Slippage.

getty

 

Zheng d. Dementieva 7-6 (3) 6-4

 

It’s not quite James Blake proportions just yet, but many would argue the slippage has begun.

 

If so, I can’t watch.

Read More...

Indian Wells: Playstation II

(Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)

Zheng d. Sharapova 6-3 2-6 6-3

"She's like a ball machine," Sharapova said. "She hits a lot of balls back, hits them hard and deep.

"I mean, I'd say I should have done a much better job on her serve, because her serve is definitely one of her weaker parts of the game, but… "

--Yahoo Sports

WTA – you have your Playstation.

Quite similar to what Ivanovic had to say of her after her 2008 loss to Zheng at Wimbledon. Particularly the hard and deep part.

Zheng definitely troubles the tall girls – especially those that can’t keep themselves from firing 14 double faults and 49 UFEs.

I’m no longer much convinced that shoulder biomechanics have anything much to do with this. The injury may be what got her into this position in the first place, but this particular malady just became systemic, and it’s currently working it’s toxins into her groundies.

(Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)

Djokovic d. Kohlschreiber 6-3 2-6 7-6 (7-3)

Yeah…I’m actually kinda glad I got hold of this shot, because since late last year, I put it to you all that Djoko’s service action has become more and more…..‘clubby’ – by which I mean that there’s now barely any bend in his arm at all.

His serve was always a little nuanced like that – the effect has been more pronounced in recent months. Viewed side on, it’s almost like he’s pushing the ball over.

None of which had any bearing on the match of course

Kohlschreiber’s always a good bet to bag a top ten scalp – today he held three match points, before going down in three.

It was never going to be easy, perhaps even incomplete to leave Djoko with anything other than another three set win.

(Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)

Federer d. Hanescu 6-3 6-7 (5-7) 6-1

Fed’s victory over Hanescu was another ‘routine’ affair. By which I mean the obligatory lapsed set.

Douglas Perry preferred to focus on the lapse. Tignor preferred to debunk the cool clinical mystique– painting Fed as “agitated” and “making the most of getting scared” (he should know, seated up front with the bigwigs, only a row or two behind Larry Ellison).

There’s a lot to agree with in both those analyses – I just found it all a little blah.

Which is probably a good thing at this stage in the game.

And it might be the new choppy hairdo, but that’s the most un-Federer like Federer photo I’ve seen in a while.

Read More...

Giants of Washington

London Bus System tennis coverage has seen us go from sketchy highlights to more or less round the clock, and not particularly stellar tennis from Washington and LA.

To be fair I haven't been particularly attentive.

But does anyone else find it weird how Washington has turned into a kind of gunslingers' festival, and how Roddick has had to get past Querrey, Karlovic and now Isner. A shock therapy return to tour. At least the rallies will be short.

In the other semi, del Potro put out Gonzales which means unless Isner pulls off an upset, the rightful two geezers, based on form, talent, commitment and any other measure you care to base your assessment on, will contest the final.

In LA, Stosur put out Cirstea 6-3, 6-2, which disappoints me. Much.

I guess it shouldn't given how young she is. It's just that Lisicki and Cirstea have really taken me, and much of the tour it seems, by surprise with that big serve and risky style of play.

That serve was in great form during the quarters.




As was the willingness to take it too Radwanska.





What bugs me is the apparent one-sidedness of the loss. It's what generally happens whenever she loses. Good news is the losses don't seem to have any lasting effect.

Someone else I was disappointed to see go out was Zheng Jie who'd put out Dinara a round earlier. I don't see that as an upset, not because of any lack of faith in Dinara's abilities, but because of what a talent Zheng is.

It's not her style to hit outrageous winners. I admire her more for her focused and measured approach, sometimes more effective than outrageous winners.



Then again, I admire Stosur's game too. That kick serve and ability at the net are all textbook stuff. All evident in the way in which she closed it out against Zheng.



I'm betting on Sharapova to get past Penetta, which means a Sharapova-Stosur final. I've followed Maria's comeback with some interest, but I believe this one belongs to Stosur.
Read More...

Vive La France?

The iron's no longer hot but I thought I should include these picks for the sake of completeness.

Miami's Iron Maidens:

Have to admit I'm struggling here (my own rules prevent me from including Azarenka in the list).

Svetlana - Some hairy moments aside, this wasn't what I'd call an unproductive week for Sveta. She's ditched her coach (who knows what makes these things work), but seemed to be playing more freely and effortlessly than I've seen in months. Oh and she won the doubles with Amelie. Still things to work on, but plenty to be proud of too.

Jie Zheng - Just coz I love the way she plays and she went out to (an unstrapped) Serena in the fourth round. No disgrace in that. Great things really do come in small packages.

