Duel Match Stats/Reports - Safin vs Nalbandian & Safin vs Stepanek, Madrid & Paris finals, 2004

[Waspsting]

Marat Safin beat David Nalbandian 6-2, 6-4, 6-3 in the Madrid final, 2004 on indoor hard court

It would be Safin’s only title at the event and he would go onto win Paris shortly after. Nalbandian would go onto win the title in 2007, and he would follow up with the Paris title afterwards as well

Safin won 95 points, Nalbandian 60

Serve Stats
Safin...
- 1st serve percentage (42/73) 58%
- 1st serve points won (34/42) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (20/31) 65%
- Aces 14
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (30/73) 41%

Nalbandian...
- 1st serve percentage (41/82) 50%
- 1st serve points won (25/41) 61%
- 2nd serve points won (16/41) 39%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (16/82) 20%

Serve Patterns
Safin served...
- to FH 25%
- to BH 74%
- to Body 1%

Nalbandian served...
- to FH 29%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 23%

Return Stats
Safin made...
- 63 (21 FH, 42 BH), including 1 runaround BH
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 15 Errors, comprising...
- 11 Unforced (1 FH, 10 BH)
- 4 Forced (3 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (63/79) 80%

Nalbandian made...
- 42 (8 FH, 34 BH)
- 3 Winners (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 16 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (1 FH, 5 BH)
- 10 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (42/72) 58%

Break Points
Safin 6/13 (9 games)
Nalbandian 2/3 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Safin 13 (7 FH, 6 BH)
Nalbandian 10 (7 FH, 3 BH)

Safin's FHs - 3 cc (1 pass), 2 dtl (1 return), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs - 2 cc, 4 dtl (2 returns)

Nalbandian's FHs - 1 cc return, 1 cc/inside-in, 3 dtl (1 return), 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- BHs - 2 dtl (1 pass), 1 return (net chord dribbler)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Safin 33
- 24 Unforced (8 FH, 16 BH)... with 1 BH at net
- 9 Forced (5 FH, 4 BH)... with 1 FH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.3

Nalbandian 49
- 33 Unforced (17 FH, 15 BH, 1 FHV)
- 16 Forced (7 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.9

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Safin was...
- 5/9 (56%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back

Nalbandian was...
- 1/5 (20%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back

Match Report
One sided encounter beyond even what the routine scoreline indicates with Safin better in all areas - serve, return, groundstrokes (there’s negligible net play) - mostly due to a weak showing from Nalbandian. Safin’s play is interesting. Considerable room for improvement, not that he needs it to win. He plays a relatively low-percentage hard hitting game - hitting very good, depth exceptional on both groundies and returns - with plenty of errors the cost. The court is quick

Some unusual stats coming out it

All 23 winners are groundstrokes (Saf 13, Nalb 10). Don’t think I’ve come across a complete match before with 0 volley winners. For that matter, just 2 volleying errors (also, couple of groundies at net)

Net points - Safin 9, Nalby 5 out of 155 points. Nalby’s first approach comes in Set 2, Game 9, Point 1 - on the 91st point of the match (he’s passed on it). Giving new meaning to comes to net just to shake hands. This as as close to a pure baseline encounter as you’re likely to see

Safin’s showing can be described as extreme degree of a top class Novak Djokovic showing (of style, not quality) - his stock shots are hard hit and very deep, regularly landing inches from the baseline. Returns the same way. The down-side of substantial errors going just long is there, but there’s the upside of completely pinning back and pressuring Nalb with what passes as ‘stock’ shots. Very difficult for Nalb to attack against such combo of power and depth (from back or finding a way to come in) against it. Unless Saf misses (which he does plenty of), Nalb’s not likely to win points

Indeed, Saf considerable 24 UEs are more than Nalb’s 19 winners + errors forced

Nalb’s tires bunch of different things in response. His hitting and depth are good too - not as good as Saf’s, but certainly good. He tries to pick and choose balls to attack (wide angled court opening shot or less often, winner attempt to open space particularly dtl). Fails

He tries returning in kind - force for force, depth for depth. He trails both and is the one to give up errors more often than Saf does. Good, pressuring rallies by shot, but typical rally is short and errors come quickly enough as to disqualify it being ‘good play’ (from both players). Some longer rallies in there that are intense, but on the whole, high quality style but not execution by the 2 players

All that’s in context of serve-return matters, where Safin has a huge advantage

Serve & Return
Safin naturally with bigger serve and Nalb compounding his handicap with low in count of 50%. After 2 sets, its 46%, for a serve that isn’t damaging to begin with. Plain and simple, bad serving

Just 1 ace from Nalb from 41 first serves. Saf has 14 from 42 - sums up strength of serve. It’s a quick court where even Nalb’s generally average serve at high in count can potentially be damaging and he falls well short of serving anywhere near well (even by his not high standard). By contrast, strong serving from Saf - expected stuff

Freebies - Saf 41%, Nalb 20%

Clear enough in Saf’s favour, extending out of in-count and relative strenght of serve. Even more so than numbers indicate because of the way Saf returns

Saf pummels returns right back to baseline - again, similar to high end Djokovic showing, more extreme with more damage and more errors. With few more thrown out wide looking to end point at once (again, makes some, misses some). Up against 50% in-count, that’s a lot of second serves to tuck into, but he’s not averse to going after first serves either. And as solitary ace hints at, Nalb’s first serves are usually placed where such an adventurous scheme can be put into action

Nalb for that matter has a go returning aggressively too. Against a much, much better serve than his own

Nalb takes to second serving at the body to curb Saf’s big returning. Very high 23% serves directed there, but its not pacey enough and Saf’s able to defly move aside and have a good smack at return anyway. Saf has a good, kick second serve to begin with and it turns out be enough to keep Nalb’s aggressive ambitions in check. Ball rises up to Nalb’s chest, shoulder region. He is generally capable (as in, beyond this match), of sweeping attacking returns wide even at such height, but isn’t able to here. For that matter, doesn’t particularly try - picks and chooses odd serves to go after

Return UEs - Saf 11, Nalb 6
Return FEs - Saf 4, Nalb 10

Saf’s high proportion of UEs product of both Nalb’s serve being average and Saf’s going for a lot on the return. At 80% return rate going that strong, easily regularly breaking numbers. Nalbl has his share of of aggressive misses, but higher lot of FEs, with Saf’s serving being just that good

Nutshell summary of second returning - Saf hammering them right to the baseline, with occasional wide winner attempt thrown in. Misses good lot, but what he makes is very troubling. Nalb cramping him for room not much bother

Nalb taking odd chance with aggressive wide return, without much success. Otherwise, returning very good kickers orthodoxly

And first serves? Saf returning them all but the same as seconds, adjusting for considerable difference in quality of the two serves. Misses big returns more often than not, but they’re attacking UEs, not defensive FEs - very good position to be in (and luxary to have) to return first serves in this way on a quick court

His returning is almost like counter-serve-volleying returning - going for so much he’s bound to make errors, but doing damage, only against the baselining Nalb, its not forced choice as it would be against serve-volleyer

Nalb - doing what he can against a great, powerful serve. Doesn’t do too well, serve is too good

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline
Play being all but totally baseline stuff makes numbers easy to interpret. Just a few minor variations in there to consider

Winners - Saf 13, Nalb 10 (both 7 FHs, Saf +3 on BHs)
Errors Forced - Saf 16, Nalb 9
UEs - Saf 24, Nalb 33

Early on, amidst sturdy stock rallies, Nalb looks for his patented wide angle, court opening shots. Misses far more than he makes in short rallies. Blackmark Nalb
Later on the two trade error sprees, Safin in particular striving for depth, Nalb missing more normal shots. Blackmark for both

Towards end, Nalby is regularly error prone, but he’s also overpowered during this period by particularly deep hitting. Just outplayed by very strong hitting - credit Safin
10 winners, 33 UEs, forcing 16 errors is what it all comes out to for Nalb. Fair reflection of his average level of not good, but there’s considerable variance across match along lines described above

13 winners, 24 UEs, forcing 16 errors from Saf is pretty good output. Room for improvement there, but this is in context of his having huge advantage in serve-return complex

Context of his numbers are
- big lot of freebies
- high return rate
- blasted returns right to baseline

Combo of first 2 gives him freedom to go nuts. He doesn’t go nuts in traditional sense of trying to smack winners all over the place, but the extent to which he peppers the baseline - at times, every ball seems to land inches inside (or outside) it - qualifies as a type of “going nuts”

