Great Matches You’ve Probably Never Heard Of #4

Chennai 2008, Semifinal

Nadal d. Moya, 6-7 7-6 7-6

Andre Agassi’s confession in Open that he once tanked a match against Michael Chang has lately opened a sluice gate of similar accusations, levelled whenever any player loses a match they aren’t supposed to, to someone they out-rank, or to someone they’ve never lost to before. It is a sluice gate that drains directly into a sewer, from which nothing worthwhile can emerge. Hell hath no fury like a jilted idealist, and sports fans are certainly that, though hardly the worst, being mostly harmless. Generally lacking the wherewithal to employ lethal force, they instead rely upon a wearily tiny lexicon of epithets, of which ‘tanking’ is one. Thus we learn that Federer ‘tanked’ the US Open semifinal last year, so that he would not have to face Rafael Nadal in the final. The idea is self-evidently absurd. Or at least it should be, but sadly isn’t, and I’m an idealist, too.

It is a brand of unearned cynicism that is really a kind of naivety, the pose with which poseurs armour themselves. Beyond that, however, it is miserably disrespectful to the players, who are just a bunch of guys doing their best at a pretty difficult task – playing pro tennis – under a great deal of pressure. It can be pointed out that they’re not out there curing cancer, and you wouldn’t be wrong. But not even the most self-important players – not even Yevgeny Kafelnikov at his worst – would claim otherwise. The worst part is that this disrespect is frequently levelled at a fan’s favourite, as a cheap balm for the hot flush of disappointment accompanying an idol’s loss. As I say, hell hath no fury . . . No players are exempt, even Rafael Nadal, despite the fact that no player has ever competed more vigorously or desperately, or shown less willingness to lose, for any reason. If more proof were needed, just watch the Chennai semifinal of 2008, in which Nadal nearly killed himself in order to deny a good friend victory in an almost meaningless event.

There were plenty of moments in this match at which Nadal trod a rain-slicked precipice but refused to stumble, most notably when Carlos Moya held four matchpoints in the second set tiebreak, and as Moya served for the match at 5/4 in the third. Inevitably, fortune played its part, but Nadal has never been shy about owning up to this kind of thing. Indeed, it is his very awareness that luck plays a definitive role in tennis matches that allows him to move on quickly, and never dwell on mere vagaries. He is adept at only worrying about the things under his control.

When Moya served at 6-5 in the second set tiebreaker, executed a strong point, and moved up to the net to put away a regulation volley into a fairly open court, the match was no longer in Nadal’s hands. Moya missed the volley, and Nadal was lucky. You could argue that Moya’s intimate knowledge of Nadal’s defensive capabilities – his foot speed and passing prowess – forced the elder man to go closer to the line than he otherwise might have. Perhaps that’s true, but he had acres of court available, and I myself would have been furious at at not being able to land a ball in it. Characteristically, Moya was not furious, and instead flashed a fleet, wry smile. This was his cue to recede quietly into that good Indian night, but he was having none of it. He lost that second tiebreak, but he fought on, launching a dazzling array of forehands that kept Nadal’s feet and shots well shy of either baseline. Afterwards, Nadal remarked that, ‘I don’t remember the last time I saw him play so well’.

Earlier in that second set tiebreaker, serving at 1-4, there was a succinct illustration of Nadal controlling what he could. For the first time in the match, Nadal sends a second serve to Moya’s forehand, and earns an ace. Audacity when down is kind of his thing, and impossible to see coming.  Some notes from the match:

  • At 3 hours and 54 minutes, this match was tied at the time for the longest best of three match in ATP history. Indeed, given that the current longest match features Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and some medical time-outs, there is certainly a case to be made that the Chennai semifinal featured a lot more actual tennis.
  • It is a night match, but it looks to be a brutally humid night. Nadal had nothing left in the final the following day, and fell 6/0 6/1 to Mikhail Youzhny. It probably wasn’t the most satisfying way to claim a title, but a win is a win, and it certainly beats lashing yourself around the head with a racquet.
  • I’ve never seen anyone set up for their forehand the way Carlos Moya does, the way he often doesn’t bother using his left hand to position the racquet. It’s like Popeye winding up a lusty punch.
  • As Moya moved to multiple matchpoints in the second set tiebreaker, the camera cuts to a little girl in the crowd. She is clearly a Nadal fan, and can muster little resilience at the prospect of her hero’s impending defeat. Wracked with sobs, she recovers slowly as the match continues, and collapses again when Moya moves ahead in the third. Her composure is a handy barometer for the match.

This little girl – who would now be about old enough to accuse her idol of tanking – is hardly the only member of the crowd who is into it. The stadium is rightfully going bananas, prompting Moya to remark later: ‘the crowd reaction was unbelievable, this is one of the things that motivates you to go on at 31 years of age.’

The full match can be downloaded here. As ever, please avoid highlights.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Great Matches

That’s What It’s For

Abierto Mexicano Telcel, Acapulco

Ferrer d. Almagro, 7/6 6/7 6/2

For the second time in as few years, a Spaniard came within a single match of capturing three titles in the Golden Swing, which, as achievements go, hardly ranks up there with mapping the human genome. Despite its rather inflated title, the Golden Swing is merely three minor tournaments where no top players turn up, followed by Acapulco, where some of them do. You can probably guess which is the hardest to win. Anyway, last year it was Juan Carlos Ferrero who fell short, and this year it was Nicolas Almagro. On both occasions, David Ferrer arrived to rain on their parades; a Golden Shower, as it were.

I’ve already said that Almagro is the best clay courter going around, until the better ones come around. Trailing 2/5 in the first set, Ferrer looked set to make a liar out of me, or at least prove that even obvious sporting predictions are a fool’s conceit. Little did I realise that in addition to being a barrel-chested hunk, Almagro is also a performance artist of the first order. The court at the Fairmont Acapulco Princess was his canvas, and in that first set he performed for us a comprehensive retrospective of the career of Guillermo Coria. He commenced with electrifying early promise, looking for all the world like a premier dirtballer, before dissolving into a welter of mental collapse and double faults. A gritty fightback ultimately came to naught. It was a touching homage, although to be truly comprehensive he needed to get nicked and acquitted for nandrolone, graze a ballkid with his hurled racquet, and generally behave like a surly prat. Still, a solid effort, which doubtless owed much to the expert input of his coach, Jose Perlas, who briefly oversaw Coria’s decline.

Aside from its artistic value, which was immeasurable, the Acapulco final was an excellent and dramatic match, the pick of the three finals played this weekend. As facetious as I am about the whole affair, Almagro is player I have plenty of time for. The trick, once the twin inconveniences of Indian Wells and Miami are dealt with, will be for him to retain form in Europe, to forge his way through tougher draws to final weekends, and there be mauled by Rafael Nadal.

Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships

Djokovic d. Federer, 6/3 6/3

Dubai ended as it began, promising much but delivering little. I can recall no stand out matches. At least the crowds picked up, although too many matches took place at night, in slower conditions, when the stadium could be anywhere. It is a lovely sight by day, with the gentlest haze softening the vivid wash of Arabian light, sharply relieved by the bold flower arrangements ringing the court.

For the second time in as many meetings, Novak Djokovic proved too potent for Roger Federer. Melbourne demonstrated what happens when Djokovic is outstanding and Federer is merely adequate. Dial down Federer’s execution a few more notches – it no longer goes to 11 – and you have the Dubai final. Djokovic remained excellent, especially considering his weak effort against Berdych one day prior. He and Federer have clashed seven times in the last seven months, with the Swiss leading 4-3. Those matches have showcased every possible permutation of their respective abilities, besides the one I’m most eager to see. We’ve seen Federer scintillating (London), and Djokovic appalling (Toronto), and both guys nervous (Basel). We’ve seen Djokovic solid and Federer distracted (New York). But we haven’t seen them both firing at the same time. Given Djokovic’s radical improvements of late, I hope we do, and soon.

