Nikolay Davydenko: A New Style of Play?

Andre Agassi once said that before him, there were players that could hit hard, and players that could hit on the rise, but none that could do both.  Clearly, his short-term memory forgot about Jimmy Connors, but we forgive you, Andre.

It was, however, Jimmy Connors’ rival, Bjorn Bjorg, then the father of modern power tennis, Ivan Lendl, that took tennis in a different direction.  They pushed tennis away from the flat/slice stroke, approach the net at all cost that had dominated tennis for decades.  Both the Americans and Australians played serve and volley, or at least, used the net frequently to end point.

Even a player as unique as Connors (a flat hitting baseliner, who was the precursor to the modern power game, but in an unusual sort of way) could not hit the ball so hard that he could simply camp on the baseline and expect to win.  Connors looked for the short ball, and drove it deep, propelling himself to net where he would often finish the point with a two-handed backhand volley.

Borg and Lendl gave rise to a new idea in receiving serve.  Give yourself space.  It was not uncommon to see these players stand 10 feet behind the baseline.  Conventional wisdom of the day was to stand near the baseline to receive serve, bunt the ball back if necessary.  Indeed, one of the places this return strategy is still used frequently is doubles where standing ten feet back to return leaves the receiving team vulnerable to the poach.  In doubles, players still crowd the baseline to return serve, even if the result is more aces, more unplayable returns, essentially making some doubles servers look like del Potro serving when the lack his monster pace.

Players like Lendl learned how to hit passing shots many feet behind the baseline.  Without the modern power game, this strategy would be insane.  A classic player would hit flat or slice, but the ball would either float too far or have almost no margin of error.  The topspin style that grew to prominence in the 1980s, combined with the modern tennis racquet, allowed players who would otherwise never stand so far back, to employ a strategy that, on the face of it, seemed insane.  How could someone give up so much space?  And yet modern players hit so hard that even ten feet back, they hit balls chest height.  The weekend player standing ten feet back would see the ball bounce several times before it reached them.

In the days of Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, perhaps generations of people grew up without “proper” nutrition, and one aspect that was affected was height.  As decades went by, people ate better, and the population of many countries grew, at least, on average.  Laver and Rosewall were both diminutive men, maybe 5’7″ or so, and yet, both were champions.  Such small men were commonplace in tennis.  Players like Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were all under 6 ft tall.  It was thought a player, much above 6 ft, would lose in mobility.  Indeed, players like Victor Amaya, who was considered huge for his day at 6’5″ lumbered around, forced to serve and volley, because players his height couldn’t run.

However, as the 1990s rolled around, height became an increasing advantage.  This was evidenced by taller players.  Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, and Ivan Lendl.  All these players were now a shade above 6′ or more.  Modern champs like Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal were also a shade above 6′ tall.  But the trend to height didn’t begin to fully manifest itself until the mid 2000.

Today, you have players like Juan Martin del Potro, Marin Cilic, Ivo Karlovic, Sam Querrey, John Isner, Tomas Berdych, Robin Soderling.  Players at 6’4″ or higher starting to play top notch tennis from the baseline.  Such players would be considered aberrations in the game 40 years ago.  Tall men with huge forehands and the range to run down shots.

These tall players have built their games around huge serves and huge forehands.  Andy Murray has found one way to play them.  He uses his speed to play a defensive style many feet behind the baseline.  His modern version of junkballing has propelled him to the top of the game, providing looks that today’s modern player finds it as infuriating to deal with as the average recreational player faced with a pusher.

However, Nikolay Davydenko may have found another solution.  When the trend is to taller, bigger players that hit harder than ever, Davydenko has built a game suited more to his strengths, and when his game is on, it creates its own kind of problems.  Davydenko has mastered four strokes as good as anyone in the game.  He’s learned to hit the angled crosscourt forehand and backhand, and the down-the-line forehand and backhand.  They seem like the bread-and-butter shots of tennis, but he’s pushed them to uncanny limits.

In particular, Davydenko’s angled shots can drive players mad.  Players like Rafael Nadal, accustomed to standing 10 feet behind the baseline are driven so far off court that their only reasonable course of action is to hit a sharp crosscourt back.  That’s important to note.  Back when Ivan Lendl was king of the hill, he would often take the sharp angled shots of his day (which was not nearly as sharp as today) and hit the shot hard up-the-line.  Hitting winners from the baseline was so novel that his opponents were often caught flat-footed watching the down-the-line shot go by them.

