London World Tour Finals Wrap-Up

It just occurred to me that this blog will soon be the only avenue I have for tennis writing. Since I haven’t done much in the last couple of months to try to keep it alive, I felt like I should.

It's not the first time I've realized this, but it started to sink in on the day that I heard about Tennis Week closing down (and Most Valuable Network which hosts Tennis Diary will also do so at the end of the year).

In a completely unprepared and spontaneous decision, I have decided to do a wrap-up of the London World Tour Finals. What I can remember the most out of it was closely paying attention to sets and games more than I ever did in previous years because that's what it came down to, more often than not. Juan Martin Del Potro edged out a semi-final place over Andy Murray by one single game, and almost all of the matches were decided in three sets.

In a way it was an accurate representation of men’s tennis as it is today. It is fair to say that the top 10 as a whole looks stronger than it has in a while. On the bottom of the top 10, we have more dangerous players that might not be considered as legitimate contenders for big tournaments but perfectly capable of competing well against the top players, ie. Fernando Verdasco and Robin Soderling. Though it must be said that Verdasco was quoted to having a record against the top ten along the lines of 1-12 for the year, which was what prompted me to suggest that he lost some of his flashiness in my description of him a while back.

I can’t understand what goes inside Verdasco’s head sometimes. I suspect he’s just as confused himself. His game is smooth and effortless, and he has this nonchalant attitude about him as if he doesn’t care much about what’s going on, though it’s hard to tell whether this is actually the case. Part of it is surely a mental holiday, but part of it is also a side effect of the more mature and calm Verdasco. Or at least I found him to be strangely lacking in fire at times at the US Open. The way he’s been playing in the last couple of tournaments seems to be suggesting the same thing, quick to pull the trigger out of impatience after focusing so strongly on playing disciplined tennis this year.

Steve Tignor made an interesting point on his blog, that Verdasco’s problem seemed to be that he wasn’t able to control points without hitting shots that were close to being winners. Del Potro is an obvious example of someone that can do this easily, and the same could be said of Davydenko. Verdasco, on the other hand needs to rely on his go-to shots. The down-the-line forehand is a big point-finisher and Verdasco is a much better player when it works, but at the same time, it’s a high risk shot. I’d also add the wide serves to the list, particularly on the ad court, and when he serves well and accurately, it tends to make the rest of his game look more accurate too having more angles and gaps to work with.

I’ve started to warm to Del Potro more lately because of his eye-catching ability to hit winners out of shots that didn’t look like they could be winners. He also has this ability to suddenly change gears at the drop of a hat, and I would go even further to suggest that he can change moods in the drop of a hat also. Turning negative body language into positive body language.

If he wasn’t such a good shotmaker and able to pull it off, I’d call him an idiot for trying to hit the cover off the ball on a big point, and trying to hit a forehand winner two steps away from where his opponent was standing. Jason Goodall has coined a new term for Del Potro’s ferocious forehands, “vapourising the ball” and “forehands hit at the speed of the light”. I think the big crosscourt forehand returns stand out the most.

For me, I’m just as much impressed by the less flashy but equally as effective double-handed backhand of Del Potro’s. He can do exactly the same thing on that side, trade crosscourt backhands and suddenly rip a backhand winner in the same direction, only slightly wider and deeper and have that come off as a clear winner. Actually Murray can do that too which puzzles me because I would have thought you'd have to hit it ridiculously hard to do that, but he just flattens it out and hits it deep into the corner having it skid through the court.

Del Potro started off slow in the tournament, but this is the week he got out of his post-Slam win hangover, just in time for the start of the new season. It marked the time when his competitive instincts took over, his obvious love for competing and he has the confidence to back it up. Strangely he looked subdued in the final match against Davydenko, and for the first time aside from his first set loss to Andy Murray, never looked like getting going. Though perhaps it could be said, that Davydenko just happened to be one step in front of him at all times, playing at a pace faster and forcing Del Potro to play catch-up all the time.

Federer strangely lost two consecutive matches in similar fashion against Del Potro and Davydenko, on the brink of victory to only have the tables turned on him the following game. Federer had break points in the all-important 7th game in the third set (or something along those lines) in both matches. I’d roughly estimate that in two thirds of those points, Del Potro and Davydenko saved them with courageous play.

The way Davydenko grunted on some of his groundstrokes towards the end serving for the match, it was like the audio equivalent of trying to assert his authority against all of his inner demons. Davydenko’s wide serve on the deuce court is deceptively good, moving out further wide than what it would initially seem. It looks like it’d sit up high once it hits the court, but instead it continues to swing away and skid low. It's hard to get a clean hit on it unless if you can read it early enough, and he can generate good angles on that side because of the good body rotation he has on serve. Federer certainly had a hard time dealing with it.

What does Davydenko’s title win mean for his career? As far as I’m concerned, Davydenko has always been one of the best players, as his consistent top 5 ranking over the years would show. He’s capable of giving Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro a run for their money, and I think aside from winning this title, he can be just as much encouraged by the increasingly open state of the tour and the decreasing aura surrounding the top players.

Davydenko doesn’t strike me as a player that seems to use momentum to build on form, however over long periods, he tends to generally have a lot of good days. He’s more up and down the charts over the course of a season and more so in a best-of-five set match against the top players, but he has proven he can string it together in a tournament. The question is whether he can convert those into wins.

Controversial Post: The effects of steroids in tennis

I had the opportunity a couple of days ago of having the unique experience of seeing what it’s like to play under the influence of steroids, and thought it would be interesting to document especially given the current press attention Andre Agassi’s memoir has been receiving lately.

I don't mean this to be an advertisement for steroids or drugs. Just to set it straight, I was taking steroids for health reasons and happened to play tennis during that period. And I didn’t play an important match. My brother tells me that the steroids I took aren’t performance enhancing (prednisone), but I’m certain they were in some form. I kept telling myself that I’m not crazy, and I know what I was feeling. It wasn’t like I thought I was going to play great tennis before I even started playing. I felt it on the court.

I don't recommend taking it just for the sake of improving your tennis. It has a certain perfection to it that it ruins part of the fun of playing. And it has a numbness to it, like it takes out all the mental challenges of playing tennis, which I suppose is why it worked so well. I’ve heard commentators mention that the mental side of tennis is directly related to physical fitness and I never believed it completely. I couldn’t understand why physical fitness would dictate why someone would miss an important point, for example.

But watching myself play, I noticed how much easier tennis is, without all the internal dialogue going on, when everything just happens to take care of itself for you. Because playing with steroids is like making everything more effortless than it should be. It affects all of the decision-making, every single shot selection and it makes you feel calmer.

It's kind of like a snapshot to what tennis would look like if fitness wasn't an issue, to see what it would look like if you happened to be in position for every ball. I’ve learned that fitness isn’t only about endurance. It’s about how much each shot takes out of you, and each rally. It does it somewhat in a fairytale sort of way, like it breaks so much of the normal thought processes and barriers that you have to fight off when playing tennis.

I don’t need to urge myself to get into position quicker and not be so sluggish, my feet are already doing the work for me. I don’t need to be so impatient or get worried when my opponent keeps returning my good shots, I can just keep him running side to side. I don’t need to be worried about being out of breath if I have to run too much, because I won’t be. I can play aggressively without overplaying, and I can run around as many backhands as I want to, and execute it correctly then make it back to the middle of the court.

Before I started playing, I already had some idea of what it would be like, not having to deal with tiredness but still I expected a similar type of match. The benefits ended up being so much more than that, to the point where the difference in how it makes you feel is so great that it can feel like you're playing better than you actually are. Errors tend to be meaningless, and internal comments tend to be restricted to whether I should hit closer to the lines or bring the margins in.

I'm in the warm-up and I start hitting the ball increasingly harder realizing that whether I hit it soft, or hit it hard, it feels exactly the same. So I may as well just hit everything harder then. It's an incredibly odd feeling that’s difficult to shake off at first because different shots are supposed to take different energy levels. Much of the excitement of hitting a full-paced shot is summoning all the energy of hitting it, putting all of the body weight into it. I didn't get as much joy from hitting winners as I usually do, not that same amazing rush that I get when I really do play great tennis. I think I felt a bit like a ball machine. I wonder if this is what it's like for players with technically competent, effortless shot production all the time.

