The Zone

[Moxie]

Based on another conversation, it got me thinking about what it means to be in The Zone, and when players have been in it. Djokovic in late 2010 and through most of 2011 was in The Zone. Everything worked. All lines were found. That was a pretty long run of seeing the ball like a watermelon.

So I'm wondering about other incidences of players "zoning." Roger, in the 2007 AO, when he didn't drop a set. Nadal in the 2008 RG. Even Cilic's recent run late in the USO. It might be a shorter or longer Zone, but I wonder what you'd come up with, and what you think about The Zone.

 

[atttomole]

Fed again. He was spectacular at the Wimbledon final in 2012, especially after the roof was closed. Mamma mia what a display that was!!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

There are countless examples. Mac at the 1984 Wimbledon and U.S. Open.

Some of the better known Zoning episodes would be Borg at the 1978 French, Lendl at the 1985 US Open, Becker at the 1985 Wimbledon, Sampras at multiple slams, Hewitt at his U.S. open and Wimbledon wins, where he was untouchable. Edberg at the 1991 US. I was there when destroyed both Chang and Courier.

Perhaps the most perfect example would be Pat Cash at the 1987 Wimbledon

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps the most perfect example would be Pat Cash at the 1987 Wimbledon

Since I wasn't watching tennis then, tell me what that was the best example, in your estimation.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Perhaps the most perfect example would be Pat Cash at the 1987 Wimbledon

Since I wasn't watching tennis then, tell me what that was the best example, in your estimation.

Cash was like a zombie...totally unaware of his surroundings, in an absolute trance.... I have never seen a player volley that well for 7 matches.

He destroyed Forget, Wilander, Connors, and Lendl ruthlessly.

 

[El Dude]

Perhaps we could define greatness by how frequently a player can get into the zone, and how they are able to maintain it despite adversity.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Perhaps we could define greatness by how frequently a player can get into the zone, and how they are able to maintain it despite adversity.

That's the thing..Zoning players don't meet with adversity. They are so supreme in their state of timelessness, focus, and being in the moment, they are unchallenged.

When Mac beat Lendl at the 84 US, it was like watching a puppet master. It was very public tennis lesson.

Same for what Rog did to Hewitt in 2004.

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps we could define greatness by how frequently a player can get into the zone, and how they are able to maintain it despite adversity.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Zone is a place that all players might find, occasionally, but few can maintain. I think "greatness" has much more to do with playing at a high level, week in and week out, and finding a way to win, even when you're not at your best.

Here's an example: Rosol was in the zone when he beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2012, I think. He's done creditably well since then, and moved up in the rankings, but he's never played a match at that level again. Nadal, (or Federer, Djokovic, Murray) can scrap a win and get to a final, most of the time. Yes, they find the Zone more often, but they don't have to count on it. Their best is good enough, even if they're not "zoning." When they are, though, they're unbeatable.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Perhaps we could define greatness by how frequently a player can get into the zone, and how they are able to maintain it despite adversity.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Zone is a place that all players might find, occasionally, but few can maintain. I think "greatness" has much more to do with playing at a high level, week in and week out, and finding a way to win, even when you're not at your best.

Here's an example: Rosol was in the zone when he beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2012, I think. He's done creditably well since then, and moved up in the rankings, but he's never played a match at that level again. Nadal, (or Federer, Djokovic, Murray) can scrap a win and get to a final, most of the time. Yes, they find the Zone more often, but they don't have to count on it. Their best is good enough, even if they're not "zoning." When they are, though, they're unbeatable.

Here is a paradox. The elite of the game rarely zone, because they don't have to. Their normal level, is so high, they are rarely threatened.

It's the second tier of players that have to "zone" to reach the dizzying heights.

Btw, Rosol did play as well this year against Nadal for a set and a half..it was literally like a continuation of their first match. Then his doltish ways kicked in.

 

[Front242]

Tsonga AO '08 against Nadal, some of the best volleying I've ever seen since Edberg and again in the last 3 sets against Federer at Wimbledon 2011. Federer took the foot off the gas a bit after winning the first 2 sets but Tsonga's serving and forehand in particular were completely in the zone for the next 3 full sets. Nadal v Verdasco Monte Carlo final 2010. 6-0 6-1. Say no more.

Some of the most amazing tennis I've seen but sadly for only 5 games was from Kyrgios against Robredo at the recent USO open when he went up 5-0. A truly incredible display that sadly couldn't last. Nalbandian in 2007 at the Paris and Madrid masters.

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps we could define greatness by how frequently a player can get into the zone, and how they are able to maintain it despite adversity.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Zone is a place that all players might find, occasionally, but few can maintain. I think "greatness" has much more to do with playing at a high level, week in and week out, and finding a way to win, even when you're not at your best.

Here's an example: Rosol was in the zone when he beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2012, I think. He's done creditably well since then, and moved up in the rankings, but he's never played a match at that level again. Nadal, (or Federer, Djokovic, Murray) can scrap a win and get to a final, most of the time. Yes, they find the Zone more often, but they don't have to count on it. Their best is good enough, even if they're not "zoning." When they are, though, they're unbeatable.

Here is a paradox. The elite of the game rarely zone, because they don't have to. Their normal level, is so high, they are rarely threatened.

It's the second tier of players that have to "zone" to reach the dizzying heights.

Btw, Rosol did play as well this year against Nadal for a set and a half..it was literally like a continuation of their first match. Then his doltish ways kicked in.

I don't know that they "rarely" zone...I think they do. But, yes, as you say, they don't have to to beat most comers. But when the best are in the zone, they are untouchable.

Here's another one: I think Soderling was in the Zone when he beat Rafa at RG in '09 and Roger at RG in '10. Those were the best performances of his career. Everything hit the lines, and his head didn't explode.

Same with Safin, when he beat Roger in the SF of the AO in '05.

 

[Front242]

Soderling was even better at Bastad 2011, the last tournament he played where he destroyed Berdych 6-1 6-0 in the semis and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final.

 

[Moxie]

Soderling was even better at Bastad 2011, the last tournament he played where he destroyed Berdych 6-1 6-0 in the semis and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final.

Yes, but that's the point about the zone...that was really all he had in him, no? It's no different than Cali endlessly putting up those back-to-back 1000s by Nalbandian. Flashy and impressive, but unsustainable.

 

[Bounce It !!]

Soderling was even better at Bastad 2011, the last tournament he played where he destroyed Berdych 6-1 6-0 in the semis and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final.

Four sets. losing 5 games, against two highly ranked competitors. that's a zone ! Short one, but a zone none the less.

 

[Kieran]

Most "Zoned" zone?

Sampras v Agassi at Wimbledon in 1999. Agassi was exceptionally sharp that day - Pete was celestial. They say that if you stay still and listen, you can still hear him play, he zoned so exactly that day...

 

[tented]

Based on another conversation, it got me thinking about what it means to be in The Zone, and when players have been in it. Djokovic in late 2010 and through most of 2011 was in The Zone. Everything worked. All lines were found. That was a pretty long run of seeing the ball like a watermelon.

So I'm wondering about other incidences of players "zoning." Roger, in the 2007 AO, when he didn't drop a set. Nadal in the 2008 RG. Even Cilic's recent run late in the USO. It might be a shorter or longer Zone, but I wonder what you'd come up with, and what you think about The Zone.

Great idea for a thread, Moxie.

I agree with Roger being in the zone in the 07 AO, especially during the Roddick semifinal. At the same tournament, Fernando Gonzalez was in the zone, and reached his one and only major final. Granted he ran into an even more zoned out (!) Federer, but Gonzo's matches leading up to the final were awesome, especially the quarterfinal against Nadal (6-2, 6-4, 6-3) and the semifinal against Haas (6-1, 6-3, 6-1).

Djokovic's 2011 was extraordinary, especially since it lasted so long, and against so many top players. Other than the RG loss to Roger, and the Cincinnati final, he had an amazing year through the USO.

Rafa's 2010 clay season was remarkable, even by his high clay-court standards. He dropped two sets in four tournaments, and became the first guy to win all three clay Masters, plus RG.

And, yes, Nalbandian was in the zone when he won the back-to-back Masters in 2007.

 

[isabelle]

Nalby in 2007 Bercy final, totally thrilling

 

[Front242]

Soderling was even better at Bastad 2011, the last tournament he played where he destroyed Berdych 6-1 6-0 in the semis and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final.

Yes, but that's the point about the zone...that was really all he had in him, no? It's no different than Cali endlessly putting up those back-to-back 1000s by Nalbandian. Flashy and impressive, but unsustainable.

He was world number 4 in 2010, knocking Murray back to 5 in the process and could only play 14 tournament in 2011 so he unfortunately left at the top of his game. Wrist injury and mono in 2011 were likely what made it unsustainable. For the record not many players even at the top now can sustain their levels, just look at Djokovic's level which is notably lower everywhere but Wimbledon, Federer reaching many finals but hardly winning any, Murray a mere shadow of himself and Nadal not even playing.

Reaching world number 4 shows a high level throughout the year in which he gained that. Two years straight reaching the RG final proves he sustained his level pretty well imo. A lot better than most.

 

[Front242]

Soderling was even better at Bastad 2011, the last tournament he played where he destroyed Berdych 6-1 6-0 in the semis and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final.

Four sets. losing 5 games, against two highly ranked competitors. that's a zone ! Short one, but a zone none the less.

Plus he didn't lose a set the whole tournament.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, if we're talking over a really substantial period of time, Djokovic in 2011 stands out, as does Federer in 2006. Those are two players who were in the zone for pretty much entire year, minus some stretches.

Nadal's stretch from Hamburg 2008 till the Olympics later that year was probably the best tennis of his career. 2010 was interesting, because while it was his best year to date, his results were superb, but his level wasn't always "in the zone" (save for maybe the best tournament of his career at Monte Carlo). However, at the US Open that year he was something else. When one of your weakest shots clicks so much (the serve), you are in the zone.

The most recent example of someone being in the zone for more than just a tournament is Nadal himself, last summer on North American hard courts. He hardly broke a sweat with the exception of the Djokovic match in Montreal.

I do think Nalbandian's fall of 2007 is worth mentioning. He was playing otherworldly tennis that unfortunately sentenced us to years of torment and arguments on these boards.

IF we narrow down "the zone" to one match, then there are plenty of examples, because literally any player can get in the zone. Tsonga vs Nadal at the AO in 2008 or Kyrgios vs. Nadal at Wimbledon this year are good examples. Both were unknowns at the time when those matches took place, and nobody even knew they had that level in them. This is different to top players being in the zone because, as good as they play, we're never really THAT surprised.

It's weird when unexpected players get in the zone for an entire tournament though. Cilic is obviously the most recent example. But I'd even cite a few examples that have long been forgotten: Mardy Fish at the 2008 Indian Wells, or Ljubicic at the same tournament two years later. It's not that they just won the tournament out of nowhere, but the level of play they displayed was really surprising, especially because they'd both been on tour forever and we'd never seen anything like that (in fairness to Ljubicic, he was a top 3 player at one point, but rarely put it together like that for an entire tournament, not to mention the fact that he did it so late in his career).

Anyway, I limited this to relatively recent examples otherwise this post would take pages.