The second of three clay-court Masters 1000 events will get underway on Sunday in Madrid, where Tomas Berdych has a tough opening test on his hands in the form of Richard Gasquet. Denis Shapovalov and Tennys Sandgren are also in action.
Richard Gasquet vs. (14) Tomas Berdych
Berdych and Gasquet will be squaring off for the 17th time in their careers when they meet again in round one of the Mutua Madrid Open on Sunday. The head-to-head series stands at 9-7 in favor of Berdych and they have split four previous clay-court encounters at two wins apiece. They have faced each once at each of the three clay-court Masters 1000 events, with Berdych prevailing in Monte-Carlo (2010), Gasquet getting the job done in Rome (2011), and Berdych winning 7-6(3), 7-5 three years ago at this same Madrid tournament. Berdych’s most recent 7-6(4), 6-1 victory last season on the indoor hard courts of Rotterdam was his third in a row over Gasquet and sixth in their last seven contests.
This a second straight rough draw for Berdych despite being seeded, as he went up against Kei Nishikori right away in Monte-Carlo and lost 4-6, 6-2, 6-1. The 17th-ranked Czech has not done much since reaching the Australian Open quarterfinals and heads into Madrid with a 2-4 record in his last six matches. A back injury plagued Gasquet in late February and throughout March, but he began his clay-court swing with a semifinal showing in Marrakech and a quarterfinal performance in Monte-Carlo. In Budapest, however, the 29th-ranked Frenchman came up short in his opener against unheralded qualifier Lorenzo Sonego. The high-altitude conditions in Madrid should once again suit Berdych, who has three quarterfinal finishes, two semifinal results, and one runner-up since this event moved from indoor hard courts to clay in 2009.
Pick: Berdych in 3
[polldaddy poll=9996161]
Denis Shapovalov vs. Tennys Sandgren
Shapovalov and Sandgren will be going head-to-head for the second time in their careers and for the first time at the ATP level on Sunday. Their only previous encounter came in the final of a 2016 Futures event on hard courts in the United States, where Shapovalov triumphed 7-6(4), 7-6(4). Both players have emerged from relative obscurity since then–especially Shapovalov. The 19-year-old Canadian is up to No. 42 in the world thanks to success even at the highest levels (semifinals of the Rogers Cup, fourth round of the U.S. Open last summer) and he has already picked up 11 main-tour match wins in 2018.
Sandgren has produced plenty of headlines this year, both for good and bad. On the court, the 51st-ranked American made a run to the Australian Open quarterfinals and he finished runner-up to compatriot Steve Johnson on the red clay of Houston. Sandgren has since lost first-round matches in Monte-Carlo (to Philipp Kohlschreiber) and Barcelona (to Malek Jaziri) in easy straight sets. Both Kohlschreiber (Munich) and Jaziri (Istanbul) currently find themselves in clay-court finals, however, so those losses by Sandgren are not exactly discouraging. Because Shapovalov’s form on this surface is questionable at best, a slight edge goes to the Houston finalist.
Pick: Sandgren in 3
[polldaddy poll=9996163]
WWW?
Hopefully, Shapo’s team used the week off, to work on Denis’ serve. When I watched him win jr Wimbledon, he had a beautiful free flowing motion. He can serve 130. He has wicked action on his kicker, both ways. It should be one of the best in the game. His serve, however, has become a detriment. I am not a coach, but his toss is all over the place. With his once reliable service game, constantly under assault, Shapo, who had made strides in playing with a bit more patience and a bit more intelligence, has reverted to an all too often all out assault. Errors mount. Routine wins become wars. Matches that can go either way are lost. Sandgren plays with intelligence. He seems comfortable on clay. However, these courts play fast. Shapo remains, in the 50 yrs I have followed the sport, the most talented player I have ever watched. If they do not conquer his serving woes, he will forever be frustrating to watch. However, he is a freak athlete. I have a hunch, he will serve well this week. If so, Sandgren who gets the most out of his game, will be in way over his head. Shapo in 2
He’s too ‘going for broke’, and he being the most talented is rather questionable, and you’re entitled to your opinions. Among the youngsters, I do think Kyrgios is the most talented ( not going to compare to the big four which I doubt any of these youngsters could match in terms of talent).
