Looking Back at Monte Carlo

Usually the clay season is alive and kicking by the time Monte Carlo starts, but this year has been a little different. It wasn’t a mandatory event last year, but it still attracted good fields. The main difference was the absence of the unbeatable Novak Djokovic (check out this sketch), who has been taking a break/cautious injury pause in an attempt to peak for Belgrade. A huge tournament for the family.

The craziest match of all in Monte Carlo a couple of weeks ago was that match between Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal, which I did have the pleasure of watching. There was about a half hour delay (or so it felt like) with Andy Murray warming up on another court when he was scheduled to play. The Tennis Betting sites must have given Murray no chance of winning, yet for a moment it looked possible, just because everything in the match seemed to defy belief. He could barely serve in practice, then he took anti-inflammatory medication. I was sure it was going to be a retirement. In hindsight, I did wonder if the delay was at least partially strategic, buying himself some more time so that the medication would kick in.

The match started, then I watched his serve. It looked fine to me. His body language was subdued, and he walked around the court like he didn’t really care. Though he must have cared to end up playing the match. I guess that was the amazing thing about the match to me. The attitude with which he played the match, contrasted with the outstanding tennis that he played. He didn’t match Nadal’s intensity or mental questions. He kept the points short (or at least tried to) and his movement was great, even though there was barely any energy about him. He is normally like that to some extent, but it was a level lower than usual. The surprising thing was that it didn’t affect his play.

After the subdued body language, and the lack of expectations, the longer the match went on, the more Murray was emotionally invested in it. His forehand looked better than usual. I really liked his sneaks into the net. He should do them more often. I think he should be able to spot openings like that more often, but it never enters his mind, that he should adopt that play at all.

I kept expecting Nadal to adopt more of a killer extinct but he couldn't string enough points together to take a good lead for himself. So far there has been something unremarkable about Nadal’s play this clay season. I think it is carried on from his hardcourt play, where he does give away more errors than he used to, but also playing a more aggressive style. He’s not as much of a relentless player in general, but I don’t know if that makes him any worse, since he has made other improvements. I expect that with more time to make adjustments to the clay again this season that he will start to find his best form.

After two sets of tennis with long and drawn out games, Murray finally ended up being too tired to put up a good fight in the third set, and Nadal steamrolled to a third set victory. This match was under so many special circumstances, that it didn’t really mean a thing in the grand scheme of things, but it was a highlight from what has been an underwhelming clay season so far.

Career Adjustments (and Miami)

Usually on the first day of a Masters event, I tend to focus on the lower profile players, before they make their exit out of a tournament. Sometimes I make that choice just for the sake of watching a more competitive match, with more emotional ups and downs.

For a change, I took a glimpse at the early rounds of Roger Federer, Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal, though for different reasons in each of these matches. I was already aware of Roddick losing, so I approached the match with a different perspective than I would have otherwise.

When you watch a top ranked player play, there are more clear expectations. It's also easier to observe because as soon as anything happens outside of what is expected, you can more easily compliment the underdog, or criticise the top player. This, you see on message boards frequently. Whereas with a player with a broader range of performances, almost anything can go under the expected category, though some people use this word in hindsight as a form of implying how great their tennis knowledge is.

In the early stages of Federer's match against Radek Stepanek, I was curious as to what kind of tricks Stepanek would have up his sleeve against Federer. The word 'tricks' is an appropriate term here because whatever he tried was obviously something he couldn't maintain. It was more like a show. In the second rally of the match, Stepanek half-volleyed a return of serve, charged to the net then showed off his excellent anticipation and volleying skills by somehow staying in the exchange with three more volleys. Then he ran back to retrieve a lob and dumped it into the net.

It's not often you see volleys go beyond a couple of strokes, and there's good reason for that. Because it rarely has a high winning percentage for the volleyer. Stepanek lost many points at the net, but there were some entertaining exchanges. Stepanek tried to bluff his way through the match, and naturally it didn't work. As if he would be able to throw off Federer's rhythm without having anything substantial to back it up.

Whenever he returned a couple of volleys, it was impressive, but he was rarely going to win them. From the baseline, he tried to half-volley and finesse shots into accurate positions but he never had enough power. His forehand was often mistimed and dumped into the net. I'm looking up photos of Stepanek to match my article, and almost every photo is of him stretching out to return a shot which seems indicative of this match. He is quite athletic.

Both players won many cheap points. In between some entertaining exchanges, there were a lot of short points and free points. That's exactly the way Federer likes it these days. Even when they exchanged longer rallies, they were half-volleying so often that the point finished in the blink of an eye. It was such a contrast to the Roddick vs Cuevas match, where both players comfortably waited until the ball would reach its peak height.

Federer only required a couple of shots to force Stepanek into a defensive position, and to finish it off. Apparently he hits the ball harder these days, according to a statistic that I heard from a commentator a while ago. Watching this match, and then moving onto the Roddick match, it did make me wonder what kind of adjustments Roddick will make as his career reaches its latter stages. He's reaching the age of 28 now, turning 29 this year and he might even be engaging in longer rallies than he used to. He also hit a famous diving winner on match point in Memphis, which revealed just as much his age as well as his fitness.

In his match against Pablo Cuevas, what I could see was Roddick trying to play incredibly smart tennis. It wasn't like he was hitting the ball into the middle of the court at all. With the slow pace of the match, sometimes I felt like I could get a glimpse into his thought process. I don't actually think he was playing smart tennis. It occurred every now and then rather than on a consistent basis. He was thinking too much.

In the first game, he ran around his backhand to hit a series of heavy forehands which would have been effective if he had his weight going the right way. That was a good reference point for later in the match, because he stopped doing that relatively quickly and ended up trading backhands. Much of that was due to illness though. Roddick really started to struggle in the second set, putting in a lacklustre performance and taking an injury time-out.

Cuevas was hitting his backhand well, but his forehand was quite inconsistent. I wasn't fully convinced of his performance, but one thing he did better than Roddick in particular was using the full width of the court. It didn't seem like a big difference until three shots later, when Roddick would end up having too much court to cover to have any chance of changing defense to offense.

Cuevas' crosscourt backhand is clearly one of his strengths. It's difficult to return the top spin when it bounces up high and deep, and he can also generate good angles. The kick serve on the ad court also works a lot better than it does on the deuce court. He's just naturally better on the backhand side.

Learning To Play Your Game

It's a Grand Slam semi-final and the stakes are high. Rod Laver Arena is buzzing with crowd anticipation, and the players are walking through the hallway of champions.

An interviewer approaches them and asks, "What are your tactics coming into the match?" It's true that part of their reluctance to answer the question is down to not wanting to share their secrets, or to simply maintain their focus, but there is some truth to the good old saying, "I'm just going to play my game."

Tennis analysts like to glorify what happens in a match, particularly when the stakes are high. Often enough, it does come down to a moment of courage or brilliance, but brilliance isn't the key to success. The sky's not the limit, but it doesn't mean you should give up. Instead, adjust your goals accordingly to your strengths and weaknesses, and structure your playing style to what you're good at. Keep up the same mindset on the big points, and don't get caught up too much with the glorious clutch points from your tennis idols.

Weaker Shots
Everyone has a weaker side, either a shot that is liable to unforced errors or a side where it's more difficult to hit winners. Don't try to hit as many winners from one side if you can’t back it up with execution. Equally, if you have a big strength, allow yourself the opportunity to use it by being more conservative with your weaknesses. For example, James Blake could have become a better player if he used his speed more wisely to get back into points instead of trying to hit a low percentage winner.

Favourite Shots
Become knowledgeable in the exact strengths of your game. Know more about yourself beyond simply whether you prefer the backhand or forehand. Figure out which shot wins you the most points. Is it consistency and speed that wins the most points, or the sudden changes of pace, or overall power? The art of winning in tennis is knowing what will reliably win the most points.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga knows that he can achieve an edge over his opponents with his transition game, so he builds his matches around imposing himself with his approach shots and net game, and the constant threat that he will regularly do it.

