Australian Open 2012 - Day 2 Blog

I walk to Melbourne Park these days rather than taking the ridiculously crowded tram, and walk through the ANZ queue, where if they happen to be your bank of choice, then you can get in far quicker than anyone else. If you’re an ANZ customer, you could also get a free ride on those pedestrian bikes, or whatever you call them, but I haven’t managed to ask for one yet.

After an incredibly quick journey into the Melbourne Park grounds, I've decided to watch Richard Gasquet play against Andreas Seppi. I hadn’t seen Gasquet for ages, so I don’t really know what has been going on with him lately. I wasn’t really sure what to expect except that at least maybe the tennis would look pretty, even if not all that great.

I started watching with Seppi up a break at 2-1, which is where it all started to go downhill for him from that point on. Seppi is supposed to be a consistent player, but he missed far too many shots overhitting while not really having a proper plan on how to win points.

Watching Seppi play, it probably takes a huge mental and physical effort to keep up that tennis that he plays, not possessing any reliable shot to win points quickly. Pretty much the only weapon Seppi has is that angled off-forehand that he likes to use to open up the court, but that requires many repeated forehands to get the right result. He’s surely got to enter matches thinking, ‘I’ve got to be patient. I’ve got to be prepared to stay on court all day rallying.’ Just that idea would probably be enough to depress me, and to completely self-destruct in the match.

Okay, so Seppi did self-destruct a bit to start with. It was as if he was caught in two minds as to what he should do, so he’d miss these shots trying to do something with the ball but without really going for it. Throughout the match, I hardly saw Seppi inject any change of pace. If he can’t do it, then that’s a huge disadvantage, because so many other players can hit the ball harder than he does. Gasquet kind of went along with him, and they both exchanged medium paced rallies, while also displaying extremely poor accuracy. I do like consistency, but I wasn't impressed with Gasquet hitting the majority of his shots several metres or more away from the lines (my knowledge of metres from my viewing distance is too terrible to make a good estimate). He has this weapon that he's famous for: the backhand, but what good was it when he rarely had the guts to go for it down-the-line? I am guessing that this shot started to pop up more in the fourth set though, when I disappeared.

So Gasquet won the first set through being more consistent, and through a very brief moment of nice transition play after going a break up. They both struggled with their serves, and I’m pretty sure Gasquet’s serving was much worse than I could remember in past matches watching him live. He used to be able to get more cheap points on his first serve. Maybe that will pick up again sometime.

Seppi cleaned up his game in the second set, while Gasquet continued to play tentatively. Gasquet appeared to have continual problems trying to bring out that confident side of him. I only saw glimpses of it in the first two sets. I kept hoping that it would start to come out eventually, but it was such a slow and gradual process that it was frustrating and painful to watch. When Gasquet increases the pace of his shots and hits through the ball, like he does occasionally in this match, it is so much easier for him to finish off points, and gives him many more options. To finish off points at the net, open up the court, etc.

He didn’t really appear to be enjoying himself I thought. He does generally wince quite a lot anyway, or perhaps it’d be more accurate to call it a twitch. But it did give the overall impression that he was basically battling it out for the win, and the only reaction that he would get once completed would be a sense of relief that it was all over. I didn’t stay for the end of the match, since it was quite a frustrating match, so I can only imagine what happened in the end.

I meant to watch Youzhny’s match, but I thought it was on the wrong end of the grounds near Hisense Arena, so while I was already there, I decided to watch Janko Tipsarevic play against Dmitry Tursunov. There were heaps of people wearing shirts supporting Serbia, Serbian flags, there was a tiny group of Serbian supporters there, yet not really a whole lot of cheering. I wasn’t even sure whether Tipsarevic was pleased with his small band of supporters, since I think they were the main reason why Carlos Ramos kept reminding the crowd to only make noise after the point had been completed.

