The Landscape of Tennis in 2010

When 2009 wrapped up, those with crystal balls were predicting a much different 2010.  For one, Juan Martin del Potro had just won the US Open.  There was some thought that he could challenge for the Australian Open title and possibly defend his US Open title.

And Nikolay Davydenko had just wrapped up an amazing week beating Nadal, Federer, and del Potro in the same tournament.  Davydenko was also one of those names that experts thought might challenge for the Australian Open title.

Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic also had very successful 2009 years.  Although neither player reached the finals of a Slam, they won many matches and many tournaments, and some felt they might be able to crack the Nadal-Federer stranghold on the majors.

None of it happened that way.  Nikolay Davydenko gave Federer all he could handle, but eventually went down and then got injured at Indian Wells.  He returned just before Wimbledon, but never quite got to the lofty play that marked a successful end of 2009.  Juan Martin del Potro only played the Australian Open, then two tournaments after the US Open, before focusing his efforts of 2011.

Both Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic had ho-hum years, but both reached the finals of a Slam with Murray at the Australian Open and Djokovic at the US Open.  Murray eventually won two Masters 1000 titles.  Djokovic won two ATP 500 titles (Beijing and Dubai).

With Federer and Nadal meeting for only the second time in 2010 (and the fourth time since last year), everyone is now ready to proclaim them as kings of tennis.  For now, that seems reasonable, but look back a year ago, and you’ll see that what seems reasonable months before tennis resumes (well, 6 weeks) may change dramatically.

Everyone assumes Juan Martin del Potro will come back strong as ever.  Where they get this conclusion is rather baffling.  Few think it may take him over a year to even begin playing at his former level.  As evidence of this, Davydenko took about 3 months off, and hasn’t played the same yet, nearly 6 months after returning to tour.  To be fair, Davydenko signed a new deal with Dunlop and may be trying to get used to a new racquet.

And Davydenko, is he going to make another push?  He’s about Federer’s age.  But then, so is Mardy Fish, and he had a good few months.

And is it possible that some player comes out of nowhere to make a big impression?  In 2007, it was Djokovic.  In 2008, it was Tsonga and del Potro.  In 2009, it was Soderling.  Will some player make a push in 2011?

And is Andy Murray ready to make that push that people have been waiting years for?  Or Djokovic?

It’s so much easier to say that tennis will be the way tennis has been for the last few years: Federer and Nadal.  Nadal and Federer.  It may very well be.

But it may not.

ATP World Tour Finals: Federer captures fifth year-end title over rival Nadal

When Pete Sampras captured his 14th and final Slam at the 2002 US Open, many figured it would be years, if not decades, before someone came along to break this record.  After all, Roy Emerson won his 13th Slam in 1967, which was some 30 plus years earlier.  It’s even hard to compare Emerson to Sampras.  Emerson basically stayed an amateur until Open tennis arrived.  Arguably, Rod Laver (or anyone during the amateur era) would have won more than Roy Emerson if they had stayed amateur for more than a decade.  Frankly, Laver needed the money, and couldn’t afford to stay amateur for year on end.

And yet Roger Federer began his assault on Sampras’s record in 2003, the year after Sampras won the US Open.

Roger’s heyday was between about 2004 and 2007.  In 3 of the 4 years, he won 3 Slams, still the only man to have accomplished that feat (and he nearly did it again in 2009–had he won the US Open, it would have been the fourth time he had done it).

In 2008, Roger had mono, and this disrupted Roger’s ascendancy.  Sure, he reached the semis of the Australian Open, and the finals of the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open (winning the US Open), but he was starting to mishit balls, lose to players he had never lost to before, and it seemed Rafael Nadal, after his epic Wimbledon win, was ready to take over.   Who had expected that an assault on Roger Federer’s career records might occur while Roger Federer was still playing!

2009 was considered a better year for Roger Federer.  He finally captured the elusive French Open, courtesy of Robin Soderling, then won Wimbledon again, and nearly won the US Open.  Still, as far as that year went, he won only Madrid and Cincinnati outside of the Slams.  Of course, Roger Federer would tell you that any year he wins a Slam is a good year.

2010 started promising enough.  Roger Federer won the Australian Open.  His backhand was looking better than ever, and he used it to great effect to beat Andy Murray.  But then he had some fever or some-such and had to skip Dubai (his home away from home).  He returned at Indian Wells, but lost to Marcos Baghdatis (with two match points) and then in Miami to Tomas Berdych (had a match point there), and it seemed all the problems in his game had resurfaced and all the great play at the Australian Open went away.

Roger skipped Monte Carlo, then played Rome and lost early to Ernests Gulbis (Gulbis had about a month and a half where he played really good tennis, and Rome was part of that).  He played Estoril, normally a gimmer, and lost to Albert Montanes (blamed it on the heavy wet clay).  His play was erratic.  He was missing shots after 3-4 balls.  It was like Roger of a year earlier, and none of this problems fixed.

He promised everything would be better in Madrid where the high altitudes usually mean faster conditions.  Roger steadied out his game (mostly tried to play longer rallies) and got to the finals only to have his rival, Rafael Nadal reclaim the title that Roger had taken only the year before.

Then, he hit the “low period” of his career (for any other player, it would be a career best).  Roger lost in the quarterfinals of the French to Robin Soderling (still his only loss in official play to the Swede) and lost in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon to Tomas Berdych (who had once given him fits at the Aussie Open).  Roger tamely blamed injury for his poor play and promptly took a few weeks off.

Once he came back, Roger looked pretty good.  He reached the finals of Toronto and lost to Andy Murray, then won the finals in Cincinnati over Mardy Fish.  Roger reached the semis of a Slam once more, but despite match points, he lost to Novak Djokovic in another disappointment at the US Open.  Although Nadal may have won that final (his serve was in rare form this year) even with Roger there, we were never treated to that outcome.

Roger took more time off, and then came back in Shanghai where he beat Djokovic in the semis but lost to Murray in the finals.  He won in Stockholm to tie Pete Sampras’s career titles and then won in Basel, his hometown tournament (over Djokovic, once again) to break Sampras’s record (Sampras was 4th in all time career titles behind McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors).

