Novak Djokovic's Becker Influence

There has been a lot of talk about Novak Djokovic’s association with Boris Becker since his appointment as coach in December 2013.

At the time of the appointment, fans on tennis forums and social media expressed surprise, many ex tennis players and pundits expressed surprise.  If appears that even Boris Becker was surprised that he was asked and then appointed to the job.  The main focus has been what exactly Becker has brought to the table in terms of improvement.  When I watch interviews involving Novak the focus tends to be on Becker being there, knowing what it is like at key moments in a grand slam final, and can provide positivity to him. Before Boris’ appointment at the end of 2013, Novak lost three grand slam finals, two semifinals and his number 1 ranking to Rafael Nadal in a twelve month period.  However, Becker must provide much more than what they let on in the media and what the press tend to report (we know the Press love to simplify things).  Let us take a look at some of the areas where I feel Novak has improved and where Becker has made a difference.

The Serve

This is one department where you would expect Becker to have an influence; Becker had one of the best serves in his era and is considered one of the best servers in tennis history.  I saw Djokovic play in the 2007 French Open quarterfinal and he had a very good serve then, with good pace and well placed into the corners.  By the 2009 that all changed with Djokovic having issues with his nerves, bouncing the ball upwards of 20 times before delivering a 2nd serve; and former top 10 player Todd Martin persuading him to change his service action.  This led to the accusations we see so often in tennis by impatient fans and media, that Djokovic was a “one slam wonder” who didn’t have what it takes to win another major title.  Djokovic also moved from Wilson to Head and it always takes time to get used to a new racquet. Djokovic dispensed with Todd Martin’s services in 2010 and his career really took off in 2011, winning three majors and attaining the number 1 ranking for the first time.  

Djokovic now has a very reliable serve, not the fastest by any stretch but often well placed into the corners and capable of delivering aces.  The area where I feel Becker has made a big difference is the 2nd serve.  Djokovic was never known for having a 2nd serve of any distinction but there is no question that Djokovic now has one of the best 2nd deliveries in tennis, and perfect for grass.  The statistics in the Wimbledon final showed that against Roger Federer, Djokovic won 60% of his 2nd serve points which is very high indeed for a final.  As well, Djokovic’s average speed on the 2nd serve throughout the match was 96mph and his fastest serve was 111mph.  In fact, many serves were over 100mph on both deuce and ad courts, often moving away from Federer or with slice into the body, deep or close to the line.  Very intelligent serving which makes it very difficult to attack.   This is one of the key reasons why Federer could not get into Djokovic’s serving games like he could against Andy Murray, who averages around 75mph with serves often in the middle of the box, making him vulnerable to attack.  I think Becker should be given credit for persuading Djokovic to go after his 2nd serves more than he did in previous major finals

Transition Game

This is another area where Becker was brought in to help Djokovic improve.  Djokovic was already aware that he was playing too passive in many of the big matches in 2012 and 2013.  During the Wimbledon final against Andy Murray, Djokovic knew he needed to shorten the points but seemed unsure about how to implement that strategy.  There is no doubt in my mind that Becker has helped to improve Djokovic’s transition game considerably.  Djokovic is never going to have the best volley on the tour but he can choose when to hit approach shots and come in, or serve volley at occasional moments.  A perfect example was the French Open semifinal against Murray, when he took over the match in the fifth set by constantly hitting big shots and finishing points off with a smash at the net.  In the Wimbledon semifinal against Gasquet, Djokovic came to net 39 times and won 26 points.  In the final, he came to net 34 times and won 20 points, a conversion rate of just under 60% so not the best rate by any means but Djokovic knew he had to mix things up against Federer. 

Djokovic’s net approaches now seem more assured than during 2012 through 2013, during that period many of his forays smacked of desperation, example serving and volleying on 2nd serves out of the blue during the 2013 Wimbledon final.  However, Becker is clearly using his experience of the transition game and providing guidance to Novak of the best moments to attack the net.  Djokovic has superior athleticism so theoretically he should be very good around the net.  In modern tennis where most of the game is played behind the baseline, the number 1 player still has to possess a very good transition game; otherwise he will not be able to stay in the position of number 1 position for very long.

Mental Game

This is an area which has really gone up a notch in the last 12 to 18 months.  Djokovic dominates the ATP tour like no other player since Roger Federer in the mid-2000s.  At the moment there are two tours, one with Djokovic in which he gets to choose where and when he wants to play, and a tour for all of the other players who have to play in smaller events to accrue points and confidence.  Djokovic is able to only play the Masters and grand slam tournaments plus Dubai and Beijing.  This is unprecedented in the history of the ATP tour but is possible due to the current points system. A perfect case in point; Djokovic didn’t play any warm up tournaments, and still won Wimbledon fairly comfortably, only challenged in the fourth round when he was two sets down to Kevin Anderson. 

On the tour itself, Novak has won virtually every tournament he has entered or at least made the final, incredible consistency on all surfaces.  He hasn’t lost an indoor match since November 2012.  To me a player’s indoor record really marks how good a player they really are.  Incidentally, Boris Becker is considered among the best indoor players in history along with Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, Djokovic has joined that club.  It is very difficult to be that consistent all year round, so again credit has to be given to Boris Becker for channelling Novak’s consistency in the right areas, finishing matches as quickly as possible, whilst keeping points fairly short on a number of occasions. Let us remember, Djokovic has been considered a grinder, some of his matches against Nadal and Andy Murray have been north of five hours long.  There is no way he could get to 30 years of age and stay at the top playing that kind of game.  Djokovic plays a much smarter game now which allows him to stay ahead of the pack.  As a player Becker enjoyed the baseline duels against Wilander, Lendl, Chang and Sampras, but he was also the master of the short points, putting his serve in the right areas and then taking control, Novak is now much better at these tactics than he was two years ago.

One area which intrigued me before the Wimbledon final was whether Djokovic would have served first if he won the toss. Djokovic backs himself as the best player in the world; I would say he would have served first given the opportunity, learning from Murray’s poor decision in the semifinal.

 

Conclusion

The most important lesson about analysing Djokovic’s improvement under Boris Becker is this:  the players who have kept working on improving their game both tactically and mentally have improved and kept winning.  The players who have stagnated have not challenged consistently.  My previous article on Stan Warwinka and now Novak Djokovic shows that these two players along with Roger Federer have consistently looked for ways to improve their game.  It is good to see.

Stan Warwinka Revives The Big Game

Last Sunday we witnessed an exhilarating end to a great French Open, one of the best for many years.  

The focus will be on Novak Djokovic and his missed opportunity to win the French Open and join the elite club of guys to win all four major championships in their career.  But for me, what made this the best tournament of the last decade was the champion being dethroned at a relatively early stage; with the remaining players thinking this is their best chance to win the title which eluded them for so long.  It is inconceivable that one player could win a tournament nine times at grand slam level, so when he loses early, it really is up for grabs.   The way Wawrinka was able to win the tournament was truly remarkable, and is rather fitting that he won the tournament in such a manner a day after Barcelona beat Juventus in the champions league final, a triumph for attacking risk taking sport over efficient if unspectacular play.

Although it may be a bit unfair to call Djokovic unspectacular.  He is efficient no doubt and the way he upped the pace and came to the net consistently against Murray in the fifth set in the semifinal was a great sight and I wish he could play like that more often.  However, some of the tennis Warwinka played in the final was nothing short of astonishing; and a tribute to his bravery to keep playing that way despite the nerves and title that was on the line.  In fact, the irony here is that the man who coaches Djokobvic, Boris Becker, often played the kind of tennis Wawrinka played in the final and surely inwardly must approve. 

