydenko on form as like “playing on skates”. The way he sprints from side-to-side, then sets himself in position right on top of the ball each time with perfect timing, makes movement and racquet control almost synchronous with each other at contact.

I also like the strangely nice feel he has on those double-handed volley dropshots. He can’t seem to hit any other kind of effective volleys but he bends down really low and opens his racquet face right out flat, instead of at an angle like most people would. He barely moves his racquet at all, keeping it in the same position to cut under the ball making it stop dead as it bounces over the net.

Andy Roddick

Roddick's serve reminds me somewhat of a rocket or missile launch, in how the motion is almost completely straight up and down and the way he literally launches into it. He gets his feet set close together, then extends his racquet all the way down and bends his knees really low to push forward and create a violent, powerful motion.

David Nalbandian

The backhand crosscourt angle shot, that he throws in the middle of a neutral rally catching his opponents completely by surprise. He flicks his racquet across, using almost entirely his left wrist, with his right hand as support. Most players need to either slow the pace down when attempting a short angle, roll over it with top spin or both but Nalbandian almost does it entirely with racquet control and feel.

David Ferrer and Tommy Robredo

The effort that they put in to make sure that they hit as many forehands as possible, even if that requires running all the way out of court, only to hit a three-quarter kind of shot, not even a near-winner or setup shot. You get the feeling that not much thought goes into whether any sort of reward will come out of doing it, but rather to follow the mindset of making everything into a forehand, as long as it's humanly possible.

Gael Monfils

He teases his opponent with a floating, mid-court ball, begging for it to be hit for as an approach shot. His opponents do exactly as they should, hitting a deep approach shot into the corner, then you can feel Monfils lighting up with excitement already anticipating the glorious running passing shot winner. He sprints over to the corner three or so metres behind the baseline, does a trademark slide and finds the down-the-line shot, just as he knew he would letting out a predictable “Allez!”.

Fernando Gonzalez

The go-for-broke inside-out forehand, where he takes a massive backswing and you know it’s going to be big before it's even hit. The backswing itself is intimidating itself, then he gets his footwork in position like he’s putting every ounce of energy into it knowing that he’s not going to be in position if it comes back. But that’s okay because he wants to hit an outright winner off it. I remember when Andy Roddick got back one of his “forehand bombs” in the US Open match, and Gonzalez got to it late and slapped a forehand two metres long afterwards, to essentially give up the point.

Igor Andreev

The sound that comes off his racquet after hitting a forehand. Andreev gets right under the ball, then whips right across it to send it spinning several rotations. Like the complete opposite of a cleanly struck shot.

Richard Gasquet

When he's on one of his hot streaks and you can tell how eager he is to hit his shots before he even hits them. Gasquet wants to hit glorious winners and he wants them to be spectacular. He puts in that extra hop on the backhand to make it a jumping backhand and gets right on top of that forehand. And just because he's in that kind of form, most of those winners actually come off. It even looks like he's walking quicker and more purposefully in between points than usual.

 

Then there are the more unique trademarks, those that aren't necessarily considered to even be close to a strength:

Andy Roddick’s drive backhand, how he grips his racquet with both hands together close to the middle of the handle, leaving a gap down the bottom, depriving himself of getting the full amount of power out of it.

Janko Tipsarevic, when he's wrong-footed, going back to retrieve a shot on the backhand side, hits the ball on the other side of the racquet strings. Like a very strange kind of forehand.

Tommy Robredo’s backhand, where he sets himself up with an exaggerated backswing then whips through his backhand, in a windmill sort of motion making almost a full circular rotation. His opponents predictably kick it up high to that side on serve, and he falls backwards three metres behind in the baseline just to be able to prepare for that stroke.

Fernando Gonzalez's backhand down-the-line, in that his racquet face is so flat on contact that after the ball bounces, that it kind of side-spins to the left. He sets up for his backhand in a manner that would seem to strongly favour the crosscourt backhand. Surprisingly he executes this shot, more often than would seem possible and it often catches his opponents by surprise because of the unlikelihood of the shot, as what happened to Federer in their Tennis Masters Cup 2007 match.

Mikhail Youzhny's service motion. He starts off his service motion with his front foot a fair distance from the baseline, to enable himself to move his front foot a couple of steps forward before making contact. As far as I know, he's the only active professional tennis player to do this, while everyone else starts with their front foot as close to the line as possible, while the back foot moves during contact, to get the body weight moving forward. Then, of course, Youzhny also has the one-handed backhand that starts off like a two-hander.

Is Plexicushion an improved surface from Rebound Ace?

Earlier this year, Tennis Australia and the Australian Open’s tournament director, Craig Tiley made a deliberate decision to change the Australian Open’s court surface, from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion. The Australian press made headlines out of the surface switch, emphasising the distinct advantage that the surface would give for local hope, Lleyton Hewitt who had long spoken out about his desire to finally win his home Grand Slam.

The claims were made by some sources that the new Australian Open surface would be sped up to become even faster than the current speed of the courts at Wimbledon, while other sources stated that the surface would be playing at a similar speed to previous years. There were fears that the surface would be too similar to the courts at the US Open, and that the Australian Open had lost its uniqueness.

But one year later, now that the surface has been tried and tested under tournament conditions, by the players themselves and observed by the fans, we can more accurately evaluate the surface and its differences with Rebound Ace, and which players it favours and disadvantages.

Rebound Ace had more distinct qualities to hardcourt and was most known for its high bounce and ability to take spin. Over the years, the speed of the surface varied significantly, both due to the indecisiveness of the organizers and the inability to effectively test the surface due to the major impact that weather conditions had on the speed of the surface.

The courts were playing relatively quickly way back in 2001, when Pat Rafter made it through to the semi-finals but since then they had slowed down somewhat, especially in 2006 and 2007, which in part was due to the slowing down of courts across the board on the tour. In 2007, was when Lleyton Hewitt famously yelled to “Fix the courts!” in his five-set encounter with Michael Russell out of sheer frustration, a plea for help which eventually led to the court surface change today. The appointment of Craig Tiley as the new tournament director, replacing Paul McNamee, was the other reason behind the change.

In night conditions, the court was often slow and players needed to generate their own pace to be able to hit through the court. The difference between how the courts played at night, compared to day conditions was magnified. Last year I watched big serving lefty Australian, Chris Guccione put on a serving clinic against Rafael Nadal in Sydney, consistently serving aces against the world number 2 back then with serves that viciously kicked and spun out of court.

Then scheduled for the night session the next round against Austrian Jurgen Melzer, it was like Guccione’s serve was suddenly transformed into a mediocre stroke without any of the vicious spin from the day before, and the ball was consistently landing right into Melzer’s strike zone to return back with ease. For this reason, Guccione has been known to often request day matches to improve his chances.

The introduction of Plexicushion meant that many of the fluctuating playing conditions that were problematic with rebound ace were drastically reduced. The heat no longer reflected off the court as severely, where it was reported that the temperature on the rebound ace surface was often 10-15 degrees above the air temperature. The surface began to show more of the qualities of a typical hardcourt, in particular, predictability.

It was a medium-paced court, as close to the definition of a neutral court as you could find. It was a surface that didn’t reward any particular style of play over another, where slice backhands stayed relatively low, but heavily topspun groundstrokes were also given their fair share of reward. Players could stay back to trade groundstrokes, but were also able to finish points off at net if they were selective enough about it. For that reason, the surface was relatively well-received by the players, and there were no complaints made about it publicly.

