A Look at the best players never to win the French Open

With the clay season underway and Roland Garros coming up, it will be interesting to look at the best players never to win the title there.

The French Open has proven to be the most challenging for some of the greatest players of the Open era.  In previous decades, the conditions on the clay were far removed from the rest of the tour.  This is reflected by the fact that it was virtually impossible for an attacking player to win the tournament. Not only attacking players were shut out, some of the best baseliners failed to win there, as playing on clay is a different challenge to playing from the baseline on hardcourts.

Stefan Edberg

Stefan Edberg is considered by many to be the finest attacking player of the last 25 years.  Edberg had fantastic volley skills and razor sharp reflexes, smooth movement and a top class kick serve.  From the backcourt, Edberg had one of the best one hand backhands of the Open era, which he used to hit with topspin or slice, or chip charge on return of serve. 

Edberg won 42 tournaments in his career including 6 Grand Slam titles, two at Wimbledon, two at the Australian Open and two at the US Open.  Edberg won his two Australian Opens on grass in 1985 and 1987.  He also got to the final 3 more times when it was played on rebound ace, losing to Ivan Lendl and Jim Courier twice.  Edberg along with John McEnroe reached number 1 in singles and doubles between 1986 and 1987, a very rare achievement.  Edberg is also one of a handful of players in the open era to play at all four major finals.  Edberg won clay tournaments at Hamburg (then equivalent of a Masters 1000) and in Stockholm.

Edberg got to the final of the French Open in 1989 against Michael Chang where he held a two sets to one lead, but was unable to finish the job and lost in 5 sets.  That would be the closest Edberg would get to winning the French Open.  A great achievement considering Edberg was primarily an attacking player who preferred to come in than stay back and rally.  Attacking tennis on clay can be successful but you really have to be careful which short ball to attack.  Had Edberg won, he would have been included in the conversation of the greatest. 

Boris Becker

Boris Becker is a contemporary of Stefan and had a similar career and style of play.  Becker won 49 titles and 6 Grand Slam titles, winning Wimbledon three times, the Australian Open twice and US Open once.  Becker was one of the first players along with Ivan Lendl to bring power tennis to a new level in the 1980s. 

Becker broke through very early to win his first Wimbledon title aged just 17.  Becker would win most of his titles before the age of 21.  Even though Becker’s contemporaries in age would be Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, Thomas Muster and Michael Stich, Becker is more or less associated with Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Mats Wilander and of course Stefan Edberg.   Becker’s strengths were his fantastic serve, athleticism, great one hand backhand return and diving volleys, especially on grass!  Becker wasn’t the quickest mover due to his size at 6 ft 4 but definitely one of the most athletic.

At Roland Garros, Becker got to the semifinal on three occasions in 1987, 1989 and 1991.  In 1989 he lost to Stefan Edberg and in 1991 lost to Andre Agassi.  Becker more or less preferred to stay back on the clay and rally much more than he would on grass.  But during that era, the clay was slower and balls were heavier so it was difficult for an attack minded player like Becker to win 7 matches from the baseline. Unfortunately for Becker, he played in quite a few clay finals including Monte Carlo and the Italian Open, but never won a claycourt event despite winning 49 titles.

Pete Sampras

Pete Sampras had a rather strange record at Roland Garros.  He was a semifinalist on one occasion in 1996 and three times a quarterfinalist between 1992 and 1994.  On clay overall Sampras has a decent record but not an exceptional one.

Sampras won three clay titles overall, the biggest being the Italian Open in 1994 where he defeated Boris Becker in straight sets (best of 5).  Sampras also won Kitzbuhel in Austria in 1992 and on green clay in Atlanta in 1998.  Sampras’ biggest achievement on clay was the Davis cup in 1995 when he won all of his rubbers on extremely slow watered clay against the Russians in Moscow, designed to put Sampras off his game.
Sampras’ talent on other surfaces is unquestioned but for some reason on clay never got it together. 

