Australian Open 2022

First topic message reminder :

After the Novaxgate saga, we get down to action for the AO 2022 with no Djoko and a chance for someone else to win the men's title.

In Novax's absence, I would think that one of Medvedev, Zverev or Tsitsipas will be crowned champion.

The presence of Halep, Barty and Osaka will strengthen the women's tournament at the AO. I'm not expecting too much from Emma R who, in her first full year on the tour, could find it difficult.

Zverev - my tip for the title - is thru after a good fight from his German opponent Altmaier.

First and third sets both went to tiebreaks, with Altmaier saving four MPs at 5-6 in the third before Sasha took the tiebreak 7-1.

Karatsev comes through in 5 lengthy sets, that could prove costly for him later in the tournament. I think he was on court for between 4-5 hours! Never good in round one, at least he won though I suppose

Karatsev had a three-hour battle with Dan Evans in the semis in Sydney before dispatching Andy Murray.

As he had 720pts to defend for reaching the AO semi last year, you'd think he'd have prioritised Melbourne over Sydney.

It was 4hrs 52 mins today - so he's had a lot of tennis in the last few days.

Somewhat surprisingly, Andy M doesn't get either the Rod Laver or Margaret Court courts on Tuesday. Emma R is last match on the Court court. I'm not expecting that much from the Briton.

Andy M triumphs in a near-4hr match, taking it in the 5th set v Basilashvili.

Dan Evans is two sets up v Goffin and Heather Watson actually won a match! Another Brit, Harriet Dart, was well beaten by Swiatek.

Two men's seeds, Humbert and Isner, are out, while F A-A has been taken to five sets.

Murray was clearly emotional after his epic struggle. He now plays Daniel of Japan, with Sinner a likely third-round opponent.

Basilashvili, according to the stats, was very much hit or miss, with a whopping 99UEs. Murray took the first set 6-1, dropped the second, took the third and was 2-4 down in the fourth.

Murray managed to get it back on serve and saved a set point at 4-5 before taking it to a tiebreak. B'vili went 5-1 up and eventually took it 7-5.

Into a 5th, Murray was 3-0 and then 4-1 up, only for B'vili to level at 4-4. But, crucially, Murray held for 5-4 and then got it on his third MP as B'vili saved to stay in it.

A win over Daniel would probably see Murray back in the top 100.

Fair play to Murray winning his match, going nearly 4 hours though will have taken its toll. At least he has a very kind draw in round 2.

I see Raducanu is up now, I think Stephens is totally over rated. She was good a few years ago but has done next to nothing in recent times. Raducanu should be winning that match

Stephens only won 4 points in the first set.

And then Stephens wins the second set. Its a game of two halves!

Superb third set from Raducanu so far - another potential bagel on the cards!

6-1 in the end. A game of three halves.

Emma thru 6-1 in the third. Really good win. I know Stephens ain't been pulling any trees up lately but she is a former GS champ and Raducanu is still very young and inexperienced.

Very winnable match up next for Emma although Halep is her likely third-round opponent.

Women's tennis is nothing if not unpredictable, both within individual matches and across tournaments. ER wins two sets 6-0 and 6-1, but manages to lose the one in between 6-2. Still a decent win, and she should be too good for her next opponent.

Raducanu now up to 11 career wins in slams (11-1 overall). This compares to her record at other tour events which I think totals a slightly less impressive 2-6.

Thought Emma would lose today and also thought that Basilashvili might gain some revenge on Andy for last week's defeat.

Just watched the whole of Raducanu's first set. Stephens played horribly and it was a wonder she managed to win the second set.

At least the American can say she was the first to get a set from Emma in eight GS matches.

I have said it many times but the Women's tennis is atrocious. So so poor, no great players anymore whatsoever. zero rivalries.

An important and emotional win for Andy Murray. He made it harder for himself than it need be and wasted more energy than he'd have liked but this was a seed he was playing. It is now all about recovering in time for the Second Round and upping his level. More ranking points in the bank though and he is getting close to breaking back into the top 100.

I know I have said it before but I cant get over how poor women's tennis has become. It really is woeful, the only thing I will give it is its unpredictability because there are so few decent players. To have zero rivalries whatsoever in women's tennis is mind boggling. I cannot think of one match up in the women's game that I would get excited about.

Slasher - Certainly, the women's game could do with, say, a couple of players constantly meeting in finals. I think you could perm two from Barty-Osaka-Halep (eight Slams between them) who could compete well.

There have been a series of GS winners who have failed to go on to great things (Andreescu, Kenin, Ostapenko, Stephens). 2021 was not helped by injury to Halep and absenteeism by Osaka.

It could be said that some of the men's play last year was poor. At Wimbledon someone as limited as Berrettini somehow got to the final which itself was a dreadful spectacle as was the women's final.

A very good day for the Brits : Murray, Evans, Watson &  Raducanu all through.

Fabulous effort by Murray - his battling win deserves huge credit. Raducanu did well considering she was very much under the spotlight after a series of disappointing performances (in lower-level events), amidst post-USO stardom. Are we seeing one of those special players with the rare ability to raise their game on the very biggest stages ……. ?

slashermcguirk wrote:I know I have said it before but I cant get over how poor women's tennis has become. It really is woeful, the only thing I will give it is its unpredictability because there are so few decent players. To have zero rivalries whatsoever in women's tennis is mind boggling. I cannot think of one match up in the women's game that I would get excited about.

I've said before and this isn't meant as a defence of the women's game which has been in the doldrums for years but the men's game hasn't been much better for different reasons.

We all wax lyrical about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray but their dominance for so long also lacked intrigue. You go into the French Open assuming Nadal will win with only one player capable of beating him in Djokovic, the other slams haven't been much better. Add in Wawrinka who is a distance between them and you have the winners of 66 of the past 75 slams. Yes they've had numerous great matches between them but it became far too predictable.

Murray is the 'lesser' of the four but his career statistics are insane, he's reached the semi final stage of grand slams 21 times and has eight quarter final exits on top of that. Seven finals against Djokovic and three against Federer, he was fortunate to get Raonic one year.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Murray is the 'lesser' of the four but his career statistics are insane, he's reached the semi final stage of grand slams 21 times and has eight quarter final exits on top of that. Seven finals against Djokovic and three against Federer, he was fortunate to get Raonic one year.

Almost any other era, and Murray would have been talked about in terms of generational talent, but he's clearly the 4th best of his era. Not many times that the careers of 3 possible GOATs have overlapped (and really run almost in parallel) in any sport.

I believe there are far more very good players in the mens draw over the past 10 years. Obviously the big three dominated but you look at the best players of the past 10 years and there are some seriously good players there who would have given any generation a run for their money.

Djokovic
Nadal
Federer
Murray
Wawrinka
Del Potro
Ferrer
Medvedev
Thiem
Zverev
Berdych
Cilic
Tsitsipas
Nishikori
Tsonga

Outside of the top 3, I think every single one of those other players has at least a win if not more vs Nadal / Djoko and Federer at grand slams. I think had the top 3 not been so ridiculously good, any of those could have been multi slam winners beyond Wawrinka and Murray.

You look at the Women's game over the past 10 years and Serena would be the only 'great' player. You have a handful of very good players on their day like Halep, Azarenka, Sharapova but Az and Sharapova were pathetic rivals to Serena losing nearly every match they played against her. Women's tennis ended when Henin retired, her and Clijsters at that time were the ones really threatening the Williams dominance. Once Henin retired and Clijsters level dropped it has been a basket case ever since. It has only got worse and worse and now is in my opinion the worst era of women's tennis I can ever recall. The likes of Sabalenka at world number 2, its comical

Looking back at Murray's career, it has been hugely successful. To win 3 slams and a dozen masters series in the era he has played is a huge accomplishment. I still think what cost Murray more slams was not just a case of the top 3 who were exceptional, he also had a habit even in his prime of getting caught up in dog fights in the early rounds of slams. The amount of times you would see the big 3 so ruthless in the early rounds of slams and Murray would be in a 5 set battle lasting 4 hours, I think those matches early on can have a huge impact on a player's tournament at a latter stage. You simply cannot come into those semis and finals vs the big 3 with that much wear and tear. I think had Murray been more ruthless in his prime in earlier rounds, he may have claimed another 2-3 slams.

Wawrinka is a really interesting player. You could argue his mix of slam wins are more impressive than Murray because he has won 3 different slams (Australian Open, French open and US Open). At his highest level I think Wawrinka was up there with the big 3, his power was unbelievable and when he went into that zone he was virtually unplayable. Him and Djokovic provided some of the greatest grand slam matches I have ever witnessed, particularly at the Australian open.

Interestingly in their Grand slam head to head, Wawrinka leads Murray 4-3 and if you look at slam meetings since 2010 its 4-1 Wawrinka (Murray is 12-9 overall across all tour events). There is no doubt that Murray had the better career than Wawrinka but I think with both playing at their peak, Wawrinka's level was arguably higher, more naturally talented. The problem for Stan was his consistency was poor whereas Murray had superb consistency and even when he played poorly he would find ways to win, that was not the case with Stan. He was either unplayable or appalling. Consistency wins you more titles. It always comes back to match up and styles in tennis.

dummy_half wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Murray is the 'lesser' of the four but his career statistics are insane, he's reached the semi final stage of grand slams 21 times and has eight quarter final exits on top of that. Seven finals against Djokovic and three against Federer, he was fortunate to get Raonic one year.

Almost any other era, and Murray would have been talked about in terms of generational talent, but he's clearly the 4th best of his era. Not many times that the careers of 3 possible GOATs have overlapped (and really run almost in parallel) in any sport.

Certainly agree about Sabalenka at two. Incredibly over-ranked.

But then the rankings are still a bit all over the place due to Covid.

Also agree about the players on your list, Slasher. Berdych and Tsonga, in particular, has some good Slam wins against the Big Four.

I think but for Covid, injuries and other factors such as Osaka's problems, the women's game would have seen fewer new Slam winners and the likes of Barty, Osaka and Halep would have added to their Slam tallies.

Meanwhile today, Hurkacz, who looked very solid in the clips I saw of him in the latter part of last season, is OUT - beaten in straight sets.

There were some long matches today. Longest of the lot was Korda's 4hrs 47mins win over Moutet of France, with the match being decided by a final-set tiebreak.

Shapo also needed five as did Christian Garin.

Rafa won in straight sets and Zverev is a set up and a break up in his night match with Millman.

Really surprised at the Hurkasz result, what on earth happened there?? As you said SFP, he was in very good form in recent times and was showing good consistency and grit. That was a very poor result, particularly losing in straight sets. Mannarino is a tricky player in that I think he rushes the net and volleys a lot but he wouldnt be the type of player with huge weapons that can be very dangerous on his day just blasting winners left right and centre. That is a really poor result for Hurkasz.

Zverev seems to be coasting along, I wonder could this be his time at the slams. A long way to go.

My view is that if Murray did not have the hip issue which began affecting him in 2016 and which got progressively worse, he would have reigned from 2016 onwards, and the latter 2017+ success of Federer (post back, mono), Nadal (post various) and Djokovic (post elbow) would have been less with Murray reaching his prime.  This would have presented a different picture of the top three / four era with Murray gaining more recognition (and success).

slashermcguirk wrote:Looking back at Murray's career .... had a habit even in his prime of getting caught up in dog fights in the early rounds of slams .... the big 3 so ruthless in the early rounds of slams .....

Wawrinka is a really interesting player ....  At his highest level I think Wawrinka was up there with the big 3, his power was unbelievable and when he went into that zone he was virtually unplayable .... The problem for Stan was his consistency was poor whereas Murray had superb consistency and even when he played poorly he would find ways to win .....

I think it has been mentioned that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had certain unique qualities / weapons to their game whereas Murray didn't.   You mentioned Wawrinka's power (forehand I guess) and maybe flat hitting (?) - which are less easy to maintain and get right round after round, tournament after tournament.

Wawrinkas power was off both wings. Its like a rifle shot going off when he connects. The 5 set matches he had with Djokovic in the Australian open, I have rarely seen a guy hit the ball that hard with such accuracy, the only other player I can think of is Del potro on the forehand side.

You are right though that his flatter hitting meant he had to be timing it perfectly and it doesnt lend to a game that will perform week in week out. This is another part of Medvedev for example that is impressive, he hits very flat but whatever way he is swinging at it he seems to have far more margin for error. He also probably moves better than Stan for such a tall guy.

You could argue every player is a confidence player but none more so than Stan, he never seems to have a middle game. he is either on or off

I think Wawrinka must have been a late developer and this power and accuracy must have been something that resulted from a change in trainer / lifestyle / attitude - otherwise his success would have surely come earlier and maybe over a more extended period. Maybe he developed injuries as a result of unleashing this power thus curtailing his period of challenging for titles. I don't know too much about Wawrinka but I heard he may have divorced and then dedicated more of his time to tennis training which resulted in his success. I don't know exactly.

No name Bertie wrote:I think Wawrinka must have been a late developer and this power and accuracy must have been something that resulted from a change in trainer / lifestyle / attitude - otherwise his success would have surely come earlier and maybe over a more extended period.  Maybe he developed injuries as a result of unleashing this power thus curtailing his period of challenging for titles.  I don't know too much about Wawrinka but I heard he may have divorced and then dedicated more of his time to tennis training which resulted in his success.  I don't know exactly.

Re-watched that French Open final from 2015 a little while back. Some of Wawrinka's tennis in that match was bordering on the absurd. Smack-bang prime Djokovic, in the middle of perhaps the best year anyone has had in the Open Era and playing at a phenomenally high level himself...Yet Wawrinka took him apart after that first set.

Very odd career, Wawrinka, in the sense that it's been so asymmetrical. Watching him beat Djokovic at AO 2014, FO 2015, USO 2016 etc., and even giving him hell in another couple of Grand Slam matches despite losing, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the head-to-head between them might be really close. He can't beat Djokovic for love nor money away from the Slams for the most part, but becomes (well, became at least) his worst nightmare on the big stage.

Same with his spread of titles. Three Slams yet somehow only one Masters 1000 title. I guess you can call that a big-time player who raises his game when it matters most if you like. But considering their careers outside the Slams it seems remarkable that he and Murray are level-pegging on three apiece.

Plenty of British interest tomorrow (Thurs). Andy will start around 6.30am UK time, while Emma gets a night match on a big court (8am start). Watson and Evans also in action.

88Chris05 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:I think Wawrinka must have been a late developer and this power and accuracy must have been something that resulted from a change in trainer / lifestyle / attitude - otherwise his success would have surely come earlier and maybe over a more extended period.  Maybe he developed injuries as a result of unleashing this power thus curtailing his period of challenging for titles.  I don't know too much about Wawrinka but I heard he may have divorced and then dedicated more of his time to tennis training which resulted in his success.  I don't know exactly.

Re-watched that French Open final from 2015 a little while back. Some of Wawrinka's tennis in that match was bordering on the absurd. Smack-bang prime Djokovic, in the middle of perhaps the best year anyone has had in the Open Era and playing at a phenomenally high level himself...Yet Wawrinka took him apart after that first set.

Very odd career, Wawrinka, in the sense that it's been so asymmetrical. Watching him beat Djokovic at AO 2014, FO 2015, USO 2016 etc., and even giving him hell in another couple of Grand Slam matches despite losing, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the head-to-head between them might be really close. He can't beat Djokovic for love nor money away from the Slams for the most part, but becomes (well, became at least) his worst nightmare on the big stage.

Same with his spread of titles. Three Slams yet somehow only one Masters 1000 title. I guess you can call that a big-time player who raises his game when it matters most if you like. But considering their careers outside the Slams it seems remarkable that he and Murray are level-pegging on three apiece.

Agree, that Roland Garros final goes underrated in terms of the best matches we've seen from that era. Stan just absolutely red-lined

Wawrinka
As many Slams as Murray
As many Masters 1000s as Henman.

In a bit more depth, Stan has one losing GS final, 5 semi finals and 9 quarter finals, having first played a slam in 2005, so 61 slams played. A pretty decent record, but well short of the consistency shown by the big 4 (for comparison, Murray has 8 losing GS finals, 10 semis and
9 QFs in his 50th slam) - seems to confirm that when Stan is on his game he is very good indeed, but that he is more streaky than those above him

Murray exits in straight sets 6-4 6-4 6-4 against Taro Daniel. A disappointing exit for Murray but Daniel did play very well. The match sums up where Andy is at present - almost there but lacking in the big points. Also he did not come into the net as much as he should now but no complaints at all about the result as the better player won on the day. Murray will look back on missed chances and have to wait to re-enter the top 100.

Wasn't a good performance from Andy today, his serve isn't consistent enough and he made a lot of errors when he tried to up the aggression. His 1st round 5-setter and reaching the Sydney final last week can't have helped!

I don't want to be too reactionary, but based on recent comments he's made about travelling being tough with his young family, I do wonder if he will retire this year if his results don't improve significantly. Maybe see how the grass season goes as that's where he plays his best/others generally play their worst.

I think those 5 setters at this stage in his career are the killer. Its hard to just get back out there and perform again. Mind you I expected him to beat Daniel comfortably, I thought it was the ideal 2nd round match to be honest. I didnt see it but it sounds like Daniel played very well so kudos to him.

I think Murray can still be a big threat at Wimbledon as he is very natural on grass, I just think he needs to manage his schedule carefully. I suppose its very tricky because on the one hand he needs more competitive matches to improve but then at the same time with the wear and tear he has had he also needs to manage his body and therefore his schedule. I think if he is to have any chance of winning in the future, he needs to find a way to be more ruthless when he has the opportunity. Like many times earlier in his career, he gets into more dog fight 5 setters than he really should especially in early rounds. They can prove very costly

Oioi wrote:Wasn't a good performance from Andy today, his serve isn't consistent enough and he made a lot of errors when he tried to up the aggression. His 1st round 5-setter and reaching the Sydney final last week can't have helped!

I don't want to be too reactionary, but based on recent comments he's made about travelling being tough with his young family, I do wonder if he will retire this year if his results don't improve significantly. Maybe see how the grass season goes as that's where he plays his best/others generally play their worst.

I think I’d expect it to be his last year. He’s 35 this year and I suspect he wants to give it one more year (relatively) injury free but unless he’s somehow got right back to the top of the game - which seems very unlikely as his game is generally varying between top 20 and top 50 level I’d say - I can’t see him pushing himself again next year.

As for today, it’s fairly typical late career Murray. Ran into an inspired player and every time he had the chance to knock some confidence out of Daniel he’d make an error and fail to take his chances. Didn’t think he actually did much wrong tactically but looked a little heavy legged after the R1 battle.

I would say there are more issues about Murray's position in tennis now for a number of reasons. Obviously, there is the fact he is now playing with a metal hip and has been out of the game for so long and only been back a few months. He is no spring chicken at almost 35 and recovering from five setters will take longer. Also little clues are telling me that whereas five years ago tennis was everything to Murray he now has something more important in his life to which he admits to missing - his wife and children. That must erode away at the hunger. It would perhaps explain away how he was a break up in the third set and in his halcyon days that would have sparked him up and thrust him on the road to turn the match around - that just wasn't there today.

The family life and missing that could be the factor that ends his career at the end of this year - we shall see.

Its a good point CC, he is at a different stage of his life now. That and wear and tear really take their toll. I think this will be the year the next gen really break through, particularly if Djokovic cannot play in some of the slams this year. Looking like Wimbledon could be his next tournament if he cannot play on the American swing and the likes of French open.

I see Medvedev has taken out Krusty the clown. He is going to take some stopping at this tournament. He reminds me of one of those African wild dogs, he just wears his opponents out from the back of the court and he just never relents. He has become so consistent, I dont find his game particularly attractive to watch but boy is it effective.

Hard to see past Medvedev or Zverev at the moment. Its a huge opportunity for both with Djokovic not there.

I see Dan Evans has had a bit of luck, his 2nd round opponent withdrew injured so he's through to 3rd round to play Felix A A. Funny how little bits of good or bad fortune can influence results- look at Norrie, had a brilliant end to the year but got a v tough draw against Korda, one of the most dangerous unseeded players.

Shame about Raducanu, she got into a good early lead today but lost momentum. Would have liked to have seen her play Halep in 3rd round but lost to an opponent just inside top 100.  Really needs to get a few wins together to provide cushioning against fall down rankings when the US Open points come off.

Shame too on Murray but recovering from a 5 setter at this stage of his career is tough. Fingers crossed he remains injury free and can put together a good run at Wimbledon - he's capable of beating couple of big names and reaching 2nd week.

Finally I agree that Medvedev is the favourite, he's the best hardcourt player currently.  Whilst I'd put Zverev as 2nd favourite, it's important not to overlook Tsitsipas who has crowd support and Nadal who has got through his matches efficiency so far.

On the women's I foresee an easy win for Osaka against a first time slam finalist.

Not a great day for British tennis with Emma and Andy exiting. I see that Felix A-A who now plays Dan Evans had a really long match while Dan had a w/o.

Seems strange that most of the title talk is about Tsitsi, Medvedev and Zverev while a certain Spaniard with 20 GS triumphs seems to be travelling under the radar.

My money is on Zverev but Rafa is in his half of the draw and could be one hurdle too many for the German.

In the women Barty, Halep and Osaka are all looking comfortable and one of these could well win it.

I havent watched any of the tennis so far but I think Medvedev is looking very good. He looks to have a very smooth passage all the way to the QF. At that point he is likely to play either Rublev or Cilic. I think he would really fancy his chances against those too.

His next decent test could actually be the semi finals and even there his highest ranked opponent could be Tsitsipas who I wouldnt be overly confident of even reaching that stage given his more recent form etc. The only other players in his half of the draw that could be tricky are Sinner (though probably too inexperienced) and Bautista Agut who is a super solid player but Medvedev is similar but with much bigger weopans.

I can see Medvedev cruising to the final.

I see Dimitrov lost to the waste of space that is Benoit Paire, that is a very embarrassing result. I am really disappointed with Dimitrov in recent years, such a waste of talent.

An interesting match in the top half of the draw could be a potential match between Nadal and Karatsev. If Karatsev gets there and shows up, that could be a tricky match for Rafa. The top quarter of the draw is a joke, particularly with Djokovic missing.

Yes, another inexplicable early-round loss for Dimi. He should never be out of the top 10 - a man with his talent. Too much time spent with too many beautiful girlfriends the problem, do you think?

Disappointed to see Andy go out (especially in straights !) - all the more so when we know that a performance anywhere approaching that of his R1 win would have seen him through comfortably. He was asked in interview whether previous exertions, ie that fine run to the Sydney Final and then the tough five-setter, had played a part ; but he responded that he actually felt ok during the match and seemed at a loss to explain the sudden downturn. Andy has always been honest and is his own worst critic, so I always take his post-match assessments at face value.

I think there is every reason to believe that Emma Raducanu would have come through today, had she not been hampered by the blister. Unfortunate timing. All credit for such a genuinely gutsy (and tactically smart) effort in stretching it to three sets. Many of the trials & tribulations that affect gifted tennis players through a full career (the dramatic contrast between highs and lows / injuries / coaching issues / dealing with media hype etc etc) seem to have been compressed into a few short months for young Emma, but she will be able to take quite a lot from this initial AO experience as she tackles her first full season on Tour.

Dan Evans the only Brit to make it to R3, albeit courtesy of a W/O.

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, another inexplicable early-round loss for Dimi. He should never be out of the top 10 - a man with his talent. Too much time spent with too many beautiful girlfriends the problem, do you think?

Well the g/f’s are undoubtedly attractive but no, in fairness, I don’t think that’s the problem. He strikes me as a guy who takes his career seriously and works hard ; but the fact remains that - for whatever reason ?? - every time you sense he is ‘on track’ he sort of flatters to deceive.

lags72 wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, another inexplicable early-round loss for Dimi. He should never be out of the top 10 - a man with his talent. Too much time spent with too many beautiful girlfriends the problem, do you think?

Well the g/f’s are undoubtedly attractive but no, in fairness, I don’t think that’s the problem. He strikes me as a guy who takes his career seriously and works hard ; but the fact remains that - for whatever reason ?? - every time you sense he is ‘on track’ he sort of flatters to deceive.

Is it potentially a case of a guy being over rated because he has a one handed backhand perhaps? There's no doubt about it but the one hander is more attractive than the two hander.

Thank goodness for the beautiful girlfriends, if he didnt have them he really would be feeling down with his results. Maybe they are just the tonic he needs :-)

Soul Requiem wrote:

………………………

Is it potentially a case of a guy being over rated because he has a one handed backhand perhaps? There's no doubt about it but the one hander is more attractive than the two hander.

Dunno about ‘over-rated’ but I guess the label Baby-Fed in the early days was always likely to be more hindrance than help.

Yes, it’s definitely an attractive part of the game : when having one of his good days, the Gasquet SHBH (which I personally consider the best example of the art)  is truly a thing of beauty.

I think I saw a comment by Federer somewhere that he would want his kids - assuming they show any serious interest in the sport - to learn the more conventional (as it has become over the years) double-hander. Certainly that’s what will happen if they end up enrolling at the Rafa Nadal Academy - which he has hinted they may well do (Mates Rates …… ?? )

Flatter to deceive might be wording then, Dimitrov just like Gasquet has failed to consistently reach the latter stages of grand slams. Gasquet has reached the quarter final stage five times with Dimitrov making it six times, yes the big four etc. but the pair are/were often knocked out early by more unheralded opponents, that's why I perhaps say over-rated, we see the backhand, fawn over it and then wonder why their careers don't reach the heights.

If it was a beauty pagent

1. Gasquet
2. Federer
3. Wawrinka
4. Dimitrov

I find Thiem and Tsitsipas to be more mechanical than fluid with their backhand.

Shapo thru in four v Opelka while Serb Kecmanovic, who would have been Djoko's first-round opponent, has now reached the 4th round by beating seeded Sonego.

Alcaraz has come from two sets down to take Berrettini to a 5th. Zverev is two sets to love up against qualifier Albot.

LATER: Berrettini needed a final-set tiebreak (10-5) to see off Alcaraz.