Delray Beach International Tennis Championships

del Potro d. Tipsarevic, 6/4 6/4

If you are pursuing a maiden ATP title, Delray Beach is as good a place to spend a week as any. That’s what it’s for, having previously launched the title-sprees of luminaries such as Xavier Malisse, Davide Sanguinetti and Kei Nishikori. The defending champion is Ernests Gulbis, who characteristically opted not to show up, preferring an early exit in Dubai, believing that the act of defending ranking points is a practice best left to the mentally sound. Besides Delray Beach, other important stops for the would-be titlist include Moscow and Rosmalen. These are the regular haunts of Janko Tipsarevic, whose notoriety as the best player without a title continues to swell. Indeed, it has now swollen to the extent that commentators the world over have apparently added it to their crib sheets, right below the fact that he actually reads Goethe and Dostoevsky, as though reading two of the most famous writers in history is an astounding thing for a person to do.

For the true believers, Juan Martin del Potro’s first title since the 2009 US Open is a vindication of sorts. It wasn’t pretty, but it was prettier than anything that happened for him last year. The way he kissed his wrist afterwards said it all. Sure, it’s only Delray Beach, but he’ll take it. That’s what it’s for.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

A Betrayal of Egalitarian Ideals

Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships, Semifinals

Federer d. Gasquet, 6/2 7/5

When Roger Federer gifted a break of serve to Richard Gasquet in the second set of their Dubai semifinal, the was a collective worldwide exhalation as tens of thousands of the faithful emitted pent-up ‘not-again’ sighs. The global temperature subsequently rose about a tenth of a degree, and the polar icecaps receded almost a foot. Federer’s mid-match mental sojourns have now grown to be such a factor that even he is willing to discuss them, although their impact on climate change has been largely glossed over. This is not to say that the faithful were especially concerned over the result – it was Gasquet after all – but there is anxiety for what it betokens heading into the US Spring, and the clay season that follows. It is, naturally, another sure sign of his Decline.

Gasquet’s fans, on the other hand, know that their hero gaining a break is only the necessary first step towards blowing it. His real goal is to break their hearts, again and again. No one has ever been in any doubt that Gasquet is skilled enough to occupy winning positions. So it proved again. Up 5/3 in the second, looking to force a decider, the Frenchman won only a handful of points before scurrying from the court. The flaccid break had been enough to galvanise Federer, and he and Gasquet thereafter toiled cohesively towards the common goal of securing a nice win for the top seed. When true professionals act in concert, there’s seemingly no limit to how efficiently they can get things done. The last four games took about ten minutes.

Gasquet, who by winning just about anything would become a national celebrity, has once again inspired his share of opprobrium. This is patently unfair. Has it occurred to anyone that he is playing as well as he can? Clearly he has a mountain of talent, and a stellar backhand, but what in his history leads anyone to believe he has the mental fortitude to compete at the highest levels? Very few do, and that has always been the case.

The issue, as I’ve suggested before, is that fans tend to regard talented ball strikers as defective when they can’t close out a set. But the top hundred features scores of men who can strike a tennis ball beautifully, but only a handful one would rely upon to close out a match. On this evidence alone, you’d have to say the latter ability is more precious than the former. Conversely, the tactically-sound, mentally strong player with limited weapons can’t be lauded enough. Fans may patronise them, but they nonetheless respect them for doing the best with what they have. It reflects a paradoxical tendency to exalt talent over hard slog – a clear betrayal of egalitarian ideals, but our idols are not our equals. Federer of course is the most idolised of all, and he has consequently transcended ‘talent’. He is a Genius, like Mozart, and apparently we need to be quiet while he works.

Djokovic d. Berdych, 6/7 6/2 4/2

In tomorrow night’s final, Federer will face Novak Djokovic, who eventually overcame Tomas Berdych in what the Serbian later described without a trace of hyperbole as his worst match of the year. When he wasn’t exploring a narrow corridor up the guts of the court, he was probing the middle of the net with his backhand. Berdych took the first set, but thereafter part of his leg stopped functioning properly – pardon the medical jargon – and he defaulted at 2/4 in the third.

