2016 Australian Open Tennis Championships

[don_budge]

Bernard Tomic…a glass half full

Read a bit about Ken Rosewall in this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/sports/tennis/roger-federer-is-aging-gracefully-but-australian-ken-rosewall-set-the-standard.html?WT.mc_id=2016-JANUARY-OTB-INTL_AUD_DEV-0101-0131&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&_r=0

A couple of comments from the veterans about the modern game compared to the classic game.

"The differences are a matter of technology — wooden rackets with smaller heads versus today’s highly evolved models — as well as a matter of playing surface.

“Muscles to this day couldn’t hit a topspin backhand,” Stolle said, adding: “All the guys in our generation were brought up on grass courts, so that made us all what we called in those days low-ball hitters. As a low-ball hitter, you got down there, and the topspin just wasn’t there. But you know full well, the boys today, if they were going to use those wooden rackets, they wouldn’t be able to flick the ball around like that. Someone like Rafa Nadal couldn’t play that way.”"

From Rosewall to stroke…

"Rosewall believes the player whose game might translate the best is the young Australian Bernard Tomic, a talented iconoclast with remarkable touch who is not averse to hitting sliced forehands if the occasion warrants it."

The professionals these days wouldn't get away with their "modern" technique under the prehistoric conditions. I say prehistoric because of the massive drive to eliminate the history of the past in order to glamorize the present. Don't think it's happening? Notice how the article slips in the word "evolved" instead of the word "engineered". It's subtle…but the bogey is in play at all times.

Bernard Tomic was a complete disappointment against Andy Murray. It's Tennis 101…don't try to beat these master backboard tennis players from the backcourt.

Number one…Tomic does not have the serve to serve and volley behind and it's a mystery to me why a man of his size would not. But the mystery is really no mystery at all…Tomic is primarily stuck in the modern paradigm of tennis for big men who should be playing more serve and volley and more all court tennis. Why in the world would he be willing to trade large number of groundstroke rallies with these human backboards? As Fred Stolle notes and as stroke always likes to say and as Stotty sees clearly as well…there is something decidedly different about Tomic's game. He has that potential of surgical like control but he rarely utilizes it during the entire course of a match.

His book of tactics is missing a chapter on consistency. He needs to consult with klacr on being able to sustain this kind of attack in the face of a barrage of dipping bullets and the like. If Tomic did have the service motion that he should have he would be able to do basically the same thing that Milos Raonic did to Stan Wawrinka yesterday. Although some quicker courts wouldn't hurt either. I saw Bernard make a couple of volleys off of both sides, forehands and backhands, that gave me the impression that he can volley. He has the sort of mid court possibilities that he needs to make good solid approaches and he has the ability and demonstrates patience at time in the backcourt to find these opportunities in the course of a point but he doesn't do it.

His cup is half full…he needs to work on the other half. Starting with a service motion that can consistently put the returner on the defensive. Then he needs to go to work on his approach game. This is another big guy who is essentially playing the grinding game against professional grinders. I don't have to wonder what the great John McEnroe is saying…I just said it.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer versus Thomas Berdych…2016 Australian Open quarterfinals

No apologies…sorry klacr. Plus I know that you are the kind of guy that an apology would only annoy. You're a tough guy and you can take your lumps…even if it means taking one on the chin for your best Bud Berdych.

Thomas once again demonstrates why he is a top ten tennis professional in the modern game of tennis but he also clearly should be eating his way up the food chain instead of being in the same holding pattern that he has been in for some years. His ball striking appears to be getting better and better but the results don't change…why is that? Clearly he is out matched and out witted tactically speaking and he doesn't have the tools or the desire to make the necessary changes.

A big guy stuck in the modern paradigm of professional tennis. This is your poster boy. Good serve but not tactically or technically up to the task of sustaining a serve and volley attack. Midcourt game? Just plain limited and even if he does manage to find his way to the net he has limited volley skills as best exemplified by his tendency to attempt the shot in the dark swinging volley instead of a semblance of control with regard to placement and spin to move his opponent to one side of the court in order to calmly finish the point where he isn't. Did you see Federer moving him around yesterday?