In the end, it was concluded that the new surface was not overly different from Rebound Ace, for any type of player to gain a significant advantage, given that the old Rebound Ace surface was known to be a relatively fair one, in itself. Even though the old surface had been known to take spin particularly well, flatter hitters like Andre Agassi, Marcos Baghdatis and Marat Safin also had some of their biggest successes on the surface. In fact, if you look at the winners list, five of the six previous champions have been known to be relatively clean, flat strikers of the ball (Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Thomas Johansson, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin while Novak Djokovic is somewhere in between in that he can either flatten out his shots or impart a bit more topspin). Showing that if players were either tall or strong enough, or had the ability to take the ball early to counter the higher bounce, then that was a good recipe for success.

With the added predictability and elimination of some external factors, logic would suggest that we can expect to see more of the favourites move through the draw. After all, factors like the heat and changing conditions are potential factors that could disrupt the rhythm, mental outlook and physical conditioning of the more favoured player, issues that make the one-on-one battle less about pure tennis abilities.

Starting from next year, this predictability will extend even further, now that the heat rule has been modified to allow matches to be disrupted when the heat reaches above the limit of 35°C on court. Considering that the most high profile players are usually scheduled to play under the comfort of a roof on the show courts, and that the majority of them are in physically good shape, you would think that this decision is one that impacts and favours more the second tier and below players, like Richard Gasquet and Tomas Berdych. Players that are known more for their shotmaking and ball-striking, than their physical fitness.

Roger Federer regularly trains in Dubai in difficult conditions, Rafael Nadal is known as one of the fittest players on the tour, Andy Murray recently triumphed in hot temperatures in Cincinnati earlier this year, and Novak Djokovic is also physically fresh at the start of the tennis season. On the women’s side, the players are less proven in this area, but their matches are less likely to be decided to be physical fitness due to the shorter format.

If there was one criticism of the change in playing conditions, it was surprisingly the change of balls from Slazenger to Wilson, which had been previously used at the US Open. Prior to the event, Richard Gasquet and Fernando Gonzalez had made complaints about the balls fluffing up and slowing down, while Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Andy Murray and Roger Federer agreed about the effect of the Wilson balls.

Safin and Gasquet commented that players needed to be strong in the upper body to be able to generate the pace necessary to hit through the court, reiterating that the bigger hitters had a clear advantage over the counterpunchers. This was further backed up by the success of Novak Djokovic and surprise packet, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga earlier this year, both players that are capable of generating massive amounts of pace on their groundstrokes. Maria Sharapova on the women’s side also overpowered her opponents to pick up the coveted Australian Open title.

The mental side of tennis: Handling pressure, overcoming slumps and finding confidence

It is commonly thought that in order to succeed in tennis, your mental strength has to be exceedingly high. Tennis is a sport of one-on-one combat, one that continually asks questions of its competitors.

Is there a particular way in which players should go about overcoming these questions? Maybe we should be looking at how the best players dealt with the mental side of tennis, or maybe players should find the best solution for themselves.

When James Blake says that he plays better when he goes after he shots, he's setting up himself for that mindset so it works. But we generally like to criticise players for either being too passive, too aggressive, not showing belief, so surely there must be some ideal way that players should approach things, even if mentally they aren’t up to it to do so.

So in that case, how should players ideally deal with the following?

How to play the big points

How should players approach big points, in order to find their best tennis when it is absolutely necessary? Players can either choose to take the riskier approach and back themselves, to try and hit their biggest serves in, or either go the safer route by trying to maximise the chance of getting a first serve in. Should players try to raise their game under pressure and is it better to aim big or high percentage?

If we look at how the champions have dealt with it in the past, they don't wilt under pressure, instead they relish the pressure. They buckle down, show just that extra bit of determination and simply refuse to lose. The very best players seem to have a knack of refusing to give away points under extreme pressure, when trailing in a match but also seize the opportunity to take the lead by taking matters in their own hands, but without being overly adventurous. Roger Federer tries to make sure his opponents work hard on big points, by making sure he gets the return back into play.

Then there’s that saying of 'sticking to a winning game'. Players should keep it simple, and play each and every single point the same, regardless of its magnitude. There are particular patterns of play that won them points, so the obvious solution would be to continue implementing those. Stick to your strengths, or keep relentlessly attacking your opponent's weakness, whichever strategy was working earlier.

Then there are change-up tactics that can be employed, taking the art of playing big points to a whole new level. Take the opponent completely off-guard, by going against the typical pattern of play and doing the exact opposite to what the opponent was anticipating.

We've all seen Rafael Nadal serve to the same spot, almost time and time again, then on break point, he swings it out the other way. David Nalbandian likes to serve and volley with a three quarter-paced kick serve occasionally on break points to the ad court, for an easy putaway volley.

In the end, the mental side of tennis is a very simple issue, or at least ideally it should be kept simple. Even though there are some methods that might be better in theory, most importantly, the player has to believe in it to work for it to come off, and they have to feel comfortable with it.

What's the point in backing yourself if you missed the last three first serves serving for the set? I don't think it's any good trying to get a player too far away from their comfort zone, but at the same token, that shouldn't discourage players from trying to introduce new things into their game, as long as it is done in smaller steps.

How to deal with an off day

Every player has their bad days, but how that individual person deals with it, says a lot about how good of a player they are, much more so than how well a player can play on their "on" days. There are going to be days where players can't find the timing on their shots, and they can't even seem to feel or control where it's going. What is the best solution? For players to keep going for their shots, and keep a positive frame of mind, knowing that it will come sooner or later. Or is it more reasonable to temper that game and resort to a more controlled way of playing?

Some people believe that, by resorting to a safer approach, that they are in the process of showing a loss of confidence. When Lleyton Hewitt and Marin Cilic start playing poorly, the racquet head speed starts to drop and shots start to get dumped into the net. Surely by doing that, the outcome will be the same more often than not, whereas if you take a riskier, more wild approach, the results can be more mixed. Although it must be said that both Hewitt and Cilic, simply cannot find enough confidence to be able to play loose tennis. If you're feeling tight, sometimes it's too difficult to be able to swing freely to generate the necessary pace on the ball.

I've noticed a trend these days, where more and more players are playing matches on
their own terms, where if they lose a match, they go down swinging, going after their shots. James Blake and Nikolay Davydenko are examples of players that do this, and Federer has been known to be relatively stubborn as well. In some ways, it's like hitting through your fears to overcome them. Of course, it is possible to be somewhere in between, which seems to be the most effective solution. Keep a better balance by bringing the margins in, while still maintaining the racquet head speed and a proactive, aggressive mindset.

One other thing to consider is how well a player's own problem-solving ability on the court is. Something that is difficult to observe on the court is to know the thinking processes that occur inside of a player's head, that tells them of the various adjustments to make during a match, both technically and strategically. Anyone that has played tennis themselves knows that if they're making particular types of errors, then a big part of fixing it is to figure out what adjustment to make - such as tossing the ball up higher on serve, or making sure the footwork is correct.

Most players will have some sort of idea of what tendencies or bad habits they are likely to get into that causes them problems, but some players are better than others at self-coaching while others may not notice as much, or can't get themselves to break out of the habit in a match situation. This very same issue can also apply to the tactical side of tennis where particular players have a better sense of what to do in that particular situation, based on how their opponent is feeling mentally at that point of time, executing their shots and their playing patterns.

How to deal with playing against higher class opposition

What happens when a player is facing off against an opponent that is quite simply a class above them? Immediately it forces that player to go into the match with the mindset that playing their normal style of game isn't going to cut it and that it will just result in getting outplayed. The immediate solution would be to start aiming closer to the lines, maybe inject more pace into each shot and play a more adventurous style of game to disrupt the opponent's rhythm.

