TennisOne Lessons

Lessons You Can Learn From the Australian Open

Paul Fein

"Give me good offense over good defense any day of the week." – ABC-TV basketball analyst Mark Jackson, after Boston Celtic Paul Pierce sank a jump shot over the outstretched arm of Los Angeles Lakers Kobe Bryant.

The Offensive Edge

Brad Gilbert is wrong, and Martina Navratilova is right about Caroline Wozniacki.

“Wozniacki is a grinder. It’s so admirable the way she plays. And everyone wants to change her game,” ESPN analyst Brad Gilbert said after world No. 1 Wozniacki beat Dominique Cibulkova in the Australian Open third round. “She does what she does. And she does it great.”

Actually, in 2010 the not-so-great Dane beat only one player (Vera Zvonareva) ranked in the top 5, and she reached no finals – and only one semifinal – at a major. At Melbourne this January, Wozniacki faltered again when No. 11 Li Na gradually overpowered her 3-6, 7-5, 6-3.

Tennis Channel analyst Navratilova disagreed with Gilbert. She coined maxims, such as “Defense doesn’t win matches; offense wins matches, especially Grand Slams at this level” – clearly worthy of this legendary serve-volleyer who captured 59 singles and doubles major titles. Another maxim: “Defense wins tournaments; it doesn’t win Grand Slams.”

Navratilova explained, “That’s why Wozniacki’s record against top 10 players has been pretty bad. It’s the worst of any No. 1 player in the world [in history] because she plays defense mostly. That’s good enough against most players, but against the top players, it doesn’t work.” Here’s another Martina Maxim: “As soon as you get the opportunity to attack, take it … That’s what Caroline Wozniacki can learn from how Federer and Murray quickly turn from defense to offense.”

Will the cerebral Wozniacki, who wants to take courses at Yale University, take Navratilova’s advice? After she outlasted No. 6 Francesca Schiavone 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, despite her shot-making foe’s blasting 41 winners to only 13 for her, she defended her counterpunching style with this response: “I just want to know who won the match. I think I did that, so I think there is no question. I’m playing to win. If the opponent makes 100 winners, it’s too good. But if I still win the match, that’s the most important thing in the end.” Yes, but in this match with Wozniacki, the smallish, 30-year-old Schiavone, who has a one-handed backhand that requires great exertion, had been worn down the round before by her grueling marathon victory over Svetlana Kuznetsova.

Wozniacki should honestly acknowledge that the current weak state of women’s tennis and a flawed ranking system – that did not count six of her worst tournaments – allow her to remain No. 1. She still cannot make the final of a Grand Slam event, let alone win it, even with heavy hitters Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic and Dinara Safina mired in slumps, with Justine Henin no longer in championship form before she retired again, with power players Samantha Stosur and Victoria Azarenka often faltering in majors, with Venus Williams injured and over the hill, and with superstar Serena Williams sidelined.

“It’s disappointing for Caroline,” says Navratilova, “but she has to realize she has to go for more [shots], if she wants to win a Grand Slam [event].” It’s not just a matter of courage, as Navratilova suggests. Wozniacki must develop those more aggressive shots. Her model should be Clijsters, another high-percentage player who is stronger, faster and hits her groundstrokes, especially her serve returns, about 10 miles per hour faster than the 20-year-old Dane. Clijsters has better footwork and cleaner, more grooved strokes that generate plenty of power. The Belgian veteran knows how to construct points during rallies and then pull the trigger to hit winners and near-winners.

The Bill Tilden axiom that “tennis matches are always lost on errors and never won by placements” no longer holds true in pro tennis, except perhaps on clay. Every great champion from now on will possess at least one great shot to hit winners. Mary Carillo coined the phrase “Big Babe Tennis” to capture the 20th century trend in women’s tennis. The tennis destiny of Wozniacki, who enjoys boxing as part of her training, will depend on whether she develops a knockout punch. 

The End of the One-Hander

“A two-handed backhand is a huge advantage on these [Plexipave] courts over the one-hander,” noted Navratilova during the Aussie Open. “Roger [Federer] just cannot [make his shots] penetrate with his one-handed topspin backhand. And more players are hitting that slice now, so it’s not so unusual. And Djokovic handled it very well.”

Navratilova learned that lesson firsthand. Twenty years ago, Navratilova felt the brute power of Monica Seles, a two-handed dynamo on both sides, when 17-year-old Seles “steamrolled” – Navratilova’s word – her 7-6, 6-1 in the U.S. Open final. Seles mercilessly pummeled Navratilova’s vulnerable one-handed backhand. Along with another teen slugger, Jennifer Capriati, the pair proved conclusively that two hands are better than one. 

Today’s leading one-handed players comprise a mostly aging and, in some cases, fading lot. Federer (29), Stanislas Wawrinka (25), Mikhail Youzhny (28), Nicolas Almagro (25), Feliciano Lopez (29), Michael Llodra (29), Ivan Ljubicic (31), Richard Gasquet (24), Bob and Mike Bryan (32) and Schiavone (30) use one-handed backhands. In almost every case, their backhands are either a major or relative weakness. The only exception may be husky Wawrinka, who whacked more backhand winners in five Australian Open matches than any man in the tournament, including Novak Djokovic.

The one-handed stroke’s biggest vulnerability is handling pace, particularly against high-speed first serves, viciously spinning and high-bouncing second serves, and powerful and viciously topspinning groundstrokes. Additionally, as Navratilova noted, one-handed backhands also cannot generate sufficient pace, particularly on slower courts and against the wind.

Interestingly, some super seniors (55 and older) have switched to two-handed backhands after decades of doing it one-handed. Muscle memory be damned, these ageless tournament warriors know they are only as strong as their weakest link. And these stroke changers are hitting their backhands better than they did in their 20s. If they can do it, so can you. Believe it or not, Paul McNamee, a Wimbledon and Australian doubles champion, switched from a mediocre one-handed backhand to a better two-hander in the middle of his 1980s pro career.

The one-handed backhand is destined for extinction in tournament tennis, other than being used for approach shots, drop shots, occasional slice shots and improvisational shots, such as lunging to return a rocket serve.

Versatility Matters

If Li’s game were as creative as her hilarious one-liners, she might have won the Australian Open. When asked what kept her going during her comeback win over Wozniacki, she quipped, “Prize money!”

But first, let’s discuss the strengths that propelled Li to her first Grand Slam singles final and the first in history for a Chinese – and Asian – player. “Depth of shot is what makes her a top-10 player,” says Navratilova. She achieves that depth with hard, flat groundstrokes that she strikes from near or even inside the baseline. Li’s footwork and overall agility rank among the elite players.

She also loves to compete. “When I see myself, I see a strong woman, always fighting,” Li says. That mental toughness, forged at age 14 when she lost her father, helped her overcome a 5-0 deficit to whip Clijsters 7-6, 6-3 in the Sydney tune-up tourney final. More importantly, that strength enabled her to survive a match point – with a forehand winner, no less – and beat Wozniacki in Melbourne. And because she goes for her shots fearlessly, she converted an astounding 60 percent of her break point chances (39 of 65) against seven Australian Open opponents, the most impressive being 5 conversions in 6 chances against No. 9 Azarenka and 7 of 10 against Wozniacki.

Li, a late bloomer at 28, quit the pro tour for two years in her early 20s to attend the university, and that may have retarded the development of a more versatile game. After she lost the first eight points of the final and then leveled at 30-all in the third game, ESPN analyst Mary Joe Fernandez rightly noted, “There is no Plan B with her game. She will continue to be aggressive.”

After Li dropped the first set against Wozniacki, who boasted a 39-3 record in majors after winning the first set, Fernandez said, “She doesn’t have a lot of variety. She likes to hit hard and flat.” Darren Cahill, another ESPN analyst, pointed out: “Wozniacki is enjoying Li Na’s pace [with shots arriving] in her strike zone, and she is using her pace. Li Na should use angles more instead of just trying to hit through Wozniacki.”

Li also should have occasionally used a drop shot, slice backhand or a semi-moonball to force errors and change pace. In the high-caliber final against Clijsters, Li did, in fact, display a deft drop shot. Li also needs to add power and placement to her overhead. Her average net clearance against Wozniacki hovered around a dangerously low 20”, though she improved that against Clijsters. With slight to moderate topspin, Li would not only increase the net clearance to avoid errors, but also decrease errors from her groundstrokes that sail beyond the baseline. Also, it’s much easier to produce the angles Cahill suggests if your groundies have topspin. Conversely, when shrewd Clijsters changed pace with high-looping shots, the less-experienced Li, who prefers pace, erred.

Li plays exciting, high-risk, high-reward tennis that wins fans as well as big matches. During the past 13 months, she’s racked up an excellent 6-3 record against top 6-ranked opponents. However, until she broadens her shot repertoire, plays the percentages better and devises a more nuanced strategy, she will continue to suffer occasional bad losses and fail to win the major title she and 1.3 billion Chinese yearn for.

Technique Talk

Much has been made of the differences between “linear motion,” when a player moves as a whole with all parts moving in the same direction, and “angular motion,” when a force (torque) produces angular momentum to rotate the body. The old-fashioned “linear motion” stroke, moving straight ahead and “through the ball” a long time, culminates with a follow-through pointing straight ahead and high. It’s been derided as passé and inferior to the “angular motion” stroke, which many coaches tout, and contend is used by the best pro players to hit groundstrokes.

However, frame-by-frame photographs of five leading service returners reveal a different story. After studying the service returns of David Ferrer (whom both  Federer and Rafael Nadal say has the best return), Djokovic, Federer, Serena Williams and Clijsters, I learned they share a common feature. Regardless of how much or how little “angular motion” their body has, or differences in their footwork and backswings, they all use “linear” swings through the critical “contact zone.” The linear swing continues quite far after that until their arms are completely, or almost completely, extended. Only then do they throw the racquet over their left shoulder on the forehand (and vice versa on the backhand) in an “angular” fashion. Then they bend the elbow moderately or severely and often finish by pointing their racquet directly behind them. In sum, they use “angular motion” for their body; however, they use “linear motion” for their arm and racquet, until all but the very end of their forehand and backhand swings.

The result of their traditional “linear motion” swings is that these five players, except Federer sometimes on the backhand, handle service power efficiently, and they generate great power and depth consistently on their returns.

Statistics bear that out for the two Australian singles champions as well. In her 6-3, 7-6 quarterfinal victory over 12th-seeded Agnieska Radwanska, Clijsters won 49% (41 of 84) of the points when she received serve, and she broke the Pole’s serve six times. When she decisively beat 2nd-seeded Zvonareva 6-3, 6-3, she won 46% (24 of 52) of her receiving points and broke the Russian’s serve four times. And when she overcame Li 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, Clijsters won a stunning 51% (49 of 96) of the points and broke serve on 7 of her 17 break point chances.

Andy Murray averaged 120.5 miles per hour (194 kmh) on his first serves, yet Djokovic, whom ESPN analyst Patrick McEnroe rates as “the best returner in the game,” won a highly impressive 51% (56 of 109) of his receiving points and converted 7 of 18 break point chances. In his 7-6, 7-5, 6-4 semifinal victory over Federer, one of the game’s top servers, Djokovic broke serve five times (in 14 chances), won a respectable 38% (40 of 105) of his receiving points, and limited Federer to only five aces. Djokovic returned brilliantly against No. 6 Tomas Berdych, whose first serve averaged 124.3 miles per hour (200 kmh), as he won 46% (44 of 96) of his receiving points and broke serve five times (in 10 chances) to crush the 6’5” Czech 6-1, 7-6, 6-1. Often Djokovic’s returns came back so fast and deep that Berdych simply could not react in time.

Your comments are welcome. Let us know what you think about Paul Fein's article by emailing us here at TennisOne.

Paul Fein

Paul Fein has received more than 30 writing awards and authored three books, Tennis Confidential: Today’s Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies, You Can Quote Me on That: Greatest Tennis Quips, Insights, and Zingers, and Tennis Confidential II: More of Today’s Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies. Fein is also a USPTA-certified teaching pro and coach with a Pro-1 rating, former director of the Springfield (Mass.) Satellite Tournament, a former top 10-ranked men’s open New England tournament player, and currently a No. 1-ranked Super Senior player in New England.