The best of the French Open: The top 3 matches of the week

The not-so-definitive list of the best matches of the first week...

[1] 3rd round: Robin Soderling def. David Ferrer 6-7(5) 7-5 6-2 7-6(5)

Robin Soderling has never been much of a factor in the Grand Slams, and prior to this match had never advanced past the 3rd round in any Slam, which is rather awful for a player of his standard, one I consider to be consistently top 30 calibre and for someone that possesses such big weapons. It was over three and a half hours of absorbing tennis, and a match which featured around 60 winners from Soderling. And that's 60 winners against Ferrer on clay.

It reminded me of the brief experience I had watching Soderling at the Brisbane International, leaning over a fence, so close to the action that I could pretty much feel and hear the shots coming off Soderling's racquet. Clean, big hitting with Soderling pounding the ball into submission on a frighteningly regular basis, though his consistency was not as prevalent as it was in this match. Against Ferrer, I was reminded of the same kind of thing. It was an ongoing onslaught of weaponry, with Ferrer tried to fend off as much as he could.

It didn't initially seem like it was going to be one of those days for Soderling. It was a slightly patchy match at first, a combination of impressive shotmaking and errors, from both players, and not only from the more volatile Soderling. For Ferrer, they were uncharacteristic errors, but for Soderling, he was pretty much living up to expectation. The rallies were surely too lengthy for Soderling to keep up that kind of flat ball-striking, and so it was slightly up and down, but good enough for it to be entertaining. This made for a wonderfully dramatic and unpredictable match, and there were numerous service breaks which added to the feeling that anything could happen.

But that was where the slight inconsistencies started to disintegrate, making for a high quality affair from the second set onwards. Consistently entertaining rallies, hard-fought games and high emotions as you would expect, when it comes to Soderling and Ferrer. You could literally see Soderling gradually gaining in confidence as the match went on to the point of being able to replicate it on the big points, a skill that usually eludes him. But today, there was full commitment on his shots particularly on the sometimes troublesome forehand, seemingly able to reel off large amounts of forehand winners at will.

From the third set onwards, Soderling had hit a purple match. On any normal day, Ferrer would have surely done enough to throw off Soderling's rhythm. So what we had then were these drawn out rallies that started to defy belief more and more as it went on. That Soderling could continually hammer the ball in the corners, with little hesitation and few mistakes and that Ferrer could keep chasing them down. One thing I like watching is how explosively Ferrer moves out to return serve, that he so often seems to be able to retrieve serves that land on the lines, and then recovering easily afterwards.

It wasn't like Ferrer played a defensive match, he went for his shots, maintaining good accuracy on his shots and moving the ball side-to-side. But what he needed to do was to explore the angles more, and have Soderling lunging out to reach for shots more often, because it seemed like the majority of shots somehow landed into Soderling's strike zone. He also needed to make more use of the dropshot, which was strangely lacking in Ferrer's repertoire that day.

[2] 2nd round: Roger Federer def. Jose Acasuso 7-6(8) 5-7 7-6(2) 6-2

There's something that I find incredibly exciting and entertaining about unexpectedly good performances. Acasuso, who is sometimes a good claycourter, and sometimes just completely out-of-form, had won just one claycourt match during the European season leading up to Roland Garros and struggled in the opening two sets of his first round match before turning it around. But in this match against Federer, Acasuso was on the verge of gaining a stranglehold on the match at 5-1 in the third set, and it looked fairly certain to be heading into a fifth set.

I was reminded yet again of how Acasuso is such a smooth, yet explosive shotmaker. Long, flowing groundstrokes and armed with a very dangerous forehand that consistently put Federer on the back foot. It was a simple game plan, a somewhat predictable one at that, but executed almost perfectly to keep Federer off-balance. In many instances, I've seen players simply trying to pound Federer's backhand relentlessly with little change-up, but with few results. Federer simply isn't that vulnerable to making errors if he can anticipate it every single time. But Acasuso was seemingly able to hit that off forehand time and time again practically in the same spot, close to the sideline and reaped the rewards. It wasn't like taking the high percentage way out though, and Acasuso would change it up to hit down-the-lines whenever he had found an opening, coming into the net as well when he sensed the opportunity.

