In other news, Dmitry Tursunov wins a grasscourt title in Eastbourne

A couple of points into the Eastbourne final between Frank Dancevic and Dmitry Tursunov, and Dancevic looks up for it, ready to give the ball a good crack. Dancevic is one of the flashier players on the tour. When he launches into a shot, he throws all of his body weight into it. It's power, compromising balance. He's running to his backhand corner and he tries to hit a sweeping one-handed drive winner, literally with his legs above ground. I think, sometimes when he's moving, it looks like he's flying around the court, but I can't explain why I think this is the case. To set the record straight, he didn't make that backhand down-the-line and it wasn't even close, but the adrenaline was there.

And that's why he didn't win the match, nor did he ever look like winning the match. He doesn't have the balance when he's hitting a shot, although sometimes his athleticism makes up for it. Watch for it particularly on return of serve, how he catches himself in knots trying to change his racquet swing to make up for the fact that his feet aren't really in the right position. But mostly how his body doesn't seem to be positioned right in front of the ball, though he does better in this area in baseline rallies when he's running towards the ball.

He needs time to do what he wants with the ball, and Santoro gave him the opportunity to do so in the previous round, particularly on return of serve. His entire game is revolved around moving forward, taking advantage of any big shots or serves he hits by charging forward to the net. I love the forward movement he gets on his serve, how it seems so natural that he should find himself right at the net to follow it up with a typically high putaway volley.

Tursunov is a better striker of the ball, such a relaxed hitter of the ball, more capable of consistently controlling proceedings in neutral rallies. It's not like it's a secret that Tursunov is a big hitter, yet I think in some ways he is a deceptively big hitter of the ball because of how his forehand seems to pick up speed towards the end of its flight swing. Clearly this more casual, smooth approach to hitting has its benefits, being able to maintain a rhythm and timing on the groundstrokes.

But sometimes when I see how Tursunov handles shots on the dead run, attempting to hit shots with the same motion and backswing as he usually would and failing miserably, I think that in part has to do with laziness. For someone with such natural backswings, he really does lack in the improvisation department, and whether that's due to a lack of urgency, I don't know. On one point, at 40-0 down, Tursunov after seeing that his return of serve had popped up high in the middle of the court started strolling over to his chair for the changeover, which in itself doesn't mean a whole lot but I think it represents his character well. He doesn't have the same will to win as some of the other players.

If his normal effort isn't good enough for the day, then that's pretty much all he will offer – nothing more, nothing less. I don't often see him trying to dig out or scrambling balls on the dead run. As soon as he loses balance, that's when he'll go for the unlikely winner maybe just as much as a way to exit the point, rather than the intent to win the point. Maybe only on an important point, he'll decide to do some more running, like in the second set tie-break.

That wasn't much of a big deal today though, because Dancevic doesn't like to hang around in points much either, even less so than Tursunov. I think, quite simply because he can't. He gets pushed around if he doesn't push his opponents around first. In the end, it turned out to be mostly about first strike tennis, but on the odd occasion when it came down to second strike tennis (if you can guess what that means), then Tursunov had the advantage.

It all looked to be comfortable on serve for both players, then out of nowhere Dancevic makes a couple of awful errors: a missed high backhand volley, a shanked forehand and backhand that misses wide by metres. The kind of errors that generally creep into a service game in small amounts, but that you don't expect to suddenly turn a match around. Right now, I'm thinking that the intensity level in this match is almost as low as it gets.

Dancevic sometimes tries to go for the aggressive approach, big returns just like he did against Santoro but it rarely works. I think the more desperate he is for a point, the more he attempts the flashier winner like when Tursunov was serving for the first set. But when he blocks it back, it's just as suicidal with Tursunov taking care of the floating return easily.

Tursunov goes for a more instinctive approach on return of serve reacting to the ball if he needs to using the pace to hit a decent return, or going for a slightly more aggressive approach if he has time to do so. In the end, I just think he has better feel of the ball. He seemed to have the edge early on in the first set, threatening to break Dancevic's serve at 1-1 but Dancevic held on with good serving and with some luck on the net cord.

Strangely after the mostly serve-dominated proceedings of how the first two sets had panned out, the tie-break ended up being a largely unpredictable affair. But the one thing that remained consistent was that Tursunov was the slightly better player, more capable of winning points on return and the longer baseline rallies.

For a brief moment, the match had sprung to life. Dancevic had decided that this was his last chance to get things back on even terms, and threw every ounce of energy he had to hanging into the point at 6-4 in the tie-break. In the longest rally of the match, Dancevic finally drew the error from Tursunov, with some impressive hustling that I don't think you would normally see from him, without that added determination. But Tursunov bounced back quickly, forcing Dancevic to hit a shoelace volley on return and he dumps it into the net to finish the match.

Big hitting and big serving: Soderling and Federer advance to the finals in similar style

Is there some kind of significance of yesterday’s French Open men’s semi-finals? The line-up consisted of Robin Soderling, Fernando Gonzalez, Juan Martin Del Potro and Roger Federer. Players that all have the ability to generate their own pace, and create winners from the back of the court combined with a lot of cheap points on serve.

Clay has always been thought of as a surface that neutralises the serve the most, but it’s turned out to be more of a factor than it has in previous years. It’s no wonder that Davydenko felt completely hopeless in his blowout loss to Soderling, whereas Gonzalez was able to hold onto his serve and take his opportunities late in the third and fourth sets, waiting for Soderling to briefly flinch to take the sets.

It’s not like we’re seeing an exhibition of aces, but one thing that an effective serve does is put the point firmly in favour of the server. Setting up the point with a big forehand, and on clay, once you get pinned back on the defense, it’s harder to instantly counterattack, it requires a lot of hard work. But when you come up against big hitters that can do more with one shot than most like Soderling, Del Potro, Federer and Gonzalez have recently shown, it becomes almost impossible.

