Tennis Blog

Okay, so every journalist, reporter, blogger and tennis writer around the world has squeezed every possible pun out of the “blue” surface of Madrid, so the headline was another pointless beating on the proverbial dead horse. But though the analysis and commentary on the subject has been extensive, one point that remains to be discussed is the possible negative effect the surface has had on Roger Federer. His clash against Novak Djokovic at the Rome Masters semi-final on Saturday had been billed as a revenge for the US Open semi-final that Federer famously lost after having two match points. But if Saturday’s clash between the number one and two ranked seeds was expected to be a contest, Federer didn’t get that memo till sometime late in the second set.

A player such as Federer does not rise to greatness and then fall overnight. Indeed, he’s hardly fallen, for he still continues to dominate almost every player in the sport, and has beaten both Rafael Nadal and Djokovic in the last year. But the truth cannot be ignored that while Federer still continues to afford us glimpses of his brilliance, those glimpses are getting shorter and shorter, and the duration between them longer. And here at Rome, on a surface where Djokovic was moving like his usual self, Federer found it hard to penetrate the court and keep up with the man from Serbia. The consummate ease with which Djokovic was able to retrieve shots off both wings was more a reflection of his agility and athleticism, and less a mark against Federer’s inability to close out points. But nevertheless, the fact remains that the Federer of a couple years ago, would have probably found a way through.

At Madrid last week, Federer returned to his old form–or so it seemed. The brilliance on display was the same as it has been all year, but the difference was that the rest of the pack was slower. Federer has always been one to favour anticipation and touch over agility, and so the apparently slippery blue clay did not hamper him as much as it did the others. And with the players less sure of moving around the court, Federer’s shots found their mark, and his aura seemed to be restored. He hasn’t played badly this week at Rome, and indeed had earned himself yet another semi-final berth. But his struggles in the first set against Djokovic on Saturday suggested the form of a man who hasn’t been challenged in a while. Perhaps Madrid came too easy. Perhaps the advantage the surface gave him in that tournament, hampered him against Djokovic. Or perhaps he simply had a bad day.

Whatever the reason, Federer doesn’t have long to sort out his issues. Madrid is in the past, along with the blue clay and all the advantages it brought him. He’s back on red clay now, not for Rome where his part is done, but for Roland Garros. And as Nadal and Djokovic reclaim their rivalry in the Rome final, after a brief hiatus at Madrid, it’s clear that the 16-time Grand Slam winner has his work cut out for him. He had better get moving…

The ATP tournament at Madrid churned up quite a few headlines, chief amongst them the alien blue surface. But a match that earned quite a few headlines was the fourth round clash between Rafael Nadal and his countryman, Fernando Verdasco. Not known as the “King of Clay” for nothing, few would have given Verdasco a chance of piping Nadal at the post in their fourteenth overall encounter, a head-to-head match up that shows no victories for Verdasco and plenty of one-sided scoresheets. So it was a surprise for many fans around the world, including those at Madrid, when Verdasco shot off five games in a row in the final set to launch a stunning and unexpected assault against the world number two, eventually earning him his first victory against Nadal. Even the most loyal Verdasco fan would have been surprised by the result, and while loyal Nadal fans muttered discontentedly about the blue clay having caused the upset, strategists could afford to take a step back, analyse the result, and admit that while unexpected, the result wasn’t a total fluke.

Few players in the modern era possess the mercurial game of Fernando Verdasco. He is now what Marcos Baghdatis was in his prime: a man with immense talent, a penchant for the “big games” and the unpredictability of the stock market. Indeed, Verdasco isn’t the kind of player to lay your wager on, but then again, he’s also not the kind of player you would want to bet against. It’s hard to know how he’s feeling by studying his body language, for even the most seasoned psychologists would be flummoxed by his perpetual frown, his constant edginess, and his endless rants at himself and at his camp, when even a single forehand goes astray. A native of Spain, Verdasco epitomises the Spanish culture with his athleticism, his self-proclaimed love of pasta, and his emotional demeanour. A match featuring Verdasco will showcase the very ebbs and flows that have marked his career over the years, with patches of indifferent form and amateur-level errors, interspersed with glorious moments of sheer brilliance.

When Fernando Verdasco gets ahold of a forehand, the opponent has no chance. From a position of apparent weakness, Verdasco can crush forehand winners that defy the visual acuity of most. And though like most players, his backhand wing is his weaker side, he can produce equal brilliance with that stroke as well. For a man that is 6’3″ and well over 200lbs, Verdasco has the agility of a seasoned athlete, and pleasingly deft touch at the net. If there is one aspect of his game that lets him down more than anything else, it is his serve. True to his nature, his serve is a mercurial weapon. It can produce aces with crushing speed, or else handcuff even the best returners with formidable spin, but then can come those frustrating phases, when Verdasco will notch up one double-fault after another, thereby handing breaks to his opponent with irritating ease.

So it was a surprise when on Thursday morning the world witnessed the “King of Clay” beaten in three sets by a man he has never lost to. Even more shocking was the ease with which Verdasco won those last five games, a period during which Nadal looked impossibly at sea on what is his surface. Verdasco and Nadal have produced close matches before, the most recent of which came at Cincinnati last year, when Nadal won in three sets, and each set ended in a tie-break. Their most memorable match was the 2009 Australian Open Semi-final, a five-set contest that shot Verdasco into the limelight. He has done little in the three years since, except frustrate and please his fans with his patchy form. Even during Madrid, his victory over Nadal was predictably followed up with a crushing defeat to Tomas Berdych, in a quarter-final encounter where Verdasco was only present physically.

But this is what we have come to expect from a man who rises and falls with the predictability of unpredictability. And like Marcos Baghdatis, whose reputation Verdasco seems intent on assuming, whether he is in winning form or not, he will surely always entertain us.

As Roger Federer and Tomas Berdych head into a deciding third set at the finals of the Madrid Masters tournament, the question of relevance springs to mind. Exactly how relevant is this Madrid tournament as we move closer to the second Grand-Slam of the year? For Federer, Rafael Nadal’s early exit means he has the opportunity to claim the number 2 ranking from the spaniard. But besides numbers and pride, what else does this tournament offer the players? Money comes to mind, but there are bigger paychecks up for grabs in the coming few weeks, and both Nadal and Novak Djokovic (who also suffered an earlier than expected exit) will tell you that this stopover in Madrid wasn’t worth whatever financial bonuses they could have potentially earned with a finals win. For aside from the altitude and the new blue-clay surface, the tournament also has the misfortune of being the first of three important tournaments that are all scheduled consecutively. So with a tournament in Rome next week, which the players can’t afford to skip, for it would give them the ideal preparation for the French Open that starts the week after, the question of relevance for this week in Madrid becomes amplified.

The clay court season always begins in Monte-Carlo, before heading to Barcelona, followed by Madrid and then onto Rome, before the esteemed courts at Roland Garros will call out to the players. Out of these four tournaments preceding the French Open, most of the players choose to skip out on Barcelona, for it is the smaller tournament, but players like Nadal have been tempted to skip out on Madrid, purely because it is scheduled so close to Rome and the French, and because the conditions are so drastically different from Roland Garros. Add to these concerns the synthetic clue surface, and it’s a clear choice for the players that Madrid is the tournament to skip in preparation for the French Open. But, alas, most of the big-name players took the courts, and all but one of the top three have suffered as a result. Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal met in Madrid during the finals last year, when their intense rivalry was nearing its peak, but a year later, both have floundered to fellow countrymen and lower-ranked players, and taken a dent to both their pride and their preparations. And it remains to be seen whether Roger Federer, despite the possibility of claiming his third title at Madrid and usurping Nadal for the world number 2 rank, will benefit from this week in Madrid. For when the blue dust settles and the players return to the traditional orange clay at Rome, those who had spent more time on the Madrid courts, might just struggle to re-adapt to the “normal” surface. All this yet again brings the pressing question to the forefront: was this tournament in Madrid really necessary?