De Minaur Fires Up In Brisbane ATP Cup

There was a similar scenario with Alex’s win over Shapo. Alex was down a set and Shapo led 4-2 in the 2nd when Alex went on a tear, won the set and then the third 6-2. His incredible fighting spirit truly is something else.

Great matches take place every day on tour. It’s a failure of the sport not to highlight this.

Players don’t need to win slams to make their mark. I am afraid this era of the big three has pushed many people to mistake the slams for the entirety of tennis.

To me the slams are a big deal and have become seen as the only deal (see Djokovic, Nadal, Federer obsession over the history books). In the past this wasn’t the case – Dr. Fischer MADE it the case by emphasizing to young Sampras that he was nothing unless he could pass Laver etc in the record books.

It’s high time to move away from emphasis on slams. I recognize I am contradicting myself entirely by saying this – I think emphasizing the slams has been wrong. McEnroe wasn’t great because he won slams. He was great because he chased Borg to the ends of the earth, and he was great because he played an outstanding brand of tennis. He was also a royal pain in the bleep but that just came with the territory, can’t separate the nutcase from the artist in McEnroe’s case.

I believe a whole generation of players has grown up believing that it’s slam or nothing, and I think this has ruined or tainted the careers of many players who should have challenged for more of them.

While I don’t believe that some parts of the season are as valuable to players in terms of prestige (e.g. any tournament played after the U.S. open in Asia – this is just one big fat money pit) or any indoors tournament in Europe after the US Open (all those indoor events are similar to the Asia event, but players need to work), I do think some events like the Miami Masters and some of the clay swing in Europe are important.

Here’s the argument. If Murray didn’t win the Olympics in 2012, he wouldn’t have won Wimbledon in 2013. You need the other events to make sense of a player. Same for Agassi, if he didn’t lose in the final of his hometown tournament in Las Vegas in 1998 (or to Hewitt earlier that year) he wouldn’t have made much of a comeback in 1999.

Those matches don’t happen, the slams don’t happen. The tour depends on the other elements.

So going back to De Minaur: in and of itself this is a nice win and a way for De Minaur to say to himself great, I beat the up and coming Shapovalov, who is ranked higher than I am and has been a hot player. This is a good result for me and I have been playing well since the US Open. What matters is the context, the fact that he has proven to himself he can come back from the big upset that Sinner had in him.

What if that Sinner match had been regular sets? I am sure De Minaur might believe you know what, regular match, tough player, I like my chances and can’t wait to play him (rivalry).

Keep in mind that whatever is brewing for these guys is good stuff. I think the other side of it is whether their placement of serve, knowledge of the game has grown enough where they can make inroads at the bigger tournaments. My guess is no – I don’t believe anyone outside of the top three guys has the kind of mindset to learn from mistakes and add to their games sufficiently to slay the dragon next time around.

But if they are confident that may mean they are ready to unnerve the big guys and that confidence could make a difference. They’d have to play intrepid, brave, bold tennis that bewilders the big guys. I haven’t seen it yet, which is why I prefer just to say, this is good playing and keep it at that.

De Minaur “competes well” but his “game betrays him”. I have noticed a few times where he goes for the wrong shot – this is something that Brad Gilbert worked on with Agassi (right shot at the right time). Maybe players need some more resourceful coaches who give them some obvious advice (hit a ten cent shot that wins the point rather than the million dollar shot, and walk away with enough energy to then slam home an ace).

Again, lamentable the bad strategy out there. As always, more prevalent on the women’s tour with the exception of super champs like Serena and of course Miss Andreescu, who if she is healthy should be giving everyone nightmares again.

“Too much playing around”. More going for jugular please.

Andrew – Grand Slam tournaments have always been important, always the gold standard, believe me. I don’t honestly think any players have failed to reach the highest level because Grand Slams existed. Maybe it’s unfair but your career is ultimately measured in the number of GS you won. Serena knows this. And why THE Grand Slam remains what it seems – almost unattainable. Even Serena missed that one – she blew it out of sheer nerves.

