It’s that time of year again. Spring is here, COVID restrictions are loosening, and the 2022 French Open is almost upon us! A perfect time to take a look at the contenders.
https://lastwordonsports.com/tennis/2022/05/21/the-2022-french-open-contenders/
https://lastwordonsports.com/tennis/2021/12/22/five-crazy-wta-moments-2021/
The quarterfinal match against Ukraine’s Elina Svitolina caught my eye. However, not for reasons I imagined. Fernandez’s running crosscourt forehand in particular left me thinking, the shot reminds me of another player. Then it dawned, Leylah Fernandez’s crosscourt forehand reminded me of Pete Sampras’ crosscourt forehand!
It has been a strange week for Stefanos Tsitsipas at the US Open.
In three rounds of tennis, Tsitsipas played two five-set blockbusters lasting over four hours each, sandwiched by a four setter. The way those matches played out and ultimate defeat to Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz leaves Tsitsipas at an undoubted crossroads.
Read on....https://lastwordonsports.com/tennis/2021/09/05/crossroads-for-stefanos-tsitsipas/
This was a momentous weekend in the history of women’s tennis.
19 year old Canadian Leylah Fernandez played 18 year old Brit Emma Raducanu for the US Open championship match. Raducanu is the first qualifier to win a major title in the history of the sport, without dropping a set. Meanwhile Fernandez defeated defending champion Naomi Osaka, 2016 champion Angelique Kerber, 2019 semifinalist Elina Svitolina and world number 2 Irina Sabalenka en route to the final. It was a high quality match and inspires me to take a look at the last teenage final in the US Open championships.
That final in 1999 between Serena Williams and Martina Hingis took place in vastly different circumstances. This was an era where it was almost normal for teenagers to win major titles and dominate the sport. In fact, 18 year old Hingis had been number 1 in the world since 1997! with five major titles under her belt. 17 year old Serena Williams was seen as the next big player coming through. Father Richard Williams proclaimed years before Serena would be a better player than older sister Venus. Which I am sure would have grated with Venus who was more established in 1999.
Coming into the US Open, number 1 seed Hingis won the Australian Open and reached the final of the French Open. Number 7 seed Serena Williams played a great final in Indian Wells against Steffi Graf earlier that year, their second meeting in 1999. In the semifinals Hingis took out Venus Williams in three sets, whilst Serena beat defending champion Lindsay Davenport, also in three. As you can see, the top players made the latter stages.
Hingis went into the final as favourite, although Serena was a very dangerous opponent. I distinctly recall the headline in a broadsheet newspaper here in Britain on finals weekend. It read “Hingis set for a double dose of the Williams Sisters”. A crude headline indeed but indicative of the pre political correctness era that was the 1990s.
The match started off with Serena holding serve relatively comfortably. From the first service game, it was clear the Serena serve would be a significant factor. Hingis got broken immediately, her serve tame in comparison to Serena’s. Serena returned Hingis’ serve with relative ease and ran to a quick 4-1 lead having saved two break points of her own.
However, Hingis was world number 1 for a reason, she was not going away and broke back to get to 4-3 and get back on serve. Unfortunately for Hingis, her serve was just too attackable, and Serena broke again to take a 5-3 lead. This allowed Serena to take the set 6-3 set but not without a bit of drama along the way, coming from 15-40 down to get the job done.
As the second set commenced, Hingis was determined to raise her level. Serena was playing a slightly riskier game, going for her shots but making unforced errors as a result. This was the new brand of tennis, where winners outweighed unforced errors was the strategy to adopt.
The jeopardy then rose suddenly, as Serena broke for a 3-2 lead in the second set. Hingis broke back immediately for 3-3 but was not enough as Serena broke again and then held for a 5-3 lead. Hingis held her serve, leaving Serena to serve for the championship and the biggest title of her career. Interestingly, the moment got to Serena and she was unable to serve out. Inexperience played its part despite Serena already having one of the best serves on the WTA tour.
Hingis gratefully received the gift and raised her level again, trying to get the backhand down the line as often as possible to stretch Serena. While this was happening, Serena’s tennis was getting more and more ragged, all of a sudden looking more like a 17 year old rookie than grand slam contender. Hingis got herself to 6-5 guaranteeing a tiebreak. Serena joined eventually, after a very long game involving a number of deuces and set points for Hingis. The Player Boxes were also decidedly tense; Hingis’ mother Melanie Molitor took off her hat she had been wearing earlier. Whilst Oracene Price and Richard Williams didn’t know where to look.