Today’s modern player would do what most players do if the down-the-line shot weren’t hit so hard.  They’d punish you by hitting that ball back crosscourt.  Because you had hit down the line, you were already off-court, leaving the rest of the court open.  A down-the-line shot ought to be punished by a crosscourt reply.  Today’s modern player understands this well.  The modern players takes a wide angled shot and returns it back along that angle.

Ah, but this is where Davydenko uses his timing to advantage. While there’s been a trend by some players to trade space for time, that is, to stand further back to give more time, Davydenko looks to players like Agassi, Connors, and Federer.  By standing closer to the baseline, he prevents angles from hurting him, and uses his precision groundstrokes to pick a direction to put his opponents in dire situations.

Here’s a sequence of play between Davydenko and del Potro that shows what Davydenko does.  Davydenko had hit a widely angled backhand to del Potro’s backhand.  This angle drove del Potro well wide of the left sideline, forcing him to hit a crosscourt shot back.  Davydenko, standing near the baseline as he normally does, aimed a shot up the sidelines.  Unlike Nadal or Federer, Davydenko always seems to give him self a comfort zone, placing the shot no closer than 3 feet from the sideline, but still close enough that del Potro had to run full bore to reach the shot.  del Potro then did what common tennis wisdom tells you to do.  He hits that down-the-line shot corsscourt.

But Davydenko had moved to his right, and hit yet another down-the-line shot back.  By this point, del Potro had not yet recovered to the center of the court, and the down-the-line shot was a winner.

Davydenko has also mastered shots that make his style work.  In particular, if you drive him hard crosscourt, he can still hit a sharp angle back to you.  Nadal found this out the hard way.  Without this ability, players could try to drive Davydenko off-court and a weak response would leave him vulnerable.  It’s important for him to handle this kind of shot for his style of play.

Davydenko is essentially applying an axiom of tennis to his game.  You can trade angle for power.  It’s not that Davydenko can’t hit hard.  Obviously all top players can hit hard.  However, he doesn’t have the bludgeoning power that del Potro does.  Where del Potro can see a neutral shot and see opportunities to hit a winner, Davydenko doesn’t usually manufacture winners out of nowhere.

Davydenko’s ability to hit four strokes (sharp angled forehand/backhand, down-the-line forehand/backhand) and to do so while hugging close to the baseline create problems for his opponents and provides a blueprint for today’s players.  Indeed, because Davydenko has such a good backhand, he rarely has to give up the kind of court Federer does, who covers up his relatively weaker backhand by running around it.  Indeed, Federer never seems to have the court open so much that he goes for the down-the-line backhand.  The well-struck down-the-line backhand is one reason players like Djokovic and Davydenko fare so well at the top of the game.  Davydenko used this shot to rob Federer of time in the semifinals.

Will Davydenko’s style of play, one that lead him to a victory in the ATP World Tour Finals be one that players who lack height, but have good speed will employ?  Andy Murray’s game doesn’t lend itself to this style because he lacks the rock-solid consistency that Davydenko has.  Also, Murray’s penchance for standing so far back is antithetical to Davydenko’s style.  It was once thought that the way to beat Nadal was to overpower him like Federer or del Potro.  However, Davydenko has shown that a steady diet of angles can also frustrate Nadal.

Now, to be fair, this style of play is primarily successful on faster surfaces where players are robbed of time.  On clay courts, the time to run down shots encourages players to hit harder with heavier topspin.  Davydenko still plays well on clay, but sometimes gets beaten by pace, say, by players like Soderling.

So while players like del Potro take the game in one direction, it’s possible that Davydenko’s style may provide a better long-term solution for more players.

ATP World Tour Finals: Davydenko vs. Goliath

If you were to look at the post-US Open record, you’d point to 2 maybe 3 players that looked like they were doing pretty well, at least, enough to contend for the year-end title.  You’d pick Djokovic, because he won Basel and Paris.  You’d look at Murray, since he won Valencia.  And you’d look at Davydenko, who won in Shanghai.

