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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murray Ends Dolgopolov's Breakthrough Australian Open Run

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

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

Here's some information I gathered on him:

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

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

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

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

Australian Open Day 5 Blog

This time last year, Jelena Jankovic was ranked world number 1, but this year she’s seeded 8 and flying under the radar. She was scheduled against Alona Bondarenko on Hisense Arena, in what promised to be a good test for where Jankovic’s form is at.

The match had barely started and Jankovic had already hit plenty of shots close to the lines. She seems to particularly like the crosscourt corners and her backhand down the line. It’s almost like she’s constantly picking these very small areas in the court and has her mind set on targeting them.

On first glance, her groundstrokes look very good, but she is already down on the scoreboard, so why is that? I think the athleticism on her groundstrokes really comes through well live particularly how she slides into her forehand on the run, similar in a way to how Rafael Nadal plants his foot on his double-handed backhand out wide.

The problem is that Bondarenko appears to be capable of hitting it at another pace above what Jankovic is capable of, regardless of how much Jankovic will exaggerate her forehand swing or put it further over her shoulder to try to generate more pace. Bondarenko just happens to have that pace, and it seems much easier for her to hit winners too. Part of the reason is that Bondarenko is more accurate, but also that she seems to hit much better shots on the run which enable her to keep her opponent on the move for more than one or two shots.

I don’t think this is normally the case though. There is a reason why Jankovic has such a dominant head-to-head over her. And Jankovic is known for her defensive skills which I thought were lacking today. After making too many errors to start with, Jankovic started to bring the percentages down, sticking more with crosscourt shots on the run. This helped bring the match closer, but not close enough.

It ended up being a bit of a Catch 22 situation because Jankovic’s aggressive game simply wasn’t working. New sets tend to be opportunities for players to try new tactics, and after reining it in, Jankovic tried that aggressive game again. She tried all her strengths: more backhand down the lines, more off backhands, and she also tried to maintain more depth again. Bondarenko was playing well enough, that Jankovic was probably on the right track in terms of ideas that she needed to play better to change the course of the match.

What was fascinating though was how quickly Jankovic ran out of ideas and looked unsure of herself. The majority of her play in the second set could probably be described as reckless experimentation, maybe hoping that she could accidentally stumble across some answers. The thing is, she never believed in what she was doing so she wasn’t close to pulling it off.

There was a moment late in the second set where it looked like Bondarenko was getting tight as she lost her serve, and that maybe Jankovic should have changed her tactics to allow it to happen more. But it ended up only being a temporary blip, and the way Bondarenko closed out the match on the return game with some impressive groundstrokes proved that it wouldn’t have been a good idea after all.

It’s interesting to watch two women’s matches in a row, because that allowed me to compare the two, and I really like comparing things. Actually the only thing that I really wanted to compare was the serves of the four women, and the fact that Alisa Kleybanova has a significantly better serve than the rest of them. It’s one of the more powerful serves on the women’s tour, and like the rest of her shots, the weight of shot on it is impressive. It’s not just a flat, hard serve.

Kleybanova was up against Justine Henin today. Given Kleybanova’s stature and her reputation, it’s not at all surprising that she has tremendous power on both sides, but what is impressive is the work that she gets on the ball which looks somewhat unique in women’s tennis.

I am not actually sure how to describe it, but I think by rolling her wrist over the ball on both sides, she has the ability to generate more spin than most players after the ball bounces, or at least in a way that many players are not used to dealing with. For example, in the third set, Kleybanova hit a forehand down the line winner that looked like it was going to fall out, but dropped in at the last minute, and it was no shank or poorly timed shot.

Henin couldn’t seem to deal with any of it at first, and maybe as a result of that, I might have been overestimating the effectiveness of Kleybanova’s shots. But early on, Kleybanova would consistently win points by hitting hard straight down the middle. Actually it was frustrating to watch seeing Kleybanova achieve so much success without maintaining much accuracy. I couldn’t understand the lack of rallies, why Henin couldn’t manage to extend them. Usually if you’re going to hit a winner against Henin, you need to make her cover large amounts of court because she’s that quick.

From a shot selection point of view, Henin was frustrating in her own way too. For some reason, she tried to hit winners in a couple of shots herself too. Why was she trying to play the same way as Kleybanova? Why was she not making Kleybanova move when it’s the Russian’s weakness, and why was she not being more patient when it would give her a clear advantage in the rallies? Yes, these were the old problems from a couple of weeks ago coming back to haunt Henin again. Her unforced error stats in the first set were terrible, and whenever she reached some sort of consistency, she’d appear much closer to evening up the match

At least in the second set, despite her continual struggles, she started to resort to a more consistent game. It looks like she has figured out that she can still make Kleybanova move around the court just by hitting crosscourt forehands and backhands the majority of the time, and maybe throwing in some slices as well. I suppose this is related to the story I heard about the crosscourt and down the line drill, that if one person hits crosscourt and one person hits down the line, the person retrieving the crosscourt shots will have to cover so much more ground. Of course Kleybanova didn’t hit all her shots down the line or crosscourt, but Henin should have no trouble covering that ground, should there have been a one-on-one battle in this.

As the rallies started getting longer, the more Henin appeared to be in control of them. Though the fact that the unforced error statistics were in Kleybanova’s favour for such a long time showed just how poorly Henin was playing when you consider what a risky game Kleybanova plays. But in the end, Henin wore her down, and I think she started to become more used to the types of shots she was getting from Kleybanova’s racquet too.

At one stage, Henin was a set and a break down, but she managed to come through in the end.

Following her match on Hisense Arena was Andy Murray and Florent Serra who I seem to somehow always end up watching live due to timing and luck of the draw.

During the warm-up, some Murray supporters in the crowd provided some light entertainment by surely distracting the players in the warm-up especially Murray, by calling out forehand, backhand or volley depending on what shot he was hitting at contact.

This time around I was situated in a much better position to see Murray than in my brief little encounter a couple of days ago on Margaret Court Arena about six rows back and behind the players. I think, given that Murray tends to have an understated game, it was difficult to know what to expect before this week. The lack of pace is not as evident live, definitely not in the same way as Fabrice Santoro anyway. And he doesn’t come across as being that lazy around the court either.

