Shatter’d & sunder’d

As cavalry engagements are reckoned, the Charge of the Light Brigade is pretty celebrated, though if you only know a little of military history you might imagine the outing was a successful one. After all, Tennyson’s poem isn’t called the Disorganised and Bloody Retreat of the Light Brigade. Given that, it’s probably essential I point out that although the Light Brigade made it farther than common sense dictated they should have – all the way past the Russian guns, in fact – it wasn’t long before they were forced to fall back in disarray. Until then it had all gone so well. After that it was a rout. Of the fabled 600, almost 160 never made it back out, and not a single useful objective was achieved (which is unsurprising since they’d charged the wrong guns). I’ve noted already that a tactical masterstroke is sometimes just a stupid decision that comes off, and to that fairly commonplace assertion I’ll add that sometimes events can be quite advanced before we can be sure either way. So it proved in Belgrade today. It was late in the piece, and it turned out Guy Forget is not a genius.

It all got under way rather smoothly. Assuming you were French, or at worst sympathetic, the initial skirmishes came off more or less as planned. It was probably hoped that Gilles Simon could have provided more impediment to Novak Djokovic – who smacked a heroic 62 winners – but he was barely a speed-bump. On the other hand Gael Monfils, with the proportions if not the colouring of a Na’vi warrior, had looked solid enough to set Serbian hearts a-quailing at the prospect of the reverse singles. Janko Tipsarevic had played poorly enough to do the same. Fittingly, but sadly not typically, the pivotal doubles proved to be the match of the tie. For a wonder it was the diminutive has-been Arnaud Clement that carried the French duo over the line, despite Michael Llodra being this month’s flavour for certain pockets of fandom. Clement apparently gained some help from the Serbian lines-people, whom Bogdan Obradovic had labelled a ‘dark force’, which sounds disturbingly like a charge of non-patriotism from the bad old days.

And so we entered the final day pretty much as Forget must have hoped we would, with France 2-1 up, and the burden on Djokovic and Co. From there, France won exactly 15 games. 15 games in two best-of-five matches, and not enough of them in a clump to grab a set. Djokovic was magisterial against Monfils, and can now justifiably lay claim to being the most decorated player with a single Slam, assuming he’s in the mood to lay claim to really obscure titles.

If Serbian fans were queasy at the thought of Tipsarevic playing the deciding rubber, they were positively vomiting when it was announced that Victor Troicki – a noted and serial choker – had been substituted, and that the French pulled a swifty and dropped Simon for Llodra. This was the same relentless Llodra who had so expertly dismantled Djokovic in Paris three weeks back. What chance did Troicki have, with the desperate hopes of his young nation riding his quivering shoulders? Did he appreciate the world-historical significance of the task? Had Djokovic explained it to him? Was he ready to heal a nation’s wounds?

Turns out he was. Truth be told, after his performance today – in which he rapidly overwhelmed an overwhelmed Llodra – Victor Troicki could probably run for president and take it in a landslide. He was flawless. The most telling stat is the scoreline, which was 6/2 6/2 6/3 . Another impressive stat was Llodra – among the world’s premier volleyers – winning just 10 of 41 points in the forecourt.

If you’re Serbian – or at worst sympathetic – the best stat is 3-2. It’s the stat that means you’ve won the Davis Cup.

All matches from this Davis Cup final can be downloaded here. As ever, please avoid highlights.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Davis Cup

The Charge of the French Brigade

‘Flash’d all their sabres bare,
Flash’d as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder’d . . .’

It occurs to me, apropos of Guy Forget’s seemingly baffling decision to play Gilles Simon in singles in this weekend’s Davis Cup final, that a tactical masterstroke is often little more than a stupid decision that comes off. Usually it doesn’t. Tactically, Forget’s ‘inspiration’ seems roughly on par with the British decision to charge the Russian artillery at Balaclava. The stakes aren’t quite as high, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Novak Djokovic this week. I’ll be curious to see if the French Davis Cup squad fares any better than the 17th Lancers. It won’t be long until we know either way, as Gilles Simon thunders down the valley of death into the teeth of the Serbian artillery.

Davis Cup of course has a rich tradition of fabulously unlikely victories. The French also have a rich tradition of doing weird stuff. But there has to be a limit. Throwing Simon to Novak Djokovic is surely beyond the limit. It’s frankly cruel: the guy is a new father.

As far as I can make out, Forget’s decision rests on several assumptions:

  • Djokovic will probably win both of his matches;
  • If he is to lose one, it will probably be against Gael Monfils on Day 3. Simon’s role on Day 1 is to facilitate this by tiring out the Serbian No.1;
  • Michael Llodra has to be fresh for the doubles, and an extended tussle with Djokovic on Day 1 would be exhausting;
  • Llodra can always be switched in for the final singles on Day 3 (if that becomes necessary), since recovering from doubles is much easier;
  • Monfils must beat Janko Tipsarevic.

Djokovic probably wasn’t going to lose to Llodra anyway, regardless of what transpired a few weeks back on a slick court at Bercy. Given that the only guy with a snowflake’s chance of beating Djokovic is Monfils, they might as well at least make the Serbian work for his opening win. Simon is a decent technician, and can keep the ball in play for days at a stretch. His only hope of a Day 1 win will be if the Serbian is unduly nervous, in which case Simon’s capacity to vary paces and angles might be just the ticket. It’s a long shot, almost no shot. The only other shot was probably to play Richard Gasquet, and pray the match falls on that one day a year when he is incapable of missing the court, no matter how hard he swings. It’s a lot to shoot for, and Forget was probably wise in opting for the marginally shorter of the extreme long-shots open to him.

I suspect we’ll have a pretty good idea after the first match how this final is going to play out, whether the French can contrive a desperate victory, or whether we’ll simply shake our heads at the gallant, crushed visitors, and sigh “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre”.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Davis Cup

The Hip and The Head

With the World Tour Finals out of the way for another season, the time seems apposite to travel back a decade to the first Tennis Masters Cup, which remains one of the finest season finales ever contested.

Tennis Masters Cup, 2000

The inaugural Tennis Masters Cup took place in Lisbon, Portugal in late November 2000. Heavily promoted as the ecstatic endpoint of the exciting, new and now-eclipsed ATP Champion’s Race, it remains the best Year End Championships I’ve ever seen, courtesy of a strong field, an involved and boisterous crowd, high stakes, and a transcendent performance from the universally loved and gravely-missed Gustavo Kuerten.

It is as convenient as it was unlikely that the first season of the new millennium would so perfectly demonstrate a radical shift in eras. But if ever that hackneyed show-tune ‘Changing of the Guard’ could be induced to sing, it was here, molto cantabile. The field in Lisbon showcased it perfectly:

  1. Marat Safin
  2. Gustavo Kuerten
  3. Pete Sampras
  4. Magnus Norman
  5. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
  6. Andre Agassi
  7. Lleyton Hewitt
  8. Alex Corretja

Four old, four new. The four majors (held by Agassi, Kuerten, Sampras and Safin; again an even split) had produced some stunning variations on the theme, reaching a climactic fanfare in Sampras’ abject flogging at the hands of Safin in New York some months before. The Masters Cup was merely the Coda, although, as the Eroica proved, Codas can have developments all their own.

Vigorous counterpoint came in the form of the year end No.1 ranking, floating melismatically over proceedings, before revealing itself to be the true theme as the going got serious. The top spot was held gingerly by Safin, courtesy of a dramatic win at the Paris Indoors. Both Sampras and Kuerten had the slimmest of chances to steal it from him, but as the week wore on the number of cards that had to fall the Brazilian’s way began to stack ever higher, forming an improbably teetering edifice. As ever, there were multitude permutations at play, but the main thing to know was that Safin would be guaranteed the No.1 ranking if he beat Agassi in the semifinal. Meanwhile, Kuerten could steal it from him if Safin failed to make the final, and if he (Kuerten) won the event, which would require beating Sampras and Agassi back-to-back. The key statistic here is that no one had ever beaten Sampras and Agassi back-to-back in the same tournament. Ever.

Then as now, the real show began once the round robin stage was mostly done with, although the final Group A encounter between Sampras and Safin – who to casual fans still appeared to be some kind of terrifying Soviet tennis robot from the future – boasted all the focussed interest of the revenge-match. Pistol Pete was a proud man, and New York had been humiliating. It unfolded like this:

Sampras, as was his way, tore Safin to shreds in the final round robin match, 3 and 2. In the semifinal, Agassi did much the same, 3 and 3. Safin was no longer guaranteed the No.1 ranking, but could only lose it if Kuerten overcame Sampras and Agassi on a fast indoor hardcourt. No pressure. The semifinal between Kuerten and Sampras was the first meeting between the pair since their dramatic and excellent Miami final many months before, and this encounter eclipsed it in almost every way (it wasn’t as brutally warm, and Sampras had marginally less support). Deep in the final set, Kuerten held his nerve to break the man he regarded as the best player ever and move within a match of achieving the unthinkable.

For most of the year, Andre Agassi had been the man to beat, and between the Australian Open and the Tennis Masters Cup, just about everyone did. In January he’d completed the most successful nine months since Rod Laver, with titles at the French, US and Australian Opens, and finalist at Wimbledon and the Tour Championships. In doing so, he had completed the transition from feckless wastrel to the Agassi the world now remembers: eerily gracious and terrifyingly consistent. Still, it had since been a disappointing year for the Las Vegan, but he was back on song in Lisbon, and moved into the final with a perfect 4-0 record, a single dropped set the only discordant note.