Using consistency or fitness as a strength can be a tricky one, as it shouldn't be the only thing you base your match tactics on. You still need to think about what other strengths you have that can create more damage. Juan Ignacio Chela uses power to hurt his opponents, while Tommy Robredo uses accuracy combined with favourite patterns of play.

Strategy over Technique
Tennis analysts always mention that a match court is different from a practice court, and they're right. For starters, there's a mental component involved. You can't simply make an error, then focus on perfecting it the next time. Not when the shot costs you points. Therefore, it's not only about adjusting technique. It's not as easy as thinking back to that practice session a while back, and remembering how it worked back then.

If you get caught up too much in obsessing over your opponent targeting your weaker shot all the time, then your opponent has succeeded in the psychological game. Think about what else you could do to change the pattern of play, so that it is more favourable for you. Perhaps start giving less angles or less pace for your opponent to work with. Start aiming your serves in different directions. Keep experimenting with little things, while remembering your strengths.

Take Calculated Risks
Don't change your game completely in hope of producing a once-in-a-lifetime performance. Take calculated risks. Play a slightly better version of your regular game. Despite what commentators tell you, if you haven't served-and-volleyed much before, it's probably not going to suddenly work now. Unless if you notice that your opponent is feeding you many weak replies on the return. Don't try to throw in many slice backhands if it floats too high and without enough spin. If touch shots and dropshots aren't in your repertoire, then don't throw it in there. It's fine to throw in a little bit of variety, as long as you realize that it won't have the same effect as the player that you borrowed the tactic from.

Of course, there are a few exceptions to the rule, examples of players that have shown an amazing versatility in big matches. You'll probably know yourself after all those practice sessions and matches, whether you really have the capability to pull it off. If you want to add some versatility to your game, start first by finetuning it in practice then gradually implementing it in matches.

Gilles Simon Defeats Out of Form Davydenko in Marseille

It was supposed to be a nice contrast of styles, when Nikolay Davydenko and Gilles Simon drew each other in the first round in Marseille. The problem with this match-up is that the way Simon plays largely has to do with the way Davydenko plays, so when Davydenko seemed completely unsure of himself and lacking in confidence, it was a bad spectacle all-round. Simon only plays as well as he needs to, and he prefers to use the pace of his opponents.

Davydenko is definitely going through a rough patch at the moment. His game doesn’t even look the same as it did to his off days when he was in the top 5. When he makes large amounts of unforced errors, they’re different kinds of errors. He doesn’t have anywhere near the same amount of racquet acceleration. Short balls are usually the easiest shots for professional players, but it was painful the way Davydenko showed no confidence whenever he had a short forehand to put away for a winner. Instead it was more like, “Oh no, I should hit a winner off this” so he’d aim it near the line but not really try to hit a winner.

The match started strangely with four consecutive breaks. The first set was the battle of two very indecisive players that didn’t know what to do with the ball once they got into an extended rally. The execution of the shots felt half-hearted, which is what happens when you don’t fully believe in the shot you’re trying to hit.

Davydenko was making all kinds of uncharacteristic shot selections. It was the worst to begin with. Most of his shots landed in the middle of the court, the complete opposite from his trademark accurate game. He came into the net from approach shots that landed down the middle of the court, then predictably he’d lose the point up at the net. You know there’s something very wrong with Davydenko when he’s trying to come into the net before he’s even hit a good enough shot. Yet it’s also very strange. It’s more common to stick to a more typical game in poor form, but does he really think he has a better chance at shortening the points and using the net than playing his standard baseline game?

Still Davydenko being willing to extend the rallies and hit with wider margins from the lines than usual kept the match competitive in the first set. Both players returned serve well in the first half of the set. It was like everything was much easier for them when they didn’t have to think about actual rallies and point construction.

The match made a sudden turnaround after Simon became the first player to hold serve for 3-2. I would have thought that would have been the equivalent of a break of serve, but instead they both held serve from then onwards.

Despite the rather drastic change of holds/breaks, the match still had a similar feel to me. I never know what Simon is actually trying to do with the ball while playing. He plays with such a reactive mindset. Even if his tennis isn't defensive all the time, his shot selection is based so much on what his opponent feeds him. Davydenko fed him plenty of errors so he happily took advantage of it.

The first set tie-break was perhaps of the best quality in the match, with more of the typical rallies that I expected from the match. Davydenko had a set point but missed a routine forehand, a pattern which repeated itself many times in the match. Then Simon won the set with a return winner.

In the second set, Davydenko sprayed errors everywhere to go down a double break that by then, I had lost all interest. He tried to play something closer to his usual game, but the more aggressive play didn’t pay off. He was actually close to levelling the set again and recovering the break, but in the end, Simon was able to hold off Davydenko and finish the match later on.

Soderling Shows Good Form in Rotterdam, Defeating Youzhny

Robin Soderling isn’t anywhere near as much of an indoor specialist as he used to be, but in any case, he’s doing well this week in Rotterdam, bouncing back from a poor performance at the Australian Open in his loss against Alexandr Dolgopolov. Mikhail Youzhny also had a subpar Australian Open, losing to Milos Raonic in the 3rd round, but both players showed good form in this match. In a rematch of last year's final, Soderling defeated Youzhny 6-4 7-6(5).

They traded big shots against each other, but it wasn’t easy to hit winners, and most rallies ended up being long, drawn out, and competitive. It was a surprisingly complete display of tennis, complete in the sense that neither player showed an obvious weak side that leaked errors. Soderling also wasn’t as overly reliant on his forehand as usual, with his backhand sharing the workload, and winning just as many points with it.

Sometimes matches like this can be a little mind-numbing, and easy to take for granted. Especially since Soderling and Youzhny are top 10 players. There weren’t that many momentum swings in the match, instead it was hard-fought the whole match. Tactically they were playing aggressive but controlled tennis. It was very much, spot on.

Youzhny’s ability to control rallies was better than I thought. He was the player changing directions more often in this match, particularly when they traded backhands where Soderling would usually hit it back crosscourt but with good pace, while Youzhny had the additional option of nailing it down-the-line more often. His backhand was the best aspect of the match.

Soderling wasn’t as dominant as usual. By that, I mean the match wasn’t played on his terms as much as usual, and probably in the past, he would have been easily frustrated. But now, Soderling is pretty good at playing patient tennis too, so he hung in there and showed some respect towards Youzhny’s shots by waiting until the right moment to pull the trigger. There wasn’t much difference between the two, apart from a couple of points. This was a good display of top 10 level tennis.

It was one of those matches that bring forth the argument that the players these days have fewer obvious weaknesses. They have shots that can break down on their bad days, yes, but opponents can no longer relying on peppering one side knowing that they can’t be punished.

Is the modern era of tennis actually more exciting this way? I think what makes a tennis match exciting is once you get involved in it, then it reaches another level to simply appreciating it. Like holding your breath or showing a seed of doubt whenever a ball goes to a player’s weaker side, or getting excited whenever it goes to their stronger side. Or watching momentum swings, and seeing how a player stringing a couple of points together can suddenly turn into great form for the rest of the match (or the opposite could be said for poor play). I guess that’s why many people like the flashy players. It’s not only about the winners.

Momentum swings and drama are also make for great viewing, and there wasn’t that much of it in this match. It was a good quality match, but sometimes a little bit of imperfection can actually make a match better. Maybe a combination of more awful shots followed by great shots, would be good. I really am turning into a fussy tennis watcher. Oh well, I’m sure there will be plenty of Robin Soderling matches in the future that have them.

By the way, I am definitely covering up for my decreasing attention span these days by going more off-topic than ever. I hope it is not too obvious.

Marin Cilic defeats Jurgen Melzer in Rotterdam

I’ve selected a very standard title for my new post and that seems fitting for a match like this. It wasn’t a pretty match, and I can’t remember any memorable rallies. But in the end, Marin Cilic was the more solid player and defeated Jurgen Melzer 6-2 6-4.