In his early years, he looked like he could do something at Roland Garros but after the semifinal loss in 1996 seemed to give up mentally on the surface as his results clearly indicate.  In the early to mid 1990s Sampras beat Thomas Muster, Sergei Brugera, Jim Courier and a young Marcelo Rios at Roland Garros but couldn’t win 7 matches.  Like Becker, Sampras was not able to win 7 matches primarily playing baseline tennis.  On hardcourts Sampras could mix up baseline with attacking play but on clay the percentage demands more baseline than attack.

However you look at it, with Sampras’ talent, he should have done much better at Roland Garros.

John McEnroe

John McEnroe is remembered for one final at Roland Garros, the 1984 final where he held a two sets lead against Ivan Lendl and lost in 5 sets.  That was Lendl’s first major title after losing his first 4 finals; and although McEnroe would beat Lendl in the 1984 US Open final, McEnroe would never get another opportunity to win Roland Garros.

Along with Stefan Edberg on this list, McEnroe is the most attack minded player here, he didn’t really change his game much for the clay, he was still chipping and charging like on hardcourts.  McEnroe won 4 clay tournaments in his career, but all of his titles came in the United States on the green clay and not European red clay.  Green clay plays a little faster and feels different underfoot, hardcourt players usually like the green clay surface.

Had McEnroe being able to win the 1984 French Open, it may have paved the way for other pure serve volleyers to win in later years. 

Jimmy Connors

Jimmy Connors has the distinction of being the only player who won a title on three different surfaces at the US Open.  He won the title on grass in 1974, green clay in 1976 and hardcourts in 1978, 1982 and 1983.  Jimmy Connors was also a runner up on green clay in 1975 and 1977.  However, Connors never made it to the final of the French Open despite being a semifinalist on many occasions.

In fact, Connors was banned from being able to participate in the French Open in 1974 because he signed up to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and ITF did not recognise, Connors filed lawsuits but they were later dropped.  Connors made the semifinals of the French Open in 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1985, Connors also made four quarterfinals so a very respectable record.

Like John McEnroe, Connors won many clay titles in the United States on the green clay.  During the mid 1970s, many tournaments were played on green clay as part of the build up to the US Open including Cincinnati and Indianapolis.  Connors would never win a title on European red clay although in 1981 he got to the final of Monte Carlo but the final was annulled due to bad weather.  Connors did win a tournament in Paraguay but it is not recognised on the ATP tour.  Connors found like so many others, that transferring a hardcourt game with fairly flat strokes to the European clay was very difficult during that era.

Others

Other top class players and former number 1 players to not make an impression include Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Marcelo Rios.  Attacking players who made good runs include Michael Stich who lost the 1996 final to Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek and Pat Rafter.

Jo Wilfried Tsonga - Currently Underachieving

Jo Wilfried Tsonga is one of the more talented players on the ATP tour.  He plays a game people love to watch, full of energy, enthusiasm and displays a big smile when he pulls off a great shot or dive.  However, the feeling is that Tsonga is headed in the same direction as so many other French players of the past 30 years – underachievement.

I first saw Tsonga play in the 3rd rd of Wimbledon in 2007 when he comprehensively beat Feliciano Lopez of Spain in three sets.  At the end of the match, the Spanish fans nodded approvingly, they knew their man had been well beaten.  I thought I saw a player who could be a future slam champion.  Six months later in January 2008, Tsonga would have an incredible run to the final of the Australian Open, taking the first set before going down in 4 sets to Novak Djokovic. 

2008 proved to be a good year for Tsonga; he finished top 8 in the world and played in the World Tour Finals in Shanghai.  Tsonga also won his first masters title in Paris Bercy defeating David Nalbandian in the final.  Tsonga also had a good 2011, getting to the final of Queens and pushing Roger Federer to three sets in the World Tour final in London.  Tsonga also came from two sets down to beat Federer in Wimbledon quarterfinal, and won events in Metz and Vienna.  However, despite injuries hampering his progress, Tsonga’s results have proved inconsistent.

