Wham, Slam, thank you, AM!

One only wonders what might have happened had Roger Federer not contracted mononucleosis.  It shows, after all, that Roger Federer is human, susceptible to disease.

The timing was awful.  It occurred late in 2007 or perhaps early in 2008, at a critical period for most tennis players.

Once upon a time, tennis players may have taken the winter off and treated it was a true off-season, one where rest and relaxation meant something.  But these days, pros who want to keep their game up, to shore up deficiencies, to hone up strengths, use this period to train.

2008 was a year that showed cracks in the Federer armor.  Up to then, his fallibility was only truly exposed by Rafael Nadal, and then, only on clay.  By 2008, players like Djokovic and Murray were getting wins on Federer.  Federer’s normally reliable groundstrokes were somehow a bit off-kilter.  He was missing shots he used to make, shanking balls on his forehand.  His first serve was also not as reliable as it once was.  Federer was like some half-baked cake.  It looked good on a cursory scan, but a bite showed something off.

2009 was an improvement, but Federer still had chinks in his armor.  One could argue that Federer’s successful 2009 had much more to do with Nadal’s health than with Federer’s superior play.  Federer was still losing to players like Djokovic and Murray, and increasingly, players like del Potro and Davydenko were finding ways to beat Federer.

The problem with the Australian Open coming so close off the heels of the December break is the lack of knowledge of what other players are doing to improve their tennis racquet swing.  If Andy Murray had been privy to Roger’s training, he might have taken a different approach to the match.

Roger appeared to have worked on at least two aspects of his game.  First, he needed to calm his forehand down so he wasn’t shanking the ball nearly as much.  In the first round, he appeared to loop the ball more against Andreev.  That shot went back to a flatter style as the tournament went along, but the loop appeared to be something of a safety shot, one he could go back to if his game was off, rather than give up the occasional shank.

The other part of his game that he appears to have spent a good deal of time on is his backhand.  Federer has always known that his backhand was not as good as his forehand.  It’s true of many players, but more so of Federer who hits that shot one-handed.  Federer has always used his backhand as a multi-pronged tool, one capable of topspin and slice, and he’s always made prodigious use of his slice.  Where female counterpart, Justine Henin feels like her slice isn’t a good enough weapon and has become more reliant on her topspin backhand, Federer has continued to rely on the slice.

But the topspin backhand is his bread and butter.  Federer had often relied on his superior footwork to hit forehands.  The problem with this style of play is how much court he leaves opened up by standing close to the left sideline.  If Federer could hit his topspin backhand more reliably, more powerfully, then he’d give up less of the court, and part of hitting it more reliably was making the down-the-line backhand shot into more of a weapon.  Without that, he’d constantly be defending off his backhand.

Federer used this strategy to good effect against Tsonga and was able to stand more in the center of the court for more points, and he continued to use his backhand more in the Murray match.

The question, when the match started, was what Andy Murray would do.  Lacking the knowledge of what Federer had done in the off-season, Murray decided to pick on the Roger backhand.  He played shot after shot to the backhand, and it was often as much his backhand that faltered rather than Federer.  Federer, for his part, though a bit shaky at the start, playing his normal offensive self.

It didn’t help that Murray’s first serve percentage was around 40%.  Murray’s first serve speed has increased over time, but lacking the natural reliability of Federer’s serve, he has as many bad days as good.  In the first set, Murray’s first serve percentage was a paltry 45% to Federer’s 65%.

Murray began to alter his strategy more in the second set, trying to be a bit more offensive, but never got to break point on Federer’s serve while Federer had several chances on the Murray serve and eventually engineered a break.

The third set saw Murray willing to move Federer around.  Rather than simply attack the backhand, the goal was to hit a shot to Federer’s forehand, then to his backhand.  Federer, meanwhile, was looking for his usual opening to hit either a hard shot inside out or to whip a shot crosscourt.

Murray did eventually get an break in the middle of the third set, but as he served for the set at 5-4, Federer made a push and broke back to 5-all.  Federer held to 6-5, and Murray pushed it to a tiebreak at 6-all.  The tiebreak went back and forth with Murray having early chances at set points and Federer having chances at match points.  In one particularly exciting point, Federer hit a drop shot that Murray barely chased down and sliced down the line.  Federer pulled his racquet away and saw it land in, as Murray saved match point.

Eventually, at 12-11 down, Murray decided to pull the trigger up-the-line, and found the net.  Federer crumpled to the ground, excited once again at another Slam victory.

Murray’s thinking about tennis is, in many ways, rather profound.  A tennis teacher will tell a pupil that tennis, like many sports, is a game of errors.  Cut down on the number of errors and you win more games.  Except Murray’s game isn’t quite built like that.  Murray isn’t a heavy topspinner in the mold of Nadal or even Federer.  Murray’s game is quite a bit flatter, and so his margin of error isn’t nearly as good.  Murray is also not nearly as conservative as Andy Roddick.  Murray’s error count per set is therefore rarely in the single digits.

Instead of trying to cut down his own errors, Murray often tries to induce errors in others.  He does this by changing pace, hitting topspin, then slice.  He also uses his court coverage to chase down shots that would be winners against most players.  This style of play depends on the fragility of the other player’s hitting style.

Roger Federer has used his practice time to withstand changes in pace and direction to allow him to play his brand of offensive tennis.  Federer is always looking for an opening to play a power shot, mostly of the inside-out variety.  Although his philosophy is completely different, Davydenko tries to do the same thing.  Federer is a corner-to-corner opportunist.  Davydenko prefers to hit his winners up-the-line or from the center of the court to the corners.  Even so, Davydenko’s purpose is to find an opportune moment to pull the trigger, which is why he find success against players like Nadal.

Indeed, Nadal’s strategy seems to echo Murray’s strategy.  Nadal is very stingy on errors, making very few of them.  Instead of waiting for errors, Nadal’s goal is to hit his heavy topspin shot and eventually find a shot with a weak return to pounce on, then to press on a weakness over and over until he gets an error or until he makes the winner.  You always feel with Nadal, that he avoids the outright winner, and prefers hitting a shot that you can get to, but struggle with, so then he can start to work that shot.

But despite the different methodology, there is the idea that the opponent should either produce an error or at least a weak shot to work on, and that winners should not be attempted willy-nilly.

So what does Andy Murray do now?  Murray has stubbornly clinged to the idea that you can beat a player by inducing errors from them.  Roger Federer has shown, at his best, he can produce a sustained offense and that, at least, for now, Murray can’t withstand.  Without more of a punch in his game, Murray is left scrambling around.

If Murray decides to use this time to build more offense in his playing style, he’ll need to do it more often, against players of all sorts, rather than just trot it out for Federer.  One reason he may be avoiding this style is the amount of work it takes to play this way.  Another may simply be a stubborn belief that you can win without this style.

This loss is interesting because of what it says about Andy Murray’s ability to rebound.  For now, it seems Roger is back and looking to alter his style just enough so he can rely more on his backhand.  What will Andy do next?  Only time will tell.

Day 14: Federer wins!

Federer took the first two sets by playing aggressive.  Murray tried to play lots of shots to Fed’s amazing tennis racket backhand swing, but that was ineffective, and Fed began his attack, 6-3, 6-4.

In the third set, Murray played more aggressively.  He took an early break but when it came to serve out the set, he was broken.  Federer held serve and Murray held serve.

The tiebreak was very close too.  Murray had chances to win the third set, as did Federer.  In the end, Murray knocks a two-hander into the net, and Fed takes 13-11 in the tiebreak to win his 16th Slam.

Day 14: Live Blogcast, Set 2 (Men’s Final)

Murray’s game score will start first.

0-0 Fed hits inside out, 0-15.  Ace, 15-all.  Missed return, 30-15.  Murray went for a big fh.  40-15.  Fh hit long by Fed.

1-0 Fed hits short slice.  Murray tries to drop and misses. 15-0.  Long return, 30-0.  Bh crosscourt winner by Murray.  30-15.  Hard inside out fh by Murray.  30-all.  Fed approaches on a short shot inside out with his tennis racket.  Murray hits a short lob.  Overhead.  40-30.  Fed hits a deep shot off a deep return.  Murray misses.  Game.

