Recounting Wednesday: Tsonga wins, Mauresmo struggles

Second day at the Brisbane International, and today was a different kind of day, one which featured many more extended matches, which in turn meant a lot of waiting around. To make matters worse, both Pironkova and Govortsova served for the match to take a straight sets victory, incidentally around the time when I started to make my way to the show court. Not that losing serve in a WTA match is that uncommon.



Up first, I had a look at the middle portion of Amelie Mauresmo's match against Julie Coin, my first WTA match for this year's event. Initially I had trouble readjusting my standards. What depth should they be hitting at, and what accuracy should they be getting on their shots? Because both these areas seemed to be lacking in comparison to the men. It was late in the first set when I started watching, and I noticed a lot of midcourt balls coming from the Mauresmo racquet especially on the forehand side. It was no wonder that she struggled quite a bit then.

But the most interesting part was seeing how she got her game together, or moreover, what she did to take her game up another gear. She forced herself to start moving forward into the ball more to try to get that additional depth and penetration needed to upset the rhythm of Coin. It didn’t initially work at first, or at least I thought her approach shots were extremely poor, I’d call them bluff approaches. But they actually worked a fair amount of times drawing the error from Coin, and I noticed that even though Mauresmo came to net a lot, it felt like she rarely had to hit any volleys, since I wanted to take a good, close look at that as well.

Eventually after some persistence, Mauresmo started to get better depth and accuracy on her shots, particularly on that sometimes troublesome forehand. She started moving Coin around better as well, with fewer shots landing in the centre of the court. I got to see the much-talked about Mauresmo backhand, and it is a beautiful shot. But what I like most about it is the variety of it, how she can change the topspin of the ball and make it jump up higher or flatten it out for a winner. Then of course, she has the slice backhand as well.

Of all the players I have seen so far, I think Mauresmo has the most natural looking game. What I mean by that is when I first arrived at the tennis yesterday, I noticed how well-trained all the players looked in terms of their groundstrokes from a technical point of view. To the point where their groundstrokes looked very mechanical, in that it was clearly obvious all of the repetitious training they had put in to be able to replicate that shot again and again. Which is interesting because I don’t get as much of that same impression on TV, but I later found that I got used to it, and no longer noticed it. It wasn’t that Mauresmo gave the impression of the opposite, but it seemed more natural rather than forced to me.

I had a brief look at the third set of the match, until around 3-2 to see how things had changed to become a more balanced match yet again. Coin, who was initially not doing much to even draw my attention, started to do what a lot of WTA players don’t do, come to the net. This reflected in her baseline play as well, as she started to strike the ball harder and closer to the lines and seemingly further away from Mauresmo compared to before. Mauresmo got back into a more reactive style of play, so they continued to battle it out. While I was in the outside show courts, I was keenly listening to the sound of the umpire’s voice which is very audible on the grounds, when the match went to the third set tie-break. 7-7, 9-8, until Mauresmo finally took it at 13-11.



What I was watching instead was the remainder of the match between Tsvetsana Pironkova and Sara Errani, even though I would have preferred to watch the conclusion of the Mauresmo match. There was one epic going on in Pat Rafter Arena, and yet another long, contested match here played at the same time. Pironkova was clearly the bigger and flatter hitter of the two and was sometimes able to hit big forehand winners. At first it looked like the match would be decided mainly on Pironkova's racquet due to her greater firepower, but then as I started to watch for longer periods, I noticed that Errani was playing a better tactical match. Moving her opponent around better and better defensively overall. She also had a loud grunt that seemed to only appear in particular situations.

It was a fiercely competitive match, and both ladies were relatively animated, often questioning calls. Both seemed to lose their trust in the officiating, challenging any shots that landed close to the lines. In the end, Errani’s greater ability to play the bigger points got her over the line.



So about three hours later after the start of play, Jurgen Melzer and Florent Serra made their way onto court, a match I had been keenly waiting for. As soon as the match started, I was surprised to see Serra adopting a more aggressive, inconsistent game compared to yesterday. However, he started to regain more of his consistency as the match progressed and was clearly the more solid player of the two.

It was a set that was mainly dominated by serve, with the majority of winning shots being set up by that shot, and neither player having any real opportunity to break until Serra did so to take the set at 5-4 on the back of two poor dropshots from Melzer. Melzer then regrouped briefly to break serve in the opening game of the following set, starting to take the ball earlier looking to move forward into the court and playing more of an all-court game, the kind of tennis that I like to watch.

Melzer seems to really enjoy hitting that big double-handed backhand change of pace that’s taken so early like a half-volley that it almost looks like it could be an approach shot. It takes exceptional timing to pull that shot off, and it doesn’t really work for Melzer much of the time. Neither does the change of pace off the forehand side, which looks to be an extremely flat stroke, but when it does come off, it shoots through the court in an impressive manner.

Serra then immediately broke back to level proceedings, and then was gifted a second break with two double faults coming off the Melzer racquet. It was a strange service game, the one that featured the second service break. Melzer looked like he was dejected after one or two bad shots already and seemed resigned to defeat, with some of those double faults looking like very careless shots. In the end, on match point, Melzer conceded the match relatively tamely by not even bothering to stick his racquet out on the return of serve. Then he didn’t even bother to shake the umpire’s hand, Steve Ullrich for some unknown reason.



So then I went back into Pat Rafter Arena to watch what ended up being easily the best match that I saw over the last two days, between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Jarkko Nieminen. It was an interesting match even on paper, a match-up between two very different players. The explosiveness of Tsonga against the counter-punching abilities of Nieminen, who really enjoys using the pace of his opponents. Nieminen started out the match on top returning exceptionally well, and using the pace to redirect the ball to move Tsonga around. At this point, it looked like Nieminen would rather return serve, than serve himself.

Tsonga had his chances to break Nieminen’s serve in the opening two service games, but made too many wild errors to be able to convert. He hadn't yet found the range on his groundstrokes and was shanking balls, particularly on the weaker backhand side. Nieminen hit what could have been the shot of the tournament, when Tsonga hit a very athletic overhead jump smash, only to see it returned down-the-line for a winner. Just in case you didn’t notice how well Nieminen was playing this entire set. This is when Tsonga amusingly bowed down to Nieminen on court.

But the second set was a different story, after Tsonga went down the initial break of serve. It was almost like watching a completely different player, with none of the erratic play from the first set from Tsonga. Tsonga seems to have about three levels, or standards of play that he can play at. Either he’s making a lot of errors overall, or he’s forcing himself to play better through almost energy alone (this is usually where his game wildly fluctuates) or he's consistently good. The latter of which I will further elaborate on, because that’s how he played the second and third sets. He was in the kind of form, where I no longer watched his shots to see if he’d shank them and when he missed, it was by relatively decent margins, not the wild shots that I saw earlier.

Now one thing that I really enjoy about Tsonga’s game, and this seemed magnified in this match for some reason, is his straight to the point style of play. Every shot that comes off his racquet, is an attempt to attack and hurt his opponents, and there isn’t much waiting around for opportunities to come. He was controlling the centre of the court and quick to move into the net, where he seems to get a big advantage by having the ability to be able to hit a big enough forehand as an approach shot, the kind of flat shot that shoots through the court and skids, which is the sign of a good approach shot, one that doesn’t sit up. I like the way he is quickly able to move from the back of the court to further up the court to take advantage of the shorter ball, moving so swiftly that allows him to quickly move back into an aggressive position after getting pushed back.

Nieminen continued to play well, seemingly moving exceptionally quickly around the court and being able to hit effective passing shots with short backswings. By the end of the match, I had to admire the competitive abilities of Nieminen, but in the end Tsonga was just that bit better in the crucial moments to take the match.



After the excitement of the previous match, I took a bit of a mental break where I sat down to watch Olga Govortsova play against Sesil Karantantcheva, who is recently making a comeback to the main tour. There wasn't much interest in this match overall, and I was fascinated that the stands seemed significantly more full to watch Hantuchova and Sugiyama play doubles instead. This trend of spectators preferring to watch doubles of higher profile players continued later in the night when more people decided to watch Tsonga and Gicquel play instead of Stepanek against Llodra.

Govortsova had her fair share of chances to close it out in two sets, but frustratingly she blew it and to three sets it went. To be honest, I was more blindly cheering for whoever was leading the match, rather than giving it my full attention. Karantantcheva lead 3-0 with a double break in the third set, so I started cheering for her then when I noticed her serving nervous double faults serving for the match later on, I realized she couldn’t win it so I turned to Govortsova instead.

I couldn't help but notice the incredibly long rallies that the pair of them exchanged, to the point where it looked like I was watching two ball machines play against each other. They also both possessed relatively weak serves, but it didn’t look to be that crucial given that they were almost guaranteed to get into a rally yet again. Except for when Karantantcheva served for the match.



Then Radek Stepanek took the court to take on Michael Llodra, a battle between two serve-and-volleyers, a marked contrast from the previous match, and there was big serving involved as well. Llodra is the flashier shotmaker from the back of the court, with his ability to change pace, while Stepanek is the steadier of the two and far more athletic. From a match-up point of view, I thought Stepanek's superior returning and passing shots would give him an advantage, his ability to be able to guide and place shots low down at his opponent’s feet.

There was no evidence of that in the earlier stages of the match, as both players held serve relatively comfortably apart from the one break point which Stepanek saved in the first set with a superb lob that landed marginally out of Llodra’s reach. The tie-break was then dominated by Stepanek who picked up his passing shots and often made Llodra hit low shoelace volleys.

I really like Llodra's volleys, by the way, particularly the high backhand volley which he really strikes firmly, to the point where it is unreturnable. He punches it away with such assertiveness and it skids incredibly low with it moving out of court. But in the end, Stepanek’s superior passing shots made the difference in this match. The other thing I noticed about Stepanek is the impressive flexibility that he possesses, his ability to be able to put his body in a position to return a shot on the full stretch.

Like Melzer, Llodra also seems to enjoy hitting that early ball backhand, except in Llodra’s case, he hits it with more of a point of taking a net position in the following point. Again, given the timing required of the shot, it was a relatively inconsistent shot. Llodra seemed to have the support of the crowd, where the applause seemed to be significantly greater whenever he won a point compared to Stepanek. Llodra’s verbal outbursts throughout the match also seemed to help in endearing himself to the crowd.

Recounting Tuesday at the Brisbane International

I arrived at the Brisbane International just in time to see the start of play, which opened up with Tomas Berdych taking on the Australian wildcard, Brydan Klein. Klein had somewhat been controversially awarded the wildcard over the more proven Chris Guccione, and Klein didn't do much to show that he was the better choice. I wasn't at all pleased that I had to start off my live tennis experience by watching a player ranked nowhere near the cut-off rankings. How then was I supposed to be able to accurately judge that performance without comparing it to others?

To make matters worse, I was situated too close to the front where there was a bit of a blind spot on the far outside line on the right-hand side. Berdych had a small group of very loud and vocal Czech supporters, with which I was surprised later when I briefly saw them in my quick visit to see Berdych and Stepanek play doubles, that there seemed to really only be about three of them in total given how vocal they were, although I think there could have been marginally more at the singles match.

Klein started off the match tentatively in the worst manner possible losing his serve by making three or four tame errors almost all off second shots, straight after the serve. Immediately he was frustrated by his performance bouncing racquets and slumping his shoulders, both of which he did with relative frequency. All this did was add to the overall impression of Klein, the feeling that you're watching a juniors player that starts complaining as soon as things don't go his way. With which then, the match could be described as the professional giving the junior a tennis lesson. To be fair, I didn't really know what to expect of Klein, what he was capable of, but it was only later in the match that I found that he was capable of much more.

At least he wasn't overplaying and self-destructing, I thought, just so I can focus on Berdych and admire his performance instead, even if he was being made to look good. Klein was relatively consistent off both wings after the initial blip, but was easily getting overpowered by Berdych and many of his weak shots were sufficiently punished, especially his serve. But really, all of his groundstrokes looked like they were sitting up there, floating with no penetration at all begging to be hit. With which Berdych obliged and hit some very nice winners.

Berdych looked really focused today to me, at least for a set and a half, which he most certainly didn't need to be if he didn't feel like it, like everything was measured and controlled. That is, excluding his attempt at serving out the set where he threw in two careless double faults, but he rebounded to bagel Klein in the first set. I think one of the most amazing things about many of the professional players watching them live is the amount of control that they can still have on their groundstrokes when on the run, the ability to still hit an aggressive shot that is well-placed and this is one area where Berdych had a big advantage over Klein. I like Berdych's body language and overall presence, and quietly confident posture which makes him look like an intimidating figure to play against at times.

The second set was like a completely different match, with Klein taking more of an aggressive mindset starting to hit through the ball now. Consequently the number of winning shots coming off the Berdych racquet declined significantly. As what usually happens in matches like this, Klein got a massive sympathy cheer from the crowd when he finally got his first game at 6-0 3-0 down. The obvious question here is why it took Klein so long to attempt to execute this kind of game. It didn't need to be risky tennis, just more penetrating. Berdych seemed to take his foot off the accelerator a bit towards the end, once he got the initial break playing a more relaxed brand of tennis, but he managed to overcome difficulty serving out the match, by saving that one break point and avoiding a more even contest.



Then I headed over to the outside courts to see Juan Carlos Ferrero take on Florent Serra. I had arrived just as the doubles match scheduled beforehand had concluded and I was highly amused later on, that this pattern of each match conveniently finishing at a time to allow me to watch all matches in full was repeated several times, until it finally failed me towards the end. Obviously what I wanted to see the most was the famous Ferrero forehand in action, so I took a closer look at that to start with. Up close, you can see the work that he gets on the ball and its general heaviness which seems to be a tad more than most other players. Ferrero started off the match trying to dictate proceedings, and it brought him mixed results. I remember most of all, him digging out of a 0-40 situation in the first set with three winners or near-winners, only to eventually lose serve for the first time in the match. He hit a couple of particularly nice forehand winners and cleanly struck backhand down-the-lines early on, but then it went downhill from there.

Serra on the other hand was absolutely stingy with the amount of errors he was coughing up and would rarely play a string of bad points. I initially felt like his game was the epitome of simple, effective tennis and he often took the straightforward route, attacking when given the opportunity to do so. Whenever he needed to defend, he'd situate himself about a metre or so behind the baseline and it felt like he barely made any errors off a defensive shot, like the majority of them came from when he was trying to step up the pace. But he proved me wrong by stepping up the pace and accuracy of his groundstrokes as he grew in confidence as the match went on, particularly on the forehand side where he would sometimes change the pace off the same backswing.

Ferrero's game went off the boil more and more as the first set went on making more strange errors, and as the match wore on, it no longer looked like he was the one trying to dictate the play. Serra maintained his level until serving for the match where he made a couple of poor errors, but Ferrero returned the favour in the tie-break by losing it fairly comfortably, and subsequently the match.



This is when I took a short break and returned to watch Novak Djokovic, who was clearly the biggest drawcard for the event. There was a bit of a buzz around the stadium, and not surprisingly he was given the biggest cheer as he walked onto court. I remember, in particular, the first point of the match where both Djokovic and Ernests Gulbis exchanged big groundstrokes before Djokovic pulled the trigger down-the-line on the forehand, one of his trademark shots. The man that was sitting next to me was laughing in awe of that shot, to which I was thinking, it's a little bit early to start applauding those kind of shots.

It turned out that Djokovic put in an erratic performance, not really showing much of the qualities that we see from him on a good day. I did notice though that he gets a lot of kick on his serve, really jumping up high although his second serve landed a bit short and ended up being attacked by Gulbis. Djokovic was particularly unimpressive defensively, often not being able to stay in points long enough and he was generally inconsistent overall, much to the disappointment of the man sitting next to me who only clapped when Djokovic won a point, but not when Gulbis did. The woman sitting in front of me got strangely excited everytime there was a dropshot in the rally, as if it was a brilliant shot, even if the dropshot itself was terrible and begging to be punished.

I started to divert more of my attention to Gulbis, whose shots seemed pacier and more effective, and his serve was winning him a lot of points. It seemed that both players were a bit erratic throughout the match, except that Gulbis was far more impressive in his shotmaking. His forehand really is a big shot, and his racquet acceleration looks impressive to the point that you could easily imagine him mistiming a shot and shanking it if he starts his swing just a bit too early.

The early part of the second set was easily the worst part of the match, with Gulbis' game going off the boil, and both players exchanging breaks in the first four games or so, the first break notably conceded by Djokovic with a dropshot. Of which I wrote down on my notebook as if it was a potentially crucial moment, but it turns out that more breaks of serve were to occur. Bad passage of play overall from both players, but Gulbis picked it back up at the end. The manner in which he broke serve to serve for the match was particularly memorable which featured the best rally of the match, where Gulbis managed to return a short drop volley, digging it right underneath his racquet narrowly before the double bounce and then followed it up with a nicely anticipated volley. So there it was, Djokovic out of the tournament, although I can't say I was disappointed about it.



So I headed back outside the stadium to the outside courts, and Mathieu had just won his match against Gabashvili, so I had yet again arrived for the start of a match. During the anticipation for the match, there were a couple of vocal people sitting behind me that were convinced that Kei Nishikori was a girl, as they had put it and were really confused as Bobby Reynolds walked onto the court. Nishikori made his way onto court far later than Reynolds. The stands were not that well populated for this match, with the majority of people deciding to watch the match between Ancic and Delic which was closely contested.

The match started off slowly with both players making a number of errors. Reynolds looks like a fairly limited player to me, incapable of being consistent and not looking particularly dangerous either. As long as Nishikori could turn in a solid performance, the match was going to be his. Nishikori quickly went up an early break, then handed it straight back notably with three backhand errors and a double fault. I noticed straight away that his forehand looks different from most players, that he gets a lot of arm on it, with more of a bent elbow than others. At this point of the match, Nishikori mainly kept it solid, but unspectacular.

As the match wore on, he started to show more of his shotmaking abilities seemingly growing in confidence. He seemed to have a knack of hitting unexpected winners, creating shots out of nowhere, showing that he must have great hands and feel to be able to pull off shots like that. Towards the end, Nishikori's forehand really caught fire, hitting a string of winners off that side, and flashy winners they were. It was like an exhibition of forehand winners, and it was definitely the highlight of my day. Nishikori seemed to be strangely unexcited by them (compared to me), in terms of body language, although it was clear that he was feeling good confidence-wise. The level of Reynolds' play didn't change that much throughout the match, and he was thoroughly outplayed by the end.

So having watched a series of matches, I took a short break to start wandering around the grounds, except to realize that there isn't much to wander to. I noticed, by the way, that the players here seem to be able to wander around wherever they like, or come off the court from practice without anyone bothering or approaching them. Which I found to be fascinating, because my only previous experience (that I can remember) was back in the Gold Coast where the players had a separate section on the opposite side where they walked around, that was restricted to the general public.



Given that there was not much else to do, I took a seat to watch the second and third sets of the match between Michael Llodra and Joseph Sirianni, who surprisingly reached the Adelaide semi-finals last year. So there were a lot of points at stake for him. When I first sat down to watch, I was constantly thinking that there was no way that Sirianni normally plays like that. I remember him having a flashy backhand from Adelaide last year and he was hitting a number of cleanly struck winners off that side. He was also able to stay relatively consistent on both sides, although I think his forehand looks like a dodgy shot technically. Although I don't mean to suggest that he was playing exceptional tennis, more that he was for his standards.