In the tiebreak, Serena reasserted herself to rip into Hingis’ tame second serves. It reminds of Eurosport commentator Frew McMillan when he said the player with the better serve usually wins the tiebreak. That proved to be the case, Hingis’ serve was too attackable and Serena obliged. Despite some high quality rallies, Hingis was on the backfoot, and eventually lost an entertaining tiebreak 7 points to 4.
The victory celebrations were wonderful, as if Serena knew the significance of her achievement in the moment. And this final had profound implications. Serena was the first black female player to win the US Open since Althea Gibson won the championships in the late 1950s. In years to come, Serena would also claim the open era grand slam record from Steffi Graf. Moreover, Serena and Venus would inspire a new generation of black and minority players to challenge for major honours. Including 2017 US Open champion Sloane Stephens and Japanese star Naomi Osaka.
Martina Hingis’ fortunes would go in a different direction. Hingis never won another major title and would initially retire in 2003 with a foot problem. Hingis attempted to sue Sergio Tacchini for the footwear she claimed was giving her problems but her pride was hurt more than her feet. Her game was no longer able to challenge Serena, Venus Williams, Davenport, Capriati and upcoming players like Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters. The top players of the 2000s era needed a good serve to compete, not just a smart game. Hingis didn’t work on her serve growing up and suffered when she should have been coming into her prime.
Official statistics of the final are hard to come by. However, the US Open YouTube channel have made the match available for people to enjoy.
Daniil Medvedev is a player on the rise, a member of the “next gen”, Daniil won his biggest tournament to date at the season ending World Tour finals in London, defeating Dominic Thiem in an entertaining three set match.
Daniil showed resilience in coming from a set down to win convincingly, taking advantage of Thiem’s mental and physical tiredness in the third set. Daniil also got revenge on Thiem, who defeated him in straight sets in the US Open semi-final earlier this autumn. Daniil also became the first player to defeat the top 3 seeds to win an event on the ATP tour and should be congratulated for that achievement. Daniil has an unorthodox and intriguing game style which is definitely worth looking at in some depth.
Daniil’s Serve
Daniil is the latest in a long line of very tall professional tennis players. Since the start of the 1990s, players 6 ft 4 plus (1 metre 95) include Todd Martin, Michael Stich, Mark Rosset, Alexander Popp, Mark Philippoussis, Richard Krajicek, Marat Safin, Goran Ivanisevic, Magnus Larsson, Ivo Karlovic, Max Myrni, Greg Rusedski, Juan Martin Del Potro, Milos Raonic, Sam Querrey and John Isner. These guys have one thing in common, they serve hard and serve very well! Daniil comes into this category. Other players from this generation who are very tall and serve big include Alexander Zverev, Nick Kyrgios and Taylor Fritz.
Being that tall gives advantages over shorter players when it comes to placing the ball in the corners and Daniil is able to take advantage of this. Daniil is a throwback, he has a fairly simple service motion with not much knee bend, however is able to produce a top speed of upwards of 220kph (135 mph) and regularly produce first serves between 170 kph to 210 kph (110 to 130mph) consistently.
Daniil initially places his racquet at a perpendicular angle, giving the impression he will serve with a backhand grip; however, I get the impression he uses a continental grip. Daniil also brings the racquet down first in his service motion as he tosses the ball up, which is a classic way of serving and not typical of the more modern players who open up their bodies more, use more knee bend and have the racquet up as they toss the ball. Daniil uses a motion which is a relaxed and technically should not break down under pressure. That includes Daniil’s second serve delivery which he can use as a weapon to get cheap points or with a lot of spin to set up his next shot. Daniil tends to win about 74% of his first serves throughout the year, and 52% of his second serves. In my opinion, 74% is fine although Daniil can look to raise that to above 75% to become a champion at grand slam level. 52% of points won on Daniil's second serve is not bad, but again, he should be looking at 55 to 60%. How Daniil achieves this will be a task he needs to discuss with his coach; working out strategy and shot selection after certain serve patterns.