1-1 Fed hits a hard crosscourt.  Murray unable to handle. 0-15.  Fed hits a big bh.  0-30.  Murray hits a drive forehand volley to Fed’s fh.  Fed hits the pass. 0-40.  Fed hits a tough bh up the middle.  Murray nets it.

1-2 Murray misses the fh pass on a drop volley. 30-15.  Murray rushes to hit a fh.  Loops it up and misses.  40-30.  Bloop return leads to a Fed big fh.  Game.

1-3 Murray unable to reach the dropper. 0-15.  Fed hits superwide bh.  Murray hits aggressive back, but Fed hits DTL.  0-30.  Double fault, 15-40.  DTL bh winner.  Deuce.  Fed nets backhand.

2-3 15-0 off a Murray missed drop.  Missed fh by Murray, 30-0.  Fed hits a bh long, 30-all.  Fed’s slice catches the net and dribbles over. 40-30.  Fed misses his own dropper.  Deuce.  Fed hits a swing volley off a good serve and bloop return.  Ad Fed.  Deuce, ad, then point.

2-4 Murray went for a big fh, misses, 0-15.  Murray tried to attack, but no good.  Fed drops the ball.  0-30.  Murray brings set back to deuce after 15-40.  Missed a fh.  Ad Fed.  Murray approached the net and volleys.  Ad Murray.  Game Murray.

3-4 Big serve, big fh, 15-0.  Two big serves, 40-0.  Serve and volley to game.

3-5 Finally an easy hold for Murray.

4-5 Triple set point.  Swing volley at 40-15.  Game and set.

6-4 to Federer

I’m noticing the live game by game stats aren’t particularly interesting, so that’s it for now!  Comments when the match is over.

Day 14: Live Blogcast, Set 1 (Men’s Final)

Fed games are listed first

0-0 Fed serves first. Murray starts to a 0-30 lead by playing aggressive, but Federer plays aggressive on his own.  Some bh to bh exchanges.  Fed holds when Andy nets a backhand.

1-0 Murray serves next. Again, starts with the backhand, and an error.  Double-fault to 0-30. Murray goes with soft exchanges to Fed’s great backhand hit to his tennis balls.  Fed goes for a big DTL bh.  0-40.  Fed runs around the bh, hits a big inside out shot.  Takes the game.

2-0 Murray gets to 0-40 on a pass from Fed’s volley.  Murray gets the break after a moonball, then approach by Fed, then a pass.

2-1 Murray nets the backhand, 0-15.  Fed hits a backhand long, 15-all.  Murray not getting first serves in.  Fed content to slice returns.  Murray hits shot wide, 15-30.  Another missed first serve.  Fed’s bh bloops deep.  Challenge calls it out.  30-all.  Murray gets a first serve in, attacks, Fed nets.  40-30.  Fed goes for a big bh, misses.

2-2 Murray attacks return, 0-15.  Long rally to 15-all when Murray misses on a bh attack DTL.  Fed attacks short ball but misses, 15-30.  Murray baits on a short ball.  Fed nets the volley.  15-40.  Murray making Fed hits lots of balls.  Long exchange leads to a Murray ball called long.  Challenge by Murray.  Ball called long.  Big first serve by Fed, deuce.  Fed hits a fh long.  Murray nets a passing shot, deuce.  Ace.  Ad Fed.  Ace to hold.

3-2 Shanked bh by Fed.  30-0.  Fed powers a crosscourt bh winner.  30-15.  Murray approaches DTL.  Fed misses the pass.  40-15.   Fed content to slice the bh.  Murray hits an aggressive bh.  Was called out, but overruled.  Replay.  Fed nets return.

3-3 Fed hits a ball that hits the net and goes out, 15-all.  Double fault, 15-30.  Fed plays aggressive inside out, 30-all.  Fed plays an aggressive approach to the Murray bh.  Murray can’t hit a good reply.  40-30.  Big serve to hold.

4-3 Double fault.  0-15.  If he had challenged, he’d have won.  0-30 on a hard crosscourt shot hit a bit wide.  Big first serve, 15-30.  Murray goes with wide and wide, to 30-all.  Fed pulls Murray with a very wide bh.  Murray hits it back too, but Fed hits it DTL.  30-40.  Fed runs around the bh, hits an inside in fh.  Weak reply by Murray.  Fed hits inside out.  Break.

5-3 Fed goes for a very short slice.  Murray nets the following ball. 15-0.  Ace.  30-0.  Murray attacks on a crosscourt bh.  Fed nets.  30-15.  Good serve by Fed to somewhat weak return by Murray to inside in fh.  40-15, double set point.  Fed goes for a superwide angle.  Murray tries going around netpost and misses.  Set to Fed.

6-3 to Fed.

Day 14: Tale of the Tape (Men’s Final)

With the men’s finals about 9 hours away, let’s take a look at how each man has been doing.  Let’s start with Roger Federer.  Federer reached the US Open finals again, and although he was just this close to winning the US Open (he had a 30-0 lead in the second set trying to serve it out and got broken), he did lose it to Juan Martin del Potro, a player who, a little over a year earlier, was almost unknown.

After that he played Davis Cup to keep them in qualifying, and then he rested between then and Paris, skipping the entire Asian swing of the post-US Open tournaments.  In Paris, Federer lost to Benneteau in his 2nd round match (he had a bye in the first).  Going into Basel, a tournament he’s won numerous times, he lost to Novak Djokovic in the finals.  Djokovic had been having a very successful post US Open hardcourt/indoor tournament run.  Even the US Open was pretty successful for Djokovic, making the semifinals for the second year in a row.

In the ATP World Tour Finals, Federer had key wins against Fernando Verdasco and Andy Murray (useful to note) but had losses to Juan Martin del Potro and Nikolay Davydenko.

After that, the pros were on break and Federer was probably in Dubai training, being a parent, and so forth.

Coming back, Federer played one tournament, which many of the top pros like to play, namely, Doha in Qatar.  He lost to Davydenko in the semifinals in straight sets, but word was, Davydenko was serving extremely well throughout that match.  Federer also played a 6-man exhibition in Abu Dhabi, losing to Robin Soderling in the semifinals.

Overall, since the US Open, Roger’s play was rather minimal.  He played four tournaments and Davis Cup.  He won none of the four tournaments.  Nevertheless, he claimed he was hitting well, pleased with his play.  Like many other champions, Federer generally doesn’t care how he does in the smaller tournaments.  Indeed, one wonders if Roger strategically loses matches in smaller events to avoid matchups.

Consider Roger now rarely bumps into Rafael Nadal.  He faced him at the Australian last year, but then didn’t see him in a Slam after that.  They met one more time, in the Madrid final, a match Roger won.  To be fair, Nadal took a fair bit of time off after his French Open loss and so the opportunities to meet Roger were few.  Furthermore, Roger took time off after the US Open, while Rafa played a lot of the post US Open tour starting in Asia.  Andy Murray also took time off after the US Open to heal his wrist.

Roger started off the tournament playing Igor Andreev.  The last time we heard of Igor, he was pushing Roger to 5 sets at the 2008 US Open.  Andreev had had a poor season after the US Open, and so he wasn’t expected to give Roger much of a challenge.  For whatever reason, he did give him a challenge, and Roger was lucky (he might argue otherwise) to get out of the match in four sets.

Roger had an easy match over Victor Hanescu, a guy who hits hard, but moves slowly.  Roger had more work with Albert Montanes, but it was still a straight set win, and Roger never lost serve.  In the fourth round, Roger decimated Lleyton Hewitt.  Hewitt had few answers.  This was the firsts “real” match that Roger was playing really well.

Roger then had his toughest match of the tournament.  He beat Nikolay Davydenko in four sets, but for a set and a half, he looked like he was being pulverized.  He was facing break points on nearly every serve, and wasn’t able to position himself to hit winning shots, and was making errors to boot.  As the sun set, the court was covered in shade, and Roger found his timing a bit more while Davydenko’s serve abandons him and he begins missing routine shots, a bit like he did against Verdasco.  Davydenko did recover some, but gave up his serve twice at the end of the fourth, and let Roger hold.

That match wasn’t Roger’s best, but it showed the value of keeping in the match and believing that Davydenko doesn’t hit at this level for a best of 5 match.

