Sara Errani is a very polarizing player on the WTA Tour, to say the least. The about her, win or lose, on places such as Tennis Forum and Twitter are vile and make her out to be a talentless bum. However, what she has achieved in career has been outstanding and she is and exemplifies how I expect a professional tennis player to act. So, after the biggest title of her career in Dubai a couple weeks back, and as she gets ready to begin the WTA event in Monterrey today, just days after competing in the Doha doubles Final, I take a look at Sara Errani's illustrious career and retort a lot of the complaints I hear about her game.
Sara, currently the number 15 in the world from Bologna, Italy, has had a career that the vast majority of the WTA would envy. Ranked as high as number 5 in the world during the 2013 season, Errani has constantly placed her in the upper-echelon of the women's game. And she has not done this by occasionally having a big run in a larger tournament, but rather, more impressively in my opinion, consistently fighting for points, week-in and week-out.
This is evidenced by Errani's 19 WTA singles finals and nine victories. And these victories are spread out over the years too, proving that Sara didn't just "peak" for a year or two and then disappear into the shadows. While four of her titles did come in 2012, Errani has also won as early in her career as 2008 and as "late" (considering she is 28) in her career as Dubai last month (which was also her first WTA Premier Title). Sustainability towards of the top of the women's game is Errani's forte, despite almost always facing players with much more powerful games than she has.
However, at least in my opinion, Errani's greatest singles accomplishment was a tournament in which she lost: the 2012 French Open. Sara Errani made the singles Final of this tournament, coming within one match of a major title. And while she ultimately lost to Maria Sharapova 6-3, 6-2, the way she reached the Final was very impressive.
In the First Round, Errani could have easily given in to Casey Dellacqua's powerful lefty game, but after losing the first set, fought back to win the match in three sets. And in the Third Round, facing former French Open champion Ana Ivanovic, Sara was steamrolled in the first set 6-1. However, Errani's fighting spirit willed her through this match, winning a tight second set and ultimately pulling out the match in the three sets. I believe this match to be a pivotal one in Sara's career, because it ultimately proved she was a contender and not just another journeywoman going through the motions in her career, proving that her game, and fierceness, would take her above much of the competition.
Errani went on to soundly defeat two-time major champion (and also a French Open winner) Svetlana Kuznetsova in straight sets, including a 6-0 first set before going on to beat Angelique Kerber in straight sets in the Quarterfinals (also now a major winner). Then, in the Semifinals, Errani withstood a strong push in the second set (6-1) by defending US Open champion, winning that match in three sets too before her loss to Sharapova in the Final. But, when you look at Errani's run to the Final of that French Open, it looks even better in hindsight than at the time, with Kerber also winning a major. In total, of the six matches she played to reach the Final, Sara took on four major champions and beat them all (before eventually losing to Sharapova). That's pretty darn impressive.
I don't want to limit Errani's accomplishments to only singles, however, as her doubles feats might even top what she's done in singles. On the doubles court, Sara has 25 titles and has been in a doubles final 39 times! This includes a 5-3 record in grand slam doubles finals with her former doubles partner Roberta Vinci! In fact, Errani has the "grand slam" in doubles, meaning that she has won all four major titles at least once, with a victory in Melbourne occurring twice! Errani has won at least one title in doubles every year, starting in 2008, through 2015. So, when we judge Errani's career, it would be foolish to only look at her singles game when making judgment, as her doubles career has been more than impressive.
So, what do the critics have to go on, knowing all that Sara has accomplished. Let's break it down. One major critique against her is that her serve is so weak, so somehow this shows how weak the WTA Tour is that opponents can't be destroying Errani every match, given her serve. And to that, I would respond with this: Yes, there are many club-level players who can serve harder than Errani, but doesn't that just show good Errani is defensively and on returning serve, rather than demonstrating a "weak era" or somehow a knock on Errani?