Roger lost to Gael Monfils for the first time and after holding 5 match points (all break points in the same game).

But overall, ever since the break from the US Open, Roger looked like he was hitting the ball better than he has in recent memory, comparable to the way he played in the Australian Open.  In particular, Roger’s backhand seemed to have more zip.  He was hitting deeper balls, plus learning to put away high balls to his backhand (one that Nadal feasted on for years).

Roger cruised through the round-robin portion, not dropping a set, including to former world number 3, Andy Murray.  He faced Novak Djokovic once again in the semis and once again, beat him rather handily.  Novak’s mind may have already drifted to a Belgrade showdown with the French, but the fact was that Roger was hitting the ball well.

If Roger was ever going to have a good chance to beat Nadal, this was it.  Nadal had skipped the Paris event, partly, he claimed, due to an injury (and perhaps partly because Paris was the fastest hardcourt on tour).  Usually this means Nadal is preparing to win a title.  Of all the goals he’s had, the one that has eluded him the longest is the year-end championship.

Indeed, this was his fourth appearance ever.  Twice, he qualified, but due to injury, was unable to participate.  This year was his first time in the finals.

Nadal started off rusty, losing a set to Roddick, but swept Group A with 3 wins, then played a thriller of a match against Andy Murray to win in a tiebreak.  Murray was playing aggressive tennis, but it’s not a style he’s used to.  He has only recently upped his aggression level, and even then, he doesn’t trot it out every match.  Meanwhile, a player like Roger Federer always plays aggressive, even if it means losing when he has too many errors.

Roger started off serving very well, and returning rather poorly.  This might have been a strategy.  Go for a few big returns so Nadal doesn’t get into a rhythm.  Then, at 4-3, Federer took his chances and began playing aggressively.  He had one break point, and secured it, then held for 6-3.

In the second set, Nadal upped his aggression level and got a break on a poor Federer service game and used that break to win the second set, 6-3, and one wondered, for all of Roger’s good hitting, was Nadal going to do it to him again.  However, Roger escaped one close game and then played aggressive to secure one break, then played aggressive to secure one more break.  When he was ready to serve out the match, he hit a crosscourt so deep that it was called out.  Roger was going to question it, but Nadal, sensing he was not going to escape, conceded the call, and Roger won his fifth year-end championship, 6-1 in the third.

This victory is important in many ways.  Obviously, beating Nadal when Nadal has a huge lead record-wise is huge, but even more important is his unbeaten record winning the title.  Because he swept the round-robin (each match win worth 200 points), his total points was 1500 which is 3/4 of a Slam.  If he’s going to break Pete Sampras’s record for weeks at number 1 (he’s 2 weeks short of this title, and would have broken it had he won his match against Soderling, or frankly, had he won the US Open in 2009), he needs to make up the difference between him and Rafa.

If Rafa wins the French as he’s generally expected to do, Roger will need all the points he can get to reach number 1 once again.  He has to do this with the threat of Davydenko playing better, with del Potro expected to return to tour (but a year of no play may require a year to get back in good shape) and with Murray starting to get better, and who knows, there might be someone waiting in the wings to make the leap up the rankings.

All in all, Roger was playing his best tennis and did it on a surface that best suits his game.  He’s starting to use the net a bit better and declined to hit drop shots against Rafa.

Now we have a little over a month of rest before it starts all over again.  In 2012, they will move the year-end championship up 2 weeks to provide more rest.  In 2011, Madrid will become the middle tournament and Rome will move to the last of the 3 tournaments.  Players complained that the conditions in Madrid, up in altitude, was disruptive in their preparation to play at Roland Garro

Congrats to Roger Federer and his win and to Rafael Nadal and his great year!

ATP World Tour Finals (Semis): Federer cruises to easy win over Djokovic

The last two years, Roger Federer didn’t have a spectacular post US Open.  One year, he didn’t make the semis, and this past year, Davydenko upset him in the semifinals.

Roger Federer, however, knows better than anyone, the value of the ATP World Tour Finals.  Even if a sizable tennis audience ignores tennis after the US Open (consider the illustrious New York Times which doesn’t even bother to cover these finals despite a part-time staff of 5–surely one of them could devote a week to watching 2 matches a day), this year-end event is worth 3/4 of a Slam.  Match for match, it’s the most point-laden tournament.

This was the first year Roger Federer failed to make the semis at a Slam since, well, a long time ago.  He lost in the quarters of the French Open to Robin Soderling (so far his only loss to Soderling) and to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon (his second loss to him this year).  He reached the semis of the US Open and had match points, but eventually lost to Novak Djokovic.

Since returning back to play from the US Open, Federer has been striking the ball well.  He won Stockholm, a tournament he hadn’t played in a decade, to tie Pete Sampras’s number of title wins, then he won Basel (over Djokovic) to break the record, surely an intentional goal for a man as well-prepared as Roger Federer.

When Roger Federer is playing free-flowing tennis, and it doesn’t happen nearly as much as it used to, he can appear effortlessly dominating.  He had Djokovic struggling to get balls.  Djokovic wasn’t even playing all that bad, but Federer has a way of making Djokovic look ordinary.  The second set was a bit of a tighter affair with Djokovic getting an early break.  However, Federer won that break back, then broke again, and finally held for the match.

Djokovic can now head back to Serbia where he and Troicki and Zimonjic will try to beat the slightly favored French team, most likely Gael Monfils, Michael Llodra, and Arnaud Clement playing doubles.  The French team will hope for one upset on Djokovic while the Serbian team will hope for a Djokovic sweep and Troicki upsetting one of the two Frenchman.  Otherwise, they will need a miracle in doubles where the French are likely to be strongly favored.

That leaves the year-end championships with a rare final: Federer vs. Nadal.

It used to be, when Federer won a fistful of tournaments, he would encounter Nadal all the time, especially on clay.  Nadal built up a gaudy record against Federer on clay, but Federer could never quite even it up because Nadal wasn’t (in the early days) good enough on hard courts to reach the finals and challenge Federer.