Speaking of Roger Federer…no muss no fuss. This straight set win is testimony to the level of form he is currently residing in. It's rather amazing considering that a couple of weeks ago he was suffering from some flu bug and possible jet lag. But he has righted the ship and with his family in tow he has it all in perspective. He is watching the match between Nishikori and Djokovic as I type but he isn't fretting it a bit. As he said in his interview with the rascal Jim Courier…"I will need every bit of nerves for the match so I won't be nervous watching it".

It was a clinic against Berdych. He made Berdych look pretty bad at times even though Thomas was playing some rather impressive "modern" tennis. Federer is not impressed with this type of game and it is pretty elementary tactically speaking for him to be able to break this game down. It all starts with serve and he has one rather perfect motion. Once he hits that groove it's terribly hard to shake him. He is like a steamroller once he hits that groove. He wins his serve so easily and then he just gets to work to break down the other mans. Roger for me has the best serve in tennis. I know that Raonic hits it harder than Zeus but tactically it is Roger that is the real thing of beauty. For instance he had his down the middle in the deuce side going so well that when he swung Berdych out wide it basically a gimme every single time. He wins so many games at love on his own serve then he turns around and makes his opponent work for his every time. It all adds up on the nerves. Just ask Berdych.

[stroke]

I was a little disappointed in Tomic today. I was hoping for more. He is good at the type of game he plays but I can't help feeling it is the wrong game for him. If you don't move well, then you must hit the ball hard, otherwise there will come a time in rallies where you will get too stretched out to cope. This happened numerous times in their contest. Murray moves so well he made Tomic seem slow.

Tomic does have power, he just doesn't use it enough. Going forward from here, he simply has to improve his footwork.

I too was a little disappointed. Tomic may one day win a major, but it is hard to see him become a regular in the top 10. His movement did look slow vs Murray, but that is never going to change. If he had Murray's movement, he could have won that match. Or Raonic's serve. One of the announcers, it may have been Darren Cahill, who I like as a commentator, pined that Andy does everything just a little better than Bernie, but I actually prefer Bernie's forehand, and would put his serve and backhand on equal footing. Both have great feel. Movement, not even close.

[stroke]

I watched quite a bit of the match. It's the first time in a long time that I've had a good look at Raonic. He always seemed a little too laconic in his movement for me. Yes, the serve was great, but his statistics on return of serve and breaking serve were right there with Isner, well away from where it needed to be for him to have any real chance to penetrate the top 5 (and yet he reached 4 last spring).

But last night, I saw a different Raonic than I had seen before. He had a real spring to his step and the serve seemed even bigger than I remembered. He was routinely hitting 140 mph first serves when he needed them and the 130 mph second serves were, of course, ridiculous.

There is a certain rhythm to the proper execution of serve and volley tennis that is mostly lost on today's players. You simply can't develop that rhythm unless you make the move 1000's of times and today's occasional serve-and-volleyers simply never perform the necessary reps. But I saw that rhythm in Raonic's movement last night and a level of spring that I had previously felt was sadly lacking. On top of that, he was hitting his groundstokes and even his backhand with authority, including when he had to move to the ball.

I remember reading when Ljubicic took over coaching how they were talking about how much strength and fitness and I assume mobility and flexibility training they were doing with him; and how he was getting so strong. Sometimes it takes a lot longer for that kind of work to manifest itself in comfortable, improved movement on the court. Perhaps Ljubicic should have hung in there a little longer. We all know Raonic is a big man, but he always has appeared a little too gangly, apparently much slighter than Berdych for example. But the fact is, Raonic is listed at 217, 17 lbs more than Berdych (19 less than Isner and 17 more than the taller Janowicz). I wonder what those statistics really mean. I only have the 2012 ATP media guide for comparison, but he was listed at 22 lbs less at that point! He still looks a little bit like Daddy Longlegs, but he must be awfully strong and his movement and ball striking seem to bear that out. On top of that, his technique on his low volleys was reminiscent of another age. He was carving low backhand volleys into the corners with a level of ease and control that I haven't seen from anyone in a long time. The additional strength may be giving him the explosiveness that I saw lacking in what I thought was "laconic" movement.

In other words, I saw a lot more than a Raonic who was going to the net a little more. If he comes through with that kind of play against Monfils, he's showing me he is ready to take his place among the top three or four players in the world, at least on hard courts and grass.

Anybody else see this stark difference?

don

I think you are spot on about Raonic. His fitness seems to have noticeably improved. I think that, along with what I think is the best serve(first and second together) in tennis(maybe ever) puts him in as the guy next up to win a major, other than the usuals.

Interesting about the players weights. Who know what Raonic weighs, but I did see he was listed at 217 one time. I do not think he is 217 now, if he ever was.

[stotty]

Rosewall

Read a bit about Ken Rosewall in this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/sports/tennis/roger-federer-is-aging-gracefully-but-australian-ken-rosewall-set-the-standard.html?WT.mc_id=2016-JANUARY-OTB-INTL_AUD_DEV-0101-0131&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&_r=0

A couple of comments from the veterans about the modern game compared to the classic game.

"The differences are a matter of technology — wooden rackets with smaller heads versus today’s highly evolved models — as well as a matter of playing surface.

“Muscles to this day couldn’t hit a topspin backhand,” Stolle said, adding: “All the guys in our generation were brought up on grass courts, so that made us all what we called in those days low-ball hitters. As a low-ball hitter, you got down there, and the topspin just wasn’t there. But you know full well, the boys today, if they were going to use those wooden rackets, they wouldn’t be able to flick the ball around like that. Someone like Rafa Nadal couldn’t play that way.”"

From Rosewall to stroke…

"Rosewall believes the player whose game might translate the best is the young Australian Bernard Tomic, a talented iconoclast with remarkable touch who is not averse to hitting sliced forehands if the occasion warrants it."

The professionals these days wouldn't get away with their "modern" technique under the prehistoric conditions. I say prehistoric because of the massive drive to eliminate the history of the past in order to glamorize the present. Don't think it's happening? Notice how the article slips in the word "evolved" instead of the word "engineered". It's subtle…but the bogey is in play at all times.

I enjoyed the article. It has many good points. Stolle comes up with what I have always maintained is the key difference between Rosewall's sliced backhand and those of most players today...Rosewall could hit passing shots with his.

The good thing about Aussies is they generally call it as it is. You would just love to see the game today being played with wooden rackets to see how everyone would cope.

Players today are missing a trick when you think about it, because it's so much easier to volley with modern rackets compared to wood...yet no one takes up the opportunity. I know all the arguments why players feel they can't come in, but when you watch a lot of these rallies and see the opportunities lost to cut the rallies in half by sneaking in to dispatch fairly easy balls, you wonder why? I think most players must have close to zero confidence at the net. It's the only valid reason I can think of.

Tomic is different and possess strokes and a playing style somewhat at odds with the modern game. Like you, I cannot see him going further than where he is now without changing thinks up considerably. He really hasn't improved in a few years now.

Interesting your comment about volleying in one of your recent posts. I would like to expand on it a little: Because players volley so infrequently, you have to watch plenty of matches to be able to determine whether a player can volley well or not. The vast majority of volleys played are merely bread and butter and tell you little about a players true capabilities. Nishikori played like a drain against Novak but looked quite effective at the net on the occasions he came in.

The problem is you see so little volleying below the height of the net you cannot tell whether a player can truly volley or not. It's the acid test. When you watch the doubles at Wimbledon on the outside courts, very few players have much of a clue when it comes to low volleys.

I am convinced there are two ways to approach playing Djokovic. The first is come to the net wherever feasible, the second is to bring Djokovic to the net where is a complete fish out of water. It's tricky plan to execute and would take an Arthur Ashe meditational approach to carry it off...but I know just the man, probably the only man, who can do it.