What I liked the most was that he never backed off, and continued his aggressive game plan, even if he wasn't mentally strong enough to pull off his best shots when he needed them. Until the third set, from 5-1 that is, when unfortunately, instead of asking Federer some serious questions, Acasuso went back into his shell and started dropping balls short, with less pace. Still, it was a tension-filled match for three sets with the potential upset factor involved, and a high quality affair that featured plenty of variety and all-court tennis. Though if I was to measure a match in its parts, I think the fourth set of the Federer vs Mathieu match is worth a mention as well, which features both players playing at the top of their games.

[3] 1st round: Radek Stepanek def. Gaston Gaudio 6-3 6-4 6-1

It didn't have the drama, but it had the show. It wasn't Gaudio's best performance, and in the end it was all about Stepanek. It was like Stepanek pulling the strings in a puppet show yanking Gaudio wherever he wanted to side-to-side, front-to-back, and vice-versa. I don't think it's possible to see anyone use the entire court better, than Stepanek did in this match. Aside from Stepanek's variety which he is well-known for, it's also impressive how well Stepanek changes directions on both sides and that's how he's able to take his opponents out of their rhythm as often as he does.

I've seen the dropshot used in so many instances throughout the tournament, but no one follows up their dropshots better than Stepanek does, often frustrating the hell out of his opponents by making them cover large amounts of court, while feeling they have no control over what happens in the point, running for no reward. It wasn't an impressive performance from Gaudio, nothing more than solid, and we know he's capable of much better shotmaking. But his court coverage is impressive, and that adds to the entertainment factor of the match. It's a truly unique match, at least in the first two sets.

It's a familiar sight: Federer shows signs of weakness, Djokovic faces Nadal again in a final

A few weeks back before the start of Monte Carlo, both Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic were known to be having some sort of mini-slump. It's a mini-slump because consistently making quarter-finals and semi-finals of bigger events suggests that things could be worse than they currently are. But what could be associated with the tennis from Federer and Djokovic was that it was a bit rough around the edges, their games not looking as neat and tidy as it used to look, and more patchy in general.

But since then, things have changed for the better for Djokovic, as he finds himself in another consecutive Masters final this week in Rome, the most promising sign being his performance against Nadal in the Monte Carlo final. Federer, in comparison is still searching for his game, but more so his confidence and as to what kind of balance he should try to achieve when executing his game.

What I wanted to see was Djokovic asserting his authority over Federer, showing the same sort of intensity and energy that he showed in that final against Nadal. But it didn't happen, except in brief spurts, although seemingly in exactly all the right moments. It didn't feel like a battle of the heavyweights in terms of shotmaking, but rather a mental battle, both players not wanting to give an inch to each other. Especially Federer who clearly didn't want to repeat the Miami performance, where he literally self-destructed with a multitude of unforced errors.

Instead it became more about trying to take control of points in more subtle ways, relying more on shot selection, placement and defensive abilities. It was like they were both probing each other looking for weaknesses, and trying to set up points by moving their opponents out of position. I had the feeling that it was more like they were gearing up, making sure they had found their full range before bringing the weaponry. The match was building up to its climax, and the signs were looking good for a competitive affair.

Federer's forehand seemed particularly dangerous, despite tempering it somewhat, it still put him in control of most points, though helped out by Djokovic's struggling first serve percentage at times. Djokovic was patchier, especially on his returns and backhand, but whenever he was down a break point, he stepped it up on most occasions. His off-forehand to Federer's backhand was working well, and he hit some great crosscourt backhands on the stretch at times, but also had his fair share of errors on that side usually just missing long.