It's amazing watching Sara somehow get back neutral when an opponent whacks what seems to be a great shot on Errani's serve. And when Errani is broken, I like to say that a break of serve in an Errani match is a like a hold against anyone else because the breaks just occur so often. In just Sara's final three matches in Dubai, she broke her opponents' serve a total of 18 times in 7 sets! That is an insane number of breaks. In fact, against Madison Brengle in the Quarterfinals, she broke serve 10 times in the match! If Errani is able to stay near the top of the WTA with her serve, it says more about the other aspects of her game than her serve itself.
Another reason why Sara is picked on by critics is because they somehow don't like her attitude, the same attitude that I see as a major reason why Errani has had so much success of her career. Like I just said, Errani has a very poor serve, both on her first serve and her second serve. At five-foot five-inches, it is also very hard for her to generate much power on her groundstrokes either. So, Sara has to make up for this deficit in other ways. One way is through her actual play, using lots of top spin, her superb defensive abilities, net play, and ability to use the entire court to her advantage. However, these tactics would be greatly compromised if it weren't for her gritty attitude. Sara needs to be so tough on court in order to fully engage herself to play the game that got her near the top of the women's game.
You see, other players have the physical abilities to use their serve to get through a service game or blast a few groundstrokes when needed to get out of trouble. Errani, however, doesn't have these luxurious and needs to play with that chip on her shoulder, that realization that the opponent might be physically talented than her, but that she is mentally tougher, in order to gut through the matches. Because, if she played with this "all smiles", "pretty girl" attitude that it seems as if many of her detractors want to see from WTA players, there's no way she would pull out matches like in the Quarterfinals of Dubai, where she was down 4-1 and a double break in the third set. So, to suggest that someone doesn't like Sara's on-court demeanor is ridiculous, as it is a major reason why she has been so successful over the years.
And yet another criticism of Sara is that her game is only applicable to clay, that she is a "one-surface wonder". Now, while she is certainly not great on grass, she was golden-setted by Shvedova at Wimbledon after all in 2013 , Errani did reach the Third Round of Wimbledon in both 2010 and 2012. For someone who can "only play on clay" that's pretty good results at a grass court event and demonstrate that, despite Errani not being at the peak of her game on grass, she can still tough out matches on her worst surface.
Now, that might not convince the detractors, but Errani's results on hard courts might. For starters, Sara has won two WTA singles tournaments on hard court, including recently winning her only WTA Premier-level victory in Dubai. In total, Sara has made the Final of seven singles tournaments on hard courts. As mentioned earlier, Errani has won three doubles majors on hard courts, and ten hard court doubles tournaments in all (and has 17 doubles finals in total on hard courts). And if that isn't enough, Errani is 3-1 in grass court doubles finals.
I have yet to even mention Errani's superb performances in majors on hard courts. In Melbourne, Sara made the 2012 Quarterfinals and hung tough with Petra Kvitova in the Quarterfinals. And in New York, Errani made the Semifinals of the 2012 tournament, losing to the 2012 champion, Serena Williams, in the semis. Given all of her credentials off of hard, which I've just listed, I don't know how anyone could possibly conceive the argument that she is only good on clay courts. Is clay her best surface? Yes. But, is her game only effective on clay? Absolutely not. Errani has proven many, many times, that she can adapt her game to hard courts and even win some on grass.
And yet, with all of this said, detractors will still take swipes at the Errani. They moaned and groaned that Errani didn't have to play a tough opponent during her title run in Dubai, somehow "forgetting" that the reason why she didn't have to play higher ranked opponents is not because they weren't in the draw, the field was very strong, but rather, because they lost early, something totally out of Errani's control.
I think it's time everyone, whether they like her style of play or not, respect and appreciate Sara Errani for what she has accomplished during her time playing on the WTA Tour.
Showing posts with label hard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hard. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Monday, February 29, 2016
Inigo Cervantes' Scheduling Issues and Why The ATP Needs a Rule Change
If you have been an avid follower of my blog, you know that last summer I ripped into Hyeon Chung. Now, I didn't do it because I don't like the guy, nor did I do it because he was playing poorly. I blasted him for artificially padding his ranking by playing in ATP Challenger Tour events in which he was miles better than the competition, and while this gave him what were essentially free ranking points, it wouldn't bode well for him on the main tour.
