My vist to WTA Paris Indoors 2013 (Open GDF Suez)

I returned to London today after attending the WTA Paris Indoors (Open GDF Suez) at the Stade Pierre de Coubertin in the south west corner of Paris.

It is the 2nd year in a row I attended the event.  Last year the tournament celebrated 20 years with a special exhibition with tournament Director Amelie Mauresmo, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis and Martina Navratilova; and Angelique Kerber won her first title in a thriller of a final against Marion Bartoli in front of a raucous partisan crowd.

I wasn’t expecting a repeat of that sort of drama and excitement but it was an enjoyable tournament; and for the 2nd year in a row, an exciting young German player won the event, the sort of win that can lead to bigger and better things in her career.

I attended the quarterfinals onwards and four good matches were lined up.  The first between Dutch qualifier Kiki Bertens and Lucie Safarova of the Czech Republic.  The 1st set went in a flash, Safarova started play and was 3-0 down within ten minutes, Safarova got one break back but was broken again, leaving Bartens to serve for a 6-1 set.

What was interesting was Safarova’s reluctance to go to net. She hit the ball well, but didn’t take on any short ball to follow into net, preferring to prolong the rallies and often losing the point when potentially in a winning position – not taking the initiative.  This lack of enterprise may explain why a player as talented as Safarova has not progressed to top 10 level despite her experience on the tour.

The 2nd set was closer and Safarova finally realised she needed to close the net down to make things happen, she came in 8 times and won 6 of the points, but by now Bartens was playing well in both defence and offence, hitting some big shots and was able to break late on to take the match 6-1 7-5 for her biggest career win.

The next encounter was an intriguing matchup between Carla Suarez Navarro and Sara Errani.  Two of the smaller players on the tour these days, you would expect to see some good counterpunching.  I had never seen Suarez Navarro live before but knew all about her one hand backhand which is a great shot.

It turned out to be the match of the tournament, 3 hours of superb, intense tennis with some incredible shotmaking, particularly from Suarez who hit some mesmerising backhands which the crowd loved.  Not least a stunning running backhand down the line pass first point at 4-3, a shot often considered one of the most technically difficult in tennis.

Errani took a quick 3:0 lead in the first set, Suarez came storming back to serve for the set at 5-3 only to get nervous and not able to close it out. Errani capitalised to break again and claim the set 7-5.  The tactics were interesting because there were many long diagonal rallies backhand to backhand, with Suarez often looking to open up the court with a backhand down the line or with an inside out forehand.  Errani as usual was solid with those pounding topspin groundstrokes; this match was more similar to a mens encounter tactically. Suarez opened up the court with some incredible backhand winners throughout the match, and hit some great crosscourt forehand winners as well.

Suarez broke Errani right at the death to take the 2nd set 6-4 to force a decider.  I was expecting Errani’s greater experience and consistency to come through and that proved to be the case, although Suarez did have match point at 5-4 but was unable to convert.  Errani broke soon after to serve for a great match 7-5 4-6 7-5.

I was really impressed with Suarez and the crowd loved her one hander backhand and style of play.  I just got the feeling that Suarez chose to play the wrong shot at the wrong moment just a bit too often.  Errani’s serve just sits up and Suarez could have attacked it much more often, choosing to stand back and take the return late instead of standing in and taking it early to put the pressure on.  No doubt Suarez has the ability to win WTA titles if she can acquire more self-belief and consistency to go with her talented shotmaking.

The 3rd match was between Mona Barthel of Germany and last year’s finalist Marion Bartoli.  It got me thinking, could Mona Barthel be Germanic for Marion Bartoli?? Anyway, a friend of mine on the WTA tour had been telling me to check out Barthel a year ago saying that she was going to be a very good player; this would be the first opportunity to see her play live.

This match turned out to be a complete contrast to the previous one.  Both players started off serving big and direct, going for their 1st and 2nd serves with no holding back, looking to get to net at every opportunity.  Rallies proved to be extremely short, like a shootout, a female version of Roddick v Raonic of two years ago in Memphis.

After an exchange of breaks, the set went to an inevitable tiebreak with both players serving so well.  Bartoli rushed to a commanding 6-2 lead, but Barthel stormed back remarkably to take the tiebreak 9-7.  This may explain why the crowd seemed a bit subdued because Barthel's serve was so good it was difficult to see where Bartoli would break again.

