2016 Australian Open Tennis Championships

[stroke]

Jack Sock is looking like a guy on the verge of making a break through. He has looked very good in defeating 2 tough opponents in Auckland, Kevin Anderson and Ferrer.

[stotty]

http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/ms/index.html
Hmmm…here's the draw. The portents of things to come. Is is safe to project Novak Djokovic into the semifinals based on his invincibility? What about Roger Federer…is he going to recover from his flu at the ripe old age of 34/35 and be able to compete three out of five sets in 40 degree weather down under? I don't give Rafael Nadal a snowball's chance in Australia to make the semi's in his portion of the draw. But, on the other hand, I can see Andy Murray getting through to his semifinal.

There is only one question that looms large for me…what about the speed of the courts?

Is this tournament going to amount to anything other than another boring "baseline fest"?

It's a little disappointing to see Roger in the same half as Novak. I see them as one and two in the world and would like them in separate halves...or at least Roger in Murray's half.

The word from the qualifying rounds is the courts are slightly faster.

I don't think we can expect anything other than baseline tennis throughout the entire two weeks. It's the way the game has gone and there seems to be no end of it in sight. I really do think it would help if the grass court season became more extensive. After all, tennis was, in its original form, a grass court game. Acrylic courts need to go. It's an artificial, soulless surface where artistry is punished and not rewarded.

Nadal has a tricky opening encounter against Verdasco. Verdasco has zero to lose and he always was a dangerous customer in that kind of circumstance. But if Nadal is to resurrect himself, surely it has to start now.

[don_budge]

Jack Sock and Acrylic Tennis Courts…the Lack of Style in Modern Tennis

Jack Sock is looking like a guy on the verge of making a break through. He has looked very good in defeating 2 tough opponents in Auckland, Kevin Anderson and Ferrer.

Those are good results but a three out of five venue is a whole different ballgame. He has Stan Wawrinka in the second round…if he wins his first. If he were to get by Stan then I might be convinced he is ready for a breakthrough. David Ferrer has not been himself as of recently and he has been struggling more in the past year. Kevin Anderson is not the consistent performer to measure by. It will be interesting to see if Jack Sock is ready to have some kind of breakthrough. My feelings are that anything he will eventually achieve will be on the inconsistent side of success as that forehand of his might be a bit too much "hit or miss". I have a hard time convincing myself that that thing will stand the rigours of a Grand Slam event against the top competition in the world.

The word from the qualifying rounds is the courts are slightly faster.

I don't think we can expect anything other than baseline tennis throughout the entire two weeks. It's the way the game has gone and there seems to be no end of it in sight. I really do think it would help if the grass court season became more extensive. After all, tennis was, in its original form, a grass court game. Acrylic courts need to go. It's an artificial, soulless surface where artistry is punished and not rewarded.

I have always liked your referring to the acrylic surface as soulless. It really distorts the game from the way that it should be played. After the racquets grew exponentially in the early 80's they eventually had to slow the game down and someone came up with this wazoo of an idea. Now everything plays like clay…even the velcro grass at Wimbledon. It has killed creativity…and virtually eliminated style from the game.

It would be so sweet if they just out and out slicked up one of these events. Then we would see how the game is lacking and the professional players are really void of the skills that are needed to play the all-court game. It's really a shame it has come down to this. But we could say that about a lot of things nowadays.

How about that Brian Baker…he's going to give it another shot! I would love to see him win a round…at least.

[stroke]

I always like and respect your take on these draws and players db. I miss a lot but I am looking for a win by Sock over Stan in the 2nd round, and I really like Stan's game. I really like Sock's forehand. To me, what a 2nd round matchup. And how about Roger calling out Tomic on his declaration of top 10 goal for this year. Too good, there is just one Roger.

[don_budge]

Penelope speaks…the comment below the article

In this article on the australianopen.com website they are declaring Roger Federer fit to fight. I'm not so sure. The lingering effects of a cold or flu symptoms are enough to derail even a young buck in a Grand Slam tournament. This is one of the most remarkable things about players that make big runs on Grand Slams such as Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal. We can include Djokovic here too. The fact that they remain healthy year in and year out is a major feat in itself. You have to hand it to these guys.

http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2016-01-15/refreshed_federer_takes_aim_at_fifth_title.html

A gal by the name of Penelope supposedly wrote this about Roger Federer below and I have to admit…she echoes a lot of my comments in the past and of course all of our feelings about him. The funny thing is…in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King. Roger does not have a single peer around him who is playing classic tennis…whereas thirty some years ago everyone was. It's too bad we cannot realistically compare eras any longer. This is another facet that the game has sacrificed in the rush to the illusion of a superior product. Wouldn't it have been something to see a Roger Federer in the same league as John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl and Jimmy Connors not to mention the hundreds of supporting characters. Do you see how one dimensional the game has become in comparison? Yes you do…I'll answer for you. At least Penelope agrees with me. "Corporate tennis" she calls it. It's a good term…as good as any.

From the article...

“I would think the Australian Open is the one where players come in maybe most inspired,” Federer said. “It's also been my most consistent Slam maybe until last year. I always played very well here. I don't know if it's the conditions or the court speed. It's a good place for me to start the year."-Roger Federer



Penelope speaks...

"It's interesting because my interest in men's tennis faded when the game got too muscly with an increase in alpha males slamming the ball over the net. Not that there's anything wrong with powerful tennis but if it isn't accompanied by the well-rounded game and versatility Roger has, in my humble opinion, it stops being tennis. Brute force doesn't thrill me unless it's a freak shot for the fun of it. I grew up watching Borg, and back then, men's tennis was more about skill, tactics and alignment, than wrestling.

Over the last few years I've tuned in to Roger's matches, and there's always at least 4 times I cry with joy because he's so graceful. He brings an otherworldiness to the court and I honestly think this is a major point of focus that a lot of other players overlook. I don't like seeing 'more powerful' muscle-tennis players beat him purely because they have faster legs and bigger serves. As much as he can rise to those challenges (and has done many times) a true winner is the player who stays connected to the inner game of tennis with grace and superior tactics.

Intelligence on the tennis court is a very powerful thing and when it gets brutalised by opponents who slog hard in a standard fashion, to me there's something amiss and it would be a shame for future generations of players to adopt that style over everything Roger has brought to the game. I say that with all due respect to every professional player. I'm fully aware of the dedication required on every level to become pro, so this isn't a stab at individuals per se, more of an observation of the direction tennis can take when the point is missed. No pun intended.

Everyone knows Roger makes it look easy but I wonder if they ever asked themselves how? Maybe it's personal. Maybe it's a reflection of who he is. Maybe there's another side to tennis that hasn't been explored by coaches. Maybe it's the inner life of the game that he brings to the court, and if it's discovered and tapped into on an individual level by coaches and players alike, it might be safe to make the assumption that muscle-tennis only represents the very coarse outer layer of tennis itself, no matter the fitness or the tactics. There could be a whole other world to this game that everyone can benefit from.

Maybe the mental game of tennis needs adjusting so everyone involved won't miss the opportunity to learn what Roger possibly came to teach, whether he's aware of it or not. He's incredibly balanced in every respect and highly intuitive. Could be a good place to start for anyone wondering why their shots are slamming but they can't get ahead, or they beat the more graceful players on brute force alone. When the desire to win takes precedent over playing quality, connected tennis, well that's just corporate tennis, for want of a better term.

Looking forward to watching Roger play in this Open for all the reasons mentioned above. Hopefully everyone will learn from him no matter what happens on the court.

It can't be that hard to pay attention"

[klacr]

7 matches

All it will take is to win 7 matches. Djokovic is surely the favorite. Murray and Federer next. Nadal may make 2nd week but I don't see him as legit contender until the clay season begins.

Berdych-Federer quarterfinal is looming.Winner would play Djokovic> Berdych won more games off Djokovic in Doha than any other competitor during week 1 of the season. Berdych believes. He has to.

Can he win 7 matches? 21 sets? Let the games begin! The Aussie Open destroys my sleep patterns, but sleep is for the weak. Let's get the tennis started!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball...

I always like and respect your take on these draws and players db. I miss a lot but I am looking for a win by Sock over Stan in the 2nd round, and I really like Stan's game. I really like Sock's forehand. To me, what a 2nd round matchup. And how about Roger calling out Tomic on his declaration of top 10 goal for this year. Too good, there is just one Roger.

Thank you stroke…match analysis and the understanding how match ups potentially play out given players relative strengths and weaknesses is the result of a foundation of fundamentals and the proper teaching or coaching paradigm. Understanding how different strokes produce different spins and how these can tactically used in given game conditions and utilized in play is perhaps the most interesting facet of this great game…from a coaching point of view. From a student of the game point of view.

As you know I am a great advocate of the writings of Bill Tilden as they are timeless in the understanding of the game. His book "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" is to me the ultimate book on tennis. Written in the 1920's this book can be extrapolated into the modern age to serve as a sound foundation to understanding match play and tennis psychology.

When John posted Jack Sock's forehand it created interest here on the forum about Sock. I think you may have been the first to acknowledge just how hard Sock hits the forehand with a post you made quite a while back about a comparison with Rafael Nadal's forehand. These are the discussions that make life here on the forum interesting…but one must take into account how the technical aspects of a stroke have tactical influences on a player's game.

Jack Sock did show fairly recently here in Stockholm, Sweden that he has indeed made a move up the food chain. He came up a little short in the finals against Tomas Berdych but at the same time he was winning the doubles. Successive wins over Kevin Anderson and David Ferrer is surely a good sign for him as well. If he should win his first round against another promising American, Taylor Fritz, he will play the winner of Lucas Rosol and a relatively unknown Japanese player. Then he would have a shot at Stan Wawrinka…providing Stan fulfils his obligations and gets to the third round. Sock needs to go deep into a Grand Slam event to sharpen his teeth and claws.

But it's only foreplay up until the quarterfinals. This is when the game really begins. The players get sharper as the tournament progresses and the look in their faces gets progressively harder and meaner. All of their preparation starts to seep into the chromosomes and cells…they take on the look of bonafide born killers. Sword play. Visceral.

[don_budge]

Anyways...

Jack Sock retires in the second set trailing 6-1, 1-0 to Roberto Bautista Agut. He had flu like symptoms and complained that he felt like he was having an out of body experience. Can he recover for the Australian Open? Doubtful.

[bottle]

Man, the shifts happen fast.

[stotty]

Federer interview...

In a recent interview, Federer, in his own way, didn't seem to be conceding that Djokovic is in an unbeatable class of his own. He said Djokovic had a great year last year, and that if you listed the top five players, Djokovic would have a little star next to his name (like a teacher giving a young student a star for coming top of the class). It felt like a psychological nudge....letting Djokovic know he is on his trail and not phased. He also referenced he had beaten Djokovic a handful of times last year.

Roger gives a reasonable interview. He's descriptive and eloquent. Rafa has never really expanded his vocabulary in English so you can never get beyond a certain level of insight. My brother-in-law only knows about 200 words of English but it's amazing how accurately he can get his thoughts across. Rafa doesn't have that skill. Djokovic interviews well but is a pleaser and reads and speaks from a script. Let's not talk about Murray....

Bring back Connors and McEnroe for honest in your face interviews...you don't get them anymore...times have changed.

[klacr]

Thank you stroke…match analysis and the understanding how match ups potentially play out given players relative strengths and weaknesses is the result of a foundation of fundamentals and the proper teaching or coaching paradigm. Understanding how different strokes produce different spins and how these can tactically used in given game conditions and utilized in play is perhaps the most interesting facet of this great game…from a coaching point of view. From a student of the game point of view.

As you know I am a great advocate of the writings of Bill Tilden as they are timeless in the understanding of the game. His book "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" is to me the ultimate book on tennis. Written in the 1920's this book can be extrapolated into the modern age to serve as a sound foundation to understanding match play and tennis psychology.

When John posted Jack Sock's forehand it created interest here on the forum about Sock. I think you may have been the first to acknowledge just how hard Sock hits the forehand with a post you made quite a while back about a comparison with Rafael Nadal's forehand. These are the discussions that make life here on the forum interesting…but one must take into account how the technical aspects of a stroke have tactical influences on a player's game...

Great post don_budge! All players should read and repeat your line...

"…but one must take into account how the technical aspects of a stroke have tactical influences on a player's game..."

Absolutely.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

...Jack Sock did show fairly recently here in Stockholm, Sweden that he has indeed made a move up the food chain. He came up a little short in the finals against Tomas Berdych but at the same time he was winning the doubles...

Did someone mention Berdych?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Shifts...

Man, the shifts happen fast.

The amazing thing is that the tournament hasn't even begun. Now consider this…the story shifts from Jack Sock to Harry Fritz…I mean Taylor Fritz. It's Fritz vs. Sock. A very interesting all-American match up down under.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/fritz-evans-stepanek-qualify-2016-australian-open

[don_budge]

Interviewee Style matching Playing Style...

In a recent interview, Federer, in his own way, didn't seem to be conceding that Djokovic is in an unbeatable class of his own. He said Djokovic had a great year last year, and that if you listed the top five players, Djokovic would have a little star next to his name (like a teacher giving a young student a star for coming top of the class). It felt like a psychological nudge....letting Djokovic know he is on his trail and not phased. He also referenced he had beaten Djokovic a handful of times last year.

Roger gives a reasonable interview. He's descriptive and eloquent. Rafa has never really expanded his vocabulary in English so you can never get beyond a certain level of insight. My brother-in-law only knows about 200 words of English but it's amazing how accurately he can get his thoughts across. Rafa doesn't have that skill. Djokovic interviews well but is a pleaser and reads and speaks from a script. Let's not talk about Murray....

Bring back Connors and McEnroe for honest in your face interviews...you don't get them anymore...times have changed.

Interesting post. Roger Federer is the only professional tennis player capable of giving an informative and intriguing interview. As a player he is not limited in his repertoire…or at least he is the least limited. He has all of the shots and all of the replies to the shots of his opponents. He is much the same in an interview…he is able to ad lib and go with the flow.

Djokovic on the other hand gives a steady flow of good news and rarely if ever gives anything of interest to ponder. It's simple stuff…without deviation from the subject. Rather boring…just like his nonstop backcourt play. Nadal on the other hand if we are to borrow from Donald Trump...is an idiot. Even if his English were fluent it is doubtful that you would get anything but some stock jock talk out of him.

But Roger would definitely be right in not verbally capitulating to Djokovic. No sense in handing anything over without a fight. Mentally he is still in the game. It's only that the Swiss' legs are six years older than his younger nemesis. He has rediscovered that the way to beat the supreme back court player is to play him in the forecourt. You must get the play on your terms. Why would you try to beat him from the backcourt. Roger has done just that. In two out of three venues on courts that are just a tad quicker than the standard "quick sand" that they are playing on he stands an even chance of defeating the supreme backcourt player.

Speaking of John McEnroe…he did just that against the great Bjorn Borg. He took away the net and more or less said to Borg it was going to be played on his terms…win or lose. The problem is there isn't anyone with the game to take it to Djokovic like this and what is more the cards are stacked against any such player the way that the game is currently engineered.

Fascinating to think that these guys communicate the same way that they play the game. After all it is all a game of spin. You spin to me…I spin to you. We are all spinning together. The earth is a ball…a ball in the game. In a game where the object of the game is to learn the rules.

[stroke]

I really like Tomic's game but his attitude and overall demeanor is annoying. I love how Fed was asked about Tomic's declaration that his goal is to make the top 10 this year. Fed was asked about this and he said something like we have been hearing about Tomics goals from him for many years, but getting into the top 10? He first needs to get his game to the next level, whatever that is.