What next for Federer after the #20?

Roger Federer became the first male tennis player to reach 20 major titles by defeating Marin Čilić for a record-equaling sixth Australian Open championship. Following Federer's straight-sets win over Čilić in last year's Wimbledon final, the Australian final must have exceeded the expectation.

Following the lopsided first set, Čilić did well to regroup himself in the second set. He did exactly what he needed to do, being able to hold his serve and use the opportunities presented by Federer in the tiebreak. After Federer took the third set and led the fourth with a break, it looked like all Federer would need was cruising through his service games. Yet Čilić was finally able to break Federer's serve to level the set and with another break he could take the match into the fifth set.

The momentum was on Čilić's side after the fourth set and he had break points again in the opening game of the fifth set. Federer save those break points and immediately broke the Croat's serve. As the set progressed, the momentum got back to Federer's side and he took the final set 6-1 equal Roy Emerson and Novak Djokovic at six Australian Open men's singles titles with his 20th major title overall.

With the 20th major now in Federer's bag, the question is, what next? The hot questions for the upcoming months are if he claims the No. 1 ranking and if he plays on clay?

Will Federer claim the No. 1 ranking?

Following the Australian Open, Roger Federer trails the World No. 1 Rafael Nadal by mere 155 points. Neither player has points to defend before the last week of February. Nadal is defending 300 points from the Acapulco final and he's scheduled to return to courts again in Acapulco. Federer is defending only 45 points from Dubai's round of 16. Federer has not signed to play in Dubai this year, although he may still enter with a wild card.

If Nadal, injured at the Australian Open, didn't play Acapulco or didn't reach the semifinals there, Federer would automatically become the No. 1. If Nadal played Acapulco and won the 500 title, Federer could become the No. 1 by winning the Dubai 500 title, assuming he'd take the wild card.

Rankings weren't Federer's priority last year as he skipped the entire clay season and skipped the Paris Masters, very much handing the year-end No. 1 ranking to Nadal. But now that he's so close to the No. 1 ranking, at the age of 36, it might be too attractive an opportunity to pass.

Federer could become the oldest player to reach the No. 1 ranking, a record currently held by Andre Agassi who was the No. 1 at the age of 33. I think that is a record worth chasing for Federer now that he's so close to it. There is still a month to Dubai; he should have recovered from the Australian Open by then. Dubai has been a happy hunting ground for Federer; although he lost on the round of 16 last year, he's a seven-time champion there.

Should Federer play on clay?

Last year after winning the Indian Wells-Miami double, Federer took a break from the tour and later announced he will not play at the French Open, starting to prepare for the grass season. That appears to have been a smart decision as he won Wimbledon without dropping a set. As that worked last year, the question is if it makes sense for Federer to play on clay this year either.

Now that he's achieved the 20th major title, Federer should have less pressure to succeed at Wimbledon, especially as he won the record-breaking eighth title last year. If he wants to have one last good run at Roland Garros, there will be no better time for it, he's not getting any younger.

Federer has not made it past the quarterfinals at Roland Garros since 2012. Then again, he's playing better now than in those years. With question marks over Wawrinka's, Djokovic's and even Nadal's fitness, the draw could be open for Federer although he's at his most vulnerable on that surface.

I think this year could be Federer's last chance for a good run at Roland Garros and he should play clay tournaments. Even if he could play great tennis beyond this year, this year could present the most open draw given the current state of the tour.

I'd like to see Federer skipping Miami, especially if he plays Dubai, and measuring his clay performance at Monte Carlo. If he's good enough on clay, he should continue on clay and play either Madrid or Rome before Roland Garros. And if his chances for Roland Garros don't look good, then he could skip it and start preparing for the grass season. But I'd like to see Federer giving clay a try this year, just to see how well he could do on that surface with his current game.

That being said, I'm rather expecting Federer to follow a successful formula from last year, skipping clay to prepare well for grass. At the age of 36, he must be careful with scheduling. Winning Roland Garros is a long shot whereas he's the favorite at Wimbledon, and the physical demands of clay tennis may compromise his preparation for the grass season.

How long can Federer keep on winning slams?

Federer has won three of the last five majors and there are not many players who can beat him when he's on top of his game, despite his age. If he stays healthy and in form, he's the favorite to win at Wimbledon next July. The US Open is possible for him, although it will be ten years since his last title in New York this year. Last year the US Open was the slower of the two hardcourt majors, making it the more difficult one for Federer.

Smart scheduling allowed Federer to start the 2018 season fresh after the successful 2017. The same can't be said about Nadal who played a heavier schedule and has a more physical playing style. That being said, I'm not sure how much longer Federer can continue this great run he's been having since the start of last year.

Since his injury comeback last year, Federer has shown so much love for tennis that I believe it overcomes any desire to walk away after a great season, like 2018 may be. I believe Federer will keep on playing as long as he can contend for major titles. I believe Federer will still have few more years of great chances at Wimbledon. But the physical demands make it more difficult for the ageing Federer to win more slams outside grass, although the Australian Open showed it's still possible. And given his age, any injury can end Federer's flight on top of the game.

I think one or two more majors is still possible for Federer, even three if he won two more this season. He can still outplay anybody but he must stay healthy and fit. Though if some dominant player or players emerge from those in their mid-to-late 20s' physical peak, like Djokovic in the first half of this decade, then the days of Federer winning slams may be over.

Does tennis fanbase have an age problem?

SportsBusiness Daily has reported earlier this year about the demographics of major sports' fanbases in the United States. Tennis has one of the oldest fanbases of all sports with an average age of 61 for the ATP's TV viewers and an average age of 55 for the WTA. The only major sport with older TV viewers than the ATP is the PGA Tour with an average of 64 years. The ATP's average has increased by five percent since 2006. The WTA is at least showing a positive trend by being the only major sport where the average age has decreased, by eight percent since 2006.

Of course, those are only American numbers but I'm still a bit surprised by how old the fanbase of tennis is in the USA. Tennis has traditionally been a game of young players, dominated by players in their 20s, although 2017 saw players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and the Williams sisters having great success still in their 30s.

In the American market, global sports tend to have a younger audience than North American sports, soccer and Formula One being examples of that. That makes it somewhat surprising how old the tennis fanbase in the USA is. On the other hand, the USA has greater traditions in tennis than in many other global sports, explaining the older fanbase.

There is a trend in many sports that younger fans tune in only for something big. Those young adults with work and kids don't want to spend all their spare time watching sports. As an example from tennis, the Wednesday night session featuring the Keys-Kanepi and Federer-Del Potro quarterfinals was the most-viewed US Open telecast both overall and in the 18-49 age group, though the women's semifinals and the final had more viewers in the non-18-49 demographics. Young adults wanted to see the much-anticipated Federer-Del Potro match; for comparison, the Nadal-Anderson final had only half of the 18-49 audience of the Federer-Del Potro quarterfinal.

Lack of American stars may explain why the WTA's fanbase in the USA is younger. Ever since Andy Roddick won the 2003 US Open, no American man has won a Grand Slam tournament whereas American women have achieved a total of 21 Grand Slam titles since 2004. The WTA provides more must-see matches for American people than the ATP does. The Stephens-Keys US Open final had 25 percent more viewers than the Nadal-Anderson men's final, in the 18-49 age group it had 58 percent more viewers.

Young adults are likely able to spend less time watching TV than retired old people. That may be the reason for the increased cord cutting, especially among young adults. Why pay for cable channels you don't have time to watch? Streaming services will be a big part of the future of sports broadcasting. People want to be able to watch from their mobile devices wherever they are and they don't want to pay for content they aren't watching.

All the numbers above are from the USA but it's easy to assume there are some global trends there. Streaming services are replacing traditional subscription channels around the world. Young, working adults with small children don't have as much time to watch sports as retired people have. Yet still, young adults are fascinated by major sports events and want to watch them.

Tennis needs young stars

With the average age of the fans increasing, the sanctioning bodies of tennis are trying to make the sport more appealing to younger generations. The ATP experimented some rule changes at the Next Gen Finals, including no-ad scoring, a best-of-five format with sets played to four games, and on-court coaching.

