Australian Open 2011 - Day 3 Blog

Due to last night's late finish and having to blog afterwards, today felt like a strange continuation of yesterday. I ended up watching fewer matches because I started to doze off after a while.

I really needed to be punctual for the 11am start, because Florian Mayer was scheduled against Kei Nishikori. When I arrived, Mayer and Nishikori had just walked onto Court 6, and I noticed there were plenty of empty seats so I tried to find myself the perfect seat. This ended up being a far more difficult task than I originally thought.

I already ranted about there being far too many shade covers on this court in the Simon vs Lu match, more so than on Court 7. But it turns out on the other side, if you sit too close to the middle opposite to the umpire chair side, you’ll be looking through blue sheets on one third of the court. Probably around 70% of the seats on that court have a restricted view. As Mayer and Nishikori were warming up, I switched seats about three times until I finally found a seat I liked. Thank goodness there was at least one good spot.

Unfortunately after all of that internal drama to start with, the spectacle was sorely lacking from Mayer. It was a very subdued performance from him, with everything slower paced than usual, and far too many errors creeping into his game. It was such a letdown from his fantastic win over Davydenko, and I think perhaps he was also a little tired, as he would sometimes bang his legs to try to get them moving more quickly.

To start with, it was mostly a defensive performance from Mayer, not going for his shots, but also not able to prolong rallies due to all those simple errors. Perhaps also, Nishikori didn’t give him that much pace to work with. It was a very controlled and disciplined performance, different to what I saw from him in the past where he’d try to be more flashy with the forehand. I saw Brad Gilbert in the stands a couple of rows ahead of me, and it seems like he is improving his tactical game as a result of that coaching change. I thought he played some very smart and patient tennis in this match. Could you believe it took him until the fourth set until he hit his first jumping forehand?

He played a different game today. Not focused on hitting outright winners, but on moving the ball around the court, using the full width of it. I’m typically a fan of this kind of play, going around your opponents instead of through them. Looking at Nishikori’s groundstrokes, they look so technically sound, much more so than the majority of players I have seen before. Playing like this, I could not notice any weaknesses in his game, aside from perhaps the serve which could get attacked. That was probably the main thing keeping Mayer’s chances alive in the match, his return of Nishikori’s serve.

I thought Nishikori was playing at around a top 20 standard today, but then again, I later saw Stanislas Wawrinka today, and maybe that was a level above. In any case, if he keeps playing like this, he will quickly rise up the rankings this year.

Today was the first time I had seen Mayer show such poor touch in a match. He missed practically every drop volley in the first two sets, or so it felt like. He definitely missed plenty of easy ones for his standards. Obviously the creative side of Mayer was missing in action today, but he did try to play better. It was just that every time he would string together a couple of good points, he’d ruin it with another error. On the defensive, he’d generally hit those low slices and slow shots, so those shouldn’t have ended up being errors because he didn’t even go for them. So I guess it was mostly to do with poor movement and energy.

Mayer’s level did improve each set though until the fourth set, but generally in a subtle manner. The second set had more of a mixture of good and bad play, instead of being just outright bad. The third set, he had better touch and a more aggressive strategy, but then in the fourth he was too inconsistent again. The third set was nowhere near as one-sided as the 6-0 scoreline suggests. All of the first three games were long and difficult games, but once Nishikori went down a double-break, he conceded the whole set.

From the fourth set onwards, Nishikori started to play more aggressively but I’m not sure whether that was due to increased confidence or a drop in fitness levels. He started to hit those bigger forehands that I’m more accustomed to seeing from him, and as mentioned earlier, more jumping forehands.

On the completion of that match, I made my way into Hisense Arena where I had tickets for throughout the week (so far) but preferred to stay on the outside courts. I think I was encouraged by the pleasantly decent view on my back row seats last night, that I thought the tickets I bought here would be fine.

I went into the stadium, as Janko Tipsarevic was serving for the second set against Fernando Verdasco. I took a quick look up the stadium, to notice a few people reading books, and another with a newspaper in their hands. The memories all came back to me now. How it’s just a completely different mindset in that stadium. It’s filled with plenty of people that are not actually fully concentrated on the tennis. They’re here just to relax.