Three memories from the final remain clear:

  • Kuerten blowing out one of his sneakers in the first set, and the inordinate delay as Larry Passos scuttled off to find or buy a new pair. Agassi had once suffered a similar misfortune in Germany, and had had to borrow shoes from someone in the crowd. He was quite patient.
  • Kuerten almost blowing his stack upon being foot-faulted, roundly abusing the linesperson for a few points to go down 15-40, before finally regrouping and ekeing out a hold. It is a useful corrective to the now-established view that he was always placid to the point of saintliness.
  • The backhand. Has there ever been a smoother stroke than Gustavo Kuerten’s backhand? It’s like silk drizzled with melted butter, then marinated in a 21-year-old single malt. It might even be more delicious than that. Agassi was clearly terrified of it. The key moment comes with Kuerten receiving at 2/2 in the third, when the Brazilian tears the match away with a ferocious backhand barrage. Winner up the line, inside-out backhand winner, ripping return at Agassi’s feet. Then at 15-40, a flak-happy Agassi is forced to direct his second serve to the Kuerten forehand, or at least away from the backhand. That serve is not in the American’s repertoire, and he duly double-faults. That’s the break, the match, the title.

It was also the year end No.1 ranking, to date the only time a South American has achieved it. Watching the match again, especially Kuerten’s post-match interview, I doubt I’ve ever felt more melancholy in the presence of such unrestrained joy. Kuerten’s pleasure at his win is so pure, so unabashed, and (in hindsight) in such contrast to the sadly abbreviated course his career was to take. His dominance was to last another 10 or so months – he would claim his third French Open the following May – until a seemingly innocuous hip injury would reduce this most humble and generous of champions to the status of occasional sideshow. Meanwhile, Safin would never again threaten for the year end No.1 ranking. Guga’s hip and Marat’s head . . . the two factors denying the world a truly great rivalry, one that might have sustained us through the lean years ahead.

It wasn’t to be. For all its drama and promise – its sound and fury – the 2000 Tennis Masters Cup signified little. It was the gentlest suggestion of what might have been, when a willowy Brazilian with a devastating backhand and an infectious smile momentarily ruled the world.

The final (Kuerten vs. Agassi) can be downloaded in full here. The semifinal (Kuerten vs. Sampras) can be downloaded here. As ever, please avoid highlights were possible.

1 Comment

Filed under Great Matches

Unforgettable Memories

ATP World Tour Finals, London

The ATP World Tour Final redeemed itself at the eleventh hour – of course it would – and a hasty re-relocation to Shanghai probably won’t be necessary. That’s the good news. Actually, it’s all good news. In the final three matches of the regular season – there’s still the tiny matter of the Davis Cup final – we’ve been treated to the match of the year, Roger Federer in full vintage flight, and a final between the two greatest players of the era. To paraphrase Mark Petchey, we now have so many memories we’ll never forget.

The manner in which it all unfolded was strangely satisfying, like life imitating art, or at least sport imitating the tales we tell about it. The weekend panned out exactly as someone who almost never watches tennis might expect it to. That’s what made it so surprising, and satisfying. The Big Four made the semifinals, then the Big Two made the final in contrasting and wholly characteristic fashions. From there – on a sluggish, low-bouncing indoor hardcourt – it was anyone’s game. We were treated to Rafael Nadal in full warrior mode, battling manfully like a Cimmerian reaver of yore to secure a gripping win deep in the final set tiebreak, leaving a cocktail of essential fluids out on the court surface amidst the detritus of discarded match points. Meanwhile Federer did not so much turn back the clock as unearth a bunch of old calendars. He has been in fine touch for months now, but this week was something else, as he deftly walloped the rest of the top five for the loss of a single set, with the redoubtable David Ferrer thrown in for good measure. Like I said, if you only know a little bit about men’s tennis, you probably think this is how it always is. But while clichés usually boast the uneasy virtue of being true, they never tell the whole truth.

Lest you were curious what a retired Argentinean soccer great with a penchant for controversy thought about it all, well, this week you could have that, too. There was clearly a cameraman assigned to Diego-detail all week, and no matter where Maradona lurked in the murky hordes, he was duly discovered and paraded across the Jumbotron. Presumably next year it will be taken further, and a full time Diego Cam will be deployed and inserted into the corner of our screens. For now, they’ve probably gathered sufficient footage for a smashing commemorative DVD. WTF: The Many Moods of Diego.

Semifinal 1

Nadal d. Murray, 7/6 3/6 7/6

There’s no question that 2010 has been a year of memorable matches, ranging from the bizarre (Isner d. Mahut at Wimbledon, Garcia-Lopez d. Nadal in Bangkok), to the dramatic (Djokovic d. Federer in New York). But truly classic encounters have been strangely rare. Prior to this electrifying tussle, the finest had probably been Soderling and Llodra’s superb semifinal in Paris a few weeks back. This was better. It was unforgettably memorable, so to speak.