In the end, Djokovic's more inconsistent play cost him the first set, but the manner in which it happened, a crowd member calling out during Djokovic's ball toss put an unfortunate spin on the match. After saving a multitude of break points, Djokovic had finally conceded the set.

The crowd incident ended up being an influential one in the context of the match, one of two key events in this match, more so because of how negatively Djokovic responded to it. Suddenly it looked like he was irritable, and soon after, he even showed his frustration towards the sky for distracting him with the sound of thunder. The forehand in particular, isn't a particularly efficient shot, and can get a bit messy when he's not fully focused, although of course it can break down for other reasons as well. Seeing Djokovic play like this, lacking in concentration, belief and energy, compared to some of the latter stages of the match confirmed to me that he is so much better when he's playing with insane amounts of determination, and more entertaining as well.

Whenever Djokovic sensed a chance to take advantage of Federer's shortcomings, and build a lead, it was like the chances of him making him an incredible retrieval would increase dramatically. Case in point, on break point at 3-3, Djokovic returns a deep off-forehand from Federer that looks almost like a winner with an even better shot, a blocked backhand down-the-line right on the line but it doesn't win him the point. Then in that very same point, a shot skids right off the line and he desperately tries to get out of the way of the ball in time, to be able to hit a safe, deep backhand into the court.

That's why I think Djokovic has had some kind of success against Nadal, not only because of his attacking abilities, but his ability to put together these monumental points. The kind of points that have pretty much everything in it, the ones that you think are just great rallies in general, not just extraordinary winners from one player.

The turning point of the match was the rain delay, a chance for Djokovic to mentally regroup which he needed badly. With Federer these days, one break is hardly a done deal especially whenever he's up against Murray, Nadal or Djokovic. He had played almost entirely a clean match up to midway in the second set, but then the same kind of error-strewn games that we've seen from him in the past few months on occasions reared its ugly head again.

In that Miami final, I've heard that maybe Federer could have managed his game better, by being more cautious in his shot selections and opting for the off-forehand on more occasions instead of the higher risk down-the-line shot. But this time, Federer took the cautious approach, so what advice is there left for him?

Will Ferrero capture the title in Casablanca?

This week, we have a couple of lower-tier events in Casablanca and Houston, kind of like a breather of a week before the Masters Series events begin, starting in Monte Carlo on Sunday.

Most notably on the players' list in Casablanca, is former world number 1 and French Open champion, Juan Carlos Ferrero making his comeback from injury in Buenos Aires. Before that he had an injury-riddled year or so as well, being relatively light on match practice and subsequently his ranking has dropped outside of the top 100. He hasn't won a title since 2003 and his form looks good to break that drought so far, although I'd give Igor Andreev a good chance of winning the title as well.

It was quarter-finals day yesterday, where Ferrero faced Victor Hanescu in the third match of the day. It was a nice contrast of styles, a contrast of spins to admire and different methods of controlling baseline rallies. Hanescu with his more upright, cleanly struck groundstrokes as opposed to the more topspin oriented game of Ferrero's.

I like the way Ferrero whips across his forehand in a vicious manner, how he rotates his whole body across to generate excellent racquet head speed. On a claycourt, he can get that extra bit of reward off his forehand which moves further out of court after its bounce, making that combination of an off-forehand followed by a down-the-line forehand incredibly lethal.

It was a gradually improving performance from Ferrero, one that initially seemed controlled yet effective. It was a display of good claycourt tennis, with Ferrero effectively spreading the court and making Hanescu move all over the court, but doing so without taking any unnecessary risks.

The initial stages of the match were more a result of Hanescu appearing a bit sluggish, not yet finding the range of his groundstrokes. The way Hanescu moves to the ball, it's like he makes horizontal strides to the ball rather than the light, quick steps from Ferrero whose feet never seem to stop moving. Hanescu shanked a few shots off the forehand in the first game, and couldn't seem to get into the rhythm to exchange long rallies. Being a flatter hitter of the ball, Hanescu relies more on needing to find the timing to be able to hit accurate, sweetly struck groundstrokes otherwise they just don't have the penetration (or accuracy) needed to hurt Ferrero.