For Shapo, there’s only one way of playing, ie attacking and going for broke, but he lacks the precision in his shots to be able to overcome his error prone attacking game and so his results lately weren’t that impressive.
He was toning down the attack. He was playing with more intelligence. He is very knew to all this. His coach is not the best. His serve completely broke down. It impacted all else. I think he will learn to play with more nuance. His volleys have improved a ton. His approaches were beginning to have purpose for recent implosion. I think, if they can get his service rhythm back (get that toss consistent!), you will see something very special. Agree Kyrgios is crazy talented too.
Interesting comments .You wouldn’t be Canadian by any chance ?
NO sir. Just a tennis fan of 50 years. I stand by what I write. I think the kid is a rare talent. People forget he has not yet played 40 matches on tour. I do not think is coach is the best. We will see.
But to say hes the most talented youve ever seen is a bit over the board esp when we have the big four around.
A rare talent maybe but imo certainly not the most talented. You place emphasis on his serve so much but once his serve is off he runs into problem that goes to show that the other parts of his game is lacking.
That is my opinion. I stand by it. Also to say that Andy Murray is talented? He was very average for a long time. He worked his ass off. Changed his game from way behind base line to a cerebral attacker. He was the original staggered foot returner. Murray is not a natural talent.
As far as natural athletic ability, yes, Shapo is ahead of all, even Nadal. It is all a matter of opinion. I am done defending.
Shapo played one great tournament , but one swallow does not make a summer.
Murray was very talented even in 2005, watch his Wimby match with Nalbandian, but took him a while to develop physically.
To say you’re done defending, sounds like you don’t have much argument there, Shapo himself doesn’t have any defensive skills worth talking about, he’s just raw power at the moment.
Compare Shapo at his age to Murray at same age. I love Andy Murray, might be my fave tennis player. He has evolved into an amazing player. It is no knock. There is a good chance Shapo will never be Murray good, but I think he has the ability to be better and in due time will. It is my first time on here. This is all subjective boys.
Shapo FTW.
He’s definitely maybe in the top 200 players I’ve ever seen talent wise.
👍 to Big Al and Hawkeye.
Murray is such a rare talent – a thinker, and only Rafa could match or is better than him in that respect.
Shapo better athlete than Rafa? I think not only us here but even Fed would disagree with that! Fed himself said it, that Rafa was the quickest out there; and we don’t even need to argue about Rafa’s stamina.
Next are we going to hear that Shapo bigger talent than Fed, Rafa and Djoko?
I think Shapovalov is being bigged up way too much. He has the raw power, but no finesse. It is not just so it pure talent either. If so, then Marat Safin would have been a great champion. But hus emotions and temperament got in the way. Ernests Gulbis would have been in the top five and maybe won slams. Kyrgios is another one who is looking like he will never reach his full potential because of his attitude and being injury prone.
McEnroe with all his natural talent, did not achieve what he could have. Another one with a bad attitude and lousy temperament. Then there was Ilie Nastase. Hus talent was overshadowed by his insane antics on the court.
It takes a lot more than natural talent to be a great tennis champion.
Well said NNY! 👍
I wouldn’t agree that Shapo is the most talented, but he’s certainly up there, far more than Murray in terms or pure talent, no doubt. I haven’t seen too much of him recently, so I’ll have to look out for what Alan says about his serve.
When talking about talent, I think one should distinguish between all-around athletic talent (think Wilt Chamberlain) and tennis-specific talent. There are a number of active players in the first category that stand out, including Monfils and Nadal. One could easily imagine either of them playing another sport at a professional level.
Compare that to McEnroe, who never looked like any kind of athlete, at least to me. But he was a genius with a tennis racquet, which is why (according to his father) he was told by a coach after his first lesson at age 8 that he could win the US Open one day. Mac is the only player to compare to Federer in terms of pure tennis talent, imo. Messi is the best comparison from another sport of incredible but sport-specific talent.