Cilic hasn’t had a good last 12 months after a maiden semi-final appearance at the Australian Open last year and cracking the top 10. He was also awful against Florian Mayer last week. Keeping in mind that I would possibly do a piece on him after this match, I took a closer look at his overall game.

Outwardly it looked similar to the way it always did, except a more unspectacular version of it. The same kind of low intensity game based on ball-striking and accuracy (though not so much on accuracy anymore). He was particularly passive to begin with, mainly focusing on getting the ball into the court. It took a while before he took it up another notch, taking the ball earlier on some of the shorter balls and hitting with better depth. It was good that he did that on occasion otherwise I would have thought he was warming up.

He comes across as so workmanlike that I’m not even sure if he likes playing tennis. I just assume he does, because he made it this far and apparently players in Croatia are harder working than the Brits for example because they had a tougher time growing up. That means there is more benefit for them to be successful.

His game was always lacking spark though. He’d change directions so smoothly that it just looked like he was casually rallying with his opponent. He relied so much on timing. His winners don’t catch the eye as much as Melzer’s winners do on a better day. You have to look closer. Melzer had some eye-catching errors today though. This season, he’s been confidently swinging away on his groundstrokes regardless of whether he’s been playing well or not. He’s been making a lot of rash errors. He hit a forehand that was out wide today by the equivalent of half the width of the court, timed in the middle of the strings. I suppose that’s proof he was trying to hit all kinds of shots that he wasn’t prepared for, in terms of footwork.

Anyway, it just wasn’t Melzer’s day. He didn’t have much success returning Cilic’s serve and he tried to improve his consistency in the second set, but it still wasn’t good enough. He takes big swings at the ball especially on the forehand, and he’s known more for his explosiveness than accuracy. Going up 0-30 at 3-3 on Cilic’s serve ended up being more of a mental hindrance. It was a huge disappointment for him even though he didn’t really do anything special to go up 0-30, so it wasn’t like a drop in level. He smashed a racquet once it got back to 30-30, then began to shout at himself almost every point from then onwards, and gave a sarcastic clap at the changeovers.

He was probably already in a bad mood to begin with though. The match had barely started and Melzer asked the umpire a couple of times to get the people to talk more quietly, especially those sitting near the court. A quick camera shot of the stadium shows that the stadium was reasonably empty. Melzer is known for finding every little thing that goes on externally annoying.

Sometimes Cilic’s calm approach gives him a disadvantage against more inspired players, but today it was surely the better approach. Some might say it is just a personality difference, but I’m pretty sure that playing with a relaxed demeanor would affect the way you move around the court, and the energy around the footwork as well. Then again, to put in a more simplistic manner, he was the more solid of the two players and was subsequently rewarded. He also won plenty of free points on his serve.

Ivan Dodig Continues His Great Run in Zagreb

Every now and then, certain players find inspiration playing in their home country. There were numerous Croatian players in the draw of Zagreb, including the top two seeds, Marin Cilic and Ivan Ljubicic but in the end it was Ivan Dodig carrying the flag for Croatia at the last hurdle.

It’s always a great story for the tournament when stories like these happen, and it reels in the crowds too. Judging from the turnout in the semi-finals, people in Zagreb are incredibly patriotic to the point where they couldn’t even be bothered watching the second semi-final between Florian Mayer and Michael Berrer even though they had tickets for it. For me, I always approach these sudden improvements of form in a cynical manner. It’s a different life playing in front of a packed stadium cheering for you, compared to the little courts where no one really cares.

The fans got their money’s worth with Dodig and Guillermo Garcia-Lopez playing out a three hour marathon against each other, with Dodig making a surprising comeback from a set and a break down to win 4-6 7-6(5) 6-4. Every game seemed to be long and drawn out, until the third set where both players were too exhausted to give their full effort in every game, not to mention that Dodig had an early break and solely relied on that.

This match was played late at night in my timezone, so I really could have used a scoreboard on my stream that didn't disappear off the screen all the time. So I could actually feel the importance of a point. Has anyone watched a match without a scoreboard before and noticed how there is absolutely no drama in it, and also how incredibly difficult it is to follow?

I hadn’t watched Dodig play before until this match, but this commentator I was listening to obviously had from the sounds of it. He reminded me constantly that Dodig is a fighter, a very dogged competitor, difficult to put away, etc. The match had only just started so I couldn’t really notice myself. However, he did do a dive to retrieve a dropshot later on so there’s a piece of evidence. Also he won this match from a losing position so he was obviously a better fighter than Garcia-Lopez.

His groundstrokes are laboured, not effortless, and he puts a lot of energy into his movement. I also borrowed that statement off the commentator. His stroke production and movement reminds me a lot of Florent Serra, who also puts in a lot of effort behind everything, but Serra can hit the ball harder. Their shot selection is not that similar. Dodig hits typically deep shots and moves the ball around the court without the intention of ending the point (most of the time).

I didn’t really have a preference between the two, but I liked the contrast. Garcia-Lopez has some of the cleanest strokes I’ve seen. The closest player I can think of in terms of stroke production like that would be Tommy Haas. Both rely on clean shotmaking based on timing and their groundstrokes aren’t heavy enough. The problem with Garcia-Lopez seems to be that he doesn’t play with the same intensity levels and focus as many of the other players, and he tends to throw in some awful errors at times. Sometimes he likes to hit a backhand down-the-line when there was no way he should have hit one. I have a feeling he used to play like that much more often, before he made his rise up the rankings.

He can find surprisingly good angles on the inside out forehand. It’s not exactly a textbook shot, but it has to be a strength if he runs around to hit it this often. He positions his feet well while hitting it, and it helps that he's light on his feet. Without as much movement preceding the shot, his forehand isn’t as good from the other side of the court, when trading crosscourt.

Garcia-Lopez was playing relatively well in this match. He was the one making the majority of the winners. Just a slightly better performance in the crucial moments would have won him the match. Then again, it’s incredibly common in tennis for matches to be decided in this way.

Perhaps also what turned the match around was Dodig’s injury and fatigue, which resulted in a change of tactics. He took an injury timeout somewhere in the second set, then he started to hit the ball more accurately and constructing points better. He could have ended up playing overly risky tennis in a way that doesn’t match his game, but instead he played smarter tennis. His volleys were also surprisingly good for a solid baseliner, and by the third set he was coming into the net consistently to finish off points. I remember a serve-and-volley he did in the third set, where he was on the service line and he lunged far and low and somehow managed to hit a winning volley off it.

Once Dodig had the break in the third set, he tanked away some of the return games, but he was able to remain strong enough on serve surprisingly even holding his nerves well enough to serve out the match to love.

Tommy Robredo Cruises in Santiago, defeating Maximo Gonzalez

I’m not quite sure how Tommy Robredo has slipped down to a ranking of 40 over the past year, apart from stating the obvious that he isn’t playing as well as he used to. That’s what the ranking suggests. A closer look at his rankings breakdown suggests that he’s not doing as well in the optional events as he used to.

2011 is a new year though, and he has gotten off to a good start with a 4th round result at the Australian Open (losing to Roger Federer) and now reaching the semi-finals of Santiago.

He will fancy his chances of going further in this draw with the remaining players in the draw having never won a title before. He faces Fabio Fognini in the semi-finals, then potentially the winner of Potito Starace and Santiago Giraldo. Though I think it would make a nice headline if Santiago Giraldo won in Santiago.

In today’s match, he defeated Maximo Gonzalez quite comfortably 6-3 6-1. This was the first time I had seen Gonzalez play before, so I had my eyes firmly focused on him rather than Robredo, out of curiosity. I like to scout players too. The signs were promising to start with. Gonzalez has nice heavy groundstrokes, and when he matches up with Robredo, he appears to be the stronger of the two. Stronger, not better. More penetrating in his groundstrokes. If we just looked at groundstrokes while they were warming up, and not accuracy or the ability to be aggressive with it, then Gonzalez would be more impressive. The heaviness of his groundstrokes reminds me a little bit of Jose Acasuso, but with nowhere near as much pace.

