2018 ATP Tour Finals, London

[stroke]

It was impressive by Zverev. His backhand is so good, his serve seems to have gotten even better, same for his forehand. He is never going to be adept at the net or with feel shots but he should be up for a major any time now. I thnik it will happen this year.

[stotty]

It was impressive by Zverev. His backhand is so good, his serve seems to have gotten even better, same for his forehand. He is never going to be adept at the net or with feel shots but he should be up for a major any time now. I thnik it will happen this year.

I have never doubted Zverev could win ATPs. It's the five set scenario he seems to struggle with. McEnroe said players have to learn to be efficient if they are to win slams because being inefficient over seven rounds is physically too costly. He's probably right.

[don_budge]

It was impressive by Zverev. His backhand is so good, his serve seems to have gotten even better, same for his forehand. He is never going to be adept at the net or with feel shots but he should be up for a major any time now. I thnik it will happen this year.

First of all...when I heard that Alexander Zverev had won this tournament my first thought was that I was happy for stroke. I know how much stroke likes the Zverev game and how much he believes in his potential to win and win big at the tour level. I think everyone here that reads regularly knows how I feel on the subject and my feelings haven't changed on iota. Still happy for stroke though.

I watched a good deal of the tournament and tried to watch something of all eight players. I think that this is one of the weakest fields ever and it just might be a glimpse of the future of the Post Roger Federer Era of tennis. The fields are getting weaker and weaker. All you have to do is ask yourself who wasn't there. See what I mean.

Ok...that being settled here is the rest of the bad news. Roger Federer had a very unusual tournament...again. In fact he is making a habit of making the unusual the usual. He was just terrible in his losses while showing glimpses of his former/real self (I am not sure what to believe anymore) in his "good" performances. He absolutely sucked against Kei Nishikori and he managed a similar performance against Zverev in the semis. He looked rather impressive in his wins over Dominic Thiem and Kevin Anderson. What gives with the inconsistency? The ups and downs. The mood swings. Very uncharacteristic of the Swiss Maestro. Even some of the outward expressions of disgust in his play is uncharacteristic.

Federer's match against Zverev once again pitted the cagey and wily veteran against the young blood and he showed zero taste for the fight. And a fight it is at this level of tennis. You have to be ready to into the ring and want to rip the other player apart. The old "Psychology Today" comparison to two men with swords trying to castrate each other. You gotta be like that Niki. I said that once to a fellow on the forum from Serbia. You gotta be like that. But Federer was anything but that. He rather meekly stepped aside and just allowed Zverev to go through the door to face Novak Djokovic in the finals. You know what? I think the real reason is that Roger no longer has the stomach to face Djokovic and he doesn't want the head to head to get to lopsided in the later stages of his career.

Ok...Federer is gone. Now it is Djokovic's turn. What the hell was that? Did he overnight lose his taste for winning because as Stotty suggests the pressure was mounting? I haven't heard anything more ridiculous in the tennis world in a long, long time. Players don't get tired of winning. That would be tantamount to saying that Donald Trump gets tired of winning. No...that was a very uncharacteristic match from Djokovic as well. It was if the little cigar smoking fat man came to Novak in the locker room and offered him that infamous advice..."this ain't your night kid". Leave it at that. A crappy match from Djokovic and it was glaring. I watched some of it and had a hard time believing my eyes at the futility in Djokovic's game. He didn't look that laconic during his upward struggle to regain form after his lone layoff and injury. I cannot find a reasonable explanation for this...except one. A monstrous conspiracy theory.

So it goes now...on and on. The Post Roger Federer Era slips into a cesspool of mediocrity. The game slowly devolving from its former self. Watching that final and some of the pathetic mid-court and net play was an eye opener. If you know what you are looking for. The problem is most have nothing to compare it to. John McEnroe and the like a distant memory as he is now retiring from the senior tour. Three generations later this is what we are left with and Elvis has left the stadium. Maybe not physically...but he certainly didn't have his head in the game for half of his matches in this tournament.

I'm still happy for stroke though. I like stroke...even when he taunts this poor old guy.

[stroke]

db, I felt the same way, that Novak was not for whatever reason up for the fight in the final. It was strange as he had seemed so up for the fight in all previous matches in this tournament. Next year will be interesting to see if Zverev can break through at a major and how much more Novak, Nadal, and Fed have left in the Major title area. Nadal at the FO still the best bet. Tomic had a big win for him in that 250 tournament he won. To be honest, when Tomic is actually interested, I would rather see him play than Zverev or just about any other player other than the big 3. It is always interesting to see who will be the next great multiple Grand Slams champion(winning at least 7 or 8). Zverev, we will see. He is at zero right now obviously. As we all know, it has pretty much been Fed, Nadal, and Novak ever since Sampras and Agassi. And I am glad you are back posting.

[don_budge]

db, I felt the same way, that Novak was not for whatever reason up for the fight in the final. It was strange as he had seemed so up for the fight in all previous matches in this tournament. Next year will be interesting to see if Zverev can break through at a major and how much more Novak, Nadal, and Fed have left in the Major title area. Nadal at the FO still the best bet. Tomic had a big win for him in that 250 tournament he won. To be honest, when Tomic is actually interested, I would rather see him play than Zverev or just about any other player other than the big 3. It is always interesting to see who will be the next great multiple Grand Slams champion(winning at least 7 or 8). Zverev, we will see. He is at zero right now obviously. As we all know, it has pretty much been Fed, Nadal, and Novak ever since Sampras and Agassi. And I am glad you are back posting.

You actually may see some more of your hopes for Alexander Zverev materialize. This tournament was actually a sign of things to come in the Post Roger Federer Era of tennis. Another of the 16 or 17 year culmination points that I have referenced to in the past. No coincidence that William Tilden also prophesized period shifts in the game. But the Tour Championships illuminated a couple of things to come.

First of all, this tournament was as much about who wasn't there as who was there. Names such as Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka, Milos Raonic, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Tomas Berdych, Rafael Nadal, Juan Martin Del Potro not to mention last years finalists...Grigor Dimitrov and David Goffin. Zverev just might find himself in position to win in the weakest era of tennis ever. He will conquer through attrition. Interesting.

Tennis does metaphor life quite a lot. It sort of serves as a barometer for society in a not so subtle way. As the game of tennis has devolved to a game where it is controlled by a handful of players for the past fifteen years now it faced with the prospect of fielding the weakest field ever in terms of depth and even at the top of the game. Just think of it...thirty years ago if you would have told a reasonable sort of tennis aficionado that the game would be dominated by players that were like fish out of water inside of the service line they would have scoffed at you. But this final was the epitome of players looking lost at the net. Djokovic is obviously a great player behind the baseline but he cannot find himself at the net unless he is faced with an absolute routine volley or even overhead. If his situation is the least bit dicey at the net he is more apt to flub it than produce something halfway decent.

I find it hard to believe that anybody finds this the least bit entertaining but this also serves as the aforementioned barometer in society...things are really becoming quite dumbed down. When you think of the number one tennis player in the world as completely incompetent at the net it becomes a matter of things being retarded. This is a situation where Alexander Zverev might actually hoist a Grand Slam trophy or two...or even a dozen. Although I doubt even that. He is physically too frail and emotionally he is even weaker. He has that giant bulls eye on his back as the snooker player who had a psychological demise in the article that Stotty posted earlier in the month. You have to be really some sort of tough guy to dominate majors. A mental and emotional Goliath and I don't see Zverev as either. His reaction after was winning was to lie down on the court and cry. Whatever happened to standing up like a man, going to the net and shaking the opponents hand. But for sure he is not the first to behave as such. He is only mimicking what he has seen before him.

Too bad there aren't many players that he can mimic their net play. It's interesting how the how thing is connected...by the three little dots.

[gzhpcu]

Great analysis don_budge!

[stotty]

For me, Zverev has two things in his favour right now. 1) He's still only 21. 2) He has the right mentor/coach on his side.

With regard to Zverev's second asset, Lendl would appear to be the right man for the job. Like Murray, Zverev is prone to tantrums. He really needs a nanny in one sense, but a strong father figure might, in a way, be able to do a similar job. Lendl doesn't like too much ceremony with his player whatever the prize. Zverev was hugged and kissed just about everyone in his team on winning the O2, but when it came to Lendl, he got a brief 'well done' and a pat on the back. Lendl is not an emotional man, or at least not in public.

Murray really needed Lendl and it made a big difference to Murray's slam success. Zverev's situation is similar to how Murray's was. The significant thing for Zverev is that he has Lendl in his career far earlier than Murray had.

I still don't understand why Novak fell away so easily in the second set. I felt that if he had dug in he still had every chance of winning.

[klacr]

For me, Zverev has two things in his favour right now. 1) He's still only 21. 2) He has the right mentor/coach on his side.

With regard to Zverev's second asset, Lendl would appear to be the right man for the job. Like Murray, Zverev is prone to tantrums. He really needs a nanny in one sense, but a strong father figure might, in a way, be able to do a similar job. Lendl doesn't like too much ceremony with his player whatever the prize. Zverev was hugged and kissed just about everyone in his team on winning the O2, but when it came to Lendl, he got a brief 'well done' and a pat on the back. Lendl is not an emotional man, or at least not in public.

