Australian Open 2011 - Day 3 Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australian Open Day 5 Blog

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

It was the start of the third round matches and I already was no longer spoiled for choice, which meant in turn watching some matches that I wasn’t interested in.

At the start of play, I headed into Hisense Arena to watch Juan Martin Del Potro play against Gilles Muller, which featured a nice contrast of styles. The brutal baseline play of Del Potro pitted against the tricky variety of Gilles Muller. Muller reminds me in some ways of Radek Stepanek, not because of their styles of play, but because Stepanek is the kind of player that doesn’t look like he’d be able to match it from the back of the court with anyone, but somehow manages to hang in rallies and keep his opponents off balance just enough to avoid them from taking control of them.

Given the strong backcourt abilities of Del Potro, I would have thought that Muller would have been facing an uphill battle. He started off slowly thoroughly outplayed in the baseline rallies, and having to stave off break points in the opening few games. It was looking like maybe it would be a one-sided affair. Even when Muller started to hold serve more reliably later in the set, the statistics that flashed on the board consistently showed a big difference in points won between Muller and Del Potro, showing that Del Potro was definitely playing the better tennis despite not scoring a break.

After the first couple of games, Muller started to hold onto serve much better, mainly on the back of better serving from him, and not only did this win him cheap points but it allowed him to start off the rallies in his favour. Often this meant returning a midcourt ball as an approach shot and following it up at net.

I’ve started to notice that Muller is the kind of player that actually mostly relies on finesse, despite being a big server. His game relies on a combination of slice backhands and chipped shots to neutralise the play or move around his opponents, then throwing in the change of pace on the forehand which isn’t hit at such a fast pace, but there is enough of a speed difference to take his opponents off-guard. It also requires good touch to possess excellent volleys like he does. I don’t think he necessarily punches away his volleys that well, but well enough for the ball not to sit up and he gets excellent placement on them and rarely seems to miss a routine one.

As you can tell, my viewing of this match was from a very one-sided perspective. I did watch Del Potro, but given the kind of opponent he was up against, it was almost impossible to tell which errors were forced, and which were unforced. Especially when you consider that Del Potro has been known to struggle dealing with low slice backhands on occasion. It did seem like, however, that he was doing most of the controlling of the extended baseline rallies in the first set, before the trend changed in the second to something more neutral.

The first set tie-break was a strange one. It started off routinely, mostly going on serve, until Muller served a double fault to give Del Potro the clear advantage. But soon later, Del Potro handed it back with a double fault from himself, and subsequently Muller took the first set. Which led to a rather passionate racquet throw from Del Potro, who stands out to me as being more of a fiery character than I initially thought, given that sometimes he is branded as being a “gentle giant.”

The first half of the second set was clearly the best passage of play from Muller, now even having success in the longer rallies, and not only on serve. One particular shot that I really like from him is the short slice backhand, and short angled shots that he seems to be able to employ to make his opponents move up and down the court. But towards the end of the set is when his game started to drop off, making far more simple forehand errors off midcourt balls just when I was observing how solid his groundstrokes had been this match despite the fact that they don’t look technically reliable.

At first when Muller’s play started to decline, he would consistently put himself under a giant hole on serve, but would dig out a big first serve on almost all of the break points and follow it up if necessary. It was a display of very good clutch play, and one that understandably frustrated Del Potro, and almost drove him insane. But sooner or later, this loose play was going to cost him, and so it did at 5-5. But Muller did have one very brief opportunity the game earlier where he dumped a makeable backhand volley into the net. In the third and fourth sets, Muller’s game dropped off even more, showing far more inconsistency and errors on makeable shots which allowed Del Potro to take control of the match.



At the conclusion of the match, I headed over to Court 2 to watch Tommy Robredo play against Lu Yen-Hsun, who I have no idea why his name seems to be referred to in full on the scoreboard when everyone else has their first name abbreviated. I was disappointed to learn that Nadia Petrova’s opponent had retired after the completion of one set which meant that the match between Ferrer and Cilic, which I had planned to watch had fully completed already.

It was the first time I had watched Robredo play in person before, and my first impressions were that when he plays against an opponent lacking in firepower like Lu, he looks like a high quality player. The one thing that I like about Robredo is how he tries to stick to his strengths and implement his favorite patterns of play. What he likes to do the most is trade off-forehands to open up the court before taking it down-the-line, a pattern of play that won him large amounts of points against Lu. This was a particularly favourable pattern of play given that Lu’s attacking capabilities on the backhand side are nowhere near as good compared to the forehand.