The match was even for the first half of the set, and I kept expecting Robredo to make more inroads into the return of serve. Mostly because Gonzalez’s serve is quite awful. I think even I have more a fluid motion than that (but mine is jerky in general too). It comes from the same school of serving that Juan Ignacio Chela graduated from, before he changed it into something much better midway into his career. He has his racquet back and his service motion halfway complete before he even tosses the ball up, then he briefly pauses as the ball goes up and finishes off the motion. The serve often lands in the middle of the box. Robredo generally returns serve quite far behind the baseline though, so it didn’t get punished that much. Except somewhere in the second set, when Robredo hit a backhand down-the-line return winner that he surely didn’t mean to hit.

While I’m currently into making player comparisons with myself, I was also amused to see that Gonzalez sometimes lifts his left leg up a little bit while hitting a forehand, just like I do but to a lesser extent. He does it particularly when hitting it aggressively. But he’s better than me. He can plant his left leg when he’s in a more defensive stance, which is good otherwise he wouldn’t have made it into this (clay) event.

In any case, I thought Gonzalez was playing better than his ranking of 140, until his game went downhill quickly after he missed many break points in one game. Suddenly he began to make plenty of awful errors, trying to play overly aggressively above his ability, and not digging very deep. His movement isn’t as good as Robredo’s. If he’s further behind the baseline then it needs to be more defensive. If he has more time, then he can go for it. Wow, I can relate to these points. Trying to hit a winner while going backwards is never going to work. I constantly mumble that to myself while playing.

I thought Robredo served quite well, for his standards. He has an accurate serve, and can get good angles on the wide serve on the ad court. He’s a good server for his height. Though I should also point out that Gonzalez’s return of serve is a weakness. He needs more time to hit good shots.

They tried to motivate the players before the match started by playing Eye of the Tiger, which I seem to remember was Hewitt’s favourite song to listen to before matches. Or was it Nadal? They liked to play rock music in the changeovers, even while players were walking out from their chairs. I think they only stopped it once they got closer to the baseline. Most tournaments playing music these days go with pop music, so this was a little different from the usual. I liked hearing Faith No More’s Epic.

Where does the blog go from here?

The Australian Open may be over, but this blog will continue to roll on, with regular articles of any sort. Just in case that wasn't clear.

Andy Murray Isn't The Player You Want Him To Be

For the last three years or so, Andy Murray established himself within the elite of the tennis game. He first caught the attention of the tennis world with his ability to match it against the top players. Someone to look to, who could break the Federer/Nadal stranglehold.

It’s a different perspective in the early stages of a player’s career. You look at their potential, what different things they bring to the table, and how they can progress in their career once they have ironed out those weaknesses. Then he made it into the top 5, defeated some top players, and became a Grand Slam contender. Everyone started to expect more from him.

After every loss, critics and tennis fans wrote about how Andy Murray needs to be more aggressive. After more Grand Slam disappointments following impressive Masters events results, it was changed to "Murray needs to be more aggressive to win a Grand Slam." This happens before and after every Slam, in particular at Wimbledon, often making big headlines. But this article isn’t about whether he should or not, but rather about this gap between what he wants to be, the way he wants to approach the game, compared to how everyone else wants him to approach the game.

This is a fair criticism if you’re not a fan of his tennis. But I’ve noticed that even plenty of his fans find it difficult to enjoy even his most straightforward wins, frustrated about why he is playing the way he is. Even if it's clear that he will breeze through a victory here. Many people are far more interested in the Andy Murray that shows up 10% of the time, with maybe half of that being his wins against Nadal, the one player that he can really admit to not being able to outlast or break down.

Can you really call yourself a fan if you don’t enjoy his normal style of playing? Or is that just being a fan of the player you wish he was? This is not a criticism, but something to ponder. I can see the dilemma here. There isn’t anyone else that plays like him.

The way I see it, Murray has had far too much success to figure out that he should do things differently, and he thinks tennis is too complicated and strategic to simply focus on whether he was passive or aggressive. He wants to figure out what shots his opponents hate playing, and hit as many of those as possible. He studies videos of his rivals playing. People often call him a true tennis strategist, because he bases his game around his opponent’s weaknesses, rather than his own strengths, like what the majority of players do. Though it doesn’t have to be a weakness, just whatever shot matches up well to his. Personally I’m not so sure that is the smartest thing to do, and sometimes he doesn't find anything. Using more of his strengths would greatly help his game, and make life easier.

Each year that passes, I am convinced he has decided on his own way to improving his game, and it’s not what people want from him. Before he made his rise up the rankings, he was inconsistent over the course of the year then he radically improved his fitness. He beefed up his serve, and went about improving as many gaping holes in his game.

The more he improved his fitness, the more it became a staple of his game. He also became more complete, to the point that it was always more likely he would break down your weakness, before you could get to his. Unless if he was having a bad serving day. He’s broken down Djokovic’s forehand before, Federer’s backhand and he’s outlasted Del Potro before. His return of serve ensured that he could engage in rallies far more often than players below him. Beating lower ranked players started to become a piece of cake, and with his quick, seemingly lazy movement, it was like he was on autopilot most of the time. He’d throw in a couple of flashes of brilliance, but importantly he knew he didn’t have to.

So if Andy Murray isn’t going to be more aggressive in the traditional sense, what could he do? He could start with his favourite backhand, the side he’s more confident with. Rip some more big backhands flat and hard crosscourt, and change it up down-the-line more often. He could serve-and-volley a bit. That’s smart tennis after all, isn’t it, just like how he likes to be seen?

Andy Murray loses another Grand Slam Final, this time to Novak Djokovic

So the Australian Open is over for 2011, and Novak Djokovic has been crowned champion after defeating Andy Murray tonight 6-4 6-2 6-3.

For a couple of years, there has been a never-ending debate about who the better player is between Murray and Djokovic, and who the better player will be. Before the final, Murray had the opportunity to level the Grand Slam tally up with a win tonight, but now with Djokovic coming out on top, Murray will have an awful lot of catching up to do in this career rivalry.

He’ll have a lot of catching up, not only because of the result, but the increasing scars that have been left behind with each finals loss. Though in this match, the scars from the two Slam losses were evident enough. Murray has now failed to win a single set in three finals, raising huge question marks over his ability to play Slam finals.

He’ll need to do much better, if he wants to get over the final hurdle. Opinions of this match will probably be summarised by most people with two main points, that Murray was too passive, and also that his defeatist and negative attitude cost him the match. I find that people fall back on the overly simplistic statement of calling Murray’s play passive too often where it generally becomes the standard reason for any of his losses. This is forgetting or discrediting that he wins plenty of matches with the same kind of mindset, and has based his entire career around it, aside from a couple of wins over top players (but not all of the wins) where he has raised his level. In this case, it was a poor performance, not only a passive performance.

When Murray plays aggressively, it’s not like he hits a big shot off everything. That makes it difficult for him to hit through the nerves not to mention that he has to be playing quite confidently to be hitting his forehand well. It’s pretty hard to generate pace when you’re nervous and unsure of yourself, and as a result, his shots landed shorter than they usually do. The other point is that he doesn’t fire himself up, or play with the same intensity that Djokovic does, who has always come across to me as having the right big match mentality.

The whole first set was a nervy affair from both. Djokovic had opportunities to break in the second game of the match, then ended up losing it in a long back-and-forth game. Even though Djokovic was dictating the points, there was no clear advantage. Djokovic showed impatience in his shot selection, while Murray showed a lack of purpose and an overly reactive state of mind. The match started with a couple of awful dropshots from Djokovic, and he seemed to feel threatened by Murray’s defensive skills trying to finish points too quickly.

Both Djokovic and Murray can be quite good tactically, but I thought that tonight, it was all about handling the occasion. It was more about trying to play the next point as well as possible mentally, and finding the right energy for it, which is why this match didn’t remind me at all of any of their previous meetings. This is an area where Djokovic is a much better player. Though he also has more offensive options on the forehand, and uses his athleticism in a wider variety of ways.