Last year, Davydenko had another great round-robin and beat the newly anointed “great”, Andy Murray, but lost in the finals to Novak Djokovic.

This year, Davydenko’s win over Soderling guaranteed it would be him, not Djokovic that would make the semifinals.

Given how good del Potro played against Soderling and Federer, few gave Davydenko a strong chance to win.  However, Davydenko is very quick, and great an angles and change of directions.  He breaks the mold of the modern player who is tall and hits hard.  He is amazingly quick, and yet can hit sharp crosscourt angles and down-the-line shots with equal ease.

Unlike Federer, who seemed to lack answers against del Potro, Davydenko used his speed and guile to engineer two breaks of serve, one in each set, to knock out del Potro, a guy who seems to beat the big names at the big occasions.  The final score: 6-3, 6-4.  del Potro seemed a bit flat-footed, perhaps fatigued by his 3-setter against Soderling.

Occasionally, the little guy wins, and in this case, after a year where Davydenko was injured and unable to play his best, this has to feel like a reward for someone who plays on tour as much as any player.  He may not look like the typical champ, but he’s still a player to reckon with.

And so, after a year that started in early January, the final event ends nearly 11 months later, at the end of November.  The players don’t get much rest.  Most will spend this one month off-season to train for January and the start of the year.  Roger Federer finds himself back where he did in 2009, trying to figure out how to stabilize his game.  Rafael Nadal looks to retool his game, one that seemed to fail him at the French, and never quite get in place the rest of the year.  Andy Murray made the semifinals of Wimbledon, but didn’t get close to reaching his coveted US Open.  Much is predicted of Murray, but he has still to break through and claim his first Slam.  del Potro showed he could peak at the big events, but can he play well year-round?

For now, it’s time to close another year on tennis, and for the players to rest up again.  It’s been a long year.  So congratulations to Rafael Nadal at the AO, Roger Federer at the FO and Wimbledon and Juan Martin del Potro for winning his first Slam at the USO.  And congratulations for the unlikely year-end champion, Nikolay Davydenko, a player who saw his rank slip out of the top 10, but fought hard at the end of the year to win as meaningful a title as he’s ever won.

ATP World Tour Finals: Semifinals

If you were to ask a tennis aficionado who would be in the semifinals, few would tell you: Federer, Davydenko, Soderling, del Potro.  Perhaps you might guess Federer and del Potro, but to think the very hot Novak Djokovic and the nearly hot Andy Murray would not be contending would be a surprise.

Indeed, both Djokovic and Murray were both narrowly eliminated, both with a 2-1 record that wasn’t enough to get them to the semifinals.

In one semifinal, Federer managed to win his group despite what most people would say was subpar play.  Federer had managed to lose a set in each of his match, and shank balls, find it hard to chase down balls that makes people wonder, despite a 2 Slam 2009, whether Federer’s best days are behind him.

Federer was oh-so-close to having a fantastic year, nearly winning a small Slam, i.e., taking 3 of 4 Slams.  Even so, he would have done it in Sampras-ian style, peaking for the big events, rather than playing wire-to-wire fantastic tennis.  Indeed, his appearance in the semis of the ATP World Tour Finals is as much due to playing very well in sets or a set and a half.

Perhaps it was not surprising that Davydenko, a guy who had never beaten Federer, and who struggled taking a set of Federer, found himself doing quite well against the Swiss maesto.  Davydenko hadn’t played Federer since early last year which coincides with Federer’s skills declining.  More players seem able to hang with Federer.  They play more patient with him.  Only a player like del Potro seems capable of overpowering the aggressive Swiss.  Those who have success against Federer have learned to fetch a lot of balls and watch him inexplicably collapse.

Davydenko still had a tough time, but eventually figured out how to beat Federer in a tight match: 6-2, 4-6, 7-5.  At a late point in the third set, Davydenko found himself serving 4-5 down, 0-30.  The 0-30 found Davydenko heading to net and hitting an overhead to which Federer hit an overhead off that overhead, and it seemed Federer would be ready to take that match off the brilliant point.  Alas, it was not to be.  Davydenko held serve off some tough playing, and it was Federer who found himself broken in the next game.  Federer still had chances to get to a tiebreak when he found himself break point on Davydenko’s serve, but Davydenko still found a way out and won the match and beat Federer for the first time ever.