But I was pleased to learn that I liked what I saw. It’s nice to see a player that comes across as obviously being very good, while not overly relying on the shotmaking department. I like the fact that Murray builds up points with shots that are connected to one another, a series of shots that lead to the final winner. I also like that he doesn’t have to be playing incredibly well for it to be entertaining. Either that or I am taking for granted his quality of play.

Obviously Murray is incredibly good at spotting openings. He can generate some good angles on both sides, often short angles too, and as soon as he has his opponent leaving a gap in the court, he’ll throw in the down the line shot if he’s feeling confident enough.

Actually, it’s interesting to note the difference between Murray playing assertively as opposed to playing reactively. Obviously his shot selection will be different, with not as many down the line shots, but even the threat of his defensive abilities significantly changes. On an assertive day, Murray will seem to leave no gaps open for his opponents, neutralise everything and make it even better. But maybe after a short high forehand or a casually chipped shot, he’ll find himself blocking everything back and being almost on the permanent defensive.

This is important given that if Serra is given anything that resembles a short ball, he’ll pounce on it. Serra played a decent first set, though he faded away in the second. He is definitely a player that plays well in patches.

This is what happened here in the first set. Murray was confident to start with then he backed off midway through. So it is very possible that I was admiring the exact same thing that would end up being a weakness later in a match. Murray was in complete control of that first set and should have finished it off well before he ended up doing so 7-5 in the first set. He played a shocking service game serving for the set at 5-3 broken to love on the back of his own errors. It seems that whenever Murray returns serve well, with deep returns, he sets up all the rallies for himself but if he doesn’t block it back well enough then he’s in trouble.

In the second set was a more relaxed Murray, as if the match was now firmly in his control. This set marked the introduction of the trademark behind the baseline passing shot winners, which was what we all came to see. By now, he had also added some additional variety to his game, in terms of shot selection. It was good, but also very relaxed at the same time, partially due to the fact that Serra couldn’t seem to keep up a consistent standard in his own play.

Given that Murray was already up two sets to love, I thought I should head over to Rod Laver Arena to watch Florian Mayer against Juan Martin Del Potro, a rematch of last year’s second round match here in Melbourne. I didn’t want to be joining the match to watch with it nearing its conclusion so I left Murray’s match early, though it turned out as I made my way there, that Mayer had just taken a break to go up 3-0 in the second set.

As I sat down to take my place on the seat, Del Potro would hit a couple of scorching winners to suggest that this match was played fully in his hands. Del Potro seems to have the intimidating ability to hit huge return winners when he perfectly connects with a shot. Despite pace being the main attribute of those spectacular winners, I’m pretty sure he does it mainly through timing.

A couple of minutes later, and all of these spectacular winners started to make more sense. Del Potro has been swinging away on everything, because he’s only interested in keeping rallies short. I started to think that maybe he is injured, because only injured players play with recklessness like that, aside from Richard Gasquet’s play late last year. Now that I have hindsight, I can say that he merely tanked the rest of the set away to save energy, and maybe to protect that minor injury he has too.

Del Potro’s energy levels were up and down the whole set. It was one of Del Potro’s slow walking and shoulder slumping days, and his movement didn’t seem that active in the actual rallies themselves either. It was very deceptive movement because he didn’t move that energetically if he didn’t have to run far. He’d only move as much as required. But whenever he had to reach a shot on the stretch, suddenly he’d speed up and make his way there.

In any case, it was great to see Mayer showing the same form as he did against Troicki the other day, still striking that crosscourt forehand well, and throwing in just as much variety as he did back then. Except this time, Mayer probably has even a few more tricks up his sleeve, or at least he is using more of it today anyway. He’s throwing in more slice forehands especially on the run and using the angles even more than usual. But his biggest strength by far would have to be how well he’s sneaking up to the net.

One would think that in a baseline rally, Del Potro would have the clear advantage but Mayer has been doing an unexpectedly good job of closing that gap. And that’s because of how well he’s been sneaking up to the net, and sensing whenever he has Del Potro out wide, and out of position. He has been serving and volleying a lot on his own serve too.

Where Del Potro did end up getting the clear advantage over Mayer was on serve, how he’d be able to rely on it for so many more cheap points which made him much less prone to losing serve. Mayer had his chances to break back when Del Potro was serving for the match, missing a drop volley into the net that didn’t even need to be good to be a winner, not to mention that these kinds of shots are Mayer’s specialty.

Due to the match finishing close to 7pm, there was a half hour delay in the night matches. What I wanted to see was Rafael Nadal against Philipp Kohlschreiber, and it ended up being a decent match despite the poor start.

I think I had a fear on what I would comment on, given that Nadal’s strengths and weaknesses have already been extensively covered. And should I make the obvious comment on Nadal’s topspin? The most fascinating part of the match for me was going outside for a break and having a look at the TV screen to see the difference of what the match looked like from there. The context of all of this is that I watched the match from a very diagonal perspective which tends to distort what everything looks like, aside from being able to see everything closer.

I think, during the match, I had not realized that the players were using the whole court so much and having to cover so much of it. But aside from that, the other difference was that, you could barely see any spin on the television. In this particular match, both Nadal and Kohlschreiber were hitting with a lot of spin, though not in a similar way. Looking at all these rallies, almost all of these angles that the players are continuously generating is related to the spin that they are imparting on it to make it break away from the court so much, so it was strange not being able to see it. Though I think it was easier to admire the movement on TV view than live actually.

It was a very slow start indeed for Nadal, and he opened up the first game with a couple of shanked shots. Kohlschreiber was in good form early on in free hitting mode, and he must have been loving those high forehands which surely suit his exaggerated grip. Kohlschreiber looked as if he had plenty of time to hit the ball to wind up for his shots, and he was easily the aggressor early on in the match.

It’s a sign that Nadal isn’t playing well early on when the flow of play is so one-sided like this, with it depending so heavily on what Kohlschreiber does. Of course, early on I was curious about Nadal’s spin so I paid specific attention to the height he was getting over the net. It’s no surprise that it was a little higher than other players, but it seemed to be different every single time, and it was especially higher if he was running out wide.