I was surprised at how quickly it took for Ferrero to find his confidence, and three games into the match he started striking his forehand with full confidence, stepping up the pace and unleashing more winners on that side. It was an impressive display of variety of spin, placement and pace.

I had my headphones on with the volume turned up moderately loud and I got the full experience of hearing all of the sound effects coming from Ferrero, all of the energy that he puts in to get the best out of his game. And from what I heard, it does sound like he plays a fast-paced, energetic game in terms of his movements, one that not only requires energy, but good confidence as well. That's only in reference to Ferrero playing at the top of his game though, because he can still play a good, consistent and smart match without that.

But on another note, the other impression I got listening to the match was that I thought Ferrero looked like he was really enjoying himself, maybe more so than usual given his injury layoff. Whenever a shot didn't hit its targets, he reacted off it like he was riding the emotion of whatever was happening in the match, a sign that he was fully focused. I loved the replay they showed of him moving to one of the dropshots, of him sliding forward and cutting underneath the ball just before it hits the ground. There were some sublime drop volleys as well, how difficult it must be to maintain control on those drop volleys on the full stretch with your feet inevitably sliding further apart on the stretch.

Hanescu picked up his game midway in the first set onwards, which made for some entertaining exchanges but Ferrero always seemed like the better player the whole way through. The one more capable of turning rallies around, coming up with something special towards the end.

Reporting on standard, meaningless early round matches of Nadal and Murray

It's the first day of televised coverage in Miami, not exactly the most interesting day to be covering, but I have limited options to report given I’m usually sleep-deprived on weekdays.

To be honest, I'm not usually interested in analysing early round matches of top seeds, to the point of reading into the performances knowing that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean a whole lot - but sometimes it's not about that. It's about the spectacle and dissecting certain parts of matches.

The best match of the day was the night match between Rafael Nadal and Teimuraz Gabashvili, which was like a fascinating thrill ride on Gabashvili's end, like I was right there feeding off every emotion that he was feeling throughout the match. It was the first official meeting between the two players, and right from the outset it looked like Gabashvili had read up on the "how to play against Nadal" manual executing that game plan that we see the more successful players against Nadal implement. Taking away the whole element of tactics as a contributing factor and making it all about execution.

But that wasn't the fun part, it was seeing Gabashvili relish the occasion as if he was having the time of his life. He got broken straight away on serve overplaying on shots going for too much, too soon. Then two games later, he hits this extreme backhand crosscourt angle winner, pumps his fist, what turned out being the start of a hot streak of Gabashvili hitting big winners from everywhere and running like a madman. One of those matches where I questioned myself how long it would last – five minutes, ten minutes?

So ten minutes it ended up being, of super-charged energetic shotmaking as if he was on a major emotional high. I think it’s the first time I got reminded of what it feels like to have one of those great days, admittedly those times when I get overexcited trying to do too much – but it's incredibly fun playing like that anyway.

Unfortunately but predictably the streak didn’t last too long. Gabashvili from 2-0 went up on a tear winning ten points in a row, but from 30-0 up on his own serve inexplicably made four cheap errors to go down a break yet again. There were spurts of brilliance after that, but it was clear much of the belief was gone, not that Gabashvili was capable of stringing together tennis like that for longer periods anyway.

I didn’t agree with the commentators' assessment that Gabashvili should be ranked higher based on a performance like that. Ultimately he still wasn't able to string together enough to read much into the match and it didn't really feel like he was playing a normal match, more like a free-swinging match.

Nadal himself was business-like on his end playing well in a far more continuous manner. It has to be incredibly hard to dominate rallies, or even take control of them when you see what Nadal does with his shots on the run consistently hitting forceful shots to either side. Despite Gabashvili trying to be the aggressor in the match, it was not a match played on his terms, more like a desperate attempt to break out of the pattern of Nadal pinning him on the defensive.