The surprise semifinals was del Potro vs. Soderling.  Both are known for hitting the ball very hard.  del Potro started out of the gate quite quickly, finding it pretty easy to hold serve.  Soderling struggled some, getting to 0-40 early in the first set, and managed to extricate himself from this precarious situation.  And a good thing too, because del Potro never lost serve in the first set.  In the tiebreak, as well as del Potro played in the set, he played awful in the tiebreak, losing both his first 2 points in the tiebreak, and eventually losing it 7-1.

However, del Potro has showed amazing resilience, having come back a set down to win matches 13 times this season, and again, he came back against the sole Swede in the top 250 men.  By the third set, Soderling was finding good range on the groundstrokes and broke del Potro in the middle of the 3rd set, only to find del Potro ready to break him back in the next game.

Again, they held serve up to the tiebreak, despite opportunities for Soderling to break.  del Potro got a bit lucky in anticipation, and then in the last few games of the set, both found it fairly easy to hold.  The 3rd set tiebreak was the opposite of the 1st set with del Potro getting an early lead and never relinquishing it.

Final score: 6-7 (1), 6-3, 7-6 (3)

The finals: Davydenko vs. del Potro.  The two haven’t played since last year when Davydenko met him in round robin play in what was then called the Masters Cup.  However, del Potro does lead their head-to-head 2-1.  Has del Potro gotten better since then?  del Potro served extremely well (as did Soderling).  Can Davydenko return it.

It wasn’t the final most people expected, but perhaps it is not unexpected, pitting the player that plays up to the biggest events (del Potro) against the steadiest guy in the indoor season (Davydenko).

ATP World Tour Finals: Soderling and Davydenko Advance to Semis

Group B was full of surprises.  Robin Soderling was the 9th ranked player in points for the ATP World Tour Finals and only made it in because Andy Roddick was still injured and not ready to play.  He made the most of his opportunity by winning over Nadal and Djokovic in straight sets.  The straight set loss put Djokovic in trouble.

Davydenko would play Robin Soderling.  If he won in any capacity, he and Robin Soderling would go to the semifinals.  That’s because a win would mean Davydenko did not lose any match in straight sets, which Djokovic did to Soderling.

Soderling, however, had one worry.  If Davydenko won in straight sets, Soderling would actually end up second in Group B and have to play Roger Federer.  Again.  And he’s played him plenty this year and still ended up 0-fer.  He’s not beaten Federer ever.  However, if Soderling could win one set, he’d have enough sets won that he’d retain top seed, and play Juan Martin del Potro, since he’d the the top guy in Group B, while del Potro would be the 2nd guy in Group A.

Although it looked like Davydenko might win in straight sets, Soderling pulled his game together just enough to win the second set.  At this point, it didn’t matter to him whether he beat Davydenko or not.  Davydenko also has a poor record against Federer, and so that was his problem.

Meanwhile, Novak Djokovic became the second guy with a 2-1 record not to make the semifinals, except this time, only the set win percentage was the primary tiebreak rule applied, unlike Andy Murray who lost in the game win percentage tiebreak when the set win percentage tiebreak put the top 3 players in Group A tied.

Tomorrow, Federer plays Davydenko in the early match and Soderling plays Juan Martin del Potro in the late match.

ATP World Tour Finals: Why Verdasco/Nadal are Out

At this point, Rafael Nadal’s record is 0-2. You would think, with such a deficit, that he was “eliminated” from semifinal consideration.

But it’s not that simple.  He is eliminated, yes, but there is a scenario where this would not be as obvious.

Let’s imagine the following scenario.  Nadal beats Djokovic in straight sets.  Soderling beats Davydenko in straight sets.

In this scenario, Nadal, Djokovic, and Davydenko would all have 1-2 records with Soderling a perfect 3-0.  How would the rules determine the other semifinalist to join Robin Soderling?

If Nadal beat Djokovic in straight sets, Nadal would win 2 sets and lost 4 sets (2 each to Soderling/Davydenko).  Djokovic would have won 2 sets (2 sets over Davydenko) and lost 5 sets (2 to Nadal, 2 to Soderling, 1 to Davydenko). Let’s pretend Davydenko loses in straight sets to Soderling.  He would then have won 3 sets (2 sets over Nadal, 1 set in a loss to Djokovic) and lost 4 sets (2 to Soderling, 2 to Djokovic).  Davydenko would have a better set win percentage and get in that way.