Yet implementing that kind of game, is like constantly being on edge, close to self-destructing but not quite. Everything needs to be executed perfectly with the right amount of patience, otherwise the confidence can be shattered quickly and it can turn into a one-sided affair. Is it better to risk losing easily, or play reasonably well for your standards and hope your opponent is below par? There is no real answer to this.

Some people would think that playing within yourself is a defeatist approach because it's like hoping your opponent will have an awful day, awful enough to hand you the win. Which is almost impossible if your opponent is Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal. But if you have a strong serve, this method can be quite effective, playing solidly enough, ready to prey on your opponents whenever they throw in a bad service game. It's also a way of mounting pressure. Andy Roddick and Ivan Ljubicic are excellent at this.

What seems to frustrate viewers even more is watching players like Fernando Verdasco try ridiculously difficult shots, in fear of what their opponent is about to do to them before it even happens. Both traps which players can so easily fall into.

In theory, it is best to strike the right balance based on how well that player's opponent is playing that day, but having to execute a game that is outside of a comfort zone is difficult, especially when it doesn't reap its rewards, and particularly on the bigger points when the stakes are higher.

Then there is the additional issue in some cases, of needing to overcome a poor head-to-head record or match-up problem. In most cases, if a player has a poor record over another player, it means they have tried a variety of strategies without the desired success. So naturally, it results in a lack of belief, which you could say is a direct result of not being able to find ways to consistently win points against their opposition. So it's not really a mental problem, but a problem that was caused initially by their difference in ability, at least match-up wise, and the feeling of helplessness that it causes.

How much of tennis is mental, and how much is confidence?

We've seen that a player's mental strength is significantly affected by their levels of confidence. Players tend to go through phases. Top players have their moments where they can be incredibly clutch, but might go through particular phases where they are lacking in confidence. Andy Roddick went through a phase of losing almost every single tie-break, then winning almost every single tie-break, and even nearly broke the record of consecutive tie-breaks won, and now he's back to blowing opportunities again.

Whenever players blow opportunities, often it becomes a habit, as players start to think about their previous matches more and more. But after feeling good about their game again and scoring some big wins again, all of that becomes history again, for some of them. Other players become emotionally scarred, and never seem to get over that hurdle, like Guillermo Coria though that is an unusually strong case.

Based on how often players seem to fluctuate in their ability to play important points or matches, it is safe to say that mental side of tennis is a lot about confidence and belief, which can change drastically throughout a player's career. Usually this is reflected by the fluctuations of a players' ranking. Confidence and belief can extend to many things, like the confidence to try to add variety in your game, or make major changes to your technique, then implement it in an actual match situation. I always admired Justine Henin's courage to tinker with her service motion on such a regular basis.

On the other hand, confidence and belief almost stems completely from your own results and things that have happened previously, like whether you were able to close out matches successfully recently or whether you choked a couple away. Some of it is really just a realistic estimation of your own abilities, like if you're playing well, then you're going to be feeling confident, with maybe only a 20% increase or decrease, depending on whether you're an optimistic or pessimistic person. If your second serve keeps getting attacked, then obviously you're going to believe that it's a big weakness. The big variable is what you think your potential is, not how good you are, and that belief has just as much to do with what other people think, specifically those closest to the players, such as coaches.

The kind of nerves that affect the end of sets and end of matches seem to be more easily fixable, because players are able to replicate that situation more often to be able to replace those bad memories with good ones. But the bigger occasions like Grand Slam semi-finals, are almost a completely different issue altogether, quite simply because there are much fewer opportunities to get over that hurdle and maybe it is the one thing that you can really say is dependent on natural mental ability or belief.

Some players handle it better with experience, others get better as they start to become better players and win more often while others remain equally poor with each experience. I'd say that this sort of choking is not necessarily about not believing in your abilities as a player, but having some sort of fear or doubts about whether they can finish off the match. Even a slight hesitation or over thinking about the match would be enough to do it. I'm sure there are many players that have done so in the past, that know how good they are as players.

So in this case, would sports psychology be an effective solution? Sports psychology can teach you ways to deal with pressure situations, like how to manipulate your thoughts and stay positive. Seeing how many players use different approaches to make sure that they remain calm and ensure that they don’t rush points, like Maria Sharapova looking at her racquet strings or Novak Djokovic bouncing the ball, there have to be some advantages in this. As a counterpoint, I've heard that turning to sports psychology is admitting to a problem, hence placing more focus on it. So next time, that player finds themselves serving for the set in a match, they’re just going to think about it even more.

Is it a good thing to think highly of your abilities, or to have an underdog mentality?

Some players seem to have a better ability to bounce back from poor matches, and poor sets of tennis, still showing that confidence within themselves to be able to raise their games. It is also necessary to show some sort of belief in your game to be able to challenge the top players.

There are some players that seem to believe that their game can just come together at any moment. David Nalbandian specifically comes to mind, as a person with this sort of mindset. You can easily see the benefit in having this approach since the more confidence you have, the less chances of having previous matches affect your performance negatively in future matches.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, if you think that your game can just come together like that, then surely the motivation to constantly improve your own weaknesses has to be diminished? What is better? To see your own weaknesses as major problems, and be willing to improve them, while easily getting down on yourself whenever your opponent attacks it, or to just believe in it outright? Is it possible to have both? I find it extremely fascinating in tennis, how on-court, it is necessary to stay calm and not get overly critical of your own mistakes. But the opposite is true when the match is over. You have to care enough to want to learn from those mistakes/weaknesses. Is it a case of just mind-blocking mid-match then, rather than any mental attitude?

At the lower level, players often go through slumps and long periods where they often lose consecutively in early rounds. It even happens often at a higher level for top 20 players, which shows just how common it is. Mikhail Youzhny seems to be an example of a player who has had a moderately fluctuating career from year to year.

It has to be hard to keep finding enjoyment in playing during times like that, when you're feeling down about your game. Imagine going for that like months, and still having nothing change, even after putting in all that work. It has to be discouraging, so it takes a lot of motivation and positive energy to get through that. Then add to that, the potential financial problems that could occur and questioning about whether they should continue playing tennis as a career.

2008/2009: Reviewing the top 10 women and their future prospects

Written exclusively for Inside-Tennis.net:
It was a turbulent season on the WTA Tour in 2008. Justine Henin, the dominant player of 2007 announced her immediate retirement while she was still on top, Maria Sharapova struggled with injuries after an impressive Australian Open and the number one ranking seemed to chop and change every couple of months, to the point where it was difficult to think of any player as the ‘best player of the world’. In the end, Jankovic edged it out due to a strong end of 2008, despite not winning any slams, and by showing just that extra bit of consistency compared to others. The grand slams were won by four separate players for the first time since 2005, illustrating the lack of a dominant player.

Below is a review of each top 10 player’s 2008 season and their prospects heading into 2009, particularly in the grand slams.

1. Jelena Jankovic

After a successful 2007 season, Jankovic’s progress stalled in the first three quarters of the 2008 season. She looked worn out physically and mentally, and started to rely more on her natural athleticism rather than all-round game to win matches, which was always a step above many of her peers. The turning point was at the US Open, when Jankovic grinded out a couple of tough matches, then relished the opportunity in a night-time final against Serena Williams, despite not winning the match. Jankovic was loose and relaxed, showing that when she plays uninhibited tennis, she is one of the best players in the world. Jankovic then built on that momentum in the latter stages of the year, sending a strong message to the media and tennis fans that mocked her short-lived number one spot prior to the US Open.