The final is being heralded by most as a rematch of the Australian Open semifinal, even by those who otherwise insist that Grand Slam play is unlike any other type of tennis. With that said, the last time these two contested a 500 event was in Basel last October, when Federer defeated defending champion Djokovic in a see-sawing three set final. Fans can make of that what they will, but the correct thing to make of it is nothing.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Dreamboats

Abierto Mexicano Telcel, Acapulco

Quarterfinals

Nicolas Almagro, a six foot monument to meticulous grooming and preternaturally clear skin, would not look misplaced in that kind of daytime soap opera they used to have in the 1980s, which is to say the kind they have now, the ones in which all the men are named Rock and Beau, and the women are named Hope, or Chastity, or Buggery. Almagro was slightly ruffled in overcoming Santiago Giraldo in three sets today, but he never looked it. It must be disheartening to glance up after a desperate and extended rally and see that your opponent’s hair has not moved. Say what you like about David Ferrer, but he looks like he’s been through hell to win a match. Hell, he looks like he’s forded the Styx. He’s a dreamboat, to be sure, but one that’s capsized.

There are a number of reasons why Ferrer vs. Almagro would constitute the dream Acapulco final. Some even involve tennis. Between them, they hold the last three titles. So far through the South America clay court season – the optimistically titled ‘Golden Swing’ – Almagro has looked a class above his fellows, with twelve consecutive wins and counting. As I’ve said before, he’s the best claycourter in the world, until the better ones show up. In Ferrer, a putatively better one has shown up. (If rankings are any guide, Fernando Verdasco is also his superior. However, most of Verdasco’s points date from before Milos Raonic systematically dismantled his spirit, an event gorgeously timed to follow this offering from the ATP’s hype-machine: ‘The Best Is Yet To Come’. )

However, for Ferrer to find Almagro, he’ll have to grind a way past Juan Monaco, against whom he somehow boasts a losing record. While there are such things as poor match-ups in tennis, for the life of me I can’t imagine what it is about Monaco’s game that realistically troubles Ferrer. Still, both guys are fleet over the surface, and neither possesses sufficient penetration to penetrate without first manoeuvring their opponent in to or out of position. In short, it’ll be a long one.

The prize will be a shot at the striking Alexandr Dolgopolov, who today loitered transfixed as Stanislas Wawrinka fought a manful battle against himself, from which no clear winner emerged. The Swiss held four set points in the second, but he saved them via some enterprising errors, conjured out of nothing. The whole set proved a succinct summary of why Wawrinka has never made much headway beyond the 250 level: he’s not good enough for long enough. For his part, Dolgopolov displayed typical flair, though he’ll probably need more than the odd serve-volley against Ferrer or Monaco.

Almagro’s path to the showdown is less cluttered with dud match-ups or unorthodox gringos. He faces Thomaz Bellucci in a dreamboat semifinal, for a chance at the dream final.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Damp Squibs

Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships, First Round

I am quite taken by the stadium court at the Dubai Tennis Championships. Notwithstanding the fact that it is hemmed in by city, neatly wedged between the airport and a golf course, it feels from afar as though the desert encroaches. A sky swollen by endlessness, the open gradient of the very blue stands and the name Dubai; all conspire somehow to evoke Arabia. Perhaps I’m just giddy at the prospect of tennis before bedtime, visions before midnight, but my heart sang as the camera swept the stands, idle between points, and caught the delicate azure gradations of the seating, mirroring the sky like a pixelated oasis. It would only be ruined by the pulsing biomass of a vulgar crowd, by actual people actually showing up. Happily, the organisers found a way around this by apparently not letting anyone in. The players played on, and 5,000 pristine seats looked on, except for the red royal seats, which snickered amongst themselves, despite having the best view. The shadows of the flags atop the stands rippled on the court.

All of which is to say it looks like a postcard, which would be useful if there was anything to write home about. There wasn’t. The most explosive line-up of first round matches since Rotterdam proved to be damp squibs, to a match. Only one went to three sets. Plenty didn’t make it to two sets, or even one.

