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 Day 2 Blog

Tomas Berdych has been in good form recently, or at least in patches. He's commonly known for his smooth ballstriking, and I’ve recently come to appreciate that more after some high quality performances in Brisbane a couple of weeks ago.

When he’s on, it looks like he has more feel for the ball than the majority of players with the way he’ll casually just put every ball into the corner, because why not when it’s this easy?

Berdych was pitted up against Robin Haase and he picked up right where he left off in Brisbane. Although he really didn’t, because in between, he had a strange loss to Peter Luczak in Sydney.

When Berdych plays like this, it looks rhythmic like he has gotten himself into a nice groove in the same way that a dancer would be moving to the beat of music. I can see why commentators mention that Berdych only does things one way, and that’s making everything look pretty, not dirty. Even when he lunges out to reach a ball, he doesn’t look fully extended. It’s like his long limbs are doing the job for him, though that obviously isn’t the case.

But Grand Slams are made of best of five set matches, so it was never likely that he’d be able to put in a consistently perfect performance. I tried to enjoy it while it lasted, the first set of the match. Haase tried to keep up, but it never looked like he could get to the ball quickly enough to hit an effective defensive shot.

He seemed intimidated at first by Berdych’s quick start but he settled down early in the second set, helped by a very loose service game from Berdych. That service game didn't eventuate in a break, but it changed the course of the match. This was always in the cards for Berdych, who generally plays significantly worse even at a 5% lower level. The second and third sets showed Berdych playing at a more neutral level until picking it up again late in the third, where he started to put Haase back on a string again.

That’s what Berdych generally likes to do, make his opponents cover large distances. Not much else comes into consideration such as whether making that risk would be necessary. Tennis is an instinctive game for Berdych, and it looks like he’d like to keep it that way. The first set was somewhat exhibition-like in its execution, not that I had a problem with that.

I have to give credit to Haase though, who tried his best to turn the tables around. He’d put in a special effort to take the ball earlier and control the match with his forehand. This was a difficult task in itself, because Haase's forehand has a significantly greater margin over the net than Berdych’s, so it's easier to retrieve.

Comparing effort levels, it was like Berdych barely broke a sweat while Haase needed to give his full undivided attention and intensity in order to play tennis like this. Therefore it was no surprise whenever he’d throw in a disappointing error, he’d shout at himself in frustration. It’s a lot he has to manage out there, not only his game. He kept it together today, but not well enough. Not well enough for a top class player like Berdych.

Near the end of the match, in what was the best point of the match, Berdych had sent Haase running side-to-side all over the court almost in a Davydenko-like manner, doing everything but missing the delicate drop volley into the open court. As amusing and meaningless it all was in the context of the match, is this a typical Berdych point from a more general perspective?

In what seemed like relatively good timing, I was able to watch the conclusion of the Fabrice Santoro vs Marin Cilic match, which I thought might have been finished last night. Things picked up right where they left off stylistically anyway. Both Santoro and Cilic must have been quite pleased that far more people were watching them this time around, and in a much more enthusiastic manner too.

There’s not much to mention about Cilic in this match-up. He approached this the same way as many of the other top players have done in the past against Santoro, and that’s to play with patience. The point was not how many unforced errors he made, but whether he could keep a calm head and avoid overplaying, then he'd fancy his chances to win the match.

This is where Santoro looks a bit lightweight. Maybe in a dream world, it would be really cool if Santoro could hit chip shots like he currently does now, while being able to drive through the ball with more pace too, to drive opponents crazy with changes of pace. But I guess anyone that wants to see that will have to stick with Andy Murray for now. Then again that would probably take away all the admiration and amazement that tennis fans have for Santoro, how he has managed to make it this far in the tennis world with not only such an unorthodox game, but with such a lack of pace.

The problem with Santoro’s drive shots was mainly the depth, not the pace. It would land short too often and Cilic would take advantage of that with more net approaches than we usually see from him.

Still, he managed to show a nice mixture of play to keep the match interesting with net charges, slow probing slices and some lobs. One thing that I forgot to mention, or failed to notice yesterday in my report about Santoro, is how difficult must it surely be to bend down as low as that to hit low volleys with two hands. I wonder why he doesn't switch to a one-hander on the stretch but he never does unless he absolutely needs to.

The way the scheduling and timing worked out, this allowed me to watch the match between Jurgen Melzer and Florent Serra, right from 0-0. This match was played on Court 11, right in the middle of numerous outside courts. It’s basically the most distracting court in Melbourne Park, though I still think this is a fair deal considering that it’s not like players have to deal with any music or outside entertainment.