Naturally, for Nadal to perpetuate the whole El Toro vibe he has going he must win these battles, meaning that someone has to endure an Honourable Loss. It’s hard to imagine a more honourable loss than Andy Murray’s, but it’ll still feel worse than a win. He’s surely tired of Nadal’s reassurance that he’ll win multiple Slams, though it’s a small but welcome counterpoint to the mounting British dread that he won’t win any. He certainly looked about as comforted as Andy Roddick did after his Honourable Loss at last year’s Wimbledon, when Federer blithely declared he knew just how the American felt.

For me, this match provided a lovely bookend to 2010, one of several this week. In terms of sheer quality, it is probably the finest ball-striking I’ve witnessed since this pair contested the quarterfinal at the Australian Open back in January. I recall being stunned by Murray’s aggression in that match, at the way he could boss Nadal around the court, until the Spaniard blew out his knee and defaulted in the third. This time Nadal’s body held up, and he scrapped like El Diablo. Afterwards, his reaction was not a primal roar but a beaming smile, dazzling and genuine.

Semifinal 2

Federer d. Djokovic, 6/1 6/4

Just as Nadal’s legend requires honourable losers, so does Federer’s demand humiliated ones. We are endlessly reminded by commentators how interesting it is to see Federer ‘challenged’ – and blowing matches from matchpoint up has certainly been that – but is that actually why we watch Federer? I’m pretty sure it’s not why I do. I watch because I love tennis, and Roger Federer in the full bloom of his powers is tennis in its purest form. It is the beautiful game at its most beautiful, elegance triumphant, reducing the next best players in the world to necessary extrusions from the mise en scene. Djokovic yesterday found himself in the unenviable position of having his best look irrelevant. Perhaps he could have played better, but really he played fine, and it just didn’t matter. Regardless of where he directed his shots, he was merely feeding Federer balls to crush winners from. It occurs to me that subduing The Djoker has been an ongoing theme of Federer’s late season revival, which makes him kind of like Batman.

Final

Federer d. Nadal, 6/3 3/6 6/1

The final was consequently the culmination of these two great counter-narratives in the men’s game: the unstoppable force and the immovable object. (Another cliché, naturally, but not a falsehood.) They’ve collided 21 times in their professional careers (18 of those in finals), and on 14 occasions the immovable Spaniard has prevailed. This was the final we’ve been waiting for, although it turned out it wasn’t, quite. For Nadal it was perhaps one battle too many, and Federer was murderously good.

In A Champion’s Mind, Pete Sampras notes how valuable Paul Annacone proved late in his career by reminding him that above all else, he is Pete Sampras. I can imagine a similar pep-talk before this match, a similar exhortation to impose his will no matter what, to make a clear statement: he is Roger Federer. The first game of the match was certainly declamatory. Three ferocious winners: forehand, backhand, ace, hold to love. Today’s final would feature few rallies, not because both guys aren’t supremely good at it – they are – but because Federer is so good at not rallying, and Nadal isn’t. In this kind of form, no one else can end a point so quickly from anywhere on the court.*

Apparently Federer at 29 the second oldest player to ever claim this title. It’s been a while since a tennis player reminded me that 29 is not actually very old by any reasonable standard, and hasn’t been since the Late Middle Ages. He’s been insisting for a while now (probably because people keep asking him) that he’s keen to go on playing for years. There was even talk of the Rio Olympics this week. That’s almost six years away. Imagine how many unforgettable memories we’ll have by then.

Commentary of the Week, again from Jason Goodall: “And here’s Andy’s brother Jamie, with his new wife . . . I hope.”

*Actually, I can, but Federer’s shots land in.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

A Seductive Metonymy

Nadal d. Djokovic, 7/5 6/2

When the draw for the ATP World Tour Finals was released last week, and we shyly confessed our relief that the Big Four were evenly split between the two groups, there was immediate anticipation of two matches in particular. These were Federer v Murray, and Nadal v Djokovic. Even if every other match degenerated into an error-fest or eternal grind, expectations were high that these would be encounters to savour.

Federer, coming off the Shellacking in Shanghai, was in fine form and surely intent on atonement. Murray would be determined to delight his temporary compatriots and assert his dominance over the great Swiss. Nadal would be anxious to erase the shame of last year’s efforts, when he failed to win a single set. Djokovic would be out to avenge the US Open final, and keen to re-establish his hardcourt dominance over the world No.1.

It was all so clear. It was gonna be epic.

Except it wasn’t. Federer came out brilliantly, reading Murray and the moment perfectly. How inspired was the decision to receive? Murray had been accused of over-hyping himself for his round robin dust-up with Federer last year, whatever that means. He has ably protected himself from such accusations this time round, although his efforts are certainly worthy of the general bafflement and frustration his loyal Engli . . . British fans must be feeling. It was not unlike the Australian Open final, if only in the way that it demonstrated how Federer masters and exploits his opponent’s tension. Murray was lucky to avoid a bagel in that second set, although from 0/4 15-40 he actually started to play really well. While tennis’s scoring system means it’s technically never too late for a comeback, it was too late. Still, if the Scot can play against Ferrer the way he did against Soderling on Sunday, he should progress to the semifinals, where he’ll presumably run into Nadal.