My seat was slightly frustrating with the handrailing blocking my view. Just one more row up, and I would have been fine. Aside from that, everything seemed so far away in here, and it took me a while to find my concentration. Tipsarevic had just taken a two sets to love advantage, and generally third sets tend to be lacking in tension for the most part in this scenario. I don’t know about other people, but I generally don’t care for watching third sets, whenever the player favoured to win leads two sets to love. But in this case, Tipsarevic was the underdog.

Verdasco hadn’t begun the season in good form though. He lost in the first round of Brisbane to Benjamin Becker. One quick look up into the screen in the stadium shows that so far in this match, he had hit a ridiculously large amount of unforced errors. It would have been something like double the amount of Tipsarevic. I had already started to draw my conclusions before even watching it.

I saw the error count and had all the potential explanations for this match in place. But halfway into the set, I started to realize that Verdasco must have cleaned up his game a whole lot here, because he was moving the ball around nicely. In the first couple of games in the third set, I noticed some bad shanks and errors where it didn’t look like Verdasco had any feel on the ball.

Verdasco is definitely a player worth watching live, mainly to see the forehand, because live, you get even more of a sense that the shot looks very different to most other players. The spin that he puts on the ball is great to watch. It looks very skilful.

This was a relatively fast-paced match for the third and fourth sets (of course, I didn’t see the first two, so I don’t know). Aggressive tennis mixed with good athleticism from both players. I think Tipsarevic was better at absorbing the pace, and hitting higher quality shots on the defense though. Particularly off the backhand. I really like Tipsarevic’s jumping backhand. Okay, he hits it just as well, when he’s not jumping, but it looks good.

In the third set, Verdasco broke serve with some great forehands and aggressive play, aided I think by some first serves being missed by Tipsarevic. The way Tipsarevic failed to serve out the match the first time played out exactly the same way, as the end of the third set. Verdasco was allowed the opportunity to start off each point on the attack, and he took advantage of it.

The fourth set, though was where the match reached its epic climax. Tipsarevic had chances to go up a double break, then he served for the match, broke back, served for it again and had two match points. He was in firm control of the match, but he couldn’t seem to finish it off.

On his second attempt serving for the match, he showed a huge improvement to his first attempt. He played it much better, and on the first match point, he had full control over a rally, but was a little too safe with the putaway volleys, and Verdasco took advantage of it with a spectacular forehand winner. I thought it would have been good enough. But since it wasn’t, he really shouldn’t have been as passive as he was with those volleys. Tipsarevic played a great point too on the second match point. It was a long rally where he had started to up the tempo, and he had just hit a scorching backhand down-the-line. It was called out, and it must have been very close, but Tipsarevic had run out of challenges, making desperate and silly challenges earlier on. Who knows what the result would have been, if he had enough challenges left. Did they show the Hawkeye result of that on TV?

In the end, Tipsarevic didn’t manage to hold, so they went to a tie-break. Unfortunately, from then onwards, Tipsarevic was emotionally scarred from all the opportunities he had in the game before. While the tie-break was going on, he was on some other planet reminiscing about the past. The fifth set would continue in the same manner, with Tipsarevic not really giving his full effort, and looking forward to getting off the court instead.

I was looking forward to getting out of the stadium as well. During the Tipsarevic meltdown, the guy sitting two seats away from me, started rambling on about Tipsarevic. How he had played to lose the first break, how he was playing in the tie-break, how he wasn’t going to win a single game. For just about the entire fourth set tie-break and fifth set. There wasn’t really that much to say about it, so there was obviously a lot of repetition there.

After taking a break and nodding off to sleep in Marion Bartoli’s match (this really had nothing to do with her play), I tried to recover for Stanislas Wawrinka’s match against Grigor Dmitrov.

There has been a lot of hype about Dmitrov, and I had never seen him play before, nor even bothered to read much about how he plays. It seems like he is still very much a work in progress. At the moment, he only has the raw shotmaking ability, and a good serve, but he hasn’t quite figured out what to do with it yet. The way he plays, it all looks a bit random to me, apart from the fact, that his game does seem centred around the forehand, and the serve does help set it up.

His forehand looks impressive when he executes it correctly, but it mostly only looks good from an offensive point of view, not defensive. Whether he is trying to hit it as a winner, or whether he is retrieving it back deep into the centre of the court, he is still hitting it just as hard. It doesn’t look like good percentage tennis to me.

This was a match between two shotmakers, but one was much better in toughing out rallies, and that was Wawrinka. Both had similar amounts of winners, but Wawrinka had far fewer unforced errors. Both won plenty of cheap points on their serve, or followed it up with a winner after their serve, so that made the spectacle a bit dull at times.

London World Tour Finals Wrap-Up

It just occurred to me that this blog will soon be the only avenue I have for tennis writing. Since I haven’t done much in the last couple of months to try to keep it alive, I felt like I should.

It's not the first time I've realized this, but it started to sink in on the day that I heard about Tennis Week closing down (and Most Valuable Network which hosts Tennis Diary will also do so at the end of the year).

In a completely unprepared and spontaneous decision, I have decided to do a wrap-up of the London World Tour Finals. What I can remember the most out of it was closely paying attention to sets and games more than I ever did in previous years because that's what it came down to, more often than not. Juan Martin Del Potro edged out a semi-final place over Andy Murray by one single game, and almost all of the matches were decided in three sets.

In a way it was an accurate representation of men’s tennis as it is today. It is fair to say that the top 10 as a whole looks stronger than it has in a while. On the bottom of the top 10, we have more dangerous players that might not be considered as legitimate contenders for big tournaments but perfectly capable of competing well against the top players, ie. Fernando Verdasco and Robin Soderling. Though it must be said that Verdasco was quoted to having a record against the top ten along the lines of 1-12 for the year, which was what prompted me to suggest that he lost some of his flashiness in my description of him a while back.

I can’t understand what goes inside Verdasco’s head sometimes. I suspect he’s just as confused himself. His game is smooth and effortless, and he has this nonchalant attitude about him as if he doesn’t care much about what’s going on, though it’s hard to tell whether this is actually the case. Part of it is surely a mental holiday, but part of it is also a side effect of the more mature and calm Verdasco. Or at least I found him to be strangely lacking in fire at times at the US Open. The way he’s been playing in the last couple of tournaments seems to be suggesting the same thing, quick to pull the trigger out of impatience after focusing so strongly on playing disciplined tennis this year.

Steve Tignor made an interesting point on his blog, that Verdasco’s problem seemed to be that he wasn’t able to control points without hitting shots that were close to being winners. Del Potro is an obvious example of someone that can do this easily, and the same could be said of Davydenko. Verdasco, on the other hand needs to rely on his go-to shots. The down-the-line forehand is a big point-finisher and Verdasco is a much better player when it works, but at the same time, it’s a high risk shot. I’d also add the wide serves to the list, particularly on the ad court, and when he serves well and accurately, it tends to make the rest of his game look more accurate too having more angles and gaps to work with.

I’ve started to warm to Del Potro more lately because of his eye-catching ability to hit winners out of shots that didn’t look like they could be winners. He also has this ability to suddenly change gears at the drop of a hat, and I would go even further to suggest that he can change moods in the drop of a hat also. Turning negative body language into positive body language.

If he wasn’t such a good shotmaker and able to pull it off, I’d call him an idiot for trying to hit the cover off the ball on a big point, and trying to hit a forehand winner two steps away from where his opponent was standing. Jason Goodall has coined a new term for Del Potro’s ferocious forehands, “vapourising the ball” and “forehands hit at the speed of the light”. I think the big crosscourt forehand returns stand out the most.

For me, I’m just as much impressed by the less flashy but equally as effective double-handed backhand of Del Potro’s. He can do exactly the same thing on that side, trade crosscourt backhands and suddenly rip a backhand winner in the same direction, only slightly wider and deeper and have that come off as a clear winner. Actually Murray can do that too which puzzles me because I would have thought you'd have to hit it ridiculously hard to do that, but he just flattens it out and hits it deep into the corner having it skid through the court.

Del Potro started off slow in the tournament, but this is the week he got out of his post-Slam win hangover, just in time for the start of the new season. It marked the time when his competitive instincts took over, his obvious love for competing and he has the confidence to back it up. Strangely he looked subdued in the final match against Davydenko, and for the first time aside from his first set loss to Andy Murray, never looked like getting going. Though perhaps it could be said, that Davydenko just happened to be one step in front of him at all times, playing at a pace faster and forcing Del Potro to play catch-up all the time.