Ha, I doubt Mac was the only one being told that he could win a slam. How do you know the other players weren’t being told the same thing by their coaches?
What’s pure tennis talent by the way? Isn’t a good tennis brain pure tennis talent? Or sense of where to place the ball, good anticipation of where the ball is going to come from etc and etc? Even wielding a tennis racket, there’s not just one way of doing it.
Where’s Fed’s talent when once the trio of great counterpunchers appeared, he started losing to them more than he beat them?
Shapo far more talented than Murray? How? His serve?
Murray has better racket skills imo, esp deft touches. What Murray lacks is killer instinct; I feel some people mistake being aggressive and going for your shots for being more talented.
What I see of Shapo and some of the youngsters, is that they’re trying to copy their idol ie Fed. They try to play the same way, going all out attack but they forget defence is also part of the game. I do notice that most of these youngsters have good to great serve but they’re lacking in the ROS department.
Note that the big four guys – they’re not only good in their serving and attacking, but also in returning and defending. I feel the common mistake of these young players is that they think attack is more important than defence, and so they concentrate on attack more than defence.
I always feel that defence is equally important, for what’s the point of holding serve and couldn’t break serve; you have to play TBs all the time and that’ll be physically and mentally demanding when you have to play TB in every set and in every match!
I guess the youngsters are attracted to Fed’s game because it’s being praised for being beautiful, and because of the success that Fed has, and his longevity with not much injury.
Rafa, Djoko and Murray’s counterpunching game is seen as being physically demanding, having to do more defending, may lead to more injuries and may not lead to the longevity desired, and are not considered aesthetically beautiful.
However imo, it is more difficult and more challenging to play a counterpunching game of such high standards the way the trio do, that they’re the ones who give Fed the most troubles in his long career. You need not only athletic abilities, but also good court craft and court sense, not to mention good defence and counterattacking skills, good strategic mind, good anticipatory skills etc and etc.
One funny comment Dolgo made that I read about – he said playing against Fed was so tough because Fed was so quick in his attack; he said something derogatory about Rafa imo, that what Rafa had was just his topspin, if you could handle it then it would not be difficult to beat him (something to that effect, may not be exact words Dolgo said). I laughed at his comment, why then Rafa, Djoko and Murray could handle Fed but Dolgo himself couldn’t? Why Fed had the most problem with Rafa and not with the others? There must be something the trio could do but players like Dolgo couldn’t; and there must be something about Rafa that made him so difficult to beat, even for Fed.
“mental strength” Rafa can focus, concentrate better than anyone. He rarely loses the plot. Tennis professionals have commented on it since he was a kid. Also he doesn’t get discouraged. To Rafa failure means try harder, try something else. He enjoys “finding solutions” – on and off the court.
lucky,
I have to return the compliment! Well said to you! 😀
I just felt the need to go on the record about so-called “ pure talent” not being the be-all and end-all in tennis. I have seen too many young guys come along with all this talent, only to crash and burn into obscurity.
There is so much more that goes into being a great champion in this sport. Hard work, discipline, commitment, mental strength, agility, speed, tactical acumen, along with physical conditioning and strength. I could go on, but think the point has been made. Maybe a few more things – intangibles. The will to win. The ability to raise one’s level of play at crucial moments in a match. The ability to compete.
Rafa has a brilliant tennis brain. He is one of the best at making adjustments in the middle of a match. He is a brilliant strategist who can adapt his game to his opponent and negate their particular strength.
I think it is absurd to try to come up with one quality over all the others. Pure talent has never been enough and it never will be.
Oh and by the way, I do not agree that Shapo is more talented than Murray!
That is really overstating things. This kid has not yet done anything in this sport. Murray had won three slams and has many other titles, along with being #1. He has already proven himself over a long career. We hdve to see if Shapo has what it takes to do anything like what Murray has accomplished. I think if Murray had come along in a different era, he might well have even more slams. He had to deal with Rafa, Fed and Novak all in their prime.
Yes NNY, I always appreciate what the trio – Rafa, Djoko, Murray – have brought to the game, for before their appearances in the scene, Fed was beating almost everyone left, right and centre, with perhaps a Nalby who could still give Fed a little bit more problem.
Once those three appeared, Fed started to feel challenged. I do think that what the field lacked during that time was some players who were as talented, as quick and as athletic as Fed, good discipline and the will to win, and with strong desire to be great champions. Nalby was considered very talented and might even be more talented than Fed but he simply lacked the discipline and the desire of those great champions.
If the trio were born earlier and started playing in the S&V era like Fed, I’ve no doubt they would also pick up good skills playing at the net and playing the S&V game. It’s just that in reality, when they joined the adult tour, it’s already the era of baseline play and so they’re being unfairly criticized for being one dimensional and only good at and from the baseline.
I always appreciate a good tennis brain more than anything else (that’s my preference); of course the will to win, the desire to be great champion, together with good racket skills and good court craft will make one a very appealing tennis player for me. I’m not into aesthetic beauty, when athletic ruggedness together with intelligent play and the ability to overcome problems on the tennis court all are more attractive to me than beautiful stroke production.
lucky,
Thanks for bringing up Nalby! I should have mentioned him. Another extremely takented player who never reached his full potential. I don’t think he has the mindset and the desire and commitment to get there. Also, there was Fed. I always felt with Roddick that he had lost the match before he even got on the court with Fed. I think it was that way with other players, too. But Rafa was never intimidated by Fed. He had no fear.
I like a good tennis brain. Borg had both mental and physical strength that was awesome. He was like a well oiled machine on court. But the mechanism broke down with him. He lost the passion, the will to compete and win. Who knows what he could have done if he had stayed in the game. He accomplished so much for the time he did play.
I am also not impressed with aesthetic beauty. I think athleticism and physical strength like with Rafa, is its own thing of beauty.
It should go without saying that pure talent -whether general athletic or tennis-specific- is only part of tennis success, and definitely not the biggest part. Even if Monfils, for instance, has as much athletic talent (in some general sense) as Nadal, he obviously lacks a number of other traits that Nadal possesses in spades -mental strength, above all.
So it’s no criticism of Murray to say that he doesn’t have as much pure tennis talent as Shapovalov. If anything, it highlights how hard he’s worked to achieve what he has. In any case, since talent is only one component of success, and tennis (like other sports) is littered with very talented players who never came close to fulfilling their promise (e.g., Tomic), talent itself doesn’t mean much in the end.
What pure talent that Shapo has over Murray, I’m curious about your take on that.
Well, I had a long comment in response to you above that was lost; seems to happen a lot to me on this site lately.
There’s plenty of room for disagreement about what constitutes pure tennis talent, obviously. Fluidity of motion in one’s strokes, touch, footwork; those are a few common markers of natural talent. Roughly, things come more easily to naturally talented players than to less talented ones.
What about a “good tennis brain”? That’s important, no doubt, but it’s not usually classified as a part of pure tennis talent, or at least, I don’t think it should be. Tennis is a thinking person’s game, but it’s not chess. Moreover, someone who is smart on the tennis court is probably going to be smart playing a lot of sports, and perhaps much else as well.
To my eye, tennis does not come as easily to Murray as it does to the other top players, and even some clearly inferior ones like Dogopolov. He is primarily, imo, a retriever -a very good one, no doubt- who relies a lot on his legs, his fitness, and on the consistency of his ground-strokes. I would rate him very highly in terms of general athletic talent, less so in terms of pure tennis talent.
Then you haven’t been watching Murray. Murray, it has been said by many, has the varieties not unlike Fed’s – his deft touches at the net, his volleying, his slices – they’re all very natural to him. In fact it’s after Lendl became his coach, that he had foregone some of those varieties, but instead built up his fitness, add in more power to his FH, stayed at the baseline more often and rallied, he won his slams after that but had sacrificed some of his varieties for that.
As what Big Al mentioned earlier on, Murray showed off his varieties and touches as early as in 2005 at Wimbledon. It’s just that his body developed late, later than Djoko, and he’s always at a losing end playing against Rafa and Djoko back then. But, since 2009 he started turning the table against Djoko,
To say that Murray lacks the talent that you mentioned is simply not correct, as he’s simply a crafty player, is/was able to play many styles against different opponents – against Djoko, he played with varieties, junking balling him; against Rafa he played the thinking game to try to outwit Rafa; against Fed he counterpunched; against Stan at the FO last year, he made full use of his court craft and his varieties to overcome Stan’s power game. I’d seen him beating Nalby at Paris Masters one year when he turned things around, played the S&V game the full set before getting his win in three sets. I thought to myself then, what a smart and varied player he was.
lucky,
Needless to say I agree with you about Murray. Rafa has always talked about his talent and had respect for his game right from the beginning. Murray has a multi-dimensional game. He has shown great skill at net with his volleying. He is a brilliant defensive player with great retrieving skills. But he can also play aggressive tennis. Great backhand and Lendl worked on his forehand. I still maintain that in another era Murray might have won more slams and had more success. He came along when Rafa, Fed and Novak were at their best,
😊
Agree about Murray.Hr hardly gets a mention on this forum.If you look at his grass court record alone,it’s pretty impressive.Then you add to that his clay record,how could he not be richly talented ? He’s able to vary his tactics as Lucky says.
You guys are misunderstanding me. Of course I’m not saying Murray is untalented; he has more natural talent than 99% of all tennis players. I’m comparing him to the very best players ever, and saying he doesn’t have as much natural talent as them.
The whole conversation started because someone noted that Shapavolov is a crazy talent, as anyone who plays tennis at a decent level can see. He beat some top players at 18, which isn’t something many current players can say (Coric is another, but whether he will fulfill his talent is still open).
The men’s game has been a baseline game for nearly 20 years, and the big four play fairly similar games as compared to top players from previous generations. In particular, none are primarily serve and volleyers. All four obviously have many of the qualities for success at the highest level. Imo, Federer has the most variety and pure tennis talent; Nadal is mentally the strongest; and Djokovic (at his very best) is the best pure athlete. Murray has all of those qualities as well (as do all of them), but he just has them less than the others.
Nah, Fed not only one with pure tennis talent – all four of them have that in abundance. They all have great hands (maybe Djoko not as good as them in this category).
In terms of footwork and foot speed, they’re all great and hard to pick one at the top. Djoko is the most balanced and most flexible, hence he’s just as good from both wings and he’s the best at changing directions. Rafa has the best overhead smashes, great volleys and great timing in his net approaches, not to mention he’s the best in his rallying skills and point construction.
Murray has his amazing change of pace abilities and soft hands when at the net and together with Djoko, has the best ROS in the game; Fed has his varieties – spins, slices, volleys and of course his great serve.
Nobody is misunderstanding anyone. No one thinks you said Murray is untalented. I simply disagree that he is less talented than Shapo. Shapo is a work in progress. As I have said after a lifetime of watching tennis, a lot of talented young guys have come along. But many of them shone very briefly and then disappeared. They did not have all the qualities necessary to stay at the top consistently. What Rafa and Fed are doing now, is more proof of how exceptional they are. Murray has succumbed to another injury requiring surgery. Novak had the shoulder or elbow issue, but has been mired in a serious slump. Up until this point, they have both been able to stay at the top for years along wuth Rafa and Fed.
Shapo had some notable victories, but that does not mean he is incredibly talented. That proves nothing. Other young guys have vine along and had notable victories without backing it up for the long term.
I think Murray absolutely is as talented as Rafa, Fed and Novak. Rafa always thought he was a challenge to play and respected him from the beginning. I remember Uncle Toni saying that he wanted to try and have Rafa try to replicate Murray’s serve. The problem for Murray is he was a latecomer compared to the other three. They were already firmly established when he came along. I think Murray was lacking in the kind of mental strength and will that has been a hallmark of Rafa’s career. That was one of his problems. But he was always immensely talented and I think any comparisons with Shapo who is still not proven, don’t make much sense to me.
Agree with everything u said Nny!!…Woooohooooo!!…i wonder if he can materialized all 8 finals that he lost in GS,this ‘less talented’ phrase will still be uttered towards Andy?
Imo,the real problem for Andy when facing Big 3 especially in final was lack of mental strength & belief that he can beat them…At least before his 2016 historic resurgance…Andy has a full of talent in his mere body…It’s just.. he’s a retriever and not the aggressor..so his talent is not really stand out..tho if we saw him in a match,there’s plenty of talent he showed there!…Everywhere!..The amazing gets & winners that he produced was just as awesome as Rafa i think…and no one can do a lobe better than Andy i tell u!
MA,
I can tell that you like Murray! So do I. I remember live blogging on the old site Tennis Talk with some long suffering Murray fans like Margot. When the USO final went to a fifth set, she signed off thinking Murrsy would lose. But as I watched and realized that finally Murray would win his first slam, I was posting and calling Margot to come back. I was so happy for Murray breaking the drought for the Brits and also for his fans. If it couldn’t be Rafa, I was happy to see Murray get the win.
The best was of course when Murray won Wimbledon. I cried right along with Murray fans!
😍
Nny!…Oh my God!…I cried too when Andy won Wimby & WTF!!Hahaha…We’re the same Nny!….In fact Andy is my 2nd fav Nny!….That’s why i hate so much when he & Rafa were to meet in semis or final…coz the chance of him get a slam were almost nil…And i hate to see either one of them lose!…And when he met with anyone in the final,i will rooting for him Nny!…Everytime!
So,you’re also Andy Fanclub member Nny!….Yayy!!!
Well, that’s the thing about natural talent: you can have it without developing it or even demonstrating it much in terms of results. Being a work in progress also doesn’t show that one doesn’t have heaps of natural talent: that’s the case with Shapovalov.
Perhaps all this conversation shows is something I’ve already said: natural talent, in and of itself, doesn’t mean much in the end.
You forget that a few teenagers did beat Fed when Fed was no.1 during 2004-2006 and Murray was one of them (he beat Fed at Cincy in 2006 remember?).
Murray has amazing hands, hitting those spins and angles, drop shots, volleys, slices as good as Fed’s, but what’s so amazing about him is his ability to change paces so well. He could just absorb the power from his powerful hitting opponent and then changes the pace to hit a soft shot, they call that junk balling, catching his opponent by surprise. It’s no wonder he has good H2H vs power hitters like Delpo and Cilic.
His footwork is also impeccable, if not he won’t be such a great counterpuncher, able to chase down any ball; he may be slightly slower than Rafa but some commentators said that because he has good anticipatory skills, he’s able to start moving early and hence he appears to be as quick or quicker than Rafa.
If I remember correctly that match launched Murray’s break out year. Up until that point I was resigned to Andy following in the footsteps of Henman i.e. lacking the essential killer instinct that’s the hallmark of true champions. It’s something to do with the prevailing British mentality that it was ‘the game that counted’ and it was regarded as unseemly to let it show too much you wanted to win. Fortunately Andy had no such hang-ups 🙂
lucky,
It’s like you are reading my mind! I was going to come on here after looking up some of Murray’s victories over Fed earlier in his career. I think he got the attention of his rivals pretty quickly. I appreciate your description of Murray’s game and special strengths. He reminded me of Lendl as he struggled to try to win his first slam. I think that’s why it was such a good pairing even they joined up together. Lendl would have known the feeling, having come along when the sport was dominated by Borg, Connors and McEnroe. But Murray carried the additional weight of the drought for the UK in slams. That was a terrible burden.
I appreciate your analysis of Murray’s game, and your observation of Murray moving earlier to get the jump on his opponents.
☺