On Paper…

Davis Cup, World Group Quarterfinals

In the end, it all worked out more or less as expected, although sadly not as hoped-for. On paper, it appeared as though the Davis Cup World Group quarterfinals might produce some tight and exciting ties, in much the same way the previous round mostly hadn’t. So much for on paper, which doesn’t know as much about tennis as it thinks it does.

Then again, you didn’t need to know much to predict that both Serbia and Argentina would amble through unscathed, and that if a rubber was going to be dropped, it would mostly likely be in the doubles, which in this era of ‘doubles-specialists’ – the red-headed violists of the pro circuit – can make the middle day a veritable crap shoot. Your team might feature the Bryan brothers, but if you’re faced with, say, Federer and Wawrinka, you can quickly discover that even the most accomplished combination only flourishes by the grace of a packed singles season. Think back to Indian Wells, when the singles players opted in. Nevertheless, the Bryans this weekend only had to face Verdasco and Lopez – who are not ‘specialists’ but are ‘special’ – while the Swiss pair managed to drop a set in seeing off a gallant Portugal. But I’m getting ahead of myself, and I don’t mean to belittle the ever-dependable Bryans, around whom the USA’s entire Davis Cup effort is justifiably based, regardless of what a fading Andy Roddick might still believe.

That the USA went down to Spain on a slick indoor court in Austin tells you that a rock-solid doubles combination is not enough, which I suppose we all knew anyway. At some point, your star singles players – both in the top ten – will have to put up. As it was, Fish and Lopez ground out a flaccid five-setter that was nothing like as epic as the scoreline suggests (8-6 in the fifth to the Spaniard), while Roddick managed to blow about 78 set points against David Ferrer, and then, from a set down, he treated the remainder of the match as a very long coda. His two double-faults to end were a nice touch, both a double-bar line and a sly nod to Ferrer’s overall efficacy on return. At least, I think that’s what he was getting at. I had suggested coming in to this tie that Ferrer was the joker in the pack here, and that it would be his performance that would largely determine the outcome. It did, so that’s nice for him, and for me. It is Spain’s first Davis Cup victory on US soil since about 1972, or something, and they did it without Nadal. They will next face France, and if the Austin surface probed the upper edge of permissible speeds, and then the molasses the Spanish will inflict on the French might strain belief.

In other news, word came through some days ago that Gael Monfils has split with Roger Rasheed, which perhaps explains why he looked so decisive on court against the Germans. Even more astoundingly, there are reports that Rasheed has already hooked up with Andy Murray. Now there’s a contrast, between the ghost-white, lanky and straight-talking Scot and the outstandingly bicepped and bronzed Australian, who so bewitches us with his neologistic pep-speak at any opportunity. Whatever his other faults, Murray is fairly no-nonsense, and Rasheed, if his commentary is anything to go by, talks nothing but. Something might go haywire in translation, which is about the last thing the Scot needs.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Davis Cup, Players

Fearsome Quartets

Davis Cup, World Group Quarterfinals

The first round of the 2011 Davis Cup World Group produced few classics, meagrely dotted throughout a weekend of lopsided ties and very piddly drama, leaving us – in lieu of satisfaction – with the vague hope that things might pick up in the quarterfinals. On paper, this next round was enticing, and added frisson arrived in the form of Albert Costa, who provoked a tempest in a teacup by challenging the USA’s choice of surface. It was amply discussed at the time, which is part of the reason why I won’t go back over it here. The other reason is that it was very boring even as it unfolded. Rafael Nadal chimed in with his muddled two cents. Now that he has withdrawn, his opinion on the matter matters even less than if he’d shown up, which is saying something. Spain’s appeal was dismissed.

Anyway . . .

Argentina v. Kazakhstan

Play commenced a day early on this one, and Argentina, at home, are already 2-0 up, for the loss of just twelve games. They’ll probably lose about as many more in the next three matches. Kazakhstan, incidentally, are at full strength.

Sweden v. Serbia

Serbia has sensibly gone in with the same team that captured the Davis Cup final last November, spearheaded by the returning ex-world No.3 and reigning Belgrade champion Novak Djokovic. Sweden were not so lucky in their choice of personnel, fielding a fearsome quartet that includes Michael Ryderstedt and Ervin Eleskovic, who are not household names even in Sweden, though they might conceivably be within their own households. They have the home court advantage, however, which might see them each gain a game or two from Djokovic, if he’s feeling charitable.

USA v. Spain

Nadal’s decision to not to play this tie has naturally swung favouritism back the American’s way, given that they outrank their opponents on aggregate, the Bryan Brothers have just captured their 11th major doubles title, it will go down in Austin, Texas, and both Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick may well play in abbreviated socks. Gratuitous displays of pale ankle are to world tennis as the haka is to Rugby. Much has been made of the fact that both Lopez and Fish reached the Wimbledon quarterfinals last week. However, I expect the pivotal player to be David Ferrer. While he is the highest ranked participant in the entire tie – No.6 – he is also the least fearsome on very fast hardcourts, but also the most tenacious on any surface. It’s worth noting that Fernando Verdasco’s last match on this surface was the San Jose final back in February, where he famously lost to Milos Raonic in the final, inspiring a calamitous decline that we are yet to see run its course. He has been picked for the doubles, to partner Lopez.

Germany v. France

This is shaping up to be the most fascinating tie of the round, and arguably the hardest to pick. Tight-rope talent abounds, and the capacity for utter mental collapse will be virtually unparalleled, with Monfils, Kohlschreiber and Gasquet all in action on day one. Even with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga relegated to doubles, the French look to be the favourites on paper, holding a clear rankings advantage. On clay, though? It isn’t the most convincing choice of surface. It may blunt Gasquet’s shotmaking, but it will certainly do the same to Kohlschreiber’s, who will have a bastard of a time trying to get anything past Gael Monfils. Monfils will predictably lurk ten yards shy of the baseline, in order to ratchet up the degree-of-difficulty on all his groundstrokes, one of the clever tactics he employs to avoid winning matches comfortably. Much weirdness, and I haven’t even mentioned Florian Mayer, who post-Fabrice Santoro has really owned the term. The doubles will be pivotal, and will depend on either Petzschner or Llodra stepping up, on a surface apparently chosen to negate both their games.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Davis Cup

Blasphemies and Break Outs

At an unguarded moment some days prior to The Championships just gone, the idea occurred to me that the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament is not as good as it should be. I utter this sotto voce, the way all blasphemies are born (rehearsed coyly, but gaining boldness when neither divine nor state retribution eventuates). And I’m not concerned about the immaculate venue, or the daft coverage, or the line judge’s hopelessly bland attire. I speak only of the tennis, which might well be as good as it can be, but is nothing like as good as it should be.

Ask yourself: how much better would the top players perform if Wimbledon arrived at the end of a grass season comparable with the Roland Garros lead-up, and if they hadn’t transitioned from clay scant weeks earlier. If we accept that even today’s stately and stable grass requires specialised skills in order to flourish, then we must surely concede that a longer lead-in would see those skills honed more finely still. A week or two is not enough.

Unlike clay, which rewards that special array of strengths happily concentrated in Rafael Nadal, grass court mastery in this post-serve-volley era largely boils down to limiting its detriment on one’s normal, which is to say hardcourt, game. Following that too-long clay season, there is a mad scramble to limit how thoroughly the new surface makes seasoned pros look like hackers. We might say that grass rewards variety, but it’s equally if not more accurate to say that it really penalises players who cope poorly with variety, which is to say, most of them. I doubt whether Robin Soderling would have had anything like as much trouble with Bernard Tomic on an indoor hardcourt, crook gut or not. But Soderling fares ill when multiple variables are involved, and Tomic on grass was an entire asylum of them. For Exhibits B through D, see Roger Federer, Alexandr Dolgopolov, and the wind. More play on grass might conceivably help Soderling, but it would certainly help other players even more. What might the rankings look like if the grass and clay seasons were switched. Can you picture Philip Petzschner in the top ten?

That said, it would probably help the top players the most of all, notwithstanding that they’re on top precisely because they demonstrate year-round mastery at limiting the extent to which vagaries of surface, mood, vibe, form and location impact their games. It is perhaps a churlish point to make, given that Wimbledon has given us three all-time classic finals in the last five years. Federer on grass between 2003 and 2008 proved almost unbeatable, and what a terrible and wondrous idea it is to imagine how much better he might have been had he actually trained on it for more than a few weeks each year.

Bernard Tomic

The point is occasionally made that the Slams are so interesting due to the length of the events themselves, for the way a narrative arc can develop over two weeks in a way that it can’t over one. It seems a fair enough point, until we try to recall anything that happened in the first week of just about any major in the last ten years. There was plenty that seemed momentous at the time – random recollection: Richard Fromberg’s improbable run to the Australian Open fourth round in 1998 – and these tend to provoke a rapidly self-consuming media frenzy. Unless you’re going 70-68 in the fifth, the improbable run must extend into the second week if it is to outpace history’s eroding touch. Even then, a mighty quarterfinal might be gone before the decade is out. What do we retain from the 2006 Australian Open? Remember Nicolas Kiefer’s heroic journey to the final four? No, me neither. I recall Marcos Baghdatis tearing the draw apart, and Federer blubbing on Rod Laver’s shoulder at the trophy presentation.

That bundle of multiple variables known as Bernard Tomic reached the quarterfinals at Wimbledon this year, and pushed the eventual winner and new world No.1. He was the youngest player to progress so far since Boris Becker in 1986. But if he never goes on to greater accomplishments, almost no one will remember. We only remember that particular accolade of Becker’s because he went on to defend the title, and then went on to be Boris Becker. Unless Tomic’s run proves to be a breakout, it will count for little, a mere footnote, one of the dully informative ones you ignore. If Tomic goes on with it, and eventually reaches the heights of the men’s game, then this may be remembered as a key moment. Now, as then, time will tell.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s first and most definitive breakout performance came at the 2008 Australian Open. His career since has seen him adhere rigorously to a timetable alternating injury with further outbreaks, and one can feel safe in assuming it will go this way until he retires. Wimbledon 2011 witnessed the latest of his peaks.

If pressed, Tsonga would doubtless choose as his highlight those three flawless sets he inflicted on Roger Federer. But for me, and apparently for others as well, the standout match was that second round tussle with Grigor Dimitrov, a fabulously skilled and sporting encounter. Had the Frenchman’s form been less transcendent, there is every chance Dimitrov would have won it. Wimbledon 2011 might have been his moment, too. But it was not to be. History was all luck once, and it still is.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams

No, And Never

Wimbledon, Final

(2) Djokovic d. (1) Nadal, 6/4 6/1 1/6 6/3

The sport’s most prestigious title hung in the balance. Rafael Nadal’s inevitable and ferocious counterattack had delivered him the third set 6/1, and the looming questions became if and when Novak Djokovic would succumb to doubt, and fade away. Nadal moved to an early break point in the fourth, and the answers looked to be ‘yes’ and ‘now’. But Djokovic served his way out of that, they traded breaks, and the Serb never again looked troubled. Ultimately, the answers would prove to be ‘no’, and ‘never’, as they have all year. His, I’ve suggested previously, is a mind free from doubt. He is the world No.1, and he is the Wimbledon champion, accolades that have achieved synonymy in the last decade. Surely he has transcended our doubts as well.

Nadal was afterwards candid, and charmingly expansive, in dissecting the match, and its context within his recent troubles with Djokovic. He rightly compared it to his defeats in the American Spring, in Indian Wells and Miami, and suggested that like those encounters it hinged on Djokovic’s unfettered courage at the key moments, and that he (Nadal) had been handcuffed by nerves. (Madrid and Rome, he again correctly insisted, were slightly less relevant since Djokovic had simply been so much better.) It was a frank assessment, and tellingly revealed the delicacy of Nadal’s approach to these matters. Sadly, subtleties such as these are the first things ironed out by time. History will merely show that Djokovic overcame Nadal in five consecutive finals in 2011, across three different surfaces. What history says about it will depend on where they go from here.

Nadal may well cope better than expected. The standard word on the Spaniard – amply reiterated – is that he prefers the role of hunter over the hunted. It’s a pretty trite word, but there’s doubtless something in it. He does play freer when he is in hot pursuit of some goal or other, be it the top ranking, or the career Grand Slam. And let’s not forget that he holds the record for longest consecutive streak at No.2 (160 weeks). But that was to Roger Federer, and one suspects that playing second fiddle – if not viola – to Djokovic will prove rather more trying. There were moments  in Madrid and Rome when Nadal looked quite disgusted to be on the bad end of the handshake, and for all that the ATP and Ion Tiriac may wish it otherwise, losing your Wimbledon title and the No.1 ranking probably hurts more.