No less an authority than Lleyton Hewitt has anointed both Andrei Golubev and Marcos Baghdatis as ‘tremendous strikers of the ball’. If balls are to be struck, then ‘tremendously’ is easily in my top three ways to go about it, although I’m not adverse to ‘lingeringly’ and ‘infrequently’, depending on the context. Baghdatis lasted four games until, doubled over as though struck tremendously himself, he handed Golubev his first ‘win’ of the year. On paper, Novak Djokovic versus Michael Llodra was a first round encounter to savour. On court, it wasn’t. Llodra has made enormous improvements to his singles game in recent years, but against Djokovic he really could have used the extra guy. There was a Nenad Zimonjic shaped hole that Djokovic kept hitting balls through.

Roger Federer has just finished off Somdev Devvarman. Federer would insist, if anyone bothered to ask him any more, that he never takes any opponent for granted, that he approaches every match with due care. As a statement, it’s crying out for an asterisk, and Devvarman is that asterisk. So much for old Federer. Yesterday, the new Federer Grigor Dimitrov played like the young Federer in going down to Richard Gasquet, who is now the old new Federer, but hopes in time to become the next Gael Monfils. He has the court positioning down pat, and the physical similarities are striking, though he does tend to break character by launching vicious backhands up the line. Meanwhile Gilles Simon celebrated the fact that the tour has moved outdoors by favouring groundstrokes that would have grazed the roof back in Europe. It was enough to earn a maiden win over Mikhail Youzhny, an astoundingly low quality affair. Simon afterward suggested that his play had been ‘tactical’. That may be, but it was also ‘very boring’.

The complete matches can be downloaded here. As ever, please avoid highlights.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

A Radical Departure

Last week Robin Soderling claimed an indoor event in Western Europe, and Nicolas Almagro blitzed a clay court event in South America. Meanwhile in North America, Milos Raonic – the baby face that launched a thousand bandwagons – roared to his first ATP final, where he upset Fernando Verdasco, very much indeed. This week proved a radical departure: Verdasco was even more upset, and Memphis was Raonic’s second ATP final.

Regions Morgan Keegan Championships, Memphis

Roddick d. Raonic, 7/6 6/7 7/5

Nominally a 500 level tour event, Memphis represented an increase in prize money over San Jose, but a solid downgrade in atmosphere, which I had believed impossible. It was also a step back in time, technologically, as befits a shift from Silicon Valley to Tennessee. Whereas the SAP Open featured HD streaming, or at least trickling, Memphis boasted only an ordinary stream, one largely unpolluted by the human gaze until Thursday, mainly through being unavailable. Most problematically, however, there was no Hawkeye. While its absence provided Andy Roddick’s raison du jour to blow his stack, it was legitimately missed, especially when the semifinals featured Juan Martin del Potro and Mardy Fish in addition to Raonic and Roddick, all of whom carve the lines on serve. Furthermore, Fish, like Roddick, is a world-class bellyacher. Close line calls are mere grist for the mill. Without Hawkeye, the tournament is throwing the umpires to the lions. I can only imagine the strain in, say, Fergus Murphy’s jaw from biting down on retorts, especially when Fish or Roddick launch into that fatuous and hackneyed aria, ‘If I missed as many balls as you, I wouldn’t have a job‘, from a discarded draft of Cosi fan tutte.

Presumably everyone has by now at least heard of Roddick’s mad scramble and dive on championship point. It capped an engaging final, a throwback to those carpet-based serve-feasts of the nineties. Everyone bemoaned them at the time, in much the same way they miss them now. Raonic, No.152 some five weeks ago, has attained No.37. Compelled to qualify for the Australian Open, at the rate he’s moving he’ll be seeded for the French.

Open 13, Marseilles

Soderling d. Cilic, 6/7 6/3 6/3

Predicting how a tournament will play out based on the draw is the kind of amusing but pointless divertimento I only wish I had the time for. Nevertheless, a few weeks ago I confidently essayed the suggestion that Marin Cilic would be felled in the first round of Rotterdam by a qualifier. He wasn’t, and progressed to the quarterfinals. It had seemed a safe enough prediction. His form, in lockstep with his ranking, was spiralling downward. The problem with this approach is that you never know when it’s going to turn around. Suddenly, for no apparent reason other than that he probably heard about my prediction, Cilic looks a rejuvenated player. By making the final in Marseilles this week, with victories over Tomas Berdych and Mikhail Youzhny, he has reversed his slide and edged back to the cusp of the top 20.