Whether I hit first serves or second serves, it felt exactly the same. My racquet felt lighter than it usually does. At first it's an adjustment to make, realizing how much of the feel that you have for a particular shot and judgement is based on how hard you swing at the ball. I was scared of hitting the ball long and didn't know what to do entirely, and that's because I did hit some balls long. But I was getting better depth.

My fitness skills are normally not great. I don't do much exercise aside from playing tennis, though I have started playing more regularly recently. I wondered what it'd be like to play if I was an extremely fit player. I wonder if it's a little bit like this, but I can't imagine it'd be this good.

Every time I was hitting a shot, I was in position enough to rarely make any bad errors. I didn't even have to make any effort to get into position, I just happened to get there in time easily. If I happened to catch a ball late, I'd somehow be able to swing through my racquet fast enough to catch up to it and hit a good shot nonetheless.

I was shocked when I shanked a forehand once in the match, that’s how cleanly I was hitting the ball. I missed almost no half volleys from the baseline, because my reflexes were fast enough to get to it. It was quite a sight seeing all of my forehands with a low margin over the net, but amazingly almost never hitting the net.

I wondered how amazing I would have been today if I didn't have such a technically weak backhand. I basically sliced almost every single backhand, and they were weak slices as well, but consistent at least. If it wasn't for my backhand, I would have felt like a completely different player, at a standard that I thought I could never reach.

It wasn't overly important though, not today. I didn’t want to risk hitting a double-handed backhand, if my forehand was working this good. In the first two games of the match, I hadn't yet realized all of the things that I was capable of doing. My opponent hit almost every shot deliberately to my backhand at first, then I realized about four points in, that I could run around almost everything to hit a forehand. And it wouldn’t take any energy out of me, and I'd get there in time to hit a good shot, then get to the next shot without breaking a sweat, as long as I could get my racquet on it.

It seemed like I was incapable of hitting the net. Whenever a ball was low across the net, I somehow brushed over the top of it a little at the end, and that small change was enough to make everything go over the net. I felt like an awesome ball-striker, like one of those better-trained players that have such control that they can hit every shot with a similar trajectory. I think I could have given many of those players I've had trouble with a good run for their money since I tend to have a lot of problem with extremely consistent players.

I was pretty much capable of bashing the ball side-to-side on the forehand without lacking patience. I normally feel that if I go for a shot, then I need to get a reward from it and the pressure builds up immensely with each shot. Hitting too close to the lines after a while. Not here though. I just kept pounding away into the corners. I'm not sure how he managed to track all those balls down.

Occasionally I'd try to breathe louder or put my hand on my hip or something, pretend to gesture that I was feeling a little tired. He was sweating profusely after the match, and I had absolutely no sweat at all. Though if I were him, I would have never even been able to chase down that many balls.

The more the match went on, the more I realized how aggressively I was able to play from the forehand. Down-the-line shots were easy, and so were off-forehands though I tried not to play shots right on the line because that would be pointlessly risky if I could hang in longer rallies. In short, my forehand was amazing and I could pretty much do whatever I wanted with it.

I used to think that long rallies were boring, but in hindsight they're probably not for people who can handle them. I just normally can't, I think it'll ruin me for the end of the match even if not yet. Basically one gruelling rally where I'm breathing heavily afterwards could ruin me a whole match. In fact, it did once. I didn't even notice when a rally was long today.

After an even first couple of games, I dominated the rest of the set until I started overplaying at 30-0 on serve at 5-2 thinking I could do whatever I wanted. But I recovered quickly the following game and won the next game, bringing the margins in.

What an epic day in Paris Bercy

It's been a while since we've had a genuinely exciting day of tennis, and yesterday was it. The billing would not have suggested it, standard early round matches for the big guns, Nadal vs Almagro and Federer vs Benneteau.

I was originally more interested in the outside court, and it's a testament to how dramatic the matches were, that I was somehow able to feel the tension in it while knowing the result of it (but not the scoreline).

Marat Safin vs Juan Martin Del Potro

It was Marat Safin's final tour match officially, an occasion that meant something to Safin himself, not only his fans like his previous ceremonies. The tournaments beforehand had been building up to it with little ceremonies everywhere for Safin in the last month or so, but this was the real one. I found the match had more sentimental value than I thought it would. Safin is the first big name player to retire that I've followed since the beginning of his career, at least the first to be given a proper farewell.

I tuned in at the end of the first set, and saw Del Potro's amazingly good winners-unforced error statistics. My first impression was that both players play relatively similarly, especially feeding the pace off each other, hard-hitting groundstrokes that would usually be characterised by clean struck shots right off the centre of the racquet in the first few strokes, then it would be more of a battle to see who could keep up.

Safin had a lot of trouble returning Del Potro's serve but he held up his end of the bargain on serve. Typically as you'd expect Safin sprayed more off the forehand, and he tended to overplay more than Del Potro did. Somehow I think that's what we wanted to see in Safin's final match though - losses of concentration, glimpses of brilliance and a close, dramatic contest. For a period in the middle to end of the second set, Safin went through a good period with his backhand at one point hitting this amazingly powerful backhand down-the-line winner, reflexed right from the shoelaces off one of Del Potro's shots that landed near the corner on the baseline.

The third set was more erratic on Safin's part, now sensing that the end of his career was closing. And his attitude summed up much of the conflicting and confused emotions that often characterised his career. In the change of ends, he was smiling and leaned over in his chair, relaxed and enjoying the atmosphere. Then two points after the changeover, Safin's disgusted with his effort and throws his racquet in frustration after hitting another wild forehand error.

The most touching moment in the ceremony was seeing Safin's tribute in the form of other players, former and current, and also a wonderfully ecletic mix of players in terms of nationality and personality, from Ivo Karlovic to Novak Djokovic and Tommy Robredo. Realizing that this ceremony was just as much a celebration and form of closure for Safin, as it was for everyone else, and having that added warmth about it. It's the sentiment, not that spectacle that counts.

Rafael Nadal vs Nicolas Almagro

The way the match was played out, this was Almagro's match to lose. Five match points squandered and multiple leads lost in the second and third sets. Some credit must be given to Nadal's fighting spirit, the way he saved those three match points from 0-40 down.

As a spectacle I found it in an incredibly strange match to watch. It was long and drawn-out, but not tension-building.  Nadal's missing an element of specialness to him, that sense that he can turn difficult points around right into his favour. Almagro went all out, plenty of winners and plenty of errors, but errors didn't seem to bother him much. In the past, players had to be a little more consistent to have success against Nadal. Think about how Youzhny, Blake and Berdych would generally be able to keep up great shotmaking point after point. And Cilic and Del Potro in recent times.

The backhand looked particularly worrying for Nadal. It was most noticeable on the big points when Almagro tightened up, and started playing more passively. Every shot went to Nadal's backhand, and Nadal would slice it back with no penetration whatsoever, until Almagro eventually made a mistake. The commentators, Robbie Koenig and Jason Goodall have mentioned continuously that the key for overcoming Nadal is to attack his forehand. But to me, it's a combination of hitting to the backhand first, then getting that floating ball to hit deep and hard to Nadal's forehand.

After breaking Almagro's spirit in the second set, surprisingly Nadal took his foot off the accelerator early in the third and Almagro was back in it. For an instant it looked like Almagro's tiredness, turned to cramping later on would help him favourably, after showing a sudden improvement that allowed him to break serve late in the third set. I was somewhat confused at the end, as to how that great shotmaking suddenly turned into a poor effort the following game when Almagro was serving for the match again. He didn't only miss shots, he missed them by several metres. And he looked like he was incapable of doing anything other than standing and delivering completely upright.  Then his shoulders slumped afterwards and Almagro never looked like winning the match again.

Roger Federer vs Julien Benneteau

This match was the anti-thesis of the Nadal vs Almagro match, straightforward in the way the scoreline played out, but compelling in its own right. What was most impressive was the fact that Benneteau never even blinked. He never even faltered with one noticeable bad or nervous point.

