Australian Open 2011 - Day 1 Blog

Sometimes the first day of Grand Slams can be underwhelming and routine, but today was a good day for me. It was a day filled with competitive matches, a variety of styles, and good tennis for the most part. Conditions were cold and windy with the occasional spitting of rain, which is better than the heat I suppose. However, one recurring problem seemed to present itself throughout the day, and I fear it will throughout the rest of the tournament.  From what I gathered today, there seems to be an increase in the crowd turnouts this year on the outside courts.  Either that or poor scheduling.

There were many formerly good players playing today, that the tournament organisers took very little notice of. Nikolay Davydenko, Gilles Simon (however he just won Sydney last week) and Richard Gasquet were all playing on courts where it was difficult to get a seat. The problem was that even if you did end up getting a seat, chances are it would be a horribly obstructed view, with not only the umpire’s chair in the way, but also with plenty of shade covers over the players’ chairs.

Before my seating troubles started, I headed over to Show Court 2 to watch Sam Querrey in action against Lukasz Kubot. I arrived quite early and took the second row from the front. It’s a great view, without any obstructions. Better than watching on a tiny, intimate court in my opinion.

Querrey arrived about 8 minutes late, much later than Kubot and that is very rare in a Grand Slam, I think. I couldn’t hear what he was saying but I saw a rather large amount of gesturing with his hands, once he got onto the court, as if to suggest he was misguided somehow into not finding his way to the correct place.

Play got underway soon afterwards, and it didn’t take long for the Polish fans to make their presence known. They were very frequent with their chanting and support, especially to start with, using any minor pauses in between points to make some noise. I kept trying to take photos of them while they were standing up but those pauses were really short, so I kept missing, and ended up giving up.

When Querrey started serving in the first game, I couldn’t believe the difference between his first and second serve. His first serve was hard and flat, and makes the kind of sound that comes from big servers. In comparison, his second serve seemed to float there forever after its bounce with plenty of time for players to take their racquet back and do whatever they want. He did improve it later on though, as it started to become a softer version of the first serve, but it still seemed to land mainly in the middle of the court.

In the early stages, Querrey’s forehand was nowhere near as potent as I thought it would be. He played mostly a counterpunching role to start with, hitting loopy shots with plenty of margin over the net, but he was okay when he was forced to go for it, like having to hit a passing shot. It’s amazing how many players seem to find it difficult hitting winners, but when presented with a “do-or-die” situation, they can do it pretty easily.  Of course that is also because it is more difficult for the net player to run it down once it goes past them. Some players probably wished their opponents would run to the net all the time.

I’m not sure Querrey is one of them though. He just has better passing shots than expected. Especially on the backhand side, and his ability to hit down-the-line on that side is better than I thought too. He keeps his racquet very still and low while hitting it, and it’s more reliable than the forehand which is more prone to shanking or late timing.

The match was an entertaining contrast of styles, a battle between an aggressive all-court player Kubot and the counterpuncher Querrey.

Kubot is a strong player, hits the ball hard from both sides, seemingly throwing his weight around the court. By that, I mean, using it to generate penetrating groundstrokes and to move athletically. Kubot doesn’t have the best side-to-side movement, but he makes the transition from the net to the baseline extremely well. Today, he was often up there before I even noticed. He also rarely seemed to need to hit a low volley. Though I did find it odd that he was either passed or had an easy volley to hit every time he made it to the net. Perhaps Querrey didn’t even think about making Kubot hit that many shoelace volleys.

I watched the first two and a half sets of this match, and it was quite a streaky match, but mostly at a good standard. Querrey was still finding his timing and too passive in the first set, but after the first couple of games, his serving improved so much that it gave him an edge and Kubot’s high risk game abandoned him in the crucial stages when he needed it.

In the second set, Kubot started swinging away and making shots right from the beginning, as if the pressure from the first set had been suddenly relieved. I have been interested lately to see how players handle low and high pressure moments, letdowns in the beginning of sets, and how they play when they are down on the scoreboard.

In this case, being down on the scoreboard really helped Kubot kick off the second set impressively. He carried on this sudden wave of confidence to hit through Querrey with countless forehand winners, though also Querrey’s serving quality had decreased allowing him more opportunity to. By then, Querrey had also improved his baseline play so this became a better spectacle. Querrey’s backhand did more damage in this match than the forehand, presumably because the match-up with Kubot’s backhand is better.