There have been many talented French players who have not realised their potential.  In the 1980s, Henri LeConte was as talented as any other player on the tour during that era.  However, LeConte only made the final of the French Open in 1988, which he lost to Mats Wilander in straight sets. In the 1990s, Cedric Pioline made it to two major finals, but each time lost to Pete Sampras at the US Open and at Wimbledon. 

In more recent times players such as Sebastien Grosjean, Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet have all displayed superior shotmaking and athleticism, especially in Monfils’ case, but none of these players have made it to a Grand Slam final.  Grosjean played in semifinals in France, Australia and Wimbledon, Monfils at the French and Gasquet at Wimbledon.

Tsonga has beaten all of the top players in the world at Masters or Grand Slam level.  What Tsonga has not shown so far is a consistency of performance that is required to become a champion.  That is linked to poor shot selection, as Tsonga doesn’t always choose the right shot or when to use the shots he has.  Tsonga has the courage to go for his shots, which is very admirable, but to become a champion Tsonga must figure out when to use the shots he has to hurt the opponent.  

In 2011, Tsonga parted company with long term coach Éric Winogradsky. It was reported that there was a difference of opinion in how the coach wanted Tsonga to play and how Tsonga wanted to approach the game.  Tsonga plays a game that doesn’t always have a definite game plan.  A lot of people would think that Roger Federer plays how he wants on the court but Federer has a definite gameplan, which is to get the forehand into play as often as possible and stretch his opponent with the backhand down the line whenever possible.  

Tsonga is not afraid to get to net but on slower courts, Tsonga needs to be patient and choose the right short balls to attack.  Tsonga also has to work on improving his backhand, which is a slight liability.  Tsonga likes to go for flashy one hand backhands which look spectacular but give the impression of a showman.

Tsonga could look to fellow French player Amelie Mauresmo for inspiration as Mauresmo was also seen as a talented underachiever. In 2005, Mauresmo won the WTA championships which gave her the confidence to win two major titles in 2006 including Wimbledon.  Tsonga needs the spark of a big win against a big player in a final, the 2011 ATP world tour final in London could have been the moment. 

However, at the age of 27, Tsonga has a three year window to claim a major title.  It is very rare for a player over the age of 28 to win a maiden major title but Tsonga has the talent to do it.  Petra Korda and Goran Ivanisevic are the only two players in recent times to pull off that feat.

Can There Really Be One Greatest?

The past few years has seen a real intensification of the debate as to who is the greatest tennis player of all time. The most recent activity has seen a countdown of the 100 greatest players of all time, men and women from 100 to 1, taking into account pre and post Open era players.


It is an interesting concept but I can’t help but think it is a rather fruitless exercise perpetuated in the media in it’s quest to claim the one player the greatest of all time or “GOAT” as it has become known on internet speak the last 5 years. In the latest countdown, Roger Federer was acclaimed as the greatest player of all time. Steffi Graf came in at number 2; the top 5 was rounded off with Rod Laver, Martina Navratilova and Pete Sampras. Rather interestingly, Rafael Nadal came in at number 6. Mixing male and female players is always a dangerous thing to do, simply because if this countdown is based on achievements, then Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova should be number 1.


For instance, Steffi Graf won each major tournament at least 4 times, won the Golden slam, held all four major titles at the same time twice, spent 377 consecutive weeks at number 1, won major doubles titles and won well over 100 titles. Graf also held winning records over virtually all of her rivals including Monica Seles. The fact that Graf opponents’ were women shouldn’t detract from her achievements which easily far outweigh Roger Federer’s.