Llodra made a fair amount of errors, particularly if the rallies went on longer, maybe unsurprisingly since he is somewhat of a short point player. But as the match went on, it started to turn more in Llodra's favour, who started to mix things up much better and dictate play. More changes of pace, approach shots and better placed shots. Sirianni's game started to look more average as the match wore on, and after losing the second set in a tie-break, his game fell off considerably making many errors, dropping his level just as I had expected him to.

Then that was it for me, given that the other match that I had wanted to watch between Gasquet and Dent was significantly delayed and due on court relatively late.

Blogging from the Brisbane International

This is a really late post, more late than initially intended because I got lazy (or I ran out of time?). But this was to mainly say that I will be blogging from the Brisbane International on Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday. So come back to check the site if you wish to.

It has been the first year that Brisbane has gotten a professional tennis event and there has a been a lot of buzz surrounding it from the press and the general public. I think when you see a large amount of spectators turn up just to see the official opening, which featured nothing more than a five game hit-and-giggle exhibition, then you know that people are excited.

Also, I meant to give up a heads up to my fellow Brisbane/Queensland blogger, to get people to have a look at New Balls Please. He/she has told me that there will also be reports on the event, which I don't see yet, then again I haven't even put up mine yet (it's about 5 minutes away from going up). But for the moment, check out the WTA/ATP predictions for the new year. Where has Marko Djokovic gone by the way? I thought he was supposed to be playing the doubles but I don't see his name anywhere.

Trademark Shots: Which shots make a player stand out?

One interesting aspect of tennis is the varying techniques and shots that players can have in their repertoire.

Particularly at a higher level, players tend to have trademark shots, shots which that player is known for, and one that most other players don't even seem to attempt, let alone execute. A player's trademark shot is not necessarily their best shot or strength, and could be something that’s more unique or unorthodox rather than spectacular.

Below is a list of some of those trademark shots, while obviously there are still quite a few that I've missed out on.

Rafael Nadal

The unusually powerful double-handed backhand crosscourt passing shot, where he swings the racquet through in a straight line making the racquet seem more like a sword or cricket bat. He bends his knees down incredibly low and his racquet nearly hits the ground on the initial contact. Commentators refer to it as being like a double-handed forehand.

Roger Federer

The flick backhand half-volley passing shot. His opponent comes in on an approach shot right to his backhand side and Federer’s still on the forehand side of the court. He smoothly and casually strolls his way there, or so it looks and barely makes any backswing nor does he even look up, he just keeps his head still. He flicks the backhand right at the last second and directs it exactly where he wants to for a winning shot.

He's also got the short-slice backhand intended to make his opponents scoop it back up and force themselves into the net, after finding themselves in no-man’s land. Then Federer whips across an easy passing shot winner straight past them, while making his opponents feel silly and hopeless in the process.

Andy Murray

The high loopy forehand crosscourt that he throws in to completely take his opponent off-rhythm before throwing in the fast-paced flat forehand or backhand the next shot. Two of the most contrasting shots you could play consecutively, and Murray does it deliberately. Most players only hit change-up loopy forehands to give themselves more time to get back into the court, or either they usually hit with a fair amount of topspin as it is. But Murray uses it as a regular shot in his repertoire.

Nikolay Davydenko

I once read someone describe Davydenko on form as like “playing on skates”. The way he sprints from side-to-side, then sets himself in position right on top of the ball each time with perfect timing, makes movement and racquet control almost synchronous with each other at contact.

I also like the strangely nice feel he has on those double-handed volley dropshots. He can’t seem to hit any other kind of effective volleys but he bends down really low and opens his racquet face right out flat, instead of at an angle like most people would. He barely moves his racquet at all, keeping it in the same position to cut under the ball making it stop dead as it bounces over the net.

Andy Roddick

Roddick's serve reminds me somewhat of a rocket or missile launch, in how the motion is almost completely straight up and down and the way he literally launches into it. He gets his feet set close together, then extends his racquet all the way down and bends his knees really low to push forward and create a violent, powerful motion.

David Nalbandian

The backhand crosscourt angle shot, that he throws in the middle of a neutral rally catching his opponents completely by surprise. He flicks his racquet across, using almost entirely his left wrist, with his right hand as support. Most players need to either slow the pace down when attempting a short angle, roll over it with top spin or both but Nalbandian almost does it entirely with racquet control and feel.

David Ferrer and Tommy Robredo

The effort that they put in to make sure that they hit as many forehands as possible, even if that requires running all the way out of court, only to hit a three-quarter kind of shot, not even a near-winner or setup shot. You get the feeling that not much thought goes into whether any sort of reward will come out of doing it, but rather to follow the mindset of making everything into a forehand, as long as it's humanly possible.

Gael Monfils

He teases his opponent with a floating, mid-court ball, begging for it to be hit for as an approach shot. His opponents do exactly as they should, hitting a deep approach shot into the corner, then you can feel Monfils lighting up with excitement already anticipating the glorious running passing shot winner. He sprints over to the corner three or so metres behind the baseline, does a trademark slide and finds the down-the-line shot, just as he knew he would letting out a predictable “Allez!”.

Fernando Gonzalez

The go-for-broke inside-out forehand, where he takes a massive backswing and you know it’s going to be big before it's even hit. The backswing itself is intimidating itself, then he gets his footwork in position like he’s putting every ounce of energy into it knowing that he’s not going to be in position if it comes back. But that’s okay because he wants to hit an outright winner off it. I remember when Andy Roddick got back one of his “forehand bombs” in the US Open match, and Gonzalez got to it late and slapped a forehand two metres long afterwards, to essentially give up the point.

Igor Andreev

The sound that comes off his racquet after hitting a forehand. Andreev gets right under the ball, then whips right across it to send it spinning several rotations. Like the complete opposite of a cleanly struck shot.

Richard Gasquet

When he's on one of his hot streaks and you can tell how eager he is to hit his shots before he even hits them. Gasquet wants to hit glorious winners and he wants them to be spectacular. He puts in that extra hop on the backhand to make it a jumping backhand and gets right on top of that forehand. And just because he's in that kind of form, most of those winners actually come off. It even looks like he's walking quicker and more purposefully in between points than usual.