Na Li - One of the cleanest ball strikers (and one of the better techniques) on tour, I do find it a little surprising she hasn't had more success. Still, a quarter final here shouldn't hurt.

Miami's Damsels in Distress:

Ooohhh Boyyy...

No shortage of contenders of course, but I think Dinara, Nadia and Alize particularly stand out for me. I'm a little disappointed with Alize who's recently gone from being a gutsy dependable presence to a frightened, unimposing wreck.

Which leads me to the main point of this post. Just what is going on with French tennis these days?

I've been more than generous in heaping (deserved) praise upon the mens game, but here's something to wring your hands about: I don't think it's a coincidence that two of my thre

e picks for the more disappointing performances in Miami were French.

Despite not being 100% against Djoko, I don't think you can fault Tsonga too much: he's already won two titles this year and made the quarters at Melbourne.

I want to limit the scope of my criticism instead, to three players in particular: Gael Monfils, Richard Gasquet and Gilles Simon. (pointing)You, you and you - My office - now....

Richard Gasquet

I don't think it would be that valuable to rehash all th

e problems he's had with belief and mental toughness. That's hardly news, and in any event, is a charge you could level at French tennis in general: for all their talent, they're running a little thin on that stuff you sometimes find on roads - grit.

But here's a few other reasons why I think Reeshard comes up short so often.

-- His shotmaking is probably the reason why most people think he should be a top tenner at the very least. Some even thought of him as a Slam contender a few years ago. Quieter on that front now, though easy to see why. He can take the ball on the rise and can rip winners from pretty much anywhere on court. But that's very much the point for me. Why, if you had the hand skills to take the ball as early as he does sometimes, would you chose to spend 75% of the match camped five feet behind the baseline. It defies belief. I don't care that he's capable of hitting the occasional ripped winner from back there that defies

the laws of physics. He's shooting himself in the foot, and it's costing him the early stages of his career.

-- A corollary of the previous point. His style of play is way too passive for someone of his ability. He seems to occupy a space that straddles the line between being able to step in and end a point in one or at most two shots (which I would argue he should be doing more of), and hanging back (for far too long) and engaging in high, loopy clay court exchanges. I don't like it one bit. Gael Monfils suffers from the same ailment. Murray used to too. Then someone knocked some sense into him. Now he's threatening for the #3 spot.

-- Have to credit Mark Petchey for this one as I certainly didn't think this was as big a problem as some of the replays he ran appear to suggest it is (must try and dig out a YouTube clip). Reeshard's never been the best mover. But he does seem to scramble around an awful lot - undeniably a result of playing from so far back. Unless he's able to win the point in the initial few exchanges, he too often gets turned into his opponents' yo yo. But here's the thing. Next time you see him play, watch how inefficient his side

to side movement is. Whenever they're chasing balls down, the top players tend to always have their feet in a decent enough position to recover their balance and more centralised position at the baseline. Net result: their scrambling looks less laboured, smooth even - and they don't tend to lose any momentum as they chase the next ball down. I don't expect many players to have the pristine footwork of Federer or Murray. But if Reeshard is to have any credibility as even a top ten player, he's going to have to improve upon that horribly imbalanced and inefficient, jittery side-to-side movement - especially if he intends to spend that much time scrambling around, which I would argue he shouldn't even be doing.

Anyway the point of that analysis -- prepare to have your hearts pierced -- is that I don't think Reeshard is quite the player he's sometimes been bigged up to be. Yet. His dazzling array of shots -- some of which we wouldn't even get to see if he shortened points in the way I think he should -- often distract people from noting some pretty glaring defects in an otherwise fairly complete game.

"Cover your eyes COVER YOUR EYES!"

It' s not that I've suddenly stopped admiring those groundstrokes -- I still think he can crack the top ten on the strength of those alone -- I just think that to be considered in the same breath as Djoko and Murray you need to be more of a complete a player than he is just now.

Gilles Simon

On the one hand it's not that I don't admire what he brings to court. I've already spoken loads about his fitness and defence -- I even think there's a lot to be said for his shotmaking. But here's the thing (there's always a thing): Admirable as all of that is, it's still a pretty slender and limited bag of tricks to have made possible the incredible run of form he's had recently, which more and more are beginning to suggest was on the back of a few dodgy performances by the top players. Would he have still cracked the top ten if that didn't happen? Maybe, but his stay would be more brief. Would he have still got to the final of M

adrid last year? Probably not. Now that some of that dust is settled, could it be, that some of these earlier losses we're beginning to see, are a truer indication of his standing in the game?

Gael Monfils

Another guy who I think is way too passive and more than capable of wrestling the initiative from his opponents and ending points earlier than he does. But that's not what I want to talk about. I would argue that Gael's bigger problem is to do with maturity. Or the lack of it. For a guy that had so much success as a junior and has just cracked the top ten, he's one of the poorest thinkers out there. It's not just that his tactics don't always appear to be well thought out. When he's in trouble with his gameplan, he really looks lost out there. That's ok I suppose as he's still pretty young, and having Roger Rasheed in your corner can't hurt.

Much as I love this sort of thing...

But I really do think that the time has now come to cut out some of the more flamboyant on court amateur dramatics. You know, all that stumbling, scrambling and diving around after balls that are hopelessly beyond you. It is a crowd puller, I grant you, and is great for building up his image as a crowd pleaser as well as for tennis in general. But I think there comes a point at which you have to ask how good that is for your body (he does seem excessively prone to injuries), and whether you're in this racket (pun intended) to garner public affection or on court success. That's where I think Rasheed will be particularly useful. Whatever else you may think about him, he doesn't suffer fools easily and will be sure to give Gael a pretty hefty boot up the hindquarters if he feels he's not taking things seriously enough. Maybe he already has - I seem to detect less larking around on court recently.

Read More...

Down and Out...

Ana Ivanovic has lost once again to Zheng Jie in the quarter finals of the China Open, 7-6 (4), 2-6, 6-4.

I actually thought she played a lot better than she has been recently; she seemed to be strking the ball with more confidence and while she has never exactly been 'fleet of foot', its clear she has been working on her movement and footwork.
Much has been made recently of Ivanovic's run of poor form since winning at Roland Garros this year. After getting to the final of the AO and then winning at Indian Wells and of course Roland Garros, she was widely expected to be a regular feature at the latter stages of most majors. That she has come short in such dramatic fashion and on some of the biggest stages, (where, buoyed by her recent Grand Slam successes, she may reasonably have been expected to deliver) is surprising but also somewhat symptomatic of a mini crisis in women's tennis.

Now I'm not one of these purists who, while rightly lamenting the loss of Henin, seem to think women's tennis has now irretrievably gone to the dogs. But most anyone who has followed tennis closely over the years will readily admit that, aside from the Williams Sisters (when they are uninjured and playing frequently enough) there is now no longer an elite band of players, any one of whom is capable of seeing things through on the big stage. It was different around say 2005 when apart from Henin and the Williams Sisters, we had Sharapova, Clijsters, Davenport and to a lesser extent Mauresmo, Kuznetsova and Dementieva all giving us high quality, competitive encounters. (Yes I know we've also had some horrendous women's finals too.)

To be honest its a real shame that Sharapova has had the injury problems she's had. I thought she was back in the big time when we had what most agree was the best women's match of last year at the season ending Championships in Madrid against Henin. She did of course win the AO right after that but has since lost form again and had more shoulder problems since.
I bring her up because although I've never been drawn to her less subtle, hard hitting game, she is quite possibly the best at that brand of baseline tennis; and coupled with her mental strength (which is second to none IMO) was my pick to take on (and run with) the number one ranking.

When Ivanovic took the number one ranking earlier this year, I felt somewhat short changed. Not that she didn't deserve it either: she has been the best performing player for the first half of this year and was one of the most consistent last year. I suppose thats what my point is: in the current landscape its sufficient to be merely consistent - to perform, on average better than everybody else. But thats not what the number one ranking should be about.

I've got nothing against Ivanovic, shes got just about the best groundstrokes in the business - we all know her forehand is an absolute A-Bomb of a stroke. Its also a very classic action - no wide lassoo style swings here! I just don't think we'd be considering her any more than a competent top ten player, were we to have had better competition. She belongs to a group of players who are able to dictate play provided they are receiving the ball right in their hitting zone; move them around, get them off balance and they suddenly look very vulnerable indeed. They don't have a great deal of variety, rarely throwing in a slice and pretty much avoiding the net like the plague.

To her credit, Ivanovic has worked very hard with her movement. She can run down balls better than ever before but her defence will never be that of Jankovic or Dementieva; she also lacks the mental qualities that brought Sharapova such success despite her somewhat stiff movement. All this makes her particularly vulnerable to a player like Jheng Zie who kept her pinned behind the baseline both in Beijing and earlier this year at Wimbledon.

So in some ways I'm not too shocked at Ivanovic's recent loss of form; she'll recover before long I'm sure, and continue to improve - she's too talented not too. But in the meantime, we do in Serena, at least have a worthy number one.

Image by franz88 distributed under the CC by-nc-sa licence.

Read More...