If Davydenko loses in 3 sets to Soderling, his set-win percentage is better, because he would have 4 sets won to 5 sets lost.  If Davydenko wins over Soderling, but Nadal beats Djokovic, then both Soderling and Davydenko have a 2-1 record, and Nadal/Djokovic would have 1-2 records and be eliminated.

If Djokovic wins and Davydenko loses, Djokovic is in, because Djokovic would be 2-1, and Davydenko 1-2.

The interesting scenario is Djokovic winning and Davydenko winning.  In this case, Djokovic, Davydenko, and Soderling are all 2-1.  Soderling, at worst, would be 4-2 in sets won/sets lost.  Davydenko, at best, would be 5-2 in sets won/sets lost.  Djokovic, at best, would be 4-3.  In this scenario, Soderling and Davydenko get in.  Basically, if Davydenko wins in straight sets, he’s in regardless of what Djokovic does.  If Davydenko wins in 3 sets, Soderling has a 5-2 record and Davydenko has a 5-3 record, and again, Djokovic is out even if he beats Nadal in straight sets (since he would have a 4-3 record).

The summary is this: if Davydenko wins, he’s in.  If both Davydenko and Djokovic lose, Davydenko is also in.  Djokovic needs help to get into the semifinals, but the match-up, based on recent records actually favor Djokovic getting in.  In particular, Djokovic recently beat Nadal, and Nadal doesn’t seem up to beating his big rivals.  Also, Soderling has a pretty good win-loss record over Davydenko this year, though he has somewhat less motivation to win.

Soderling is also in, given all the scenarios.  If Nadal wins, Soderling can either win or lose because both Nadal and Djokovic would be 1-2 and Soderling would be at least 2-1.  If Djokovic wins and Soderling loses, then we have three players at 2-1, but Soderling’s 2 straight set wins give him a good set-win percentage, and he’s still in.

Based on equal chances of winning and losing, Davydenko would be the other semifinalist with Soderling, but based on recent performance, Djokovic would be the other semifinalist (thus, Soderling and Djokovic winning is the prediction based on recent performances).

Summary

• Soderling is in
• Nadal is out
• Davydenko wins and he’s in
• Djokovic needs to win and Davydenko to lose to get in
• Thus, if Djokovic loses then Davydenko is in

Although the claim was Verdasco was out, he wasn’t really.  If Verdasco had beaten Murray, he and Murray would be 1-2.  If Federer had beaten del Potro, then del Potro would also have been 1-2.  At that point, everything would have depended on how many sets each won/lost.

It just seems like Verdasco was in a losing position at 0-2, but he wasn’t.  Verdasco was in the most precarious situation, however.  Even if he won, he also needed del Potro to lose, for the tiebreak rules to kick in.  del Potro, by contrast, had some control.  If del Potro won, then at the very least, he would be in contention regardless of who else won or lost, and it would go to set percentage won or game percentage won after that.

ATP World Tour Finals: Doing the Math

Anyone know what’s going on? I think I’m Audi (out) but the rules aren’t worded too well.

Andy Murray tweeted this shortly after Juan Martin del Potro beat Roger Federer.  When that happened, 3 players in the Group A had a record of 2-1, each winning and losing the same number of sets.  Indeed, Federer had asked del Potro whether he made the semifinals or not.  del Potro shrugged thinking he had not made it.   This lead to a state of confusion.  Apparently, Federer knew enough that he had made the semifinals, but he knew it was close for Murray and del Potro.  Based on the results discussed below, we see why del Potro, probably not a math-whiz, was confused (as even ardent fans might have been).

Let’s discuss the tiebreak rules for deciding who makes the semis.  We’ll do the math to see why Federer and del Potro made the semifinals.

Only 2 players from each group make the semifinals.  The 2 are picked based first on their win-loss record.  Federer, Murray, and del Potro each won 2 matches and lost 1.  All three players beat Fernando Verdasco for one of their wins.  Murray beat del Potro but lost to Federer.  Federer beat Murray but lost to del Potro.  del Potro beat Federer, but lost to Murray.