Low percentage power-hitting stuff. Lots of UEs are cost, but he could afford it even if Nalby was particularly steadfast in coping (which he isn’t). Almost unique showing from Safin. Novak Djokovic is master of persistent deep hitting. This showing from Safin makes that master look like a top-spinny clay courter who lands balls just beyond service line (to exaggerate a bit) and his hitting is particularly hard for stock stuff

Good play for being so pressuring? Or bad for giving up so many errors? Doesn’t matter - in context of everything else going around, its well, well into winning tennis territory

Both players are famed for their BHs and the cc rallies are a good watch, with both striking hard. Nalby fails in trying to find angles, which is his particular strength. Saf scores with his dtl winning shots - he’s got 2 winners, and draws at least half of Nalb’s 7 FH FEs with it

BH UEs - Saf 16, Nalb 15
…. with Saf doing damage (beyond just numerical advantage of 6-3 winner lead) with his dtl shots, and hitting harder and deeper (though Nalb hits well too and certainly not short). Eventually, Saf actually overpowering Nalb on that side

That’d be a win for Saf

On FH - both with 7 winners, Saf with huge 8-17 win on UE front. His FH is standout shot in that area, with the others clustered around 15. Again, he’s harder hitter too. Nalb’s FH is probably the least powerful shot on show

“Least powerful” is best description. The ball-striking is superb from both players of both sides, virtually all match. Just keeping it play that’s a problem

With such fine hitting and quick court, even slightly wide balls are troublesome to cope with. Both players are average of movement and defensive resistance. Nalb’s tested more against harder and deeper hitting, but Saf’s ordinary on both fronts too. Again, he can afford it, Nalb can’t.

Gist - Safin getting better off everything - his FH is easily the most secure shot, while his BH does more damage while being equal of (not good) consistency with Nalb’s. He hits at least a little harder and significantly deeper (Nalb is good in both areas too, but Saf takes depth in particular to extreme) and eventually, is able to overpower Nalb. For most part though, Nalb doesn’t fall back to reactive and contests for control and lead position - not winning it, but not yielding it either

Match Progression
Combo of Safin’s powerful deep returns and Nalb playing badly makes for one sided first set

For starters, Nalb makes just 9/20 first serves. Not that it matters too much - he only wins 3/9 of even the first serve points. Safin hammers all returns hard and deep. Continuing on, Nalb’s attempt to open court and attack with wide cc angles falls flat - he keeps at it to a foolish degree and keeps missing early in rally

After Saf holds to open, there are 3 breaks on the trot. Nalb is broken to 30 in an all 2nd serve game, Saf pounding a BH dtl return winner lighting it up. Saf’s broken back to 30 in an all 1st serve game with a couple of return winners - 1 a lucky net chord dribbler, 2 an unlikely, fully stretched out FH cc

Couple of good returns by Saf to break again, this time to love, with Nalb blinking up errors. Fantastic, Sampras-esque full running FH dtl winner from Nalb later on, but he’s broken again to end the set, with Saf again nailing a couple power returns

Second set is pretty bad all around, with Safin’s big serve giving him some slack to be sloppy. Saf has a bit of an error bender at start, but it’s a series of dtl winners (BH, FH return and BH pass) from Nalb that gets him break for 2-1. Even then, he needs luck. Safin had served an ace on game point that had erroneously been called a fault

Error bug spread to Nalb soon after, though he’s encouraged to it by Saf’s constant depth (straining for which, he remains error prone too). Saf breaks back for 3-3

Its big returns that settle the set, as Saf breaks to end it 6-4. Nalb’s 14/30 in-count for set hasn’t helped, but again, he scarcely does better off first serves, that get pounded almost as much as seconds. Saf meanwhile has made lots of errors going for depth, but his serve at least, he can count on

Poor errors get Nalb broken at start of set after which its one way traffic. Saf barely loses a point on serve (3 in 5 holds) and for first time, genuinely overpowers Nalb in baseline rallies. Still plenty of errors - not small amount of them Saf’s going inches long - and some sloppiness from Nalb

Safin generally carries himself in a relaxed manner (when he’s not getting angry breaking racquets) that makes him difficult to read. He’s the most focused I’ve ever seen him in the last set here. Eyes wide open, seemingly immersed in the action, intent on maximum effort. Out of character appearance of dedication from him

Nalb remains under gun on serve for rest of set and is probably lucky to not be broken again. Survives 8 and 10 point holds, saving 3 break points across the 2 games. Some good plays in between - Safin somehow powering a BH inside-out, initiative snatching return against a cramping serve to set up a mid court FH cc winner stands out among them. He serves out to love

Summing up, an interesting if not particularly good match with Nalbandian’s weak showing and Safin’s big serving the biggest result determinants, while Safin taking power-deep hitting to an extreme makes for the interesting part

Nalbandian doesn’t do anything well. Ordinary quality serve at low in-count is weak stuff - and even more so against opponent in question and the mood that opponent’s in. Off the ground, he fails with his attempted wide angled shots, is error prone trading regular groundies and eventually, overpowered some too. Few good shots are spices in otherwise, weak staple

Safin plays a battering game, both with the return and off the ground. Its bold, but not risky seeing as his 2-3 categories superior serve gives him a huge head start in holding prospects. He’s hit and miss with it - and with serve and freebie cushion, can afford to be much more miss than it is and still come out ahead

Poor match from Nalbandian, room for improvement from a bold, but not particularly good Safin

 

[Waspsting]

Safin beat Radek Stepanek 6-3, 7-6(5), 6-3 in the Paris final, 2004 on carpet

This would be the last of Safin’s 5 masters titles and third one at the event. Stepanek was a qualifier

Safin won 110 points, Stepanek 94

Stepanek serve-volleyed off almost all first serves and about half the time off seconds

Serve Stats
Safin...
- 1st serve percentage (61/101) 60%
- 1st serve points won (47/61) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (24/40) 60%
- Aces 16, Service Winners 2
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (36/101) 36%

Stepanek...
- 1st serve percentage (55/103) 53%
- 1st serve points won (42/55) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (22/48) 46%
- Aces 11 (2 second serves, 1 not clean)
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (32/103) 31%

Serve Patterns
Safin served...
- to FH 56%
- to BH 39%
- to Body 5%

Stepanek served...
- to FH 48%
- to BH 46%
- to Body 5%

Return Stats
Safin made...
- 67 (33 FH, 34 BH)
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 21 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 18 Forced (11 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (67/99) 68%

Stepanek made...
- 62 (37 FH, 25 BH), including 6 return-approaches & 1 drop-return
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 18 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (3 FH, 3 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 12 Forced (8 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (62/98) 63%

Break Points
Safin 3/7 (5 games)
Stepanek 1/6 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Safin 11 (5 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV)
Stepanek 18 (4 FH, 6 FHV, 3 BHV, 4 OH, 1 BHOH)

Safin's FHs - 1 cc at net, 1 dtl pass, 2 inside-out (1 at net), 1 inside-out/dtl pass
- BH passes - 3 cc (1 return that went under Stepanek's racquet), 1 dtl and 1 longline (net chord pop over

Stepanek's had 10 from serve-volley points -
- 3 first volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 7 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 4 OH, 1 BHOH)

- 1 from a return-approach point, a FHV

- FH passes - 2 cc (1 return), 2 dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Safin 41
- 18 Unforced (8 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)... with 1 baseline OH on the bounce
- 23 Forced (10 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH, 1 Back-to-Net, 1 Between-Legs)... with 3 FH running-down-drop-shot at net, 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 non-net BHV
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.7

Stepanek 59
- 37 Unforced (23 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 7 BHV)
- 22 Forced (9 FH, 2 BH, 4 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.8

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Safin was...
- 12/29 (41%) at net, including...
- 1/2 serve-volleying, both 1st serves
---
- 0/2 forced back

Stepanek was...
- 49/77 (64%) at net, including...
- 39/59 (66%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 29/39 (74%) off 1st serve and...
- 10/20 (50%) off 2nd serve
---
- 4/6 (67%) return-approaching
- 1/2 forced back/retreated

Match Report
Choppy match where neither player plays particularly well, but also interesting because of stark contrast of styles, with Stepanek’s being unusual to begin with. Stepanek serve-volleys and otherwise proactively seeks net, while sporting one of the weakest ground games (particularly FH) your likely to see in this period. Safin tones down his typical power hitting and aggressive game to seemingly just-do-the-needful to win. Court is quick-ish, a bit more than Madrid

Safin holds serve via his powerful serving and exploiting Step’s weak FH.