There was a lot of jaw-dropping retrieving from Djokovic tonight, one of the main highlights of the match. Let’s not forget despite his acrobatic movement, it’s equally amazing the amount of feel he has once he gets to the ball. He basically put his body under all kinds of different positions and was still able to hit returns of serve, retrievals and defensive lobs close to the baseline. Whenever Murray built up a point in his advantage, Djokovic would somehow put the rally back in his favour often starting with a shot that he was barely able to reach.

As noted in his match against Federer, Djokovic has the ability to take his game up another notch to a whole new intensity and this is what won him the crucial first set. From then onwards, it was relatively one-sided, more than it should have been due to Murray spraying errors left and right. He had been wanting a racquet with a different tension the entire first set, then his game dropped a couple of levels as soon as he finally got to change it in the second set. Djokovic was now able to rally with Murray without feeling the pressure like he did in the first set. With all of the tension out of the match, this was Djokovic’s title now that he had built himself up a two sets to love lead.

The third set was more of a struggle, due to Djokovic’s groundstrokes becoming more inconsistent especially when trying to make things happen. I would put this down to nerves. Fortunately for Djokovic he could rely on his defensive skills for Plan B, and he was still able to win many points in that fashion. Murray battled through some tough games, they both did, but Djokovic was slightly the better player and there was a feeling he would play the big points better just like he had all match. Neither player managed to build on their leads in this set, and there were so many service breaks, but in the end, Djokovic proved yet again that he was the better player this match. He was the one in form, and the best player all tournament.

Novak Djokovic Outhits Roger Federer to Reach Consecutive Slam Finals

So far, the big guns hadn’t really been tested. Rafael Nadal bowed out last night, but tamely with injury, and without much of a fight. To be honest, I didn’t watch, but this Australian Open match between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer promised good things. I had good memories about this match-up. Their US Open semi-final was by far my favourite match of last year, so there was a lot to live up to.

It felt like I wasn’t the only one with that epic match in the back of their minds. Djokovic and Federer came out with a certain respect against each other. They brought all their weapons out, their intensity, everything to the table. It was like tennis being played at a lightning speed, though it wasn’t exactly consistent to start with. It was more about sending the right message across. Federer tried to show that he’d be aggressive on return while Djokovic brought out the big forehand and they both traded blows.

I wasn’t really sure whether it was the best idea for either of them to be playing everything at such a rapid pace, since hitting it harder isn’t necessarily better and variety can be quite useful sometimes. The difference between these two hitting it harder, and other players is that their athleticism is quite spectacular. Both were so eager to take control of the points, and also perhaps wary that anything less wouldn’t be good enough. It reminds me of the post-match interview Djokovic did at the US Open last year when he was asked about what was going through his mind down match points. He replied by saying, he just tried to hit every forehand as hard as possible. That memory had obviously stuck with him, bringing out the big forehand here right from the start.

I like to watch Djokovic’s forehand because it’s such a free-swinging shot, not as restrained from precise technique and movement as most other players. Actually, his movement and athleticism is a lot like that too, and one of the main reasons why I enjoy watching him. Watching a guy slide around and stretching out wide from side-to-side is great entertainment, if it’s used with the right amount of aggression. And I really needed to include that last point to find a way to exclude Monfils out of that list. But it’s also a big advantage in a tennis sense, a strength which allows Djokovic to play with patience, and makes him more likely to win extended rallies.

The match was relatively even until the first set tie-break, where Djokovic proved himself to be the steadier player. Federer shanked too many shots, as he did during the entire match. Did he make too many errors because he tried to hit everything at a fast pace, instead of mixing it up?

Djokovic went up an early break in the second set, then Federer employed a change of tactics. I’d say he started to play a style more suited to his abilities on the backhand side, using a slower pace and hitting more slice backhands. This drew some errors from Djokovic, who had also dropped his intensity, then Federer was back on serve.

As the match was going on, the commentators had been wondering whether Federer had been feeding Djokovic too much pace. After all, there have been a couple of matches in the past where Andy Murray took apart Djokovic by feeding as many off-pace slices to his forehand as possible. I think Federer could have explored that more, or at least stuck with a clear idea.

For a while, Federer went on a tear, going from an early break down to serving for the second set, but he couldn’t serve it out. Djokovic had put him under too much pressure, and Federer was not up to the challenge today. On important points, Djokovic can play these long, intense rallies, the kind of points that have made some of his encounters with Rafael Nadal highly entertaining over the years. I don’t know how to describe it. It’s a brilliant combination of aggressive and defensive play, and Federer’s not going to win many points in these kind of rallies. Djokovic broke back, and the match started to look much like it did at the start. I don’t really know where Federer’s brief change of tactics went. But I’m not sure whether 10 minutes of it is enough evidence to suggest that it could have worked.

By the third set, the match started to play out in a way that heavily favoured Djokovic’s strengths, though the rallies were still competitive and quite good at times. Federer continued to try to drive through the backhand, and shanked too many. By the third set, he had run out of ideas and played a more reactive style, particularly not doing much on the backhand side apart from driving it back crosscourt, opening up the down-the-line for Djokovic.

Djokovic lost his break of serve at 4-3, and I wasn’t sure what happened there. It was against the overall direction of the match, but it didn’t take long for Djokovic to bounce back, and show exactly why he was leading this match. He threw in another one of those good games filled with intense baseline play, where he does just about everything he can to win a point. It’s a combination of amazing determination, eye-catching athleticism and a rush of adrenaline. Federer lost that game with errors, but it would have been awfully hard not to make one against Djokovic in this mentality. Djokovic showed his first sign of nerves serving it out making two bad errors on the surprisingly reliable forehand (for the night) but he got it together and finished it off 7-6(3) 7-5 6-4.

Murray Ends Dolgopolov's Breakthrough Australian Open Run

Quickly browsing around the internet, it seems like everyone agrees that Alexandr Dolgopolov is unique and a breath of fresh air. Straight after Andy Murray's four set win over the Ukrainian, 7-5 6-3 6-7(3) 6-3, Murray had similar things to say. "No one plays like him".

Murray was likely to be the winner for most of the match, due to Dolgopolov making too many unforced errors, but it was also a good demonstration of Dolgopolov's range of shots, his potential, and his flaws.

Here's some information I gathered on him:

• Forehand: He can generate a lot of spin on the forehand, by brushing around the ball instead of driving through it, but it's not like a high-bouncing kind of top spin.  He can create good angles crosscourt, or hook it down-the-line where it curves back into the sideline. 
  
  
• Backhand: The forehand is the more aggressive shot, while the backhand he uses more as variety.  He has a very relaxed backswing on the double-handed backhand, and can change the pace with the same backswing.  He likes to use his slice backhand to construct points, with accurate crosscourt and down-the-line slices but sometimes tries to hit it better than he is capable of.
  
  
• Serve: He has a surprising ability to hit flat and hard serves sometimes, considering his height.  Because of his quick action, it probably feels like it arrives to his opponent even quicker.
  
  
• Mentality: He can make plenty of errors, but carry on the rest of the match without slumping the shoulders, and he'll still go for his shots.
  
  
• Consistency: He is a streaky player, can string together some great points, then lose just as quickly, or even more quickly.  There were phases in this match where he struggled to win a point.
  
  
• Fitness: It looks like he doesn't ever get tired or sluggish ever.  He does have plenty of concentration lapses though, and his shot selection could use some work.  I get the sense he gets carried away sometimes, and sometimes he tries to hit shots that are better than required.
  
  
• Movement: He has spectacular movement, as already mentioned before in a previous entry.
  

Compared to Dolgopolov's relaxed, fluctuating and varying performance throughout the match, Murray was a model of professionalism. Something that Dolgopolov will need to aspire to, to take his game to another level. He understands a little better the importance of putting your opponent under pressure.

Murray's return of serve was also a highlight, and gave him plenty of opportunity to compete well in the return games. His second serve could cause him problems from here onwards though, with a potential match-up against Rafael Nadal coming up next.