Which is, approve of the fact that a player has won a major tournament playing the big game, the game the “experts” and pundits told us couldn’t win anymore at the highest level, particularly on the slower courts that permeate the tour today.  However, since January 2014, Stan Wawrinka has won two majors and Marin Cilic won the US Open, it has proved that it is possible to win major tournaments by taking the game to the opponent in all aspects of offence while possessing good enough defence.  Last year during the Australian Open final, Wawrinka hit some of his 2nd serves at 110mph on the line, Nadal was rattled long before his back gave out, he wasn’t used to dealing with that type of tennis on hardcourts since the mid 2000s, when there were a lot more risk takers on the tour who went for their shots against him particularly, the backhand down the line which gave him a lot of trouble on hardcourts.

It was a similar scenario against Djokivic although on the red clay it was even more spectacular, especially as Wawrinka dropped the first set.  Jim Courier observed that during the tournament, Djokovic stood on average one foot behind the baseline not to concede ground and rush his opponents with great counterpunching and some offense when required.  However, during the final, Wawrinka pushed Djokovic five feet behind the baseline, with deep heavy and lightning quick shots, some of those winners were the fastest you will see on a tennis court.  What did for Djokovic was the constant attack off both wings, forehand and backhand.  In recent times Fernando Gonzalez from Chile had the incredible forehand at elite level, but his one hand backhand was suspect and didn’t have much power on it; it is rare for a player to have equal power and accuracy off both wings.  Jo Wilfried Tsonga also has great power but struggles on the backhand return despite using two hands on the racquet.  This is one of the key reasons why Wawrinka has transitioned from a player outside of the top 10 into one of the very best players in the world.  His improvement in these facets of the game increased his self-belief, along with coach Magnus Norman's brilliant tutorship. 

What does this mean for aggressive / attacking tennis?  Last year Warwinka and Cilic won two out of the four majors and now Warwinka has won the French Open in emphatic style.  Three out of the last six majors have been won by a player playing aggressive tennis in the purer sense of the word.  It will be good to see that trend continue into Wimbledon but as of now the grass surface favours the counterpunchers who move better.  Dimitrov showed last year he has potential but his form has fallen off a cliff.  Still, it is very good news after years of finals between two counterpunchers.  Let’s not forget, the three sets between Murray and Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final took three hours and thirty minutes. 

I also wonder how many players have not realised their potential.  Players like Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer, have been in the top 10 for years whereas Warwinka’s ranking never got above 15 for many years, we knew he had the talent but didn’t know about his determination.  Magnus Norman worked on his fitness levels and changed his forehand stroke to make it more of a weapon to balance his backhand, much in the way Justine Henin did years ago in the women's game.  Goran Ivanisevic changed Cilic’s serving stance on the ad court to get more slice and swing on his down the middle serve, stretching opponents much more.  The players in the top 10 have not made any fundamental changes in their game to take it to the next level. 

This French Open win by Warwinka sets up the rest of the year nicely.  Let’s hope youngsters will be inspired to play the big game and take up the one hand backhand, and rediscover this art of volleying and putting slice on the volley as opposed to pushing the ball which so many players do today.  Wawrinka has created an opportunity here, let’s hope coaches and future players grab it.

Best of Five Set Masters Finals: Let's Bring Them Back

Novak Djokovic wins Monte Carlo

Back in 2012 I wrote an article for Eurosport asking whether some Masters finals on the ATP tour should be restored to best of five sets.  

I think Masters tournaments are in need of a shake up. The dichotomy is that if I were to contact the ATP now, they would tell me how well the tournaments are doing, how much success they have had and how much money they generate, and there would be no need to change anything.  They would also think I am out of my mind but would probably be too polite to say it.

But precisely the reasons why the ATP do not think there needs to be change, are the reasons there needs to be change.  There is no doubt in my mind that Masters finals exclusively becoming best of three sets has stifled competition and kept those at the top, at the top.  Why?

There are a host of reasons for this.  The first thing to say is when best of five sets were jettisoned in 2007, it coincided with a big increase in ranking points apportioned to masters, grand slams and the end of year ATP World Tour Finals. It has become inherently difficult if not almost impossible to dislodge the top players or win some of the big titles on offer.  But to the matter of the Masters finals first. Before 2008 best of five occurred in seven of the nine tournaments:  Those events were Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Italian Open, Hamburg, Paris Bercy and the end of year championships.  Also, many smaller tournaments on the ATP calendar had best of five finals.  In the case of Indian Wells and Miami, when Indian Wells was best of five, Miami would be best of three; then the next year Indian Wells would be best of three and Miami best of five, and so on.  This was one of the reasons the Indian Wells Miami double was so prestigious and so difficult to attain.  Pre the change to best of three sets, only Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Marcelo Rios and Roger Federer did the double in the same year. 

However, since the change to best of three set finals, the top players can afford to only play the Masters and not really participate on the rest of the tour other than a very few tourneys such as the Dubai championships.  Whereas in the past you would see the number 1 player in venues like Marseille, Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Lyon, Vienna and other smaller tournaments, today you will find Novak Djokovic only needs to play the Masters tournaments, Dubai, Asian hardcourt tournaments in September and that’s about it.  As Djokovic wins the majority of the Masters tournaments and is so far ahead in the rankings, he can be completely refreshed for all of the grand slam tournaments, in fact, he doesn’t even need to play warm up tournaments before the Australian Open or Wimbledon.  It is also gives the impression there are two tours taking place, one for the very elite who do not have to play many events other than the Masters series, and the rest where they have to pick up titles and points at the smaller events like Rotterdam or Valencia.  It is also worth noting how many of the smaller tournaments have fallen off the calendar since 2007.  Los Angeles, Estoril, Washington, San Jose, Indianapolis have all left, Japan is now played in September and Beijing has been added along with the China Open, I imagine Djokovic plays Beijing, China Open and Dubai due to the more prize money and prestige they offer. 

This two tier system now in place maybe great for the elite players and the marketing men in the ATP, but I don’t think it is good for tennis in general.  The cause and effect is this; as I mentioned earlier, Djokovic by only playing a small select number of tournaments can stay fresh for the grand slam tournaments, which in turn allows him to stay at the top as he always gets to the latter stages.  Meanwhile the next generation of Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori and others have been unable to break through substantially.  The likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Monfils have been beaten physically and mentally.  Wawrinka has had success breaking through to win the Australian Open and Monte Carlo in 2014 then Rotterdam in February but has remained inconsistent.  Marin Cilic has not performed at all since winning the US Open last September.  

The Masters count is also getting confused and I would venture to say is now becoming meaningless.  Djokovic won his 23rd Masters title at the Monte Carlo event recently, nearly all of those would have come in best of three set finals.  Federer and Nadal are also both over 20 Masters wins but started winning Masters titles when finals were best of five sets.  Federer and Nadal were involved in memorable five set finals against each other and other opponents like Guillermo Coria and David Nalbandian.  There is no question it is possible to rack up the title wins, Djokovic could be looking at 40 Masters wins before his career is over.  The reason being they have the feel of any other ATP final, other than the fact they offer more prize money and play in a bigger stadium.

To put this into perspective, there are nine tournaments of this calibre every year, a lot of finals not to recall many memorable moments.  The last two Indian Wells finals between Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic have been very good, as was the 2013 final of between Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin Del Potro.  Prior to the change in 2007, there were many memorable matches to call on, some still talked about up to this day.  As for the end of year World Tour finals, the best final took place in 2011 between Federer and Tsonga but that was four years ago.

The argument of tiredness no longer applies.  With the points system currently in place, as long as the top players go far in the big events, there is no need to play a huge amount of small events; consequently players can be fresh for a select number of five set finals if they were restored.  The Indian Premier League took place over an extended period in the close season and players often manage to play exhibitions during the season; there can be no excuse not to play best of five finals at Masters level.

Now is as good a time to reconsider introducing best of five set finals at select tournaments at Masters level on the ATP tour.  Currently Masters finals do not offer value for money for the punter or viewer on pay television; the system needs a shake up.

2015 WTA Season Needs More Competition

Serena Williams wins Miami

So, another weekend and another win for Serena Williams.  Serena won her eighth title last Saturday in Miami with a 6:2 6:0 victory over Carla Suarez Navarro, who was playing in her first Masters final.  We were all expecting a routine win but even I would not have predicted such a quick and easy victory.

It appears to be getting relatively easier for Serena to win tennis tournaments the older she gets; usually it is the other way as it supposed to be more difficult the older a player becomes.  In fact, barring Venus Williams, every one of Serena’s rivals from her generation are retired and doing different things.  That includes Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo and Jennifer Capriati.  Remarkable indeed and let’s not forget Serena has won twelve major titles since 2008.    

While this is all great news for Serena and her supporters, 2015 is so far proving to be a non-event on the WTA tour.  The players who are expected to challenge have not made a serious impression so far and Victoria Azarenka is just not competitive at this stage after being out for much of 2014 with injuries.  The only player who has stepped up is Simona Halep who won Indian Wells two weeks ago and lost to Serena in the semifinal in Miami in three sets.  However, I haven’t changed my view that Simona needs to add quite a few more things to her game if she wants to become a grand slam champion.  Striking the ball cleanly shot after shot after shot is not enough; she needs to start going to net to win points; develop a proper transition game and take more chances; right now she is too risk averse.

Let us look in more detail at the other top players.  I haven’t heard Petra Kvitova’s name mentioned for a period of time.  That is due to the fact she pulled out of both Indian Wells and Miami citing injury and perhaps exhaustion as well.  Petra is due to play for the Czech Republic in the semifinal of the Fed cup later this month, a commitment she always takes seriously.  Then there is Maria Sharapova.  Maria did make it through to the final of the Australian Open and it was always going to be difficult for her to defeat Serena.  Since then Maria has not made an impression in the mini indoor season and was knocked out early in both Indian Wells and Miami.  In the last few years Maria has had a very strong claycourt season so there is an opportunity for her to make her move; Maria is defending champion in both Madrid and Roland Garros. 

Caroline Wozniacki rounds out the current top five and Ana Ivanovic is up to number six in the world, Agnieszka Radwanska has dropped out of the top five altogether and is now number 8 in the world rankings.  Wozniacki and Ivanovic are the interesting players here; both former world number 1 players and have struggled mightily in recent times.  Even though Wozniacki made it to the final of the US Open in 2014, neither player has shown they are consistent contenders for big titles.  In Ivanovic’s case, she has been a non-factor at both grand slam tournaments and premier WTA events since 2008 so it is surprising she has made it so high up the rankings.  Eugenie Bouchard, Ekaterina Makarov and Andrea Petkovic comprise the rest of the top 10.

Sloane Stephens, Madison Keys and Eugenie Bouchard are considered the up and coming players.  Sloane Stephens is yet to win a tournament of any description on the WTA tour.  Madison Keys showed in the Australia Open she has grand slam potential by beating Venus and running Serena close in the semifinal; but is still not quite ready as makes too many unforced errors.  Eugenie Bouchard has gone off the boil for the moment. 

Therefore, looking at the WTA right now, there are no players to frighten Serena Williams.  Compared to the players from her generation, the standard is not quite there.  A lot of the arguments have been played out on forums and other outlets as to why that might be the case but for me looking at the participants at the top, everyone plays the same way and there is not enough conviction to do something different.  Halep is a good indicator, the player people are looking to but there is not enough variety in her game to trouble Serena over a series of matches until she adds vital elements.

Now that the early season indoor and outdoor hardcourts tournaments have ended and we move into the clay and grass period of the calendar, this may be the moment where the WTA gets interesting and we see more competition.  The WTA really needs the players to step up and provide the fans with better entertainment.