When Jankovic is playing well, she moves her opponents around beautifully side-to-side with deep, accurate groundstrokes and can turn her matches into a living nightmare for her opponents, who can never seem to hit through her consistently enough or break her down. The key to Jankovic’s success seems to be a matter of whether she can remain relaxed and enjoy herself, and whether she can remain as physically strong as she needs to be, both areas which seem to go hand-in-hand with her. Jankovic will definitely be a threat in 2009, and should be able to consistently reach the late stages of the majors. If Jankovic can put herself in the position to challenge the top players enough times, then she will win one sooner or later.

2. Serena Williams

Following the retirement of Justine Henin, Serena was predicted to replace Henin as the leading player of women’s tennis, given that it was Henin that defeated Williams in three out of the four slams in 2007. However, Serena continued to struggle with maintaining any consistency, and her tournament schedule was comparatively lighter than Jankovic, who is known as an ironwoman. Williams suffered two disappointing losses at the Australian Open and French Open at the hands of Jankovic and Srebotnik but redeemed herself with a finals appearance at Wimbledon where she fell to her sister, Venus in a high quality match and at the US Open where she took the title. Serena’s long-talked about fitness and motivation problems, seem to be well behind her, reinforcing the fact that Serena is no longer as dominant as she was earlier in her career, but rather one of the best players in the world. Serena should be able to win one or two slams next year, but anything beyond that would be unlikely.

3. Dinara Safina

It was a breakthrough year for Safina, who before this season, had never been mentioned in the same breath as players like Jankovic and Ivanovic. It was commonly thought that Safina’s movement would prevent her to challenge for the biggest titles, but Safina showed remarkable improvements in this area, and subsequently so did her results. She had also improved her serve, and her competitive spirit and mental toughness gave her an edge over some of her peers. During the stretch between the French Open to the US Open, Safina compiled consistently the best results of any player. Given all that she has achieved this year, she has to be considered one of the main contenders in each of the slams, but whether she will win one is another matter.

4. Elena Dementieva

After three years of finishing consistently in the top 10, Dementieva compiled her best season since 2004, in a year that was highlighted by capturing the Olympic gold medal. For Dementieva, the key seems to be consistency, given that throughout her career she has been known for crashing out in the early rounds more often than other top players and frequently struggling with long, tough three-set battles. Unfortunately for Dementieva, despite her game moving in the right direction, she still seems suspect mentally. This was in evidence at the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open, where she struggled in either tight or leading positions, particularly at the French Open where she blew a 5-1 lead in the second set against Dinara Safina. What year Dementieva will have in 2009 is tough to predict, but based on history, I’ll go with a consistent top 10 finish for her, and maybe one semi-final appearance at a Slam.

5. Ana Ivanovic

It was a year of two halves for Ivanovic, who was superb up until the French Open then faded badly after that. The build-up to Ivanovic’s first grand slam title was almost like a learning experience, in the manner she crumbled badly on her first attempt, then improved on that performance in the Australian Open final before capturing the French. Like Safina, Ivanovic had also made great strides in improving her fitness, and she had tempered her game to some extent. However, rather than building on her slam win, Ivanovic started to struggle considerably, mentally more than anything where she often seemed shaky and lacking in confidence. The US Open loss to Julie Coin sticks to mind, where Ivanovic struggled to take advantage of a nervous Coin in the latter stages of the match, and was equally shaky herself. Heading into 2009, the pressure should firmly be off her shoulders by now and after the off-season break, she should be able to bounce back, and learn from that experience to yet again compete at the highest level.

6. Venus Williams

In the last few years or so, Venus Williams has largely compiled inconsistent results over the course of a season, and this year was no different. By capturing Wimbledon yet again, Venus confirmed her status as the best grass court player of this generation. Apart from Wimbledon, the one shining light of Venus’s year was her title win at the year-end championships, a place where she had never triumphed before which bodes nicely for 2009. Injuries and physical problems remained a frequent problem for Venus this year, and that will again be one of her main obstacles in 2009. If I was to make a prediction, I’d expect 2009 to be a very similar year for Venus to this year.

7. Vera Zvonareva

Zvonareva broke through to the top ten this year off the back of a strong end-of-season where she was 27-7 in wins/losses. Her breakthrough tournament was undoubtedly in the year-end championships where she finally established herself as a player that can potentially cause the top players problems, defeating Jankovic, Ivanovic, Kuznetsova and Dementieva to reach the finals. During the week, she played the sort of controlled aggression reminiscent of the likes of Dinara Safina. However, there are still big question marks over Zvonareva having crashed out early in all four grand slams this year and having never advanced past the quarter-finals in her career.

8. Svetlana Kuznetsova

It was undoubtedly a disappointing year for Kuznetsova, in a year that saw her capture no titles, continuing her miserable finals conversion rate having reached 5 finals in 2008. The grand slams in particular were a low point, with her only highlight being a semi-final appearance at Roland Garros where she was beaten convincingly by Safina. Compared to 2007 where Kuznetsova was ranked number 2, branded undeserving of that achievement and made the US Open final, Kuznetsova has largely flown under the radar this year, and for good reason. Kuznetsova most definitely has the game to compete near the top of the rankings, especially given the current lack of a dominant figure, but what kind of year she will have in 2009 is largely unknown.

9. Maria Sharapova

Sharapova began the year on a high winning the Australian Open, in what was arguably her most impressive slam win in her career, prompting suggestions that she could be the next dominant figure in tennis. But it became an injury-plagued season for Sharapova, who struggled yet again with the same shoulder injury that had troubled her late in 2007. If Sharapova can remain injury-free, she should still be one of the leading contenders in all of the majors, except for the French, and she should have a good shot at obtaining the number 1 ranking as well. Sharapova simply has more weapons than the likes of Dementieva and Safina, a much better serve and has the ability to perform as consistently as them, if not more so.

10. Agnieszka Radwanska

Radwanska continued her rise up the rankings in 2008, mainly breaking into the top 10 more as a result of ongoing consistency rather than any breakthrough result. She reached two quarter-finals in the slams and reached the fourth round on the other two occasions, but on all occasions, she was beaten relatively comfortably suggesting that she still has some way to go before she can challenge the elite players. She has taken a couple of major scalps in her career, but is too prone to being overpowered to beat them on a good day, to be able to string enough big wins together.

Del Potro's injury puts Argentina's Davis Cup chances in doubt

Prior to the start of the Davis Cup clash between Spain and Argentina, Argentina were firm favourites to take a 2-0 lead on the opening day. But at the end of the opening day's play, both countries were level at 1-1, with Argentina's David Nalbandian comfortably defeating David Ferrer 6-3 6-2 6-3 in the opening rubber, before Spain's Feliciano Lopez produced a minor upset to defeat Juan Martin Del Potro 4-6 7-6(2) 7-6(4) 6-3.

With the groin injury that Del Potro picked up towards the conclusion of his encounter, the hopes of Argentina taking home their first Davis Cup looks more uncertain than ever. Today's doubles rubber should be the decisive factor in this final, where the winning nation should be favoured to lift the trophy on Sunday. Spain should start the match as slight favourites given their better track record in Davis Cup doubles, whereas Nalbandian/Calleri have shown an inconsistent level in the past, most notably in the 2006 final where the Argentine pair meekly went down to Marat Safin and Dmitry Tursunov in three very one-sided sets.

