Who will win US Open 2011? – Part Four: Robin Soderling
As we continue our analysis of the top ten players in the world for a potential 2011 US Open champion, we turn our sights to the top ranked Swede and the reigning world number six, Robin Soderling.
A fairly recent success on the international front, Soderling only broke into the top ten two years ago in October 2009 after a quarterfinal showing at the Shanghai Masters, losing to Spaniard Feliciano Lopez. Continuing his steady rise upward, Soderling climbed up the ranking ladder one rung at a time. Following a career best quarterfinal showing at 2010 Wimbledon (lost to Rafael Nadal) Soderling finally made it into the prestigious top five ranked players of the world in July 2010.
Determined to rise even further, Soderling started 2011 ranked 5th in the world, though a title win at the Brisbane International 2011 against Andy Roddick put him in the top four displacing Andy Murray. Murray, however, soon reclaimed his fourth spot in the rankings after a final showing at the Grand Slam Down Under. Soderling’s fourth round loss to Alexandr Dolgopolov only added to the fall.
Stagnant since then on the fifth position, Soderling has been busy in 2011 adding titles to his collection. Back-to-back appearances at Rotterdam and Marseille resulted in success for the Swede as he clinched title eight and nine of his career. With only one loss at the Grand Slam so far, Soderling entered March owning the hard surface.
However, this track record alone cannot be any testament to his probable success at Flushing Meadows even if its three title wins and only one loss. Come March, the Masters season, Soderling came crashing down as he failed to make it past the third round at Indian Wells and Miami, losing to Philipp Kohlschreiber and Juan Martin Del Potro respectively. The Swede boasted an impressive 20-3 win loss mark for hard courts at the start of the clay season.
However, particularly a clay specialist like almost all Europeans, Soderling struggled for years on the hard court especially at the two Grand Slams, Down Under and Flushing Meadows. Debuting in 2002, Soderling suffered early round exits for the next six years at Flushing Meadows. However, in 2009, he caught a lucky break when he put in a quarterfinal appearance losing to eventual runner up, Roger Federer. Soderling returned again in 2010 and repeated the same feat, even losing to the same man.
In fact when put against the Swiss maestro, Soderling has managed only one single win ever in the pair’s seventeen meetings and that too on clay when the latter oust the maestro from the 2010 Roland Garros in the quarterfinal round. However, one win against sixteen of Federer’s is like needle in a haystack. Though it may arm the Swede with some psychological advantage, the perfect 9-0 winning streak that the Swiss holds on hard courts against Soderling should be more than enough to cater for any advantage the Swede might enjoy in a faceoff.
Similarly the Swede holds one or two wins against the current top two Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. However, given Djokovic’s near flawless form, Soderling surely has immense odds stacked against him should he face the Serb. Similarly the two times Rafa lost to the Swede in 2009 was when he was injured. So it is safe to assume that the Swede will have to try much harder if he wishes to best the Spaniard for a shot at the title. It is only against Brit Andy Murray that Soderling remotely stands a chance, having defeated the Brit twice before on the surface. Though once more, the Brit’s recent form suggests this to be a long shot.
Short of doing the impossible, Soderling stands no real chance of taking the title at Flushing Meadows this time around. The Swede is expected to make yet another quarterfinal appearance before crashing out of the event.
The series continues as we take a look at Murray in http://www.senore.com/Who-will-win-US-Open-2011-Part-Five-Andy-Murray-a94932.
Disclaimer: The ideas expressed in the article are the writer’s own personal views and have nothing to do with bettor.com’s editorial policy.
Tags: