Welcome to June’s Racquet Mailbag. We’re less than a week deep into Roland Garros and yet there’s already been enough news to fill up months of tournaments: The Osaka situation and fallout, Dominic Thiem out on Sunday, number one Ashleigh Barty out literally minutes ago…
itsbeen84years.jpg
Feel free to use this thread to decompress and take stock of what’s happened so far, or to look ahead. Ask me any questions you like about Osaka, the results this week, the role of press/media in tennis, the maybe-quicker-than-usual-conditions, or just more general tennis stuff etc etc. Anything goes.
I’ll do my best to answer them all quickly but I might take a bit longer if there are any that require some extra thought.
As data analytics penetrated other sports, it revealed that there were major strategic mistakes being made. Walks were grossly underestimated in baseball. The value of the three-point shot was even more underestimated in basketball. This has transformed the game (not to my taste in basketball!). Analytics have come to tennis later. What are the strategic mistakes in tennis play being revealed? How will the game be transformed?
Such a great question tm. Potentially lots of areas. For e.g the efficacy and risk analysis of hitting two first serves for some players (ie Zverev, Kyrgios et al) who struggle with very low 2nd serve win %'s. Placement of serve+1 shot (ie hitting powerfully and deeply centrally may work better for some players that are making too many errors into the sidelines on that first aggressive shot of the rally. Perhaps the biggest one is that the elite players, Nadal and Djokovic in particular have started hitting much more powerful, yet still consistent, 2nd serves in the past few years to try and shorten points. The analysis for players to work out how much more powerfully they can hit that 2nd serve while keeping the double fault count low is likely something a lot of players would benefit from (many players hit their 2nd serves probably too conservatively). There are probably hundreds of similar insights that will subtly change how the game is played in years to come. Also depends on the tour, for example there's some decent research that suggests the speed of 1st serve (within standard ranges) has less of an impact on service points won on the men's tour than it does on the women's tour. Therefore serve placement is arguably more important on the men's tour and serve speed more important on the women's.
I thought Kyrgios's second serve ace was one of the finest on tour. And one of the fastest. Has often been known to win matches with it. Some days he double faults on it and loses (and gets accused of tanking) but sometimes it's brilliant. Zverev's serve is very patchy. Watched him fall apart at ATP Cup and was very sad for him. Anyhow, I presume your stats are more precise than my observation...
Hi 2nd serve win% hovers below 50% regularly, his avg for last 12 months of tennis played (ie mostly 2019) is 49% which is lower than pretty much every top big server. Funnily enough it's matches where he decides to hit two first serves that he has some of his best performances
Thanks, it'll be interesting to see. I was thinking that coming to the net might be one area. Currently there is a huge variability in how often players come in, what type of shot they hit, how they cover the net, etc. Also variability in how players respond to net play. Djokovic seems to use the lob much more frequently (and effectively) than Nadal (though stats might show I'm dead wrong). I feel it may be on these complex environments where the more sophisticated analytics will come into play. WHo knows?
Not much at all. Karatsev is one of the better examples of this, despite not being top ten, he's had top ten wins this year and is top ten in the ATP race to Turin, despite languishing well outside the top 100 before this year. And it's always amazing, regardless of whether it's a 17 year old or a mid-career guy like Karatsev, to watch those moments of belief materialise. The hard earned realisation that the gap between him and the elite is no longer so big, or even real. A player in the top 100 probably has about 98% of what the top 10 player has in terms of skill, ability & matchplay. But that extra 2% allowing the final leap is differently weighted. Work ethic, privilege, resources, luck, bit of extra talent here & there make that last 2% elusive as hell. That final 2% is built on top of a mix of hard to define intangibles, serendipity, borderline-psychopathic levels of hard work & focus, genetic luck, success-begets-success moats etc. TL;DR the difference is minute. Although the difference between the big 3 and a top 100 player is more pronounced.
Hi Matthew, I enjoy your analysis. I also wonder if there is something more one-dimensional about the game of folks outside the top 10 or even some folks that make it inside. Watching Gasquet or even Rublev, one a former and a current top 10er, and there's just a little something extra that seems to be missing--some creativity or ability to readjust their game within a match. On the other hand it's been super fun to watch Tsitsipas become a much more well-rounded player with many more weapons.
What are your thoughts on Berrettini's chances? He has had a good clay court season. With so many leading men out it seems like the only drama is Novak/Rafa (at best).
Hi Matt. Thanks for a great newsletter and lots of perspectives that are very handy for a new-ish tennis fan such as myself. Society in general (and therefore also tennis) is very concerned with responsibility and accountability: Players, associations and very much journalists these days. But what about the fans? What is, if any, the responsibility of the modern tennis fan in search of a more equal, sustainable sport in your view?
I really enjoyed your piece on Osaka last week. Hadn't thought about the direct to audience relationship in that way before. With that in mind, do you think all members of the media need to think about that dynamic?
Great question Tilly, and thanks. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between legacy press journalists and promotional media (which both fall under 'media' but serve two completely different purposes). The latter, things like creating fun content around players during tournaments, has more of a place than ever in 2021. The former, traditional press built partially around press conferences on site, needs to be acutely aware of how much less useful they are for the elite players than a decade or more ago. Legacy press is still important, but the number of direct channels that viewers/fans get their information from is just infinitely more diverse nowadays, and controlled by players/stars. The top press publications will be fine, but smaller ones will probably continue to struggle (being a small to mid rank tennis journalists was already a brutally badly paid job even before this mess) unless the press role within tournaments and around players is rethought somewhat.
Matt - you have written extensively about Nadal's strength on clay being short ball dominance. Can this be attributed predominantly on his physical strength, i.e. being able to hit the ball through the court & opponent on this surface, when nobody else can?
Partially yes. When he was in his physical prime he was as good at extending and winning long points as anyone in history. But certainly in his late career his ability, largely via his forehand, to damage opponents early in the point is a huge trump card over most of the rest of the tour. It's just as much strength based as it is raw shotmaking ability though. His forehand is technically-speaking not an easy shot to hit, let alone as well as he does.
I like this question because it's easy to answer. A huge serve and a poor return game is a perfect recipe for long tiebreaker matches. Higher chance of playing maximum 12 games in each set plus a breaker.
"Easy question" not as good as "great question" but I'll take it. So the likelihood increases because servebotting--er, big serving generates enough holds of serve to push sets to 6-6
Another question, why do you think there aren't many younger TV commentators in tennis? For example, in other sports (basketball, american football), many former players go straight from retirement to TV commentators. In the U.S., the highest profile ones are probably still McEnroe and Carillo. Seems like many choose to go the coach or Tournament Director side instead. Feel like it would be interesting to get some recently retired players as they could connect more with the modern game and may have even played a lot of the players they are commenting on.
A few recently retired players (Gilles Muller, Tamira Paszek) have been popping up on the world feed and doing a really good job. But it's incredible the degree to which tennis broadcasting in the US is associated with John McEnroe - wouldn't be so bad if he were better at his job, but alas...
With Federer commenting how clay is not really that slow and Medvedev suddenly falling in love with the clay in Paris - is it safe enough to say that, at least this year, the courts are indeed playing much faster?