Gaining them must feel commensurately swell, and certainly Djokovic looked thrilled. Actually, it took him a while to get to thrilled, since first he had to run through that theatrical stunned-mullet routine he unveiled in New York last year, and which this time included actually tasting the court surface, just so everyone could see how special the whole affair was. We could already tell for ourselves, since the people in his player’s box switched their standard-issue white tracksuits for white t-shirts with Serbian flags on them. Word is there were wild celebrations in Belgrade. Djokovic was, as ever, gracious and proud in his acceptance speech. He really seems like a hell of a nice guy, relaxed and accessible.

He now has an enormous target embroidered onto his back, so it’ll be interesting to see just how relaxed he remains once that itch settles in between his shoulder blades. I have always suspected that getting to No.1 meant more to Djokovic than it has for any player since Pete Sampras, even including Federer and Nadal, and that the years of playing third fiddle – okay, viola – were a bit of a downer. Now that he’s achieved the top spot, and claimed the tournament he is suddenly declaring means the most, I’m curious to see how it pans out. Still, he doesn’t have a ton of meaningful stuff to defend between now and the end of the year – mostly just a US Open final – so it is hard to see how he might be replaced before January 2012, especially given his outstanding abilities on the US hardcourts.

But these are concerns for other days. For now, we have a Wimbledon champion and a world No.1 who isn’t Nadal or Federer, for the first time since 2002 and 2004 respectively. It has been long wait for the heir-apparent, so long that even as his streak grew to ludicrous proportions this year, as titles mounted up, there must have been a lurking anxiety that it may never come, even as it seemed inevitable to everyone else. Well, the day has arrived, and judging from the smile, it’s good to be the king.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams

Definitive Moments

Wimbledon, Semifinals

(1) Nadal d. (4) Murray

(2) Djokovic d. (12) Tsonga

I do not generally subscribe the idea of a single definitive turning point in tennis matches, and am slow to discuss any encounter in such terms. Fundamentally, the idea is just too pat, and cedes insufficient importance to the kaleidoscopic thatch of small points within which these so-called key moments nest. The patness derives from the a priori nature of casual analysis, since it is usually impossible to discern a momentum shift as it is experienced. The exceptions, such as they are, take place when no point is being played at all, which is to say, during medical timeouts or, more often, at the sit-down between sets. With all of that said, there are times when the moment is clear, even as it happens.

Until 7/5 2/1, Andy Murray was not exactly unplayable, but he was playing out of his mind, executing that special gameplan – an unrelenting assault on the lines – that he apparently reserves for Rafael Nadal and no one else. Nadal, characteristically, was hanging on, grimly, having only conceded that lone break to drop the first set, a game in which Murray had pummelled him to 0-40, before finally breaking through. As Nadal served at 1/2, 15-30, Murray launched another big return, streaking crosscourt, which Nadal could only reflex back lamely to the service line. Murray skipped around and lined up a forehand. Forced to guess, Nadal guessed wrong, and scooted to cover the vacant crosscourt. Murray, wisely, pulled the shot up the line behind his opponent, into a hectare of open court. But somehow he missed, inches. A challenge, and it was confirmed long. It would have been 15-40, double breakpoint, but it wasn’t, and Nadal went on first to hold, and then to take 11 of the next 13 games.

From that forehand on, Murray was never the same. If the idea of a defining point holds any currency, it is because tennis is a contest between fallible humans. If you believe that momentum has swung dramatic against you, then it inevitably has. Murray fell sharply away, resurged briefly but fruitlessly in the fourth, and then that was that. Afterwards Nadal was, as ever, gracious to the point of being patronising. Everyone is well aware Murray is good enough to win a major. It’s just that there are a few guys who are better at it, and he can’t seem to avoid them. They’re always lurking at the pointy end of the draw.

The world No.1 moves through to his fifth Wimbledon final, hoping to maintain his imposing record for another year. The No.1 ranking, however, is already gone, to the man he’ll face on Sunday, the man who has already beaten him in four out of four finals this year. Nadal and Djokovic were supposed to contest the decider in Paris, an inevitable match that never happened, but they’ll get their chance now, one month on.

Djokovic looked far more convincing in winning his semifinal than he had the round before, and certainly more than he did a year ago, when he lovingly handcrafted three of the poorest sets conceivable in going out to Tomas Berdych. Nonetheless, today’s win over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga remained some way from the Serb’s best. Tsonga, for his part, did not reprise the outrageous bravura he’d displayed in over-running an in-form Roger Federer. He was decent, don’t get me wrong, but he wasn’t frightening.

This match did not necessarily have a key point, although it boasted a myriad of terrifically entertaining ones. But if it did, it occurred at 5/4 40-40 in the first set, with Tsonga serving for the set. He fought back from 0-40, then missed his first serve. Why he then chose to fire down a 133mph second serve is a nice question, one which would doubtless produce a disarming and wholly Gallic shrug from the culprit himself. ‘Did he forget it was a second serve?’ wondered McEnroe in the booth. He was broken back on the next point, and went on to lose the set. It hadn’t been a momentum shift as such, since Djokovic was already getting a read on the Frenchman’s delivery, but it was a pretty big stuff-up.

Upon claiming that first set, Djokovic permitted himself an emotion other than dire frustration, and turned yet again to the weird tracksuit cult ensconced in his player’s box – the cult of Novak. They have t-shirts. I can readily imagine every last one of them inhabiting a walled compound, working tirelessly at constructing the Interstellar Transport Vessel, before perishing tragically in an FBI siege. Anyway, having received instructions from the Planet Zarquon, they all raised their arms aloft and shouted in unison, eyes unchanging. It happened again at the end of the match, only this time Djokovic was on his knees, bellowing contentedly.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams

The More Things Stay The Same

Wimbledon, Semifinals

The Final Four

The Earth having made its way around the Sun precisely once since the Wimbledon semifinals were last contested, we may safely declare that a year has passed. And yet, in both senses, it seems we’ve travelled nowhere at all. For the fifth consecutive time, at least three of the Big Four round out the semifinals of a major, as though this is a structural requirement of the sport, one which has little to do with how the regular tour plays out. In between the Australian and French Opens, Novak Djokovic went on a spree, and Andy Murray went on a colossal failure-bender, and yet there they both were in Paris. Since then, Murray took Queens and Djokovic took a holiday. Again, here we are.

As with last year’s Wimbledon, Roger Federer is the man missing, again succumbing to a big hitter on the tear of his life. Murray must again manufacture a way past Rafael Nadal, and Djokovic will face this year’s wildcard in Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (last year it was Tomas Berdych), having seen off the surprise quarterfinalist (this year Bernard Tomic, last year Yen-Hsun Lu).* Talk about déjà vu all over again.

In the entirely likely event that Nadal claims the title once more, this year’s Wimbledon will prove about as memorable as the last, which is to say, not especially. Naturally, that will depend on how the world No.1 navigates the next two rounds. For whatever reason, I suspect he’ll have a rather harder time of it against Murray this time around, and that whoever he meets in the final will put up more resistance than Berdych did last year, which is to say, some. The main thing is that the injury to his foot, which could not be medically verified and which has not impeded his performance at all, continues to play no part, beyond sustaining that whole ultimate warrior vibe he likes to have going.

On the other hand, if Nadal doesn’t win, Wimbledon 2011 could well prove memorable – indeed, historic – for any number of reasons. Firstly, Djokovic would gain the top ranking for the first time, even if loses his next match. This would be a big deal, since it would represent the first time since January 2004 that someone other than Nadal or Federer has held the top spot, an unprecedented stretch of seven and a half years. I suspect my children don’t realise it is even possible for someone else to be ranked No.1, although my two-year-old is admittedly shaky on the entire concept, and scores poorly on the weekly exam. Djokovic’s ascension would also prove that the top ranking truly reflects sustained excellence over a long period, since the Serb right now is looking the flattest he has since last October.

If Tsonga was to achieve the unthinkable, which would require two more matches playing like he did against Federer, then he would become just the third man outside the current top three to capture a major since May 2004. Yes, that’s right – lest you weren’t aware – of the last 28 majors to be contested, 26 have been won by Federer (14), Nadal (10), or Djokovic (2). The other two men were Marat Safin (Australian Open 2005) and Juan Martin del Potro (US Open 2009). For Tsonga, anaemic hope may find nourishment in these considerations, for both were similarly hulking fellows with utterly uncompromising approaches. Furthermore, both defeated the first and third seeds on en route to the title, and Tsonga has already seen off the third. There is also the possibility that he has more important things to think about than random stats, or even meeting Muhammad Ali, whom every writer must mention in any article on Tsonga, or face stiff fines.

If Murray wins the title, it will probably go mostly unremarked, except in Scotland where there will be muted celebrations, possibly lunch at a nice restaurant. The English, eternally generous to their northern neighbours, will probably get on board a little, offering circumspect congratulations before withdrawing graciously, and leaving the Scots to their moment. That’s basically how it will play out.

*As I read back over these sentences, I note that Tomas Berdych and Bernard Tomic sound like a casual spoonerism, leading me to the idea that one is in many ways the inverse of the other, at least in terms of technique and overall approach. But then I groaningly recall either player’s interviews, wherein both are as engaging as a railway sleeper. In their defence, Tomic is suffering from that form of high-functioning autism commonly referred to as adolescence, whilst Berdych is an android.

4 Comments

Filed under Grand Slams

Little Points Unnumbered

Wimbledon, Quarterfinals

(12) Tsonga d. (3) Federer, 3/6 6/7 6/4 6/4 6/4

In previewing today’s quarterfinal between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Roger Federer, I suggested that the result would hinge on Federer’s assertiveness at the big moments. Would he go after the break points? How forthright would he be in consolidating breaks, or serving out sets? It was, I maintain, a reasonable enough point to make. Unfortunately, for my waning renown as a pundit and for Federer’s chances of winning, it ultimately didn’t matter much either way. From two sets to love up, the big moments were all Tsonga’s, and Federer hardly had any chance at all.

The statistics tell a story, but, as ever, it isn’t the right one. Federer hit something like 56 winners, and only 11 unforced errors. He served at over 70%, hit a bunch of aces, and won more points than his opponent. By that token, you would have to say he played an impeccable match, and I suppose, arguably, he did. It certainly felt very clean, and he dispatched anything loose with the utmost severity. Unforced errors were indeed rare, even allowing for the absurd leniency Wimbledon has shown in this regard. The real story, as ever, lies in the forced errors, an amorphous category that is now kept hidden from the public’s easily-bewildered eye.

Unforced errors mostly tell a tale of opportunities wasted, while forced errors, among other things, yield a tale of opportunities not created. It’s a nebulous distinction, undeniably, and the subtleties involved are part of the reason  viewers are carefully shielded from such stats. However, matches such as today’s demonstrate that the stats they do show can be woefully misleading. 11 unforced errors in five sets . . . Federer hardly posted numbers like that in winning majors. But what he did do, and what he and Nadal still do better than almost anyone, is to create something from those half chances. In their hands, a forced error becomes an opportunity. And that is what Federer didn’t do today, though it would be churlish to blame him. Time and again, Tsonga’s shots proved too big, too unrelenting, and too well directed. Federer committed so few unforced errors because there were so few moments, especially in the last three sets, at which we was not being forced. It is to Tsonga’s credit that he did not relent for a second. He was magnificent in his composure, and his unassailable aggression on the uncounted little points ensured that those big points never came round. After breaking at the beginning of the match, Federer did not earn another break point.

Similarly, it would be unfair to Tsonga to suggest Federer played poorly to be broken in each of the last three sets. If there was any let down it was momentary, and limited to a single fluffed volley, or perhaps a double fault. Otherwise, most of Federer’s service games were close to perfect, served out to love, and over in less time than it takes Nadal to extract his underwear. I suggested yesterday that Tsonga, being French, is obliged to throw in one crap game per set, and for the first couple of sets he appeared determined to prove me right, although he saved his worst for the second set tiebreak, when Federer was majestic. But thereafter Tsonga set about neatly inverting my snidery. He played no bad games thereafter – not one – and unleashed a single truly phenomenal return game each set, punctuated with several wholly gratuitous one-handed backhanded passes, and at least one break point on which a determined Federer was simply hit off the court.

In the end, as the Frenchman served out the match effortlessly, at love, it proved a testament to his dashing and fabulous performance that the Centre Court roar was wholly approving, and not, as it often is when Federer bows out, tinged with valediction. Federer is loved everywhere, obviously, but so is Tsonga, for his gusto and ebullience, for his uncomplicated smile, and for the utterly unselfconscious way he celebrates victory, twirling and skipping across the court like an eight year old. Federer waited while the beaming Frenchman gathered his kit, and the two men walked off together.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams

Those Fabled Mole People

Time to finish my preview of the Wimbledon quarterfinals. High time. The first part can be found here.

(3) Federer v (12) Tsonga

Proving emphatically that there is momentum to be gained from a strong showing at Queens, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga has numbered among the more fearsome and complete performers through Wimbledon’s early going, which makes his date with Roger Federer both the pick of the quarterfinals, and the trickiest to pick. For Federer, victory will hinge on being Roger Federer, or, more specifically, his serve, his willingness to molest the Frenchman’s backhand, and his assertiveness on breakpoints. Undeniably, Tsonga’s returning has shown dramatic improvement, but he has faced no one as lethal as the six-time champion, who has been impeccable since arriving in Paris five weeks ago.

Nonetheless, there were flat patches in Federer’s otherwise hugely engaging victory over Mikhail Youzhny in the fourth round, the kind of lapses that have liberally peppered his late career, but which have been laudably rare of late. Against Youzhny, it cost him a tight first set, and might have cost him the fourth had he not been so far ahead. The latter stages of the world’s most prestigious tournament is probably not the ideal time to regress to type. Federer invariably lifts as the draw pares down, but even in his tediously-missed heyday he was never much chop on break points. For Tsonga, victory over Federer will thus depend on his hold game, which means a great deal more than merely serving. He has served beautifully so far, it’s true, but he has also backed it up with typical gusto off the ground and at the net, and an atypical commitment to not blow it. Being French, he is genetically obliged to thrown in one truly appalling service game per set, and Federer’s capacity to capitalise on these moments will likely prove definitive.

(2) Djokovic v (Q) Tomic

Australian qualifier Bernard Tomic has of course been the story of the tournament’s first half, although Novak Djokovic has been the story of the year. Nonetheless, so far at Wimbledon the Serbian No.2 has travelled so far under the radar that he has almost been burrowing through the turf, apparently gaining an antipathy for the fabled mole people in the process. Consequently, the only headline he has gained this week was when he snapped mid-match, and sought to demolish their tiny kingdom with his racquet. Warring upon mole people is an immediate code violation.

The conglomerate of mental defects otherwise known as the Australian sports media has been making hay with the news that Tomic and Djokovic hit up together a few times of late. Thus we learn that the young Australian will face his ‘good friend’ on Court One tonight. It hard to blame them for getting so excited, though doing so is still worth the effort. During Tomic’s very accomplished dismissal of Xavier Malisse in the fourth round, Todd Woodbridge apologised at one point for playfully wishing ill-luck upon the Belgian, whereupon John Newcombe admonished his younger colleague. The real issue, by Newk’s reckoning, was that Woodbridge had pulled up shy of wishing Malisse actual physical harm, or using a genuine voodoo doll.

Anyway, expect Djokovic to see off his new bestest friend in straight sets. Tomic has performed magnificently, and may again tonight, but he is about to encounter the player of the year, relentlessly intense, liquid quick and utterly unshakeable. That is, unless the mole people retaliate.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams

Found Very Out

The central narrative of Wimbledon 2011 has thus far followed those players who aren’t of the top four, yet have progressed to the final eight. That the top four are there as well no longer merits a chapter apparently, although they will presumably feature heavily as the tale climaxes. The fact that two of the other quarterfinalists hail from Australia and the USA – where the rich tennis tradition is pronounced dead on an hourly basis – has certainly helped. That neither player is Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick is downright astonishing.

(1) Nadal v (10) Fish

The American is Mardy Fish, who yesterday saw off the defending runner-up Tomas Berdych in straight sets, and who will rise into the top eight even if he progresses no further. Berdych will fall to No.9, and is lucky not to fall lower. Points in the 10-20 range are just so very scarce. Fish has always had the game for grass, but never had a body for tennis. Now he has both, and here he is.

Rafael Nadal is there, too, despite enduring a pretty tense dust-up with Juan Martin del Potro. The world No.1 broke his foot or something at 6/5 in the first set, and was in some doubt to continue. He was permitted an immediate medical timeout when he probably shouldn’t have been: it would be hard to argue that his condition was an emergency, and that a sore foot couldn’t have waited until after the tiebreak. He also attracted an inevitable warning for excessive tardiness between points, but was not then docked a point when he failed to display the slightest alacrity thereafter. It’s hard to fault Nadal in either case, and easy to fault Carlos Ramos, since the token and arbitrary enforcement of rules looks worse than no enforcement at all.

Nadal has since undergone an MRI on his foot, and no issue could be found, which helps explain why he was able to run around very quickly for several hours on it. There is thus every chance he will take the court for the quarterfinal. Fish would do well to make him run and stretch, and will do well to take a set. Nadal’s foot and Fish’s nerve – especially holding it on serve – will determine the outcome.

(4) Murray v Lopez

It was only by the narrowest of margins that there aren’t two Qualifiers in the quarterfinals. Lukasz Kubot earned two matchpoints in the third set tiebreak against Feliciano Lopez, including one on his own serve, which vanished in a flurry of volleys insufficiently put away and a crushed passing shot. A routine straight set upset thereafter blossomed into an dramatic and atavistic epic – the net was rushed often by burly men playing those shots where you don’t let the ball bounce, ‘volleys’ my Dad calls them – although the quality wasn’t as high as those bafflingly skewed Wimbledon stats suggest. Apparently the only way to commit an unforced error this year is to miss a chest-high forehand within a metre of the net.

Andy Murray’s victory over Richard Gasquet was a perfunctory fizzer, a shame for a match that promised so much, which is basically what will be chiselled into the Frenchman’s tombstone. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge turned up, and Murray afterwards graced them with a bow that appeared highly ironic, although it was perhaps merely stiff and unpracticed, understandable given it was delivered by a Scottish tennis player, and not a concert pianist or an 18th century courtier. Prince William gave a hearty grin. That is one charming man.

One doubts whether Murray will have much more trouble against Lopez, who would need to play considerably better than he did in defeating Roddick, considered to rank among his career wins. His lefty serve is a monster on this surface, but he hasn’t faced a returner of Murray’s calibre yet – meaning he hasn’t faced Djokovic – and it’s almost inevitable that his very creaky ground game will get found very out.

I’ll cover the bottom half of the draw tomorrow.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams

Varying Efficacy

Wimbledon, Third Round

(Q) Tomic d. (5) Soderling, 6/1 6/4 7/5

My heartfelt determination to leave off writing about Bernard Tomic for a while has hit a snag, namely that by defeating Robin Soderling and moving through to the fourth round, he has become the standout story of a mostly unremarkable first week. As for last night’s match – the teenager’s debut on Centre Court against a fancied Swede with a recently-demonstrated taste for Australian meat – there isn’t a great deal that needs to be added. Soderling was suffering from something or other; apparently he felt dizzy and nauseous, that queasy vertigo that occurs when the ground drops giddily away. Down 0/5 after eleven minutes, that’s probably how it felt. Tomic, in that first set, was virtually unplayable, if only for an opponent who thrives on rhythm, pace, and not having to lunge forward to dig up out-spun forehand junkballs, followed by a dead slice, or a knifed slice, or a floated slice, or a crushed backhand up the line or a dropshot or a forehand drive or a . . . well, you get the picture. Playing Tomic is hard work, and Soderling literally did not have the stomach for it.

The Rest

Following that anachronistic middle Sunday break, the second Monday at Wimbledon is arguably the greatest single day in men’s tennis, with all sixteen remaining men scheduled to play. However, for a certain type of tennis fan – namely aficionados of the godlike forehand – yesterday was probably about as good as it gets. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Juan Martin del Potro, Fernando Gonzalez, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Robin Soderling were all playing their trade, with varying efficacy.

Prior to commencement, Federer and Nalbandian’s 19th installment was likely to be the pick of the day’s encounters, although in the end it definitely was not. Federer yielded an early break, but was otherwise in scant peril. The highlights all came on the three squandered matchpoints. The actual pick of the day was Tsonga’s pulsating dismissal of Gonzalez, which might have been competitive had Tsonga not so dramatically exceeded his usual standard. As it was, the Chilean slapped some vintage forehands, but was otherwise hit off the court, which was no shame since just about anybody would have been. Speaking of slapping vintage forehands, del Potro emphatically did not against Gilles Simon, instead remaining merely composed whilst the Frenchman grew sadly erratic, a tendency at odds with his character, though not his nationality. Overall a very disappointing match.

Djokovic’s four set win over a vaguely resurgent Marcos Baghdatis provided rather more interest, not necessarily for the result, which was largely guaranteed, but by how it brought forth the turmoil roiling below the Serbian’s cocky bonhomie. The Streak may be gone, but he remains within hailing distance of the top ranking, and tension rides his shoulder like a hawk, its talons gouging deeper with each miss. Since that semifinal in Paris there have been numerous hints of the old Djokovic, the one who grins with dark wryness when Federer saves breakpoints with aces, who worries that, ultimately, it just isn’t meant to be. It is almost inevitable that he will achieve the No.1 position, but if he’s this tight chasing it, how will he fare when he must defend it? He faces Michael Llodra next.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams