I didn’t manage to go to the girls’ final, which Liv Hovde lost in three sets against the Swiss Celine Naef; the final score was 6-7 6-4 6-3. U.S.A team took their rematch in the males’ tournament, as Nishesh Basavareddy has won the final by the score of 6-2 4-6 6-3 aganst Daniel Vallejo. Curiously enough, i didn’t see playing neither of the winners, if not for 4-5 minutes Basavareddy against Bueno and for 30 minutes Naef, today. Because even if I didn’t go to the club, I managed to watch most of the first set, as the match was broadcasted by the Italian federation internet tv. You can find the highlights of the girls’ match here and of the boys match here. In some days you will find the two matches on youtube, with just a bit of searching.
Despite the fact I am sorry for the loss of L.B.O., I want to take the occasion of a match I didn’t see if not for 1/3, to try to explain how in my view junior tennis should be assessed, as I have listened the reporter commenting the girls’ final and I was in complete disagreement with him. The reporter several times negatively remarked Hovde’s game, noticing how many unforced she was making and how Naef had to do nothing to take a 3-0 lead. For me, the very opposite attitude than the reporter’s is the correct one: True that Hovde was losing 0-3 due to 10 mistakes (I wouldn’t even call them unforced), but I think she was playing well, while Naef was playing hopelessly: Hovde was trying to play her game, whilst Naef as just hitting the ball in the court; Hovde was missing and losing, but she was showing potential, whilst Naef game was barren. But why so many mistakes made by Hovde, a girl who showed so much consistency during the whole tournament? Easy: Hovde is 16 not 26; this was a match attended by about 600 people in the crowd, much more than the usual attendance of a junior tournament, including slams; the match was broadcasted on TV and the cameras were clearly visible, and it was most probably the most important match Hovde played in her young career: more important than the semifinals in Australia that she lost vs. Marchinko, not only because this was a final, but also because Junior Australian Open may be a slam but worths (considering not its prestige, but the actual participation of the players) no more than a strong grade 2 in Europe. It is normal that the American felt some pressure that maybe couldn’t handle; as a consequence, shots that usually Hovde hits 15 cm before the baseline, today were 15 cm long. Her arm most probably was a bit too tight.
Nevertheless, since the beginning and even when losing, one could easily assess that the match was in Hovde’s hands and one could have guessed what kind of tennis Hovde can play, just imagining that she hit in all those shots that landed 5 inches out. By contrast I think that there is no chance anyone could understand why Naef was in a final, by seing her playing the first half an hour. She just relied on the mistakes of her opponent and she was lucky enough to capitalise. But that’s not a way to play tennis. A girl coud even win a match or a junior slam playing as such, but she will not win a 60k in pro. It was absolutely no surprise to me to see Hovde take a 5-4 lead after that supposed-to be-negative start.
What really surprised me is that Hovde didn’t win by 6-4 6-2. This is what i would have expected, also on the basis of the mental strenght the girl showed in previous matches. Why she lost today i will never know (unless i find the time to watch the match on youtube), but i can think to two possible explanations: 1) Hovde got anxious again, notwithstanding the first set won; maybe she suffered some fear of winning and she couldn’t express her best level due to too much tension in her arm; 2) Naef, after having lost the lead thought something like “it’s better i start to play some tennis or I’ll be crushed” and displayed qualities that up to then were not so evident. While i find normal that a girl misses too much due to tension and loses a final, I would be more surprised if a girl starts a match playing extremely passive tennis and then manages to completely change her attitude and becomes more aggressive. But everything may have happened.
What i just want to highlight is that at junior level losses, wins, mistakes are only a part of the facts to be taken in account to express a judgement on a player. Much more important than the results is to find in a player the ability to “create a game”, lets say: an ability which in my view is evident when you see a guy/girl hit shots that leave his/her opponent at 4 metres; if I see a player winning only on consistency because the opponent misses, or because he runs as hell throughout the court, I don’t find any particular merit: in pro tennis the opponent will not miss anymore and all that running will not make the difference, as the ball will arrive 20 km faster than in junior’s. My coach always says “Zverev here (in Bonfiglio) couldn’t hit a ball in the court. But everyone who understands tennis immediately knew he would have become Zverev.” I think this sentence perfectly summarises what junior tennis is about.
I didn’t have the opportunity to see Naef properly, nor Basavareddy, so I exclude them from any judgement. In 2022 Trofeo Bonfiglio, as per boys tournament, I saw a potential star in Tien. Whilst as per girls’ tournament i consider a potential top notch player Hovde, but also Havlickova; whilst for instance, in my view, Shnaider will become a very good player but I do not see her becoming a top 5. Of course anf of my assesment may be wrong: but the assessement is based on my evaluation of the game expressed by those players, and not on how much they miss or on their win or losses. Ironically, at 17, the more one misses, the more he might be good. This is why Massimo Giunta impressed me: he misses so much that one may build a good player on all those mistakes.
