Live Scores  |  TV Schedule  |  Video  |  Pro Schedule  |  Rankings  |  Players  |  Stats  |  Message Boards  |  Newsletter Subscribe  |  Store
TENNIS.com - Concrete Elbow by Steve Tignor
   Features
   Backcourt  
   Instruction
   Gear
   College Tennis
   Community
   Travel
   Classifieds
TENNIS.com Blogs
   TennisWorld
   Concrete Elbow
   Champions' Perspective
   Backcourt: Framed
   Ready, Set, Goal: Kellie
   Ready, Set, Goal: Joe
   ATP Fantasy Blog
  
  
  
  
  
  
TENNIS Magazine
   Gift Subscription
   Purchase Back Issues
   Current Issue
   Past Issues
   Customer Care
« Rome: Spotting the Dirt Worm Rome: Clay's Cassius »
Rome: What a Pity...
Posted 05/10/2008 @ 7 :13 PM

This week TENNIS.com will be featuring one of our blog regulars, Asad Raza, who is in Rome for the men's Italian Open. He'll be writing back and forth with me here a couple times; reporting on the home page; and blogging over at Pete's as well.

Hi Steve,

2008_05_10_roddickwawrinka_blogIn tennis, when a great opportunity is missed, be it an unexpectedly favorable draw, a good look at a passing shot, or a well-planned dropshot that floats just wide, Italians tend to exclaim, "ché peccato!"--"what a pity!"  That would appear to to be the phrase here in Rome, where there has been ample opportunity to use it.

The Internazionale BNL d'Italia went from unexpected to unexpectedly disappointing today.  Spectators only saw ten full games, as Andy Roddick and Radek Stepanek both retired from their semifinal matches, Roddick with back spasms and Stepanek with stomach problems.  For Roddick, the injury put a sudden end to his best run on European clay since 2002.  The Roman fans had definitely gotten behind him, and there was palpable sadness in the arena after he conceded the match.  Ché peccato.

Stepanek had become, if not a villain, an irritant to the crowd, who (correctly) held him responsible for ridding the tournament of its top seed--but now that he'd done it,the feeling seemed to be, couldn't he have at least stuck around to trouble the next guy?  As the always cosmopolitan Bud Collins exclaimed from seat behind me, "Doppio disastro!"  ("Double disaster!")

Yesterday (quarterfinal day), however, was a much better day of tennis.  For me, however, it started with mild, Italianate frustration: I was delayed on the way to the Foro Italico by another doppio disastro: a transit strike that got started late and ran into the afternoon.  Ah, Italia.  The late strike kept me waiting at the Pyramide station for an hour (I could have walked, but I was well aware that the instant I chose to walk away, the station would immediately re-open).  Anyway, by the time I reached the arena, James Blake was in his third-set tailspin.

On came Stepanek and Federer. As you mentioned, Stepanek is a pleasure to see live, when you can appreciate the subtlety of his rhythm-upsetting, junkballing, net-rushing tactics.  In fact, I think it may be time to admit Stepanek into the ranks of lovably unique players like Miloslav Mecir, Karol Kucera, and Fabrice Santoro.  On this particular day, in addition to his full repetoire of slices, middle approach shots, and surprisingly firm volleys, he had two things going for him: firstly, his first serve consistently kept Federer at bay, especially in the first set.  Secondly, he had a convincing look of hunger and belief--emotions that the sport of tennis reveals to be fully readable on human faces.  Actually, you might count this as one thing: confident self-belief and having a good day with one's first serve are strongly correlated.

For Federer's part, I thought he became somewhat passive, seeming to conclude that Stepanek would crumble at some point or another if he (Federer) only lurked ominously for long enough.  It was as though he wanted the threat of his game rather than his game itself to beat Stepanek.  Less risky, for sure, but in a strange way it seemed to put more pressure on him to remain consistent, while awaiting Stepanek's breakdown.  It didn't happen, as Stepanek played a brilliant set of tennis, even thrusting an index finger in the air after one inspired dropshot.  If Radek's showboating got on Federer's nerves, he didn't show it.  I sort of wish he would show it: get down in the trenches and fight these opponents.  I suppose it's not in his personality.

In the process of waiting for Stepanek to come down to earth, it was Federer's own game that came unhinged--particularly his topspin backhand, several shanks of which caused him to be broken early in the second set.  (Heresy alert: who am I to advise Federer, but sometimes I wonder if the shanks might be partly the result of his "classic," ultra-small racquet head.)  In the second set tiebreaker, Federer won a long, superb point, in which he forced Stepanek back from the net with a good lob and weathered a full deejay set of spins and velocities from the Czech mixmaster.  My instincts told me Federer would cruise from there, but perhaps his confidence has been affected by the events of 2008.  A couple of errors and three huge Stepanek serves, two down 5-2 and one at match point, and it was over.

Afterwards, I wondered if Roger has noticed how effective a patient but unpredictable attack such as Stepanek's could be, and whether he'd thought about doing more of it himself, so I posed the question to him.  He began by irritably telling me that perhaps all of a sudden he'd start coming in on both serves on clay, but he doubted it.  Then he softened, considering the idea before rejecting it: "But of course when a guy serves well, you know, and backs it up with a good volley behind, you he's tough to play...  But I don't think that's the way to win the French Open, to be honest." 

Fair enough.  But the interesting thing is that Stepanek didn't come in on first and second serves, or even on every first serve.  And he did come in unexpectedly, several times, in Federer's serve.  These are some of the reasons that he won the match despite being not close to in Federer's league from the ground and only winning 82 points to Federer's 88.  I'd describe Stepanek's tactics as attacking, but patient attacking, not a desperate mission.  In the end, it's more about an aggressive mentality as it is about coming to net on every point--and it was Stepanek, not Federer, who had that mentality yesterday.

Later that night, Andy Roddick used a somewhat similar approach against Tommy Robredo.  I noticed that Andy came in on Robredo's serve on big points, and it seemed to swing the pendulum in his favor.  Traditional clay-courters are not used to being rushed--chip and charge, and you change the dynamic of the match.  Roddick also showed the patient side of the patient attack: I noticed he seems to have added a very intelligent high forehand, which he uses to "reset" points in which he is in positional trouble, and to upset the rhythm of points that are becoming too clay-metronomic. 

Roddick's backhand is often criticized (notably by Matt Cronin a couple of years back), but on clay he can stay out of major trouble by looping it deep.  Clay is somewhat more forgiving of his volley technique, as well, giving him more time to get closer to the net and swipe or bunt shots away.  Roddick's patience in rallies, and his evolving sense of when to attack, is not a programmatic thing ("Hit crosscourt, then down the line, then come in.  Rinse and repeat.")--it's more like a developing feel.  I mentioned to him that selectively attacking was working well and should give him new confidence on clay , to which he responded, "Yeah, I probably feel better going into the French this year than any time recently.  You know, I don't know, I just played well and I was -- I wasn't forcing my shots...  I had a good mix going, so we'll see if I can keep that up."   A good mix, indeed. 

And one more thing about that match: Roddick's backhand and Robredo's entire game are often considered to be without heft.  This may be true compared to, say Almagro's backhand or Gonzalez's forehand, and as I watched the start of the Robredo-Roddick match from the press room TV, the ball seemed a bit leisurely.  But then I got to my seat and remembered: would that I or anyone I've ever played tennis with have such "lack of heft."  These guys are pros, and trust me, they hit the ball real hard.

Finally, to finish this discussion of patient attacking, I want to return to Federer's ambivalence on the topic: remember that, in arguably his best clay match ever, the Rome final in 2006, he showed excellent, selective judgment in coming to net, won 64 of 84 points when he did, and lost serve only three times in five sets.  After that match, he said, "For me just to hit and move backwards again, that's not the way I learned the game.  My way of thinking is to come to the net and finish it at the net.  [Nadal] hardly passed me today, which was a good feeling.  So I have to keep that up."  Perhaps it's a pity he didn't try it yesterday.

I've really enjoyed doing this, Steve.  Thanks for sharing your space with me!

ciao,

Asad

| | Send to a Friend
Comments

first!!!!!!!!!

great article but its 'che peccato',not 'che paccato'

Asad, I am really enjoying your reports. Sorry the tournament, particuarly today, has not been better. But it has certainly been interesting! Will you be in Hamburg?

third!!!!!! lol

Great job from Rome, Asad.

Great report, Asad.

Nalbandian seems to have a very big racket, I've always wondered whether that helps his shots look so very clean (even his forehand looks clean, though he can miss due to his bad timing).

I really don't think Federer should have lost to Stepanek, period. He should have been slightly troubled by him and then become more aggressive on the return.

Thanks for this, Asad. As I watched the scoreboard *sigh* from work, I just knew that what you described was happening on court. I've seen Radek play live, and I knew that if he played very, very well he had the type of game to rattle Roger. And I also admit to thinking afterward "Did you get any ideas from this, Roger??" Thank you for asking him this. And thank you for all of your reports. :)

At the expense of sounding like a bandwagon jumper: Great article!

Thanks tennisman, my Italian spelling needs work--it's fixed now.

Sadly, I won't be in Hamburg, Jenn--a guy can get used to this writing about tennis thing...

Tari, I have to say, he does seem a bit stubborn when asked about the value of attacking, but I thought it was interesting how differently he talked about it two year ago, no?

So who do you guys have later today--you have to think Djokovic is a heavy favorite, right?

Asad,

First rate analysis with much to think about. Glad you pointed out that glorious match in the Rome 2006 final, one of the best matches I have ever seen (and I don't like clay matches as a rule). Roger did everything but win the final point. And yet, he has not showed that game against Nadal or anyone since then except in spurts.

Brilliant capture of what Radek did. Food for thought.

Asad: Ahhh, great report, thank you—and in my humble opinion, some brilliant insights:
** It was as though he wanted the threat of his game rather than his game itself to beat Stepanek. **

Roger has spoken of playing "passive tennis" as recently as the year-end Masters Cup.

Given the mountains that he's climbed, and the tools in his possession, perhaps it's almost understandable. He came with his B. game, and it wasn't good enough today. He lacked the fire in the belly—maybe his mind was elsewhere; maybe he was hoping to save himself for bigger things. Maybe he grows weary of doing this, year in and year out. Maybe, as Henin has said recently about her own game, he has dug too deep in recent years—and he is starting to get burned. Whatever the case today, I think we'll see some more Spectaculars and Impossibles from this particular Supernova before the tail finally, inevitably, burns itself out. At least, that's what I'm banking on.

Great report from rome yet again Asad!

I am glad you raised the issue about Federer's love affair with his limited stick. Hard to quarrel with the success that both Sampras and Federer have had with their small, dead rackets, BUT . . . .

I wonder how much these top guys experiment with different sticks and string jobs at least during the off season. Many of us thought that Sampras could have restored a bit of sting to his serve during his last two years if he had gone to a larger racket and even he wonders if it might have helped on clay. Clay gives just enough uneven or unpredictable bounces to make a player wish he had a larger sweetspot. I can imagine that accuracy is much greater with the less trampoline effect a racket provides, but

I have nowhere near the talent of these pros yet have played more than decent tennis over the years starting with wooden rackets. I played one of my best matches ever the first time I picked up a Yonex racket [then Yoneyama :-) ]. During my best tennis days in my early thirties, I often switched from a T 2000 to the first Ashe Head racket (the rug beater) due to wrist problems. The T2000 was less hard on my arm but more unpredictable than the Ashe racket. But I could make that quantum switch DURING A MATCH if needed.

I can't believe that almost all the top pros could be given a racket used on tour at random and compete about the same. I am not saying there are not differences in rackets, but I feel they could adjust to the strengths of most top level rackets.

I think it is just hard to leave an old favorite (cf. Borg, Connors, and Sampras). Borg even made his comeback with the old Donnay when everyone had moved to modern rackets. For what it is worth, I find that the string job, mainly the tension matters most in terms of whether the ball flies or not. I suspect you can take most good rackets and customize them to your game with the right string job and some judicious weighting.

Well the title pretty well says it. At one time I posted that now that Rafa is gone from the tournament, the remaining contenders would be playing with renewed fervor. Alas, it is not to be, huh!

Thanks for the Rome reports, Asad!

I am still not sure what the true story is with Radek Stepanek. I read somewhere it was a wrist problem. An Italian writer (as posted in TW) says it was his lunch he had to consume in a hurry....

Great report from rome yet again Asad!

A well written and well conceived report, that was well received. Thanks.

Nice analysis. Agree with your observations re: Fed's passivitiy. It's going to get him in trouble if he keeps expecting to win because he's Roger and the other guy's not.

Thanks all. How about this possible explanation for Stepanek's "dizziness and weakness" (that's what he said in his presser): after beating the best player in the world, perhaps Radek spent a little too much time at the enoteca (wine bar) that night?

Good point Asad, thats probably what happened. :-)

thanks for the report asad, I was puzzled by the difference in the total of winning points and the fact that Fed had actually the lead in that category.. what you pointed out gives some hints about it and make sense. I also hope Roddick can make it fully fit at RG, he deserves a good run over there. I was realy impressed by his style on clay: beating Robredo is no small feat. It's like it's not the same guy who now steps on the dirt: he knows he can win. Again quite impressive.

and for you *Italian skillzz*: no worries, one more week in Rome and you'll certainly reach complete fluency ;)

great article but its 'che peccato',not 'che paccato'

Asad --

Saturday: *What* a crazy tennis day. I woke up, turned on the TV expecting to find Wawrinka-Roddick mid-match...and...and...NIENTE. Pazzo! Caotica! It took me awhile to figure out what the heck had happened. Oh, well -- unfortunate, but it's in the past now. Upside for you, hopefully, after a mostly interesting tourney during which you've outdone yourself for TENNIS.com? A free day before the Final in La Citta Eterna. :)

Very interesting how Federer spoke after losing to Nadal at Rome '06 vs. after losing to Stepanek the other day. Clever clever, Asad. ;) How did you remember his '06 words??? I almost wish you'd included that quote (if you had it at your disposal) when you asked him about a patient, unpredictable attack. Wonder if he would've been more or less irritable at your question? It seems Federer has done a 180 in his own mind and would be interesting to know when/why that happened. At any rate, it reveals that Federer's more passive/reactive clay game is conscious. I guess.

I've got Djokovic favored today. But you never know. Funny aside if Wawrinka wins: Stan's first and second ATP titles would have come via finals against Djokovic (first was Umag '06, I think. via, ahem, a Djokovic retirement). Let's just hope both young men come to play and win today. I think they will.

Mille grazie for the great dispatches!

PS Cosi il tuo italiano migliora di giorno in giorno (so your Italian is improving day by day). Mine, too. "che' peccato." Gonna use this soon to impress my Italian tutor. ;)

Federer played way too passive. He would hit deep groundstrokes and back up. It almost looked like he was working on his grounstrokes. He sometimes plays waiting for his opponents to miss. In my view, Stepenak is a player that Federer feels he will never meet at the end of Grand Slams. Hence, he is not really up for the match. You can see the difference when he played Djokovic at Monte Carlo. He attacked and REALLY wanted to beat him.

"Tari, I have to say, he does seem a bit stubborn when asked about the value of attacking, but I thought it was interesting how differently he talked about it two year ago, no?"

Asad: Oh, definitely. I love my Fed, but I have no doubts about his stubbornness!

Rome '06 was what avid Fed fans point to as the perfect strategy against Nadal (or anyone) on clay, with the talent that Roger has. He missed by an inch or two. But he has retreated a mile or two since. :)

I agree that digging up the old quotes on this from Roger was brilliant!

Hey Asad. Bang on the money. Your analysis of Federer-Stepanek is spot on, particularly the aggressive-passive dichotomy.Federer did well (twice!) to rescue himself from disaster, but it was one of his own making. Gone were the angles and drop shots of the past two weeks, replaced with a straight up and down game.

Che peccato.

asad - I woke up this morning and realized I hadn't seen you 'checking in' and viola - your post was here!

Honestly though - do you think a player of Radek's experience would have gone drinking the night before a semi? Somehow I just don't see that happening.

As for Fed - I think he's been working on retooling his game, trying to play a more agressive attacking game rather than depending upon a 'passive' baseline approach. When he's pressed though, like any player, he retreats to his comfort zone. And from all accounts Radek certainly pressed him.

Steve: Djokovic d. Wawrinka -- another example of Djoko as 'momentum-stopper'?

From all accounts, the Rome clay courts are faster than RG, which are faster than Hamburg. Is it clear still that coming to the net will work at RG?

Such a sad end to a great week for Andy,he played really impressively on clay.Hope he's ok soon & lots of luck to him for the rest of the season.

Such a sad end to a great week for Andy,he played really impressively on clay.Hope he's ok soon & lots of luck to him for the rest of the season.

asad ray

we enjoyed you, too! :) thank you once again for this wonderfully written post. i have high hopes for andy --- i hope he goes deep at the french. if he makes it to the quarters, i will become a fan of his for the rest of 2008! :) i also hope i see more of radek going deep at the rest of the 2008 tourneys. i hope that almagro, monaco, and murray can improve their clay court showings in the next three weeks.

this is a vain hope: i hope rafa doesn't play hamburg. even if i know he is already there. "fool of a took!" sayeth gandalf of pippin in lord of the rings... i am saying it of rafa now! :)

First rate reporting, Asad.

I also saw a seemingly passive Federer against a wily and tenacious Stepanek. At one point I thought I saw him limp a little. If I only imagined it it was in part because he looked like he probably should have started limping. I just looked at a few of the points he played against Canas and it's clear that Roger the Lethal was not present for most of the Stepanek match. The Roger that defeated Canas was wound up like a spring, looking like a hunter setting up the kill. The Roger that lost to Stepanek was a lonely shepard trying to keep his flock of sheep together.

this 2008 Rome SUCKED from start to finish.
First Nadal went out to Ferrero due to blisters.
Gasquet has been playing out of his derriere lately.
Gonzales pulled out
Federer lost to a 2nd tier dirtballer in Stepanek
I wanted to see Nadal play either Blake and Roddick and see him crush either one of them.
Cloddick and Stepanek after his fluke win over Roger then went Djokovic on us and withdrew.
lastly,Djokovic didn't face any seeded player other than Wawrinka.With all due respect to Wawrinka but he's still a 2nd tier if not 3th tier player imo.He hasn't done squat all year and has been playing well again for the past 2 weeks.I don't expect Stan to be consistent enough to make the 4th round at any of the 3 majors left on the calender.
stinking Rome 2008!

yeah and add Mauresmo pulling out of Rome,Strasbourg and RG to the list.
sorry had to vent.

2h4h

The clay courts at RG are a mix between Rome and Hamburg depending on the weather. Also certain courts at RG play differnetly than others. For example Suzanne Lenglen is alot slower than Phillipe Chatrier. Court 1 is also very fast.

afwu

isn't suzanne lenglen the same as court 1? hmmm, i have tickets for two days on SL. i know i won't get to see rafa play but i hope to get in somehow if i'm lucky! :D

Well then it's court 2 that plays very fast. I don't think Lenglen and Chatrier have numbers, the numbering system only starts on the outside courts.

Another great report, Ray.


Federer's been figured out. Get over it. From now on, it will be all about execution. Let's hope that grass still lends the extra ummph to his game that is currently lacking. If not, expect more of...

Kudos to Djokovic for his first clay masters. Too bad I didn't get to view it. US tennis viewing sucks.

Kenneth,
If you have Tennis Channel, final was live in the USA.

Asad
Nice report and Fed interview.Your point about selective attacking
was ridiculed by Fed! Incomprehensible!Did you mention small racquet head to him by chance? (Perhaps off the record? Would have been interesting)Is it really bad bounces the cause of the shanks, or lifting his head too soon and looking where the ball is going?
How about this? I find Fed's 1st serves not high enough in %. Why not serve a spin serve on the first serve to mix it up? He never seems to do it!

Asad
Nice report and Fed interview.Your point about selective attacking
was ridiculed by Fed! Incomprehensible!Did you mention small racquet head to him by chance? (Perhaps off the record? Would have been interesting)Is it really bad bounces the cause of the shanks, or lifting his head too soon and looking where the ball is going?
How about this? I find Fed's 1st serves not high enough in %. Why not serve a spin serve on the first serve to mix it up? He never seems to do it!

Asad, your 4:13 AM, partly in response to my query on what happened with Radek (?) --- it must be half in jest, but if he spent too much time at the wine bar, perhaps "celebrating" his victory over the world No. 1, then it all boils down to discipline. Dizziness could be caused by lack of sleep.

Isn't this what happened to Nole, seen partying till late night after winning Indian Wells, then crashing at the 2nd round of Miami ...

Yes, Master Ace.

If.

Post a Comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In


  * Only required field   

  (Optional)

  (Optional)

« Rome: Spotting the Dirt Worm Rome: Clay's Cassius »

More from TennisWorld
Concrete Elbow by Steve Tignor

More from Concrete Elbow
TENNIS Magazine is published 10 times per year.




Save 75% off of the annual newsstand price.
Categories
2005 Entries
2006 Entries
2007 Entries
2008 Entries
Recent Entries
Deep Tennis: Golden Age
Thrills, Agony, Tennis
Olympic Spirits
Kids These Days
Playing Ball: I Smell a Meltdown
"Who's the Pigeon Now?"
Still With the Aura
Picking Up the Story
Glory Days II: Ruling Class Descent?
Glory Days: Passing Us By?
Statistics
This blog currently has 422 entries and 27755 comments.