Bartoli cracked at the start of the 2nd set dropping serve, Barthel held serve throughout the 2nd set to take the match 7-6 6-4.  It was the second year Bartoli would lose to a German player who would turn out to be champion.

In the womens game, I have seen many players serve fast over the last few years, but Barthel places her serve so well, she can hit lines and all targets of the service box, including the slice serve on both deuce and ad courts plus the big serve down the middle.  Her slice serve on the ad court is top notch and is an important shot which other players cannot match in the modern game because they do not practice it enough, Barthel can hit it there like Serena Williams. 

The final match of the evening took place between Petra Kvitova and young French qualifier Kristina Mladenovic.  Perhaps Kvitova was aware of the fact Mladenovic beat Wickamyer and Georges in previous rounds because she started extremely nervous and was two breaks down within 15 minutes.   Kvitova got one break back but Mladenovic was really mixing up her big serve well, getting a few aces in to keep Kvitova guessing.  At the same time, Kvitova’s trusted wide serve on the ad court had gone off completely, draining her confidence.

Mladenovic took the set 6-3 and even though Kvitova broke early in the 2nd set, she was not able to sustain It and Mladenovic broke back at 4-3 and then broke Kvitova for the final time to take the match 6-3 6-4.  It was another great win which really got the French crowd excited, at the same time it was clear that Petra Kvitova is still struggling for form and needs to play as many tournaments as possible to get the feeling of winning matches.  If she does that I have no doubt with her talent she will be up there again.

So, the final would be an intriguing clash of tennis philosophy and style of play. In the semifinals, Barthel was able to dispatch Mladenovic with some ease and Errani capitalised on Bertens’ retirement.  The first few games of the final were very tight with both players feeling each other out; the pattern was established quite early, serve vs return of serve in traditional fashion.  Barthel was getting to net at every opportunity, even throwing in the odd serve and volley, while Errani was continually serving to Barthel’s forehand on the deuce court, keeping her at bay for fear of being attacked by serving weak serves into Barthel’s hitting zone.

Barthel got the first break to serve for the set at 5-3 but got nervous and Errani came back as she so often does.  However, after a tough service game at 5-5, Barthel broke Errani who was serving to stay in the set, and so claimed it 7-5.  Errani held her serve from 0-40 down early in the 2nd set and was hanging on; Barthel was serving incredibly and hitting fantastic winners from the back and some great volley winners too.  Errani tried to bring Barthel in with drop shots as well to test her movement, there were some fantastic rallies.

Barthel broke to serve for the match and again got nervous, allowing Errani back in, and after saving two match points took it to a tiebreak.  As Frew McMillan said years ago, the player with the bigger serve usually wins the tiebreak and that proved to be the case again, Barthel winning it in convincing fashion to win the 2nd title of her career and acclaim from an appreciative crowd for both players.

Errani’s plan was to make Barthel hit as many shots as possible in long gruelling rallies. But Barthel’s serve was just too good and was able to keep the points short and attack the net whenever she could.  The phrase that popped into my head is that Barthel serves like an assassin with clinical precision, so may returns go astray, ricochet into the tramlines, hit the net or land short for a midcourt put away, that is pretty rare in the womens game.

So, for the 2nd year in a row, I left the tournament feeling I’ve just seen a special talent who could go really far if she can maintain this level of consistency and continue to improve her movement and self-belief.  Mona Barthel may not just be top 5 material but potential to be a major winner in the future as well.

Andy Murray - Still Room for Improvement at Grand Slam Level

 Andy Murray lost the final of the 2013 Australian Open in 4 sets to Novak Djokovic

 

Murray started strongly taking the first set on a tiebreak and had three breakpoints at the start of the 2nd set but was unable to convert them.  After that, Djokovic started to find his rhythm on his groundstrokes and serves and took the 2nd set to a tiebreak, which he won to square the match.

 

I got the distinct feeling that it was going to be difficult for Murray to regain the momentum, taking into consideration he played Roger Federer in a tough 4 hour battle two nights before.  That turned out to be the case as Murray was broken at 4-3 in the 3rd set, leaving Djokovic to serve it out. The 4th set proved to be a procession for Djokovic, breaking Murray twice who by now was spent physically and emotionally, Djokovic taking it 6-2 to win his 4th Australian Open and 3rd in a row. 

The interesting thing was that the pundits were prepared to say that Murray is still a league behind Djokovic at Grand Slam level.  That is an interesting statement, considering Murray beat Djokovic in 5 sets in the US Open just a few months ago.  On that occasion, the pressure was on Murray to deliver but now the pressure was on Djokovic, and he came through after a nervous beginning.

In Murray’s previous match, the statistics looked good. Murray hit 62 winners and served 25 aces (check), in fact Murray hit almost 20 more winners than Federer which is unusual, and out aced Federer by 20.  However, winning a major tournament involves repeating that kind of performance back to back from the quarterfinal onwards, Murray came up short when it came to imposing his game For instance, in the final, Murray came to net only 15 times in 4 sets, whereas Djokovic came to net 41 times.  Clearly Djokovic was prepared to take more chances in coming forward to force the action.

As far as where Murray goes from here, he can be satisfied in having played another good tournament where he was only stopped by the number 1 player in the world.  There is no need to panic or fret, or feel he is not going to get where he wants to go as a tennis player and multiple grand slam winner.  However, for Murray to achieve these goals, this match showed that there are still some things that need to be improved technically and tactically before he can achieve the dream of being a multiple major winner.

For Murray to realise his potential even further, he has to play consistently aggressive all year round and not just at certain times or certain matches in tournaments.  That is a habit to play consistently aggressive and something Ivan Lendl can work on with Murray as part of the next stage of his development.

Murray still has to be bolder in his shot selection and be prepared to go near the lines more often in the very big matches.  During the Australian final, Murray played many rallies which were long, but appeared to have no real strategy; he was either waiting for a mistake or trying to engineer an opening which never materialised, in many instances losing the point and heightening his frustration. 

I notice that Murray has yet to recognise consistently that when he hits a big shot into the corners and his opponent is on the defensive, he doesn’t follow in to net, which lets his opponent back in the rally, that happened on many occasions on Sunday.  This is one strategy / tactic Murray must work on to improve, his volleys are very good and he needs to utilise them more.  Murray should also consider the hit and charge tactic on the 2nd serve from time to time to keep his opponent guessing especially on key points.  This is a tactic Federer has successfully employed against Murray in major tournaments; it shortens big points and saves energy.

There is no reason for Murray to get disheartened by his latest slam loss.  He has come a very long way in a short space of time and is rightly considered one of the best players in the world.  However, if Murray wants to become the very best and win Wimbledon, he still has to improve the finer points of aggressive tennis and play over 90% of his points with much more purpose than he displayed in the Australian Open final. 

Murray is a learner so it will be interesting to see if he keeps improving to become a multi slam champion and world number 1 in 2013.

The match that changed Tennis

The 1994 Wimbledon final between Pete Sampras and Goran Ivanisevic took place on an unusually hot July day for London.   

Beforehand, everybody knew the rallies were going to be short and points quick.  However, no one would have predicted the importance that match would play in the direction of modern tennis.  

The match was won by Sampras in straight sets with a strange scoreline of 7-6 7-6 6-0.  After Ivanisevic lost the two tiebreaks, he crumbled in the 3rd set as Sampras pulled out an array of returns and passing shots.  However, what seemed to get the media going was how the match unfolded, with a series of strong serves, aces, mishit returns or returns into the net on an incredibly regular basis.  

With the temperature around 30 degrees centigrade and the ball flying as a result, there were zero rallies as a consequence.  Ivanisevic hit 25 aces and Sampras 17, whilst many of Sampras’ serves were consistently between 125 and 130 mph (210kph). Due to the very hot weather and the potency of the serves, the ball flew like missiles as each player added topspin at pace, making balls extremely difficult to return.

There had been volley festivals before on finals day.  In 1991 Michael Stich defeated Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg played Becker in three straight finals between 1988 and 1990.  In 1986 and 1987 Ivan Lendl impersonated a serve volleyer and lost to Boris Becker and Pat Cash respectively.  And in 1985 a 17 year old Boris Becker defeated big serving Kevin Curren.  

However, what made this match different was the ability of each player to hit their 2nd serves as good as 1st serves.  Whereas in the past the crowd knew they were going to get some action on the second ball with some great tennis, many 2nd serves in this match went the way a 1st serve would - ace, mishit return or return into the net.

After the final Sampras, interviewed by BBC’s Sue Barker protested this was grass court tennis, that clay tennis could have matches where rallies were too long; and he had been using the same racquet technology for seven years (at that stage) and had not adopted a wide body frame like many of his opponents.

The negative clamour by the media about this final was pretty huge; the game was too quick and too serve dominated they cried, which in turn was killing tennis.  Of course there were no forums, facebook or twitter in 1994 where fans could make their voices heard immediately, but the message by the media (voice of the people) was clear, that was not the tennis the public wanted to see.  The interesting thing was, watching a re-run of the video, the crowd seemed pretty into it, or maybe that was just the tiebreakers…

Looking back, not only was this the beginning of the end of fast grass at Wimbledon, it was also the beginning of the end of fast courts in professional tennis.  The changes were first manifested for 1995 Wimbledon, the committee sanctioned a slower “softer” ball before the tournament, designed to introduce more rallies.  Further changes would take place over subsequent years with changes to the composition and the cut of the grass and further alterations to the Slazenger ball.  This didn’t stop a big server winning the tournament between 1994 and 2001 with Sampras winning in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, Richard Krajicek triumphing in 1996 and Goran Ivanisevic in 2001.

Changes made over time on grass didn’t become apparent until 2002, mainly due to the big servers of the 1990s slowing down or retiring outright. Krajicek got to the quarterfinal as a wildcard but lost in five sets to Xavier Malisse, and in the semifinal Tim Henman got comprehensively outplayed by Lleyton Hewitt.  Hewitt played David Nalbandian in the final, the first all baseline final since the 1970s.  Unlike Borg v Connors where both players tried to get to net as often as possible, these two guys only went to net to shake hands…. 

 

Serve volley on both serves on grass became a philosophy and almost ideology during this era. It became a way of playing that probably was not absolutely necessary but there was a degree of obsession to do it.  By the 1990s grass courts were more than good enough to aid baseline play, in fact, between 1990 and 1999, baseliners played in five of the ten finals.  Andre Agassi won the title in 1992 and played in the 1999 final. Jim Courier played in the 1993 final, Malavai Washington in 1996 and Cedric Pioline played the final in 1997.  

To see how serve volley on both serves became a philosophy on grass only, just three months beforehand, Sampras played Agassi in the Miami final. On a slow hardcourt, Sampras came from a set down to win 5-7 6-3 6-3.  During that match, Sampras stayed back on his 2nd serve throughout the match and stayed back on 1st serve on a number of occasions.  The result was an extremely enjoyable match full of great baseline rallies   No doubt these were the kind of matches the Wimbledon committee wanted, Agassi v Sampras in Wimbledon finals.  

You could argue that surfaces have been slowed too much on the back of the 1994 Wimbledon final.  By the mid 2000s, the ATP, WTA and ITF completely phased out indoor carpet and replaced it with medium paced plexicushion hardcourts.  The ITF also experimented with a larger ball in 2001 to slow the game further and negate advances in string technology.

The argument on the speed of grass was tempered in 2003 when Roger Federer won Wimbledon for the first time, defeating Mark Philippoussis in the final with an adaptation of Sampras’ tactics on hardcourts, which was to serve volley on 1st serve and invariably stay back on 2nd serve.  2003 would be the last ever serve volley final.  

The argument gathered momentum once again in 2008 when Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in five sets in the Wimbledon final to become the first Spanish player to win Wimbledon since 1966.  And with counterpunching players dominating three of the top four positions, the argument that courts are uniformly too slow will not go away anytime soon.

There are a number of things that can be done to encourage more net play or at least a hybrid form of attacking tennis.  Traditionally attacking all court players came out of North America, Northern Europe and Australia; coaches and academies could be encouraged to nurture players who want to play this style if some of the surfaces on tour are sped up somewhat, particularly hardcourts and indoor surfaces.  That would encourage the development of the one hand backhand and all court play.  

It would also be really interesting if a batch of young players were to revive the hybrid tactic of serve volleying on 1st serve and staying back on 2nd serve.  That would add a different dimension, especially on grass. It would take a bit of courage and vision to work at it to become comfortable.  Amelie Mauresmo showed it could be done when she won Wimbledon in 2006 in memorable fashion. 

Things go in cycles, and it could be that at some stage in future, younger players who want to play an attacking style will come through. Clashes in styles of play have made for so many of the greatest matches over the last thirty years.  In the meantime, the repercussions from the infamous 1994 Wimbledon final are still being felt today.