Which brings us to today’s amply-fanfared US Open final rematch. Nadal’s detractors – who are not necessarily all pro-Federer zealots, although they mostly are – have accused the Spaniard of getting lucky against Roddick on Monday, presumably in much the same way that he lucked his way to three Grand Slams this year. Today’s ‘win’ over Djokovic will probably do little to quieten their wailing, nor still the gnashing of their teeth. The first seven or so games of the first set were very good. Djokovic was clearly the superior player, executing the seemingly counter-intuitive but now widely-applied tactic of going hard at Nadal’s forehand. The Spaniard was scrambling and clawing. Here was the epic the draw had promised! Then, at 3-4 and after only about four hours on court – these two play at a truly glacial pace – the contact lens in Djokovic’s right eye malfunctioned. That was pretty much that. Half-blind, he played out the match – I suspect he’ll never default ever again if he can help it – and it wasn’t pretty. It was, at least by the standards of these two, pretty quick. Assuming his eye recovers, Djokovic can still make the semifinals, although that Davis Cup final must now be looming menacingly in his mind.

There is seemingly no shortage of prominent commentators keen to see the Tour Finals fail, if only to be affirmed in their conviction that failure is inevitable. I presume there’s no malice in it. From this perspective, the temptation must be strong to the view these matches as metonymic for the entire tournament. The position is understandable, but surely it’s premature to be writing the event off just yet. Precedent tells us that sometimes the Tour Finals don’t get going until the knock-out stages. Shanghai 2002 leaps to mind, when a week of solid yawns gave way to some excellent semifinals, including a young Federer’s desperate loss to world No.1 and defending champion Lleyton Hewitt. Or how about Shanghai 2005, when a depleted field emphatically failed to fire, only for the final to produce an electrifying classic as David Nalbandian recovered from two sets down to overcome a hobbled Federer?

Sometimes, for almost no reason at all, an entire tournament is just a fizzer. Wimbledon 2001 remains one of the greatest events I’ve ever seen, replete with astounding tennis, new dawns, high drama, and a simultaneously heartbreaking and fairytale finale. Wimbledon 2002, by contrast, was basically awful. Same tournament, same location, mostly even the same players. It just happens sometimes. Luckily, the AELTC held out – slaves to tradition as they are – and chose not to relocate, reformat, reschedule and rebadge The Championships. 2003 turned out pretty well.

Hopefully this year’s World Tour Finals will pick up, and we’ll see some good stuff come Saturday, if not before. And if there isn’t? Well, it’s nothing a name-change and shifting the whole shebang back to Shanghai can’t fix.

3 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

Against All Odds

Federer d. Ferrer, 6/1 6/4

There’s an especially tiresome variety of Roger Federer fan who finds it impossible to reconcile their unshakeable faith in his greatness with an overwhelming dread that he’ll blow it every time he steps on the court, no matter who he’s playing. On the one hand, he’s the greatest of all time, while on the other, he’s vulnerable to, say, John Isner. Well, which is it? These fans drive everyone up the wall, including other Federer supporters.

Now naturally no result is guaranteed on a tennis court. Even the mighty Roger Federer can lose to, say, Gael Monfils on any given day. His detractors point to these losses and claim that here is a sure sign of decline. That’s probably inevitable. The strange thing is, many of the more ardently faithful feel obliged to do the same, even as they spar vigorously (or viciously) with the gnostics, whom they regard as heretics.

Anyway, they were out in force again today. Federer was facing the tenacious Spaniard David Ferrer, against whom he boasts a 10-0 record. In case you’re in any doubt over what that means, it means that Roger Federer has never lost to this man in ten attempts. Furthermore, while Ferrer has posted some decent results in the post-US Open season – titlist in Valencia and finalist in Beijing – Federer has been in better form than anybody. If ever a Federer fan could feel quietly confident, it was now.

As it happened, against impossible odds, and despite being the greatest player ever to heft a Wilson, he contrived to prise victory from the very jaws of victory. It wasn’t particularly spectacular, although, inevitably with Federer, it was a little bit spectacular. Indeed, it was one of those quite typical matches in which he calmly dismantles a fellow top ten player for the loss of five games. Even in the halcyon years these were more the norm than the ones where he obliterated all comers while playing left-handed. He was strong in the first set, as the scoreline suggests, and Ferrer’s lone game came from a break against the run of play. The second set was tighter, and the Swiss had to fend off a couple of break point opportunity chance situations in the final game. He did, and now the head-to-head stands at 11-0, the kind of lopsidedness that makes even a manic fan grow comfortable. Lest they grow too comfortable: both Davydenko and Soderling notched their first wins over Federer after 12 straight losses apiece. Ominous.