The day started off brightly for the Argentine team, with David Nalbandian, relishing the opportunity of playing for his country, finding his best tennis to dispatch of David Ferrer comfortably. Nalbandian has openly expressed his burning desire to win the Davis Cup, and he was extremely fired up for the occasion. In this frame of mind, Nalbandian is tough to beat, showing the sort of killer instinct that is often lacking on the main tour. That added purpose and determination in his mindset means that he doesn't give away any more cheap points than necessary, and on the occasion where he throws in a couple of poor errors, he bounces right back and continues to pour the pressure on his opponent. Ferrer had chances in this match, but whenever it felt like the match was building up to a contest, Nalbandian either edged it out to hold onto his serve, or bounced back strongly to break serve in the following game.

The match was more hard fought than the score suggested with both players often being pushed to the brink on their own service games. The match started off in a similar vein to many of their previous matches, featuring long, extended rallies, with Nalbandian being more adventurous in his shot selection. Nalbandian took an early break lead, then Ferrer started to maintain better depth and his accuracy on his groundstrokes to briefly threaten Nalbandian. But he was struggling to effectively set up points on his own serve, where he was often being attacked and immediately put on the back foot.

Ferrer has been struggling with his form as of late, and that showed in his patchy performance. Ferrer doesn't strike me as the kind of player that has the inner confidence to rise to the occasion, when he doesn't have the match wins under his belt. On the other hand, he is a battler and once he gets his teeth into a match, he can be dangerous. Ferrer needed to be rock solid to pose any threat, but it never looked like he had the necessary feel on the groundstrokes, often muscling it into the court.

Nalbandian has the superior shotmaking abilities to Ferrer, often catching Ferrer off-guard with changes of pace down-the-line and angled shots off both sides, but particularly on the forehand. The key for Nalbandian was to attack selectively, but slow down the pace when in a defensive position unless if attempting a winning shot. In particular, he was winning a lot of points on the return of serve, nailing that forehand crosscourt when receiving the wide swinging serve on the deuce court. By the end, the amount of winners started to mount for Nalbandian, while Ferrer started to lose belief after he squandered break points early in the third set.

It was up to Feliciano Lopez to keep Spain's hopes alive, and he delivered in abundance. Sometimes Lopez can be overly reliant on his own serve, and can be prone to making awful errors, but against Del Potro, he put in one of the most consistently effective performances I've seen from him. Lopez started off slow, being outplayed easily from the back of the court, and he handed the early break of serve to Del Potro with four sloppy errors. I think of Lopez as more of a short point player, thinking that eventually his groundstrokes would break down against most of his peers.

Usually when players face Lopez, they look to target his major weakness, the backhand where he is severely lacking an attacking shot, and resorts to the slice on most occasions. It's like the safe haven for players to go to when they're on the dead run. But this is a match-up that strongly favours Lopez, because Del Potro has been known to struggle with low slice backhands. He also likes to get into a rhythm from the back of the court, which Lopez does not provide him with.

Del Potro showed a lack of tactical awareness, displaying no particular pattern of play in order to win points. His accuracy was poor, letting Lopez taking more of an aggressive mindset, and quickly move up to the centre of the court, to put away volleys. He needed to take him out of court better and move the Spaniard around. On occasion, I noted him trying to trading crosscourt forehands to Lopez's backhand side, but Lopez promptly ran around it hit a forehand. He attempted a similar pattern of play against Roger Federer in Madrid, and got burned consistently. He needs to learn that you need to either open up the court to find an opponent's weakness or do so with much better accuracy.

Lopez seemed to enjoy the pace of Del Potro's groundstrokes, as well as the low bounce on the court which enabled him to shorten his backswings and redirect his shots. His groundstrokes were holding up remarkably well, even in the longer rallies. Importantly, he was also executing the lower difficulty shots well, taking care of the high volleys, put away shots and serving consistently well, which can sometimes be a problem with him. He never buckled under pressure, apart from one slight hiccup early in the third set and kept up a consistently high level to defeat Del Potro, who struggled with a groin injury from midway through the third set.

Will Argentina be able to overcome the pressure to capture their first Davis Cup?

The upcoming Davis Cup final between Spain and Argentina, has been described by the Argentine players as “the most important in Argentine tennis history”, in particular by David Nalbandian and Jose Acasuso. There has been a buzz around the media, the players and the public alike in the last week or so, seeing that this is a golden opportunity for Argentina to finally capture their first Davis Cup title, and to do so in front of their supporters. Guillermo Vilas, undoubtedly the most successful player Argentina ever produced, never managed to lead his country to the coveted title.

The pressure will be immense. Opportunities like this don’t come across often, and the Argentine players want to be a part of national history. The bookies are heavily leaning towards Argentina as heavy favourites and rightfully so. Both David Nalbandian and Juan Martin Del Potro have form on their side, as well as the advantage of surface choice which has seen them lay an indoor surface which was reported as being quicker than Paris Bercy and Shanghai.

From a spectator's point of view, the upcoming final was dealt a major blow with Rafael Nadal announcing his withdrawal, a week ago. The original line-up promised to be one of the most mouth-watering clashes in recent years, and could have gone right down to the wire. It promised to be a battle of heavyweights, with Rafael Nadal trying to fight his way through a partisan crowd on his least favoured surface against a fired up David Nalbandian, or attempting to withstand the barrage of big groundstrokes from Del Potro.

But as it stands, the main talking point of the tie is ‘Will Argentina be able to deliver under pressure, and will Spain be able to challenge them?’ And unfortunately for Argentina, if they are victorious, the amount of recognition they receive worldwide will be diminished significantly.

Now let’s take a closer look at the potential matches that will be taking place over the next three days.

David Nalbandian vs David Ferrer
Matches between Ferrer and Nalbandian have a tendency to be hard fought and tough mentally and physically, with long, exhausting rallies in abundance. Ferrer holds the advantage in the head-to-head, leading 6-3 in this matchup, but Nalbandian leads their hardcourt meetings 3-2. Last time they met in Paris Bercy last year, Nalbandian won in a three hour, three set contest, and prior to that, Ferrer defeated Nalbandian in five long sets after Nalbandian squandered a match point, missing a putaway backhand.

Nalbandian will have to remain patient and take advantage of his volleying skills and court sense to finish the point off at net. Ferrer has been struggled to find anything close to his best form as of late, and will need to rediscover his consistency to be of any threat. Nalbandian will likely rise to the occasion, while Ferrer might need to take advantage of his underdog status to find his form.

Prediction: Nalbandian in four sets.

Juan Martin Del Potro vs Feliciano Lopez
Feliciano Lopez, on paper possesses the game to upset the rhythm of Juan Martin Del Potro. He has a vicious lefty serve, a tricky slice backhand and regularly ventures to the net. Del Potro over the last few months has proven to be especially effective in disposing lower-ranked opponents, with his controlled big game, but this particular match-up should cause Del Potro more problems than if he were to face a more consistent, but equally effective player, like say Juan Carlos Ferrero.

Lopez posted a good indoor season himself for his standards, but isn’t really in the same class as Del Potro. I would expect Lopez to take it to a couple of tie-breaks and snatch a set, but he has too much of a tendency to throw in a poor quality service game every now and then which should cost him dearly.

Prediction: Del Potro in four sets.

Jose Acasuso/Agustin Calleri vs Feliciano Lopez/Fernando Verdasco
Lopez/Verdasco are a firmly established doubles team and have had some relative success on the Davis Cup stage, including in September when they pushed the Bryans to a fifth set in the semi-finals. Acasuso/Calleri have a short history together, however, they did reach the Basel semi-finals this year notably defeating the Polish duo Fyrstenberg/Matkowski. Lopez and Verdasco have better reflexes and flair than the Argentine team, and team up well together, which should give them the crucial advantage.