Federer strangely lost two consecutive matches in similar fashion against Del Potro and Davydenko, on the brink of victory to only have the tables turned on him the following game. Federer had break points in the all-important 7th game in the third set (or something along those lines) in both matches. I’d roughly estimate that in two thirds of those points, Del Potro and Davydenko saved them with courageous play.

The way Davydenko grunted on some of his groundstrokes towards the end serving for the match, it was like the audio equivalent of trying to assert his authority against all of his inner demons. Davydenko’s wide serve on the deuce court is deceptively good, moving out further wide than what it would initially seem. It looks like it’d sit up high once it hits the court, but instead it continues to swing away and skid low. It's hard to get a clean hit on it unless if you can read it early enough, and he can generate good angles on that side because of the good body rotation he has on serve. Federer certainly had a hard time dealing with it.

What does Davydenko’s title win mean for his career? As far as I’m concerned, Davydenko has always been one of the best players, as his consistent top 5 ranking over the years would show. He’s capable of giving Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro a run for their money, and I think aside from winning this title, he can be just as much encouraged by the increasingly open state of the tour and the decreasing aura surrounding the top players.

Davydenko doesn’t strike me as a player that seems to use momentum to build on form, however over long periods, he tends to generally have a lot of good days. He’s more up and down the charts over the course of a season and more so in a best-of-five set match against the top players, but he has proven he can string it together in a tournament. The question is whether he can convert those into wins.

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.

US Open Day 2: Fernando Verdasco and his improving reliability

Benjamin Becker has a big-hitting baseline game, but it doesn't come naturally to him. He plays with relentless aggression on his service games, and his game is almost exclusively constructed around his first serve where he looks to push his opponents out of court, then he keeps them on a string. He doesn't let them off the hook.

I think you'll find in most cases, he hits almost every shot into the open court, though he does also enjoy hitting the off-forehand like most players. It's typical hardcourt tennis. Maybe it's because of the way he dresses on-court but the mechanical nature of his groundstrokes reminds me of a fellow German, Rainer Schuettler, particularly on the forehand side where he really throws themselves into the shot and muscles it, but not in the same way that for example, Novak Djokovic uncoils himself.

Becker really has to put in a lot of effort to get the most out of his service games. The way he plays, you can tell that he knows that he needs to be on the front foot. He can't let his opponents control him, because his movement is suspect, and I think just as much his reactions aren't that great to take that first quick step as well.

On the basis of this, Becker played a good match against Fernando Verdasco like a man who had a vision for what he wanted to do with the ball, and he executed it well, aside for one poor service game at the start of the match and one at the end of the match, the latter which was pressure-induced.

To play well, he needs to serve well and that's what he did. I really like his serve out wide on the deuce court and down the T on the ad court in particular. He has a knack of being able to make them slide out wide further than most players, and from then he can control the point with his forehand. After the serve, the groundstrokes did the job for him but it didn't look secure, like they needed to be hit without hesitation and good timing to hit their targets. Becker's forehand looks like a shot that's prone to break down under pressure, and that's what happened in the end of the match.

It seemed a mismatch, in that Becker would have had to play at the top of his game, and Verdasco to have an off-day, for this to be anything other than a routine victory for Verdasco. The difference in natural ability seemed quite evident, in that Verdasco hardly had to push himself or exert his full effort to make the most out of his shots, he simply needed to be committed to a point and not make any cheap exits out of it, like he might have done over a year ago.

Sometimes I tend to read natural and effortless power for having a more technically sound game, but in this case the evidence was there in Verdasco's shot selection as well. He largely kept it high percentage, and whenever he needed a point, instead of raising his game, he raised his effort level and willingness to stay in rallies and that proved to be too much for Becker. Verdasco seems to have learnt a lot about how to play pressure-inducing tennis, that if you make your opponent fight to win every point, it can build up to have its greatest benefits when you most need it.