You say ‘in the past this wasn’t the case’ – yes, it was. Being a GS winner sets you apart. It’s what you aim for. Same in other sports and occupations – no one wants to spend their careers in the Corps de Ballet, not if they’re honest.

Why did AK slump so badly after her GSs ? Because she knows she’s done it. Up a level, same with Federer, Nadal. They want to do it again and again. In the end no one cares which Premier Mandatories etc you won. The circuit has to exist otherwise there’d be no places to play but in the way of things some will stay at the top longer than the others because they are the best.

Hartt, yes, these gentlemen are very fine players. And yes, it takes time to deploy new strategies and shots. However, that’s the job – compete, re-group, compete.

As for the “time” part of things, I say all this with respect to the capital T for Time, as in players have developed a bit of a mental laziness with regards to how much time they actually have. Careers are shorter than anyone wants, and time passes more quickly than anyone wants to admit. Many of our now elderly champions (yes, 31 plus is old for men’s pro tennis – Sampras, among best ever and used to be GOAT) were winning huge tournaments in their teens and 20s. I don’t remember the line “just give them time”, “sooner or later” etc and so forth. They had to shred their own doubts and figure it out. I rarely see that now.

I don’t want to lay it on too thick here because players have to take care of themselves and not take anything too seriously, and take to heart what Stefanki once said, you’re never playing as well or as poorly as you think you are.

I’d like to point out though that Andreescu used impatience to her advantage and struck while the iron was red hot, carving up the WTA tour so that she was driving her matches and everyone else was responding. Of course on of the most brilliant displays since Serena Williams used to do the same thing repeatedly, so too Justine Henin when she had her chance.

It’s never too soon to turn the apple cart over. As it stands with Raonic I believe back in 2011 he wasn’t completely aware of how amazing his Australian Open run was becoming and that he let David Ferrer back into that match. He had him on the ropes. I also don’t think Raonic was quite ready to handle the summer of 2011, so he missed a big opportunity to break things open a little more. Raonic only recaptured this “magic” a few years later. He’s a guy who has always had the right instincts, but wasn’t always quite ready to assert himself to his capability.

I think the same for other players – Roddick in 2003 at the Australian Open (should have dispatched El A, sooner in their epic QF), or in 2002 facing Sampras at the US Open (should have played better). Young guys respecting their elders and not respecting fundamentals of preparation, unpredictability enough.

I’ll leave it there. Final example, Sampras vs McEnroe, 1990 Semifinal US Open. Sampras had no right even to be there, but no one could have told him differently. He served Lendl out of the tournament in five heady sets, and then dispatched McEnroe “clinically” in their semifinal. That carried over into the finals, where Agassi seemed not to care about scouting much and appeared to believe his junior wins were sufficient, that Sampras wouldn’t well, do what he did.

That’s how it’s done. Don’t respect the elders while playing, praise them before and afterwards. Ms. Andreescu suggested as much recently, where she admitted that beating Muguruza at Indian Wells made her believe that she had what she needed to take most players out. That sensation drove her to upset everyone else in sight.

That’s missing from these guys. Too much deference, too much waiting around.

I’m glad that there is a sense that other tournaments count a lot for the sport. I think they do, and don’t believe anything that happens at majors comes from nowhere.

All that said there is a caveat and that’s the young guys are playing better and the old guys are playing slightly worse – that was clear from the US Open onwards. I’d like for the young guys to say “enough is enough” and demonstrate that against their regular, everyday opponents, and then bring that ferocity into their matches. Medvedev showed this by going toe to toe, even though I understand Medvedev was out of his mind.

If these guys can get there, play a little more out of their mind, giving a different look, being more chess players than pawns, I think it will be a fun year for them.

Harold, I think Fischer wanted Sampras to play like Laver and win like Laver. I should read more about it. He emphasized to Sampras I think that the competition was the record books rather than whoever he was playing.

Some kind of sense that “you’ve got to be the best champion of all time, which means you have to be better than Laver, not these guys you are playing…standard is higher”, something like that. Some sense that whatever he was doing wasn’t as much as he should be doing, which would only motivate Sampras even more.

I dunno. Some kind of odd way of firing Sampras up so that he was tricking himself into playing sick tennis as often as possible.

Catherine, yes. Slams matter. The blondie would be judged either harshly or not whatsoever were she to have a “zero” in the slams column.

But as to slams = “all the marbles” – how do we consider the Australian and the fact players didn’t make the trek to Australia as they do now? Agassi didn’t play until the year 2000.

If it’s say Guy Forget, a good player who excelled in Davis Cup but seldom elsewhere, maybe in that case we say: “good player, history will likely forget him”.

I think that’s what I mean, they weren’t the end all be all. Now, they are. It’s “only the slams” and we live with this madness (…).

But they shouldn’t be. The WTA in that regard is healthier, there’s a lot more going on (sadly a lot more of a lot more, which is sometimes too much).

Hartt, I stand corrected. Raonic had a huge 2011, came from seemingly nowhere. I forgot about him being hurt. His injuries have hurt his career.

I still stand by striking when the iron is hot. I don’t think some players like Pouille have made the most of their opportunities. “Not being ready” to me is “the moment got the better of me”.

This is why I have enjoyed seeing Ostapenko, Andreescu, etc grab a slam. Andreescu of course has way more range and ability and should outclass most players. The point is she decided hey, I can do this. I will do this. I don’t have to wait.

I wish that impatience were more on display on the men’s tour. It isn’t. There’s a lot of caginess etc and not as much of the ferocity that’s required.

As I think Harold said, the big guys haven’t just blocked the “next generation” of players – they’ve blocked “several next generations” of players, including the ones ahead of them in the early 2000s, and then everyone who came around since when they were supposed to be getting distracted.

Never happened.

Mac should have said: “Milos, your time, want this match on YOUR TERMS.”

Hartt, Raonic was fantastic in 2011. Really did what every player challenging the contenders should do. Should have won Memphis.

Raonic’s greatest enemy has been injuries. I am also sad that he seems to be the guy coaches leave when they want more glory FOR THEMSELVES. My opinion of Ljubicic has gone down and others for leaving Raonic “at the altar” of future success.

I would have liked to have seen Raonic beat Zverev at Laver Cup. If they play again and Raonic feels healthy enough I expect Raonic to remember that loss.

Many talented players have failed where Sampras succeeded. He wasn’t going to be Sjeng Schalken, but his mentality was something else on court.

Andrew, yes Milos had a great start to 2011. He had turned 20 at the end of Dec., 2010. At the beginning of January he was ranked No.156 and he was No.37 by the end of Feb. He’d started working with coach Galo Blanco in the fall of 2010 and Blanco has to deserve a lot of credit for Milos’ sudden success.

His parents, both engineers, put a lot of emphasis on education, and were disappointed when Milos decided to turn pro instead of going to university. But they said they would support him for a certain length of time, and if he did not make the top 100 in that time he would go to university. He also agreed to take some university courses. He did not quite make the deadline, but was close enough. As soon as he made the top 100 he sent back his university textbooks.

I am not so sure that the young players are simply waiting for the Big 3 to retire. Several want to beat those top guys in big tourneys now.

Zverev spoke about this in a recent interview with the Guardian.

“Are we going to take over at some point? Yes! We have to! They’re not going to be there for ever… And anyway, I actually don’t want those guys to retire. I just want to be better than them. I’m not sitting at home and thinking, ‘OK, I still have, what, two, three years until they retire, and then I’m going to take over tennis.’ No, that’s not how it is.”

He adds: “If we just wait for them to retire, all we’re going to hear for the rest of our careers is, ‘Yeah, but those guys were better than you.’ I don’t want to be the No 1 in the world because other people aren’t playing. I want to be No 1 because I’m better than everybody else.”

Hope Galo Blanco is prepping new players. Hartt you have mentioned Galo Blanco and Raonic for some time. He truly did a fine job with Raonic, who remains to me one of the most serious and “well prepared” players in recent memory (more so than Zverev and more so actually than Tsitsipas or any player that has come along since). Raonic’s game was shockingly complete in 2011, just needed some more consistency to accompany those nice ground strokes and cutthroat mentality, and some more courage in the big matches. He achieved all of that.

There have only been a few players to me on the men’s side that have made good on their potential in this ridiculous era of super champions. Tops – Del Potro, Nishikori, Cilic, Berdych until he took his foot off the pedal, Raonic, Tsonga (perennial threat), Verdasco for a period, Feliciano Lopez for a stretch.

Raonic is in rare air. I hope overall he ends up being considered one of Canada’s best players of all time and would like to cheer him on to some big titles. I’ll hope for at least a Masters from him.

Andrew, my hope for Milos as well is that he wins a Masters. Then he would at least match what Ljubicic did – No.3 ranking and a Masters.

I don’t know who Galo Blanco is coaching now, but he seems often to work with players early in their pro careers, and has coached both Khachanov and Thiem.

WTA put up Gauff highlights within an hour 🙂
Coco played mainly from the backcourt and the highlights slo/mo’d all her winning points. She looked good but not unbeatable. Kuznova didn’t offer much resistance.

TBH – if Angie had had to qualify in Brisbane, she wouldn’t have. Her return % was dreadful v Sam, who hasn’t won a match since I don’t know when.

Catherine, do you think this will be Kerber’s last season?

Kuznova looked to be hitting lollipop serves and a lot of sitters to Gauff with not much intensity. Interesting.

Hartt – yes, I think Angie will retire at the end of this year. That was more or less hinted in the piece about the new Bad Homburg tournament this summer where she is Tournament Director – I can’t imagine she would be doing that if she was going to continue as a full time pro. Angie’s not particularly good at doing several things at once, unlike Serena.

Also, I can’t see her improving her game with a coach like Kindlmann. She didn’t play horribly v Stosur, just the same game which everyone knows. It’s not going to change. Fisette was the last throw of that dice and just a shame things ended so badly. But she’ll always have W’don.

I’m glad Angie was injured in Hawaii and didn’t face Collins. Danielle just blistered Svito. Over in under an hour.

Scoop – from what I saw Kuznova didn’t throw the match – she just isn’t a strong enough player to present much of a challenge to Gauff. Can’t see players doing this kind of thing in such a public place. Coco is easily good enough to beat a player like Kuznova without outside help. I can see her getting to the s/f in Auckland. I find her game pretty efficient overall but not very inspiring. But I’m probably in the minority.

Jon – the highlights show mostly Gauff winners. She did lose a few points 🙂

Gauff has weaknesses but Kuznova failed to exploit them. Her serve has definitely improved.

Jon – I understand that. A nasty little part of me wants her to lose but apart from those feelings I’m sick of the hype too.

It’s Kuzmova – my mistake.

Why everyone is so obsessed about throwing matches…

It’s more like X player comes up against Gauff and believes they can put her away, then Gauff makes it harder because she is at heart a grinder that you have to beat using everything you’ve got.

Then finding yourself losing, that’s when it sinks in oh my goodness I am losing to this kid!

That’s when Gauff’s got you.

Got to do what Osaka does, simply take the game to the Gauff and expose her lack of strategy and iffy tendencies and the match changes. But if you have to be Osaka to do that (which you don’t, we’ve seen that) then we have a problem.

U.S. could use a few “people’s champs” and an expo in the middle of the street like the Agassi/Sampras rivalry of the 90s. One of the best tennis commercials in history with the bus driving through the makeshift court.

Not so hard for Nike to re-do that commercial and update it. Fat chance though.