It was Benneteau's typical game red-lined. Typically solid ball-striking, defending his own side of the baseline perfectly seemingly showing no gaping holes to hit into. Whenever he ran to a shot to the open court, he looked like was huffing and puffing to get there, not to the point of tiredness, but not looking like he'd be able to recover for the next shot.

Buoyed by the support from the French crowd, everything Benneteau did was just a little bit better than usual for him - deeper shots, more energetic movement and some inspiration that helped him finish off rallies with impressive crosscourt and down-the-line backhands. What I liked the most was how well Benneteau closed off the net, which was the key to him winning the most crucial of points.

It was a big occasion for the Frenchman and he relished it. The more the match reached closer to the end, he focused more on the crowd, and chose to direct his emotions positively and outwardly. It's one of the few times I've felt a shared experience, emotionally involved in a match that I didn't expect to feel involved in. These are the kind of matches that are worth watching tennis for, those little heartwarming moments that don't mean much in the main scheme of things but make for great viewing.

The strengths and weaknesses of the ATP top 10

This is the article I wrote for Sportingo in an attempt to win the £50 prize, but was unfortunately unsuccessful.

Roger Federer

Known for having one of the most complete, all-round games, Federer has the unique knack of being able to combine sheer pace with finesse. The best shotmaker in the game, capable of winning matches with the most dazzling display of winners.

Defensively he is very light on his feet and has excellent reflexes which allows him to half-volley shots on the defensive, to be able to quickly turn defense into offense.

His forehand is a creative shot which allows him to create bigger openings than most other players can, due to his superior racquet control and improvisation skills. His backhand is a solid shot, but his backhand slice especially short in the court is the great strength, for putting opponents in uncomfortable positions and making it difficult for them to take complete control of rallies.

Federer can be prone to shanking balls because of his quick racquet head speed, though he does this surprisingly rarely as his strong record over the years shows. He is most prone to succumbing to the players that are most difficult to break down, such as Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, that force him into long, competitive rallies.

Rafael Nadal

One of the great competitors of the game, Nadal is famous for his intense approach to the game, and attention-to-detail. Undoubtedly one of his biggest strengths is his willingness to improve his game, his gradual transition to becoming more of a shotmaker and more adaptable to all surfaces.

Nadal's game revolves around his forehand, similar to Federer's, how he can force his opponent to cover large amounts of court with the angles he can create on it due to the topspin.

Nadal never succumbs to impatience, and is an expert at pounding at his opponent’s weakness relentlessly, particularly if that weakness is a right-hander’s backhand. He has a knack of hitting superb passing shots on the run. His backhand crosscourt is an improving shot and he can generate impressive pace on it, usually to his opponent’s surprise. Fitness-wise, he can outlast anyone in the game, which can make it a painful experience for his opponents trying to compete with him.

The best chance for opponents to attack him is through his second serve, which has the tendency to land short on occasions. His forehand defensively can also be a problem on hardcourts, because of his big swings which may force him to catch it late. Nadal’s confidence levels tend to fluctuate over the course of the season, which can make him beatable by the very best players or players playing well on their day.

Novak Djokovic

Djokovic is one of the most complete baseliners in the game. He made a name for himself in 2008 with his superb down-the-line shots and impressive athletic ability, the extra effort he puts in to ensure a deep, effective defensive shot on the full stretch. These days, he possesses a relatively complete baseline game, difficult to outrally or break down. He is capable of grinding out matches when he isn’t playing his best tennis, and his backhand is a technically sound shot.

His second serve is becoming more of a liability these days landing shorter than it used to, and his forehand is not an efficient enough shot which can lead to having its bad days. His forehand seems to struggle particularly when not given pace or height to work with. Djokovic has a tendency of turning difficult matches into dramatic spectacles, which can be his own undoing in bad matches.

Andy Murray

Known for his unique, crafty approach to the game, Murray is one of the few players that utilise the full area of the court, famous for finding his way around his opponents rather than through them. Most of this is through to the creative slice backhand he possesses, inside-out curving outwards or short angled wide, and he is also capable of creating short angles on the forehand side.

His game is a strange combination of low-paced and fast-paced shots, taking his opponents by surprise more often than not. Like Nadal, he has an excellent ability of hitting superb shots on the run, and he has great passing shots. His backhand is his biggest strength, and almost never breaks down. He is extremely consistent and loves long rallies.

Murray is capable of finishing points off at the net, but often prefers not to, moving his opponents around instead. In today’s stronger and more powerful generation, Murray’s lack of power on typical shots can prove to be a problem if not executed perfectly. He can also be overly conservative on return of serve, which works against him on some occasions. His second serve and first serve percentage has also been commonly mentioned as a weakness.

Juan Martin Del Potro

The reason for Del Potro’s success is his lethal combination of power and consistency, the ability to maintain long rallies while remaining aggressive and in control of rallies. He’s accurate, but doesn’t need to hit close to the lines because he’s so powerful. Backed up by a strong serve, Del Potro excels at the simple quick shot combos to kill off short balls, and any weaknesses thrown by his opponents.

He shows good point construction, and is able to sense when he needs to play more aggressively to turn around a match. He’s mentally strong, and becoming increasingly difficult to break down.

His weakness is his foot speed, and his ability to change from defense to offense is not as good as the players ranked above him. He operates best when given a rhythm to work with, and he doesn’t like bending down too often. He is excellent at covering up his weaknesses however, and he doesn’t often relinquish a point he has under his control.

Andy Roddick

The man with the fastest serve in men’s tennis history, Roddick is difficult to break because of his strong first serve percentages and variation on serve – a mixture of pace, kick and slice. The rest of his game is solid and smart, varied enough to make it difficult for his opponents to attack his obvious weakness on the backhand. His strength over the course of his career has been his adventurous approach to his game, the willingness to tinker with various aspects of his game to keep it fresh and relevant.

Roddick can be outrallied by strong baseliners, so it’s always a battle for him to break out of other players’ patterns of play. His backhand, especially as a passing shot is the great weakness as it showed against Isner in the US Open. If serving well and playing confidently, Roddick can be a threat to many players, but the difference between him and the players ranked above him is that he can also lose to moderately ranked players more often, though he rarely loses to low ranked players.

Nikolay Davydenko

For better or worse, Davydenko has a one-size-fits-all approach to the game. Aggressive, early ball-striking based on the idea that if you attack your opponent first, they can’t attack you. Thankfully he is a superb ball-striker and has a great combination of foot speed and footwork.

He can create excellent angles, and is one of the best at changing directions. The key to breaking down Davydenko’s game is to generally throw him out of his rhythm, though it can be a difficult task, but on some days, Davydenko has the capabilities to break down his own game with a rash of errors. Another weakness is that Davydenko doesn’t really possess a change of pace. Fortunately Davydenko is a shot-focused player and will rarely be bothered about his own errors, hopeful that his game might come together quickly.

Fernando Verdasco

Verdasco always had the weapons to become a top player, but didn’t know how to harness those strengths. His strength is clearly his forehand, which he can use to control proceedings, and because of the spin he generates on the ball, he is capable of hitting forceful shots without hitting anywhere near full pace, though he can flatten it out also.

The variety on his forehand is excellent, and tactically he is improving, especially in terms of killing off points under his control, realizing that it doesn’t need to be done in one shot. Given the explosive nature of his forehand, he has a tendency to try to win matches cheaply with his forehand, especially pulling the trigger on the high-risk high-reward forehand down-the-line too much. He has an excellent sliding serve especially on the backhand court, and often serves high first serve percentages.

By tactically playing better, he has removed some of the flashy shotmaking that made him dangerous. His return of serve is solid and consistent, but not that great offensively. He doesn’t utilise an all-court game as much as he should, and sometimes he can be lacking in fire and motivation in matches, though that has also improved.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

Tsonga is one of the best short point players in the game at the moment, which allows him to maintain good consistency despite not being as solid of a player as many of his peers. He can create so much damage with the one shot, due to his big forehand as well as his follow-up ability at the net. He has a great transition game, because of his impressive athleticism. Because of his attacking style of play, he is capable of covering his weakness on the backhand, difficult to drag into long rallies.