These days, there doesn't seem to be as much of a discrepancy between Verdasco's forehand and backhand, and he can use his backhand quite well to place the ball and construct points. He doesn't use his forehand to hit outright winners or go for the full-paced shot as much anymore. It's more of a controlled shot, and he's been exploring more what he can do with the spin that he generates on the ball to take his opponents off court

He played one poor service game in the middle of the second set but the way he recovered and found his best tennis to break back immediately and break again to win serve spoke volumes about his status as a much improved match player.

Fernando Verdasco, this year’s Australian Open giant killer

Each year, the Australian Open has been known to throw up some surprise packets. Players that managed to navigate their way deep into the tournament against all odds. This year's surprise packet, Fernando Verdasco has just beaten last year's surprise packet Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and two days ago, he defeated the Scot Andy Murray, the man who was initially the bookies' favourite heading into the event. Murray had shown sensational form in winning Doha, and performing well in the exhibition prior to that.

Verdasco's rise in form and career-best result of reaching a Grand Slam semi-final is more than just a great run, an unheralded player achieving something they had never yet achieved. It is more like a feel good story, the mental transformation of a player that had long been known for not only failing to close out matches, but closing out sets, and flinching at any sign of a tense moment. It is more a story that the tennis fans that have been following the sport more closely will appreciate, having seen more of Verdasco's older matches to be able to compare with how he has been this Australian Open.

Looking back on some of Verdasco's matches last year, he was known to consistently throw in double faults at tense moments, particularly at the end of sets. But it wasn’t limited to that as he often found it difficult being able to swing his racquet freely enough on those occasions for his shots to be able to make their mark. It made for difficult viewing at times, the seemingly long build-up to the conclusion of each set where he would predictably have his end-of-set meltdown on any moderately big stage.

His opponents were well aware of it and one of the most uncomfortable feelings that can accompany a viewer watching tennis is seeing an opponent practically float the ball to a player on big points, in preparation of that potential choke. Feeding them shots that would ordinarily be put away with no trouble at all, yet seeing that player painfully misfire that shot.

Anyone that has seen the Davis Cup final, the match that is fully responsible for Verdasco’s success today, knows that it was an absolute train wreck of a match. It was a match that Verdasco was strongly favoured to win, against Jose Acasuso who had barely notched up any hardcourt wins over the indoor season. A match that he knew that even if he couldn’t bring his best, that it would still be enough to get the job done.

Within the match, Verdasco continually gifted points to his lower-ranked opponent with double faults and excruciating errors, but Acasuso returned the favour to keep it a level match. In the end, Verdasco managed to steady his play enough to importantly lift the trophy for his country, and that’s a triumph in itself for him. Sometimes winning ugly has a better mental effect, overcoming all of those demons.

Now it's one thing to notch up a win like that, and another to carry the momentum into the next season, and importantly into a Grand Slam. It's not only that Verdasco has improved mentally, but it's like he has ridden the wave and continued that emotional high to be able to play with full confidence. He isn’t only not flinching under pressure, he’s trusting himself and hitting big serves and big forehands when he needs to.

Earlier today against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, down break point in the third set, close to relinquishing his two break advantage, Verdasco serves a swinging serve out wide on the ad court, and follows it up with a big forehand crosscourt right on the line, and finishes it off with a swinging volley. Hitting the lines, showing the huge amount of confidence that he has in his game at the moment.

What seems to have made the biggest difference in his game, is his decision to crank up his serve and go for that pacier serve more often than he used to while maintaining the variety that he has on it. How he manages to still record incredible first service percentages around the 70-80% mark, while hitting it more aggressively than he used to is remarkable to me. Maybe it's not so much how often he is doing it, but when he is doing it, going after the big serve on the bigger points. He always had the vicious swinging serve, and because of that, his body serve is an excellent shot as well, so now he has the devastating combination of both power and variety.

In his match against Tsonga, Verdasco was able to consistently win points using his big weapon, the forehand to drag Tsonga out of court, yet another example of Verdasco using more of a mix of power and variety these days. It doesn’t always have to be a winning forehand, and just because he can hit flashy forehand winners doesn’t mean he has to. Like his serve, he has the ability on the forehand side to have it spinning out wide to completely take control of the point, and of course he can flatten it out, something that we’re all already accustomed to seeing.

