2013 Wimbledon Championships...London England

[stotty]

What's happened to serve and volley? Check this video out to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2LBSkyac3A

Interesting Federer's was the marker for serve and volley's demise...despite his awesome display against Sampras at their sole Wimbledon meeting...where he served and volleyed so well.

tennis_chiro and I have often stated Federer past up the opportunity to become a great serve and volleyer, which would have stood him in great stead against Nadal in more recent years. Shame...he had to capacity to be absolutely everything you could wish for in a tennis player...utterly complete.

[klacr]

What's happened to serve and volley? Check this video out to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2LBSkyac3A

Interesting Federer's was the marker for serve and volley's demise...despite his awesome display against Sampras at their sole Wimbledon meeting...where he served and volleyed so well.

tennis_chiro and I have often stated Federer past up the opportunity to become a great serve and volleyer, which would have stood him in great stead against Nadal in more recent years. Shame...he had to capacity to be absolutely everything you could wish for in a tennis player...utterly complete.

So Sad. Lost Art.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

Dreamin' of A Special Player

What's happened to serve and volley? Check this video out to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2LBSkyac3A

Interesting Federer's was the marker for serve and volley's demise...despite his awesome display against Sampras at their sole Wimbledon meeting...where he served and volleyed so well.

tennis_chiro and I have often stated Federer past up the opportunity to become a great serve and volleyer, which would have stood him in great stead against Nadal in more recent years. Shame...he had to capacity to be absolutely everything you could wish for in a tennis player...utterly complete.

Got other things to do, but you get me started thinking! What would it take to be an effective serve and volleyer. I don't think we'll see another player who serves and volleys as much as a Rafter or a Krajicek, but I think the right player could serve and volley 35 - 40% of the time on first serves and maybe 15 - 20% of the time on second serves. Such a strategy would deprive the receiver of the option of just chipping the big serve back deep down the middle or crosscourt. Forcing the receiver to go for a little more will draw a few more errors and also some lower, shorter returns that invite the occasional serve and approach tactic.

That right player would still have to have a great serve and a great forehand, but I don't think he would be successful with this strategy unless he has relatively conservative grips. I don't think the swinging volley can be effective and consistent when you are transitioning to the net in a hurry; this player will have to have a great drive volley, part of the lost art. This player will have to be at least as big as Sampras or Federer and preferably as big as Rafter at 6' 4". I always thought Safin had the ideal body. He was big, but didn't look it. He could certainly crunch his groundstrokes, but I don't think his grips were that extreme. He had a two-handed backhand, but he volleyed reasonably well. In an earlier era, he would have been forced to learn to serve and volley and would have used it enough to make it a much bigger part of his arsenal of weapons.

Rafter and Edberg were almost the prototypical serve and volleyers of the 80's and 90's, even more so than Becker. Becker just bludgeoned people, but I don't think he'd be quick enough to pull it off today. Even then, he never won a clay court event and the courts are much slower now. MacEnroe played different from anyone else with his soft hands, but for my money, Johnny Mac was better than anyone else I've ever seen at closing to the ball after the split step; Rafter and Edberg may have been better pure athletes, but they didn't have his hands or his anticipation. Sampras was not a true serve and volleyer. He used the tactic often, but he was more of a serve plus one player with the one often being just a big forehand instead of a volley. Rafter and Edberg relied on great kick serves; their actual big first serve was not that effective. Krajicek was a big guy with a big serve, but he didn't have the mobility or volley technique of an Edberg or Rafter and his groundstrokes were really inconsistent.

To do it today, a player would still have to be absolutely complete with a great forehand and backhand as well. That's where Stotty is spot on: Federer really could have been even better. But you can't fault his strategy; he's the most successful tennis player over a 15 year career in the Open Era. Serving and volleying may or may not have produced the same results; we'll never know. But know that you could only be successful with such a strategy if you were a supremely skilled volleyer; and that can only be accomplished if the tactic is used a lot. Federer could have used the tactic in matches he was winning easily to advance his skills; then he might have been good enough at it to be able to employ it against ferocious topspin drives like the ones Rafa would hit at him. Stakhovsky showed that S&V can still be effective on grass against top players. He's a little taller than Federer, but Fed's superior speed and agility would more than make up for that…if he had perfected the volleying skill and kept it perfected!