The weakness for Tsonga is that he doesn’t seem completely sure of what style of play he wants to play, and sometimes doesn’t commit fully to being aggressive, and putting pressure on his opponents. He can also rely too much on his shotmaking, and doesn’t yet know how to grind out matches. His return of serve can be a weakness, especially against better servers.

Robin Soderling

Soderling has been a surprisingly consistent player after his breakthrough run at the French Open, despite not having the characteristics that would suggest he would be one. His game is strongly based on a powerful serve, and he backs it up with a big forehand and solid backhand. Pace of shot and shotmaking are Soderling’s greatest strengths. He can overpower most of his opponents, and has the ability to string together a great return game to break serve.

He's likely the most one-dimensional player in the top 10, not really capable of much subtlety and he can appear to be lunging around the court when moving. The movement to his forehand out wide can be exploited, especially if he has to bend down low, and he has problems moving forward as well. With Soderling, it’s very much a case of sticking to his strengths and he has shown good form and confidence recently which is the key to his success. He is also stronger mentally than he used to be, thanks to the help of his current coach Magnus Norman.

Novak Djokovic mentally breaks down Radek Stepanek

For almost the bulk of the first two sets, Radek Stepanek had Novak Djokovic right where he wanted him, 0-40, three match points to reach the Basel finals. Three mediocre points later, and Stepanek’s window of opportunity was gone. When Stepanek gets tense, everything slows down and he can’t hit anything with pace, or volley with any conviction. That’s the downside of having such flat strokes, you can’t really overexaggerate your groundstrokes and still find decent racquet head speed by adding topspin.

It’s a shame that Stepanek’s game fell off track so rapidly in the third set, because he was playing some extremely smart attacking tennis. Indoor surfaces are great for his game, because taking the ball earlier on the rise, that slight split second difference can make the biggest difference between hitting a defensive shot compared to an approach shot or change of pace/direction, one of his key strengths. He’s so dangerous because you can’t just pin him back and drag him into a drawn-out baseline rally. Then he’s quick to move in on the kill, and finish it off at the net. The way he bounces up and down in between points, it’s as if he’s incredibly light on his feet and it shows when he stretches and lunges around the net with ease.

First game of the match, and Stepanek’s game plan was clear from the beginning. Set up the point with the return of serve, and construct the point from there. He had a couple of break points to start with on Djokovic’s serve, but Djokovic saved them, and it stayed on serve after that. Stepanek was solid on serve, very high first percentage which allowed him to serve-and-volley effectively.

It was even for the most part but the match was played on Stepanek’s terms, that extra piece of inspiration being the key to the slight lead that he built for himself over the course of the two sets. Stepanek is purely a timing player, he relies a lot on it and it’s amazing how well he’s able to change directions on what look like relatively high risk shots. He has a lot of feel for what to do with the ball, and he is excellent at improvising and reading the play.

He doesn’t really play to the score much until things get tight. It’s more like he will have his mind switched on, with the idea of attacking whenever possible but to have the patience to wait for the opportunity to do so. To not do too much on the deep balls, which Djokovic is so good at hitting. He will usually make a fair amount of silly errors but it won’t bother him knowing that he’s playing the right way, as long as he’s not piling up on errors. He’s not one of those players that needs to be consistent to feel good about his game – he feels good about his game by sneaking around all over the court. The more he gets to move and use the whole court, the more fun he’s having.

Djokovic looked mechanical in comparison, simply trying to make every rally into a long baseline rally and attack when he had a clear opening. He didn’t play with intent, and it was as if his mind was on autopilot. I had a feeling that he somehow managed to uninspire himself with that tactic though, having several concentration lapses throughout the match. At least it was clear that Djokovic didn’t mind the hard work, and that mentally he didn’t give away much to Stepanek. I wonder if Todd Martin has been giving him advice to stop with those negative gestures and body language. I also wanted to take a look at Djokovic’s net game, but it’s hard to implement much when you’re playing against an opponent that is often going to make his way up there first.

There wasn’t really all that much of the trademark change of directions that we normally see from Djokovic. When he did it, he did it with care, not as a surprise tactic but more to spread the court. The difference was obvious late in the second set when Djokovic ripped a couple of backhand down-the-line winners, then put his hands in the air as if to say it was the first time he managed to hit that shot the whole match.

Once Stepanek lost his chance to take the match on his three match points, the match reached an anti-climax. Stepanek couldn’t do anything right – dumped volleys tamely into the net and no energy into anything. Now he walks around slowly in between points instead of being his usual bouncy self. When he hits a great shot, it doesn’t mean anything to him and he can’t find ways to appreciate it anymore. His serve was the biggest declining factor, both in terms of pace and percentage and that made him a relatively easy target for Djokovic. He had already mentally checked out for a long time, but the match point summed it all up, with Stepanek tamely attempting a dropshot to put him out of his misery, one that he never felt he had any hope of making.

Marin Cilic makes waves in Beijing

It’s hard to know what to make of Marin Cilic’s run to the Beijing final, and his upset win over Rafael Nadal in the semi-finals.

Cilic is a tough guy to read.  Whether he plays well, or not so much, he plays at a similar level of intensity.  In terms of body language, there’s not much of a difference, because he seems to be one of those players that try to find themselves in ‘automatic’ mode to find their best tennis, rather than an inspired mode. 

It’s not too dissimilar to Tomas Berdych’s approach to ball-striking except that Cilic is relaxed, not casual like Berdych can be.  Neither of them enjoy toughing out rallies much, they prefer hitting clean and accurate shots, and that’s where Djokovic had an advantage over Cilic though I’m not sure what Cilic could have done about that since Djokovic is naturally a better mover.  Cilic is a much better competitor than Berdych though, more capable of fighting through bad days because he has a much better selective memory.

When Cilic plays well, it’s like he takes all of the elements out of the equation.  Rarely have I seen such a high level of tennis being made to look so simple, almost as if Cilic never even went above his comfort zone, yet looking at his shot selection, he clearly redlined his game hitting close to the lines with alarming regularity. 

This match was just as much about the errors as the winners, because it was all about Cilic asserting his authority, not hitting winning shots.  He opened the match with a clear game plan in mind, to shorten up the points as much as possible, so that even if he made numerous errors, he didn’t allow Nadal to feel good about himself or that he had any control over the match.  It all began with the return of serve which Cilic attacked relentlessly, and from there, he was able to take control of the point and finish it off. 

The way Cilic played against Nadal, it was like he got in the zone for two sets and never really looked up to see who was on the other side of the net.  He knew who he was playing against, he had his set tactics but it was all about execution and that’s what he focused on, hitting his spots.  I’m sure it’s just his calm demeanor by nature, but how nonchalant did Cilic look changing directions almost every couple of shots?  Precise, high-risk early ball-striking made easy.  This doesn’t look sustainable to me over multiple matches, too reliant on timing and we’ve seen it in his career before, his game frequently wandering off for a set or two.

He also looked comfortable exchanging backhand crosscourts to Nadal’s forehand often winning that battle, and somehow managing to generate impressive pace and angle to find winners that didn’t look like they could be created.  His height surely helped with that, and Cilic takes the ball earlier than the majority of players.

Nadal looked lost, and he tried several tactics, first prolonging rallies and taking the pace off the ball, anything to get himself more in points, but Cilic rose to the challenge.  Then he tried to be more aggressive but it was too late by then.  Unfortunately for Nadal, his serve didn’t allow him to start off on the right foot.  He seemed to struggle noticeably with Cilic’s skidding flat balls as well that bounce relatively low off the court, making it difficult for Nadal to scoop up.  I really think that taller players have the greater luxury of having a bigger margin of error on flatter shots, and that really helps Cilic out.

Does the ATP calendar need to support the players more?

The ATP players have long spoken about the need for a longer off-season, and it’s been one of the most widely discussed topics in the most recent years. It’s been such a cause of concern for the players that for the first time, three of the highest profile players, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic nominated themselves to be on the ATP Players Council in a bid to create change and make a difference.

Given the recent injury problems of Rafael Nadal and the recent announcement of Roger Federer’s withdrawal from the tournaments in Tokyo and Shanghai, it’s time to evaluate the ATP calendar again.

There are many sides of the story to this argument, and from a media perspective it’s always tempting to go with the players, given that they’re the stars of our sport. It’s obvious from their point of view that injuries are becoming more of a problem with the increasing physical demand and athleticism required of the sport.