In the last two years, the two have met only twice, and both in the same tournament.  In 2009, Federer finally beat Nadal on clay at Madrid, in altitude.  The two met again in 2010, again in the finals of Madrid, but did not face each other again.

This will only be their third meeting since 2009.

On the downside for Nadal is his very long match against Murray.  However, Nadal is usually in pretty good shape.  Nadal played a marathon match in the semis of Madrid in 2009 (even longer than the match against Murray).  Yet, he still came very close to forcing a third set against Federer.  And who can forget the 2009 Australian Open final when Federer played Nadal, two days after a marathon match against Verdasco.  Federer even pushed Nadal to 5 sets (though he played an awful fifth set).

This time, Federer is playing about as good as he can and Nadal is perhaps a little short of playing super well.  Even so, Nadal is so aggressive and has so much confidence playing Federer that he won’t be nervous playing Federer.  I think Federer feels his game has improved a fair bit, especially his versatility off the ground and his backhand.  I lean slightly to Federer to win this.

ATP World Tour Finals (Semis): Nadal Edges Out Murray in Thriller to reach Finals

When the world’s best play one another, you hope, nay, you expect to see great matches.

The ATP World Tour Finals gather the best 8 players in the world where the winner must play up to 5 different top 8 players to win.

There were opportunities for greatness to happen.  Roger Federer played Andy Murray in the second of three round-robin matches.  That turned out to be a dud as Murray struggled with form throughout, and served abysmally low first serves and made errors galore.  It was fortunate that Murray’s form improved significantly against weaker competition, i.e., David Ferrer, which allowed him to get to the semis.

For a while, Djokovic-Nadal looked to be the match of the tournament.  Djokovic was striking the ball well.  Nadal looked a bit rusty in his victory over Andy Roddick.  And for a while, this was indeed close until Djokovic ran into another bit of weirdness in his history of health issues.  This time, something irritated his contact lens, and he was not quite the same after that, yielding the last few games of the first set and the rest of the second set easily.

Even Djokovic-Roddick had some intrigue.  Roddick had recently done better against Djokovic, though, to be fair, he hadn’t played Djokovic at his best, and some of these victories came amidst heat, which Djokovic is know for being less than stalwart against.  But it didn’t turn out that way.  Djokovic steamrolled to the first set.  Roddick probably knew that if he didn’t win in straight sets, he was out of the tournament, and so his enthusiasm dipped as well, and he nary put up a real fight the rest of the way.

It was hoped, with 4 of the top 5 players (Murray was ranked 5 due to a last minute surge by Robin Soderling in Paris that moved him ahead of Murray in the rankings), the semifinal day would provide some sizzle.

And indeed, it did.

If you’ve been hiding under a rock for a year or so, you may not have noticed Rafa’s recent rededication to playing more aggressive tennis.  The first signs of this came during Doha, when Rafa made the finals, took a 6-0 first set over then, very hot Nikolay Davydenko, only to find the resourceful Russian keep even in the second set, then fend off match points to take the second set.  Rafa would get an early break in the third set, but the Russian fought hard, and not only got back one break, but a second.  Rafa must have been devasted.

Rafa had to retire against Andy Murray in the Aussie Open and took some time off.  By the time he reached Indian Wells, a surprising Ivan Ljubicic came back to win his semi in 3 sets, then Roddick achieved the same feat in Miami.  Rafa would need the friendly confines of European clay to reinvigorate a man who had been questioning his own ability to close out matches.

Rafa’s newfound aggression is meant to preserve his body.  Too often, Rafa would play spinny shots up the middle and let his opponents make mistake as he chased down ball after ball.  Being maybe the quickest guy on tour, Rafa can afford a lack of aggression.  This doesn’t mean Rafa is never aggressive, but he often has to be backed into a corner before he tries taking a big shot.

Over the years, Rafa’s opponents have had to employ “The Rafa Strategy”.  The player that most notably does this is Andy Murray.  More known for a passive style of play, Murray knows he has to up the level of aggression if he wants to keep up with Rafa.  Rafa can take the most neutral of balls and punish it to either sideline.  His ability to pick either sideline means a player can struggle mightily just to reach the ball (the women don’t have this problem–a Rafa-like shot in the women’s game would be a winner–no woman is fast enough to chase down the hardest hit shots).

Witness Rafa’s match against Roddick.  Time and again, Roddick would barely get to a ball and try to do something to keep him in the point.  However, in such dire straits, Roddick was unable to go for big shots, and would often loop the ball to buy time.  Today’s best players, alas, can eat a high moonball for lunch and go for winners.  This includes Rafa, by the way.

Nadal opened the match by playing aggressive ball, trying to push Murray around.  This was mostly successful, at least on his own serve.  Murray had to rely on some big serving.  As usual, his first serve percentage was dismal, but he hit over 20 aces throughout the match.

Down a set, it seemed like Murray might go away, but he managed to stay in the set, and then suddenly achieve a break, and then another break.  Rafa seemed surprised at Murray’s aggression.   Although people are loathe to say it, you can rattle Rafa.  Sometimes, when he feels like he’s being attacked, he’ll go into a shell.  Instead of attacking the ball, he starts spinning it safely up the middle.  Murray was making Rafa run, and although both men are in great shape, it may be the slightest glimmer of fatigue was making Rafa nervous.

Although Murray concluded the second set with a second break, he wasn’t able to make the best of his opportunity in the second set.  Indeed, on a crucial point, he decided to play a drop shot, despite Nadal having had good luck chasing it down.  Nadal chased it down, whipped an angle shot, barely out of the reach of Murray’s outstretched arms.

And suddenly Murray was down a break.  And he would stay down a break despite having chances to come back until the very last game when, needing to break Nadal or go home, Murray returned a short ball at break point.  Rafa hit the shot crosscourt to Murray’s backhand, and Murray threaded the needle to get the break back.  5-all.

The two would head into a tiebreak where Murray would take a 2-0 lead then a 4-1 leads.

But here’s the dilemma.  Rafa was, by this point, playing rather conservative ball.  Do you decide to go for big shots and possibly make an error (Murray had nearly 50 errors in this match) or do you try to goad Nadal, the steadiest player in the game, into an error.  Murray knew that aggressive play got him in the game, and so aggressive play was what he needed, but with Rafa afraid to pull the trigger, Murray felt he could trade a few shots while looking for that opening.