In the case of Soderling and Del Potro, interestingly their defensive skills come up short when compared to some of their peers but they make up for it in other ways. It’s not as impressive as the athleticism of a Djokovic or Davydenko, but they seem to have this ability to give the ball a good slap on the stretch making use of their great reach and ability to generate power. Restricting the ability of their opponents to yank them around the court too much, and if all else fails, then they’d look for a way out of the point, with a low percentage shot. Reinforcing that they’re the one in control of points, not their opponents.

It was an interesting match-up, Soderling having the clear advantage on the backhand wing, dangerous off both sides, but Gonzalez being the significantly better athlete, often winning points through sheer determination, sometimes just looking to get one ball back on a point that seemed already lost – but finally drawing the error on the final shot. And that’s something to admire, when you consider how Gonzalez normally wins his matches, through outright attacking. When he first stepped out on court, that’s how he expected to win. But he found the balls coming back too quickly, and shanking and mistiming balls trying to create big swings off shots where he had no right to. So he adjusted his game and started to dig more balls out, prolong points any way he could and throw in as much variety as he could.

Despite Gonzalez’s reputation as a big hitter, I think of him as being a good thinker on the court as well at times, at least at this stage in his career, and I’ve seen him in the past expose many players with short wide balls, slices and dropshots. But I think based on this match and Del Potro’s match, slice backhands don’t penetrate as much through the court, creating this higher bounce that doesn’t bother their opponents as much. And I guess Gonzalez needs to have that additional variety on his backhand, kind of like how Andy Roddick has developed his to a lesser extent to make up for his lack of shotmaking ability on that side.

Soderling had been winning the majority of his matches on the back of his strong forehand, the initial shot that takes his opponents off-balance but he was equally as lethal on the backhand yesterday. His crosscourt backhand is like a smothering shot, so penetrating and deep that he doesn’t need to achieve any exceptional accuracy on it to cause damage on it. It’s particularly useful coming up against Gonzalez, who could not find his way around to a forehand, and is nowhere near as threatening when restricted to a backhand. But the shot that I was most surprised with was the effectiveness of Soderling’s down-the-line backhand. How he managed to on so many occasions, on the return of serve with Gonzalez’s serve breaking away wide on the ad court, step in and change directions with ease for a winner.

In the end, what it came down to was that when both players were trading blows with each other, toe-to-toe, that Soderling was the better player. It looked like Gonzalez was on his way for getting rewarded for his efforts, as Soderling started to leak more errors and lack the sting on his groundstrokes that he had maintained earlier allowing Gonzalez to control more points with his forehand. Soderling couldn’t maintain the hitting from the first two sets, so what he did instead was save his final reserves for a final couple of launched attacks at Gonzalez.

The first one was in the first game of the fourth set, but Gonzalez rose to the challenge, and that seemed to knock the belief out of Soderling. He went through frustration and despair at the thought of the match slipping out of his hands, then finally he started to feel some kind of freedom again after being down a break in the fifth set. He started going for his shots again at full throttle, and pulled them off. Then once he achieved that initial break back, it was like he was revitalised again, rediscovering the same devastating pace that he had on his groundstrokes in the first two sets to convincingly win the decisive fifth set.

It was an exciting, and entertaining semi-finals day in Roland Garros, two high quality five-set matches that were underlined with incredible fighting spirit from all four players. Juan Martin Del Potro in the past hasn’t had much success against Roger Federer, having failed to take a set, making this five-set performance all the more impressive. There is no doubt that Del Potro is becoming one of the fastest improvers on the tour, seemingly addressing every criticism coming his way.

Now everyone knows that Del Potro has improved his serve leaps and bounds ever since the beginning of that well-documented four title run. But when did it become such a big weapon, the ability to win all those cheap points? It used to be more of a consistently powerful stroke, very good but not brilliant the way it was against Federer.

Then there’s the development of Del Potro’s forward movement, taking advantage of his shots at the net. And maybe the claycourt season has been perfect for him to develop this kind of extra layer to his game, given that it can sometimes be incredibly difficult to completely finish off shots from the back of the court on this surface. But also incredibly tiring if you choose to do so. It has always been thought that Del Potro didn’t need to possess great volleys to finish off some of his shots, but simply that he needed to make his way up there. Though it must be said that he is very reliable and solid up there, and seems to know where to position his racquet in order to make his volleys as simple as possible.

But aside from that monster serving performance, what really put Del Potro in a winning position was through the strength of his groundstrokes, which seemed heavier and consistently more penetrating than Federer’s. Federer didn’t seem to do anything wrong specifically, and he didn’t crumble on the big points like he did against Haas a couple of rounds earlier. He was simply not given much opportunity to do as much with the ball as he’d like to. Though at times, it was rather incredible what Federer could come up with on the half-volley.

Just like in the Soderling vs Gonzalez semi-final, it was interesting how much of an impact that the extra bit of pace that Del Potro was able to generate on his groundstrokes, had on the match. Tennis is a game of cause and effect, how hitting a shot slightly harder or deeper prevents your opponent from attacking. Or how missing one or more first serves can get you into trouble, and that’s what happened here. To be fair, it was a rather steep decline on Del Potro’s end though, as he started to wear out physically from the start of the fourth set onwards. But it was interesting how the options started to open up for Federer with that additional time to set up, able to implement more touch shots, more variety and control the points better.

This sets up for what could potentially be an entertaining, hard-fought battle, but there are no guarantees. We’ve seen what Del Potro did to Federer, and Soderling has the ability to implement the same game, except with even more force than what Del Potro did.