There are many issues to consider, and the intention of this article is not to give a conclusive opinion but instead to consider each and every point available.

The 2009 ATP World Tour / ITF schedule

• Despite talks of improving the current ATP schedule, things appear to be heading in the opposite direction with increased mandatory tournaments, greater penalties for withdrawals and more travel required with the players, now with a mandatory Asian season due to the Shanghai tournament.
  
  
• Shorter breaks between Davis Cup, and the tournament preceding it, changed to a half week turnaround instead of one and a half weeks. Considering that the biggest cause of injuries is the change of surfaces, this is a controversial issue. The number of players that were sporting knee injuries during the US Open season as a result of the surface transition from clay, grass to hardcourt was alarmingly high this year, including players such as Gilles Simon, Fernando Gonzalez, Gael Monfils and Jose Acasuso.

• The off-season is equally as short as it was last year, and it’s the only opportunity for players to build up their strength and endurance, create that fitness base for the year. As much as the players have voiced their frustration, would players necessarily enjoy the greater extended period, more weeks of fitness training without a tournament in sight? It’d surely be a system that would reward the most focused and hard-working players. Up to some point, enough weeks need to be allocated to allow players to have a proper holiday but not more than that.

The players

• An overwhelming majority of players expressed their preference for back-to-back tournaments and a shorter break in between Davis Cup and the preceding tournament, so it’s not really the ATP’s fault but more so, a voting matter. Players have consistently shown that smart scheduling isn’t the highest of their priorities. Instead spending less time in a particular continent or region seems to be of greater interest.
  
  Ideally the best schedule would be playing on-and-off tennis with alternating weeks of rest and tournament tennis, but this doesn’t suit to fit the mindset of a tennis player. They prefer to play mini-seasons of tennis, and only take the breaks that are necessary for them to survive physically. Then take into account players picking the tournaments they like, building up form for Grand Slams, appearance fees and prizemoney and somehow smart scheduling becomes lost somewhere.

• Despite the mandatory events, the ATP calendar is still essentially a pick-and-choose system, planned by players themselves. At some point, players have to take responsibility for their own scheduling. In my view, any player that doesn’t qualify for the Year-End World Tour Final should certainly be capable of creating their own longer off-season if they wished to do so.

• Lower ranked players can benefit from playing for prizemoney, or may feel reduced effects of fatigue with fewer consecutive matches at each event.

The entertainment business / the spectators

• How would you feel if the tournament from your home city was taken away? It’s a spectator sport and no player is obligated to play any particular 250 event - these types of events forms the majority of events calendar. Therefore, in theory, any number of them could exist. In my opinion, tournament attendance is the best method of attracting casual fans, people that are more interested in the occasion and spotting stars rather than the matches themselves.

• Prizemoney is driven by revenue, sponsorships and television deals so the financial side will always be the highest priority. This is basically another way of saying that the players’ concerns will always have to be less important, and revenue is driven by the participation of the top players. This explains the increasing trend towards mandatory participation.

• One could argue that money could be invested into promoting the second tier players like Fernando Verdasco and Gilles Simon, but this broad approach would likely produce less effective results, because promotion tends to need to be streamlined to a select group of players. It is also difficult to impress casual viewers and players need to back it up with great results in the Grand Slams, not to mention the addition of an eye-catching game.

Do you think the ATP calendar should be shortened – and is it more of a players’ responsibility or is the ATP largely to blame for this?

What does Andy Murray need to do to make that next step in a Grand Slam?

It would be unfair to call Andy Murray’s successful 2009 season as a sophomore slump. In a way, it’s a reference to the mindset that changes, Murray’s second successful year as a solidified top player on tour, and it can be draining mentally. Adrenaline doesn’t last forever, and every peak levels out eventually, whether due to increasing expectations or declining play.

It’s a common observation in tennis, young players finding their forms and suddenly feeling like they’re on top of the world. They’ve barely started their careers and they’re already close to the top of the rankings. It’s not like Andy Murray first started his pro career, but his meteoric rise began in the US hardcourt season last year, highlighted by a US Open final appearance.

He’s had good results in 2009, but his Grand Slam results have left a lot to be desired not living up to the results from the Masters events. Tennis is a confidence sport, and somehow staying on an even plateau can result in a lack of inspiration, the feeling of being stagnant despite all efforts to move a career forward on and off the court.

Playing well requires a certain spark, a surge of interest and energy to play attacking and athletic tennis. Big events such as Grand Slams require this in spades, as witnessed by runs from Fernando Gonzalez, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Robin Soderling in previous years. Murray has it inside of him in case he needs it, but he needs to believe that he needs to use it. Murray is one of those players that will use just as much as he needs, and that has been his biggest downfall.

Is it a sign of cockiness, preference or inability to read other people’s full potential? I think, it is a combination of all three. As much as Murray is a thoughtful player, he is also a reactive player often bogged down into using too many deft slices and rolled over shots to the point where he is more entertaining himself than getting the job done in the best way possible. Ultimately if he is being outplayed, he will still believe in his ability to fight through a match without feeling a drastic change is needed, like the Montreal final against Juan Martin Del Potro. It’s the type of stubbornness that can often be seen with the best players.

Considering that Murray has the ability to drastically change the patterns of play, he doesn’t often make noticeable changes within a match, usually minor at best. His style of play is more varied in between matches, from one opponent to the next. His way of being aggressive in recent times has been more like hitting a panic button, trying to hit the ball harder rather than structuring a more aggressive point, like in his Wimbledon match against Andy Roddick.

He very rarely plays a statement match these days, those matches that send out signs to the rest of the locker room, to watch out. He’s not an intimidating figure, but rather a confusing player to play against at the best of times. The best way to beat him is to not get sucked into it, keep it simple and straightforward, patient target tennis like Cilic showed at the US Open. Forget about his athleticism because he can’t hurt you if he’s too much on the defensive.

As much as taking the long way round can be a sight for sore eyes, it’s obviously silly to take the longer route when you can take the shorter one. That’s something Juan Martin Del Potro showed loud and clear in the US Open final. If you can hit a winner into the open court, then do it. I suspect the problem is that Murray has not yet fully mastered how to control his faster paced balls.

What makes the best players in the world where they are, is generally that they don’t allow their opponents to have success even on their good days. They don’t play down their level noticeably, but they still keep that margin of error. Building up an opponent’s confidence is a dangerous thing, and I always feel that Murray is on the borderline to flirting with disaster.

He needs to get it ingrained in his head that anyone is capable of having a good ball-striking day, and treat every dangerous player as if they’re capable of Rafael Nadal-like consistency. It may not be true, but who would have thought that Robin Soderling would have made the French Open final?

Sportingo Competition

Sportingo.com are currently holding a competition, where if you write an article between September 25 - Thursday October 1 and your article is chosen as the winning article in the tennis section (same applies for other sports), you win £50.

So far I haven't seen anyone submit any articles in the tennis section during this period, so unless if everyone writes all their articles at the last minute, I don't imagine that the participation would be exceptionally high. Anyone can write an article just by registering for free.

The word limit is between 400 to 600 words, which has always been a difficulty for me. Articles, as per normal procedure on that website are proofread and modified by the editors, and will take a while to show up.

The winning article is judged by four things: the number of views, the number of comments received, the thumbs up rating given and quality according to a panel of judges. Not my ideal way of judging definitely, so I've had to think about what topics would attract the most viewers, the most people to even open it up.

Juan Martin Del Potro, the 2009 US Open men's champion

It’s been a while since we’ve had a new Grand Slam champion, not since Novak Djokovic captured the Australian Open title in 2008. You’d be hard pressed to find a more impressive performance than the one that Juan Martin Del Potro displayed today against Roger Federer, in what was the Argentine’s first Grand Slam final.

I have already made reference to it numerous times before, the rapid pace with which Del Potro seems to be improving, yet he still seems to find a way to amaze me just when I thought I had already handed out enough compliments his way as of late.

It was a high quality match, full of drama and unpredictability, and it was a welcome change to see a new Grand Slam champion at the end. Now that Federer has already broken all sorts of records, I think it’s a positive sign for men’s tennis to have this additional competitiveness near the top, especially if it means we’re going to get matches of this quality to look forward to in the future.

