Today, at approximately 3:00 P.M., after three days of increasingly stinging, increasingly suffocating humidity, the Rogers Cup, otherwise known as the Rogers Death March, boiled over. The most obvious effects of the weather were seen in the stadium court, where Novak Djokovic and Julien Benneteau, hat brims pulled to eye level, sagged their way through two close sets. Djokovic, beet red and sucking wind, might not have survived a third. But he still might have outlasted Benneteau.
The boiling point was not reached in the stadium, but out on modest Court 1, where Nicolas Almagro was playing Michael Llodra. I’d braved the sun to get a closer glimpse of Almagro, a talented and volatile Spaniard who had recently become the latest in a long list of men’s players this year to reach bandwagon status. His run had begun in May in Madrid, where’d he shown uncharacteristic positive energy in winning a series of close matches before finally succumbing to Rafael Nadal; but not before taking a rare set from Rafa on clay in the semis. Almagro capped his 2010 surge a couple of weeks ago, again on clay, with a win over Richard Gasquet in the Gstaad final.
Was there reason to hope for more? Almagro has always been a spectacular shot-maker, with an impeccably timed gun for a forehand, backhand, and serve. But even all of that doesn't qualify as a recipe for success. How many spectacular winners does any pro hit over the course of a match? A dozen, tops? Almagro swings for the fences off both sides and doesn’t like to shift down to second gear—if you've got it, why not flaunt it? Years ago, I pegged him, more than Rafael Nadal, as the young Spaniard to watch. That’s how impressive he can look, if you only look at his strokes.
Today his modern, Spanish, forehand-oriented baseline game was matched against the aging serve-and-volley classicism of France’s over-30 Michael Llodra. Almagro, whose shoulders-back strut and waxed-up hair makes him look like a Jersey kid trying to bluff his way past the rope at a Manhattan club, began confidently. From up close, he has a cleaner and more versatile game than he appears to when you see his long swing from afar. Against Llodra’s deceptively quick lefty serve, Almagro did everything the textbook would instruct you to do. He shortened his swing, cut off the angles by moving diagonally for his returns, met the ball early. And it worked. He was able to snap his returns back low and with pace. But Llodra showed what a good serving day, a net-rushing style, and an all-time great backhand volley can do. Almagro couldn’t crack him. As the games and holds went by, as the sun refused to hide, and as we sat boiled in our sweat in the stands, it became pretty clear to everyone that this was going to be a one-set match.
In fact, it ended up being a one-point match, as baseline tennis versus serve-and-volley played to a virtual standstill until 3-3 in the tiebreaker. Almagro had gone up 3-0 to start, but Llodra had gotten back in it with strong serving. At 3-3, Llodra was able to return a serve, find his way to the net, and put away an overhead. The two held until 6-5, when Llodra slid a serve wide into the ad court to earn an easy forehand volley for the set. When that ball went past him, Almagro stood and looked dpwn at the court for a second. Now the air felt downright cruel: He had done almost everything right, had the set in his hand, come up one rally short, and had nothing to show for it. The boiling point had nearly arrived.
It came a few minutes later, after Almagro was broken early in the second set. He stood at the baseline for a second before going to town on his racquet. The sounds of it breaking were like gunshots. There wasn't much left of his frame, or the match, after that. After Almagro double-faulted twice to go down 2-5, he took three extra balls and hammered practice serves with them before tossing his racquet to the sideline. He was fried.
It’s hard to say what a loss like this means for Almagro’s progress. Llodra was able to take the racquet out of his hand with his serve and his indestructible volleys. Almagro returned well and made him work, but it wasn’t enough. I can think of two things that his countryman Nadal would have done differently. He would have adjusted his return position backward or to his left, whichever worked. I didn’t notice any change in position from Almagro (though I admit that for part of the match I might have been having trouble seeing straight). Second, even after losing the second set, Nadal wouldn’t have succumbed to anger. You can’t blame Almagro for having a meltdown—it was going to happen to someone today—but Nadal has an edge in those situations because he’s one the of the rare players who competes without anger.
Almagro falls in love with his strokes and lets his anger get to him. For all these reasons, he’s great to watch: He puts a charge and an edge into every match he plays. But he lives on that edge, with his shots and his emotions, for too long. In most tournaments, it’s only a matter of time before he falls off. A long and healthy tennis life, as dull as it may be, is lived safely inside the lines.