He doesn’t hit a shot with a very clean sound on his racquet so it’s sometimes difficult to tell just how well he is hitting the ball, and how if he hits a ball higher over the net, whether it is intentional or not. Though it’s not like everything looks the same. There is a difference. It’s just less obvious.

In the first set, Nadal is still playing it safe. He’s picking a lot on Kohlschreiber’s forehand and willing to trade backhand crosscourts for a long time. But he starts to time the ball better and become more consistent, which makes it increasingly difficult for Kohlschreiber to execute his shots. Though I do think that Kohlschreiber lost sense of what he was trying to achieve in his shotmaking, and didn’t target Nadal’s forehand often enough at that stage.

Nadal’s forehand is nowhere near as mechanical live, by the way I think. I put it down to the movement that he has on that side, which just makes it more beautiful to watch how he will sometimes be off the ground for a short period of time when making contact with the ball. It’s very athletic.

In terms of Nadal’s movement, as expected, his feet are moving quickly all the time. The result of it is that unlike some other players I’ve seen, whether he gets to a shot or not is nowhere near as surprising because his first steps, middle steps and last steps are all as quick as each other seemingly. The longer the match went on, the more he started to hit that trademark running forehand passing shot which I find to be ridiculously accurate.

The first set was like the trial period for both players, and in the second set they started to figure out more of what worked. I don’t really know why they needed that period given that they’ve played against each other numerous times before, but nevertheless it was there. Kohlschreiber in the second set, despite being less consistent had discovered the type of all-court game that he needed to play which would give him more chance to be successful on a long term basis.

Nadal stopped hitting as many backhand crosscourt rallies and started making Kohlschreiber move side to side more. This is what he needed to do, to take further control of the match, and make it more about him. After a while, it ended up being a nice all-court battle to watch. Though in the end, Nadal’s ability to hit on the run would continually improve, and Kohlschreiber was bound to make a few too many errors under that much pressure. It was a long match though, and rather competitive.

Australian Open Day 3 Blog

It's early in the morning, and I'm not really bothered about whether I watch Tomas Berdych, Fernando Gonzalez or Andy Roddick. I have to admit that when blogging, I like to take into consideration, that I might actually want to write about someone that I haven’t already written about… only if I’m stumped as to what I would like to choose.

I chose Andy Roddick and he’s facing Thomaz Bellucci, a potentially promising young player with competent looking groundstrokes. I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say that they are stylish, but it is getting there. He has the type of groundstrokes filled with full, circular motions, and fluid motions like that are definitely more pleasant to watch than the abrupt. In the past, I had thought of him as a strong baseliner, who has the ability to hit forcing shots.

Sadly I had overrated his chances in this particular match, and about three games into the match, Roddick already appeared a heavy favourite winning far more points on Bellucci’s serve than the other way around. I remember those days when Roddick was thought of as unlikely to win baseline rallies against any player that thrives in that area, but that has changed now.

It was an inhibited performance from Roddick though, mostly staying within his comfort zone, disappointing from a spectator point of view because he can be more adventurous than that. There was not much of an attempt to hit baseline winners, it was more about forcing shots, finding depth and limiting his opponent’s options. Roddick had incredibly low unforced error statistics, which was impossible for Bellucci to keep up with, and it only increased the pressure on the Brazilian to come up with more spectacular points.

I just wonder, despite the one-sided victory, whether this is the correct way for Roddick to play because every time he reaches the latter stages of tournaments, we inevitably see him trying to play a more all-court game, and perhaps it would be best for him to use some extra practice on the approach shots.

It was interesting to see the development of Bellucci over the course of the match, and his attempt to play an all-court game, to break up the rhythm of Roddick. He was definitely the more aggressive player, but he never looked reliable enough, or even entirely certain on what he was trying to achieve. I am not sure whether Bellucci even pulled it off well enough to be considered an all-court player. He gets marks for trying, but maybe a little more practice in this area is required.

As the second set concluded, I decided that was enough for me so I made my way back to the main section of outside courts to see Philipp Kohlschreiber play against Wayne Odesnik. Only to find out that there are barely any seats there. Still, the alternatives I had in my mind were too far away for me to walk, so I stayed for a while. Just long enough to have a look at their groundstrokes.

This view I have directly facing the baseline, is one that looks a lot like the video camera shots you get in warm-ups of matches where you get an extremely close look at the players and their technique. Kohlschreiber’s groundstrokes look great from here, with the very noticeable shotmaking ability he has, but many of his shots aren’t even landing in the court. It doesn’t seem to matter from here, whether he misses or not.

His backhand obviously is the big strength, and at first glance it looks as aesthetically pleasing as Justine Henin’s. But again, not with the same effect. I think a common trait of all great single-handed backhands is that backhand crosscourts can be exceptionally potent in shots that look like rallying shots, not hit too far away from the opponent. Shots that just happen to spin further and further away from the opponent on landing.

Kohlschreiber’s shots tend to do that on both sides though because he does hit with a lot of spin without compromising pace or penetration. He has big grip changes on both sides, and he is literally uncoiling his shots, the way he will use his whole body. I suppose his forehand works in the same way that a discus is thrown in athletics although to a much lesser extent clearly. Again, you get the sense that all of this is great when it works, not so much when it isn’t.

Odesnik does a good job of keeping up with Kohlschreiber’s groundstrokes showing some very good side to side movement. He seems very light on his feet and capable of offering up shots that aren’t significantly weaker on the run. The problem is that all of his forehands are loopy and high over the net. To win rallies, he needs to play long points every point moving his forehand around using claycourt point construction.

In the first set, Odesnik had numerous opportunities and couldn’t convert, while Kohlschreiber converted his one chance. The match was mostly a matter of how well Kohlschreiber could play, with the match clearly in his hands.

There’s only so much tennis I can watch standing up so I decided to watch Feliciano Lopez’s match against Rainer Schuettler instead.