In regards to Del Potro’s performance in the final, he was impressive on so many levels, that it warrants a list of exactly why this was the case.

• Del Potro played the best match of his life in the biggest match of his career, his first Grand Slam final against Roger Federer, recently been acknowledged as the Greatest of all Time and winner of the last couple of Grand Slams. He hadn’t won a single match against Federer in the past, though I think Del Potro took a lot of confidence from their previous meeting in Roland Garros.

• It wasn’t like Del Potro came out firing on all cylinders and played lights out tennis to start with. In fact, he was made to look clumsy to start with, having to stretch his long limbs all over the court rarely getting a shot in his comfort zone. But the biggest problem seemed to me, that Federer didn’t even let Del Potro get into a rhythm, the opportunity to raise his level of play. He was thoroughly outplayed, and it could have been easy to think that he simply wasn’t in the same league as Federer, at least not at this point of his career.
  In his post-match interview after his semi-final win, Del Potro promised the crowd that he would fight for every point, and he delivered on this promise in a way that no one could have imagined or expected. Del Potro wasn’t deterred by the fact that he was comfortably outplayed. All he needed was a slight drop in level from Federer, and once they were back on serve, it turned into a completely different ball game. Del Potro was now feeling loose and confident and had turned the match on its head, not only on the scoreboard but he had somehow changed the match to be played in his favour, exchanging the type of rallies that he likes.
  Even when Del Potro started to pick up his play initially, it wasn’t like he suddenly found the range on his shots. In fact, his play was on and off, brilliant shots combined with errors as you would expect with a game as aggressive as that. But it was like he was somehow able to not associate himself with whether a shot landed in the court or not, focused on each individual shot only, trying to play the best he could. Then the more he got into this frame of mind of hitting big shots, the more consistency he developed and confidence in himself of being able to back it up.
  

• This ability of Del Potro’s to find a way to elevate his game when he needs it is currently what puts him in front of Andy Murray, the ability to sense when he needs to take it up a notch, that his current game isn’t good enough, and more importantly, he has the execution to back it up.
  Del Potro didn’t have much of a say early in the match, but he slowly started making himself known as a threat, both through his energy, on-court presence and the way he stepped up the pace on his groundstrokes. Del Potro is normally selective about which shots he decides to unload on because he doesn’t really need to red line his game, but when he removed that margin of error, the end result was quite devastating, especially his forehand which caught fire from the fourth set onwards.

• Serving to stay in the third set of the match, Del Potro served two consecutive double faults to lose the set. He vented his frustration at the changeover, and buried in his head in the towel, a look of extreme disappointment heading into the fourth set, but he didn't forget how he played himself into this position and continued in the same vein going after his shots.
  He came across a couple of stumbling blocks, and his level did dip inevitably having to save break points in his opening two service games, but whenever he needed it he came up with his best shots. It seems like there is no limit to Del Potro’s mental stability, no occasion that is too great to shake his extraordinary self-confidence.
  Then his game picked up midway from the fourth set, and that’s when he started to stamp his authority on the match, looking like the noticeably better player. He wasn’t as secure on his service games as he usually is, and he lost his serve once here, and once in the previous set as well, but he was able to let it go and continue to chase after the next game. Usually big servers hate it when they lose their service games, but it didn’t bother Del Potro, and he’s willing to accept a few errors here and there knowing that he’s playing the right way.

• Del Potro’s return of serve which started to land the sweet spot more and more as the match went on, able to knock it back quick and fast with devastating pace right back at Federer’s feet.

• Federer started to look more rattled as the match went on, trying to rush Del Potro before Del Potro could rush him, but Federer’s backhand got him into trouble with that blocked, short backswing not really doing much in terms of being able to reflect the pace coming off Del Potro’s racquet. In my mind, Del Potro’s game forced Federer into error, and into helplessness. It's pretty hard trying to execute any kind of game plan when you're up against someone hitting as hard as that.
  

• Does Del Potro have any sense of fear whatsoever? It seemed like regardless of the situation, whether it was recovering from disappointment, fighting to maintain a lead, saving break points, or whether he was close to victory, he maintained the same kind of racquet head speed and continued to hit almost with reckless abandon. It’s incredibly difficult to maintain the same quality of play playing that aggressively, where any drop in racquet head speed will pretty much result in an error.
  As impressive as Del Potro was mentally, he played with the mindset of an underdog, of someone that had nothing to lose. Djokovic and Murray to some extent have shown that it is incredibly difficult to keep up that kind of attitude and confidence. How will Del Potro change mentally when he’s expected to make the back end of tournaments, and more of the mainstream press have started to focus their attention on him?

• How determined is Del Potro that the first thing that he mentions on his victory speech after playing the match of his life is that he still has a long way to improve before he can catch up to Federer career-wise? I know it was intended to be a compliment to Federer's achievements, but it also spoke volumes about Del Potro's intentions on trying to maximise his game and that he's not yet satisfied with where he currently is.

What a comeback for Kim Clijsters in this year's US Open

Some people will consider the run of Kim Clijsters as a sign of weakness in the WTA tour that it could be possible for the Belgian to come back and win a Slam after a two year hiatus. Clijsters did it the hard way too. For all the upsets and surprises of this year's US Open, Clijsters needed to defeat both Williams sisters on her way to the title. The form that she showed over the course of the week was quite superb showing very few signs of a rusty player, of a player that had been away for so long.

Since Clijsters retired, the top of women's tennis has changed significantly and it's tempting to want to compare how Clijsters played here, to the other top players of today. Though I think at times it can be difficult to remember what Ivanovic, Jankovic and Safina were like even at their peak, but the combination of athleticism and controlled aggressive tennis that Clijsters showed, to me seemed more impressive than what we typically see from the previously mentioned players.

The biggest difference is that Clijsters appears to have very few noticeable weaknesses whereas I could name one thing for either one of those players and her movement is exceptional. Only time will tell as to whether Clijsters will begin to show more signs of weakness, of shots breaking down on her when things aren't going her way.

The interesting thing to me is that I never really looked at Clijsters' game with that much enthusiasm back in those days, thinking she was just as much of a one-dimensional player as most of her peers. The only thing I remembered her for was her trademark splits, which she seems to do less of these days, but given the more error-strewn nature of the WTA these days, it was simply refreshing to see someone not pull the trigger on almost every shot and hit wayward groundstrokes everywhere, yet have the ability and firepower to hang with the very best players.

Maybe over the years, the women have become even more accustomed to flattening out on their groundstrokes, because those loopier balls and occasional slices that Clijsters likes to throw in to enhance her defensive game look like shots I haven't seen much of before in the past. I like how well Clijsters gets behind every ball, always prepared so early both in her backswing and footwork, setting herself in the right position to be able to launch herself fully into the shot.

When Serena Williams played against Clijsters in that controversial semi-final, it looked like Serena didn't really know what to do, and at times tried to hit her way out of the match. Whenever she was down in a match, she felt a sudden urgency to bludgeon her way into the match with as many winners as possible. It was almost a cocky way of playing, though in all likelihood it was simply Serena not thinking straight, of thinking that by hitting harder and playing better, she could take Clijsters out of the equation just like that.

But Clijsters was in it for the long haul. She played with freedom and brought a consistent energy on the court, while remaining composed the entire evening. She was patient and had her eye on the bigger picture, which the same could not be said of Serena. It's interesting because the mood swings that were prevalent in this match from Serena, aside from the final game of the match are probably not much different from how she has handled herself in the past. Serena has always been transparent and dramatic with her emotions and on-court antics, it's her way of driving and pushing herself to do better in matches. It's that refusal to be content with her current form in any given match that allows her to raise the bar in crucial situations. She's one of the few players on the women's tour that is capable of using her emotions to her advantage, to find her best tennis when she really needs it. And Serena really needs that extra element to her game, because her effort levels and overall athleticism can vary significantly over the course of a match.

Despite Serena's renowned athleticism and foot speed, she can often be seen sluggish and her footwork nowhere near as precise as it needs to be. She doesn't naturally enjoy chasing for balls in a way that Clijsters does, and for some reason it isn't all that automatic for her. She really needs to send internal messages in her head to be tough and show that extra desire. Though I have a feeling that Serena was sending herself all the wrong messages against Clijsters. Rather than calling on her fighting abilities or looking to increase her energy levels, Serena wanted to do it the easy way. The problem was not only that she tried for too much too soon, but she couldn't sustain it. The lack of purpose in what she was trying to do really cost her. It was a fascinating spectacle though, with every shot selection and rally, a reflection of Serena's current mood, sheer unpredictability on her part as to what she might come up with next.

It was such a stark contrast seeing Clijsters on the other side of the net, so composed and patient. She never let herself get caught up too much on the scoreboard and played every point as if it was the same magnitude. She had a clear plan to lengthen the rallies, and to not give Serena too much pace to work with, or at least not the kind of pace that can be easily returned off the racquet. She used the full width of the court, and moved her shots around nicely, enough to keep Serena consistently moving.

The match-up against Caroline Wozniacki was a different matter however. The match was always in Clijsters' hands, with the outcome depending on whether she could execute her shots the way she needed to. Had this been an earlier round match, there would have been little doubt that Clijsters would have been able to. But the pressure on her was immense, easily the favourite to win the championship.

I noticed straight away that from a technical point of view, there are a lot of similarities between Clijsters and Wozniacki on the groundstrokes, how they both have that solid base that allows them to maintain some sort of consistency when setting up for their groundstrokes. They have the same consistently energetic footwork, where it seems like their feet are consistently moving all the time whether it's to recover from the previous shot, or running explosively to the next. Whereas I'd say for example, that for Serena and Venus, they probably only make that effort to make that explosive movement when they have their eye on a shot to run down, it's not consistent. Other less athletic players have had to work hard on their movement, and it's not automatic for them. You don't really see Clijsters or Wozniacki make a whole lot of errors out of poor footwork, or catching themselves in knots. If anything, it's a problem with their follow-through, backswing or racquet head acceleration.

In the end, there wasn't a whole lot to notice about this match, except that after a slow start, Clijsters got herself together enough to win the match in a convincing fashion. She easily had the better shotmaking ability out of the two, and she made the most of it. Wozniacki surprisingly has a decent all-court game, more of a willingness to come to the net than the majority of players even though technically her volleys are not all that sound. I'm not sure much can be read into Wozniacki's run into the final, aside from the fact that anything can happen in a Slam on the women's side these days, and that Wozniacki has the mental strength and consistency to take advantage of that.

Juan Martin Del Potro reaches his first Grand Slam final

It was an impressive performance from Juan Martin Del Potro to take apart Rafael Nadal like that, in three consecutive one-sided sets, yet somehow the performance itself didn’t seem overly surprising, though maybe the scoreline did. Del Potro has the ability to play consistent and aggressive tennis, a lethal combination and he can execute it time and time again as he has shown us throughout the year with his overall consistency.

I think the impressive part is that it didn’t really look like he was playing out of his skin, instead it just looked like an extremely confident young man who had absolutely no doubt that he could play at this level. To some degree, it was the kind of inspired performance you usually only see at Grand Slams, progressively building up confidence over a two week period and the opportunity to seize the moment.

It didn’t go Del Potro’s way initially, and it was much more closely contested than the score suggested. The stage looked set for a long, hard battle, with Nadal trying to maneuver Del Potro around the court, and Del Potro trying to overpower Nadal, or more specifically rush him into error. Del Potro looked comfortable trading groundstrokes, making use of that effortless power of his not really going out of his comfort zone, mostly trading crosscourt blows and not really hitting that close to the lines.

The early signs for Nadal were okay. He came out with a clear idea to use the slice backhand, to not only make Del Potro bend down, but to have it breaking away from the court to open up the court for himself to take control of. At the time, the only thing that appeared to be separating the two, were the big difference in quality of serves between Nadal and Del Potro. Del Potro already has a significantly better serve than Nadal, or at least one that is far more capable of obtaining cheap points, but the gap seemed greater magnified by Nadal’s abdominal injury which meant that his serve lacked in pace.

Still it was difficult not to be amazed yet again, by Del Potro’s newfound ability to play well on the big points, where he routinely found big serves then finished it off with a groundstroke with no hesitation. Considering the relatively large backswing that Del Potro has on the forehand, it becomes particularly noticeable how much confidence plays a part in this, and he almost always maintains his racquet head speed.

Nadal had his fair share of break points, but every time he got a look in, Del Potro saved it. As much of a fighter Nadal is, it had to wear on him mentally and he didn’t have the security on his own serve, so he started to feel a sense of hopelessness. As Del Potro started to gain in confidence from the back of the court and take more risks, Nadal’s game subsequently started to look weak in comparison, not capable of making enough of an impact.

As well as Nadal can scramble, the ball shoots through the court in New York, and while he can somehow often reach Del Potro’s stinging groundstrokes with his racquet, it became a familiar sight seeing the ball bounce too low for Nadal to do anything with it often slicing it into the net.

Nadal’s returning position certainly didn’t help matters, and put him from the defensive right from the start. The interesting thing is that on these fast courts, if you move up to the ball, you really don’t need to do that much with it to get good reward from it basically by using the pace that is already there. I mean, you don’t really need to make a big effort to hit it hard if you take the ball early. Short backswing, and it will quickly make its way back to the opponent’s side.

But as hard as Nadal tried to generate pace on his own given that the ball had lost its sting by the time it reached contact point, it still didn’t end up being all that effective. Unfortunately midway into the first set, it looked like Nadal had already given up on the idea of using the slice backhand, and from then on, he didn’t seem like much of a threat anymore.

About midway into the second set, or early in the third set, Nadal didn’t really believe he could pull off the victory anymore. I suppose because Nadal’s game is so much about building up pressure and Del Potro didn’t allow him that. Del Potro played the match almost entirely on his own terms. And the bigger the lead Del Potro got, the better he played and the more risks he started to take. That’s when it gets scary because it’s almost machine-like, and that’s why it’s hard to feel any hope being on the receiving end of this barrage.

US Open Day 7: Daniel Koellerer Entertains The Crowd on Grandstand

At the US Open, the New York fans have always taken a liking to the more unique characters of the tour. This was the first time the crowd were introduced to Daniel Koellerer, the Austrian whose antics have become well-known even at the challenger level to the point of earning him a suspension at one point, and players once passing around a petition to have him banned off the tour.

Despite all the negative press surrounding him, the above video clip of his match against Juan Martin Del Potro yesterday shows that Koellerer can actually be quite charismatic, and the crowd loved every minute of it, as did Koellerer himself. What I particularly like is that Koellerer didn't only make a sideshow out of it, he played with passion. Look at how energetic and determined he chases down every ball, and how he lives off every point he wins or loses, disregarding that he doesn't have much chance of winning this match. He plays with an amazing energy that looks impossible to keep up, yet he does because of the pure adrenaline running through his veins.

The above video clip is worth checking out for Koellerer's amazing dive volley lob that he hits 15-0 down, not to mention the entertaining celebration afterwards.

Another highlight of the match (see below) is Koellerer's hilarious reaction to receiving a lucky net cord in his favour, doing the complete opposite to what you'd expect from a typical player, jumping up and down in joy like he had just won the tournament then kissing the net. The most amusing part was that the net cord had no bearing on the match, and never looked like it was going to, occurring at the least important of stages on 40-0 down on Del Potro's serve.



I would imagine that on the challenger tour, his on-court celebrations and antics would look like obvious attempts to distract his opponents, with which it could have easily had the same effect here but in this match, his celebrations were like crowd pleasers. It's obvious that he's a showman and he loves the spotlight, and he looked like he was having so much fun, that it was almost contagious watching it.

US Open Day 6: The best win of John Isner's career

Almost every time you hear the name John Isner, you’ll hear references to his 6 foot 9 frame, his big serve and comparisons to the other ‘big giant’ of the tour, Ivo Karlovic. Isner first made his name on the tour on the back of a unique run to the finals of Washington a couple of years back, with his ability to win numerous third set tie-breaks in succession. It’s hard to forget a run like that, and immediately it attaches the idea of Isner being a serve specialist, which he most certainly was at that point of time in his career.

