Great piece as always, and looking forward to the Alcaraz - sinner - rune - Felix one soon!
Speaking of Lars’s work, it seems like he isn’t part of the team anymore - was in « vacation » for a while but from what french commentators said during the medvedev match it seems like aneke rune announced separation -. Seems very fishy to me. Not sure if having mouratoglou as your full time coach is desirable. This guy - putting his technical analysis aside, which doesn’t seem that good - gives me guru vibes
Where I disagree is on Medvedev being a finished product. These past months only demonstrate that Medvedev is far from a finished product.
I also think that Medvedev is where he is because of his superior IQ. He is just smarter than the rest. When you watch junior players often you will realize that aside from physical power, older kids tend to play better partly because of more developed brains. Medvedev vs. Rune reminds me of this.
Fair enough! I guess i meant finished in terms of what his style is, more so than he can't improve a particular shot. Yes, his forehand has more RPMs and he is being a little more aggressive, but he isn't going to develop into an attacking baseliner, IMO. Difference by degree rather than kind, in other words.
Agree that Meddy is also a smart player and Rune certainly plays loose and immature at times. Part of the learning curve
More great analysis thanks. I do like Rune but do have to give some credence to the narrative that he's gonna struggle for fitness at bo5.
To me he's almost still got a bit of a child's body, he might be a late grower/mature and then really hit his heights when he can go back to back matches.
That is definitely still a question mark. He seems to work hard so maybe he will take a Murray-eque turn and really get fit and strong throughout his 20s
I'm wondering if you think that Rune's abbreviated swing is going to hold him back slightly because he cant absolutely crank his forehand in ways that other very successful clay courters can. I know, people will say roger had a lot of success on clay, but most of his successful RG runs came earlier in his career when his forehand loop was much more exaggerated than it was towards the end of his career.
Maybe. Hard to tell because he's also a player who can play passively with the forehand but attack well with his backhand, so he can still do well on clay without dominating the forehand (similar to zverev). But i prefer it when he has intentions to attack with his forehand.
I'm going to take the "tennis as poker" comparison as a license to post more card game analogies: here's "Tennis as Magic: The Gathering"
A fundamental tactical point in MTG (also present in other TCGs) is correctly identifying "who's the beatdown" of the matchup [1]. In MTG, players can build and use decks with different "speeds", from "aggro" decks looking to go all out from turn 1 and win quickly to "control" decks seeking to invest for the late game, play efficient cards and stall the game until they have enough advantage to play a winning combo or overwhelming threat. Between those extremes, you have "midrange" decks which peak in relative power in the intermediate stages of the game. Generally, for a given matchup, the player with the faster deck must assume the role of "beatdown" and apply early pressure to win before its resources run out, while the slower deck must assume a "control" role and hold on until it can transform its card and resource advantages into a stronger board position; this tactical situation regularly arises from the asymmetry in card power, cost, and efficiency that the slower deck gains in exchange for its lower speed or "tempo". Therefore, the longer the game goes on, the better the chances for the control deck (the "inevitability" of the outcome sets in). This variety is not entirely unlike the diversity of tennis styles, with aggressive players looking to keep the pressure and close the point as soon as possible and defensive / counterpunching players looking to defend and keep the ball in play until their statistical edge in consistency nets the point.
The interesting point is that most MTG decks can either play the role of aggressor (the "beatdown") in matchups against slower decks while playing the role of defender (the "control") against even faster decks, and it is important to judge who is in which position for a given matchup. An analogous situation arises in tennis, and I think this match was a good illustration of this point. Here, Rune would be a balanced "midrange" player that should be patient (as he was in previous matches) when facing more aggressive players (or a misfiring Djoker), because just playing another backhand is usually a smaller risk for Rune than its opponent, and thus the "inevitability" favours Rune when the point keeps going. However, against the most consistent counterpuncher in the circuit (Medvedev), the tactical situation flips, and aggression (as in the first games of Set 2) was the correct choice, just like you explain. The opposite mistake was made by Alcaraz (usually the more "aggro" player, since he's stronger in attack) in his Struff matchup, as he was bleeding forehand UEs from unnecessarily risky power shots when a more patient style (similar to what Rune has been favouring lately) easily would have netted him a high % of baseline exchanges against a player with much weaker movement and rallying. One final datapoint in favour of this thesis is provided by the Alcaraz - Medvedev IW final, where the aggressor had more than enough speed to overrun the control player: calmly settling into a rally with neutral (but not "neutralizing") shots gives Carlitos way too much time to cook.
very appropriate analogy. I think it takes a smart and self-aware player to make those adjustments and identify whether they need to attack or play control to maximize their style.
Love the points you made about how even when Holger misses, the connection is still clean, and the examples of his movement combining with the simplicity of his strokes to take time away.
Expected a lot more from him in this match (e.g. to throw in the aggressive +1 dropshots like he did vs Novak, to draw Daniil's BH in with the slice to set up the inside-in, and to be much more potent with his loopier trades) but the physical effects of all his 3-setters clearly took their toll, so that's still a big factor for now.
Think there's a case for players, like Casper and Daniil, who showed (albeit unsustainably in the former's case) that being able to hold steady/dominate the BH trades and to play effective high-margin offence when asked the question to by Holger can be a tough-to-unsettle formula for him.
Yeah I think he looked nervous a lot as well. Seemed scared to tag the forehand at times and went into his shell against a guy who is the best counterpuncher in the game. I think he just gets confused about his style still because he is capable of great counterpunching, but in this matchup on this surface he needed to be proactive.
I'd like to see him play more aggressively against lower ranked players. If you need to work on a game style that you're not very used to, you can't wait until you play the best players in the world to work on this style.
Reads like paid marketing but the video interview seems more real. I was surprised by this.. “Medvedev is one of the few pros who rarely switches frames during a match.”
Great piece as always, and looking forward to the Alcaraz - sinner - rune - Felix one soon!
Speaking of Lars’s work, it seems like he isn’t part of the team anymore - was in « vacation » for a while but from what french commentators said during the medvedev match it seems like aneke rune announced separation -. Seems very fishy to me. Not sure if having mouratoglou as your full time coach is desirable. This guy - putting his technical analysis aside, which doesn’t seem that good - gives me guru vibes
agreed
Where I disagree is on Medvedev being a finished product. These past months only demonstrate that Medvedev is far from a finished product.
I also think that Medvedev is where he is because of his superior IQ. He is just smarter than the rest. When you watch junior players often you will realize that aside from physical power, older kids tend to play better partly because of more developed brains. Medvedev vs. Rune reminds me of this.
Fair enough! I guess i meant finished in terms of what his style is, more so than he can't improve a particular shot. Yes, his forehand has more RPMs and he is being a little more aggressive, but he isn't going to develop into an attacking baseliner, IMO. Difference by degree rather than kind, in other words.
Agree that Meddy is also a smart player and Rune certainly plays loose and immature at times. Part of the learning curve
More great analysis thanks. I do like Rune but do have to give some credence to the narrative that he's gonna struggle for fitness at bo5.
To me he's almost still got a bit of a child's body, he might be a late grower/mature and then really hit his heights when he can go back to back matches.
That is definitely still a question mark. He seems to work hard so maybe he will take a Murray-eque turn and really get fit and strong throughout his 20s
I'm wondering if you think that Rune's abbreviated swing is going to hold him back slightly because he cant absolutely crank his forehand in ways that other very successful clay courters can. I know, people will say roger had a lot of success on clay, but most of his successful RG runs came earlier in his career when his forehand loop was much more exaggerated than it was towards the end of his career.
Maybe. Hard to tell because he's also a player who can play passively with the forehand but attack well with his backhand, so he can still do well on clay without dominating the forehand (similar to zverev). But i prefer it when he has intentions to attack with his forehand.