This is particularly what makes the greatest discussion fraught with dangers as it is just too subjective for there to be any definitive guide as to who really is the greatest tennis player of all time. The “greatest” is also a very fluid word in sport and tennis in particular. In fact, there seems to be a “greatest” tennis player every five years; especially in the age of the internet.


Since I’ve been following the sport, Bjorn Borg was considered the greatest, then John McEnroe for a few years, then Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and now Roger Federer. Many people and pundits already consider Rafael Nadal to be the greatest or set to take over as the greatest, especially as Federer has not beaten Nadal at a major tournament since 2007 and has only beaten Nadal at Wimbledon.


In five years time, Novak Djokovic will be highly likely considered to be the greatest if he keeps winning major titles. As far as the women go, some have argued for Serena Williams being the greatest because they reckon the competition in the early to mid 2000s was at the peak with opponents like Venus Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Martina Hingis, Clijsters and Henin.


If statistical criteria is the key, then Serena’s case is non existent as her numbers are nowhere near the likes of Graf, Navratilova and Chris Evert or Margaret Court. Also, should major titles be the only guide as to who is seen as the greatest?


Whatever way you look at it, either as a bit of fun or deadly serious, the debate as to who is the greatest continually attracts column inches by eager journalists, internet forums and social media all over the world. One thing can be guaranteed, the list of who is the greatest and in what order they should come will always be subjective and in any case is sure to change in 5 years time when there will be a new debate as to who is the “latest” greatest player of all time.


If the greatest player of all time cannot stand up to the test over a 5 year period, then it really is a pointless exercise to claim one player as the greatest of all time above all other greats.

Indoor Tennis Surface Speeds - Dilemma for ATP & WTA

The winter indoor season has just ended in Europe and the United States. However, the prestige of the indoor season seems to have diminished over the last 5 to 10 years. Indoor tennis used to have a characteristic all of its own, and in many ways it still does, but there are not as many tournaments as before and the surface used indoors is no longer distinct from the rest of tour.

That is because for many years, indoor tennis was played primarily on a carpet surface (not carpet as we know it obviously!). Tennis was played on either Supreme or Taraflex. Some of the most prestigious tournaments took place on carpet; the Masters Championships in New York was played on Supreme throughout the 1980s. The ATP World Championships in Germany was played on Taraflex from 1990 to 1996. The WTA Masters was held in New York on Supreme up to the year 2000.

However, carpet as an official surface has been phased out completely since 2008 and there are now no carpet events on the ATP or WTA tour. They have been replaced with either an indoor hardcourt or plexipave. This is a culmination of changes the authorities have made to slow the game down as they see it. But what it also means that we get the same type of tennis all year round, regardless of surface and conditions, diversity has gone out of the window in professional tennis.

The diminishing in importance of indoor tennis is reflected by the introduction in the calendar of outdoor hardcourt events during February in Doha and Dubai since 2001, which while not carrying a huge amount of points, attract the best players due to the weather and the money on offer. With these events held in February before Indian Wells and Miami, the Hardcourt season seems now to be extended from the Australian season right the way to April and the clay court season.

This is interesting because there has always been talk that playing too much hardcourt tennis is punishing on the joints for athletes, and yet hardcourt tennis is now played around 9 months of the year (not including the clay and grass court season). This is hardly conducive to limiting injuries of the top players, especially with the grinding style of play so many players adopt, and the medium paced courts mean it is harder to put the ball away for winners.

Players now play the same game regardless of conditions. It used to be the case that women played their game regardless of surface, and the men played different tactics depending on surface. However, this is no longer the case for the men and the result is that the volley is no longer a viable tactic in the game and younger players are being coached only to come to net on a sure thing. Jim Courier was interviewed on BBC radio in 2005 during Wimbledon and he attributed the demise of attacking tennis and net play to the demise of faster indoor surfaces on the tour.