 

Then there are the more unique trademarks, those that aren't necessarily considered to even be close to a strength:

Andy Roddick’s drive backhand, how he grips his racquet with both hands together close to the middle of the handle, leaving a gap down the bottom, depriving himself of getting the full amount of power out of it.

Janko Tipsarevic, when he's wrong-footed, going back to retrieve a shot on the backhand side, hits the ball on the other side of the racquet strings. Like a very strange kind of forehand.

Tommy Robredo’s backhand, where he sets himself up with an exaggerated backswing then whips through his backhand, in a windmill sort of motion making almost a full circular rotation. His opponents predictably kick it up high to that side on serve, and he falls backwards three metres behind in the baseline just to be able to prepare for that stroke.

Fernando Gonzalez's backhand down-the-line, in that his racquet face is so flat on contact that after the ball bounces, that it kind of side-spins to the left. He sets up for his backhand in a manner that would seem to strongly favour the crosscourt backhand. Surprisingly he executes this shot, more often than would seem possible and it often catches his opponents by surprise because of the unlikelihood of the shot, as what happened to Federer in their Tennis Masters Cup 2007 match.

Mikhail Youzhny's service motion. He starts off his service motion with his front foot a fair distance from the baseline, to enable himself to move his front foot a couple of steps forward before making contact. As far as I know, he's the only active professional tennis player to do this, while everyone else starts with their front foot as close to the line as possible, while the back foot moves during contact, to get the body weight moving forward. Then, of course, Youzhny also has the one-handed backhand that starts off like a two-hander.

Is Plexicushion an improved surface from Rebound Ace?

Earlier this year, Tennis Australia and the Australian Open’s tournament director, Craig Tiley made a deliberate decision to change the Australian Open’s court surface, from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion. The Australian press made headlines out of the surface switch, emphasising the distinct advantage that the surface would give for local hope, Lleyton Hewitt who had long spoken out about his desire to finally win his home Grand Slam.

The claims were made by some sources that the new Australian Open surface would be sped up to become even faster than the current speed of the courts at Wimbledon, while other sources stated that the surface would be playing at a similar speed to previous years. There were fears that the surface would be too similar to the courts at the US Open, and that the Australian Open had lost its uniqueness.

But one year later, now that the surface has been tried and tested under tournament conditions, by the players themselves and observed by the fans, we can more accurately evaluate the surface and its differences with Rebound Ace, and which players it favours and disadvantages.

Rebound Ace had more distinct qualities to hardcourt and was most known for its high bounce and ability to take spin. Over the years, the speed of the surface varied significantly, both due to the indecisiveness of the organizers and the inability to effectively test the surface due to the major impact that weather conditions had on the speed of the surface.

The courts were playing relatively quickly way back in 2001, when Pat Rafter made it through to the semi-finals but since then they had slowed down somewhat, especially in 2006 and 2007, which in part was due to the slowing down of courts across the board on the tour. In 2007, was when Lleyton Hewitt famously yelled to “Fix the courts!” in his five-set encounter with Michael Russell out of sheer frustration, a plea for help which eventually led to the court surface change today. The appointment of Craig Tiley as the new tournament director, replacing Paul McNamee, was the other reason behind the change.

In night conditions, the court was often slow and players needed to generate their own pace to be able to hit through the court. The difference between how the courts played at night, compared to day conditions was magnified. Last year I watched big serving lefty Australian, Chris Guccione put on a serving clinic against Rafael Nadal in Sydney, consistently serving aces against the world number 2 back then with serves that viciously kicked and spun out of court.

Then scheduled for the night session the next round against Austrian Jurgen Melzer, it was like Guccione’s serve was suddenly transformed into a mediocre stroke without any of the vicious spin from the day before, and the ball was consistently landing right into Melzer’s strike zone to return back with ease. For this reason, Guccione has been known to often request day matches to improve his chances.

The introduction of Plexicushion meant that many of the fluctuating playing conditions that were problematic with rebound ace were drastically reduced. The heat no longer reflected off the court as severely, where it was reported that the temperature on the rebound ace surface was often 10-15 degrees above the air temperature. The surface began to show more of the qualities of a typical hardcourt, in particular, predictability.

It was a medium-paced court, as close to the definition of a neutral court as you could find. It was a surface that didn’t reward any particular style of play over another, where slice backhands stayed relatively low, but heavily topspun groundstrokes were also given their fair share of reward. Players could stay back to trade groundstrokes, but were also able to finish points off at net if they were selective enough about it. For that reason, the surface was relatively well-received by the players, and there were no complaints made about it publicly.

In the end, it was concluded that the new surface was not overly different from Rebound Ace, for any type of player to gain a significant advantage, given that the old Rebound Ace surface was known to be a relatively fair one, in itself. Even though the old surface had been known to take spin particularly well, flatter hitters like Andre Agassi, Marcos Baghdatis and Marat Safin also had some of their biggest successes on the surface. In fact, if you look at the winners list, five of the six previous champions have been known to be relatively clean, flat strikers of the ball (Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Thomas Johansson, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin while Novak Djokovic is somewhere in between in that he can either flatten out his shots or impart a bit more topspin). Showing that if players were either tall or strong enough, or had the ability to take the ball early to counter the higher bounce, then that was a good recipe for success.

With the added predictability and elimination of some external factors, logic would suggest that we can expect to see more of the favourites move through the draw. After all, factors like the heat and changing conditions are potential factors that could disrupt the rhythm, mental outlook and physical conditioning of the more favoured player, issues that make the one-on-one battle less about pure tennis abilities.

Starting from next year, this predictability will extend even further, now that the heat rule has been modified to allow matches to be disrupted when the heat reaches above the limit of 35°C on court. Considering that the most high profile players are usually scheduled to play under the comfort of a roof on the show courts, and that the majority of them are in physically good shape, you would think that this decision is one that impacts and favours more the second tier and below players, like Richard Gasquet and Tomas Berdych. Players that are known more for their shotmaking and ball-striking, than their physical fitness.

Roger Federer regularly trains in Dubai in difficult conditions, Rafael Nadal is known as one of the fittest players on the tour, Andy Murray recently triumphed in hot temperatures in Cincinnati earlier this year, and Novak Djokovic is also physically fresh at the start of the tennis season. On the women’s side, the players are less proven in this area, but their matches are less likely to be decided to be physical fitness due to the shorter format.

If there was one criticism of the change in playing conditions, it was surprisingly the change of balls from Slazenger to Wilson, which had been previously used at the US Open. Prior to the event, Richard Gasquet and Fernando Gonzalez had made complaints about the balls fluffing up and slowing down, while Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Andy Murray and Roger Federer agreed about the effect of the Wilson balls.

Safin and Gasquet commented that players needed to be strong in the upper body to be able to generate the pace necessary to hit through the court, reiterating that the bigger hitters had a clear advantage over the counterpunchers. This was further backed up by the success of Novak Djokovic and surprise packet, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga earlier this year, both players that are capable of generating massive amounts of pace on their groundstrokes. Maria Sharapova on the women’s side also overpowered her opponents to pick up the coveted Australian Open title.

The mental side of tennis: Handling pressure, overcoming slumps and finding confidence

It is commonly thought that in order to succeed in tennis, your mental strength has to be exceedingly high. Tennis is a sport of one-on-one combat, one that continually asks questions of its competitors.

Is there a particular way in which players should go about overcoming these questions? Maybe we should be looking at how the best players dealt with the mental side of tennis, or maybe players should find the best solution for themselves.

When James Blake says that he plays better when he goes after he shots, he's setting up himself for that mindset so it works. But we generally like to criticise players for either being too passive, too aggressive, not showing belief, so surely there must be some ideal way that players should approach things, even if mentally they aren’t up to it to do so.

So in that case, how should players ideally deal with the following?

How to play the big points

How should players approach big points, in order to find their best tennis when it is absolutely necessary? Players can either choose to take the riskier approach and back themselves, to try and hit their biggest serves in, or either go the safer route by trying to maximise the chance of getting a first serve in. Should players try to raise their game under pressure and is it better to aim big or high percentage?

If we look at how the champions have dealt with it in the past, they don't wilt under pressure, instead they relish the pressure. They buckle down, show just that extra bit of determination and simply refuse to lose. The very best players seem to have a knack of refusing to give away points under extreme pressure, when trailing in a match but also seize the opportunity to take the lead by taking matters in their own hands, but without being overly adventurous. Roger Federer tries to make sure his opponents work hard on big points, by making sure he gets the return back into play.

Then there’s that saying of 'sticking to a winning game'. Players should keep it simple, and play each and every single point the same, regardless of its magnitude. There are particular patterns of play that won them points, so the obvious solution would be to continue implementing those. Stick to your strengths, or keep relentlessly attacking your opponent's weakness, whichever strategy was working earlier.

Then there are change-up tactics that can be employed, taking the art of playing big points to a whole new level. Take the opponent completely off-guard, by going against the typical pattern of play and doing the exact opposite to what the opponent was anticipating.

We've all seen Rafael Nadal serve to the same spot, almost time and time again, then on break point, he swings it out the other way. David Nalbandian likes to serve and volley with a three quarter-paced kick serve occasionally on break points to the ad court, for an easy putaway volley.

In the end, the mental side of tennis is a very simple issue, or at least ideally it should be kept simple. Even though there are some methods that might be better in theory, most importantly, the player has to believe in it to work for it to come off, and they have to feel comfortable with it.

What's the point in backing yourself if you missed the last three first serves serving for the set? I don't think it's any good trying to get a player too far away from their comfort zone, but at the same token, that shouldn't discourage players from trying to introduce new things into their game, as long as it is done in smaller steps.

How to deal with an off day

Every player has their bad days, but how that individual person deals with it, says a lot about how good of a player they are, much more so than how well a player can play on their "on" days. There are going to be days where players can't find the timing on their shots, and they can't even seem to feel or control where it's going. What is the best solution? For players to keep going for their shots, and keep a positive frame of mind, knowing that it will come sooner or later. Or is it more reasonable to temper that game and resort to a more controlled way of playing?

Some people believe that, by resorting to a safer approach, that they are in the process of showing a loss of confidence. When Lleyton Hewitt and Marin Cilic start playing poorly, the racquet head speed starts to drop and shots start to get dumped into the net. Surely by doing that, the outcome will be the same more often than not, whereas if you take a riskier, more wild approach, the results can be more mixed. Although it must be said that both Hewitt and Cilic, simply cannot find enough confidence to be able to play loose tennis. If you're feeling tight, sometimes it's too difficult to be able to swing freely to generate the necessary pace on the ball.

I've noticed a trend these days, where more and more players are playing matches on
their own terms, where if they lose a match, they go down swinging, going after their shots. James Blake and Nikolay Davydenko are examples of players that do this, and Federer has been known to be relatively stubborn as well. In some ways, it's like hitting through your fears to overcome them. Of course, it is possible to be somewhere in between, which seems to be the most effective solution. Keep a better balance by bringing the margins in, while still maintaining the racquet head speed and a proactive, aggressive mindset.

One other thing to consider is how well a player's own problem-solving ability on the court is. Something that is difficult to observe on the court is to know the thinking processes that occur inside of a player's head, that tells them of the various adjustments to make during a match, both technically and strategically. Anyone that has played tennis themselves knows that if they're making particular types of errors, then a big part of fixing it is to figure out what adjustment to make - such as tossing the ball up higher on serve, or making sure the footwork is correct.

Most players will have some sort of idea of what tendencies or bad habits they are likely to get into that causes them problems, but some players are better than others at self-coaching while others may not notice as much, or can't get themselves to break out of the habit in a match situation. This very same issue can also apply to the tactical side of tennis where particular players have a better sense of what to do in that particular situation, based on how their opponent is feeling mentally at that point of time, executing their shots and their playing patterns.

How to deal with playing against higher class opposition

What happens when a player is facing off against an opponent that is quite simply a class above them? Immediately it forces that player to go into the match with the mindset that playing their normal style of game isn't going to cut it and that it will just result in getting outplayed. The immediate solution would be to start aiming closer to the lines, maybe inject more pace into each shot and play a more adventurous style of game to disrupt the opponent's rhythm.

Yet implementing that kind of game, is like constantly being on edge, close to self-destructing but not quite. Everything needs to be executed perfectly with the right amount of patience, otherwise the confidence can be shattered quickly and it can turn into a one-sided affair. Is it better to risk losing easily, or play reasonably well for your standards and hope your opponent is below par? There is no real answer to this.

Some people would think that playing within yourself is a defeatist approach because it's like hoping your opponent will have an awful day, awful enough to hand you the win. Which is almost impossible if your opponent is Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal. But if you have a strong serve, this method can be quite effective, playing solidly enough, ready to prey on your opponents whenever they throw in a bad service game. It's also a way of mounting pressure. Andy Roddick and Ivan Ljubicic are excellent at this.

What seems to frustrate viewers even more is watching players like Fernando Verdasco try ridiculously difficult shots, in fear of what their opponent is about to do to them before it even happens. Both traps which players can so easily fall into.

In theory, it is best to strike the right balance based on how well that player's opponent is playing that day, but having to execute a game that is outside of a comfort zone is difficult, especially when it doesn't reap its rewards, and particularly on the bigger points when the stakes are higher.

Then there is the additional issue in some cases, of needing to overcome a poor head-to-head record or match-up problem. In most cases, if a player has a poor record over another player, it means they have tried a variety of strategies without the desired success. So naturally, it results in a lack of belief, which you could say is a direct result of not being able to find ways to consistently win points against their opposition. So it's not really a mental problem, but a problem that was caused initially by their difference in ability, at least match-up wise, and the feeling of helplessness that it causes.

How much of tennis is mental, and how much is confidence?

We've seen that a player's mental strength is significantly affected by their levels of confidence. Players tend to go through phases. Top players have their moments where they can be incredibly clutch, but might go through particular phases where they are lacking in confidence. Andy Roddick went through a phase of losing almost every single tie-break, then winning almost every single tie-break, and even nearly broke the record of consecutive tie-breaks won, and now he's back to blowing opportunities again.

Whenever players blow opportunities, often it becomes a habit, as players start to think about their previous matches more and more. But after feeling good about their game again and scoring some big wins again, all of that becomes history again, for some of them. Other players become emotionally scarred, and never seem to get over that hurdle, like Guillermo Coria though that is an unusually strong case.

Based on how often players seem to fluctuate in their ability to play important points or matches, it is safe to say that mental side of tennis is a lot about confidence and belief, which can change drastically throughout a player's career. Usually this is reflected by the fluctuations of a players' ranking. Confidence and belief can extend to many things, like the confidence to try to add variety in your game, or make major changes to your technique, then implement it in an actual match situation. I always admired Justine Henin's courage to tinker with her service motion on such a regular basis.

On the other hand, confidence and belief almost stems completely from your own results and things that have happened previously, like whether you were able to close out matches successfully recently or whether you choked a couple away. Some of it is really just a realistic estimation of your own abilities, like if you're playing well, then you're going to be feeling confident, with maybe only a 20% increase or decrease, depending on whether you're an optimistic or pessimistic person. If your second serve keeps getting attacked, then obviously you're going to believe that it's a big weakness. The big variable is what you think your potential is, not how good you are, and that belief has just as much to do with what other people think, specifically those closest to the players, such as coaches.

The kind of nerves that affect the end of sets and end of matches seem to be more easily fixable, because players are able to replicate that situation more often to be able to replace those bad memories with good ones. But the bigger occasions like Grand Slam semi-finals, are almost a completely different issue altogether, quite simply because there are much fewer opportunities to get over that hurdle and maybe it is the one thing that you can really say is dependent on natural mental ability or belief.

Some players handle it better with experience, others get better as they start to become better players and win more often while others remain equally poor with each experience. I'd say that this sort of choking is not necessarily about not believing in your abilities as a player, but having some sort of fear or doubts about whether they can finish off the match. Even a slight hesitation or over thinking about the match would be enough to do it. I'm sure there are many players that have done so in the past, that know how good they are as players.

So in this case, would sports psychology be an effective solution? Sports psychology can teach you ways to deal with pressure situations, like how to manipulate your thoughts and stay positive. Seeing how many players use different approaches to make sure that they remain calm and ensure that they don’t rush points, like Maria Sharapova looking at her racquet strings or Novak Djokovic bouncing the ball, there have to be some advantages in this. As a counterpoint, I've heard that turning to sports psychology is admitting to a problem, hence placing more focus on it. So next time, that player finds themselves serving for the set in a match, they’re just going to think about it even more.

Is it a good thing to think highly of your abilities, or to have an underdog mentality?

Some players seem to have a better ability to bounce back from poor matches, and poor sets of tennis, still showing that confidence within themselves to be able to raise their games. It is also necessary to show some sort of belief in your game to be able to challenge the top players.

There are some players that seem to believe that their game can just come together at any moment. David Nalbandian specifically comes to mind, as a person with this sort of mindset. You can easily see the benefit in having this approach since the more confidence you have, the less chances of having previous matches affect your performance negatively in future matches.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, if you think that your game can just come together like that, then surely the motivation to constantly improve your own weaknesses has to be diminished? What is better? To see your own weaknesses as major problems, and be willing to improve them, while easily getting down on yourself whenever your opponent attacks it, or to just believe in it outright? Is it possible to have both? I find it extremely fascinating in tennis, how on-court, it is necessary to stay calm and not get overly critical of your own mistakes. But the opposite is true when the match is over. You have to care enough to want to learn from those mistakes/weaknesses. Is it a case of just mind-blocking mid-match then, rather than any mental attitude?

At the lower level, players often go through slumps and long periods where they often lose consecutively in early rounds. It even happens often at a higher level for top 20 players, which shows just how common it is. Mikhail Youzhny seems to be an example of a player who has had a moderately fluctuating career from year to year.

It has to be hard to keep finding enjoyment in playing during times like that, when you're feeling down about your game. Imagine going for that like months, and still having nothing change, even after putting in all that work. It has to be discouraging, so it takes a lot of motivation and positive energy to get through that. Then add to that, the potential financial problems that could occur and questioning about whether they should continue playing tennis as a career.

2008/2009: Reviewing the top 10 women and their future prospects

Written exclusively for Inside-Tennis.net:
It was a turbulent season on the WTA Tour in 2008. Justine Henin, the dominant player of 2007 announced her immediate retirement while she was still on top, Maria Sharapova struggled with injuries after an impressive Australian Open and the number one ranking seemed to chop and change every couple of months, to the point where it was difficult to think of any player as the ‘best player of the world’. In the end, Jankovic edged it out due to a strong end of 2008, despite not winning any slams, and by showing just that extra bit of consistency compared to others. The grand slams were won by four separate players for the first time since 2005, illustrating the lack of a dominant player.

Below is a review of each top 10 player’s 2008 season and their prospects heading into 2009, particularly in the grand slams.

1. Jelena Jankovic

After a successful 2007 season, Jankovic’s progress stalled in the first three quarters of the 2008 season. She looked worn out physically and mentally, and started to rely more on her natural athleticism rather than all-round game to win matches, which was always a step above many of her peers. The turning point was at the US Open, when Jankovic grinded out a couple of tough matches, then relished the opportunity in a night-time final against Serena Williams, despite not winning the match. Jankovic was loose and relaxed, showing that when she plays uninhibited tennis, she is one of the best players in the world. Jankovic then built on that momentum in the latter stages of the year, sending a strong message to the media and tennis fans that mocked her short-lived number one spot prior to the US Open.

When Jankovic is playing well, she moves her opponents around beautifully side-to-side with deep, accurate groundstrokes and can turn her matches into a living nightmare for her opponents, who can never seem to hit through her consistently enough or break her down. The key to Jankovic’s success seems to be a matter of whether she can remain relaxed and enjoy herself, and whether she can remain as physically strong as she needs to be, both areas which seem to go hand-in-hand with her. Jankovic will definitely be a threat in 2009, and should be able to consistently reach the late stages of the majors. If Jankovic can put herself in the position to challenge the top players enough times, then she will win one sooner or later.

2. Serena Williams

Following the retirement of Justine Henin, Serena was predicted to replace Henin as the leading player of women’s tennis, given that it was Henin that defeated Williams in three out of the four slams in 2007. However, Serena continued to struggle with maintaining any consistency, and her tournament schedule was comparatively lighter than Jankovic, who is known as an ironwoman. Williams suffered two disappointing losses at the Australian Open and French Open at the hands of Jankovic and Srebotnik but redeemed herself with a finals appearance at Wimbledon where she fell to her sister, Venus in a high quality match and at the US Open where she took the title. Serena’s long-talked about fitness and motivation problems, seem to be well behind her, reinforcing the fact that Serena is no longer as dominant as she was earlier in her career, but rather one of the best players in the world. Serena should be able to win one or two slams next year, but anything beyond that would be unlikely.

3. Dinara Safina

It was a breakthrough year for Safina, who before this season, had never been mentioned in the same breath as players like Jankovic and Ivanovic. It was commonly thought that Safina’s movement would prevent her to challenge for the biggest titles, but Safina showed remarkable improvements in this area, and subsequently so did her results. She had also improved her serve, and her competitive spirit and mental toughness gave her an edge over some of her peers. During the stretch between the French Open to the US Open, Safina compiled consistently the best results of any player. Given all that she has achieved this year, she has to be considered one of the main contenders in each of the slams, but whether she will win one is another matter.

4. Elena Dementieva

After three years of finishing consistently in the top 10, Dementieva compiled her best season since 2004, in a year that was highlighted by capturing the Olympic gold medal. For Dementieva, the key seems to be consistency, given that throughout her career she has been known for crashing out in the early rounds more often than other top players and frequently struggling with long, tough three-set battles. Unfortunately for Dementieva, despite her game moving in the right direction, she still seems suspect mentally. This was in evidence at the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open, where she struggled in either tight or leading positions, particularly at the French Open where she blew a 5-1 lead in the second set against Dinara Safina. What year Dementieva will have in 2009 is tough to predict, but based on history, I’ll go with a consistent top 10 finish for her, and maybe one semi-final appearance at a Slam.

5. Ana Ivanovic

It was a year of two halves for Ivanovic, who was superb up until the French Open then faded badly after that. The build-up to Ivanovic’s first grand slam title was almost like a learning experience, in the manner she crumbled badly on her first attempt, then improved on that performance in the Australian Open final before capturing the French. Like Safina, Ivanovic had also made great strides in improving her fitness, and she had tempered her game to some extent. However, rather than building on her slam win, Ivanovic started to struggle considerably, mentally more than anything where she often seemed shaky and lacking in confidence. The US Open loss to Julie Coin sticks to mind, where Ivanovic struggled to take advantage of a nervous Coin in the latter stages of the match, and was equally shaky herself. Heading into 2009, the pressure should firmly be off her shoulders by now and after the off-season break, she should be able to bounce back, and learn from that experience to yet again compete at the highest level.

6. Venus Williams

In the last few years or so, Venus Williams has largely compiled inconsistent results over the course of a season, and this year was no different. By capturing Wimbledon yet again, Venus confirmed her status as the best grass court player of this generation. Apart from Wimbledon, the one shining light of Venus’s year was her title win at the year-end championships, a place where she had never triumphed before which bodes nicely for 2009. Injuries and physical problems remained a frequent problem for Venus this year, and that will again be one of her main obstacles in 2009. If I was to make a prediction, I’d expect 2009 to be a very similar year for Venus to this year.

7. Vera Zvonareva

Zvonareva broke through to the top ten this year off the back of a strong end-of-season where she was 27-7 in wins/losses. Her breakthrough tournament was undoubtedly in the year-end championships where she finally established herself as a player that can potentially cause the top players problems, defeating Jankovic, Ivanovic, Kuznetsova and Dementieva to reach the finals. During the week, she played the sort of controlled aggression reminiscent of the likes of Dinara Safina. However, there are still big question marks over Zvonareva having crashed out early in all four grand slams this year and having never advanced past the quarter-finals in her career.

8. Svetlana Kuznetsova

It was undoubtedly a disappointing year for Kuznetsova, in a year that saw her capture no titles, continuing her miserable finals conversion rate having reached 5 finals in 2008. The grand slams in particular were a low point, with her only highlight being a semi-final appearance at Roland Garros where she was beaten convincingly by Safina. Compared to 2007 where Kuznetsova was ranked number 2, branded undeserving of that achievement and made the US Open final, Kuznetsova has largely flown under the radar this year, and for good reason. Kuznetsova most definitely has the game to compete near the top of the rankings, especially given the current lack of a dominant figure, but what kind of year she will have in 2009 is largely unknown.

9. Maria Sharapova

Sharapova began the year on a high winning the Australian Open, in what was arguably her most impressive slam win in her career, prompting suggestions that she could be the next dominant figure in tennis. But it became an injury-plagued season for Sharapova, who struggled yet again with the same shoulder injury that had troubled her late in 2007. If Sharapova can remain injury-free, she should still be one of the leading contenders in all of the majors, except for the French, and she should have a good shot at obtaining the number 1 ranking as well. Sharapova simply has more weapons than the likes of Dementieva and Safina, a much better serve and has the ability to perform as consistently as them, if not more so.

10. Agnieszka Radwanska

Radwanska continued her rise up the rankings in 2008, mainly breaking into the top 10 more as a result of ongoing consistency rather than any breakthrough result. She reached two quarter-finals in the slams and reached the fourth round on the other two occasions, but on all occasions, she was beaten relatively comfortably suggesting that she still has some way to go before she can challenge the elite players. She has taken a couple of major scalps in her career, but is too prone to being overpowered to beat them on a good day, to be able to string enough big wins together.