The following match against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga was similar to the one against Hewitt.  Federer was playing very well.  Tsonga had played a tough five-setter against Almagro.  The five-setter against Djokovic might not have been as tough as it sounded, mostly because Djokovic looked out of sorts for two sets.  However, that 6-1 set that Djokovic put on Tsonga had to be worrisome for Tsonga.  Even had Tsonga been in good shape, it’s questionable whether he would have given Roger much more of a challenge than he did.

Let’s look at the post US Open run for Andy Murray.  At the US Open, Murray lost in straight sets to Marin Cilic.  He looked out of sorts and partly blamed an injured left wrist for his poor play.  Murray continued to play for Great Britain in the Davis Cup (just as Roger did for Switzerland), won both his matches, but was itching to get some rest.

Murray wouldn’t play again until Valencia, a tournament he won.  He would lose early to Radek Stepanek in Paris.  In the World Tour Finals, he beat del Potro and Fernando Verdasco, but lost to Roger Federer.  Because three players had 3-1 win-loss record and because each match had gone the full 3 sets, the tiebreak rule for the semifinals was to count the percentage of games won and lost.  del Potro had won one more game than Murray and lost the same number of games.

Murray then went training in Miami, as he normally does.  He apparently took a quick trip to the UK to check if he was OK.  Last year, Murray was sick during the Australian Open and lost to Fernando Verdasco in the quarterfinals (in five sets).  He seemed keen to make sure that this incident wasn’t repeated.

Murray took a detour from his normal plans.  Typically, he goes to Doha and plays there.  Historically, Murray plays well in Doha, but he wanted to change up his preparation this year, get to Australia earlier.  He decided to play Hopman Cup with up-and-coming British sensation, Laura Robson.  This tournament is like a compressed Davis Cup with one man and one woman.  They play one singles each and mixed doubles afterwards.

With Robson’s rankings mired somewhere in the triple figures, it was up to Murray to win his singles, which he was doing handily, and then team with Robson to win the mixed doubles.  Robson didn’t win a singles match until the finals against Spain where she finally beat Martinez Sanchez, ranked about 20 in the world.  Surprisingly, Murray lost in straight sets to Robredo, which forced the mixed doubles to become relevant.

Robredo blanketed the net and Martinez-Sanchez’s doubles skills came into play.  The two beat Murray and Robson in two tight sets.

Murray played a “friendly” at an exhibition in Kooyong.  Kooyong hosts an exhibition where players that haven’t played warmups (and that included Novak Djokovic and some French players) could get a hit in prior to the Australian Open.  The “friendly” was added last minute and wasn’t part of the official exhibition.  Murray beat Sam Querrey in straight sets.  Querrey was just coming off a freak accident where he cut his arm while sitting on a glass table at a tournament in Bangkok.  He had lost early in a warmup tournament, so wanted some practice.

So between the US Open and the Australian Open, Murray won one tournament (Valencia) and didn’t reach the semis of the World Tour Finals, but did have a nice victory over del Potro.

As it turned out, Murray’s decision to skip Doha had interesting consequences.  Since he won the tournament, he lost all points failing to defend (the Hopman Cup is an exhibition).  The rankings are posted every Monday after the Sunday results are in.  Murray dropped 5 points behind Juan Martin del Potro.  As it turns out, del Potro was the defending champion at Auckland, which is held the week after Doha, and he also chose not to defend this title.  Thus, del Potro lost points for that.

This lead to the following awkward situation.  The draw was created and released the Friday before the first day of the tournament.  Even though everyone knew that del Potro had not defended the title, and therefore would only stay at number 4 for a single week, the seedings are based on the rankings the week before the tournament.  At that point, Murray was ranked fifth in the world.

Being ranked fourth, he was guaranteed not to meet either Roger or Rafa until the semifinals, and he was also guaranteed not to meet Novak until the finals.  But ranked fifth, he could meet anyone of the four in the quarterfinals.  Murray was probably content with his draw which put Roger in the other half.  Given Roger’s amazing consistency reaching the semifinals, it was best not to draw Roger in the quarters, and as it turns out, Murray didn’t seem too concerned drawing Nadal.

Andy Murray won his first few matches easily.  He beat tall Kevin Anderson easily.  Then, he faced two Frenchman, Marc Giquel and Florent Serra, and beat both in straight sets.  His first serious challenge was supposed to be John Isner, who had beaten Gael Monfils in the previous round.  Murray just happens to like playing tall men who serve big tennis racket swings.  Murray made Isner look slow and uncoordinated and won that in straight sets.

At that point, Murray was playing the “best” tennis of any of the top seeds, in that he had not dropped a set.  The really big test was playing Rafael Nadal.  Nadal’s team was already deflecting potential criticism for a loss to Andy.  They said he had been playing really well and was likely to win the tournament.  Although Nadal had been playing pretty solid in Doha (reaching the finals and losing to Davydenko), it was still unclear that Nadal was at his best.

If you watched any of the replays of last year’s final between Roger and Rafa, it looked clear that Rafa was moving and hitting much better in the 2009 final than he was in 2010.  Still, perhaps it was possible that an 80% Rafa could beat nearly anyone except the very top.  More than a few people predicted Rafa would beat Murray.  They based the prediction on Rafa’s head to head win over Murray (which he still lead) and on the passive nature of Murray’s style of play.  Most expected Murray to play the way he normally does against Rafa and for Rafa to take advantage.

Instead, Murray had a “Nadal” strategy.  Many players have a “Nadal strategy”.  Typically, they try to go for winners sooner rather than later.  They know that if they don’t and just trade normally rallies, then they will eventually hit a weak shot, and Nadal will begin to take over the point, maybe not right away with a winner, but with a barrage of body blows.  Only Davydenko and del Potro seem to play Nadal more or less straight-up, modifying their style minimally.

The “Nadal” strategy involved going for bigger first serves, trying to hit winners sooner, getting to net more often, and attacking Rafa’s serve, putting him on defense.  Murray took the first two sets playing spot-on tennis.  Murray played three solid, close games in the third set, to take a 3-0, one break lead.  Rafa had already sought medical attention early in the third set for a knee injury.  Later tests would show that this was a different injury and doctors were telling Nadal that he should be able to play in a month.

Meanwhile, Murray had something of a break playing Cilic instead of del Potro.  Actually, that might not have been such a big deal.  Murray has a 5-1 head-to-head against del Potro and del Potro was playing with a hurt wrist.  Even so, the kind of dangerous play del Potro is capable of is something most players want to avoid.  Not that Cilic wasn’t a handful for a while too.

Murray went back to playing his usual style (rather than his Rafa special) and Cilic was able to take advantage breaking Murray twice in the first set.  Murray adjusted his game and started playing a bit flatter.  This was already paying dividends early in the second set, with Murray hanging in the rallies better.

Commentators pointed to a 30-40 point on Cilic’s serve.  Cilic and Murray had been rallying back and forth on their backhands when Cilic decided to play a more aggressive backhand up the line.  The ball clipped the net and was dropping over like a drop shot.  Murray scrambled to run this shot down, and pushed it to Cilic’s backhand corner.  Cilic went for an angled crosscourt backhand pass, which Murray volleyed a bit short.  As Cilic came to net to get the ball and Murray recovered, Cilic decided to hit a lob over Murray.  Murray ran back and chased the shot down, hitting an over the shoulder forehand down the line that Cilic was unable to handle.  This break lead to his signature wide-mouth scream (“I never knew my mouth was so big”).

From then on, Murray would pretty much cruise to the win.  He’d have several more opportunities to break Cilic, but Cilic would make tough holds, leading to somewhat closer set scores in sets 2 and 3.  Murray’s tactic of moving Cilic around to tire him (having played three 5-setters against Delpo, Roddick and Tomic) was finally having its desired effect.

Right now, there’s a strong inclination to say Federer will beat Andy Murray.  This is based on a few factors.  First is his easy dismissal of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in straight sets.  That victory might not have been as amazing as it seemed.

Tsonga himself had just been through two five setters in the previous two rounds after never playing a five setter prior to that.  So this was a man that was probably not at his freshest.  Tsonga has had a history of injuries, so it’s possible his fitness was suspect.

One only has to look back at the Hewitt match.  Federer had beaten Hewitt handily in the fourth round.  Again, Federer looked sharp.  But that was his 15th consecutive victory over Hewitt.  Hewitt doesn’t have the kind of firepower on serve or the ground to bother Federer.  And even if he did, it’s the confidence of beating a guy time and again that wears away on both sides.  Hewitt keeps trying to win, but he knows that Roger would have to be off his game.  Meanwhile, Roger has a ton of confidence playing Hewitt and ends up playing much better than he might if he were feeling tighter.

After the Hewitt match, he had a tough time with Nikolay Davydenko.  If Davydenko had not so completely fell apart, Roger might have had his earliest exit yet.  The point is not so much that Davydenko lost, but that Roger didn’t translate an easy victory over Hewitt to a dominating performance over Davydenko.

One only has to look back to a year ago.  Roger decimated del Potro in the quarterfinals of the Australian Open in 2009.  At the time, del Potro had never beaten Federer, hadn’t even taken a set off him.  He would prove tougher at the French Open in 2009, then the US Open.  The loss to Federer was Federer playing at his best, every strategic element working at its smoothest.

Roger then had a straight set win over Andy Roddick in the semifinals.  Much like Roger has a huge head-to-head advantage over Hewitt, he likewise has a huge head-to-head over Roddick.  Roddick, like Hewitt, has tried a bunch of things against Roger, many to no avail.  They make small band-aid strategy changes when an overhaul of their game is what’s needed.  Only a player like Davydenko has made the kind of serious improvements to his game which seems to amount to a better serve and a better head.

Of course, no one expected Roger to take Rafa out in straight sets, but there was plenty of reasons to think Roger might win in four sets.  In particular, Rafa had just played a monster five setter against Verdasco, a match lasting 5 hours.  Rafa was also playing the latter of the off-day matches, so his semi was on Friday while Roger’s light jaunt was on Thursday.  Rafa had never reached a hardcourt Slam final.  His best results up to then was a semifinal appearance in the US Open in 2008 and a semifinals in the 2008 Australian Open.  Meanwhile Roger was a four time US Open champ.

The only uncertainty in Roger’s game was how well he had recovered from his mono from 2008.  Although he recovered in the early months of 2008, his lack of full training threw off his playing for most of the year.  He still continued to reach finals of Slams, but was losing to all sorts of people in the smaller tournaments.

Roger ended up in a dogfight in the final, lost the first set, then took the second, lost the third, took the fourth, lost the fifth playing two poor games after having played such an incredible fourth set to stay in the match.

A more valid claim for Roger’s chances in the final is his recent play combined with his recent head-to-head with Murray combined with Murray’s lack of Slam wins.  At least with Rafa, you knew Rafa had beaten Roger plenty of times at the French, and had a breakthrough win at Wimbledon.  Rafa had made Slam finals and had won Slams and had beaten Roger in the process.  That Rafa summoned the energy and game to beat Roger in 2009 was incredible, but he certainly had the game to beat Roger.

Technically, Murray also has the game to beat Roger.  At one point, Murray had a 6-2 lead over Federer.  Admittedly, some of those wins occurred in 2008 when Roger was still struggling, but Murray also had wins in Doha.  Where Murray didn’t have wins over Roger was in Slams.

Roger has two wins in their last head-to-head.  Roger beat Andy Murray in the semifinals of Cincinnati in straight sets (the second set went to a tiebreak).  He then beat him in three sets in the ATP World Tour Finals in the round robin.

This combined with Murray’s loss of a set to Cilic, his generally passive style, and Roger’s excellent semifinal play, and oh yes, his 15 Slams to Andy’s 0 Slams is why many outside Britain seem to think Roger will win.

Can a case be made for Andy Murray to win?  So, yes, it’s possible for Andy Murray to win.  Almost all of the matches between Andy and Roger have been close.  Of the ten times they’ve met, there have been only 4 straight set wins.  The first time the two met was in Bangkok 2005.  Murray lost 6-3, 7-5, a respectable loss given his unknown status.  They met in Cincinnati in 2006 which Murray won in straight sets, 7-5 6-4.

Murray would play Roger 4 times in 2008.  Roger would only win once, but in the one time that mattered, at the US Open, in straight sets.  They met 4 times in 2009 with each winning 2 matches.  In Cincinnati, Federer beat Murray in straight sets.  The other 6 matches have gone three sets.

History shows it’s hard for one player to dominate the other, though if domination occurs, it’s usually on Roger’s side.

What else is in Murray’s favor?  Murray has played very good tennis in the Australian Open.  He is moving as well as he ever has.  The main concern is his back which he claims can get tweaked because of the sticky courts.  He maintains that he just needs to stretch it to make sure it stays OK.

Murray is also a very smart player.  He does his homework and has extensive notes on the players he plays, and this would surely include Roger Federer.  Murray has so much variety in his game, it’s difficult to guess how he’ll try to play Federer.  Historically, Murray has preferred to let Roger make mistakes.  He tried to do that at the US Open, but Federer seemed sharp in the first set.  Murray began to alter his strategy in the second set and started going for bigger shots, but Roger was able to take the second set too.  By then, Roger was on a roll, and Murray lacked the mental resolve to derail the Federer express.

Roger is probably right that Murray will want to start off strong and take the first set if he can.  His prediction was Murray would play more like he did against Cilic.  Aggressive, but not too aggressive.  It’s not clear whether Murray has built a “Federer strategy” nor what such a strategy would look like.  Murray certainly has a few examples he can look at.  He can see how del Potro or Davydenko has done to beat Roger, but their styles are so significantly different that it’s hard to believe Andy can use their styles at all.

Del Potro, for example, has a huge huge forehand.  Murray’s forehand is not huge.  It’s effective, but not the same way.  Del Potro also has a huge first serve.  Murray’s first serve speed has improved, but his first serve percentage is key.  Murray’s first serve percentage is sometimes a bit low and he’ll want that to be high enough to keep Roger from attacking his second serve.

Davydenko has learned to hit shots on the rise.  Davydenko is the modern Agassi minus all the flash of Agassi’s personality and clothing and minus the 7 Slams that Andre has won.  Davydenko is generally waiting for a ball he can hit hard up-the-line or start creating angle to draw players off the court.  Although Murray is learning to play a few of his shots close to the baseline, he’s not going to suddenly play up close and personal.  He’s much more at ease playing further back.

Murray will want to take advantage of three strengths: return of serve, his backhand, and his court coverage.  He’ll also rely on his serve to keep Federer at bay.

Can Murray win?  Yes, he has enough weapons that if he plays well, he has enough shots to bother Federer.  Will Andy win?  Tough to say.  It’s much more likely that Federer would win easily than Murray would win easily, and it’s unlikely the win will be easy for either player.

DVD Review: 2005 Australian Open Semi-Final…A look back

In preparation for the upcoming finals of the 2010 Australian Open, I’ll briefly review the match DVD from TennisDVDWarehouse of the 2005 Australian Open Semi-Final between Marat Safin and Roger Federer…

It was a dazzling 4 and 1/2 hour five set thriller and one of the best matches in recent memory in Melbourne, in my opinion. It was loaded with suspense and superb shot-making by two tennis giants in top form, and left some tennis lessons for us all…

Marat Safin vs. Roger Federer

Safin wins: 5-7,6-4, 5-7, 7-6 (6), 9-7

The Pre-Match Setting:
Marat Safin faced the World No. 1 ranked Roger Federer, and his 26-match winning streak in this classic Australian Open semifinal. Federer practically had a monopoly on Grand Slam titles, but was matched against an enormous raw talent in Safin who had dismantled the great Pete Sampras in the 2001 U.S. Open Final and was playing some of his best tennis ever. The pre-match hype in the media and on the Melbourne Park grounds was deafening, and the warm Australian evening brought out a full-house to Rod Laver Area – 17,000+ standing-room only. And they were in for some fantastic tennis in a marathon match between two of the game’s most gifted all-around players.

