Did Stubborness Cost Thiem His First Major?

There was never Johansson-mania 🙁 Speaking Sweden, hopefully there will one day be Ymer-Mania, sadly Soderling couldn’t coach E. Ymer anymore given his growing family and inability to travel as much as he wanted to. I don’t think the Ymers have connected with Johansson, but Johansson coaches Goffin. M. Ymer has been growing as a player – still a long way to go, he has a nice looking game.

Leif’s “there are no more Miloslav Mecir’s” line hurt, and still stings.

Thiem had his foot on Djokovic, up a set with the finish line, in theory, in plan sight. What’s impressive to me, from the interviews, is Djokovic felt that this was important (and the need to get the fourth set), and Thiem felt as if he was never secure in a match against Djokovic. If only Thiem knew he had him…

This one is going to hurt for Thiem. Here are the player statements. Thiem next time will need a better sense of what his opponent feels and make them feel more of it, otherwise he will let them back in when they should be heading for the exits with a towel over their heads.

When you come at the king, don’t miss.

DJOKOVIC:
“Kind of regained my energy and strength midway in the fourth set and got back into the match. I was on the brink of losing the match. Dominic is a fantastic tennis player that plays with tremendous amount of power in his shots, especially from the forehand side. He uses his slice really well. He disrupted my rhythm in my game at one point.

He was a better player. Probably one point and one shot separated us tonight. Could have gone a different way. I served and volleyed when I was facing a breakpoint in the fourth and in the fifth. It worked both of the times. It could have also been differently. Serve and volley is not something I’m accustomed to. I’m not really doing that that often.

I kind of recognized that as an important tactics in those circumstances, and I’m really happy it worked.”

So, that says Djokovic took some big chances to disrupt Thiem in the fourth, which means he thought he might lose the match in the fourth set. Onwards.

Later Question:

“As I said, facing a breakpoint early in the fourth was a critical moment where things turned around really. I felt I started to accelerate on my serve, I started to move better, and I felt that he started to make few more mistakes than in the second and third set. I felt an opportunity and I seized it.

After that in the fifth set, it was anybody’s game really. I knew that very early in the fifth set it was crucial for me to make a break. I had that mental edge again, and that was enough to win it.”

So, also suggest Djokovic was aware he was in a bad position with Thiem having the upper hand, and it was crucial to win the fourth set (of course). Did Thiem understand that?

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=157024

And from the Thiem side of the house:

“What happened tonight, I mean, if I could say anything, I would just say that maybe I could have converted the breakpoint in the fourth set where I could have the lead 2-1. Then I think he had some issues in the second set. He recovered very well. He played really good after in set three and four.

Of course, there were some small mistakes here and there, but they’re happening. At the end was a super close five-setter.

I don’t really regret anything.”

Another question:

Q. What is it going to take for somebody to end this Grand Slam streak by the big three?
DOMINIC THIEM: I think it’s only small details. In the last two finals – US Open and here – it was really close. It could have gone either way for Daniil in US Open and for me here.

There’s nothing special to say about it. It takes nothing more than just little bit luck, little details there. Maybe if I convert the breakpoint in the fourth set, maybe I’m sitting here as a winner.

It just takes hard work. Me and also the other young players who have definitely the potential to win a slam, to play every single of these four with determination and give myself a new chance hopefully.”

Another question:

Q. What was working well for you in that period in the second and third sets?
DOMINIC THIEM: Second set I got a good break, then he broke back 4-All. I made it straightaway to 5-4, served it out. I was getting the lead straightaway, break, then I was kind of the frontrunner in that third set. Obviously he had issues there. That’s also what made it easier to win that set.

In the fourth, I think it was this one game at 1-All where I had chances to break him, where I didn’t convert it. He then recovered well and played probably his best tennis again.”

Another:
Q. Was there any moment during the match that you felt you had him?
DOMINIC THIEM: No, I never have these moments. Of course, if you lead two sets to love or 5-1 or something, yeah, sure, you can say to yourself you have it.

But no chance in a finals against a guy like Novak. I mean, I was far away from one thought like that”

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=157023

Will to Lose got Thiem. I think the press conferences make that a little more clear. Djokovic thought Thiem may have had him at the end of the third. And Thiem thought he might let Djokovic back into the match.

Too bad. Hopefully Thiem learns that when he has Djokovic on his racquet, he should keep messing with him.

Press conferences for the Australian Open, text:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_events.php?category=7&year=2020&title=AUSTRALIAN+OPEN

Andrew – did Lendl ever win on grass ? Certainly not at Wimbledon which is the only one that matters.

Never missed the year enders, even the women’s event..MSG was my home away from home in the fall and winter until the mid 90’s

Just heard the funniest line ever on Tennis Channel. They’re about to show a doubles match from Cordoba. Place is empty, they say it’s real hot there

Announcer” the place holds 4750, we seem to be about 4700 short”

I guess Sampras didn’t scream enough on clay. Then he could have won there, though he did beat Muster there so he must have been yelling on that day.

Thiem said he thought he had a chance break point up, and that was the only chance he felt he had. And Djokovic felt otherwise, that Thiem was in good position to win the fourth set, so his life was on the line.

Sorry, Djokovic knew how vulnerable he was. Thiem didn’t seem to register how Djokovic was seeing things, and how some of his charging the net, however courageous, was a gamble (Djokovic said it was, so trust him).

Thiem needs to watch his own match and read the Djokovic transcript. Then next time, win that match.

As a McEnroe fan, I have to add my “theories” about why he fell: Tatum O’Neal and cocaine.

True, 1985 might have been considered a bad year (McEnroe didn’t do too well at the FO, which was really the norm aside from 1984; he was upset by Kevin Curren at Wimbledon while playing on the “graveyard court”). On the other hand, McEnroe did beat Lendl twice leading up to the 1985 US Open. Unfortunately, he had a killer of a semi-final against Wilander in scorchingly hot conditions (I can still remember his pouring a bucket of water over his head during the match). That draining victory no doubt contributed to his loss to Lendl in the final. From that point on, though, he only defeated Lendl once (until the “senior tour”).

Why I blame Tatum: McEnroe’s behavior became erratic after he linked up with her (I don’t mean losing his temper on the court). He said he was upset about seeing himself in the National Enquirer because of his relationship with Tatum. He failed to enter Wimbledon at least twice during this period. His father said at the time that he hoped John wouldn’t later regret his failure to play. And then, as mentioned earlier, there was the self-imposed sabbatical because he could not tolerate losing to “jerks like Gilbert.” (They seem to get along o.k. as colleagues on ESPN.) That kind of peculiar behavior and partial withdrawal from the sport certainly didn’t help.

But the counterargument against his fall really being Tatum’s fault is that McEnroe could not deal with the power tennis of Lendl (who had actually always given him trouble) or Boris Becker. So maybe McEnroe was really just done in by the full flowering of power tennis. Jimmy Connors also was no longer able to beat Lendl. And it really shouldn’t be forgotten how very dominant Lendl was during the post-1985 period until he began to experience back problems and Becker, Agassi, and Sampras were able to defeat him.

It’s ironic that McEnroe, who wasn’t considered extremely fit in his heyday, became dedicated to fitness after retirement from the ATP tour. Because of his natural talent and enhanced fitness, McEnroe was a much more successful senior player than basically all of his contemporaries and could beat players from the “next (senior) gen.” Now, of course, he cannot defeat Andy Roddick and James Blake, who are decades younger. Mats Wilander theorized that he and McEnroe were invested in senior tennis because they both felt they “left something on the court” (Wilander because of his drastic fall after 1988, McEnroe for his failure to progress beyond a G.S. semi-final after 1985).

McEnroe was my favorite, but my top favorite since then is Djokovic (with many intervening lesser favorites in the interim). So I have to take issue with Leif’s categorizing Federer and FAA as “geniuses” and Djokovic and Courier as “grinders.” First of all, isn’t it a bit early to categorize FAA as a “genius”? (I mean, give me a break.) And I really wouldn’t equate Courier, a relatively limited player whose period of dominance was comparatively brief, with Djokovic. Djokovic grinds all right (and, guess what, so does Federer when he really wants to win), but Djokovic has a genius all his own.

Oh, and Mac overruled a line call in Lendl’s favour. He clearly wasn’t going to win.

At that time Lendl despised McEnroe, or gave that impression, and was a rock on court, blank and hard. John couldn’t cope with two power games – one physical the other psychological. He couldn’t have changed his own game, however he fantasised.