In a way, Rafa played a little possum.  He knew Murray would want to jump at opportunities and possibly make errors, but if Rafa could go for his shots at the right time, Murray might not be ready to deal with a hard hit surprise shot.

In the end, Rafa took some chances, played a few big points, and Murray, in the best match of the week, came oh-so-close, but in second place once again.

Final score: 7-6(5), 3-6, 7-6(6).

Now to see if Djokovic can put up a fight and make the second match just as interesting.

ATP World Tour Finals (Day 6): Nadal and Djokovic make the semis

Last year, Rafael Nadal had a “beautiful disaster” losing all three of his round robin matches with nary a set.  This year, he was able to turn it around.  He came into today’s match with a 2-0 lead and playing Tomas Berdych, the man who he beat to win this year’s Wimbledon.

Berdych’s style seems inherently fraught with errors and possibilities.  He plays so smooth, and yet so flat.  Time and again, he’d try a big shot up-the-line, and hit the net.  Berdych simply lacks the shot tolerance to bother Nadal and doesn’t have huge enough shots, in general, to hit winners soon enough to offset that.

Indeed, it was a bit lucky that Berdych managed to stay even with Nadal in the first set.  At the end of the first set, Nadal decided to challenge a deep ball by Berdych.  Umpire Carlos Bernardes agreed it was long just after the challenge so Berdych, upset at how late the call was, challenged and the ball was in by a hair.  He then told Nadal that it was Berdych’s point since Nadal had challenged and stopped the point.  Nadal flew into a rage and yelled at Bernardes for minutes on end.  Had Bernardes done nothing, Nadal would have no point.  He stopped the point, it was in, end of story.

It wasn’t so clear what it meant for Bernardes to agree with Nadal and force Berdych to make the challenge.  Although Nadal was technically there, he did also stop the point.  It made no sense for Bernardes to overrule since Nadal was challenging anyway.

In any case, Nadal won that game, and eventually took and lead in the tiebreak and won that.

This seemed to faze Berdych, as Nadal began to control the points better and Berdych was unable to raise the level of his game anymore.

Final score: Nadal wins 7-6(3), 6-1.

With Nadal’s 3-0 sweep of Group A, Roddick had a chance to win, even at 0-2.  Berdych’s record was 1-2.  If Roddick won in straight sets over Djokovic, then both Roddick and Djokovic would be 1-2.  Then, that one set that Roddick won in his loss to Nadal would play a role in getting him to the semifinals.  There was even some hope, especially with a good head-to-head over Djokovic and a looming Davis Cup that Djokovic desperately wants to win, that Roddick had a good shot.

To be fair, Djokovic plays up and down in a year.  Some of the times, he is hitting the ball very well and he looks like a top 3 player.  Occasionally, his game goes awry because of the heat or allergies or some other reason, and he looks a bit more ordinary.  Roddick had beaten Djokovic when the weather was hot or when he’d met Djokovic at a down time.

Everyone felt Djokovic was striking the ball well, contact lens issues not withstanding, and that Roddick would probably lose to Djokovic, or at least surrender a set which would eliminate Roddick regardless of a win or loss.

It turns out Djokovic had a pretty easy time beating Roddick 6-2, 6-3.

This puts Djokovic in a match against Federer in the evening and Murray in the early match against Nadal in a replay of the Toronto semifinals.

At this point, Federer and Nadal should be considered the favorites, but Djokovic and Murray are playing pretty good, so we’ll see how it turns out.

ATP World Tour Finals (Day 5): Murray wins and he’s in!

With Federer’s sweep of Group B beating Robin Soderling in straight sets, Roger Federer made Andy Murray’s life much easier.  A victory by Andy Murray would guarantee a semifinal berth.

Murray didn’t even need to win.  Since both Soderling and Ferrer lost their two matches in straight sets, he would finish ahead of both by winning a set off of Ferrer.

Ferrer’s a tough scrappy opponent, but he lacks a big serve and he doesn’t hit super hard off the ground.  He is quick, which is why he wins so much.  He gets to lots of balls and if your timing is off, you can lose to him.  But, he can be overpowered as well.

Ferrer entered the third match much like Nadal did last year at this time: without having won a set.  Even so, Ferrer started with an opening break and it looked like Murray’s game had continued from his loss to Federer, or possibly worse.  But in a blink, Murray found his game, broke back then broke back twice again and took the first set, 6-2.  He again took control of the second set with two breaks and by the end, Ferrer seemed ready for a vacation.

With this, Federer wins Group B and Murray is runner-up.  This means Federer will play number 2 in Group A and Murray will play number 1.  It’s not entirely clear who this will be.  The likely semifinalists are Rafa and Novak.  In that case, there will be a repeat match-up of Toronto with Federer playing Djokovic and Rafa playing Andy.  Andy Roddick still has an outside shot of making it, which would involve a straight set win on his part and a straight set win for Nadal over Berdych.  Berdych could also make it if he wins and Djokovic loses, in which case Rafa and Berdych would represent Group A.  Indeed, Berdych could actually win Group A if he beats Rafa in straight sets (since Rafa lost a set to Roddick).

This makes Friday’s matches pretty intriguing!

ATP World Tour Finals: Doing the Maths or How Roddick could still make the Semis

The NFL is the professional American football league.  Each year, every team plays 16 games against 16 opponents.  The goal?  Make the post-season.  The rules for getting in are a little complex.

Each team belongs to a division which is 4 teams.  There are 8 such divisions, so a total of 32 teams.  Half the divisions belong to one conference called the AFC.  The others belong to the NFC.

The goal for each team is to win their division by having the best win-loss record.  Beyond that, if they are the top 2 teams in their conference (which has 16 teams), they get a first-round bye.  This bye keeps teams with good records playing hard until the end to get that bye.  Not all divisions are equally strong, so sometimes you can sneak into the playoffs because your division has bad teams and get into the playoffs when another team places second in a much stronger division and may even have a better record than you (though usually just barely) and you get in, and they don’t.