The next tiebreak rule is the percentage of sets won.  Since every match in group A went 3 sets, and each of the top 3 players in group A had the same win loss record, each player also had the same win percentage of sets won.  In particular, each of the 3 players won 5 sets (winning 4 sets in their two wins and 1 set in their one loss) and lost 4 sets (losing one set each in their two wins, and two sets in their one loss).

The next tiebreak rule is the percentage of games won.  Let’s look at the record of each player.

First Roger Federer.

• Federer d. Verdasco 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 (17 games won/12 games lost)
• Federer d. Murray 3-6, 6-3, 6-1 (15 games won/10 games lost)
• del Potro d. Federer 6-2, 6-7 (5-7), 6-3 (12 games won/18 games lost)
• Total for Federer: 44 games won/40 games lost
• Win percentage for Federer: 44 / (44 + 40) = 0.524

Now to del Potro

• Murray d. del Potro 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 (11 games won/15 games lost)
• del Potro d. Verdasco 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (16 games won/16 games lost)
• del Potro d. Federer 6-2, 6-7 (5-7), 6-3 (18 games won/12 games lost)
• Total for del Potro: 45 games won/43 games lost
• Win percentage for del Potro: 45 games won/88 games played = 0.511

Finally, Andy Murray

• Murray d. del Potro 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 (15 games won/11 games lost)
• Federer d. Murray 3-6, 6-3, 6-1 (10 games won/15 games lost)
• Murray d. Verdasco 6-4, 6-7 (4-7), 7-6 (7-3) (19 games won/17 games lost)
• Total for Murray: 44 games won/43 games lost
• Win percentage for Murray: 44 games won/87 games played = 0.506

The final tally:

• Federer win percentage: 52.4 percent games won
• del Potro win percentage: 51.1 percent games won
• Murray win percentage: 50.6 percent games won

One could argue that Verdasco played the role of spoiler.  Verdasco was mathematically eliminated, but played Murray very tough.  Murray had a very difficult time breaking Verdasco despite numerous break point opportunities.

Oddly enough, Murray needed Federer to win the match over del Potro (Federer would be 3-0, Murray 2-1 and del Potro 1-2) or he needed Federer to lose in straight sets (Federer, Murray, del Potro have 2-1 record, but del Potro and Murray would have best set percentage win).  With Federer able to win the second set, each player had the same set win percentage and the tiebreak went to game win percentage.  This is where Federer’s risky style of play pays off.  When he wins, he can create lopsided set scores.  Against both Murray and Verdasco, Federer had a 6-1 set.  Murray can have lop-sided set scores like that, but his style generally leads to closer matches.

So Murray fails to make the semifinals by the smallest of percentage.  Had he won the third set 7-5, then he and del Potro would have identical game win percentage.  In this hypothetical scenario, they probably would have applied head-to-head again and Murray would have won that tiebreak by virtue of beating del Potro.

ATP World Tour Finals: Fed and Delpo Make Semis

Group A consisted of Roger Federer, Andy Murray, Juan Martin del Potro, and Fernando Verdasco.  With 3 Slams won by members of this group, Group A was considered the tougher group.

Today was the last day of the round robin for Group A and the results came down to the wire.  Andy Murray played earlier in the day and needed three tight sets to beat Fernando Verdasco.  Although Murray held serve fairly easily for many games, and although Verdasco had many break points against him, Murray couldn’t find a way to convert.

Murray was pushed to a third-set tiebreak and finally emerged victorious: 6-4, 6-7 (4), 7-6 (3).  However, it turned out that this tight match was Murray’s undoing.

With this victory, Murray had a 2-1 record.  With the final match between Federer and del Potro yet to be played, Federer was comfortably up 2-0 and del Potro was 1-1.  If Federer won, both he and Murray would have the two best records, and both be in the semifinals.

However, if Federer lost, other tiebreak rules would go in effect because each of the top 3 players would have a 2-1 record.  If Federer lost in straight sets, then del Potro would have a 2-1 record, but have lost the fewest sets since the remaining matches were all played to 3 sets.  In this scenario, Federer would be out of the semifinals because he would have won fewer sets than Murray (since Murray won at least 1 set in each of his matches).

If Federer lost in 3 sets, then, each of the three players (Federer, Murray, del Potro) would have won and lost the same number of sets and the tiebreak would then be percentage of games won, i.e., total games won/total games played.