At a set up and 3/3, Cilic wasn’t a million miles from an improbable title, but Soderling has learned to win the matches he’s meant to, mostly. Marseilles is his third title of a year that is not yet two months old, and he is looking alarmingly like a world No.4. It is as much in the way he carries himself as the results, and in many ways he is the most remarkable story in the sport. Two years ago, precisely no one saw this coming.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Infinite Monkeys

In 2010 Roger Federer was defeated four times after holding matchpoint, an unhappy series of results that strikes many as another sure indicator of his accelerating decline. How accurate is this? The first thing to do is recall the matches (and the points) themselves. Briefly adumbrated, the details are thus:

  • Indian Wells vs. Marcos Baghdatis, 7/5 5/7 6/7 (3 matchpoints)
  • Miami vs. Tomas Berdych, 4/6 7/6 6/7 (1 matchpoint)
  • US Open vs. Novak Djokovic, 7/5 1/6 7/5 2/6 5/7 (2 matchpoints)
  • Paris Indoors vs. Gael Monfils, 6/7 7/6 6/7 (5 matchpoints)

It is tempting to search for a pattern here, a unifying reason to suggest what Federer is or isn’t doing at these crucial moments. The first thing we can say is that these were all matches at important tournaments, against quality opponents, and that Federer was a single point away from winning each of them. Federer is a glass-mostly-full kind of character, and seems to view it this way. The second thing to note is that all but one of these matchpoints are break points, and thus sit comfortably within the narrative concerning Federer’s general decline, which is something I’ve touched on before. (In case you’re curious, Federer’s break point conversion rate was 41% last year. In 2004, it was also 41%. It has never climbed higher than 44%, even in the years of his dominance.)

The temptation is to view these four matches as related, as a series that can reliably tell us something about Federer’s form, or the way he approaches the crucial moments. The allure lies in the assumption that by analysing this pattern, the underlying issue can be isolated, and that it might then be dealt with. Is this assumption correct? Federer successfully closed out 65 matches last year. Over his career he has closed out 753 matches on the main tour. You’d have to think he’s pretty good at it by now. He knows what he’s doing. Against the four opponents with whom he had matchpoints but lost, he had a combined head-to-head of 29-6 heading in to those encounters. Excluding Djokovic, he was 19-1, while he had never lost to Djokovic in New York, and had beaten him just weeks before. The point is, he knew their games pretty well, and probably felt he had a decent handle on how to close out matches against them. He knew that each of these guys would hardly hold back at the key moments (excepting perhaps Monfils), but that the margins grow pretty small when it grows this tight. But shotmakers are shotmakers because they make shots, and while doing so grows much harder while down matchpoint against Federer, the chances of it happening are never going to be zero.

It is not unlike Rafael Nadal’s improbable loss to Guillermo Garcia-Lopez in Bangkok last year, when the world No.1 came within a point of cruising to a routine win, 24 times. There was really little Nadal could take from it. He failed to break two dozen times in a single set, but few of the points were alike, and some of his attempted winners missed by inches, if that. Isner d. Mahut has proved that sometimes the seemingly impossible is merely the ridiculously improbable, that given an infinite number of monkeys, two of them would eventually go 70-68 at Wimbledon.

This is not to say that Federer haemorrhaging matchpoints is especially improbable, or that it tells us nothing about his year. The point is that, duly isolated, these results do not constitute a meaningful pattern, and won’t determine how he approaches these moments. After all, how many times last year did Federer win after blowing a matchpoint? How did Federer play on the matchpoints in all the matches that he won? Did he really approach these points differently five years ago? Personally, I don’t know the answers, but I’m not sure I need to. It is enough that Federer does. The answers are tangled up like Chistmas lights in the bramble of his mind, where – in a twinkle – they help him to decide how best to approach any given opponent at any given moment. It’s called experience, and while it might sometimes lead him into error, it wins him a lot more matchpoints than it loses.