I'm not sure tennis needs those rule changes. A match played as best of five sets to four games will be 12 to 35 games, with the current rules of best of three sets to six games it's 12 to 39 games. No big difference there. No-ad scoring would shorten the matches, though it would come at the expense of thrilling extended games. Hardly an improvement.

What I think tennis needs to attract younger generations is young stars. After all the years they have spent on the top of the game, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray don't appear as young and exciting.

Tennis needs young stars whom young adults and teenagers can identify with. But how can the sanctioning bodies get them when the old guard is still too strong?

It's almost crazy how fit some players in their 30s are. Federer, Wawrinka, and Nadal would be retired at their age if they were 1990s players, yet they can beat younger players with their stamina. Today's tennis is very physical and players in their late teens or early 20s aren't ready to win major titles. Stan Wawrinka won his first slam at the age of 28; that's the age when players had usually reached their peak and started to decline. Grigor Dimitrov won his first Masters 1000 title at the age of 26 after years of big expectations.

Tennis needs to become less physical to help young players to break through (among many other reasons). Speeding up the courts would help in that. A young player who has the skills but not the stamina would be more capable of beating seasoned veterans if the game was less grueling.

Is the ATP schedule too taxing?

The ATP World Tour continues next week with a Masters 1000 tournament in Montreal. Of the top six in the ATP ranking, four players will be missing from Montreal. Of those, Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic will be aside for the rest of the season.

Wawrinka and Djokovic are in a similar situation as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal last year as those missed the US Open and the rest of the season. Yet this year, those two have swept the Grand Slam titles and Nadal, followed by Federer, leads the Race to London ranking.

At the age of 35, Federer needs smart scheduling to allow his body more years on the top of the game. This year he skipped the entire clay season, including the French Open, to be fresh for the grass season. That worked for him as he won the record eighth Wimbledon title. Yet the cost of missing the clay season was three zero-pointers for his ranking.

Tennis has a short offseason. The season ends in late November and the new season begins at the beginning of January with the Australian Open starting in the third week of the season. In that one month of offseason, players play in the IPTL and exhibitions.

Once the season has started, it is hard for the players to have a longer break from the tour without compromising their ranking. February and April are the only months without mandatory events. As most of the Masters 1000s are back-to-back events, it's hard to have a longer break from the tour without multiple zero-pointers for the ranking.

I think the ATP World Tour schedule is too taxing for the players. The rankings should show who can play the best, not who can play the most. I would give the players more freedom in making their schedules and reduce the number of mandatory tournaments. Most top players would probably still play the Masters 1000s in Montreal and Cincinnati as a preparation for the US Open even if those were not mandatory.

I'd leave only the Grand Slam tournaments and some selected Masters 1000s as mandatory events. Indian Wells is a special Masters 1000 event. It's not preceding a bigger tournament, instead it's over a month after the Australian Open and over two months before the French Open. Given it's considered to be the biggest non-major, it could be mandatory. The following Masters 1000 event in Miami gets overshadowed by Indian Wells and I don't think it should be mandatory. Shanghai is another Masters 1000 I think should be mandatory. It may have the shortest history but is important for the ATP to attract new fans in Asia.

Making most of the Masters 1000s non-mandatory wouldn't probably change players' schedules a lot, players would still play them to prepare for the following Grand Slam tournaments. In addition to reducing mandatory events, I think the season needs to allow a longer offseason. Apart from the ranking points available, the European late-season indoor events serve little purpose. I think the ATP Finals could take place right after the Shanghai Masters 1000. As the season would be shorter, the number of tournaments included in the ranking should be reduced by one or two from the current 18.

Davis Cup suffers from the heavy season

The Davis Cup suffers from the absence of star players, especially in the early rounds. In a season that takes players to their physical limits, the star players are not particularly willing to play anything additional, possibly involving a transition to another surface for a single weekend and traveling to another continent.

The ITF Board proposed a switch from best-of-five to best-of-three in Davis Cup singles. The proposal got the support from the majority in the ITF annual general meeting but not the required majority of two thirds. However, the AGM gave the Board the authority to change the Davis Cup format without AGM voting. So the Davis Cup may still eventually become best-of-three in singles.

One must not underestimate the physical demands of Davis Cup ties. A Davis Cup tie with best-of-five singles means six to ten sets in singles, comparable to three or four best-of-three matches. Add to that possibly playing a best-of-five doubles match. A Davis Cup tie is comparable to playing a regular tournament, and away from playing elsewhere. But even with best-of-three singles, a Davis Cup tie would still be away from playing elsewhere. And you can't play more than your body allows to.

I doubt a change from best-of-five to best-of-three would bring the big names into Davis Cup ties. The traveling and the surface transitions are the problem. To make the Davis Cup flourish again, the ITF and the ATP need to find weeks where the ties are not too close to important tournaments. That's important especially for the early rounds; the chance of the title motivates the players more in the semifinal and final stages.

I'd also re-introduce the ranking points for the Davis Cup World Group. Winning two singles rubbers is comparable to making the semifinals or the final in a 250- or 500-point tournament, it should also be rewarded respectively. That was very much the case with the points system from 2009 to 2015 when there were 80 to 275 points available in World Group ties depending on the round.

Federer favorite vs. Cilic in Wimbledon final

The men's singles final at Wimbledon will have the two best grass-courters of 2017 facing each other. After skipping the clay season, Roger Federer returned with an upset loss to Tommy Haas. Yet since then he won the Gerry Weber Open title in Halle and reached the record-improving 11th final at Wimbledon, extending his streak of consecutive sets won to 28.

The 17-time Grand Slam champion Federer will be facing the 2014 US Open champion Marin Čilić in the final. Čilić's grass season has been showing an upward trend. A week after making the semifinals in 's-Hertogenbosch, Čilić  made the final at Queen's Club, losing to Feliciano López in three close sets. At Wimbledon, Čilić was yet to drop a set before the quarterfinals where he was taken into five sets by Gilles Müller who had beaten Rafal Nadal in an epic, long five-setter the previous round. Čilić made the final by defeating Sam Querrey in four sets in a semifinal battle of two tall, big-serving players.

Federer leads the head-to-head against Čilić 6-1. In their only meeting on grass, Federer beat Čilić in five sets in last year's Wimbledon quarterfinals, after which these two have not faced each other. Čilić's only win is from maybe the biggest match of this rivalry when he beat Federer in straight sets in the 2014 US Open semifinals, on his way to his only Grand Slam title so far.

As it's grass, this should be on Federer's racquet. Grass may suit the big-serving, big-hitting Čilić's game, yet it also suits Federer's aggressive game. It's usually the slower surfaces where Federer is vulnerable against big-hitters who have the firepower to hit through. Yet on the faster surfaces like grass, Federer is able to keep up the tempo and take away the time from his opponents. Both players serve well so there may not be many break opportunities.

Federer lost his last two Wimbledon finals against Novak Djokovic. Though Čilić is a different player to Djokovic. Djokovic has a great return of serve and a great defense. What Čilić can do is to outpower Federer from the baseline, though Federer can take away the time from him.

I give the advantage to Federer. His semifinal win over Tomáš Berdych, even though in straight sets, appears closer on the scoreboard than it was in reality. I expect a similar performance in the final. Both players serve well so the sets will be close, yet I expect Federer to have the upper hand. My pick is Federer, maybe in four close sets, to achieve the record-breaking eighth men's singles title at Wimbledon.

2014 ATP World Tour review

The 2014 ATP season has finished so it is time to have some review of the season. Novak Djokovic ended the season as the World No. 1. He wasn't way above others and managed to win only one Grand Slam tournament but nobody else could play on such a high level all year long.

Roger Federer finished the season as the World No. 2. That surpassed the expectations after the poor 2013 season. He played more often at the net and it worked for him. He won five titles this year, including two in the Masters Series. He also finally got his name to the Davis Cup trophy when Switzerland won it for the first time. But, despite having had the second-best season of all players, he couldn't win a slam. He isn't anymore way above the rest of the field, and players like Cilic or Gulbis have the abilities to beat him when they are in form. What I found promising was that he got better at the end of the season, but that can also be explained by faster surfaces on the second half of the season.