By the way, it wasn’t very nice of them to put Tipsarevic, a new top 10 player into a tiny little court like that, though admittedly there were even a few spare seats. I sat on this very nice seat which was directly in line with where the players are generally standing / moving when on the baseline. Whenever Tipsarevic was on that side, I had a great view of his wild, athletic movements. He throws himself into every shot, whether defensively or offensively, bending down low to hit low backhands, getting up high to hit high backhands. The majority of players would probably only have one backhand that they’d try to replicate all the time, while Tipsarevic improvises, slides and stretches to the ball. It’s awesome to watch, and also looks like an injury waiting to happen, because the movements aren’t predictable or following some sort of textbook action. There was one entertaining point where Tipsarevic was defending every shot of Tursunov’s as if his life depended on it, where I thought, wouldn’t this just be perfect if the match continued like that? (even though Tipsarevic is also excellent at being aggressive)

Unlike the previous match, both players maintained an aggressive mindset here. What changed from time to time here was their mindset on errors. Sometimes they were very generous with their errors, then when the important points came, they’d try to focus a little harder to make sure they wouldn’t lose the point with a stupid error. The second set tie-break was the epic point of the match. Tursunov must have had around three set points to take a two sets to love lead, and if he had played one of those points equally as well as how he played to save set points or keep the tie-break going, then he would have won the set.

During the all-important second set, there were three cute little kids leaning over the net during the tie-break, saying things and putting up their banners. They pointed at the balls when Tursunov went to get one, but Tursunov kept his
concentration and didn’t look at them once. Tipsarevic was possibly struggling with the heat, pouring water over his head on many changeovers, and his movement generally became less explosive after the second set. He took an injury timeout at the start of the third set for a foot problem. His foot was already taped up.

Tursunov basically looks like a very well-trained tennis player. There is not much creativity or natural flair in his game. It just looks like he has spent a lot of hours bashing tennis balls to the point where he can make ball-bashing look like regular rallying. It’s impressive in a way, especially since Tursunov doesn’t just get his power off being big and tall. His forehand is the major weapon particularly hitting it inside out. Tursunov played a good match here. He just didn’t play the big points well enough. He could have so easily gone up two sets to love.

It had been a long day of tennis, so I kind of went on a mental walkabout for a while. I was standing and watching Radek Stepanek’s match against Nicolas Mahut, and Stepanek just fell over on his hand while getting wrong-footed. It looked painful at first, he called the trainer, but I don’t know whether it was one of those things that get painful then you can recover from afterwards. He seemed to be lacking the usual feel on his shots though. Mahut continued to put the pressure on Stepanek. I didn’t expect much from Mahut given his current form, but he played his usual game of being aggressive and serving-and-volleying. I think the plan worked well. Stepanek wasn’t allowed to dictate or control what he wants to do in the match. Therefore he looked pretty average, though he did make far more errors than usual. Maybe some were forced, some were not. I can’t say I was really paying full attention though. Everyone has lapses of concentration, not just the players…

But of course concentration returns for the more eagerly awaited match-ups, such as the night session on Margaret Court Arena between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Denis Istomin. Watching Istomin play in Brisbane was the first time I was able to gain appreciation of him as a dangerous floater, and the main reason for this is just because he hits the ball incredibly hard and appears to have no noticeable weaknesses. He has a big serve, an excellent backhand which he isn’t afraid of taking up the line, and the forehand is also capable of doing damage. The night match confirmed that Istomin indeed does have a lot of weapons, and he even possesses a nice all-court game which wasn’t apparent until late in the second set.

Prior to the start of the match, there was a buzz and air of excitement surrounding Margaret Court Arena, the kind of atmosphere I had not yet seen before this year. When people come to see Tsonga, they expect to be entertained. Whereas for other players, they simply come to watch the match, and nothing more. The stadium was packed from the start of play. I managed to grab myself a front row spot, after someone left at the completion of the Kuznetsova match. When Tsonga started the match with a jump smash, the crowd erupted in a way not yet seen before. Tsonga is clearly perfect for the Margaret Court Arena night match slot.

After a while, the crowd settled into the match, realizing that this might not be as much of the Tsonga show as they thought it would be. Tsonga can be unique and exciting, but he primarily approached this match by staying on the baseline, trying to establish control with his serve and forehand. I’ve certainly seen him play better before. From this view, I can see that Tsonga has a good kick second serve, which moves around unpredictably after its bounce and can be difficult to return, at least more so than many other players.

The match was a showcase of impressive power and consistency, both players getting into extended rallies while playing aggressively. I kept hoping that Tsonga would step it up another level, bringing out the killer forehand and moving in forwards, but it didn’t really happen until Istomin did exactly what I thought Tsonga would do late in the second set. I really like all-court tennis, so I started to enjoy the match a lot more. I like great shots to be taken advantage of, and constructed to completion, rather than getting ruined and lost in the middle of a long rally. Apart from that, it also looks clever, like a series of intentional shots strung together to get the right result.

Once Istomin started playing better, Tsonga also rose to the challenge, suddenly needing to make more urgent shot selections, or needing to hit passing shots. One advantage that Tsonga has over Istomin is that he can generate much better angles on the forehand, and he was able to use this to open up the court. In the last few games of the fourth set, there were some awesome exchanges containing dropshots, lobs, angled running shots, and there was one dive volley in there. This was exactly what the crowd had come to see.

Istomin must have won himself some fans too, even though some of them probably came to cheer for him originally just to balance out the huge amount of Tsonga fans out there. Serving to stay in the match, there were so many people cheering for Denis. There were also a huge amount of people cheering whenever Tsonga took his shirt off.

I’d say Istomin’s peak form was somewhere during the end of the second set to early in the third set, then the errors started creeping up and his choices to approach the net became more suspect. There were a few moments of self-destruction towards the end. Tsonga served a double fault and made a horrible error to lose serve when serving for the match, then Istomin gave away about three points on his serve to lose the match. Still, people stood up clapping when the match was done, in appreciation of what they had seen that night. It was a good, challenging first round match. Istomin put in a great performance for the most part. Tsonga needed to raise his level, and he did.

By the way, I don’t have any photos because I forgot to bring my USB cable that connects my camera to my laptop. It will have to come later, I suppose.

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.

Australian Open Day 3 Blog

(This Australian Open blog was posted on Tennis Week here.)

Last year at the Australian Open there were press reports of tension between Serbian and Croatian fan bases, so the first round encounter between Janko Tipsarevic and Marin Cilic was interesting from that point of view, to see the rivalling between fanbases. As soon as the players started to warm up on the court, the support from both sides was already loud and clear and both groups were trying to outdo each other which made for an entertaining atmosphere in Margaret Court Arena. At times, Carlos Ramos, the chair umpire had to advise the crowd to be quiet during play stating that these are “two very nice guys.”

As I started watching the match, it was getting clear that Cilic was the man that was more in control of the match. The more aggressive player, capable of changing directions and going down-the-line off both sides with ease. One of the things that stood out the most about Cilic’s game was the consistent depth of his groundstrokes. It felt like his strokes were naturally penetrating and that it was much easier for him to hit an aggressive shot, rather than Tipsarevic who needed to specifically try to force the play and generate the racquet head speed especially off the forehand side.

It was a relatively comfortable first set for Cilic but the second set was more of a contest. Tipsarevic seems to be a guy that needs to put in a lot of mental energy and determination to bring the best out of his game, so that extra bit of determination to not want to give away cheap errors brought him more success than before. This is made even more obvious by his grunts which only appear every now and then during particular stages of the match. But eventually after numerous hard fought games, Cilic converted the crucial break of serve towards the end of the second set to win it.

