Looking Back at Monte Carlo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Career Adjustments (and Miami)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning To Play Your Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilles Simon Defeats Out of Form Davydenko in Marseille

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soderling Shows Good Form in Rotterdam, Defeating Youzhny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marin Cilic defeats Jurgen Melzer in Rotterdam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivan Dodig Continues His Great Run in Zagreb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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