David Nalbandian could still be slotted in. However, Alberto Mancini will be wanting to keep Nalbandian fresh for the final singles, if need be, especially considering that Nalbandian succumbed to fatigue in his singles match against Nikolay Davydenko in early September. The smart move would be to stick with Acasuso/Calleri if Argentina go up 2-0, because I can’t see Feliciano Lopez defeating Nalbandian in a fifth rubber.

Prediction: Lopez/Verdasco in three sets (five sets if Nalbandian plays)

Juan Martin Del Potro vs David Ferrer
If Ferrer doesn’t find his best tennis, this is exactly the kind of matchup that Del Potro should relish. Del Potro is as consistent as Ferrer is, but has more firepower and a more effective serve. Ferrer doesn’t possess the game to take Del Potro out of his comfort zone, to get him moving out wide nor the serve to keep the match close. Ferrer will try hard to hang around and frustrate Del Potro but Del Potro has a good head on his shoulders. The only troublesome situation that Del Potro could find himself in, is if he tires out, because then his footwork starts to deteriorate and he becomes nowhere near as consistent.

Prediction: Del Potro in three sets

Bottom line: Argentina to defeat Spain 3-1

David Nalbandian vs Feliciano Lopez
This rubber won’t eventuate if Argentina have already clinched it, but in the scenario of it going down to a fifth rubber, I would strongly back Nalbandian. Nalbandian is more equipped to deal with Lopez than Del Potro, and should be able to hit enough effective returns and passing shots low down at Lopez’s feet. Additionally, Lopez has little experience on the big stage compared to Nalbandian, who possesses one of the best Davis Cup records, and has the experience of having played a previous Davis Cup final to draw from. It would be a tough ask for him to clinch the tie here.

Prediction: Nalbandian in three sets

Djokovic joins the winners circle again

It was only around May this year when Novak Djokovic was projected by tennis experts as the man most likely to overtake the number 1 position that Roger Federer had held for over the last four years. From Wimbledon onwards, Djokovic seemed worn out physically and it seemed that his customary end-of-season slump had begun even earlier than it did last year. But where Djokovic went winless in last year's Masters Cup, this time, it was the Serb who walked away with the trophy.

Where Djokovic was frequently a talking point earlier this year, he flew under the radar for most of the tournament, with more of the focus being on Andy Murray and Roger Federer, and even Gilles Simon. Understandably so, because this week his play had been inconsistent and representative of how he had played in the second half of the year. Flashes of brilliance, but mixed with wild shots that were nowhere near making their targets.

Mentally he was nowhere near the same player as he was earlier in the year. Back then, he was so clutch that he would almost always predictably come up with a big serve whenever he needed one. If he wasn't playing well enough to go for his shots then he'd battle it out instead making use of his athleticism and consistency, and was reluctant to give away anywhere near as many cheap points.

Instead what I noticed about Djokovic was that he constantly looked edgy, and easily frustrated, and that led to him frequently taking rash decisions in his shotmaking, going for the big outright winner before he needed to. Djokovic is the kind of player that needs to play with raw emotion and energy to play his best tennis, so it is much easier for someone like him to be emotionally drained. It didn't help his mental state that physically he wasn't as fresh near the back end of the season.

Earlier in the year, Djokovic made a point of emphasising that he was the new kid on the block, often commenting that tennis fans have been getting sick of the same people winning, and enjoy new winners. But after all of the success he achieved, he could no longer apply that same mindset, now that he was considered in the same league as Federer and Nadal, at least in terms of their ability to contend in the big events.

Djokovic is the kind of guy that finds it hard to stay grounded. He doesn’t give his lower-ranked opponents as much respect as some other players, knowing that if he can execute his shots well enough, then he will come out on top. I don't think he is alone in this regard, but it appears to have impacted on him more negatively than on others. In interviews, he has mentioned on several occasions the additional pressure that he feels on his shoulders, for matches that he feels he should win, such as yesterday’s match against Simon.

In his post-match interview, he mentioned that he was feeling the pressure which might explain why he was cramping and breathing heavily in that match, having had the day's rest and not being physically tested throughout the week. Then add to that, his strategic "energy-saving" third set effort against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the previous match.

One would have thought that his physical problems would have hampered his chances against Nikolay Davydenko in the final, given the manner in which the Russian dismantled a jaded Andy Murray. Davydenko was striking the ball sweetly taking the ball exceptionally early and sending Murray running side-to-side, almost like some sort of practice drill designed to improve Murray's fitness.

But the Novak Djokovic that turned up on court, was nothing like the Djokovic of yesterday, and he came out firing on all cylinders. It was the best match that Djokovic has played in a long time, reminiscent of his early season form and appropriately it was in the final of a big match. He started off the match unleashing big groundstrokes off both wings, with both of his down-the-line shots on song. It was sort of like fighting fire with fire - two attacking players trying to strike the first blow to their opponent, and Djokovic comfortably came out on top in that regard beating Davydenko in the power and weaponry department, and of course executing his shots better.

The way Djokovic generates his power from both wings, it's almost as if he throws his whole body weight into the shot, setting up for the shot early then rotating his entire body forward into the ball. His movement is equally as dynamic, where he is often seen lunging and stretching out his body to the maximum. His flexibility is exceptional and he manages to maintain excellent balance and control on the defense to be able to hit deep, effective shots from that position, where he was often able to win points while seemingly on the dead run. It's not often that Davydenko is dominated from the baseline like this, but he unsettled Davydenko, constantly rushing him and putting him under pressure to attempt higher risk shots in order to gain the initiative in the rallies.

Both players are essentially aggressive baseliners, but Davydenko is completely different in his approach. He doesn't take the same free full-blooded swing as Djokovic and instead positions himself close to the baseline so that he is right on top of the ball, in order to take the ball as early as possible. His approach is more based more on precision rather than explosiveness, rotating his body in synchronisation with his racquet moving across the ball and putting in all of those little steps required to play the perfectly timed shot and generate the maximum racquet head speed out of it.

In this particular match, Davydenko was never able to feel at ease, falling behind quickly in the match, going down 5-0 in the first set before finally winning his first game. His serve was failing him, struggling with his first serve percentage and he was getting punished with his second serve, although interestingly Davydenko didn't have much success on his first serve either, only winning 55% of points in the first set.

Djokovic remained in full control of the match until when he initially served for the match at 5-4, where he showed signs of nerves. Down break point, Djokovic gestured in frustration to the Chinese crowd who cheered his first serve fault, then promptly served a double fault after distracting himself. Davydenko, when down and out, started to swing more freely and generate more racquet speed to get that extra pace needed to hurt Djokovic. But as soon as the match evened out at 5-5, the racquet speed dropped again as he dumped a forehand into the net to tamely drop serve yet again. And as Djokovic did against Simon in the previous round, Djokovic hit back to break serve straight away in the following game and served it out comfortably.

With this win, Djokovic has now closed the gap rankings-wise on Roger Federer, trailing a mere 10 points from the number 2 position meaning that if he can win a couple of matches early next year in Brisbane, he can head into the Australian Open as the number 2 seed. That is, assuming that Federer does not contest a tournament in the first week of the year.

Murray sends Federer packing before the semi-finals in Shanghai

Roger Federer had never failed to make it into the semi-finals stage on five previous occasions at the Masters Cup, but that record was in threat against Andy Murray, who has been the most in-form player of the last three months. In the end, Federer came up short, but his performance was more worthy of praise than criticism, in a high quality match where he displayed superb determination and fighting spirit.

