To make a bit more sense of the title, i would direct you to the previous article, of which the first half of this one is basically the continuation: the final between Alexandra Eala and Nikola Bartunkova went exactly as I expected; Eala played another very solid match and Nikola Bartunkova was not “Ova” enough to counter her. Nikola has showed from time to time her peculiar skills and spectacular game (serve and volley, demi-volleys etc.), for which we prised her so much; but from the baseline Nikola is still too light to counter the Filipino girl’s powerful shots. This gap in power may be a mtter of age, but i also have the impression that Nikola should hit the ball in a more forward position, as quite often, especially with her forehand, she seems to hit quite late (also, fairly often her forehand flies too high and ends half metre long). More, as predicted yesterday, Nikola today could not rely on any help from her opponent in terms of unforced: Eala was close to perfection and had always the control of the rallies. The only issue Eala had to face was constituted by her own serve: way too many double faults and a first serve which does not bite. This allowed Bartunkova to get a few more games, but the final result of the match has never seemed to be in discussion. The match ended 6-3 6-3 for Eala who, as such, deservedly won the 62 edition of the Trofeo Bonfiglio (both singles and doubles, which she won yesterday paired with the American Madison Sieg).
Guess what: i also watched the boys final, which was also a pleasent match. The contendants were Gonzalo Bueno from Peru vs. the Czech Jakub Mensik.
Gonzalo won by 6-3 7-6 a match in which the two players have expressed most of time an equal level of game: I think Gonzalo was a bit more a pure clay court player: often his position, few metres behind the baseline, helped him to return the opponent’s big serves and big forehands and allowed him to perform impressive defenses that sometimes led Mensik to hit an unforced. Bueno pleyed most of the match a counterpunch tennis, but he’s been effective in regaining control of rallies especially by hitting violent forehands also when in defensive situation. The shots that helped the most Bueno to win the match were dropshots: he played at least 10 of them, missing only in one occasion; most of them were hit to win important or crcial points. His highly spinned and deep backhand was also a useful tool to defend from the attacks of Mensik.
Mensik has made many “highlight” shots: from time to time he was able to hit wondeful winners with both forehand and backhand. Though he made way many unforced, especially by hitting his forehand long, when Bueno was able to keep a good depth in his shots. This occurred especially during the first set, whilst in the second, after the Peruvian got a 2-0 lead, Mensik was able to raise his level and especially to materially lower the unforced. He managed to regain the break and to get to the tie-break, always keeping the initiative in the rellies, whilst Bueno was mostly on the defence. Though, unofrced errors materialised again for Mensik in the tiebreak, which Bueno won with merits.
One conclusive detail: Jakub Mansik is not even 16 and he was able to reach the final and play at equal level against a year older opponent. In male tennis 16 – 17 year old is a big gap. To reach the final of a grade A at (not even) 16 is an impressive achievement. Its better to keep more than an eye on this Jakub Mensik.