But also, modern clay isn't a slow surface. Poly strings and modern racquets have made it an incredibly offensive surface at the elite level compared to 30-40 years ago
Tough to say given small sample size, and Isner and Opelka both losing today. Will know more in week 2, but yeah there are small indications (especially around Medvedev's service game performance) that suggest the courts are playing quite quick
Any insight into the choice of seedings? Why didn't FO place Nadal at 2 given his history and stature, or are seedings only based in rankings now? Unless I'm mistaken and it was someone else, I think it was you who wrote a great piece about how the seedings have been manipulated over the years (possibly for TV and sponsor motivations). Do you think they might have worked the 'Big 3' into the same half pf the draw to make sure Federer gets far enough to play ome of the others?
They don't manipulate seedings for tv rating benefit. And Wimbledon recently scrapped their surface specific seeding formula on the men's side from 2021 onwards because they no longer deemed it necessary to separate grass form from hard/clay form. There is an argument that Roland Garros should have clay specific rankings, but given clay just about occupies enough of the calendar (at around 30%) I'm not sure it's really needed (this year is a bit of an anomaly because of frozen rankings from COVID). The current calendar does indeed favour hard court players (about 65% of the season), therefore presenting the possibility that a very good hard courter could be seeded unrepresentatively high on clay or grass. But the argument against specific surface seedings is that modern players are good enough on all three surfaces, none of which play as differently to one another as they did in the 90's.
Interesting Matt. I juwt wonder whether Nadal should be higher due to this surface- and tournament-specific rorm and history. We'll see how it pans out, gives others a chance I suppose.
This is just a study. Maybe it's just the luck of the draw. I have read comments about Nadal having easy draws all the time so it's probably just confirmation bias either way.
Hello Matthew. Unfortunately have no time whatsoever for any comment/question to you these days, other than to quickly acknowledge that you hardly could have picked a better timing for The Racquet relaunch a little over a month ago, from my point of view. Professional tennis and professional tennis players truly seem/feel at a turning point, don't they? Greatly appreciate your key contribution to our following/understanding the definitely evolving times for professional tennis both as a professional sport and for professional tennis players, and this in the definitely evolving times at numerous levels worldwide. Best
Thanks Bergo. I agree, tennis is at an extremely important point in its life, and unfortunately some important decisions are being made on the back of post-covid financial results. The next 5 years, and how it evolves, is huge for this sport
Hi Matt! Love your insight on Twitter and in The Racquet. Out of curiosity, how did you become interested in tennis and what got you into providing such detailed match insight? Also, on a slightly unrelated note, do you think that tennis may finally depart from some of its archaic traditions given the rise of activist stars like Osaka in the sport (prime example being how the Slams are finally having a discussion surrounding mental health following Osaka's boycott, withdrawal, and the email she sent to the RG organizers)?
Thanks SP. I've played since I was 5 and played competitively at university. Started watching when I was about 12 I think. The more I played and watched the more I wanted to go deeper into the strategy side of it. Yes I think tennis is slowly but surely shedding some of its less necessary traditions. The next 5 years for this sport, and how it evolves, is enormously important.
Hi Matt, before the event there was a lot of talk about seeding, particularly Nadal being seeded behind Medvedev given their clay court seasons/prowess and its effect on delivering a top heavy draw. Given all the analytics at our disposal (e.g. ELO), what are your thoughts on seedings continuing to be based solely on ranking (except at Wimbledon)?
I don't think we normally need clay specific rankings during normal ranking times given clay just about occupies enough of the calendar, although to be honest I wouldn't mind much either way. The biggest issue is that the rankings have been all over the place due to temporary COVID policy
Bit of a strange question but here goes - I feel like the usually ineffective tennis governance framework has been even more under the spotlight this year. No domestic abuse policies, general PTPA havoc, appalling treatment of umpires going unpunished, the whole quarantining saga at Australia (players complaining non stop), and now the way the GS have responded to Naomi… so many missteps in the past year or two! Feeling deeply frustrated at the sport I love and wondered if you had thoughts on 1) if and how this can improve, and 2) how you personally avoid the drama and just try to enjoy the game (fwiw)
I think you might have mentioned the quality of Thiem's kick serve this week. Watching a bit of Kohlschreiber and Cuevas today they both seem to have good kick serves too. Is there some sort of correlation with having one-handed bhs?
Great question. The answer is I don't know for sure. There's no mechanical/technique reason why that would be the case, and there are plenty of double handers with good kick serves (Isner, Raonic et al). But I'll have a think about it
I would have many questions but the one on my mind right now is this : how common do you think doping is in tennis? I'm usually quite optimistic on this matter but talking with friends had me wondering about it recently.
Lots of conspiracies about doping, and it's sort of fashionable to make off-hand remarks that of course all sports are dirty, implying some hidden, cynical knowledge that everyone else must be naive not to agree with. But until something is proven, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the sport is clean. All the top men and women are somewhere close to the line RE recovery methods, but they, for the most part, know how to not cross that line.
Do you think Nadal should have hired a new coach/added someone else after 2011, like Novak has done throughout his career? His 2nd serve speed was just 136kph in the AO 2012 Final which Djokovic exploited profoundly, something he had done in 2011 as well? If not 2011, then 2015? Wasn't 2017 a bit too late? Wasn't he a bit too conservative in that aspect?
I'm not sure serve speed was a problem in those prime matches between Nadal and Djokovic. Under Toni, Nadal hit the fastest serves of his career at the 2010 US Open, but they both acknowledged that serving that big into Djokovic when he's playing well can actually backfire and produce harder serve +1 shots (ie Djokovic returns so well off the faster serve that Nadal had less time to react for his 2nd shot after the serve). If Nadal's prime was 2007-2014 ish, and he had a year in the wilderness for 2015 where no coach would have made much of a difference to his game, then I'm not sure Moya would ever have come on board any earlier. It took one bad season in 2016, although still riddled with injuries, to prompt Toni leaving and Moya starting, so I'm not sure why rafa would have looked to another coach earlier than he did. The last season he was fit & confident (at least partially) before he hired Moya, was 2014, and he was challenging for the biggest titles in the first half of that season (was unlucky not to have won AO and RG that year)
I dunno. In the 2010 US Open Rafa won 21 out of 22 sets, dropping one set to Djokovic in the final (and this is just months before Novak begins his epic 2011 run). It's his best hard court major in his career. I know that Rafa and Toni said it could backfire but I feel the evidence contradicts this. We've seen that since 2017 when Moya convinced Rafa to increase his service speed, Rafa's service game winning percentage has gone way up. It's also true that by increasing his service speed Djokovic's service game winning percentage has gone up. It's true that nothing is a magic bullet against Djokovic's return, but I'm sure that Djokovic prefers a slower serve to a faster one. As a huge Rafa fan, I think the 2011-16 period of giving up on improving the service was a costly error
Nadal's win rate vs Djokovic on hard courts is no better with Moya than it was in the few years beforehand. In fact in the 2019 AO final, where Nadal was serving big, Djokovic had one of his best returning days in their entire matchup history.I also don't think lumping in 2011-2016 with that logic makes sense. Nadal was beating Djokovic on hard courts in 2013, and he wasn't serving bigger than ever in those matches. Placement, and variation, of serve is almost certainly more important for Nadal in that matchup than raw speed.
This is regarding Stef and Zverev being in the open half of the draw. Do you think the clear path ahead benefits both of their runs? Or are they at a disadvantage (just like Thiem and Zverev in USO final and their nerves) at such an unique oppurtunity? Curious to see your take on this considering you would very well know their mental strengths and how they approach things.
I don't think the fact they don't have to play either of Nadal or Djokovic in the semi's is a disadvantage, no. But either could very easily trip up before that stage, Zverev (if he makes it through his usual gauntlet of unnecessary 5 setters) may have to play Ruud, and Tsitsipas may have to play medvedev (who looks to suddenly have found some clay form). That's certainly the most likely semi (Zverev vs Tsitsipas) though, and I think both will view the top heavy draw as an opportunity rather than a pressure-heavy disadvantage.
Good question Massimiliano. Badly, mainly. Some press have intelligently used it as a moment to self reflect, and start discussions around whether the media's current role in tournaments could be evolved. Other (usually more traditional) parts of the press have taken an extremely defensive stance and criticised Osaka for making them the 'bad guys'. While I completely understand why those taking a defensive position are doing so (tennis journalists are badly paid and there's a lot wrong with it as a job in 2021 for many of them), the self reflection is certainly the more productive route to take. Especially given how fast media in general, but specifically around sports, is and has already changed. As for the Slams, my view is that their response was heavy handed and created a far bigger shitstorm than they probably intended and needed. The justification for such a heavy handed response, ie all four Slam's threatening suspension of Osaka, would be to discourage others from doing the same. But I have a very hard time believing that threat was real enough considering 1. Very few players can afford to eat the 'missing press' fines, and 2. not one player when interviewed supported Osaka's press boycott, in fact most players acknowledged the importance of the press in tennis. Overall I think all sides messed up in this from a communications perspective, although given how weird the world is and has been recently, a lot of what unfolded was probably less surprising than it seemed.
Regarding your point 2) Kyrgios re-posted Osaka's second statement on anxiety and depression with a profound 'thankyou' on instagram. Watching him live over the past 18 months I would guess he suffers from extreme anxiety the moment he walks on let alone what he feels during press conferences. He was one of the few players referenced in press articles about Osaka's move and all references were profoundly negative. Being a male, poc, with similar issues to Osaka (and one of her great supporters) - does this make it even harder for him to survive on a court. And why he dreads media conferences - and is this a vicious cycle for players?
It may well do, yes. I have a tough time trying to analyse players' mental states, and tbh I try to stay away from doing so. But there are also significant differences to how Osaka and Kyrgios' demons present themselves. Hopefully both make it back to the sport ASAP with renewed peace of mind.
Agree. I feel it is extremely unfair of us - fans, media, armchair sports psychologists - to publicly give our opinions on these young people's mental states! Includes me. We (our friends/family) would love to see Nick back at Stuttgart but he is only listed as an alt and may find it hard to go back anywhere where he was fined (which is most places...)
Yeah, I agree with you. Two topics, out of this whole situation, came out, in my humble opinion, as fundamental ones:
1) As you mentioned, it can be a starting point to discuss about media and press engagement in sports nowadays. Press/media system can not be considered as a unique entity: all journalists are bad, all journalists are good. It's obvious that there are good and bad ones, as in every other jobs.
2) Mental health in tennis, and in sport generally. Athletes are not machines, they have feelings as every other human. If a 23 year old young tennis player writes on socials a note like that, there's something going on inside her. She probably could have chosen a better timing, she could have used different words and terms but she expressed the way she felt in that precise moment. I mean, being 23 years is such a young age in "common world" (I'm 31 btw): you cannot expect her to be like a steel body, that can react to anything and can be harmed from nothing. I've always felt she was such a shy and introverted person (maybe because I'm too): the headphones, the proxemics, the way she express.... But nevertheless she somehow overcame her inner feelings and became who she is: a tennis champion and a huge voice against social issues. Tennis needs her and the world needs her. Slams should have use a different way to show their authority. Maybe the media/press indirectly forced them.
I don't know oc Kyrgios, but I think he has undergone a difficult childhood. His outbursts, his controversial past behaviours come from something else. Yet I think he is one of the best guys on Tour.
Another case is Paire and his game in the last months.
I wrote too much.... I'm not a psychologist and I don't want to judge people I am not related with. But a tennis fan and player that thinks that this situation could have been managed better.
Hey Matt this is a great blog and a great mailbag. My question - how good of a mover is Medvedev on clay? The guy can slide, right? But I haven't really paid much attention to how he comes out of corners/ recovers etc... wondering what your take is? Cheers!
I think he moves well, and up until he arrived in Paris he was probably selling his movement short on this surface. He certainly moves better on hard courts as the greater friction allows easier stopping power and he can rebound back to the centre of the court more effortlessly than the extra strength (core and leg) it requires to slide on clay and then push off back to centre with less secure footing. But he's moved really well in his first few matches in Paris vs Bublik and Paul (he was very, very good vs Paul last night).
Hello Matt, love your work. What do you think about the Nadal’s level in 2021 so far? In fact, he won 2 tournaments without playing his best. His level on clay seems more volatile this year and less consistant. Against Djokovic, he was playing two great sets, but he dropped his level without any explanations during the second. Same in some matches (Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, Zverev, Popyrin etc.). What are your thoughts about his draw in the FO? Do you think it’s an advantage to Djokovic to face Nadal in the SF? How do you analysis this potential match between both? In my opinion, it’s a very strange year for Nadal. Yeah, congrats, 2 titles without playing his best, but paradoxically, no guarantee according his level.
I don't think Nadal's clay level is much different to his last couple of years. In 2019 he played poorly against fognini in Monte Carlo and in Barcelona before ripping it up in Rome and RG. In 2020 he played poorly in Rome and off his best in the early rounds of RG before ripping it in the final vs Djokovic. This year he's had similar struggles but still won Barcelona (beating form clay player Tsitsi) and rome (beating his biggest rival).
Yeah I think Novak would prefer to meet rafa in the semi's rather than the final. But until Nadal gives a reason to believe he's even remotely beatable in Paris, he's still the heavy favourite. Could be this year, could be in 2023
Thanks for your answer. So for you, there is no trend for the Nadal's level? The masterclass the last year in the final was not an isolated case for you?
The final last year was really just an indication of the big three all being post-prime. All of them can still find their best tennis in parts of the season, but less consistently than they once could. And as they get older that consistently will get worse and worse. So yeah, I could see the argument that nadal is worse in 2021 than 2018 for eg, and I probably agree with it. But that doesn't mean he and the other two won't be able to find those magic performances when they need them
Why do tournaments suck at scheduling? Like RG putting Tsonga’s likely the last match in Paris the last of the day where no crowds are allowed in, or Rome putting players who had long match night session the day before, on day session the next day.
Scheduling is a harder problem than it may look from the outside. RG has broadcasting obligations for certain matches due to a new deal with Prime video this year, and some player requests that aren't known by the public result in confusing decsions from the perspective of outsiders and understandable decisions from the perspective of those running the tournament. For eg everyone got angry that Carla Suarez Navarro was put on the night slot for her last match at Roland Garros, but there's speculation it was her preference. Similar for Tsonga playing with no crowd, a night or so ago, while it was strange to see a frenchman in an empty stadium, the prime evening streaming/TV audience in france would have been higher than an earlier slot. RE rome, yeah their scheduling is awful and unfair to one half of the draw, but it's also partially because of TV/broadcasters. So while I agree with you, and there are instances where tournaments should do better, it's also a tougher problem than it looks with lots of competing motivations.
