Almagro and Monfils square off in the Acapulco final

Last year, Nicolas Almagro dominated the Latin American claycourt swing with two titles in Costa Do Sauipe and Acapulco, but heading into this week in Acapulco his claycourt season had been a disappointment.

There were surprise losses to Federico Gil and Oscar Hernandez in Costa Do Sauipe and Buenos Aires respectively, but this week Almagro finds himself in the Acapulco final, although off the back of questionable form where he next meets Gael Monfils. Both Monfils and Almagro had struggled throughout the week in maintaining consistency and focus, but given that both players tend to enjoy the big occasion, it should be an intriguing and hard-fought final.

Lack of consistency plagued Almagro in his semi-final match, where he defeated Martin Vassallo Arguello 6-4 6-4. He started off the match showing flashes of brilliance, in particular he had the ability of hitting these incredibly powerful forehand winners on-the-run. On occasion he'd find himself catching the ball late moving out wide. But instead of having to resort to an inconsistent or more defensive shot, he generates such impressive racquet head speed, that it's like he manages to catch up to the ball to be able to whip right through it on time, particularly on the pacier forehand side catching his opponents by surprise.

He broke Vassallo Arguello's serve early on hitting impressive return winners from shoulder height off high jumping kick serves, both from the forehand and backhand sides showing that he is dangerous off both wings. The faster court players tend to handle higher bouncing balls by stepping in and taking the ball earlier, but Almagro instead pushes back a couple of steps and gives himself enough time to set up. That he is able to hit powerful and penetrating shots from that position is impressive, particularly on a one-handed backhand.

With Almagro, at times it can seem like the more difficult shots are easier to execute than the routine shots. Give him a putaway forehand and he usually deals with it, but rallying around and trying to remain consistent can be a problem. Particularly off shots that he isn’t hitting with intent, where he starts to lose concentration and doesn't know how he should be controlling his shots if he isn't outright attacking or defending.

As the match went on, those brief flashes of brilliance from Almagro started to fade away more, as he descended more into mediocrity. Making use of the break of serve that he had created for himself earlier, and often holding onto his own serve by the barest of margins. It seemed like a lackadaisical effort, like he could only motivate himself whenever he was threatened, playing considerably better on many of the 30-30, 15-30 points. Showing purpose right from the start of the point with a well-placed serve, then finishing it off with those two or three shot combos that are a big strength of his.

The match was always going to be on his racquet, facing an opponent like Vassallo Arguello, who has to be one of the least imposing players I've ever seen. Camping metres behind the baseline hitting medium topspin shots into the court, with no purpose whatsoever. Almagro finally knuckled down at 2-2 in the second set, playing the longer points better. Then he played a sloppy service game at 4-3, but broke Vassallo Arguello's serve again immediately to serve for the match.

The second semi-final promised more than it delivered, given that Jose Acasuso had put together a consistently good run this claycourt season, with semi-finals or better in the last four matches. But from the start of the match, it felt like there was only going to be one outcome in the match, and that was Monfils winning.

Monfils seemed to be in more of a competitive mood than last time I saw him in his second round match against Thomaz Bellucci. You can tell on which days Monfils seems to have more of a killer instinct, when he manages to stay through the flight of the ball when he's running to hit a shot, keeping shots lower and more penetrating rather than having it sit up high and short in the court. It was his best performance of the tournament, and it seems like he is gearing himself up nicely to peak for the final.

Acasuso is the kind of player that plays his best when he sticks to his strengths, and keeps things simple. Thinking about what he has to do more on his side of the court, rather than his opponent's, but it seemed like he was too often thinking about how he should be winning points, in fear of the movement that Monfils possesses. Overplaying, hitting shots long by metres and coming to the net too early when his volleys are nowhere near adept enough. He already hits a forehand hard enough as it is, so putting that extra bite on it is only going to send it long more often than not.

Monfils was never threatened for the main reason that his serve was on song, and Acasuso wasn’t even close to getting a read on it. He could be forgiven for any minor lapses of concentration, when his serve is as secure as this and sometimes it's better to put all of your energy into the important junctions of a match.

Watching Monfils play on clay, definitely the main appeal is his movement and how he slides into his shots, particularly on the forehand. Out of all the players, he quite possibly moves his legs the furthest apart from each other, to the point where I think he’s going to lose his balance during his racquet swing. Maybe he could do with having more precise movement so that he can change directions more effectively without hitting a squash shot.

With Monfils, it's definitely movement first, before racquet technique in terms of what his thought process is. At times it looks like he has forgotten that he has to figure out what to do with a shot, and ends up going with this strangely improvised shot instead. On one point, he made a backhand error that looked like it was aimed right into the air as if he was swinging straight through it like a cricket bat. To which the commentator on the live stream I was watching appropriately said that "Sometimes it just doesn’t even look like Monfils is hitting the ball with the intent of it going into the court".

Inconsistent Mauresmo overcomes Jankovic to reach the Paris final

Amelie Mauresmo hasn't had the best of form in the last couple of years, after posting a career season in 2006. Inconsistency and tentativeness are qualities that have been associated with her game in recent times, but more worryingly she seems no longer capable of stringing together good matches, a quality with which was in display at a smaller scale yesterday in the Paris Indoors against Jelena Jankovic.

It was the best and worst of Mauresmo in the same match, a topsy-turvy affair that ended in Mauresmo’s favour 6-2 0-6 6-1. As entertaining as it was to watch Mauresmo in full flow at times, it’s worrying that her game seems to be stuck in a fragile state. That particular games and points in matches can so easily impact her standard of play for stretches of matches. But it can work in her advantage as well like it did in this match, where she rode the momentum from the leads she had built for herself to finish strongly in the first and third sets.

Prior to this match, Mauresmo had held a 5-1 match-up advantage over Jankovic, and there was evidence as to why this is the case. Jankovic likes rhythm and pace to feed off and Mauresmo didn’t give her it. Creating heavily topspun shots to open up the court and generate superb angles on both sides combined with an effective slice backhand to stop Jankovic from dictating play and yanking her opponent from side-to-side. All weapons that cause major headaches to Jankovic and her defensive abilities, not being able to maintain consistent enough depth having to hit shots from over her shoulder or when unbalanced.

It was an aggressively-minded Mauresmo, showing superb accuracy on her shots to consistently keep shots out of Jankovic’s reach. The rallies were kept short and whenever Mauresmo created an opening for herself, she seized it at the net. Conditions-wise it looks like playing on a low-bouncing indoor court strongly favours the Frenchwoman. Giving her the extra penetration that she needs on her shots and making it almost impossible for Jankovic to offensively counter Mauresmo’s lethal slice backhand that skids low on the court.

If there was one weakness in the Mauresmo game, it was her forehand approach shot and her ability to deal with midcourt shots on that side. Midcourt short balls are meant to be relatively simple shots to execute for most players but with the western grip that Mauresmo hits her forehand with, she sometimes struggles more with the lower bouncing balls, unable to effectively hit underneath the ball and shanking the ball far too frequently. At times her approach shots lacked direction and depth, landing in the middle of the court giving an easy target for Jankovic to hit a winner.

It's amazing that after Mauresmo's game rapidly descended in the second set, that all it took was one good game in the third set to turn the match. In fact, that particular crucial game was the first that she had won in eight games, where a lesser experienced player would have been happy just to have avoided an embarrassment. But instead Mauresmo used it to fuel herself for the battle, firing herself up believing that she had every chance to take the third set. On the subject of belief, did anyone notice that Mauresmo jogged to the chair at the end of the second set after getting fed a bagel?

Soon enough, the third set started to look more like the first set with the same pattern of play emerging, after an initial battle where both players were pushed on their own service games. Jankovic was relatively erratic herself, her footwork not looking as precise and her shots looking more careless than usual like a bit of a free swing.

Fernando Verdasco, this year’s Australian Open giant killer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australian Open Day 6 Blog

(Tennis Week had some technical problems so they didn't put up my final blog, deciding it had been outdated after things got resolved. It is so obviously old news now. So here it is instead.)

Today was my last day at Melbourne Park, not a full day of action as I had to catch the plane later in the day. The weather conditions in Melbourne were quite possibly the strangest of the week, as I was sitting down in Court 2 early morning, it was cold and breezy for about 20 minutes, then hot the next 20 minutes or so. The kind of weather that I would never experience in Brisbane, where I live.

On Thursday night, I was enthralled watching the third set between Venus Williams and Carla Suarez Navarro on the big screen in Garden Square. So naturally given the options available of matches to watch, I headed out to Court 2 to watch Suarez Navarro apply her trade in person.



Suarez Navarro got off to somewhat of a slow start, merely trying to find her range of shots more than anything else while Martinez Sanchez, her opponent made her intentions clear from the outset, trying to take the first strike especially off that relatively flat and strange looking left-handed forehand. It’s not at all like some of the other left-handers I’ve watched, in that Martinez Sanchez clearly does not make use of her leftiness. It’s not like her shots are flat, and they seem to bounce up relatively high but that doesn’t look like spin to me, but merely her balls sitting up high.

Martinez Sanchez started off the match making most of the winners, and most of the errors. Dominating the match too much on her own terms, making it difficult initially to find anything in Suarez Navarro’s game. However, what was most frustrating about this match was the loud grunt that consistently came off the Martinez Sanchez end. I’m not usually one to be bothered by grunting on TV, given that the sound effects, including the sound of making contact with the ball is generally softer and not as sharp on TV. But this constant screeching sound was incredibly distracting and making it difficult to withstand for longer periods.

About three or so games into the match was when Suarez Navarro started unleashing the full range of her game. Her ability to penetrate her opponents without seemingly hitting the ball that far away from her opponent, because her shots move away from her opponent after its bounce. Her shots are especially difficult to return with the work she gets on the ball, if it lands deep and I like the way she slowly pulls her opponent wider and wider to open up the court, before finishing it off if necessary. Smooth, effective hitting while playing well within herself, at least compared to Martinez Sanchez.

I’m not sure how this kind of play would hold up against one of the top players, so from that point of view it was hard to rate that performance. It had the feeling of watching an early round match, in that Suarez Navarro looked like clearly the better player, and that it was more a matter of execution and playing aggressively enough to come out on top.

The second set was more interesting from a tactical point of view, although not necessarily more entertaining to watch. I was somewhat bemused that Martinez Sanchez decided that she should come into the net more often, and she even implemented serve-and-volley tactics at times. Her volleys technically do not look sound to me at all, and really the only kind of volleys that she seems capable of hitting are the mid-to-high volleys and she is not impressive on the stretch either, but somehow managed to make up for it with anticipation.

Maybe from the point of view, that her groundstrokes were not solid enough and that she wanted to avoid one of her bigger shots being neutralised were the reason behind this move. But what I found is that Suarez Navarro is lacking in the passing shot department. Given the greater topspin that she applies on her shots, it felt like she often hit passing shots that were either well within Martinez Sanchez’s reach or sitting up high to put up. Is she not capable of dipping it low at her opponent’s feet?

But in the end, Suarez Navarro proved herself to be the better player, the more consistent player. I was fascinated in the final game how Martinez Sanchez changed her game to play safe, solid tennis trying to take advantage of any nerves coming from Suarez Navarro. But Suarez Navarro passed the test with flying colours, playing patient tennis until given the right opportunity to strike, and finish off the point with a winner.



That match was more like an appetiser, a lead-up to the match that I was looking forward to seeing between Gilles Simon and Mario Ancic. The match that was preceding it between Flavia Pennetta and Anabel Medina Garrigues finished relatively early, at a similar time to Suarez Navarro’s match which clearly pleased me given that I was running on a tight schedule today.

I had a brief fright when I went in to walk into Margaret Court Arena to find that many of the entrances were closed off, despite the fact that both players were warming up. The entire stadium was almost at its full capacity, something that I had not yet experienced myself the entire tournament. But fortunately I was able to occupy a single seat, while other groups of people had to wait outside.

This is a match that promised much in terms of its match-up, Simon’s ability to consistently hit passing shots and counterpunch against any net play that Ancic would likely throw at him. Ancic trying to take the initiative in rallies, and finish off points by tactically playing a good match. It’s interesting to note straight away the loud noise of Ancic taking a deep breath during each shot, a sound that as a spectator you get used to after a while, but it’s still unusual.

The match started off with both players playing confidently to mix up their play, something that doesn’t necessarily happen as often as it should for both Ancic and Simon. Simon seemingly able to hit great shots out of nowhere, after merely rallying around with Ancic, with no sense of real purpose except for waiting for his opportunity to strike.

It’s like how people like to describe Andy Murray’s play at times, lulling his opponents before throwing in that unexpected attack. It’s interesting to note where Simon’s shots generally land on a normal rallying shot, high margin over the net and right down the centre of the court, limiting the options that Ancic has to attack.

Whereas Ancic’s shots are consistently closer to the lines, especially on the forehand side, and whenever he won points, it was more due to the consistent attacking of his play rather than the on-the-run or unexpected winners coming from Simon. I think Ancic’s groundstrokes look more effective and solid in real life, because I sometimes tend to think of them as being noticeably worse compared to the rest of the top players.

After an initially strong start from Simon, he started to play more within himself, mainly waiting for the shorter balls before pouncing, otherwise keeping it solid until he was on the dead run or needed to hit passing shots. I find it fascinating watching the seemingly lazy footwork on Simon’s forehand when defending, how he keeps his feet relatively close together in a relaxed stance, with one leg slightly bent. It was particularly interesting at the start seeing Ancic put in all of his efforts to hit deep, penetrating shots while Simon merely returns it back almost without any effort, as if to degrade the quality of Ancic’s shot.

It was mainly counterpunching from Simon, but that works particularly well against Ancic, who likes to come into net to take advantage of any big groundstrokes he hits. The approach shots had to be perfect. Even if Simon was on the stretch, he usually found a way to dig it down back low to set himself up for the following passing shot. From a tactical point of view, it was difficult to know just how much Ancic should be trying to come to the net.

The biggest difference in this match was how Simon seemed to be able to step up a gear in the crucial stages of the match. That even though he was playing within himself, he was able to step up his game at the important stages. It was a superb first set tie-break from him, one that featured numerous brilliant shots, and the manner in which he initially broke serve in the third set was also one of the highlights of the match. Also, Simon was the more solid player overall whereas Ancic was sometimes inconsistent off the forehand.

There was an amusing moment in midway in the second set, when Simon got a netcord in his favour for the second time in the same game. Instead of putting his racquet out apologetically, Simon looked towards the crowd and smiled, the first example of proper crowd interaction that I've seen in any match. Then he put his arms out and shrugged his shoulders at his own luck, as if to say that he has no idea why the luck is all going his way.

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.

Australian Open Day 4 Blog

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

Today was a day that featured a mixed quality of matches, one that I considered to be a disappointing day of tennis until later in the day when I witnessed the match between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Ivan Ljubicic which was easily the best match that I’ve seen so far this Australian Open.

I started off the day over in Court 6 to watch Jurgen Melzer play against Andreas Beck. Beck is a player that I knew little about, but as soon as the match began in progress, it looked like I had underestimated him as he got off to a quick start. It didn’t take long for me to change my mind about him, and I soon decided that he was a dangerous kind of player.

He’s got flat groundstrokes off both sides, particularly off the forehand side and generates some good pace on it. He surprised me numerous times in the beginning how Melzer would be trying to build up a rally with slice backhands and keeping relatively good depth but Beck would just ignore it and go right ahead with trying to blast a winner quickly to end the point. And so it worked for a while, but with shots as flat as that, it was inevitable that he was going to throw in some poor service games as well. So the key for Beck was to try to get the most out of his serve, and he won a lot of points early on with fast, deep serving, although its accuracy in terms of its width was hardly impressive.

Melzer soon started to realize what Beck was doing himself and suitably adjusted his game, to start to play more first-strike tennis, following up shots better on his own serve and adopting a more aggressive game himself. Incidentally the game he was starting to play was a very similar style to Beck’s, so it was like trying to beat him at his own game. Implementing the big, flat shots and following them into the net. Except that Melzer clearly has more flair than Beck and can implement a greater variety of play especially on defense.

The big problem about this match was the inconsistency of both players and the outcome of the match being overly reliant on simply who could execute their game better. Both players were capable of playing consecutively poor points and they often made too many errors off the follow-up shot, the shot straight after the serve which should be a relatively easy putaway shot at times. So in short, it was a match that featured flashes of brilliance, but not at a regular rate.

What was most engaging about the match was the sheer unpredictability of the match and the closely contested nature for the first three sets, which is why I lost interest as soon as Melzer had taken the lead in the fourth set. Beck had his chances to take a two sets to love lead after leading in the second set tie-break, but that was when the momentum switched to Melzer who ended up winning the fourth set comfortably 6-2 to take the match.

I had contemplated at the time as to whether I should have searched for another match to watch but I was simply not interested in watching only one set of tennis. The live scores suggested that most of the men’s matches at the time were already near their closing stages into potentially the final third set, when the outcome of the match itself was not in doubt.

So I walked over to Hisense Arena to watch the match between Gael Monfils and Stefan Koubek, a match which in hindsight was maybe a poor choice as I found myself completely restless and bored. It was a match-up issue that I could not have foreseen myself giving the impression that Monfils was in utter control and that there was little that Koubek could do about it. Playing against someone like Monfils really emphasises Koubek’s limitations in his offensive play, his inability to hit winners when not given pace or angle to work with.

At first I could see that Koubek was doing well in using the full dimensions of the court to patiently move around Monfils. Monfils started off slowly himself, so the start of the match was slow paced, compared to what I’m usually used to watching. But as soon as Monfils started to implement more changes of pace on the forehand and backhand sides, which occurred with more frequency as the match went on, Koubek could no longer match him. Midway in the first set was when Monfils converted his first break of serve.

To make matters worse, Koubek knowing what he was up against would try to implement some more aggressive play which just often led to tame errors on his side. Having Monfils, primarily a defensive player play against someone like Koubek does not bring the best out of him, in terms of the spectacle, and subsequently Monfils wasn’t particularly animated either. In terms of the match, it’s good for him because he’s better in all departments but he isn’t given the opportunity to hit those amazing shots on the stretch. In fact, because Koubek plays a slow-burning kind of game, he never even looked like he had to show exceptional movement around the court.

Even though Koubek had gone up an early break in the third set, it definitely looked like nothing more than a lapse of concentration from Monfils, and so I continued to be bored. Then in one of the changeovers, the live scoring popped up for Court 13. Radek Stepanek had taken the first two sets comfortably but Michael Berrer had won the third and was up a break in the fourth. I was originally reluctant on it given the distance between Hisense Arena and most of the other showcourts, especially if I was planning on coming back relatively soon for the following match, but I rushed over there anyway.

Could this be an exciting five-setter? We all know that five-set matches generally tend to have a much better atmosphere surrounding them, and that was evident straight away as I sat down to watch Berrer serve for the fourth set. But from then on, is where Berrer barely won any points at all getting broken twice comfortably to lose the match 7-5 in the fourth set, but at least I experienced a brief moment of excitement.

From where I was sitting, I was surrounded with people shouting out German comments to Berrer, and maybe some Czech thrown in there as well, if I knew what Czech sounded like. I liked how the tension and drama in the match was particularly emphasised by the loud grunting of both players after they hit a shot. At one point, Stepanek did a fist pump in Berrer’s face which drew a smile out of Berrer, an interesting and refreshing reaction I thought. Stepanek hit quite a few dropshots and touch shots which are the kind of shots that I like to see him play and when I find him to be most enjoyable. It looked like it was some good all-court tennis from both, although I definitely shouldn’t be judging given how little I watched.

In some ways it turned out well that it didn’t go to five sets because that meant that I was able to watch the match between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Ivan Ljubicic right from the beginning, and what a match it was. It was high quality tennis from both ends, aggressive tennis from both sides while keeping the errors down.

Ljubicic’s groundstrokes look better in real life than they do on TV, more penetrating than it looks and he gets quite a bit of work on the ball. This must have been the best match he has played in a while, at a similar level to when he was at his peak around 2006. His forehand in recent years had been a declining and error-prone shot and early on, I was expecting him to make some tame errors on it but it held up well for the majority of the match, a sign of how well he was playing.

What I like most about Ljubicic’s game is the variety of his game, which didn’t allow Tsonga to take control of the match. He made good use of the slice backhand in particular to mix up the play which allowed him to stay in rallies and turn defense into offense on a number of occasions. Not allowing Tsonga to take control with a single forehand, which I mentioned earlier as one of his strengths, and also implementing a nice all-court game.

It was a display of good shotmaking from both sides, and that Ljubicic was able to generate almost as many winners as Tsonga, one of the most explosive shotmakers on tour was yet another sign of his good form. I liked in particular how both players were able to elevate their games even further under pressure, especially in the tie-breaks.

The atmosphere was electric in Hisense Arena, with the crowd sensing that maybe Tsonga needed some help. Ljubicic must have been devastated in the third set tie-break, how he did everything right on his end to take a 6-3 lead, only for Tsonga to elevate his game to amazing heights to make a comeback and take the third set. Then Tsonga ran away with the fourth set, hitting aggressive returns and passing shots, helped by the declining quality of the Ljubicic serve.

Australian Open Day 3 Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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