I recently contacted a spokesman for the ATP based in Florida. He said that “medium paced surfaces is fairer for everybody as you have more rallies because of the style of play today”. I asked him if hardcourts were more punishing on the body, he pointed out that carpet had caused serious injuries as well and it didn’t necessarily follow that hardcourts were more punishing, he noted Alexander Chesnekov suffered a serious injury one year in Philadelphia playing on carpet “you may have cement rolled over the boards, not necessarily the case that carpet is less punishing on the body.” The ATP spokesman pointed out there were complaints that tennis was too fast, there were not enough rallies and many players favoured a change to a more acrylic surface.

That’s fair enough as the authorities have to act as they see fit. However, it gave me the impression that tennis from the past was somehow devalued. Indoor tennis was not all about big serves and no rallies during that era, some of the greatest baseline and clay specialists were great indoor players as well. Ivan Lendl, who won 28 claycourt events, also won 33 indoor events and is seen as one of the five best indoor players of the open era. Lendl won the year end Masters Championships on 5 occasions, overcoming incredible serve and volleyers often such as John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. Other great indoor players included Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Bjorg, Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles and Martina Hingis – all great baseline players.

During the 1990s, Andre Agassi won the ATP Championships in 1990 defeating Boris Becker in the semifinal and Stefan Edberg in the final. Jim Courier was losing finalist in 1991 and 1992 while, Michael Chang made the final in 1995 defeating Sampras in the semifinal before losing to Becker in the final, Yvegeny Kafelnikov lost to Sampras in the final in 1997. Alex Corretja defeated Sampras in the semi and Carlos Moya in the final in 1998. This clearly indicates that attacking players and baseliners had a chance on carpet and then plexicushion during the 1990s. One of the greatest matches of the open era took place in the 1996 ATP final between Pete Sampras and Boris Becker. A match which lasted over 4 hours and was full of high quality tennis, great net play and great baseline rallies – all court tennis in the purest form.

I decided to get an ex player’s perspective who is now in administration. Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 and 17 tournaments on the ATP tour, including titles on all surfaces. Krajicek had a great serve but was also a good mover across the baseline for a tall man, and of course a great volleyer.

You are the Tournament Director of ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament, was the event always held on an indoor hardcourt?

“It was played on Supreme Court and now on wood painted with Plexipave ( similar to Hardcourt)”

What in your opinion is the difference between playing on indoor carpet and indoor hardcourt? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

“I only see advantages to Hardcourt. 1. you can control the speed of the court (you can make it a slow, medium or fast court).
The rallies are longer, but if you adjust the speed of the court, to the speed of the balls, it will be an honest surface to both attacking and defensive players)”

I spoke to an ATP spokesman and he believes introducing medium surfaces indoors has slowed tennis down and made for more rallies and more of a spectacle, I believe it has reduced the volley as a viable tactic. How do you view the situation and the demise of attacking tennis?

“I believe slowing down the courts has created more rallies, but I do not believe it has made players stay back because of it. It is just the way players play.
Even on grass everybody plays from the back. Mardy Fish is one of the few exceptions in the top 10.”

During your career, your game was based on fast court play, did you enjoy playing on indoor carpet surfaces and would you like to see carpet re-introduced to some events?

"The speed is good at most events. But the combination of ball and court is important. If you have a heavy ball and a slow court, then play might be slowed down too much.
And same if you have a very light ball and a quick court, then the rallies will be too short and that is no fun either."

As Richard Krajicek said, surface speeds should be fair for all of the players. At the moment current conditions favour the counterpunchers too much; this is reflected in the fact that indoor surfaces mimic the pace of outdoor surfaces. For some years now the number 1 player in both the ATP and WTA tour have been grinding baseline players who have many qualities, but lack flair, imagination and extra skill. One way to bring flair and imagination back into tennis is to reconsider speeding up indoor courts to encourage net play and improvisation, at the moment almost a lost art at the highest level. Long, attritutional 6 hour matches in major finals is not the long term solution for tennis. The authorities should consider bringing diversity back into the game.