If Janowicz had been practicing his serve and volley skills in my S&V drill for a half hour a day for the last five years, he would perhaps have been an ideal guy; but where do you find the time or that commitment. He would have to be who he was and just happened to have someone like me for a coach. (His strokes look pretty much just like what I teach.) If you don't have the literally thousands of reps transitioning to the net and practicing digging the ball off of your shoelaces and dumping it back deep in the court, you can't possibly expect to handle the shot when you need it in match play. In the meantime, I think his volley technique has improved in the last 6 months, but I wish he would be more committed to getting to the net to finish points a little more of the time.

Murray could have been the perfect guy, but he grew up as a counter puncher and it's too late to change that mindset. Physically, he would have been almost the perfect combination of height, agility and speed. He might have needed a better slice backhand and simpler grips for the forecourt, but that would have come if he had played in an era that valued the serve and volley game more. I always wanted to see Paul Annacone's mindset for going forward, but with Andre Agassi's groundstrokes and returns. Can you imagine what that would look like. Instead of talking about serving and volleying so little, we'd be talking about who has the skill to return and volley on second serves. The partner who won me a gold ball, Guillermo Oropez, returned first serves with a half-volley from a foot behind the service line and usually beat the server to the net. His groundstrokes were a liability so he created a workaround. But he was one of the best volleyers I ever saw. If he got a ball above the net, the point was usually over. Guillermo is now the Head Pro at the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills.

I really thought Fish was going to resurrect the tactic, at least somewhat, before he started to have all his problems with his racing heartbeat. Not really a good approach for someone trying to stay calm! Then it seemed this winter like Tommy Haas was showing that there was still room for aggressive forecourt strategy when he pulled off his upsets at Key Biscayne. But with associations so committed to strategies like the USTA's with an emphasis on "receiving" the ball, there will be little room for developing the skills necessary to successfully employ the S&V tactic as little more than a change of pace or sneak attack.

There are really only two guys who have been successful spending a significant amount of time working on their volley technique and transition game and they only play doubles. But make no mistake; there is more than one reason the 35-year-old Bryans have more than twice as many ATP ranking points as anyone else and are going for their fourth consecutive Grand Slam championship this weekend.

don

[tennis_chiro]

Murray vs Janowicz

Here's a post that I hope will get up on 10sBalls.com before the match starts tomorrow. Perhaps some of you will enjoy it:

Not an Overnight Sensation!
It's been 8 months since I picked Jerzy Janowicz as the future of men's pro tennis and the next great star. He's had six months of tournaments to improve his status and fulfill some of his promise. And he's doing it in front of our eyes at Wimbledon this week.

It is instructive to realize as much as this player seems to have come from nowhere bursting on the scene like a supernova with a cornucopia of explosive weapons exceedingly appropriate for July 4, it is a long road that he took to get here. If you examine that road just a little bit, you will more readily be able to understand the overwhelming emotion he displayed in his inability to give a post match interview after his victory over his countryman, Lukasz Kubot in the quarterfinals.

Ranking
Aug 2007 Singles 1506 -reached finals of US Open Juniors
Jan 2008 Singles 1484 -reached finals of Roland Garros Juniors
Jun 2008 Singles 671 Doubles 901
Jan 2009 Singles 337 Doubles 733
Jan 2010 Singles 318 Doubles 868
Jan 2011 Singles 161 Doubles xxx
Jan 2012 Singles 221 Doubles 797

Jul 2012 Singles 136 Doubles 389
Oct2012 Singles 80 Doubles 447
Nov2012 Singles 26 Doubles 263

Jan 2013 Singles 26 Doubles 272
Jun 2013 Singles 22 Doubles 58
even if he loses tomorrow
Jul 2013 Singles 18 Doubles 58


Prize Money (not including this Wimbledon):
2007-age 16 (born 11/13/1990): singles $318
2008-age 17: singles $25,136, doubles $1,655
2009-age 18: singles $39,643, doubles $1,206
2010-age 19: singles $45,740, doubles $125
2011-age 20: singles $61,448, doubles $2,881
2012-age 21: singles $469,585, doubles $2,681 (about $350,000 in Bercy)
2013-age 22: singles $374,256, doubles $128,430
And so far in reaching the semis at Wimbledon, $600,000
If he were to beat Murray, that would be another $600,000. And his ranking would go to 11 or 12
And if he were to win, that would be still another $1,200,000. And he would be ranked 9th in the world!

So when Jerzy and his coach Kim Tiilikainen decided to play qualifying for the Masters series event in Bercy last fall instead of going to another challenger, Jerzy's life changed. When he won two qualifying matches against good players (Tursunov and Serra) and then beat 5 top 20 players in a row including his opponent in tomorrow's match to reach the final, he doubled not just his winning for his year, but for his entire 5 1/2 year pro career. (Anytime you win 7 matches in a row against that level of competition, you should win a Grand Slam!) In the six months coming into Wimbledon, he has nearly matched that from a prize money perspective and with the endorsement and sponsorship deals that he must have signed, he's undoubtedly made much more than that.

It remains to be seen whether or not he can maintain the level he has produced repeatedly over the last six months. I think he has the fundamental technique to move even further. No one knows how his body will hold up to the stress of the men's tour. I only hope that the advisers around him are getting him the best possible training and guidance to build him up and help him cope. It's not enough to just hit a few balls and go out and play anymore. Top players are investing in physios, nutritionists, trainers and sports psychologists to help them produce the best possible performance day in and day out. No more traveling and sleeping in your car!

But don't let anyone say Jerzy didn't put in enough time to play at this level. He's new to the top tiers of the sport, but he put in 5 tough years traveling from satellites to futures to challengers and back before he made it in "The Show" as they say in major league baseball.

What about his chances with Murray?!
Undoubtedly, Murray is the better player now and should beat Jerzy most of the time. For Jerzy to win in best of five in front of the English crowd, he will have to play the absolute match of his life. Not that he has to do anything he hasn't shown he is capable of, but he will have to be so mentally perfect, it almost defies credulity. But that's where his years in the salt mines will serve him well. He's shown immaturity and bad judgement repeatedly over the last six months, occasionally letting his emotions get the better of him. It almost cost him a key match against Devarrman in the second round of the Australian, but he was able to recover. It did cost him the fourth set against Meltzer in the round of 16. He got so pumped up when he broke ahead in that set that he lost the next four games. However, he recovered and refocused nicely in the fifth and didn't show any of that lack of control when he broke ahead again. It will be paramount for Jerzy to maintain a steady focus for the long haul that Murray will certainly extract from him. At the same time, he will need the boost of positive emotional expression to get him through this marathon. It will not be a short match. It's a tough tight rope to walk: if he stifles his personality too much, he will suffocate; but if he lets his adrenal glands run wild, he will be exhausted before the end of the 3rd set. There will certainly be some Polish fans to support him, but this will be hostile Davis Cup conditions for the most part, except for the polite reserve of the British crowd, especially at Wimbledon. Jerzy is on his own out there!

He's amazed us all with his command of the drop shot, but if he overuses it against Murray, the swift Scot will make him pay dearly. He must pick his spots ever so wisely. He needs his drop shot to be spot on to neutralize some of Andy's speed, but he must be careful. Jerzy needs to make a few more forays to the net; he can not count on winning extended exchanges from the baseline with Murray.

The serve is where Jerzy may have the edge. He's got to keep the doublefaults to a minimum. He just can't afford to give away many points. But while Andy also has a big serve when he chooses to use it, his average first serve speed is about 12 MPH slower than Jerzy's (114 to 126). But Andy's serve is certainly big enough to be effective. They served 68% and 69% first serves in their quarterfinal victories. Where Jerzy may have a significant edge is in the second serve speed: Jerzy in some 23 mph faster than Andy (108 to 85). If Murray drops his first serve percentage, that may be the opportunity the Janowicz needs to swing the match in his favor. It's tough to get a second serve up out of the strike zone when your opponent is 6' 8" tall! This is one reason I think Jerzy has a chance; he's definitely an underdog, but he has a good chance. He has had a chance to play on Center Court once already (against Almagro), but the occasion could overwhelm him; I hope not. I certainly see Janowicz as a better bet than Ladbrokes. They have Janowicz at 10/3 (bet 3 to win 13) and Murray at 2/9 (bet 9 to win 11). If I was in London, I think I would put 3 quid down on Jerzy.

It certainly is going to be worth getting up to watch. And they are the second match after 1 so they won't get started much before about 8AM here in Los Angeles. The rest of you are on your own!

10sChiro

to see other articles by 10sChiro, go to

http://www.10sballs.com/category/columnists/dr-chiro/

or

http://www.10sballs.com/author/don/

For more information about about lessons with TennisChiro or his videotaping and analysis service, just dial **tennispro on your cell phone.

[don_budge]

Video missing the point...

What's happened to serve and volley? Check this video out to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2LBSkyac3A

Interesting Federer's was the marker for serve and volley's demise...despite his awesome display against Sampras at their sole Wimbledon meeting...where he served and volleyed so well.

tennis_chiro and I have often stated Federer past up the opportunity to become a great serve and volleyer, which would have stood him in great stead against Nadal in more recent years. Shame...he had to capacity to be absolutely everything you could wish for in a tennis player...utterly complete.

Roger in his own words about why he gave up on the serve and volley...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/physics_of_tennis/josh_speakman/copolystrings_how_do_they_work/

The video conveniently misses the point. The extinction of the serve and volley occurred precisely because of the change in the racquets. The bigger racquets created a game that was too fast for its own good. The average point was lasting less than two shots...that is, a serve and a possible return. So they had to engineer it to slow it down. With every invention comes a curse. Attention cell phone users.

Cahill mentions the courts, the balls and the strings...but he neglects to mention the change in the size of the racquets. The conspiracy is still alive. There is no past...it is only the way the story is told today that counts. Soon there will nobody left alive to give the true accounting. Then they have you.

[tennis_chiro]

The size of the "sweet spot"

Roger in his own words about why he gave up on the serve and volley...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/physics_of_tennis/josh_speakman/copolystrings_how_do_they_work/

The video conveniently misses the point. The extinction of the serve and volley occurred precisely because of the change in the racquets. The bigger racquets created a game that was too fast for its own good. The average point was lasting less than two shots...that is, a serve and a possible return. So they had to engineer it to slow it down. With every invention comes a curse. Attention cell phone users.

Cahill mentions the courts, the balls and the strings...but he neglects to mention the change in the size of the racquets. The conspiracy is still alive. There is no past...it is only the way the story is told today that counts. Soon there will nobody left alive to give the true accounting. Then they have you.

I wonder. Does anyone know the change in the size and position of the effective "sweet spot" of the rackets of the pre-Prince days to todays rackets? It's not just the size of the head; it's also the way they engineered the rackets to create a larger effective "sweet spot" which made faster, more powerful swings possible.

don

[don_budge]

And then there were four...minus Nadal and Federer

So it is...it comes down to Novak Djokovic and Juan Del Potro in the top half and in the bottom is Andy Murray and Jerzy "Joe" Janowicz.

Djokovic played some really unbeatable tennis beating Tomas Berdych in the quarters. I watched bits and pieces but Novak was on top of him from start to finish...which is even more impressive since Berdych was having a rather brilliant tournament himself. His win over Tomic in the round before rated right up there as one of the best matches of the tournament.

Del Potro was equally impressive in KO'ing David Ferrer in straight sets. Although Ferrer is lacking in "entertainment value" his pluck and verve are second to none. He came to play against Del Potro and never quit in spite of the fact that he was clearly out gunned and over muscled. Juan was on top from the very get go and finished off "The Energizer" in a tie break. Very impressive stuff from both Djokovic and Del Potro.

In the semi final Del Potro is clearly the underdog...so I will go with him. If he serves really big he has a chance. But Novak Djokovic is clearly the best player in the world at this point in time...last year he lost in the semi's. To the departed...Roger Federer.

In the all Polish quarterfinal it was Jerzy over his compatriot Lukasz Kubot. What an emotional moment that was and what a sight to see his outpouring? I am not sure if that is the ideal makeup for a tennis player...but why not? They seem to come in all shapes, colors and sizes. There is room for it...if you can make them serve you and not destroy you. Emotions.

And then there was Fernando Verdasco against the hometown favorite...Andy Murray. What a fascinating spectacle of a match that was. The first thing that I want to mention is about the forehand of Fernando Verdasco...I had made a comment in an earlier post that jbill asked me to clarify. I had the impression that Verdasco was mainly a clay court player...but it seems that I was mistaken as his overall win-loss record is only slightly better than his win-loss record on grass. When I saw that video clip on his forehand it appeared to me that his backswing and grip were not suitable for grass play. But as the video that Stotty supplies testifies the ground and bounce of the grass court play is not what it once was traditionally...Fernando's forehand is an effective stroke on grass as well. That being said...he missed a couple of key ones in the fourth and the final set when he had opportunities to bag Murray.

But what a match. I wonder how that effected Murray emotionally? He was choking his brains out under the early pressure from the Spaniard but he managed to summon the crowd to get behind him with his gestures and his encouragement. He certainly played the crowd to his advantage...obvious gamesmanship. But it was all within the rules...the British crowd was not that overwhelmingly polite.

Murray was choking badly but you have to give him credit...he retreated in the face of the overwhelming pressure that the Spaniard was applying. He retreated tactically speaking though...only chipping the ball back in play until he restored his nerve and buoyed his spirits. That was a remarkable thing to do in the face of everything that was staring him down. But be that as it may...he showed that his nerves can still betray him in big moments in the face of overwhelming pressure. Last year Roger Federer applied that kind of pressure and he more or less folded. Verdasco was on a hot streak but he had nowhere near the moxy that Federer had and he came up short...as the fifty something player in the world should against a player of Murray's caliber.

Jerzy Janowicz is by all means the underdog going into the semifinal match with the British favorite...Andy Murray. Certainly this is a huge emotional match for both players. Much more so than it would appear that the top half drawing is. Jerzy has a tendency to get a bit too excited in the beginning and he cannot afford to dig too big a hole for himself here. Novak Djokovic has the perfect temperament for the game at this point in his career. He is a master at "letting the game come to him". If he gets behind, and it doesn't matter to who, he never lets go of the goal or the very point in front of him. Jerzy doesn't have this command over himself...yet. But on the other hand, in his youth and his relative naivety he just might have a bolt of lightning in his grasp. If he can start quickly with even keel...he just might get on and ride the crest to the finish. He has that kind of talent. If he believes in himself that this is his moment and he is ready to accept it...he has the firepower to pull it off.

Murray on the other hand has the British expectations to deal with. We have no idea how that feels. These expectations were highly visible in his match against Verdasco. He was fighting some old demons. Against this new kid on the block he is facing an unknown quantity. He has split two matches with Jerzy but it will remain to be seen which Jerzy will show up. Murray's nerves may just start acting up on him again and if that is the case you don't want the young blood to smell any kind of fear. He will start to believe that he can do it.

I am pulling for the underdog. So are my two Siberian Huskies, Bowie and Saja, that I took the ferry over to Poland to fetch last fall and last winter. So are the two Kucharski girls in my program here in Sweden. So is the whole country of Poland. They could use something to cheer about. I just love it when the underdog wins...when everyone counts him out, he steps up and hits it out of the park. Well...we'll see. Soon enough.

[don_budge]

Del Potro vs. Djokovic...

Set apiece...2 all. Brilliant play on both sides of the net!

[don_budge]

Del Potro vs. Djokovic...

Fifth set to come...Del Potro saves a match point with a 24 stroke point. Does he have anything left in the tank? How will Djokovic react?

Djokovic did not so much lose that last set as Del Potro won it. Fantastic play from both sides of the net!

[don_budge]

Del Potro vs. Djokovic...

"I managed to stay tough and solid at the end." Novak Djokovic.

He certainly did.

[lobndropshot]

The roof is lame

[stotty]

Semi Finals

Came in at the start of the fourth set of Murray v Jerzy. Jerzy seemed petulant, manic...self destructive. Can anyone give me a match analysis as to want went on in the previous three sets?

I saw about three sets worth of Del Po and Djokovic. Unlike most I found the game average. Lots of hitting down the middle...Djokovic just settling for being steady and hoping it would carry him through...Del Po doing much the same. An edgy match...wasn't all that impressed. Happy to be shot down in flames if anyone feels differently...

[bottle]

Re Jerzy

Once again, Jerzy Joe Walcott was very good (there is destiny in a name, don't you know) but didn't quite know how to prevail.

That would be to...Oh well, I wouldn't have a good enough plan to defeat Andy Murray, either.

To quote Wikipedia on Arnold Raymond Cream or "Jersey Joe Walcott":

"On December 5, 1947, he fought Joe Louis, at thirty three years of age breaking the record as the oldest man to fight for the world heavyweight title. Despite dropping Louis in round one, and once again in round four, he lost a 15 round split decision. Most ringside observers and boxing writers felt Walcott deserved the win, and so there was a rematch on June 25, 1948, when Louis prevailed once again, this time by a knockout in round 11."

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jersey+joe+walcott&qpvt=jersey+joe+walcott&FORM=IGRE

[tennis_chiro]

Jerzy had a chance...briefly

Came in at the start of the fourth set of Murray v Jerzy. Jerzy seemed petulant, manic...self destructive. Can anyone give me a match analysis as to want went on in the previous three sets?

I saw about three sets worth of Del Po and Djokovic. Unlike most I found the game average. Lots of hitting down the middle...Djokovic just settling for being steady and hoping it would carry him through...Del Po doing much the same. An edgy match...wasn't all that impressed. Happy to be shot down in flames if anyone feels differently...

The first set was pretty even with Murray having a lot of trouble with Janowicz's first serve. Murray made a couple of mistakes and Janowicz made a couple of shots in the tb. Then in the second set Murray started to get on to Jerzy's drop shot. Janowicz dropped serve in the first or second game of the set. I think there may have been two doubles that game. Don't remember if it was there or at 4-2 in the 3rd. But Murray ran out the second set routinely. Then Murray blinked. Janowicz got up 1-4 in the third set with a couple of shots and I think there was a key let cord as well. But he was clearly nervous as he got wrapped up in when and whether they would close the roof when he should have focused on just the next point and game. I think he lost 6 games in a row, started off by a 10 point run. By this time, Murray was handling the drop shots pretty well. And Jerzy was probably berating himself for letting the lead get away from him. Hopefully he learned a lesson. Jerzy served just under 70% first serves through most of the tournament, but he was down to 55% for the match and just 50% in the second and fourth sets with 7 doubles in those two sets. At the end of two sets, Murray had won just 5 points more than Jerzy and by 1-4 in the third that differential was down to maybe one point. He went on to win 23 more points than Jerzy over the last set and a half. That's a big difference.

Despite that gap, Jerzy was actually within two points of getting the fourth set on serve a couple of times before Murray broke him again in the last game. He never actually had a break point in the fourth set, but he had 0-30 at least once, maybe 15-30 one other time.

But the match wasn't really sharp. You are correct that Murray just let him self destruct. When he did, Murray turned up the heat just enough to accelerate the process. And Murray did a great job of coming up with big serves when he was down and needed them.

As for Delpo and Djoker, I think it was a lot better match than you are giving it credit for. Delpo was hitting the ball so big, it is really hard to change direction on the ball. That match never really got away from either player. It was very exciting. Delpo looked absolutely spent in the fourth set and yet found a way to get to the fifth. His legs really appeared to be gone at the end.

don

[don_budge]

The Semi-finals...Wimbledon 2013

Came in at the start of the fourth set of Murray v Jerzy. Jerzy seemed petulant, manic...self destructive. Can anyone give me a match analysis as to want went on in the previous three sets?

I saw about three sets worth of Del Po and Djokovic. Unlike most I found the game average. Lots of hitting down the middle...Djokovic just settling for being steady and hoping it would carry him through...Del Po doing much the same. An edgy match...wasn't all that impressed. Happy to be shot down in flames if anyone feels differently...

Regards Jerzy...by the time you got to the match Murray had really taken control of the situation and Jerzy is not what you call a good loser. In fact he is not a loser at all. He got schooled by the more experienced Murray and the crowd didn't help either. He was hearing a lot of loud opposition and that surely has a lot of influence on your mood in such a tense situation. But I think that Jerzy is a bit like John McEnroe and he will learn to orchestrate the crowd in the future. He had done a pretty good job of taking them out of the game until he lost his serve in a crucial point in the third set when he was up a break...and it was all downhill from there. The crowd got back into it, Murray started to get a handle on the Janowicz serve while Jerzy started to miss the first one way too much. If he keeps banging the first one in he is quite a handfull. He should get more looks at semifinal rounds of Grand Slams in the future...this is nothing but the education process for him. He doesn't like tasting the short end of the sick and hopefully he responds constructively. He lost his composure a bit to be sure...but it is more due to his inexperience and not to a fault in his character. He sure is fun to watch...human beings have emotions afterall. They don't all have to act like robots.

Jerzy Janowicz did not self destruct so much as he was beaten by a superior opponent...an opponent with a huge crowd on his side as well. Murray really responded to the challenge and played some big time tennis. He absorbed the initial onslaught of the big Pole and then pretty routinely turned the tables back on him and beat him at his own game...with some really big serving.

The Djokovic vs. Del Potro match was really close and somehow Djokovic is the great escape artist these days. Del Potro did his fair share of escaping too as Djokovic had a slew of break points on him but he could not seem to capitalize...that is, until it was time to apply the coup de grace. It is simply amazing how many balls that Djokovic runs down and falls into the splits but he manages to not only return the ball, but he does something significant with it and then he gets himself out of the split position and he is back in the point. He does this at any given point in the match as well. This must be devastating to opponents who think that they have him all tied up in knots, in an impossible situation, only to have him extricate himself from it and turn the tables. Shades of Harry Houdini. One other thing about Novak Djokovic is I find him to be so effective with his service game. He doesn't seem to have the most devastating of serves but he always takes care of his service game.

Boris Becker was gushing that it was perhaps one of the best tennis matches ever but they are saying that stuff every year. But this was a special match as it was some really heavy hitting and neither player backed off. Not for an instant. It seemed that Del Potro was lumbering around the court but that is the big guy's gait. He's a big lug and he moves like it in between points but once that ball is in play he is a big cat...not the quickest in the forest but surely one of the most agile for his size. His reach is so huge it is a shame that the game is not more conducive to playing the net...he could really take advantage of his size.

The game is just too fast to encourage net play. The time between the approach shot and the return is so short that the player barely has any time to get into a good position to volley. They cannot get close enough to the net to be effective. Even if they could the players are so effective at hitting topspin lobs this is another thing that thwarts more net play. The courts are too slow and the ball bounces to high, plus the racquets and strings are way too good...the players use such strong forehand grips which encourages them to approach with topspin drives when the intelligent play used to be to lay the ball down with either underspin or sidespin...either in the corner or short and then get in on top of the net. The logistics of the game just will not allow for it. It is really difficult to get in on top of the net. That is a real drag as far as the classic tennis aficionado is concerned. But that is not to say that you cannot certainly admire the athleticism. After all these are the best athletes at their craft.