What They Saw:
This match offered world-class serves and returns, first rate holds-of-serve and breaks-of-serve, net cords and drop shots, volleys and drop volleys of the highest order. Every point was a struggle as each player would punish any weak shot, and both players found themselves exchanging magnificent forehands and backhands hit with great purpose. The pressure never let up from the word “play”, and in fact just intensified until the climax. Safin’s serve was dominating throughout, and Federer responded throughout in kind with his own arsenal of baseline winners, drop shots and volleys. Some truly amazing tennis in a land of legendary stories of tennis…

The Theme:
Safin playing up to his enormous raw potential defeats the apparently unbeatable Federer in a grueling 4 1/2 hour epic marathon, ending his string of Grand Slam titles.

The Match Play:
Set one (Federer wins) – From the first ball hit in the first set, the play is crisp and precise, indeed scintillating, as Patrick McEnroe commentating for USA Channel noted. Federer serves first, and there are no breaks of serve until Safin serves 5-6. Federer breaks serve and takes the first set, 7-5, and seems to be in the driver’s seat.

Set two (Safin wins) – Federer serves and wins the first game, then Safin follows to serve and win his game. In the third game, with Federer serving, his game play level seems to drop just a bit. Safin presses successfully and comes though with a break, going up 2-1. Safins continues to serve magnificently and wins the second set, 6-4.

Set three (Federer wins) – Federer doggedly raises his game level. Players exchange serve games. Safins seems to be pressing a bit, and his game seems to be off. Federer’s level of play becomes immaculate. He takes the set 7-5.

Set four (Safin wins) – The fourth set is a thriller. The match is a service contest as the players hold serve. They exchange devastating groundstokes and volleys. Federer is up 6-5 with a match point. Safin doesn’t give up, he hangs in and reaches for some brillant play to save match point. The set moves into a tie-break after Safin levels it at 6 all. The tie-break was a point-by-point nailbiter. Safin claws and fights, and wins the tie-break 8-6. He seems to have found his game. He seems now to believe that he can win. As commentator Patrick McEnroe said at the time watching Safin’s play level throughout, “Safin came to play.”

Set five (Safin wins) – If the fourth set was a thriller, the fifth set was exponentially even higher on the suspense meter. Federer is treated by the trainer early in the set, and seems to be fatigued. Believing now that he can win, Safin pours it on, holds serve with relative ease and moves ahead 5-2. Federer is serving at 2-5 and barely hangs on and holds serve. It’s now 5-3 Safin, with Safin serving for the match. Federer fights off match point, and wins the game, breaking serve. Safin seems to deflate a bit, but continues to believe and press. Federer is still down 5-4, then 6-7, each time fighting off match points and leveling the match.

It’s 7 all. Federer seems to be getting stronger. Safin must summon all he can now. Safin holds serve to move up 8-7. Now at the 8-7 in Safin’s favor, Federer is serving to stay in the match. But Safin ups the ante and forces Federer down 15-40. Two more match points for Safin. Federer saves the first match point in the game with an ace. He reaches the second match point ball and pushes it over the net, but falls in the process. Safin steers the ball into the open court. The match is finally over. And Safin slowly limps his way to the net, waiting with humped shoulders to shake Federer’s hand.

An argument can be made, say some critics, that this match rates as the best played since the 1980 Wimbledon Final between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. It surely rivals any recent Grand Slam final or semi-final in memory for suspense, shifting momentum and unrelenting world-class play.

And I think that this match, and in particular Safin’s play and methods, may even hold some lessons for us all…

The Lessons Learned:
The right attitude towards a superior foe is respect but not awe
Commentator Patrick McEnroe remarked that Safin had the right attitude throughout the match towards the seemingly invincible Federer: “respect” but not “awe.” By that McEnroe referred, I think, to points in the match when Federer might hit an unreturnable forehand winner, to which Safin would simply applaud with his racket, and then follow-up by simply digging right into the next point. To me, “awe” means that you have “internalized” your opponent’s superiority, and thus may have likely cededed away the match mentally. In contrast, “respect” means that you simply acknowledge an opponent’s better shot on that one point, and move on calmly and deliberately to the most important shot in the match – the next one.

Intentionality behind each shot
McEnroe also commented that in the fourth and fifth sets, which Safin eventually won, “every swing by Safin has a purpose”. By this, McEnroe, I think, was pointing out that each Safin shot was aiming the ball into the corner, or deep towards the baseline, or meant to push Federer from side to side. No Safin swing at the ball was just a swing at the ball to swing at the ball. There was a clear intention behind every shot. And Safin’s collective intentions behind all the shots eventually paid off.

Belief in your ultimate victory
Safin never gave up. He just kept plugging away until the mighty Federer began to show cracks. It was an awesome test of wills – a stupendous mental contest. Federer too showed his mettle by fighting off match point after match point, putting the heat back on Safin. Safin, for his part, never got nervous or intimated or scared by the defending champion, never got weary or tired of the battle. He just believed that he would eventually win, and he did.

Gary Bala
Timeless Tennis: A Blog
www.timelesstennis.net

Day 14: Musings on the Upcoming Men’s Finals

This must seem like old hat to Roger Federer.  This is Roger’s 22nd Slam final and his eighth consecutive final.  The record for consecutive semifinals, after Roger, was 10, by Ivan Lendl.

At this point, Roger knows how to play the game, and that’s not just the game on-court, but the game off-court.

There could be no bigger difference between a player and his biggest rival than Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.  Nadal’s English, while serviceable, allows Nadal to be the shy guy in interviews, to be endlessly complimentary to everyone around him.  Interviews indicate Nadal always listens to Uncle Toni, doesn’t backtalk to him.  Uncle Toni would have it no other way.  It’s a sharp contrast to his play on court which is doggedly determined.  The snarl of his upper lip is his most common tell, indicating he’s just a bit annoyed with how that last point went.  Nadal is the good son, or maybe good nephew, not exactly what you’d call a gentleman because he lacks that suave, that sophistication.  That make his diffidence a bit disarming and surprisingly sincere.

Roger Federer, on the other hand, exudes the idea of gentleman, indeed extraordinary gentleman.  Let’s just begin with languages.  Where Nadal struggles to conduct interviews in English, a skill he’s getting better at each year, Federer speaks English as a first language, a product of his mother’s South African heritage.  We all know Switzerland is a tri-lingual country.  Not everyone speaks the languages there that include French, English, and two flavors of German.  Federer can go to the French Open and give a speech in French, and play in Hamburg and conduct interviews in German.  Perhaps if Jim Courier’s Channel 7 gig ever takes him to Paris, he can conduct an interview in French, a language he picked up over the years, with Federer.

But Roger wasn’t always this way.  Once upon a time he was a superbly talented athlete, a highly emotional, often argumentative player.  He knew little about how to play tennis for the long haul, how to be fit, how to move, how to eat, how to control his emotions.  Roger almost had a dilemma on his hands.  Growing up, Roger idolized the serve-and-volleyers, especially players like Pete Sampras.  He modeled his game on that style.  It had been years since a top serve-and-volleyer wasn’t a serviceable baseliner.

Although Sampras increasingly played serve-and-volley as he got older, mostly, one imagines, to preserve his delicate physique (Agassi, perhaps due to the ups-and-downs in his career, was far more durable) and to avoid the grind of baseline rallies.  Even so, he was more than an adequate baseliner.  He was no Tim Mayotte or Pam Shriver, players that were nearly helpless at the baseline and had little choice but to come in.  Tim Henman, for instance, was just at that transitional point.  A serve-and-volleyer yes, but not a good enough groundstroker, to dominate off the ground.  Still, in a pinch, he could play from the backcourt.

The revolution of modern racquets and modern strings didn’t begin to truly impact the game until the late 90s when the passing game went through the stratosphere.  Classic tennis teaches us that short tennis balls are to be attacked and approached on.  And for many decades, those who had a net game, did this.  Even players that were pegged as baseliners, such as Jimmy Connors, routinely came to net.

Ancient film of tennis played in the 1950s shows that when an attacker came to net, the baseliner, who hit a flat shot, was often left lobbing the ball up, worried they could not pass reliably enough while under duress.

But that began to change with players like Andre Agassi and even Pete Sampras.  Today, an approach to the net had better be really good because players will now stick out their racquets and thread the ball through the thinnest possible margins, and do it time and again.  This play, combined with the near complete migration of players from one hand on the backhand to two has made everyone fearful of coming to the net.

And it was during that period of passing excellence that Roger found himself playing.  Early in his career, he had to contend with his two biggest rivals, Lleyton Hewitt and David Nalbandian, both formidable baseliners.  Against both these players, Roger felt he had to come to net because he just couldn’t beat them on the baseline.  Today, the idea of Roger being afraid of Lleyton’s groundstrokes seems rather quaint.  Hewitt was more like a souped-up Chang or Wilander, a player that had good movement, could move the ball around, but wasn’t going to pound for winners.  His game worked out well against an aging Sampras, but was more like Connors or McEnroe playing in the 80s–they played a style that was going out of fashion, still effective, but not the trend that Borg, then Lendl set into motion.

Unlike the wunderkinds of the past, players like Chang, Wilander, Borg, and Becker, Federer didn’t start to make an impact in the sport until his early 20s.  He had, of course, beaten Sampras on grass back in 2001, before he turned 20, but he wasn’t really mentally, strategically, or physically ready to handle the kinds of players of the day.

One day, when tennis historians really take a look at how the game changed, they will point to Ivan Lendl.  Considered robotic, argumentative, with a habit of spitting between points early in his career, Lendl was the first to push the envelop of tennis preparedness.  He worked on his fitness off-court.  He controlled his diet.  He had Warren Bosworth customize his racquets to produce uniformity that modern tennis factories could not achieve.  He had his courts by his Connecticut home resurfaced by the same people that resurfaced the US Open.  Many of Lendl’s training habits, seeming taken from the future, became the staples of modern pros.  But as with any pioneer of the sport, there are always people ready to push that level even further.

And that man is Roger Federer.  Federer’s training habits are largely kept secret.  He’s not interested in his rivals learning how he does what he does.  Federer used to have coaches that traveled with him.  There was Peter Carter, who died in a car accident, and was Federer’s first major personal loss.  There was Peter Lundgren who eventually coached Marat Safin.   And on a part-time basis, he worked with Tony Roche (who coached Lendl for many years) and Jose Higueras (who coached Jim Courier).  Since Higueras, he’s only made one additional overture, to Darren Cahill, for coaching.  Cahill declined.

Federer travels without a coach, these days.  He consults on strategic matters with Davis Cup coach, Severin Luthi.  His fitness and strength are handled by Pierre Paganini who has helped Federer get strong, learn when his body is telling him he is injured, teach him how to move and recover quickly while maintaining balance.  To this end, Federer often skips out on Davis Cup realizing that his future fame is not built on Davis Cup ties but on more Slam wins.  During the December break, Federer often trains in Dubai working in the heat, to better prepare himself for playing in the heat of Australia.

Beyond that, Federer has worked on his mental toughness, though there is little information on how he does this.  Federer often talks about working his way into the tournament.  In matches he struggles, he rarely betrays that he is worried.  He understands matches can turn on a lull in a player’s concentration, and he feels supremely confident that he can take advantage in those moments.  Nowhere was this more in evidence than his victory over Andy Roddick in last year’s Wimbledon where he only broke once, but the one time that mattered.  So where observers note Federer was struggling against Andreev, Federer thinks he was not.  He rarely elaborates why he thinks this.

If anything, it shows, even when his game is not on, Federer learns not to panic.  He knows, typically, in time, his game will come around, that he will play better.

Of course, you’d imagine, with all this advanced training technique, both physical and mental, that Federer would dominate his opponents, and while he clearly does have an advantage, at times, his game does break down, and he does cede the mental edge, and there are players that hit shots that are hard for Federer to handle, players like Nadal and del Potro and Davydenko.  Sometimes all that planning still doesn’t work out as well as you’d like, but much like Lendl, you try to take care of what you can, and invariably it leads to more matches won than lost.

At age 22, Andy Murray has yet to win his first Slam.  He reached the finals of the US Open in 2008, but quickly got buried in the first set by Federer’s aggressiveness.  Murray had played Federer well historically, even then.  He’d often keep the ball in play until Federer self-destructed or just missed a bit too often.  That day, with Federer having had an extra day of rest, and Murray having played three days in a row (albeit two sets on two days, but even so), Murray had few answers.  Perhaps a critical non-call in the second set on a Federer ball that was out that would have meant a break and a possibility for Murray to claw his way back in the match.  As it was, once Federer took the second set, he cruised to a win.

Murray, too, was once like Federer.  A talented player who struggled with fitness and movement.  Where Federer might get upset in his early years, Murray tended to get annoyed and have a bit of a temper.  His game would dip down.  Murray showed his prowess in playing when he took Nadal to a fifth set in the Australian Open several years ago, but faded in the end when his fitness wasn’t up to snuff.

Since his departure from Brad Gilbert, he’s worked on strength, fitness, and strategy with “Team Murray”. His team includes coach Miles Maclagan, trainers Jez Green and Matty Little, his physio, Andy Ireland, and his coach-consultant, Alex Corretja.

Where Federer’s training techniques are mostly secret, Murray has been a bit more open about his own training.  He doesn’t reveal everything he does, of course, but he’s put out the occasional video during his Miami training sessions.  He has also embraced Twitter, tweeting about various dares (which he calls forfeits) that his team has to endure, often doing silly things like wearing dresses to dinner.  This may be a totally PR thing to offset the negative image Murray had had in his early career.

Murray’s approach to the game is far different from Federer’s.  Federer has a more Lendl-like approach to the game.  Be aggressive from the baseline, have a variety of shots to deal with difficult situations, and try to dictate play.  When his game is on, as it was with Hewitt and Tsonga, Federer often looks unstoppable.  Federer’s game is built on rhythm, playing a series of pressure points for as long as possible, hoping the deluge of great shots will not only net him games and points, but also produce psychological victories, making his opponents wonder how they will beat him.  Federer sees the winning of the game internally, from his ability to dictate the flow of the game, yet he’s smart enough, resilient enough, to keep his head in the game even when his plans are not going so smoothly.

On the other hand, Murray’s approach resembles that of his former coach, Brad Gilbert.  He’s taken Gilbert’s philosophy of winning ugly and made it beautiful, in his way.  Murray has three big strengths.  The first is his anticipation, which leads to his second strength, his return of serve, and his third strength, his speed to reach balls.  Murray often stands many feet behind the baseline, and uses a mix of slices, slow topspin, hard topspin, and drop shots, to upset the normally steady rhythm players see from everyone else.

This approach to the game requires a kind of maturity that is seldom seen.  Think about it.  Would you prefer to hit like Fernando Verdasco, blasting balls anywhere on the court, but making tons of errors, or would you prefer to play like Lleyton Hewitt, scrambling around the court, making shot after shot, but never quite having that knockout punch?  Young promising male juniors are often guilty of loving topspin and power above all.  To play a style of game where you try to disrupt someone’s playing rhythm and goad them into errors?  That’s way too brainy an approach, and seemingly not very fun.

The contrast between Andy Murray and Roger Federer is much like that of Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl.  Lendl was about trying to blast a player off the court.  Over time, he did give his game nuance, relying far more on the slice backhand to diffuse players like McEnroe, and learning how to serve and volley.  Wilander was not the hardest hitter in the game, but he was smart.  Folks routinely said that Wilander’s biggest weapon was his brain.

Both Murray and Federer are far more skilled than Wilander and Lendl.  Lendl, for all his preparation, never looked elegant and graceful, something Federer gets complimented on all the time.  Wilander never had the kind of touch Murray has, nor his footspeed and anticipation.

Murray has not only embraced some of the training that had made Federer successful, but even his mental outlook.  Although he sounds like a broken record, Andy Murray has come out saying he can beat Roger Federer.  Of course, what else should he say?  In that approach, Murray resembles Federer more, and Nadal less.  Nadal, for example, was perfectly happy saying that he didn’t care about number 1, and didn’t even much care about winning the Australian Open.  Were he American, he might be lambasted for not being competitive enough, for not saying the right tough words.

So that leads up to this match.  Already, Roger Federer is starting on the mental warfare.  In an interview after his pummeling of Tsonga, Federer said that Murray had pressure to win the first set, to win his first Slam, to win for the British empire.  Federer, well, he’s had a bunch of Slam titles.  He doesn’t want to lose, but there’s little pressure for him to win another Slam, and therefore, he posits, he can play more carefree.