The serve I like most by Daniil is the slice serve on the ad court to the forehand. In my opinion, this is an underused serve in the modern game, and the returner is simply not challenged as much as he should be. Daniil is able to serve the ball away from the returner’s forehand on the ad court at pace (192kph plus). Currently, too many players angle the ball into the returner’s forehand, making them look good. The technique of using slice to move the ball away from the forehand is a throwback serve, a serve that elevated Pete Sampras and Serena Williams to a different level, it is nice to see Medvedev use this method as opposed to standing further from the centre line and being forced to use sidespin as a result. Technically, definitely a throwback.
Daniil’s Return of Serve
Daniill has one of the best return of serves on the ATP tour at this moment in time. On average Daniil converts 40% of break points which is incredibly high and very impressive. If Daniil can raise his first serve points won up to 80% that would propel him to number 1 in the world. Daniil uses quite a few different strategies throughout the course of his matches, making him a little unpredictable. Daniil treats tennis like a game of chess, making moves on his opponents when they least expect it, including taking the ball early and approaching the net, or standing as far back as possible near the backboard. That is a very modern method and Daniil can be vulnerable to the player who can serve into the corners and take the net away. Ironically, Daniil used that tactic in the world tour final against Thiem with serve volley plays as Thiem was often standing near the backboard to return serve.
Daniil’s two hand backhand is reliable, and like Todd Martin back in the 1990s, can use his height at 6 ft 6 to really lean on the ball and punish it, it is difficult to hit consistent kick serves on a guy as tall as Daniil, the body serve would be more effective. Daniil uses an extreme grip on the forehand so should have more trouble there, it is often a trade off that players who use the extreme western forehand grip will have more issues there on the return.
Even though Daniil has great stats on the return of serve, we have yet to really see him on grass and clay on a consistent basis. Like so many modern players, Daniil’s game is built for hardcourts where the bounce is even and it is always possible to look good. As of now Daniil’s stats on clay do not look too clever and the natural surfaces require more out of you. Daniil has a thinking man’s game so I don’t see why he can’t win titles on clay as long as he works on it. Grass will be interesting because of his forehand grip but let’s see how his career develops.
Daniil’s Forehand
This is the shot which I find interesting in Daniil’s game. Daniil is not the first top level player to use an extreme forehand grip. My mind goes back to Alberto Berasategui who reached the 1994 French Open final. Amelie Mauresmo came through in the late 1990s and despite her extreme western forehand, became one of the great grass court players of her generation.
Therefore, having an extreme western grip doesn’t condemn you to obscurity, but it does make life more difficult! However, clearly this is the path Daniil has chosen at a young age and he has to stick with it for his career. During the world tour finals in London, commentator and ex British number 1 Tim Henman consistently said that Daniil hits the forehand “flat” and much lower over the net than most of his contemporaries. This is true, although personally I don’t like to use the word “flat” but it is fair to say Daniil hits on average with less loop on the forehand side. Which is slightly surprising because players associated with an extreme western forehand grip tend to hit with more spin and higher net clearance, again showing what an unorthodox player Daniil is. In Daniil’s case, the phrase “flattening it out” to hit winners doesn’t apply to him because he takes that approach at all times and is trying to hit as many winners as possible, I would not call Daniil’s forehand a typical rallying shot, he generates tremendous pace and likes to use the inside out forehand to force his opponent back and close the net, a tactic I love to see which has been completely underused in men’s tennis over the last twenty years, primarily because a lot of male players have become risk averse and play too safe, prepared to hit 30 shot rallies instead of forcing the initiative. Daniil does not take that approach which in many ways makes him a throwback type of player.
Daniil does not have the nicest looking forehand we have ever seen and you worry that technique could cause an injury somewhere down the line but it works for him. It will be more difficult to return serves with that grip on grass as the ball skids more, though grass bounces higher than in the past it is still a natural surface, does not bounce evenly like hardcourts and requires more adjustments. Clay requires more topspin so consistent low net clearance will definitely be an issue, especially when it comes to defending your position behind the baseline. This might explain why we have yet to hear Daniil explode on clay or grass, all of his nine titles have come on hardcourts so far.
We can see Daniil’s forehand here.