Returning first in the third game, at first I thought Kubot would continue his practically flawless display when he got off to a 0-30 start in the first game. But it didn’t eventuate and both players ended up struggling on many of their service games. When I left the match, Kubot had broken back Querrey to return to level terms.

Nikolay Davydenko’s match against Florian Mayer had just started, not that I knew. The only scoreboard updates I get are the changing scorelines each changeover in the stadium courts, except that it would never cover all the matches, and often skipped on Court 7, where these two played.

The match was in its early stages, 2-1 in the first set when I joined and I immediately started to regret my decision after noticing that the stands were completely full. Eventually I found a spot where I could peek through the blue sheet covering the side of the stands, though this is obviously not the ideal way to watch a tennis match. I simply wanted to find out what this match was like so far. I most definitely wasn’t going to watch the whole match looking through the blue sheet.

But the match looked good. Plenty of long competitive rallies, where you couldn’t guess who would get the better of it. Of course, there were also plenty of rallies with the trademark variety of Florian Mayer. Mayer broke serve with some great shotmaking. He digs so many balls back when he’s playing, and he always looks like he’s trying to catch up when he’s playing against the top players, but he often hangs in better than it looks like he will. That is, if he is dealing with a player, that uses a lot of pace. He likes the pace.

Meanwhile, the lack of pace was really making it difficult for Davydenko to finish off points. Even if he could handle it, he wasn’t able to push Mayer around the same way he pushes his other opponents around. Especially not when Mayer was buying himself additional time by not giving Davydenko much pace.

After the initial break of serve, I found that there were many people leaving all the time in the changeovers. Many people walked up the stairs not knowing if they’d find a seat, so I followed and ended up sitting on the stairs for a while. They don’t have any security for monitoring this on the smaller courts. It was an extremely cramped position on the stairs. I hoped that I would make it to the actual seats soon, but it was a little difficult because whoever closest to that empty seat would usually get it. It wasn’t on a first come, first serve basis.

After going through three or four changeovers, I was finally able to grab myself a real seat, and I was rewarded for my patience. The kind of patience that I don’t necessarily always have, but what I saw in this match kept me hanging around long enough.

The first set contained many entertaining rallies, with a wide array of shots from Mayer. Davydenko didn’t play that poorly, but couldn’t seem to finish Mayer off. A change of tactics allowed Davydenko to convincingly win the second set, choosing to sneak up to the net whenever he had Mayer stretching out wide often finishing it with his favourite angled touch volleys. Suddenly the amount of extended rallies had drastically decreased.

It seemed like Davydenko had found the formula, and I thought he was on his way to winning the match. But the third set turned out to be a very inconsistent set from both players, with many losses of concentration. It was almost like both players were trying to conserve energy for the battle ahead. Mayer needed to fight through a service game early on, so it came completely out of the blue when he broke Davydenko’s serve to lead the match yet again. Mayer took a more aggressive approach this set, and he wasn’t always successful. But he needed to do so, as a weapon against Davydenko’s increasingly aggressive approach.

Mayer held onto his serve all the way through that set until he tried to serve for the set. At Deuce 5-3, Mayer dropped his racquet after his service motion then picked it up again to play a competitive, long rally. He ended up firing an impressive forehand crosscourt winner, but the umpire awarded the point to Davydenko. Mayer then smashed his racquet in frustration after losing the next ad point with a forehand error. Actually it was very much at the level of a Gonzalez racquet smash. I don't know why the umpire didn't stop the point earlier. One of the guys behind me repeated this story about the racquet drop and smash whenever his mates would walk past, so it happened a couple of times. It was obviously a dramatic moment.

That racquet smash really heightened the tension of the match, as it was drawing into the closing stages of the third set. Mayer was in a mentally fragile state, but also in an extremely fiery mood. Despite losing that break of serve, the energy and adrenaline going through him in the third set tie-break helped him raise his level, and ultimately win the set. Davydenko’s subdued body language and attitude surely didn’t help his chances, though the other reason is that he leaked a few key errors.