Personally for me, it's good to see a new and interesting player, but I'd prefer a player that doesn't make as many wild unforced errors. It amuses me that commentators and writers like to call wildly inconsistent players "an enigma" and "mercurial" like they're really fascinating and exciting characters. We'll see in the near future as to whether he can improve that area.

How Does Channel 7's Australian Open coverage get worse every year?

Today was my first day back at work, so I had to rely on watching my recording of the Australian Open on TV. Every year, I am amazed at how Channel 7 manage to make their coverage even worse, just when you think it couldn't get any worse.  Aside from that, it also sounds like they don't listen to any complaints, because they sure get plenty of those every year too (like here and here).

I've already got my remote control out, so being free from ads, I would have thought the experience would have at least been bearable. But it seems like every year, they are showing less and less tennis.

If I was watching it live, I would have already moved on to my slightly blurry live stream by now.

• Every time I skip through an ad break (after a changeover), they manage to miss the first point every single time.  Don't commentators always say it is important for the player to win the first point?
  
  They've been doing this for several years now for the day sessions, but now they have added some additional ads in between games (without changeovers) where they also end up missing the first point.
  
• Whenever a set is finished, they always do their best to intentionally come back to the match once the entire first game is over.  Meanwhile, audiences are hoping they didn't miss anything important by hoping that player held serve.
  
• I have just paused my video recording to come here, because yet again, they have shrunk the screen to one-third size, to show a match on the left and an interview on the right.  This time, it's Francesca Schiavone's interview.  I have to admit that her glowing review of Australian people was very nice and endearing, but perhaps that could be shown another time.
  
• Ever since their Australian Open series coverage, starting in Brisbane this year, they've had a sudden obsession with constantly showing the scores on screen.  This isn't just words coming across the screen, but they shrink the entire match, and show the score down the bottom.  It's really annoying on the eyes.  I remember, in Brisbane, they would show results of anything.  Sydney qualifying, men's doubles, results from Chennai, results from Doha.  Today they just put up scores of yesterday's results, maybe later there will be more of yesterday's results since there isn't much going on today.  Probably there will be juniors and legends results up there soon too.  Any excuse to shrink the bloody screen, and distract us from the match.
  
• Sometimes when a player serves an ace, a commentator (usually Sandy Roberts) will remark that an "ANZ ace" was just served. What will happen next? Will forehands and backhands be sponsored next year?
  
• When Soderling took an injury time-out for a blister on his foot, immediately an advertisement on the screen for Panadol (painkillers) came up. How cheesy is that?
  
  Though I have to admit that Home and Away ad, with the three shirtless guys coming out of the tennis court is also really horrible (but I can also see how it might appeal to some people).
  
• Then finally, of course there are the matches being delayed in states that aren't on the same time zone as Melbourne.  That's the same every year though. Last year they finally started to take advantage of digital television with different shows on different channels, so it really should be live at least on there. There's no excuse not to.

Dolgopolov Outlasts Tsonga in a Topsy Turvy Match

This was a match that looked to be in the grasp of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s hands up a set and a break against Alexandr Dolgopolov. Every time it looked like he had done enough to pull away from the match, a rash of unforced errors would creep in. By the time the fifth set came around, his fitness levels weren’t good enough to turn it around, and he ended up losing quite convincingly 3-6 6-3 3-6 6-1 6-1.

This was the match-up of two of the most energetic players on tour, though energetic in two different ways. Tsonga moves well going forward, and that’s how he gets his power by throwing his whole body into the ball. Dolgopolov on the other hand, moves well side-to-side. The first time I saw him play, I thought he was so confident with how well he was moving to the ball, with his feet constantly moving all the time. I think he would make quite a good dancer, though maybe not in the ballroom area. Now I’m convinced his feet are always moving regardless of whether he is playing well or not.

The only other player I’ve seen that does the same thing with his feet is Rafael Nadal, but he does it with a different intensity. Dolgopolov doesn’t have the same attention-to-detail. He’s quick, and sometimes he forgets to slow down when he arrives to the ball, so he can still make plenty of errors, even though tennis is a game that highly depends on movement. He’s quick in between points, and has a quick service action also.

Dolgopolov still has a lot to learn, but sometimes raw skill and athleticism is more fun to watch. He strikes me as a player that hasn’t had much training in the mental department. He could probably cut back on the errors if he would just slow down sometimes, like when he has a short ball and can put it away without having to cover large amounts of court.

It was one-sided to begin with. Dolgopolov was nervous and making plenty of simple errors, while Tsonga was explosive and powerful. I wanted to watch the match from Dolgopolov’s perspective, but it was quite hard to, because the fluctuating scores in this match were pretty much all to do with Tsonga, whether he played brilliantly or shockingly. I really thought Dolgopolov would have approached this match more aggressively just because that’s how he plays, and also because it’s useful to bring some weapons to the table, when your opponent has plenty to hurt you with. In any case, it was a good enough tactic for today.

Tsonga was in great form to start with, executing his very aggressive brand of tennis. The two and three shot combos were reliably winning him many points and it looked like he had the winning formula going. Big serve, flat forehand and then a volley to finish it off. Dolgopolov could barely pull off a passing shot, and his movement seemed like a useless weapon against Tsonga’s power and efficiency.

But it turned out to be a rollercoaster of a match for Tsonga with plenty of highs and lows, with too many of the lows coming straight after he had built himself a crucial lead in a set. Many of the games where he lost serve, he practically threw them away with three or so errors. After Tsonga broke serve at 3-2 in the second set, every game he played in that set onwards was filled with errors.

Just as soon as he appeared to be in trouble down a break in the third set, and his tennis going down the drain, he picked it up again and his all-court play was in full flow again. Tsonga was in a good mood again, smiling and joking with someone on the back of the court, a ballkid or linesman, I don’t know. Life was good again. But it didn’t last long. Another rash of unforced errors creeped into his game, losing serve to love with three bad errors, followed a great backhand crosscourt passing shot from Dolgopolov several metres behind the baseline. This was one of his few passing shots in the first three sets of the match, though this would later improve for him.

Fortunately for Tsonga, Dolgopolov can be loose and careless too, handing back the lead to Tsonga with some bad errors of his own. This time, Tsonga served it out comfortably.

The fourth set marked a more aggressive approach from Dolgopolov, finally making more use of his shotmaking ability. Like what happens with many other players, it was probably a sign of relaxation knowing that he was no longer in a position to win the match. First he had to level the match before he could even think about winning. He held serve in the opening game with his best game of the match hitting numerous winners, and generating racquet speed that I hadn’t seen from him the entire match. This earned him a break the following game. But soon afterwards, it became clear that Tsonga’s game had disappeared again.

Actually, not only had his game disappeared, but so had his concentration. After he went down a double break, his mind started to focus on other things and he was stretching often in changeovers, not only struggling with some physical problems but also thinking a lot about them too. It became a one-sided affair after that, and by the end of the match, Tsonga didn’t really have the capabilities to make a comeback. His legs were gone, and he tried to thump them with his hands but it didn’t work. Dolgopolov was relaxed by now, with Tsonga no longer being able to put pressure on him, and closed it out easily.

Australian Open 2011 - Day 4 Blog

Today was a mixed bag of matches. With it being my last day in Melbourne, the intention was to watch as many matches as possible, and to stay as late as possible, but I didn’t end up being able to do that.

Of the early morning matches, I picked Michael Llodra’s match against Milos Raonic. Both are aggressive players in their own way, with Raonic being aggressive from the baseline and Llodra sneaking up into the net. This was a very efficient kind of tennis, a practical way of playing, to make it easier on the body. Short rallies, and consequently lots of breaks in between points. Less playing time, more walking time. Though I shouldn’t underestimate how tiring it is to serve-and-volley. Probably even more so, than baseline play.