[stotty]

Nishikori

Nishikori was disappointing today. Everything went according to plan for the first five games where he was striking the ball so sweetly and pulling Djokovic all over the place. No one else can do that to Djokovic. He can even get the better of him in the backhand to backhand exchanges. Then from 40-0 up and serving in the sixth game Nishikori fell away like a wet lettuce. He never looked in in at after that and Djokovic just rolled straight over him...so disappointing.

[don_budge]

Andy Murray vs. David Ferrer…2016 Australian Open quarterfinals

“It was a pretty brutal match,” said Murray, who out-aced his opponent 11-0 and made good on six of 13 break-points. “The start of the match wasn’t so good — a lot of unforced errors. But in the middle of the second set and the third set we both started to play long points. It was pretty physical. I held up pretty good, I think.”

This is Andy Murray's synopsis of his quarterfinal match with David Ferrer. Personally I cannot imagine a boring tennis match between two more boring professional tennis players that absolutely personify the professional game of tennis.

"It was a pretty brutal match", Andy opined. I'll hazard a guess that it was a tremendously brutal match to watch. Brutal as in it would take at least a pot of coffee to keep conscious. Andy proves that you don't really have to be a genius to play this game. At least you sure don't have to sound or look like one. My wife abhors him and she's Swedish. That says a lot. My buddy in Hawaii hates him…but he hates all stupid people. To me…he's brutal to watch. Ferrer is even more brutal…to watch. BORING…

"I held up pretty good…I think". You think Andy? Don't you know? Don't be afraid to commit yourself here…just a tad. Nobody accuses him of being the sharpest tool in the shed. BORING...

[klacr]

“It was a pretty brutal match,” said Murray, who out-aced his opponent 11-0 and made good on six of 13 break-points. “The start of the match wasn’t so good — a lot of unforced errors. But in the middle of the second set and the third set we both started to play long points. It was pretty physical. I held up pretty good, I think.”

This is Andy Murray's synopsis of his quarterfinal match with David Ferrer. Personally I cannot imagine a boring tennis match between two more boring professional tennis players that absolutely personify the professional game of tennis.

"It was a pretty brutal match", Andy opined. I'll hazard a guess that it was a tremendously brutal match to watch. Brutal as in it would take at least a pot of coffee to keep conscious. Andy proves that you don't really have to be a genius to play this game. At least you sure don't have to sound or look like one. My wife abhors him and she's Swedish. That says a lot. My buddy in Hawaii hates him…but he hates all stupid people. To me…he's brutal to watch. Ferrer is even more brutal…to watch. BORING…

"I held up pretty good…I think". You think Andy? Don't you know? Don't be afraid to commit yourself here…just a tad. Nobody accuses him of being the sharpest tool in the shed. BORING...

Watching this match was like death by a thousand paper cuts. Boring, frustrating, just a sleep inducing spectacle.

At least a few players understand how to really play...
http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/ar...vengeance.html

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Serve and Volley and All Court Tennis versus Flicking the Wrists

Watching this match was like death by a thousand paper cuts. Boring, frustrating, just a sleep inducing spectacle.

At least a few players understand how to really play...
http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/ar...vengeance.html

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Yeah…and I know you are one of them. Milos' serve and volley tactic raised another interesting point during the course of his match with Wawrinka. Wawrinka's block underspin return was pretty darned effective against the net rushing Raonic…it is something that I have heard him criticized for in the past. Shades of yesteryear when blocking the big serves back at the feet of the server was a tactic.

Wawrinka was obviously thrown off balance a bit as he was trying to finesse underspin backhand by Raonic at the net but he adjusted and started hitting the bomb backhand. It was an interesting match in a couple of respects. Certainly more interesting than Murray and Ferrer…playing brutal tennis. Brutally boring tennis.

