Tennis Frontier

Tag: dmitry tursunov

  • Facing Federer: Dimitry Tursonov’s take

    Facing Federer: Dimitry Tursonov’s take

    Scoop Malinowski, who contributes to the Tennis Frontier, has released his new book “Facing Federer“.

    Here is the first of three exclusive excerpts:

    Dmitry Tursunov:

    “It depends. If everyone talks about Roger as being the greatest, then you come out on the court against him feeling a little threatened. So you start making a little bit of mistakes that you normally don’t do. So I think a lot of it sort of happens in your head. You think to yourself a little bit, you force yourself to play too good for your own level. And if you get used to playing him, then you start playing a little bit within yourself and usually that’s the best chance for you to do your best. It doesn’t matter who you’re playing, if you’re trying to force yourself to play outside of your comfort zone, you’re always going to make mistakes, whether it’s against Roger, my grandmother, it doesn’t matter, so.”

    “Obviously, he’s a great player. There’s no point in denying that. He’s able to play consistently, play well consistently, he’s a very good tactician, so if something doesn’t work for him, he’s able to switch the game patterns. He’s able to come into net, he’s able to slice, he can hit topspin. He can be aggressive, he can be defensive. So that allows him to be very flexible with his gameplans.”

    Question: What was your most memorable match with him?

    Dmitry Tursunov: “I think, again, usually when you ask players like that it makes it sound like you played against such a great player. We’re all professionals. The guy can do a lot of things better than me but it’s not like playing him is such an awe-inspiring moment, like you meet Jesus for the first time in your life. And I think that’s what a lot of people tend to make it to be. His fans and the press make him sound a lot more threatening than he is. And he’s a very good player, there’s no doubt about that. But again, he’s lost plenty of matches. And it’s not that you don’t have a chance going out against him. He’s a very good tactician. Physically he’s talented. But he’s not the most talented person in the world. He has great timing. He’s able to slice and he’s able to use his slice in an offensive way which not a lot of people can do.”

    “But again, the most memorable moment…I’ve played three matches against him. I’ve lost all three of them. In one of them, I did take a set off of him. In my last match against him, it was in the Olympics. I kind of defeated myself there in that final set. I was so nervous playing him that I made a lot of mistakes and all he had to do was show up on the court. If that makes him the greatest player of all time – by forcing players to crap their pants when they come out to play against him, then I guess that’s the definition of a great player. And I’m not a great player. But I think I probably have the same effect maybe at a lower level. If I come out playing in Challengers, maybe I’d put a lot of pressure on the person. He’s thinking, ‘Oh f***, it’s Tursunov, he’s won two rounds at an ATP tournament last week. Now I have to do something extra to beat him.’ And that’s not the case. And a lot of times I beat players like that.”

    “Again, I’m not trying to downsize Roger and he doesn’t need downsizing. I don’t think it’s necessary to bring him up to like a deity level of a player. He’s not. He’s defeatable. And Rafa’s proved it. Rafa doesn’t get affected by that. Mentally, he’s very disciplined. He’s able to just play his game pattern regardless of who he’s playing. He could be playing you, me, Roger, he doesn’t care. If Jesus comes down and starts floating on the court, he still plays the way he’s playing. And that’s why he’s able to defeat Roger, in large part. There’s a lot of other things. It’s not like Rafa doesn’t have any weapons. My point is, a lot of defeats against Roger happen psychologically. Players force themselves to step out of their comfort zone and they start making mistakes. It’s like going out on a date with a really hot girl. You’re probably going to try to make stupid jokes and then you’re going to feel like an idiot after that. That’s kind of how it feels. Just to sum it up [smiles].”

    Question: Your lasting memory of Roger on court or off court? An anecdote?

    Dmitry Tursunov: “Well, he can’t. He’s got an image to uphold. So he can’t do anything less than, you know, like his hair is glowing.”

    Question: But you stole his bag once and hid it on him?

    Dmitry Tursunov: “I did, in Toronto. I think that’s probably why I got the set off of him [smiles]. I mean, he’s a pretty mellow guy off the court. I’m pretty sure that he knows that he’s really good in tennis and he’s got a lot of records. And I think of Roger showed up at the Corona Bar (adjacent to our interview at a practice court at SONY Open in Miami) we’d have like 15 heart attacks in the Corona Bar. And people would just start praying and, but, I think, again, it’s a part of the image. And a lot of it is press and how you present yourself. I really can’t say any anecdotes because he’s not going to put himself in a position where he can be embarrassed in some way. He’s not gonna fart in front of people [smiles]. And then, after a certain amount of time, you start feeling like Roger never farts. So that’s probably the anecdote in itself. That he’s never farted in his lifetime. He never has to take a shower after his match. He doesn’t smell. He smells like vanilla [laughter].”

    Tursunov’s record against Roger:

    2006 Miami Masters Round of 16 Federer 3-6, 3-6
    2006 Toronto Masters Round of 16 Federer 3-6, 7-5, 6-0
    2008 Beijing Olympics Round of 64 Federer 4-6, 2-6

    Tomorrow: Read Gilles Muller’s take on “Facing Federer”

    You can purchase the whole book at Amazon:

    [divider]

    Discuss with fellow tennis fans on the Tennis Frontier message boards.

    [divider]

  • Luck of the Draw: US Open 2013

    Luck of the Draw: US Open 2013

    The draw for the US Open has been released in the traditional fashion, which is to write the names of every eligible player on little slips of paper, place them all in an antique cannon in the middle of Arthur Ashe Stadium, and fire them straight up. From there the strong prevailing winds take over, and a player’s placement is determined by where in the tri-state area his name flutters to rest. It is for this reason, one presumes, that the year’s final Major is always contested during hurricane season. Sadly, the USTA has announced that in 2017 there will be roofs over the main stadiums at the Billy Jean King National Tennis Center. The US Open will have to find a new way of conducting the ceremony (since it is unthinkable that something as momentous as populating a tournament draw could be achieved without due pomp). It’s always a shame when old traditions disappear.