Good question Philip. The answer is money, sponsorship contracts and the fragmentation of tennis. Each tournament is free to strike deals with ball partners, although recently there has been some consistency for the benefit of players (the US Open series events will all use the Wilson US Open ball for example, which wasn't the case pre 2020 when Cincy and Canada both used the Penn balls which played completely differently to the Wilsons). We still have bizarre inconsistency though, for example all the clay warmups are played with Dunlops and then switch to Wilson's (previously Babolat) for Roland Garros. This is the kind of thing a hypothetical players union would have more power to change, but for now money trumps any concern about how tough it is for players to switch from ball to ball injury and shot-timing wise. The situation now is certainly better than it was a few years ago though, with Dunlop having a greater share of the season overall (Australian swing, clay swing, Asian, indoor swing & ATP finals), ensuring at least a bit more consistency than previous years.
1. Ready for what? To win Slams? To be top 10, top 5? Let me know and I'll come up with an answer.
2. Great question, unfortunately very few! Tennis Abstract is great but has many holes. The official ATP site has 2nd screen data (https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/second-screen/archive/2021/416/MS001) which has things like return and serve positions, spin rates, unreturned serves etc. And each of the Slams have their own arrangement with IBM, infosys etc. Unfortunately most of the good data lives behind the ATP's wall or behind boutique data analysis companies. And the WTA is somehow significantly worse in this regard and doesn't even publish the most basic of stats for public consumption.
Idk if I've never paid attention to it before or it's been happening more but ever since the covid break I've noticed a lot of thigh (?) injuries for players. Why is that such a common injury for tennis players?
It's a good question nawal, but the only speculation I have is that an inability to play and practice as much proper matchplay while in lockdown or quarantine meant that some players lost some conditioning in their thighs. The thighs work as hard as any muscles in the body during a tennis match and no off-court practice or workout is going to be able to realistically reproduce or replace the dynamic and varied movement that players put their bodies through in proper matchplay on court. It's a guess, but not sure there will be any definitive answers on this topic tbh. Hard thing to measure.
Great question Hann. The conditions talk this year is really interesting. Medvedev has described suddenly being able to play his game in Paris having not being able to do so in any other clay event this season:
“As soon as I came here, these balls are much lighter. They go faster in the air, so that’s why I can make them also drop faster before the baseline.”
And this is backed up by his serving figures:
Medvedev 1st serve pts won last 12 months on hard court: 79%
Medvedev 1st serve pts won last 12 months on clay: 66%
-13% drop off from hard to clay
But in his first two rounds in Paris he's won 79% and 80% of his first serve points, far higher than his 12 month average for clay. I'll put together some numbers for a Racquet issue at the end of the tournament featuring a wider sample of players and matches, as it's still too early to say either way definitively, but early signs do look like either the clay composition or balls may be more conducive to bigger servers this year.
I was going to ask something along the same lines, but am also interested in the conditions with the roof. I've not caught any of the night matches so not sure if matches have been played with the roof open or closed. Do you have any comments regarding this? My reference is mostly other hard court tournaments where the conditions tend to differ greatly depending on whether the roof is open or closed. Great work by the way...
Thanks Avnish. I saw Medvedev vs Paul last night, and conditions still looked pretty quick to me. But this stuff is hard to quantify, especially mid tournament. The rule is generally, cooler evening conditions a bit lower bouncing, sunny daytime conditions a bit higher bouncing and lively
Do you think that traditional media is more important in drumming up interest in lower-ranked players who do not have a huge social media following? Also, how do you think the traditional media compares in importance to other sports? I remember how Southgate did that big press event where all the squad were made available pre-tournament and that seemed to create a real feel-good mood in the public - is press a bit more important in football?
On the first point, yes absolutely, and therein lies the risk of the biggest players boycotting press (ie reducing size of overall pie for journalists covering the sport and possibly hurting lower rung coverage). On the second, tennis has little access to players compared to many other sports, outside pressers there's basically no contact or exposure unless we're talking very small tournaments with less security and regimentation. Tennis probably needs to have a rethink about the ways it wants the press to have a dialogue with the players. Current pressers are not great
Last year, with the switch to Wilson balls during the French open, players were complaining about how slow and heavy the balls were. This year though, Medvedev has been saying that the Wilson balls are lighter and move faster through the air. Both can’t be true. I thought the Wilson balls helped him because of the lower bounce/ less top spin which would suit his flat game
Good question Aman, I agree it's been a bit confusing. But unfortunately players tend to differ so much when talking about court speed and balls, it's almost impossible to get any proper consensus. The ball was bouncing extremely high this year during daytime conditions, and much lower as you'd expect during night time conditions. They didn't seem to play much differently to my eye in the daytime compared to the babolats.
Don't sleep on Alcaraz on the men's side either. For the women's, Gauff is the most obvious (she's reached at least the 3rd round at every Slam now at the age of 17). Świątek has only just turned 20 so she would also qualify, although she's already so established. Vondoursova, Rybakina, Anisimova are all very exciting
I watched most of it, yeah. He's very candidly spoken about his drop off in motivation/form after winning that first Slam title last year at the US Open. He says 'something is different afterwards (video here: https://twitter.com/BastienFachan/status/1399043940305809409?s=20). His tennis is still there, but there is certainly an argument that he hasn't looked as hungry or desperate to win in big moments recently.
I think if people start judging Thiem on his own merits rather than benchmarking him against the big 3 (to which every comparison will always fall short, especially when it comes to consistency of results at Slams) the better. He still stands a great chance at having a very strong mid-late career (28-29 onwards) if he can stay fit and rediscover his motivation.
Djokovic and Federer both employ boutique analytics firms for this. And they'll use it more for some opponents than for others. Fed has been quoted as saying he likes to find a balance between playing with intuition and without too many numbers clogging up his head during matchplay, with knowing enough about his opponent and what strategy is optimal in certain moments. Nadal's position is less well known, as far as I know he doesn't use a specific firm and relies on data from the ATP, with Moya synthesising and relaying that information, but that could be outdated info.
As data analytics penetrated other sports, it revealed that there were major strategic mistakes being made. Walks were grossly underestimated in baseball. The value of the three-point shot was even more underestimated in basketball. This has transformed the game (not to my taste in basketball!). Analytics have come to tennis later. What are the strategic mistakes in tennis play being revealed? How will the game be transformed?
Such a great question tm. Potentially lots of areas. For e.g the efficacy and risk analysis of hitting two first serves for some players (ie Zverev, Kyrgios et al) who struggle with very low 2nd serve win %'s. Placement of serve+1 shot (ie hitting powerfully and deeply centrally may work better for some players that are making too many errors into the sidelines on that first aggressive shot of the rally. Perhaps the biggest one is that the elite players, Nadal and Djokovic in particular have started hitting much more powerful, yet still consistent, 2nd serves in the past few years to try and shorten points. The analysis for players to work out how much more powerfully they can hit that 2nd serve while keeping the double fault count low is likely something a lot of players would benefit from (many players hit their 2nd serves probably too conservatively). There are probably hundreds of similar insights that will subtly change how the game is played in years to come. Also depends on the tour, for example there's some decent research that suggests the speed of 1st serve (within standard ranges) has less of an impact on service points won on the men's tour than it does on the women's tour. Therefore serve placement is arguably more important on the men's tour and serve speed more important on the women's.
I thought Kyrgios's second serve ace was one of the finest on tour. And one of the fastest. Has often been known to win matches with it. Some days he double faults on it and loses (and gets accused of tanking) but sometimes it's brilliant. Zverev's serve is very patchy. Watched him fall apart at ATP Cup and was very sad for him. Anyhow, I presume your stats are more precise than my observation...
Hi 2nd serve win% hovers below 50% regularly, his avg for last 12 months of tennis played (ie mostly 2019) is 49% which is lower than pretty much every top big server. Funnily enough it's matches where he decides to hit two first serves that he has some of his best performances
Thanks, it'll be interesting to see. I was thinking that coming to the net might be one area. Currently there is a huge variability in how often players come in, what type of shot they hit, how they cover the net, etc. Also variability in how players respond to net play. Djokovic seems to use the lob much more frequently (and effectively) than Nadal (though stats might show I'm dead wrong). I feel it may be on these complex environments where the more sophisticated analytics will come into play. WHo knows?
Better analytics have been used by the top players for quite a few years now, but very little of it has filtered down to viewer/fan level yet.
what are essentially the differences between a regular in top 100 and a regular in top 10 interms of skill level?
Not much at all. Karatsev is one of the better examples of this, despite not being top ten, he's had top ten wins this year and is top ten in the ATP race to Turin, despite languishing well outside the top 100 before this year. And it's always amazing, regardless of whether it's a 17 year old or a mid-career guy like Karatsev, to watch those moments of belief materialise. The hard earned realisation that the gap between him and the elite is no longer so big, or even real. A player in the top 100 probably has about 98% of what the top 10 player has in terms of skill, ability & matchplay. But that extra 2% allowing the final leap is differently weighted. Work ethic, privilege, resources, luck, bit of extra talent here & there make that last 2% elusive as hell. That final 2% is built on top of a mix of hard to define intangibles, serendipity, borderline-psychopathic levels of hard work & focus, genetic luck, success-begets-success moats etc. TL;DR the difference is minute. Although the difference between the big 3 and a top 100 player is more pronounced.
Hi Matthew, I enjoy your analysis. I also wonder if there is something more one-dimensional about the game of folks outside the top 10 or even some folks that make it inside. Watching Gasquet or even Rublev, one a former and a current top 10er, and there's just a little something extra that seems to be missing--some creativity or ability to readjust their game within a match. On the other hand it's been super fun to watch Tsitsipas become a much more well-rounded player with many more weapons.
Thanks Canute. The answer is yes, and I'll try and write something on this topic soon
What are your thoughts on Berrettini's chances? He has had a good clay court season. With so many leading men out it seems like the only drama is Novak/Rafa (at best).
I'd put him as favourite vs Federer if they meet in the 4th rd, but then an underdog vs Djokovic in possible quarterfinal
Hi Matt. Thanks for a great newsletter and lots of perspectives that are very handy for a new-ish tennis fan such as myself. Society in general (and therefore also tennis) is very concerned with responsibility and accountability: Players, associations and very much journalists these days. But what about the fans? What is, if any, the responsibility of the modern tennis fan in search of a more equal, sustainable sport in your view?
What a great question Martin. I'll come back to this as I need to think about it some more.
I really enjoyed your piece on Osaka last week. Hadn't thought about the direct to audience relationship in that way before. With that in mind, do you think all members of the media need to think about that dynamic?
Great question Tilly, and thanks. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between legacy press journalists and promotional media (which both fall under 'media' but serve two completely different purposes). The latter, things like creating fun content around players during tournaments, has more of a place than ever in 2021. The former, traditional press built partially around press conferences on site, needs to be acutely aware of how much less useful they are for the elite players than a decade or more ago. Legacy press is still important, but the number of direct channels that viewers/fans get their information from is just infinitely more diverse nowadays, and controlled by players/stars. The top press publications will be fine, but smaller ones will probably continue to struggle (being a small to mid rank tennis journalists was already a brutally badly paid job even before this mess) unless the press role within tournaments and around players is rethought somewhat.
Matt - you have written extensively about Nadal's strength on clay being short ball dominance. Can this be attributed predominantly on his physical strength, i.e. being able to hit the ball through the court & opponent on this surface, when nobody else can?
Partially yes. When he was in his physical prime he was as good at extending and winning long points as anyone in history. But certainly in his late career his ability, largely via his forehand, to damage opponents early in the point is a huge trump card over most of the rest of the tour. It's just as much strength based as it is raw shotmaking ability though. His forehand is technically-speaking not an easy shot to hit, let alone as well as he does.
What is it about Isner's game that gets him embroiled in marathon matches and tiebreakers?
I like this question because it's easy to answer. A huge serve and a poor return game is a perfect recipe for long tiebreaker matches. Higher chance of playing maximum 12 games in each set plus a breaker.
"Easy question" not as good as "great question" but I'll take it. So the likelihood increases because servebotting--er, big serving generates enough holds of serve to push sets to 6-6
Another question, why do you think there aren't many younger TV commentators in tennis? For example, in other sports (basketball, american football), many former players go straight from retirement to TV commentators. In the U.S., the highest profile ones are probably still McEnroe and Carillo. Seems like many choose to go the coach or Tournament Director side instead. Feel like it would be interesting to get some recently retired players as they could connect more with the modern game and may have even played a lot of the players they are commenting on.
I'll come back to this one. Good question
A few recently retired players (Gilles Muller, Tamira Paszek) have been popping up on the world feed and doing a really good job. But it's incredible the degree to which tennis broadcasting in the US is associated with John McEnroe - wouldn't be so bad if he were better at his job, but alas...
With Federer commenting how clay is not really that slow and Medvedev suddenly falling in love with the clay in Paris - is it safe enough to say that, at least this year, the courts are indeed playing much faster?
But also, modern clay isn't a slow surface. Poly strings and modern racquets have made it an incredibly offensive surface at the elite level compared to 30-40 years ago
Tough to say given small sample size, and Isner and Opelka both losing today. Will know more in week 2, but yeah there are small indications (especially around Medvedev's service game performance) that suggest the courts are playing quite quick
Any insight into the choice of seedings? Why didn't FO place Nadal at 2 given his history and stature, or are seedings only based in rankings now? Unless I'm mistaken and it was someone else, I think it was you who wrote a great piece about how the seedings have been manipulated over the years (possibly for TV and sponsor motivations). Do you think they might have worked the 'Big 3' into the same half pf the draw to make sure Federer gets far enough to play ome of the others?
They don't manipulate seedings for tv rating benefit. And Wimbledon recently scrapped their surface specific seeding formula on the men's side from 2021 onwards because they no longer deemed it necessary to separate grass form from hard/clay form. There is an argument that Roland Garros should have clay specific rankings, but given clay just about occupies enough of the calendar (at around 30%) I'm not sure it's really needed (this year is a bit of an anomaly because of frozen rankings from COVID). The current calendar does indeed favour hard court players (about 65% of the season), therefore presenting the possibility that a very good hard courter could be seeded unrepresentatively high on clay or grass. But the argument against specific surface seedings is that modern players are good enough on all three surfaces, none of which play as differently to one another as they did in the 90's.
Interesting Matt. I juwt wonder whether Nadal should be higher due to this surface- and tournament-specific rorm and history. We'll see how it pans out, gives others a chance I suppose.
As for draw fixing, I was drawn to it by learning thta UEFA has 'TV pairings', so two big teams from the same country are kept apart in halves of the draws. It led me on to this: www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/knowledgebank/Tennisdraws_Katarina_Pijetlovic.pdf
This is just a study. Maybe it's just the luck of the draw. I have read comments about Nadal having easy draws all the time so it's probably just confirmation bias either way.
Are you using your knowledge to win via betting?
Nope, I don't bet on tennis
Hello Matthew. Unfortunately have no time whatsoever for any comment/question to you these days, other than to quickly acknowledge that you hardly could have picked a better timing for The Racquet relaunch a little over a month ago, from my point of view. Professional tennis and professional tennis players truly seem/feel at a turning point, don't they? Greatly appreciate your key contribution to our following/understanding the definitely evolving times for professional tennis both as a professional sport and for professional tennis players, and this in the definitely evolving times at numerous levels worldwide. Best
Thanks Bergo. I agree, tennis is at an extremely important point in its life, and unfortunately some important decisions are being made on the back of post-covid financial results. The next 5 years, and how it evolves, is huge for this sport
Hi Matt! Love your insight on Twitter and in The Racquet. Out of curiosity, how did you become interested in tennis and what got you into providing such detailed match insight? Also, on a slightly unrelated note, do you think that tennis may finally depart from some of its archaic traditions given the rise of activist stars like Osaka in the sport (prime example being how the Slams are finally having a discussion surrounding mental health following Osaka's boycott, withdrawal, and the email she sent to the RG organizers)?
Thanks SP. I've played since I was 5 and played competitively at university. Started watching when I was about 12 I think. The more I played and watched the more I wanted to go deeper into the strategy side of it. Yes I think tennis is slowly but surely shedding some of its less necessary traditions. The next 5 years for this sport, and how it evolves, is enormously important.
If I remember right, you also play recreationally? What's your preferred racquet/string setup?
I play with Wilson blade 18x20's with alu power on both mains and crosses at 57lb's of tension
Hey Matt! Who do you think is best primed for an upset for the upcoming round 3 so far?
Hi Matt, before the event there was a lot of talk about seeding, particularly Nadal being seeded behind Medvedev given their clay court seasons/prowess and its effect on delivering a top heavy draw. Given all the analytics at our disposal (e.g. ELO), what are your thoughts on seedings continuing to be based solely on ranking (except at Wimbledon)?
I don't think we normally need clay specific rankings during normal ranking times given clay just about occupies enough of the calendar, although to be honest I wouldn't mind much either way. The biggest issue is that the rankings have been all over the place due to temporary COVID policy
Bit of a strange question but here goes - I feel like the usually ineffective tennis governance framework has been even more under the spotlight this year. No domestic abuse policies, general PTPA havoc, appalling treatment of umpires going unpunished, the whole quarantining saga at Australia (players complaining non stop), and now the way the GS have responded to Naomi… so many missteps in the past year or two! Feeling deeply frustrated at the sport I love and wondered if you had thoughts on 1) if and how this can improve, and 2) how you personally avoid the drama and just try to enjoy the game (fwiw)
Good question. I'll come back to this one when I've got a bit more time this weekend
I think you might have mentioned the quality of Thiem's kick serve this week. Watching a bit of Kohlschreiber and Cuevas today they both seem to have good kick serves too. Is there some sort of correlation with having one-handed bhs?
Great question. The answer is I don't know for sure. There's no mechanical/technique reason why that would be the case, and there are plenty of double handers with good kick serves (Isner, Raonic et al). But I'll have a think about it
When do you think the younger greats will take on top ATP rankings?
Either this or next year
I would have many questions but the one on my mind right now is this : how common do you think doping is in tennis? I'm usually quite optimistic on this matter but talking with friends had me wondering about it recently.
Lots of conspiracies about doping, and it's sort of fashionable to make off-hand remarks that of course all sports are dirty, implying some hidden, cynical knowledge that everyone else must be naive not to agree with. But until something is proven, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the sport is clean. All the top men and women are somewhere close to the line RE recovery methods, but they, for the most part, know how to not cross that line.
Do you think Nadal should have hired a new coach/added someone else after 2011, like Novak has done throughout his career? His 2nd serve speed was just 136kph in the AO 2012 Final which Djokovic exploited profoundly, something he had done in 2011 as well? If not 2011, then 2015? Wasn't 2017 a bit too late? Wasn't he a bit too conservative in that aspect?
I'm not sure serve speed was a problem in those prime matches between Nadal and Djokovic. Under Toni, Nadal hit the fastest serves of his career at the 2010 US Open, but they both acknowledged that serving that big into Djokovic when he's playing well can actually backfire and produce harder serve +1 shots (ie Djokovic returns so well off the faster serve that Nadal had less time to react for his 2nd shot after the serve). If Nadal's prime was 2007-2014 ish, and he had a year in the wilderness for 2015 where no coach would have made much of a difference to his game, then I'm not sure Moya would ever have come on board any earlier. It took one bad season in 2016, although still riddled with injuries, to prompt Toni leaving and Moya starting, so I'm not sure why rafa would have looked to another coach earlier than he did. The last season he was fit & confident (at least partially) before he hired Moya, was 2014, and he was challenging for the biggest titles in the first half of that season (was unlucky not to have won AO and RG that year)
I dunno. In the 2010 US Open Rafa won 21 out of 22 sets, dropping one set to Djokovic in the final (and this is just months before Novak begins his epic 2011 run). It's his best hard court major in his career. I know that Rafa and Toni said it could backfire but I feel the evidence contradicts this. We've seen that since 2017 when Moya convinced Rafa to increase his service speed, Rafa's service game winning percentage has gone way up. It's also true that by increasing his service speed Djokovic's service game winning percentage has gone up. It's true that nothing is a magic bullet against Djokovic's return, but I'm sure that Djokovic prefers a slower serve to a faster one. As a huge Rafa fan, I think the 2011-16 period of giving up on improving the service was a costly error
Nadal's win rate vs Djokovic on hard courts is no better with Moya than it was in the few years beforehand. In fact in the 2019 AO final, where Nadal was serving big, Djokovic had one of his best returning days in their entire matchup history.I also don't think lumping in 2011-2016 with that logic makes sense. Nadal was beating Djokovic on hard courts in 2013, and he wasn't serving bigger than ever in those matches. Placement, and variation, of serve is almost certainly more important for Nadal in that matchup than raw speed.
What kind of adjustments do players have to make when they transition from clay to grass season ?
Great question Ellen. I'll come back to this one when I've got a bit more time this weekend.
This is regarding Stef and Zverev being in the open half of the draw. Do you think the clear path ahead benefits both of their runs? Or are they at a disadvantage (just like Thiem and Zverev in USO final and their nerves) at such an unique oppurtunity? Curious to see your take on this considering you would very well know their mental strengths and how they approach things.
I don't think the fact they don't have to play either of Nadal or Djokovic in the semi's is a disadvantage, no. But either could very easily trip up before that stage, Zverev (if he makes it through his usual gauntlet of unnecessary 5 setters) may have to play Ruud, and Tsitsipas may have to play medvedev (who looks to suddenly have found some clay form). That's certainly the most likely semi (Zverev vs Tsitsipas) though, and I think both will view the top heavy draw as an opportunity rather than a pressure-heavy disadvantage.
Hi Matt, how do you think the "Osaka-gate" ha been managed, both by press and by Slams?
Good question Massimiliano. Badly, mainly. Some press have intelligently used it as a moment to self reflect, and start discussions around whether the media's current role in tournaments could be evolved. Other (usually more traditional) parts of the press have taken an extremely defensive stance and criticised Osaka for making them the 'bad guys'. While I completely understand why those taking a defensive position are doing so (tennis journalists are badly paid and there's a lot wrong with it as a job in 2021 for many of them), the self reflection is certainly the more productive route to take. Especially given how fast media in general, but specifically around sports, is and has already changed. As for the Slams, my view is that their response was heavy handed and created a far bigger shitstorm than they probably intended and needed. The justification for such a heavy handed response, ie all four Slam's threatening suspension of Osaka, would be to discourage others from doing the same. But I have a very hard time believing that threat was real enough considering 1. Very few players can afford to eat the 'missing press' fines, and 2. not one player when interviewed supported Osaka's press boycott, in fact most players acknowledged the importance of the press in tennis. Overall I think all sides messed up in this from a communications perspective, although given how weird the world is and has been recently, a lot of what unfolded was probably less surprising than it seemed.
Regarding your point 2) Kyrgios re-posted Osaka's second statement on anxiety and depression with a profound 'thankyou' on instagram. Watching him live over the past 18 months I would guess he suffers from extreme anxiety the moment he walks on let alone what he feels during press conferences. He was one of the few players referenced in press articles about Osaka's move and all references were profoundly negative. Being a male, poc, with similar issues to Osaka (and one of her great supporters) - does this make it even harder for him to survive on a court. And why he dreads media conferences - and is this a vicious cycle for players?
It may well do, yes. I have a tough time trying to analyse players' mental states, and tbh I try to stay away from doing so. But there are also significant differences to how Osaka and Kyrgios' demons present themselves. Hopefully both make it back to the sport ASAP with renewed peace of mind.
Agree. I feel it is extremely unfair of us - fans, media, armchair sports psychologists - to publicly give our opinions on these young people's mental states! Includes me. We (our friends/family) would love to see Nick back at Stuttgart but he is only listed as an alt and may find it hard to go back anywhere where he was fined (which is most places...)
Yeah, I agree with you. Two topics, out of this whole situation, came out, in my humble opinion, as fundamental ones:
1) As you mentioned, it can be a starting point to discuss about media and press engagement in sports nowadays. Press/media system can not be considered as a unique entity: all journalists are bad, all journalists are good. It's obvious that there are good and bad ones, as in every other jobs.
2) Mental health in tennis, and in sport generally. Athletes are not machines, they have feelings as every other human. If a 23 year old young tennis player writes on socials a note like that, there's something going on inside her. She probably could have chosen a better timing, she could have used different words and terms but she expressed the way she felt in that precise moment. I mean, being 23 years is such a young age in "common world" (I'm 31 btw): you cannot expect her to be like a steel body, that can react to anything and can be harmed from nothing. I've always felt she was such a shy and introverted person (maybe because I'm too): the headphones, the proxemics, the way she express.... But nevertheless she somehow overcame her inner feelings and became who she is: a tennis champion and a huge voice against social issues. Tennis needs her and the world needs her. Slams should have use a different way to show their authority. Maybe the media/press indirectly forced them.
I don't know oc Kyrgios, but I think he has undergone a difficult childhood. His outbursts, his controversial past behaviours come from something else. Yet I think he is one of the best guys on Tour.
Another case is Paire and his game in the last months.
I wrote too much.... I'm not a psychologist and I don't want to judge people I am not related with. But a tennis fan and player that thinks that this situation could have been managed better.
Hey Matt , i wanted to ask about conditions, but i see you have answered it already, yeah , great work as always. Thanks.
Thanks!
Hey Matt this is a great blog and a great mailbag. My question - how good of a mover is Medvedev on clay? The guy can slide, right? But I haven't really paid much attention to how he comes out of corners/ recovers etc... wondering what your take is? Cheers!
I think he moves well, and up until he arrived in Paris he was probably selling his movement short on this surface. He certainly moves better on hard courts as the greater friction allows easier stopping power and he can rebound back to the centre of the court more effortlessly than the extra strength (core and leg) it requires to slide on clay and then push off back to centre with less secure footing. But he's moved really well in his first few matches in Paris vs Bublik and Paul (he was very, very good vs Paul last night).
Hello Matt, love your work. What do you think about the Nadal’s level in 2021 so far? In fact, he won 2 tournaments without playing his best. His level on clay seems more volatile this year and less consistant. Against Djokovic, he was playing two great sets, but he dropped his level without any explanations during the second. Same in some matches (Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, Zverev, Popyrin etc.). What are your thoughts about his draw in the FO? Do you think it’s an advantage to Djokovic to face Nadal in the SF? How do you analysis this potential match between both? In my opinion, it’s a very strange year for Nadal. Yeah, congrats, 2 titles without playing his best, but paradoxically, no guarantee according his level.
I don't think Nadal's clay level is much different to his last couple of years. In 2019 he played poorly against fognini in Monte Carlo and in Barcelona before ripping it up in Rome and RG. In 2020 he played poorly in Rome and off his best in the early rounds of RG before ripping it in the final vs Djokovic. This year he's had similar struggles but still won Barcelona (beating form clay player Tsitsi) and rome (beating his biggest rival).
Yeah I think Novak would prefer to meet rafa in the semi's rather than the final. But until Nadal gives a reason to believe he's even remotely beatable in Paris, he's still the heavy favourite. Could be this year, could be in 2023
Thanks for your answer. So for you, there is no trend for the Nadal's level? The masterclass the last year in the final was not an isolated case for you?
The final last year was really just an indication of the big three all being post-prime. All of them can still find their best tennis in parts of the season, but less consistently than they once could. And as they get older that consistently will get worse and worse. So yeah, I could see the argument that nadal is worse in 2021 than 2018 for eg, and I probably agree with it. But that doesn't mean he and the other two won't be able to find those magic performances when they need them
Why do tournaments suck at scheduling? Like RG putting Tsonga’s likely the last match in Paris the last of the day where no crowds are allowed in, or Rome putting players who had long match night session the day before, on day session the next day.
Scheduling is a harder problem than it may look from the outside. RG has broadcasting obligations for certain matches due to a new deal with Prime video this year, and some player requests that aren't known by the public result in confusing decsions from the perspective of outsiders and understandable decisions from the perspective of those running the tournament. For eg everyone got angry that Carla Suarez Navarro was put on the night slot for her last match at Roland Garros, but there's speculation it was her preference. Similar for Tsonga playing with no crowd, a night or so ago, while it was strange to see a frenchman in an empty stadium, the prime evening streaming/TV audience in france would have been higher than an earlier slot. RE rome, yeah their scheduling is awful and unfair to one half of the draw, but it's also partially because of TV/broadcasters. So while I agree with you, and there are instances where tournaments should do better, it's also a tougher problem than it looks with lots of competing motivations.
Thanks for such detailed reply! And I appreciate your work and tweets Matt!
How do you fancy Nadal's chances Wimbledon this year?
I think he's 2nd favourite behind Djokovic right now. But if Federer plays well in Paris and in the grass warmups then I'd bump Nadal to 3rd.
Why do tournaments change the balls that they use? Do they take into account how it plays?
Good question Philip. The answer is money, sponsorship contracts and the fragmentation of tennis. Each tournament is free to strike deals with ball partners, although recently there has been some consistency for the benefit of players (the US Open series events will all use the Wilson US Open ball for example, which wasn't the case pre 2020 when Cincy and Canada both used the Penn balls which played completely differently to the Wilsons). We still have bizarre inconsistency though, for example all the clay warmups are played with Dunlops and then switch to Wilson's (previously Babolat) for Roland Garros. This is the kind of thing a hypothetical players union would have more power to change, but for now money trumps any concern about how tough it is for players to switch from ball to ball injury and shot-timing wise. The situation now is certainly better than it was a few years ago though, with Dunlop having a greater share of the season overall (Australian swing, clay swing, Asian, indoor swing & ATP finals), ensuring at least a bit more consistency than previous years.
Hi Matt. Congrats for the wonderful NL.
A couple of questions for you:
1) which kind of Sinner’s result in 2021 would make you think “ok, he’s ready”? A Slam SF or F, maybe?
2) what are the best sites to gather and analyze stats about tennis matches?
Thanks Danilo.
1. Ready for what? To win Slams? To be top 10, top 5? Let me know and I'll come up with an answer.
2. Great question, unfortunately very few! Tennis Abstract is great but has many holes. The official ATP site has 2nd screen data (https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/second-screen/archive/2021/416/MS001) which has things like return and serve positions, spin rates, unreturned serves etc. And each of the Slams have their own arrangement with IBM, infosys etc. Unfortunately most of the good data lives behind the ATP's wall or behind boutique data analysis companies. And the WTA is somehow significantly worse in this regard and doesn't even publish the most basic of stats for public consumption.
Apologies for the late response.
Yeah, probably ready to win a Slam. Or ready to potentially win a Slam (which I find different).
Reaching a Slam final in a tough draw is usually the big sign for me, unless there are a string of open draws in a row
Thanks Matthew. And again, huge congrats for your work: it’s sublime.
Idk if I've never paid attention to it before or it's been happening more but ever since the covid break I've noticed a lot of thigh (?) injuries for players. Why is that such a common injury for tennis players?
It's a good question nawal, but the only speculation I have is that an inability to play and practice as much proper matchplay while in lockdown or quarantine meant that some players lost some conditioning in their thighs. The thighs work as hard as any muscles in the body during a tennis match and no off-court practice or workout is going to be able to realistically reproduce or replace the dynamic and varied movement that players put their bodies through in proper matchplay on court. It's a guess, but not sure there will be any definitive answers on this topic tbh. Hard thing to measure.
What do you think about the conditions this year? Is it right to compare it to Madrid conditions maybe?
And who do you think the changes favour in terms of playing styles?
Thank you
Great question Hann. The conditions talk this year is really interesting. Medvedev has described suddenly being able to play his game in Paris having not being able to do so in any other clay event this season:
“As soon as I came here, these balls are much lighter. They go faster in the air, so that’s why I can make them also drop faster before the baseline.”
And this is backed up by his serving figures:
Medvedev 1st serve pts won last 12 months on hard court: 79%
Medvedev 1st serve pts won last 12 months on clay: 66%
-13% drop off from hard to clay
But in his first two rounds in Paris he's won 79% and 80% of his first serve points, far higher than his 12 month average for clay. I'll put together some numbers for a Racquet issue at the end of the tournament featuring a wider sample of players and matches, as it's still too early to say either way definitively, but early signs do look like either the clay composition or balls may be more conducive to bigger servers this year.
I was going to ask something along the same lines, but am also interested in the conditions with the roof. I've not caught any of the night matches so not sure if matches have been played with the roof open or closed. Do you have any comments regarding this? My reference is mostly other hard court tournaments where the conditions tend to differ greatly depending on whether the roof is open or closed. Great work by the way...
Thanks Avnish. I saw Medvedev vs Paul last night, and conditions still looked pretty quick to me. But this stuff is hard to quantify, especially mid tournament. The rule is generally, cooler evening conditions a bit lower bouncing, sunny daytime conditions a bit higher bouncing and lively
Do you think that traditional media is more important in drumming up interest in lower-ranked players who do not have a huge social media following? Also, how do you think the traditional media compares in importance to other sports? I remember how Southgate did that big press event where all the squad were made available pre-tournament and that seemed to create a real feel-good mood in the public - is press a bit more important in football?
On the first point, yes absolutely, and therein lies the risk of the biggest players boycotting press (ie reducing size of overall pie for journalists covering the sport and possibly hurting lower rung coverage). On the second, tennis has little access to players compared to many other sports, outside pressers there's basically no contact or exposure unless we're talking very small tournaments with less security and regimentation. Tennis probably needs to have a rethink about the ways it wants the press to have a dialogue with the players. Current pressers are not great
Last year, with the switch to Wilson balls during the French open, players were complaining about how slow and heavy the balls were. This year though, Medvedev has been saying that the Wilson balls are lighter and move faster through the air. Both can’t be true. I thought the Wilson balls helped him because of the lower bounce/ less top spin which would suit his flat game
Good question Aman, I agree it's been a bit confusing. But unfortunately players tend to differ so much when talking about court speed and balls, it's almost impossible to get any proper consensus. The ball was bouncing extremely high this year during daytime conditions, and much lower as you'd expect during night time conditions. They didn't seem to play much differently to my eye in the daytime compared to the babolats.
Don't sleep on Alcaraz on the men's side either. For the women's, Gauff is the most obvious (she's reached at least the 3rd round at every Slam now at the age of 17). Świątek has only just turned 20 so she would also qualify, although she's already so established. Vondoursova, Rybakina, Anisimova are all very exciting
I watched most of it, yeah. He's very candidly spoken about his drop off in motivation/form after winning that first Slam title last year at the US Open. He says 'something is different afterwards (video here: https://twitter.com/BastienFachan/status/1399043940305809409?s=20). His tennis is still there, but there is certainly an argument that he hasn't looked as hungry or desperate to win in big moments recently.
I think if people start judging Thiem on his own merits rather than benchmarking him against the big 3 (to which every comparison will always fall short, especially when it comes to consistency of results at Slams) the better. He still stands a great chance at having a very strong mid-late career (28-29 onwards) if he can stay fit and rediscover his motivation.
Djokovic and Federer both employ boutique analytics firms for this. And they'll use it more for some opponents than for others. Fed has been quoted as saying he likes to find a balance between playing with intuition and without too many numbers clogging up his head during matchplay, with knowing enough about his opponent and what strategy is optimal in certain moments. Nadal's position is less well known, as far as I know he doesn't use a specific firm and relies on data from the ATP, with Moya synthesising and relaying that information, but that could be outdated info.