The fourth set was a continuation of the third set tie-break for Mayer, while Davydenko’s error count started to pile up immensely. At times, when he missed a shot, he’d have a dejected expression on his face, which is more rare than you would think in professional tennis. He looked sad and disappointed, not angry.

Mayer had break point chances in all of Davydenko’s service games in this set, and he really should have secured a second break to make it much easier for himself. After failing to convert in two separate games, Mayer lost his serve, then broke back again.

Despite Davydenko playing poorly for the most part in this set, there were a couple of games where he played some great tennis. The contrast between those two standards was really obvious, and I couldn’t believe how he could change from one extreme to another just like that.

The final game where Mayer served for the match was one of his great games, but not enough for him to fight back. That game had a controversial overrule, changing Mayer’s shot from an ‘out’ to ‘in’ call. Davydenko seemed to have a whole new intensity that game, nothing like what I saw from him in the last two sets. He threw everything he had at Mayer, and Mayer showed more determination than normal to get it back, and eventually he’d finally find the right time to pull the trigger himself.

Realizing how tough some of those last games were, Mayer was thoroughly happy with his win, celebrating by lying on the ground for a short while.

After this match, I quickly browsed the outside courts to see what was going on, then made an impulsive decision to watch the end of Philipp Kohlschreiber’s match against Tobias Kamke. Kamke had won the first two sets, Kohlschreiber had taken the third and was up a break in the fourth.

This was a relatively inconsistent match from the point where I started watching, where it became quite difficult to sink my teeth into it. Rather than trying to win in an outright way, it looked like it was more a matter of both players trying to manage their own games and fight through the match. Kohlschreiber was much more consistent in the fourth set, and that was the big difference. He was mixing it up more than I usually see from him on the backhand, hitting just as many slice backhands as drive backhands. Kamke was making plenty of errors, but seeing his play in the fifth set, might suggest that he was not exactly fully focused on the task in the fourth. Or either he was not as fired up anyway.

I’ve seen it often, players being less motivated to finish off a match in a fourth set (if struggling with tiredness, or poor play, or something else), but have a completely different mindset when it comes to the fifth. I suppose, it comes with knowing that the match will be over soon either way.

Kamke was down an early break in the fifth set but broke back. His consistency and execution of his aggressive shots improved greatly in this set. He really likes to step in and go for the backhand, but too much is going on before he hits the stroke, and he is prone to make errors on that side. Later, Kamke’s inconsistency came back to haunt him, losing the crucial break of serve.

One of the spectators sitting near me was constantly complaining about why the match wasn’t over yet, and wishing that it was, which was rather puzzling since there were plenty of other choices. Not to mention that leaving the grounds is another option. It was already around 5pm anyway. Eventually, after 15 minutes of complaining (or possibly more), they did leave.

After this, I thought about watching Gasquet’s match against Dancevic but the stands were already full, and on this court, there are only stands on one side. In my experience, that court is always overcrowded. So I referred back to my order of play sheet, and headed over to the court where Gilles Simon was playing to see if it had started yet. It had.

Simon was playing against Yen-Hsun Lu, who traditionally receives a lot of support from the Taiwanese fans. The same was true today, and the left side of the stands looked like it was filled with red, or at least bits of red everywhere. In between points, they would swing their flags around, but again I was not quick enough with the camera to capture it well. Sometimes they would do their chants which sounded a bit like "Aussie, Aussie, Oi Oi Oi" in another language, but whether it really was exactly the same, I'm not sure.

The stands were full, but on the right stand, people would leave often and there would be vacated seats. As soon as I sat down on one, I could see why. The view was terrible. This court seems to have a few additional shade covers on where the players are sitting compared to the court that Davydenko and Mayer played on. I can’t understand the need for all these “view blockages”. Make them sit in the changeovers in the sun for our benefit, or hold an umbrella themselves if they really want to. I quickly got up out of my spot and decided to stand up instead on the corner where I had a better view.  From this view, whenever Lu comes over to the side where I'm standing, I can hear him loudly exhaling.