The third set was more of a temporary blip for Cilic rather than Tipsarevic playing good tennis, now starting to shank some shots on the forehand and dump shots into the net on the backhand. It’s interesting that players can look so technically sound to the point where it looks to me, that they would be able to repeat it at least to the extent of their game looking reasonably solid almost every single time. This kind of thinking usually seems to apply to the more relaxed, effortless players, but this is a misleading thought as Cilic proved by losing the range on his groundstrokes and making some awful errors at times.

I noticed that when Cilic is at his most consistent is when he looks to get his body weight moving forward into the ball, which doesn’t happen as much when he’s less confident. In turn, this led him to adopt a slightly more passive way of playing which allowed Tipsarevic to take control. My opinion was that it was Cilic’s play in this set that allowed Tipsarevic himself to play better for the most part. It was a scrappy third set that featured hard-fought rallies but numerous errors as well, so I decided to leave the action to take a walk to Hisense Arena to see the current World No. 1 Jelena Jankovic.



It was most likely going to be my only opportunity to see Jankovic over the course of my six day visit given that I had not purchased any Rod Laver Arena tickets. She was up against Kirsten Flipkens of Belgium, who to me was mainly known as the player that filled in for Belgium in Fed Cup whenever Clijsters or Henin were unavailable. Not that I had ever seen her play before.

What I most wanted to see from Jankovic was her superb athleticism and ability to maneuver her opponents out of position, to the point of wearing them out. But Jankovic is only just returning from illness. She stated herself that she hadn’t played a competitive match in about two months so not much was to be expected from her.

It was not an impressive performance, and if I looked too closely at what Jankovic was doing, then I found myself often disappointed. At no point did Jankovic look like she was actually in control of any point, in that she often gave Flipkens the opportunity to take the initiative in the rallies herself.

However she did hit some good counterpunching shots at times, with the passing shots and I got to see a glimpse of her backhand down-the-line. But for a shot to look impressive, it has to be implemented with success on a regular enough basis, with which Jankovic did not.

What made the match most interesting to watch was the play coming from the Flipkens racquet and her general style of play. Her game reminds me very much of some of the female doubles specialists, for example if Rennae Stubbs played singles, I think it would bear some resemblance to this. She doesn’t have the solid base of strong groundstrokes that the majority of women’s players have. Instead she plays an all-court game that mostly revolves around taking the ball early on the forehand side, and following it into the net. Flipkens seems to run around her backhand more often than any other female player I’ve seen, opting to sometimes hit forehands off shots that were about one meter away from the sideline. Flipkens implemented some of that net-rushing game to success in the second set but in the end, Jankovic made just enough passing shots to be able to finish off the match.

So the next match I watched was between David Nalbandian and Lu Yen-Hsun, which occupied most of my viewing day lasting almost four hours long. Coming off a tournament win in Sydney, some experts predicted a potential semifinal showing for Nalbandian given the form that he showed in that event. But Nalbandian in almost three years has failed to achieve anything in any Grand Slam event, not even reach the last eight which is shockingly awful for a man of his calibre rivalling Ivan Ljubicic’s career Grand Slam record in terms of unimpressiveness. And so his poor Grand Slam record continued bowing out to Lu, who had previously never advanced past the second round of a Slam.

In this particular match, Nalbandian picked up where he left off from his first round match, struggling with his game yet again and particularly the serve. In recent years, it has been observed by some that for Nalbandian, if he serves poorly, then he plays poorly and that is what happened yet again. On a bad day, Nalbandian’s serve can be incredibly weak especially on the second delivery where it can be continually punished by almost any player on tour as evidenced by players like Gicquel and Lu jumping on it time and time again. I don’t know whether he slowed down his first serve, in an attempt to increase his first serve percentage, but that looked weak at times as well.

I would say that the level of play that Nalbandian displayed today was relatively similar to that he showed against Gicquel, except that Lu was able to match him in terms of being able to maintain consistency and was also better offensively. In short, for particular stretches of the match, it felt like Lu was the better player in all areas of the game: serving, returning, offense, defense. Because of that reason, it was difficult to find anything to admire in Nalbandian’s game today when you could see the other guy across the net doing the exact same thing better.