In my line of sight, I had the additional light entertainment of being able to see Tommy Robredo and Santiago Giraldo swing through their groundstrokes without having a clue where their shots were landing.

Melzer didn’t seem to like the atmosphere much though. I was amazed that every noticeable distraction, such as the umpire reading the score from a nearby court, a sudden cheer or someone walking into the stands mid-match, he’d notice it to the point of even stopping play because of it. It’s just that you would think that if everything was noisy and chaotic, that little things like people walking across the stands would mean little in comparison.

The way the stands on Court 11 are built, one side doesn't even have an entrance meaning you can just walk past and sit down straight away. Yet on the other side of the court, we’re practicing normal tennis rules here. I did think it was incredibly amusing though whenever the chair umpire would remind people to not come in until changeovers, as if the people sitting down were the same people who had not yet arrived.

As for the match itself, it was a bit of a grower. Early on, this definitely seemed like a lower standard of tennis than what I had been watching before. Whenever they were a little off their timing, the ball would fly on them. At least Serra was cracking his forehand though, so that made a big difference in dictating the match. The first set was more like a sub-plot in itself, separated from the rest because Melzer picked up his play after that.

The second and third sets were played at a whole new intensity, with rallies that were physically challenging and difficult to keep up with. Suddenly everything seemed to be moving at a faster pace, and sometimes I became fixated with watching the ball move back and forth, the ball being hit with such skill, noticing little angles here and there and down the line shots. Things like that are generally more interesting at this close side-on view. Melzer has a better ability to include subtle variety in his game, throwing in a double-handed slice backhand and a decent transition game which he used more sparingly than he normally does.

I really liked Melzer’s fighting spirit here, how he went from being dominated in the first set, to being able to dig deep enough to hold his own ground in the baseline rallies and slowly outmaneuvering Serra. Watching the match unfold, I could feel as if Melzer was increasingly starting to take over more control in the match. The third set was the critical stage, the one where he continually had more chances to break serve, only to lose his serve in the final game which was outlined by a potentially bad line call.

I took a short break after the end of the third set to prepare for the rest of the match, and this helped emphasise how the last two sets were so much different from the second and third. It must have been all that intensity from the earlier sets being so hard to keep up, that it became very patchy towards the end.

Somehow after all of that effort, Melzer snatched the fourth set rather tamely. By now, Serra had decided to hit the ball harder, though it seemed clear that Melzer was no longer chasing down balls as quickly as he was earlier. He has a reputation of this, of slowing down and becoming fatigued in the fifth set, and this is what happened here. Just like how he had resigned to the loss, I had too. It was a long match to follow, but I did it.

After watching an intense competitive match, it was refreshing to watch a more straightforward match storyline-wise, as I diverted my attention to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s match against Sergiy Stakhovsky. I thought for a moment with Stakhovsky going up a break in the second, that maybe it would be competitive. But as soon as I sat down in the arena after Tsonga broke back immediately, he never looked threatened.

It’s been a year now since I had seen Tsonga live, and straight away he reminded me again why he’s one of the most fun players to watch. Sometimes tennis can have a tendency of looking overly technical live but not for Tsonga. Tsonga’s game just stands out. He hits a couple of forehands, leans right into them, then he comes in to knock it off for a volley. Or at least that’s how he would like to play, by having as few in-between shots as possible.

He was able to do that at first, but after a while, he started to engage in more rallies with Stakhovsky and that’s when you start to see his range of higher looping balls too. I don’t think they’re a strength of his, but at least he covers the court well.

Stakhovsky’s game isn’t too dissimilar from Tsonga’s actually. He likes coming into the net and playing an all-court game, and he doesn’t hang around too long at the baseline. That’s why this match was being played at an extremely quick pace. He plays aggressively from the back of the court too, sometimes to his detriment because of his inconsistency.

Aesthetically it doesn't share many similarities to Tsonga though and his moves from the baseline to the net are nowhere near as smooth. His mannerisms especially when returning serve reminded me so much of Philipp Kohlschreiber, and his backhand is a little similar too, maybe more so just because I have already linked them together in my head.

It should be interesting to see over the coming years what Stakhovsky can add to his game, because it looked promising but rough to me. Like he seemed to be developing a good idea of how he should be playing but without pulling it off well enough. In the end, he was comfortably outplayed by Tsonga, who showed positive signs but will need to tighten up the screws over the coming days to avoid any potential difficulties.

