Man, I bet Victor Hanescu really appreciated his draw in Monte Carlo. About a day after he got beaten down in the final of Casablanca, he finds himself jetlagged in Monte Carlo... having to face the same dude that beat him down.
I mean, there's an argument, I suppose, that it gave him an immediate chance to wreak revenge. Unfortunately, it didn't work out quite that way and he got beaten down just the same. Stan did not budge an inch, and Hanescu was just as incapable of finding a way around him as he was in Casablanca.
This is largely due to the fact that Stan is awesome, especially on the dirt - just as we have discussed in the last couple of days. However, I can't feel that Hanescu, while he is a very good player, really needs to add something to his game if he's going to progress any further.
I had the opportunity to watch Hanescu play quite a few times on my Epic Tennis Adventure in January. He was injured a bit, so it's probably unfair to base a lot on what I saw, but he played a bit like a poor man's Isner, and when the real Isner was playing (as in Hopman Cup, where I saw Hanescu first) that doesn't do too much. And then I saw him play - and get absolutely demolished - by Federer in the second round in Australia.
I'm inclined to think that Hanescu needs to grow mentally before he can improve his game. Every time I saw him play, there seemed to be a point where he almost threw in the towel - even when that point was a third set breaker, as against Hewitt in the Hopman Cup. Now, I haven't exactly made a study of him over the years, but it's something to keep on. What goes on in the mind of Victor Hanescu?
Roger: older and not quite out
6 months ago