NEW YORK—Last year at the U.S. Open, I watched the University of Southern California’s Steve Johnson surrender a two-set lead and lose to Alex Bogomolov Jr., who happened to be in the midst of a career run. Johnson was on a busman’s holiday, in with a wild card and under no real pressure to perform, because he was an amateur who would return to college to win another gazillion matches and repeat as the NCAA singles champion.
I liked Johnson’s game, the invisible bits more than the conspicuous ones. He was no Richard Gasquet in the style department; if anything, his game seemed unusually hewn and lacking the customary polish. He didn’t even look like your typical tennis player. With that short hair, prominent jaw (enhanced by a perpetual five o’clock shadow) and solid, squared-up body, he was more G.I. Joe than Feliciano Lopez. He was definitely “old school” in some intrinsic way.
That all made his “intangibles” that much more appealing. Johnson had conspicuous competitive drive, great energy, and a talent for playing with something like abandon without losing the ability to make what clearly were intelligent, perhaps instinctive decisions. And that’s an unsung quality that ought not be overlooked.
Johnson was back this year, this time as a declared pro playing for his lunch and rent money. He got off to a great start, too, with wins over fellow wild card Rajeev Ram and Ernests Gulbis before his showdown today with that aforementioned model of excellent form, Gasquet.
It didn’t go especially well for Johnson, who lost 7-6 (4), 6-2, 6-3, but it wasn’t a disaster either. They call this kind of thing a “learning experience.”
The first set was close, with both men taking solid cuts and refusing to give an inch. They eventually went into a tiebreak, in which Johnson bolted to 4-0 lead. But after Gasquet won the next point, it all began to go awry for the tour neophyte. Johnson made an unforced forehand error and then double-faulted to return all he’d gained. The gifts gave the 26-year-old veteran Gasquet a jolt of confidence, and he won his two serves.
At 4-5, Johnson thought a Gasquet forehand at the baseline was flying long, and he glanced at the umpire before he took a late swing and barely got the ball over the net, where Gasquet waited to put it away. Johnson never did call for an electronic review. Suddenly, it was 4-6—double set-point—and a discombobulated Johnson could only watch as Gasquet hit a forehand winner to claim the set.
“I was up four-love, I had my chances,” Johnson said afterward. “That double fault to give back the second mini-break was pretty uncharacteristic of me.”
Uncharacteristic of Steve Johnson, NCAA star, for sure. But he’s in a parallel universe now, and what is—or isn’t—characteristic of him is going to be determined anew over the next few years. This is something Gasquet knows about, having been welcomed to the tour as “Baby Federer” only to wind up defining himself thus far as a “Baby Robredo.”
But Gasquet also has been around long enough to recognize the scent of blood, and he took his chance to put pressure on Johnson as his world caved in all around him.
After ripping off seven straight points to win the tiebreaker, Gasquet’s arm loosened up and his game began to flow. Johnson, whom my colleague Andrew Lawrence of SI.com aptly described as “resourceful,” kept pace with Gasquet over the next four games, but his growing impatience was evident.
There isn’t much to be done when Gasquet begins cleaning lines and pulling the trigger on those backhand placements, and it eventually goaded Johnson into losing his patience. It’s never a good idea to try to match Gasquet’s spectacular shotmaking; the best thing to do when the Frenchman is giving one of those demonstrations is keep your head down and weather the storm. Johnson didn’t have the patience to pull that off, and the price he paid was a proliferation of errors.
The net result was a three-game skid for Johnson and a 14-point winning streak for Gasquet. By the end of that episode, Gasquet led by 5-2, and while Johnson would recover his equilibrium and play a decent third set, the outcome was decided.
“It’s tough when you feel like you’re hitting really good shots and he’s hitting them back for winners,” Johnson said. “He got more relaxed after I lost the tiebreaker and started to hit more winners.”
What Johnson didn’t say, but must have understood (or had better, if he’s going to succeed as a pro) is that he was the enabler for Gasquet’s torrid, mid-match streak—a run that overshadowed either end of the match, during which Johnson was competitive. You suddenly let up on the reins and let Gasquet have his head and he makes you pay; he loves that kind of freedom far more than the bondage of a tense, tight contest.
“I was right with him after that middle-set meltdown,” Johnson said. “After I lost the first set I was frustrated and he took advantage of it. I calmed down a bit in the third set and played better.”
Gasquet is the highest ranked (and most thoroughly experienced) player Johnson has played, and the USC alum knows that he was completely outfoxed in the department of “game management.”
Just as last year, Johnson failed to pace himself properly, physically, and emotionally, which is hardly surprising considering the profound difference between the collegiate game and the pros. “The best thing about the last few years in college is that I learned to win, and this year I came in with more knowledge of how five-set matches work.”
It was obvious today that Johnson’s knowledge is far from complete; you can count the number of best-of-five matches he’s played on the fingers of one hand. Even though he spent four years at a storied university, his education is just beginning.