Step holds serve via serve-volleying and net play - neither his showing, nor Safin’s on the return-pass being great

While Safin isn’t in much trouble, match is competitive. Break points read -
- Saf 3/7 (5 games), Step 1/6 (4 games)
… with 1 of Saf’s breaks right at the start, with nerves from Step likely having hand in it

If Step, a qualifier, is a big under-dog, he hasn’t disgraced himself by any means. Not in much danger of causing an upset, but far away from getting thrashed too. A competitive match, albeit, middling of quality

Stepanek’s Serve Game
Stepanek plays an overdone, self-consciously ‘elegant’ game. There’s grace to his game, but it seems highly forced, as if his intention is to hit as delicately as possible. All touch, and feel to the point of leaving common sense, let alone normalcy of strokes behind. Does it from the baseline, does it at net. A little too cute

Serve is deceptively good. Not hard to read, but last instant efforts add extra pace or yanks direction wide for variety - and above average of mode delivery to begin with. As it has to be, seeing he’s serve-volleying so often. Not big, but closer to strong than weak, with variety to it

He serve-volleys off 39/46 first serves or 85% of the time and 20/42 or 48% of seconds
Off first serves, wins 74% serve-volleying, 57% not
Off second serve, wins 50% serve-volleying, 45% not

9 first serve aces or 16% of the time, is good number - and speaks to serve being good enough to serve-volley behind. If anything, that number gives an inflated sense of the degree. With a tricky delivery, his better serves tend to go for aces. His typical serve isn’t as good as 16% aces would suggest. Also has 2 second serve aces - a demo of willingness to take risks, as all serve-volleyers must have, though his volleying belies that some. 4 double faults - not much, and acceptable for a serve-volleyer.

Gist - a good enough serve. Good enough to regularly serve-volley behind against a beast of a returner like Marat Safin? Wouldn’t think so, and in that light, Step has done well to keep match competitive

That’s not because he plays so well, its because Safin doesn’t. Hence, the choppy match. Step misses plenty of easy volleys - he’s got 8 UEs, which isn’t necessarily bad, but the ones he misses tend to be particularly simple. Some nice drop and stop volleys but his regular volleying is below average at best. Just pushes volleys ‘deep’ (as in, not drop volleys). Easy to reach, easy to have a good smack at for Safin

And Safin? He’s either not feeling well or showing some brains and tailors his game to doing the needful and not going all out on everything. Bashes returns, but not going for winners, just down the middle, looking to get it powerful and low. Simplest way to beat a serve-volleyer whose shakey on the volley (miss routine ones and leave passing chances with their volley). Generally, Safin would be more likely to go for unnecessarily perfect return winners than follow this line

Still, just 1 return winner against all that serve-volleying is a relative fail for mighty Marat (and that’s a ball that basically goes under Step’s racquet, not a wide shot). Step’s not a great server and there are chances, even if Saf’s not actively looking for them, to get return-winners off wide (amusingly, Step also has 1 return winner - with Saf serve-volleying twice, as opposed to his 59). He also doesn’t get returns hard and low all that often. Usually wins the point when he does - Step’s not a good shoelace volleyer - but relatively low proportion of feet volleys presented by Saf with bulk above net with above average force. Step’s not too good on volleying those either as described above

Just 7 passing winners from Saf, with Step at net 77 times is on low side and surprising for him. Particularly given both Step’s serve and regular volleying leaving good looks for the winning pass.

Steph on the volley - 14 winners, 8 UEs, 11 FEs, and most of Saf’s 17 ground FEs being passes - not good numbers there either

Competitive net vs pass battle, with Steph overall 64% at net (that’s all approaches, including approaches in return games), with neither player distinguishing themselves. Not a great passing showing from Saf, against fairly ordinary (of quality, as opposed to style) serve-volleying and net game of Step

 

[Waspsting]

Safin’s Serve Game
The usual brute serving yields 16 aces and 2 service winners or an unreturnable 30% off first serves, while serving at 60%. Strong serving beyond that, and Step’s not a strong returner. Saf serve vs Step return is a contest heavily favouring Saf

Saf stays on baseline and again, plays with sense. Step’s FH is the weakest of shots - feeble of force, very error prone and soft of shot tolerance. Saf just hits FH cc’s til he gets the error and he doesn’t have to hit many. No unnecessary aggression, no vain BH dtls for the sake of them, just doing the needful efficiently

23 FH UEs from Step. Putting that in context, Saf has 8 (and 18 overall), and Step’s BH has 6. He is clearly a BH preferring player, and moves over to play them when he can (and certainly never moves over to play a FH). BH isn’t strong of force either, but is steadier (it would be hard not to be) than the FH

Like his volleys, Step’s all touch and delicacy with his groundies. Bit like Mecir or Orantes’ ‘75 US Open final showing of style, if not quality. He starts the match particularly so, seemingly determined to not strike the ball. After being battered a bit (and its only a battering because he’s so feeble, Saf isn’t particularly hammering of shot and certainly not by his standards), he strikes the ball a bit more and even then, his shots are soft and lacking force

Off the ground, things look like what they are - 2 different weight class of players. Saf, hard hitting and commanding, Step delicate and soft. Sensible of Saf not to try to make a show of it. All that line-battering stuff in Madrid would be excessive here. A good firm FH cc does just as well

Note Saf’s net figures of 12/29. Its not quite what it looks like as there’s a lot of running-down-drop-shot shots involved what with Step’s preference for touch play. 4 running-down-drop-shot errors from Saf

Its not entirely misleading either. A curiousity of Step’s is that while feeble in baseline rallies, he gets good passes off. 3 net FEs for Saf and the 4 UEs are on hard side (couple little wide, 1 a little low) - all for 1 volley winner

Coming to net doesn’t have a big role in his game plan, he’s forced there often, but still, not too good from Saf in forecourt.

Most of what needs to be known about Saf’s service games is 36% freebies and Step with 23 FH UEs. Big serves and FH cc’s do the job for him. If he has an itch to hit everything to the baseline or smack BH dtl winners, he controls it - that’s smart, no need to take unnecessary risks

Match Progression
Poor game by Step to get broken early, missing FH winner attempt and 2 routine volleys in successive points, before being forced into BHV error. And no real trouble for Saf to keep holding from thereon to end the set. He threatens to break again late in the set, but misses routine second return and plays a not good running-down-drop-shot shot at net to get passed on his break/set points returning at 2-5, but serves out comfortably to 15

Good game from Saf to break for 2-1 in the second set too, though he’s lucky with a net chord pop over pass winner on break point, but he goes walkabout right after, making routine errors. Among other things, Step breaks right back. Gorgeous, lightest of touch BH1/2V from an excellent BH inside-out return-approach wins him a point in breaking, Saf quick enough to deny a clean winner at least

Saf’s walkabout gets him dangerously close to falling behind and his next 2 holds are both deuce games. Saves 2 break points in the first of them - 1 by coming to net, the second with a passing winner. Step has better of this part of match, though Saf’s largely gotten over his hiccups by time tiebreak starts

Step leads the breaker though all the way to 4-3 with 2 serves to come. Drops next point after retreating from net while making a tough OH and its back on serve. Set ends on Saf’s first set set point when Step can’t handle a lowish BHV

2 tough holds open the third set. Double fault and muffing a putaway OH gets Saf into trouble, and Step brings up break point with a nice, drop FHV winner after return-approaching. Saf takes net himself to erase it and goes on to hold. Step’s hold is even longer at 14 points, but he only faces 1 break point on which Saf misses routine second return

Having endured another deuce hold, Step’s broken for 3-5. Back to back UEs bring up break point (FH approach and regulation BHV) and Saf drives a BH cc pass through to leave himself serving for the match

Its not an easy serve-out. Net points and a good lob bring up break point for Step, which Saf aces away. After missing an OH on the bounce from the baseline, he has to save another. Strong serves and a net rush put an end to the resistance

Summing up, rarity of serve-volley and Stepanek’s unusually touch dependent style of play makes this an interesting encounter, but the action is B-grade at besst. Stephanek’s error prone at net and subpar in his normal volleying, though he’s better on drop and stop volleys. Safin has considerable room for improvement in his counter-returning and passing against a not overly strong serve and the iffy volleying

From the ground, Stepanek’s FH is very weak in all ways - consistency, force, resistance - and coupled with the damage of big serving, Safin’s breaks it down without hassle to secure his service games to a greater degree than Step can his with serve-volleying

Advantage Safin, result Safin

 

[BlackSilver]

I watched the Nalbandian match (might have also watched the Stepanek match, but I clearly have no memory of it). All I can remember is huge serving and groundstrokes.