The scenarios get quite complex at the end, as some statistician tells the teams how many games they must win to get in, and which other teams must lose.  It’s complex enough, most people don’t even bother trying to do the computation.

However, in a round robin, with only 3 rounds, you can generally do the math by playing out the scenarios.  It just takes some patience.

To understand how to do the math, let’s start easy.  With 3 matches, you can only have 4 possible results: 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, and 0-2 with each successive record worse than the previous.

So, 3-0 beats 2-1.

The top two players make the semifinals in each group (there are two groups of 4).  Because of this, even a 2-0 lead or a 0-2 deficit is no guarantee you can’t make the semis.

If several players have the same record, say, three players finish 2-1 or three players finish 1-2, then the next tiebreak to decide who makes the semis is the percentage of sets won.  If there’s still a tie after that, they break it by percentage of games won.  In 2009, this scenario happened.  Federer, Murray, del Potro, and Verdasco were in the same group.  All 6 matches went three sets and Verdasco lost all 3 of his matches.  So, each of Federer, Murray, and del Potro had won the same number of matches and lost the same number, and won the same number of sets, and lost the same number.  It came down to percentage of games won and del Potro won one more game than Murray (and both lost the same number of games) and Delpo was in and Murray was out.

OK, back to 2010.  After the second match of round robin play in Group A, Rafael Nadal had a 2-0 lead while Andy Roddick had a 0-2 deficit.  Yet, there were scenarios that Roddick could make the semifinals as the number 2 guy and other scenarios that Rafa could miss the semifinals.  Admittedly, there were no scenarios when Roddick makes it in, but Rafa doesn’t.  Rafa already had 2 wins and Roddick could, at best, only have 1 win.

How does Andy Roddick make it in?  With Rafa at 2-0, Berdych and Djokovic at 1-1, then, the only way Roddick can make it in with 1 win is for both Berdych and Djokovic to lose.  That way, both of them have 1 win each too.

Since Berdych would play Rafa, then Rafa, at 2-0 would have to win, and he’d be 3-0.  Roddick would have to beat Djokovic.  If that happens, Rafa is 3-0, and Berdych, Djokovic, and Roddick are 1-2.  At this point, percentage of sets on is the second tiebreak to determine who gets into the semis.  (Rafa would already be in by virtue of sweeping the group).

Here’s where Roddick has his one and only advantage.

He took a set off of Rafa.

This is critical.  Both Berdych and Djokovic lost their matches in straight sets.  If Roddick beats Djokovic in straight sets and Rafa beats Berdych in straight sets, both somewhat realistic (though Roddick beating Djokovic is the harder of the two), then Roddick would be the other semifinalist because of that set he won against Rafa.

In fact, Roddick can’t afford to lose a set to Djokovic.  Djokovic has lost 2 sets already (to Rafa), but Roddick has lost 4 sets (to Rafa and Berydch).  If Djokovic wins a set in a loss, he’ll have won the same number of sets as Roddick (3 sets), but Djokovic will have lost 4 sets while Roddick, in giving up a set, will have lost 5, so Roddick’s win percentage would be 3/8 while Djokovic will be 3/7.  If Roddick wins in straights, the win percentage would be 3/7 while Djokovic would be 2/6.

There’s also no way for both Roddick and Berdych to make it together.  Either Berdych wins over Rafa, in which case both of them have 2 wins each, and they both go to the semis, or Berdych loses and Roddick wins, and then Rafa makes it, and only one of Djokovic, Berdych, and Roddick make it.

For a similar reason, Roddick and Djokovic can’t both make the semifinals.  The reason?  Berdych must lose if Roddick is to have a chance.  If Berdych wins, he and Rafa have 2 wins, and Roddick is definitely out (he can only gain 1 win).  That means, Rafa has to win, and if he does that, Rafa is definitely one of the semifinalists at 3-0.

How can Rafa not make it?  Basically, Rafa has to lose to get to 2-1 and both Djokovic and Berdych, who are 1-1, have to win.  In this case, Rafa’s one set loss to Roddick may come to haunt him.  If Djokovic wins over Roddick in straight sets and Berdych beats Rafa in straight sets, both Djokovic and Berdych will have won 4 sets out of 6 while Nadal will have won 4 sets out of 7 and Nadal would be heading home.

So, with a little math (or maths, as the British like to say), you can figure it out!

ATP World Tour Finals (Day 5): Federer sweeps Group B with win over Soderling

Although Federer has lacked the dominance that marked his game during the mid-to-late 2000s, people forget that he still has gaudy records against even very highly ranked players.

In Group B alone, Federer had a 14-1 record over Soderling, the vast majority of these matches played since 2008.  He had a 10-0 record over David Ferrer.  Only Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal have a winning record against Federer (of those that have played him more than 2-3 times).  This is all the more impressive given how Soderling is now number 4 in the world, and yet Federer has such a lopsided record.

Federer has been striking the ball pretty well, but Soderling knows that if he hits well, he can give anyone trouble.  Soderling’s problems occur when he is forced to run a lot. Then he sometimes makes mistakes because he is still trying to hit big shots.  Federer got a break in the middle of the first set, but Soderling was able to come back by essentially playing safe tennis and waiting for a Federer error.  However, as they went into tiebreak, Federer was able to get the early lead and win.

The second set remained close, but Federer was serving ahead and eventually got a break to lead 5-3 and a chance to win the set.  He hit two drop shots in the game and closed out the second set at 3.

Final score: 7-5, 6-3.

At this point, if Andy Murray wins, he’s in.  He’d have a 2-1 record, Soderling would be 1-2, and Ferrer would be 0-3.  If he loses, then he, Ferrer, and Soderling would all be 1-2.  If Andy wins a set, he’d be in by virtue of having won more sets (both Soderling and Ferrer lost their matches in straight sets).  If Ferrer wins in straight sets, Andy might still get in if he can enough games.  He lost very few games in his win over Soderling.

Unless Andy’s game is off, he should be able to beat Ferrer and move on.  Soderling has to hope for a Murray loss and a decidedly lopsided loss to get in, but if that happens, Ferrer might get in instead.  Soderling’s chances appear to be the slimmest of those not named Federer.

The scoring for the ATP World Tour Finals is interesting.  Each win in the round robin is worth 200 points, which is roughly the same as an ATP 250 event.  If you win the semifinals, that’s 400 points more.  So if Roger wins his semifinal, that’s like winning two ATP 250 events or one Masters 1000 event.  And if he wins the final, it’s like winning a Masters 1000 and an ATP 500, or the equivalent of 3/4 of a Slam.  Currently, Nadal could also achieve this since he has a 2-0 record in round-robin play.

A player like Andy Murray could win, at most, 1300 points (since he got 0 points for his loss to Federer).  The fewest points you could get is 1100 points for only winning 1 round robin match (200 pts) and then winning the title (900 pts).  That would be highly unlikely, but within the realm of possibility.

ATP World Tour Finals: How They’re Playing

Let’s start with the top seed and work our way down.

Rafael Nadal

Rafa’s level generally never drops too low.  Everyone points to how he never gives up, and while that’s certainly one factor in his incredible ability to win, everyone says that about Lleyton Hewitt, and he’s struggling to get in the top 20.  The fact of the matter is that Nadal’s groundies are about half a level better than everyone.  He gets to more balls, can do more things with it, than practically anyone else.

Consider one of Rafa’s favorite shots.  You are hitting a nice standard crosscourt shot.  The ball lands somewhere on Rafa’s deuce court halfway between the center line and the sideline.  Now that’ a good solid neutral shot.

But Rafa will step to his right, hit a hook forehand inside-in, and sometimes even aim the ball as short as the service line, with pace.  That ball curls away and you can barely reach it.  Just ask Andy Roddick.  Rafa does better with apparently neutral shots like this than anyone.  What’s worse for the rest of the field is he’s going for these shots more.  In the past, Rafa was so scared of making errors, that he preferred to spin shots up the middle and wait for your error.

How’s Rafa hitting?  Well, as expected, he was a bit rusty against Roddick.  It’s hard to say how he was playing against Djokovic.  That eye problem really seemed to throw Djokovic off.  It seems like Rafa is playing well, but not super.  Which means good enough to beat most of the rest of the field.  Recall Wimbledon when Rafa struggled with two five-setters, found his rhythm, and won the big W.

Roger Federer

On the other hand, I think Roger is playing pretty good.  With his subpar results at the French and Wimbledon and even his shock loss to Djokovic, I feel Roger wants to make a statement that he’s still around and he’s still playing good tennis.

At the beginning of the year, when Roger won the Australian Open, I felt he had stepped it up a notch with his backhand.  He was starting to hit winners with it when before (at least in the last 2-3 years), he seemed content to just use it as a neutral shot.  I thought a bigger backhand would let him run around his forehand less, which requires a substantial amount of athleticism.  Roger has, to his credit, kept his body in great shape, no doubt due to an excellent physio that tells him when he needs to skip tournaments to recover.

Roger didn’t play much until Indian Wells.  By then, his game seemed to have regressed back to last year’s play and that great backhand wasn’t so great anymore.  He was back to shanking balls and so forth.  I think, much like Borg, Roger’s quick strokes just seem susceptible to mishits.  Either that, or he practices a fraction of what Rafa does to preserve his body, and his immense talent mostly compensates.  Roger seems to point to issues with his back and legs to preventing him from playing his best tennis.  You don’t see it in obvious ways, but Roger certainly played a lot better with the rest he took after Wimbledon.

Roger easily handled David Ferrer and then manhandled Andy Murray.  The fact is, other than Andy Murray, the other two players: Ferrer and Soderling, are guys Roger routinely beats.  Soderling should give Roger trouble, but Roger is smart enough to use Soderling’s lack of real speed against him.  What was surprising was how poorly Murray played, but Roger was also striking the ball well.  Watch how Murray struggles to reach some of the balls Roger is hitting.

There’s almost a Nadal-esque quality.  Nadal has often preferred hitting the shot you barely reach while Roger hits a winner.  The Nadal shot is almost more humiliating.  With a winner, you can at least say “too good”.  With a near-winner, you are getting to the ball, but Nadal has robbed you of so much time, that you can’t hit a good aggressive shot.  So you do the best you can, but it still floats a little, and Nadal hits another near-winner, and you struggle.  Pretty soon, barely able to reach another shot, you pop up something too slow, and he whips it for a winner.  Roger did a little of that to Murray.  Maybe Murray was ailing in some way (you can often ascribe poor play to injury, but the pros rarely like to discuss it because it seems like whining), but regardless, Roger had Murray struggling to reach shots.

To me, Roger is playing his best tennis in a long time.  Is it good enough to beat Rafa?  That’s the million dollar question.  I think we won’t know until they potentially face each other in the finals.

Novak Djokovic

Djokovic invariably plays well after the US Open.  After Rafa and Roger, the most versatile player on tour is Novak Djokovic.  For a long time, I couldn’t figure out why.  Djokovic lacks the pure power of a Soderling or del Potro.  He isn’t the huge risk taker that Federer is.  He doesn’t have the huge topspin of Nadal that knocks you on his heels.

However, Djokovic is very fast (not Nadal fast, but fast enough) and he can move the ball around very well.  And he hits a certain shot so well that one has to say it’s critical for every top player to be able to hit it reliably.

When Ivan Lendl was at the top of his game, he introduced the idea of hitting winners from the baseline.  In the old days, you couldn’t get that much power from a small racquet, but Lendl had a somewhat small graphite racquet, and he challenged this preconception.  While he hits far fewer winners than today’s pros (often, he would be content getting into ultra-long rallies and winning by waiting for an error), it was a sight to behold when he would go for a shot.  Lendl’s big shots were the down-the-line forehand and backhand.

By and large, the down-the-line shot has become something of a lost art.  The rule of thumb is, if you’re pulled wide, hit a big crosscourt shot.  This is the safer shot.  But as pros do this more and more, they have become afraid of hitting the down-the-line shot.  A handful of players will do it.  Davydenko, at his best, can hit every angle, down-the-line, sharp crosscourt, you name it.  And his down-the-line shots was often the two, in his one-two arsernal with one being a sharp crosscourt.  When he’d get a medium crosscourt back, he’d take it early, and hit it down the line.  Soderling will do it, but he’s not nearly as good as the other players.  Berdych also tries it, but his timing has to be on for it to work.