My Visit to Open Gaz De France - WTA Paris Indoor 2012

This weekend I attended the Paris Indoor tournament for the women. The tournament is called Open Gaz De France and is held in the South West sector of Paris, not far from Roland Garros. I got tickets for quarterfinals and finals day, although when I got my tickets in December, I had no idea that this year was to be a special occasion.

Open Gaz De France was celebrating its 20th year as a tournament and had organised a special exhibition doubles match featuring four legends of womens tennis. Martina Navratilova teamed up with Martina Hingis to play Monica Seles and Amelie Mauresmo, Mauresmo is also Tournament Director. It was a great moment in front of a packed crowd, the volleying skills and trick shots on display were incredible, I’m sure memories came flooding back for many in the audience.

The ladies had a lot of fun; Mauresmo even hit a hotdog winner at one point. At the end of the match (which Navratilova/Hingis won incidentally), there was a special birthday cake presented to commemorate 20 years, a huge cake brought out by at least 4 chefs! But no one cut into the cake!

Onto the tournament proper, I attended 3 excellent matches on quarterfinal day. I arrived on Friday, straight from London via Eurostar; I arrived too late for the first match between Yanina Wickmayer of Belgium and Mona Barthel of Germany but at least Germany’s Julia Georges was warming up to play Klara Zakopalova of the Czech Republic, I would see the whole contest. The match started how I expected with Georges attempting to make the play, firing a couple of big serves and aces.

Georges raced to a 4:1 lead and was looking good, Zakopalova had some good shots, particularly on the run, but made too many errors on the forehand side. By this stage, Zakopalova was fighting hard, saving more break points to hold at 4:2 down. However, Georges went on to close out the first set 6:3. I was expecting Georges to win in straight sets but was secretly hoping it would go to 3 sets. Zakopalova obliged by racing to a 3:1 lead in the 2nd set, Georges broke to make it 3:3 but Zakopalova broke at the end of the set to take it 7:5 and force a third.

By now Georges looked quite irritable and before we knew it, she was 4:0 down in the 3rd set. Georges called for the trainer and received treatment for what seemed to be either a back or leg injury, in the end Georges succumbed 6:1. A surprising result but Zakopalova upped her game, cut down on the errors and played quite well in the 2nd and 3rd sets.

The next match between Maria Sharapova and Germany’s Angelique Kerber was a repeat of their Australian Open encounter of three weeks prior. I had never seen Kerber play before but was looking forward to it as I think she has an interesting game and felt she would run Sharapova close. Kerber was broken in her very first service game and Sharapova held the lead twice but after an exchange of breaks Kerber held to reach 5:4 in the first set. Kerber then broke Sharapova to claim the first set 6:4.

The first set had some really good tennis; there was a good contrast in styles. Kerber is a lefty and is an interesting mix of puncher and counterpuncher, she can do both. Kerber is a good retriever who can also hit the forehand down the line and is not afraid to attack the net. Sharapova found that she had a lot of trouble with Kerber and getting a handle on Kerber’s game.

Sharapova broke early in the 2nd set but was broken back, Kerber then survived a long game with many deuces and break points to hold at 3:2. Both players held serve until 5:4 to Kerber, then lightning struck again as Sharapova was broken to 30 whilst serving to stay in the match. Sharapova hit a crucial double fault at 30:15 which cost her dear. It was unfortunate because Sharapova actually served well throughout the match and didn’t hit too many double faults, but as so often these days, it came at the wrong time. Having said that, Kerber was the better player and deserved to win 6:4 6:4.

The next match between home favourite Marion Bartoli and Italy’s Roberta Vinci was a real thriller. This was even more of a clash in styles, Vinci is a real old school player from the 1980s and 1990s – big topspin forehand, sliced backhand and very good volleys, in the mould of Novotna, Sukova, Sabatini and Conchita Martinez. Vinci’s sliced backhand, drop shots and sneaking in to volley floating balls were very exciting to watch and gave Bartoli a lot of trouble, Vinci also employed the drop shot often, exploiting Bartoli’s lack of forward movement.