Federer’s more likely to play such mind games against his opponents, and it may say something about his respect for Murray’s game that he feels the need to do this.  He’s careful to give praise here and there.  Seemingly beneath his cheery demeanor, there’s a resentment that Murray gets all this positive press and has yet to win a Slam.  In his mind, someone like Roddick should get more props for his one Slam and for continuing to fight it out.

Murray, for his part, has not joined in this verbal joust.  It makes sense for him not to get involved.  Federer is right, after all.  He’s the one with the lengthy resume, not Andy Murray.

Much like the Nadal match, this match’s outcome seems very much determined by the tactics Andy Murray will use.  Given his major rivals are likely to be Nadal and Federer for a while, Murray and his braintrust have likely spent a good deal of time working out a way to play Federer.  Historically, Murray has used his variety to upset Federer’s rhythm.  Lately, Federer has taken to attacking Murray more especially on second serves which is still a Murray weakness.  Murray has beefed up his first serve the last two years, but he lacks the same kind of consistency that Federer has.

If someone is likely to play in a surprising way, it’s more like Andy Murray than Roger Federer, though it’s not clear what that strategy would be.  For all of Nadal’s considerable skills, he plays in a defensive manner, perhaps the most offensive defensive player there is.  Nadal has a great deal of patience, and often chooses to hit another ball rather than jump at a chance to go for a winner.  This gives Murray opportunities to play more aggressively knowing Nadal isn’t likely to get into a bashfest with Murray.

Federer, on the other hand, is a more aggressive player.  He relies more on his serve to set up his game.  He wants to open up either an inside out forehand or an inside in forehand.  Lately, he’s tossed in the occasional drop shot to change things up.  Like many other top players, including Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic, even Nikolay Davydenko, Federer wants to approach the net more often.  Andy Murray is also trying to do this more.  One surprising strategy Murray took against Rafa was serving and volleying.  He almost always did this on wide serves to the Nadal backhand in the deuce court, knowing Nadal would slice the return back.

Federer will also use his trusty slice.  The slice backhand was the one wrinkle that Federer used to dominate the game a few years ago.  He would hit shorter slices that would draw his opponents into the court, then hit hard, as they were backpedalling to the baseline, hoping to elicit a weak shot which he could pounce on.  Now that he’s used this strategy for a while, players are mostly wise to it, and have come up with ways of handling it.

Ultimately, the match will probably come down to how well each player serves and returns.  These two strokes start off the point.  With a good start, one player or the other can dictate rallies.  Mental toughness will also play a big role.  One player may take quick advantage.  The other has to weather the storm and continue to play well despite either not hitting well or despite the opponent hitting well.

The final is, in my mind, more intriguing than if, say, Nadal had reached.  If Nadal had made the finals somehow, Federer would likely be favored.  Of course, it depends on how Nadal reached the finals, but given how he’d played this tournament, he’d probably have had some tough matches and not looked that good.  Meanwhile, at the very least, Murray seems in really good shape, having prepared as well as he can, and so other than the odd tweak on his back, he seems as ready to win this tournament as he ever has.

He just has to get past Roger Federer.  And Roger has other plans.

Hope this is a great match!

Day 12: Australian Open (Federer vs Tsonga)

Perhaps the one stat that mattered most in the semifinals is, at one point in the game, Federer had lost only 12 points in 12 service games, losing only 1 point a game.  What’s important to note is Federer lost 4 of these points at a 3-1 hold in the first set when the score went to deuce twice, which means other games were mostly held at love.

This is the kind of ruthlessly efficient service games that is particularly Federer.  He’s not an ace machine.  He just gets in a total rhythm, where his attack and accuracy are in full flow.  On such occasions, Federer just hits.  His timing is not being disrupted by del Potro blasts or by Davydenko lasers.

Tsonga, for his part, didn’t start off that well.  He was hitting pedestrian strokes often several meters behind the baseline.  With Federer hugging the baseline and moving well, it wasn’t long before Federer was hitting drop shots, blasting Tsonga loopers, hitting behind him.  With an early break, Federer relaxed and Tsonga was beginning to wonder what he needed to beat Federer.  At 5-2 down, Tsonga quickly fell in a 0-40 hole, and in a lengthy rally, Tsonga pushed his backhand wide to give Federer the set in 30 minutes.

When you beat an opponent 6-2, 6-3, 6-2, and it’s the semifinal of a Slam, you’re hitting sublime.  This typically happens to Federer about twice a Slam, once early on, where it’s expected to happen, and once late.  In this tournament, he was extremely efficient against his long-time rival, Lleyton Hewitt.  Then, he struggled against Davydenko, perhaps the hottest player coming into the Australian Open, whose precise power had beaten Federer twice before.  Federer weathered that storm, and went on a 13 game tear which was less about Federer having Davydenko on a rope and more about Davydenko melting down for nearly two sets. Tsonga never came close to putting Federer in that kind of pressure.

How did Federer do it?  Part of it was Tsonga.  Tsonga didn’t come out hitting his shots.  He was trying to establish some rallies, but Federer came out swinging his tennis racket nicely.  In particular, Federer began attacking Tsonga’s backhand and playing shots behind him.  It didn’t hurt that Federer was moving well and Tsonga’s attempts to play aggressive shots were often met with Federer reaching the ball comfortably, and Tsonga trying to extend the rally often invited a powerful shot by Federer to end the point.

Tsonga lacks the kind of backhand that can create havoc on Federer’s backhand.  He can’t hit a hard, high topspin backhand to Federer, the one weakness that only a handful of players seem able to exploit.  As hard as Tsonga hits, he’s not del Potro, nor is he Gael Monfils.  Tsonga’s best opportunities often come when he gets to net and his Gallic flair comes to play, but he didn’t do enough of that effectively enough.

One reason Tsonga may not have been particularly fresh is the amount of time spent on court in his previous matches.  Although Tsonga’s route to the final was nothing like Cilic’s marathon route, he had come off of two consecutive five setters, one against Nicolas Almagro and one more against Novak Djokovic, to reach the semifinal.

This seemed to affect Tsonga’s serve, which is key, because his serve seemed to get weaker as time went along.  Being unable to power the serve, a key Tsonga strength, was a liability.  In the end, even had Tsonga served well, tt probably wouldn’t have mattered with Federer’s ruthless efficiency.

Federer’s post-match interview revealed a couple of nuggets creating more interest than the match itself.  Federer was asked if he noticed Tsonga touching his stomach as if his abdominals and Fed said he hadn’t noticed it at all.  He said, in previous meetings, Tsonga has done that sometimes, where he serves big for a while, then serves slow for a while, so he thought it was merely a tactical change.  He felt he played well against Tsonga, but nothing exceptional (despite 33 winners to 13 unforced errors).  This sounds like such off-handed swagger, that commentators assumed he was trying to be non-chalant about how awesome he played, as if it were a mere trifle, no big deal.

He said the first set was the key to the Tsonga match.  Tsonga had wanted to get a good start, and when he lost the first set, his desire dropped.  At this point, Roger was already in rhythm and it was only a matter of time before he crossed the finish line.

When the questioning turned to Murray, Roger was asked whether Murray will play him more offensive, like he did against Nadal.  Federer said he didn’t think Murray would play him that way.  Historically, Murray has played Roger more defensively waiting for Roger to make errors.  He figures Murray will try to play about medium against him, being just offensive enough, but not going on an all-out attack.

When asked whether the one day of rest he’ll get vs. the two days Murray will get, Roger said it didn’t matter.  He’s not injured, so he doesn’t need an extra day to heal.  The one day of rest is typical for the French and Wimbledon, and there’s a 50% chance to have one day of rest for the Australian, and there’s no rest at the US Open.  Federer has played so many finals and won so many of them, that he’s adjusted to pretty much every situation.  Roger always feels he gets better as time goes along and has great faith in his fitness and his ball-striking and his ability to adjust to whatever conditions he faces.

Federer thought it was more important to Murray to win the first set.  He feels if he can get the first set, it will bother Murray more, but it won’t matter whether he wins the first set or not.  Showing that he pays attention to matches, Federer did note that Cilic beat Murray in the first set of their semifinal encounter and came back in four sets.