It was one set all, and they were midway into the third set. As I walk into the stadium, I see Lopez gesturing to his box, making a lot of arm signals about how bad his play is. When they get to exchanging rallies, the first thing that I notice is just how much Lopez steals the show, making Schuettler seem totally irrelevant. I think it’s all about that grunt. It doesn’t seem to matter whether Lopez is hitting a big shot or not, he puts in an effort grunt which says, look how hard I’m working out here.

But apart from that, Lopez seems very bouncy on the court, as he returns serve and it always looks like he’s constantly using his knees, bouncing them around in a very subtle manner. Watching him play live, I’m very surprised by how reliable his groundstrokes look and how well he moves. He’s comfortably exchanging long rallies with Schuettler, without looking like the worse player. I always thought of him more as a serve/forehand/volley player but his other attributes are not that terrible. Still, it was the forehand that made the rallies competitive between him and Schuettler, the main difference I think which allowed him to win.

Schuettler on both sides seemed lacking in potency, like a weaker and more one-dimensional version of the tennis Andy Roddick was playing this morning. He doesn't seem to have the ability to seize control of rallies without giving big chances to his opponent to balance it out again with a big shot. It’s interesting that more than a year ago, I wrote about Schuettler being the complete opposite of an effortless player, the way he would deliberately use a lot of his arms and legs in the creation of a forceful groundstroke. But to balance that, I think he is actually very efficient. He has textbook defensive skills, great at cutting across diagonally to retrieve wide balls.  He meets the ball before it drops too far and he often seems to be in contact with the ball in the best position.

Unfortunately he doesn’t seem anywhere near as effective when he’s not counterpunching and trying to create something, and that’s where a lot of the mistakes come from. This is the difference between Schuettler playing well and playing poorly, whether he can pull off more aggressive, non-counterpunching shots where he can't just use the pace that he was given with. As the fourth set went on, the errors seemed to pile up for Schuettler and it became a more one-sided affair for Lopez.

For a player that is labelled as a serve-and-volleyer, Lopez didn’t really do that in spades today. I noticed that he really likes to use his forehand and the midcourt ball, and prefer to come in on the next shot instead.

After a decent chunk of waiting time and scoreboard monitoring during matches, the match between Florian Mayer and Viktor Troicki had finally arrived. I don’t like to leave matches abruptly, so they were midway in the first set when I first joined. They have scoreboards this year that have updated scores in the changeovers which is a great improvement from last year saving me from walking back to the IBM scoreboard on the grounds out of panic. Though this ends up taking my attention away from the players sitting at the changeover, and now I never have any clue what they are doing in those breaks.

As I take my seat, Troicki has just taken the first service break of the match and clenches his fist. It was only a matter of time, I pessimistically thought. Well, this is the match-up of the unorthodox techniques, so it seems appropriate that I should analyse that. Troicki’s serve consists of a ball toss that is thrown ridiculously far forward, and his legs are spaced so far apart at first, before moving them both together at front to create that universally slanted/forward-moving action. But it obviously works well. He generates a lot of pace on it, and it was a good serving day for him. Something around 20 aces.

With unorthodox technique usually comes technically liable shots and that’s what happened in the first set with the set being focused on both players’ flailing forehands. Both Troicki and Mayer are definitely more solid on their backhands. Troicki has more of an ability to get on top of forehands and hit it big though. For the first set, that’s what the difference between the two was.

Mayer was generally spending most of his time behind the baseline chopping and slicing shots in defense. His forehand was proving to be a big liability too, and Troicki went up an early break in the second set. But where Troicki should have capitalised and ran away with it, his game suffered too and started leaking errors. This gave the chance for Mayer to start working his way back into the match and solidifying his game.

It seems like lately, Mayer is a very slow starter as his game gradually turned from solid to assured and confident over the course of the match. What a difference it makes when Mayer is playing well and confident about his game. Sometimes he seems like a bit of a low key type of person and in between points, it shows but from late in the second set onwards, Mayer was transformed into a much better player. He was doing everything quicker now, and suddenly it seemed like he had much more offensive options.

The turning point was that forehand crosscourt. A shot that I didn’t even know was a weapon. The shot that he had been missing turned out to be one of his greatest strengths, the way he’d consistently find a great angle with it and use it to build and construct all his points with. Once he had that shot working, his whole game started to come together, that full-flowing unorthodox game in all its glory. Dropshots, serving-and-volleying, awesome double-handed slice backhands that barely skidded over the net, strong double-handed backhand drives and occasional forehand slices and just really fun all-round play.

There was no way I was going to leave this match, while it was this entertaining. And the intimate atmosphere is great too, not feeling distanced compared to other larger showcourts, and sitting near numerous German and Serbian supporters. I like how whether I decide to clap softly or loudly seems to make a noticeable difference to the atmosphere I am feeling around me.

I could barely believe it that Mayer would be controlling the match as much as this. This had to be a result of Troicki’s decision to play in a more restrained way on the forehand, because of the errors he was making. But by the time he had readjusted his aggression again, Mayer had built up all the confidence he needed. I think his decision to return Troicki’s serve much earlier and closer to the baseline made a big difference in the outcome.

Throughout this match, Troicki was animated and fiery. It seems to be a given almost these days that every match without Hawkeye will have some disagreement about a line call in it, and this was no exception. Except that Troicki went far enough to suggest that there is a problem with females umpiring men’s matches, which ended up causing a very charged atmosphere that had crowd members shouting comments at Troicki, but Troicki continued to direct all of his complaints to the chair umpire.

Troicki picked up his level of play in the third set which ended up being the best part of the match, featuring excellent all-court play from both players. Mayer seems to have a unique knack of being able to hit almost every passing shot low over the net by the way. The highlight of the match would have to be the third set tie-break, where Mayer broke open the tie-break and his lead, by hitting a spectacular dive volley where his racquet fell from his hands after contact, quite awesome under the circumstances.

After such an intense and high quality third set, Mayer took advantage of a loss in concentration to achieve the early break. Troicki had his chances to break back, but he didn't convert, and then he decided that he had enough. This was not a dejected performance. This was an immature release of frustration, almost as if he was making a statement. He made a specific effort to make no effort. Serving to stay in the match, he didn’t even plant his feet properly before serving and he hit every serve, first or second as big as possible and served and volleyed. This really is the kind of behaviour that can break your reputation, and he should have at least tried to keep it professional.