Djokovic is as accurate down-the-line off both sides as anyone.  Indeed, if there’s one thing that separates Djokovic’s backhand from Murray’s, it’s that Murray really likes crosscourt.  Only recently (this year) has Murray tried to get his down-the-line shot working again.  It is such a critical shot to hit well all the time.  True, it’s low percentage, but the best players increase the odds by hitting it well.

Even so, Djokovic still has problems playing Federer and Nadal.  Federer takes such huge chances that Djokovic isn’t afforded the time to set up as he’d like to.  And occasionally, Djokovic will play a poor game where the shots don’t land.  Federer probably feels he has the edge mentally, and the same can be said of Nadal.

And one has to wonder whether Djokovic is not already thinking ahead to the Davis Cup.  A win for Serbia would be huge, and Djokovic needs to be at his best considering both France and Serbia suddenly have “hot” players.  All four likely singles players (Monfils, Llodra, Djokovic, Troicki) have had great post-US Open runs, especially Monfils and Llodra at Paris.  With his eye bother him (it should be fine against Roddick), does Djokovic really want to qualify for the semifinals?  It’s good for his ranking, but will he wear himself out for the tie in about a week’s time?

Overall, Djokovic playing solid, just not as well as Federer/Nadal.  Solid for Djokovic is actually pretty good for Djokovic.

Robin Soderling

With Robin’s win in Paris, he moved ahead of Andy Murray in the rankings.  Everyone said “watch out for this guy, he might make some noise in Paris”.  Last year, Soderling was the big surprise.  He would begin with a defeat of Rafael Nadal, and we’d see something you almost never see.  Rafa losing all his round robin matches in straight sets.  To be fair, Djokovic, Soderling, and Davydenko had beaten Rafa that year, but it was a bit surprising for Soderling to do it again.  Soderling won that group, but eventually lost to del Potro in the semifinals.

Robin started by playing the other “hot” player in Andy Murray.  But while Robin Soderling’s big wins in Paris were over Monfils and Roddick, Andy Murray could point to his win over Roger Federer in Shanghai as a resume builder.  Murray was able to play his brand of tennis and given the Scot’s versatility and brains and Soderling’s generally one-dimensional (though effective) style of play, Soderling went down.  It didn’t help that Soderling didn’t serve particularly well.

He just squeaked by David Ferrer who is the shortest player in the field.  Ferrer has to do different things to win, because he lacks Soderling’s power.  He generally uses his speed, his ability to move the ball around, and hit inside-out shots to the backhand.  But Ferrer’s a bit of a lightweight compared to the heavyweights.

Soderling is playing solid.  Not as good as the French Open.  However, he’s likely to lose to Federer.  Again.

Andy Murray

He had a very solid match against Robin Soderling who had few answers.  But then, he tossed in a poor match, mostly due to poor serving.  Federer had Murray running ragged, and was able to pressure him on his second serve.  Murray will have an occasional bad patch.  This year, especially.  When Murray’s played well, he’s looked fantastic as he did in Toronto (especially Toronto–where he beat Rafa and Roger back to back) and Shanghai.  Murray, like Rafa, is learning to play more aggressive, and not use steadiness and change of pace to win as much.  He’s cut down on how much he slices on the backhand and is trying to get winners more off his backhand.

But he has days when those shots aren’t working well, and then he often loses, as he did against Federer.  So I’d say he’s perhaps a bit better than Soderling in terms of how well he’s playing.

Tomas Berdych

Of all the players coming in, Berdych was playing the worst tennis.  He had lost in the opening round several times, including, alas, the US Open to Michael Llodra, who barely missed getting a seed.  Berdych’s flat style means he has little margin for error.  When he’s hitting well, the ball flies effortlessly, but his shot tolerance isn’t that high and he has to take higher risk shots to win.

He started off meh against Andy Roddick, but at least two things helped.  First, he was getting back a lot of Roddick’s serves.  This is quite a feat considering how few Rafa got back.  Second, he was managing to hold his own serve.  Once Berdych held his own serve after being down 15-40, a light switch went on and he appeared to get back those shots that brought him to the Wimbledon finals.

The problem?  Can he beat Rafa?  Soderling couldn’t do it against Rafa at the French Open even though he was hitting the ball ultra-huge.  Rafa just spun the ball high and deep and bought himself time.  When Soderling couldn’t hit through Rafa, he started to miss, and that was all she wrote.  Berdych doesn’t have that consistent bludgeoning power.  Berdych needs to serve well and hope that Rafa isn’t striking the ball particularly well.  And it would help to make volleys.  Right now, I don’t see it.  But it’s good to see Tomas starting to play better.  Hopefully his elevated confidence will lead to something.

David Ferrer

Much like Lleyton Hewitt, Ferrer is the little guy who could.  Everyone knows he fights as hard as anyone, but he has no choice.  He’s the ultimate overachiever.  He lacks a huge serve.  He can’t hit winners at will.  You can overpower him.  But if he’s on, he runs down lots of shots, and he can attack with his inside-out forehand.   I guess Ferrer is playing decent for Ferrer, but even a superb Ferrer can’t beat the very best.

At least Ferrer can say he’s beaten Murray 3 times, although each time it was on clay.

Andy Roddick

In a way, Roddick may have the least talent of anyone in the field.  He relies on his serve, and surprisingly, his brain.  Roddick, more than anyone not named Murray, has been willing to learn new shots and add them to his repetoire.  He just never learns it well enough to be very good at it.  He’s learned to attack, relearned how to hit a big forehand, has a good slice, hits a big looper, has OK touch.  It’s enough to beat lower ranked players, but it’s often not enough for others.

Roddick threw a change up against Rafa and was up a set, but it probably had more to do with Rafa being rusty than Roddick being great tactically.  You have to hand it to the best players in the world.  They handle variety amazingly well.  Roddick is probably wishing he was born 10 years earlier where half his mad-scientist ideas might actually have worked.