In any case, that match was a nice short break from drama because I was in for another hotly contested match, this time between Richard Gasquet and Mikhail Youzhny. This was my first experience watching a late night match that ended up being extended late into the night, and I had a lot of trouble with it, clock-watching all the time to make sure I wouldn’t be back too late, whatever that meant.

This was a high quality match though, definitely the best match I’d seen so far. What I liked about it the most was not only the variety of both players, but the variety of shot selections from point to point. I think the best way of analysing whether a match has long lasting appeal, whether it will continue to be entertaining three hours onwards, is whether the pattern of play is predictable or not. Whether each point is played out a different way, involving different strategies, and not seeing similar contrasts again and again.

Youzhny opened up the match looking shaky and lost his opening service game. Gasquet seemed much more calm and controlled in comparison, an indication of all the tennis he’s played leading up to this event. From the view I’m looking at, at first it’s difficult to adjust to seeing the spins so clearly from the players, almost to the point where it looks like every shot is a safe shot because of the margin over the net.

Gasquet started to impose himself on the match quickly already with his trademark backhand, opening the match with some smart tennis while Youzhny was still finding his range. Soon enough though, Youzhny regained his consistency and they were back on serve in the first set.

There wasn't much separating the two quality-wise. Youzhny is great at creating clever rallies and opening up the court, while Gasquet is better at utilising his transition game and playing a more outright attacking, but straightforward game. This was always an entertaining match-up on paper because despite both players having great backhands, they were never going to be overly reliant on one shot or tactic.

I had the feeling initially that Gasquet had the upper hand because he had the ability to be more attacking and finish rallies in fewer strokes with his net ability. Yet Gasquet never really pulled away from the match that much, even though he threatened to several times. He snatched the first set on the back of a nervy tie-breaker from both players that was full of poor errors and double faults towards the end. It was great drama though, and the crowd reacting and making sounds during good points definitely added to that.

In the second set, Gasquet started to play more of a baseline oriented game. He appeared to be carrying a niggling injury in the beginning of the third set, then twitched his face to show he was in some pain, then switched his tactics back to play more aggressively again as a result. This was definitely the right way to go, and it helped him take the second set without the need of a tie-breaker.

The longer the match went on, the more enthusiastically I started to cheer for Gasquet hoping that it wouldn’t go too late in the night. But he continually refused to finish off the match. More accurately, he couldn’t finish off the match. I could tell Youzhny was getting stronger and stronger as the match went on. His forehand started to become much more of a weapon, whereas before he was guiding it to its spots. Then he also took some advice from Gasquet, and started shortening the points and coming into the net with far more frequency.

I think mostly, it just seemed that Youzhny had been re-energised. He started to look much more alert controlling the points more too. It all started from the third set tie-break, which also contained good serving from him. But his form continued to fluctuate in the fourth set, down an early break and down a match point in the fourth set, but Gasquet let Youzhny off the hook by playing far too passively.. Though when Youzhny played well in that set, he was brilliant.

Just as I happened to be mentally preparing for my exit, the fourth set finished in the best possible way I could have imagined. With both players running all over the court and Youzhny ending it with a backhand down-the-line winner that looked like a backhand crosscourt winner, based on how far Youzhny was out of court.

That was the shot that ignited the stadium, not that they weren’t already into it and Youzhny celebrated it in a way that a shot and point like that deserved to be celebrated. Gasquet realized the job that was ahead of him now and hit a ball out of the stands of Margaret Court Arena. At first I thought this was a terrible way to leave a match, but no, it was perfect and it provided some closure in the same way that a TV show cliffhanger does.

Australian Open Day 2 Blog

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

It was the second day at the Australian Open and for the most part, my experience today mainly consisted of watching routine straight set matches, in other words, watching the favorites apply their trade.

I didn’t have Rod Laver Arena access to see the anticipated Hewitt vs Gonzalez match, although I did very briefly see the late stages of the fifth set, where Hewitt broke back to give a brief false sense of hope (and Gonzalez received his medical time-out) before further getting outplayed again to lose the match. Now I would have thought that the whole point of gathering around the big screen was to cheer on the Aussies, yet instead I found the group of Chilean fans sitting right next to me to be far louder in their support. Although it must be said that there are several TV screens located around the venue, so my own experience might not be particularly representative of the entire surroundings.

I started off the day session in Court 6 to catch the match between Jurgen Melzer and Kei Nishikori, one of my most anticipated matches personally because I actually enjoy watching both players, not just one. As I made my way into the stands, Nishikori had taken an early break lead, so when I started watching was pretty much when Melzer started to take control of the match.