Earlier in the day, Andy Murray overcame a slow start to defeat Juan Monaco. Despite Murray lacking purpose in his shot selection, I found it somewhat fascinating seeing Murray trade groundstrokes of 40 shots or so with Monaco as if his consistency is so good, he can do it in his sleep. It also looks like he can move pretty well in his sleep too. But Monaco is a patient player himself too, and in rallies like that, he waited for his opportunity to strike and took advantage of Murray's passiveness.

I remember watching Monaco in 2007, his breakthrough year and watching this match, I was wondering, has Monaco lost some pace on his groundstrokes, whether it was just a tactic or whether he simply didn't have much pace to feed off? Because it didn't look like he had much finishing power off both sides unless if he had a short ball to deal with. He has good placement on both sides, particularly on the forehand side but it’s making things far more difficult than it could be needing to construct points like that each time to win points meaning that he needs to be near the top of his game to be doing well in matches.

Murray began to turn around the match in the second set after fighting off three break points in his opening service game with much better width on his shots, spreading the court making Monaco move much more than he did earlier in the match. From then on, it seemed like Murray was simply playing a better version of tennis than Monaco did, and was thoroughly in control.

In other news, David Ferrer needed three sets to defeat John Isner, a match which featured a nice contrast of styles. The match appeared to be heading in a one-sided direction in Ferrer's favour for the first set and a half, with the amount of points Isner won on Ferrer's serve somewhere near single digit figures.

Ferrer was getting a good read on the Isner serve, showing good hand-eye co-ordination in being able to seemingly connect with each return right in the sweet spot despite the ball bouncing incredibly high due to the high trajectory it was coming from. Robbie Koenig makes a good point that Isner doesn't really get the best out of his serve, mainly relying on the height he can create off the bounce off the back of his own serve coming from a great height himself.

It's hard to make out anything from Isner’s ground game himself which seems a bit inconsistent in general, capable of going through ups and downs. Though one thing is certain, that he should just not attempt to engage in long rallies because he is rarely going to win any of them. As soon as he reverted to a more aggressive game, looking to hit the one big groundstroke and coming in on it, he looked like a far better player often putting Ferrer under pressure far more often. The result was almost immediate in the second set breaking Ferrer’s serve twice to win the set.

But inconsistency is going to be something that always plagues Isner and the match started to turn again in Ferrer’s favour after a string of errors from Isner, as well as poor tactical decisions like deciding to approach the net on Ferrer's forehand.

What can we expect from Lleyton Hewitt, or should we expect anything at all?

Having recently turned 28 last month, Lleyton Hewitt is now approaching the final stages of his career, one that presents different challenges and expectations. Hewitt has had a long and illustrious career that has spanned 12 years at the ATP level achieving success at an early age. He captured his first career title at the age of 16 in his home town of Adelaide in 1998 and became the youngest player to end the year at world number 1 in 2001.

Hewitt has always been known as determined and confident, a guy that fully believes in his abilities and where he belongs in the game, up there mixing it with the best of them. In interviews, over the last couple of years, he has always spoken highly of his goals and abilities. But with injuries hampering him and undergoing hip surgery at the end of last year, and his ranking taking a nosedive to the low 70s, he is now forced to take a different perspective of his near future.

In previous years, he may have known to do too much talking about his own prospects particularly with the Australian press. But this year is more about taking a more low-key approach and letting the tennis speak for itself. Thinking about the present only, and not getting ahead of himself as he may have in the past.

Initially I thought it was only a matter of time before Hewitt made his way back up to a point in the rankings where he would make direct entry into the majority of ATP events, but so far this year, he has done little to add to his ranking points. In the last few weeks, he lost in the first round to Yen-Hsun Lu in Delray Beach, what initially seemed like a good opportunity amongst a weaker field and a five-set loss to Danai Udomchoke in Davis Cup, more an indication of his poor form more than anything else given that he has always taken pride in representing his country.