Nevertheless I was in a hurry to watch Andy Murray anyway in his first round match against Marc Gicquel, so I saw the good side of it. But even though Troicki tried to make the end of the match as quick as possible, so did Murray in the beginning of his. As expected, the stadium was fully packed though at what stage that happened I’m not sure. Fortunately I ended up occupying the media seats at the top row and end caught just over a set of this match.

At first it’s difficult adjusting to the view being significantly farther from the players. There’s definitely no connection here. Actually you can’t really see topspin that well from up here, instead you can just see the balls bouncing relatively high.

One of the first things I noticed is that it didn’t seem like one of Murray’s sluggish or behind-the-baseline days. He was very quick to move forward into the ball and on the rise. Most people hit their backhands by driving right through it, but Murray’s backhand looks like more of a reflective shot, which makes him great at redirecting shots on that side. In comparison to other players’ games, one thing that stands out is how Murray can play an all-court game more effortlessly and fluidly. He doesn’t need to charge into the net, and his way of showing urgency is to have his feet and racquet set up early.

Gicquel seemed to be on the right track tactically, but he didn’t have the game to back it up. He took his forehand early wherever possible, and took charge wherever possible. From this view, Gicquel’s movement onto his forehand and arm action reminds me of Stepanek’s, the way he moves forward to hit his racquet down onto the ball especially when it’s close to his body. The problem with it though, is that he is inconsistent with it and his game was not really technically sound enough for it to execute on the regular basis that was required.

The strengths and weaknesses of the ATP top 10

This is the article I wrote for Sportingo in an attempt to win the £50 prize, but was unfortunately unsuccessful.

Roger Federer

Known for having one of the most complete, all-round games, Federer has the unique knack of being able to combine sheer pace with finesse. The best shotmaker in the game, capable of winning matches with the most dazzling display of winners.

Defensively he is very light on his feet and has excellent reflexes which allows him to half-volley shots on the defensive, to be able to quickly turn defense into offense.

His forehand is a creative shot which allows him to create bigger openings than most other players can, due to his superior racquet control and improvisation skills. His backhand is a solid shot, but his backhand slice especially short in the court is the great strength, for putting opponents in uncomfortable positions and making it difficult for them to take complete control of rallies.

Federer can be prone to shanking balls because of his quick racquet head speed, though he does this surprisingly rarely as his strong record over the years shows. He is most prone to succumbing to the players that are most difficult to break down, such as Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, that force him into long, competitive rallies.

Rafael Nadal

One of the great competitors of the game, Nadal is famous for his intense approach to the game, and attention-to-detail. Undoubtedly one of his biggest strengths is his willingness to improve his game, his gradual transition to becoming more of a shotmaker and more adaptable to all surfaces.

Nadal's game revolves around his forehand, similar to Federer's, how he can force his opponent to cover large amounts of court with the angles he can create on it due to the topspin.

Nadal never succumbs to impatience, and is an expert at pounding at his opponent’s weakness relentlessly, particularly if that weakness is a right-hander’s backhand. He has a knack of hitting superb passing shots on the run. His backhand crosscourt is an improving shot and he can generate impressive pace on it, usually to his opponent’s surprise. Fitness-wise, he can outlast anyone in the game, which can make it a painful experience for his opponents trying to compete with him.

The best chance for opponents to attack him is through his second serve, which has the tendency to land short on occasions. His forehand defensively can also be a problem on hardcourts, because of his big swings which may force him to catch it late. Nadal’s confidence levels tend to fluctuate over the course of the season, which can make him beatable by the very best players or players playing well on their day.

Novak Djokovic

Djokovic is one of the most complete baseliners in the game. He made a name for himself in 2008 with his superb down-the-line shots and impressive athletic ability, the extra effort he puts in to ensure a deep, effective defensive shot on the full stretch. These days, he possesses a relatively complete baseline game, difficult to outrally or break down. He is capable of grinding out matches when he isn’t playing his best tennis, and his backhand is a technically sound shot.

His second serve is becoming more of a liability these days landing shorter than it used to, and his forehand is not an efficient enough shot which can lead to having its bad days. His forehand seems to struggle particularly when not given pace or height to work with. Djokovic has a tendency of turning difficult matches into dramatic spectacles, which can be his own undoing in bad matches.

Andy Murray

Known for his unique, crafty approach to the game, Murray is one of the few players that utilise the full area of the court, famous for finding his way around his opponents rather than through them. Most of this is through to the creative slice backhand he possesses, inside-out curving outwards or short angled wide, and he is also capable of creating short angles on the forehand side.

His game is a strange combination of low-paced and fast-paced shots, taking his opponents by surprise more often than not. Like Nadal, he has an excellent ability of hitting superb shots on the run, and he has great passing shots. His backhand is his biggest strength, and almost never breaks down. He is extremely consistent and loves long rallies.

Murray is capable of finishing points off at the net, but often prefers not to, moving his opponents around instead. In today’s stronger and more powerful generation, Murray’s lack of power on typical shots can prove to be a problem if not executed perfectly. He can also be overly conservative on return of serve, which works against him on some occasions. His second serve and first serve percentage has also been commonly mentioned as a weakness.

Juan Martin Del Potro

The reason for Del Potro’s success is his lethal combination of power and consistency, the ability to maintain long rallies while remaining aggressive and in control of rallies. He’s accurate, but doesn’t need to hit close to the lines because he’s so powerful. Backed up by a strong serve, Del Potro excels at the simple quick shot combos to kill off short balls, and any weaknesses thrown by his opponents.

He shows good point construction, and is able to sense when he needs to play more aggressively to turn around a match. He’s mentally strong, and becoming increasingly difficult to break down.

His weakness is his foot speed, and his ability to change from defense to offense is not as good as the players ranked above him. He operates best when given a rhythm to work with, and he doesn’t like bending down too often. He is excellent at covering up his weaknesses however, and he doesn’t often relinquish a point he has under his control.