The first set was by far the highlight of the match with Melzer playing at the top of his game, doing all of the dictating and pulling it off. He plays a forward-moving kind of game, looking to take the initiative wherever possible by leaning into the ball and following it up at net. It was an entertaining brand of tennis, although it didn’t seem to be particularly appreciated by the Japanese fans I was surrounded by where those winners were often treated with a silence.

I often get the sense that this kind of play is risky, and watching in the early stages I was wondering whether Melzer even possesses a safe rally shot that can be relied on in longer rallies. That I couldn’t tell is a sign of how often he likes to mix up the play with changes of pace and all other kinds of riskier methods, as well as how well he was playing today.

Nishikori remained relatively passive in the early stages, not making much of a dent in the match, although this seemed magnified by Melzer’s initially aggressive play. Nishikori didn’t seem to be that effortless with his movement and groundstrokes today compared to what I can remember seeing from him previously. This was particularly noticeable in the second and third sets where Nishikori started to attempt to adopt a more aggressive approach, which all it did was make this match an even more comfortable one for Melzer.

Having sensed that Nishikori was struggling, Melzer took the foot off the accelerator in the last two sets, not going for the flashy winners he was earlier but still continuing to play with controlled aggression. For once, he proved to me that he actually is capable of playing with some sort of consistency. Once Nishikori realized that Plan B, the more aggressive tactic didn’t work either then that’s when he got started playing without any real belief. That was also when I decided that the match was not worth watching anymore, although I was only about ten minutes away from its completion when I left.

Then in a completely unplanned move, I walked past Court 3 on my way to check the scores, to notice that Richard Gasquet had lost the first set against Diego Junqueira, and was just about to contest the second set tie break. So I went right into the stadium to find out what it was that Gasquet must have been doing wrong to be losing to a player of that calibre. But then as I took a glimpse of that second set tie break, I saw a similar brand of tennis that I usually associate with Gasquet, a nice variety of play and he was quick to come to the net to seize any opportunities that he created. So in short, it was not at all a bad performance from the Frenchman.

At times he struggled with maintaining consistent depth on his groundstrokes, but I have never really found that to be one of Gasquet’s greatest strengths anyway compared to someone like Djokovic who has well-measured groundstrokes. Instead what is most impressive about Gasquet, is how difficult it must be to read and feel comfortable playing against him given that he tends to vary just about everything in his game.

Sometimes he takes the ball on the rise to return serve, while on other occasions he backpedals a couple of steps. He serves-and-volleys on some points, can unleash winners from any position at selective moments and he is excellent at changing the height and trajectory of the ball during rallies. Basically he doesn’t give his opponents any rhythm at all, and I would have to think that playing this kind of game even makes it difficult for himself, not having that clear purpose and strategy to implement again and again.

The match in itself was of a good quality which was evidenced by the high winners count on both ends, which by the end of the match reached a very impressive 76 winners for Gasquet, showing that Junqueira must have played a good match himself. Junqueira is a tricky, slightly unorthodox kind of player. He’s left-handed and likes to generate topspin off both wings, to the point where he gets so much margin over the net. It amazes me his ability to finish off points without needing to flatten out his shots noticeably. Overall he didn’t have that much success on the Gasquet serve and it seemed like he needed to be able to start a point on his own terms to be able to finish it in that same manner.

At times Gasquet would land a ball short near the service line or so, an ineffective forehand whether intentional or not bringing Junqueira into the net only to get passed. In the end, Gasquet’s greater shotmaking ability and ability to remain unfazed and confident over the course of the match got him over the line. Mentally he seemed to be in a very good frame of mind, and I particularly liked his post-match reaction where he seemed to be very delighted with his win.

This is when I made my way into Hisense Arena to go watch yet another Frenchman with flair, the more highly-ranked Gilles Simon playing against Pablo Andujar from late in the first set onwards. I noticed on the way there, that on the billboard showing the schedule of Rod Laver Arena matches that they had mistakenly displayed Olivier Rochus’s photo next to Christophe Rochus, an embarrassing error on the organizers' part that was finally rectified later in the day.

For such a one-sided match, I found the Simon match to be a rather entertaining match due to the kind of shots coming off his racquet. But to be fair it also had something to do with a lack of expectation from Andujar, who I consider to be somewhat of a pushover.

The first thing that I noticed about Simon straight away was how it seemed like he generates more pace on the ball live, than it does on TV. He really does have great hands, excellent feel and this was in full display against Andujar.

Simon’s backhand in particular is a very creative and impressive shot. Two things he can do that a lot of other players can’t is to change the direction on a high-bouncing ball to redirect it down-the-line or flick his backhand in any given direction holding it until the last second. Because his backhand is based so much around possessing good feel, he is able to do a lot with the ball even in tricky situations. I noticed on one point, in response to a very deep and penetrating ball, Simon stuck out his racquet face opening it up just in the right angle to reflect it back into its ideal spot, to generate a short angle into the open court.

In the end, it almost seemed a bit like a practice session for Simon, a chance to experiment with playing more adventurously. Whenever he did make any errors, it was usually off the forehand side trying to step up the pace, but who’s going to complain when you win the last two sets 6-1 6-1?

So after the match’s completion, I headed back to the outside courts to watch Mikhail Youzhny take on Stefan Koubek. It was a match that promised more than what it actually delivered. It was very much like the Nishikori vs Melzer, in terms of how the match unfolded. The first set being the most closely contested before the overall quality of the match gradually descended as Youzhny lost confidence in his own game.

The start of the match featured long, extended rallies. The goal of both players to hurt their opposition seemed to be the same, to open up the court and put their opponents out of position before hitting the outright winner. The biggest advantage that Koubek seemed to have over Youzhny was his defensive skills and ability to stay in rallies making it incredibly difficult for Youzhny to hit through him. He could also create some good short angles particularly on the forehand side, which of course being left-handed meant that they landed into Youzhny’s backhand corner.

In a typical Youzhny moment, the Russian when holding three consecutive opportunities to break serve at 0-40 started to verbally show his disgust towards himself after making a poor error. Even though he still had two further opportunities to break. In the second and third sets, Youzhny simply got thoroughly outplayed in all areas, not only defensively but also offensively and his game started to look extremely poor.

Due to the previous two incredibly one-sided matches, it felt like I was able to witness a large number of matches today. I went back into Hisense Arena to watch the match between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Juan Monaco. Heading into the event, Tsonga was under an injury cloud so I thought that this might be a potentially difficult banana skin for Tsonga, drawing Monaco who was a solid top 30 player before experiencing numerous health and injury problems last year. This was the kind of match-up where I wanted to see a contest, and all this expectation did was add to the disappointment despite the fact that Tsonga had put in a rather impressive display. The first two games started off promisingly for Monaco, consistently being able to hit well-placed forceful shots and showing the kind of level that forces his opponents to need to play well to beat him. But it turns out that those two games were just about the only two good games that Monaco played all match as it turned out to be a relatively one-sided affair.

The one thing that I noticed about Tsonga was how much reward he seems to be able to get off the forehand, his big weapon. It is such a big shot when he unloads on it that he was often able to virtually win points with one shot, in that it would put him in such a winning position to win the point. Given how impressive players can defend these days, it really is a strong weapon to have. The match mainly seemed to be able Tsonga dominating with the forehand, which he seemed to unload on with more frequency as the match unfolded. Towards the end of the second set is where I decided not to watch the match any longer and instead take a look at Radek Stepanek playing against Nicolas Lapentti.



But I found it difficult to get into this match maybe because of the generally quiet atmosphere and surroundings, so I went into Margaret Court Arena to watch one of the most explosive shotmakers on tour, James Blake play against Frank Dancevic. It was a very entertaining match which featured superb athleticism and exciting winners. I remember once hearing from commentators that Dancevic’s game is based around pure athleticism and that is one of the first things that stand out about Dancevic. The way he moves around the court is reminiscent of Pat Rafter, who was also known for that, and I particularly liked the way he moved into his one-handed backhand where it sometimes looked like his feet comes off the ground on contact.

Blake’s movement around the court is enjoyable to watch the way he seems to accelerate his movement and move violently into the ball to the point where he would often have to slide in the last second to put the brakes on, to be able to be balanced for the shot. As you would expect in a Blake match, there were also plenty of winners to admire and enjoy. Dancevic himself seemed to be a far more streaky player in comparison, able to string together entertaining shots for brief periods of time but not threatening long enough. From his point of view, the third set was definitely his best period in the match where he played some inspired tennis. But Blake withstood the challenge from Dancevic, sometimes needing to dig himself out of difficult games on his own serve and crucially broke serve at 4-4 to win the match 6-4 in the third set.

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.

Trademark Shots: Which shots make a player stand out?

One interesting aspect of tennis is the varying techniques and shots that players can have in their repertoire.

Particularly at a higher level, players tend to have trademark shots, shots which that player is known for, and one that most other players don't even seem to attempt, let alone execute. A player's trademark shot is not necessarily their best shot or strength, and could be something that’s more unique or unorthodox rather than spectacular.