All these comparisons to Karlovic have certainly done him no favours, because Isner is a far more exciting player, more of a risk-taker and more of a shotmaker. Karlovic doesn’t have much of a presence on his return games. He usually sticks to playing a mostly defensive baseline game pinned to his backhand hitting slice backhands all day.

But with Isner, he has the ability to string together brilliant points, or at least he intimidates opponents with his firepower and puts more pressure on his opponents to keep him on the move. The first set tie-break that Isner played against Roddick is easily the best tennis that I’ve ever seen Isner play. That whole tie-break as a whole would have been worthy of making a highlights reel. When you see Isner ripping backhand winners, to complement the forehand winners, you know he’s having a good day.

For me, the winners he’s capable of hitting on his backhand is a sign of the natural power that he possesses. There’s no other way of explaining it because his racquet head speed on that side doesn’t look impressive at all, neither does the timing on the shot. Quite simply he leans into the shot and hits through it firmly, two hands right through the flight of the ball. Firm and strong, using his long levers to generate the power for him.

The second set, Isner continued the same impressive rich vein of form, continuing with the unlikely backhand winners, sometimes crosscourt passing shots and down-the-line shots. In the end, it was Roddick’s weak service game that ended up being the decisive factor but in my mind, Isner played the better tennis by far, high in the winners count and doing significantly better than Roddick in this category while keeping his errors down. It was quite possibly the cleanest set of tennis that I’ve seen Isner play before, and the question is how often he is capable of playing like this. It’s a high risk game he plays, and I suppose it’s not necessary that he keeps up this consistency when he has the serve to back it up. He just needs to put it all together in a short space of time, and his serve will take care of the rest.

If Isner gets a shot that’s anywhere near his strike zone, he can rip forehands and follow it up at the net in a few big strides. I really like that one-two punch, the big shot followed by the volley into the open court. It’s one of my favourite things about watching him.

His net coverage is spectacular basically because of his wingspan where it’s pretty much impossible to get a ball past him. I’d say if you were looking to pass him, the better option would be to dip the ball low at his feet, make the big man bend down, which isn’t really one of Roddick’s strengths. Technically his volleys are also quite good. I’d back him to win any rally where he can get a racquet on it and a clean hit on it against most players.

Isner’s game hasn’t always been like this. He used to be far more inconsistent from the back of the court that it was difficult to get a sense of what he was trying to do on the court. I think a year or two ago he wasn’t as aware of how to use his strengths, or just as much how to manage the weaknesses in his game. It surely has helped that he is now more consistent than he used to be, that he can maintain a rally for a couple of shots to allow for this newfound patience to come through, to wait for the right ball to rip for a scorching winner. The way he has started to tailor his game towards his strengths more reminds me a bit of how Sam Stosur has improved her game on the women’s tour to revolve more around her serve, forehand and volleys.

But one thing that has always been there with Isner is his competitive spirit, and he needed it more than ever today battling through fatigue. Anyone watching this match would have thought that the match was slipping by Isner, but Isner maintained his positivity and belief through all of that and pulled out the victory. He had to battle through his own inconsistency, cramps, the pressure of having to hold onto his own serve and fighting through break points and he came out on top on all accounts. I've always liked his positive body language, and those low-key but assertive clenched fists that he does in between points.

When you’re feeling tired, it’s easy for it to cloud your decision making and to try to opt for that quick exit. Isner had that one service game at the end of the fourth set, and almost at the start of the fifth set but he found his best serves when he needed it just like he had all match. Could Isner really win five more service games in that kind of condition? Isner must have a really strong mind to be able to maintain his focus on trying to do what he does best with full commitment and intensity, and with his game struggling increasingly, he needed to put an even bigger effort to compensate.

Isner is a big match player and he thrives playing in front of big crowds, yet he had never proven himself in a match of this magnitude. The tie-break that he played in the fifth set was quite amazing given the circumstances, like a demonstration of mind over matter. And when he most needed it when it finally came down to crunch time, he was still as cool as under pressure as he had been all match playing two of the best volleys you could play under those circumstances to win the biggest match in his career.

US Open Day 5: Del Potro defeats Melzer to safely navigate into the 3rd Round

One thing that separates the top players from the rest of the pack is their technical ability, their ability to safely rally from the back of the court reliably, while naturally having good penetration on their shots. It's having a good solid base to build the rest of the game from, and when you feel you've got that, it becomes a whole lot easier to execute the more difficult shots and the tactical side of things.

When it comes to technically sound groundstrokes, Juan Martin Del Potro would have to be right up there with the best. On the basis of this, he always had the upper hand against Jurgen Melzer in his second round match. It's always a worrying match-up when it looks like one player doesn't really need to do anything to win, and that's what it was like for Del Potro. He can pretty much just rely on what is already naturally there, the power, the mechanics of the shot.

To break out of that pattern, Melzer really needed to come up with something special, anything to disrupt the flow of play, to not allow Del Potro to hit his shots. Melzer's strength isn't in long rallies anyway, and this is what he specialises in. He might exchange a couple of shots relaxed from the baseline, but his shot tolerance isn't high. At some point he'll want to step in and rip a shot, taking the ball as early as possible and changing the pace.

I thought early on that maybe this is not such a bad match-up for Melzer, when comparing top players he'd rather play against anyway. If you're going to take advantage of Del Potro's slight weakness in movement, it's best to do it early in the rally and Melzer is certainly capable of doing that. That is: taking the ball early and approaching the net, which he did with good shot selection.

I noticed that almost every time Melzer came into the net, he had a good hit at the ball, a sign of good approach shots and net coverage. Del Potro even if he won points could rarely hit a clean pass through Melzer. He also threw in some double-handed backhand dropshots for good measure which worked well for the most part, his self-confessed favourite shot.

The problem for Melzer though was the ongoing pressure of executing with consistency because he doesn't have that solid base he can fall back on. It's so easy for him to snatch on a shot he's trying to take early, and surely on some points he feels the pressure of having to end the rally to avoid hanging around in long rallies.

Melzer is a player that has excellent feel on the ball, particularly in terms of finesse and variety, capable of playing aesthetically pleasing points but also capable of missing the easiest of shots, particularly under pressure. It became an ongoing theme, Melzer putting himself in winning positions to finish points then missing the most routine of shots right at the end.

The first crucial point that cost Melzer was the way in which he conceded his break of serve at 3-1 up, in a game where he missed an overhead smash into the open court on a point which would have won him the game. It was unexpected because up until that point it was the best service game that Melzer had played in the match, finally a game where he didn't have to fight through multiple break points to hold.

The next crucial stage was the first set tie-break, which seemed to be in Melzer's pocket all along until near the end. Frankly it was a set that Melzer should have taken advantage of, given how poorly Del Potro played in the first three points with wild groundstroke errors. But instead, he slowly threw away his lead with a double fault, then after a perfectly constructed point, getting carried away and running too close to the net and bouncing a smash right into the service box only to get lobbed by Del Potro.

By then, Del Potro had found the range on his serve, winning a couple of points with unreturnable serves. Melzer doesn't exactly have the same luxury on his serve, but he hit quite a good serve set point down but missed the forehand down-the-line follow-up shot. What a microcosm of how the whole set had panned out.

I would have thought at some point that Del Potro would raise his game, or at least attempt to, but he stuck with the mechanical game of the first set. I mean, pretty much every shot he hit was aimed close to the middle of the court but he can get away with it to some extent because he has more natural penetration and power than most players, and he's also consistent. Not to mention that he can rely on his serve, to maintain a certain level. Unfortunately Melzer's game slowly began to decline in the second set, with more errors flying out of his racquet so it all started to look routine.

I wouldn't read much into Del Potro's performance in this match. Maybe what is equally important is how calm he remained the whole match, aside from the couple of errors in the opening of the first set tie-break. The thought never even entered his mind that he might struggle in this match.

My stream stopped working in the third set, but when I turned it back on halfway through, the commentators mentioned that Melzer had cleaned up his game. But when I switched it back on, it started to look a lot like how he lost the second set with inopportune errors and Del Potro served out the match for a relatively comfortable victory.