Ferrer didn’t serve well, but I’m willing to bet he’s won matches in which he’s served worse. He’s probably claimed titles playing no better. After eleven losses to a guy, it’s probably time to admit that your poor performances against him occur for a reason, and that the reason owes a lot to the other guy. Federer’s point to break at 2/2 in the second set illustrated it beautifully, as he pushed and pulled the Spaniard around with spins and paces, judging the moment, surface and his opponent to perfection. Eventually, Ferrer broke down and duffed a forehand. It wasn’t spectacular, but it was masterful. (Federer tried similar moves on Murray in Shanghai, proving that there’s really a time and a place for such things.)

The O2 court is by all accounts playing slow, which the more manic of Rafael Nadal’s detractors adduce as proof-positive that the event has been doctored in his favour. Certainly it’s playing considerably slower than Paris, but that’s not saying much. A quick glance at Federer’s ace count bears this out. (My memory may be a tad rusty, but I vaguely recall he was serving about 147 aces per match in Paris.) However, the court is also playing low, and not taking a ton of spin, which is of little use to Nadal at all, who likes to get his big heavy balls up over his opponent’s shoulders. There’s an image. His match against Roddick on Monday will be interesting, especially since his staunchest fans have already written him off. After all, if you thought Federer’s zealots could be pessimistic about their idol, just wait until you hear Nadal’s get going.

1 Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Memories of Moya

34-year-old Carlos Moya this week announced his retirement from professional tennis, citing a lingering right foot injury as the main culprit, although surely being 34 is reason enough. He leaves the game with a single Grand Slam title (1998 French Open), a Davis Cup (2004), 3 Masters Series shields, and an overall match record of 575-319 (.643).

Reducing a rich and varied career to a few scattered moments is, inevitably, an act of traducement, even with the best intentions in the world. But anyway, here are some of my favourite moments from a decade and a half of watching Moya play:

Moya’s loss to his one-time protege, good friend and fellow Mallorcan Rafael Nadal in the 2008 Chennai semifinal, after holding four match points in the second set tiebreaker. I won’t go into the detail too much, since this match is the subject of an upcoming Great Matches You’ve Probably Never Heard Of entry. As you might expect, it was a supremely physical encounter, and both men held little back, despite the fact that almost nothing significant was riding on the outcome. Moya was 31, and Nadal at 21 was already in his prime, although he was clearly not yet the hardcourt force he has since become. Moya’s effort was a succinct demonstration, if any more were needed by this late date, that he was a very fine hardcourt player, and that his run to the Australian Open final 11 years earlier was nowhere near as startling as his failure to achieve anything comparable in the long years since.

Moya’s defeat of Lleyton Hewitt at the 2001 Australian Open, which the Spaniard won 7/5 in the fifth. This was a titanic struggle, a heated night encounter conducted in an atmosphere of virulent nationalism (Spain had beaten Australia in the Davis Cup final the month before, although Moya had played no part in that). Hewitt had survived a spiteful encounter with Jonas Bjorkman the round before and there was a strong feeling that this was the year for Hewitt to Go All The Way. In the end Moya held his nerve admirably, even as his backhand began to collapse, and even as his famous reserve showed cracks in the face of the Australian’s characteristic antics.

The 1997 Australian Open. I tend to remember Moya’s semifinal trouncing of second seed Michael Chang more than the final, in which he was flogged by a rampant Pete Sampras, to no one’s surprise. Chang is not an easy man to beat on a slowish hardcourt, and the 21 year old Moya displayed fabulous poise. The main feature, however, was his forehand. I’d never seen a stroke with a trajectory quite like it, the way the viciousness of the topspin would bring it down at the last possible moment, and cause it to rear steeply off the rebound ace. In the pre-Nadal era, Moya’s forehand was as heavy as any. It was a tangible evolutionary stage in the power-baseline game.

The 2003 French Open. This tournament is remembered for any number of reasons. It remains Ferrero’s only title at Roland Garros, despite the widespread certainty that he would go on to dominate. There was Guillermo Coria’s notorious moment of madness in the semifinal, when he cracked and hurled his racquet in rage, only to almost get defaulted when it grazed a ballkid. And of course there was Dutchman Martin Verkerk’s supremely improbable run to the final. It was his five-set upset of Moya in the quarters that is most pertinent here. As an accomplished dirtballer in excellent form, Moya was among the clear favourites for the title. Verkerk was not accomplished on any surface, but clay was particularly ill-suited to his game, with his ungainly groundstrokes, pedestrian top-speed, and a capacity to change direction roughly on par with a crude-oil tanker. After 1998, Moya never again made it past the quarterfinals at another Grand Slam, which is a shocking stat for a player of his ability and fitness. This heartbreaking loss to Verkerk made it clear that there was a structural deficiency somewhere in Moya’s approach to the big events. I mean really, Martin Verkerk?!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Players

Luck of the Draw: World Tour Finals

Group A: Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Tomas Berdych, Andy Roddick.

Group B: Roger Federer, Robin Soderling, Andy Murray, David Ferrer.

