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.