In any case, the rallies were short here, and there were not many probing rallies. They liked to keep the ball away from the middle of the court, though Llodra would move around the ball with his slice and with less pace, whereas Raonic was much more explosive. I don’t know what to think of Raonic’s game. I can’t tell what level he is at either. He hits the ball hard, and if it works, it’s good. His winners count was significantly greater than Llodra’s, and I guess that’s what won him the match in the end. His movement is not that great, which is not that unusual since he’s a big guy.

I have seen Llodra play various matches, and I have to say I never find him all that successful with the serve-and-volley. Is it because he does it all the time and his percentages are lower, that it looks worse than someone who does it sometimes? I know his volleys are great, the record speaks for itself, but it doesn’t feel athletic to me. It’s more like he has good technique, good reach and consistently soft hands. Maybe his tennis works for others, but for me, I find it overly reliant on the serve. To win matches, he pretty much needs to serve well, to be able to hit easy volleys the majority of the time. I also found this match overly reliant on serve, so after one set, I headed off elsewhere.

The weather today was much more like summer weather, with it being hot instead of cold. I had a look at Mikhail Youzhny’s match against Blaz Kavcic which ended up being easily the highlight of the day. I wrote about not many probing rallies in the previous match, but there were plenty of them here. These were good rallies, not long rallies for the sake of being able to do more running, because running is fun. And it also wasn’t about making the opponent crumble.

The match started off with both players still trying to figure each other out. Moving the ball around the court, but not going for it fully, and also trying to keep up with each other. This made for riveting viewing, not knowing who would get the better of each other. Youzhny has a very smooth game, and it seems like he needs to rely on shot selection quite a lot because it’s not as easy for him to finish points. Compared to other top players, he needs to work harder, I think. The other reason would be because he doesn’t get that many cheap points on serve.

Youzhny did seem like the slightly more competent player though. In particular off the backhand side, where he could open up the court well, with a crosscourt, then followed by a down-the-line whether sliced or driven through. Kavcic seemed a bit like a workhorse in comparison, playing disciplined tennis. At the professional level, there are many players that play the game based on their own particular talents or strengths, but Kavcic plays tennis the way it should be played, not taking into account strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps I should call it textbook tennis. Anyway, textbook tennis is smart tennis, just lacking in flash.

He didn’t really do enough to dent Youzhny’s game to start with though. The first half of the set was close with many competitive rallies, but then Youzhny pulled away after he got out of the “figuring his opponent out” mode and started to play with a clearer frame of mind and implementing an all-court game. I noted down that after the second set, Youzhny was leading in the winners department 24 to 8.

In the second set, Kavcic started to pile on the unforced errors, just when I thought he was quite consistent in the first set. His body language completely changed, as he started to become dejected with his own play talking to himself and slumping the shoulders. At this stage, Youzhny had the match completely under control, and I thought this match was a good demonstration of how body language and attitude can impact on a player’s game. Had Youzhny not handed Kavcic an early break in the third set, Kavcic could have ended up being completely dejected in the third. That break of serve on Youzhny’s serve was all his own doing, filled with very sloppy errors and it continued for about three games or so. Youzhny was threatened to go down two breaks, until he finally picked up his play again on the break points and from then onwards.

The third set was the start of a more all-court approach from Kavcic, hitting more shots with purpose. The same guy that looked completely lost in the previous set, had just raised his game to a new level, and was now very energetic and pumped up. There were two guys sitting a couple of rows in front of me who had been shouting support for Kavcic the whole match. The first time they did it, Kavcic had a look at where it was coming from, but by now, he had started directing all of his clenched fists over there. And it just happened to be in the exact same direction to where I was sitting, so suddenly my involvement in the match had been taken up another level. Whenever Kavcic hit a poor shot and was disappointed, he’d look in my direction for encouragement too.

But in the third, fourth and fifth sets, Kavcic was extremely pumped. His body language and intensity was so much greater than Youzhny’s and I felt he had some kind of presence because of it. When watching matches on court in a live atmosphere, I would think that one person coming across very energetically would be an intimidating factor. Especially if the other guy is subdued. It was weird to think that Kavcic would win this match, just by looking at his body language. I had to keep reminding myself that the tennis was relatively even.

They were good sets of tennis, marked by a good fighting spirit by both players. Both players seemed quite determined almost each and every point. Kavcic had an early break in the fourth set and wasn’t troubled on serve until Youzhny had break points late in the set. It was at this stage when Youzhny couldn’t convert that he unleashed a sudden burst of anger, yelling intensely to Boris Sobkin. Since he was speaking in Russian, it could have easily looked like he was angrily yelling at the crowd. But my guess says he wasn’t. That seemed to help endear him to the crowd though, as they started cheering more loudly for Youzhny, sensing that he needed their support.

Now that Youzhny had let that out, it felt like a really intense match from then onwards. Both of these guys really wanted to win it. And it also seemed like Youzhny had finally matched Kavcic in intensity, though he was still more reserved on a regular basis. But when it came to the rallies, you got the sense that these points were treated importantly. Every cheap error was frustrating for them, so I didn’t want to judge them on it. There weren’t that many errors though. It was a good match.

In the fifth set, Youzhny broke serve with some good shotmaking, stepping into the ball a bit more than usual. From then on, Kavcic’s game had fallen to pieces, and he showed signs of frustration, with his legs not working as well anymore. This guy sure doesn’t keep his emotions and thoughts to himself. It’s a special experience to watch from this close, and the more the match went on, the more I started to root for him. Though I didn’t mind it when Youzhny came back to win it either, because he played nice tennis too.

I should also add that Youzhny pulled off an under-the-legs winner, one of the very few times that I’ve seen this shot go in. The percentage is usually extremely low. That was a good crowd pleaser.

Because of that long match, many of the matches I thought about seeing were either nearly over or over anyway. I took a break mentally, then I found out that David Nalbandian’s match against Richard Berankis was moved to court 2, so everyone tried to run up there quickly. I scored myself a good seat without the running anyway, as that stadium is considerably bigger than court 6.

I dreaded to write about this match, because there really is very little to write about. When the match started, I was surprised with how aggressively Berankis was playing, certainly not the same Berankis I saw in Brisbane, swinging away with all those forehand winners.

At first I hoped it was just a slow start from Nalbandian, but then I started to think that he was completely drained from the Hewitt match. It’s not a good sign for him to recover so badly. One would expect some tiredness, but not a complete inability to play. In any case, it didn’t take long for me to accept the fate of this match, and I think as the match went on, Berankis didn’t feel the need to go for his shots as much either. Pretty much nothing worked for Nalbandian, so there’s no point with picking out strengths and weaknesses here. It sure was disappointing given the long wait, though I didn't mind waiting when I was watching Youzhny's match.

I really didn’t want to end the day on that match, but unfortunately I had to, because Andy Murray’s match was full and filled with long queues, before it had started. If only I had a media pass this year. I remember getting into a fully occupied Andy Murray match on Margaret Court Arena with it last year. I thought at the completion of the women’s match, that some people would get out, but no one did. I didn’t think anyone would want to leave so early into the match, so I gave up and took an early night. The stadium being full probably had just as much to do with the fact that there were no other matches going on in the outside courts, so anyone in the grounds without a Rod Laver Arena ticket would have had to watch that.

By the way, I have now put up all my photos from the four days of play.

Australian Open 2011 - Day 3 Blog

Due to last night's late finish and having to blog afterwards, today felt like a strange continuation of yesterday. I ended up watching fewer matches because I started to doze off after a while.

I really needed to be punctual for the 11am start, because Florian Mayer was scheduled against Kei Nishikori. When I arrived, Mayer and Nishikori had just walked onto Court 6, and I noticed there were plenty of empty seats so I tried to find myself the perfect seat. This ended up being a far more difficult task than I originally thought.

I already ranted about there being far too many shade covers on this court in the Simon vs Lu match, more so than on Court 7. But it turns out on the other side, if you sit too close to the middle opposite to the umpire chair side, you’ll be looking through blue sheets on one third of the court. Probably around 70% of the seats on that court have a restricted view. As Mayer and Nishikori were warming up, I switched seats about three times until I finally found a seat I liked. Thank goodness there was at least one good spot.