Below is a list of some of those trademark shots, while obviously there are still quite a few that I've missed out on.

Rafael Nadal

The unusually powerful double-handed backhand crosscourt passing shot, where he swings the racquet through in a straight line making the racquet seem more like a sword or cricket bat. He bends his knees down incredibly low and his racquet nearly hits the ground on the initial contact. Commentators refer to it as being like a double-handed forehand.

Roger Federer

The flick backhand half-volley passing shot. His opponent comes in on an approach shot right to his backhand side and Federer’s still on the forehand side of the court. He smoothly and casually strolls his way there, or so it looks and barely makes any backswing nor does he even look up, he just keeps his head still. He flicks the backhand right at the last second and directs it exactly where he wants to for a winning shot.

He's also got the short-slice backhand intended to make his opponents scoop it back up and force themselves into the net, after finding themselves in no-man’s land. Then Federer whips across an easy passing shot winner straight past them, while making his opponents feel silly and hopeless in the process.

Andy Murray

The high loopy forehand crosscourt that he throws in to completely take his opponent off-rhythm before throwing in the fast-paced flat forehand or backhand the next shot. Two of the most contrasting shots you could play consecutively, and Murray does it deliberately. Most players only hit change-up loopy forehands to give themselves more time to get back into the court, or either they usually hit with a fair amount of topspin as it is. But Murray uses it as a regular shot in his repertoire.

Nikolay Davydenko

I once read someone describe Davydenko on form as like “playing on skates”. The way he sprints from side-to-side, then sets himself in position right on top of the ball each time with perfect timing, makes movement and racquet control almost synchronous with each other at contact.

I also like the strangely nice feel he has on those double-handed volley dropshots. He can’t seem to hit any other kind of effective volleys but he bends down really low and opens his racquet face right out flat, instead of at an angle like most people would. He barely moves his racquet at all, keeping it in the same position to cut under the ball making it stop dead as it bounces over the net.

Andy Roddick

Roddick's serve reminds me somewhat of a rocket or missile launch, in how the motion is almost completely straight up and down and the way he literally launches into it. He gets his feet set close together, then extends his racquet all the way down and bends his knees really low to push forward and create a violent, powerful motion.

David Nalbandian

The backhand crosscourt angle shot, that he throws in the middle of a neutral rally catching his opponents completely by surprise. He flicks his racquet across, using almost entirely his left wrist, with his right hand as support. Most players need to either slow the pace down when attempting a short angle, roll over it with top spin or both but Nalbandian almost does it entirely with racquet control and feel.

David Ferrer and Tommy Robredo

The effort that they put in to make sure that they hit as many forehands as possible, even if that requires running all the way out of court, only to hit a three-quarter kind of shot, not even a near-winner or setup shot. You get the feeling that not much thought goes into whether any sort of reward will come out of doing it, but rather to follow the mindset of making everything into a forehand, as long as it's humanly possible.

Gael Monfils

He teases his opponent with a floating, mid-court ball, begging for it to be hit for as an approach shot. His opponents do exactly as they should, hitting a deep approach shot into the corner, then you can feel Monfils lighting up with excitement already anticipating the glorious running passing shot winner. He sprints over to the corner three or so metres behind the baseline, does a trademark slide and finds the down-the-line shot, just as he knew he would letting out a predictable “Allez!”.

Fernando Gonzalez

The go-for-broke inside-out forehand, where he takes a massive backswing and you know it’s going to be big before it's even hit. The backswing itself is intimidating itself, then he gets his footwork in position like he’s putting every ounce of energy into it knowing that he’s not going to be in position if it comes back. But that’s okay because he wants to hit an outright winner off it. I remember when Andy Roddick got back one of his “forehand bombs” in the US Open match, and Gonzalez got to it late and slapped a forehand two metres long afterwards, to essentially give up the point.

Igor Andreev

The sound that comes off his racquet after hitting a forehand. Andreev gets right under the ball, then whips right across it to send it spinning several rotations. Like the complete opposite of a cleanly struck shot.

Richard Gasquet

When he's on one of his hot streaks and you can tell how eager he is to hit his shots before he even hits them. Gasquet wants to hit glorious winners and he wants them to be spectacular. He puts in that extra hop on the backhand to make it a jumping backhand and gets right on top of that forehand. And just because he's in that kind of form, most of those winners actually come off. It even looks like he's walking quicker and more purposefully in between points than usual.

