Long is better. Or not?

Another big star was forced to retire from the Shanghai Master 1000 in as many days. After Andy Roddick, today Juan Martin Del Potro surrendered to a wrist injury continuing the curse that has seemingly affected him after his American triumph. Jurgen Melzer played consistently, without conceding anything to the Argentine, who was broken immediately to 0-2, but broke back to 2-3. They went on with serve until 6-5 Melzer; then the Austrian displayed the best game of his match coming up with a stunning, change-of-direction forehand winner straight down the line to bring up a set point. But he hit a backhand long on the next point and wasted another chance soon after. FinallyDel Potro had a shocker with the next couple of points and slapped a straight forward forehand volley well long of the baseline to concede the set at Melzer's third attempt. The second set last only for three games, then Melzer secured a third round against Feliciano Lopez.

The two injuries left open space for a rethinking of the more and more tiresome calendar. Players, and Roddick was one of the more critics, complained for the excessive length of the season and against the ranking reform. Atp, in fact, has forced the big to play the four Grand Slams, the Masters Series (Montecarlo maintained the status of MS but players were not obliged to guarantee their presence), four Atp 500, whose at least one after the Us Open, and two Atp 250 that went to compose the amount of their ranking points. If they cannot go to one of the “obliged tournaments” they’d receive a zero in their ranking. So, the big, to avoid a zero negatively affecting their hopes to play the World Tour Finals finished to compel themelves to a wearying tour of the world with no appreciable pauses for recovery, rest or make-up sessions. The times of Pat Rafter, who gifted himself a period of surfing in his home-country after the majors, seems far.

Moreover, if the intention will become true, things are meant to worse for players’ ankle. In the name of business, in fact, to attract biggest players until now deserting the events, four South American tournaments are thinking to pass from the clay to the hardcourt. Buenos Aires organizers are leading this reform project, so hoping to attract the Tandil-born “Palito”: it’s very harsh, in fact, to have an home grown champion and accept he prefers going play abroad in the same week. Next year the Buenos Aires open is programmed from 16th to 22th February, contemporarily with other two events, in Marseille and Memphis, where with all possibilities Del Potro will decide to play. “It’s simply a matter of surface” said Martin Jaite, the event organiser who talked with Del Potro’s father and his coach, Franco Davin. “In that period he’ll has been preparing for Miami and Indian Wells, the first Masters 1000 of the season”. With Buenos Aires, also Costa do Saouipe, Vina del Mar and Acapulco could change surface and make hardcourt the real common denominator of the season. The 2009 calendar is composed of 66 events: 21 on the clay, 6 on the lawn, 39 on hardcourts, indoor or outdoor. If the reform would “pass”, without considering a possible similar decision at Umag, the equilibrium would become 43-17. Effectively too much. The clay would become the second “victim” of business, after the lawn. Because tennis, as everything in the world, is bending itself to business and television. And reasons of money doesn’t contemplate the existence of specificity cubbies.

Critics could oppose to theese considerations the news that Nadal and Federer will be present at the Abu Dhabi exhibition, for the Capitala World Tennis Championships, starting the 31th december 2009. Their season will start before, they will gain more additional money. And, above all, they are the only two player to can manage their calendar freely, the only, or at least, who can afford a “zero” or two without visible counter-indications. Not everybody has such a privilege.

Hard night’s day for Mr.Ace

Lleyton Hewitt reduced John “Mr.Ace” Isner to a Volandri whatsoever in the first Shanghai Masters 1000 big match: Rusty won 6-2 6-4.



Long John had immediately the epiphany of his fate when Hewitt grabbed an early break to 2-1 with a perfect backhand lob (yes, you’ve read well) surprising the 6’9” giant fighting with the range of his groundstrokes. A second break and an easy hold gave Rusty the first set. Things seemed easier and easier for the Australian, while Isner’s serve improved for three service game before failing again; three break points in the same game were too much for the American who saved two but surrendered to the inside-out forehand from Hewitt who wasted two match points on Isner’s serve at 5-3 but closing easily in the next game.

While Davydenko defeated Kunytsin (in the less intriguing match of the day, the one I could never watch, despite the great respect due to a champion like Davydenko) securing a third round clash against Mano de Pedra Gonzalez and Tommy Haas overpowered Benjamin Becker, the lights of the stage were devoted to “Psycho”, a tennis drama in two distinct acts. In the first Marin Cilic decided to completely waste the few hopes to be in the eight elected for the World Tour Finals and gave space to Mr Instability, Thomas Berdych, as I resumed in the previous post. Not satisfied, the Czech now awaits for the wild-card Marat Safin. Would bookmakers accepts bets on the total amount of broken racquets in the match?

“French gift” could be the title of the second act of the drama. Principal characters Gael Monfils and PHM, alias Paul Henry Mathieu. The 23-years-old confirmed once more that without injuries he could firmly stand in the top-10. But he has three zero in his ranking points (he withdrew from Wimbledon and the Masters 1000 in Rome and Madrid) and has to be pleased with his berth fourteenth best player in the world. Today Mathieu, in the “2002 Davis Cup final” version tried, and succedeed in making everything elementary for La Monf, who broke twice and clinched the first set with a comfortable 6-2 after an unreturnable serve. Same scheme in the second. Tame double fault by PHM to hand Monfils the break to 2-1. Mathieu is returned the player uncapable to beat even the center keeper’s son and surrendered 6-2 6-2 when Monfils displayed a decent sliced backhand drop shot over the net: Mathieu could have done something more anyway.

Stanislas "the Manislas" Wawrinka needed three hours and ten minutes to subdue Lukas Kubot, but seven games sufficed him to go though to the third round. Andy Roddick was forced to retire when he was leading 4-3. The Swiss started masking his tiredness with fierce groundstrokes targeting the American backhand. Andy served well, wasted two breakpoints in the seventh game, but pulled up after the forehand winner from the Swiss. He asked for the injury time, but even after the treatment he limped badly and shaked hands with Wawrinka, who now will face Radek Stepanek (75 64 to Andreas Beck)

Trading places

Waiting for the big star entrance in the Shanghai Masters 1000, let’s take a look to the Race standing, essential to determine the eight eligible to play the first ATP World Tour Finals hosted in the prestigious O2 Arena in London.

With the result updated to today, not considering the first five place, because Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro, are all qualified, the ranking is:

6 Roddick 4410 (2190 Grand Slams – 1090 Master Series – 1130 Others)
7 Verdasco 3080 (1140 GS – 820 MS – 820 others)
8 Gonzalez 2690 (1350 GS – 595 MS – 745 others)

9 Soderling 2650 (1785 – 165 – 700)
10 Tsonga 2640 (810 -650 – 1180)
11 Davydenko 2360 (630 – 370 – 1360)
12 Cilic 2025 (810 – 280 – 935)

Cilic was defeated by Thomas Berdych in Shanghai, in a schizophrenic and psychotic match: the Czech squandered three set point in a thrilling first set tiebreaker won by Berdych 10-8. Then Cilic is perfect in the next set, breaking to 4-2 thanks to a whipping forehand winner across court and sealing the second 6-3. In the third Cilic broke twice in a row to 2-1 and 3-2 but went out of mind losing the last four games in a row. So he erased almost definitely all his chances to leave to London. Roddick, despite his astonishing defeat against Kubot in Beijing, is in pole position while Verdasco has lost a great chance losing in the Kuala Lumpir Masters 500 to Davydenko, who defeated Kunytsin in Shanghai. With two Masters 1000 and two Masters 500, played in the same week, Basel and Valencia and four Masters 250, it will be important to see how theese second tier events could determine the “list of the eight”. The players could insert four Masters 500 and two Masters 250 in the best other countable results. So Verdasco has to win a Masters 500 to gain 100 points, while Soderling and Gonzalez can improve their points reaching a final. A semi would be enough for Davydenko, having great chances, given his last form, to be in England.

My pick: Roddick, Tsonga and Davydenko.

The new coming from East

Novak Djokovic has won the Atp 500 in Beijing and is now certain to surpass Andy Murray becoming the third best player in the Atp ranking. It was a “schizophrenic” final against Marin Cilic, with the Croat displaying flat groundstrokes with his feet well inside the backline. But after an hour of rain delay the Djoker dashed and clinched the first set 6-2. The second set saw an alternation of breaks: 6 in all the match. Cilic near the net is quite disastrous and wasted an easy forehand to give Novak 3-3. Djoker lost serve twice in a row, but never Cilic succeeded in saving his and forcing the match to the third before losing the tiebreak.

Djokovic is now between the principal candidates for the victory at the Shanghai Masters 1000, where the Serb could clinch his fourth and most prestigious title of a not-so-memorable season. Anyway, Marin Cilic failed to live up with the expectations, grew after he outpowered Nadal in the semifinals.

The Croat is one of the best prospect now in the world-class-tennis: once he'll have solved his inner puzzle, and erased the mistakes in the key moments of a match, he would completely realize his potential.

A potential born in Medjugorje, where the first tennis court was built in 1991. Cilic started practicing football and handball, but sport became a secundary occupation because of the Balcan war. But his city, globally known for the Holy Mary apparition, and at the end of the war Marin started his new life and career.

He discovered tennis casually, thanks to Tanja, a cousin of him visiting Marin from Germany. He revealed his skills winning local tournaments and started feeling the need to compete with stronger adversaries. So he left home and went to Zagreb where he practiced with Goran Ivanisevic, the national hero capable to triumph at Wimbledon starting as a wild card in 2001. “Marin is great: he could become a top-10” said Ivanisevic. And his word is heavy. Years before he suggested to a British journalist to keep an eye on an English guy that would have become a champion: Tim Henman.

So Ivanisevic introduced Marin to Bob Brett, who holds an academy in San Remo, Italy, and was the artifex of Boris Becker title at Wimbledon in 1991. Brett appreciated Cilic's backhand, his trademark, and his intelligence. “He knows how to move his adversaries, to control the rallies without an astonishing power. He had a good comprehension of the game, and has a great and developped work-ethic” said Brett.

In 2006 the world discovered this rangy guy when he conquered the Roland Garros junior title and closed the season as junior n.2, behind Donald Young, in the world ranking.

From then, he started rising, conquering two title in career, at New Haven and Chennai and establishing as one of the most interesting twentysome players in the top-25. Now he needs only the last step, increase his forehand and manage better the key points. But time is on his part.

In modern tennis serve doesn't almost count - Part 3: game strategies

Recap of previous parts: in modern tennis the impact of serve is increasing, but has not yet become dominant in determining of results, as data for Grand Slam tournaments from 1980 to 2008 testified. Tennis is not a technology-driven sport, as swimming or Formula 1. Racquet evolution, in fact, has made easier hitting flat balls with great speed and power. But has at the same time changed the game strategies, as this third part demonstrates.

An extreme swing became possible thanks to new racquets producing rallies characterized by more-than-150kph groundstrokes. Inevitably, this development stressed stringings and strings, now realized in nylon or polyester synthetic for its superior durability and consistency compared to natural gut. The design of the new longer models, besides, has requested some adjustments in the biomechanical execution of serve and strokes. Hitting the ball nearer to the neck than in the face barycentre let the player develop greater power. This phenomenon is explained because with a fixed handle, the rim can bow on itself and the energy introduced through the rim deformation isn’t given to the ball. Hitting near the neck, the more it is the effective rigidness and the less the energy lost in the racquet deformation. Consequently, longer and oversize racquet has made available an unprecedented power surplus modifying, and consequently conforming, game strategies.

Foster Wallace again underlines that “composites’ lighter, wider heads and more generous centers let players swing faster and put way more topspin on the ball...and, in turn, the more topspin you put on the ball, the harder you can hit it, because there’s more margin for error. Topspin causes the ball to pass high over the net, describe a sharp arc, and come down fast into the opponent’s court (instead of maybe soaring out)”.

In modern tennis lifted strokes are almost disappeared or used as a desperate and extreme resources in defensive situations while backsping attacking approaches are considered as counter-productive. More elastic composites let the ball remain more time on the face letting the player experiment a greater control in the direction of the subsequent passing shot.

Besides, the improved physical preparation has favoured a standardized “Nick Bollettieri’s style” tennis, dominated by the serve-and-forehand scheme. The enlarged muscular mass allows superior arm rotations, until the extreme 6m rpm topsins by Rafa Nadal. Passing is becoming easier, because a player could hit with great advance, when the ball is yet raising after the rebound. More, the global diffusion of two handed backhands let players find acute angles unreacheable with a traditional backhand.

Theese opposite influences could explain why the opening game stroke isn’t rised to principal pointer in a tennis match. Because, on one side, muscular mass combined with the innovations in the racquet projects produced a widespread ease in displaying 200 (or more) kmh first serves. But, on the other hand, the same innovations increased the facility in returning to this bombing serves and turn the return from a defensive situation into an attacking opportunity.

A last annotation is referred to surfaces. The lawn is the most favourable to “bombers” for the low rebound angle, in spite of the constant slackening in its intrinsic speed, as the 2002 Wimbledon final brightly testifies: then Lleyton Hewitt defeated David Nalbandian and there wasn’t any serve-and-volley in the entire match. On the lawn, at Wimbledon, percentages of serve impact are in the last lustre slighty higher than the taxes registered at the Championships in the Borg and McEnroe era.

Red clay stubbornly remains the less preferred surface for big hitters because there the serve pays less than everywhere else. The rebound angle, in fact, is more similar to an equilateral triangle, so the ball follows a direction with a 60 degrees inclination as to the clay, as Karlovic knows at his best, having lost twice matches in few months establishing new record aces: 55 against Lleyton Hewitt at the Roland Garros first round, the astonishing amount of 78 against Radek Stepanek in the first rubber of the Davis Cup semifinal. But in 12 occasions out of the last 13, when a player has equalled or increased the ace record, he has lost the match.

So, the form is evolving, but the substance of the “Game of the Kings” is always the same.

In modern tennis serve doesn't almost count - Part 2: evolution of racquets

The marginal relevance of the racquet “modernity level” could be superficially demonstrated simply regarding what amazing heights has achieved Roger Federer with a dated model. More specifically, we could start our analysis considering that the 80% of the serve efficiency is determined not by the tool details but by the rotation speed impressed by the player arm. It’s the so called “angular momentum”, obtained in the service movement with the trunk rotation (reaching its maximum in the point of greatest elbow bending) and the shoulder rotation. Passages from wooden frames to aluminium or fiber variations, the evolution of strings from natural bowel to synthetic matherials, the new oversized racquets hasn’t seemingly modified the potential serve speed. In a 1997 experiment conducted for Tennis.com, Mark Philippoussis produced two highly comparable serves with a wooden racquet and with the model he was using then.
The differences in racquet design introduced anyway a series of innovation to the game, changes that could coherently explain the data before presented. Wooden racquets, or the first aluminium models, like the one used by the pioneer Jimmy Connors, had a weight of more or less 450 gr while the modern tools weighs about 300 gr. As confirmed by studies focusing on baseball, conceptually extensible to tennis, is not an alleviation in se. A lighter racquet can be moved with increasing speed and rotation, but a quicker speed means a subtler margin of error and affects the ball behaviour in terms of intrinsic speed and rotation on itself. Daniel A. Russell, from Kettering University, Flint, Usa, highlighted a result disagreeing with the common sense. The highest ball speed isn’t registered when you have a quick swing and a light bat, neither when the bat is extremely heavy, because the rotation speed would drastically decrease, but there’s a window where increasing the weight cause a light decrease in swing speed bumping up, as a consequence, the ball speed exiting from the face.
This elements influenced the style of players, forced to adapt to new possibilities and situations. But this will be the argument of the next part of our dossier.

In modern tennis serve doesn't almost count - Introduction

“Unless you're one of those rare mutant virtuosos of raw force, you'll find that competitive tennis, like money pool, requires geometric thinking, the ability to calculate not merely your own angles but the angles of response to your angles. Because the expansion of response-possibilities is quadratic, you are required to think n shots ahead, where n is a hyperbolic function limited by the sinh of opponent's talent and the cosh of the number of shots in the rally so far (roughly)”.

If your thoughts on court are less analytical of David Foster Wallace's ones, the difficulties in answering increase. And the serve, as a fundamentral of the game but principally seen as the stroke to start and determine your game, becomes more and more relevant. But how much? A possible answer, a first rough evaluation of the importance of service in determining the result of a tennis match, could arrive analysing the percentage of tiebreaks played our-of the total amount of sets run off. The data presented here consider this percentage only in Grand Slam tournament since 1980 to 2008, so considering also the not-so-world class last Australian Open editions at the Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club. This index has the advantage of being simple to be read and immediate to understand, giving a cleare image without implying an excessive sacrifice to euristic deepness.

	AO	RG	Wim	UsO
1980-84	18,2	10,5	18,2	12,9
1985-89	15,6	11,3	18,5	13,2
1990-94	12,5	11,7	17,9	15,1
1995-99	14,8	12,9	18,6	14,5
2000-04	15,3	13,1	20	16,8
2005-08	15,2	13,4	20,2	17,3

Tiebreak percentage has been measured, for every year, out of the number of sets effectively played, excluding so the ones not played or only half completed because of withdraws or walkovers. To give uniformity to theese data, letting us so to create solid comparisons, the fifth sets at Wimbledon, Paris and Melbourne finished with scores exceeding the 6-6 (8-6, 9-7...), considering that in those three Slams there isn't tiebreak in the last set, were counted as tiebreaks, because they are a even better demonstration of how much the result is anchored to serves.


The empirical data confirms that, in the three major not experiencing a surface change in the considered period, serve has stepped up his relevance but has never become really decisive. The Australian Open exception, with a slightly sinusoidal trend, appears largely due to the passage from lawn to hardcourts, because in the first nine years (in 1988 Australian Open weren't played), with the tournament hosted at Kooyong on the lawn, the registered percentage there and at Wimbledon are highly comparable.

The first image emerging from this analysis shows an increasing relevance of serve, but the moderated trend shows how in tennis, contrarily to other disciplines like swimming or Formula 1, techical evolution is less determining.

In the next days I'll try to give some possible answers to this phenomenon.