After being defeated by Juan Lebrón and Leo Augsburger in the Brussels P2 final, the Arturo Coello–Agustín Tapia duo have since won their next four encounters without dropping a single set. Their Paris Major semi-final victory, 7-5, 6-3, speaks less to a sustained dominance than to an almost total mastery of the decisive moments. 

Two openings were enough

The score of the Paris semi-final might suggest a relatively comfortable victory for the number 1s. However, the unfolding of the first set tells the story of a match that was balanced for a long time.

The first eleven service games were won. At 3-3, Lebrón and Augsburger even had the first two break points of the match. Coello and Tapia saved them before patiently waiting their turn.

This opportunity came at 6-5. On their first break point, which was also a set point, the number 1s immediately punished their opponents. An almost identical scenario played out in the second set: a single opportunity at 3-2 and another immediate conversion.

The results perfectly summarize the difference between the two teams:  Coello–Tapia converted two break points out of two, while Lebrón–Augsburger converted none out of two. The favorites then closed out the match with a shutout, after only 1 hour and 06 minutes.

Coello and Tapia therefore didn't need to create many opportunities. They protected their serve when under pressure, then won each of the points that could truly change the course of the match.

Brussels, the warning that changed the dynamic

In April, Lebrón and Augsburger had nevertheless achieved what no other pair had yet accomplished this season: beating the number 1 seeds in the final. After losing the first set, they had won  2/6 6/3 6/3  in Brussels.

This victory suggested the beginnings of a new rivalry. Augsburger's power, combined with Lebrón's ability to accelerate, defend, and occupy the center, seemed capable of causing lasting problems for Coello and Tapia.

The answer was clear. Since Brussels, the number 1s have won the following four encounters:

  • 6/2 6/1 in Asunción;
  • 6/4 6/4 in Valladolid;
  • 6/2 6/2 in Málaga;
  • 7/5 6/3 in Paris.

The annual balance sheet now reaches  seven wins to one  Coello and Tapia are in favor. Most importantly, Lebrón and Augsburger haven't won a single set in their last four encounters.

No longer provide Augsburger with the balls he expects

The final in Málaga provided the most precise tactical indications of this evolution. The statistics of Padel Intelligence then showed a very significant drop in the offensive production of Lebrón and Augsburger compared to their semi-final victory against Galán–Chingotto.

They hadn't earned a single break point and had only produced 14 winners, compared to 25 for their opponents. Augsburger's case was particularly revealing: his smash volume had dropped from 25 attempts in the semi-final to just nine in the final.

The analysis highlighted, in particular, the deep lobs and aggressive volleys of Coello and Tapia. The objective was not necessarily to beat Augsburger in a power contest, but to reduce the number of balls he could comfortably hit while moving forward.

The distinction is important. Neutralizing a finisher doesn't mean waiting for them to make mistakes. It means first forcing them to play their shots overhead from less favorable positions, and then being ready to defend the next ball. The power remains, but the conditions that allow it to be unleashed gradually disappear.

Paris, a different kind of victory than Málaga

However, it would be unwise to claim, without a complete video review, that Coello and Tapia reproduced exactly the same plan at Roland-Garros.

Unlike in Málaga, Lebrón and Augsburger managed to put the number 1 players' serves under pressure this time. Their two break points at 3-3 prove that they got into the match and had a real opportunity to take control of the first set.

But they failed to maintain that pressure. Once those two opportunities were eliminated, they didn't get another break point. Coello and Tapia, on the other hand, converted their only two chances.

The next stage of the analysis will therefore need to focus on four specific sequences: the two break points saved at 3-3, the break at 6-5, the break obtained at 3-2 in the second set, and the final love game. The quality of the returns, the depth of the lobs against Augsburger, his smash choices, and Lebrón's coverage of the center will help determine whether Málaga's game plan was truly implemented.

Lebrón–Augsburger must now find a second way

Lebrón and Augsburger remain capable of beating almost any pair on the tour thanks to their intensity and offensive power. But Coello and Tapia seem to have gradually reduced their reliance on direct confrontation.

The number one players now know how to navigate periods when their opponents dictate the pace. They don't need to dominate every game: they simply need to stay in touch, protect their serve, and wait for the first dip in accuracy.

For Lebrón and Augsburger, the question therefore becomes broader than that of smash efficiency. Can they build up play for long enough when an immediate attack isn't available? Can they apply consistent pressure on the return rather than relying on a few explosive sequences?

In Brussels, they had opened a breach. Four matches later, Coello and Tapia seem to have closed it. To transform this lopsided confrontation into a true rivalry, Lebrón and Augsburger will now have to find another way in.

Antoine Tricolet

I discovered the Padel I stumbled into Spain at a campsite. I was instantly hooked; passionate about padel, I follow international and regional news with the same excitement as the sport itself.

On the same subject

Tags