Daniil’s backhand
If Daniil’s forehand takes getting used to from a visual standpoint, Daniil’s backhand is a very nice-looking shot and also very effective.
Daniil has what I would call a classic two hand backhand. Due to his height, he tends to hit with the closed stance as opposed to the semi open stance many players adopt, especially when forced out wide. In Daniil’s case, he steps into the shot a lot more, hence the closed stance, planting the right foot forward and turning his shoulder into the shot. American commentators like Leif Shiras call that approach “leaning on the ball”, meaning Daniil can really use that to hurt his opponent. The key is to step into the shot for that to be effective. Also, at 6 ft 6, the high ball shouldn’t trouble Daniil as much as it might do other players with either a one hander or two hander, many two handers also struggle with the ball up high.
As with Daniil’s forehand, his backhands are hit quite low over the net. Again, this is a little surprising and quite a risky play but it is Daniil’s game so he has to make the best of it. Keeping the ball low can rush the opponent, however it can be risky and lead to more errors. From what I can see so far in Daniil’s career, despite the low net clearance, Daniil’s backhand in the rally is a safe shot, which is quite impressive.
Due to the fact Daniil’s game is so hardcourt centric, we have yet to really see him consistently on the natural surfaces to make a long-term assessment on his backhand. On indoor hardcourt at the World Tour final against Thiem, Medvedev used the slice backhand a lot, playing Thiem at his own game. Thiem was using the slice backhand to stay in the point, as opposed to using it to get a good position at the net, therefore Thiem’s strategy was not really effective. If you are going to hit lots of slices, you need to do something with it. Daniil was happy to trade slices to avoid having to hit up. This demonstrates again that Daniil is prepared to play any strategy that helps him to win a tennis match and not do the same thing over and over again, like so many modern tennis players who lack variety.
Daniil’s volleys
In many ways, this might be the most impressive aspect of Daniil’s game at last week’s World Tour Finals. It was impressive, however not for the reasons one would think. I will elaborate.
As far as I can see, like so many players, Daniil does not have the best technique on the volley, it is perhaps above average but by no means top notch in terms of technical aspects. However, that is immaterial if it gets the job done and what is most impressive is how often Daniil is willing to go to net throughout the course of his matches.
A player that I can think of from past decades would be Jimmy Connors. Connors was a specialist baseliner who along with Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert helped to change the game in the 1970s. Even though Connors was a baseliner, he went to net more in the course of his matches than many specialist serve volleyers. Daniil is very similar. In the World Tour final against Thiem, in three sets Daniil went to net 37 times and won 28 points, which is an excellent conversion rate. In contrast Thiem went to net 21 times and won 14 points. That indicates Daniil was the one trying to dictate play. The usual convention is the one hander will have more options in terms of the slice backhand and backhand volley but Thiem stands too far back to make that possible on a consistent basis. Daniil on return of serve would take the ball early and come to net to finish points, good old-fashioned hustle play which is nice to see.
Daniil can improve his volleys further by making sure his arm is always out in front and takes the ball early with slice, he is getting there. Daniil also hit some impressive low volleys for such a tall player which shows he is flexible and has good movement.
Daniil’s Movement
Daniil has excellent movement for a player 1 metre 98 (6 ft 6) tall. Daniil is lean and doesn’t carry any excess weight which helps his movement. It is true to say in the past, very tall tennis players didn’t move around the court as well but that trend may be shifting slightly with Daniil who is good at coming forward. Daniil has to be careful about getting backed up too far behind the baseline which will not help his overall mission to win hundreds of tennis matches throughout his career. The only other players who were 6 ft 5 plus and moved extremely well along the baseline were Marat Safin and Richard Kraijeck. Krajicek was a serve volley specialist but moved very well in the baseline rallies. Del Potro is a great player but doesn’t move quite as well as Daniil. Daniil has the advantage on other tall players Alexander Zverev and Taylor Fritz.
Daniil has the opportunity in the next two to three years to make a name for himself and win a major title and fulfil the promise of the “next gen” crop There will be a scramble to see which player age 25 and under will be the first to do it. Daniil has as good a chance as any and has an interesting game, doing things on the court other players don’t or can’t. Daniil’s task is to turn elevate himself from an all court player specialising on hardcourts, to an all surface player, that’s where he can become a household name.
This year’s US Open final between Alexander (Sasha) Zverev and Dominic Thiem would usually be the final major tournament of 2020. Despite the strange situation of one more major tournament to be played at the French Open due to coronavirus, it does not stop us from assessing how the “next gen” performed at the US Open in the absence of Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and the unfortunate disqualification of Novak Djokovic during the tournament.
This gave the US Open an impetus and sense of urgency we have not seen at a major tournament for years, probably since 2001 Wimbledon when Federer knocked Pete Sampras out of Wimbledon and all of the remaining players suddenly realised it was their big opportunity.
So, how did the “next gen” do at the US Open and what are the implications for the future of men’s tennis going forward? What we saw was a mixed bag of performances by the stars of tomorrow which left more questions than answers, and that includes the final itself.
22-year-old Stefanos Tsitsipas was the first casualty losing to Borna Coric in the third round. Tsitsipas had the match under complete control with a two sets to one lead and a handy 5-1 lead in the fourth set; but from there it went horribly wrong as he contrived to blow six match points losing the fourth set 7:5, not even taking it to a tiebreak. If that wasn’t bad enough, Tsitsipas took an early break in the fifth set only to be broken back and eventually losing the fifth set tiebreak. The sort of defeat that can have a long-term psychological impact, Tsitsipas will have to be mentally strong and will need a lot of external help to recover from that one. Ironically, this defeat occurred before Djokovic’s bizarre disqualification for hitting a line judge with a tennis ball, therefore we cannot even put it down to over eagerness turning to anxiety.
The next “next gen” player to succumb was 22-year-old American Taylor Fritz, who lost to fellow “next gen” Denis Shapovalov of Canada in a third round five set battle. Fritz held a two sets to one lead but was unable to see it through, with Shapovalov coming through strongly to take the fifth set 6-2.
Shapovalov (also 22 years old) used his win to propel him to the quarterfinals. Unfortunately, after three tough matches in a row, Shapovalov ran out of gas in his defeat to Pablo Carreño Busta, the player who benefited from Djokovic’s misfortune. Shapovalov did have a good four set win over David Goffin in round four but lost the quarterfinal in five sets. However, this was progress made for Denis as this was the furthest he has been in a grand slam tournament thus far.
That left in the draw, the oldest of the next gen crop in German Alexander (Sascha) Zverev at age 23 and Daniil Medvedev age 24. Zverev did have a roller coaster route to the semi-final, his second at grand slam level and his match against Carreño Busta followed the pattern of his previous matches, this time going two sets down in just over an hour and looking completely out of it. Sascha then proceeded to make a comeback and take it in five sets in what can only be described as a capitulation by Carreño Busta. Looking at the stats, each participant won only 41% of the points on their second serve, which shows how both guys struggled to get a grip on their opponent.
The second semi-final saw last year’s finalist Daniil Medvedev lose to Austrian Dominic Thiem in three sets, two of those being in tiebreaks. In fact, Medvedev served for the second and third sets but still lost in straight sets…. One of the commentators on US Open Radio described Medvedev’s game beautifully when he said “Medvedev is the club player no one wants to play!” It is kind of astonishing for an elite player who is clearly talented to be likened to a club player, but it is unique to watch a man 1metre 98 tall (6 ft 6 inches) stand virtually on the backboard to rally and hit a lot of junk balls throughout the course of his matches.
Meanwhile Dominic Thiem at the age of 27 just about misses the “next gen” tag but too young to be lumbered with the rather patronising “lost gen” tag of players between 29 and 31 who have underachieved in their careers. Thiem has been seen as the natural successor to Nadal, having lost two French Open finals to him but has now played two hardcourt finals in a row. Thiem also lost to Djokovic at this year’s Australian Open, so was desperate not to lose a fourth final, especially going into the championship match as favourite.
This may explain why Thiem started the match horribly, looking completely out of sorts and not getting the ball in play consistently. Zverev picked up on this and started well, attacking the net as often as possible and hit some very big serves over 220kph (135mph). However, even though Zverev rushed to a two sets lead, he was still displaying signs of wilting under the pressure, perhaps Thiem sensed this and staged his own comeback, claiming the next two sets and taking it to a fifth. If Zverev was showing some nerves, Thiem’s tactics were bizarre, standing to receive both first and second serves virtually at the backboard, something I never thought I would see in a grand slam final, especially considering many of Zverev’s second serves were barely 120kph (75mph).
Zverev went up a break in the fifth set and got broken back, then broke again to serve for the championship at 5-3, where he played a terrible game and two games later Thiem found himself serving for the championship! Needless to say, Thiem got broken to love and we went into the first ever fifth set tiebreak in a US Open final. The tiebreak encapsulated the final with both players suffering mentally and it showed in the tennis which was dire. On Thiem’s first match point, Zverev put in a serve of 68mph, I repeat, 68mph and won the point! Thiem got a second match point and took it, to the relief of not only himself but the millions watching on television and listening on radio, because it was torture!
We saw an emotional presentation ceremony by both guys, particularly Zverev who took the defeat hard and knew he threw away a great opportunity. Meanwhile, Thiem became the first man since Pancho Gonzales in 1949 to come from two sets down to win the US Open. Thiem incredibly is the first player born in the 1990s to win a major tournament.
What does the US Open tell us about the direction of men’s tennis? I think there are some implications which need to be discussed and addressed.
First of all, let’s look at the stats of the final. Zverev won 70% of his first serves, and Thiem 68%, which is unusually low for elite level players. Zverev also hit 15 double faults and appeared to have no game plan or strategy throughout the final because many second serves were going in at 120 kph (75mph) then out of the blue would serve second serves at 208kph (129mph) which is irrational and not expected. It could work as a strategy if you put more slice and spin on the ball to control that pace, as opposed to banging them in and hope for the best. However, Thiem cannot be exonerated either, a more consistent and switched on player would not have allowed Thiem to return serve near the backboard and get away with it on a medium paced hardcourt.
The “lost gen” as they have been dubbed put up a very poor showing at the US Open. Milos Raonic was touted to have a very good tournament but disappeared early to another Canadian Vasek Pospisil. Grigor Dimitrov lost in the second round to Márton Fucsovics and David Goffin fell to Shapovalov.
Looking at the way so many younger elite players appear unable to control the tempo of five set matches leaves me to wonder whether the taking away of five set finals at ATP level is having an impact on the current and future generation? In the past, most champions bar a very few exceptions won five set finals at Masters level before winning their first major, they were a good training ground in some of the biggest stadiums, such as Indian Wells, Miami and the Italian Open. I wrote an article about this in 2015 pointing out the issues this could cause in future. https://www.laurietennisarticles.net/2015/05/best-of-five-set-masters-finals-lets.html
A new development I have noticed is the coaching of some next gen players by their fathers, something more associated with the WTA tour over the decades. The debate has often been when should a player cut ties with their parent(s) as their coach as it can cause emotional issues and dramas, we saw that many times. In the men’s game it has been rarer, the best players usually take on elite level coaches or recently retired players early in their careers. I speculate but I wonder how Tsitsipas and Zverev in particular have adapted at the highest level. Both players’ experience a lot of ups and downs from match to match, with no discernible pattern of play / strategy. And at grand slam level, you need to be winning the early round matches quickly and efficiently to save energy for the business end, i.e. semi-finals and finals.
To transition to champions, both players will have to become much more consistent in their game plan and mentality. Zverev has brought in David Ferrer and tried unsuccessfully to recruit Ivan Lendl long term but his father perhaps has too much influence. A comparable scenario is Caroline Wozniacki where her father Piotr would call all of the shots even when they brought in coaches. Tsitsipas works with the Mouratoglou academy but has not really worked with a top ex player from week to week.
Stan Wawrinka’s talent came out when he hired ex top five player Magnus Norman, giving him the belief he could to challenge and beat the best players. And despite the poor-quality final, Nicolas Massu has clearly been a great addition to Thiem’s camp over the past eighteen months, consistently challenging at grand slam level on different surfaces.
As tennis fans, we want to see the “next gen” step it up and improve further over the next eighteen months. One of these guys will break out to win a major soon but the time is now to make a statement and show they can win a major when Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are in the draw. Coronavirus permitting, the next eighteen months should be interesting.
In recent times the tennis federations have really stepped up. The first of half of the 2020s saw Covid-19, bringing the world to a stands...
