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.

Tim Henman's Sampras dilemma

 Recently ex tennis player Tim Henman gave his views on what has been the never-ending Roger Federer Pete Sampras debate.  Now this has been done to death since 2004 in the media and on tennis forums long before Federer broke Sampras’ records and long since Federer broke Sampras’ records. 

What surprised me was that Henman, a guy who played both was so willing to give an opinion on an otherwise worn argument.  Henman was in Kolkata India as an ambassador for the HSBC road to Wimbledon tournament.  And he was asked the question:  Having played against both Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, who would you pick as the better player?  This was Henman’s answer:

Yeah, I played Pete when he was world No. 1. He was an incredible player, that's why he won 14 Grand Slams. 

When he served well, he was at the top of his game. But Roger has a better all-round game and plays at a high level all the time. He has a great first and second serve, plays aggressively from the back of the court and has a better return game. To beat Federer, you've got to be at your best. 

Now for a Federer fan that would be seen as a great reply, but for everyone else, the comment does not really seem to make any sense.  The initial observation I would make is; what was Sampras doing and how did he win 14 grand slam tournaments?  Apparently according to Henman, Federer plays at a high level all of the time.  By implication, Sampras did not play at a high level all of the time.  Also, Federer has a great first and second serve and plays aggressively from the back.  If he wasn’t referring to Federer I would have sworn he was talking about Sampras.

But of course, we know no player can play at a high level all of the time, whether it be injuries or crisis of confidence.  In 2013 Federer was knocked out in the 2nd round of Wimbledon as defending champion and the 4th round of the US Open; it happens to everyone.  As Federer is a great player he was able to bounce back in 2014. 

I see quite a few idiosyncrasies with Henman’s comments about Sampras’ game because it is not the first time Henman has made comments along these lines and it certainly will not be the last.  The idiosyncrasies are these: first of all, whenever Henman talks about Sampras’ game he makes what amounts to be very vague statements without getting into any specifics.  I find this slightly surprising considering he played Sampras seven times including two major semifinals at Wimbledon.  Plus on quite a few occasions they were doubles partners and practised a lot together.

I would expect Henman to be able to go into specifics about the Sampras return of serve or his strategy, what he was trying to do out there on the court.  Or, I would expect Henman to talk about Sampras’ movement.  But alas we never seem to get any insights from Henman on these types of interesting facets of their rivalry.  If we are talking about one of the most well known names in the history of the game who was number 1 for 286 weeks, I would really expect to hear a lot more than when he served well, he was at the top of his game. 

This leads to another issue, the head to head with Sampras.  I don’t think this should be taken out of the equation.  They played seven times and the head to head was six to one in Sampras’ favour.  In fact, the only time Henman beat Sampras was their last meeting in the quarterfinal of the 2000 Cincinnati Masters. I recall the Sun newspaper making a big deal out of it as Sampras was certainly Henman’s nemesis.  Apparently Henman also scored a win over Sampras in 1996 in Rotterdam which was a walkover so they didn’t play the match.  Interesting score lines to note include their first meeting in Tokyo 1994 which was an easy 6-1 6-2 win.  Then there is the 1998 Vienna quarterfinal which finished 6-0 6-3.  Henman was broken five times but didn’t create a break point himself.  Then of course the two famous semifinals of 1998 and 1999 when it appeared Henman was getting really close to the breakthrough, especially in 1999 after Henman ran Sampras close in the Queens final.  Henman took the first set and Sampras was feeling the pressure but was able to turn it around, as Pat Cash noted by taking control of the Henman 2nd serve with good returns and passing shots. 

Henman often partners John McEnroe during Wimbledon on BBC phone in Six Love Six on Radio Five live and has been quoted as saying Sampras doesn’t return well and you could always get him to a tiebreak.  In fact, Henman is quoted here from 2009 as saying  Sampras never really returned that well, so as long as you were being disciplined on your serve, you could stay in touch, get to a tie-break and then anything can happen.  Again this is Henman’s opinion and he has a right to it but rather interestingly, in the seven matches they played only three sets went to tiebreaks with Sampras winning two of those, one in 1995 Wimbledon and 1999 Queens final in the third set.  In neither of the Wimbledon semifinals was Henman able to engage Sampras in a tiebreak.  My question would be, what happened?  On the flip side, Henman has a decent head to head with Federer; seven to six in Federer’s favour and Henman won most of the early encounters including the 2001 Wimbledon quarterfinal, his attacking game initially gave Federer a lot of trouble.

This rather curious attitude to Sampras and his game extends beyond Henman but permeates through quite a few of the ex British players.  I think we all know that Greg Rusedski has been less than complimentary about Sampras even when they were playing the game.  In 1995 Rusedski pronounced he would defeat Sampras at Wimbledon even though Sampras was defending champion; Rusedski went on to lose in straight sets……  Then there was the infamous incident in 2002 when Sampras defeated Rusedski in five sets at the third round of the US Open, Rusedski went into the press conference predicting Sampras would not win another match and was a step and a half slow.  The perfect team talk which Sampras used to fire him up and win the tournament taking out top 10 players Haas, Roddick and Agassi in the later rounds. 

That curiousness extended to when Federer broke the grand slam record in 2009 and Rusedski pronounced almost in glee that the only thing Sampras did better was the 2nd serve.  Again it is worth looking at the head to head between the two men, which reads nine to one, the only victory being a surprising win for Rusedski in the 1998 Paris Bercy final in straight sets (best of five).  The 2000 Miami encounter is fun because Sampras gave Rusedski a tennis lesson.

Therefore, Sampras has a combined record of 15 wins to 2 losses (not counting the walkover).  I wonder if there is an element of being “punch drunk” in the comments that these guys continue to make; in other words subconsciously not wanting to give Sampras his due especially over them and most of the field he had to play.  After all Sampras beat both players in a variety of ways ranging from totally outplaying them to taking those really close encounters which probably hurt more.  Rusedski let it show brazenly in 2002 but with Henman I get the impression it manifests itself in different ways.

Being vague does two things; the first is it is bland and the second thing it does is create doubt on what his true opinions are.   Therefore, I would end by saying Tim Henman should really be more magnanimous in his attitude towards Sampras.  And for certain, it would be good in the future to hear more insightful comments when the questions are put to him.