1 Comment

Filed under By the Numbers

A Thousand Times Before

Regions Morgan Keegan Championships, Memphis

Roddick d. Tipsarevic, 6/1 7/6

Hewitt d. Mannarino, 6/7 7/5 6/0

Only fifteen minutes and half a dozen break points into Lleyton Hewitt’s torpid encounter with Adrian Mannarino, I realised I was no longer watching for pleasure. Granted, I had just endured Andy Roddick prevailing over an ailing Janko Tipsarevic, which wasn’t exactly a hoot, either. On reflection, I can admit I haven’t enjoyed watching either of them in years. For Roddick, it was tour win No.564. For Hewitt, No.546. That’s pretty much what it felt like. I’ve seen it all before, a thousand times.

They’ve faced each other on rather fewer occasions: twelve, to be exact, with six wins apiece. They will now meet in the Memphis quarterfinals. Who will emerge from their crucial thirteenth encounter in the ascendancy? At what point will Roddick blow his top, and start haranguing an official? Today he kept us breathlessly expectant until the second set tiebreak, when a forehand was called wide. Roddick simultaneously leaped skyward and hurled his racquet court-ward, then marched chair-ward and explained to umpire Fergus Murphy that this was actually a really important point. Murphy conceded the magnitude of the moment, but still thought the ball was out. Along with atmosphere, Memphis also lacks Hawk-eye, so there was little Roddick could usefully add, though as ever, the moment to let the matter slide was ignored. Eventually the American regrouped, his histrionics having served their purpose, and he took the match a few points later. The crowd were delighted, so much so that they forgot to stay for the following match, which really could have used the life-support.

Mannarino is a pleasant-looking lad, the kind you might know yourself, the friend you hesitate to introduce to prospective love-interests. He’ll never be leading man good-looking, but with luck he could snag a sitcom part. As for the rest of his game, well, it’s one only a fan could love. His forehand and second serve in particular are neither appealing nor effective, atavistic throwbacks to that innocent era when even top players could be self-taught. Hewitt mostly dealt with the second serve by backing his wheelchair around to take it on the forehand, although when he attacked with the backhand he achieved broadly comparable results – the returns were marginally less penetrating, but they had virtue of being more in. The Australian dealt with Mannarino’s awkward forehand not by attacking it – too obvious – but by largely avoiding it. Instead he fed balls to the Frenchman’s stinging backhand. By the third set, his vision blurred by the dust of pulverised chances, even Mannarino’s best shots could hardly find the court. It’s just about possible that Hewitt knew what he was doing all along, but not likely.

It is a sure sign of Hewitt’s decline that he is now often broken directly after he has failed to break his opponent. Great players know that even in failing to break, the pressure on their opponent accrues, the unlikely hold granting only a momentary surcease. The trick, following a squandered break opportunity, is to take care of business on your own serve, and then get back to it. Everyone cracks, eventually. Hewitt was handed break points as fast as he could grasp them, whereupon he would handle them warily, never quite surmising that they represented an opportunity to actually break serve. Having failed to break, it just seemed inevitable that he himself would lose serve shortly thereafter. The commentators termed this ‘against the run of play’ –  sounding shocked – but really mental lapses of this kind are no longer uncommon. To be a top player, you need to be brilliant or inexorable, and Hewitt was never brilliant. He was once inexorable, in his way, but he is not a top player any more.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Real Tennis

Regions Morgan Keegan Championships, Memphis

Raonic d. Verdasco, 6/4 3/6 7/6

My resolution not to write about Milos Raonic again for a while has been rendered shaky by the fact that he keeps on winning. Efforts at slowing his progress have come to nothing, and there are only so many rock-jawed, flinty-eyed Spaniards we can fling into his path. Contrary to widespread perception, these are in finite supply. Come next year, the North American Spring tour could be seeing one less. There was surely a method in Fernando Verdasco’s decision to play this little lead-up to Indian Wells – easy ranking points and a monopoly on the swooning lasses – but it’s a method that now risks driving him to madness. In just three days, it’s all blown up in his face, like a canister of hair spray left too near an open flame, a juxtaposition Verdasco surely knows to avoid.