The draw for next week’s World Tour Finals is out. Both groups seem pretty even, with Group B perhaps slightly tougher.

An opinion that balanced is of course a heresy when it comes to tennis fans, who are more inclined to regard their favourite player’s group as the ‘Assembly of Death’, and his three opponents as highly-trained cyborg-ninja-pirate-assassins with machetes and leers and sinister moustaches. He’ll pretty much need to dispatch them barehanded and crawl over their corpses to even get a look-in at a semifinal. His main rival, on the other hand, is not really in a round robin group at all. It’s just a benign gathering of cowed lackeys, you see. The other three dudes are just there to hoist the palanquin bearing the Hated Rival directly to the semifinals. In case there isn’t a palanquin on hand, they will arrange themselves so that he may stride effortlessly over their prostrate bodies. I’m mainly talking about Nadal and Federer, in case you missed that.

As an interesting exercise, I calculated the rankings for just the last few months (since the US Open), in order to see who the really form players actually are.

The Top Ten for the last 8 weeks looks like this:

  1. Roger Federer (1710 pts)
  2. Robin Soderling (1540 pts)
  3. Andy Murray (1315 pts)
  4. Gael Monfils (1285 pts)
  5. Novak Djokovic (1250 pts)
  6. David Ferrer (980 pts)
  7. Jurgen Melzer (700 pts)
  8. Rafael Nadal (680 pts)
  9. Victor Troicki (630 pts)
  10. Andy Roddick (495 pts)

Incidentally, Tomas Berdych, who qualified for London at No.6, ranks about 30th on the above list. Make of it what you will.

I think the early matches will have a strong bearing on how each group plays out, which is frankly stellar news for Roger Federer, who come Sunday opens against David Ferrer, against whom he is 10-0. He probably couldn’t ask for a gentler way of easing in. Intriguingly, the new world No.4 Robin Soderling faces Andy Murray, the man he supplanted mere days ago. Most feel that Soderling is having a superb year, and that Murray’s has been sub-par. It won’t take long for us to find out whether either or both of those assertions is true. Their head-to-head is locked at 2-2, although they’ve only met once since 2006. Soderling won their match in Miami back in March 6/1 7/6, the same margin he beat Monfils by in the Paris Masters final. Significant? Nope. I think Murray will win.

The excitingly named Group A gets going on Monday, with Nadal opening against Roddick. The World No.1 should be rested, but it’s hard to see how he won’t merely be rusted after so long a lay-off. He is something of a confidence player, and likes to hit a lot of balls (big, heavy ones). Roddick’s serve will be the key here, and bombing it in in the 80s will deny Nadal the rhythm he thrives on. Their head-to-head stands at 5-3 in Nadal’s favour, although Roddick won their last meeting, again back in Miami in March. I’m going with Roddick for this one, although if pressed I couldn’t say why. I’m not drunk or anything. The other Monday match will see Novak Djokovic face the hapless Tomas Berdych. Djokovic should clean him up in under an hour, but with Berdych you just never know. Their head-to-head stands at 3-1 in the Serbian’s favour. Djokovic won their last match, which was in the Davis Cup semifinal in Belgrade. Berdych, of course, dispatched Djokovic in the Wimbledon semifinal, in what was (so far) his last decent performance for 2010.

1 Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Even Curiouser

Paris Masters 1000 Final

Soderling d. Monfils, 6/1 7/6

Q: What does Robin Soderling have in common with Sebastien Grosjean, Tim Henman, Tomas Berdych, Nikolay Davydenko and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga?

A: In the last decade, they all claimed their first Masters 1000 title at the Paris Indoors.

For all but Davydenko, it remains their only Masters Series shield. Will a similar fate befall Soderling? One imagines not. But then, one imagines Soderling would’ve won a Masters already. One likes to imagine stuff. That’s what one does.

Yesterday’s semifinals were little short of magnificent, and so close that today’s final could very easily have seen Llodra facing Federer for the title. Either match could have gone either way. Today, once play commenced, it was only going one way. Monfils came out looking like Monfils, which is unsurprising since it’s almost impossible for him to look like anyone else. Sadly, following his poised, contained and aggressive performance to overcome Federer in the semifinal, he was back to playing like Monfils. To be fair, he was kind of beat. Not unlike his compatriot Tsonga in the Australian Open semifinal this year, Monfils probably had something left in the tank, but not enough to go beyond cruise control. He might have eked out a win against a lesser adversary, but not against Robin Soderling bringing down the hammer.

The first set flew by. It looked like a baguette, but smelled suspiciously like a bagel. The second limped to a tiebreak, but only so as to delay and heighten the crowd’s inevitable anguish. It was further proof, if any were needed, that Soderling is really just a big meanie. First he imitates Nadal, now this. His detractors have composed uncounted monographs assessing the moral craptitude inherent in the Swede’s handshakes and post-match celebrations. It has become an important sub-field in the study of men’s tennis. While I’m not a rampant supporter of either player, I’m far from a detractor of Soderling, and my reaction to the result was one of vague relief. The feeling caught me off guard, but I think it was mainly relief that Soderling hadn’t blown a match he should win, even if he was playing a streaky Parisian in Paris. It is his first Masters title. Frankly, it feels like it’s about goddamn time.

