Claudia's Round-Table Discussion, Part Two: Which Was Best In 2009?

claudia celestial girlDec 11, 2009

This is Part Two of our round table discussion of the top ten matches of the year. Joining me are antiMatter, Marianne Bevis, and Rajat Jain.

Folks, I included feedback from the readers' poll from Part One to formulate the following list, using our Top Five and then another five from the Honorable Mentions List, as voted by the readers. Notice that some of the matches are linked to URLs of write-ups of these matches by some of our panel.

Using those top five choices from the poll, the top ten will be as follows (in time order):

Oz semi, [Nadal v Verdasco]
Oz Open final [Nadal vs Fed]
Indian Wells Nadal vs Nalbandian
Madrid semi, [Nadal v Djokovic]
Rome Final, Nadal vs Djokovic
FO r16, Fed vs Haas
FO semis Soderling vs Gonzalez
Wimbledon semi Roddick vs Murray
Wimbledon final [Fed vs Roddick]
US Open final [Delpo vs Fed]

TOP NEWS

Bleacher Report1w

Bleacher Report1w

With Jayson Tatum sidelined, Celtics' fourth-quarter comeback falls short in Game 7 loss to 76ers

Bleacher Report1w

Honorable Mention List (time-order) - drawn from our original lists:

Davis Cup semi Stepaneck v Karlovic
Wimbledon 4th round [ Cilic – Haas]
Wimb R16 Murray v Wawrinka
Wimb QF Haas v Djokovic
US Open 2nd Round [ Dent – Navarro ]
US Open semi, Djokovic v Fed
Shanghai semi, Davydenko v Djokovic
Paris semi Monfils v Stepaneck
Paris final Djokovic v Monfils
World Tour Finals Semis [ Del Potro – Soderling ]
Davis Cup finals [Ferrer vs Stepanek]
Aegeon Masters [Stephan Edberg vs Pat Rafter]

Discussion :

CCG: Please pick a match from the above you want to discuss.

aM: Nadal/Djokovic Madrid is my favorite.

CCG: So aM , based on its shot-making quality, how would you score this match? Surely clay allows easier ground stroke execution and more elaborate point constructions; but clay is also a war of attrition. What do you think of the match based on the ferocity of play, volume of improbable shots, and the ability of one to wear down the other?

aM: Claudia , the match saw one of the finest games of the year—the finest clay court tennis perhaps. Moreover this was the match where the Nadal-killing strategy was set by Djokovic. So ground strokes were great not only from an execution point of view, but also from a strategic perspective.

CCG: What do you mean by the ‘Nadal-killing’ strategy?

aM: Djokovic used angled flat strokes on both flanks forcing Nadal to take strokes with lot less set-up. Especially on the backhand Nadal is troubled a lot with these exchanges. Having a great backhand, Djokovic can easily plunder the cross court top-spin forehands that Nadal hits when stretched on the that side.

CCG: I would argue with you that the Rome final between these two represented a finer exhibition of great tennis, though Novak faded away in the third set in Rome. I would score the Rome final higher in terms of the volume of improbable shot category, higher for virtuosity for being a clinic in great clay court tennis on both sides of the net, and also for ferocity. Do any of the rest of you agree?

CCG: The difference between Rome and Madrid? The extraordinary length of the Madrid match that made both dig into reserves of will (or something) that transcended the physical aspect of the sport, and also an evolving strategy from Novak. I think you may be right about the Nadal-killing strategy. Interesting because the backhand was such a weapon in the AO against Federer.

aM: The strategy was to make Nadal hit a forehand on the run wide off the court. His reply is normally a top-spin forehand cross court (he sometimes employs the down the line pass, but that is not every single time). Djokovic with a solid two handed backhand could punch the ball that sits up so effectively for a down the line raw flat ground stroke.

aM: Nadal’s backhand is a bit of a question mark when he is forced to bend down on his knees and reach for a flat pacy shot. In AO, on the other hand, he could deal with higher balls at hip level or even shoulder level. Roger Federer especially has a weakness between his BH and Nadal’s BH. This strategy hence might not be for him, but for people who have strong two-handed backhands.

aM: I am not so sure about the Rome finals. Do not remember the match clearly.

CCG: Did you see that Novak has said that after the Madrid loss he decided that he needed to go back to being "himself?" That the "seriousness and discipline" needed to win at the highest level was not enough? [Novak Djokovic: Joking Apart at the London Times Online]

CCG: I would also say that both of these matches on clay were better than the Nalbandian match at Indian Wells. Would you agree or disagree? David played great, and Rafa indifferently, until the second set tie-break. Then in the third set, Nalbandian played like a broken man, and Rafa on fire. It was less toe-to-toe great tennis from start to finish.

Marianne: I pick the shanghai final with Davydenko and Djokovic.

Marianne: In Kuala Lumpur, Davydenko took out Gael Monfils, Robin Soderling, and Fernando Verdasco on his way to that title. But it was in Shanghai that he ripped apart the games of the two best players in the tournament: Novak Djokovic in the semis, and Rafael Nadal in the final. The manner in which he did so was a timely reminder of what scintillating tennis the Russian can produce.

Marianne: The stand-out match was his defeat of Djokovic—and it foreshadowed an equally tight and exhausting battle between the two when they met at the Tour End Finals in London. On both occasions, Davydenko deployed hard, penetrating, technically-efficient ground strokes to open up the court with surgical precision, and then injected killer shots down the line or cross-court.

Marianne: After failing to convert three break points in the first set in Shanghai, Davydenko upped his aggressive play in the second with well-placed serves, power-play from the baseline, and a rapidly-improving net game. He converted one of two break points in the seventh game and so took the encounter to a deciding set.

Marianne: Davydenko then fought off three break points in the sixth game of the third set, winning five points in a row for 3-3. Djokovic also saved two break points in the next game before the match went to a final set tie-break.

Marianne: Davydenko has been criticised in the past for the occasional lack of mental toughness. Shanghai turned that on its head, with him not only winning the tie-breaker against Djokovic—he took the match 4-6, 6-4, 7-6 after more than three hours of play—but winning a first set tie-breaker against Nadal the next day.

Marianne: It is his ability to pierce shot after shot at remarkable trajectories, acute angles, and penetrating pace that sets his tennis alight. It is also why he has maintained such an enviable record in the men’s rankings. Davydenko has been in the Top 20 for little short of five years. For much of that time, he has been in the Top Five. The Shanghai win made 2009 his most successful title year since 2006. But he went on to top even that with his best ever result, the title at the Tour End Finals.

CCG: Wow! OK, I’ve put it on the list. And to make room for it, I’ve removed the Nadal Nalbandian match from Indian Wells, for the reasons discussed above.

aM : The Wimbley match between Andy and Mandy showed a lot of things. One that Mandy gets too passive against first strikers and gets into trouble when they are on the go. It showed a lot of things about the improved Roddick—great court coverage, a very improved backhand, and better attacking instincts on return of serve. And it proved that Roddick is amongst the big boys.

aM: The Wawrinka Murray match was the tighter match with many beautiful exchanges—especially backhand to backhand where normally, nowadays the two-hander wins. It is interesting to note that Wawrinka won a good number of those exchanges against “the best backhand today.” The single hander is a delight to watch, especially when it hits the bulls eye. And that is perhaps the reason that the match went the distance.

CCG: Hmmm. So which do we pick for the top ten? Great reasons for both to be on the Honorable Mention list, at a minimum.

Rajat: I pick the Dent/Navarro match. I watched the full match and here are my justifications on why it should be among the Top 10.

Scoreline: 6-4 5-7 6-7 7-5 7-6(9)—no set was close. Fifth set TB that went till 11-9. VERY THRILLING match.
Quality: Winners/Unforced—Dent (121/50) and Navarro (70/22). Now there are AMAZING statistics! Both were very very aggressive throughout the match.
Pure all-out serve/volley! In an era where people have stopped approaching the net, these people played an all-out s/v match never fearing to approach the net, and taking out stunning volleys (not just mundane ones). The serving was very high quality as well. Net approaches: Dent (75/109) and Navarro (91/146) – which makes it 69% and 62% net points won — which is VERY high number. Sampras at his peak usually had 70% net points won.
Dent’s comeback. The guy was injured for most part of his career and made an excellent comeback serving lights out at 140+ consistently. This deserves to be seen.
Night match (okay, weak point, but just mentioned for the sake of completeness).

CCG: I don’t remember it very well (in the US, it was not televised in full), but I certainly think, according to the criteria, that it belongs in the Top Ten based on this description, probably more so than the Nadal/Nalbandian match. This match did not receive many votes on the poll, but since this is our round-table, I’m willing to throw the Dent/Navarro match into the discussion.

CCG: Question for the rest of you—does it belong in the top ten? Approximately where? Which match do we throw out in order to put this one in?

Rajat: I think the Fed/Haas match from the FO should not qualify in the Top 10 of these best matches. We are only talking about this match due to that one shot Fed pulled at “virtual” match point down. Otherwise the quality of the match was pretty poor: Federer was away for most part of the first three sets, and then Haas choked after Federer won the third. Apart from that one shot, I really see no reason why this should qualify as Top 10.

CCG: I sort of agree that Fed seemed more asleep than brilliant until match point down. And then Haas couldn’t hold it together. I liked Haas’ performance up until that point. Here’s the score of the Haas/Fed FO match: 6–7(4), 5–7, 6–4, 6–0, 6–2 — 2.5 sets of lousy tennis (not competitive) vs 2.5 sets of very good match play from Haas?

CCG: Can either of you give a more quantitative rationale for the greatness of this match? What makes this match different from/better than the Rome semi between Fed and Djokovic except that Roger lost (4–6, 6–3, 6–3)? Novak was playing better tennis than Haas, IMHO, Roger was keeping up with him, and Marianne has admitted to the "virtuosity" of that match also.

CCG: This match, for me, is similar to the Nadal/Nalbandian Indian Wells match where Rafa fought off five match points, but it didn’t represent brilliant’ tennis because he was struggling with confidence up until that point. Or the Fed/Brydich match at the AO second round—Fed is sleeping until match point down in the third set.

Marianne: We’ve talked at length about what makes a great match and it amounts to more than 100 percent virtuosity throughout. This had virtuosity on the Haas side for the first two and half sets. Admittedly he lost it in the fourth, but he fought like a tiger in the fifth, and the whole “what was at stake”, close to losing, how their styles match up made it, for me, a highlight of the year.

Marianne : I stand by it, and my arguments are discussed more completely in this article: Round-Table Best of 2009, Contender: Federer vs Haas, French Open .

CCG: OK, the Federer versus Haas match stays. To make room for the Dent/Navarro match I’m going to move the Rome final to the Honorable Mention list, for the reasons discussed above.

Rajat: I would rank the DelPo/Soderling as one of the Top 10 matches of the year. It was close and exciting. The quality was high, the serving from both sides were unbelievable, plus the indoor stadium added that theatrical effect with the serves and forehands creating those thumping sounds. I agree the quality of rallies at times may not be that great as compared to others, but the serving, forehands and those exquisite winners (there was one Del Potro cross court forehand, another backhand down-the-line). The way Soderling won the game by hitting three aces and two service winners after being 0-40 down—that was sheer excitement!

CCG: OK, but if we add Delpo/Soderling to the Top 10, we have to take one out. How did this match compare with Soderling vs Gonzalez in the FO? It sounds like we are moving the Soderling/Gonzalez match to the Honorable Mention list. How about the USO Final? Where does it fit?

Marianne: My concern with this match was that it was an atypical Federer who, unlike the Wimbledon final, or the Haas French match, deteriorated rather than rallying and coming back with renewed strength. That gave Del Potro both a psychological and physical edge, and he took advantage. But as for quality on both sides, I’m not sure that stands up.

Marianne: By the time the final was played, Federer had had less than a day to recover from his semi because of a late switch in scheduling the day before. He was showing signs of tiredness (hardly surprising with two babies in the hotel). Rarely has his serve been so erratic, not to say poor: 50 percent first serve success, with 11 double faults against just 13 aces. He let numerous break opportunities pass him by: took just five out of 22.

Marianne: And how often have we seen him find it so difficult to contain his frustration and maintain the usual focus? He was clearly getting less focused and more tired through the fifth set, hitting a huge volume of wide ground strokes: 15 against four winners in just eight games. The difference between this and the Oz open (where he also finished poorly) was the number of overall errors and poor serving. So I’d have to put the Oz one above the US one.

CCG: Well, someone on b/r has already written that we'll see more of Federer not being able to complete a five-setter with the same vigor as when he started (Competitive Observations from ATP WTF in London ), and this same article predicts that Delpo will never lose to Federer again. Delpo demonstrated that once he got started, then like a tanker in the ocean, he was hard to turn around. His power game overwhelmed Roger, for reasons including those that you discussed, Marianne . So this match might represent a benchmark against which future eras will be measured—a turning point in the power game of men's tennis.

Conclusion:

So here’s how our top ten list is shaping up (in time-order). Any objections to this list? Speak now, or forever hold your peace.