This season saw the end of the domination by the usual Big Four. Stan Wawrinka started that by winning the Australian Open. Title at the Monte Carlo Masters proved he isn't a one-tournament wonder. But his season had lots of everything. The lowpoint was a first-round loss at the French Open as well as the loss streak after the US Open. Quarterfinals at Wimbledon and the US Open were respectable performances but his game lacked the magic there was at the Australian Open and Monte Carlo. But he found his form again at the end of the season, making the semifinals at the World Tour Finals and winning impressively a singles and a doubles rubber in the Davis Cup final.

Marin Cilic was another first-time Grand Slam champion this year. He won the US Open with very impressive tennis. He dominated the semifinal against Federer and won it in straights. The final against Kei Nishikori was a one-sided affair. Three consecutive long matches surely didn't help Nishikori but Cilic was in an excellent form. Still, Cilic couldn't establish his status as a top player the same way as Wawrinka did. He won four titles in total but besides the US Open, Wimbledon quarterfinal was the only time he made it that far in a slam or masters.

Kei Nishikori reached this year the level that he is a serious threat to anyone on the tour. I think his two most memorable matches this year were the Madrid Masters final and the US Open semifinal. Kei had found a great clay form and won the Barcelona 500. After that he made the Madrid Masters final and was leading it against Rafael Nadal with a set and a break. But then an injury cost him the second set and the title as he was forced to retire at the beginning of third. In the US Open semifinal, he beat the World No. 1 Djokovic in four sets. Unfortunately he still couldn't win a masters or a slam but he finished the season at a career-high rank of 5. If he stayed healthy next year, he should be able to do that next year.

Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov were players who made the long-awaited breakthrough to the top 10 this year. They both did reached their first Grand Slam semifinals at Wimbledon but losses to Djokovic and Federer showed they still need to improve.

Talking about Nadal only now shows what a poor season he had by his standards. He missed most of the second half of the season due to injury and health issues but even until then, he was playing the worst season since his breakthrough on the tour. There were more players than before who were able to trouble and even beat him.

Andy Murray was even bigger a disappointment. He never looked like a top player during this season. As a sign of his poor performances, he wouldn't have made the World Tour Finals without playing and winning some smaller tournaments after the US Open. And once he made the Tour Finals, he won only one match there.

And some words about one of my favorites, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. After the summer 2013's knee injury, Tsonga couldn't reach his former form. 2014 was full of mediocre results and he won only one title. But that title gives some hope. It was at the Toronto Masters, beating Djokovic on the round of 16 and Federer in the final. That showed he still has the abilities to succeed. I hope he can play more often like that in 2015. And of course that he will have fully recovered from the elbow injury that ended his Davis Cup final by the beginning of the season.

What I liked this year was unpredictability and new players succeeding. That was very refreshing after years of Big Four domination. But what I didn't like was only two players having truly great seasons as a whole. Those were Djokovic and Federer to a lesser extent. The other good players had fluctuations in form or injuries. My wish for 2015 is that some of the younger guys can succeed with that kind of consistency. If Nishikori could have a season without bigger injuries, I believe he would be a consistent top player, what he was already at the end of 2014.

2014 ATP World Tour Finals preview

The 2014 ATP World Tour season will get its conclusion next week at the World Tour Finals in London's O2 Arena. The groups have been released:

Group A: Djokovic, Wawrinka, Berdych, Cilic

This seems like the weaker of the groups, despite having three of this year's Grand Slam champions. But of those champions, only the World No. 1, Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic has been impressive lately and he comes to London as the champion of last week's Paris Masters. He has is also the champion of the last two World Tour Finals.

The Australian Open champion, Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year, and after the Monte Carlo Masters title, he is yet to reach a semifinal. After making the quarterfinals at the US Open, he has won only two matches, so his form doesn't look too good for the Tour Finals. He has played some great matches against Djokovic and finally at this year's Australian Open, he beat him, but in his current form it is hard to see him beating Djokovic.

But this group might still offer Stan a chance to make his second Tour Finals semifinal in a row. The third Grand Slam champion in this group, the US Open champion Marin Cilic won a 250-point title in Moscow but otherwise his results after the US Open have been mediocre, and he missed the Paris Masters due to a right-arm injury.

The fourth player of the group is Tomas Berdych. After Djokovic, he has recently been the most consistent of this group's players: quarterfinals at the US Open, final at Beijing 500, quarterfinal at the Shanghai Masters, title at Stockholm 500, semifinal at the Paris Masters. Still, he seems like the least capable for upsetting Djokovic; Djokovic beat him in the Beijing final 6-0, 6-2. His consistent form can get him through from this group but Wawrinka and Cilic have the abilities to beat him, like they both did on their way to Grand Slam titles.

Group B: Federer, Nishikori, Murray, Raonic

This seems like the tougher group. Federer has been playing a great season but he has suffered losses to Nishikori in Miami in March and Raonic last week in Paris. Given the level of tennis these three have played recently, advancing from this group will be a big task for Murray.

Roger Federer must be the favourite to win this group. After the French Open, he has been very consistent and reaching the Wimbledon final plus winning two Masters titles have been the highlights of his season. Nishikori and Raonic have beaten him this year but more often than not, Roger should beat those players.

Kei Nishikori and Milos Raonic are playing their first ATP World Tour Finals. Especially Nishikori of these two has had some great results this year; he made the Madrid final which he would have won without getting injured and later this year he made the US Open final by beating World No. 1 Novak Djokovic in the semifinal. Raonic has also had some good results, like reaching the final at last week's Paris Masters. With Federer in the group, it is hard to see both of them through even though it's not impossible. Yet, these two and Federer will make it hard for Murray to advance from the group.

Andy Murray had played a mediocre season and after the US Open, he wasn't even qualifying for the Tour Finals. Then, titles at Shenzen 250, Vienna 250, and Valencia 500 put him in a position to secure his Tour Finals place at Paris Masters. Still, his performances in big events have been mediocre with his only semifinal in a mandatory event having been at the French Open. Given his poor record against top players this year, it is hard to see him succeeding here, and I'd be surprised if he even made it past the round robin.

Semifinals and the final

It seems like the biggest favorites for the title are the World No. 1, three-time champion Djokovic and the World No. 2, six-time champion Federer. Federer outplayed Djokovic in their last meeting in the Shanghai Masters semifinals and won in two sets. But this time I give the edge to Djokovic. The surface at the O2 Arena is usually pretty slow favoring Djokovic and he also had a better warm-up at the Paris Masters, a title compared to Federer losing in the quarterfinals. Murray and Berdych seem like the most certain players not to win the title; they haven't been able to win big matches this year. Nishikori and Raonic have been in a good form recently but they would need to play their best tennis to have a chance to win the title in the presence of Djokovic and Federer. Wawrinka and Cilic haven't been in a great form recently but if they somehow found their form, they could beat any of their opponents.

If any of the underdogs were to win the title, I think beating Djokovic or Federer in the round robin might help. That way having to play Djokovic and Federer consecutively in the semifinal and the final would be less likely, and Djokovic and Federer might have to play against each other in the semifinals.

Anyway, my  pick for the title is Djokovic but Federer can beat him. But if these two didn't play up to their potential, there are some players who could have the game to beat them.

My review of the 2014 men's US Open and some thoughts on the future

The most memorable thing of this year's US Open was two first-time Grand Slam finalists with Marin Cilic winning his first Grand Slam title. This was the first time since the 2005 Australian Open when none of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, or Novak Djokovic made the final at a Grand Slam tournament. Unfortunately this wasn't otherwise a particularly interesting tournament, and despite an interesting match-up, the final was pretty one-sided.

In my preview, I pointed out a player who has been troubling the best players during this summer, yet hasn't achieved big success. He was Marin Cilic. After a five-setter against Gilles Simon on the round of 16, he was superb in the last three matches and is a deserving champion. It is always nice to see an offensive player succeeding instead of a player who rather waits for the opponent's errors. But there is a stain in Cilic's career. Last year he failed a drug test during the tournament in Munich. The substance was nikethamide which Cilic said was from incautious use of glucose tablets. As I am not an expert in doping, I cannot question the decision to reduce his ban to only four months because the use was said to be unintended and not to enhance performance. But how the ATP/ITF were hiding his doping case didn't give a good image of the transparency of their anti-doping work.

The runner-up Nishikori had a great tournament despite not winning the title. He beat three top 6 players on his way to the final. On the round of 16, he beat the World No. 6 Milos Raonic in five sets. In the quarterfinal, he beat the No. 4 Stan Wawrinka in five sets, and in the semifinal he beat the World No. 1 Novak Djokovic in four sets. Those long matches may account for his lame performance in the final, even though Cilic was so good that Nishikori would have had trouble even if he had been completely fresh.

It was a pity that the final was so one-sided, it was nice to have two fresh faces in the final. After the final, some people might have said to have actually preferred a final involving two of the big four. While I must say that I preferred the Djokovic-Federer final at Wimbledon, having two big names doesn't always guarantee a great final. From recent years, the 2013 Australian Open final Djokovic-Murray wasn't particularly exciting whereas Nishikori's first 500-level final in Tokyo in 2012 against another first-time 500 finalist Milos Raonic was one of the matches I enjoyed the most that year. I want to see fresh faces on the top of the tour. Nishikori was already in the Madrid Masters final but an injury cost him that match after being a set and a break up against Nadal. That injury forced him aside from the French Open, after having a great start to the clay season with a 500 title in Barcelona. If he could avoid injuries, he would have potential to be on the top of the tour. Cilic is yet to prove he can stay on the top of the tour. Low ranking and tough draws had made it difficult for him to make it to the late rounds in big events. Now with his improved ranking, he should be able to have deep runs more often and he definitely has the potential to win more big titles.

Novak Djokovic is the World No. 1 but he hasn't been playing his best tennis this summer after winning Wimbledon. It is hard to say what was wrong with him on North America's hard courts. He had just won Wimbledon so he should be in a good form but maybe getting married has taken some focus away from tennis. As his fan, I wouldn't be worried yet. He still has a great chance to finish this year as the World No. 1. And at this point of his career, his big goal should be to complete the Career Grand Slam at the French Open. He can still play great tennis and only Nadal has a better peak level on clay. It is hard for Novak to reach Nadal's peak level on clay but if he can avoid heavy decline longer than Nadal, he should have a great chance to win the French Open.

Roger Federer was the player with the best results in the pre-US Open Masters tournaments. But as I said in the preview, he isn't way above the field. I think his current peak level isn't anymore among the very best on the tour. Otherwise he is just another top 10 player but with his consistency he is No. 3 and being the most successful player of all time puts pressure on his opponents. This tournament with Djokovic not playing his best tennis, Nadal aside, and Andy Murray being hardly on top-10 level, was a great opportunity for Roger to win his 18th Grand Slam title but he wasn't just good enough. And maybe this was his last chance, at least outside Wimbledon. I can't see him anymore improving for the next season. On Wimbledon's grass he might still win a title if Djokovic has a bad tournament and Murray cannot anymore find his best level. And if Roger himself plays his best tennis. That may be too many ifs.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Stan Wawrinka were the players I expected to be the most dangerous title rivals for Federer and Djokovic. Tsonga was playing decently on the first three rounds but on the round of 16, he didn't have enough consistency against well-defending Andy Murray. Wawrinka was like he has been most of the season. Great at his best but sloppy at times. That was enough to make the quarterfinals but in the quarters he lost a tight five-setter to Nishikori. Wawrinka's season has been a bit disappointing after winning the Australian Open and the Monte Carlo Masters which made him the No. 1 in the Race to London. After Monte Carlo he is yet to win a title and has had some big disappointments like losing on the first round at the French Open. But with a Grand Slam and a Masters title, I don't consider his season as a disappointment. He has taken a step forward this season, now he can win big titles. He will most likely never dominate the tour but he can win any event he enters if he manages to play his best tennis. I wouldn't be surprised if he won some of the remaining Masters events this year or the World Tour Finals. Tsonga's season has also turned into a good one as he won his second Masters title in Toronto after a bad first half of the season. My expectations for him for the rest of the season are pretty similar to Wawrinka. If he had a great week, he could win some big event.

This season has been a breakthrough for Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov. They have made the top 10 and they both made their first Grand Slam semifinals at Wimbledon. The US Open was a decent performance by both. Neither of them can be happy with a round of 16 exit but they weren't really underperforming. Raonic took the eventual finalist Nishikori to five sets whereas Dimitrov lost to well-playing Gael Monfils.

Monfils was a positive surprise at the US Open. He was yet to drop a set after the second set of his quarterfinal match against Federer. Unfortunately he couldn't keep his level up to win the match but he lost it in five sets, after having match points in Federer's serve in the fourth set. He is such an interesting player that I would love him to succeed but he is already 28, so the time is running out for him to achieve something big. Still, this was his first season with two Grand Slam quarterfinals, so hopefully he can have some good results in the near future.

All in all, it was very nice to see fresh faces succeeding. Unfortunately there weren't particularly memorable matches. Nishikori beating unusually bad Djokovic or Cilic beating 33-year-old Federer isn't as impressive as Robin Söderling beating Nadal at Roland Garros or Wawrinka beating Djokovic at the Australian Open, beating players at a tournament that they have dominated in the previous years. But it is nice that each slam had a different champion this year, not only on men's but also on women's side. And it is also nice that this is the first season since 2003 with two new Grand Slam champions.

My preview of the 2014 men's US Open

The field at this year's men's US Open may seem weak. Rafael Nadal is injured and aside. World No. 1 Novak Djokovic underperformed in the two pre-US Open Masters events in Toronto and Cincinnati. Roger Federer had great success in Toronto and Cincinnati, yet isn't playing his best game. Andy Murray is having a difficult season and hasn't won any titles or even achieved finals. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga won the Toronto Masters but lost on the first round of the the Cincinnati Masters. The Australian Open champion Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year and anything between a title and a first-round loss is possible. David Ferrer and Milos Raonic have been having good runs in the previous weeks, yet they seem unable to win big matches.

Then again, the struggles of big names make this US Open maybe the most unpredictable Grand Slam tournament in years. None of Djokovic, Federer, and Murray are unbeatable, so this is a big chance to get a non-Big Four Grand Slam champion. If Tsonga can bring his form from Toronto, he is in the contention, and Wawrinka showed in Australia he can win a slam. And unless the big names improve their games, there will be more players who could beat them.

Roger Federer has obviously been in the best form in recent weeks. A final on Wimbledon's grass, then a final in Toronto and a title in Cincinnati in Masters events on DecoTurf. But he isn't way above the field, as shown by his loss to Tsonga in the Toronto final as well as by some tight matches in the recent weeks. We have seen this year that he isn't unbeatable. Then again, his performances in Toronto and Cincinnati show he can win the US Open.

Novak Djokovic hasn't been too impressive after winning Wimbledon. Both Toronto and Cincinnati ended with a round-of-16 loss, to Tsonga and Robredo. I think it all comes down to if he can find his best level; if he can, he is the favorite as he is the most consistent player on the top. But if he can't find his best level, there will be players with the abilities to beat him.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga won the Masters event in Toronto but lost on the first round in the Masters event in Cincinnati the following week. The title in Toronto showed he can still succeed, something one could doubt after his poor first half of the season. When he is playing his best tennis, he can beat anybody on the tour. He definitely has a chance to win the US Open. Then again, he isn't the most consistent player on the tour so we must see if he can bring his best game. Also, he still lacks a Grand Slam title, so winning the US Open might be a big task mentally.

Stan Wawrinka has been very inconsistent this year. After his Australian Open title, he had difficult tournaments before winning the Masters event of Monte Carlo, propelling him to the top of the Race to London. After that, he has been unable to win titles and the French Open was a huge disappointment with a first-round loss. At Wimbledon, he made the quarterfinals, which was his career-best result there. His performances in Toronto and Cincinnati were mediocre, round of 16 and quarterfinals. He needs to play better at the US Open if he wants to win there. If he could bring his best game, then he would be one of the biggest favorites to win the title; he has been great in the hardcourt slams in the last two seasons. And the Australian Open and Monte Carlo titles show he has the mental abilities to win big titles.

A few words about Andy Murray. His level after the back surgery hasn't been on the level it used to be. His best performance so far has been the semifinal at the French Open. I believe he will go through the early rounds with his consistency but at some point in the second week, he will face a player who is better than him. Let's face it, he is only ninth in the rankings, there are players who are playing better than him. I just can't see him winning the US Open.

David Ferrer made the final in Cincinnati. With the big names underperforming, Ferrer might have a chance to win a slam at the US Open. Unfortunately, he seems to lack the ability, or maybe just the faith, to win big matches against big names. Of the nine significant finals he has played in his career, he has won only one, the only one without a Big Four opponent. I wouldn't be surprised if he made the final in New York but I would be (very positively) surprised if he won the title.

Milos Raonic has been playing a solid season. Then again, he seems to be able to make the most of his draws but is unable to beat the best players. That's why I think he isn't ready to win a slam. Grigor Dimitrov is another youngster who has made the top 10 this season, yet also he doesn't seem able to beat the best players yet. Besides, Dimitrov has been more inconsistent, so a first-week exit by Dimitrov wouldn't be as much of an upset as by Raonic.

A player who might have abilities to trouble big names is Marin Cilic. His current ranking of 16 means harder draws for him, though, as seen recently. He lost on the round of 16 in Toronto to Federer and in Cincinnati to Wawrinka. Both times he lost in three sets. In the Wimbledon quarterfinals, he lost in five to Djokovic. Also at the French Open, his tournament ended against Djokovic; four-set loss on the round of 32. Cilic might have the skills and the form to succeed at the US Open but the question is if he has the mentality. He is still to prove he has the mental abilities to win big matches. That is what he needs to do if he is to win the US Open. Plus he may have a tough draw.

So, I think Federer and Djokovic are the favourites at the US Open. Tsonga and Wawrinka are the players who have the abilities to challenge and even outplay them; then again they may underperform badly. And if Federer and Djokovic underperform, there are lots of players with a chance to win the title.

What next for Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer?

Today's Wimbledon final was a big match for both players, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. Djokovic's last Grand Slam title was from the last year's Australian Open. After that, he has always been beaten in slams by the eventual champions, and he didn't seem to play his best tennis in those matches. Most recently, he lost the French Open final to Rafael Nadal after winning the first set. The question was if he could finally play his best game in a Grand Slam final and win it.

Federer won his last Grand Slam title at Wimbledon two years ago, which made him again the World No. 1. But 2013 was a bad year for him, for the first time since 2003, he fell out of the top 4, he won only one title, and his Wimbledon title defense ended on the second round ending his streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals. His 2014 season with a new racquet and a new coach Stefan Edberg had started much better; he was fourth in the Race to London ranking and now he was playing in his first Grand Slam final in two years, at the mature age of 32. Could he win it and surpass Pete Sampras in Wimbledon titles as well as get one further Grand Slam title away from Rafael Nadal.

Well, Djokovic won the final in five sets. He was the better player most of the match. Federer took the first set to tiebreak and won it but Djokovic won the next two. Djokovic was up a break in the fourth set and serving for the championship but then Federer broke back, his first break in the match. In the following game, Djokovic had a match point in Federer's serve but Federer could hold his serve and broke Djokovic's serve in the following game to take the match to the fifth set. At this point, it seemed like Federer was the better player on court. But Djokovic could hold his serves, and nerves, and at 5-4, he broke Federer's serve to win the championship.

But what to expect from these players in the future? It is somewhat surprising that Djokovic won his second Wimbledon title before his second US Open title as grass is considered as his worst surface and hardcourt as his best. The higher number of excellent hard-courters compared to excellent grass-courters explains that, as well as today's Wimbledon playing more like a fast hard court where you don't necessarily need special grass skills. Still, despite the US Open not being his most successful tournament, he is now my favourite for that title. He is the best hardcourt player on the tour. Hopefully now after ending the Grand Slam drought at Wimbledon, he has more mental strength in big points, what he has lacked so often at slams in the last two years. And as he is very unlikely to reach Federer in Grand Slam title count, or even another great of this era, Nadal, his biggest aim must be to complete the career Grand Slam at the French Open. I wrote about his chances to win the French Open in the last month, and now all I can add to it is that at least next year he won't have the pressure of winning no Grand Slam titles in the previous 17 months.

Then, what to expect from Federer? I am afraid this was his last big chance to win a slam. He is playing an excellent year, he will be the World No. 3 on Monday, ahead of Grand Slam champion Stan Wawrinka. But I am afraid it is not anymore in his racquet. Djokovic is now better than Federer on grass. Nadal is better, at least on clay and hard courts. I think also Wawrinka is very dangerous, he beat Federer on Monte Carlo's clay and I believe he can play on a higher level also on hard courts. And there are dangerous players like Nishikori and Gulbis. As well as Roger is playing, he played better in 2012 when he won his last slam. In 2012, he routined Djokovic in the Wimbledon semifinal, today he lost to him. Although I don't rate Djokovic even close to peak Federer as a grass-courter, I must say he is now better on grass than Federer, today's match showed that. And if Murray can find his old form, I think he could also be better than Federer on grass. All in all, I am afraid the days are over when Federer could outplay the opposition to win a slam. Even on his beloved grass, there are now players that can play better than him. Now he needs some luck to win a slam, he needs others underperforming. Outside grass, that is very difficult, there are too many players that can beat him. On grass, a slam might be possible, there aren't so many excellent grass-courters. But there is only one slam on grass, and every year Federer is one year older and has declined more. I see it very hard for Federer to win another slam. Maybe the chance to surpass Sampras in Wimbledon titles motivates him to fight against decline to win one more Wimbledon title. But I am afraid Wimbledon 2012 will remain as his last Grand Slam title. Today he had a chance to win yet another but he couldn't do it. It won't be any easier in the future, just harder.

Will Djokovic ever win the French Open? Or even another slam?

This year seemed to be the golden opportunity for Novak Djokovic to win the elusive French Open title. The biggest obstacle to win the title, Rafael Nadal, had not been too impressive after the Australian Open and he played his worst pre-French Open clay season despite being able to win the Madrid Masters and make the final at the Rome Masters. Djokovic had a wrist injury during the Monte Carlo Masters but the wrist was healthy for the Rome Masters which he won, defeating Nadal in the final. So everything seemed fine for him before the French Open.

After the early losses of potential black horses Stan Wawrinka and Kei Nishikori, the French Open was a two-horse race between Djokovic and Nadal, like in the previous couple of years, and it ended with a Djokovic-Nadal final. Despite winning the first set, Djokovic's performance was lame. He couldn't hit through Nadal's defense often enough and Nadal could exploit it if Djokovic left the court open. And mentally his performance was poor. He lost his serve in the last games of the last three sets, being on serve in second and fourth sets. And the match ended with a double fault, just like the French Open final two years ago.

I am starting to believe that Djokovic just doesn't have what it takes to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. He can beat Nadal in Masters events on clay but Nadal will always bring his best to the French Open. Plus there is the pressure of the missing slam from the Career Grand Slam, which doesn't help him.

I think Djokovic's chances to win the French Open depend on how fast he will decline, how fast Nadal will decline, and how fast the new generation will come. Given Nadal's injury history, one can assume Djokovic will have a couple of years more on the top of the game. Plus there may be a year when Nadal has an injury, giving others a great chance to win the title. But Nadal's bad year may come too late for Djokovic. Djokovic is 27 and he can't keep his current level for many more years; next year he will already be older than Roger Federer when he won his only French Open title. Also, there will be new players coming to the top of the game. The tour has been dominated by players in their late 20s plus few in their early 30s. But recently there has been some good performances by younger players. Kei Nishikori was already close to beat the French Open champion Nadal in the Madrid Masters final before a back injury forced him to retire. If he can still develop, he will be a big challenger for the ageing Djokovic. Ernests Gulbis' semifinal run at Roland Garros was also impressive, and if he can start to live up to his potential and develop, he is another challenger. And there are young players like Grigor Dimitrov and Dominic Thiem with lots of potential. In a couple of years, Nadal may already have declined and isn't anymore Djokovic's tougest opponent even on clay but there may be other players who keep him from winning the French Open.

So what I think about Djokovic's chances to win the French Open? I think he still has years to win it. David Ferrer is 32 and still he is playing excellent clay tennis. Nadal will have issues with his body and can't keep on winning year after year. Also, I don't see another as dominant a clay-courter as Nadal emerging, so I believe Novak will still have a few more chances. But even if he didn't have to play against Nadal, he will have to play with the pressure of winning the missing Grand Slam title. One can wonder if that has been the reason why he hasn't been able to beat Nadal at Roland Garros unlike at all clay Masters.

Today's loss was Djokovic's third consecutive lost Grand Slam final. Add to that, his losses at last year's French Open and this year's Australian Open were tight five-set losses to the eventual champions. One can wonder why the player who was so dominant in 2011 cannot anymore win slams; his last slam is the Australian Open last year. I think things started to go wrong for him at last year's French Open. He lost the semifinal against the eventual champion Nadal despite leading the final set with a break. After that we saw a lame performance in the Wimbledon final. In last year's US Open final, he wasted lots of chances in the third set, eventually losing it, and played a bad fourth set after that, losing the match. And today's final didn't look like he has the mental fortitude to win.

Maybe he is starting to feel pressure to win a slam. He hasn't been able to repeat the three-slam season of 2011. If things are getting hard, he seems unable to get over those difficulties the way he did in the exhaustingly-long 2012 Australian Open final which he won despite being down a break in the final set. I definitely believe he will win more slams, he is just so good. But if he is facing trouble in the match, he may not find the way to get over it.

My view into the first half of Stan Wawrinka's 2014 season

Stan Wawrinka lost today on the first round of the French Open against Guillermo Garcia-Lopez. That was a big disappointment since he is the World No. 3 and the winner of the season’s only Grand Slam event, Australian Open, as well as the Masters event on Monte Carlo’s clay courts.

Wawrinka’s season has been quite a rollercoaster. He started the season with a title in Chennai and after that he sensationally won the Australian Open defeating Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal on his way. That title showed he can beat anybody in the World. He was the first player since Sergi Bruguera at the 1993 French Open to defeat the two top seeds in a Grand Slam tournament. Also, he was the first non-Big Four player since Juan Martin del Potro at the 2009 US Open to win a Grand Slam tournament. He is a bit similar player to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Tomas Berdych, he has an offensive game with heavy groundstrokes. But why have those two never won a slam and Stan has? I think a reason is that Stan is more consistent from the baseline; he won’t commit as many errors in long rallies against the great defences of the likes of Nadal and Djokovic.

After the Australian Open, there were high expectations on Wawrinka, even though some people were also wondering if he is only a one-tournament wonder. He played in the Davis Cup first round in Serbia in the weekend after the Australian Open where he had trouble in beating Serbia’s Dusan Lajovic. After that weekend, he didn’t play before the Masters event in Indian Wells. He started the tournament promisingly but his run ended against Kevin Anderson on the round of 16. He didn’t make it any further in the following Masters event in Miami where he lost to Alexandr Dolgopolov. After Miami, Stan played in the Davis Cup quarterfinals in Switzerland. He wasn’t too impressive in that tie, he lost his first singles rubber to Kazakhstan’s Andrey Golubev and with Roger Federer, they lost the doubles rubber against Andrey Golubev and Aleksandr Nedovesov. He won one rubber that weekend, the must-win fourth rubber against Mikhail Kukushin.

After those weak performances, more people were asking if he can really challenge the top players on a constant basis. Two weeks after that difficult Davis Cup weekend, Stan showed he isn’t a one-tournament wonder as he won the Masters event on clay in Monte Carlo. He dropped only one set in that tournament, in the final against Federer. Especially his semifinal performance against David Ferrer, who had just beaten Nadal, was very impressive. It seemed like he could be one of the biggest favourites for the French Open, Djokovic had a wrist injury, Nadal was off-form, and he had just beaten Federer and Ferrer.

As Stan was playing so well, he dropped the 250-point event of Oeiras from his schedule and his next event was the Masters event of Madrid. There he lost his first match against the young talent Dominic Thiem, after winning the first set 6-1. In the following week in a Masters in Rome, he made it to the round of 16 where he lost to Tommy Haas. After the title in Monte Carlo, his results from Madrid and Rome weren’t what was expected. He had some back issues but this started to remind of the time of Indian Wells and Miami. After a big title, he couldn’t live up to expectations. But after some worse performances, he could bounce back in Monte Carlo. Could he do it again, this time at Roland Garros?

Well, he couldn’t. He started his first round match against Guillermo Garcia-Lopez well and in the fourth game, he broke into a 3*-1 lead. But after that, things started to go wrong for Stan. Right in the next game, Garcia-Lopez broke back and in Stan’s next service game, he broke into a 4*-3 lead. Stan had started making lots of errors. That is how the match went forward. Garcia-Lopez won the first set. In the second set, Stan had again a lead of a break but lost it later. In the end, Stan could break to win the set 7-5 but right in the first game of the third set, Garcia-Lopez broke. Stan couldn’t reduce errors and he was getting desperate. After a hold to 2-3* in the third set, Stan couldn’t win any more games, Garcia-Lopez won the third set 6-2 and the fourth set 6-0.

So, what went wrong with Stan at the French Open? Why are his three titles his only tournaments this year where he has made it past the round of 16? If we exclude the big titles from the Australian Open and Monte Carlo, he was having a better season a year ago. He was more consistent back then.

I think he isn’t used to his new status as a Grand Slam champion. There is nothing wrong with his game; he was awesome in Monte Carlo. But it all comes to down to if he can play his best game. Maybe he is floating after all his success this year and taking matches too easily. Then if things don’t go his way, he will get desperate. I think that is what happened today. After being unable to hold his serve after getting a break, he started making errors and was unable to get his game together for the rest of the match. Then, as he couldn’t get the match back on track, in the last one and a half sets, despair took over.

I think he had too high expectations for the French Open. He had won a slam this year and he had shown in Monte Carlo that he can win a big clay tournament. He forgot to concentrate on the game; he expected wins to come more easily. I think the same happened already after the Australian Open. He had high expectations for the American Masters events and he failed to live up to those expectations. I think those bad results helped him to get the right mentality for Monte Carlo. He knew there are no easy wins. I hope today’s loss makes the same. I believe today’s loss brings him down to earth, concentrating fully on the game, expecting no easy wins. And if he enters another slam with as high expectations, I believe he will be able to handle those expectations better.

But what to expect from Wawrinka in the future? Can he win more big titles, can he win even another slam?

I believe he will bounce back. He has shown in last one and a half years so many times that he has the skills to challenge and beat anybody on the tour. I expect good results from him in the second half of the season. The grass season may be difficult for him; he has never been excellent on grass. Given his great performances at the Australian Open and Monte Carlo, I believe he will still win big titles. He can even win another slam. I fancy his chances in the hardcourt slams. Clay may be his preferred surface but I think a medium paced surface like hardcourt suits him best against the likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Hard courts aren’t too fast for Stan but they enable him to hit through the best defences. But he is already 29. He won’t have many chances to win big titles. If he is to win another slam, I think he must do it within the next two years.

My visit to ATP Munich

Last week I was able to fulfil one of my dreams and see ATP-level tennis live. I visited the BMW Open in Munich on the quarterfinals day. Now I want to share some of my photos from that day.

The club house of the tennis club MTTC Iphitos.

The club house of the tennis club MTTC Iphitos.

A Rolls-Royce on display at the club.

Jakob Schnaitter in a junior match.

The winner's prize car in front of the scoreboard.

The doubles team of John Peers and Jamie Murray.

The doubles team of Eric Butorac and Raven Klaasen.

The catering area.

The Info Tower.

The centre court in Munich.

Next I will go to the singles matches played on the centre court.

Martin Kližan def. Denis Istomin 7-6(3), 1-6, 6-1

I missed the first two sets of the match but saw most of the third which was total destruction by Kližan. Kližan had a bad 2013 season but he has had some good results on clay this year and eventually he won the Munich tournament.

Kližan serving against Istomin.

Tommy Haas def. Andreas Seppi 6-3, 3-6, 6-3

Tommy Haas is one of my favourite players so it was great to see him playing. Unfortunately he has had shoulder issues this year and he isn't playing on his best level. Still, he could produce some nice shots and it was great to see him winning in front of a German crowd.

Haas hitting a backhand against Seppi.

Haas hitting a volley.

Seppi serving.

Fabio Fognini def. Thomaz Bellucci 6-2, 6-2

You can hear people saying Fabio Fognini is the dark horse of the French Open. I must say I didn't see it in this match why he could have big success at Roland Garros. Bellucci was playing more offensively and hit some flashy winners. But he made way too many errors, which even made the crowd frustrated.

Fognini (left) and Bellucci (right) warming up.

Fognini hitting a forehand.

Bellucci hitting a volley.

Players shaking hands after the match.

Jan-Lennard Struff def. Ričardas Berankis 4-6, 6-3, 6-4

I was one of the few people in the crowd whose favourite was Berankis as Struff played in front of his home crowd. Struff is a tall player with a big serve. Berankis, on the other hand, is small for a tennis player and can't rely on outpowering his opponents but he has more variety in his game than Struff. Berankis was doing the right things and took the first set from Struff. In the second and third sets he was unable to break Struff's serve, though, and Struff was able to break Berankis once in both sets to win the match.

Struff serving against Berankis.

Berankis hitting a volley.

Struff giving signatures after winning the match.

All in all, it was a great day. I think you can get more of the game when you are watching it on site compared to watching it from TV. You can see e.g. spin better as well as things like bounce height or net clearance. This was my first tournament visit and definitely not the last. I can recommend all tennis fans going to a tournament.

The state of ATP doubles

Once again Indian Wells had many singles players playing doubles thanks to its two-week format. Some teams consisting of singles players were able to upset established doubles teams, for example Federer/Wawrinka beat the 2010 US Open runner-ups Bopanna/Qureshi and two-time Grand Slam champions Paes/Stepanek in their semifinal run. The recent Australian Open champions Kubot/Lindstedt were defeated on the first round by F. Lopez/Robredo, both of them known mostly as singles players. The eventual champions, the Bryan brothers, were forced into the match tiebreak against Isner/Querrey, a team of singles players.

After those results, one can question the level of doubles on the ATP Tour. In the 2010s, singles players have been winning the Indian Wells title three times out of five, Rafael Nadal twice partnering doubles specialist Marc Lopez in 2010 and 2012, and Dolgopolov/Malisse in 2011. There have been also other examples where singles players can beat good teams of doubles specialists. For example, the last two World Tour Finals champions got beaten by singles players in the Davis Cup soon after those titles. The 2012 Tour Finals champions Granollers/M. Lopez were beaten in the Davis Cup final by Berdych/Stepanek. OK, Stepanek is a great doubles player. But last year's Tour Finals champions Marrero/Verdasco got beaten on this year's Davis Cup's first round against Haas/Kohlschreiber, neither of whom is particularly known as a doubles player.

Singles players have had success also in the Olympic doubles. In their run to doubles' Olympic gold in 2008, Federer/Wawrinka beat doubles specialists like the Bryan brothers and Bhupathi/Paes. At the 2012 Olympics, the silver and bronze were won by Llodra/Tsonga and Benneteau/Gasquet, of whom Tsonga and Gasquet play doubles quite rarely.

I think it is quite obvious that there are singles players who could have success in doubles if they played it more often. Fernando Verdasco is an example of a good singles player who has successfully started to play doubles on a regular basis. Still, I don't think top singles players would dominate doubles if they played there. Federer/Wawrinka were beaten in Indian Wells by the eventual runner-ups Peya/Soares, so the final was occupied by doubles specialists despite many singles players' presence. Also Federer/Wawrinka didn't steamroll the other doubles specialists they faced during the tournament. I believe today's top-level doubles tennis is doubles at its very best, despite some players with good doubles skills concentrating only on singles. But singles players playing doubles regularly would add depth to the top of doubles tennis.

But how to make more singles players playing doubles on a regular basis? Yevgeny Kafelnikov is the last man who won singles and doubles at the same Grand Slam event, at the 1996 French Open. Nowadays you could not imagine that happening; the top singles players concentrate solely on singles in slams, playing seven best-of-five singles matches is physically taxing enough. That's why I see very little hope to see the best singles players playing doubles at slams. But I think the players ranked between 10 and 20 could play doubles more often at slams. They usually don't have so deep runs in singles that playing doubles would hurt them, especially as a deep run is not guaranteed in doubles either. Playing doubles more often might also bring something to their singles game, especially improve their net game, even though unfortunately that is not so important in today's baseline-dominated game. But I can see also those players ranked between 10 and 20 rather concentrating solely on singles; by making it one round further in singles, they can earn more than by making the doubles quarterfinals. And I don't think doubles’ prize money should be increased. John McEnroe questioned the status of doubles by saying doubles specialists are players who could not make it to the top in singles and that's why he suggested abandoning doubles and chanelling the prize money to lower-ranked singles players. I don’t agree with him about abandoning doubles, I think doubles belongs to tennis. But singles is the main thing in tennis and I think you should not be able to make a living by playing solely doubles unless you are really good in it.

Maybe the tour should promote doubles more to add the prestige of winning doubles titles. That might encourage more singles players playing doubles on a regular basis. The players whose chances to win singles titles in big events are slim might play doubles for the prestige of winning, even if that might hurt them in singles. Look at the Olympics, even the big names of singles' game are playing doubles as they can play for the Olympic medals only once in four years and the prestige of doubles’ gold is close to the prestige of singles’ gold. I think the ATP could do a lot to promote doubles. They could increase doubles' coverage; I think many fans were willing to see the Federer/Wawrinka vs. Peya/Soares semifinal from Indian Wells as there were two famous singles players there. But that match was not televised as television channels don't want to show doubles. Actually, even Challenger Tour doubles matches are streamed better than Masters Series doubles matches. I think that is shameful and the ATP should do something on it. I think they should ensure coverage at least from Masters semifinals and finals, preferably from earlier rounds, too. Who cares about doubles if you cannot see it? If you think doubles' coverage should be increased, you can sign a petition here.

A look into men's 2014 Australian Open 2nd week

The second week of the Australian Open begins with the top half’s round of 16. The most interesting match is probably Roger Federer against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, which I analyse later in the text. The winner of that match faces the winner from Andy Murray vs. Stephane Robert match which is probably Murray; Robert got an easy draw as a Lucky Loser but now his luck will end. The other two round-of-16 matches in the top half are Rafael Nadal against Kei Nishikori and Grigor Dimitrov against Roberto Bautista-Agut. Nishikori is a dangerous player who has beaten Djokovic and Federer in his career but outside slams. I cannot see Nishikori now beating Nadal in a slam. Bautista-Agut should be a beatable opponent for Dimitrov but Dimitrov may still lack some routine in playing in slams and a loss would not be such a big upset. Still I believe that Dimitrov will win.

Round of 16: [6] Roger Federer vs. [10] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Head-to Head: 9:4)

These two players faced last year in the quarterfinals with Federer winning in five sets. Their other meeting last year was at the French Open quarterfinals when Tsonga won in three sets.

Both players have played well at the Australian Open this year, on the other hand, neither player, especially Federer, has not faced very strong opponents. Still, I believe Federer is playing better than last summer whereas Tsonga’s from may have dropped from last year because he had an injury break in the summer.

The surface is obviously faster than last year, probably medium-paced. Of these two players, Tsonga is usually considered to be the one who benefits more from faster conditions. But I am not sure it is the case this time and in this match-up. Last summer Tsonga beat Federer on slow conditions on Roland Garros’ clay. I think Tsonga’s ground game is nowadays more reliable than Federer’s, so he can win the longer rallies on slower surfaces. Also, the aging Federer is not anymore so fast, so baseline rallies do not suit him so well. But this is not such a slow surface. It is harder to break and easier for the underdog to hang in the set. And in case of a tight set and a tiebreak, I think Federer is calmer during the big points.

I give a slight edge to Federer. I believe his form is good enough to beat Tsonga. He beat Tsonga in Melbourne last year, and I think Tsonga was in a better form last year.

Quarterfinals

The quarterfinals will be played on Tuesday and Wednesday. The bottom half will begin on Tuesday with Ferrer vs. Berdych and Djokovic vs. Wawrinka matches. Especially Djokovic vs. Wawrinka seems very interesting.

Quarterfinal: [3] David Ferrer vs. [7] Tomas Berdych (Head-to-Head: 7:4)

Head-to-Head is favouring Ferrer in this match-up. Last year these players met twice. Ferrer beat Berdych in three sets at the Paris Masters whereas Berdych beat Ferrer in the following week at the World Tour Finals in two sets. Berdych has never reached the semifinal at the Australian Open whereas Ferrer has a good record from the Grand Slam events in the last two years, he has always reached the quarterfinals and semifinals four times, including last year’s Australian Open. But his game is not anymore on the peak level that he showed in 2012, so Berdych has a chance. Berdych is yet to drop a set in this tournament, so I pick him as the winner.

Quarterfinal: [2] Novak Djokovic vs. [8] Stanislas Wawrinka (Head-to-Head: 15:2)

Last year these two players played an unforgettable match on the round of 16. Wawrinka won the first set and was controlling the second set but eventually lost it. Djokovic won the third set but Wawrinka managed to win the fourth set, so the match went into the fifth set which was won by Djokovic. These players had also another great five-setter last year at the US Open. Once again Wawrinka was playing great tennis and won the first and third sets but eventually, Djokovic won the match in five sets. Last year they faced each other also at the Paris Masters and the World Tour Finals. Those matches were easier for Djokovic; he won both of them in two sets.

Those Australian and US Open matches showed last year that Wawrinka’s game had all it would have taken to beat Djokovic. He was controlling those matches. But what went wrong? Unfortunately it seems very difficult for him to beat big names; he has horrible Head-to-Head records also against Federer and Nadal. That’s why I am afraid he cannot beat Djokovic also this time. Also, Djokovic has improved his game after last year’s US Open; he has been unbeatable since then. He had no trouble in beating Wawrinka in those two last meetings in 2013.

I cannot see any other result than Djokovic winning. If Wawrinka plays his best tennis, this can be a tough match for Djokovic but with his routine, Djokovic should win.

Top half quarterfinals

Nadal beating Nishikori in the quarterfinal seems very likely and he will face either Dimitrov or Bautista-Agut in the semifinal. Bautista-Agut should have no chance against Nadal but Dimitrov might have. Last year, Dimitrov was playing a tight three-setter against Nadal in Monte Carlo on clay, Nadal’s favourite surface. Eventually he lost it, partly because cramps stated to affect his playing at the end of the third set. But we saw he has potential to beat anybody in the World, he beat Djokovic in Madrid some weeks later. Still, Dimitrov is the clear underdog here; he is No. 22 in the rankings and Nadal the No. 1. And first Dimitrov needs to beat Bautista-Agut on the round of 16.

The other top half quarterfinal will most likely be Murray against Federer or Tsonga. Murray had a back surgery so we cannot expect him to be quite at his best yet. If Federer can beat a well-playing Tsonga, then I think he should be able to beat also Murray. But I am not as sure about Tsonga being able to beat Murray. His Head-to-Head against Murray is horrible 1:8.

Semifinals and the Final

The bottom half semifinal played on Thursday will probably be Djokovic against Ferrer or Berdych. I do not see Ferrer having much of a chance against Djokovic. It has been some time since his last win over Djokovic and he has never beaten Djokovic in a slam. And also Berdych’s chances do not look too good. The Head-to-Head is 15:2 to Djokovic. So Djokovic seems like a clear favourite to the final.

The top half semifinal played on Friday will probably be Nadal against Murray, Federer, or Tsonga. Nadal seems like the favourite in any scenario. Murray had the back surgery and we all know the Federer –Nadal match-up. Tsonga might have most potential to upset Nadal like he did in the 2008 semifinal. But that requires a perfect match from him, and given his inconsistency, I doubt we will see that happening again.

So, the final most likely seems to be Djokovic vs. Nadal. I give the edge to Djokovic. He has played awesome tennis after the US Open last autumn and not lost a match. And he is so great at the Australian Open; he has won the title four times, including last three years. If the final has only Nadal but not Djokovic, then there is a risk of a very one-sided final. I cannot see Wawrinka, Ferrer, or Berdych beating Nadal in a slam final. On the other hand, the top half has also other good players than Nadal, so Djokovic will not have an easy final even if his opponent is not Nadal. If the one surviving from the section of Federer, Tsonga, and Murray can beat Nadal, then he must be in a good form and should be able to challenge also Djokovic unless he is already too tired.

Is it over for Roger Federer?

That is the title of a thread on an internet forum, started after Roger Federer lost the Australian Open final in 2009. Of course a five-set loss in a slam final wasn't the end of Roger's time on the top of the game. Instead he has returned twice to World No. 1 after that and won four slams. But now that question arises again. And this time Federer hasn't even lost a slam final, instead his streak of Grand Slam quarterfinals since Wimbledon 2004 has ended.

2013 has been a bad year for Federer. He started the year with a decent performance at the Australian Open where he reached the semifinals but lost to Andy Murray in five sets. After that his results have been mostly disappointing and getting worse as the year goes on. Rome final and Halle title have been his best performances after the Australian Open, and neither of those were too impressive performances after all. And after reaching the final on clay in Rome, Federer was struggling to keep his quarterfinal streak alive already at the French Open. It took five sets for Federer to beat Gilles Simon on the fourth round, only to get beaten by Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in three sets.

Then came Wimbledon. After the not-so-impressing title in Halle, Federer took an easy win over Victor Hanescu on Wimbledon's first round. But then he got outplayed by Sergiy Stakhovsky on the 2nd round and his quarterfinal streak had come to an end. After Wimbledon Federer added Hamburg and Gstaad to his schedule and made a switch to a larger racquet. But results of those events were disappointing; a semifinal loss in Hamburg to Federico Delbonis and a 2nd round loss in Gstaad to Daniel Brands, both of them players Federer should routine.

But why is he playing so badly? For sure his performance has declined because of his age. But that doesn't explain why he was the World No. 1 just a year ago and now struggling to beat players even outside the top 100. His back has troubled him over the past year; he had back issues already last year when he won Wimbledon. But he played well last summer and his performances have started to drop after it. Maybe reaching Sampras' record of weeks as the No. 1 was his big goal and he hasn't been as motivated after that. And maybe the bad losses have taken away some of his confidence and given his opponents more confidence, he isn't anymore such an unbeatable opponent.

But is it now over for Roger? I wouldn't yet say so. He will probably never again return to World No. 1, his performances are declining with his age and his back issues seem persistent. But his best game cannot have gone away in a year. If he can play his best game, he can still win even slams. But falling from the top 4 makes it hard for him; he may face top 4 players already in quarterfinals. Having to win three top 4 players seems difficult for him; he seems to struggle to recover even from one long match. So getting back to top 4 would be important for him if he is still to win slams.

If Roger makes semifinals at the US Open this year and plays a competitive match against a top 4 player, then I believe he can really win one more slam. But I cannot see him winning many more slams anymore. Maybe two if he finds a good form at Wimbledon and manages to keep it until the US Open. And very difficult to see him winning three or more. But that would be 20 slams in total then, a good number to retire at. Unfortunately that seems too difficult to reach.