Well, after writing my article, Chung did slow down, and seemingly stopped playing challengers for good. However, like I predicted, he has struggled on the main tour, despite what "young gun enthusiasts" will tell you. Beginning with the grass season of last year, Chung has only won ten, non-qualifying matches on the main tour, posting a 10-13 record, and failing to make the Semifinals of any non-challenger tournament he has played. Since 2016 started, Chung has won three matches and hasn't won multiple matches in the same tournament. Obviously, how you plan your schedule as you try to make the transition from the main tour from the challenger ranks is very important. Trying to ease your way into the main tour, where you aren't throwing yourself in the fire, yet you are actually making the transition, is an art. And, if you fail to master this art, like Chung did, then you are in for a troublesome transition.
This brings me to Inigo Cervantes. More specifically, I think his scheduling, like Chung, has been horrible. Let's start off with how Inigo Cervantes is somehow currently ranked number 59 in the world. Looking since the beginning of 2014, Inigo has not won an ATP Tour, main-draw match off of clay. In fact, if we qualifying, he has only won five qualifying matches off of the dirt since 2014 began. So, how is this guy ranked number 59 in the world? By virtue of clay court challenger tournaments and, this year, weak ATP 250 fields on the clay too. That, and by playing extremely often.
Just this year alone, for instance, Cervantes has played seven tournaments (the good thing is that none are challengers, but my point remains), the only week when he didn't play was during the second week of the Australian Open. Last season, Cervantes played 32 tournaments, which included 24 ATP Challenger Tour events, of which 21 of those were on clay. In all, Cervantes played 24 events on clay, which accounts for 75% of all tournaments played in 2015. And since he generally went further in the clay court tournaments he played, most of which was against lower level opposition, the ratio of matches on clay to matches on hard/grass is even more stark.
Now, this isn't to say that Inigo was losing in all of these tournaments that he entered in. Cervantes won a ridiculous (by my count) 62 matches last season. This included four challenger titles last year, which is a very impressive feat. However, it is important to note that three of the four Cervantes' titles were either before or right after Wimbledon, so it is a bit odd that Inigo decided not to try to play more ATP Tour 250 level events following all of these victories, instead sticking mostly to the clay court challenger events.
Playing almost exclusively on clay courts at the challenger level, when one's ranking is high enough to at least enter the qualies for 250 events on other surfaces, seems like a handicap and very weird. Also, playing as often as Cervantes played could lead to burnout, and while Cervantes didn't show any signs of burnout when winning the ATP Challenger Tour Finals, perhaps his slower start to 2016 was residue from last season's high workload. Yes, I know he made the semis of the 250 in Sao Paulo, but it's not as if he were beating the Top 10 to get there, as the field in Sao Paulo was laughable. The reason I even decided to write this piece was because I saw Cervantes getting demolished by Pablo Carreno Busta, a guy only seven places ahead of him in the rankings, currently, but playing at level that made him seem 50 spots above Cervantes.
So, why is this a problem? Shouldn't we just be happy for the guy that he is making a career for himself playing tennis? Well, yes and no. I will admit, Cervantes is manipulating the system brilliantly, just like Chung also has. I will give Cervantes credit, at least the challenger fields he has played have solid clay court players entered, which we cannot say the same for the Asian challengers that Chung entered last year. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that they are just that, challenger tournaments. The design of ATP Tour is supposed to work is that a player is supposed to have to qualify for ATP Futures Tour events, then get direct entry into the futures tournaments until they can try to qualify for challengers, and then get into the main draw of challengers until they can qualify for 250 events, and at that point trying to make the full jump into the "major leagues" and get direct entry into 250 events.