With that track record in mind, I was interested to see how Hewitt would go in Indian Wells, one of Hewitt's favourite tournaments, the city where he has captured his lone two Masters Series shields. It was a rematch of this year’s first round five set Australian Open match against Fernando Gonzalez.

The initial signs were looking good, Hewitt looking confident and playing surprisingly aggressively, using the pace of the Gonzalez groundstrokes and changing directions far more than I could remember doing in recent times. Then the memories continued to flood back, seeing Hewitt's explosive movement how he would move quickly to move on top of those forehands and counterpunch them back sending them back at a lightning pace.

Using the pace of his opponents to hurt them, making up for the fact that he couldn't generate it himself that effectively, and his return of serve was a strength as well. He hadn’t lost as much movement as I remembered him doing, though now that the match has ended, I’m still sitting on the fence on this thought.

But I thought this aggressive mindset was like conceding that he didn't have that same rock solid consistency as he used to, and instead trying to make up for it in other ways. Besides, based on my experiences watching Hewitt’s matches in the last few years, playing conservatively has never guaranteed him any more consistency really - so why shouldn’t he back himself?

Hewitt raced away to a 5-1 lead in the first set in some part due to Gonzalez’s rustiness, sometimes mistiming forehands by large margins, closer to hitting the backboards than the baseline at times. Gonzalez hadn't played a competitive match since capturing the title in Vina Del Mar after the Australian Open, being hampered by a sciatic nerve injury.

Early on, even without watching Gonzalez in full flight, he looked like a potential threat. His forehand has to be one of the most intimidating shots in tennis, a shot that doesn’t only win him large amounts of points but one for opponents to be fearful of in another sense. It amazes me how little he seems to be rushed on that side given the massive backswing he has on it, one reason why he can send them so far long on occasions.

He wasn’t consistent enough initially but it was almost impossible to tell which shots he was going to have a crack at, as if he just decides to unload on it at random times. It sometimes didn't matter that he had to half-volley a forehand right on the baseline, he’d try to change direction and send it down-the-line anyway while other times on a three-quarter court ball, he'd hit a more controlled crosscourt forehand with higher margin over the net. Regardless of how Hewitt was defending, if Gonzalez was going to pull off unexpectedly aggressive shots like that, Hewitt wasn’t going to get anywhere near it.

From 5-1 onwards in the first set, Hewitt started to get more into his comfort zone opting for a more high percentage brand of tennis, allowing Gonzalez that extra bit of time for set up for his shots. That shift of tactics, following a more predictable pattern of play in turn didn’t keep Gonzalez off balance enough and subsequently the match turned quickly in Gonzalez's favour winning six of the next seven games.

The start of the second set was a strange one, seeing Hewitt suddenly change tactics again quickly making his way to the net early in the point, before he had moved Gonzalez sufficiently out of court. Was this the sign of Hewitt trying to rediscover his aggressive tennis, but going about it the wrong way? His approach shots were often landing short in the court and he was suitably punished getting broken straight away.

He learned his lesson after that, and went back to basics, the roots of his game. It was like a repeat of the end of the first set, and the kind of tennis that I normally associate with Hewitt, moving his opponents around with his forehand more using his accuracy, rather than pace. He was no longer getting to the wide shots as effectively, though it was likely more to do with Hewitt’s preceding shots which were not as deep anymore.

It took for a while for Hewitt to slowly regain his depth and consistency but he started to regain some of his form in the third set, where the pair of them engaged in some entertaining rallies. Finally, it was both players playing good tennis at the same time. But in the end, Hewitt's errors proved to be costly, particularly in the crucial game where he lost serve missing three or so shots by small margins, perhaps aiming too close to the lines.

The statistics in the end showed that Gonzalez had cleaned up his game considerably in the latter two sets, even recording fewer unforced errors than Hewitt, as well as more winners of course. So after a promising start, it ended up being another early exit in a tournament for Hewitt.