Federer, in his previous two matches in Shanghai against Gilles Simon and Radek Stepanek, had struggled to find his form. He had been misfiring on the forehand side, showing a lack of patience, where he would often snatch on the shot, as if he was trying to force too much on that side, instead of swinging freely. On too many occasions, he opted for the flat point-ending forehand instead of the medium-risk loopier shot that he can also hit. It's not that Federer can't hit these shots, but he needs to be extremely relaxed to get the timing right.

Given his previous performances, it was to my surprise that Federer came out determined and confident of his own all-court, aggressive game as if he fully trusted in his abilities. From the outset, it was obvious that Federer has a lot of respect for Murray, and he came out with a specific gameplan in mind. Federer was stepping up the court and trying to rush Murray as much as possible, reminiscent of how he played the US Open final. The points were kept short, not letting Murray use his athletic abilities, variety and point construction.

It was a fascinating encounter as a matchup, because both players have the attributes needed to deal with each other's strengths. If anyone has the ability to take time away from their opponents, it's Federer, who can be ruthless and can steamroll right through his opponents. If there's anyone that can withstand the barrage of weaponry coming from Federer's racquet, it's Murray who has the ability to neutralise almost any shot that comes his way. He does this by forcing his opponents to hit higher risk shots as well as counter-attacking himself, especially when on the run or when forced to hit passing shots.

This, as well as the exceptional athletic ability of both players, allowed the two to exchange fast-paced rallies of the highest quality, which were characterized by both players having to hit the equivalent of several winners to be able to win points, and both players turning defense to offense with relative ease. Federer tried to find his way to Murray's forehand more often than not, while Murray tried to pick on Federer's backhand.

Murray is so dangerous that whenever he gets his racquet on the ball, you get the sense that he can turn around almost any point in his favour, and the longer the rally goes on, the bigger advantage he has because he is a steadier player than Federer. What I have noticed about Murray recently is that there seems to be no particular manner in which players can rely on to consistently win points against him, and that makes it exceptionally hard for his opponents. He handles aggressive players extremely well because he has excellent passing shots and he can throw them off their rhythm, but he also has the advantage when engaging in long rallies against the more consistent players, due to his greater variety from the back of the court.

Federer needed to be selective when picking his opportunities to come in. The best bet for Federer was to try and take control of the rally early on if he can, but to respect the quality of shot if it is too high risk to attack. He implemented this balance successfully in the first set, waiting until he could move Murray out of position enough to do sufficient damage before unloading on his signature forehand. Federer can sometimes get into the habit of blocking back serves, usually being confident that he can win the point more often than not if they get into an extended rally, but against Murray, he attacked Murray's serve relentlessly, especially on second serves.

In the first set, Federer looked to be in control for most of the set, but Murray continued to probe and test Federer, keeping the match close before Federer crucially broke serve late in the first set. In the second set, Federer stepped his foot off the accelerator by a small amount, no longer imposing himself on the match as much and that was enough to make a big difference. This allowed Murray to start getting more into the rallies he likes, prolonging the rallies, placing shots into tricky positions and employing changes of spins and pace to hurt his opponent. Murray, importantly started serving better, not giving Federer as many opportunities to attack on his weaker second serve, getting 75% of his first serves to cruise to a 5-2 double break lead.

That was when the match turned to become a dramatic contest that was filled with momentum swings for both players. Where Murray seemed to have control, he somehow let it slip away from 5-2 in the second set squandering two set points. Murray missed a few too many second serves and Federer took his chances wrestling control of the point right from the return of serve and finishing it off at net. Federer went on a tear winning something like 7 of the next 8 points, then Murray recovered to take it to a tie-break, and took it up another level to win the second set in a tie-break, which featured the best tennis of the match.

At the start of the third set, Federer took an injury time-out for the back injury that he had first suffered from in Paris, and it started to hamper his movement especially in the first half of the third set. Once Murray had Federer stretching out wide, Federer had little chances of getting back into the point and whenever he came into the net, he moved gingerly whenever he had to lunge to hit a volley.

But this is where Federer began to show his fighting qualities, and started to put the injury out of his mind. If he was going to lose, he was going to go down swinging and leave everything out on the court. The manner in which Federer fought back time and time again from a losing position was reminiscent of the effort that he put in the classic Wimbledon final this year, where he also seemed down and out on several occasions but pulled out winning shots under extreme pressure. Federer saved seven match points at 5-4 in the third set, but in the end, it wasn't enough for him to win the match as Murray pulled it out 7-5 in the third set.

Zvonareva goes undefeated in round robin play, while Serena and Ivanovic withdraw

This year marks the first time in a three-year agreement where the women's year-end championships will be held in Doha, in an outdoor arena. Over the last five or so years, there has been a recent history of the tournament being hit by withdrawals, although it was this time last year that Justine Henin and Maria Sharapova played that memorable three hour encounter in the final, the match that mentally exhausted Henin and led to her retirement. In 2006, Henin and Sharapova battled it out for the year-end number one ranking, and Amelie Mauresmo played some good tennis back then as well.

As for this year, Jelena Jankovic has already secured her position as the year-end world number 1. Svetlana Kuznetsova and Ana Ivanovic have struggled for form as late, and unfortunately for them, this week hasn't done any wonders for their confidence as they both packed their bags out of Doha without notching up a single win.

Unfortunately for the fans, yesterday turned out to be essentially a day filled with meaningless matches, after both Serena Williams and Ana Ivanovic withdrew from their final round robin matches, with Williams citing a sore stomach muscle and Ivanovic feeling the effects from a virus.

Vera Zvonareva continued her good run at the year-end championships, defeating Jelena Jankovic in yesterday's match, extending her undefeated run in Doha to three consecutive wins, all of which were over top ten players. Zvonareva had her breakthrough year in 2004, where she broke into the top 10 for the first time in August, and qualified for her first year-end championships. Zvonareva, since then, never made it back since until this year, but has played some of her best tennis as of late compiling a win-loss record of 26-7 since the Beijing Olympics, where she picked up a bronze medal. Where Zvonareva went winless in this very same event in 2004, the 24-year-old Russian now looks like one of the main threats heading into the business end of this year's event.

So how is that Zvonareva finds herself on the brink of breaking into the top 5 this year? Throughout the championships, Zvonareva has been playing with controlled aggression keeping good length on her groundstrokes and moving her opponents around just enough, to enable herself to keep the initiative in the rallies, kind of like a less powerful version of Juan Martin Del Potro on the men's tour.

While Zvonareva doesn't have a standout quality in her game, on a good day, she forces her opponents to play either a higher risk game or break down her game, which has been a difficult task for everyone so far. When I watch her, what I notice the most is how she takes care of her side of the net remarkably well, maintaining an aggressive game plan but giving herself good margin for error keeping all of her shots a metre or so inside the lines. Of course, this is only referring to the composed Zvonareva, when she's not having one of her well-known mental breakdowns, which it must be said occur less and less these days. When she's on the defensive, she tries to get the ball back deep in the middle of the court, not giving her opponent much to work with.

Playing against a more consistent and athletic player in Jankovic, it was going to be a tall order for Zvonareva to defeat her. The first set went exactly as planned with Jankovic cruising through past Zvonareva 6-2. Zvonareva wasn't playing poorly, keeping relatively good consistency but whenever she was pulled out wide and on the run, she was forced into hitting a weaker return and was punished repeatedly for that. Although Zvonareva's movement has improved over the last season, it still remains a weakness in the Russian's game especially when compared to some of her peers, like the Williams sisters, Dementieva and Jankovic, who is perhaps the best mover on tour along with Venus Williams.