 

Then there are the more unique trademarks, those that aren't necessarily considered to even be close to a strength:

Andy Roddick’s drive backhand, how he grips his racquet with both hands together close to the middle of the handle, leaving a gap down the bottom, depriving himself of getting the full amount of power out of it.

Janko Tipsarevic, when he's wrong-footed, going back to retrieve a shot on the backhand side, hits the ball on the other side of the racquet strings. Like a very strange kind of forehand.

Tommy Robredo’s backhand, where he sets himself up with an exaggerated backswing then whips through his backhand, in a windmill sort of motion making almost a full circular rotation. His opponents predictably kick it up high to that side on serve, and he falls backwards three metres behind in the baseline just to be able to prepare for that stroke.

Fernando Gonzalez's backhand down-the-line, in that his racquet face is so flat on contact that after the ball bounces, that it kind of side-spins to the left. He sets up for his backhand in a manner that would seem to strongly favour the crosscourt backhand. Surprisingly he executes this shot, more often than would seem possible and it often catches his opponents by surprise because of the unlikelihood of the shot, as what happened to Federer in their Tennis Masters Cup 2007 match.

Mikhail Youzhny's service motion. He starts off his service motion with his front foot a fair distance from the baseline, to enable himself to move his front foot a couple of steps forward before making contact. As far as I know, he's the only active professional tennis player to do this, while everyone else starts with their front foot as close to the line as possible, while the back foot moves during contact, to get the body weight moving forward. Then, of course, Youzhny also has the one-handed backhand that starts off like a two-hander.

Some of the other highlights of the US Open

Instead of concentrating of the back end of this year’s US Open and the major stories like Roger Federer breaking what would be a Grand Slam drought (for him!) or Andy Murray’s impressive run to the final, I decided to write about some of the more memorable moments of this year’s US Open as well as some other observations which may not necessarily be considered a highlight.

One of the most memorable moments for me would have to be the fourth set tie-break that was contested between Nikolay Davydenko and Gilles Muller. The first thing that struck me in this match was the determination and will to win that Davydenko showed. He was hustling around the court showing a sense of urgency in his movement and grunting louder, or should we call it breathing, because his grunt sounds like him taking a very deep breath? Keep in mind that it was only two weeks ago when Davydenko was quoted as saying that he had currently lost his passion in tennis, so it looked like playing in a grand slam event had fired him up.

The tie-break in this match was epic, extending all the way to 12-10 which Muller finally won. It was full of drama, intensity and backed up with high quality play from both players, with all of this occurring on Armstrong stadium with barely anyone in the stands. Muller, in comparison to Davydenko was calm and collected under pressure, often coming up with big serves and following them up with solid volleys.

Muller’s volleys are mediocre but he covers the net well with his large wingspan and he is an intimidating presence. Davydenko hit possibly the best shot of the tournament to get himself up a mini-break when he hit a running forehand crosscourt squash winner passing shot, with all of his body weight going backwards, moving from short in the court to the baseline.

From then on, every point was decided by winning shots from both sides until Davydenko thought he served an ace. Muller then challenged it and was successful, and what so usually happens when there is a delay in between first and second serves, Davydenko threw in a double fault to hand over the crucial break.

On the match point, Muller hit a drop volley that was backspinning wide to the doubles alley of the court but sat up high for Davydenko to put away, which he failed to do so, missing wide. Davydenko then smashed his racquet in disgust and I don’t mean one of those racquet bounces that you regularly see, then he collected himself to give Muller a warm handshake at the net.

Another match that had some of the same qualities was the fifth set between Kei Nishikori and David Ferrer. For me, it is one of the most fascinating things to witness, when a relatively inexperienced player is in a position to produce a big upset and one of the biggest wins of their career, and to have their opponent force them to come up with their best tennis to win the match.

Nishikori is one of the rising stars of the ATP tour, and first caught the attention of the tennis world when he captured the Delray Beach title while being ranked in the 200s defeating James Blake in the final, and later in the year pushed Rafael Nadal to three tough sets at Queen’s Club. Nishikori is a shotmaker and unlike some of the other young guns, he is able to quickly recognise an opportunity to come to the net and has the tactical awareness to switch between defense and offense quickly, although in the matches that I watched, he had a tendency to be a little impatient at times.

Playing in the first five set match in a Grand Slam against a tough competitor like Ferrer who had compiled an almost perfect five set record of 9-1 prior to this match, it seemed like a daunting task especially given that Nishikori had dropped the third and fourth sets after taking the first two. Nishikori served for the match unsuccessfully the first time at 5-4 and this started to look like another typical Ferrer match where he grinds his opponent down both mentally and physically.