Murray really needed Lendl and it made a big difference to Murray's slam success. Zverev's situation is similar to how Murray's was. The significant thing for Zverev is that he has Lendl in his career far earlier than Murray had.

I still don't understand why Novak fell away so easily in the second set. I felt that if he had dug in he still had every chance of winning.

agree 100% stotty.
Zverev has tremendous upside and no doubt the Lendl effect is a real thing.

Lendl coaches from a standpoint of leverage. He knows and his player knows he doesn't want to be there. Lendl hates to travel and doesn't hide it. But his expertise is so good that in order to be a champion you are willing to pay top dollar for it. Zverev is paying 50% of all prize money to Lendl.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stroke]

I had no idea on that Lendl salary Kyle. What you said about Lendl is so true. He was a tremendous champion, and I love his disposition. Zverev could not find a better coach/mentor.

[klacr]

I had no idea on that Lendl salary Kyle. What you said about Lendl is so true. He was a tremendous champion, and I love his disposition. Zverev could not find a better coach/mentor.

Yes. That is the deal Lendl demands. I found that out from my racquet customizer who worked for and is still friends with Lendl today. He told me Lendl talks more about golf than tennis and loathes the atp tour and all of its travel. Only way he would come back to coach is if he gets 50% of prize money.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

Another revelation. Talks more about golf than tennis. This is great stuff. We're learning more about the big world all the time.

[stotty]

Yes. That is the deal Lendl demands. I found that out from my racquet customizer who worked for and is still friends with Lendl today. He told me Lendl talks more about golf than tennis and loathes the atp tour and all of its travel. Only way he would come back to coach is if he gets 50% of prize money.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

That in itself is strange. I wonder how true it is. Lendl is loaded, so in theory doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. It's bit of a dichotomy.

Lendl seems attracted to these players who falter in the grand slams. I wonder if he sees himself in them and feels he can show them the way through? I like Lendl. He has terrific sense of humour but because he looks so severe people don't always credit him as being good fun.

50% is a lot. Let's see if he gets results.

[stroke]

I guess it is pretty clear that Zverev wants to get all he can out of his career, no Tomic, Kyrgios, Fognini thing going on here.

[don_budge]

Ivan Lendl...The Player vs. The coach

Great analysis don_budge!

Glad to hear that you thought so. The ensuing conversation does not change my thoughts one iota. Ivan Lendl is an interesting change in the landscape but only that...interesting. A leopard cannot change its spots any more than Alexander Zverev. It is what it is.

For me, Zverev has two things in his favour right now. 1) He's still only 21. 2) He has the right mentor/coach on his side.

With regard to Zverev's second asset, Lendl would appear to be the right man for the job. Like Murray, Zverev is prone to tantrums. He really needs a nanny in one sense, but a strong father figure might, in a way, be able to do a similar job. Lendl doesn't like too much ceremony with his player whatever the prize. Zverev was hugged and kissed just about everyone in his team on winning the O2, but when it came to Lendl, he got a brief 'well done' and a pat on the back. Lendl is not an emotional man, or at least not in public.

Murray really needed Lendl and it made a big difference to Murray's slam success. Zverev's situation is similar to how Murray's was. The significant thing for Zverev is that he has Lendl in his career far earlier than Murray had.

I still don't understand why Novak fell away so easily in the second set. I felt that if he had dug in he still had every chance of winning.

The jury is still out on whether Ivan Lendl is the right man for the job. Alexander Zverev is certainly prone to tantrums and a whole host of mental frailties. While Andy Murray has some rather glaring behavioural problems...the two mental/competitive makeups don't appear to be at all similar. Murray was on the verge of breakthrough and had consistently shown himself to be a presence at the majors. I don't have a tally on quarterfinal, semifinal and final appearances before Lendl and after Lendl but it is obvious that Andy Murray had already reached a point of "advanced toughness" before Lendl arrived on the scene. That being said it appears as if Andy made some sort of breakthrough...a breakthrough of sorts with Lendl but I wonder how much that can be attributed to the actual presence of Lendl in the mix or if it was sort of a natural progression. Murray was already tracking in the right direction. At the same time Lendl didn't last forever in Murray's team so it wasn't a perfect collaboration. No surprise there...Lendl doesn't appear to be much of a compromising personality.

The glaring difference between Zverev and Murray at this point is that Zverev has only one quarterfinal appearance in Grand Slams to show for his efforts. Even that one was full of drama and struggle. Three setters against much lower ranked players in order to secure a place in the quarters against Dominic Thiem where he was sent crashing and landing with a thud. Zverev had five set wins over the #60, #29 and #38 to get to the quarters. It was actually the first time that he had defeated a player ranked higher than #50 in a Grand Slam. My contention with Zverev is much of his status is attributable to hype courtesy of the ATP in search of something...anything to promote this floundering sport.

agree 100% stotty.
Zverev has tremendous upside and no doubt the Lendl effect is a real thing.