Andy Roddick

The man with the fastest serve in men’s tennis history, Roddick is difficult to break because of his strong first serve percentages and variation on serve – a mixture of pace, kick and slice. The rest of his game is solid and smart, varied enough to make it difficult for his opponents to attack his obvious weakness on the backhand. His strength over the course of his career has been his adventurous approach to his game, the willingness to tinker with various aspects of his game to keep it fresh and relevant.

Roddick can be outrallied by strong baseliners, so it’s always a battle for him to break out of other players’ patterns of play. His backhand, especially as a passing shot is the great weakness as it showed against Isner in the US Open. If serving well and playing confidently, Roddick can be a threat to many players, but the difference between him and the players ranked above him is that he can also lose to moderately ranked players more often, though he rarely loses to low ranked players.

Nikolay Davydenko

For better or worse, Davydenko has a one-size-fits-all approach to the game. Aggressive, early ball-striking based on the idea that if you attack your opponent first, they can’t attack you. Thankfully he is a superb ball-striker and has a great combination of foot speed and footwork.

He can create excellent angles, and is one of the best at changing directions. The key to breaking down Davydenko’s game is to generally throw him out of his rhythm, though it can be a difficult task, but on some days, Davydenko has the capabilities to break down his own game with a rash of errors. Another weakness is that Davydenko doesn’t really possess a change of pace. Fortunately Davydenko is a shot-focused player and will rarely be bothered about his own errors, hopeful that his game might come together quickly.

Fernando Verdasco

Verdasco always had the weapons to become a top player, but didn’t know how to harness those strengths. His strength is clearly his forehand, which he can use to control proceedings, and because of the spin he generates on the ball, he is capable of hitting forceful shots without hitting anywhere near full pace, though he can flatten it out also.

The variety on his forehand is excellent, and tactically he is improving, especially in terms of killing off points under his control, realizing that it doesn’t need to be done in one shot. Given the explosive nature of his forehand, he has a tendency to try to win matches cheaply with his forehand, especially pulling the trigger on the high-risk high-reward forehand down-the-line too much. He has an excellent sliding serve especially on the backhand court, and often serves high first serve percentages.

By tactically playing better, he has removed some of the flashy shotmaking that made him dangerous. His return of serve is solid and consistent, but not that great offensively. He doesn’t utilise an all-court game as much as he should, and sometimes he can be lacking in fire and motivation in matches, though that has also improved.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

Tsonga is one of the best short point players in the game at the moment, which allows him to maintain good consistency despite not being as solid of a player as many of his peers. He can create so much damage with the one shot, due to his big forehand as well as his follow-up ability at the net. He has a great transition game, because of his impressive athleticism. Because of his attacking style of play, he is capable of covering his weakness on the backhand, difficult to drag into long rallies.

The weakness for Tsonga is that he doesn’t seem completely sure of what style of play he wants to play, and sometimes doesn’t commit fully to being aggressive, and putting pressure on his opponents. He can also rely too much on his shotmaking, and doesn’t yet know how to grind out matches. His return of serve can be a weakness, especially against better servers.

Robin Soderling

Soderling has been a surprisingly consistent player after his breakthrough run at the French Open, despite not having the characteristics that would suggest he would be one. His game is strongly based on a powerful serve, and he backs it up with a big forehand and solid backhand. Pace of shot and shotmaking are Soderling’s greatest strengths. He can overpower most of his opponents, and has the ability to string together a great return game to break serve.

He's likely the most one-dimensional player in the top 10, not really capable of much subtlety and he can appear to be lunging around the court when moving. The movement to his forehand out wide can be exploited, especially if he has to bend down low, and he has problems moving forward as well. With Soderling, it’s very much a case of sticking to his strengths and he has shown good form and confidence recently which is the key to his success. He is also stronger mentally than he used to be, thanks to the help of his current coach Magnus Norman.

What does Andy Murray need to do to make that next step in a Grand Slam?

It would be unfair to call Andy Murray’s successful 2009 season as a sophomore slump. In a way, it’s a reference to the mindset that changes, Murray’s second successful year as a solidified top player on tour, and it can be draining mentally. Adrenaline doesn’t last forever, and every peak levels out eventually, whether due to increasing expectations or declining play.

It’s a common observation in tennis, young players finding their forms and suddenly feeling like they’re on top of the world. They’ve barely started their careers and they’re already close to the top of the rankings. It’s not like Andy Murray first started his pro career, but his meteoric rise began in the US hardcourt season last year, highlighted by a US Open final appearance.

He’s had good results in 2009, but his Grand Slam results have left a lot to be desired not living up to the results from the Masters events. Tennis is a confidence sport, and somehow staying on an even plateau can result in a lack of inspiration, the feeling of being stagnant despite all efforts to move a career forward on and off the court.

Playing well requires a certain spark, a surge of interest and energy to play attacking and athletic tennis. Big events such as Grand Slams require this in spades, as witnessed by runs from Fernando Gonzalez, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Robin Soderling in previous years. Murray has it inside of him in case he needs it, but he needs to believe that he needs to use it. Murray is one of those players that will use just as much as he needs, and that has been his biggest downfall.

Is it a sign of cockiness, preference or inability to read other people’s full potential? I think, it is a combination of all three. As much as Murray is a thoughtful player, he is also a reactive player often bogged down into using too many deft slices and rolled over shots to the point where he is more entertaining himself than getting the job done in the best way possible. Ultimately if he is being outplayed, he will still believe in his ability to fight through a match without feeling a drastic change is needed, like the Montreal final against Juan Martin Del Potro. It’s the type of stubbornness that can often be seen with the best players.

Considering that Murray has the ability to drastically change the patterns of play, he doesn’t often make noticeable changes within a match, usually minor at best. His style of play is more varied in between matches, from one opponent to the next. His way of being aggressive in recent times has been more like hitting a panic button, trying to hit the ball harder rather than structuring a more aggressive point, like in his Wimbledon match against Andy Roddick.