Ferrer continued to make Nishikori work hard to win every point, but Nishikori put the disappointment of being unable to serve out the match out quickly and continued to go for his shots with authority. One of the best examples of this was the match point where it looked like Nishikori had just about won the match, then Ferrer threw up a high defensive lob that landed deep about a metre from the baseline to essentially restart the point. Nishikori then got it back deep and folllowed it up with a winning forehand down-the-line to win the match.

The best match of the first week of the US Open was surprisingly between Donald Young and James Blake, which looked like it was going to be a rout at least on paper. It turned out to be just that in the first set, and the first thing I noticed about Young is how fidgety and impatient he looks when he is playing, and he started off the match rushing on most of his shots. I had heard a lot about Young’s apparent variety and court smarts which made him different from the other American players. But in the first two sets, what I saw was poor shot selection and erratic play from both players, with Young often wanting to finish off the point far too quickly. What they did have was fast-paced rallies and plenty of ebbs and flows of the match which made for compelling viewing. Blake let Young into the match late in the second set when he dropped his own service games with three or four unforced errors and from that on is when the quality of the match picked up.

Young started to figure out that he didn’t need to play so aggressively and started standing a metre further back than he was from the baseline giving him a bit more time to react and started to open up the court much better with his forehand catching Blake out time and time again trying to camp out in the backhand side looking to run around it.

Young’s forehand is a dangerous shot. He is able to generate large amounts of racquet head speed on that side and that allowed him to produce flashy winners on that side on many occasions in this match. His backhand is compact and solid especially when given pace to work with. Blake’s shot selections were questionable to say the least and his shots were lacking in accuracy, but in the end, his greater experience (or his opponent’s lack of experience) won him the match.

But this match is memorable more because of Young’s performance, because of all the potential he showed, which for now, I can’t really pinpoint a spot in the rankings that he should be at, because while he does have an excellent all-round game, good shotmaking abilities and court speed, there are noticeable weaknesses in his game and there is a reason why he is ranked where he is now.

Other observations worth mentioning

• I enjoyed seeing Jo-Wilfried Tsonga back more than I thought I would. I couldn’t believe how well he was playing against Moya in the 2nd round given how long he was out for. He is such an explosive player that it is hard not to be excited when he puts it all together. Unfortunately he was not able to back it up in the next round against Tommy Robredo where he tried to force himself to raise his energy levels, but it didn’t work and he ended up not being anywhere near as consistent as he needed to be.

• Both Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Gael Monfils won over the crowd with the enthusiasm and energy they showed in their tennis and their interaction with the crowd. Is it me or does Monfils slip and slide around even more when there is a big crowd and they respond to him? While I admit that it was somewhat enjoyable watching both of them this US Open, I don’t think it would be the same watching them play in front of a crowd that didn’t make any noise where they wouldn’t be feeding off the energy of the crowd. Having said that, I didn’t enjoy Monfils’ matches in his run to the French Open semi-finals this year at all, especially his matches against Ferrer and Ljubicic.

• Has anyone noticed that since Richard Gasquet started working with Guillaume Peyre, he has reverted to playing a more aggressive game, but often in the matches he has lost, like the matches against Haas (at the US Open), Tursunov, Nadal and Murray, he was far too quick to go for big shots in the closing stages of the match and ended up losing convincingly in that final set. His forehand which was criticised for being too loopy and landing too short, now sometimes flies on him when he tries to accelerate through it. I find it interesting that he has gone from being too defensive at times, to the other way around, but most of all, I’m curious to see if he can end up finding the right balance.

• The two best matches that I watched in the tournament were between Gilles Simon and Juan Martin Del Potro, and the semi-final match between Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal.

• When is there going to be an official pay live stream of the US Open and other grand slams (excluding Wimbledon)? Wimbledon is really the only grand slam that offers this worldwide, with their coverage extending to eight simultaneous courts and all of those matches being available on-demand. Eurosport have had their Eurosport Player service where Europeans are able to pay to watch from a choice of five courts for a couple of years, but no such luck for the rest of us. I was frequently hopping onto my computer hoping that there would be a live stream of the match that I wanted to see. It was a difficult decision to make everytime I found one that was in poor quality (usually on justin.tv) to decide whether that would be worse than watching a match that I was not interested in, but could see what was going on. I usually prefer not to watch early round matches featuring Federer, Nadal or Djokovic if there are other choices unless if they have a match that looks more difficult on paper than usual. I think this is an opinion shared by many tennis fans, but TV coverage is catered towards casual fans which is why there needs to be better online coverage.