After being overrun early, Ben Johns and Gabriel Tardio did not chase the match. They changed the conditions of it.
Key Takeaways
- Johns and Tardio lost the opening game heavily before adjusting their approach
- The turning point came in the transition zone, where they slowed and stabilised rallies
- Elite doubles is increasingly decided by problem-solving, not first-strike dominance
The warning signs arrived quickly.
Federico Staksrud and Andrei Daescu took the opening game 11–4, dictating pace, shortening rallies, and forcing Johns and Tardio into rushed decisions. For a stretch, the match was not just slipping. It was being taken away from them.
That is where most teams make the wrong call.
They try to hit their way back into control.
Johns and Tardio did not.
They changed the terms of the match.
Slowing the Middle
The adjustment came in the transition zone, the space between baseline defence and the kitchen line where matches are often decided before they appear to be.
In the first game, Johns and Tardio were being pulled into fast exchanges in this area. Their responses were reactive rather than deliberate, and Staksrud and Daescu were able to dictate tempo from the first ball.
From the second game onwards, that changed.
Instead of trying to match pace, Johns and Tardio prioritised control:
- softer resets into the kitchen
- fewer attempts to counter-attack early
- more willingness to extend the rally
This did two things immediately.
First, it removed the speed advantage from the other side.
Second, it forced Staksrud and Daescu to play one more ball.
That sounds simple. It rarely is.
Because playing “one more ball” under pressure requires discipline, not just skill. It means resisting the instinct to accelerate when the match feels like it is slipping.
Johns, in particular, excels here. Not because he avoids risk, but because he delays it.
From Speed to Structure
Once the tempo dropped, the match shifted.
What had been a fast, uncomfortable exchange became structured. Points lengthened. Patterns emerged. Decisions became clearer.
And with that, control returned.
Johns and Tardio edged the second game 11–9, not by overwhelming their opponents, but by removing the conditions that had allowed them to dominate. The third game, won 11–6, reflected that shift fully. By then, the match was no longer being played at Staksrud and Daescu’s preferred speed.
It was being played on Johns and Tardio’s terms.
The Real Difference at the Top
This is where the wider point sits.
The men’s game is getting faster. More aggressive pairings are pushing early in rallies, taking time away, and forcing decisions before structure can form. That is why first-game scorelines like 11–4 are becoming more common.
But that style has a limit.
When it is absorbed, rather than resisted, it loses its edge.
What separates the very top is not just execution under ideal conditions. It is the ability to recognise when those conditions are failing, and to rebuild the match in real time.
Johns and Tardio did not “come back” in the traditional sense. They did something more precise.
They removed the problem.
What This Means
Matches at the top level are no longer decided by who starts fastest.
They are decided by who adjusts first.
As the field tightens and more teams bring early pressure, the value of mid-match problem-solving continues to rise. The ability to reset, to slow, and to re-establish structure is no longer a secondary skill.
It is central.
Stay ahead of the global game by signing up for the World Pickleball Report, our weekly newsletter covering the stories, shifts and talking points that matter across the sport.
At the highest level, control is not something you begin with. It is something you build, point by point, when the match starts to slip.