Lu is one of those incredibly solid players with good tactical awareness to play controlled aggressive tennis without trying to go outside of his abilities. He doesn’t really have the flair or the ability to create unexpectedly good shots like the top players do, but he makes his opponents play good tennis to beat him, and takes full advantage of any short balls and weaker offerings. I didn’t actually think his performance today was anything exceptional even for his own standards. It looked like something I had seen before from him.

One thing that Lu was particularly good at today was taking care of the midcourt short ball on the forehand side. The other area where he got a big advantage was on the return of serve. It wasn’t only the serve that was costing Nalbandian, but his return of serve was also a problem particularly whenever he had to block a serve back, he often sent it long or into the net on very makeable shots.

There were many breaks of serve featured in this match and closely contested games which added to the drama and nerve wracking nature of the match. I noticed that in the second and third sets which Nalbandian won, he seemed to be doing a better job of hanging in the rallies and extending them compared to the fourth and fifth sets which were relatively one-sided in Lu’s favour, given that he was up a double break in both of them. So what was it that went wrong that made the crucial difference?

I’ll admit that during the match, I was also looking up into the screen in between points to rewatch them to see if I could pick up anything different from a separate view. To see what Nalbandian’s footwork and movement looked like, to see how he was making those errors. But what stood out the most without even looking at the screen was that as the match reached the closing stages, Lu’s confidence grew more and more, and importantly his energy levels actually seemed to increase when it should be the opposite which allowed him to play a more aggressive brand of tennis. I guess you could say it was a sign of his adrenaline levels whereas Nalbandian’s energy levels went down instead.

It felt like within the stadium that Lu was somewhat of a sentimental favorite, maybe because of his quiet determination and his ability to keep his emotions in check, the sign of a good competitor. Not that it surprised me since I have seen him play before, but his body language and emotions seemed to rarely change over the course of the match, which fluctuated in fortunes for either player.

As for Nalbandian, while he may have often shown signs of disgust with himself, I still felt like it was a more composed performance for the main reason that it didn’t seem to affect his play in a negative manner. The final game of the match in particular was epic with numerous deuce points and Nalbandian squandering many break points unable to string anything together, allowing Lu to finally seal the match. So that was Nalbandian out of the tournament, which greatly disappointed me especially given the promise he showed leading up to the tournament and that I had yet to see him play a good match in this event.

So after witnessing a long and nerve wracking match that was mentally tiring for me, I wasn’t sure whether I’d be up to refocusing to watch another match. Initially I thought not, but I thought I should at least take a brief look at the match between Juan Martin Del Potro and Florian Mayer, to see if it was worth watching. It was a match that I had previously shown some interest in for the main reason of wanting to witness the play of the very creative and unusual Florian Mayer, a player that is just as unorthodox as Fabrice Santoro, but not acknowledged anywhere near as often for that fact.

Del Potro had just taken the first set 6-1 so this added to the feeling that maybe it wouldn’t be worth watching. The way Del Potro sets up his groundstrokes in making sure that he is in position at contact with the ball makes him appear very intimidating to play against. I like how incredibly low he bends down each time to hit his double-handed backhand.

The second set was where Mayer started to play some tennis that was highly entertaining. Mayer’s backhand in particular is a very entertaining shot. He seems to be able to generate this incredible angle crosscourt on an amazingly consistent basis, both off the topspin drive backhand and off the slice. He also hits a jumping double-handed backhand on a regular basis almost as if it were a showboating shot, which just adds to the appeal of his game. Then there was one point where he was running up to chase a dropshot and faked as if to hit a dropshot only to flick up a lob at the last minute. Although unfortunately that didn’t win him the point.

One thing that Mayer did well in this set was take the ball early on the short balls to follow up at net, and as you would expect, he has excellent feel up there. Mayer served for the second set at 5-4, but unfortunately it went downhill from there, losing that set 7-5 and convincingly losing the third 6-2.