He very rarely plays a statement match these days, those matches that send out signs to the rest of the locker room, to watch out. He’s not an intimidating figure, but rather a confusing player to play against at the best of times. The best way to beat him is to not get sucked into it, keep it simple and straightforward, patient target tennis like Cilic showed at the US Open. Forget about his athleticism because he can’t hurt you if he’s too much on the defensive.

As much as taking the long way round can be a sight for sore eyes, it’s obviously silly to take the longer route when you can take the shorter one. That’s something Juan Martin Del Potro showed loud and clear in the US Open final. If you can hit a winner into the open court, then do it. I suspect the problem is that Murray has not yet fully mastered how to control his faster paced balls.

What makes the best players in the world where they are, is generally that they don’t allow their opponents to have success even on their good days. They don’t play down their level noticeably, but they still keep that margin of error. Building up an opponent’s confidence is a dangerous thing, and I always feel that Murray is on the borderline to flirting with disaster.

He needs to get it ingrained in his head that anyone is capable of having a good ball-striking day, and treat every dangerous player as if they’re capable of Rafael Nadal-like consistency. It may not be true, but who would have thought that Robin Soderling would have made the French Open final?

Andy Murray surprisingly struggles against Julien Benneteau

Video Clips: First set | Second set | Third set

It was supposed to be a straightforward match on paper, but somehow Andy Murray's match against Julien Benneteau in the quarter-finals of Cincinnati turned into a dramatic contest that was reminiscent of Murray's match against Del Potro in last week's Montreal final. It was yet another case of Murray outlasting one of his opponents, and a showcase of Murray's fighting abilities.

He didn't play his best tennis, but he kept spurring himself on, like a nagging inner voice in his head and in the end, it paid off. It's almost like Murray needs to be disgusted with himself before he can push himself to do better things.

I like the mindset that Benneteau took in this match, not flustered or trying too hard to make things happen. I've heard commentators say that you have to red line your game against the top players, but Benneteau played within himself, comfortable in his own shoes and not intimidated by the occasion. Sometimes it's better to feel your opponents out and see what they have to offer. This is where it's Murray's job to quickly show why he's ranked where he is, and he didn't do that.

In fact, he did the complete opposite. It looked like a clear case of Murray underestimating his opponent. The more Murray has improved his fitness, the more he gets away with daring his opponents to find a way through him, to find an unlikely gaping hole in his defense. It's a lazy way of playing to me, a reactive way of playing, almost like he's only trying to protect his territory, not making any attempt to make that knock-out blow on the other side of the court. This might sound like a strange suggestion, but I'd like to see him put more thought into his shot selection. He is obviously capable of doing so, but doesn't use it as a weapon as much as he should.

It wasn't a good day for Murray, and that was just as much of a reason for the loss of the first set, as his shot selection. He made some strange errors, sometimes hitting the bottom of the net on his groundstrokes which is a rare sight, and his serve was nowhere near finding its timing. It had to be confidence shattering, the manner in which Murray lost the first set shanking his serves all the way into the wrong side of the court. If he played the same way tactically as he did, but had better timing overall, he probably would have won the first set as well.

Still, Benneteau played a smart match, and I liked how calm he was as if he was playing any other match. He's been involved in many battles over the course of the week, including a three hour match against Garcia-Lopez that was physically exhausting and filled with long, competitive rallies. Maybe it's because he's become so battle-hardened with all the tennis he's played this week that he can find the tennis that works best for him without overly dwelling on it.

In a way, I think Benneteau plays an efficient game. He takes the ball early, has short backswings and he doesn't really have a lot of excessive rotation on his shots. That's what allows him to achieve good accuracy, but at the same time, generating pace doesn't really come naturally to him. He couldn't really hit the ball through Murray, but he found ways around him and he followed it up at the net when he could.

Whenever he hit an intentionally short slice, he had good results pulling Murray off the court. It's a good way of getting Murray out of position to defend the next shot, taking his foot speed out of the equation. It was a good, subtle display of variety and Benneteau showed some nice feel at the net with the drop volleys at times.

Even though Benneteau played an well-constructed game overall and the accuracy on his shots were good in terms of placement, I wasn't impressed by the depth on his shots which made his shots clearly attackable. That was the biggest weakness in his game, and Murray didn't take advantage of it.

After that horrible shanked serve at the end of the first set, Murray seemed affected mentally at the start of the second set, playing a similarly poor game to lose the second set. It was an interesting situation that I wish would have been explored more, to see how Benneteau would respond mentally in a winning position to close out the match. When it comes to closing out important matches and playing with leads, I would personally rate Benneteau as being one of the weakest. It's often strange how his groundstrokes can sometimes look completely relaxed while other times it can look completely mechanical and tight.

Instead, Murray responded quickly to the threat of losing. This was to be the game where Murray suddenly raised the effort level of his game. It's almost like Murray isn't really chasing the win, but it's because he hates losing that drives him to raise his energy levels. The reason why the 2-0 game was so important was because Benneteau also put all of his mental and physical exertions into it.

It must have been heartbreaking the way he constructed the 50+ shot rally, doing all the hard work to move Murray out of court only to miss the smash on the final shot. It was a match-changing point, and one which sped up the change of momentum into Murray's favour. I think, eventually Murray would have wormed his way into the match anyway but this point quickly changed it into a one-sided affair.

It fired up Murray in a way that allowed him to strike the ball better, and amazingly, the depth and pace on his shots naturally got better as a result of how he was feeling in this match. Suddenly his backswings seemed less lazy then they were and he was generating better racquet head speed than before. At least Benneteau continued to fight hard during the rest of the match, but he simply couldn't make any dents into the match out of fatigue.

Murray outlasts Del Potro in the Montreal final

Video Clips: First set | Second set | Third set | Presentation

Andy Murray once again solidified himself as one of the main contenders in the upcoming US Open with a Masters win in Montreal over Juan Martin Del Potro in the final. But what information can we take from his form this week?

Murray and Del Potro are starting to develop a strong rivalry, and today’s match was yet another competitive affair like their last couple of encounters. It was originally thought that Murray possessed the variety that could unravel Del Potro’s game, but it hasn’t really turned out to be the case.