Unfortunately after all of that internal drama to start with, the spectacle was sorely lacking from Mayer. It was a very subdued performance from him, with everything slower paced than usual, and far too many errors creeping into his game. It was such a letdown from his fantastic win over Davydenko, and I think perhaps he was also a little tired, as he would sometimes bang his legs to try to get them moving more quickly.

To start with, it was mostly a defensive performance from Mayer, not going for his shots, but also not able to prolong rallies due to all those simple errors. Perhaps also, Nishikori didn’t give him that much pace to work with. It was a very controlled and disciplined performance, different to what I saw from him in the past where he’d try to be more flashy with the forehand. I saw Brad Gilbert in the stands a couple of rows ahead of me, and it seems like he is improving his tactical game as a result of that coaching change. I thought he played some very smart and patient tennis in this match. Could you believe it took him until the fourth set until he hit his first jumping forehand?

He played a different game today. Not focused on hitting outright winners, but on moving the ball around the court, using the full width of it. I’m typically a fan of this kind of play, going around your opponents instead of through them. Looking at Nishikori’s groundstrokes, they look so technically sound, much more so than the majority of players I have seen before. Playing like this, I could not notice any weaknesses in his game, aside from perhaps the serve which could get attacked. That was probably the main thing keeping Mayer’s chances alive in the match, his return of Nishikori’s serve.

I thought Nishikori was playing at around a top 20 standard today, but then again, I later saw Stanislas Wawrinka today, and maybe that was a level above. In any case, if he keeps playing like this, he will quickly rise up the rankings this year.

Today was the first time I had seen Mayer show such poor touch in a match. He missed practically every drop volley in the first two sets, or so it felt like. He definitely missed plenty of easy ones for his standards. Obviously the creative side of Mayer was missing in action today, but he did try to play better. It was just that every time he would string together a couple of good points, he’d ruin it with another error. On the defensive, he’d generally hit those low slices and slow shots, so those shouldn’t have ended up being errors because he didn’t even go for them. So I guess it was mostly to do with poor movement and energy.

Mayer’s level did improve each set though until the fourth set, but generally in a subtle manner. The second set had more of a mixture of good and bad play, instead of being just outright bad. The third set, he had better touch and a more aggressive strategy, but then in the fourth he was too inconsistent again. The third set was nowhere near as one-sided as the 6-0 scoreline suggests. All of the first three games were long and difficult games, but once Nishikori went down a double-break, he conceded the whole set.

From the fourth set onwards, Nishikori started to play more aggressively but I’m not sure whether that was due to increased confidence or a drop in fitness levels. He started to hit those bigger forehands that I’m more accustomed to seeing from him, and as mentioned earlier, more jumping forehands.

On the completion of that match, I made my way into Hisense Arena where I had tickets for throughout the week (so far) but preferred to stay on the outside courts. I think I was encouraged by the pleasantly decent view on my back row seats last night, that I thought the tickets I bought here would be fine.

I went into the stadium, as Janko Tipsarevic was serving for the second set against Fernando Verdasco. I took a quick look up the stadium, to notice a few people reading books, and another with a newspaper in their hands. The memories all came back to me now. How it’s just a completely different mindset in that stadium. It’s filled with plenty of people that are not actually fully concentrated on the tennis. They’re here just to relax.

My seat was slightly frustrating with the handrailing blocking my view. Just one more row up, and I would have been fine. Aside from that, everything seemed so far away in here, and it took me a while to find my concentration. Tipsarevic had just taken a two sets to love advantage, and generally third sets tend to be lacking in tension for the most part in this scenario. I don’t know about other people, but I generally don’t care for watching third sets, whenever the player favoured to win leads two sets to love. But in this case, Tipsarevic was the underdog.

Verdasco hadn’t begun the season in good form though. He lost in the first round of Brisbane to Benjamin Becker. One quick look up into the screen in the stadium shows that so far in this match, he had hit a ridiculously large amount of unforced errors. It would have been something like double the amount of Tipsarevic. I had already started to draw my conclusions before even watching it.

I saw the error count and had all the potential explanations for this match in place. But halfway into the set, I started to realize that Verdasco must have cleaned up his game a whole lot here, because he was moving the ball around nicely. In the first couple of games in the third set, I noticed some bad shanks and errors where it didn’t look like Verdasco had any feel on the ball.

Verdasco is definitely a player worth watching live, mainly to see the forehand, because live, you get even more of a sense that the shot looks very different to most other players. The spin that he puts on the ball is great to watch. It looks very skilful.

This was a relatively fast-paced match for the third and fourth sets (of course, I didn’t see the first two, so I don’t know). Aggressive tennis mixed with good athleticism from both players. I think Tipsarevic was better at absorbing the pace, and hitting higher quality shots on the defense though. Particularly off the backhand. I really like Tipsarevic’s jumping backhand. Okay, he hits it just as well, when he’s not jumping, but it looks good.

In the third set, Verdasco broke serve with some great forehands and aggressive play, aided I think by some first serves being missed by Tipsarevic. The way Tipsarevic failed to serve out the match the first time played out exactly the same way, as the end of the third set. Verdasco was allowed the opportunity to start off each point on the attack, and he took advantage of it.

The fourth set, though was where the match reached its epic climax. Tipsarevic had chances to go up a double break, then he served for the match, broke back, served for it again and had two match points. He was in firm control of the match, but he couldn’t seem to finish it off.

On his second attempt serving for the match, he showed a huge improvement to his first attempt. He played it much better, and on the first match point, he had full control over a rally, but was a little too safe with the putaway volleys, and Verdasco took advantage of it with a spectacular forehand winner. I thought it would have been good enough. But since it wasn’t, he really shouldn’t have been as passive as he was with those volleys. Tipsarevic played a great point too on the second match point. It was a long rally where he had started to up the tempo, and he had just hit a scorching backhand down-the-line. It was called out, and it must have been very close, but Tipsarevic had run out of challenges, making desperate and silly challenges earlier on. Who knows what the result would have been, if he had enough challenges left. Did they show the Hawkeye result of that on TV?

In the end, Tipsarevic didn’t manage to hold, so they went to a tie-break. Unfortunately, from then onwards, Tipsarevic was emotionally scarred from all the opportunities he had in the game before. While the tie-break was going on, he was on some other planet reminiscing about the past. The fifth set would continue in the same manner, with Tipsarevic not really giving his full effort, and looking forward to getting off the court instead.

I was looking forward to getting out of the stadium as well. During the Tipsarevic meltdown, the guy sitting two seats away from me, started rambling on about Tipsarevic. How he had played to lose the first break, how he was playing in the tie-break, how he wasn’t going to win a single game. For just about the entire fourth set tie-break and fifth set. There wasn’t really that much to say about it, so there was obviously a lot of repetition there.

After taking a break and nodding off to sleep in Marion Bartoli’s match (this really had nothing to do with her play), I tried to recover for Stanislas Wawrinka’s match against Grigor Dmitrov.

There has been a lot of hype about Dmitrov, and I had never seen him play before, nor even bothered to read much about how he plays. It seems like he is still very much a work in progress. At the moment, he only has the raw shotmaking ability, and a good serve, but he hasn’t quite figured out what to do with it yet. The way he plays, it all looks a bit random to me, apart from the fact, that his game does seem centred around the forehand, and the serve does help set it up.

His forehand looks impressive when he executes it correctly, but it mostly only looks good from an offensive point of view, not defensive. Whether he is trying to hit it as a winner, or whether he is retrieving it back deep into the centre of the court, he is still hitting it just as hard. It doesn’t look like good percentage tennis to me.

This was a match between two shotmakers, but one was much better in toughing out rallies, and that was Wawrinka. Both had similar amounts of winners, but Wawrinka had far fewer unforced errors. Both won plenty of cheap points on their serve, or followed it up with a winner after their serve, so that made the spectacle a bit dull at times.