When Bartoli attacked the net early, Vinci hit a beautiful rolled backhand pass; Vinci gave a wry smile because she didn’t practise a single topspin backhand in the warm up! Vinci broke at 4:4 in the first set and served out a tight set at 6:4. Vinci went up 4:1 in the 2nd set and then suffered a major wobble and lost 5 games in a row as Bartoli took the set 6:4. By this stage, the fantastic Paris crowd were really getting into it, the sort of atmosphere I had seen so often on television but was now experiencing.

Vinci broke early in the 3rd set with another topspin backhand pass as Bartoli approached, and seemed to get it together. Vinci now served for the match at 5:2 and it went all horribly wrong again, by this stage Bartoli and the Parisians were incredibly pumped. Vinci tried again at 5:4 and was broken again, now Vinci somehow managed another crisis at 6:5 down to get to a tiebreak, but the force was with Bartoli and she won it convincingly 7 points to 2. It was 10:30pm and I had witnessed an excellent day of tennis with an incredible climax to the evening.

Finals day was another festival of tennis. The Doubles final between Huber / Raymond and Greonefeld / Martic was first up at 12pm. The experience of Raymond and Huber proved too much for the new pair and they won the match 7:6 6:1. After the presentation I had a brief chat with Lisa Raymond, I told her that the first match I saw was between her and Gabriela Sabatini in Wimbledon in 1995 and now we are in 2012 and she’s still winning titles. She said it has been a long a career, I congratulated her on her longevity, which she appreciated.

The final between Angelique Kerber and Marion Bartoli took place after the exhibition, and it was another cracking match; played in front of a raucous Parisian crowd. There were exchange of breaks but Kerber held the upper hand and served for the 1st set at 5:4 but was broken, but then held her nerve to claim the first set on a tiebreak. In the 2nd set, Kerber served for the match at 5:3 but wobbled, which got Bartoli and the crowd really worked up, Kerber couldn’t respond and was broken again as Bartoli took the 2nd set 7:5.

Kerber steadied herself and broke early in the 3rd set and ran to a 4:1 lead with a double break. Bartoli broke back to 4:2 and Kerber survived an incredibly long game to get to 5:2. Bartoli saved at least 3 match points but in the end the pressure was too much and Kerber closed it out 6:2 to win her first title on the WTA tour.

I thought Kerber was the better player on the day. She had the better serve and teased Bartoli with sliced backhands and drop shots, exposing Bartoli’s relative lack of movement. Kerber also retrieved well and showed a good level of athleticism because Bartoli really pounds the ball from corner to corner. Kerber has the potential to be a consistent top 10 player for years to come.

There were some tears in the presentation by Bartoli but it was a great match and the crowd was tremendous for Bartoli, but very fair to Kerber and applauded her good shots. I had the opportunity to congratulate Kerber after the presentation on a job well done.

I had an excellent time at the Open Gaz de France; I met some interesting people there as well and would definitely consider attending the tournament in future years.

Kvitova v Azarenka - The Next Big Rivalry?

Well, the first major of the year has been decided. Victoria Azarenka emphatically beat Maria Sharapova 6:3 6:0 to claim her first Grand Slam title and the World Number 1 ranking at the same time, not bad for a day’s work. Two of the last three major tournaments have been claimed by Victoria Azarenka and Petra Kvitova. In 2011, the two also played each other in the final of Madrid, the semi-final of Wimbledon and the final of the year end WTA Championships in Istanbul.

Victoria Azarenka is now world number 1 and Petra Kvitova world number 2. It seems appropriate that we could see these two players swap places quite a bit over the next few years, much in the way Federer / Nadal, Agassi / Sampras, Graf / Seles did in recent history. They have all of the ingredients for a great rivalry – contrast in styles of play, contrasts in personality and both have a will to win and desire to improve their game.