Del Potro is starting to develop a more complete game, making subtle changes in his game but without losing sight of what makes him so difficult to play against. These days it’s becoming increasingly difficult to break down Del Potro’s game. It’s been a while since Del Potro has been made to look clumsy, discounting the Wimbledon loss to Hewitt which looked more like a surface-specific loss in hindsight. He isn’t only staying consistent, he’s improving and becoming a much better big match player.

One of the most impressive things about his performances this week has been shotmaking under pressure. In fact, he’s not only ice cool under pressure. I really think he plays even better when he needs to. He finds his best serves. He hits the ball harder and closer to the lines, whereas he’s happier to play a more balanced game at other times. When Del Potro hits the ball as hard as he can, it’s incredibly hard. It draws gasps from the crowd, and his opponents can’t see it coming because he uses practically the same backswing.

The quality of the match wasn’t great. It was more about the battle and the occasion. Murray started off the match with a clear game plan, trying to move Del Potro short and wide out of his comfort zone. He was playing the better tennis of the two, but with little reward as Del Potro managed to hold on the back of his strong serving.

Early on in the match, they showed a comparison of the shot placement of both Murray and Del Potro and there was a huge contrast. Del Potro’s shots were mainly down the centre of the court, and his backhand wasn’t firing as well as it had been in the last couple of matches either. Murray’s placement was far better, accurate and varied, not only terms in width but depth as well, forcing Del Potro to move up and down the court.

Del Potro clearly didn’t like it, and at one stage he looked completely confused as to what to do on the court. It’s not often you see Del Potro attempting drop shots, and clearly it was a sign of resignation more than anything else. But he held on with good serving, and started to find his way into the match just as the match was starting to reach its climax. For someone that is known for having a one-dimensional game, Del Potro did a good job of changing his tactics and exploring a more all-court game. I’m sure that even a couple of months ago, he wouldn’t have attempted something like this.

I’ve rarely seen Del Potro miss any simple volleys, and even the medium difficulty volleys are very solid. He understands better than most that it’s not necessary to overplay them, and he’s okay with hitting a second volley if he needs to. Just like how he approaches the rest of his game. It wasn’t necessarily his decision to come forward that helped him, but I think that whole mindset helped him play a more purposeful game. To construct his points in a way that would lead to an attacking approach shot.

With Del Potro not hanging around in the long rallies as much as he did earlier, it really exposed Murray’s lack of finishing ability on his shots. He essentially nudges his opponents around, but he’ll always give his opponents a sniff at regaining control. It’s fine for the majority of players, but it’s dangerous with Del Potro because he can generate so much power on the run with his long wingspan. And when Del Potro takes control of a point, he doesn’t back off or let you off the hook. That’s where I think Del Potro is better than Murray.

I wonder what was going inside of Murray’s head as the match progressed, as he began to lose sight of his tactics more and more. Did he come out with tactics that were specifically discussed by his coaching team, then lost track of it as he started to lose himself in the battle? Sometimes it’s easy to start to focus on the little things, and forget about the bigger picture which is what seemed to happen here. I think, while it’s fine initially in the rally to hit that slow probing shot to move Del Potro out of court, he needs to step it up to take advantage of the openings he creates for himself. He can’t keep letting his opponents back into points.

They showed on the statistics count late in the second set that Murray had only approached the net about 10 times compared to Del Potro’s 27 times. To some extent that’s because Del Potro’s groundstrokes are more penetrating, but I still see Murray as being capable of stretching his opponents out wide to the point where they can only block back shots. Not to mention that his volleying ability is better than Del Potro’s.

To be fair, the credit lies with Del Potro in the first set for playing great points, and for being more adventurous. Apparently he won the first set tie-break with 6 outright winners. To break Murray’s serve to crucially win the tie-break, he leaned in on a backhand and followed it up to the net. I can only count on one hand the amount of times that Del Potro has ever followed up a return into the net. That has to be admired, trying out something new on a big point, on one of the make-or-break points of the first set.

Unfortunately from here on in, Del Potro started to fight an uphill battle with himself, fighting fatigue from his physical exertions of the last couple of weeks. He saved a couple of break points in his first service game of the second set in quite spectacular fashion, with big shots but eventually conceded the game through inconsistency. He was no longer left with much choice as to how he could play this match. He had to be aggressive and shorten the points.

Murray could sense that this was his chance to seize control of the match, knowing that his next service game was potentially a great chance to stamp his authority on the match. The problem was that Del Potro sensed the same thing and played his best game of the match to break serve. He summoned all of the energy he could find in an attempt to hit Murray off the court, ripping winners from the baseline. Murray was furious with himself, knowing that as long as the match stayed even, Del Potro still had every chance to win on the back of his serve, and he was still dangerous off the ground playing such an aggressive game. Murray had to be careful not to give him too many second serves to work off.

Murray wasn’t happy with his returns. Usually he gets his biggest advantage with his return of serve, which is usually deep and accurate. He couldn’t seem find his timing on Del Potro’s serve often enough, not finding enough depth on his return. Maybe the trajectory of Del Potro’s shots coming down from a great height makes it more difficult to block back effectively, to make use of those short backswings. It must be said that it’s not like anyone else has been able to effectively figure out how to deal with Del Potro’s serve this week either. He’s been consistently hitting it with accuracy close to the lines.

As the match entered the second set tie-break, the curious question was whether Del Potro would be able to make yet another quick surge, knowing that he was close to the finishing line. He tried to, and as long as he was still winning points, the adrenaline was still there to carry him through. But one tired forehand error midway into the tie-break, and the body language had significantly changed. He could no longer summon any additional energy and he didn’t have the belief anymore.

The third set continued in the same vein, and it became obvious that this was Murray’s title to win. The only way Del Potro was going to win this in this condition was on the back of his serve. Except that his serve had now significantly slowed down, so it turned into a one-sided blowout.

Still, Del Potro can take a lot of positives from this tournament. He’s definitely much more of a contender for big events than he used to be, more capable of upsetting the best players and better at performing under pressure. Though I still question whether he can perform under pressure as well against the likes of Federer and Nadal compared to Djokovic, Roddick and Murray because he did look a little shaky against Nadal the other day in the first set.