Whenever Robredo had to chase a ball down on his forehand side, he looped it back up with more topspin to enable him to get back into the point, to try to find his way back into that backhand corner he likes so much. In short, Robredo is a very good tactical player in making use of the shots he possesses to achieve the desired result. In this particular match, he was the more aggressive player yet he didn’t go for outright winners when he was on the dead run if he could get himself back into the point.

Lu tried to change the pattern of play in the second and third sets by taking a leaf out of the Robredo book and deciding to take those backhands as forehands by running around them. This is when he started to look slightly more dangerous, but Robredo still looked like the superior player, with a stronger forehand and better defensive skills. The other big strength of Robredo was his ability to get almost all of his returns into play, even if the depth on them was not necessarily good, there was always the possibility of him turning it around by throwing in one of his more heavily topspun shots. Lu tends to struggle with trying to handle the higher bouncing ball. In the end, Lu started overplaying as a sign that he had run out of options and he was thoroughly outplayed in the end. Given the one-sided nature of the match, I was impressed with the loyal support of the Taiwanese fans, who continued to cheer on Lu equally as vocally as they did at the start of the match.

That match ended in time for the start of the match between Andy Roddick and Fabrice Santoro. In general, Santoro is a player that struggles a lot with handling the top players given that his natural game is to throw off his opponents, when all of the best players seem to have large amounts of patience and reliability attached to that game, which those qualities apply just as well to Andy Roddick.

Personally I don’t find Fabrice Santoro to be as entertaining as some other people do, largely due to the fact that even though he possesses an unorthodox game, it is also relatively defensive. Maybe it’s the Martina Hingis effect that playing a top player has on him, not being able to use the creativity due to getting pushed back on the defensive all the time.

But it’s not that Roddick was hitting big shots past him, Roddick actually looked like he was playing within himself. Three quarter paced shots, placed well but with plenty of margin and patient enough to wait for the most suitable ball to strike on. It all looked far too easy for the American, and it always seemed to be a matter of time until Roddick would break Santoro’s serve during the set. I liked how whenever Roddick would hit an absolutely horrendous shot that he would immediately turn his back on it, as if to pretend that it never happened.

I didn’t find this match to be particularly engaging although I was fascinated that while I was waiting to head back into the stadium early in the third set, I noticed how the match looked more entertaining on the TV screen rather than inside the stadium. Maybe because the view on TV placed more of an emphasis on how well the full dimensions of the court were being used, the service box area and the baseline, where both players seemed to alternate from on a regular basis.

I managed to see some typical Santoro shots, trying to curve the ball in with his passing shots, short slices and approach shots but I didn’t get to see that many amazing lobs or volleys. The lack of effective lobs was particularly surprising given that Santoro can sometimes be known to throw them up on a very regular basis, in turn making himself cover large amounts of ground.

So at the end of that match, I didn’t really feel like I had yet gotten my fix of entertaining tennis. It was time for the night match between Tomas Berdych and Stanislas Wawrinka, which on paper was the most closely contested match-up of the day. Two big hitters that both look to dominate play from the back of the court in their own separate ways.

Berdych has shorter backswings and takes the ball earlier, and he tends to be able to create better placement and unexpected changes of directions. What he can do with the ball from deeply placed shots is extremely impressive showing that he has very good reflexes. Wawrinka is a heavier hitter of the ball, and uses larger backswings so he needs to be given more time to set up although on the odd occasion he was able to generate enough pace to hit a forehand crosscourt winner while the pair were exchanging crosscourt forehand rallies.

Wawrinka started the match breaking Berdych’s serve with three winners and managed to hold onto that break for the rest of the set. It was interesting to note the winners count as the set moved on. Wawrinka at some point had 9 winners to Berdych’s 0, but Berdych almost caught up midway in the set, until Wawrinka started to gain somewhat of an advantage in this category. Which by the way, both players had similar amounts of unforced errors, which makes these statistics rather relevant. Whenever Wawrinka made an error, it felt like he usually missed by large distances and sometimes mistimed the ball whereas Berdych’s shots usually only missed by the barest of margins.

From the second set onwards, Berdych seemed to be able to consistently hit returns deep down at Wawrinka’s feet putting him under extreme pressure. In the fourth set, Wawrinka changed tactics to start utlising more of the backhand slice crosscourt to extend rallies and neutralise the Berdych attack to some extent, which helped make it more of a closely contested match. I was surprised how little Wawrinka made use of his backhand down-the-line which is normally one of his best shots. In the end, Berdych’s ability to consistently do more with the ball, and his better serving and returning was enough to take the four set win.