Davis Cup Finals: Surface Mishaps

The tennis world has applauded Great Britain making it through to their first Davis cup final since 1978, with the opportunity to be crowned champions for the first time since 1936!  Great Britain go in as favourites against Belgium with Andy Murray being the difference maker, while Belgium have chosen indoor clay as the surface of choice, rather unsurprisingly.  This intrigues me as the Davis cup final is littered with examples of a home nation choosing a surface to negate the opposition but backfiring spectacularly, let us look at some recent scenarios.

1995 Russia v USA

1995 was the year of the super squad, with the Americans boasting the two top players in the world who traded the number 1 position all year. Legend has it that at the start of 1995, Agassi and Sampras told Captain Tom Gullickson one would only play if the other was playing!  For back up, the Americans boasted Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Todd Martin and doubles specialists in Richie Renenberg.  The Russians despite having Yvefgeny Kafelnikov and Andre Chesnokov knew they were underdogs, so chose indoor clay in the Olympic stadium, ensuring the clay was watered and as slow as humanly possible to play on; all designed to put the hardcourt specialists of the Americans off their game. 

The first rubber between Sampras and Chesnokov was a gruelling affair which Sampras took 6-4 in the fifth; the match point was especially dramatic as Sampras collapsed and had to be carried off the court like a war veteran! Kafelnikov squared the tie beating Jim Courier in straight sets; Courier stood in for Agassi who was carrying an injury and couldn’t play the final.  Much to everyone’s surprise, Sampras came out the next day and played doubles with Todd Martin against Kafelnikov and Ohlhosky and won in straight sets to put the Americans ahead 2-1 in the final. In the reverse singles, Sampras beat Kafelnikov in straight sets to seal the Davis cup triumph against the odds of injury to Agassi and near exhaustion to Sampras.

Looking back, choosing an indoor hardcourt would probably have been a better option.

1999 France v Australia

Four years after Russia chose indoor clay which backfired; France decided to choose the same surface against Australia in Nice.  With Pat Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Mark Philippoussis and the number 1 doubles pair of Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge, the French figured the only way to slow Australia down was to choose slow red clay.  Rafter couldn’t play the event because of shoulder trouble so Philippoussis stepped up, winning both of his rubbers against Sebastian Grosjean and then decisively in four sets against Cedric Pioline; after Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge gave Australia the advantage on the middle Saturday. 

In fact, France were not able to take Australia to five sets in any of the rubbers that mattered.  The scoreline appeared more respectable as Sebastien Grosjean defeated Lleyton Hewitt in straight sets in the dead rubber.  However, it was Australia’s first Davis cup triumph since the 1980s when they boasted players such as Pat Cash, John Fitzgerald, Paul McNamee and Wally Masur.  As for France, it was a strange decision, considering they beat the mighty United States in the 1991 Davis cup final on a quick indoor court.

2001 Australia v France

In 2001 it was Australia’s turn to host the final as France hosted their 1999 encounter. Naturally, France were looking for revenge but Australia figured they held the trump card with choice of surface; this time the Aussies chose fast grass, their favourite. The only problem was, nobody told the committee French players have always preferred fast grass to slow clay!  Cedric Pioline played the Wimbledon final in 1997, more recently Grosjean, Gasquet and Tsonga have all played in Wimbledon semifinals.  In the womens game, Natalie Tauziat played the Wimbledon final in 1998, Amelie Mauresmo won Wimbledon in 2006 and Marion Bartoli in 2013.

Back to 2001, Australia certainly had the grass court specialists so on the face of it looked a good decision.  The final was held in Melbourne Park, home of the Australian Open.  The first day ended 1:1 with Nicholas Escude defeating Lleyton Hewitt in five sets and Pat Rafter defeating Sebastian Grosjean in straight sets.  The doubles however went the way of the French with Pioline and Santoro defeating Hewitt and Rafter in four sets.  However, for the reverse singles Pat Rafter’s injuries’ flared up again and was not able to play.  Australia came back into the tie with Lleyton Hewitt defeating Sebastien Grosjean meaning it all came down to the final rubber, with Wayne Arthurs standing in for Rafter to play Nicholas Escude. Escude was a strong player with a good grass court record, having run Andre Agassi close in the Wimbledon quarterfinal that year.  Unfortunately for Australia, Escude played an inspired match and exacted revenge on the Aussies’ favourite surface.

2002 France v Russia

It’s fair to say some simply do not learn their lesson; that will apply to France.  In 1991 and 1996 when France won the Davis cup, on each occasion they triumphed on quick indoor surfaces. However, France were up to their crazy tricks again, deciding to choose slow indoor clay when they had no players who would be considered clay court specialists.  I can only assume it was to negate the hardcourt prowess of Safin and Kafelnikov.  The tie was played in Paris Bercy home of the annual Masters tournament.  After day 1, the tie was even with Safin beating Paul Henri Mattheu in four sets, whilst Grosjean defeated a laboured Kafelnikov in straight sets.  The doubles rubber went to France with Escude and Santoro defeating Kafelnikov and Safin five sets.

Consequently as so often in Davis cup, it all came down to the reverse singles.  Safin got the Russians back in the tie with a straight sets victory over Sebastien Grosjean, therefore, all French eyes were on Paul Henri Mattheu to take France home against Mikael Youzhny, who stood in for a “crocked” Kafelnikov.  Back in 2002 I thought Mattheu was a promising young player who might have a good career.  Mattheu went two sets up and everything was looking good, but inexplicably folded as Youhzny came back to win in five sets, and Russia won the Davis cup for the first time in front of a huge French crowd.  Sadly for Mattheu, that defeat finished his career before it began, he never recovered from that loss and became a journeyman player who compiled a dreadful five set losing record for the rest of his career.

2014 France v Switzerland

Here we go again with the French.  It is ironic that France is the home of the clay grand slam tournament, and yet France cannot produce clay court specialists.  However, the French decided again not to fight fire with fire but to wave the white flag before the tie was played; that was my feeling before the match with the choice of surface and that’s how it proved.  France had six players at their disposal against essentially a two man Swiss team.  In fact, Roger Federer was not at his best having withdrawn from the ATP World final a few days prior with a bad back; theoretically France should have liked their chances.  The only problem was, the two Swiss players were grand slam champions and France had no champions, a huge mental block.

In the first singles, Warwinka took care of Tsonga in four sets; however Monfils beat Federer quite easily in straight sets.  The two man team of Switzerland came back on the Saturday and defeated Benneteau and Gasquet in three very straightforward sets.  In the reverse singles, Gasquet stood in for the injured Tsonga, which made no difference as Federer won in three easy sets to win the tie three rubbers to one; despite the fact that France played in front of a record tennis crowd in Lille, had six players to choose from and Federer suffering from a back problem.  For some unknown reason, well only to the French federation, they seem paralysed to take on opponents on a surface that would favour themselves as well as the opposition.

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.