However, I believe Cervantes gamed the system, but ultimately hurt himself, by making the jump too late. He hung out on the challenger circuit for all of last year, fairly easily accumulating points and building his ranking up well into the Top 100. But, because Cervantes has never really challenged himself with consistently trying to qualify for ATP World Tour events and try to gradually make the transition to the main tour, he has for the most part hopped the "trying to qualify for 250 events" stage of the process, and because of this, I believe he has bitten off more than he can chew. Before boosting his stats this week at an event in which two of his three opponents were ranked over number 90 in the world, and an extremely (what was essentially a) 50-50 win over Delbonis being his other victory, Cervantes started out the year going 3-7 with only two main-draw victories. On hard court, Cervantes went 1-4 and didn't a main draw match.
This brings me to my next point. Besides boosting his ranking with challengers, how does Inigo expect to be successful on the main tour by almost exclusively playing on clay and by largely ignoring the most popular surface on the main tour: hard court. The scheduling just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, I get it, Cervantes is much more comfortable on clay than any other surface. However, as he saw his ranking rising, it would make a lot of sense for him to start at least giving hard courts a shot for ATP 250 events on hard courts. Going to an event like ATP Atlanta or ATP Winston Salem would not only give him a chance to warm up for the US Open, in which the money is too big for Cervantes to pass up, but would also help ease the transition onto the main tour. I know that becoming a grass courter is extremely unlikely for Inigo, but it seems self-mutilating for him to largely ignore hard courts for much of last year.
And the effects of him ignoring hard courts last year are seen this year when he can barely win a match on a hard court. Cervantes' only win on hard this year has come against (currently) world number 185 Luke Saville and other than that, Inigo is finding is extremely tough to even win a qualifying match for a ATP 250 event.
In addition, like I mentioned earlier, it has also been foolish of Cervantes to play as many tournaments as he has played. 32 tournaments is a ton of match play, and given the start to this year, Inigo is not planning on slowing down. When you play as often as Inigo does, wear-and-tear starts to occur, and if Cervantes is not more careful in the future, the stress he is putting on his body could lead to full-blown injury which is extremely damaging to his career. However, his huge amounts of matchplay indicate to me that he is not confident that he can maintain his ranking without it, and thus I suspect it will continue, as Inigo knows that he is not good enough to go even deep in most of the tournaments he is playing (again, I suspect Sao Paulo to be an outlier when all is set and done), and thus will continue pushing his body until it gives out.
So, is there anything the ATP can do to avoid having rankings inflated like Cervantes has now (and that Chung had last year)? I believe there is action that can be taken, and I think a rule change is desperately needed. I believe I have come up with a solution to these issues. I think that a good new rule would be that if a player wins a certain number of challenger event tournaments (and the same could be applied to futures events too, but I am just focusing on challengers), say two or three, in a given year, then if their rankings allows them to enter ATP 250 qualifying events, then they should be banned from challenger events for a month or two and only allowed to enter main tour events. The "if the ranking allows them" clause gives fast-risers like Taylor Fritz time to move up the rankings before being barred from challenger events and exceptions can be made to this rule in extraordinary circumstances (which Cervantes certainly doesn't have).
I also think that there should be disincentives for playing almost exclusively on one surface. Yes, this is a radical idea, but I think it is necessary in order to produce more well-rounded players on tour, or at least players who are more respectful of the tour. I believe that players who are entered into a major should be fined for playing on a different surface in their tournament before playing a major. So, when a guy like Cervantes (or more blatantly Delbonis) disrespect Wimbledon by not only not playing a grass warmup tournament, but by their last tournament before Wimbledon being on clay, which anyone who knows tennis realizes are extremely different surfaces.
And finally, I believe that there should be incentives in place to reward players for gaining a certain amount of ranking points while playing less tournaments. This would give players a reward for really focusing in on tournaments that are important to them instead of just putting their names down on entry lists and playing as many tournaments as they possibly can. And while it wouldn't hurt players for playing a huge number of tournaments, it might make them think twice before putting their name down on another entry list.
Now, I don't want to make this issue seem like it's exclusive to Cervantes. In addition to Chung, someone like Daniel Munoz De La Nava is also guilt for the similar manipulation of the ATP Tour and poor scheduling. However, Cervantes is the best example of this problem, as he is ranked inside of the top 60, and I think it is more than fair to call him on what he's done.
Because, it's quite obvious, Inigo Cervantes should not be the 59th ranked tennis player in the world.
Well, after writing my article, Chung did slow down, and seemingly stopped playing challengers for good. However, like I predicted, he has struggled on the main tour, despite what "young gun enthusiasts" will tell you. Beginning with the grass season of last year, Chung has only won ten, non-qualifying matches on the main tour, posting a 10-13 record, and failing to make the Semifinals of any non-challenger tournament he has played. Since 2016 started, Chung has won three matches and hasn't won multiple matches in the same tournament. Obviously, how you plan your schedule as you try to make the transition from the main tour from the challenger ranks is very important. Trying to ease your way into the main tour, where you aren't throwing yourself in the fire, yet you are actually making the transition, is an art. And, if you fail to master this art, like Chung did, then you are in for a troublesome transition.
This brings me to Inigo Cervantes. More specifically, I think his scheduling, like Chung, has been horrible. Let's start off with how Inigo Cervantes is somehow currently ranked number 59 in the world. Looking since the beginning of 2014, Inigo has not won an ATP Tour, main-draw match off of clay. In fact, if we qualifying, he has only won five qualifying matches off of the dirt since 2014 began. So, how is this guy ranked number 59 in the world? By virtue of clay court challenger tournaments and, this year, weak ATP 250 fields on the clay too. That, and by playing extremely often.
Just this year alone, for instance, Cervantes has played seven tournaments (the good thing is that none are challengers, but my point remains), the only week when he didn't play was during the second week of the Australian Open. Last season, Cervantes played 32 tournaments, which included 24 ATP Challenger Tour events, of which 21 of those were on clay. In all, Cervantes played 24 events on clay, which accounts for 75% of all tournaments played in 2015. And since he generally went further in the clay court tournaments he played, most of which was against lower level opposition, the ratio of matches on clay to matches on hard/grass is even more stark.
Now, this isn't to say that Inigo was losing in all of these tournaments that he entered in. Cervantes won a ridiculous (by my count) 62 matches last season. This included four challenger titles last year, which is a very impressive feat. However, it is important to note that three of the four Cervantes' titles were either before or right after Wimbledon, so it is a bit odd that Inigo decided not to try to play more ATP Tour 250 level events following all of these victories, instead sticking mostly to the clay court challenger events.
Playing almost exclusively on clay courts at the challenger level, when one's ranking is high enough to at least enter the qualies for 250 events on other surfaces, seems like a handicap and very weird. Also, playing as often as Cervantes played could lead to burnout, and while Cervantes didn't show any signs of burnout when winning the ATP Challenger Tour Finals, perhaps his slower start to 2016 was residue from last season's high workload. Yes, I know he made the semis of the 250 in Sao Paulo, but it's not as if he were beating the Top 10 to get there, as the field in Sao Paulo was laughable. The reason I even decided to write this piece was because I saw Cervantes getting demolished by Pablo Carreno Busta, a guy only seven places ahead of him in the rankings, currently, but playing at level that made him seem 50 spots above Cervantes.
So, why is this a problem? Shouldn't we just be happy for the guy that he is making a career for himself playing tennis? Well, yes and no. I will admit, Cervantes is manipulating the system brilliantly, just like Chung also has. I will give Cervantes credit, at least the challenger fields he has played have solid clay court players entered, which we cannot say the same for the Asian challengers that Chung entered last year. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that they are just that, challenger tournaments. The design of ATP Tour is supposed to work is that a player is supposed to have to qualify for ATP Futures Tour events, then get direct entry into the futures tournaments until they can try to qualify for challengers, and then get into the main draw of challengers until they can qualify for 250 events, and at that point trying to make the full jump into the "major leagues" and get direct entry into 250 events.
However, I believe Cervantes gamed the system, but ultimately hurt himself, by making the jump too late. He hung out on the challenger circuit for all of last year, fairly easily accumulating points and building his ranking up well into the Top 100. But, because Cervantes has never really challenged himself with consistently trying to qualify for ATP World Tour events and try to gradually make the transition to the main tour, he has for the most part hopped the "trying to qualify for 250 events" stage of the process, and because of this, I believe he has bitten off more than he can chew. Before boosting his stats this week at an event in which two of his three opponents were ranked over number 90 in the world, and an extremely (what was essentially a) 50-50 win over Delbonis being his other victory, Cervantes started out the year going 3-7 with only two main-draw victories. On hard court, Cervantes went 1-4 and didn't a main draw match.
This brings me to my next point. Besides boosting his ranking with challengers, how does Inigo expect to be successful on the main tour by almost exclusively playing on clay and by largely ignoring the most popular surface on the main tour: hard court. The scheduling just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, I get it, Cervantes is much more comfortable on clay than any other surface. However, as he saw his ranking rising, it would make a lot of sense for him to start at least giving hard courts a shot for ATP 250 events on hard courts. Going to an event like ATP Atlanta or ATP Winston Salem would not only give him a chance to warm up for the US Open, in which the money is too big for Cervantes to pass up, but would also help ease the transition onto the main tour. I know that becoming a grass courter is extremely unlikely for Inigo, but it seems self-mutilating for him to largely ignore hard courts for much of last year.
And the effects of him ignoring hard courts last year are seen this year when he can barely win a match on a hard court. Cervantes' only win on hard this year has come against (currently) world number 185 Luke Saville and other than that, Inigo is finding is extremely tough to even win a qualifying match for a ATP 250 event.
In addition, like I mentioned earlier, it has also been foolish of Cervantes to play as many tournaments as he has played. 32 tournaments is a ton of match play, and given the start to this year, Inigo is not planning on slowing down. When you play as often as Inigo does, wear-and-tear starts to occur, and if Cervantes is not more careful in the future, the stress he is putting on his body could lead to full-blown injury which is extremely damaging to his career. However, his huge amounts of matchplay indicate to me that he is not confident that he can maintain his ranking without it, and thus I suspect it will continue, as Inigo knows that he is not good enough to go even deep in most of the tournaments he is playing (again, I suspect Sao Paulo to be an outlier when all is set and done), and thus will continue pushing his body until it gives out.
So, is there anything the ATP can do to avoid having rankings inflated like Cervantes has now (and that Chung had last year)? I believe there is action that can be taken, and I think a rule change is desperately needed. I believe I have come up with a solution to these issues. I think that a good new rule would be that if a player wins a certain number of challenger event tournaments (and the same could be applied to futures events too, but I am just focusing on challengers), say two or three, in a given year, then if their rankings allows them to enter ATP 250 qualifying events, then they should be banned from challenger events for a month or two and only allowed to enter main tour events. The "if the ranking allows them" clause gives fast-risers like Taylor Fritz time to move up the rankings before being barred from challenger events and exceptions can be made to this rule in extraordinary circumstances (which Cervantes certainly doesn't have).
I also think that there should be disincentives for playing almost exclusively on one surface. Yes, this is a radical idea, but I think it is necessary in order to produce more well-rounded players on tour, or at least players who are more respectful of the tour. I believe that players who are entered into a major should be fined for playing on a different surface in their tournament before playing a major. So, when a guy like Cervantes (or more blatantly Delbonis) disrespect Wimbledon by not only not playing a grass warmup tournament, but by their last tournament before Wimbledon being on clay, which anyone who knows tennis realizes are extremely different surfaces.
And finally, I believe that there should be incentives in place to reward players for gaining a certain amount of ranking points while playing less tournaments. This would give players a reward for really focusing in on tournaments that are important to them instead of just putting their names down on entry lists and playing as many tournaments as they possibly can. And while it wouldn't hurt players for playing a huge number of tournaments, it might make them think twice before putting their name down on another entry list.
Now, I don't want to make this issue seem like it's exclusive to Cervantes. In addition to Chung, someone like Daniel Munoz De La Nava is also guilt for the similar manipulation of the ATP Tour and poor scheduling. However, Cervantes is the best example of this problem, as he is ranked inside of the top 60, and I think it is more than fair to call him on what he's done.
Because, it's quite obvious, Inigo Cervantes should not be the 59th ranked tennis player in the world.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
A Look into Tim Smyczek's Troubles
When qualifier Tim Smyczek took a two sets to one lead over Rafael Nadal at the Australian Open, his career was clearly on the upswing. Although Rafa was certainly not the beast he has been in the past, to get two sets off of one of the all-time greats represented a culmination into everything the Tim had worked for.
And for a little while longer, it seemed as if the Nadal battle was just a stepping stone for Smyczek as he won an ATP Challenger Tour title in Dallas, and made the Final of another Challenger event in Irving. However, for some reason, following the win in Irving Smyczek's career stalled, and big time. It's time to take a look into Tim Smyzcek's troubles.
Smyczek's issues didn't totally show the week after Irving, at the Masters 1000 event in Miami. But perhaps tennis fans should have knew, after winning a tight battle against Menendez-Maceiras before bowing out to a rusty (at the time) Jo-Wilfred Tsonga that perhaps Tim's momentum was running out. Perhaps the spring hard court season was finally starting to wear on Smyczek, and a trip to the clay at Houston would give him a boost.
I witnessed first hand Tim's 6-3, 6-3 loss to Teymuraz Gabashvili in Houston. Although the crowd was small, it was definitely a pro-Smyzcek bunch, with fans willing Tim on to victory. It looked, however, as if Tim wasn't embracing the crowd, almost shutting the crowd out in a way. He was irritable throughout the entire match and had a very negative attitude. Smyczek's level of play matched his poor attitude, as Gabashvili completely controlled the rallies and left Smyczek on the defense for nearly the entire match. Tim's serves did not penetrate through the court and acted as the points were almost always started on Smyczek's serve in a neutral-rally position. It seemed as if Teymuraz went out there with an aggressive mindset, while Tim was waiting for his opponent to make errors, which lead to a convincing victory for Gabashvili.
Tim went on to go a very pedestrian 2-2 in the green clay challenger events in Sarasota and Savannah, before only winning three games in Nice and losing in straight sets to Lucas Pouille and then going on to lose in straight sets to Kevin Anderson at the French Open. I watched a good portion of his embarrassing match against James McGee at the Savannah Challenger, a 6-0, 6-3 loss. Like against Gabashvili, Smyczek was always on the defensive and even a player like McGee could cause Smyczek major issues.
The best way to show this would be for readers to watch the match themselves (scroll down a little ways), although I think the first game essentially summarizes the entire match. In the first game, one can see the ineffectiveness of the Smyczek serve, and really, the problems that Tim has with maintaining control of the points. Tim does a slightly better job in this match than in Houston in regards to wrestling control of the points with the serve, but upon gaining the upper hand in the rallies, Smyczek never utilized his position and eventually gave control back to McGee, who utilized this control to win the point. McGee played with risk in his game, like Gabashvili did in Houston, while Smyczek played entirely too safe.
But, maybe the clay gave Tim the non-risk mindset that was ever-so present during the clay court season. The grass could have forced him to play with a much more aggressive mindset. But, alas, that did not occur. For Tim Smyczek went 1-4 during the grass court season, with his only victory being a three-setter over James Ward at a 250 event in Nottingham. However, in his other four matches on grass, he won a measly one set, including a straight set loss to Fabio Fognini at Wimbledon. Although Fabio is certainly the better player in this instance, his defensive tendencies and mediocre performances on grass gave Tim the perfect opportunity to try to step up and take the match. But, alas, Smyczek couldn't capitalize on this potential confidence-building opportunity.
And so, with a straight set loss to open the summer hard court season in Atlanta to Ricardas Berankis, Smyzcek currently finds himself as a heavy underdog in his match today against Alexandr Dolgopolov, where a loss could even further hurt his confidence and make a resurgence even tougher. The key for Smyczek, in my opinion, is two-fold. I think that Tim not only has to play more aggressive to gain better control of the points, but also that when he gets control of the points, he has to continue to play with enough aggression to keep control of the points.
Tim Smyczek can be very successful on that ATP World Tour. He has shown in the past that he has what it takes to be a great player. However, I believe his mindset within the points are what is currently holding him back, and I think that if he makes slight adjustments, he will rise up the ATP rankings very quickly.
And for a little while longer, it seemed as if the Nadal battle was just a stepping stone for Smyczek as he won an ATP Challenger Tour title in Dallas, and made the Final of another Challenger event in Irving. However, for some reason, following the win in Irving Smyczek's career stalled, and big time. It's time to take a look into Tim Smyzcek's troubles.
Smyczek's issues didn't totally show the week after Irving, at the Masters 1000 event in Miami. But perhaps tennis fans should have knew, after winning a tight battle against Menendez-Maceiras before bowing out to a rusty (at the time) Jo-Wilfred Tsonga that perhaps Tim's momentum was running out. Perhaps the spring hard court season was finally starting to wear on Smyczek, and a trip to the clay at Houston would give him a boost.
I witnessed first hand Tim's 6-3, 6-3 loss to Teymuraz Gabashvili in Houston. Although the crowd was small, it was definitely a pro-Smyzcek bunch, with fans willing Tim on to victory. It looked, however, as if Tim wasn't embracing the crowd, almost shutting the crowd out in a way. He was irritable throughout the entire match and had a very negative attitude. Smyczek's level of play matched his poor attitude, as Gabashvili completely controlled the rallies and left Smyczek on the defense for nearly the entire match. Tim's serves did not penetrate through the court and acted as the points were almost always started on Smyczek's serve in a neutral-rally position. It seemed as if Teymuraz went out there with an aggressive mindset, while Tim was waiting for his opponent to make errors, which lead to a convincing victory for Gabashvili.
Tim went on to go a very pedestrian 2-2 in the green clay challenger events in Sarasota and Savannah, before only winning three games in Nice and losing in straight sets to Lucas Pouille and then going on to lose in straight sets to Kevin Anderson at the French Open. I watched a good portion of his embarrassing match against James McGee at the Savannah Challenger, a 6-0, 6-3 loss. Like against Gabashvili, Smyczek was always on the defensive and even a player like McGee could cause Smyczek major issues.
The best way to show this would be for readers to watch the match themselves (scroll down a little ways), although I think the first game essentially summarizes the entire match. In the first game, one can see the ineffectiveness of the Smyczek serve, and really, the problems that Tim has with maintaining control of the points. Tim does a slightly better job in this match than in Houston in regards to wrestling control of the points with the serve, but upon gaining the upper hand in the rallies, Smyczek never utilized his position and eventually gave control back to McGee, who utilized this control to win the point. McGee played with risk in his game, like Gabashvili did in Houston, while Smyczek played entirely too safe.
But, maybe the clay gave Tim the non-risk mindset that was ever-so present during the clay court season. The grass could have forced him to play with a much more aggressive mindset. But, alas, that did not occur. For Tim Smyczek went 1-4 during the grass court season, with his only victory being a three-setter over James Ward at a 250 event in Nottingham. However, in his other four matches on grass, he won a measly one set, including a straight set loss to Fabio Fognini at Wimbledon. Although Fabio is certainly the better player in this instance, his defensive tendencies and mediocre performances on grass gave Tim the perfect opportunity to try to step up and take the match. But, alas, Smyczek couldn't capitalize on this potential confidence-building opportunity.
And so, with a straight set loss to open the summer hard court season in Atlanta to Ricardas Berankis, Smyzcek currently finds himself as a heavy underdog in his match today against Alexandr Dolgopolov, where a loss could even further hurt his confidence and make a resurgence even tougher. The key for Smyczek, in my opinion, is two-fold. I think that Tim not only has to play more aggressive to gain better control of the points, but also that when he gets control of the points, he has to continue to play with enough aggression to keep control of the points.
Tim Smyczek can be very successful on that ATP World Tour. He has shown in the past that he has what it takes to be a great player. However, I believe his mindset within the points are what is currently holding him back, and I think that if he makes slight adjustments, he will rise up the ATP rankings very quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)