Lendl coaches from a standpoint of leverage. He knows and his player knows he doesn't want to be there. Lendl hates to travel and doesn't hide it. But his expertise is so good that in order to be a champion you are willing to pay top dollar for it. Zverev is paying 50% of all prize money to Lendl.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Fascinating comments about the Lendl coaching "paradigm". I have the ultimate respect for Lendl as a player. He has always been underrated no matter what level he has been appreciated at. He is truly one of he greatest players of all time. His career straddled the original line of demarcation as did John McEnroe's and Jimmy Connors. These are the "Big Three" in his regard. These players struggled not only against their competition but also with the introduction of the new equipment when the size of the racquet went from 60 square inches to 110 square inches in the wink of a young girls eye. These studs adapted...and studs they were. But Lendl as a coach is a question mark. I haven't heard much in the way of classified information from the Murray camp as to how much credit he deserves of the Murray success. My guess he deserves some but I also think that his personality might impose some problems with the existing team members and this might just be the case in a family oriented team such as the Zverev camp. Will the Russian/German/Czech culture thing come into play? Unthought knowns.

That in itself is strange. I wonder how true it is. Lendl is loaded, so in theory doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. It's bit of a dichotomy.

Lendl seems attracted to these players who falter in the grand slams. I wonder if he sees himself in them and feels he can show them the way through? I like Lendl. He has terrific sense of humour but because he looks so severe people don't always credit him as being good fun.

50% is a lot. Let's see if he gets results.

So it all comes down to money. Perhaps that isn't the best place to start. Greed as a principle has some issues built right into it. It seems to me that the best coach/player relationships have a foundation of something more substantial than legal tender. Of course I cling to some traditional values when the rest of the world has chucked them into the mulch pile.

I don't attribute much to the idea that Lendl is attracted to players who struggle in Grand Slams. Lendl won how many? Eight of nineteen finals in Grand Slams. Sure you can make the point that he lost so many finals but trust me...when it comes to a Grand Slam a final is nearly as impressive as a win. Getting to the final is a journey in itself. As I said before Lendl was a super stud and his record more or less puts him very close to the top. If Federer, Djokovic and Nadal had this guy to compete with too in every tournament they would have had another gladiator to deal with.

I guess it is pretty clear that Zverev wants to get all he can out of his career, no Tomic, Kyrgios, Fognini thing going on here.

This is also a fascinating comment but the issue here is it is one of speculation. Wants? What does that mean? Lendl has been in the camp since the U. S. Open and I didn't notice any appreciable change up to this point. The win at the O2 was a fluke. Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer all but laid down before the "Appointed Prince". The ATP's appointed prince. Novak just pounded the mop topped Zverev into next week in his first meeting in the round robin. He nearly made him cry. Federer played a terrible match against Zverev...hard to phantom where that performance came from.

No...a leopard cannot change its spots. Lendl is not going to teach Zverev the net game, the approach game. The serve and volley game. Zverev most likely will remain a two fisted backhand with a not so strong forehand and a rather erratic mediocre serve for a young man of his size and talent. His motion leaves much to be desired and it fails him when it should be delivering him to the "Promised Land".

I wouldn't be surprised to see Zverev end up like Milos Raonic and struggle with injuries once his career starts to really get revved up. His tall and lanky physique does not look like it will hold up to the pounding that it will take to grind out matches from the backcourt. Last years French Open was a premonition. He struggled through the three five setters against lower ranked players leaving him all for the picking against Dominic Thiem.

But all of that being said...this young man just might prevail under the right circumstances and I doubt that Ivan Lendl's presence will hurt his chances but the question is still out there how much he can actually help. Zverev doesn't appear to be the adaptable sort and adapt he must if Lendl's influence is going to have any pronounced effect on him.

[stroke]

DB, great post on the whole Zverev situation. I like how you state your thoughts on him. And to me you are so right about the player Lendl, a true stud of tennis, way underrated in the history of tennis all time greats. And I loved the way he conducted business out there on the court. He did lose some very tough Grand Slam finals, but as you say, he was there an awful lot. He was way ahead of his time with his physicality and fitness. And no doubt I was speculating about hiring Lendl(at that salary) is an indication of Zverev going all in and wanting to get all he truly can out of his career. And I certainly think what Lendl brings to Zverev has nothing to do with technique, he certainly is not going to be working on Zverev's net game, touch shots, or more forehand flip. He is there for pretty much everything else though that separates the champions from the rest. And what Lendl brings in that regard could very well be stand alone.