I'm going to take the "tennis as poker" comparison as a license to post more card game analogies: here's "Tennis as Magic: The Gathering"
A fundamental tactical point in MTG (also present in other TCGs) is correctly identifying "who's the beatdown" of the matchup [1]. In MTG, players can build and use decks with different "speeds", from "aggro" decks looking to go all out from turn 1 and win quickly to "control" decks seeking to invest for the late game, play efficient cards and stall the game until they have enough advantage to play a winning combo or overwhelming threat. Between those extremes, you have "midrange" decks which peak in relative power in the intermediate stages of the game. Generally, for a given matchup, the player with the faster deck must assume the role of "beatdown" and apply early pressure to win before its resources run out, while the slower deck must assume a "control" role and hold on until it can transform its card and resource advantages into a stronger board position; this tactical situation regularly arises from the asymmetry in card power, cost, and efficiency that the slower deck gains in exchange for its lower speed or "tempo". Therefore, the longer the game goes on, the better the chances for the control deck (the "inevitability" of the outcome sets in). This variety is not entirely unlike the diversity of tennis styles, with aggressive players looking to keep the pressure and close the point as soon as possible and defensive / counterpunching players looking to defend and keep the ball in play until their statistical edge in consistency nets the point.
The interesting point is that most MTG decks can either play the role of aggressor (the "beatdown") in matchups against slower decks while playing the role of defender (the "control") against even faster decks, and it is important to judge who is in which position for a given matchup. An analogous situation arises in tennis, and I think this match was a good illustration of this point. Here, Rune would be a balanced "midrange" player that should be patient (as he was in previous matches) when facing more aggressive players (or a misfiring Djoker), because just playing another backhand is usually a smaller risk for Rune than its opponent, and thus the "inevitability" favours Rune when the point keeps going. However, against the most consistent counterpuncher in the circuit (Medvedev), the tactical situation flips, and aggression (as in the first games of Set 2) was the correct choice, just like you explain. The opposite mistake was made by Alcaraz (usually the more "aggro" player, since he's stronger in attack) in his Struff matchup, as he was bleeding forehand UEs from unnecessarily risky power shots when a more patient style (similar to what Rune has been favouring lately) easily would have netted him a high % of baseline exchanges against a player with much weaker movement and rallying. One final datapoint in favour of this thesis is provided by the Alcaraz - Medvedev IW final, where the aggressor had more than enough speed to overrun the control player: calmly settling into a rally with neutral (but not "neutralizing") shots gives Carlitos way too much time to cook.
[1] The article that popularized the expression: https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/whos-the-beatdown/
very appropriate analogy. I think it takes a smart and self-aware player to make those adjustments and identify whether they need to attack or play control to maximize their style.
Love the points you made about how even when Holger misses, the connection is still clean, and the examples of his movement combining with the simplicity of his strokes to take time away.
Expected a lot more from him in this match (e.g. to throw in the aggressive +1 dropshots like he did vs Novak, to draw Daniil's BH in with the slice to set up the inside-in, and to be much more potent with his loopier trades) but the physical effects of all his 3-setters clearly took their toll, so that's still a big factor for now.
Think there's a case for players, like Casper and Daniil, who showed (albeit unsustainably in the former's case) that being able to hold steady/dominate the BH trades and to play effective high-margin offence when asked the question to by Holger can be a tough-to-unsettle formula for him.
Yeah I think he looked nervous a lot as well. Seemed scared to tag the forehand at times and went into his shell against a guy who is the best counterpuncher in the game. I think he just gets confused about his style still because he is capable of great counterpunching, but in this matchup on this surface he needed to be proactive.
I'd like to see him play more aggressively against lower ranked players. If you need to work on a game style that you're not very used to, you can't wait until you play the best players in the world to work on this style.
Fascinating! Tennis is so simple, in the most complex way.
Have any details about Med’s old vs new string/stringing?
Tried a slightly more livelier/softer string.
https://www.tennis.com/baseline/articles/daniil-medvedev-enjoying-success-with-new-tecnifibre-string
Reads like paid marketing but the video interview seems more real. I was surprised by this.. “Medvedev is one of the few pros who rarely switches frames during a match.”
Hewitt used to be the same. Never changed unless he rarely broke a string.