2016 CITI OPEN DAY 3: STILL SAMANTHA

The first story from Day 3 at the 2016 Citi Open was the one story that nobody can get ahead of or control the narrative:  the weather.  Mother nature decided the DC area needed a cooling off period absolutely dumped buckets of water on the William H. Fitzgerald tennis center for about 90 minutes.  

Sam Stosur and Yannina Wickmayer, a favorite and a dark horse for the title, were done and dusted before the rains came, with Stosur dispatching of a resurgent Alla Kudryavtseva in straights sets in less than an hour (including a second set bagel), while the Belgian took longer to do the job over American Madison Brengle, who will be disappointed that she wasn't able to break her opponents shaky serve more frequently.  Wickmayer saved 2 of the 4 break points she faced, but Brengle was broken 7 times on 11 break points, which turned out to be the difference in the match.

Stosur, on the other hand, started slowly, but finished strongly.  After finding her feet and her forehand late in the set, she proceeded to break Kudryavtseva one critical time in the first set, before obliterating her in the second - needing just one break point to do the job three times on the trot.  Stosur, the top seed this year, looked relaxed and comfortable from the end of the first set, to the moment she entered the press conference tent.  That is until the rains came, preceded by what felt like gale force winds, appeared to make her more nervous than her opponent. Skittishly glancing around her as questions were drowned out by the sounds of the atmospheric pressure dropping precipitously, Stosur seemed in as much of a hurry in the press conference, as she did in the second set.

I asked Stosur about her forehand, which is a modern forehand more typical of the ATP than the WTA, and hit with the kind of spin and depth that has made some opponents attempt to pay her a compliment by suggesting that she played like a man.  My curiosity surrounded whether there was an evolution to that stroke production or was it something that she and her coach decided, and her answer confirmed my expectation with a twist.  She said she had always had a compact take back on the forehand, but that it had been a very wristy and spinny shot that often landed short, rife for abuse by her opponents.  The revolution began 8 years ago, when she couldn't hit a decent forehand at Wimbledon to save her life, and her coach at the time (presumably David Taylor) convinced her that she needed to make changes to flatten the stroke to finish her opponents off in the rallies, particularly on short balls.  So there was indeed a revolution to her forehand, but it was to make the shot flatter and more penetrating than it had been, which is the opposite of what her forehand is known for.

Next up on the merry-go-round was Alexander Zverev who, despite being very polite, and very poised in his responses, did come across as being every so slightly less patient with his time than he had been the year before.  To be fair, Zverev had just finished a practice set with Steve Johnson, one where the pace and penetration of his forehand was as impressive as it had been during his practice with Monfils on Friday, and in all likelihood had a very necessary dinner and evening with the physio waiting for him.  His answers were to the point, without much elaboration, and though affable, he was very serious, and dare I say, substantially more self-assured than last year.  

For example, he was asked about the upcoming Olympics, initially he responded with enthusiasm and elaborated on the honor and rarity of the event.  But the second question concerning the same subject, appeared to irritate him mildly.  Born of Russian immigrants to Germany, in the context of the Olympics, the question was asked whether he felt more Russian or German.  He began his response by bemoaning (in the general direction of the moderator for some reason) that he felt like this question was asked in every press conference.  After getting that off his chest, he explained that he is 100% German, as German as it gets, and that the only thing that Russian about him is his parents.  

I asked him whether he sets goals for himself in terms of his career progression, and if his performance and accomplishments had so far met his expectations.  He initially responded by saying that he didn't really set goals for himself, then proceeded to say he targeted getting in and staying in the top 40, that he is pleased with career progression, being seeded a majors and such, but that he is still ambitious and expects more of himself.  When asked which of the crop of his American contemporaries impressed him, he mentioned that he had grown accustomed to playing his former junior rivals (like the lurking Taylor Fritz), and that he was most impressed by Francis Tiafoe, who plays very aggressively and goes for his shots.  Incredibly, he bookended that assessment with the perfectly logical, but altogether unexpected qualifier (from a 20 year old, anyway) that "...he's still young and has more to learn."  

From the mouths of babes.

Speaking of Taylor Fritz, the newlywed took the court in the penultimate match on the stadium against Dudi Sela, and managed to break the Israeli veteran in his second service game, the third game of the match, and after only 7 minutes.  It was a straight set victory, but he didn't have it all his own way - Fritz had to show some steel, and that grenade launcher that doubles as a serve did him well as he saved 7 break points to seal the victory.

