The young guns have all been sent home on the men’s side. Their all-purpose flair was fun while it lasted, but now it’s time for the New Look Veterans to take over. The semis are shaping up like a (monster forehand) blast from the recent past. Over on the women’s side, it’s getting uglier by the day—they’re starting to hit their serves on the same side of the court! Where have you gone, Justine and Amelie? Come back soon! We didn’t know how much we needed you.
Tonight we get both women’s semis, and after that the Big One, Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick. Tomorrow the other new-look old-timers, Tommy Haas and Fernando Gonzalez, have the day to themselves (I’m guessing there are a few unhappy ticket-holders for that one).
Let’s break all of it down, OK?
Serena Williams vs. Nicole Vaidisova
As I said in a comment on a recent post, over the years Williams has gradually succumbed to the “you can’t win until you can lose” approach to competition. She rarely comes out and takes it to her opponent anymore (though that’s just what she did to Jankovic in the fourth round); instead, she relies on the looming threat of defeat to focus her mind on winning. This is a stressful, passive-aggressive (Serena, passive-aggressive?), and fairly common phenomenon. I’ve felt it many times and have always been amazed at how an imminent loss helps inspire my very best tennis, especially against players I think I can beat. It’s as if the confidence that was always there has finally come to the rescue. For Williams, who is confident she can beat everyone, desperation moments bring all of her competitiveness to the surface, and there's a lot of it there. Even her technique improves, particularly on her serve and backhand. Against Shahar Peer in the quarters, Williams was still misfiring deep into the third set. But down a break point at 4-4, she rose up to hit three aces and save that game. No matter how bad Williams might look against Vaidisova, you can count on moments like these.
Speaking of Nicole, she has flown under the radar, at least in the States. I’ve hardly seen a point of hers. But I did see her the week before in Sydney, and I was pleasantly impressed. She seems to have made some real improvements in the off-season, starting with a more consistent and reliable forehand and a new interest in stepping forward to construct points rather than trying to end them with a single bullet. More important, Vaidisova remained calm and poised even when a match went south; her biggest weakness in the past had been her temper, which would throw her off for games at a time.
What’s going to happen in the first meeting between the two? Both players hit with equal power off both wings, and they own two of the most effective serves on the women’s tour. If history holds up, Vaidisova will win the first set, then Williams will win the second and grimace her way through a tight, operatic third set. This is a big match for Nicole; she blew her last Slam semi, in Paris last spring, and another loss may begin to sow the seeds of a choker’s reputation (I know she’s only 17, but things happen fast in women’s tennis). OK, maybe that’s too much. Let’s put it this way, a win tonight for Vaidisova would put her on the fast track to major titles and the Top 5, the same way Hingis fast-tracked herself 10 years ago by winning her first Slam final in Melbourne at 16 years old. Despite that motivation, I don’t think Vaidisova will win. They say Bobby Knight is worth three or four points per game just sitting on the bench; that’s how big his presence is. I’d say the same for Serena. Her name and presence alone are worth a couple of games, especially against a girl as young as Vaidisova, who has been watching Serena on TV since she was 8 or 9 (ditto for Peer and Jankovic). Williams is, above all else, an obstacle.
Pick: Williams in three sets.
Maria Sharapova vs. Kim Clijsters
This had been shaping up as the match of the tournament, but after watching these two in the quarters, I’m not sure I even want to witness it. Sharapova hasn’t been playing anywhere near her best. I wrote a post a few months ago, after she won in Linz, about how smart Sharapova is as a player, how she plays the percentages and goes for broke judiciously. Yesterday I watched for her tactical brilliance, but couldn’t find it anywhere. She was bashing and shrieking, playing hit-and-miss tennis. Her serve hasn’t been as effective this week, she’s pulling off her forehand (a la Serena Williams), and she’s even giving away leads and getting broken regularly, which is uncharacteristic. Still, they say the mark of a champion is the ability to win without your best, and Sharapova has done it five times in Melbourne.
