Tennis score gives you a chance

Tennis on TV is great, but not, in my view, for all the right reasons. Let's start with a positive. Some of the commentators have some pertinent things to say about the game. This week it was Peter Fleming who mentioned the seemingly idiosyncratic score system.

What was funny was that Fleming's comment was picked up on by Rusedski, who was asked what'd happen next in the match.

Berdych had just been hammered 6-1 in the first set by Wawrinka at the O² Finals in London. Fleming had said how wonderful the scoring system was in tennis. You can make a real hash of a first set, and you're still in the match. No reason at all to think that the second set should take a course like in the first.

Rusedski agreed with this. "Berdych is an experienced pro, a fine player. He cannot let another set go by like that last one."

How wrong they both were. Wawrinka won the second set 6-1 as well, and Berdych was hammered just as conclusively, the whole thing over in about 55 minutes. That short time in itself is a rarity in men's tennis, but between No. 4 and No. 7 in the world?

6-0 score

Just the previous day I had had my own club match, against a guy I'd always beaten, but in fact with the same ranking as me. So it was always going to be a close game.

I won the first set 6-0. Although there were some closeish games I was in control. My returns were too aggressive for him.   My serve was too variable, and I was at net off nearly every point.

So with the score at 6-0, with all of the points going exactly as I wanted, there was no reason to think that the second set shouldn't be the same.

The second set was indeed totally different. I was playing the points in similar fashion to the first set, fully aware that things might change, but also refusing to budge from my game plan of the first set.

Turnaround

What was really happening was that my opponent, an experienced match player, and fine sportsman, was ready to use the first set to get his eye in, and let the match take its long winding course afterwards. No trace of panic.

Slowly but surely he was getting a better view of my serves, getting one or two passing shots in, and even playing his own approaches when I played one or two more conservative points so that I myself would get a better feel for the match.

I still felt I was dominating proceedings in terms of strategy and execution, just he was starting to understand everything that I was doing. More and more frequently he was coming up with solutions to keep him in the set. He managed to hold his own serve, hitting his way positively through the set, as if he had not much to lose.

At 6-5 for him, with me serving, he hit a couple of fine passing shots, and the set was his.

As it happens I was forced to adapt my own game in the third set, but in the second set I'd been conducting my own little experiments, none too successfully, in the eventuality of a third set. But even there, although I managed to break him three times, on the first two occasions he broke me straight back, with his own brand of aggression and counter-aggression. On the third break, I finally managed to put together a really solid service game to win the match.

So Fleming was right, and not right. The score system in tennis is truly remarkable. A bad period in a match is long from deciding the entire match. A tennis match is truly a marathon.

So what happened to Berdych? How come he wasn't able to change the game in the second set?

Two possibilities. Wawrinka was hitting his balls incredibly well, beautifully constructed rallies, and powerful accurate hitting. It was indeed relentless. But I'd argue, that any player starts to get a view of what his opponent is doing. He'll find solutions.

So the only thing that remains is that Berdych failed to profit from the super score system of tennis. He should have used every opportunity during the first set, to get himself organised for the second set. He didn't do it. Not at all. All those tennis matches, and he still hasn't got a real "long match" mentality.