In the second set, Zvonareva opted for a more aggressive game plan, taking the ball down-the-line on more occasions than she did previously and being much more effective on the run. She was now getting behind the ball much better and finding herself able to hit more of a full-blooded swing, especially on the forehand side. Jankovic continued to probe and test her to the full extent as they engaged in numerous long gruelling rallies, and Zvonareva needed to dig herself out of some tough games, which she did so successfully. In the end, it was the usually steady Jankovic who cracked, making just a few too many unforced errors in the final set to go down in defeat.

For Jankovic, given that she finished her group second in the standings, she still was able to qualify for the semi-finals and will have the opportunity to contend for the title, as will Zvonareva, of course.

Nalbandian lights up the indoor season again

David Nalbandian has traditionally done well indoors, where he has compiled his best results of his career. This year has been no different, yet it has come as some sort of a surprise, because of the year he has had which saw him not advance past the third round of any of the four Grand Slams.

Last year he picked up back-to-back Masters Series titles in Madrid and Paris and in 2005, he won his biggest title in winning the Masters Cup over Roger Federer in the final. Now he is into the final of the Paris Masters Series, where he next faces Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, having defeated the likes of Juan Martin Del Potro, Andy Murray and Nikolay Davydenko to advance into the finals.

In defeating Andy Murray on Friday, who had been on a 14 match winning streak, Nalbandian was at his very best, putting on a fine display of smart, patient, all-court tennis. When Nalbandian is in this sort of form, it is hard not to marvel at the variety, shot selection and shotmaking capabilities that he possesses. I tend to think, that out of all the players, he possesses some of the most variety off the groundstrokes.

Some people think that variety tends to refer to only things like slice backhands and changes of spins, so in that case you'd think of Andy Murray or Roger Federer. But Nalbandian has so many options from the back of the court, because of the accuracy of his groundstrokes and his ability to change directions, to go down-the-line on both sides or pull his opponent off court with extreme angles off both the forehand and backhand. This allows him to implement any pattern of play that he wants, but he also has the tactical game as well as a solid net game to effectively make use of it. Combine that with early ball striking and that allows him to dictate play and open up the court better than almost anyone else in the game. Often he was catching Murray off balance in the baseline exchanges by taking his forehand up the line, then coming in and knocking off the backhand volley, short and wide wrong-footing Murray.

The match, in itself, was really a treat, with two of the best tactical players coming up against each other, both probing each other for openings and then pulling the trigger when they had the opportunity. Both Nalbandian and Murray seem to utilise more.blocked shots and deep floating slices to get back into the point than the majority of their peers, which is what makes the both of them so effective at changing from offense to defense and vice versa. As a result, both players really had to set up their points amazingly well to finish it off, which produced many entertaining rallies.

The biggest difference in this match was the strength of Nalbandian's return of serve coupled with Murray's low first service percentage, which allowed Nalbandian to consistently attack Murray right from the outset and put the Scot under consistent pressure. Nalbandian's return of serve really is amazing when it is on. He is consistently able to knock it back deep on the baseline time and time again to effectively set up the point or rip return winners off second serves. But he also has the ability to block it back deep when returning a more effective serve. Murray tried to use the wide serve slicing out to Nalbandian's forehand, which seemed like a good tactic in theory going out to Nalbandian's weaker side, but he got burnt time and time again, with Nalbandian reading it and quickly pouncing on it.

Sometimes when I watch performances like this, I wonder why it is that Nalbandian is as inconsistent as he is. Technically he is very sound, and he has efficient groundstrokes which should allow him to play with some sort of consistency. Even though his game is based around accuracy and timing, he is usually sensible enough to play within himself when he is not playing well enough which should give him enough margin for error to do better than he does. Having watched quite a number of his matches in recent times, I can say that I have some sort of explanation.

 

It was in the very next match that Nalbandian produced a very up-and-down performance to overcome Nikolay Davydenko who most certainly was nowhere near his best in this match. Nalbandian started off showing the same rich vein of form that he had carrying from the match against Andy Murray, particularly on the return of serve, where he was seemingly able to maintain incredible depth on almost every return he was able to come in contact with. But where Nalbandian could have closed it out comfortably in straight sets, he instead let Davydenko into it by losing his intensity and consequently looked like he was playing with no tactics at all.

When Nalbandian is playing well, he is excellent at moving forward into the ball and being proactive, often being quick to take advantage of any opening that he creates to close it out at the net.

It takes focus and concentration to play that sort of tennis, to be able to quickly sense which shots are good enough to take advantage of, and which shots to neutralise to get into the point, and that's what I think the main problem with Nalbandian's game is.

I tend to find in most cases that the more tuned in he seems to be in the match, not only does he play better, but he tends to play more creatively as well. Often when he doesn't have that sense of urgency, he starts to look like a much more mediocre player, showing none of the variety and tactical game that he is capable of and his movement generally tends to suffer too.

It's hard to know exactly just how much his fitness is an impact in the sluggishness that he sometimes has in his movement, because that as well as the lack of energy that he sometimes exhibits are both related to each other, in his overall approach to the game. Having watched quite a number of his matches as of late, it is interesting to note the amount of times where his poor form (and the errors he produces) seems to be a direct result of the lack of energy he displays in his matches, rather than his game simply going off.

Davydenko, in comparison, who also showed poor form in this match simply could not find the range of his groundstrokes. He continued to swing away with full commitment, while appearing to have no idea where he hit it, until after he executed it. He wasn't only missing his groundstrokes, but by large margins at times and missing shots that were seemingly very easy.

Davydenko doesn't hold back when he isn't playing well. He continues to play with that same rapid pace that he usually does, perched on the top of the baseline and trying to generate large amounts of racquet head speed. You can see why he can mishit so many shots playing that way and sometimes you think he should just slow down the pace and give himself time to find his rhythm.

It's a good thing that he is such a gritty competitor, that can he still find the energy to play the fast paced game that he does regardless of his own poor form, and this allows him to edge out numerous matches throughout the course of a season.

Although from my point of view, these kinds of matches from the Russian tend to be extremely hard to watch, and a result it puts me off him sometimes because he can be fantastic to watch when he is cleaning the lines. He's also a dangerous customer, because there's always a chance that he can string together a couple of spectacular points to get back into the match, since he tends to continue to go for his shots.

Whereas Davydenko treats every point the same regardless of the score, Nalbandian is the exact opposite and generally likes to play to the score, which can be both an advantage or disadvantage. On break points, he can come up with brilliant change-up tactics that take his opponents by surprise, or either he can knuckle down and perfectly construct a point taking full use of his own strengths and favourite playing patterns. But he can also get complacent or lose concentration at particular stages of the match, which seems to be more likely to happen the less he is able to get into a rhythm. Because the more he is able to get into a rhythm, the more he is able to play the points he likes and the more enjoyable the match is for him.

Davydenko started to play better midway into the second set winning many more cheap points on serve, and occasionally strung together some good points. He was doing all of the dictating and the match was seemingly played on his own terms. I kept waiting for Nalbandian to take it up a notch in the business end of the second set, or early on in the third set, but he continued to play the same sort of uninspired tennis for one and a half sets. The biggest advantage that Nalbandian has over Davydenko is variety, and finally at 2-2 in the third set, he started to lean into those groundstrokes again, take Davydenko off-balance looking to come into the net, and as soon as that happened, that was enough to win the match.