Clijsters was similarly hit-and-miss against Hingis. As I said, the Swiss makes Clijsters look tactically haphazard by comparison (Clijsters’ superior explosiveness always triumphs in the end). Clijsters is 4-2 against Sharapova and seems to enjoy playing her. From an athletic standpoint, she’s far superior—she can hit with the Russian and then outrun her. As far as shotmaking, only her serve is clearly inferior. Clijsters, as we know, is not a sure thing mentally, the way Sharapova is; that could conceivably cancel out the Belgian's physical edge. But I feel like Kim has a mental block primarily with certain match-ups. She could be playing her best tennis against Justine Henin-Hardenne or Venus Williams, but if it’s a big situation she won’t believe in herself. I don’t think Sharapova poses that kind of psychological obstacle for Clijsters.
Winner: Clijsters in three sets
Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick
The lead story on Tennis.com this morning posed the question: Is Roddick-Federer going to replace Nadal-Federer as the Rivalry? It’s an appropriate question at the moment, but it’s also faintly desperate: Federer leads this particular “rivalry” 12-1. Is this really the best challenger the men can find for Sire Jacket?
OK, those matches are in the past, and Roddick is playing the best, most confident tennis of his career in Melbourne. Does he have a shot? Yes, absolutely he does, primarily because the last two times they played, in the U.S. Open final and in Shanghai, Roddick raised his game. Rather than panic and overhit, as he once did against Fed, he played with aggressive efficiency. He refused to let Federer get an advantage in a rally and dictated play by careening forward at every opportunity. It’s a look that Federer almost never sees, and it rattled him for long stretches of each match. Roddick has also shored up his backhand, which is a good thing, because a strong left side is essential against Federer. His only losses in the last two years have come to Nadal, Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet, and Murray; all of these guys do a lot of damage from their left sides, and they can fend off Federer’s inside-out forehand. Still, for Roddick this match may hinge on his first-serve percentage. He needs Federer on his heels as often as possible.
As for The Fed, he’s generally lethal in Grand Slam semifinals. Like everyone else, the peculiar pressure of a major final can make him get tight for a set or two—his last two Slam-final wins were four-setters, while his last two wins in Slam semifinals were straight-set blitz jobs. I think Federer will be excited and motivated for this one, rather than nervous, particularly after losing to Roddick in a recent exhibition and hearing all the talk about his renaissance. A high percentage of first serves is also paramount for Federer. Against a huge server like Roddick, Federer needs to take care of his service games, and he’ll make that easier on himself by not giving the American a chance to charge in to start the point. Once he’s got Roddick on the baseline, the point swings decidedly in his favor. That will be the core battle: Can Federer keep Roddick at the baseline?
I think the answer is yes, and that Federer will win in a high-quality, seesaw affair that will end in a long fourth-set tiebreaker.
Pick: Federer in four sets
Fernando Gonzalez vs. Tommy Haas
Let’s pay tribute to Haas for one minute. The 28-year-old German is not the most personable guy on tour, and the sight of him berating his coach at the top of his lungs is not the best advertisement for the sport. But this is a guy who has gone through countless injuries—remember when he stepped on a ball at Wimbledon, turned his ankle, and was out for months?—and had his parents nearly die in a motorcycle accident. He's persevered through all of it and now returns to a Grand Slam semifinal for the first time in five years. In his early, skinny days, he was a brilliantly fluid ball-striker; now, older and thicker, he plays meat-and-potatoes power-baseline tennis. It’s more workmanlike than in the old days, and that’s appropriate, because Haas has turned himself into one of the sport’s premiere workers—it’s the only reason he’s still around.
And how about Gonzo? His perseverance has also been a surprise. While he hasn’t worked himself back from oblivion like Haas, he has shown admirable ambition in hiring a new coach and improving his game at age 26, even after making all the money he’ll ever need. His partnership with Larry Stefanki may prove to be as fruitful as the much-ballyhooed teams of Connors-Roddick and Murray-Gilbert. As far as what Gonzo is doing differently, yes, he’s made his backhand more consistent and he’s slicing it deviously to set up his rifle forehand. But the main difference I’m noticing is that he’s making a much higher percentage of those rifle forehands. The erratic spells are no longer as frequent, and his confidence at the end of sets—where he’s struggled in the past—is now sky high. Having seen him blister Hewitt, Blake, and Nadal in a total of nine sets, I have no choice but to take Gonzo to reach the final. No matter what Haas does, his main weapon is simply to hope that the Chilean will feel the pressure of his long-delayed first Grand Slam semifinal and go off. But that happens to be the one area where Stefanki has succeeded perhaps above all others: He’s kept Gonzo calm.
Pick: Gonzalez in four sets.