Commiserations...

Sorry guys.

We may never know why exactly Roger did not seem to want to change things up in his loss to Tsonga.

Before that, congratulations to Jo, who played exactly the kind of tennis we love on this blog. Big forehand, big serves, and great approaches and volleys. He might very well have won this sooner if he found his range in the first two sets, but Roger feasted on his misses and moved him around nicely, hitting behind him plenty.

Back to Roger.

He's looked foggy throughout the tournament, and from his very first match against Kukushkin the writers here have expressed concern over his movement, and to some extent, his demeanour.

For the record, I think he didn't move forward enough, and that would ordinarily be OK, but it looked to me that until 1-2 in the fifth he didn't want to come in even a little bit. He came in around four times in the fourth despite knowing, with all his experience, that he had to change things up. This wasn't a lack of focus but simply a refusal to move forward and be more assertive with his forehand. By the time he tried it in the fifth, it was too late.

I highly doubt we'll ever know from Roger what went wrong. Maybe in a tell-all book someday, much like Pete Sampras explained a lot of the reasons for his big losses in his book. Right now that seems too far away, and given the criticism he faced the last time after his loss to Berdych for mentioning injury, he will probably keep mum about it this time around.

It is simply so strange to have seen him go from arguably his best Roland Garros outing to a startling Wimbledon loss, where he is supposed to have used those weapons and the brilliant advice of Paul Annacone far better.

Other things did lead to this loss besides possible injury. Tsonga was incredible and it is hard to imagine even a healthy Roger managing to break in the fourth and fifth sets. Plus, the balls here are not the same as RG, which was probably a big factor in his win there. Even his serve seemed to have far less verve here.

Discuss away here if you'd like. Nothing is off limits apart from player bashing. Cheers, and sorry again guys.

The Way Things Stand...

Neither WCR nor I saw the Federer-Youzhny match in its entirety, due to generally poor coverage, and also because the Del Potro-Nadal match had us glued and both were going on at the same time.

From what I've seen, Del Potro played an outstanding match for somebody finally coming to terms with this surface, and seems to be enjoying coming forward more and more. He played well throughout, came in plenty, and as a result took Nadal to two breakers and stole a set from him as well. Seeing him evolve on this surface has been great.

He still has a lot to learn about grass, and a lot of that will have to do with hitting even better volleys behind such an amazing serve, though he did it better than most expected, and he will need to stand farther inside the court. Too many times Nadal had the opportunity to come in and sting him with drop volleys, seeing Del Potro miles behind the baseline.

Despite these issues, Del Potro and his fans should be very happy with the way he played, and he looks set mentally to win the US Open.

Nadal is by far the best player in the tournament right now, and it's not really close. Despite Del Potro being on his game for most of the match, he retrieved as only he can, and came in plenty. His statistics in this match were astonishing considering the calibre of player he faced. It's clear. Nadal wakes up differently for Wimbledon now, perhaps even more focused than his beloved French. He's serving bombs and his cross-court backhand is at its best. Quite frankly, he is playing the best I've seen him play on grass since Wimbledon 2008.

So what can his opponents do? They can still beat him. But it will take someone really taking it to him aggressively, like Del Potro did, and more clinically, to defeat him. Considering the draw that lies before us now, it's hard to see who can do this. Murray is not playing consistently good tennis, even considering his sound beating of Gasquet. He has ups and downs, and it is a fact that he simply does not know how to play a naturally attacking game on his own steam (which means that he can do it to mix things up but, but it's not his game in general). Novak is playing well, but his tennis here has been no different from his clay game earlier this year, minus the sliding. He still relies too heavily on keeping the ball in play, and as well as he does it, it seems that he is becoming less and less attacking. It does seem to be the sort of tennis that troubles Nadal, but on grass, Nadal changes things. His forehand is much flatter and he approaches with gusto, and Djokovic will probably not be able to deal with that over five sets.

Tsonga is the only player left in the draw with the right approach to grass court tennis, but I highly doubt he can do it for three whole sets against a Nadal of this calibre.

Which brings us to Roger Federer. Off the ground, Roger has been flawless. From what I saw even of the Youzhny match, he was never in trouble, and knew it. Youzhny was playing out of his skin, but to do that on grass for three sets against Federer is a tall ask. Roger played well to come back, never really looking like he was beating beaten; simply delayed.

Now, Roger's baseline game is so good that he can beat anyone off the ground here, except Nadal. If he should reach a final against Nadal here, and tries to go toe to toe with him from the back, he will lose. And badly, because of the nature of the match-up which doesn't need to be rehashed here. As Del Potro showed, the only way to get close to Nadal is to really go after him, and despite doing most things correctly, it didn't happen for him. This means Roger needs to play as aggressively as Del Potro did, but needs to be even more clinical at net, and will need to spend a lot less time at the baseline than him as well, since while DP is not troubled by Nadal's high topspin forehand to his backhand, Roger cannot handle that in a best-of-five match.

Roger is not going to beat Nadal off the ground, so he will need to come in literally on 30-40% of all points to stand a chance. This isn't hard to do, but can Roger execute once at net? How many sitters will he miss? How many shoe-lace volleys can he put in play. How much will his wrist drop? Will he approach at the right times and on the right shots? Will he use the slice as an approach?

From what I've seen, Roger hasn't done enough of any of this so far at this tournament for me to be convinced that he can do it in his next match or after. Maybe he can, but right now, I haven't seen the signs. He came in a good deal in his last two sets against Youzhny, which is good, but still didn't look entirely authoritative. And it does make me wonder whether he is a hundred percent physically when he doesn't try things out, since it seems that the obvious thing to do at Wimbledon is come in during the early rounds. I have no doubt that Paul would have stressed on this, but for some reason Roger has not been able to follow through. I just hope the reason isn't physical.

All this does seem rather grim. And maybe even a bit premature. But it is important to cover all the bases and look at the overall picture. His next match is against Tsonga, who is on a roll, and who will steal the net from Roger a good deal. Roger might very well be able to defeat him by passing him from the back court. The smart thing to do, however, will be to take Tsonga out of his comfort zone and come in and take over the net at least on serve. A good mix is what will be needed against Tsonga, but if he gets through that, his potential semi final and final will need to be mostly about approaching well.

We are now in the second week of Wimbledon and this is where it all really starts. Rust should have been scraped off by now. Weapons and tools should have been sharpened. It is an old tennis saying that, "You can't win a major in the first week." So now, it's time to bring it.

Boris Becker: 'Boom boom' serves up his Wimbledon thoughts

Boris Becker tells Paul Newman that most of today's players undervalue a key shot

Monday, 27 June 2011

• • EXTRA LARGE

DAVID ASHDOWN

Boris Becker believes the top four have improved their serves and that's what sets them apart

• The racket technology has improved and so have the strings, but the vast majority of today's players still struggle to match the serving speeds that Boris Becker generated in his pomp. Andy Roddick hit one 143mph serve at Feliciano Lopez in their third-round match on Friday, but in the first week at Wimbledon nobody else could beat the 141mph bullets that "Boom Boom" Boris used to fire.

The best that 43-year-old Becker could manage last week when he had a go at the Ralph Lauren Wimbledon 125th Anniversary Serving Challenge, in which members of the public were invited to test their serve on a virtual Centre Court, was 96mph. "I haven't practised," Becker said by way of explanation. "My top speed in my day was 141mph. We're talking 20 years ago, so I think that's partly the reason why I'm a bit slower."

If Becker's serve is not what it was, the former Wimbledon champion also believes that some of the current leading men are not fully exploiting what could be one of the most devastating weapons in their armoury, even though the slower courts at Wimbledon give less of an advantage these days to the big servers.

"I think the serve on any surface is still a very important part of the game," Becker said. "I think in general it's a bit underestimated. I don't think enough players work on it as much as they work on their physique or their forehands and backhands. Especially on grass, with the low bounce and the quick bounce, it's important.

"Look at Roger Federer. He's serving better than ever. Novak Djokovic has picked up his serve, Rafael Nadal is serving well and Andy Murray has improved his serve too. That has made them better tennis players."

Becker points to the improvements in Nadal's serve as one of the major factors behind his successes at Wimbledon and the US Open, where victory last year completed the Spaniard's collection of Grand Slam titles. "Before Nadal started winning here at Wimbledon he was always very good from the baseline but he had an average serve," Becker said. "Improving his serve made him another player. That's a big reason why he won Wimbledon and why he's the No 1 player in the world."

One of the reasons Becker believes players should spend more time on their serves is the unique nature of the shot. "The serve is the only stroke in tennis that's not influenced by your opponent," he said. "You're the one who decides whether you slice it, spin it, hit it hard, hit it soft. I think that's something that again is under-estimated by a lot of coaches. I had good coaches and fortunately they saw that it was my strength."

Amid the welter of serving statistics that many players and coaches pore over there are ultimately only three that matter. Forget the fastest serves and the highest number of aces and look instead at the percentage of points won on first serve and second serve and the percentage of service games won.

Roddick, John Isner and Ivan Ljubicic hit the fastest serves in the first three rounds last week, but Becker believes that nobody has served better than Federer. The statistics prove his point: only Tomas Berdych, Juan Martin del Potro and Lopez won a higher percentage of points on first serve, nobody could better Federer's second serve figure and none of the 16 players left in the tournament bettered his percentage of service games won. In his 42 service games in the first three rounds Federer was broken just once.

"Federer can serve it in all four corners with speed and slice and power and twist," Becker said. "I think that's where he has an edge over all the other players."

What was the most important factor in Becker's own serve during his heyday? "In a good serve on any given day I was able to hit the lines. That's an advantage, more than power. I think power doesn't hurt you, but the right positioning of the serve is always the key for a good serve."

Nevertheless, power was a major factor in Pete Sampras' serve, which Becker rates the best he ever faced. "Sampras would go for weeks without losing his serve – I'm not meaning matches, I'm meaning weeks. That made him difficult to play. That was his strength. It's like Rory McIlroy hitting three-woods 300 yards. When you do that you're only going to have a 120-yard shot to the green and that will be easier. Then you look at poor YE Yang hitting a driver 270 yards. It's a sign of the times. You can't complain about it."

He added: "My game was pretty much built around my serve. If I had a good serving day it was very difficult to beat me. That doesn't mean that if I had a bad serving day I would lose immediately, but my game was much easier if I had that many free service winners because I would have pretty much an easy service game every time. That puts a lot of pressure on your opponent to hold serve because he knows if he's losing his serve the chances are that he will lose the set."

While he believes the serve remains crucial in the modern game, Becker agrees that racket technology in particular has changed the nature of grass-court tennis. "Players on all surfaces don't have to come to the net as much," he said. "They have enough power through their rackets to hit winners from three or four feet behind the baseline. Therefore on any surface they don't have to come to the net. They don't have to play much slice and they don't have to serve and volley. It means they can't all of a sudden pretend to be serve-and-volleyers. That's the big change."

Brad Gilbert, Murray's former coach, said recently that "grass-court tennis 20 years ago was boring – it was, like, three shots and fans were on their feet." Not surprisingly Becker, three times a Wimbledon champion in the 1980s, disagrees.

"You're talking about a player who's never really done well at Wimbledon," Becker said in reference to Gilbert. "Maybe his frustrations came out in that interview. Maybe he's forgotten the days when Borg was playing from the baseline, the days of Connors when he was winning from the baseline. I think if you get a Sampras-Ivanisevic final then it's kind of tough, because you're talking about two of the best players on the serve. But if you get two baseliners in the final that's also boring. Ideally you get a Federer-Nadal final and you see the best match."

While Becker acknowledges that most players now feel at their most comfortable when playing from the back of the court, he thinks there are times when they should use different strategies. "If you play against Nadal from the baseline you're going to lose, so why do that? I don't understand. You have to mix it up and come to the net. The way Isner played when he took Nadal to five sets in the French Open tells me: 'Wake up! That's how you play Nadal on clay.' How many coaches would see that and how many would teach that? I don't think enough."

And the man who won six Grand Slam titles added: "Because it's easier to stay on the baseline, everyone does it. But does it make you a Grand Slam winner?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/boris-becker-boom-boom-serves-up-his-wimbledon-thoughts-2303262.html

Wimbledon Round 1-2-3: Del Potro

One the best stories for my money this Wimbledon is Del Potro's emergence as a grass court player. He's competed 6-days in a row with each match suspended for rain or lateness of hour. Initially I thought scheduling JMDP's start times for new matches late in the day, was grossly unfair. I was under the impression that a day off between the early rounds was important for players to rest. Not so for JMDP. Each day I saw him emerge to finish off an opponent, I realized he was getting better on the surface. Somehwere during the Rochus match, Del Potro began to play as though he enjoyed what his game could become on grass. So have I.

His serve is made for grass. His volleys are technically perfect. And where some thought all JMDP could do with a ball was bash it, it turns out he's got great feel for placing it anywhere he wants. His FH drop shot volleys are as good as any I've seen. In fact, when I watch him hit it, I feel it in my own hands as I used to when watching Becker volley. All Del Potro had to figure out was the right time to move forward. And when this man serves and volleys the point is over. Hard to get the ball past that wingspan and high enough on a lob for him to not reach it.

I remember Del Potro's game in 2009, improving match by match until he lifted his first US Open trophy. His learning curve on grass now reminds me of what he did in 2009. Each tournament we hear his 4th round opponent talking up a storm about how he must work harder, how he strives to improve, how he's not the favorite, how he will do his best, blah blah blah. And there is JMDP. Not talking about it, not drawing attention to himself. Just going on about his tennis, getting better and winning on a surface he used to hate.

I wish him well against Nadal on Monday. May the gentle giant come though with the win. Wouldn't that be something!

Really, Rafa?

I have a lot of respect for what Rafael Nadal has accomplished as a tennis player, but I have never enjoyed his game or what he has brought to it (to understand the kind of tennis we like here, please read the ABOUT section of this blog), since while he does show an increasing ability to attack when he has to, the basic template of his game is that of a counterpuncher. Now, I do understand that some people enjoy watching long baseline rallies, loads of topspin on every ball with players showing off remarkable physicality, stamina and endurance.

For some, the game has moved in the right direction by producing more players that refuse to miss by running down balls and managing to manufacture opportunities from bleak defensive positions. Really, I understand this. Borg was similar, Connors mixed it up but by and large enjoyed passing and hitting from the baseline, relying on pure tenacity and heart than skill, Wilander was similar though more crafty, and all these greats had legions of fans, deservedly so, because they beat players on some of the quickest surfaces ever. Nadal is doing the same now, though more dominantly than all of them but Borg, but does not face the same conditions they did. Yet, I understand why young kids look up to him since he never seems to back down and his muscular physique, unseen in tennis before his time, inspires dedication to training.

So the admiration for Nadal's game is understandable. But his recent comments on the game today are not.

From the ATP website during the first week Wimbledon 2011:

Current Generation More Enjoyable

Rafael Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport. "Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable," the 10-time major champion told The Evening Standard. "It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet. It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve." Mats Wilander, the seven-time Grand Slam champion, says there is greater depth today. "If you go down to the 100th-ranked player, we weren't as deep as they are today," said Wilander. "But the first seven or eight guys were at the same level and produced great rivalries. Looking 

back, it was really special."
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Diary-Day-Five.aspx

This is disappointing (to put it mildly) on many levels. First, I have never heard a great from a certain era actually compliment his own style of play and that of his contemporaries while playing down the nature of the game of greats from a previous era. That Nadal would actually go ahead and reduce an entire era of play by referring to one rivalry of the two best servers in history is mind-boggling, and frankly, irksome.

Even when looking at things objectively, the 90s produced probably the best mix of tennis styles in the history of the game. Everybody had a chance to win the major most suited to their games, and the jump from Paris to London in summer was not the least bit simple. 

Jim Courier deservedly won the French playing baseline tennis, as well as the Australian Open. Andre Agassi, a man who could not hit a clean volley to save his life until later in his career, won Wimbledon because he looked for opportunities in a point and hit the ball early enough that the bounce did not affect him, and his game was the most exciting of any player in the 90s. Grinders were around then and dominated the French and in fact, were far more defensive than the clay court players of today. Wayne Ferreira gave Pete Sampras fits on most surfaces. Sampras-Agassi at their penultimate match at the US Open, produced a display of attacking tennis from the baseline as well as at the net, in the twilight of their careers that too, that wasn't seen again till Federer-Safin at the Australian Open 2005. Pete and Goran had serves and volleys that nobody from the current generation could touch. Pete Sampras' forehand is as big as Federer's though admittedly not as varied, Patrick Rafter hit a backhand smash that was absolutely stunning to witness and Edberg was more graceful than any player ever not named Federer. 

Why is all of this being dismissed by Nadal so callously?

And what exactly is it about today's game that Nadal seems to think is so much better than Pete Sampras' or Goran Ivanisevic's? Nadal and Djokovic can't seem to finish a point until one of them feels thirsty during a rally. Novak has improved just one aspect of his game this year as compared to 2010, and that is his fitness. His recent streak can be attributed to one or two things at the most: an ability to run down humanly unreachable baseline strokes, and the confidence garnered from this new level of fitness, which keeps him in matches mentally. He has not developed a better serve, but simply gone back to an old one that suited him. His forehand is no bigger, his backhand is as good but not better.

And how about Nadal himself? The rivalry that defines his legacy is based upon nothing but an ability to hit continuously with venomous topspin in the direction of a single-handed backhand. And this happens to be the way he approaches most matches. His serve in any other era would be considered mediocre, his backhand is not great except when in form (when his crosscourt backhand is devastating), he volleys only to put sitters way. His one big stroke, his forehand, is nowhere near as varied as Roger Federer's, though equally effective in the scheme of his game as a whole. He can hit a flat forehand, but it in no way compares to a flat Federer forehand or a Sampras crosscourt running forehand.

I am astonished that his comments have not been scrutinised more intensely by the media. 

Nadal-Djokovic-Murray do produce matches that people enjoy, and though I might not be one of those people, I can understand the attraction. Not everyone necessarily thinks much of the ability to serve big at crucial moments or to serve well throughout a match and break when the opportunity arises, as opposed to multiple breaks where the serve is a way to start off a rally rather than a way to set up a point (all three players have improved their serves, but none can compare to Federer's serve, at least not his first delivery). Some people want to see more of a gladiatorial spectacle than a display of clinical precision and skill. It is a matter of taste, but Nadal does not seem to understand that, coolly dismissing an entire era as being boring by referring to one uni-dimensional tennis match-up. He also, with his comments, does not seem to be appreciative of what these greats brought to the game, and of the fact that the boom in popularity of tennis in the 80s and 90s is what led to opportunities for players in the fringes of the professional game to receive sponsorships and support.

Being an ambassador of the game means encouraging kids by playing and behaving well today, and I don't understand how he is considered one when he doesn't seem to understand that this can't be done unless you respect yesterday's legacy. Popularity allows for exposure and short-term appreciation, but I don't know whether that intangible historical aspect of his legacy will be much to write home about when all is said and done, because clearly, he doesn't seem to think much of the more recent history of the game himself. 

These comments have been very disappointing for me as a lifelong tennis fan to read, since it goes to show how little the most dominant player of the game today thinks of players that made the game as big as it is today. Additionally, after adjusting for inflation, I'm pretty sure attendance numbers and money generated by the sport in the 90s would easily match, if not surpass, the numbers from today's game, though I do not have data to support this. Excitement is in the eye of the beholder, when it comes to tennis, and clearly, in this respect, Rafael Nadal has limited vision.   

Wimbledon Round 3: Federer def. Nalbandian

So my hope of seeing Roger go unbroken until the fourth round was dashed by a break back in the first set. Still, being broken just once is not half bad knowing what Nalbandian is capable of.

The first set was a little iffy from Roger. He continued to serve very well, almost imperiously, and even when he was broken it was a result of Nalbandian's good play. But for most of the first set his groundstrokes were a little short and that gave David a chance to tee off a little bit on his huge groundies. Roger did well not to get down on himself after that and served out a tricky first set well.

Once it was clear Nalbandian was struggling with an injury, Roger went about the task of taking advantage of that quite ruthlessly by serving out wide, hitting a lot more drop-shots to make David charge forward. For his part, David showed in patches why he was once Roger's biggest threat. There were flashes of brilliance in extended rallies when Roger did find it hard to hit through him because of David's remarkable eye-hand coordination and ability to see the ball early. David also approaches very well and is a very good volleyer, and for now is as good or better than Roger as a net player. He hit some great backhand volleys and kept Roger working throughout despite being run around like hell. The combination of a big serving Roger who was finding his range on groundies and his own injury was just too much to handle in the second set, and it was over all too quickly.

The third set was simply fantastic tennis, and is the kind of tennis I miss sorely nowadays. I don't need to watch players charge in on every ball, but I do like to see them take initiative early in the rally, and when both players seek to do this it can be very exciting. Roger and David had some wonderful flat-groundstroke exchanges in the third set, and made the tennis look quick on what seems to already be a bouncy, slow-ish grass court. What made Nalbandian up his level in the third was the fact that he knew Roger was simply running him around in the second set. So he decided to swing from the hip a little more, even throwing in a second serve ace on a BP, and coming in a good deal. He measured his groundstrokes a little less and really went for them, which in turn produced some great defence from Roger and a couple of beautiful passes early in the set.

David didn't really go away in this match, which was good to see. Even when Roger was serving for the set he saved three match points and made it difficult for him to hit the ball past him.

But Roger in this form is simply hard to touch. He showed great focus throughout the match, never panicking when a break point was lost or even a break was given back, simply putting his head down and working hard for the next opportunity in his own graceful manner.

What is a little troubling is how little Roger approached in this match. I do know from his last interview that Roger is wary of approaching too much against Nalbandian since he felt that early in his career, when he lost a number of matches to him, he approached too much because he couldn't stay with him from the back. He now finds it unnecessary to do that with his ground game being as good or better than Nalbandian's when both players are playing their best tennis. Still, I couldn't see why Roger couldn't have a approached a little more in the second set when his plan was to make Nalbandian move around and make sudden changes in direction. He heads to the later rounds with very little net play under his belt. The good news is his next two rounds are against players that don't necessarily steal the net from an opponent (apart from Tsonga, though he still is inconsistent at the highest level), so he still has opportunities to work on that until the big semifinal. I hope he gets down to it.

Overall, a great serving performance from Roger and an absolute pleasure to see Nalbandian on the big stage again. These two are as high quality as it can be in tennis when it comes to clean ball-striking. I hope they are both around for many more years.