Federer lost the first set easily to del Potro who seemed to be hitting with his US Open form.  Federer played a very close second set that eventually went to a tiebreak.  del Potro got up early, but then Federer got back on serve, before del Potro again took a point of Federer’s serve and had chances to serve out the set and ensure Murray get to the finals.  Only del Potro lost 2 points on his serve, and Federer closed out the second set.

At 3-all, Federer had chances to break del Potro, at 15-40.  del Potro extricated himself out of that game and held for 4-3.  Federer then played a sloppy game to go down 0-40 and del Potro eventually broke to go up 5-3.  del Potro then closed out the match and won the third set, 6-3.

With win-loss as the tiebreak, Federer ended up having the best win-loss percentage.  It didn’t hurt that he had two 6-1 sets, one against Verdasco and one against Murray.  Meanwhile, del Potro had won one more game than Murray but had the same losses, so del Potro had a better win-loss but just barely.

In Group B, Djokovic will play Nadal.  Nadal has already been eliminated because he has a 0-2 record and everyone else has 1 win.  If Nadal beats Djokovic, both will be 1-2.  However, Nadal would have 2 sets won and 4 sets lost.  If Djokovic loses in straight sets, he will also be 1-2 with 2 sets won and 4 sets lost, but Davydenko would have 3 sets won and 4 sets lost in the worst case (2 sets won over Nadal, 1 set with Djokovic, and assuming a straight set loss to Soderling) and he and Soderling would get in based a hypothetical Soderling straight set win.

If Soderling loses and Djokovic loses, then Soderling is 2-1, Davydenko is 2-1, and both Djokovic and Nadal are 1-2 and are out.  If Nadal loses and Soderling loses, then Djokovic, Soderling, and Davydenko are all 2-1 and set percentage will apply.  Currently, Soderling is 4-0, Djokovic is 3-4, Davydenko is 3-4.  Soderling should get in because he will only lose 2 more sets at worst.  At that point, it will be a matter of how well Djokovic or Davydenko win their matches.  Djokovic has a better chance, given his recent win over Nadal, than Davydenko who has recently lost to Soderling.

The ATP World Tour Finals is nearing conclusion with half the players in the semifinals set, and the other half still up in the air.  One more day of round robin play to decide that half!

ATP World Tour Finals: Lucky Loser

In tennis, a lucky loser is a player who loses in qualifying, but still makes the main draw because a player in the main draw has pulled out prior to the start of the tournament.  Usually, the lucky loser is the highest ranked player that lost in the last round of qualifying.

Robin Soderling doesn’t quite fit this definition.  At the end of the year, he had reached 9th in the point total for the ATP World Tour Finals.  Only the top 8 players are accepted into this elite tournament.  However, Roddick had to retire from a tournament back in Shanghai and was unable to return to the tour for the event.  Thus, Robin Soderling was called to fill in.

Much like Gilles Simon, who filled in for Rafael Nadal last year, Robin Soderling has made the most of his chances.  Having not played Nadal since his French Open victory, Soderling once again beat Rafael Nadal, this time in straight sets.  Having never beaten Novak Djokovic, in five attempts, Soderling again came through with a victory, 7-6 (5), 6-1.  This put Soderling at 2-0 with a very good chance at making the semifinals.  Djokovic is 1-1.  Nadal and Davydenko are 0-1, with their match scheduled for later today.

Tomorrow, Group A finishes its round robin with Roger Federer playing Juan Martin del Potro and Andy Murray squaring off against Fernando Verdasco.  Friday, Group B completes its round robin with Rafael Nadal playing Novak Djokovic with the loser likely to miss out on the semifinals.  Robin Soderling will play Nikolay Davydenko, a player he’s already beaten 3 times this year, including the French Open and two weeks ago in Paris.

Semifinals should be Saturday and finals Saturday, so a lot of top flight tennis scheduled ahead.  Keep watching!

ATP World Tour Finals–Tuesday Results

Last night, Nikolay Davydenko faced Novak Djokovic once again.  The last time these two met, they played three sets in Shanghai in the semifinals with Davydenko taking control of the tiebreak and the winning the tournament over Rafael Nadal.

The two met again, and they went three sets once more except this time, Novak Djokovic won in three sets.  This time, he did not need a tiebreak, and won 3-6, 6-4, 7-5.

Today, Juan Martin del Potro was looking for a win.  Playing the lowest ranked played in his group, del Potro needed three sets to beat the tenacious left-hander, Fernando Verdasco: 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (1).

Verdasco now has two losses, and del Potro has one win and one loss.

The featured match of the day had to be Roger Federer playing Andy Murray.  Federer doesn’t have a losing record to too many players.  Obviously, Rafael Nadal is one player Federer has not fared well against.  However, some may be surprised that Roger Federer has a losing record to Andy Murray.

The two last played one another at Cincinnati in the final Masters prior to the US Open.  Federer played attacking tennis to beat Murray, 6-2, 7-6(8) in the semifinals.  He would go on to win that tournament by overpowering Novak Djokovic and make himself the prohibitive favorite to win his sixth consecutive US Open, a feat that he came close to achieving, but ultimately failed against the hard-hitting Argentine, Juan Martin del Potro.

Murray looked like he might beat Roger once again.  Taking the first set, 6-3, Roger turned it around in overwhelming fashion, 3-6, 6-3, 6-1, and showed that he is still capable of very good tennis.  With this win, there is no mathematical way for Rafael Nadal to become number 1.  Roger Federer becomes the first player since Ivan Lendl to reclaim the year-end number 1 after losing the number 1 (last year to Rafael Nadal).  Roger Federer closes his losing record to Murray to 6-4, having won the last two encounters with the Scot.

In Group A, Roger has a 2-0 record, Murray a 1-1 record, del Potro is also 1-1, and finally Verdasco is 0-2.  Tomorrow, Group B plays with Nadal playing Davydenko and Djokovic playing Soderling.  Djokovic has a 5-0 head-to-head record against Soderling.  He most recently beat him in Paris two weeks ago in the quarterfinals in 3 sets, and beat him in Beijing in straight sets.

Nadal has a narrow lead over Davydenko leading 4-3 in head-to-head.  Nadal has not played superlative tennis since the US Open, although he did reach the final of Shanghai.  Davydenko is still playing good tennis, so the question is whether Nadal can elevate his game, or whether Davydenko will beat him again as he did a few weeks ago.  Davydenko clearly had the match of his life when he played Nadal the previous time, as did Djokovic playing Nadal in the semifinals of Paris.  This may say more about Nadal, however, as several players have seemingly played him much closer than they have historically.

Slight edge to Davydenko in that match based on recent results.

ATP World Tour Finals–Early Results

Each day, two matches are being played among the world’s best male singles players.  This is the ATP World Tour Finals, formerly, the Masters Cup, formerly the Masters.

On Day 1, Roger Federer showed that he could still hit a ball, and took Verdasco down in three sets, including a lopsided 6-1 third set.  The winning result, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1, was expected.  Federer had played Verdasco three times, and won all three.  The two met in Indian Wells earlier this year which Roger won in straight sets.

Andy Murray had the local crowd around him.  He’s probably playing his best tennis since the beginning of the year.  Although the casual observer might think del Potro would be favored, it’s Murray that’s actually won an indoor tournament (Valencia), not del Potro.  del Potro has had to skip tournaments due to injury, so post US Open, he’s not played top-flight tennis.

Murray was able to run with del Potro, using his slice to good effect, passing del Potro when he ventured to net.  The final score showed the changes of fortune: 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 with Murray handling the first and third sets handily, but del Potro fighting back in the second set.

And Rafael Nadal continues to show that he’s not quite 100%.  Nadal hadn’t met Soderling in competition since he lost his only match as a pro at the French Open.  Arguably, grass or hard courts should favor the hard-hitting Swede so it was odd indeed that his first final was on clay.

Soderling again showed that he’s ready to take on Nadal and beat him 6-4, 6-4 in round-robin play.  Nadal had an outside shot of becoming the year-end number 1, but needs to get far in the tournament combined with Roger losing early.  Neither appears to be happening right now.

Nikolay Davydenko will meet Novak Djokovic again.  They last met in the semifinals of Shanghai, a match Davydenko won in a third set tiebreak and then went on to beat Nadal for the title.  This match will be played later today (Monday).