Raonic’s victory in San Jose was a stirring win – cringingly patriotic – but it was not without its qualifications, and consequently not without those bent on disqualifying it. Quibblers pointed to his semifinal walkover against Gael Monfils, and to that dolt who hollered out on championship point. In the dreadful metonymy of sporting parlance, San Jose raised a lot of question marks. Verdasco undoubtedly found Raonic’s win about as convincing as his own defeat, which he seemed to believe should be laid at the feet of any number of people, though not his own.

But it is one of the amusing quirks of the ATP tour that players who have crossed paths only rarely (or never) can suddenly encounter one another every week. Revenge might be closer than you know. Three days after Verdasco suffered ignominy in California, he was drawn to meet the fey and wildcarded Raonic in Memphis, which is a nominally more prestigious bash insofar as there’s better prize money, and more Andy Roddick. I wonder if Verdasco finds this amusingly quirky? Now that he has lost again, I’m guessing he does, and that nothing would delight him more than discussing it at length. Clearly he is inclined towards balanced post-match retrospection: ‘For me that’s not a real match in tennis. I hope to play soon against him in clay court to show him what it is to play tennis, and play rallies, and run, and not only serve.’

To Raonic’s visible achievements, which are already considerable, we can now add the secret miracle of breaking his opponent’s serve using nothing but his own. There’s doubtless an unfunny Chuck Norris formulation to be fashioned from that. If Verdasco is saying that he is a better clay-courter than Raonic, then he isn’t saying much. If he’s saying that clay court tennis is more real than the varieties practiced on other surfaces, then he’s saying rather a lot, but mostly it is rubbish. Either way, it begs the question, why is he in North American at all? There’s a perfectly serviceable clay swing under way in the antipodes, with no dearth of rock-jawed Spaniards boasting pissweak serves and extravagant musculature, toiling mightily at their real tennis.

Update from the Memphis 2nd round: Milos Raonic d. Radek Stepanek, 6/4 6/7 7/6. I’ve only seen highlights, but the Canadian squandered four match points in the second set tiebreak, and served 38 aces for the match, an astonishing number for a best-of-three set match (4th highest of all time).

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Outdoor Event Area

In a move that will presumably shock no one, the ATP has opted not to renew The SA Tennis Open’s contract for 2012. The stands at the evocatively titled Montecasino Outdoor Event Area will remain silent indefinitely, or at least until some other outdoor event requires an area.

The ramifications are neither especially profound nor far-reaching. Naturally those concerned are disappointed, and at least one South African columnist appears to be taking it quite personally: I don’t know what format the award winning Mail & Guardian comes in, but the editorial style is pure tabloid. On the plus side, Kevin Anderson will have the rare distinction of holding his maiden title for ever, although to defend his points next year he’ll have to venture to Europe, where the indoor courts will help, though the top-fifty opponents won’t.

Who knows, it may turn out for the best. South Africa deserves a decent tournament to call its own, but Johannesburg wasn’t it. It could have been scheduled a week earlier, during the Australian Open, and it would hardly have attracted less global interest, nor a weaker field. It seems a long way off, but perhaps losing Johannesburg is the first step in eventually getting the event it deserves. Then again, it’s possible the whole thing has been a decisive response by a governing body bent on ensuring Feliciano Lopez is never top seed anywhere ever again.

The SA Tennis Open will be replaced on the calendar by the Open Sud du France, which has been uprooted from its traditional home in October. Fans yearning for the latter event will have to hold out for a few more months. Any fears that the switch might deprive the world of a truly ridiculous trophy are quickly allayed by a glance at those awarded at Montpellier. If the winner’s and finalist’s platters were somehow fused, they would surely prove useful in tracking down the Ark of the Covenant. Or the Lost City of Gold. Or perhaps even another fabled Outdoor Event Area.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour