Medvedev v Rune: Rome Final Analysis

ceilings—strings and spin—in praise of Lars

Daniil Medvedev defeated Holger Rune 7/5 7/5 in the final of the Rome Masters 1000 on Sunday to clinch his first clay title and sixth Masters 1000 title overall. The win also bumps the Russian up to number 2 in the seedings for Roland Garros, pushing Djokovic to the third seed spot, in a move that could place Alcaraz and Djokovic in the same half of the draw (announced Thursday at 2 pm Paris time).

My overall impression of this match was that Rune played too passively off his forehand and allowed it to become a match of attrition against the best (and the most confident) wall in tennis. This 2-shot forehand combo from inside the baseline, for example, wasn’t employed often enough:

Rune’s game is built on stealing time rather than outright firepower (although he certainly has that on tap). It suits his compact forehand and allows him to hold the baseline better than any other youngster:

Note how Rune takes the second crosscourt forehand by moving across and inside the baseline. Didn’t have to hit it hard to pressure Medvedev’s forehand.

This forehand winner is a result of footwork and stealing time, rather than taking a bigger swing from further back.

And when he’s moving forward and taking time away, it makes his shots faster despite his abbreviated swing; he’s hitting a faster incoming ball whenever he steps in.

This is exactly what happened in Monte Carlo when they played as well (Rune won that encounter 6/3 6/4). Rune started much more proactively in that match with his ground game. He was up a set and a break before he started to go into his shell, dropping 4-5km/h off his forehand.

Rune’s average rally hit point versus Medvedev in Monte Carlo after the first set.

Also from Monte Carlo…the Dane’s nature is to counterpunch. But Lars nurtured an offensive monster. More on that later.

Medvedev did what Medvedev does: he made a lot of middle/cross backhands, hit some big serves, and came up with a few great passing shots (at times off poor volley execution):

Great pass, except Rune needed to cut this much finer and shorter as Alcaraz did in Indian Wells.

Medvedev with the big left-hand action on that pass. Zero hips. Beauty of the two-hander on display—playing it late and still finding sharp angles cross.

Of course, Rune knew he was too passive after it was too late, as he shouted to his box after dropping the first set:

Rune: “I’m playing so bad, so bad! I push the ball!”

So he started the second playing aggressively again, immediately securing a break:

Rune drives the backhand as well as anyone—including Djokovic, Zverev, et al.—when he has the intention to be aggressive.

Commentator after Rune broke in this opening game: “Different kind of tennis. Different result. And Rune breaks.”

But the break was short-lived, and Medvedev secured the break back on a carbon copy volley that should have gone much shorter and angled from Rune if he wanted to play this cross-court.

And while Medvedev won this match, I can’t help but think Rune’s just showing how dangerous he’s going to be in a few years if he can pull all these polished pieces into a coherent whole. It’s why, despite losing, I keep focussing on Rune in this piece. At 27 Medvedev is an established player—a finished product. His style has hardened after so many years of playing the role of dedicated counterpuncher in the kiln of elite competition. But Rune seems to play huge matches like a doll house session, trying this or that tactic, tasting success with all of them. Below you could be forgiven in thinking this is Alcaraz down the far end, kicking it wide then sneaking in off a forehand:

Then one point later, to finish a 38-shot rally that seemed like some Gilles Simon tribute to patience and the virtue of not missing, Rune hits a wall and tags this absolute laser:

This tired slash came off the back of a near-endless backhand battle where neither looked like they would cave first.

Then he samples the “bash and crash” as Koenig calls it that has also been a recurrent play of the Rune game:

And all these different options mean he’s still not sure who he is, despite all the success he is having. Today the young Dane just couldn’t put it together when he needed to. He certainly had plenty of chances to win either set on Sunday, but Medvedev came up big in the right moments and Rune didn’t.

Classic two-shot pass. The first ball is middle-ish but low, forcing Rune to volley up and give Medvedev a much easier second-passing shot.

Medvedev has had clay abilities before this tournament—he’s made the second week (ish) in his last two Roland Garros appearances—but he’s never paid it full attention. What has changed is that he entered this clay season: (1) extremely confident; (2) prepared; and (3) with a new string. From CNN:

“I think the strings help me … because they are just softer so the ball goes easier,” Medvedev told reporters after defeating Rune. “Straightaway in Australia actually where I lost, with my coach we were like, ‘Wow, I have the easy depth on the ball, which is amazing. In Australia, it didn’t work. I was 100% doubting myself. Should I go back to the old ones, I was playing good with them? I said no, let’s try more. Now it’s unbelievable.”

Daniil trying on some Nadal chopper forehands, perhaps courtesy of his new string.

Medvedev’s forehand is reportedly up several hundred RPMs compared to prior clay seasons (although I haven’t seen any data), and that would certainly help him on the dirt, especially when he needs to attack with his forehand. His backhand has always been an underappreciated rock of a thing—“metronomic” was how Koenig described it—but on clay, you need a forehand. Now that the Russian has something legit to swing on that side, he’ll quietly like his chances in Paris. But for me, Rune is a better chance despite all the growing pains he is so clearly experiencing. I just think his technical game places his ceiling that high.

Good players are hard to beat, and it’s interesting looking at how close Rune’s losses have often been on the clay especially. In recent weeks he’s lost to:

• Medvedev in Rome, where he had chances in both sets, especially the second.

• Davidovich Fokina 7/6 in the third in Madrid.

• Rublev in the final in Monte Carlo 7/5 in the third, where Rune led 4-1 in the third. (Ditto for their Aus open match, where Rune squandered multiple leads in the fifth set).

He’s been a tough guy to put away, and I think that reflects how complete he is on serve and return. He has that Djokovic-esque quality where, down a break, he often finds another level and breaks back (no data on this, but just a feeling I get when watching recently).

In Praise of Lars

Although Patrick Mouratoglou is in Holger’s box currently, all credit should go to Lars Christensen, the tennis player turned acrobat turned coach, who nurtured the Dane from 7 years old. (Sidenote: I love how often Robbie Koenig makes it clear to mention Lars Christensen when Rune is playing with Mouratoglou in the box. Paying credit where it is due).

Here is a link to a podcast episode with Lars. An excerpt from ~7:20:

Interviewer: “You’re a very technical coach I believe. Why is that so important?

Lars: “I was always very interested in biomechanics that I think came from my acrobatic career as well, you know, because biomechanics is such an important thing. When I started coaching I got very much into the biomechanics and I tried to build up a system of developing a young kid.”

Interviewer: “And when the kids have really good biomechanics as youngsters they can get higher so much quicker can’t they? Instead of reaching a plateau and getting frustrated just because their strokes are wrong.”

Lars: “I mean, for me that’s the main thing. You should develop their balance and stroke mechanics very early, because if there are limits in those two things they are going reach a certain level and they’re just going to plateau. It’s not going to be possible to take them any further. So for me it’s very important working on this things from the very beginning.”

And this is where I think Holger has been fortunate. Lars brought his acrobatic experience and leveraged that into tennis—a sport I think at times is guilty of assuming “your swing” or style is like your DNA. Yes, everyone will swing differently, and yes players tend to have a natural disposition toward offense or defense, but there is a cocktail of factors during early ages—the surfaces you learn on, the coach you have, the racquet you use, the strings and balls you use, the players you play against, etc.)—that play a huge role in the player you will be, and I think a good coach can take a player and manipulate and nudge them in certain directions while the clay is still soft. Lars on developing Rune, from Sportskeeda:

“When I started building Holger from the beginning, I have always taken the best from the best guys, watching Djokovic's footwork and his abilities to stay close to the baseline, the way he returns, watching Roger's offensive game, how he approaches the net, how he serves. I was watching a lot of Rafa, how he was on the clay court, his will to put in that extra shot and do angles and lot of spin and stuff like that. I tried to pick the best of everybody and tried to build Holger on these inputs.”

And while it’s impossible to replicate a player, at the core of great shots are similar fundamentals, and I believe Rune mirrors them closely:

Extended wrist, upright racquet head.

And while Rune hasn’t really settled on a style—his nature seems to counterpunch—he has been gifted some clean strokes that allow him to get away with more than most; he can try on different styles like they’re t-shirts.

It seems that way when he plays. His tactics swing wildly from point to point, from patient counterpuncher, to Agassi-esque early return aggressor. He gets away with them more than he should because great technique accommodates more options. Was Federer a genius, or was he technically so clean he got away with whatever shot he tried? Probably a bit of both. Ditto for Agassi/Nadal/Djokovic etc. Whether they decide to go cross or down-the-line, when they’re on it doesn’t matter, they’ll make either look brilliant.

Koenig: “I love the pace he’s able to generate with such a short swing.”

A quote from a piece I wrote following Rune’s Paris Masters win over Djokovic:

“What’s interesting to me is that Rune’s still missing a lot of forehands and backhands—and I’ve mentioned that this is partly growing pains—but the misses are usually pretty clean; he is striking the ball so well. He isn’t mis-timing balls. To me, this puts his ceiling quite high. It means you can take on low-percentage ‘dumb’ shots you have no business making because you have great mechanics.”

But as we know Rune is often content—especially in big moments—to counterpunch. Again from the Paris Masters piece:

“It was interesting to watch Djokovic face a guy who was willing to blend aggression with a stubborn refusal to miss in big moments. Most players sort of entrench themselves in one style more (Medvedev counterpunches very well, but lacks the slice/drop shots/and aggressive ability to expose a deep position, Kyrgios serves and comes forward well, but lacks the defense to hang on in big points, etc.) and this makes it very hard to beat Djokovic, because his corner defense is so good. You have to be able to push him back, but also threaten the forecourt. Djokovic makes you have to find a lot of real estate (i.e., angles, drop shots) to win points. And that real estate is harder to find when the pressure is on. Trying to hang with him in big points usually just favours him even more.”

Rune sits in contrast to Sinner and Alcaraz, the other two young guns set on taking over from the Big-3, but those two are so clearly offensive and seem entrenched in that style. Their matches are like the Federer/Agassi clip from above: blazing pace from close quarters. I haven’t seen them sample the patient counterpuncher too much (although at times Alcaraz looked patient on the backhand against Medvedev in Indian Wells, you can see that he’s constantly looking for that ball he can crunch). Now does Rune look a little manufactured off the ground compared to those two? I think he does. But the product is simple and I think for that reason alone any obstacles can be navigated.

---

A few excerpts from a piece on Rublev and the mirage of mentality:

Like a mirage, mental toughness is also part illusion; from the perch of couch and commentary box the Big-3 appear supremely poised, unflappable in the moment, yet upon closer inspection, the effect is mainly physical. Nadal—a mental giant—explained as much in an interview with El Hormiguero (emphasis added):

"You often talk too much about mentality. But when you usually win, it's because of how you handle the ball, and then only because of mental aspects…But when things get complicated, success comes when you are ready to fight for it. And if you can handle the pressure. When you are able not to lose your skills in these situations."

It’s not a coincidence that the most athletically gifted and technically proficient tennis players are also considered mental giants in big moments. As I’ve written about extensively before on forehand technique (and touched on backhand technique here) great performance has a signal that we can trace back to physical and technical origins that give players a greater sense of control over the ball. It’s interesting to me that Nadal says “not lose your skills”—like it’s a game of maintaining when the pressure builds—even though most commentators and pundits talk about rising to the occasion, similar to Usain Bolt maintaining his speed longer than his rivals in the last strides of the 100m dash. For tennis, I’d argue that maintaining skill under pressure rests upon simple tactics and techniques that give a player a sense of control, something that Rafa has in spades with his lefty crosscourt forehand. If you have this, then you’re less likely to buckle in the big moments.

Tennis as Poker

Tennis is a difficult sport to dominate because a player has the upper hand each time they get to serve; to be number 1 in the world only requires that you average ~55% of points won. You’ll hear commentators talk about ‘percentage plays’ often as a way of communicating that fact. Like poker, the better player doesn’t win every point, but over time the percentages start to matter; a player with the weaker hand can get lucky on the river only so many times. Djokovic going into the Rublev backhand would be a great percentage play for Djokovic because his backhand is akin to pocket aces, whereas Rublev has a little less margin and dynamism on that side, in part due to his shorter, wristier swing. For a proxy to the Rublev backhand, check out the Alcaraz v Djokovic backhand analysis below. As the video states (~5:25), can Alcaraz (and Rublev) handle that technique? Absolutely, it’s a world-class backhand, “but there is a cost to everything, and the cost is going to be consistency and accuracy.” The percentages are going to ever so slightly favour Djokovic, and it might not really pay off until the pressure rises, perhaps in a tie-breaker or fifth set, but when it does, these costs are amplified. The screams of frustration that bubble over after missing the backhand may convey a mental breakdown, but the origins of these ‘mental collapses’ are often baked into the technique.

---

I’ll be tying in Rune, Alcaraz, Felix, and Sinner in the coming weeks on a longer piece, but the gist is the same. My theory is technique is ignored—or not attended to much—and so people focus on other reasons to explain this or that result: mentality, shot selection, coaching staff, etc. Now of course by focusing on technique I tend to ignore—or be more blind to—these exact issues that play a role for sure, but I think technique plays a bigger role, hence my attention to it.

The set of beliefs and assumptions that one uses influences which aspect of a phenomenon is brought into focus, and which is left unattended, as described by Oakley (1974): “a way of seeing is a way of not seeing” (p. 27)¹

I don’t make any specific tournament predictions. I just think that over the long arc of a career, certain swings will hold up/perform better. Hence my initial prediction from Jan 1st:

As the 2023 season gets underway, the game is still the same one we’ve been playing for 20+ years—graphite racquets and poly strings. I still believe the best technique emphasises a reduction in lag/whip/flip on the outside. Djokovic, Nadal, Medvedev, Rune, Alcaraz, and Ruud put themselves in the best position to benefit as they hit technical landmarks across serve, forehand, and backhand that allow them to maintain that high level Robbie Koenig was mentioning (coupled with great movement). Of course, the game is more than just technique—talent, athleticism, mental strength, fitness, strategy, and work ethic are all instrumental—but I do think technique plays an outsized role at the very top of the game where margins are razor thin. Relying on this thesis of technical simplicity, Holger Rune is my pick of the bunch to push higher in the rankings again this year. He has such simple swing mechanics along with great athleticism, intangibles (drop shots, variation), and determination. It will be interesting to track his progress alongside others in his cohort, such as Alcaraz, Sinner, Auger-Aliassime, and Musetti.

RG Soon

The draw for Roland Garros comes out Thursday, so I will endeavor to get a draw preview done before the main draw kicks off on Monday.

1. Oakley, A. (2018). The sociology of housework. Policy Press.