Coming in to the match, two recently penned paragraphs sat heavily on my mind:

  1. How will the French armada perform in Paris? I like it when they do well, and I’d perversely like to see Monfils break through for his maiden Masters title in Paris. Not that he deserves it. (September 28)
  2. Now don’t get me wrong, I actually like the guy [Soderling]. I want to see him do well. Imagine if he won at Bercy? Then we’d really be saying WTF. (October 29)

Aside from being preternaturally prescient – and I don’t deny a glow of satisfaction about that – I’m a man of my word: WTF. There, I’ve said it. And that’s precisely where Robin Soderling is headed, and with a degree of momentum that no one else besides Federer can realistically boast. Will he be the man to beat? Sure, if you happen to be Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer or Andy Roddick. But I imagine Nadal and Federer – and even Djokovic and Murray – will still fancy their chances.

Here’s the thing: if Robin Soderling was ever going to lift a Masters trophy, this was the moment. Here was his preferred slick indoor surface. Nadal had pulled out the week before, and both Djokovic and Federer were beaten before he had to face them. His opponent in the final was almost out on his feet. There was no match this week in which he was not the clear favourite. So, given the way the cards fell, shouldn’t the world No.5 be expected to win the title?

All the same, it was his erstwhile inability to make that step – to win the tournaments he should be winning – that drove his fans spare. I’ve said before that he is ‘really just the best of rest, leading a second tier that’s looking decidedly third-rate’. I stand by the first part of that proposition, even if Monfils and Llodra have shown me up on the second. It was a little absurd that Soderling’s career boasted no more illustrious title than a 500 event in Rotterdam. You know, perhaps the world No.5 should be picking up Masters 1000 events here and there?

Actually, by winning Paris, Soderling is now No.4 in the ATP Entry Rankings. Thus, according to at least one (dubious) metric, he is a better tennis player than Andy Murray, at least for the moment. Notwithstanding the consensus that Murray has had a disappointing year, and that Soderling has had a pretty stellar one, the points don’t lie. The points may well be different in two weeks time, since Soderling has a semifinal in London to defend, and Murray doesn’t. Say what you like about Murray’s Grand Slam record, but the guy is a contender. By winning Paris, Soderling has started to convince me that come 2011, he might be too.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

The Intensity Vampire

Monfils d. Murray, 6/2 2/6 6/3

It turns out there are few things more gratifying than a hairbrained prediction that comes to pass, even when the prediction happens to be that Gael Monfils will win the Paris Indoors. He’s now a step closer, having played an up-and-down match to dispose of an up-and-down Andy Murray. The scoreline tells the story, which is also satisfying. Last week I substituted an alternative crazy prediction that Nalbandian would take Paris, but that hasn’t panned out too well. Now Monfils is teaching me not to make stupid predictions that I don’t want to see come true. Meanwhile Nalbandian has taught me not to change my stupid predictions on a whim. I’m learning important lessons all over the place.

Anyway, the match: Monfils came out wired, buoyed by the boisterously partisan Parisians, fairly crackling with intensity. Murray was never in the first set, and Monfils was everywhere, darting, sprinting, lunging, leaping. He creamed one forehand winner at 179Kmh, the fastest groundstroke anyone has hit this week. However, as he inevitably does against all but the most assured or skillful of opponents, Murray sucked the life from the match, forcing Monfils to compete on his terms. He’s like an intensity-vampire. Having gotten his teeth into the Frenchman’s neck and felt him go limp, Murray began to pick up the pace, claiming handfuls of points with solid one-two plays on serve. Monfils in the second set was a shade of his first-set self. Where before he’d been making the play, he was now sadly content to rally pointlessly at three-quarter pace until he duffed an error, or Murray exploited an opening. Once again, the end of a set had radically changed the momentum of play. This is something else I’ve recently pointed out, and thus something else I can feel smugly gratified about.

The third set saw both guys on even terms. They were still Murray’s terms, to be sure, but Monfils for a wonder was doing it better. He was now patient where he’d been passive, and his groundstrokes, while not gaining much penetration, had nonetheless grown heavier. (To paraphrase the inimitable words of John Fitzgerald, Murray started to have real problems with Monfils’ big, heavy balls.) Indeed, for a dude who’s supposed to be one of the fittest players on tour – the ATP even released a kind of propaganda video about his off-season training regimen – Murray was starting to look decidedly ragged, especially when pulled wide to his forehand side. Several times he chose to pull the trigger on big shots when he could have merely reset the rally, Hewitt-style. The crowd was back into it by now, and Monfils rode the wave past the finish line, breaking the Scot twice for good measure.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour