Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Tennis players, lock up your bunnies

I've been wondering what happened to Anna-Lena Groenefeld (her ranking went from 14 to bottomless pit in a year) and the answer is stranger than Jelena Dokic's dad. Sorry, but I'm losing a little respect for Meghann Shaughnessssy in this situation. The guy's an effin' scumbag, and she's a kid! Anyway ...

Monday, June 25, 2007

Wimbledon preview

There are a million questions for which there seems no answer.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Why doesn't Barack Obama ever wear a tie?
Will Rafael Nadal ever win Wimbledon?
More perplexing still: Why hold Wimbledon during the one time of year it seems guaranteed to rain?
As usual, no easy answers, and of course, more questions. Let's check in with the ladies and gentlemen of the All-England Club.

The Gentlemen:
1. Roger Federer: Yikes. His first match against Teimuraz Gabashvili's gonna be a tough one. No doubt the Rog is turning over in his sleep thinking: How can a name with so many vowels sound like it has none? Seriously, it's always hard to root against the Fed, and it's even harder now that he's knocked the dried clay off his shoes. Now, the early round match that could be entertaining is the 3rd round against Marat Safin. "Could be" because Safin's enormously talented. The reality is, though, that Safin's never done too well on grass, and he's flaky as all hell.
2. Rafael Nadal: He proved last year that he could be dangerous on any surface by reaching the final at Wimbledon. I think he could do it again. It's a different surface, but Nadal just kept escalating his game at the French Open. He's so young, and so eager to keep improving. Mardy Fish will be a test for him in the first round, but I think he could pull it out in four. Other names looming in his quarter are Wayne Arthurs, (who says retirement waits for no one?) fellow tennis senior citizen Jonas Bjorkman, and Tomas Berdych. The problem for Nadal is the semis, where Novak Djokovic is most likely his opponent. I like to see people embrace their challenges, so it'd be great to see Nadal back in the final.
3. Andy Roddick: OK, you don't expect much out of Andy on clay, but now, it's go time for the American. He got a boost when he added Jimmy Connors to the coaching team, but consistent success is not quite there yet. OK, it sucks that he's in the same half as Federer, but the good news is that Andy Murray called off sick, so he's a near-lock to clear his quarter.
4: Novak Djokovic: He's shown some real game this year, beating Nadal in Miami this year. But he's not shaken that inconsistency off his game, that ability to just throw out two games in sheer errrors. He hasn't had great grass-court results, but if he can get as far as Nadal, he'll probably be a bit more comfortable than the No. 2 seed.
5. Fernando Gonzalez: Well, the man's got a forehand. At Wimby, it's wham, bam, end o' point. For the same reason he flamed out in the first round of the French, he might do some damage at this tournament.
6. Nicolay Davydenko: He's not too tough on grass. In fact, he's never made it past the second round at Wimbledon. He's my pick for the first seed to fall, and possibly at the hands of Gael Monfils or Thomas Johansson.
7. Tomas Berdych: He comes in with confidence, having won a warmup in Germany. Plus, nice draw. If you're going to be in the same half as a No. 2 seed, he must have prayed, let it be Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, and don't let them have decided to change to clay.
8. Andy Murray: Wow, Tennis magazine. Way to put a guy on your cover who isn't playing the event. It's not like he just got injured, either. Sheesh. Well, get better soon, Murray.
9. James Blake: It's hard to keep those thoughts at bay about James, the ones that say, "Y'know, maybe he's plateaued again." Without a solid result here, he's going to be a serious candidate for Janet Jackson's school of "What Have You Done For Me Lately 101."
10. Marcos Baghdatis: Fun to watch, mostly because you just don't know what you're gonna get. He's been all over the map this year, but he had a nice Wimbledon last year. Round three against Nalbandian? More fun.

Marat Safin: God knows.
Tim Henman: Yes, he's still around. Apparently, he and Wayne Arthurs are still drinking that delusional purple Kool-Aid. "I can do it. I can win Wimbledon." It's kind of sad to see someone who really could have been a contender try to hang on, looking for a Goran Ivanesevic miracle. And how bad would it suck to lose to clay-court tough guy Carlos Moya in the first round of Wimbledon?
Max Mirnyl: If I'm not mistaken, Mirnyl is looking suspiciously more like a doubles specialist at every Slam. Big serve, nice groundies, solid net game, and first-week exits. You know, if your 80-year-old doubles partner Bjorkman is advancing in singles draws and you're not, that's got to hurt a little bit.
Ivo Karlovic: Not fair, dude. What would happen if your opponent served the entire match and put you only on returns? Think about it.

First-round matches to watch: (and no, it's no accident that there won't be any for the women)
Nadal v. Fish
Roddick v. Justin Gimelstob: It's fun to watch Gimelstob give it his all when he plays, but he's actually one of the player/commentators on The Tennis Channel that worked out. So, what I'm saying is: Quit your day job.
Moya v. Henman: Oops, found these dentures on the floor. Whose are they?
Wow. That's a good question.

The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Federer v. Blake, Roddick v. Gasquet, Baghdatis v. Djokovic, Berdych v. Nadal
Semifinals: Federer v. Gasquet, Djokovic v. Nadal
Final: Call me crazy: Federer v. Nadal
Winner: Federer, taking full advantage of the home court.

The Ladies
1. Justine Henin: So divorce is working for the forehand, I see. Would someone beat her already?
2. Maria Sharapova: She feels pretty ... pretty pressured. Since she won Wimbledon in '04, it's been a mixed bag for her at All-England. Well, not mixed. The next year, she loses a slugfest to Venus Williams, and then in 2006 to Amelie Mauresmo. Overall, she's got a bad shoulder, and not the most brilliant year on the resume to boot. The French Open semis was a good result for her, but she's been taken to the woodshed by Serena Williams twice this year. But it's the other Williams sister she could meet in the fourth round.
3. Jelena Jankovic: She knocked that defending champion glow off of Venus last year when they played, and she's just been getting better ever since. She seems to be stuck in semifinal mode in big tournaments, and guess who she draws in the semifinals again? At least it's grass.
4. Amelie Mauresmo: Two breakthrough Grand Slams later, still as fragile as a top seed comes. Mauresmo + pressure = meltdown. Just say "Defending champion" to her. Do it.
5. Svetlana Kuznetsova: She has a real shot in her half, whether she ends up playing Venus or Sharapova in the quarters.
6. Ana Ivanovic: Now that she's had some time to clear her head after that French Open final choke job, let's see how she handles the big matches now, such as Mauresmo in the quarterfinals.
7. Serena Williams: All right, everybody. Get your lips off Serena Williams' ass. Yes, she won the Australian Open this year. But let's not forget the piss-poor performance at the French against Henin. And, back on the topic of repeat performances, she could get Justine in the quarters.
8. Anna Chakvetadze: Just took home a warmup tournament trophy, beating none other than Jankovic in the final. Hmm. Let's see what happens when you put that match on Center Court Wimbledon in the quarterfinals. Although, I have to admit I'm favoring another matchup.
9. Martina Hingis: That's right, Chucky's back. I'd love to see what would happen if she plays Jankovic in that quarterfinal instead. Both players are smart, and lack a formidable serve, but of course Jankovic has that power.
10. Daniela Hantuchova: Now that someone finally gave her a burger, Olive Oil's showing that potential that first surfaced a few years back. But it's really hard to see her getting by Serena in the fourth round.

The stragglers:
Nadia Petrova: What happened? Two years ago, you were looking like a threat for permanent top 3. Now? Not a whole lot going on. Game's passing you by, Nadia.
Nicole Vaidisova: Clearly, she forgot to send her bribe in to the seeding office down at Wimbledon. 14th seed?
Bethanie Mattek: Never a threat, but you know that show, "What Not to Wear?" As they say in Hollywood, "Based on a true story."
Tatiana Golovin: Another player with the talent for a breakthrough.
Elena Dementieva: That serve's going to hurt her here, more than just about anywhere.
Venus Williams: Lucky to make the straggler list. You can't expect much out of her at Roland Garros, but this is apparently her surface. If she can't do any damage here, then she can't do it anywhere.

The way it'll go down:
Quarterfinals: Henin v. Serena, Jankovic v. Hingis, Ivanovic v. Vaidisova, Kuznetsova v. Sharapova
Semifinals: Serena v. Jankovic, Ivanovic v. Sharapova
Final: Jankovic v. Sharapova
Winner: Jankovic

Friday, June 22, 2007

Expanding the coach horizons

With the exception of a French Open trophy, Roger Federer certainly seems to have it all.
Success? Check.
Money? Check, please.
Girlfriend/manager? Yep.
Loyal, supportive coach always available for a tip or two? Um, no.
Since he dropped coach Tony Roche a few months back, Federer's beenriding solo. With Wimbledon, arguably the most prestigious Grand Slam, coming up, he sure could use someone to swap strategies with.
There have been a few names bandied about, like Darren Cahill, AndreAgassi's former coach, but perhaps Federer limits himself by not looking outside of tennis for a coach. Why, he could consider:
1. Phil Jackson: This could be the Dream Team. Federer's got a near-perfect game already, and Jackson only chooses basketball teams whoare championship ready. Federer could be Phil's Michael Jordan, or Kobe Bryant -- without the "Trade Me!" banter. All Federer would haveto do is relocate to a big city with bright lights, and Jackson'sright at home.
2. Butch Harmon: Imagine the look on Federer's face when one of golf's best-known swing coaches says to him, "Kid, there's a hitch inthat forehand. We're gonna hafta start all over again." Of course, hecan follow that up with, "Hey, it worked for Tiger." The bad news: Phil Mickelson hired him, and he just busted up his wrist.
3. Bill Parcells: In order to beat Rafael Nadal, Federer's going toneed a coach who can motivate him emotionally. Parcells might be abit unconventional and abrasive, but he can bring out the best in his players, even while he's occassionally assaulting their masculinity. Well, there's something else. Parcells likes control. In fact, heonce complained, "They want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries." Translation: if hetells you to stop serving-and-volleying, Roger, well, you're going tohave to stop serving and volleying.
4. Billy Donovan: Here's a college basketball coach who's had great succeess success at that level. Can he "go pro?" No one knows. Not even Donovan.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Oh, I've got a charity, too ...


You know, Tommy, I have this blog, and um, it's for charitable purposes. Maybe you could pose at my studio. It's for a good cause. Trust me.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The genius of Rafa Nadal

Pop quiz: Who was the world's No. 2 player at the end of 1998, right behind Pete Sampras?
Everyone knows that Roger Federer is the best tennis player in the world, and on his way to being the best ever. He's 25 years old, has ten Grand Slam titles and has been No. 1 for the last three years, solid. His legend is assured. He is untouchable. Almost.
Rafael Nadal now holds 3 French Open titles, and had to beat Federer each year to do it. In fact, he's never lost at Roland Garros. He has been ranked No. 2 in the world since July of 2005. Some have discounted his success, calling him a ball basher, which is a bit unfair.
Being a ball basher implies that Nadal -- like the Williams sisters, and Maria Sharapova -- can bludgeon a ball, but there's little or no strategy involved. But it takes a little brainpower to understand that you can hit hard, if you use topspin. Nadal's balls clear the net, and stay deep and high on his opponent, rarely giving them a ball that'll land in their comfort zone.
Yet, for all his clay conquests and reputation as Federer's Achilles' heel, he is in danger of being forgotten. History can't forget Federer, even if he never wins the French. But Nadal? Three majors notwithstanding, Nadal needs to make his mark at the other ones if he wants as big a slice of history as Federer's. In other words, he'll need to win the Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, or the Australian Open a couple of times.
Nadal gets to start his grass campaign now at a warmup event in London. Realistically, he'll probably have the most difficulty at Wimbledon. His style of play -- heavy topspin and long points -- doesn't translate well to grass.
But at least his motivation can be that no one remembers No. 2, even when he seems to be the only player in the world who has No. 1's number, as it were. No one remembers him, until he becomes No. 1 himself, or at least, wins a Grand Slam other than the French Open.
So, who was No. 2 in the world in 1998? Funny you should ask. It was Marcelo Rios.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Men's semifinal preview: Guess who's coming to the finals?

All right, it's late, and I just had to watch Ilie Nastase moon a crowd (sometimes, TV people, replay is not that necessary), so let's get this preview done before I get ill again.
Roger Federer v. Nikolay Davydenko: You gotta admire Davydenko. The man's a freaking workhorse. If he could, he'd probably play a couple events a week. And he's looked good throughout this tournament. He grinded out wins against David Nalbandian and red-hot Guillermo Canas, only to be rewarded with this semifinal assignment. Could've been worse. Could've been Nadal.
There's almost a sliver of hope for Davydenko here. Clay is Federer's least-impressive surface, but he's playing awfully nicely on it this year. Fed's only hiccup was the boredom that ensued him during his quarterfinal against Tommy Robredo, and caused him to drop a set. But the fact that Federer is 8-0 against Davydenko sort of takes the suspense out of this one. (Did you know you can type "Federer" with two fingers?)
Rafael Nadal v. Novak Djokovic: Novak Djokovic is a fine player, no doubt, but that is an interesting hairdo. It's like a helmet made of cacti. Just an observation.
I recently read on a tennis forum that Nadal is merely a ball-basher, and I couldn't disagree with that more. The implication is that he's not thinking out there. I would argue that it takes a certain amount of thought, and even strategy, to understand that if you can hit with a lot of topspin, you can keep your opponent on defense for virtually an entire match. Speaking of defense, Nadal really displays his defensive skills on clay, running down every ball, and giving the opponent just enough rope to hang himself. In his quarterfinal showing, Nadal certainly didn't look thrilled beating his friend Carlos Moya, but he dominated him, and he'll do the same thing to Djokovic. Djokovic is, again, a fine and smart player, and one who's beaten Nadal before, but on this surface, it'll be hard for him to make a dent. Djokovic has also exhibited an ability to get really careless in patches. When he can maintain that focus, it'll be one of the last pieces of the puzzle that's missing for him.

Tennis Channel musings: Part duh!

1. Do they give out Oscars in France for sports coverage? I'm wondering, because it's a little too artsy-fartsy, doncha think? What in the hell, France? Listen, the last thing I need to see while I'm trying to watch a match are the charcoal renderings of Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic floating in the freaking clouds. And then the Matrix-like effects of a player sitting on a changeover is just ridiculous. You know, we wouldn't be averse to just seeing a tennis match straight up, without the bells, whistles and crazy camera angles.
2. The next time The Tennis Channel plans on showing Ilie Nastase mooning the crowd, they're gonna need some kind of warning sign to flash on the screen. Might I suggest "Fat middle aged ass wrapped in tidy-whities coming up!" That's food I'm never getting back.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Semifinal preview: Will Jelena Jankovic puh-leeze stand up?

Many expect the top two seeds in the men’s draw of the French Open to hold to form, and a showdown between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal seems imminent. On the women’s side, though, anything could happen.
Justine Henin will face Serbia’s Jelena Jankovic in the semifinals, and for defending champion Henin, this could be her toughest match yet. Her expected battle against Serena Williams turned out to be a dud, with Williams swinging wildly for the fences -- and missing even those. However, Jankovic has a solid all-around game that has given Henin some trouble lately.
At last year’s U.S. Open, for example, Jankovic was a set and a 4-2 against her, but got distracted by a questionable line call. Or, more to the point, went ballistic. After the match, she questioned whether Henin really had a back problem. Hopefully, by now, she's realized that it doesn't matter. In Jankovic’s last three losses to Henin since then, she’s been very close to sealing the deal -- on clay, no less -- and she just hasn't been able to do it.
Jankovic's serve is also going to be a problem. Nicole Vaidisova tried to attack it, but Henin can consistently go after an easy serve. There's not a lot she can do about it now, but Jankovic can definitely improve that shot, and if she does, she's going to be more dangerous.
But Jankovic’s movement and defense still could pressure Henin into mistakes. These are the best two players remaining in the draw, and whoever emerges from this match will probably win the tournament.
The other women’s semifinal will pit another Serbian, Ana Ivanovic, against Maria Sharapova. Sharapova’s been dealing with a bad shoulder for the entire tournament, and hasn’t played her best. She was lucky to escape her fourth-round encounter with Patty Schnyder, who was outplaying Miss Power Shot. It seems Sharapova’s will to win, and her ability to blast the cover off the ball, has kept her hanging around. In Ivanovic, she faces a fellow teenager enjoying her best appearance at a Grand Slam. Her quarterfinal win against Svetlana Kuznetsova, who was last year’s French Open finalist, is a sign that she might be ready for prime-time.
This matchup should be interesting, since these two weren’t exactly expected to be around this far into the tournament. No one expects Sharapova to win the French Open, since a clay surface requires a little more patience and thoughtfulness on court than she’s ever exhibited. And although Ivanovic has shown a lot of promise over the past two years, she’s never put it all together at a major.
The serve will be key in this match as well. Sharapova’s shoulder has limited her serve, and she’s hitting too many double-faults. If Ivanovic can hold her serve, and stay aggressive against Sharapova’s, she has a great chance to play in her first Grand Slam final.
Even if Henin or Jankovic win the whole thing, Sharapova/Ivanovic is the one that could really go either way. It sure would be nice to have more quality matches in the women's draw.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

French Open quarterfinals preview

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Somewhat. Quite frankly, if you can see the finish line (Federer v. Nadal), it seems inconsequential about the how. The reality is, though, that there are a couple of spoilers still around in the mens draw who could make things interesting, and hell, the women's side is full of spoilers. So, who's semi-tough? Let's see.

Mens Quarterfinals:
Federer v. Robredo: Well, if there's any place to tag Federer, it would be on a clay court, but the man's on a mission. Simply, Fed's too dialed in at this point to lose to a guy who is 0-7 lifetime against him.
Davydenko v. Canas: Federer'll be watching this one. Maybe even while he's playing his match. Old Man Davydenko has never done much on clay, but he's having a good tournament, beating Nalbandian in the fourth round. Also, he gave Nadal all he could handle in Rome, so he's the favorite. However, Canas, as I've mentioned, is a little giddy at being back in the game, and carries a 3-1 lifetime edge into this match. There's someone else Canas holds a 3-1 career record against. What's scary for Federer is that Canas has beaten him twice this season already ... on hard courts. Clay could go so much worse. This could be a real tussle, but I give the edge to Canas. He's hungry, dammit, and trying to make up for lost time.
Djokovic v. Andreev: I know, I know. Beating Andy Roddick on clay is no big whup. It's not. But Igor Andreev has managed to keep his head down and keep turning in solid matches, taking Marcos Baghdatis down, too. And while Djokovic is really hot right now, he's ripe for an upset if he doesn't get rid of some of those indifferent patches in his game. I'm gonna go nuts here, and pick Andreev for his big break in a major.
Moya v. Nadal: Did anyone see Nadal destroy Lleyton Hewitt? Mr. "C'mon, Rock!" Well, nary a peep Monday during his ass-whipping. What really impressed me in that match is that just about two weeks ago, Nadal was looking like a club player for a good part of his last bout with Hewitt. Nadal's showing something scary now: the ability to step it up. Being on his best surface, and having big wins is like feeding the monster. He's just getting better. I don't see this being close. Three sets, one hour and fifty-six minutes.

Womens Quarterfinals:
Henin v. S. Williams: "Let's move on, forget about the past," these two have been crowing since their match was set. "It's in the past." And you know what "it" is: their 2003 semifinal, where Henin pulled what I thought then was one of the shittiest stunts I'd ever seen in pro tennis. (As as champion does, though, she managed to outdo herself in Australia in 2006.) Anyway, I can really see both of them, especially Serena, completely blocking out their last meeting at the French during this match ... Not! Make no mistake, this will be one of the best matches of this tournament, and these two are fighters. Regardless of who wins, (Serena in 3 -- yeah, yeah, anyone can change their mind) it'd be great for womens tennis to see more battles like this on a regular basis.
Jankovic v. Vaidisova: Another toss-up, and another great boost for the women's game, if these two play to their potential. Jankovic has barely broken a sweat in dispatching the competition here, and Vaidisova has been looking strong in her return from injury. Both women had huge breakthroughs at majors in 2006, and are looking to build on that. Based on current form alone, I think Jankovic will win in three. She's a great mover, and has the ability to mix up her own game.
Ivanovic v. Kuznetsova: She's certainly no glamor girl, but Svetlana Kuznetsova is quietly working herself back up the rankings, and although she's the least of these quarterfinalists you'd see on television, she's the player in the bottom half of the draw most likely to be in the final match. Even if Ivanovic beat her a couple of weeks ago on clay. Two things can happen if you're Kuznetsova, who has made it to four finals, and lost every time: You lose confidence, or you tell yourself that you need only make a mental adjustment to succeed. Kuznetsova in three.
Chakvetadze v. Sharapova: Very quickly, might I just give Patty Schnyder some props for taking her game to Sharapova? She came up short, yes, but she showed just how far one can get by playing tennis like it's chess. She used her head, mixed up the balls, and kept Sharapova uncomfortable for that entire match. The one thing I don't get is why she insisted on going to Maria's backhand so much. She was getting much weaker stuff on the forehand side.
Anyway, the match at hand. This is a real tough one to call. I don't think the match will be of any particular quality, but Chakvetadze has a huge opportunity here. I'll bet Sharapova's shoulder's hurting like a mo-fo after having to hit all of those high topspin balls in her previous match. It's seems like Sharapova's almost waiting for the shoulder to give out. But as she made clear in her Schnyder match, she can't be discounted. Chakvetadze in three, unless the occasion freaks her out.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Midpoint: What do you get when you cross a jock with a microphone?

I'm really enjoying my free preview of the Tennis Channel. The idea of having your choice of which match to watch is very cool. And, after all, what ingrate would complain about something you're getting for free?
Yeah, that would be me. I know this is a young channel, but why is it that if you're watching Schnyder/Sharapova, you can hear the commentary on Nalbandian/Davydenko in the background? Do all the commentators have to call the matches in the same studio?
Speaking of commentators, I hear Chanda Rubin is considering a return to the tour. Let's hope she does, because she sucks as a commentator. As a player, having a handle on the English language isn't exactly key, but if you're going to call matches, it would help. For instance, Chanda, turnabout is fair play. Turnabout, not turnaround.
And I know Rennae Stubbs is still playing doubles. So why the hell is she courtside reporter? What is she, hard up for cash? I'll personally pay her to never pick up a microphone again. Let me paint a picture: Stubbs is talking with Venus Williams after her second round match.
RS: Do you know who your 3rd round opponent is?
VW: (Probably lying) No.
RS: I don't either. (laughs) That's my bad.
That was a real exchange, broadcast on television. And that sucks. But the French commentators have the bar set pretty freakin' low. I was half-watching Sharapova/Schnyder when I realized how quiet (well, considering who was playing) it was. The audio, I guess, had been lost, and it was great. Until the Tennis Channel figured it out. Then I had to listen to some windbag theorize that Sharapova lost a point because she stopped grunting in the middle of it. Not the shoulder. Not trying to hit the cover off of every ball. No, no, of course -- it's the grunting? What, did they grab these people out of the crowd?
All this crappy commentary makes me ask something I never thought I would: Where's Tracy Austin? I can't believe I just wrote that.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

... Venus setting?

The media reaction to Jelena Jankovic beating Venus Williams in the third round of the French is kind of interesting. "Dark horse gallops on at French Open" my My Yahoo! page told me this morning. Jankovic is only ranked No. 4 in the world. Can one be a seeded player and a dark horse? Another wire story says "In some ways, this was hardly an upset." "Some ways?" That's what happens when people who watch tennis four times a year get a tennis beat.
Anyway, it's fair to say that Venus' comeback from injury hasn't been as spectacular as Serena's. In fact, it's been decidedly below her own standards. After every exit from a tournament these days, Venus says she thinks she's playing well, and she does look like she's been working on her forehand and her footwork. But what about those in her camp? What do they say?
"I think she needs to gain a little more weight," Zina Garrison said afterward, adding that Venus looked like she lacked energy.
“Venus played with fear because she lost to that girl a couple of times now,” Richard Williams says. “I’ve never ever seen her play like that before. She has never been that scared of hitting the ball."
I hate to say this, but Old Man Williams has a point. Venus is playing with fear these days. Whether it's fear of losing, fear of injury, or fear of not being the best, it's fear. You could see it in her match against Jankovic. It's clay, and she's trying to end points with wild crosscourt shots -- on clay! It doesn't help her that she doesn't have a lot of big wins, or NO big wins under her belt since her comeback either.
A lot of people thought neither sister would be able to dominate tennis again. Clearly, everyone was wrong about Serena. She was, for near fact, way out of shape, and a touch distracted. With one tournament, she's gone back to being a factor in everything she plays, and she obviously believes she can always win.
"I don't care if it's on clay or grass, hard court or on mud," Serena said after her third-round win. "I'm going to be here, and I'm going to be competing and doing whatever it takes."
Will everyone be wrong about Venus? It's not totally fair to judge her based on her play on her least comfortable surface. Now, if she tanks, injury free, in the third-round of Wimbledon?
Perhaps she might consider Daddy's advice.
“If I was her and I kept playing like that, I would just quit. I’d just retire.”
(Swear, who needs Chris Everts when you've got a coach like this? Guess who's getting a fish wrapped in newspaper for Father's Day?)