It may be an indication too that the courts are just a bit quicker. I believe that I heard Federer mention in one of his interviews that this was so. The quicker the better for Roger when it comes to playing Djokovic. Quicker lower bounces makes it more difficult for these baseline huggers to "flick the ball around the court". We've seen it a number of times where the quicker conditions can somewhat offset the younger legs.

[klacr]

Raonic takes out Monfils and gets himself into semis vs. Murray. The big Canadian has the firepower to take out Murray, but does he have the fortitude to handle Murray's game? Not that Murray's game is all that spectacular, but he does play great defense and gives you very little. Raonic will have to bring it, and bring it hard. Effective serving, purposeful groundstrokes, embracing the net. He's not going to outlast Murray, but he can outplay him. First strike tennis the way it ought to be played. Credit to Raonic new coach, Carlos Moya. Moya not tinkering with Raonic's game too much, actually encouraging and supporting his forays into the net, not brainwashing him into "baseline is best" school of thought.

Credit to Moya and Raonic for raising his game and perhaps, just maybe, little by little, seeing the light. And when we see that light and look into it...It's not a bad thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uozMTmEjxHc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcWVL4B-4pI

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Raonic...and the last four.

Raonic takes out Monfils and gets himself into semis vs. Murray. The big Canadian has the firepower to take out Murray, but does he have the fortitude to handle Murray's game? Not that Murray's game is all that spectacular, but he does play great defense and gives you very little. Raonic will have to bring it, and bring it hard. Effective serving, purposeful groundstrokes, embracing the net. He's not going to outlast Murray, but he can outplay him.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Raonic is certainly looming up and could take out anyone if he serves well and plays offensively. But Murray will be a difficult customer for Raonic, and it is going to be interesting to see how Raonic copes. An awful lot of balls are going to be coming back and Murray will be tracking down everything he can reach. It's mentally tiring playing Murray over five sets.

All four players are in with a shout from here. Djokovic is favourite but he hasn't been at his best throughout the tournament in my view. It wasn't that he was so good against Nishikori, rather Nishikori was so poor. That boy is letting me down. He hits the ball so clean and I would like him to win more. We need Chang to turn him into a man.

The problem if Roger were to beat Djokovic is how much it would take out of him to do it...would he have anything left for the final? But at least it would stop Djokovic winning another slam. Murray would have had the less sapping match if he were to get to the final.

For me it's all about entertainment. Murray v Djokovic would be the worst match up for me. They cancel each other out. Djokovic v Raonic might be a tad interesting. But Roger v anyone works best.

[klacr]

[QUOTE=licensedcoach;37151] All four players are in with a shout from here. Djokovic is favourite but he hasn't been at his best throughout the tournament in my view. It wasn't that he was so good against Nishikori, rather Nishikori was so poor. That boy is letting me down. He hits the ball so clean and I would like him to win more. We need Chang to turn him into a man. [QUOTE]

Regarding Nishikori: Been saying it for years. I have not bought his stock. Not sure I'm ever going to.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

What am I missing?

The problem if Roger were to beat Djokovic is how much it would take out of him to do it...would he have anything left for the final?

What's the problem with that…doesn't Federer have an extra day of rest? It's too much to ask for though isn't it? Or is it?

[don_budge]

Nishikori…nah

Regarding Nishikori: Been saying it for years. I have not bought his stock. Not sure I'm ever going to.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I've never bought into him either.

[stotty]

What's the problem with that…doesn't Federer have an extra day of rest? It's too much to ask for though isn't it? Or is it?

If it were a long five setter, it would be taxing for Federer if he got through, plus it's an evening match so recovery is shorter if the match finished in the early hours.

Greg Rusedski made an interesting point today. He said he thought Federer is playing as well if not better than ever, and that he is still moving really well. The problem is, Greg says, is that once you are well into your 30s, no matter who you are, you are going to physically drop off towards the latter stages of set 4 onwards. I think Greg might be right. It could be one of the reasons why Roger has been unable to beat Djokovic in a five set match.

It can happen. Roger has to be sublime and Djokovic slightly off. There is hope. As they say in Italy....'hope is the last thing to die'.