Amanda: better an “-ova” than Errani?

So, Amanda made it: her dream is not over yet, as she’s beaten number 9 in the world and former number 2 Petra Kvitova: and it wasn’t even so hard for the American, as the final score was 6-2 6-4. Again, as it happened in her previous match against Pavliuchnkova, Amanda’s opponent didn’t play well at all, since she basically only obtained some points from her first serve (but, on the other hand, she double-faulted several times); besides that, Kvitova materially cooperated to her younger opponent’s exploit through countless and quite inexplicable unforced errors. By contrast, this time Amanda’s forehand started to work fine already from the beginning of the match and this is why she was able to exploit her opponent’s weak start and to take an immediate 3-0 lead, which she maintained till the end of the set when she even managed to break the Czech once more.
Amanda faced some issues only at the beginning of the second set, when she was immediately broken due to Kvitova’s ability, as she raised her level a bit, and also to Amanda’s own fault, as she missed a few shots even with her backhand – which, today, was maybe a bit less consistent than against Pavlyuchenkova. Amanda, though, defended well her following service game and again Kvitova’s level immediately dropped, allowing her opponent to equalise on 3-3 and to take a 4-3 lead. Then the American broke her opponent once more and served for the match: on a breakpoint in favour of Kvitova, Amanda had to dispose of a high and short ball from the left side of the court; she found an amazingly tight angle with her crosscourt backhand, but Kvitova, myself and anyone else watching the match understood her intentions 15 minutes before the American hit her shot, so that her opponent was able to reach the ball and hit a winner. Youth and inexperience cost Amanda a counter-break; but on 4-5 Kvitova’s tennis was still very inconsistent and Anisimova, once more, kept cool and rapidly reached 0-40; the young girl won the following point by forcing a mistake from her opponent through a good crosscourt backhand.
Amanda in this match (as in her previous one) was particularly effective in returning: a big server as Kvitova managed to win only 63% of points when she hit her first serve in (which happened only 51% of the times): it was quite evident that, when countering Kvitova’s first serve, Anisimova was most of the time able to return somehow the ball to the other court, at least forcing her to hit a further shot to win the point. On Kvitova’s second serves, instead, Amanda’s deep returns secured her the lead of most of the rallies.
Beside this (and the fact that in this match Amanda was more consistent with her forehand than against Pavlyuchenkova), I have nothing significant to add to what I wrote in my last article on the American’s game. Though, I am wondering about a certain theory I want to share with you: in the last two matches, respectively against a top 20 and a top 10, Amanda has dropped overall 11 games. In the main draw of the 125k in Indian Wells, Amanda has dropped overall 12 games in three matches played against opponents ranking between 120th and 170th position. Though, she was quite easily dismissed (4-6 2-6) by Sara Errani, who is in a good period of form, but should not be considered as dangerous an opponent as those Amanda has clearly beaten in (the “big”) Indian Wells.
I haven’t seen the match between Anisimova and the small Italian, so mine are only suppositions; more, it’s not that now Amanda will lose no more matches for the rest of her career. Anyhow, I wonder if for Amanda and most of other Junior players it is easier to play against “ovas” such as Pavlyuchenkova and Kvitova (even better if they are not playing their best) than against Sarita: the former hit much bigger, but allow Amanda to play on the rhythm; and, in any case, Amanda’s tennis is maybe just an inch smaller than Kvitova’s, but for sure not smaller than Pavlyuchenkova’s (I actually had the impression that Anisimova owns more pace in her shots than the Russian). None of the two Amanda’s opponents have however tried anything else than big shots and winners: not a variation; not a slice. Kvitova charged the net twice and results were highly embarrassing. Errani is not such a player. She is much less powerful but, even if able of play at a fairly high rhythm from the baseline, she is also capable of breaking such rhythm by alternating a much more spinned shot to a flatter shot or (even from 1 metre behind the baseline) to a deadly drop shot: and no one knows when such variations will kick in; no one can guess if with her next shot Sara will try to throw her opponent 4 metres behind the backline with a huge top or will hit a dropshot. Or if she will charge the net, as she is a great net player. I think that most junior players are much more used to face a super-powered tennis as Kvitova’s since such is the kind of tennis that, even if played at a lower level, they most of the times countered on the junior tour and against which they are well trained, than the tricky tennis played by Errani. Thus, I would not be surprised if most of juniors found harder to play against the tiny Italian, who serves at 27 mph but is able to play a vintage tennis, which one would think that nowadays you could find only in a museum, than against a top 10 (maybe offering a bit of “cooperation”) who may, though, resemble more the kind of opponents they’ve been used to play against.