Almagro and Monfils square off in the Acapulco final

Last year, Nicolas Almagro dominated the Latin American claycourt swing with two titles in Costa Do Sauipe and Acapulco, but heading into this week in Acapulco his claycourt season had been a disappointment.

There were surprise losses to Federico Gil and Oscar Hernandez in Costa Do Sauipe and Buenos Aires respectively, but this week Almagro finds himself in the Acapulco final, although off the back of questionable form where he next meets Gael Monfils. Both Monfils and Almagro had struggled throughout the week in maintaining consistency and focus, but given that both players tend to enjoy the big occasion, it should be an intriguing and hard-fought final.

Lack of consistency plagued Almagro in his semi-final match, where he defeated Martin Vassallo Arguello 6-4 6-4. He started off the match showing flashes of brilliance, in particular he had the ability of hitting these incredibly powerful forehand winners on-the-run. On occasion he'd find himself catching the ball late moving out wide. But instead of having to resort to an inconsistent or more defensive shot, he generates such impressive racquet head speed, that it's like he manages to catch up to the ball to be able to whip right through it on time, particularly on the pacier forehand side catching his opponents by surprise.

He broke Vassallo Arguello's serve early on hitting impressive return winners from shoulder height off high jumping kick serves, both from the forehand and backhand sides showing that he is dangerous off both wings. The faster court players tend to handle higher bouncing balls by stepping in and taking the ball earlier, but Almagro instead pushes back a couple of steps and gives himself enough time to set up. That he is able to hit powerful and penetrating shots from that position is impressive, particularly on a one-handed backhand.

With Almagro, at times it can seem like the more difficult shots are easier to execute than the routine shots. Give him a putaway forehand and he usually deals with it, but rallying around and trying to remain consistent can be a problem. Particularly off shots that he isn’t hitting with intent, where he starts to lose concentration and doesn't know how he should be controlling his shots if he isn't outright attacking or defending.

As the match went on, those brief flashes of brilliance from Almagro started to fade away more, as he descended more into mediocrity. Making use of the break of serve that he had created for himself earlier, and often holding onto his own serve by the barest of margins. It seemed like a lackadaisical effort, like he could only motivate himself whenever he was threatened, playing considerably better on many of the 30-30, 15-30 points. Showing purpose right from the start of the point with a well-placed serve, then finishing it off with those two or three shot combos that are a big strength of his.

The match was always going to be on his racquet, facing an opponent like Vassallo Arguello, who has to be one of the least imposing players I've ever seen. Camping metres behind the baseline hitting medium topspin shots into the court, with no purpose whatsoever. Almagro finally knuckled down at 2-2 in the second set, playing the longer points better. Then he played a sloppy service game at 4-3, but broke Vassallo Arguello's serve again immediately to serve for the match.

The second semi-final promised more than it delivered, given that Jose Acasuso had put together a consistently good run this claycourt season, with semi-finals or better in the last four matches. But from the start of the match, it felt like there was only going to be one outcome in the match, and that was Monfils winning.

Monfils seemed to be in more of a competitive mood than last time I saw him in his second round match against Thomaz Bellucci. You can tell on which days Monfils seems to have more of a killer instinct, when he manages to stay through the flight of the ball when he's running to hit a shot, keeping shots lower and more penetrating rather than having it sit up high and short in the court. It was his best performance of the tournament, and it seems like he is gearing himself up nicely to peak for the final.

Acasuso is the kind of player that plays his best when he sticks to his strengths, and keeps things simple. Thinking about what he has to do more on his side of the court, rather than his opponent's, but it seemed like he was too often thinking about how he should be winning points, in fear of the movement that Monfils possesses. Overplaying, hitting shots long by metres and coming to the net too early when his volleys are nowhere near adept enough. He already hits a forehand hard enough as it is, so putting that extra bite on it is only going to send it long more often than not.