It is almost ironic that both players beat Maria Sharapova to claim their maiden grand slam title. On each occasion Sharapova was made favourite by the pundits and bookmakers, although I thought Kvitova and Azarenka would come through in their respective finals, they were the players in form and ready to claim the big prize.

Looking at their personalities, Azarenka is a feisty character on court, someone who plays hard and throws her heart and soul into a match, which has led to many “meltdowns” as Azarenka herself puts it. I first saw Azarenka as a junior in the 2005 French Open and I remember her being almost hysterical in her match, on the court and during changeovers, virtually sobbing in her chair! I wasn’t impressed and questioned how far she could go at senior level acting like that on the court but Azarenka sure left an impression on me that day. It is great to see her come so far, banish her demons and realise her potential.

Azarenka is a player that makes fans take sides, there are not too many neutrals out there. Some will love her fighting spirit, others will dislike her grunting (or wailing) and the way she orders ball kids around. Although at the same time she is still young at 22 years and will probably mature further as time goes on.

Whilst Azarenka is the feisty player out on court giving everything until it hurts, Kvitova is often as cool as a cucumber. But like all great players, looks can be deceiving; Kvitova has a burning intensity to win her matches, that’s displayed often when she screams PODJ! after winning an important point. Kvitova also makes it look easy often, she has incredible natural power and timing, she doesn’t look like she’s making a huge effort, and yet the ball whistles off her racquet for winners.

Their differing personalities and styles of play are the perfect ingredients for a great rivalry. Kvitova is the player with the all court skills, great net play and natural power with a great serve. Azarenka is the solid player with a great groundstroke game but doesn’t have the best serve out there. Traditionally, the attacking player with more options has the better head to head in this type of rivalry. And so far that has proved to be the case, they’ve met 6 times so far and Kvitova has a 4:2 lead. Kvitova won most of the big matches in 2011, the finals in Madrid and Istanbul, plus the semi-final in Wimbledon. Kvitova also beat Azarenka in 2010 Wimbledon, coming from 5: 3 down in the first set to win 9 games in a row 7:5 6:0. Azarenka beat Kvitova in the 2009 Australian Open 1st round 6:2 6:1 and in Prague in 2008.

Kvitova has proved a bad match up for Azarenka so far, Kvitova usually has all the answers to Azarenka’s play. Azarenka likes to play solid and manoeuvre her opponent from side to side, but Kvitova nullifies that by going for lines and coming to net often, putting Azarenka in situations she doesn’t like. Kvitova plays high risk tennis which when it comes off, Azarenka hasn’t got an answer to as yet.

In a press conference during the Australian Open, Azarenka was quoted as saying "New rivalries are being set up like the one I can have with Kvitova. Maria and Serena came back to the top. Kim's still there. We are playing at a very high level." With Kvitova and Azarenka being the same age, that rivalry will be around for many years and they will play each other in many semi-finals and finals. Both Clijsters and Serena are in the autumn of their careers and Sharapova is currently going through a phase Boris Becker once experienced, where he was just 2 to 3 years older than many of his rivals like Agassi, Sampras, Courier and Ivanisevic, but it seemed a world away because he broke through to win Wimbledon at 17, just like Sharapova years later. Sharapova is now playing catch up against her younger opponents.

This is an exciting period for womens tennis after the problems that were caused by Justine Henin’s sudden retirement in 2008. Serena Williams didn’t play enough to stay number 1 consistently whilst we’ve had 3 number 1 players without major titles to their name. Now we have two players who could help take the game to the next level; Azarenka is looking to improve her movement and variety all the time, Kvitova is looking at ways of making her game solid whilst keeping that level of creating something out of nothing, her lefty game making her angles and improvisation even more spectacular, much in the way Marcelo Rios once did on the ATP tour.