I’ll preview the final in an upcoming post, but it has reached the final many expected (though some were hoping for Nadal-Federer).

Day 11: Australian Open (Murray vs Cilic)

There was every reason to believe that Andy Murray would win this match easily.  He had yet to drop a set.  He was hitting well.  This was Marin Cilic’s first Slam semi. More than that, Cilic has logged a lot of hours on court.  He played a five setter against Aussie teen, Bernard Tomic, who the Aussies are hoping will be their version of Andy Murray.  Then, he took about Juan Martin del Potro in five sets.  Then, in a position to beat Roddick in straight sets, that match also stretched out to five sets.  Despite being young and resilient, a body can only take so much effort.

If Cilic were going to make an impression, it was going to be early on.  Although Murray was favored to win, he still has to play a match.  There’s still pressure to win the match.  And, a little like Federer starting off a bit tight against Davydenko, Murray was a bit surprised that Cilic was hitting the tennis balls so well.  Shot meant to draw Cilic off the court often came back just as powerfully.

One key difference between Cilic and Nadal is the hand they use to hit the ball.  Those sharp angled shots that were aimed at the Nadal backhand and often elicit a neutral reply was met with a crisper reply when it went into Cilic’s forehand.  Cilic can either power that shot crosscourt the other direction or direct it up the line.  A mature player learns to play himself in a match, cut down the errors, and wait for the opponent to wilt some.

Cilic played a tough first set with Murray struggling to hold serve 6-3.  One question on many people’s minds is how Murray would play Cilic.  Would he try to play him like Nadal and take the game to him?

Cilic’s coach, Bob Brett, thought he would not.  The strategy Murray employed was tailor made to play Nadal and Brett figured, it would not be a strategy that he would employ against Cilic.  Turns out he was right, partly because the same strategy would have been less effective against Cilic. Murray dialed back the aggression.  Even the net forays that worked well for Murray were less effective (at least at the outset) against Cilic, who was passing well.

After Cilic had won the first set, Murray needed to straighten out his game or he’d find himself like he did at the US Open.  Sometimes the turnaround culminates in one great point that redefines the momentum.  In the second set, Murray played a circus shot when he was forced to net by Cilic, then forced back by a Cilic lob volley.  With Murray running back, he appeared ready to throw a lob up, but hit a pass instead, to secure an early break.

After that Murray was able to relax and hit his shots.  His goal was to play aggressive, but to also extend the rallies and start working Cilic, making him tired, so he would elicit more errors.  With newfound confidence, and Cilic’s play starting to look a bit less spectacular, Murray took the second set, 6-4.

In the third set, Murray had an early break, but Cilic broke back.  Murray again broke, and was able to hold onto this break to win the third set, 6-4.  By this point, Cilic was starting to make more errors, his shots were less effective, and his serve percentage was also dropping, all signs of fatigue.  Meanwhile, Murray was still moving around quite well.

In the fourth set, in a game where Cilic looked like he would hold easily (40-15), Murray fought back to break in that game.  In the following service game, Cilic also looked like he was in control, and again Murray fought back to take a second break.  In one late point, Cilic hit a spin serve out wide in the deuce court.  Murray dove out, hit a shot that didn’t clear the height of the net, but went around the netpost (a legal shot) and landed in for the winner.  Murray also had another shot where Cilic came to net, hit a sharp volley to Murray’s backhand, and Murray controlled it with a slice down the line.

In the end, Murray served out the set at 6-2, overcame early problems, and finally reached his second Slam final.  He anticipates Roger Federer will win, but of course, said Tsonga is quite good, but like Cilic, had had a lot of matches underneath his belt.

With this, Andy Murray has answered all but the last question.  Can he win a Slam?  He’s reached the final, beat the players he needed to beat.  And now, is there one more good match in him?  Will it be Federer that he faces?  Can he prevent title number 16?

Find out on Sunday!

Day 10: Reflection

We’re now down to four players.  One semifinals will be played on Day 11 (Murray vs. Cilic) and one on Day 12 (Federer vs. Tsonga).  Let’s quickly see how everyone is doing.

Andy Murray has yet to drop a set and had his most convincing win yet over Rafael Nadal.  Tactically, he played smart and aggressive, but more importantly, he played the big points well and didn’t let breaks of serve bother him.  He has a 3-1 head-to-head record over Cilic including a win on clay.  Cilic did beat Murray in their last encounter, at the US Open, a straight-set drubbing that left folks questioning whether Murray would ever win a Slam.

Marin Cilic has been slowly working his way up the ranks.  If Murray is considered one of the smartest players out there, with his laptop full of player data that he uses to plan how he plays future opponents, then perhaps Marin Cilic is up there too.  It’s been said that older Croats pick Cilic’s brain for his insights into other players.

There are a few strikes against Cilic.  This will be his first Grand Slam semifinal.  He’s already played three 5-setters and some 4-setters and has logged many more hours than Murray.  Cilic had been the ace leader of the remaining players, but Tsonga now has a 10 ace lead over Cilic.  However, Cilic’s first serve percentage is generally a bit on the low side.  Cilic generally serves just under 60% first serves and was below 50% against Bernard Tomic.  Against Murray, perhaps the best returner in the game, this may prove problematic.  Cilic also showed some mental toughness issues against del Potro failing to close out the match sooner than he did.  Indeed, Roddick was able to take two additional sets in a match that Cilic perhaps could have closed out sooner.

If both players are playing based on form, then Andy Murray should win this match.  He’s had a long time to reflect what happened to him at the US Open, and can at least partly attribute it to an injured wrist.  Murray’s main concern is to not come out too flat.  He’ll want a fast start.

Cilic, for his part, will have to hope that youth is served, that he can work his way through this match.  Andy Roddick, often not given enough credit for his insights, said that one factor that will help Cilic is his playing style.  Unlike Nadal, Cilic doesn’t get pulled off the court too much, and therefore has less wear and tear.  Even so, he said a five setter is a five setter, and it has to affect his play somehow.

OK, let’s get to the other semifinal.  Roger Federer is one confident guy.  In a post-match interview, he said that he was having a hard time seeing the ball when the court was half covered in shade.  But, he thought, even had he lost the second set, he felt he would have worked his way into the match, and his mental toughness and fitness would have won out over Davydenko.  Who knows if this is Roger just playing spin doctor, trying to get into the heads of his opponents or whether he truly believes this.  It’s probably a bit of both.

Roger Federer was taking a beating from Nikolay Davydenko.  Federer had no easy service games for a set and a half facing break points on pretty much every serve.  His slice shots weren’t having the desired effect as Davydenko would hit them aggressively.  Davydenko also served quite well.  But then, the wheels fell off.  Davydenko began having troubles getting first serves in, and that’s key for him to beat Roger.  Meanwhile, he was also having a hard time reading Roger’s serve, so Roger began holding serve more easily.  Once the courts slowed down a bit and Roger could see the ball, he began building up consistency.  It says a lot about Davydenko in this total meltdown that he still could have pulled out a fourth set and turned it into a winner take all fifth set.

Roger simply weathered the storm confident his game would go up and Davydenko’s game would go down, and he didn’t panic.  He took a short bathroom break after the first set, perhaps to buy a few more minutes to let the sun set.

How about Tsonga?  It’s difficult to say what to expect from Tsonga.  On the one hand, he did play Djokovic tough for two sets, but then he lost an easy third set.  Do the last two sets even matter?  Did Tsonga elevate his game or did Djokovic disappear?  If he disappeared, then we get no sense of how Tsonga will play.

Federer has to be strongly favored to win this match.  Although the two have only met twice, and have a 1-1 head-to-head, Federer was quite close to winning the third set in a rout.  In a best of 5 situation, one has to think Federer will find ways to win.  One advantage Federer ought to have is his serve.  Tsonga has a huge serve of his own, but he doesn’t return all that well.  At Wimbledon, he was left guessing which way Karlovic’s serve was going.  Fed doesn’t have that big a racket serve, but he’s going to want to dictate with his serve.

So far, the tournament has had three upsets of note: Tsonga over Djokovic, Cilic over del Potro, and Murray over Nadal.

We’re down to the last four, and after Day 11, we’ll have one finalist determined.