Monfils was never threatened for the main reason that his serve was on song, and Acasuso wasn’t even close to getting a read on it. He could be forgiven for any minor lapses of concentration, when his serve is as secure as this and sometimes it's better to put all of your energy into the important junctions of a match.

Watching Monfils play on clay, definitely the main appeal is his movement and how he slides into his shots, particularly on the forehand. Out of all the players, he quite possibly moves his legs the furthest apart from each other, to the point where I think he’s going to lose his balance during his racquet swing. Maybe he could do with having more precise movement so that he can change directions more effectively without hitting a squash shot.

With Monfils, it's definitely movement first, before racquet technique in terms of what his thought process is. At times it looks like he has forgotten that he has to figure out what to do with a shot, and ends up going with this strangely improvised shot instead. On one point, he made a backhand error that looked like it was aimed right into the air as if he was swinging straight through it like a cricket bat. To which the commentator on the live stream I was watching appropriately said that "Sometimes it just doesn’t even look like Monfils is hitting the ball with the intent of it going into the court".

Inconsistent Mauresmo overcomes Jankovic to reach the Paris final

Amelie Mauresmo hasn't had the best of form in the last couple of years, after posting a career season in 2006. Inconsistency and tentativeness are qualities that have been associated with her game in recent times, but more worryingly she seems no longer capable of stringing together good matches, a quality with which was in display at a smaller scale yesterday in the Paris Indoors against Jelena Jankovic.

It was the best and worst of Mauresmo in the same match, a topsy-turvy affair that ended in Mauresmo’s favour 6-2 0-6 6-1. As entertaining as it was to watch Mauresmo in full flow at times, it’s worrying that her game seems to be stuck in a fragile state. That particular games and points in matches can so easily impact her standard of play for stretches of matches. But it can work in her advantage as well like it did in this match, where she rode the momentum from the leads she had built for herself to finish strongly in the first and third sets.

Prior to this match, Mauresmo had held a 5-1 match-up advantage over Jankovic, and there was evidence as to why this is the case. Jankovic likes rhythm and pace to feed off and Mauresmo didn’t give her it. Creating heavily topspun shots to open up the court and generate superb angles on both sides combined with an effective slice backhand to stop Jankovic from dictating play and yanking her opponent from side-to-side. All weapons that cause major headaches to Jankovic and her defensive abilities, not being able to maintain consistent enough depth having to hit shots from over her shoulder or when unbalanced.

It was an aggressively-minded Mauresmo, showing superb accuracy on her shots to consistently keep shots out of Jankovic’s reach. The rallies were kept short and whenever Mauresmo created an opening for herself, she seized it at the net. Conditions-wise it looks like playing on a low-bouncing indoor court strongly favours the Frenchwoman. Giving her the extra penetration that she needs on her shots and making it almost impossible for Jankovic to offensively counter Mauresmo’s lethal slice backhand that skids low on the court.

If there was one weakness in the Mauresmo game, it was her forehand approach shot and her ability to deal with midcourt shots on that side. Midcourt short balls are meant to be relatively simple shots to execute for most players but with the western grip that Mauresmo hits her forehand with, she sometimes struggles more with the lower bouncing balls, unable to effectively hit underneath the ball and shanking the ball far too frequently. At times her approach shots lacked direction and depth, landing in the middle of the court giving an easy target for Jankovic to hit a winner.

It's amazing that after Mauresmo's game rapidly descended in the second set, that all it took was one good game in the third set to turn the match. In fact, that particular crucial game was the first that she had won in eight games, where a lesser experienced player would have been happy just to have avoided an embarrassment. But instead Mauresmo used it to fuel herself for the battle, firing herself up believing that she had every chance to take the third set. On the subject of belief, did anyone notice that Mauresmo jogged to the chair at the end of the second set after getting fed a bagel?

Soon enough, the third set started to look more like the first set with the same pattern of play emerging, after an initial battle where both players were pushed on their own service games. Jankovic was relatively erratic herself, her footwork not looking as precise and her shots looking more careless than usual like a bit of a free swing.