The other aspect of his game that has improved are his defensive skills, and his willingness to stay in points. Verdasco in the past year has already been steadily improving, and this is an area in particular that has been responsible for his ever-increasing consistency which saw him compile his career-best season last year. In recent times, there has been less flashy shotmaking from Verdasco on the dead run. None of the flattening out on shots, going for broke if he can get himself back into the point even if that means running all the way from one side of the court to the other.

Instead, he'll throw in that more defensive shot that other players do, and wait for his chance to fire the winner, with which he has been doing with relative frequency. It has been well-documented that Verdasco worked with Gil Reyes in the off-season, a move that would further improve his defensive skills as well as overall fitness, which surely would help in the heat of the Australian sun.

In the next round, Verdasco will face an even tougher mental hurdle, and of course, his form on the day is important too. Maybe it's not so much about whether Verdasco will win this match or not, facing the current world number 1, Rafael Nadal, but how he approaches this match. Think back to last year's French Open match where Verdasco overplayed to the point of barely managing to win any games. Trying to hit spectacular winners, and in the end handing the match on a plate to his fellow Spaniard. It is clear that Verdasco has a lot of respect for Nadal, so will he be able to show the right balance between offense and defense to be able to bring the best out of his game?

Saturday: Verdasco and Stepanek reach the final in Brisbane

It was men’s semi-final day at the Brisbane International, a line-up that consisted of three out of four players that I had not yet watched live this week. Something that I was immediately pleased about, despite the fact that I intentionally overlooked some of Mathieu and Verdasco’s matches earlier in the week in favour of other players.



I must have had one of the best seats in the house this time, just high enough to be able to see the entire court without turning my head and situated right in the middle of the action. The match between Paul-Henri Mathieu and Fernando Verdasco, was one between two of the bigger shotmakers on the tour. Mathieu lost the crucial Davis Cup rubber in the final a number of years back for France, while Verdasco won it for his country. I just wonder how much that final win has helped Verdasco, considering that he has struggled mentally throughout his career.

Obviously what I wanted to see the most was Verdasco’s big weapon, the forehand, which was flowing as well as ever in this particular match. Seeing it live, it is one of the more unique shots on the tour, despite seemingly having a conventional technique, largely due to the spin that he generates on the ball. You can pretty much tell how much spin he puts on it based on the completely different sound that comes off his racquet.

Verdasco started off playing more within himself in the first few games, getting plenty of height over the net on the forehand but placing his shots well. His serve was also working particularly well, earning him plenty of cheap points at the start. One thing I was surprised about was how much time Verdasco seemed to have to set up to play his shots, and the relaxed swing that he possesses on both sides that sometimes it doesn’t even look like he gets that much racquet head speed on it, unless if he’s going for a big shot. But you can see the end result of his shots to know that he does.

His backhand looks so simple and basic mainly because of the relaxed manner in which he positions himself when he’s hitting the ball, almost like he’s walking through it. The kind of shot that you would think would be nothing more than solid, but he was consistently redirecting it to the right spots with ease. As the match progressed, he started to flatten out on the forehand more, and it started to dominate the match. With his forehand working that well, it looked like he was able to do whatever he wanted with it, and the winners were flowing off his racquet.

Mathieu, in comparison, has what I’d call laboured groundstrokes. It looks like he bludgeons the ball instead of relying on timing, and he didn’t seem to have the full range on the groundstrokes today. He has big backswings off both sides, and it’s like he has to swing through the ball at the right speed. If he does it too quickly then it lands long by large margins. He would cleanly strike the ball, but would send it too deep at times.

The way Mathieu sets up his groundstrokes, it looks like they would be easier to read than most players, and at times I could tell when he was going to hit a more aggressive shot, based on his preparation. It most definitely looked like he was mainly bashing the ball in the first set, not showing much finesse at all.

Then in the second set, he tried to exploit the angles more but with little success, although it did make the match slightly more aesthetically pleasing. Much of the reason behind the lack of success was that he’d open up the court, then fail to make the big down-the-line shot after. I think it’s safe to say that there wasn’t much to admire in Mathieu’s performance today given the one-sided performance, but the match ended up being more about Verdasco and his winners anyway. Which by the way, there is no way that Verdasco will be able to repeat this scintillating performance tomorrow, not to this extent anyway.



So just over an hour later, Richard Gasquet and Radek Stepanek took the court for the second semi-final. I strongly favoured Gasquet’s chances in this match-up because I thought his passing shots and natural feel would work well against a net-rushing Stepanek, given how easily Gasquet has dismantled players like Fish and Lopez in the past. Not to mention that Gasquet doesn’t seem to have any problems dealing with variety.

For Stepanek, this was a completely different match-up to the last time I watched him play against Llodra, in that he was playing against someone that would easily outplay him from the baseline. So Stepanek would have needed to throw in as much variety as possible, not so much to throw off the rhythm of his opponent but to avoid getting into baseline rallies that he would lose. There were plenty of slice backhands, short angles and well-placed shots. It worked out well for Stepanek at first, in the first two games as he got up an early break. But that’s where the match completely turned around, with Gasquet taking the next six games to convincingly take the set 6-2.

Stepanek basically tried to come in after every midcourt short ball, and Gasquet just passed him again and again. I think Stepanek barely won any points at net in the first set, but he continued to try to make his way up there anyway. Gasquet has very excellent improvisation skills, and I like how he adjusts his swing to hit shots on the dead run emphasising that he has a very natural feel for the game. It never looks like he’s lunging for the ball or muscling it. It was a very nice all-court game that he was playing. Of all the matches I had seen, this match featured some of the most variety overall from both players. That was probably the main appeal of the match, more than the quality itself which fluctuated during the match.

At this point, I thought that the match was mainly on Gasquet’s racquet and that the only way he would lose it, would be by dropping his own level. It didn’t really happen immediately or noticeably. It was more of a slow decline. Slightly more erratic play and not making as many passing shots, not moving with as much urgency as he had earlier in the match. It was seemingly out of nowhere when Stepanek broke serve to win the second set, then the match continued in a similar vein in the third set. Stepanek seemed to get a bit more sting on his approach shots forcing more errors out of Gasquet. Clearly persistence paid off for Stepanek.

Both players seemed very animated in this match for their standards, and it was clear that the match meant quite a bit to both of them. Predictably Stepanek’s antics drew quite a bit of laughs from the crowd, and having watched him a couple of times, Stepanek is definitely a guy that enjoys his tennis.

Given what had happened in the second set, I felt like I had no idea what would happen in the third, and unpredictable it was. Mentally Stepanek seemed to have the edge, showing far more positive body language jogging to the chair on changeovers and celebrating, or rather enjoying his own winners. But then Gasquet seemed to relax as soon as he went a break down, hitting a string of winners. However, as soon as the match went back to being an even contest, Gasquet started to display the same sort of tennis as he had earlier in the set to lose serve again. Stepanek then served it comfortably with big serves to take the match and advance to tomorrow’s final.

Will Argentina be able to overcome the pressure to capture their first Davis Cup?

The upcoming Davis Cup final between Spain and Argentina, has been described by the Argentine players as “the most important in Argentine tennis history”, in particular by David Nalbandian and Jose Acasuso. There has been a buzz around the media, the players and the public alike in the last week or so, seeing that this is a golden opportunity for Argentina to finally capture their first Davis Cup title, and to do so in front of their supporters. Guillermo Vilas, undoubtedly the most successful player Argentina ever produced, never managed to lead his country to the coveted title.

The pressure will be immense. Opportunities like this don’t come across often, and the Argentine players want to be a part of national history. The bookies are heavily leaning towards Argentina as heavy favourites and rightfully so. Both David Nalbandian and Juan Martin Del Potro have form on their side, as well as the advantage of surface choice which has seen them lay an indoor surface which was reported as being quicker than Paris Bercy and Shanghai.

From a spectator's point of view, the upcoming final was dealt a major blow with Rafael Nadal announcing his withdrawal, a week ago. The original line-up promised to be one of the most mouth-watering clashes in recent years, and could have gone right down to the wire. It promised to be a battle of heavyweights, with Rafael Nadal trying to fight his way through a partisan crowd on his least favoured surface against a fired up David Nalbandian, or attempting to withstand the barrage of big groundstrokes from Del Potro.