    [divider]

    Discuss this article, the match and lots more with fellow tennis fans in the forums.

    [divider]

    Of subsidiary interest, the placement of the very highest seeds is decided by where their names fall in relation to David Ferrer’s. As it happened, Rafael Nadal was the luckiest one. We can safely ignore scurrilous rumours that the slips of paper bearing the two Spaniards’ names had been stuck together with adhesive. Meanwhile, Novak Djokovic’s name turned up in Stamford, Connecticut. It could have been worse, I suppose.

    Once again we’re invited to marvel at the vagaries of the ATP rankings, especially the situation whereby Andy Murray, reigning US Open (and Wimbledon) champion and eternal saviour of British tennis, is ranked number three in the world. This is one place lower than Nadal, who holds only a single Major (Roland Garros), lost in the first round at Wimbledon, and didn’t even play at the others. It is two places lower than Novak Djokovic, who holds only the Australian Open. As a result the Scot is seeded lower than both those men at the upcoming US Open. As far as the population of the small island positioned off the extreme western coast of the Eurasian landmass is concerned, this is nothing short of a cosmic injustice.

    Although Sky Sports have never attained the febrile derangement of their compatriots at the Daily Mail, they have nonetheless elevated cheerleading on Murray’s behalf into something of an art form, and will reliably ascend to heights of outrage when they feel he’s been hard-done-by. While raucous advocacy presumably doesn’t reflect management’s official position, it certainly isn’t discouraged, and any failure to address Britain’s top player in sufficiently rapturous terms presumably results in disciplinary action. (This policy, incidentally, isn’t limited to Sky: word is that John McEnroe received a stern talking-to from ESPN after he repeatedly excoriated American players on air during last year’s US Open. He and his brother really did go to town on Donald Young one evening. Here in Australia, failure to sing the praises of either Lleyton Hewitt or Bernard Tomic will earn the offender a baleful visit from John Newcombe.) Anyway, Peter Fleming pronounced the latest rankings to be “crazy”. Marcus Buckland suggested it “seemed unfair”. Others were less circumspect, in each case betraying a deliberate ignorance of how the rankings actually work. It is understandable that the average punter’s knowledge of the sport ends with the Majors – we shouldn’t necessarily be thrilled at this, and American coverage in particular can grow pathetically grateful at any public interest at all – but for those paid good money to follow professional tennis from week to week, the Majors should merely be the start. There is no mystery why Nadal is ranked higher than Murray: there’s more to tennis than Grand Slam events.

    Anyway, the reason why the second and third seedings matter so much at this US Open is that David Ferrer is seeded fourth. There are probably kinder ways to say it, but the reality is that even when Ferrer was in decent form he represented a more benign semifinal opponent than whomever the alternative happened to be. Right now, however, he is in execrable form, and still troubled by a lingering injury. Not only that, but these are the potential quarterfinal match-ups based on seedings:

    • Djokovic – del Potro
    • Murray – Berdych
    • Nadal – Federer
    • Ferrer – Gasquet

    Which of these is not like the others? Any one of Berdych, del Potro, or Federer could have fallen in Ferrer’s quarter, and in each case would have been favoured to reach the last weekend. Alas, it wasn’t to be. So it goes. Let’s just call Ferrer’s quarter a grand opportunity for someone. There are nine qualifiers in this quarter, and four of them are facing each other. I’m going to venture out on an especially shaky limb, and suggest that Dmitry Tursunov’s time has arrived. Seeded thirty-two, the Russian won’t encounter anyone ranked higher until the third round at the earliest. By wisely choosing to be drawn in Ferrer’s quarter, he has ensured that he won’t face anyone truly terrifying until the semifinals. So pencil him in for that. Gasquet is in there, too, of course, seeded eighth. I could pencil him in for a quarterfinal, but history suggests that would be a waste of graphite. On the small chance that Tursunov doesn’t push all the way through to Super Saturday, I suspect either Milos Raonic or Jerzy Janowicz will. Or Ernests Gulbis, who is now seeded and can thus stop thinking of himself as the world’s most dangerous floater, since it was frankly getting him nowhere. But really it’s anyone’s guess.

    Ryan Harrison’s appalling luck at Grand Slam level continues. He has once again drawn a lofty seed early on, in this case Nadal in the opening round. Last year in New York he faced Juan Martin del Potro in the second round. The upshot is that even last year’s modest points will almost certainly go undefended. It’s rotten luck, undoubtedly, though one shouldn’t pretend there aren’t other reasons why Harrison isn’t ranked high enough to elude this kind of misfortune. It’s bound to be a featured night match, and thus a test of McEnroe’s generosity. It’s hard to imagine either Nadal or Federer will suffer upsets before they meet in the quarterfinals, unlike at Wimbledon, where I totally foresaw those early losses to Steve Darcis and Sergiy Stakhovsky, but didn’t want to spoil the surprise.

    Only one first round match really stands out – setting to one side the possibility that those qualifiers will entertainingly pulverise each other in fifth set tiebreaks – which is the one between Lleyton Hewitt and Brian Baker. Joints creaking and metal pins clanking, they’ll contest the chance to play del Potro. Whoever comes out of all that, it’ll be a triumph for medical science.

    Credits: Cover Photo: Wallyg, (Creative Commons License)