Daniel Evans booked his place in the second round with an impressive dismantling of Benjamin Becker, who probably suffered some measure of fatigue playing for the 3rd day in a row.  Evans was the better player in the two key departments of the serve and return, and after his initial break of Becker's serve never looked back.  Becker hit 4 aces which which could have been a pivotal statistic, had he not negated the value thereof with 4 double faults.  Evans only made half his first serves, but won 85% of those points, whereas Becker was more like to miss, and less likely to win his first serve points (46% and 65% respectively) which resulted in getting losing 4 of the 8 break points he faced.  Where Evans really made the difference was his second serve points, winning an impressive 65% of them, and not facing a single break point in 8 service games.

That ironically sets up a tricky encounter in the second round against Grigor Dimitrov, whom he practiced with on Friday (and would have met at Wimbledon had he found his way past some Swiss fellow, and if Dimitrov had overcome Johnson).  At that time, he seemed to struggle for rhythm and consistency for the better part of an hour.  But if you just love the 1-handed backhand, that match will do much to satisfy your aesthetic preferences.

Denis Kudla continued an unfortunate record of profligacy at his home tournament - he has played 7 matches at the Citi Open (in singles and doubles) and lost all 7.  He started the match strongly, with deep penetrating rallies where both he and Millman seemed to be testing the resolve of the other.  But Millman prevailed in the end with the wind at his back in the second after breaking twice in the first.  

All results from day 1 are at this link...

CITI OPEN: SUDDENLY SAMANTHA

I'm not going to lie - I love almost everything about Sam Stosur, and I have for years.  One look at the second most famous pair of guns in women's tennis, and knowing what she came through 8 years ago to recover from Lyme disease and to come back, like the bionic woman, better-stronger-faster, only the most cynical of cynics would suggest that she is anything but 100% committed to being the best player than she can be.  That may not seem like much if you assume that such commitment is universal, but from the mouths of (big tennis) babes in this piece, in fact, it is as refreshing as it is rare.  On the basis of this commitment alone, the level of admiration for her, from all corners of the sports world, ought to be very high indeed.

And then when you get a look at her game, it's hard not to appreciate that as much (if not more) than her commitment.  She hits one of the heaviest serves on tour, with a combination of pace and spin that is generally unseen in women's tennis.  It helps that her shoulders are broader than mine, so that she can bring the racquet head up and over her crown the way she must, to make the ball leap off the court the ways he does.  But the thing that really gets it done on that shot is her legs - nobody leaps up and into their serve like she does, and that's the main reason for its effect.  

Similarly, on her forehand, she has a modern version of the stroke that minimizes the all racquet head movement prior to the point of contact.  Whilst keeping the racquet head entirely on the forehand side of her body, she launches the full force of her legs and core into the stroke, with a follow through so full and violent, she finishes with a curl across her chest, or over her head, almost out of necessity.  Both of those strokes impart more top spin on the ball than any other player on tour.  And while her technical asymmetry, (a forehand far superior to her backhand) more characteristic of the ATP than the WTA I might add, presents defensive challenges for her, from an attacking perspective, no player is more capable of controlling the center of the court.  And because her stroke production is efficient, she can do it equally well on all surfaces.

I asked Sam, in her pre-tournament press-conference, whether she and her coach talked about or worked on any conscious adjustments to her game as she made an unusual transition, this year from grass to clay to the hard courts in the span of six weeks.  Her response was at once surprising and revealing:  she said that while the clay is best suited to her game, and adjustments have to be made regardless of whatever surface you're coming from or going to, the vast majority of adjustments are the result of a natural (but accelerated) evolution of her game, and that is, in my opinion a testament to her technical efficiency.  The fewer the moving parts, the fewer the adjustments that need to be made, and that bodes well.

Speaking of technical asymmetry, it didn't prevent her from pulling off one of the greatest upsets and most comprehensive major final victories, over Serena Williams, in 2011 at the US Open.  There, she used the slice backhand more effectively than I've ever seen her do before or since, and the result was equally unique.  Unfortunately that match is known more for this little tantrum from Serena, than for her brilliant technical and tactical mastery of the game, which I admired from start to finish, but the thing to remember in that match, is that Stosur had just lost to Serena in Los Angeles earlier that year, and earlier in Serena's comeback.  So if there were a time for her to sneak one in on her more illustrious rival, it would have been on the West Coast - but fortunately for Sam, she used the information from the first encounter, to great effect in the second.

I've always admired players who ignore the illusory impact of the overwhelming head-to-head record (one of tennis' greatest myths) and persevere with both their mind and their technical arsenal.  As the Romans used to put it, one should return from battle either with their shield or on it, and Stosur risked looking like the occasion had gotten the best of her (as it did in 2010 at Roland Garros against Francesca Schiavone), had her tactical approach caused her to fall on her face.  But to her credit, she left it all on the court, mentally and physically, and deservedly won.

Since then, Sam's results have been more reminiscent of the limited success she enjoyed prior to what has turned out to be the zenith of her career.  To the best of my ability, I haven't been able to figure out why.  And that's why her victory over Irlina Falconi today at the Citi Open, the 501st in the career best female Australian player since Evonne Goolagong, was so encouraging for me to observe.  Coming off of a comeback victory in the Bad Gastein final two weeks ago, Sam's game appears to have turned a corner, and the timing couldn't be better.  The pace on her first serve was everything you'd expect it to be, and would have been uniquely impressive had it not been for the placement thereof.  Time and again she hit spots on the court with pace 20 to 30 mph faster than her opponent.  And no matter how many times Falconi belted one flat cross court forehand after another, the tight production of her own forehand not only kept Stosur in the point, but allowed her to get a foothold in the return of serve that gave her an insurmountable edge in the match.

But what I really like about the way Sam's game looks right now is her movement - nobody in the women's game floats around the court like Sam does.  You'd think quickness was a strength, but that's not the same as having world class movement.  At the end of the day, the paramount objective of any player's footwork, but especially Sam's is to get in position to hit her shots.  And the most important shot of all is the forehand.  Sam's ability to shuffle around the outside of the ball, in order to go big on the inside out forehand, and set up the put away to the other corner, is her footwork.  And these days, it's as good as it's ever been, and then some.  I, for one, would be delighted to see her carry that through to the 2015 US Open.  

She'll need to if she is become (once again) the only player on tour to have beaten Serena Williams at her home major (with no asterisk attached) since Justine Henin did it in 2007.

AGAIN WITH THE HINDRANCE RULE?

Yes, all over again. Ironically, another American (Mardy Fish) with a penchant for petulance (like Serena), against another Australian (Matthew Ebden), long considered an under-achiever (like Sam Stosur)...okay, maybe not that second part. But incredible that both the hinderer and the hindered were from the same natinoalities...AGAIN...but I digress.

Mardy Fish (just like Serena) should review the rules before jumping to incorrect conclusions about whether a let should be played. The ATP rulebook (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx) governs here, but it just so happens tha the ATP hindrance rule (unlike the WTA hindrance rule) says the same thing as the  ITF/USTA rules of tennis. And it is clearly stated in Chapter VII (Competition), Section 22 (On-Court Procedures and Requirements), Part F - "Hindrance", Line 2b "Inadvertant or Deliberate Act" that:

"Any distraction caused by a player may be ruled deliberate and result in the loss of a point (intentional or unintentional). Deliberate is defined as the player meant to do what it was that caused the hindrance or distraction."

Emphasis on meaning to do what caused the hindrance, not the hindrance itself - in other words, you don't have to be a poor sport to hinder your opponent. Here the umpire did not necessarily rule that the hindrance was deliberate, but the act CAUSING the hindrance was (i.e. the act of shouting, "Come on!" was deliberate, even though the hindrance caused by that shout was not), therefore the point was correctly awarded to the Ebden.

In fact, the exact situation that occurred with Fish, is referred to in the description of hindrance cases, "Opponent Makes Noise", where it states:

"Case: During play, a player thinking he has hit a winner, shouts “vamos”, “come on”, “yes”, etc. as his opponent is in the act of hitting the ball..

Decision: If the chair umpire rules that a hindrance has occurred then, as the sound or exclamation that caused the hindrance was deliberate, the point shall be awarded."

Therefore the only area of interpretation is if the umpire determines that the shout caused a hindrance. If the players is on the deuce court, and the shot before the shout lands on the ad court sideline, it would have to be interpreted that there was no hindrance, but anything in between is down to the determination of the umpire, and he can consider how close he is to the ball, how fast the player was moving towards it, how fast the ball was going, the angle, etc.

I'll update this post with any footage from the incident, but the point is that once it is determined that a deliberate hindrance has occurred, there is NO OPTION TO PLAY A LET.

UPDATE:

Here is the point in question, and Felix Torralba makes a ruling that is 100% correct - Fish attempts to create a couple of non-existent standards for a replay, for which there is nothing in the rules to support. First he claims the hindrance didn't cause him to miss, which is irrelevant, and secondly that because the hindrance wasn't really a hindrance, he should get a let, which not only doesn't make any sense (why would you play a let if there is no hindrance) and is also not supported, because once a deliberate hindrance is ruled (defined by whether the act that caused the hindrance was intentional), there is no option to play a let.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcSv3oEcCJc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2858s