This was the battle of the consistent baseliners. The kind of match where it doesn’t take long to have a look, and think, they’re going to take all night. Despite a couple of 6-2 sets thrown in there, it did take a long time. The match also rarely changed from the original model that the match started with. In the beginning, Lu was like a slightly better version of Simon. Hitting the ball harder and taking more chances, going closer to the lines. On the other hand, it felt like Simon’s tactic was to make every rally as long as possible. This means not taking any chances. I wonder if this is how he played before he showed sudden improvements in 2008. The kind of tennis that earned him the tag of being known as a pusher.

The other thing that can be frustrating about Simon, is that sometimes it doesn’t look like he is giving it 100%. Because of that, it also looked like he could run all day, and play all day while running around just as effectively as before. After all he was barely breaking a sweat, as in everything seemed to come very easily to him. Gilles Simon makes tennis look very easy. Or more accurately, Gilles Simon’s B-grade standard is tennis made to look easy.

Today he was hitting every groundstroke at about 70% pace, compared to his full pace, and rarely changing it up. Hitting so many balls into the court, I often found myself wondering why he doesn’t try to do things differently. Again, he mostly stuck with going crosscourt, and they exchanged a ridiculous amount of backhand crosscourts with each other.

It was a real battle, but after the first set, Simon’s consistency began to improve, with the gap in unforced errors widening significantly between Simon and Lu. Lu had about 60 unforced errors, while Simon had around 30.

Sometimes when Lu was down in a match, he’d try to go for more, thinking that he would need to do more, and it would cost him an additional break in a set.

In the end, Simon’s continuing consistency was too much of a problem for Lu to overcome. The match ended with a really nice handshake, and I can see why, given how much both players battled in this match.

Surprise this week! Some match reporting… for Hamburg.

It's been a while since I've sat in front of the computer, and had a look at the shot mechanics of a match. But it's been a quiet week for me, so I thought I would spend today staring as closely at the screen and the players, hoping that would provide some sort of inspiration.

In front of my screen was Thomaz Bellucci and Philipp Kohlschreiber. In particular, I remember writing about Bellucci around the same time last year, and it's good to re-write about young players because they sure improve quickly. Bellucci is no longer a player that you only see every now and then, and also more adaptable to other surfaces than he used to be. He's sitting at 22 on the rankings right now, and starting to develop some clear weapons on the serve and forehand.

I predicted more of an even battle, but early on, everything Bellucci hit seemed to be bigger and better. Better angles and better penetration. Kohlschreiber's signature backhand was no match for Bellucci's forehand, in the battle of crosscourt shots. It was a pattern which repeated again and again, and so the winner of that match-up convincingly won the match. This is where being left-handed helps, though you would have thought not in this case.

Bellucci has the ability to hook his forehand wider and wider, hit across or above the head if needed and also to switch it down-the-line once there is an opening. Though perhaps he was also allowed some time on this surface to show this versatility, since he does have a rather long backswing on the forehand. I wonder if the key to a fearsome forehand is large amounts of racquet head speed. I'm surprised he doesn't shank it more than he does, with the low to high stroke production, and he also hits it more open stance than many other players.

Why wasn't Kohlschreiber able to pull out his backhand down-the-line, as a change-up? Perhaps Bellucci had him pinned too high and too wide, that the only thing he could do was to hit harder and deeper rather than using a greater range of shots.

Bellucci could have won this easier than he did, but he seems to sometimes suffer from overconfidence and overhitting. He broke Kohlschreiber's serve late in the first set, then cranked it up an extra level to a very aggressive mode as if it didn't matter anymore. It didn't take long to pay the price. His serve was dropped immediately after one complacent game.

Sometimes playing well can make you feel like you can pull off anything you try. A more experienced player would have known what intensity and "gear" they should be playing at, their optimum level. But at least that break of serve shook him up, and back to reality he was, to play the same type of tennis that won him the initial break, to break serve and attempt to finish off the set again. This time, he learned his lesson.

This set the tone for the second set, where Bellucci kept himself in front with an early break in the set. The rest then played out just like it did from the start. Kohlschreiber tried to throw off Bellucci's rhythm with very deep shots, but to no avail. It's not often you see Kohlschreiber overpowered like this. I wonder if he has trouble generating pace on clay more compared to other surfaces. On the other hand, his topspin obviously benefits. Like all good, proper claycourt players, there were many excellent dropshots from Bellucci usually thrown in for good measure, and often well-timed after a long rally.

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.