Skip to main content

AUS 2014 Semis

Aus 2014 Semis

Clearly, all the semifinalists are in good form to make it this far...

Cibulkova can blast ANYone off the court.  Will she stay in the zone to do so?  If she's not in the zone, we can get love and love, like in Sydney 2013.  Aggie Radwanska will probably make it close... with her creativity and problem-solving I don't see her getting blown out.  How will Cibulkova react to a close match?  I'll guess she'll be nervous.  Cibulkova can win this if she keeps her head down and blasts away.  But I'm guessing Aggie will get into her head.  Aggie in 3

Bouchard has looked mentally strong, aggressive, and her game has looked efficient and weakness-free.  She's won the final set going away in each of her last 3 matches (62, 60, 62) - like she needed to problem solve her way through and then, once figured, put the hammer down.
Li has looked invincible in her last 2 matches, surrendering only 6 games in 4 sets.  Bouchard's lack of weakness could get frustrating for Li and allow the Canadian into the match.  Li will be more penetrating from the ground, Bouchard has a penchant for more net play.  I think Li will be able to keep Bouchard off balance enough to win in 3.

When Berdych is on, it is sublime--effortless power to the corners--he looks impossible to beat.  But if he's pushed, the fall to mortalhood can be rapid.  He had a cakewalk to the quarters and there faced a game but aging Ferrer.
Wawrinka got a 1R ret and a 3R w/o to ease his passage, but has overcome 2 high quality opponents since (Robredo, Djokovic).  I definitely see him as capable of pushing Berdych, the question is, will he have a let down after the victory against Djokovic?  I think he will, but will find his way through it as the match progresses. I see Berdych taking the first set and one other, but ultimately Stan prevails in 5.

Federer is clearly reborn.  Will he have the nerve to continue with his aggressive net play circa Wim 2003?
Rafa struggled against Nishikori and can thank Dimitrov for blowing an easy sitter to take a 2 sets to one lead.  But Rafa ultimately overcame both those opponents and is returning to dominant form.  He knows exactly what to do against Federer.  Federer will fight gamely for awhile, but will eventually let Nadal into his head, lose belief, and go down to Rafa in 4.

Eventual champions:  Li and Nadal
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

French Open Preview 2017 - Men

French Open Preview 2017 – Men Rafa is back! He is the clear and dominant favourite for the next slam title at Roland Garros.  Can anyone stop him? Immediately after his Aus Open final appearance I began wondering aloud if Rafael Nadal would be ranked #1 by year’s end.  It appears that eventuality could happen as early as July, but it will depend on what Andy Murray does.  Murray has had a reasonably dreadful year – especially for a #1.  He’s won only about 2.3 matches for every 1 he’s lost – which is respectable – just not for a #1.  Meanwhile Rafa just came off a 17 match win streak – all on clay – and has won three of the four big run-up tournaments to the French – Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, but fell in the Rome quarters to Thiem.  Rafa has won 3 of these tournaments and RG in the same year seven times in his career.  Will this be the eighth?  The most serious challenger to Nadal might be 23 year-old Dominic Thiem....
4 comments
Read more

Victory Points - Djokovic vs Connors, Lendl vs Sampras

Novak Djokovic has just won his 63 rd main tour title with his victory in Miami last week.  It seems like a lot of tournaments and is almost as many as Nadal has won with 67... or Sampras with 64.  But it’s still a lot less than Jimmy Connors’ open era record of 109 titles.  Here’s the title list for the top 20 of the Open Era (since 1968 when professionals were allowed to play with amateurs). 109 Connors 94 Lendl 88 Federer 77 McEnroe 67 Nadal 64 Sampras 64 Borg 63 Djokovic 62 Vilas 60 Agassi 58 Nastase 49 Becker 46 Laver 44 Muster 41 Edberg 37 Smith 35 Murray 34 Chang 33 Ashe 33 Wilander That list may or may not agree with various lists published on the ATP website or Wikipedia, and that’s because there was a fair bit of confusion in the early days of the open era (1968-1973) about what tournaments counted and which were exhibitions.  Some supposed ‘tournaments’ had draws of only four players or were ‘invitational’.  But after ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

The Case for Rod Laver Two grand slams.   When one considers the near impossibility of winning a calendar year grand slam in this day and age, the thought of one player winning two boggles the mind.   It’s difficult enough to win the career slam – only 7 men have ever done it and only 4 in the Open era.   Winning a non-calendar slam is even more difficult and many great players have won three in a row and fallen just short:   like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Pete Sampras. So Rod Laver should be an open and shut case for the greatest of all time.   But it’s not that simple.   His first grand slam is really negligible and doesn’t count.   It was an amateur slam won in an era when the best players were professionals.   Especially in the 1960’s the pros were gaining more and more credibility.   The sheer number of pros was increasing as more and more tournaments began to be established for pro players.   Laver was by no means considered...
3 comments
Read more