And he really caught Berdych at a bad time.  Berdych probably knew this was his best chance to play good tennis again, and when he held his serve down set points, all of a sudden his strokes began to flow.  I thought Roddick would win because, talented as Berdych is, he often lacks the tenacious attitude.  Berdych just seems way too laid-back.  And a flat hitting style needs good timing.  Sometimes Berdych has the timing, and it looks great.  Other times he doesn’t, and he’s dumping the ball in the net or going wide.

Roddick will at least point to his steady play.  He’s been getting to the final 8 for some number of years.  And despite his 0-2 start, he’s still theoretically in the tournament, though a lot of improbable things would have to happen.  Well, not so improbable.  He needs Rafa to beat Berdych (likely) and he needs to beat Djokovic (possible).

ATP World Tour Finals (Day 4): Nadal has 2-0 record with win over Djokovic

Generally speaking, when Nadal takes some time off, he’s serious about winning a tournament.  Until 2010, these were the list of big achievements (in single events), he had yet to achieve: win the US Open (he hadn’t even made the finals) and win the year-end championship (he had never been to the finals there).

Having already beaten Novak Djokovic to win the US Open, Rafa had to duplicate this feat to get a solid 2-0 lead and give him some assurance he would make the semis.  Nole was also in the same position.  Win this match, and he’d take a 2-0 lead.

But, it turns out, not all 2-0 leads are created equal.  Because Berdych had beaten Roddick earlier in the day, if Novak won his match, he’d secure a semifinal spot.  If Rafa won, he would still not know for sure if he was in the semifinals.

Here’s how the math works out.  If Novak won, he’d be 2-0.  He’d play Andy Roddick who, by virtue of his loss to Berdych, was 0-2.  Clearly, if Novak beat Roddick, he’d be in with a 3-0 record.  But it turns out, he’d be in even if he lost to Roddick.  Say, he lost to Roddick.  Then, Roddick would be 1-2 and Novak would be 2-1.

At this point, both Rafa and Berdych would be 1-1 (we assumed Novak beat Rafa).  The winner of the match would be 2-1, as would Novak, the loser would be 1-2, just like Roddick, and both the loser and Roddick would be out at 1-2.

But, if Rafa won, then he’d be 2-0 and Djokovic would be 1-1.  Djokovic would play Roddick who is 0-2.  Suppose Djokovic beats Roddick.  Djokovic would be 2-1.  Suppose Berdych beats Rafa.  Then Berdych would also be 2-1 and so would Rafa.  There would be a 3-way tie with players having a 2-1 win-loss record.  In that scenario, sets won would matter.  If Berdych beat Rafa in straight sets and Djokovic beat Roddick in straight sets, then Rafa would not make it since he gave up a set in his win over Roddick.  Berdych and Djokovic would have not dropped a set in their win, and both had straight set losses.

To be fair, that’s a pretty big if.  While Djokovic beating Roddick isn’t unreasonable, it’s hard to imagine Berdych beating Rafa, in straight sets, no less.  Berdych would have to step his game up even more than usual.

And, it turns out, there’s a scenario that Roddick could get in too.  Roddick would, of course, have to beat Djokovic.  Then, both would be 1-2.  Rafa would have to beat Berdych, then Berdych would also be 1-2.  Since Roddick picked up a set in his loss to Nadal, his chances are somewhat good to be the last man standing.  Had Roddick taken a set of Berdych, his chances would be really good.

There’s another piece to this puzzle.

At this point, Djokovic still has a decent shot at reaching the semifinals.  If he beats Roddick, and Rafa beats Berdych (as expected), he’ll be in the semis.  But does he want to be?

While Djokovic has a whole host of goals he would like to achieve in his lifetime, the most reasonable one at the moment?  Win Davis Cup.  Monfils and Llodra are playing some of their best tennis right now.  Llodra recently upset Djokovic in Parise.  Monfils made the finals.  But, Djokovic is striking the ball well and Troicki recently won his first tournament, so Team Serbia is also peaking.  If Djokovic gets into the semis, he’s guaranteed to play one more match (including the 3 he has to play), and possibly 2, if he really tries.  This is 5 matches in one week.

Davis Cup starts on a Friday, so Djokovic might wear himself out by trying to win the year-end championship.  There’s no guarantee that Serbia would win.  France could beat Troicki in both singles then win the doubles (had Nestor, who plays for Canada, played for Serbia–he is of Serbian descent, Serbia’s chances to win the doubles would be greatly enhanced—so far Zivojinovic has not been able to carry the doubles load by himself).  With Llodra and most likely Clement playing doubles, they have the better shot.

If Djokovic tanks and loses to Roddick, he’d be able to head out of London and back to Belgrade by Saturday and rest some before doing some training.

Oh, back to Rafa.  Turns out he did win.  The match was close at 5-all, and Rafa managed a break.  Then, Novak complained about a problem with his contact lenses, and lost the second set handily 6-2.

Tomorrow, Roger Federer plays Robin Soderling and David Ferrer plays Andy Murray.

At this point, Soderling, Ferrer, and Murray could each vie for the semifinal slot.  If Murray loses and Soderling loses, all three would be 1-2.  All 3 had a single straight set win and a single straight set loss.  It may come down to the player that can take a set in a loss.

If Soderling wins and Murray wins, then Federer, Soderling, and Murray would have 2-1 records each, and again, sets won would be the first tiebreak.

Federer has a solid chance to beat Soderling yet again.  Soderling didn’t look good in his loss to Murray and he looked a bit shaky in his win over Ferrer.  Soderling will need his serve to be humming if he wants to pull the upset.  However, Federer has been looking as good as ever (at least, for the last 3 years–he doesn’t look as good as his days of dominance).  His backhand is working well, his forehand is humming.  If Federer does win, the Murray wins and he’s in, otherwise, he’ll have to get in through the back door.

Ferrer’s not an easy guy to beat, but all 3 of of Murray’s losses to Ferrer have come on clay.  Murray’s one win is on hard courts, and that’s the surface they are playing on.

Federer and Soderling play the early match (Federer seems to like playing early) while Murray and Ferrer play the late match (better for British TV).