But as it stands, the main talking point of the tie is ‘Will Argentina be able to deliver under pressure, and will Spain be able to challenge them?’ And unfortunately for Argentina, if they are victorious, the amount of recognition they receive worldwide will be diminished significantly.

Now let’s take a closer look at the potential matches that will be taking place over the next three days.

David Nalbandian vs David Ferrer
Matches between Ferrer and Nalbandian have a tendency to be hard fought and tough mentally and physically, with long, exhausting rallies in abundance. Ferrer holds the advantage in the head-to-head, leading 6-3 in this matchup, but Nalbandian leads their hardcourt meetings 3-2. Last time they met in Paris Bercy last year, Nalbandian won in a three hour, three set contest, and prior to that, Ferrer defeated Nalbandian in five long sets after Nalbandian squandered a match point, missing a putaway backhand.

Nalbandian will have to remain patient and take advantage of his volleying skills and court sense to finish the point off at net. Ferrer has been struggled to find anything close to his best form as of late, and will need to rediscover his consistency to be of any threat. Nalbandian will likely rise to the occasion, while Ferrer might need to take advantage of his underdog status to find his form.

Prediction: Nalbandian in four sets.

Juan Martin Del Potro vs Feliciano Lopez
Feliciano Lopez, on paper possesses the game to upset the rhythm of Juan Martin Del Potro. He has a vicious lefty serve, a tricky slice backhand and regularly ventures to the net. Del Potro over the last few months has proven to be especially effective in disposing lower-ranked opponents, with his controlled big game, but this particular match-up should cause Del Potro more problems than if he were to face a more consistent, but equally effective player, like say Juan Carlos Ferrero.

Lopez posted a good indoor season himself for his standards, but isn’t really in the same class as Del Potro. I would expect Lopez to take it to a couple of tie-breaks and snatch a set, but he has too much of a tendency to throw in a poor quality service game every now and then which should cost him dearly.

Prediction: Del Potro in four sets.

Jose Acasuso/Agustin Calleri vs Feliciano Lopez/Fernando Verdasco
Lopez/Verdasco are a firmly established doubles team and have had some relative success on the Davis Cup stage, including in September when they pushed the Bryans to a fifth set in the semi-finals. Acasuso/Calleri have a short history together, however, they did reach the Basel semi-finals this year notably defeating the Polish duo Fyrstenberg/Matkowski. Lopez and Verdasco have better reflexes and flair than the Argentine team, and team up well together, which should give them the crucial advantage.

David Nalbandian could still be slotted in. However, Alberto Mancini will be wanting to keep Nalbandian fresh for the final singles, if need be, especially considering that Nalbandian succumbed to fatigue in his singles match against Nikolay Davydenko in early September. The smart move would be to stick with Acasuso/Calleri if Argentina go up 2-0, because I can’t see Feliciano Lopez defeating Nalbandian in a fifth rubber.

Prediction: Lopez/Verdasco in three sets (five sets if Nalbandian plays)

Juan Martin Del Potro vs David Ferrer
If Ferrer doesn’t find his best tennis, this is exactly the kind of matchup that Del Potro should relish. Del Potro is as consistent as Ferrer is, but has more firepower and a more effective serve. Ferrer doesn’t possess the game to take Del Potro out of his comfort zone, to get him moving out wide nor the serve to keep the match close. Ferrer will try hard to hang around and frustrate Del Potro but Del Potro has a good head on his shoulders. The only troublesome situation that Del Potro could find himself in, is if he tires out, because then his footwork starts to deteriorate and he becomes nowhere near as consistent.

Prediction: Del Potro in three sets

Bottom line: Argentina to defeat Spain 3-1

David Nalbandian vs Feliciano Lopez
This rubber won’t eventuate if Argentina have already clinched it, but in the scenario of it going down to a fifth rubber, I would strongly back Nalbandian. Nalbandian is more equipped to deal with Lopez than Del Potro, and should be able to hit enough effective returns and passing shots low down at Lopez’s feet. Additionally, Lopez has little experience on the big stage compared to Nalbandian, who possesses one of the best Davis Cup records, and has the experience of having played a previous Davis Cup final to draw from. It would be a tough ask for him to clinch the tie here.

Prediction: Nalbandian in three sets