April 16, 2011

A Very Difficult Opponent

Monte Carlo Masters 1000, Semifinals

Nadal d. Murray, 6/4 2/6 6/1

Rafael Nadal has moved through to his seventh consecutive Monte Carlo final, a necessary step towards his inevitable seventh Monte Carlo title, but the real story today was Andy Murray. Given recent form, this result was downright gobsmacking. Winning would have been a figurative punch in the mouth, but as unrealistic expectations go, pushing Nadal in the semifinal already skirts the boundary of reason. Few expected Murray to navigate the first round, the only seed ever to fall to a bye. It has been that kind of season.

Try though I might, I cannot escape the conclusion that Murray’s most fervent wish right now is to be the underdog, which is a trite way of saying he wants to be left the hell alone. The final at Melbourne Park mostly supports this contention – it was supposed to be close – though the onus of expectation had grown burdensome even in the rounds before, against David Ferrer and Alexandr Dolgopolov respectively. His abject efforts following Melbourne came against players it was assumed he should beat, and, in the cases of Young and Bogomolov Jnr, to beat senseless. However, come Monte Carlo no one expected much out of Murray anymore, other than continuing disappointment. How low, wondered flak-happy fans, can he go?

In playing Nadal so close today, and blitzing that second set, Murray has reminded us that it wasn’t so long ago he was considered a realistic contender on clay. We can probably discount Nadal’s assertion a few years back that the Scot was his biggest threat, since Nadal regards nearly every player who has ever hefted a racquet to be a very difficult opponent, from Rene Lacoste on. But even those basing their assessments in reality felt that Murray’s game should translate well to the slow stuff, courtesy of his saintly patience and excellent movement. The big result has yet to materialise, but there’s little shame in that, since Federer tends to claim those rare clay events that Nadal doesn’t.

Murray’s backhand is amongst the finest in tennis, as effective in its way as those of Novak Djokovic and David Nalbandian. Whereas theirs are technically silken, Murray’s is rough-woven canvas, basic and functional. It is hardly less effective, but it looks like anyone can do it, even though almost no one can. Like Federer’s serve, the simplicity of the stroke disguises its immense variety, the way apparently identical swings yield profound variations in torque and pace, and how effortlessly he can change direction. Nadal regards it warily, and for once he isn’t being disingenuous. Denied his strongest play, the Spaniard is compelled to prise the court apart with different tools. It is to his credit that he invariably works it out, and today, again, he did. Tomorrow he will undoubtedly claim his 19th Masters event. It’s good to see him back on clay. But it’s even better to see Murray back at all.

The full match, and many others from this tournament, can be downloaded from the always excellent El Rincón del Tenis.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,

April 15, 2011

What About Me?

Monte Carlo Masters 1000, Quarterfinals

Melzer d. Federer, 6/4 6/4

It is a fine point whether losing to his close contemporary and closer buddy Jurgen Melzer will scar Roger Federer more deeply than losing to, say, Rafael Nadal, or even to a streaky youngster like Ernests Gulbis. After all, in all the long years Melzer and Federer have been on tour – they have been friends even longer, since the juniors – Melzer had never won a set. This is of course a misleading stat: until Wimbledon last year they had yet to play, a vagary of the tour. How envious Melzer must have felt, looking forlornly on as Federer mauled allcomers through the middle part of the decade, plaintively wondering ‘What about me?’ In the last nine months, the Swiss has made up for lost time, inflicting three straight set defeats.

Today Melzer returned the favour, with a stunning display of flat hitting, deft volleying and clutch serving. Although the match was closer than the scoreline suggests – most of Melzer’s service games seemed to feature a deuce or two – Federer was emphatically outplayed in all departments. This is probably the part of it that rankled most. Federer was naturally plauditory for his friend afterwards, though he has to be, given the rapacity of the media response if he even hesitates in his praise. Federer generally insists, if asked, that he moves on quickly from defeats, and for the most part I believe him. His life, after all, is pretty swell. But I suspect it was the comprehensiveness of today’s loss that will stay with him. Melzer was better all over the court. Some random stats to fuel or refute the discourse of decline, depending on your bias: Federer was 0/7 on break points, although Melzer was especially Federer-esque at those moments. Without a comprehensive fact-check, I have a feeling this was the first time Federer has lost to a lefty other than Nadal since 2003. Stats like these inevitably litter the downward slope. Make of them what you will.

For Melzer, this win affirms his continuing rise through the rankings, which was obviously not the result of luck, although Verdasco and Roddick’s collapses have aided his percolation upwards. The Austrian has now defeated Novak Djokovic, Nadal and Federer in the space of ten months (none of them on their preferred surface), which is precisely the kind of sporadic prowess one likes to see from the No.8 player in the world. He will play David Ferrer in the semifinal, and if he reproduces today’s performance, another upset is entirely likely.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,

April 14, 2011

Humble Pie

Monte Carlo Masters 1000, Second Round

Robredo d. Verdasco, 6/4 6/3

Almagro d. M Gonzalez, 6/7 7/5 7/6

By losing today to Tommy Robredo – and the scoreboard does the flaccidity of the loss scant justice – Fernando Verdasco has departed the top ten for the first time in a year, falling to No.13, his lowest ranking in two. Given the volume of points he must defend before Roland Garros, it’s unlikely he’ll be back soon. More immediately, the yearned-for rematch with Milos Roanic will also have to wait, although given Verdasco’s form, he has potentially avoided the biggest serving of humble pie since Yevgeny Kafelnikov promised Lleyton Hewitt a ‘tough lesson’ in the 1999 Davis Cup semifinal, before going down in straight sets. I poke fun at Verdasco almost constantly, but only because vanity this extravagant invites contempt, and even the roughest barbs adhere readily to his haircut. It is also hard to escape the conclusion that he has grown far too preoccupied with the life of a pro tennis player, forgetting that at its core lies the sport of tennis. Nevertheless, I generally enjoy his interviews, which can prove more thoughtful and circumspect than one might otherwise anticipate.

Those concerned that Verdasco’s departure will leave a critical imbalance in the number of over-groomed Spaniards at the top of the men’s game will find relief in the news that Nicolas Almagro on the very cusp of the premier ten. He’s been thereabouts for a while, and today’s result suggested the definitive push will not be easy. Verdasco’s precipitous departure naturally created a vacuum at the top, augmenting the one created when Roddick fell, but Almagro will still have to earn it. Gonzales (Maximo) served for the match at 5/4 in the third, and moved to 40-0. Even the dullard commentator surmised that Almagro was in some trouble. Nonetheless, he somehow broke back. The final tiebreak was not without its hiccups, but terribly dramatic despite – or because of – the uneven quality.

My cherished belief is that Almagro is the best claycourter in the world until the better ones show up, and he got on board with that assessment by winning everything in South America until David Ferrer beat him in Acapulco. I also said that the trick will be to maintain his form in Europe, and to continue beating those he should. Today he did that, but he gave his supporters a scare. A 12-10 win in the deciding tiebreak is better than a loss, no question, but such wins can prove Pyrrhic on the road to Paris. They add up. As Almagro’s ranking rises, the number of better dirtballers above him shrinks, and the matches he is expected to win grow tougher. He’ll need his energy.

Edit: Almagro today went down to new No.8 Jurgen Melzer in straight sets, which means he’ll be stranded at No.11 on Monday. On his strongest surface, Melzer is exactly the kind of player Almagro needs to beat to establish himself as a bone fide top ten player. The Spaniard will doubtless get there next week in Barcelona, guaranteeing questions about the validity of his ranking, questions that would have been less pointed if his ascension came following a deep run at a Masters event.

The Robredo-Verdasco match can be downloaded here, along with others form the early rounds of Monte Carlo.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,

April 13, 2011

Band-chariots and Backstops

Monte Carlo Masters 1000, Second Round

Raonic d. Gulbis, 6/4 7/5

Can you envisage the chaos that results when bandwagons collide? What does a bandwagon even look like? (It looks like this.) As a metaphor for the slavish and temporary adoration some fans feel towards certain sportspeople or teams, ‘bandwagon’ falls short. All metaphors by definition must, but surely we can get closer. Perhaps it is more useful to think of them as band-chariots, and for the clashing thereof we need look no further than Ben Hur. Collisions remain messy, but chariots can at least be modified for combat, and the superior model – sturdier, faster and bristling with superior ordnance – generally prevails. By that reckoning, Ernests Gulbis is last year’s model, and a shaky contraption he is; powerful in his way, but shoddily put together. Quality components count for little if the rivets holding them in place pop out when the track grows bumpy, and clay tracks can grow bumpy indeed. Milos Raonic, by contrast, is an imposing design, and compensates for a lack of maneuverability with a large cannon mounted up front. Less a chariot than an M1 Abrams tank. Here endeth the metaphor.

Ever since Fernando Verdasco’s unlovely and oft-derided ‘real tennis’ snidery in Memphis, breath has been collectively baited to see how Raonic’s exuberant first strike game would translate to the clay. So far, so good, although his four wins since then have come against a pair of Mexicans with rankings requiring scientific notation, and a couple of perennial flakes whom even science can’t help. In the next round Roanic will face either David Ferrer or Feliciano Lopez, meaning he will face Ferrer. It’s unlikely he’ll go further, but if he does there’s the prospect of a rematch with Verdasco. If the Spaniard loses again, expect real tennis to give way to realpolitik. Imagine Raonic taking the match with a first serve at Verdasco’s head, and managing to hit a squishy part unprotected by his hairstyle. That’d be unreal.

Ljubicic d. Tsonga, 7/6 6/4

If it’s confusing why a player with Richard Gasquet’s attacking capabilities would lurk so far behind the baseline, seemingly intent on blunting his own weaponry, it is frankly baffling that Jo-Wilfried Tsonga chooses to do the same. Indeed, of the five French players inside the top 30, aside from the forward-hurtling Michael Llodra, it is the defensive Gilles Simon that stands furthest up on the baseline. Gael Monfils hardly needs mentioning, but Tsonga – at his strongest when closing at the net – is a mystery. Still, his volleys were rubbish today, so perhaps that explains it.

Ivan Ljubicic, for his part, impressed greatly, fighting back from a break down in each set with strong all-court play, including a lovely dozen-point tear late in the first, featuring typically effective serving and a few gorgeous backhand winners up the line. It was exactly the kind of tennis he should have brought to Indian Wells, and the fact that he didn’t explains why he’s now facing seeds so early. The French crowd clearly appreciated the effort, although they’re conceivably just weary of seeing their talented compatriots loitering pointlessly near the backstop.

1 Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , , ,

April 11, 2011

The Sin of Pride

US Men’s Clay Court Championship, Final

Sweeting d. Nishikori, 6/4 7/6

Ryan Sweeting is a generally unappealing piece of work, and perhaps the most ironically named tennis player since the diminutive Sebastien Grosjean bestrode the court. At least, on his day, the Frenchman could be great. A 6’5” sourpuss, sweet the American is not. Even winning his first tour final before boisterous compatriots in straight sets, he found plenty to moan about: his equipment, the conditions, the court, even the compatriots, who nonetheless remained mostly thrilled at the elementary coincidence of sharing a country of origin. Say what you like about the American Davis Cup team, but they are a pretty upbeat lot when they congregate, spear-headed by those psychotically positive Bryans. New title or not, hopefully attitude counts as much for Jim Courier as it did for his predecessor, and Sweeting won’t be permitted so much as orange-boy duties.

The final itself was of low quality, a fact made plain by the result. Sweeting’s game is based on the concept that even pretty good players can’t play well all the time, and this week he struck pay-dirt. He was marginally more aggressive than has hitherto been the case, but there are limits to these things. It was Kei Nishikori’s match to lose, though this is merely an observation, and not, as Nishikori seems to have taken it, a recommendation. Mostly, it was an opportunity, and not only to claim a second ATP title, but to realise the portentously named Project 45. Project 45 is the dream whereby a Japanese male tennis player will surpass the previously highest ranking held by a Japanese male tennis player, which you may have guessed was No.46, held by Japanese male tennis player Shuzo Matsuoka. By losing today’s final, Nishikori leapt thirteen places, landing on No.48. For all the pride he must feel at his entry into the top 50, you’d have to imagine those three spots above him loom large in his thoughts.

Meanwhile, over in Casablanca, Pablo Andujar also won his maiden title, over Potito Starace. Andujar at No.52 is the 10th highest ranked Spaniard in the world, meaning he won’t even be picked to wash the oranges for the Davis Cup team. (He’s ranked 13 spots above Lleyton Hewitt, around whom the entire Australian Davis Cup effort is based. Tennis Australia’s self-defeating internal squabbles seem like time and energy well-spent). Anyhow, Andujar and Sweeting are the fourth and fifth players to claim a first title in 2011, and it’s only April. Three players managed it in all of last year. None of these tournaments were exactly big deals, but that’s precisely what weeks like this are for.

Monte Carlo Masters 1000

Play has commenced at the Monte Carlo Masters 1000, home to the prettiest centre court on tour. Sadly, no new player will be claiming this title, given that Rafael Nadal has won it every year since 1973, and will go on winning it until the sun explodes. He stepped off the plane to an audience with Price Albert, whereupon they rehearsed their comedy routine for the trophy presentation, and wondered aloud why the other players even turn up. Djokovic and Soderling got the hint, and pulled out. Federer has lost to Nadal here about as much as he’s lost to him everywhere else, but figures he’s due a win: the sin of pride.

The sporadically diverting sideshow of who will get to be runner up is already under way. Results so far have been patchy. A newly shorn Ernests Gulbis saw off an ailing Alexandr Dolgopolov in short order, while Philip Kohlschreiber took his typical three sets to dispose of Andrei Golubev. Battered, he’s earned an hour with Federer in the second round. Meanwhile, Milos Raonic and Michael Llodra fought out one of the weirdest matches of the year, which is adequately summed up by the scoreline: 6/3 0/6 6/0. The momentum shift at the set break is amongst the strangest phenomena in tennis, although in this case the shift actually occurred with Raonic serving at 0-40 in the opening game of the third. You don’t have to be Llodra to lose from this position, but it helps. Another game for Milos, apparently.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , , , ,

April 9, 2011

Back and Forth

US Men’s Clay Court Championship, Quarterfinals

Karlovic d. Isner, 6/7 7/6 7/6

As advertisements for professional tennis go, you could probably come up with something less enticing than Ivo Karlovic versus John Isner, but you’d have to get creative. It might possibly involve Radek Stepanek in a backless frock. Still, if ever a claycourt encounter was going to evoke the halcyon days of grass court tennis in the mid-90s, this was it, so that’s another thing to tick off my list. It had it all: aces, torrents of games without a return finding the court, and very tall men trudging back and forth along the baseline. The dirt naturally blunted the serves, although both men’s returns proved equal to sharpening them up again. The final tiebreak made it to nine all, and Karlovic saved a couple of match points and duffed one with a double fault, but it still wasn’t exciting. The thrill of a tiebreak owes a lot to the tension of the set that has built up to it. When the tiebreak feels inevitable, the set becomes superfluous, its only function to get each server’s eye in.

Some masochists are already envisaging a potential Wimbledon encounter, where pundits will presumably be able to buy some commemorative slacks to match their ‘I Survived Isner – Mahut’ t-shirts, thus completing the outfit. I think there was an ‘I Slept Through Clement – Santoro’ beret from Roland Garros a few years ago. Speaking of clothes, given Karlovic’s capricious sense of humour, is it beyond hope that he gets ‘7-6’ embroidered onto his shirt somewhere, much like ‘RF’ or ‘Nole’, though without the self-importance?

Nishikori d. Fish, 6/3 6/2

By winning the Houston event, Mardy Fish would have moved into the top ten for the first time, just a week after he became the top American. Given that he has almost no points to defend until Queens, it’s a pretty safe bet that he’ll get there sooner rather than later, though it’ll be later than this week. Today’s befuddled loss to Kei Nishikori didn’t look like top ten material, except that the top ten currently includes Verdasco, Monfils and Melzer, and they play like this quite often. Fish will fit right in.

For his part, Nishikori was as appealing as always, spry as a whippet and launching groundstrokes whose penetration was entirely out of proportion with his size. How does he do it? I asked this question of a friend recently, and he replied that timing is the answer, which wasn’t much of an answer at all. It’s barely a step from saying he hits the ball well because he’s good at hitting the ball.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , ,

April 8, 2011

Hardcourt Retrospective (Part 2)

Welcome to my continuing look back at the hardcourt season just ended. The first part, which goes into slightly more detail about why I’m even bothering, can be found here. Part One looked at the top players. This part examines a selection of the rest. I won’t pretend there isn’t bias in my selection, but if pressed I would insist that the bias isn’t gratuitous. In advance, I’m sorry if I’ve missed your favourites.

16. Viktor Troicki, 18. Richard Gasquet and 19. David Nalbandian
Aside from Mardy Fish, the three biggest arrivals into the top twenty have travelled strikingly different paths: finding ones feet, returning from injury, and being Richard Gasquet, in no particular order. Nonetheless, all three are united by how little their ranking owes to strong performances at big events, a testament to the relative scarcity of points available in this range. However, it also means that their ranking is more stable than those reliant upon a freakish run at a premier event, such as Ljubicic, Berdych or Melzer. Those guys can fall away very suddenly, indeed. For Troicki, Gasquet and Nalbandian, however, death will only come via a thousand cuts, and it’s just as likely that points dropped here will be matched by gains elsewhere. Those critical of Troicki’s game would do well to bear his fundamental consistency in mind. As for Gasquet, well, anything might happen there.

33. Kevin Anderson
The belief was widespread, although not generous, that Kevin Anderson claiming the SA Tennis Open back in February said more about the event than about the player. There were even murmurs that his victory was the final nail in the camel’s back. The tournament is no more. Having sat courtside as Anderson succumbed pointlessly to Blaz Kavcic in Melbourne – it was on the court adjacent to one where I shared an awkwardly Seinfeldian half hour with Mikhail Youzhny – I was sympathetic to this most unsympathetic of views. That all changed in Miami, where he produced a level of tennis worthy of the top ten. Unfortunately he produced it against Novak Djokovic, so he lost 4 and 2, but he gained a lot of fans. Naturally, everyone his size has a monster serve, but unlike Isner and Karlovic he is solid off the ground, and boasts surprising agility for his dimensions. Clay doubtless won’t be kind to him, but he would be justified in looking forward to the grass, and beyond to the North American summer.

41. Ivan Ljubicic
In stark contrast to the players discussed earlier, Ivan Ljubicic’s high ranking of the last twelve months was largely buttressed by his extraordinary triumph in March 2010, an Indian Wells Summer for a nice guy in the twilight of his career. He scored a victory over Andy Murray in Beijing last October, which used to be a sweet achievement before Young and Bogomolov soured it for everyone, but otherwise his hardcourt season emphatically underwhelmed. At 32, a return to the top 20 is a long shot, about as long as beating Nadal and Roddick to capture a Masters title.

42. Nikolay Davydenko
By some cosmic coincidence, it transpires that the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is the same as the question of what happens when the most finely calibrated ball striker in tennis goes off for an extended period: 42. Unlike Ljubicic, Davydenko’s high ranking was based around consistently strong results at prestigious events, including victories at the Shanghai Masters and the World Tour Finals. To be where he is has required playing poorly for a long time. Something has gone missing from his immaculate game, and none of the theories sound at all convincing.

64. Lleyton Hewitt and 68. Radek Stepanek
A pair of tour stalwarts, precipitously tumbling some 30 to 40 ranking spots. Age shall weary them, and break them, it turns out. At the end of a long decade, in which one has overachieved and the other hasn’t – which is which? – the only remaining constants are the hideousness of Stepanek’s shirts, and Hewitt’s blithe insistence that he remains a force at the majors. One is painful to look at, the other awkward to hear. That said, for Hewitt the highlight of his hardcourt season was a surprisingly successful and generous commentary stint in the Australian summer, although he wore a little thin once the supply of anecdotes dried up.

35. Milos Raonic and 70. Grigor Dimitrov
Of the young guard, the Wild Cards, it might seem counter-intuitive to lump Raonic and Dimitrov together, but I do have a point to make, since there are comparisons to be made. Both young men have improved their ranking by over 230 spots since last July. The volume of praise lately heaped on Raonic exceeds the amount of disappointment and disapproval directed the Bulgarian’s way, although the latter quantity is not inconsiderable. Raonic has of course had the stronger results – a fourth round at the Australian Open, a title in San Jose, and a runner up in Memphis – although Dimitrov has been no slouch. People say he should prove himself on the Challenger tour, so he does well in Challengers. No, he should be trying his luck against the big boys on the tour! So he plays qualifying, and battles through consistently, including strong fields in Rotterdam, Dubai and Miami. But that isn’t good enough, either. Obviously at some point he’ll have to start winning main draw matches, since Challengers and qualifying will only get you so far – about No.70, by some coincidence – but he is only 19. Naturally, the archetype of the all-court wunderkind is Federer downing Sampras on Centre Court a decade ago. As an image of the guard changing, it is hard to top for succinctness.

Six months ago, when Raonic was Dimitrov’s age, the Canadian was ranked No.200 in the world. Since January, he has put together a run even tour veterans must envy, especially Janko Tipsarevic and Florian Mayer. The slow courts of Indian Wells and Miami were less kind to his game, although his loss to Ryan Harrison in California was an honourable one, which I’m sure was an enormous consolation. Arguably, his greatest achievement was the systematic annihilation of Fernando Verdasco’s will to compete.

5 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour, By the Numbers

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 6, 2011

Hardcourt Retrospective (Part 1)

As the tour descends with wrathful inevitability upon the dirt of southern Europe, and thence the grass, the time seems apposite to look back at the prolonged hardcourt season just ended, the one that began in Atlanta last July, and concluded a few days ago in Miami. It is a useful way to view the tennis season, as a near-perpetual hardcourt marathon punctuated by those brief hothouse months on the traditional courts of the Old World, with the year-end break merely the longest of several afforded to worn players, and inflicted on eager fans. Viewing it this way allows for a slightly longer perspective, which is always the first thing to be lost when a player goes on a monumental tear.

I will break this retrospective up into a few parts, which should not be taken as evidence of a profound structure at play, but merely as an admission that this kind of material can grow wearing beyond about a thousand words. The first part will look at some of the top players.

1. Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal’s hardcourt season was not world-beating in and of itself, but it was an improvement on the previous year’s, and coupled with his prodigious results on clay and grass, meant that the world was actually beaten. The highlights, of course, were completing the career Grand Slam in New York, and progressing to the final of the tour championships for the first time. Besides the US Open, he only claimed one other title (Tokyo), and thus hasn’t hoisted a big trophy since October. He is unique among the top players in that the majority of his points were earned between April and July, which is hardly a coincidence, since by winning everything he left bugger-all for anyone else. This means that his ranking depends on winning everything again over the next few months, although only the stupid or the brave would wager against that happening, at least on the clay. His overall record for the hardcourt season was 53-9 (.827).

2. Novak Djokovic
There’s not much left to say about Novak Djokovic right now, good or bad, well or poorly. Dominance of this level naturally inspires rhapsodic hosannas, from the most jaded hacks up. If Serbia has a national poet, there is doubtless an epic in the works. Head will presumably release immaculately produced footage of Djokovic reciting it whilst suspended by his nipple-tassles from a helicopter. The main thing to bear in mind – a murmured caveat amidst the Wagnerian chorus of approbation – is that although Djokovic has compiled an astounding 26-0 record since the World Tour Finals, he was a more down-to-earth 30-8 before that, although in his defence six of those losses came courtesy of Federer or Nadal. The point is, things change.

His overall hardcourt season record thus comes in at a very healthy 56-8 (.875), and 50-2 against the hoi polloi. Of course, since the WTF he has achieved a fearsome parity, squaring the ledger perfectly against Nadal and Federer, inflicting two and four defeats respectively. He won five titles, including the Australian Open, back to back Masters in Indian Wells and Miami, and 500 events in Beijing and Dubai. It’s quite a haul, and he is deservedly the man of the moment.

3. Roger Federer
When people aren’t chanting Djokovic’s name in close harmony, they’re composing obituaries – either gleeful or threnodic – for Roger Federer. Consequently, it’s important to bear in mind just how good Federer has actually been of late. He accumulated 7,520 points in the hardcourt season, only 370 less than Djokovic, and 1,450 more than Nadal. Of the 13 tournaments Federer contested since Wimbledon, he reached at least the semifinal at all of them, and took five titles, including the Year End Championships.

His overall record of 57-8 (.877) was the best on the tour, and bears closer examination. When not playing Nadal, Djokovic or Murray, his record was an astonishing 51-1, with his only loss coming to Monfils at Bercy, after holding five match points. His record against his peers is 6-7 (4-4 against Djokovic, 1-1 against Nadal, and 1-2 against Murray). Furthermore, his 2010/2011 hardcourt season saw him gain 1,665 points over the previous year. However, he failed to pass the semifinal stage at either of the Majors, thus providing adequate fuel for the argument that he’s done for.

4. Andy Murray and 5. Robin Soderling
Everyone is on Andy Murray’s case a bit right now, and probably not without reason given that he hasn’t claimed so much as a set since the Australian Open semifinal, and that he’s been losing to duffers. But it is worth noting that his 2010/11 hardcourt season was an overall improvement over the previous one: he is 390 points ahead. In the upper ranking tiers that hardly amounts to much, but it was enough to retain the No.4 ranking he held last July, by a meagre 125 points over Robin Soderling. The perennial narrative is that Murray is underachieving, and that the jolly Swede emphatically isn’t. Until either of them bags a major that probably won’t change. For his part, Soderling’s big haul came with a maiden Masters title at the Paris Indoors, although he also claimed three smaller titles earlier this year.

7. Tomas Berdych
I enjoy making fun of Tomas Berdych, and even whilst crunching the numbers I find it hard to rid myself of the suspicion that his ranking is not a true reflection of his ability, which means far more than the capacity to strike a tennis ball. We’ll know either way once Roland Garros and Wimbledon come round – where his big hauls reside – but it’s worth conceding that he made a laudable attempt to defend his Miami final. His hardcourt season was, believe it or not, an overall improvement on the year before, by about 120 points, which is a pretty amazing feat considering he barely strung consecutive wins together in the latter half of 2010.

11. Mardy Fish
Despite poor showings at the two hardcourt majors, and missing both of the indoor Masters events, Mardy Fish put together an eminently memorable hardcourt season. This owes in large part to a truly forgettable one the year before, and to shedding some 30 pounds of ballast, which allowed him to rise 38 places. The highlights were a final in Cincinnati, and a semifinal at home in Miami. The upshot is that he is now the highest ranked American male.

13. Andy Roddick
Roddick’s latest departure from the top ten has inspired profound repercussions on those nearby. Fernando Verdasco has risen two places to No.8, despite being 550 points leaner than he was when the hardcourt season began. Fish, as mentioned, has claimed the top American spot. Whilst Roddick has basically nothing to defend in the upcoming clay swing, there’s no reason to think he’ll improve on that, though he’ll be hoping to cash in on the grass, much like he didn’t last year. At 29, and with an increasingly sombre game built around guiding every point slowly through all seven stages of grief, it’s a dicey question whether he’ll feature in London come November.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour, By the Numbers

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 4, 2011

A Mind Free From Doubt

Miami Masters 1000, Final

Djokovic d. Nadal, 4/6 6/3 7/6

It is a curious and mutable nothing, that gap between success and failure. The margins on a tennis court are notoriously minute, but the margins in the mind are vanishingly small, thrumming fluctuations in probability and the dance of schizoid quanta. The former, in clumsy inches, separate desperate wins from squalid losses, or Philip Kohlschreiber from either, but missing a line here or there won’t gainsay greatness. For Novak Djokovic, the latter, immeasurable, separates a disappointing 2010 from the greatest season opening since 1986. He travelled nowhere, yet, mutatis mutandis, he discovered a mind free from doubt.

This new Djokovic looks strikingly like last year’s model. The strokes are about the same – the un-kinked serve was in place long before the Davis Cup final – and his movement was always fleet and economical. The difference is that Djokovic now plays the wrong shot far less often than his opponents do, which doesn’t sound especially impressive until we recall who is opponents are, that the window in which players may deliberate is well shy of a second, and that the clarity of his thinking is matched by the confident assurance of his execution. It is possibly the least exciting variety of excellence imaginable, and to the casual observer certainly lacks the charm of Federer’s torrents of winners, or Nadal’s martial physicality. But consider the near-perfection of Djokovic’s toil: when do you see him attacking the wrong ball, or playing the wrong type of defence? Unless driven by the uttermost need, he hardly strays from an optimal court-position. There are errors, naturally, but there are almost never mistakes. Indeed, his shot selection appears so right that in immediate hindsight it looks obvious, so obvious that you’re compelled to wonder how his opponent failed to cover it.

They fail to cover it because, beset by their own issues, they aren’t thinking anything like as clearly as Djokovic. Right now, no other tennis player on Earth makes the best decision so consistently, and then executes so appropriately. He never looks to be red-lining his play; everything is contained, flawless. Permitted so few free points, one can only imagine how exhausting it is to play against. Actually, one doesn’t have to imagine. One had only to look at the normally indefatigable Rafael Nadal as today’s final came to a head, deep in the deciding set. Nadal has built a career on outlasting the other guy, but today, after only three sets in reasonable conditions, he was spent and the other guy looked pretty chipper. The points had been predictably physical, but as ever both availed themselves of extended breathers between each one, and it was only a three set match. Nadal is famed for his prowess in running down opponents in fifth sets, but this was a different matter. Once Djokovic got his act together halfway through that first set there was hardly a moment at which the Spaniard might safely drop his guard.

Come the final tiebreak, has Rafael Nadal ever seemed so crippled by doubt? His backhand was impressive when he went after it. There was an audacious cross-court winner at 15-15 5/6 in the third set, suggesting a clear way forward. But Nadal knows that the backhand is always the first of his shots to break down, and he consequently seemed to expect it would, and grew cautious, a testament to the doubt worming through his mind. The slice that he’d earlier deployed to contain Djokovic – with some success – was now used constantly for no good reason, a clear sign of muddled thinking. Each second serve return looked like a second-guess, and it proved no surprise when a flurry of studiously wrought backhand errors saw him yield momentum, capped nicely by a double fault. The irony is that when he went after it, his backhand looked quite fearsome. All the belief was now up the other end.

Four match points came, and two departed. The crowd, perhaps the most rambunctious in tennis, went predictably bananas. His cushion halved, Djokovic looked utterly calm. He knew something we didn’t. With iron certainty, he knew he could beat Nadal. The gap between belief and execution had shrunk to nothing, and the lightness of the eternal victor was his.

The full matches, as well as many others from the 2011 Miami Masters, can be downloaded here.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as ,

April 2, 2011

Aura of Invincibility

Miami Masters 1000, Semifinals

Nadal d. Federer, 6/3 6/2

Of the four guys who contested the semifinals of the Miami Masters today, only one of them played to his abilities. Unfortunately for Roger Federer, that exception was Rafael Nadal. Consequently, their result looked more or less foregone by the time Nadal broke for a second time to take the opening set, and didn’t take much longer to become a fact.

If we consider Federer’s four losses this year – three to Novak Djokovic, and now one to Nadal – in none of them did he play anything like his scintillating best, and so it’s hard to fault him when he goes on insisting that his best is still good enough. It probably is still good enough, but that isn’t really the problem. The real issue is that his best is not being produced when it matters most, when facing the sternest opponents at the pointier end of the draw. That’s what isn’t good enough, though you have to figure the opponents have something to do with that. They’re exactly the wrong guys to face when you’re having an off day.

It’s worth mentioning the Miami surface, but only because others have. It’s more worthwhile to discount it as a factor. The dreaded purple clay clearly favoured Nadal, but equally as clear was the fact that the match was nowhere near close enough for it to matter. Equally we could say that Nadal was lucky in saving the only breakpoint he faced (and he was, clipping the tape on an overhead to wrong-foot Federer). But the fact that he faced no other breakpoints had nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with a prudent gameplan executed diligently.

The gameplan was simple enough that Nadal could adumbrate it in a few short sentences in his exceedingly gracious post-match interview: serve a high percentage of first balls to Federer’s backhand, go deep to said wing whenever he could, and stay away from the forehand. Insofar as Federer’s forehand was often in play, we could say that the Spaniard wasn’t wholly successful, but that is to quibble. In any case, no small proportion of Federer’s heroic 38 unforced errors came from his feared forehand, so there was no harm done, at least none to Nadal.

Djokovic d. Fish, 6/3 6/1

Notwithstanding a certain similarity in the scorelines for today’s matches, the encounters were nothing alike. As alluded already, neither Djokovic nor Mardy Fish were particularly impressive today. The difference is that the Serb boasts any number of backup plans to which he can resort, and nearly all of them will see off most of the tour, whereas Fish today would have struggled to beat James Blake. Blake, for interest’s sake, was the last man to supercede Andy Roddick as American No.1, while Fish is the latest. Blake’s success was built around blistering court-speed and a ferocious forehand. Fish’s success is built around everything besides speed and a forehand. The superficial comparisons are endless, and not very diverting. More meaningful is how both men rely on near constant attack, and how impotent they look when it’s just not happening. Blake’s malingering career has become a set of bombastic yet fragmented variations on this very theme. Today we were treated to an alternative rendition.

The extent to which it wasn’t happening for Fish was hardly short of astonishing. It is not uncommon for fans of all sports to insist that an opponent did nothing special, and that their favourite player or team really beat themself. But Djokovic really didn’t do anything special, and I would hardly claim Fish as a favourite. I could say Djokovic simply got the balls back, but that’s often all he does, and it is something one can do more or less well. Generally he does it very well indeed, but not today. Fish – ever the aggressor – was creating no shortage of openings, even on big points. Faced with hectares of open space, Fish would go for the lines, but unfortunately not the lines that border the singles court. Presumably Djokovic’s notorious new aura of invincibility was scrambling the radar in the American’s head.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Tagged as , , ,