Nole Rolls the Die

by Pete Bodo

Most eyes are focused on Rafael Nadal as we approach the first major event of the European clay-court season, the Monte Carlo Masters. But I'm equally curious about the prospects of the man who took the tennis world by the scruff of the neck and nearly shook it to death last year, Novak Djokovic.

At this time in 2011, Djokovic was the story of the hard-court stretch (24-0 record with four titles in four events, three of them Masters level or better). But he was preparing to accomplish the unthinkable'bushwhack then-No. 1 Rafael Nadal on red clay. 

Djokovic remained in relative seclusion in his training camp until he played the tournament his family owns in Belgrade, Serbia. It took place during the last week in April'just a month before the start of the tournament that everyone habitually conceded to Nadal, the French Open, the capstone of the roughly two months of red-clay tennis that everyone habitually conceded to Nadal. 

For the "king of clay," it was business as usual. He played his customary full slate of clay events starting in Monte Carlo, where he preposterously won his seventh consecutive title; the only match he's lost at the Monte Carlo Country Club (where he is 39-1 to date) was in 2003, his very first year on tour. He lost that one to a guy who would be one point from winning the French Open not long thereafter, Guillermo Coria.

Nadal was in good shape heading into the other two big Masters events on clay, Madrid and Rome. And that's where Djokovic sprang his shocking ambush. He beat Nadal in both finals, making fans and pundits blink their eyes in disbelief. Were it not for Roger Federer, who took out Djokovic and ended his winning streak in the French Open semis, odds are that Djokovic would have hammered Nadal in that final, too. That's how off-balance Nadal appeared to be by then, and how invincible Djokovic looked'and felt.

I drag you through all this recent history for one reason: To underscore just how different things will be this year. What was unthinkable just 12 months ago'that anyone could dominate Nadal on clay'became a reality last year. But it's also true that Djokovic no longer has that element of surprise, and in choosing to play Monte Carlo this year he's going right into the lion's den.

Give the guy credit, he's got sand'or, if you want to get all oxymoronic, a healthy death wish.

It isn't as if Djokovic needs matches or couldn't use the same amount of rest as he took in 2011. He's won two of the four tournaments he's played so this year (the Australian Open and Miami), the same number he entered to this point in 2011. And he's played just two fewer matches. But at times this year, Nole has taken his foot off the gas and allowed opponents to disrupt the equipoise that was never threatened 12 months ago. Djokovic was beaten by Andy Murray (Dubai) and John Isner (Indian Wells); he hasn't had to play either Nadal or Federer since his first tournament of the year, so we have no real preview of what might lie in store in as few as eight or nine days.

In Miami recently, Djokovic shrugged off any suggestion that he's lost even a little bit of his edge now that he and Nadal have switched places at the top, pointedly saying that he's not playing for 'points or ranking.' He knows how high he set the bar for himself last year, and isn't obsessing about duplicating any part of his record. What he really wants is to do is win the French Open, and that's about far as his vision extends'for now.

That approach is realistic; it may even represent the ideal attitude. But it also plays right into the hands of his rivals. They can'and will'reason that if Djokovic doesn't feel obliged to live up to his record of 2011, they may as well take full advantage. Great players know enough to strike while the iron is hot.

In Belgrade last year, Djokovic began his long push on red clay with wins over players ranked (in order, beginning with the first round), No. 175, No. 85, No. 36 (via walkover) and No. 37 Feliciano Lopez, the runner-up. Next week, he might meet a player of Lopez's quality in the first or second round. And the draw will abound in potentially interesting problems named Berdych, Monfils, Ferrer, Almagro, or Monaco. 

The fact that Federer is taking a pass on Monte Carlo this year will remove one potentially serious obstacle from Djokovic's path. It's easy to forget that, looking at just the past 18 months, the only real fly in Djokovic's ointment has been Federer. Given Monte Carlo's title sponsor's (Rolex) commercial relationship with the all-time Grand Slam champion, I'm surprised Federer opted out. But I guess that making a reluctant appearance last year, a gesture that ended in a puzzling quarterfinal loss to Jurgen Melzer, convinced Federer that if his heart isn't in it, his racket shouldn't be, either. 

Djokovic's decision to roll the die in Monte Carlo must seem to Nadal like a gift from heaven. It had better, or else Nadal could be in big trouble should he get to the final. You have to admire Djokovic for wading right into the thick of things, even if the deposed No. 1 must be thinking that Monte Carlo is the perfect place to turn the tables in 2012 and pull off an ambush of his own.

Russell Resurgent

Post-game interview with Caro by Kenneth Carlsen:

Her (Martic) dropshots were irritating. You know they're coming and you still don't get to them, or you do and you get beaten by a lob over your head. I think that's just the worst way to lose a point (laughs). She has a good slice and disguises the drop shot well.

"Would it have been more difficult for you if she's used the slice more?"

If she had, she couldn't have really decided the points. She used the shot to keep a rally going, and hope I misjudge the spin and hit a short one back she can lay into. But I got under it really well, and could force her out to she sides and open up the court so I could do something useful, or win the point.

"We have examples where she pressures you, but you just hang in and in the end you force an error from her."

Yeah. I had to really stay focused the whole match. It wasn't like, oh, ok, she's broken me, I'll just get it back again. She pressures you from the start, and you have to stay on top of her and her serve. That's why she's won three matches in a row. She likes the surface, the ball doesn't bounce very high, it suits her slice.

"When did you think you had control of the match?"

I think generally I had her serve, I couldn't really read it, but I had a good feeling for it and timing for it. When I could return her best serves at the beginning of the match with good depth, I thought to myself, ok, I've got this. If she can't win her serves, my serve is so good, at least right now, that she can't keep breaking me.

"There was a point when you were ahead 4-2 where she really turned it on and pressurized you. But you came back and played some very good points."

Yeah, she was going even more for her shots, taking chances. But I was ready for it. If she was going to play even more aggressively, then I had to do the same thing.

"At 3-2 40-30 in the second set,l she hits a really good forehand down the line, but you were on it like a hawk and got the ball back so fast, she was on her heels."

(On Angelique kerber)

She has more belief now in herself. She pressures you, hits flat and takes the ball early. And she's a lefty which is an advantage because the ball spins the other way on serves. And you have to get used to her forehand being where her backhand usually is.

"Where I think Kerber really has improved her B game, it's much better. Earlier,she'd fall completely out of matches, now she can lose it for a while, but never so badly that she can't recover. Now she's winning matches where she really isn't playing very well, but she still wins."

It'll be a difficult match, but if I stay concentrated and play my best, it should be OK. But it's not like I can sleepwalk through it.

---

I wish every player interview was like these with Caro in Copenhagen.

Who Needs the Backhand?

by Pete Bodo

My son Luke is just 9, and has about as much interest in tennis as I have in clogging. When he took the obligatory annual trip to the U.S. Open last August, about the only thing he really wanted to do (besides get ice cream and pizza) was play around in the Fun Zone. Those of you who don't have kids have no idea what a great addition these Fun Zones have been for those of us that do.

One feature at the Fun Zone was a net-enclosed mini-court where a tennis pro was hitting in five-minute clips with anyone willing to wait his turn in line. I convinced Luke to wait. When his turn came and the pro fed him a nerf ball on his forehand side, he whacked it. The next ball was to Luke's backhand, whereupon Luke naturally changed hand and hit another forehand. He went on like that until his alloted time was up, freely changing hands for each shot.

This was mildly surprising, because the few times we'd messed around on a court previously, I'd always more or less tried to teach him the conventional way (one-handed, lefty forehand, two-handed backhand).

I realized in the Fun Zone that left to his own device, Luke would probably hit two forehands. He's left-hand dominant, but throws (pretty poorly) with either. He may be ambidextrous, although it's more likely that like me, he's mixed-handed (I do some things, like play tennis, left-handed; others, like swing a hammer, right-handed. My wife is a pure lefty). This experience raised the question in my mind: In a world that gave us Rafael Nadal, one of the all-time great champions who happens to be a right-hander that plays tennis left-handed, why haven't we seen more players who are content to hit two forehands, eliminating the backhand altogether?

This seems an especially relevant inquiry at a time when it's all about power, and the most deadly stroke of all after the serve is'by a country mile'the forehand. Ever since Jim Courier hit the tour, the weapon-of-choice has been the inside-out forehand. This is true not only in the ATP, but the WTA as well. So what would happen if you were able to hit the inside-out forehand from either side of your body?

For the record, there have been some very high quality players who used a two-handed forehand. The most recent of them was Evgenia Koulikovskaya, who told Chris Clarey of the International Herald-Tribune that with so many curiosity-seekers flocking to her matches, she often felt like "a horse in the circus." Historically, Bud Collins' useful History of Tennis lists the most prominent of two-handed forehand players as Giorgio de Stefani of Italy, and an American lady, Beverly Baker Fleitz. The former actually beat Fred Perry at Roland Garros in 1934. Fleitz made it all the way to the Wimbledon final in 1955 before she lost to fellow American Louise Brough. 

In fact, according to Clarey's story, two forehand-only players, Lita Liem of Indonesia and Marijke Schaar of the Netherlands, squared off in the first round at Wimbledon in 1972. And he duly noted that in the 1990s, "Dual Hand Luke" Jensen, who is also ambidextrous, served with either hand but still hit a conventional right-handed forehand and two-handed backhand. I believe that there was a Czech male pro early in the Open era who also hit with two hands (Jan Kukal?), but could find no confirmation of it. You can also check out this present-day young player who posted a YouTube video of his two-forehand style:

The main stumbling block to having two forehands seems to be notion that it would take too long to switch hands. But I find that caveat absurd, given the typical bio-mechanics of a tennis player in motion. In fact, when you think of what players who use two hands off both wings (like Marion Bartoli) are up against in terms of moving and getting into position, the two forehand option begins to look awfully streamlined and economical.

One of the interesting aspects of this topic stems from the fact that so many players use a two-handed backhand. Even if you concede that this is the case mainly because most of today's pros started at an age when they needed to hit the backhand with two hands for lack of strength, it's obvious that having to hit a one-handed backhand is now seen as yielding some important ground in the battle for power and efficiency. Isn't that what so much of the Rafael Nadal-Roger Federer match-up hinges on, and isn't Novak Djokovic's hammer-throw two-hander an admonishment of the one-handed model and those who use it?

If the one-handed backhand is the equal of the forehand, who haven't more players shifted to it after developing adequate strength, as did the significant exception, Pete Sampras?

The paucity of the all-forehand game seems to be the product of either or both of two factors: The weight of tradition, and the wiring of the brain (full disclosure: I have not now, nor have I ever been, a brain surgeon). I wouldn't underestimate the role of tradition; it has also ruled out the underhand serve that could be such a valuable part of any player's arsenal'and yes, I am getting ready to do my annual post calling for young players to develop one.

As for the wiring of the brain, that seems an intriguing territory to explore. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some real neurological obstacle involved in changing hands; there does seem to be something, well, schizophrenic about the two-forehand option when you consider the extent to which we are creatures with an obvious and perhaps even prohibitive preference for one or the other hand. But if that's true, how do you, given the handicap implied, rationalize Nadal's success?

However, ambidextrous players must fall into a different category (and that one would also include "mixed-handed" individuals) altogether. And I'm surprised that a few more of them haven't come through the system to become two-forehand pros.